Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

In a remarkably abusive turn of law, Mississippi has passed a law to ban seeking gender affirming care sought by kids.

It makes explicit exceptions so as to maintain the legality of child genital mutilation so that they can continue cutting on penises and mutilating intersex kids' genitals without their consent or knowledge.

In a stunning repeat of Britain's Pogrom against the Hijra, this law seeks to prevent people from making their own decisions as to how their body develops, also in stunning opposition to their own religion (re: Matthew 19:12).

But that's not all, as Texas has decided this is not enough and has fielded a bill to ban ALL access to gender transition care even for adults.

Where will this end?

My guess is "graveyards full of dead, possibly pogrom'd trans people+kids".

GB ramped up their campaign in india to the point of declaring a death penalty for castrating oneself, after all.

Then, this is not much better seeing how many trans people just kill themselves when they realize others are going to force them to grow into a body that they very much do not want even though there is a known path they could walk towards the body they do want.

 

[Jayjay]

In a remarkably abusive turn of law, Mississippi has passed a law to ban seeking gender affirming care sought by kids.

It makes explicit exceptions so as to maintain the legality of child genital mutilation so that they can continue cutting on penises and mutilating intersex kids' genitals without their consent or knowledge.

In a stunning repeat of Britain's Pogrom against the Hijra, this law seeks to prevent people from making their own decisions as to how their body develops, also in stunning opposition to their own religion (re: Matthew 19:12).

So children should be able to make themselves eunuchs if they wish, for the sake of kingdom of God? That's an exceptionally bad bible verse to defend trans-rights.

 

[Emily Lake]

I still can't wrap my head around Jarhyn and other progressives taking the position that minors should be allowed to sterilize themselves and surgically remove healthy body parts before they're even allowed to buy cigarettes. I genuinely baffles me.

 

[Oleg]

I still can't wrap my head around Jarhyn and other progressives taking the position that minors should be allowed to sterilize themselves and surgically remove healthy body parts before they're even allowed to buy cigarettes. I genuinely baffles me.

If the irreversible changes are not done while they're young and easy to manipulate, they might forget they're trans.

 

[Jarhyn]

In a remarkably abusive turn of law, Mississippi has passed a law to ban seeking gender affirming care sought by kids.

It makes explicit exceptions so as to maintain the legality of child genital mutilation so that they can continue cutting on penises and mutilating intersex kids' genitals without their consent or knowledge.

In a stunning repeat of Britain's Pogrom against the Hijra, this law seeks to prevent people from making their own decisions as to how their body develops, also in stunning opposition to their own religion (re: Matthew 19:12).

So children should be able to make themselves eunuchs if they wish, for the sake of kingdom of God? That's an exceptionally bad bible verse to defend trans-rights.

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

People should be allowed to modify their body's hormonal situation, and to decide on their developmental future.

Few people ever decide anything beyond "the default, please".

The point being that some people really want to decide for others how those others will grow up, and it's really not OK.

They will mutilate children's genitals and force them onto hormones because of their desires for someone else's body. It's disgusting.

Of course, Emily is up in here talking about cutting when it's been widely discussed that this is not what is occurring.

It's almost as if it is in bad faith.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

The antagonization of testosterone and/or pituitary hormone through chemical means such as Spironolactone for several years to confirm that the desire to delay, alter, or prevent the onset of puberty is actually a firm intention.

Sexual development is not as urgent a matter as you make it out to be and 4-6 years is more than enough years to desist.

The human body can tolerate an onset of sexual development anywhere from 8 to 18 with few to any side effects.

We aren't talking about cutting. You brought up cutting, yet nobody is advocating for that.

Why are you being so dishonest in your framing? Do you LIKE being dishonest? It's not justified no matter what it is you think you can get from it.

 

[Oleg]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

The antagonization of testosterone and/or pituitary hormone through chemical means such as Spironolactone for several years to confirm that the desire to delay, alter, or prevent the onset of puberty is actually a firm intention.

Sexual development is not as urgent a matter as you make it out to be and 4-6 years is more than enough years to desist.

The human body can tolerate an onset of sexual development anywhere from 8 to 18 with few to any side effects.

We aren't talking about cutting. You brought up cutting, yet nobody is advocating for that.

Why are you being so dishonest in your framing? Do you LIKE being dishonest? It's not justified no matter what it is you think you can get from it.

Emily doesn't understand that we put young people in suspended animation; the growth process just stops; they don't age at all.

 

[Oleg]

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

The antagonization of testosterone and/or pituitary hormone through chemical means such as Spironolactone for several years to confirm that the desire to delay, alter, or prevent the onset of puberty is actually a firm intention.

Sexual development is not as urgent a matter as you make it out to be and 4-6 years is more than enough years to desist.

The human body can tolerate an onset of sexual development anywhere from 8 to 18 with few to any side effects.

We aren't talking about cutting. You brought up cutting, yet nobody is advocating for that.

Why are you being so dishonest in your framing? Do you LIKE being dishonest? It's not justified no matter what it is you think you can get from it.

Emily doesn't understand that we put young people in suspended animation; the growth process just stops; they don't age at all.

Oleg doesn't understand that his facetious mischaracterization is dishonest framing.

Development doesn't stop nor does it need to. Physical development doesn't need happen all at the same time, and has been observed across all of time for millennia, even deferring puberty permanently does not prevent humans from reaching adulthood.

Even following reaching adulthood, further, it has been observed that administration of hormones lead to sexual development.

It's not immediately necessary to force this 1% of people to experience puberty.

 

[Oleg]

It's not immediately necessary to force this 1% of people to experience puberty.

So we'll force this on gender non-confirming children to trans the gay away.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not immediately necessary to force this 1% of people to experience puberty.

So we'll force this on gender non-confirming children to trans the gay away.

Said by someone who hates the LGBT community.

This won't make gay people disappear any more than it will make straight cis people disappear when people figure out they are gay.

You spew yet more bad faith from the porcelain fountain.

This does seem to imply your own goals have something to do with forcing something on gender non-conforming youths.

 

[Oleg]

This won't make gay people disappear any more than it will make straight cis people disappear when people figure out they are gay.

Is it okay if a young boy or girl is gender non-confirming? Or do we tell the child that they're probably in the wrong body?

 

[Oleg]

 

[TomC]

by someone who hates the LGBT community.

As someone who doesn't hate the queers,
There's a bunch of stuff I don't think underage people are in a position to choose, however much they might want it(at the moment).
Sex and babies is one. Sacrificing schooling for a job is another. Sex change body mods is a third.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

This won't make gay people disappear any more than it will make straight cis people disappear when people figure out they are gay.

Is it okay if a young boy or girl is gender non-confirming? Or do we tell the child that they're probably in the wrong body?

We tell them exactly what has been supported by the LGBT confirming majority:

Seek to change only that of your body which is absolutely necessary for your own happiness, and learn to make peace with as much of it as you may.

Make all decisions slowly and with great thought, if they are decisions that are not commonly made.

They are not "a boy" or "a girl". They are "themselves first and foremost". It is up to them to decide who they want to be and how they want to act and present themselves.

It is not up to adults to tell a child they are in the "wrong" or "right" body, but if they don't like the body they were born into, or what consequences may arise from it's features, and they bring that up to an adult, the question "why do you think you were born into the 'wrong' body?" Is what the adult should, and generally does ask, and continue to ask, for as long as someone expresses this belief.

The response to the answer may be information as to how that issue may be resolved.

Of course, again, dishonest framing from some will twist the concept of an adult asking a child what THEY mean about being born in the wrong body into accusations of an adult telling them that they were.

 

[Jarhyn]

by someone who hates the LGBT community.

As someone who doesn't hate the queers,
There's a bunch of stuff I don't think underage people are in a position to choose, however much they might want it(at the moment).
Sex and babies is one. Sacrificing schooling for a job is another. Sex change body mods is a third.
Tom

And again, bad faith. Nobody but you lot are talking about "cutting".

Mostly, this means years of therapy and pills to delay the onset of puberty until someone is old enough to make a decision as to how they want to look.

1% of the population expresses these desires, and expresses them in a consistent way.

Sane humans recognize that transition care is about often telling kids exactly this: they can't get what they want right now, they have to wait.

Whether they are waiting longer for puberty than most (because they are asking for something different from most), or whether they are waiting longer to have the body they want (because they have to wait until they are 18 before any sane person would offer surgical modifications), this bill is about forcing kids into something NOW, explicitly the thing those kids don't want (an uncontrolled puberty that takes them unnecessarily further away from their body goals).

It is bad faith from the bottom to the top.

And that isn't even getting into the pile of bullshit happening in the Texas law.

The whole thing mirrors the British reaction to India's Hijra, where people got executed for castrating themselves.

 

[TomC]

And again, bad faith. Nobody but you lot are talking about "cutting".

Your reference to "cutting" and "you lot" is the bad faith going on here.
IMNSHO
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

And again, bad faith. Nobody but you lot are talking about "cutting".

Your reference to "cutting" and "you lot" is the bad faith going on here.
IMNSHO
Tom

"Sex change body mods" is a bad faith reference to cutting. Quit trying to hand wave and DARVO your bad faith.

 

[TomC]

"Sex change body mods" is a bad faith reference to cutting. Quit trying to hand wave and DARVO your bad faith.

Stop making up things, attributing them to me, then getting upset about them.
It's bad faith, to be charitable about it.

But we didn't just meet.
Tom