The not-so-bygone days of the state taking children from their parents because government knows better

[alhoon]

No, it doesn’t.

Yes, it does.

Your sources show the majority is against such operations, as am I. However we are discussing if giving such medicine to a consenting teen after a certified psychologist suggested so is child abuse that is so bad that requires the child to be removed from the parents.
We are not talking about whether the majority agrees that such drugs are safe for teens or should be given to teens. This is a different issue.

Yes, I agree that such drugs are dangerous and the approach to gender dysphoria should be different than feeding drugs to confused kids that didn't get the body they wanted from nature.
No, I disagree that the parents that do allow their kids to take such drugs are committing child abuse and should lose their kids. I consider those parents idiots and I think they are harming their kid. But I don't think it is child abuse.


I can disagree strongly with the way some parents raise their kids but not considering what they do as "child abuse".
All in all that the majority disagrees strongly with the parenting decisions of some parents does not justify the huge government overreach of taking teens out of their families unless there is real abuse.
Here is an example of what Netherlands considers as child abuse:

There are five general types of child abuse:

• Physical abuse: all forms of physical violence;
  
• Emotional or psychological abuse: an adult regularly berates the child, acts in a dismissive and hostile manner towards the child or intentionally scares the child.
  
• Physical neglect: the child does not receive the care and nurturing that it needs.
  
• Emotional or psychological neglect: continuous lack of positive attention for the child. Ignoring the child’s need for love, warmth and security. This category also covers cases in which children are witnesses to violence between their parents or caregivers.
  
• Sexual abuse: sexual contact which an adult forces upon a child.

And keep in mind this is from a warped, insane government that considers spanking as a form of child abuse.


And now, for Florida, reasons for divorced parents to lose custody:

"Some factors that could result in a finding that a parent is unfit to care for their child are: Failing to maintain proper medical care for the child. Failing to keep the child enrolled in school. Evidence that the parent physically or emotionally abused the child."
If the parent took the teen to a psychologist, then evidently, there's no child abuse or neglect according to that definition (Florida's).

[Lord Thesaurian]

The majority of Americans don’t believe parents should be allowed to put their kids through sex reassignment procedures, including puberty blockers, hormone treatments and surgery. It’s the same issue. It’s useless to debate what child abuse is on the basis of Florida law or some foreign country. The legislation in question has already provided that information.

[Roma_Victrix]

Yes, common sense. And common sense says that giving puberty blockers to consenting teens after a psychologist suggested so, is not child abuse.

This statement here should pretty much sum up the entire thread for anyone in need of a TL;DR summary. LOL.

To me, the intent of the bill seems to be a means to intimidate or terrorize parents who want to solve their child's misery and clinically proven gender dysphoria. Show me a case where a child was on puberty blockers and they say it was medically administered to them against their will, and I'll show you a person who can bite their own nose and hold their breath for an hour.

The Lord of Synonym Dictionaries makes it sound like these are parents who are beating their children into submission and neutering them with a razor blade against their will. I happen to oppose gender reassignment surgery for minors, as that should be a decision made by an adult about their own body, but medication? No. And it certainly should not be grounds for the state to kidnap kids from their beds in the middle of the night. That's a dystopian nightmare Pandora's Box of government overreach that conservatives seem fine and dandy with for some bizarre reason (wouldn't rule fascism out of the equation given how the Nazis dealt with transgenderism).

[alhoon]

The majority of Americans don’t believe parents should be allowed to put their kids through sex reassignment procedures, including puberty blockers, hormone treatments and surgery.

Good. Then those parents should not put their kids through sex reassignment procedures.
I happen to agree with that.

It’s useless to debate what child abuse is on the basis of Florida law or some foreign country. The legislation in question has already provided that information.

Yes, the legislation in question provided the information and thus we can safely say it is a tyrannical law that allows government over-reach.
Make no mistake, LT. When the Taliban execute homosexuals they have legislation that provides information on what they consider homosexuality. My point here is: That legislation exists to provide the information and the penalties doesn't mean that legislation is not tyrannical.


Again, I go back to the previous point: I would also be against a law that said "not providing gender-care to a child with dysphoria is child abuse and a panel will decide whether to take the kid from his or her parents" as major government over-reach.
This is the same thing. That you and a law call giving puberty blockers to a teen after a doctor's suggestions as "child abuse" doesn't make it a fair law. Yes, the majority disagrees with feeding dangerous drugs to confused kids. But there's a difference between "I disagree with this practice" and "this is child abuse".

Same, that some progressives call NOT giving puberty blockers to a confused teen as "Child abuse" doesn't make it so. And the Florida law will now push progressive legislatures to push for that kind of law!

[Roma_Victrix]

Same, that some progressives call NOT giving puberty blockers to a confused teen as "Child abuse" doesn't make it so. And the Florida law will now push progressive legislatures to push for that kind of law!

THANK YOU! This is precisely the foreboding Pandora's Box of double-edged swords that is being opened here if and when the Democrats regain control of Florida's state legislature and governor's mansion. Giving or not giving a minor puberty blocker medication should be a private decision of parents for their consenting child in a clinical environment. The government has no right to step in here and mandate either position, denying this to a child with willing parents or forcing unwilling parents to have it administered only because the child wants it.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

... I happen to oppose gender reassignment surgery for minors, as that should be a decision made by an adult about their own body, but medication?...

And thats the reason next to stop the deterioration of childs mental health they are given, to stop puberty till the child can make a decision on their own. The medication is easily reversible. So no child abuse.

And interestingly one group can still receive gender reassigning treatment:

Intersexuals

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed a bill that prohibits “irreversible gender reassignment surgery” and the prescription of any “gender altering medication,” with exceptions for people who are born intersex—when a person’s reproductive organs do not neatly match a specific gender.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerro...h=1ecf0549656f

I can understand why: intersexuals are a danger for the gender by birth dogma and must be extinct.

Its the traditional sight of the one true gender:

The traditional one has been to determine
the true sex (since the 19 th century usually understood as the true biological sex), to
assign gender accordingly, and to expect that everything else will fall in line, more or
less, with societal expectations-everything else meaning gender identity, gender role
Pediatric Gender Assignment: A Critical Reappraisal 199
Edited by Zderic et al., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2002
200 H.FL MEYER-BAHLBlJRG
behavior, sexual orientation, courtship and love, sexual functioning, and psychological
health in general. The true-sex policy underlies the ubiquitous question at birth: "Is it a
boy or a girl?", implying that the infant is already a gendered person. Yet, what is the
definitive criterion of the "true sex"? Traditionally, it had been the external genitalia, in
the later 19 th and beginning 20 th century the gonadal histology (Dreger, 1998), and later
the sex chromosomes. Each of those criteria can be ambiguous, and all three may be
discrepant from one another.
The true-sex policy led some physicians to assign to the male gender patients with
complete androgen insensitivity (CAIS), because the gonads had a male histology,
although the defect in the androgen receptor permanently prevented the development of
any physical masculinization. It was the policy that drove some intersex patients to
suicide after their marriage plans were legally blocked because they had the wrong
gonads. (It also was the policy that led some clinicians to declare Turners' syndrome
girls 'neuters' because they had XO sex chromosomes and were therefore not deemed
eligible for marriage.)

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...4615-0621-8_12

And parents chose in the past often the beloved male heir.

And next step on republican escalation level:

Banning free speech of (law makers):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerro...h=2995ff1476af

[Roma_Victrix]

Thanks for sharing, Morticia. It must be very tough for intersex folks these days being caught up in this wave of sudden transphobia nonsense, the latest conservative fad. Not their fault if they just happened to be born with both sets of sex glands and genitals. I find it odd that religious conservatives would be eager to immediately assign a sex at birth instead of just seeing intersex people as a natural occurrence and hence God's creation and divine will.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

History shows that religious conservatives didn't care about god's will at all, if its not fitting into their religious dogma, which shall justify their rule on Earth.

[alhoon]

And next step on republican escalation level:

Banning free speech of (law makers):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerro...h=2995ff1476af

It is peculiar that George Santos cannot be recalled, censured or expelled over his myriad of lies to his constituents but in the state level, an elected representative can be expulsed. This follows after the speaker didn't allow this elected person to speak more or less because he didn't like the representative:
“It is up to me to maintain decorum here on the House floor, to protect the dignity and integrity,” Republican Speaker Matt Regier said. “And any representative that I don’t feel can do that will not be recognized,”

I have often said how snowflakes need to realize their feelings is not all that matters. This holds for Speaker Matt Regier too, as he's a conservative snowflake.
Would I vote for that person or a person with such views if I was constituent of such a county? NO!!! I strongly disagree with that person.
Did the majority of the district elect that person in fair elections? Unfortunately, yes. So the people of that district chose THAT person to represent them in the Montana legislature. And that's end of story.
Both I and Matt Regier have to live with it. Perhaps if persons like Matt Regier were less openly undemocratic, the district would have elected a different candidate.

I have said in 2016 that one of the main reasons Trump won was how unlikable the holier-than-thou progressives were becoming.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Florida tries to pass legislation to intimidate parents to tow the line. Montana's republicans take steps to block an elected representative from speaking about a bill that directly affects the representative. Then, when (Gasp!) the representative doesn't allow them to neatly do that, they try to expel or censure that person. Mass shootings on the raise. Abominably draconian anti-abortion measures.
And aaaaaall this from the party that supposedly wants small government and keeps talking about tyranny.

History shows that religious conservatives didn't care about god's will at all

That is unfortunately, very true. A contemporary example of this is the stance the supposedly "pro-life" people have on everything else that would prevent unwanted pregnancies, from contraception (less pregnancies) to support for unmarried mothers, maternal privileges etc (makes pregnancy more palatable) to simply sex education.

A just to be clear: I am still a conservative! But things have gone TOO FAR.
Not to mention, this are authoritarian measures. And if one is just a pragmatist conservative: these bills pander to the loud core of 20% and help disenfranchise more and more potential voters from the other 80%

[Lord Thesaurian]

Yes, the legislation in question provided the information and thus we can safely say it is a tyrannical law that allows government over-reach.

You can make as many hyperbolic comparisons to justify this assertion as you like. These will continue to clash with reality.

Again, I go back to the previous point: I would also be against a law that said "not providing gender-care to a child with dysphoria is child abuse and a panel will decide whether to take the kid from his or her parents" as major government over-reach.
This is the same thing.

It’s not the same thing. It’s a false comparison. “Failure to physically harm your kid is child abuse” is not the same thing as “causing your kid potentially irreversible physical harm is child abuse” for obvious reasons, and attempts to make it the same would not be able to rely on existing statutory precedent because it would make no sense.

But there's a difference between "I disagree with this practice" and "this is child abuse".

Most people agree parents shouldn’t be allowed to subject their kids to sex changes. This law establishes that consensus.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R) signed a bill that prohibits “irreversible gender reassignment surgery” and the prescription of any “gender altering medication,” with exceptions for people who are born intersex—when a person’s reproductive organs do not neatly match a specific gender.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerro...h=1ecf0549656f

I can understand why: intersexuals are a danger for the gender by birth dogma and must be extinct.


Its the traditional sight of the one true gender:

Both the Florida legislation under discussion and the West Virginia legislation you referenced contain carve outs for the treatment of physical disease, injury and disorders like intersex conditions. Another lonely bill goes unread.

[alhoon]

It’s not the same thing. It’s a false comparison. “Failure to physically harm your kid is child abuse” is not the same thing as “causing your kid potentially irreversible physical harm is child abuse” for obvious reasons, and attempts to make it the same would not be able to rely on existing statutory precedent because it would make no sense.

Yes, serious harm to your child is abuse. But taking the kid away from parents that love their kid and just because they disagree with you and Florida on what is "serious harm" is abuse by the government, why don't you understand that?

[The spartan]

Yes, serious harm to your child is abuse. But taking the kid away from parents that love their kid and just because they disagree with you and Florida on what is "serious harm" is abuse by the government, why don't you understand that?

He does not. He, and Republicans supporting this bill, are coming from the position that "gender care" for children is, self-evidently, child abuse. Remember, they don't think transgender people are actually real, they think of them as formerly abused/confused people. As Roma pointed out, there is a clear issue that you are raising in allowing the Florida State government to make that broad interpretation as to what counts as criminal child abuse. Like you brought up, someone paying attention realizes this could play in reverse and a different government could determine NOT providing gender care is criminal child abuse and you can lose your children. It really is a disturbing application of government for political enforcement.

But remember that Thesaurian can't see it that way. That reverse application does not even exist as an example to him because he sees no comparison between providing a child with gender affirming care (self-evidently child abuse, from his POV) and denying a child gender affirming care (self-evidently not child abuse, from his POV).

The real problem is that he views these things as self-evident and ultimately compelling instead of open ended and vulnerable to misuse. That's why he is comfortable extending the power of the government to take kids from parents in this bill (when he might warn of government overreach in other legislation); the context is in such a way were he can't see how it could be abused or misused by the government.

[Lord Thesaurian]

But remember that Thesaurian can't see it that way. That reverse application does not even exist as an example to him because he sees no comparison between providing a child with gender affirming care (self-evidently child abuse, from his POV) and denying a child gender affirming care (self-evidently not child abuse, from his POV).

More importantly, that’s also how the law works. In Florida, medical neglect under child abuse law is based on the idea of great bodily harm. If you wanted to establish that failure to consent to child sex reassignment is child abuse, you would have to demonstrate that link. Not providing puberty blockers, hormones and surgery to minors will not cause bodily harm, with exceptions already accounted for, so there’s no basis for such a law without first rewriting other laws to redefine child abuse and neglect. By contrast, it’s entirely consistent with existing law to consider sex reassignment great bodily harm linked to permanent disability and disfigurement. There are religious exemptions for better or worse, but no recognized religion I know of that requires child sex reassignment.

[Sir Adrian]

He does not. He, and Republicans supporting this bill, are coming from the position that "gender care" for children is, self-evidently, child abuse. Remember, they don't think transgender people are actually real, they think of them as formerly abused/confused people. As Roma pointed out, there is a clear issue that you are raising in allowing the Florida State government to make that broad interpretation as to what counts as criminal child abuse. Like you brought up, someone paying attention realizes this could play in reverse and a different government could determine NOT providing gender care is criminal child abuse and you can lose your children. It really is a disturbing application of government for political enforcement.

But remember that Thesaurian can't see it that way. That reverse application does not even exist as an example to him because he sees no comparison between providing a child with gender affirming care (self-evidently child abuse, from his POV) and denying a child gender affirming care (self-evidently not child abuse, from his POV).

The real problem is that he views these things as self-evident and ultimately compelling instead of open ended and vulnerable to misuse. That's why he is comfortable extending the power of the government to take kids from parents in this bill (when he might warn of government overreach in other legislation); the context is in such a way were he can't see how it could be abused or misused by the government.

Providing children who have no legal competence to speak of with "care" that blocks puberty, removes the ability to reproduce or to even have an orgasm, is permanent and has been shown to be a leading cause in teenage suicide is the very definition of child abuse.

[alhoon]

Providing children who have no legal competence to speak of with "care" that blocks puberty, removes the ability to reproduce or to even have an orgasm, is permanent and has been shown to be a leading cause in teenage suicide is the very definition of child abuse.

Wait, puberty blockers have been proven to be permanent change?

EDIT: Settra, I checked the internet and I didn't find sources claiming that puberty blockers are proved to cause such extensive and permanent damage like sterility or inability to orgasm.
I do expect them to have side-effects and be dangerous, but I don't expect AS GREAT side-effects.

[Muizer]

Also the claim that gender affirming care is a leading cause of teen suicides seems to come out of nowhere.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

It is common medical consensus among medical and pharmaceutical scientists, that puberty blockers are reversible.

I would expect nothing else than the usual pseudo science from some transphobe blogs.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It is common medical consensus among medical and pharmaceutical scientists, that puberty blockers are reversible.

The opposite is true; there’s little or no conclusive research on the long term effects of using “puberty blockers,” especially in children who are still physically developing. Even if you ignore the side effects, warning labels, and impacts on mental health, multiple European countries have recently banned puberty blockers as treatment for minors with gender dysphoria, outside of controlled research settings, citing the absence of measurable benefits to patients and serious risks to their health.

[alhoon]

multiple European countries have recently banned puberty blockers as treatment for minors with gender dysphoria, outside of controlled research settings, citing the absence of measurable benefits to patients and serious risks to their health.

They didn't take the kids from their parents though, Legio.

[Lord Thesaurian]

They didn't take the kids from their parents though, Legio.

I don’t know how they could, considering puberty blockers are banned.