Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

Rob wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Bammer wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:I think the bigger question is 'can kids really consent to puberty blockers?'

I don't know, but I'm sure that a kid and their parents can make that decision.

I’m not at all. It’s puzzling that on one hand we say they are too young to smoke, drive, vote, have sugary sodas in the school vending machines, understand student loans... but on the other hand say they can comprehend the ramifications of irreversibly altering the core functioning of their biology.

Is anyone remotely the same person they were in high school with the same view of the world and themselves?

Worldview: no
Self: probably pretty close, yes

I was wrong about the timing anyway, the blockers are generally given in the 10-11 y.o. range, so same question but now you’re in 4th grade

I have 3 young kids ranging in age from 5-10, and yea, I've thought about this. I like to think I'm a pretty liberal guy, all I want for my kids is to lead a happy, decent life. I just can't imagine anyone thinking a 10-11 year old child has the capacity to make a decision like this, and therefore it stands to reason (for me) that a parent doesn't have the right, either. I don't doubt there may be children who are transgender, and that beginning the process before puberty could produce a better outcome for that individual, but it seems many of them end up just being homosexual. How is one supposed to know this before a child has had time to mature and actually experience their body? We're talking about an irreversible process here, which may require a lifetime of hormone therapies.

Just my opinion, of course. I admit I haven't experienced anything like this in my own life/family.

It might be different if it was your own child struggling, but I think you expressed this elegantly and IMHO correctly. Trans people are real. Trans identities are valid. But children need time to grow and learn and discover themselves with parents supporting them, not injecting change into to them.

B wrote:There were 3 disingenuous assertions by 1:04, so I felt no need to continue.

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:There were 3 disingenuous assertions by 1:04, so I felt no need to continue.

The ignore strategy? You gotta know your enemy, B!

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:There were 3 disingenuous assertions by 1:04, so I felt no need to continue.

The ignore strategy? You gotta know your enemy, B!

I think I already have a solid understanding of what a shitbag Rand Paul is.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:There were 3 disingenuous assertions by 1:04, so I felt no need to continue.

The ignore strategy? You gotta know your enemy, B!

I think I already have a solid understanding of what a shitbag Rand Paul is.

Yes, agreed, but is he wrong about this?

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

Bammer wrote:

B wrote:There were 3 disingenuous assertions by 1:04, so I felt no need to continue.

The ignore strategy? You gotta know your enemy, B!

I think I already have a solid understanding of what a shitbag Rand Paul is.

Yes, agreed, but is he wrong about this?

I have to assume he's talking about gender reassignment surgery, ...

I'm pretty sure he's wrong that WHO considers gender reassignment surgery genital mutilation.
I know he's wrong that transgendered individuals do anything they do in order to "fit in."
And he's wrong about the left trying to normalize gender reassignment surgery.

and that's when I bailed, so if he had any point beyond that, I don't know what it was. If you can pack 3 lies into 1 minute, I need not consider your opinions beyond that.

Last Wednesday, The Federalist reported that the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, declared a father guilty of family violence for his polite refusal to refer to his daughter as a boy in private, and his repeated choice to affirm in media interviews that she is a girl.

At about the same time that story was published, the Supreme Court issued an additional, more heavy-handed “protection order” from the same ruling. The three-page document declares that the father, Clark*, will henceforth be subject to arrest, immediately and “without warrant” if any police officer has “reasonable” grounds to believe that he has in any way referred to his daughter as a girl in public or in private.

Bi_3 wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/29/authorities-arrest-canadian-father-refers-trans-child-real-sex/

Last Wednesday, The Federalist reported that the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, declared a father guilty of family violence for his polite refusal to refer to his daughter as a boy in private, and his repeated choice to affirm in media interviews that she is a girl.

At about the same time that story was published, the Supreme Court issued an additional, more heavy-handed “protection order” from the same ruling. The three-page document declares that the father, Clark*, will henceforth be subject to arrest, immediately and “without warrant” if any police officer has “reasonable” grounds to believe that he has in any way referred to his daughter as a girl in public or in private.

Federalist, so take it with a grain of salt, but wow.

A B.C. father who has been accused of repeatedly violating court orders limiting what he can say publicly about his transgender child’s decision to pursue hormone treatment has been ordered to remain in jail until his trial next month.

Citing publication bans designed to protect the teen’s privacy and psychological well-being, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Michael Tammen ruled Friday there was “virtual certainty” that if the father were to be released, the breaches would continue.

Earlier this month, Crown counsel took the additional step of seeking an arrest warrant for the father, citing ongoing breaches by the father, including a fundraising website he had created.

Court heard Friday that, at one point, the website contained a video that displayed the child’s image and full name, along with the father’s.

After the arrest warrant was issued March 4, the website was altered but still contained a message from the father using his full name and accused the “far left” of being behind the warrant for his arrest.

Tammen said Friday he assumed “quite erroneously” that by not having the warrant executed immediately the father would’ve taken steps to remove the offending items.

“He had all the time in the world (to comply).”

But instead, the father did the opposite, the judge said.

“(The father) has ignored repeated attempts by the courts to bring him into compliance with court orders and failed to heed warnings about possible contempt proceedings. When contempt proceedings were ultimately commenced his response was to post material on his crowdfunding page that openly defies the publication bans.”

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/29/authorities-arrest-canadian-father-refers-trans-child-real-sex/

Last Wednesday, The Federalist reported that the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, declared a father guilty of family violence for his polite refusal to refer to his daughter as a boy in private, and his repeated choice to affirm in media interviews that she is a girl.

At about the same time that story was published, the Supreme Court issued an additional, more heavy-handed “protection order” from the same ruling. The three-page document declares that the father, Clark*, will henceforth be subject to arrest, immediately and “without warrant” if any police officer has “reasonable” grounds to believe that he has in any way referred to his daughter as a girl in public or in private.

Federalist, so take it with a grain of salt, but wow.

Well that’s just stupid if true. It’s not even a transgender-rights issue. It’s a freedom-of-speech one (not sure if those crazy Canucks have that up there though).

B wrote:If a poorly handled family court case with a precedent that affects 1-2 other families ever and probably won't pass the test of time isn't dystopian, I don't know what is.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:If a poorly handled family court case with a precedent that affects 1-2 other families ever and probably won't pass the test of time isn't dystopian, I don't know what is.

Just a small bake shop in Colorado, right?

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:If a poorly handled family court case with a precedent that affects 1-2 other families ever and probably won't pass the test of time isn't dystopian, I don't know what is.

Just a small bake shop in Colorado, right?

Oh yeah, that destroyed the world too.