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

[Oleg]

A series of new bills in Florida taking aim at health care providers offering gender-affirming care and parents who support their trans kids

"gender-affirming care" - is that a euphemism for Munchausen by Proxy?

 

[Oleg]

The mother couldn't accept that her son might be gay. She set the child up as trans. The child is miserable. Mom gets lots of attention. "Gender affirming care." Monsterous.

 

[Jarhyn]

At least we all seem to agree that mutilation procedures on minors is wrong. So why is there opposition here on bills meant to stop it?

The bills are about stopping all care, not merely surgery.

Giving chemical castration drugs to children premised on the lie that they can change their sex is surely mutilation.

Chemical Castration: Treatment, Procedure & Side Effects

Chemical castration refers to a medical treatment for some kinds of cancer. Chemical castration isn’t permanent.

my.clevelandclinic.org

Chemical castration, sometimes called medical castration, refers to the use of chemicals or drugs to stop sex hormone production. While many people know about this process as a way to stop sex offenders, medical castration is used as a treatment for tumors that feed on sex hormones.

Nobody is promising them that they can "change their sex".

They can change their hormones, and that's why they are taking the drug: they want their hormones to be different.

Abused children of abusive idiotic attention whores from Jersey Shore notwithstanding.

None of those folks should have been allowed to keep or raise children given their involvement in the cancer and falsehood of reality TV.

Pointing at a known pack of blithering idiots and trying to make a claim that the known actions of blithering, attention seeking idiots does not serve as an indictment against trans people but against idiots.

As has been stated here, the advice to be issued has been "change only that which you absolutely must for the sake of your own happiness."

It is most assuredly not mutilation when a child makes choices on hormones for themselves, not under any statement about what it makes them or does not make them as these are just silly made-up categories anyway but rather, how for the simple sake of how it affects their body and mood.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

SCOTUS currently provides a lot of leeway to parents in raising children. I don't think it'd hold to this, but I think SCOTUS needs to get white out officially on some older cases so the alt right can have official authority to over rule the guardianship of parents to manage their children.

 

[Oleg]

It is most assuredly not mutilation when a child makes choices on hormones for themselves,

How can a child make that choice? The tragedy of Jazz Jennings shines light on how experimental and ghastly all this is. Because he had puberty blockers starting age 11, his body did not fully develop. He had a micro-penis. Had he detransistioned and become a gay man, he’d have been a gay man with a micro-penis and likely no sexual function. As it happened, his attention-seeking Munchausen mother set him up for sex change surgery. It didn’t go well because the micro-penis left little material to form the faux vagina. And, of course, likely no sexual function. Please, leave the kids alone.

 

[Oleg]

It’s a genocide of gays and lesbians.

Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children - PubMed

Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions: Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality.

Please, leave the kids alone.

 

[Jarhyn]

How can a child make that choice

By taking a pill that they ask to take, that at first halts a resumable process.

Then when they are no longer a CHILD, they get to make more choices, like to take yet another pill, or a weekly injection.

If you mean how can a child be trusted to choose their own body, well, how can they not?

The point is that one is an observable measure which does not stunt in any way the advancement of problem solving ability or social intelligence, and allows someone who is a child to decide to not have to have that decision made for them by anyone else either, so long as they remain a "child" for this purpose of decision. How long one spends wanting something and waiting for it patiently as they may is almost always a good measure of how certain they are that they wish to at least try this decision.

 

[Oleg]

By taking a pill that they ask to take, that at first halts a resumable process.

Then when they are no longer a CHILD, they get to make more choices, like to take yet another pill, or a weekly injection.

If you mean how can a child be trusted to choose their own body, well, how can they not?

How can a child make a decision that will irreparably change their body? How can a child make an informed decision that they may never have children or sexual function; that they will be at high risk of developing osteopenia in their 20s?

 

[laughing dog]

By taking a pill that they ask to take, that at first halts a resumable process.

Then when they are no longer a CHILD, they get to make more choices, like to take yet another pill, or a weekly injection.

If you mean how can a child be trusted to choose their own body, well, how can they not?

How can a child make a decision that will irreparably change their body? How can a child make an informed decision that they may never have children or sexual function; that they will be at high risk of developing osteopenia in their 20s?

You keep assuming that these children are making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted and acted upon by health care professionals. Why is that?

 

[Oleg]

You keep assuming that these children are making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted and acted upon by health care professionals. Why is that?

Because that’s the affirmation model. Otherwise, what is your thought on why 80% desist?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It’s a genocide of gays and lesbians.

Psychosexual outcome of gender-dysphoric children - PubMed

Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions: Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality.

Please, leave the kids alone.

Yes, Oleg, please stop trying to interject your radicalism into the lives of people you don't even know.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, Oleg, please stop trying to interject your radicalism into the lives of people you don't even know.

Hey, you’re talking to a Russophile. That’s what they do. The see a bunch of kids being raised by Ukranian Nazis, so like the good people the are, they kill the parents, abduct the kids and send them to Mother Russia for re-education.
Surely they could “help” gender-dystopic American kids the same way!

 

[laughing dog]

You keep assuming that these children are making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted and acted upon by health care professionals. Why is that?

Because that’s the affirmation model.

And you assume the "affirmation model" includes children making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted upon by health care professionals because....?

 

[Elixir]

You keep assuming that these children are making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted and acted upon by health care professionals. Why is that?

Because that’s the affirmation model.

And you assume the "affirmation model" includes children making unilateral decisions which are automatically accepted upon by health care professionals because....?

Because it stands to reason. Anyone with enough education to be an HC professional is a guaranteed lib’rul elite.

 

[scombrid]

The mother couldn't accept that her son might be gay. She set the child up as trans. The child is miserable. Mom gets lots of attention. "Gender affirming care." Monsterous.

Therefore it is the state's business to dictate to all people how they should raise their kids and what psychological and medical interventions are proper? Sure.

 

[Bomb#20]

That's an awful lot of "should"s to try to justify all the "you"s in your previous post with. I was making "is" statements. "Ought" to "is" arguments are rarely any better than "is" to "ought" arguments. So when your point here is some point that isn't actually about me and my posts, how about leaving me out of it?

You make no argument with "is". None.

Try to keep up with the discussion. Here's the executive summary, paraphrased to make the "is"s and "ought"s explicit.

1st poster: Transgenderism ought not to be pushed on children.
2nd poster: It is not being pushed. Every child interested in transition is a trans child.
1st poster: That is naive.
2nd poster: The social acceptance of transgenderism is not making me want to be a woman.
3rd poster: That is a weak argument. Social acceptance's effect on you is not a reliable predictor of its effect on someone else.
2nd poster: Your position is just fear.
3rd poster: You inspected yourself, and deduced that every member of the "have any interest in transition" subpopulation is trans merely because being trans is what it would take for you to be in that subpopulation. That is a Hasty Generalization fallacy.
4th poster: When you say "they are a woman" what you are really doing is using figurative language. You ought to insert mechanism, not imagination.
3rd poster: "They are a woman" is not what I said.
4th poster: Hormones ought to be about enabling people to achieve the body and mental state they seek.
3rd poster: I was making "is" statements. "Ought" to "is" arguments are rarely any better than "is" to "ought" arguments.
4th poster: You make no argument with "is". None.

Argument on the subject of justification of any state, current or modified, comes from an ought, so if you don't have one, you have no business debating in the thread about what ought be done for and about trans kids, irrespective of what is being done, which is clearly <expletive deleted> <wall of text snipped>

Whether transgenderism is being pushed on children is a relevant consideration in the earlier argument about whether gender-care providers ought to do what they're doing, and your whole giant screed operationally amounts to "Agreeing with me about the 'ought' entitles people to make up 'is's and not have them be challenged."

 

[Oleg]

Therefore it is the state's business to dictate to all people how they should raise their kids and what psychological and medical interventions are proper? Sure.

The state already does that. But for some reason, the gender cult wants a carve out for genital mutilation.

 

[laughing dog]

Therefore it is the state's business to dictate to all people how they should raise their kids and what psychological and medical interventions are proper? Sure.

The state already does that. But for some reason, the gender cult wants a carve out for genital mutilation.

There is already a carve out for genital mutilation - circumcision. Are you saying that Jews and Christians are gender cultists?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's an awful lot of "should"s to try to justify all the "you"s in your previous post with. I was making "is" statements. "Ought" to "is" arguments are rarely any better than "is" to "ought" arguments. So when your point here is some point that isn't actually about me and my posts, how about leaving me out of it?

You make no argument with "is". None.

Try to keep up with the discussion. Here's the executive summary, paraphrased to make the "is"s and "ought"s explicit.

1st poster: Transgenderism ought not to be pushed on children.
2nd poster: It is not being pushed. Every child interested in transition is a trans child.
1st poster: That is naive.
2nd poster: The social acceptance of transgenderism is not making me want to be a woman.
3rd poster: That is a weak argument. Social acceptance's effect on you is not a reliable predictor of its effect on someone else.
2nd poster: Your position is just fear.
3rd poster: You inspected yourself, and deduced that every member of the "have any interest in transition" subpopulation is trans merely because being trans is what it would take for you to be in that subpopulation. That is a Hasty Generalization fallacy.
4th poster: When you say "they are a woman" what you are really doing is using figurative language. You ought to insert mechanism, not imagination.
3rd poster: "They are a woman" is not what I said.
4th poster: Hormones ought to be about enabling people to achieve the body and mental state they seek.
3rd poster: I was making "is" statements. "Ought" to "is" arguments are rarely any better than "is" to "ought" arguments.
4th poster: You make no argument with "is". None.

Wow... I can see why you are struggling here if that is your interpretation of this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The mother couldn't accept that her son might be gay. She set the child up as trans. The child is miserable. Mom gets lots of attention. "Gender affirming care." Monsterous.

Therefore it is the state's business to dictate to all people how they should raise their kids and what psychological and medical interventions are proper? Sure.

20/20 piece on Jazz from 2008.

Oleg likes to say people are monsters, people they don't know. He likes to assume they are bad people.