Texas Sued As State Starts Investigating Parents of Trans Children for 'Child Abuse'
ACLU: “The agency’s new rule substitutes parents’ judgment as to what medical care is in the best interests of their children for the judgment of the government.”

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in Texas to prevent government officials from investigating parents for child abuse if they seek medical treatment for their transgender children.
Last week Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, responding to a memo from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, ordered the state's Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) to launch these investigations. Paxton argued in his memo that any sort of medical treatment of a trans minor constituted child abuse because some treatments may interfere with the child's ability to reproduce.
However, this threat didn't just cover gender reassignment surgery—something that normally doesn't happen to minors anyway—but also hormonal treatments that block the impacts of puberty on a trans teen—something that doesn't sterilize them and is reversible. The order also came with a massive threat to any government official or health worker inclined to look the other way: They could also be prosecuted if they knew a parent was pursuing medical treatment for a trans child and did not report them to the authorities.
While this might have looked like the latest loudmouthed culture war fight—the memo doesn't change the state's statutory definition of child abuse—the Texas DFPS has begun investigating parents of trans kids. The first target was one of their own. The New York Times reports that the DFPS put one of its own staff members on leave as the agency investigates her over the medical treatment her 16-year-old trans daughter is receiving. The agency has attempted to demand the mother (who is not identified) provide the teen's medical records. She's refusing, and now with the ACLU's help, she's suing to attempt to stop both the investigation and enforcement of Abbott's order.
The ACLU's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the District Court of Travis County, Texas, after spending pages explaining the process by which this banned treatment is recommended by medical professionals, zeros in on a position libertarians can appreciate: The governor, attorney general, and the DFPS do not have the authority to do any of this under Texas' own laws. The parent and child (both listed as Does) are joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit by Megan Mooney, a psychologist who treats trans patients and is legally required by Texas law to report actual child abuse to the state.
Texas lawmakers considered a bill just last year, S.B. 1646, that would have amended the state's statutory definition of "child abuse" to include medical treatments for trans youths. The bill didn't pass. The ACLU notes that after the bill failed, Abbott went on a radio to explain that he had a "solution" to this alleged problem. That solution was for the attorney general's office to administratively declare that this treatment could count as child abuse anyway, deliberately ignoring all the professional medical organizations who say otherwise (including the Texas Pediatric Society).
This decision, according to the ACLU, puts Abbott, Paxton, and the DFPS at odds with Texas' Administrative Procedure Act, which controls the process by which Texas agencies implement new rules. The ACLU argues that the decision to start investigating parents of trans kids as possible abusers obviously constitutes a change of rules, but it didn't go through the process indicated by law. In short, nobody involved in this decision has the authority to just declare any of this.
"Every major medical organization in the United States considers the treatment now effectively banned and criminalized by DFPS to be medically necessary," the lawsuit argues. "Such a radical disregard of medical science and the medical needs of a subset of minors in Texas cannot be squared with the agency's authority by prescribed by Statute."
The ACLU is asking the court to stop the DFPS from using Abbot's and Paxton's memos as justification to investigate parents of trans kids for child abuse over medical treatment; a judgement that the policy violates the state's Administrative Procedure Act; a declaration that Abbott and DFPS have acted outside of their constitutional authority; and potentially a permanent injunction.
Critics of helping minors transition say parents are rushing into major decisions without a full understanding of the risks. Whether that's true, the solution is not to put politicians and the government in control of what constitutes legitimate medical treatment. We've just endured two years of bizarre and seemingly arbitrary COVID-19 public health rules, many of which were not supported by science. Conservatives in particular should be very aware by now that politics is a poor mechanism for determining proper medical treatment. Politicians don't decide what medical treatments work or don't work. They decide which ones are legal or forbidden.
The ACLU includes in their lawsuit an appeal to parents' rights, something that Abbott claims to support:
By, in effect, cutting off the ability of parents to treat their minor adolescent children in accordance with doctor-recommended and clinically appropriate care, the agency's new rule infringes on the Does' parental rights. The agency's new rule substitutes parents' judgment as to what medical care is in the best interests of their children for the judgment of the government.
But it turns out that in this case, throwing the parents of trans teens under the bus is a big political winner, according to Abbott's political strategist. Don't trust politicians in general, but especially don't trust politicians who only believe in certain parents' rights and not others.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can't get a tattoo until they're 18, either.
Says you.
I got a ballpoint pen and a needle that says otherwise.
Can you do castrations?
I have a rubber band castrator that I use on calves and lambs, I'm sure it'll work on humans as well.
Those sound so much easier...
Safer than cutting them, too.
Having spent a few summers running cattle for extra bucks (and some hog), I can get you a pair of Rocky Mountain Oysters with a sharp penknife and a leg lock, yes.
Really not sure why the whole affair is so expensive.
I go directly to Reason's comment sections for the comedy -- almost as funny as Anthony Jeselnik
Can't be in a park alone until 18 in some states. Or seems that way.
At which point it changes to you can ONLY be in a park alone.
Parents can't starve a child, authorize body-altering surgeries or subject them to mental or physical abuse either, even if they think it's good for them. It's not substituting anything. It's setting a minimum level of care and preserving the natural development until the child hits the age of majority.
Age of majority isn't really sufficient -- one's cerebral cortex isn't fully developed until ages 25-28. So you get the stories like Grace from the "60 Minutes" segment -- who turned 18, walked into Planned Parenthood & within four months had cross-sex hormones and her breasts removed; she now calls it the worst decision of her life (she went back to a she, with a permanently lowered voice).
Curious where Deirdre McCloskey's thoughts are on this. It's sad it's gotten so politicized.
Puberty blockers and hormone treatments are more reversible than tattoos. No one is suggesting children under 18 receive surgical treatments for gender dysphoria.
Also, it is not true that kids are not allowed to get tattoos in every state. In some they are allowed to, and in others they can with parental permission.
No one is suggesting children under 18 receive surgical treatments for gender dysphoria
Uh, yes they are.
16 yr old girls are getting their breasts amputated. Puberty blockers do nothing but harm, much irreversible -- even crazy Sweden has figured that out.
Not true about surgical treatments. Johanna Olson-Kennedy of LA's Children's Hospital speaks proudly of removing a 13-year-old's breasts. You can find it on YouTube.
https://www.chla.org/olson-kennedy-laboratory
What does the ACLU have to say about Christian scientists making medical decisions for their kids?
The American Communist Lawyers Union believes that all Christians should burn equally in a hell of their choosing ASAP, of course.
There is a big difference between treating gender dysphoria, which is a recognized illness, using established treatment plans, and willingly withholding medical treatment from sick or injured children (sometimes to the point of death).
"...gender dysphoria, which is a recognized mental illness..."
There, FIFY.
And it should be treated as such, not with chemical or surgical mutilation.
The agency's new rule substitutes parents' judgment as to what medical care is in the best interests of their children for the judgment of the government.
LOL this is literally the case for EVERY SINGLE decision you can make about medical care for your child and yourself.
Except, as Scott is want to ignore (see "Don't say gay (to preK)"), it doesn't apply to every medical decision. Just puberty blockers and transgender therapy.
Scott's brazen stupidity is also confounded by the frequency with which DCFS gets involved because (e.g.) children were unsupervised outdoors for 10 min.
Just like Russia/Ukraine, funny how literally just last week Reason had headlines about how fundamentally dishonest the CDC (and everyone drawing their guidance from them) was about The Science! of masking children. But here we are a week later and Scott's parroting, "Every major medical organization in the United States considers the treatment now effectively banned and criminalized by DFPS to be medically necessary" back to us in defense of destroying children's ability to reproduce and mutilating their genitals.
Shackelford's fascination and defense of subjecting small children to sexuality and devance before they can even tie their own shoes is beyond disturbing. I only met the guy once but he came across as that single creepy cat guy from the next block who drinks pink margaritas and hangs out way too much at Disney and the school bus stop for a single guy with no kids.
That's completely unfair! As I understand it, Scott's not single.
So does the law against female genital mutilation.
But not Male genital Mutilation.
Miche Jackson's father is a hero for forcing puberty blockers on mike
Paxton argued in his memo that any sort of medical treatment of a trans minor constituted child abuse because some treatments may interfere with the child's ability to reproduce.
In case you weren't aware Scott: A medical expert cannot use their own medical expertise in defense of their refusal to treat someone with HIV because HIV substantially affects a(n adult) woman's ability to reproduce. This is a standing SCOTUS decision.
The effects of long term usage of puberty blockers is not really "reversible". It results in permanently stunted development dependent on when and how long they were administered. On the top of the fact that the diagnosis of transgenderism does not have objective criteria nor is transitioning as a treatment proven to be effective at solving the mental stress people diagnosed with that condition suffer. The younger a diagnosis, the more likely a child grows out of it. We are not talking about very well established medical science here.
Reason 2022-02-28: "The CDC's Explanation for Its Reversal on School Mask Mandates Is Transparently Dishonest"
Reason 2022-03-02: "Every major medical organization in the United States considers the treatment now effectively banned and criminalized by DFPS to be medically necessary," the lawsuit argues. "Such a radical disregard of medical science and the medical needs of a subset of minors in Texas cannot be squared with the agency's authority by prescribed by Statute."
It'll be a long time before I trust those 9 out of 10 doctors. I'm going straight to the 10th doc, who disagreed. He's the only guy you can trust now.
I'm still going to one of those 4 out of 5 dentists to get my root-canal...
Medical organizations are inherently political organizations as opposed to science organizations. The AMA and APA do not adhere to a science based approach when producing recommendations. These same organizations also recommend that guns be restricted or even barred. The actual literature doesn't support transitioning is effective in reducing suicides, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity or other measures of mental stress. And the long term impacts are not well studied, they've only been used long term as this form of treatment for a very short time. Additionally, Scott is being partially disingenuous, no they don't cause sterility in every case but they do increase, drastically, the risk for infertility and impotence.
Medical organizations are inherently political organizations as opposed to science organizations.
Not to disagree with your distinction but, at this point, I think it's better described as 'nominally' rather than 'inherently' and that was kinda my point. 6 mos. ago, The Science! said to mask kids regardless of any medical need of any subset, set or superset (actually mask the set of kids because of the superset of kids and grandmas) of minors in any state, TX included.
They were started as lobbying and progressional organizations, formed to uphold professional standards. I think that pretty much deserves the term inherently political.
Nominally and inherently vs. nominally or inherently. Both (all 6 or 8) sides.
It might not be a bad thing that those kids don't reproduce.
"Every major medical organization"
From the same people that brought us "hundreds of doctors protesting Joe Rogan"
Also the AMA has basically fallen victim to woke corporatism, as most of the organizations do. God forbid an LGBT person be offended by something
Yeah, hard to take him seriously when he is so thoroughly incorrect on this. You cannot just re-start puberty without significant problems.
The trans delusion gripping a portion of this country has gone from being silly to dangerous.
Again, you can't confirm a transperson's successful conversion any more than you can confirm a sacrificial virgin's success. The Left has found a religion that, by virtue of their nihilism, can be spun into something greater than every written law in the country.
I can. Does it reduce the rate of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity and other markers of mental stress. If not, then it isn't successful, it just is a placebo.
I remember many studies saying that gender reassignment provided minimal benefits to outcome, if any positive at all, years ago.
Now it's only 'necessary for their continued mental health' and negative outcomes are a myth.
My only satisfaction is no kids there.
Does it reduce the rate of suicide, drug and alcohol abuse, sexual promiscuity and other markers of mental stress.
That confirms the treatment of their dysphoria and, even then, it's still just a 'maybe'. If we take a violent, suicidal male rapist and chemically castrate him so that he's no longer a rapist or suicidal has he been cured? Even if he's now just a non-suicidal manic-depressive sociopath?
Assuming it does clinically cure their dysphoria, it doesn't confirm their conversion to a person of the opposite sex, which would include more of the criteria necessary for decisions like "Can they compete in women's sports teams?" and "Can they use the opposite gender's bathroom?" and "Should they get tax credits and employment benefits even though they'll never need birth control or get pregnant?"
I'm unaware of the exhaustiveness of Bruce Jenner's conversion. I can understand, or at least see as an impartial observer, how an incomplete transition might assuage any mental (or physiological) disease without effectively changing his biological status. It's certainly not a hard leap to make from other cosmetic (or reproductive) surgeries. Vasectomies and tubal ligations allay anxieties about reproduction without switching sexes. Similar for hysterectomies and mastectomies.
As I said, the notion of successful transition is indistinguishable from the notion of a successful virgin sacrifice. Adults should be relatively free to drink the kool aid but when parents and adults start forcing their kids to do it, we generally don't let the 1A stand in the way.
"Should they get tax credits and employment benefits even though they'll never need birth control or get pregnant?"
Maybe better stated as "Are we going to give them tax credits or force closely-held corporations to provide them employment benefits even though they'll never need birth control or get pregnant?"
If it is akin to virgin sacrifice than we do restrict their 1A rights, even if the kids did drink their parents kool-aid. Probably not the best analogy to use.
There are several religious groups who do withhold needed medical interventions from their children for religious reasons, they may have been better analogies. But the case law is much less clearer. In most states the courts can overrule the parent in some or all cases. So these examples probably argue more strongly for Texas law than against it.
If it is akin to virgin sacrifice than we do restrict their 1A rights, even if the kids did drink their parents kool-aid. Probably not the best analogy to use.
You're thinking of drinking the kool-aid as a religious act that should be defended. I'm saying that to the state, looking without religion, it's an act of aggression/murder that the 1A doesn't exculpate. You might say that letting your kid join a football team is an act of aggression but A) it's not murder and B) 'letting' or 'allowing' isn't an action and there is no compelling interest or even a strategy that the state could employ to effectively prevent letting.
The state intervenes for booster seats and seatbelts FFS. If that's a compelling interest, then sex changes absolutely fall under the tent.
I don't think anyone except nutjob fruitcakes like Harvey Milk would agree that there's no government interest in getting and keeping John Stoen out of Jim Jones' custody. But, maybe you're right and I've underestimated the prevalence of nutjob fruitcakes in a democracy and the only hope for future kids is to start shooting first and asking questions later.
It's a tough call, as a classical liberal. I would be more supportive of the live and let live argument if we haven't seen a huge spike in kids wanting to transition, the large majority being female (who tend to, by multiple studies, be much more strongly influenced by wanting to fit in and suffer far more body issue diagnosis than males, i.e. eating disorders). I can't help but wonder how many girls are doing this because it's the newest fad? Much like the huge increase in girls identifying as bisexual. Several studies have found a large percentage of females identifying as bisexual don't ever participate in same sex activities, and the majority still want to marry a man despite same sex marriage being legal, and mostly accepted in society today.
The state intervenes for booster seats and seatbelts FFS. If that's a compelling interest, then sex changes absolutely fall under the tent. Of course, I don't think the state should intervene to that degree, and seatbelt usage and booster seat usage should be up to parents but not mandatory.
I still accept there are degrees to which the state has a compelling interest to protect children from parents, because children lack certain capacities. In that state you need to balance the harm and benefits, and I need to trust the analysis that's being done.
I still accept there are degrees to which the state has a compelling interest to protect children from parents, because children lack certain capacities. In that state you need to balance the harm and benefits, and I need to trust the analysis that's being done.
Yeah, I'm all for an absolute no-hands approach by the government. However, in such a situation, no one should be surprised if the Amish start marrying before the age of consent and Mormons start setting infidels' wagon trains on fire. If the government is to intervene in such a situation, prevention of death and permanent disfigurement absolutely and likelihood of death and permanent disfigurement relatively should take priority. No one version of death/disfigurement should get any sort of special protection over the other. Given the historical examples, I assumed this was generally understood but, apparently, some people are ignorant, willfully or not, of basic biology, history, etc., etc.
Remember when we did not let children’s make life altering decisions until they were old enough to understand the consequences? Are they saying we should allow children to have sex with adults…I mean that can totally be reversed right? My opinion is if they cannot be held fully criminally responsible for capital murder because they are not mentally developed enough then they are not mentally developed enough for this.
Are they saying we should allow children to have sex with adults...
If it's OK to give pubescent children puberty blockers, maybe that's a solution for adults who want to fuck kids. We can produce young adults with the bodies of children. (I've seen this depicted in science fiction, so I can't take credit for the idea.)
If it's OK to give pubescent children puberty blockers, maybe that's a solution for adults who want to fuck kids. We can produce young adults with the bodies of children. (I've seen this depicted in science fiction, so I can't take credit for the idea.)
Don't know the specific Science Fiction in question but Ancient societies, and I mean like back to Sumeria, used to castrate young boys specifically for that (and other) purposes. Considering the immoral shit that gets thrown around the media about what female gymnasts and figure skaters go through "voluntarily", I'm loathe to start castrating boys so that their singing voices don't deepen (seriously the singing voice has been literally called castrato since the 16th century). Let alone for *more* exploitative reasons.
Seems to me that giving boys puberty blockers in preparation for making girls of them is basically the same thing. Just chemical rather than surgical means.
The Left is kinda leaning towards permitting pedo activities as is.
Are they? I thought they were the shrillest complainers about sexting. Or maybe that's how it works: OK to have sex but not to see the goods in advance.
They're trying to add pedos to that LGB alphabet vomit. So, yes.
Leftists wanting pre-teen girls to get abortions without parental knowledge means they want someone to be allowed to fuck them.
A lot of the left will gleefully make the leap to "I mean, we should allow the child to choose to have sex with adults if they WANT to"
I think they are drooling at the possibility of this future. Its no coincidence that the left is A) participating in a lot of stuff that has creepy groomer vibes to it and B) constantly having pedos within their ranks.
Robert O’Rourke is going to be Abbott’s competition come November. I’m not sure the “it’s totes okay to force an 8 year old boy to transition to a girl” is the hill the Democrats want to die on. Should be interesting if they decide to go with that or taking peoples guns.
(And yes, it is forced because we understand that 8 year olds can’t give consent, so the person actually making that decision is an adult in a position of authority.)
He already tried the "your damn right we are coming to take your AR15s" and that will be played forever in TV ads in texas.
I hope he leans into the "lets allow parents to disfigure their children permanently" to really seal his fate
"The agency's new rule substitutes parents' judgment as to what medical care is in the best interests of their children for the judgment of the government."
I love that Reason will get all libertarian about parents' rights when it comes to giving kids life and body altering "medical treatments," but parents can fuck directly off when they don't want their kids reading what amounts to gay porn in 5th grade.
Wdym Reason is a rag full of leftist shills? They say they're Libertarians. Surely honest reporters like these wouldn't dissemble or cherry pick...
Where do I go to sign up for the "No mutilating children's bodies but gay books in libraries aren't hurting anyone." party? Sticks and stones can break your bone(r)s but words can never hurt you and all that jazz.
In your Sticks And Stones Party's ideology, do books show up in the library magically for free?
Unironically, yes. A lot of stuff in school libraries is donated. Also, this sort of objection is the sort of silly hair splitting that winds up with "any school-adjacent material which contains the word religion in printed text is a 1A violation". No, that's not a slippery slope argument. We've been down this slope, we're currently near the bottom of it. That's how we got here and two wrongs don't make a right, if you find yourself in a hole stop digging.
What a bizarre view for a libertarian to take. Do you think my point was specifically about the books or the content?
Despite your assertion, most books don't just magically show up in the library for free. Even when they're donated, somebody has to go through them and figure out which ones are shelf-worthy and which ones aren't, even just from a purely practical, objective "moldy vs. not moldy" perspective. Even after they're donated, somebody has to put them on the shelves, make sure they stay organized, and make sure they stay shelf-worthy or get discarded otherwise.
So, lest you missed my point by thinking *I* was being ironic, do you think all of the above, which has literally nothing to do with the content of the books, happen magically for free?
I agree, two wrongs don't making a right but if the hole has been dug this far without me and will continue to be dug, the least I can do is stop digging and fling dirt at those who are still doing it. Especially when everyone else is digging an expensive and elaborate crypt to continue to fill with dead trees.
Hmm. Trust Abbot's minions about what is "appropriate" treatment? Nope. Trust the CDC? Nope. Hell, I wouldn't let any of them make health decisions about me. Or my cats, for that matter.
Unfortunately you don't have a choice. Government controls our bodies more thoroughly than just about anything else.
Which is a damn good reason to resist attempts for them to increase such control.
Progressivism is child abuse. And if they still feel like they need to be a eunuch AFTER puberty and past the age of adult consent, it is none of my business.
Until then, go Texas!
Progressives are the people who demanded that 2 year olds be forced to wear masks so ADULTS could feel safe.
Any progressive who wants to opine on the treatment and care of children should be punched in the mouth.
Progressives support child murder up to birth.
After getting the punch, sterilize them.
I'm siding with Texas on this. I know several parents who are raising their small child as "gender neutral". They have a great time speaking out on social media about how "woke" they are and basking in the glory from the praise they get. To me this is child abuse. I understand that some people are wired wrong for their biological gender. I have no problem with them getting the help and treatment that they need. What I don't want to see is a confused child, who is being pressured by their parents into doing this. When they become an adult it's their choice.
Hey, why even have kids if you can't turn them into political art accessories and virtue signals?
To me this is child abuse. I understand that some people are wired wrong for their biological gender. I have no problem with them getting the help and treatment that they need. What I don't want to see is a confused child, who is being pressured by their parents into doing this.
Moreover, the standard default becomes "Transition" and even in tough corner cases, alternative therapies are either willfully and stupidly ignored or outright forbidden.
We wind up with cases like the one highlighted in the am links where a woman, mid-miscarriage, is advised to travel because the hospital in TX, supposedly, can't treat someone with a baby that's not dead yet and who herself is not yet injured or sick yet. "Better dead than in TX" is a legally acceptable, if not stupid, position for a woman to take. Medical professionals, supposedly, saying "You have a risk of bleeding to death or dying of an infection so you better get on the road to somewhere that can treat you for that." is not.
The default to transition especially becomes a problem in jurisdiction banning "conversation therapy" with regards to transgenderism, which might make helping someone who is regretting a gender dysphoria diagnosis illegal.
I made the point in the early part of the gay rights debate when it was celebrated that homosexuality wasn't just more broadly redefined in the DSM but redefined in such a way that it *could not* be regarded as a pathology. As in, if someone hit their head, woke up not remembering who they were and went around seeking out people of the same sex with HIV to fuck, you could treat them for the desire to fuck HIV sufferers, you could treat them for the amnesia, but not for the sudden "decision" to be homosexual. Specifically recategorized in a way that, if it were possible, prevents complete social and psychological restoration. The medical science forbids it.
No such thing as biologic gender. There's sex, which is only biologic.
A totally new concept. Even among the natives, who are may have accepted "two-spirited" individuals, sex determined your gender role. Also, just to be clear, the amount of acceptance varied from tribe to tribe, and it is a pretty loose definition of acceptance. Also, gender roles tend to bear much similarities across cultures. Very few, if any cultures, have females in the warrior role, and even ones who accepted female warriors, they were not the norm but the exception. Children are almost universally raised traditionally by the females, and the females are almost universally the primary cook and home keeper. Males are almost universally the hunter and warriors, and well inheritance rules differ, the majority favor the male gender. Sex has determined gender roles for all our history, from hunter gatherer society to advanced, modern urban cultures. It is a new, and recent phenomena and one not driven or accepted by the majority of the culture, to divorce sex and gender roles. It is being driven by a minority trying to enforce it on the majority culture.
I tell them I will laugh when their kids kill themselves
This is getting very confusing. When is the government right and when are parents right? Transexuality, vaccines, child marriage, CRT, Facebook, guns, drugs, Trump, ...
Can somebody please make a score card?
Alabama finally raised their marriage age limit from 14 to 16... They had a bill to raise it to 16 in 2001 but it was shot down in a late-night filibuster.
Too bad they don't have Jerry Lee Lewis to kick around anymore.
You had me on your side until you threw Trump in there. You really should sue him for rent for the space in your head that he is occupying.
I believe home schooling is child abuse and should be next on the chopping block. Republicans will argue that it's not the same thing because, well because they said so!
Can you explain the connection between child mutilation and home schooling? I'm not seeing your point.
Aside from your farcical argument seemingly asserting that spending excess time with parents constitutes abuse, home schooled children consistently score higher on standardized tests than their publicly schooled peers.
Something something something government always does it worse something something something involved parents matter something something something...
How is homeschooling child abuse exactly? You know that not even the majority of homeschoolers are some right wing ultra fundamentalist religious nut, don't you? They cover the whole spectrum.
This right here is a really, really, devastatingly mortal blow to conservatives because of the clear and unambiguous analogue between parents teaching their children things at home instead of having their tax money confiscated and having their children taught things compulsorily by a state employee in a state-run facility, and parents permanently sterilizing their children and mutilating the healthy genitals of their children. Get absolutely PWNED conservatards!
> parents teaching their children things at home instead of having their tax money confiscated
Heck, most of the time it's "parents teaching their children things at home despite still having their tax money confiscated".
Do you want to compare abuse rates in home as opposed to public schools?
You're doing a great job of making Abbott look sane and reasonable and his opposition look like fundamentalist retards. Keep it up.
Better to believe public schools are child abuse, if we are looking at actual results instead of intentions
Your last sentence is stupid nonsense!
well that was some nice flailing.
"Paxton argued in his memo that any sort of medical treatment of a trans minor constituted child abuse because some treatments may interfere with the child's ability to reproduce."
Primum non nocere "first, do no harm".
I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:
I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.
I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.
Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.
Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.
So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.
New physicians haven't taken that oath for centuries. Which is for the best, since it's utterly and completely inapplicable to Western medicine. At least they were honest enough to drop the pretense.
It's the Hypocritic Oath now, not the Hippocratic.
"first, do no harm".
"Second, if any harm is to be done to anyone, do whatever the fuck harm I think is popular."
No wonder Medical Malpractice insurance is so expensive...
“Trans Children”
“What are, Things that don’t exist?”
There is no such thing as a trans child. Those kids have been abused and badgered into hacking their body’s chemistry, if not their body itself.
If you’re an adult, mess your shit up all you want. But just as female circumcision (and increasingly male circumcision) is considered abuse, even when done In The Best Interest Of The Child™️ (according to parents), permanently jacking up their body chemistry or hacking their naughty bits irreversibly, is also abuse.
There is no medical reason to block puberty in a child, nor hack their bodies up.
hacking their body’s chemistry
It's not hacking their bodies. It may be hacking their way into the opposite sex's restroom or sports team but they gain no greater authority over their body or greater biological function from that authority. If I hand you a computer a virus that turns your computer into the metaphorical brick, and you knowingly load it into your system, I haven't hacked your computer. If I don't hand you the virus, I may hack my way past security in order to gain greater authority to deploy the virus but the destruction of functionality was definitively cracking. Especially if I do so with the intent to go on destroying other systems. /nerd rant
I disagree, because it is much more akin to someone introducing the virus other than the computer owner. Kids often have irrational expectations, we rarely allow them to change their bodies to achieve these expectations because we realize children are incapable of making rational decisions. So, instead a third party, their parents and their doctors decide for them to change a normal bodily process. It really becomes the question of who we are deciding is best equipped to make these decisions.
We can argue that the parents are best equipped, which is a valid view. But we also can't pretend that parents don't make really bad decisions about their kids well being at times. And at least some of these decisions even libertarians are okay forbidding.
So, it is pretty frigging, complicated and difficult one to decide. I don't know if it is the best application of classical liberalism, because it isn't at all clear that we can decide whose personal liberty is being protected or infringed upon. Kind of like abortion. Do we protect the individual liberty of the child or the mother? Some believe that because of the ambiguity, the classical liberal argument is to err on no law. Which is a valid point but not all classical liberals believe this is the best approach, because if there is any function for government it is to protect the rights and well being of the most vulnerable from those with the most power. Both are valid arguments in my opinion. It really becomes a moral argument about deciding whose rights are the most important. And that's impossible to answer.
if there is any function for government it is to protect the rights and well being of the most vulnerable from those with the most power.
if there is any function for government it is to protect the property rights of the people in its jurisdiction..
Agreed to both.
kids shouldn't be placed in positions to make decisions from which there is no return.
Then would you support puberty blockers for all kids so that they cannot undergo the irreversible biological process of puberty until they are sure they want to? Even if they say they are fine with puberty and want it to proceed?
Remember that choosing not to decide is still making a choice. Undergoing normal puberty is more irreversible than using puberty blockers to delay it, regardless of which sex's puberty you end up choosing to undergo later.
Get help.
One is actively changing something biological. The other is an entirely normal biological change. Besides, puberty also impacts brain development and is a normal part of brain maturation.
Naturalistic fallacy. Puberty, much like childbirth or menopause, is our bodies undergoing sometimes violent change. You can say you think living your non-interventionist hippie truth is the best way to live, but the problem comes when you start getting the state to enforce your preference.
Why is this lost in this conversation on a libertarian board?
Because libertarianism isn't anarchism. You've been told that. The government has a function, and one of the most functions is to protect the most vulnerable from harm of others.
Puberty is not violent, it is a normal function that every single mammal with functional gonads (the main sex hormones producing reproductive and gamete producing sex organ, which are the same in mammals) goes through. To deny that is to deny biology. You can't mature fully, as evolution has dictated, without going through puberty. That is why disorders of the gonads that prevent normal puberty are also highly linked to other developmental issues.
Classifying normal maturation and functions as violent is simply an unscientific argument. It is placing emotion before knowledge and science.
There is nothing hippie or fallacious about staying puberty is normal and required for maturation. This is well established biological concepts.
Pregnancy is also the norm. Without the ability for reproduction, we can't have evolution. Since we can't reproduce by mitosis alone, pregnancy is required. Evolution doesn't support a being that can't reproduce. It isn't required that you choose to reproduce, only that you are capable. Evolution and nature are a bitch, they care about your happiness or self fulfilment, they don't have feelings. They aren't sentient beings. The entire point of existence is to pass on your genes and as such, favors those who have advantages that assist them in passing on those genes. We humans like to pretend that there is more, and for many of us this is religion. For the atheist, you have to come up with other reasons. It's pretty hard to accept that your entire reason to exists is to pass on your genes, but from a purely scientific view this is true.
We create morality to and deal with this reality. If we didn't than rape wouldn't or murder of a rival wouldn't be illegal. Morality, however, is ambiguous and often creates conflicting ideals. Laws are all about a shared morality.
Libertarians and classical liberals (they are not the same things albeit very similar) believe if no one is using aggression to harm someone else then the government shouldn't interfere. The problem is sometimes deciding what is an act is aggressive act. And how much power do we allow government to stop aggression. And you have absolutists you insist their guidelines are the correct one everyone should accept.
"Because libertarianism isn't anarchism."
I get this sentence every time I question why libertarians are advocating for government force over people (even novel, invasive forms like the stuff we're talking about) when they are perfectly welcome not to endorse that. I don't. Doesn't that make me more libertarian than you? Doesn't it make all Democrats?
I don't think you've read much on what is entailed in being trans. It's a common mistake, butting into a conversation nobody invited you too, assuming, due to your ignorance, that you know everything you need to know already.
From what I understand, irreversible changes are hardly ever done before age 18, transition is a long process requiring much doctor consultation, and trans people know better than you do what they need.
Just be a libertarian and stop using government to impose your reactionary values on other people! It shouldn't be as hard as it is all the damn time.
I have the right to post as much as you do. As for not understanding, I believe you fit this far more than you. You are just upset that I challenge your beliefs with facts and science.
Evolution doesn't support a being that can't reproduce.
Nonsense. They are plenty of examples among social animals of individuals who serve a vital function in the reproduction of their species while not reproducing themselves. Look at worker bees or ants; or non-dominate wolves or mongooses.
First, insects are different than mammals, and in the cases all the female workers are capable of becoming fertile but don't. As for dominant wolf theory, it's a myth. They don't actually exist, and all the wolves in the pack reproduce.
Additionally, in colony settings, like ants, termites and bees, which are almost exclusive to insects and not universal among all species of the examples you list. Many bees don't live in colonies or in very loose colonies, where all the members reproduce, same for ants and termites. But even in those that do segregate reproduction to limited individuals, the sexes have defined roles, and those roles are assigned specifically for the purpose of reproduction.
These examples are also rare. Meerkats and hyenas also live in social packs, and reproduction is often the purview of a dominant female, if and when she dies or is replaced, another female takes over that role, because all of them are fertile. Often this is pheromone regulated. These also are oddities, and that is why they are so studied.
Puberty, much like childbirth or menopause, is our bodies undergoing sometimes violent change.
Tony is still upset about his man-friend dumping him when he grew pubes.
No surprise the one time you err on the side of getting govt out of people's business is when it involves puberty blockers and or irreversible damage to a child.
Def a coincidence that the progs keep having pedos among their ranks eh?
The party of science!
And that is the crux of the biscuit... The Children aren't making the decision. It is their caregivers making it for them. The Children have no agency... even until they finally get liberated from their parents insurance at 26.
My children would claim spending more time with me would be abuse. Unless they needed something, like money or the car, etc.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in Texas to prevent government officials from investigating parents for child abuse if they seek medical treatment for their transgender children.
But it IS abuse.
You are not a girl if you like pink or dolls or cooking or fashion or even boys.
You are not a boy if you like trucks or blue, or sports or girls.
And yet, so many children of woke parents are set on an irreversible course for just such superficial things--that coupled with an extremely overzealous trans activism that diagnoses 'dysphoria' more commonly than the common cold and hands out hormones and puberty blockers like candy.
Adults can change the shape of their bodies all they want. The TQ lobby needs to stop trying to saw off pieces of children to meet their needs.
>The TQ lobby needs to stop trying to saw off pieces of children to meet their needs.
Did you read the article? Surgical treatments for people under the age of 18 are still illegal. The kinds of treatments that minors receive are reversible things like puberty blockers. If you stop taking a puberty blocker, your body just undergoes puberty a little later than normal.
Also, if this was a case of woke parents pressuring kids to transition, we could predict that non-woke and anti-woke parents would not have any trans kids. This does not appear to be the case. Many trans people grew up with horrible, non-accepting parents who denied being trans was even possible. They ended up trans anyway.
Horrible, non-accepting parents? There are many mental health issues that convince their sufferers that they don't belong in their body or that they are different than they are perceived. We don't treat Anorexia Nervosa by getting the a lap band surgery or prescribing diet medications. We don't treat schizophrenia by playing into their delusions. Schizophrenia does have a chemical cause. We don't treat these conditions or others by feeding their delusions, because it doesn't actually change or improve outcomes.
There is no proof that transitioning actually improves life for the sufferers of gender dysphoria. Oh, they report feeling happier in some studies, but then they still commit suicide or other self destructive behaviors. So, it is really debatable if the transitioning actually was of any benefit.
And the argument is that they are still self destructive because people don't accept them. You can't force people to accept you. I am on the autism spectrum, wasn't diagnosed until later in life. One of the biggest difficulties has been coming to grips with the fact that getting diagnosed didn't improve anything. The same people who didn't accept me before the diagnosis, still didn't accept me after the diagnosis. I have had to learn to accept the fact that some people just won't accept me, no matter what I do. Nothing will change that. Learning to accept it has resulted in less suicidal thoughts. I actually became more suicidal after the diagnosis because of the let down that it didn't actually solve my major problems. It took my therapist being brutally honest with me, not playing into my unrealistic expectations.
Any therapist of any proficiency will tell you to face your issues and win or change the terms of engagement. Not one will tell you to follow your delusions and try to get everyone else on board with your magnificent new clothes.
The big issue is what is being done to children under 18 , especially without parents permission. I guess you have missed most of the issue! You also need to update your facts
There are serious complications from puberty blocker that can last a lifetime, not what you claim.
I guess you are not aware of school and peer pressures that are in play with the young.
Very FEW people in general are trans, so there are NOT many who were denied by parents and ended up trans anyway.
Very FEW people in general are trans
Uh, like, zero. "Trans" is a concept, not an objective condition.
a case of woke parents pressuring kids to transition
more like teachers (and social media) than parents are doing the pressuring
“ And yet, so many children of woke parents are set on an irreversible course for just such superficial things”
This can’t be stressed enough. People like Tony and Ghatanathoah are horribly sexist in their thinking and their boxes.
What about the parents who want their children to grow up in "deaf culture"? So they can learn sign language as natives during that all important language acquisition time of life? And so they don't make their deaf parents read their lips? Come on, can't you see they identify as deaf?
I think those parents are horrible people.
Why does it have to be that culture? Why can't I just put lead in my baby's formula so that they grow up unable to independently support themselves, only capable of simple household tasks, and die young?
If kids eating lead paint chips was really such a problem, where are all the hospitals and care facilities that were needed to treat those generations of kids (and then adults).
There are evidence of them for Polio and other panics... but none for lead poisoned paint chip eating kids...
Just wondering.
First, I didn't say it was a problem. I was asking a hypothetical, the specific implementation is immaterial to the ends producing core conflict. The specific end being effective lobotomization and if you need evidence for any controversy in that regard, please see the Federal Register.
Second, did you really just ask "where are all the hospitals and care facilities that were needed to treat those generations of kids (and then adults)"? Did you actually eat a lot of lead paint chips as a kid? Because, biologically, there is no way to treat chronic lead poisoning. No hospital can be built to fix the damage. In that vein the laws against making, selling, using, removing, disposing, and storing lead paint, glazes, pipes, fuels, etc., etc., etc. are numerous and pervasive. Would you freeze to death in the arctic unable to find an explicitly labeled "Hypothermia Prevention Clinic"?
Hormone treatments are "reversible"? And presumably cannot cause any lasting damage?
Who says so, and where are their data?
And whatever happened to "First, do no harm?"
Teaching children that their bodies must be forced to conform to their thoughts and feelings is sexism itself and is harmful, whether or not there is any "medical" intervention. Sexual liberation is accepting that any thoughts or emotions are equally acceptable whether one is male or female.
One thing I find really amusing about this controversy is that a lot of people who are really against all this gender-affirming treatment of transpeople are also against all the anti-COVID measures like mask and vaccine mandates. They usually justify this by stating that COVID is not something we should worry about, since the odds of dying of COVID are less than 2%.
This is totally true, the odds of dying of COVID are less than 2%. You know what else has less than 2% odds? Regretting transitioning. Less than 2% of trans people regret transition. Less that 1% of people regret gender assignment surgery.
So, based on their own logic, anyone who opposes masks and vaccine mandates because the odds of dying of COVID are less than 2%, but is also deeply concerned about the odds of someone regretting transitioning, kind of seems like a gigantic hypocrite. Dying of COVID is worse than transitioning and regretting it. Death is far more permanent than hormone treatment or surgery. So a 2% chance of dying of COVID seems more worthy of concern than a 2% chance of regretting transitioning. If you support this Texas executive order, you should also support an executive order mandating vaccines and masks.
"Less than 11% of the people who are struck by lightning die. This is true. You know what else has less than 11% odds? Regretting transitioning. Death from a lightning strike is far more destructive than electroshock therapy. Ergo, people who oppose parents who want to subject their kids to electroshock therapy are just being irrational." - Ghatanathoah
I've seen several studies that contradict the 2% claim.
And even if we accept the ridiculously low 2% number (most of which were done in adults who transitioned as adults, there are very few solid studies on children transitioning, and even those are generally those who transitioned after puberty) we cannot draw a conclusion as to the degree of accuracy by assessing regret if we block puberty. Puberty plays a huge role in brain maturation. Your brain undergoes a lot of rewiring and development with the onset of puberty. Estrodial and testosterone production both impact brain development, and if we block the normal biological changes these bring about we can't state that their lack of regret is a result of actually wanting to transition being a permanent desire or if it was the result of messing with their brain development and maturation.
In other words it's entirely correlative and not causative.
We have several animal models that can be referenced. A bullock that is castrated before puberty will act much more cow like than one that was castrated post puberty. Same with dogs and cats. We can't ask them their level of regret, but we can examine their behaviors and see what the impact of removing their gonads at different points in development have on the expressed behavior.
Maybe beating a dead horse but, absent a note, it's a bit of a religious examination when a body shows up in the morgue with breast implants, a mutilated penis, and a noose around its neck.
The course of any mental health issues should be the reduction of self harm. You can't cure depression. You don't care addiction. You don't cure Anorexia Nervosa, you reduce the impulse for self harm. If you treatment regimen doesn't reduce the impulse to self harm then it isn't an effective treatment.
Take gambling addiction. It isn't the gambling that's the problem, it's the negative impacts of gambling that are the problem. Depression isn't the problem, it's the negative impulses and self harm that is the problem. To argue not looking at the impulse for self harm is an effective means of measuring treatment of mental health issues is counterintuitive.
Hell even if it is purely physiological (and ignoring that most mental health issues also are physiological) in most almost every case treatment of chronic health disease isn't aimed at curing the disease but at managing it and reducing the harm from it. Giving insulin doesn't cure diabetes, but addresses the problem created by diabetes. If you give a liver transplant and the person still dies from liver related health issues, the liver transplant wasn't successful.
In other words, the argument for transition used to be that it reduces self harm impulses. But as it has become clear it doesn't, they have stated those aren't the metrics we should be aiming for. Now it's acceptance and if they report feeling regret. But acceptance is impossible to measure, and universal acceptance is impossible to achieve. And simply measuring regret is totally pointless. I didn't at the time regret sleeping with Leslie when I was younger, but that relationship hardly benefitted me, and in many ways I would have been better off not sleeping with her. But if you ever saw her in a summer dress you'd know why my horny 22 yo brain didn't regret sleeping with her at the time.
But transitioning is itself self-harm. And this doesn't get talked about much, but the self-harm is ongoing for life because of the "maintenance" a "transitioned" body requires.
If you give a liver transplant and the person still dies from liver related health issues, the liver transplant wasn't successful.
Again, not arguing in defense of transgender conversion. The distinction between whether a liver transplant failed to save someone who died of a liver transplant and whether a transgender person who committed suicide is a moot spiritual argument. The state isn't supposed to support a religion. Especially in the case of harm (self or other). We (as humans) have a long and clear dedicated history of busting up religions for their practices of polygamy and child brides specifically for the children. I absolutely agree it can go too far and we, as I said elsewhere, wind up punishing one person for another's religious views about dogs or car seats, but to acknowledge the others do exist and then insist that transgender therapy for children should be sacrosanct is an explicitly religious and pro-harm argument. It's both defending harm and establishing a state religion.
Yeah. I think I understand. The question really is when and how does the government involve itself in preventing harm. Which side do we error on. And is leaving this entirely to the parents really honoring everyone's personal liberties. I simply don't know. I know my personal opinion, and I admit it makes me less open to the other side. I, however, find Scott's absolutism in this piece extremely dishonest, as I find just about any absolutism. Absolutism is the road to extremism in my experience. And I find that many libertarians who post on here, I could name names, and I am sure you would agree to many of these names, sound just as extremist as (sometimes more so) the partisans they condemn.
Extremism, even in the pursuit of personal liberty, rarely ever results in freedom or stability. Extremism tends to lead to justification for bad acts to achieve your desired outcome. I am not accusing you of this, I am just waxing philosophically.
And is leaving this entirely to the parents really honoring everyone's personal liberties. I simply don't know. I know my personal opinion, and I admit it makes me less open to the other side. I, however, find Scott's absolutism in this piece extremely dishonest, as I find just about any absolutism. Absolutism is the road to extremism in my experience.
And this is my point. Abbott and the law isn't saying "No one should transition ever." it's not an absolute position. The law is explicitly crafted to respect the clear rights of *citizens'* self-ownership. It isn't preventing a secular community from referring to "hes" as "shes" in their own community or putting everybody in pants or dresses or giving boys and girls trucks and dollies equally. The idea that someone is a male trapped in a female body is a religious one. The idea that it's a moral absolute is an extremist one. The idea that society should be remolded to conform to that ideology unwaveringly is a fundamentalist/extremist religion attempting to generate a nation-state. If we were talking about an obscure reservation or commune in Idaho or Utah it would be one thing, but we're talking about bathroom laws in NC, girls' sports in NH, custody battles all over the country, professors being fired, not for refusing to use he/she for any given transgender student, but for defending free speech in Canada, etc., etc. Relatively, Abbott taking such a narrow stance in TX is an exceedingly agnostic and Constitutional. Especially in the context (at the risk of invoking unwanted forum specters) of things like The Mormon War.
The 2% de-transition statistic is the result of a 50-year study published in 2010 of a cohort of 767 transsexuals in Sweden who expressed regret after surgery. These were people who legally changed their names -- then transitioned back.
The statistical jury isn't in yet, but logic would indicate that if there's a 4,400% increase in teen girls requesting gender-reassignment over the last decade, then the percentage would actually be higher than 2%.
Decades ago it was grown men becoming "trannies" yet now it's a teen-girl "social craze" (as Abigail Shrier would say - that's actually a social-science term, like with the Hula-Hoop or the popularity of anorexia teen parties in the 2000s). Some studies indicate that 60% of teens who don't go through any procedures return to their former gender identification (I've known five personally myself).
It's not sufficient for all these doctors and psychologists to keep saying "there's not enough data" so we must proceed. The diagnosis is self-affirming, after all. It would make sense for the "do no harm" oath to require a pause-button -- because "there's not enough data" to take any position, and then by definition the medical community is engaged in a big experiment on human beings -- heck they used to think Lobotomies were a cure for every mental ailment.
Of course, the activists claim is that without a transition these kids will commit suicide, but that just disregards the fact that the suicide rates for POST-transition patients is far higher than for cis-genders.
Tranny troll alert.
In what world r those things comparable? Talk about a freaking stretch. Give your ridiculously point a generation or two. The results of these teenager's chosen disfigurement will be wrecking havoc upon thier life's. As a person can cut off or sew on attachments. Yet when they look in the mirror they will still be THEM staring back in all " thier glory of hating themselves". These poor kids will be nothing but modern day clowns. The suicide rated for those under 30 has NEVER been higher then today. A rate that will only get worse by the day. Mask and cutting your dick off r not even in the same universe as compared harm to one's self.
The Phucko Knows
These poor kids will be nothing but modern day clowns.
And that's part of the tragedy. The cosmetic and social results of "transition" are rarely good enough fulfill the "transitioner's" fantasy of becoming a member of the opposite sex. Men who "transition" continue to be perceived as a man in a dress. Straight men are not going to desire them. Young women who "transition" are more likely to end up being mistaken for boys rather than seen as men. They mostly will live with always being seen as "trans" and not as their fantasized-about sex.
I have seen the product of a truly skilled cosmetic surgeon once.
They still needed work on the deep voice. Really jarring.
Way MORE than 2% regret going trans, again you re substituting wishful thinking and activist claims for actual FACTS
People who actually look at all the facts and data do not support useless or harmful actions. That is the link between mask use and trans support.
Odds of dying from covid if you are not old or compromised is closer to .2% or less!
Both the statistics you use to make your argument are clearly not accurate and therefor you entire analysis is not of value or use.
Making a straw man to support your position is not good.
"Every major medical organization in the United States considers the treatment now effectively banned and criminalized by DFPS to be medically necessary," the lawsuit argues. "Such a radical disregard of medical science and the medical needs of a subset of minors in Texas cannot be squared with the agency's authority by prescribed by Statute."
The science is transient and politicized. Without even knowing which medical agencies he's talking about (the AMA? The CDC? HHS? IOM? None of those have proven themselves credible over the past two years).
Scott, if you're going to be covering this topic, you need to be able to make a case beyond the freedom axis. There's plenty of situations in parents can say, "It's my kid, I'll do what I want," in which the thing they're doing is what I would call child abuse. You need to get down to the nature of the thing itself.
Pretend I'm open-minded. I know that there are things I'd consider child abuse, even if the parent and child both consent-like letting your 12-year-old get pass out drunk most nights. Or letting your 14-year-old daughter prostitute herself to 25-year-olds. Even if the parent and child agree, I'm confident the harm factor outweighs the interests of the parent.
So what is the harm factor here? What is the positive factor? I think the law is wrong because the balance of factors is unclear, but if there's actual harm happening, I could be talked into accepting the law. The side that thinks this is a bad law needs to offer arguments that can convince me why there are benefits to measure against the harm.
So you're basically asking for what medical authorities would say about this after dismissing what all the medical authorities say about it.
No, he asked for specific sources and specific claims rather than almost literally "Well everybody else is doing it!"
Seriously, even my 8-yr.-old gets this.
Most medical groups are specifically about insuring and lobbying for their preferred standard of professionalism. They aren't actual science based groups promoting science. Often they take very unscientific stances. The AMA is the largest of these, and have bled membership for years because they've been accused of putting politics before science and patient well being. The CDC is ran by a political appointees, so it's findings can also be suspect at times.
Rarely do they poll actual practitioners about their opinions. Instead by making a blanket statement about the support of advocacy groups support they can imply wide spread support. And even polling of practitioners can be misleading. Most OB/GYNs state abortion should be legal but they also refuse to practice or even recommend them.
Furthermore, the DSM is one of the most prone to be susceptible to political pressure standard of care out there. Because of an unproven rumor that Dr. Asperger was a Nazi sympathizer, they changed the diagnosis from Asperger's syndrome, to high functioning Autism. But there are several types of high functioning Autism, which Asperger's is only one of them. Now, many activist don't like the term high functioning, so they are again lobbying for the next DSM not to include that term, because it's ableist. Yes, my autism still leads to struggles in my life, but much fewer than someone who is non-communicative or someone with below average IQ and Autism. I have a master's degree. I have a wife and family and friends. It's made holding down a career difficult but I've never been unemployed either. There is no need to continue to change the terminology unless it improves treatment. Dropping Asperger's or high functioning won't actually make my life or my treatment any better. But it does make some activist feel better. Dropping or changing the definition of gender dysphoria doesn't improve their treatment. Even with transition therapy they still need and are supposed to get mental health therapies. Actually changing the DSM probably hurts rather than help in a lot of cases.
^ Good comment
That's true enough about the DSM, but that doesn't mean that there is some Platonic taxonomy for mental conditions out there to be discovered. It's all pretty rough. Roughly speaking, a disorder means your ability to live a normal life is hampered. But, for example, being gay once actually did cause someone's life to be significantly hampered. But that depended on what kind of society you lived in, not some inner disability. Classifying something as a mental disorder adds its own stigma as well.
I don't know that we should classify high-functioning autism as a disorder considering probably most of the great scientists and artists of history had it. They're hampered in living a normal life? What's a normal life, after all?
But that depended on what kind of society you lived in, not some inner disability.
Empirically untrue. It's established that society can be a contributing factor but it's not *the* contributing factor. Moreover, the fact that people have, can, and do empirically and whimsically change their behavior and regard for suffering without social change indicates that at least part of the issue is an inner disability.
Gays flourish in societies that treat them well, and in such societies they are becoming more "traditional" with families and picket fences and all that stupid shit. So what disability?
How is your family tree gonna look?
Kinda short, pruned and going nowhere, one would imagine.
You're a dead end. Gay culture relies on hetero culture to exist.
So what disability?
I don't know. It's not my disability. If you think gays are flourishing in societies that treat them well, you might want to either take it up with Jussie Smollett and people suing cake bakers or website makers or, otherwise, write him off as delusional.
Actually, we can't say most of the great scientist did or didn't have it prior to 1947, or 1994 (depends on the acceptance of autism as a diagnosis). Diagnosis requires massive testing, which didn't exist at the time they lived. All we can say is that some showed or demonstrated traits associated with autism. High functioning Autism does severely hamper your life. Anyone who believes it doesn't actually understand the condition. This misconception you just stated is actually the reason autism activist want to eliminate the term high functioning Autism, because some people when they hear it believe it isn't a real problem.
Quite often the people who are pushing the idea that great scientists had autism are basing it upon the fact that they were eccentric. Most high functioning autistics actually aren't successful. Many end up abusing drugs or alcohol, can't maintain relationships, can't hold down a job, and often commit or attempt suicide. Many are also the victim of abuse and or fraud. I myself was mentally abused by several of my teachers. I was also the victim of several abusive physical relationships as an adult. I also have been so close to suicide that I actually had the round chambered and the gun in my mouth. I have always struggled with money issues, mainly because of my own impulsiveness, which is a common trait among autistic people. I have an IQ of 136, but it hasn't led me to any great success. The anxiety that is part of autism contributes to me being prone to procrastinating and a major inferiority complex that makes me overly risk adverse. Additionally, my difficulty reading social situations is marked enough that it hinders my ability to work in groups. All of these are very common among true autistics. The idea that a massively successful person is autistic would be far from the norm.
I've been told by several therapists and autism specialists that my level of success is really impressive for someone with my diagnosis. Being married for 22 years, finishing my master's, despite changing jobs often, always being employed. Despite this I am under the treatment of two mental health experts and am one three separate medications to control my anxiety, control my depression and to aid me in focus. As a kid I required speech therapy and still have a minor speech impediment. I also have dealt with lack of coordination and clumsiness, which are both very common to autistics. As a result, I've been accused multiple times (even counseled for it by supervisors, and it even played a part in me being denied tenure) for being sloppy because I drop food on my clothes. Unfortunately, they only have to offer reasonable accommodations, and the ADA doesn't offer much protection for mental disorders, especially my position which required frequent interaction with the public. It probably wasn't the best fit for me either. Being denied tenure was probably the best thing for me, as I would have just remained frustrated because my disorder really hampered my chance of success. I couldn't make everyone accept me, and I wasn't always providing the best service possible because of my disability. I knew it, but I didn't accept it. By losing tenure, they couldn't say it was because I am Autistic, but all the deficiencies were related to my struggles with Autism, it forced me to realize that I wasn't helping myself, and wasn't helping those I was supposed to help. It wasn't fair to me or to the community that I served to keep me in that position, and it wasn't really realistic to expect them to create a position special for me.
Their chances of reproducing however aren't significantly lower, as many also tend to deal with sexual promiscuity. Interestingly enough, and this isn't a besides the point, many of those who choose to seek transition are on the autism spectrum. Not feeling like you belong or something is wrong with you is a common trait with people on the spectrum. That's one of the reasons we tend to deal with sexual promiscuity and tend to get involved in abusive relationships, because we confuse physical love with healthy belonging and we want to be accepted so much that we ignore abuse, just so we don't get rejected. It's also the reason we tend to have difficulty maintaining long term relationships. Body issues and perception of body issues also are more common among people on the spectrum, especially females. So it really complicates the issue. Is it autism or a co-morbidity. Which do you treat, and why?
Thank you for sharing all of that. I defer to your knowledge, as while I am undoubtedly spectral in many of the same ways (with plenty of interpersonal issues, addiction, and other pathologies to go with it), my social anxiety is characterized by a strong unwillingness to see doctors.
But there is a real movement around so-called neurodiversity, which seeks to broaden society's considerations of what's normal and to consider so-called high-functioning autism a normal variation on human behavior. I like that idea in principle, especially since I would theoretically benefit, but i understand that there has to be a limit.
What I am confident of is that society can be many different ways, many of which we haven't imagined yet, and none of the social structures we live with in their specific forms have anything to do with what nature wants for us, since it doesn't want anything.
An appeal to authority is "This is helpful because medical authorities say it is." That's what I'm seeing.
What I want is, "Here's the data. On the whole, doctors who have looked at this say that this is beneficial. However, you, the reader, are not a fucking moron and know how to read, so you can look at it yourself." And if you're looking to overachieve as a writer, you'd say, "Now, there are some counterarguments, here's what they are. However, the counterarguments fail here, here, and here."
This article is written assuming you're already on Scott's side of this issue. I'm not, but I could be swayed into his position if the data is there and he puts in a modicum of effort.
It's pretty clear that the people themselves think their mental health is improved by gender confirmation. Maybe they're delusional, but I think that's beside the point if you look at it from a libertarian perspective: Why should politicians be involved? Are we free or not?
The question is are kids capable of making those decisions. And many of them believe they are better off but continue to participate at a much higher rate than others in self harm behavior. So, are we really helping them?
If my daughter, who is on the lower side of healthy weight, says she believes she is far, should I be allowed to give her weight loss drugs? Even if making her skinnier makes her happier, is it the best thing for her health? I am betting you would state that is child abuse and the state should be empowered to stop me.
I'm thrilled that libertarians have discovered all these reasons the state should get between parents and their children. It's just a pity you're only on board when it's obvious right-wing culture war bullshit that exists solely to help politicians win elections. Bullying kids and threatening their parents, that is.
It's just a pity you're only on board when it's obvious right-wing culture war bullshit that exists solely to help politicians win elections.
Is that a fact you know about him? Are you sure he supports a Mormon's religious right to take child brides? Or do you have an inner issue that you're projecting on everyone else whether they have an issue or not? Lots of child brides were plenty happy. Is it your position that the State shouldn't have intervened?
Oh, I'm always looking for new ways for the state to intervene. But it's mostly at the other end of the spectrum from you guys: rich people doing terrible things with money, whom you want to afford the most libertine lifestyle imaginable.
Tony,
It is child abuse to pump needless hormone blockers into a youngster who is confused or is being told say by the woke mom they are a different sex. The State has a right to defend the helpless and any parent who is advocating this is abusing their kid. The child can wait until they are an adult to make these decisions.
If there were a clearly unbiased individual or group of individuals advocating for and analyzing what is best for the child, I would be more supportive. There simply isn't, as in the abortion case, the doctors aren't unbiased, most doctors wouldn't prescribe, or feel comfortable prescribing this, and the vast majority of those who decide to specialize in this field are true converts.
The therapists are supposed to act in that role, but many are afraid to buck the system or be seen as outside the accepted narrative. And the large number of young people now identifying as something other than their birth sex, well above what you would predict from a normal distribution, makes me question the validity of all the claims.
From a simple evolutionary standpoint it doesn't compute that any except three or four deviations from the norm should persist if those that far removed from the mean don't increase the chance of reproduction. Evolution favors reproducers and anything that decreases the probability of reproducing tends to be bred out after a very small number of generations. You wouldn't predict anything more than 1.25% of any population to express anything that makes it less likely to reproduce if this was an entirely natural phenomena.
Some research and polling puts the number as high as 40% of young people identify as something other than their birth sex. That seems extremely dubious, even if we are talking phenotype. Maybe there is something odd going on. If so, biology pretty much dictates that the percentages will decrease with subsequent generations, because sexual reproduction favors a more normal distribution and away from any position away from the mean that doesn't increase the chance for reproduction.
Gender tension is as old as the species. And current gender roles are insanely specific to a time and place, as they usually are.
When we employ the state to settle these questions, we are at great risk of overreaching and punishing people for doing things that don't affect a social interest and that are actually among the most personal decisions. You have to at least consider a libertarian approach: what people do with their own bodies is just not the business of the state.
You can fail to find any exceptions to extensions of this principle to property, an artificial construct. But since libertarianism is just a flavor of social conservatism, it can't help but want the state to intervene in our bodies in all sorts of ways. Well, not our bodies, but those of pregnant women and trans kids. The real threats.
And current gender roles are insanely specific to a time and place, as they usually are.
They are not. They are changed only via evolution.
Gender is NOT a social construct.
Society is a GENDER construct.
The Hominidae had very specific, delineated gender roles since before they WERE Hominidae.
In fact, very specific, highly delineated gender roles have existed since shortly after binary sex evolved.
No one assigns the lion a mane. No one tells him he can't nurse his young.
No one tells the vixen how to dig a den, how to get her children the eat, how to teach them.
We are human. We can do things that are evolutionarily counterintuitive. But that does not negate their existence.
Gender roles have always been defined by sex in almost every human culture that has ever existed, even in most native cultures that believe in two spirits, which actually were the exception not the norm among Amerindians. It's a myth that gender and sex roles are not linked historically.
This is not close to being an honest counterargument. It is a very difficult question and as such many disagree with the best course to take. Most libertarians are not opposed to all government, most believe that the governments job is to protect the most vulnerable from harm. That's why most don't have a problem with laws against murder, rape or pedophilia. They also support contract laws.
It really becomes difficult when deciding issues involving children. Some believe that because of the ambiguity that the state shouldn't interfere. Some believe that without clear evidence that it doesn't result in benefits, and the risk of harm, that this a proper role for government. I personally tend to be an utilitarian and pragmatic. And tend to be more classical liberal than libertarian.
Your problem is that you tend to think in purely dualistic tendencies. And you also tend towards to be susceptible towards Pollyannaish thinking.
I just don't think trans people are a threat to anyone or anything.
And you're still trying to protect people from their own decisions about their own bodies and clothes.
”The thing right now that you can’t make fun of, the thing that’s too sensitive at this moment? Transgender people. See? You can’t do it. Can’t make fun of them. It’s too sensitive.
In fact, you can’t even call them ‘chicks with dicks’ anymore. No. No. You have to call them ‘men who talk too much'” — Anthony Jeselnik
Trans people are not a threat.
Reach the age of consent and it's your choice.
Chopping bit off or pumping kids full of hormones is abuse. And no, it's not reversible.
They know that the data is dubious as to the actual benefits. There is very little evidence that it improves outcomes based upon traditional metrics used in mental health treatment, e.g. reduction in self harm behavior.
The problem is that many have said those aren't the parameters we should be looking at. Or they explain the failure to reduce self harm because not everyone accepts their decisions. This latter one is impossible. You will never achieve 100% acceptance.
Instead, maybe, or in addition to transitioning, we need to be looking at improving their own ego, such that they can learn to accept those who don't accept their choices. Trying to change all of society is impossible, and creates unrealistic expectations. Increasing their own resilience is much more obtainable.
But how about we let parents, children, and doctors have these conversations and leave opportunistic far-right politicians out of it?
The problem is to accept that premise, we have to assume that the risk to the child is minimal. That isn't a given. And the position is hardly unique to the far right. Even among independents and centrists, their tends to be much unease with the idea of blocking a normal biological function such as puberty, and the belief that a child is simply to immature to make that kind of decision. Your position, the position of the far left tends to be the minority position. Don't pretend it isn't.
Should it be between the me, my daughter and her doctor, to prescribe weight loss drugs, if she isn't overweight, simply because she believes she is fat? Yeah she will lose weight, but does it really address the problem? Does it reduce the negative outcomes? Or does it increase the risks?
Drugs are an infinitely bigger risk to children and adults than transsexualism is, and libertarians think we can trust people to handle the risk on their own without the state butting in.
And we still do not give drugs to children.
Transitioning requires giving very powerful drugs that mess with their normal development and maturition. That's exactly what the problem is. Not some boy wearing a dress and makeup, but giving kids powerful drugs that impact their normal development and maturition.
Pretend I'm open-minded.
And that's the pablum-level of thinking/reporting. Pretend I'm not open minded and I know Michael Vick did 21 mos. for participating in a dog fighting ring and is still stigmatized for it. Convince me I should give you anything other than a bag full of dog shit for anything you have to say about diversity, culture, equality, tolerance, acceptance, or caretaker abuse in light of that fact.
So, the ACLU has reversed itself and now is busy fighting against the bans on conversion therapy in 21 states?
Nope. Conversion therapy on unwilling people is abuse.
Conversion therapy was never done on the unwilling. They weren't just rounding people up off the street. They were taking the action the parents consented to.
The parents consented to it, the kids were unwilling.
I consented to my toddler getting the MMR, my toddlers were unwilling. See the problem with that argument? The wishes of the kids are often irrelevant because kids aren't equipped to make rational choices.
These are most commonly teens that are forcibly sent to physiologically brutal "therapy" sessions. Sometimes these are residential facilities. These teens absolutely can make a rational choice to refuse.
Conversion therapy bans do not limit themselves to cases where the child is unwilling.
Indeed, the text of the 2013 New Jersey law specifically claims that one of the reasons for banning it is that "therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient", which means it consciously and deliberately is intended to prevent conversion therapy when the child hates that they are homosexual and wants to change it.
Conversion therapy was a great way for Frank Gallagher to make some money, though - one of the best episodes IMHO
"Less than 11% of the people who are struck by lightning die. This is true. You know what else has less than 2% odds? Regretting transitioning. Death from a lightning strike is far more destructive than electroshock therapy. Ergo, people who oppose parents who want to subject their kids to electroshock therapy are just being irrational." - Ghatanathoah
So private companies deciding what they will publish on their own platforms = evil censorship.
Politicians locking up teachers and parents for not teaching and parenting according to politicians' vile whims = small government?
When the platform sold itself as "the new public square" or giving anyone the ability to "express themselves". Fraud is evil.
"If you let your kid be trans, people like me will bully them. Thus, it's child abuse to let your kid be trans."
You are so incredibly stupid it's hard to believe you can even log on to the internet and post your comments...
There really should be a smartness test for that, huh?
No. There's an exogenously-imposed intelligence standard to using a keyboard and the internet and he's surprised that you exceed it.
Your internal need to force all kinds of standards on people for all kinds of reasons is on you.
By forcing standards on people, of course you mean not wanting the state to invent new ways to ruin the lives of vulnerable people you find icky?
I didn't say anything about forcing standards for internet posts, you did. If you want to enforce them because you find vulnerable people icky, that's on you.
So to u a parents duty to thier children is what..., to allow thier child to do whatever they want? No matter the harm they will be subjecting themselves to? Damn dude..... PLEASE PLEASE dude don't ever become a parent.
The Phucko Knows
I'm just in favor of maximum individual freedom, Mr. Phucko. If that makes culturally conservative people queasy, well, sorry, but that's kind of to be expected.
You aren't in favor of maximum individual liberty. You argue all the time for gun control and in favor of limiting speech. You also argue in favor of limiting my rights on my property and how I conduct business. You also support hate crime laws, and anti-discrimination laws.
In fact, other than a few select cases, you tend to argue that for the good of society, that we should surrender some freedoms and liberties. I believe you also supported vaccine mandates and mask mandates and lockdowns. So, don't scream you believe in maximum freedom. Not even libertarians and classical liberals believe in maximum individual freedom. Only anarchists believe in those. Total freedom couldn't be tolerated and maintain a functioning society. You can't use force to restrict or harm another. So we create morality, and then codify that as law. The problem is in defining what is force, how do we define harm to others. We say it's bad to pass laws to enforce morality, but actually that is all laws are, enforcing a standard of morality. From a purely biological sense, we have only one purpose, to live long enough to reproduce. As a result there is nothing inherently evil about assaulting, even killing a rival, or in rape. Assaulting a rival improves my chances of reproducing. As a male, my stronger muscles and height gives me a physical advantage such that I can force a female to reproduce with me if I so wanted to. These things happen all the time in other mammals, even in our closest primate relatives. Actually, chimpanzees are extremely violent. Infanticide is often very common, as a nursing mother is less likely to ovulate, therefore killing an infant may induce ovulation, allowing the male the chance to reproduce. Generally, most male mammals won't kill their own offsprings, usually related to pheromones. But we decided that these acts are immoral, so we banned them. This has actually benefitted us as a population, it's lead to our success as a species.
By their very nature, morality and their outgrowth, laws, restrict our freedom to act the way nature would have us act. The problem is that morality is ambiguous, and changes over time. Thus the idea of maximizing individual liberty tends to be shades of gray, rather than black and white.
Hedonism sounds good, but if everyone practiced it, society would fail. Societies that accepted high degrees of hedonism often also relied heavily on an involuntary lower class that was refused the chance for upward mobility. They utilized slavery and or caste systems. When you argue that society must accept your choice strictly because it makes you happy or feel good, that is akin to hedonistic ideals. To some degree this shouldn't be discouraged, right up to the point where your happiness infringes on someone else or causes them harm. Then it becomes a matter for society. The question still remains how and when do we draw this line. It isn't black and white, there is no clear cut answer. So the best answer is that society should interfere when your pursuit of happiness infringes on someone else. This tends to be much more clear cut with adults. With children it tends to be far less clear.
Children lack the ability to understand long term consequences, it increases as they mature, but largely only if we instruct them on it. Kids who have been raised in foster care environments, without a steady home life, kids who have parents who refuse to set boundaries, kids who are raised with no parents around, kids who are pampered and coddled and never learn to deal with denial, all tend not to have well developed concepts of long term consequences as adults. In all of these circumstances the kids ability to mature into a functional and productive adults have been arguably harmed due to the actions or inactions and choices made by the adults who should be protecting and teaching them. Because biology isn't about nature vs nurture, it's about nature and nurture, it's phenotype that matters, not genotype. It is the combination of genetics and environment that influences expressed traits. So the question is to what degree, if any, that we punish adults for the harm that the environment they raise their kids in harms them?
I understand that you are socially conservative, and that's why you should be vigilant about your tendency to want to use the state to enforce what may be narrow-minded cultural values. I find that a dangerous habit of people, one to watch out for far more than transgenderism, which you can't show actually hurts anyone.
We're simply switched on who we want the state to monitor. I think it should leave individuals alone to make their own decisions about their bodies, while it should do more to police the excesses of the rich. Because if you're rich and transgender, you can just go to another country and get the treatments anyway, so you don't really want to police their hedonism at all, not with the tax rates you favor.
I don't care if they allow their kids to change their pronouns or let their boys wear dresses and makeup. I only question using powerful drugs and surgery to mess with their biological development and maturation, before the kids are old enough to understand the consequences of those actions. Contrary to what Scott and the activist says, these drugs do cause permanent and irreversible changes. That is why they were originally only used in a very narrow manner for very specific medical conditions for a very short time in pre-pubescent children, and then withdrawn when the child approaches close to the average age of their biological sex. This treatment, for transitioning, is entirely off label use. It hasn't even undergone the FDA approval process for this use, it hasn't even been submitted for approval. Why not if it is so safe.
"Tony
March.3.2022 at 1:06 am
Flag Comment Mute User
Oh, I'm always looking for new ways for the state to intervene..."
I'd be amazed if any of you coercive conservatives had any clue as to how many of these procedures happen each year. Let's take a quiz (using statistics from 2020):
1) How many gender reassignment surgeries, total, were performed in the US?
2) How many of those surgeries were performed on minors?
3) What was the youngest age of a patient undergoing gender reassignment surgery?
4) How many minors underwent gender reassignment surgery without parental awareness or consent?
5) How many minors underwent gender reassignment surgery without undergoing a process (including psychological counseling) that lasted less than a year? Less than 2 years?
6) How many cases of surgical regret were reported?
I'll wait to see if anyone actually knows what the hell they're talking about.
If you don't know, but are still convinced of your own righteousness and the perfidity of the people who actually know, you are the problem.
what does any of that matter? If the public school brainwashes my kid into trans mania, i'm not letting her cut off her tits. end of story.
The whole idea is to insert the state between parent and child. It's not even about the trans shit. that is a means to an end.
"If public school brainwashes my kid into trans mania"
What sort of paranoid delusion is that? Public school doesn't tell kids to get gender reassignment surgery
But thank you for making my point with your batshit crazy moral panic.
Although I admit the baseless and patently ridiculous public school conspiracy angle was an unexpected cherry on top of your crazy sundae.
And CRT is not taught anywhere but college courses. Right.
you clearly know nothing about what's going on
I'll wait to see if anyone actually knows what the hell they're talking about.
What's the rate of suicidal ideation or behavior in post-op transsexuals regret or not? How many lawsuits were filed to get trans kids not just into their own bathrooms in public schools but into the bathrooms with persons born of the opposite gender? How many athletes were cheated out of awards by last minute rule changes specifically to accommodate athletes that, prior to the rule change would've been cheated? If you don't know, but are still convinced of your own righteousness and the perfidity of the people who actually know, you are the problem.
There were no cases of virgin sacrifice in 2021. 0% of virgin sacrifices express regret or are committed without parents' consent or without a year or two of psychological counseling. How prevalent do we let the practice of virgin sacrifices get before taking legal action? 1 body? 5? 10? 100? Are you then going to preach to us about the righteousness and perfidity of the people who oppose it? How about when the state re-writes the laws so that they specifically support people who sacrifice their children? Still gonna go the high and mighty route on us then?
"What's the rate of suicidal ideation or behavior in post-op transsexuals regret or not?"
I don't know and neither do you.
"How many lawsuits were filed to get trans kids not just into their own bathrooms in public schools but into the bathrooms with persons born of the opposite gender?"
What does that have to do with gender reassignment surgery? And who cares?
"How many athletes were cheated out of awards by last minute rule changes specifically to accommodate athletes that, prior to the rule change would've been cheated?"
I have no idea and I agree that post-puberty trans women shouldn't be allowed to compete against non-trans women. Butbthay also has nothing to do with prepubescent gender reassignment surgery.
"If you don't know, but are still convinced of your own righteousness and the perfidity of the people who actually know, you are the problem."
Not at all, since I'm not trying to use my pesonal beliefs to get innocnet people accused of child abuse. Trying to harass and intimidate people with the power of the state without identifying an actual.problem should offend every libertarian.
And the fact that you equate gender reassignment surgery and murder (virgin sacrifice or otherwise) is proof that you are hysterical and irrational about transsexuals.
It seems like you believe that your moral panic and irrational beliefs about transsexuals justifies using the power of the state to force your beliefs on other people. Which is a terrible thing.
I don't know and neither do you.
Ah, so then your righteousness doesn't spring from some divine knowledge but from a divine ignorance.
What does that have to do with gender reassignment surgery? And who cares?
Ah, so not only are you divinely ignorant, you're apathetic to any of the consequences and side effects of divine ignorance. Who cares how many infidels we've got to slaughter, we've got some righteousness to spread, right?
Butbthay also has nothing to do with prepubescent gender reassignment surgery.
Weird how, despite the ignorance and paucity of information you suppose I have you can make such a definitive statement. Almost like you don't have any actual data and are making several counterfactual assumptions to make the claim you're making. Some pretty objective people would call that lying through your teeth. Some pretty objective people would call lying through your teeth to defend the mutilation of children evil.
Not at all, since I'm not trying to use my pesonal beliefs to get innocnet people accused of child abuse.
Is it your personal belief that innocent people are beyond any an all accusations? That's a pretty righteous view. If their innocents and immunity to accusation is based solely on your personal beliefs, it would be a pretty self-righteous view.
Trying to harass and intimidate people with the power of the state without identifying an actual.problem should offend every libertarian.
Transgenderism isn't a problem requiring medical treatment. Using licensed medical professionals to harassing and intimidate children does offend libertarians. Whether it offends every libertarian depends on whether people like you consider themselves libertarians and whether you think it's OK for adults and medical professionals to harass and intimidate children.
And the fact that you equate gender reassignment surgery and murder (virgin sacrifice or otherwise) is proof that you are hysterical and irrational about transsexuals.
I didn't equate. I analogized. And I analogized ideologically, not practically. It can't be proven that transitioning helps any given individual any more than an exorcism does. Indeed, the notion of a person's gender as separate from their biology is rather explicitly an invocation of the notion of a soul.
You yourself have demonstrated your own ignorance and apathy to issues explicitly tied to transgenderism. To the point that either you actually are stupid or you're just playing stupid. So, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're just playing stupid, is that your notion of rational?
It seems like you believe that your moral panic and irrational beliefs about transsexuals justifies using the power of the state to force your beliefs on other people. Which is a terrible thing.
I'm not panicked and I'm not irrational. If people were tossing their kids in volcanoes, is that more or less terrible than the state stopping them. Either way, is that a rational decision that you can prove or a subjective/religious decision? Either way you answer that question, how do you rectify that with your (presumably) feigned stupidity?
Indeed, the notion of a person's gender as separate from their biology is rather explicitly an invocation of the notion of a soul.
Moreover, if I'm irrational in making such an analogy, provide the empirical evidence of the existence of a gender as distinct from biology. And not any of that relgious hokum "Well the majority of Christians believe their religion helps them." 'evidence', actual "Here's the MRI of a female brain in a male body and, after treatment with puberty blockers and genital surgery, we can see that we wind up with a female brain in a male body." *evidence*. Do you have those data?
Do you have those data?
Otherwise, get the fuck out of here with your anti-science, anti-religion, pro-mutliation nihilist bullshit.
Gender reassignment surgery in prepubescent children is completely irreversible. Also, if you don't care about the suicide rate and other self destructive behavior, or reducing it, then what is the point of performing the procedure? Oh now they are changed into what they feel will make them happy, and they say they don't regret it but they still act in self destructive behavior, so it's all good. No other mental illness is treated this way. We don't do lapband surgery on someone suffering Anaroxia Nervosa, we don't prescribe them weight loss drugs, especially if they're children, we address the underlying condition so they can reduce self destructive behavior. If we prescribed antidepressants that didn't reduce suicides, even if the patient reported feeling happy (yes for a small percentage, especially when first starting or changing antidepressants they have an increased risk for suicides but it's only for a small percentage) we wouldn't call that a success. Or if it didn't reduce other self destructive behavior. If PTSD treatments didn't stop or significantly reduce self destructive behavior, we would abandon those treatments and find others. Because you don't really cure mental health issues or disorders, you manage them with the goal of reducing self destructive behaviors. You don't cure schizophrenia, narcism, delirium, autism, ADHD, anxiety, etc. You manage it and reduce the negative outcomes, often the result of self destructive behavior these conditions create. To state none of these should be the goal of gender dysphoria treatments goes against all other standards of practice for dealing with mental health and disorders. Even transitory depression such as postpartum, the goal isn't the elimination of the depression, but the management of it, to reduce the potential for harm. And even then, there is strong debate as to how transitory these conditions really are, because quite often they eventually are treated for chronic depression later in life.
As for the co-morbidities argument, it fails as well. When treating co-morbidities your treatment regime should always be aimed at a holistic approach, if one of your treatments doesn't support self destructive behavior reduction, or negative outcomes, you can't blame the other co-morbidities for the failure. That's just a form of confirmation bias. Which is really the argument that we shouldn't care about self destructive behaviors, it's a confirmation bias. It creates an unprovable hypothesis. You are in essence stating that it doesn't matter if they remain self destructive simply because they state they feel happy. Many suicidal people report feeling happy just before they attempt suicide.
If the treatment doesn't actually reduce self destructive behavior it is impossible to state the treatment is beneficial. Beneficial for what?
I come back to other body dysmorphias, an Anaroxic might be happy weighing 75 pounds at maturity, but we know it's not healthy for them. We don't aim treatment at making them happy, we aim treatment at addressing their perception and convincing them to maintain a healthy body weight. If we said let's give them diet drugs because they perceive they're fat, and losing weight makes them feel happy and accepted, we would rightly ridicule that notion. We don't treat people with body image identity disorder by amputating a healthy limb. If anything the treatment for BIID is designed to prevent them from harming themselves to a degree in which an amputation is required. Untreated sufferers have done such dangerous things as freezing their undesired limb in liquid nitrogen for hours on end until surgery was required. This has often resulted in severe negative medical outcomes, even death. Interesting enough the morphology of BIID and gender dysphoria are almost identical and many experts believe they may actually have the same cause.
BIID, Anaroxia Nervosa and Gender Dysphoria are all part of a larger cluster called Body Image Dysphoria. It is telling that only in one of these conditions is the now accepted recommended treatment medications and surgery aimed at helping the individual change their appearance to more closely resemble their perceived body image. I really don't have a problem with adults making this choice, but question allowing kids to make this choice, even with their parents and medical professionals blessing.
The State (i.e. schools) should not be involved in a youngster's personal sexual decisions. Get all this trans "education" out of public schools to start (and any other school sexual preference agendas). As for hormone treatments to block puberty, sorry if it isn't for a sound medical reason it is child abuse. A child is not mentally mature enough to decide they want to be blocked from becoming a mature human as the sex they were born into. Why the gay community believes they have common cause with this segment is bizarre, it has nothing to do with humans of one gender or another deciding they like the same, opposite or both genders.
Scott needs to stop projecting his childhood experience as a gay person into defending pumping hormone blockers in an 8-year-old.
What trans "education" are you talking about? Acknowledging that they exist and what someone chooses for themselves is fine as long as it isn't hurting anyone else?
I'm willing to let licensed medical professionals determine what a "sound medical reason" is. Your opinion on someone else's meducal care is as relevant as mine: not at all.
"A child is not mentally mature enough to decide they want to be blocked from becoming a mature human as the sex they were born into."
Are you ignorant of the involvement of parents (for minors), doctors, and psychologists in any trans procedure? Or do you just think that you should be allowed to force other people to live their lives as you demand?
You wouldn't accept this level of intrusion into parenting and medical decisions you make about your child. Why do you think anyone else should accept it in theirs?
Which licensed medical professional? I can find a surgeon who will agree to do even unwarranted surgery on me, if I shop around. They will even be licensed and more than likely in good standing. I worked in the medical profession for 17 years, and worked with doctors and therapists in close contact, I know you can find a doctor that will say just about anything or do anything. It isn't recommended to prescribe antibiotics in viral infections, in fact it is strictly against recommendations, but I've seen almost every doctor I've ever worked with prescribe antibiotics for a positive flu test, because the patient or their family demanded it. I've seen doctors order no generic medications for patients, not because the genetics weren't exactly the same as the brand named stuff, because the patient and or family demanded it. I've seen an orthopedic surgeon agree to do a hip replacement on a elderly patient with severe dementia and combative behavior, despite the high risk of hip dislocation and the fact that this made the surgery counter indicated, because there was low probability of the surgery being beneficial for the patient. We ended up doing surgery multiple times over a very short period on that patient, to fix dislocations, and finally had to remove the hip all together because the constant irritation from hip dislocations resulted in infection. And the same family who insisted the doctor do the surgery then sued him for malpractice and he had to settle because he obviously never should have done the surgery in the first place.
The point is, that the doctors most likely to perform these procedures are unlikely to be unbiased, they most likely went into this specialty because they feel strongly in favor of these procedures. Therefore they are less likely to say no, even if it is warranted. Especially if the parents are insistent. These aren't general pediatricians, most wouldn't feel comfortable prescribing these medications, as they don't know enough. They are likely to refer to someone who specializes in it. And the ones who specialize in it, are the least likely to be clinically unbiased.
Doctors are human too, they are just as prone to confirmation bias as anyone else. They have their fears and their own moral code, that dictates their recommendations. The good ones know this and tell you up front.
Note I didn't mean they always prescribe antibiotics for flu, but if the patient or often their parents demand it loudly and forcefully enough, especially in the ER, they will get it prescribed to them more often than not.
They will even be licensed and more than likely in good standing.
Gosnell killed three children and one adult woman and there are still people who think he didn't do anything wrong.
Yes, and even some who stated they felt that he did wrong but prosecuting him was dangerous because it hurt the abortion cause. To me this group is the most evil of them all. It's no different than being so pro-cop that oppose prosecuting pro-cops for breaking the law. Or being so pro-military that you oppose the prosecution of soldiers even when they specifically and blatantly violate the laws of war. I don't mean pissing on a dead body either. I mean arguing that the guards at Auschwitz shouldn't face prosecution or that the perpetrator's of the My Lai massacre shouldn't be prosecuted or the fuck nuts at Abu Gharab. I served during the time of that last one, and I will tell you that nine out ten soldiers I knew wanted those fuckers convicted because they gave us all a bad name.
Girl age 15, accompanied by relative (1998): said to have told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion once inside the practice. Gosnell allegedly got upset, ripped off the patient's clothing and forcibly restrained her. The patient later stated that Gosnell told her: "This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter." She regained consciousness twelve hours later at her aunt's home, the abortion having been completed against her will.
Not intending to commit a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, libertarians who default to medical professionals because they have a license, especially after 2019-2021 are not libertarians.
I've personally been handed, by a licensed pediatrician, unsolicited, a prescription for oscillococcinum.
I don't generally like to mingle the scientific, rational, and objective but if science has a Hell, that felt like the first level.
Active ingredient: Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum (extract of Muscovy duck liver and heart) 200CK HPUS 1×10−400 g which is much less than the mass of a proton (1.67×10−24 g).
Just reading it enrages me, as a scientist.
I had to argue a physician out of prescribing me Percocet when I got the chicken pox for a second time as an adult (I only had a very mild case, just a couple pox when I was very young, like 2 or 3). I only went in to get diagnosed because my job required a doctor's note to confirm I had the chicken pox in order to get the time off (I was a frigging nurse and worked with geriatrics at the time give me a fucking break). My biggest issue was that the itching was keeping me from sleeping. So he prescribed Ambien, and then said, well many patients your age suffer from pain, so I'll write you a script for Percocet too. I had never taken a narcotic in my life, that I could remember, possibly some cough medicine with codeine when I had my tonsils removed at 6 yo, I really only remember getting ice cream in recovery. I told him that. He said "I think it'll be for the best". I told him I wouldn't fill it. So he changed it to darvocet, a milder narcotic. I took one Ambien and one darvocet when I got home and slept for 24 hours straight. I was living in an apartment built onto the old barn on our place at the time, and my mother grew concerned enough that she woke me up to make sure I was okay. I didn't take either after that.
I also have smoked marijuana three times in my life, and didn't enjoy any of those times. They didn't make me feel good at all. Alcohol on the other hand...I like the way it makes me feel. And so I am very careful anymore on controlling my intake. I do have a family history of alcoholism, on both sides. So, I really am careful about being responsible. I allow myself about once a year to get a good buzz on, usually during the Superbowl or at a family celebration. I used to be the guy who drank until I threw up, then drank some more until I passed out every weekend. I'm really glad I learned to curb that behavior before it got out of hand. I haven't drank until I throw up in twenty years.
My Dad was the same way. His father was a functional alcoholic who often got blind drunk when he wasn't working. And my Dad was raised in an environment where that was acceptable, but he got in an accident one time when he was really drunk and shouldn't have been driving, and my mother threatened to leave him after that and he stopped, he still drinks and even occasionally gets buzzed or drunk but it is no longer a common occurrence. He didn't even start drinking when he was unemployed for a year and a half. All of this was when I was really young, I don't remember him ever going to the bar when I was old enough to remember but my mom says it was a common occurrence after they moved home after he got out of the Army until that night.
It's a pity about marijuana, and I would really encourage trying a few more times under different conditions. Sativa is up, Indica goes down, smoke goes to your head and edibles infuse the body.
I cannot stand opiates for the disconnection and loss of control, I would much rather hurt. Pot, however, I remain fully aware of pain and discomfort, but it's impact and relevance to each moment is greatly diminished.
We can't trust doctors to make sound medical decisions, so we must entrust them with Republican politicians, who only have children's best interest in mind, something I'm absolutely certain is absolutely not true.
The only reason we're talking about trans children is because we're in the middle of the FOX News-led culture war du jour. We're talking about this only because Republicans want to win elections by scaring people about sexual deviants.
I was right there in the middle of it the they exploited people like me to re-elect George W. Bush. Now they aren't saying a peep about gay marriage, are they? Because society inevitably evolved, as it does when people are free.
One trick pony, but at least it gets you dinner.
No, this is not because of a Fox News led culture war (now do CNN, MSNBC, NPR...), this is because it is wrong to abuse children. Whether it's NAMBLA or a doctor, stop with the badtouch and let puberty settle before making permanent decisions.
"I was right there in the middle of it the they exploited people like me to re-elect George W. Bush."
I will assure you, that the current weirdo pedo trans push will guarantee the Stacey Abramss and Ilhan Omars of the next election cycle in any competitive race lose, and the Bushes, Abbots etc will win. Despite you being unaware of this, the country still actually has a large amount of sane parents. Its not actually made up of the nihilistic, "everything is a construct", LGBTQ+++ soho bizarro world weirdos with no kids.
Statements like the ones you make will remind people "I mean R's kinda suck, but they appear to be the only adults in the room"
We can't trust doctors to make sound medical decisions
As I pointed out at the start of this thread, this was decided by a right-leaning SCOTUS under the Clinton Administration. You can feel free to reverse the decision, I actually agree that it should be reversed. However, while I'm not aware of your personal HIV status, you should be aware that you might not like the cultural outcome of reversing the decision.
We can't trust doctors to make sound medical decisions
I should say, the decision didn't say *just* this, it effectively said 'We can't trust doctors to make sound medical decisions about their own health in their own practice'. I don't agree with that any more than you do but, again, I'm pretty sure the opposite decision would still have you raising cries of Kultur War!
You intentionally frame the debate as humanizing/dehumanizing with phrases like "acknowledging they exist" because it makes your point of view more persuasive. You're trying to remove the mental illness and make trans the same as having different hair or skin tone. It is not the same and never will be.
I seriously doubt anyone in the public education system is telling kids that transgender ideology is mental illness, but that we tolerate it because stigma pushes people away from treatment and because you're free to be as mentally ill as you like.
This is going to be a nasty debate throughout the 21st century, but at some point there will be a reckoning where we re-discover that medically unnecessary, elective plastic surgery is NOT "medical care."
The problem is that we're conflating trans rights with trans anarchy. You can identify as whatever you like and I'll defend your right to use bathrooms that you prefer. If you ask me to use your pronouns and actually convince me, I'll do it. That's where your rights stop and mine begin. None of these surgeries are medically necessary. You don't get to do irreparable bodily harm to a child, just like how you aren't allowed to starve babies with a vegan diet.
Nobody wants to have this conversation because it invites and legitimizes the still scientifically correct statement that gender dysphoria is a mental illness and this entire ideology is crazy. Trannies will continue to insist that you're bigoted for saying this. Never back down or cede the argument to them.
For example:
The people who share the same ideology as the activists who are suing over this ban on adults deciding to 'transition' children . . .
. . . Also want to ban conversion therapy.
They want to ban gay conversion therapies and it's labeled child abuse in several states.