Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

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.

Every day kids get emancipated from their parents or get treatment/prevention for STDs without their parents involvement. If you want me opinion on the fringe cases and the rare exceptions, it's gonna get complex, and it really has no impact on what the default rules should be.

If you want to play gotcha because I know there are exceptions to black and white rules, I surrender. You win.
If not, let's celebrate a rare point of agreement.

B wrote:

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.

Generally you need court authorization to take your kid to another jurisdiction if there's an existing custody dispute. It's bullshit that you characterize this as "lying".

We have good reason to predict what's going to happen with unaccompanied minors when they get their totally normal court hearing in California.

B wrote: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.

It only leads to those things. Totally unforeseeable outcomes, we cannot possibly consider.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

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.

Every day kids get emancipated from their parents or get treatment/prevention for STDs without their parents involvement. If you want me opinion on the fringe cases and the rare exceptions, it's gonna get complex, and it really has no impact on what the default rules should be.

If you want to play gotcha because I know there are exceptions to black and white rules, I surrender. You win.
If not, let's celebrate a rare point of agreement.

If the parents say no, the shrink says no, ultimately the answer is still yes because the child consents. That's the bottom line, right?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

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.

Every day kids get emancipated from their parents or get treatment/prevention for STDs without their parents involvement. If you want me opinion on the fringe cases and the rare exceptions, it's gonna get complex, and it really has no impact on what the default rules should be.

If you want to play gotcha because I know there are exceptions to black and white rules, I surrender. You win.
If not, let's celebrate a rare point of agreement.

If the parents say no, the shrink says no, ultimately the answer is still yes because the child consents. That's the bottom line, right?

I don't know what you're talking about.

If the parents say no, and the shrink says no, the answer isn't yes. the kid has to find a doctor or another shrink that thinks yes, presumably using only the library's internet and public transportation, then find a lawyer to represent them in a case against their parents, presumably pro-bono. Then they have to spend a year in court convincing a judge to either emancipate the kid or overrule the parents decision. If they haven't turned 18 by this point, which they probably have, because no doctor or judge is going to overrule the parents of a 14 year old, then they have to find a way to get gender affirming care for free because now they don't have their parents insurance, and if they've gotten emancipated, they're working at a minimum wage job in retail.

But really, none of that is very likely because chances are, this kid is going to have killed themselves long before they got to this point.

California may be clearing some of these roadblocks, but they're not going to take a kid from an otherwise non-abusive home so that the kid and get a mastectomy. What child would benefit from gender-affirming care if it left them in foster care or homeless and cut them off from their family?

You're trying to whip up fear over very rare, maybe non-existent fringe cases. There are 7 billion people in the world and most of them have very different lived experiences than you and I, so they don't fit in the all-or-nothing, Black-and-white box you're trying to jam this issue into.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

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.

Every day kids get emancipated from their parents or get treatment/prevention for STDs without their parents involvement. If you want me opinion on the fringe cases and the rare exceptions, it's gonna get complex, and it really has no impact on what the default rules should be.

If you want to play gotcha because I know there are exceptions to black and white rules, I surrender. You win.
If not, let's celebrate a rare point of agreement.

If the parents say no, the shrink says no, ultimately the answer is still yes because the child consents. That's the bottom line, right?

I don't know what you're talking about.

If the parents say no, and the shrink says no, the answer isn't yes. the kid has to find a doctor or another shrink that thinks yes, presumably using only the library's internet and public transportation, then find a lawyer to represent them in a case against their parents, presumably pro-bono. Then they have to spend a year in court convincing a judge to either emancipate the kid or overrule the parents decision. If they haven't turned 18 by this point, which they probably have, because no doctor or judge is going to overrule the parents of a 14 year old, then they have to find a way to get gender affirming care for free because now they don't have their parents insurance, and if they've gotten emancipated, they're working at a minimum wage job in retail.

But really, none of that is very likely because chances are, this kid is going to have killed themselves long before they got to this point.

California may be clearing some of these roadblocks, but they're not going to take a kid from an otherwise non-abusive home so that the kid and get a mastectomy. What child would benefit from gender-affirming care if it left them in foster care or homeless and cut them off from their family?

You're trying to whip up fear over very rare, maybe non-existent fringe cases. There are 7 billion people in the world and most of them have very different lived experiences than you and I, so they don't fit in the all-or-nothing, Black-and-white box you're trying to jam this issue into.

It's pretty black-and-White. Let's put the ever-changing mechanics of the process aside to make it simpler because it starts with one base question... can a child consent to the procedure?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

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.

Every day kids get emancipated from their parents or get treatment/prevention for STDs without their parents involvement. If you want me opinion on the fringe cases and the rare exceptions, it's gonna get complex, and it really has no impact on what the default rules should be.

If you want to play gotcha because I know there are exceptions to black and white rules, I surrender. You win.
If not, let's celebrate a rare point of agreement.

If the parents say no, the shrink says no, ultimately the answer is still yes because the child consents. That's the bottom line, right?

I don't know what you're talking about.

If the parents say no, and the shrink says no, the answer isn't yes. the kid has to find a doctor or another shrink that thinks yes, presumably using only the library's internet and public transportation, then find a lawyer to represent them in a case against their parents, presumably pro-bono. Then they have to spend a year in court convincing a judge to either emancipate the kid or overrule the parents decision. If they haven't turned 18 by this point, which they probably have, because no doctor or judge is going to overrule the parents of a 14 year old, then they have to find a way to get gender affirming care for free because now they don't have their parents insurance, and if they've gotten emancipated, they're working at a minimum wage job in retail.

But really, none of that is very likely because chances are, this kid is going to have killed themselves long before they got to this point.

California may be clearing some of these roadblocks, but they're not going to take a kid from an otherwise non-abusive home so that the kid and get a mastectomy. What child would benefit from gender-affirming care if it left them in foster care or homeless and cut them off from their family?

You're trying to whip up fear over very rare, maybe non-existent fringe cases. There are 7 billion people in the world and most of them have very different lived experiences than you and I, so they don't fit in the all-or-nothing, Black-and-white box you're trying to jam this issue into.

It's pretty black-and-White. Let's put the ever-changing mechanics of the process aside to make it simpler because it starts with one base question... can a child consent to the procedure?

How old is the child?
Have they consulted with a doctor?
Do they have any developmental disabilities?
Has anyone assessed their decisional capabilities?
Do they fully understand the risks?
What other solutions have they considered?
Have they been diagnosed with gender or body dysmorphia?
What benefit are they expecting from this procedure?
What procedure are they asking for?

Why would you assume that answer can be answered with a yes or no? It cannot.

A better question might be, what percentage of kids do I think could consent to a mastectomy against their parents'wishes? 0.01%

How much do you guys discuss this topic IRL with people outside of this Pearl Jam message board?

Bammer wrote:How much do you guys discuss this topic IRL with people outside of this Pearl Jam message board?

Every once in a while a family member might utter a strange comment out of confusion and I'll swoop in to clear up the issue for them and they tend to agree. Then a few more months pass until it happens again.

Bammer wrote:How much do you guys discuss this topic IRL with people outside of this Pearl Jam message board?

About once a week.

B wrote:A better question might be, what percentage of kids do I think could consent to a mastectomy against their parents'wishes? 0.01%

Can kids, say aged 14, diagnosed with GD consent to a mastectomy?

Bammer wrote:How much do you guys discuss this topic IRL with people outside of this Pearl Jam message board?

Not sure how old your kids are, but they will be exposed to gender ideology before they are exposed to fractions. Everyone needs to understand the language involved so they can have open, nonjudgmental conversations with their kids about it.

Ya that's how "ideology" works you fucking dolt.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:A better question might be, what percentage of kids do I think could consent to a mastectomy against their parents'wishes? 0.01%

Can kids, say aged 14, diagnosed with GD consent to a mastectomy?

With or without parent consent?
Is it recommended by a doctor?
Has this child gone through puberty?

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:A better question might be, what percentage of kids do I think could consent to a mastectomy against their parents'wishes? 0.01%

Can kids, say aged 14, diagnosed with GD consent to a mastectomy?

With or without parent consent?
Is it recommended by a doctor?
Has this child gone through puberty?

I don't why you are trying to not answer, it's not a difficult question. Is it possible for 14 year old kids diagnosed with GD consent to a mastectomy?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:A better question might be, what percentage of kids do I think could consent to a mastectomy against their parents'wishes? 0.01%

Can kids, say aged 14, diagnosed with GD consent to a mastectomy?

With or without parent consent?
Is it recommended by a doctor?
Has this child gone through puberty?

I don't why you are trying to not answer, it's not a difficult question. Is it possible for 14 year old kids diagnosed with GD consent to a mastectomy?

Because you're boiling one of the most complex issues facing families into a binary oversimplification. A "yes" requires a fucking book of follow up work and questions, and a "no" requires exceptions.

You asking me that as a yes or no question, is like me asking you, "Am I looking at a car?"

What's a scenario where they could consent?

in the scenario in which the parent is giving consent, you're accepting that in the child's undeveloped brain, they have enough information and wisdom to decide what's best for them instead of the parent, instead of patience, and I disagree

BurtReynolds wrote:What's a scenario where they could consent?

Well, in heath care, you have to assess a child's decisional capacity, so a doctor (and probably a counselor) would have to sit down with the kid and assess if they are capable of understanding the procedure and the risks and benefits, if they have a realistic expectation of how this would change their life, what other options they have tried, what events in their life are bringing them to the decision to be in need of this surgery. What have they told their parents? What did their parents say?

Then if they were satisfied with all of that, and assuming we're talking about a kid who's working against their parents' wishes, they could put that child in contact with a lawyer that could begin the process of proving that decision capacity and their need for the procedure to a judge.

Once a kid has convinced a doctor, a counselor, and a judge that they know what they're doing and skipping the procedure would be detrimental to their life and well-being ...

yes.

That'd be for a mastectomy. I don't think puberty blockers would require the involvement of a court.