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

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The ones I know support Republicans for various reasons, which is not to support an assault on LGBT rights. Some believe in small government and for reasons I am not sure about in 2020-forward think the Republicans still want that. Another one I know is ... well, a religious conservative. Married with a man.
Others are in Trump's cult. Or may prefer the state's republican governors. Or they may be trolls that are attracted to the Republican variety of snow-flakery.



Add there that Conversion therapy is legal in Florida. You know, torturing teens either emotionally or even physically with electroshocks and beatings.
But noooooooo. That can't be abuse.

Your teen-aged son has gender dysphoria. In Florida, your choices are:
- kick him out of the house. Not abuse.
- Send him to a center where he will be told again and again how horrible he is, that he is sinful and that he has to pray the gay away and receive beatings. Not abuse.
- Arrange for your teen to see a psychologist that would evaluate whether the teen has gender dysphoria or not, and if the teen agrees, subscribe some medicine. HORRIBLE ABUSE! TAKE THE KID! SAVE HIM!!!!

That the new (De)Sanctimonious Double Standard.

[alhoon]

You don’t seem to understand that a vegan diet does not inherently threaten bodily harm to kids.

Subjective. Especially when the vegan diet is not given by professionals but it is by crackpots that feed their kid only with vegetables and fruit.

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/howto/gu...t-healthy-kids
"In summary, vegan diets can be safe for children as long as parents and guardians are well informed about the key nutrients required for growth and development. Furthermore, parents of vegan children must be extra cautious to ensure they're eating a balanced diet and seek professional guidance, where necessary."

Providing sex reassignment treatments and procedures to them does.

Subjective. I happen to agree with you. I wouldn't demand everyone to agree with us or else lose their kids. That Florida stupidly puts even POTENTIAL sex reassignment treatment as "abuse" just makes Florida legislature authoritarian.

And now, to the double standards:

A. Vegan diet CAN put the children in danger if the parents are not extra careful and informed and if they don't get advice from professionals. You and (hopefully) Floridan Republican legislators seem to understand that since parents CAN seek advice from professionals, the state has no business to interfere with vegan parents unless the kid is malnourished.

B. sex reassignment treatment, or better the possibility of sex reassignment treatment CAN put the children in danger... except that many professionals think otherwise. But the Florida legislature does not extend the same courtesy to those parents as it does to vegan parents. Legislators and not doctors in Florida have decided that "no, any kind of gender care is child abuse!"
That's double standards.

Parents allowing their 9-year-old son to play with dolls and wear dresses and say "I am a girl" COULD be targeted by the "take their kids" law since there is a possibility they may seen sex reassignment in the future. And you fail to see how taking a crossdressing son from loving parents is a huge government over-reach.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Subjective.

No it isn’t. Per your own source, there’s no inherent conflict between a vegan diet and proper nutrition.

Subjective. I happen to agree with you. I wouldn't demand everyone to agree with us or else lose their kids.

It’s not about whether you or I agree with it. It’s about what the law says.

sex reassignment treatment, or better the possibility of sex reassignment treatment CAN put the children in danger... except that many professionals think otherwise.

Sex reassignment procedures have no measurable health benefits for kids and pose lifelong physical dangers that are difficult or impossible to mitigate. That is the emerging international medical consensus, and that’s why it’s not a double standard.

Parents allowing their 9-year-old son to play with dolls and wear dresses and say "I am a girl" COULD be targeted by the "take their kids" law since there is a possibility they may seen sex reassignment in the future. And you fail to see how taking a crossdressing son from loving parents is a huge government over-reach.

Children who are at risk of abuse, neglect or abandonment COULD be removed from the home per existing laws across the country, long before transgenderism was a thing. This has been explained to you. If that’s not a “huge government overreach,” then neither is specifying that abuse includes sex reassignment procedures, in view of the fact more and more crackpot parents are doing it to their kids these days, encouraged by institutional forces.

[alhoon]

It’s not about whether you or I agree with it. It’s about what the law says.

And we're here, discussing that law and how authoritarian it is.

Children who are at risk of abuse, neglect or abandonment COULD be removed from the home per existing laws across the country, long before transgenderism was a thing. This has been explained to you. If that’s not a “huge government overreach,” then neither is specifying that abuse includes sex reassignment procedures, in view of the fact more and more crackpot parents are doing it to their kids these days, encouraged by institutional forces.

And I am explaining to you, that branding "possible future gender care" as "abuse" is authoritarian, cruel and the intention is not to help the kids but to intimidate parents to tow the line or take their democrat-voting family away from Florida.


I agree that crackpot parents and taking their impressionable kids to ultra-progressive hacks that go for transition within an hour. But the answer to that is not such laws but putting like 6+ mandatory visits with psychologists before one starts transition.

Sex reassignment procedures have no measurable health benefits for kids and pose lifelong physical dangers that are difficult or impossible to mitigate. That is the emerging international medical consensus, and that’s why it’s not a double standard.

As other have mentioned, there is the main health benefit of such procedures: The teen is less likely to commit suicide. That is an important health benefit.
It is the health benefit that makes me pause and say "Alas, we should not ban gender change, because it saves lives".

[The spartan]

Government taking kids from abusive homes already exists based on broad statutory authority. The onus is on you to justify these allusions to “chilling precedents” with something besides innuendo if you want your commentary to be taken seriously.

What? No , sherlock. What's being argued about isn't if the government can take kids from abusive homes, it is what is counted as abusive. The government, with your support, is trying to expand "child abuse" to include any and all gender affirming medical care. Why are you arguing about things no one is arguing about? Are you running down a script?

And what do you mean "if you want your commentary to be taken seriously"? By you? I am not trying to have my commentary taken seriously by you, you are a partisan zealot and it would be foolish of me to appeal to you. You also don't speak for others, just yourself. I don't give a crap that you don't take it seriously, of course you wouldn't, you aren't even operating within the same universe. I am communicating my ideas to a more broad, reasonable audience.

The medical community thinks these treatments have no proven benefits for kids vs lifelong risks. Caveats in the legislation in question already cover medical treatments for injury and physical disease.

And you are saying they can never be allowed to prove it, because any and all gender medical treatment is banned. The government has decided that this medical treatment is not allowed, regardless of the outcomes of research. The research can't happen because you called it "child abuse".

Sending kids to a religious camp absolutely would involve potential abuse according to Florida law if the kids at the camp are being physically harmed/neglected or threatened with such by the adults responsible for them, and would be determined by an investigation by the requisite state authorities that may result in arrests and closure of the camp. A quick Google will reveal many such cases, including in red states.

Ah yes, I forgot there is no child abuse outside of physical child abuse as understood by the Florida state government. It's almost like we are having a discussion about what we would considered "child abuse" instead of the current legal state of the term "child abuse" in Florida's legislature that is currently being changed. I mistook us for having a normal human conversation instead of engaged in partisan warfare where the only rule is to "win".

You were the one that appealed to OP’s conservatism. I simply pointed out most conservatives disagree with him on this.

And you stated it without substantiating it.

And I am glad you backed down from the claims that things were fine because people weren't currently being arrested for crimes in a bill that wasn't signed into law that. That was a really dumb point that was indefensible and I would've left that out if I were you, too.

[Lord Thesaurian]

What's being argued about isn't if the government can take kids from abusive homes, it is what is counted as abusive. The government, with your support, is trying to expand "child abuse" to include any and all gender affirming medical care.

To include sex reassignment procedures, yes. All that has been presented to argue against the legislation are vague appeals to a generic slippery slope, and accusations of hypocrisy based on examples that actually further substantiate my point and are unrelated to child sex reassignment. The idea that removing kids from the threat of bodily harm/mistreatment is fine as long as that doesn’t include sex changes is the hypocrisy.

And you are saying they can never be allowed to prove it, because any and all gender medical treatment is banned. The government has decided that this medical treatment is not allowed, regardless of the outcomes of research. The research can't happen because you called it "child abuse".

The idea that research into gender dysphoria cannot take place because parents aren’t allowed to provide their kids with sex reassignment procedures is self evidently nonsensical. The emerging international medical consensus is these procedures provide no conclusive benefits to kids while posing life long and often irreversible health risks, based on data and research made all the more urgent by the recent explosion in cases. The concerns which prompted this legislation are therefore in line with the available research, despite your claims.

And you stated it without substantiating it.

This is false, and I’m not even the only one to have done so at this point.

And I am glad you backed down from the claims that things were fine because people weren't currently being arrested for crimes in a bill that wasn't signed into law that. That was a really dumb point that was indefensible and I would've left that out if I were you, too.

I haven’t repudiated the observation that your argument has been purely rhetorical so far. I pointed out OP is not in line with conservative views on this subject following concern trolling about how even conservatives disagree with me.

[Infidel144]

Alhoon's phrases and words such as 'may consider' and 'possible', 'future' do not seem to appear in the Florida bill.
The word 'consider' seems to appear only three times, which don't seem to have anything to do with parents, but rather are directives to the Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine.

I also can't seem to find anything about beatings or electroshock...

[alhoon]

I also can't seem to find anything about beatings or electroshock...

You can't find that, because the Bill doesn't consider conversion therapy as abuse. Conversion Therapy is still legal in Florida.

[Infidel144]

You can't find that, because the Bill doesn't consider conversion therapy as abuse. Conversion Therapy is still legal in Florida.

Now you need to define what "Conversion Therapy" in Florida is...

Preferably not from your self-demonstrated ample imagination.

[Lord Thesaurian]

As other have mentioned, there is the main health benefit of such procedures: The teen is less likely to commit suicide. That is an important health benefit.

As was already mentioned, this hasn’t been proven, and even if it had been, the treatments and procedures being restricted are themselves linked to poor mental health and increased likelihood of self harm, so it’s a moot point.

And I am explaining to you, that branding "possible future gender care" as "abuse" is authoritarian, cruel

It isn’t, any more than is classifying “the threat of bodily harm, neglect or abandonment” as abuse.

the intention is not to help the kids but to intimidate parents to tow the line or take their democrat-voting family away from Florida.

This is an unfalsifiable assertion. Even if it was, it’s rather puzzling to suggest the desire to discourage potential child abusers from residing in a given community is a bad thing.

Conversion Therapy is still legal in Florida.

You were already provided with confirmation that a federal appeals court struck down local Florida laws banning conversion therapy, so I’m not sure what you’re still trying to prove here.

[alhoon]

As was already mentioned, this hasn’t been proven, and even if it had been, the treatments and procedures being restricted are themselves linked to poor mental health and increased likelihood of self harm, so it’s a moot point.

It has not been proven that the procedures themselves lead to poor mental health either. The increased likelihood of self-harm is STILL lower than the likelihood of self-harm of those that do NOT receive professional help. And this has been mentioned too.

You were already provided with confirmation that a federal appeals court struck down local Florida laws banning conversion therapy, so I’m not sure what you’re still trying to prove here.

I don't have to prove much, you did it yourself... Florida courts did not allow sane communities from banning Conversion therapy. I.e. the laws in Florida are perfectly happy with THAT kind of abuse, since Conversion Therapy SHOULD be considered abuse.

So, we have Florida considering one abusive thing (Conversion Therapy) as fine but banning gender care as abuse. And this is the double standards I keep talking about.

[Infidel144]

Florida courts did not allow sane communities from banning Conversion therapy.

I realize that both words begin with an F.
But it was a Federal court that overturned the bans implemented by Palm Beach and Boca Raton.


https://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/sites/...01910604.1.pdf

And you have not provided what "Conversion Therapy" is in Florida.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It has not been proven that the procedures themselves lead to poor mental health either.

? It has.

The increased likelihood of self-harm is STILL lower than the likelihood of self-harm of those that do NOT receive professional help. And this has been mentioned too.

I haven’t seem any such evidence that child sex reassignment is medically necessary or prevents suicide and poor mental health, let alone mitigates the risk of these outcomes associated with sex reassignment treatments and procedures. I must have missed it. Feel free to source these claims.

I don't have to prove much, you did it yourself... Florida courts did not allow sane communities from banning Conversion therapy. I.e. the laws in Florida are perfectly happy with THAT kind of abuse, since Conversion Therapy SHOULD be considered abuse.

So, we have Florida considering one abusive thing (Conversion Therapy) as fine but banning gender care as abuse. And this is the double standards I keep talking about.

There’s no need to make things up as you go along. The conversion therapy bans in Florida were struck down in federal court, suggesting the opposite of what you claim here.

[Muizer]

? It has.

Do you have a source? Apologies if it's been posted before, but in my defense I tried to search specifically for terms that would return one and found nothing (other than an article debunking such claims made in a non-peer-reviewed piece by a conservative think tank).

[alhoon]

I realize that both words begin with an F.
But it was a Federal court that overturned the bans implemented by Palm Beach and Boca Raton.

The conversion therapy bans in Florida were struck down in federal court, suggesting the opposite of what you claim here.

So? What if it was shut down by a Federal Court? How that affects anything on the matter?
Did the Republicans of Florida, the same ones that pushed for the legislation about "Gender change care = abuse!" pulled their hair out screaming about the Federal court shooting down CT bans?
And when the Federal Court shoots down their "Let's take kids from progressive families" laws, will they happily shrug about it?

And you have not provided what "Conversion Therapy" is in Florida.

No, I have not provided what Conversion Therapy is specifically in Florida. Google failed me. But do you have any reason to think that it is different from the usual definitions of Conversion Therapy?

I haven’t seem any such evidence that child sex reassignment is medically necessary or prevents suicide and poor mental health, let alone mitigates the risk of these outcomes associated with sex reassignment treatments and procedures. I must have missed it. Feel free to source these claims.

Nobody discussed CHILD sex reassignment and it certainly doesn't prevents poor mental health because Gender Dysphoria = poor mental health.
HOWEVER... it does make suicide less likely on teens that are undergoing such treatments compared to those they don't.
"Multiple sources of previously published research, found medical gender-affirming interventions to be helpful in improving the quality of life for transgender and nonbinary youths by decreasing rates of long-term mental health adverse outcomes"

73% seems excessive, but that's what sources say.
See this peer reviewed journal article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2789423

And another one that says the same (see conclusions): https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1...568-1/fulltext
The 2nd article is IMO more interesting cause you can read about the methodology of the study.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So? What if it was shut down by a Federal Court? How that affects anything on the matter?

Because it means laws in Florida tried to ban conversion therapy and were prevented from doing so by national legal authorities. This suggests the opposite of what you’re trying to base your appeal to hypocrisy on.

Nobody discussed CHILD sex reassignment and it certainly doesn't prevents poor mental health because Gender Dysphoria = poor mental health.

Child sex reassignment treatments and procedures are banned by the legislation you started a thread about.

HOWEVER... it does make suicide less likely on teens that are undergoing such treatments compared to those they don't.
"Multiple sources of previously published research, found medical gender-affirming interventions to be helpful in improving the quality of life for transgender and nonbinary youths by decreasing rates of long-term mental health adverse outcomes"

73% seems excessive, but that's what sources say.
See this peer reviewed journal article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2789423

And another one that says the same (see conclusions): https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1...568-1/fulltext
The 2nd article is IMO more interesting cause you can read about the methodology of the study.

Studies like the ones you’ve cited have insufficient controls and are based on short term observational follow ups that present a biased or inconclusive picture. At least, that’s according to the NHS.

Do you have a source? Apologies if it's been posted before, but in my defense I tried to search specifically for terms that would return one and found nothing (other than an article debunking such claims made in a non-peer-reviewed piece by a conservative think tank).

There’s little or no evidence sex reassignment improves mental health outcomes.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi...1778correction

Little or no evidence puberty blockers or hormone treatments improve gender dysphoria, mental health, body image or psychosocial functioning. Studies which show otherwise are unreliable and their conclusions are likely the result of poor methodology, bias or chance. This was discussed before.

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...load_Final.pdf

https://cass.independent-review.uk/w...load_Final.pdf

Given the lack of evidence for improvement, downside risks are all the more salient. Among the most common side effects of puberty blockers are depression and suicidal thoughts, particularly among people with a history of that stuff, of which transgenders are a prime example.

Psychiatric
Very common (10% or more): Depression (up to 31%), emotional lability (up to 31%), insomnia/sleep disorder (up to 31%)

Postmarketing reports: Altered mental status, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt

https://www.drugs.com/sfx/lupron-side-effects.html

Sumskilz also posted a study showing puberty blockers irreversibly harm brain development in mammals (rams) in post 63. Evidence-free claims that gender affirming care is necessary to improve mental health and prevent youth suicide are all the more silly given said “care” often worsens what it purports to cure.

[Infidel144]

So? What if it was shut down by a Federal Court? How that affects anything on the matter?

It shows your ignorance on the matter. It shows you are just throwing buzzwords out. It shows you have not done the slightest bit of research.

Did the Republicans of Florida, the same ones that pushed for the legislation about "Gender change care = abuse!" pulled their hair out screaming about the Federal court shooting down CT bans?

First Amendment. The ban was a First Amendment issue.

"First Amendment jurisprudence is straightforward in at least
one respect: it “requires that content-based speech restrictions
satisfy strict scrutiny. And unless restrictions meet that demanding
standard, whether the speech they target should be tolerated is
simply not a question that we are allowed to consider, or a choice
that we are allowed to make.”"

"The challenged ordinances “prohibit therapists fromengaging in counseling or any therapy with a goal of changing a
minor’s sexual orientation, reducing a minor’s sexual or romantic
attractions (at least to others of the same gender or sex), or
changing a minor’s gender identity or expression—though support
and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition is
specifically permitted.”"
From the above link to the decision.

The two people who sued were councilors. They talked.

"Therapists follow a professional code of conduct that bars them from imposing their own religious views on their patients, and Staver said the patients set the goals — Otto and Hamilton direct clients away from homosexuality or gender dysphoria only if that’s what they want.
“Counselors that I represent already have ethical rules that they follow, that they do not impose their personal viewpoint on their client, regardless of whether the client is an adult or a minor,” he said.
Opponents of conversion therapy say it fails teenagers by directing them toward an “unattainable” outcome, according to an amicus brief filed in the case by the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The American Psychological Association also has weighed in against conversion therapy."
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/04...ca-raton-case/

No, I have not provided what Conversion Therapy is specifically in Florida. Google failed me. But do you have any reason to think that it is different from the usual definitions of Conversion Therapy?

Maybe it failed you because what you are referring to as "Conversion Therapy" ("beatings" and "electroshock") is not being done for this. A hint would be that "beatings" would constitute assault and/or battery. While "electroshock" (electroconvulsive) therapy was used historically (as your link notes if you would read it), this seems to have ceased by or in the 70's.

But now you can go with the whole speech is violence thing...

[alhoon]

Maybe it failed you because what you are referring to as "Conversion Therapy" ("beatings" and "electroshock") is not being done for this. A hint would be that "beatings" would constitute assault and/or battery. While "electroshock" (electroconvulsive) therapy was used historically (as your link notes if you would read it), this seems to have ceased by or in the 70's.

But now you can go with the whole speech is violence thing...

I also referred the "pray the gay away" and the guilt-trips as Conversion therapy Infidel and that this is emotional abuse. Also, while beatings would constitute assault, they are still in use for aversion therapy in some of those cases. The electroshocks etc have effectively ceased by the 90s (not 70s) because they fell out of practice.

Child sex reassignment treatments and procedures are banned by the legislation you started a thread about.

And I am not against banning sex change operations before 18 except in extreme cases where there is real danger the teen will try to mutilate his genitals with a scissor at home (and die) and such cases have happened. I am also against giving puberty blockers to pre-teens.
I.e. I don't disagree with the entirety of this law, LT. I am not a progressive. I disagree with taking the kids away from parents because a panel thinks the parents may put consenting teens to puberty blockers after the advice of a doctor.
Why is it hard to understand where I put the "this is too far!" point? I have said many times that this law is excessive AND a huge government over-reach. Also, as I have said many times and you disagree, the point of this law is to intimidate parents and chase away progressives. And nothing from what you have provided points that this is not the case.

Studies like the ones you’ve cited have insufficient controls and are based on short term observational follow ups that present a biased or inconclusive picture. At least, that’s according to the NHS.

Insufficient controls in a study with 12000 teens?!? What are you talking about? These are peer-reviewed articles from 2022. The only peer-reviewed source you mentioned gives some corrections to an article of 2019 with a much smaller population that while it points out some flaws (that I can also see in the original article), the corrections do not change the conclusions of the 2019 article.
Here is the corrected article: https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi....2019.19010080
The corrections suggested say that the conclusion is too strong, but that is the opinion of some doctors that don't say the conclusion is wrong, they say that one study was not done in a way to be conclusive.

The OTHER studies I have mentioned, are 3 years more recent and have much better control populations. The 2019 study you found can be considered meh or inconclusive, sure. That doesn't invalidate the OTHER ones. The NHS study refers to tiiiny tests of 2011 to 2016 with one tiny one from 2020 that are also inconclusive... except that the studies with 200 and 140 people are indicating (without being strong enough to prove but showing) there is an improvement with gender-care. The NHS report admits so, although they (rightly) put that as low confidence.

And then, we have the studies of 2022 and 2023 that I cited, with over 10,000 people that was conducted the right way, which proves (doesn't indicate but proves) that there is a very real reduction in suicidal thoughts and attempts with gender care.


All in all, you are looking at just a few indeed inconclusive studies and ignore the big ones.

That you don't like the results of the studies doesn't make them any less true. You are denying something that is by now well-documented.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Insufficient controls in a study with 12000 teens?!? What are you talking about? These are peer-reviewed articles from 2022.

The NHS reviewed studies whose methodology match that of the ones you cited and determined they are unreliable and their conclusions are likely the result of poor methodology, bias or chance. This was discussed before. That’s why they’re seeking to restrict gender affirming care for minors.

The corrections suggested say that the conclusion is too strong, but that is the opinion of some doctors that don't say the conclusion is wrong, they say that one study was not done in a way to be conclusive.

Lol

The OTHER studies I have mentioned, are 3 years more recent and have much better control populations. The 2019 study you found can be considered meh or inconclusive, sure. That doesn't invalidate the OTHER ones.

That you don't like the results of the studies doesn't make them any less true. You are denying something that is by now well-documented.

I’m not the one using debunked research to back up conclusions I supposedly don’t agree with.

[Infidel144]

I also

...said a bunch more crap you have not supported.
Your mere assertion is worthless.