Red Mosquito

warehouse wrote:

tree_ wrote:Yes it is unfortunate that some children are stuck with shitty parents. Which is what brings me to the opinion that parental candidates should at least prove to be sane and stable before earning the right to have children. But things being the way they are, chances are kids are better off not making their own decisions. Just my common sense talking. I wouldn’t say that children are the property of their parents. It’s just in their best interest to make decisions for them, Assuming you have their best interest in mind.

don't you have kids?

I can't believe you've done this.

lol

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:minors aren't making "drastic changes to their bodies", Tree

15 year olds are getting double mastectomies. Not sure about the youngest age for orchietomies, but that has probably been done to minors as well. This is happening in the U.S.

We are past the it's not happening stage and well into the, "It's happening and it's good" stage. Try to keep up

I tried to research this, but the top results are from Answers in Genesis, The Christian Broadcasting Network, and the National Review, so ... y'know, ... organizations not known for support of transgender individuals. However, the CBN article says surgeries increased from 100 in 2016 to 500 in 2019. That's about a 3rd of a percentage point of transgender boys with a median age of 17.5 years.

No info on parental consent, but one must assume it's needed since it's EVEN NEEDED IN CALIFORNIA! The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests it's helpful while calling for more research. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics ... culinizing

I'm gonna hold off on calling this a crisis.

NOTE: My statements assume that half of the 300,000 transgender kids in the United States are male.

Sounds like the right wing argument against BLM.

If they were 500 kids being forcibly masecestized by cops instead of kids getting treatment from their doctors with their parents' involvement, you'd have a point.

simple_schoolboy wrote:Not affirming your child's gender identity is now grounds for the state to take custody.

Do not make up lies to wiñ debates.

Sweet “job, B

tree_ wrote:Sweet “job, B

Better?

Oh yeah

B wrote:

simple_schoolboy wrote:Not affirming your child's gender identity is now grounds for the state to take custody.

Do not make up lies to wiñ debates.

Not the subject of the legislation I was referring to, but some court's have stripped parents custody for not affirming their child's gender, considering it abuse. That absolutely has happened.

But yeah, if your ex partner takes your kid to California for gender affirming care, any court order your state issues will be presumptively ignored by California courts and the California Court will make an initial custody determination that will certainly favor the affirming parent.

By all means, continue relying on Politifact 'fact checking' for your understanding of the world, it'll serve you well.

Skeptics: here's the intended (and inevitable) outcome of this legislation.

Politifact: well akshually, California can't legally constrain the judges to only give custody to the affirming parent, all they can do is ignore the home states ruling history in this case and heavily tilt the scales. It'll just be a normal, boring custody case. It's a total mystery why this law was passed.

Skepticism falsely claiming its superiority as usual

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:minors aren't making "drastic changes to their bodies", Tree

15 year olds are getting double mastectomies. Not sure about the youngest age for orchietomies, but that has probably been done to minors as well. This is happening in the U.S.

We are past the it's not happening stage and well into the, "It's happening and it's good" stage. Try to keep up

I tried to research this, but the top results are from Answers in Genesis, The Christian Broadcasting Network, and the National Review, so ... y'know, ... organizations not known for support of transgender individuals. However, the CBN article says surgeries increased from 100 in 2016 to 500 in 2019. That's about a 3rd of a percentage point of transgender boys with a median age of 17.5 years.

No info on parental consent, but one must assume it's needed since it's EVEN NEEDED IN CALIFORNIA! The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests it's helpful while calling for more research. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics ... culinizing

I'm gonna hold off on calling this a crisis.

NOTE: My statements assume that half of the 300,000 transgender kids in the United States are male.

Sounds like the right wing argument against BLM.

If they were 500 kids being forcibly masecestized by cops instead of kids getting treatment from their doctors with their parents' involvement, you'd have a point.

Ok, so your thought is then the kids can provide consent?

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

simple_schoolboy wrote:Not affirming your child's gender identity is now grounds for the state to take custody.

Do not make up lies to wiñ debates.

Not the subject of the legislation I was referring to, but some court's have stripped parents custody for not affirming their child's gender, considering it abuse. That absolutely has happened.

But yeah, if your ex partner takes your kid to California for gender affirming care, any court order your state issues will be presumptively ignored by California courts and the California Court will make an initial custody determination that will certainly favor the affirming parent.

By all means, continue relying on Politifact 'fact checking' for your understanding of the world, it'll serve you well.

You didn't even read the part of the article I quoted out for you. You are absolutely wrong about California law.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:minors aren't making "drastic changes to their bodies", Tree

15 year olds are getting double mastectomies. Not sure about the youngest age for orchietomies, but that has probably been done to minors as well. This is happening in the U.S.

We are past the it's not happening stage and well into the, "It's happening and it's good" stage. Try to keep up

I tried to research this, but the top results are from Answers in Genesis, The Christian Broadcasting Network, and the National Review, so ... y'know, ... organizations not known for support of transgender individuals. However, the CBN article says surgeries increased from 100 in 2016 to 500 in 2019. That's about a 3rd of a percentage point of transgender boys with a median age of 17.5 years.

No info on parental consent, but one must assume it's needed since it's EVEN NEEDED IN CALIFORNIA! The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests it's helpful while calling for more research. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics ... culinizing

I'm gonna hold off on calling this a crisis.

NOTE: My statements assume that half of the 300,000 transgender kids in the United States are male.

Sounds like the right wing argument against BLM.

If they were 500 kids being forcibly masecestized by cops instead of kids getting treatment from their doctors with their parents' involvement, you'd have a point.

Ok, so your thought is then the kids can provide consent?

I specifically used the words "with their parents' involvement."

B wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

simple_schoolboy wrote:Not affirming your child's gender identity is now grounds for the state to take custody.

Do not make up lies to wiñ debates.

Not the subject of the legislation I was referring to, but some court's have stripped parents custody for not affirming their child's gender, considering it abuse. That absolutely has happened.

But yeah, if your ex partner takes your kid to California for gender affirming care, any court order your state issues will be presumptively ignored by California courts and the California Court will make an initial custody determination that will certainly favor the affirming parent.

By all means, continue relying on Politifact 'fact checking' for your understanding of the world, it'll serve you well.

You didn't even read the part of the article I quoted out for you. You are absolutely wrong about California law.

Yes, it specifically relitigates (probably overrules) prior rulings from other states. It's jurisdictional tourism.

Can you explain what exactly you think California's legislature intended by this? Because allowing non-custodial parents the ability to seek trans affirming healthcare for their kid seems a lot like it.

B wrote:

simple_schoolboy wrote:Not affirming your child's gender identity is now grounds for the state to take custody.

Do not make up lies to wiñ debates.

SEC. 5. Section 3424 of the Family Code is amended to read:
3424. (a) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse, or because the child has been unable to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care, as defined by Section 16010.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Are we now quibbling over whether withholding gender affirming healthcare is equivalent to not affirming your child's gender identity? Get the fuck out of here with your lying claim.

Giving court standing is not the same as giving custody, providing surgery, or over ruling other states. California is not going to take any kids and give them surgery just because their parents refuse.

simple schoolboy wrote:
Can you explain what exactly you think California's legislature intended by this? Because allowing non-custodial parents the ability to seek trans affirming healthcare for their kid seems a lot like it.

Case by case review in situations where people can't come to an agreement on their own and/or accuse someone of abuse.

It's what courts do.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

<snip>

Ok, so your thought is then the kids can provide consent?

I specifically used the words "with their parents' involvement."

It wasn't a trick question. More like a foundational question.