Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

So as long as it is doctors that are gathering together in dark rooms to cut childrens' sex organs off, you are ok with it?

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

People are trying to support 'minor attracted people' my guy.

Either draw red lines that can't be crossed or welcome total degeneracy.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

I have no problem with homosexuals and lesbians. I have a huge problem with those that are confused about w t f they are and want to blame the whole world for their confusion. ENOUGH!!!!

Doc Holliday said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

Either draw red lines that can't be crossed or welcome total degeneracy.

---

Its too late.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

You've got some catching up to do.

Let me help you out: This is sicem365 R&P, a/k/a, welcome to 60 years ago.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

People are trying to support 'minor attracted people' my guy.

Either draw red lines that can't be crossed or welcome total degeneracy.

---

I'm not your guy.

What people, other than Lambda which has been around (and wrong) for decades?

This is is a political stunt more than anything else.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

The question here is one of irreversible physical changes (whether surgery or puberty blockers which have been shown to have some serious side effects) made to a minor who has not fully physically or emotionally developed and it is impossible to know how much they have fully made this decision on their own without any sort of influence from a parent, physician, social worker, school counselor, or anyone else and that it is in the child's best interest.

Here is one analogy - in the US system of justice defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty because it is considered a far worse outcome for an innocent person to be found guilty than it is for a guilty person to be found innocent.

Which is the worse outcome?:

A adult person more fully develops physically and emotionally (some research says this really doesn't happen until 25, but we have largely settled on 18) and makes an adult decision to have surgery/take hormones that can permanently change them and in their mind goes through an unnecessarily challenging adolescence (like a lot of other kids) waiting for what the child thinks is an unfair amount of time.

or

A child takes drugs/has surgery that permanently changes their body and they end up regretting it later in life but the change has now been done and reversal surgeries are difficult, expensive, and have mixed results. Again, It is unknown exactly how much influence a parent or physician or anyone else influenced them in this decision and did not do their due diligence in making sure it was what was absolutely best for the child.

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

The question here is one of irreversible physical changes (whether surgery or puberty blockers which have been shown to have some serious side effects) made to a minor who has not fully physically or emotionally developed and it is impossible to know how much they have fully made this decision on their own without any sort of influence from a parent, physician, social worker, school counselor, or anyone else and that it is in the child's best interest.

Here is one analogy - in the US system of justice defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty because it is considered a far worse outcome for an innocent person to be found guilty than it is for a guilty person to be found innocent.

Which is the worse outcome?:

A adult person more fully develops physically and emotionally (some research says this really doesn't happen until 25, but we have largely settled on 18) and makes an adult decision to have surgery/take hormones that can permanently change them and in their mind goes through an unnecessarily challenging adolescence (like a lot of other kids) waiting for what the child thinks is an unfair amount of time.

or

A child takes drugs/has surgery that permanently changes their body and they end up regretting it later in life but the change has now been done and reversal surgeries are difficult, expensive, and have mixed results. Again, It is unknown exactly how much influence a parent or physician or anyone else influenced them in this decision and did not do their due diligence in making sure it was what was absolutely best for the child.

---

Bingo.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

I remain on the right side of history with respect to homosexuality. But it's a markedly different disorder than transgenderism - one that doesn't require kids having healthy organs chopped off to be something they're not.

fubar said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

You've got some catching up to do.

Let me help you out: This is sicem365 R&P, a/k/a, welcome to 60 years ago.

---

Amen. Those silly Christians with their outdated Judeo Christian ethics need to get with the times. Someday they'll see how wrong they were about not affirming their 7 year olds gender identify and not allowing them to chop off their healthy organs!

Frank Galvin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

People are trying to support 'minor attracted people' my guy.

Either draw red lines that can't be crossed or welcome total degeneracy.

---

I'm not your guy.

What people, other than Lambda which has been around (and wrong) for decades?

This is is a political stunt more than anything else.

---

Gender dysphoria was treated with a 90%+ success rate prior to what we're doing today with the trans movement.

What we're doing today is undoing that. Children and teens will develop horrible diseases and cancer from prepubescent hormone treatment. They're going to be very angry in the next couple of decades.

This isn't about letting people be who they want. It's a ticking time bomb.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

People are trying to support 'minor attracted people' my guy.

Either draw red lines that can't be crossed or welcome total degeneracy.

---

I'm not your guy.

What people, other than Lambda which has been around (and wrong) for decades?

This is is a political stunt more than anything else.

---

Protecting children from life-altering mutilation and hormone therapy is a political stunt…

Incredible.

the mentally ill are running everything.

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

I'm so sorry...I'll amend.

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers ASAP, YES the state needs to step in.

The bigger point is a 4 year old boy says he is a girl and you just go with it 100%.

Jack Bauer said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

I'm so sorry...I'll amend.

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers ASAP, YES the state needs to step in.

The bigger point is a 4 year old boy says he is a girl and you just go with it 100%.

---

You seem very interested in how other people parent. Not very freedom loving of you.

Again, a four-year old who expresses gender confusion-nothing is going to happen. If six years later at the onset of puberty that confusion still exists, the parents should have the option of therapies that medical professionals believe appropriate.

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

I remain on the right side of history with respect to homosexuality. But it's a markedly different disorder than transgenderism - one that doesn't require kids having healthy organs chopped off to be something they're not.

---

Just want to be clear here- you are calling homosexuality a mental disorder?

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

1) At what age do you think puberty blockers are being given? At what age do you think it is appropriate to start?

For a child who is assigned female at birth, Dr. Cartaya says puberty typically starts between the ages of 8 and 13. For a child who was assigned male at birth, the range is between 9 and 14.)

2) At what age do you think surgeries are being performed? At what age do you think surgeries are appropriate?

Breast removal for trans boys at age 15

We have also seen the reverse: moms and dads pushing for FTM top surgery for their childrensome as young as 14 or 15.

I am most interested in the child's freedom to fully mature and make their own life changing decision as an adult, not as a 8-10 year old with who knows what outside voices encouraging them one way or another. Medical professionals as a whole are no less prone to being influenced by outside voices including financial gain than any other group.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

I'm so sorry...I'll amend.

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers ASAP, YES the state needs to step in.

The bigger point is a 4 year old boy says he is a girl and you just go with it 100%.

---

You seem very interested in how other people parent. Not very freedom loving of you.

Again, a four-year old who expresses gender confusion-nothing is going to happen. If six years later at the onset of puberty that confusion still exists, the parents should have the option of therapies that medical professionals believe appropriate.

---

This depends on the parent. Did the parent shrug it off and go on about their day or did the parent decide the girl has clearly shown he is supposed to be a boy and begins to raise her as one?

'We love him so much. We're so proud of him and the choice that he's made.'

At the age of two, Stormy told his family, 'I'm not a girl, I think I'm a boy'. We speak to his parents, Matthew and Klara, who hope that their story helps raise awareness for other families. pic.twitter.com/AiVR2HhNlX

— This Morning (@thismorning) May 10, 2021

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

I'm so sorry...I'll amend.

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers ASAP, YES the state needs to step in.

The bigger point is a 4 year old boy says he is a girl and you just go with it 100%.

---

You seem very interested in how other people parent. Not very freedom loving of you.

Again, a four-year old who expresses gender confusion-nothing is going to happen. If six years later at the onset of puberty that confusion still exists, the parents should have the option of therapies that medical professionals believe appropriate.

---

I would submit there's a significant difference between freedom loving and allowing parents to abuse their children. Par for the course, you seem incapable of understanding the distinction.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

I remain on the right side of history with respect to homosexuality. But it's a markedly different disorder than transgenderism - one that doesn't require kids having healthy organs chopped off to be something they're not.

---

Just want to be clear here- you are calling homosexuality a mental disorder?

---

No. It might be. There are a myriad of reasons why homosexuals wires are crossed, and they desire members of the same sex.

But it remains a sexually deviant and unhealthy lifestyle choice, that much is certain.

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

1) At what age do you think puberty blockers are being given? At what age do you think it is appropriate to start?

For a child who is assigned female at birth, Dr. Cartaya says puberty typically starts between the ages of 8 and 13. For a child who was assigned male at birth, the range is between 9 and 14.)

2) At what age do you think surgeries are being performed? At what age do you think surgeries are appropriate?

Breast removal for trans boys at age 15

We have also seen the reverse: moms and dads pushing for FTM top surgery for their childrensome as young as 14 or 15.

I am most interested in the child's freedom to fully mature and make their own life changing decision as an adult, not as a 8-10 year old with who knows what outside voices encouraging them one way or another. Medical professionals as a whole are no less prone to being influenced by outside voices including financial gain than any other group.

---

Starting with your last point. Doctors actually are less prone to being influenced by "outside voices" for many reasons. First, the screening process for med school insures that doctors have uncommon, verging on rare, intellectual abilities. Second, doctors' 7-10 years of training before they practice independently drills into them, almost above all else, the need for evidence-based decision making and the need to protect the patient. Third, powerful disincentives towards ignoring evidence exist in the form of licensure and malpractice proceedings. Doctors are far from infallible, but they are not "like everybody else." The opposite is true.

With that in mind, my understanding of blockers and hormone treatment comports with what the Mayo clinic says:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

Your ages are generally correct. I agree that children that age can't make these decisions for themselves. I also agree that the therapies are not appropriate unless there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. I obviously have no problem with parents who do not seek or refuse treatment even when there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria.

What you and most on the thread are missing is that there can be harm to not acting when there are sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. Doctors are trained to understand the difference between phases and actual dysphoria. Parents are the best judge of what is right for their kids. It is a judgment call and a terrible one to have to make. But if it is my kid, I want to be the one that makes that decision. You want to make it for me.

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

I remain on the right side of history with respect to homosexuality. But it's a markedly different disorder than transgenderism - one that doesn't require kids having healthy organs chopped off to be something they're not.

---

Just want to be clear here- you are calling homosexuality a mental disorder?

---

Odd that of all the weighty topics being discussed here, you are most concerned with whether or not a guy on the internet thinks the homo is a mental disorder.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

I remain on the right side of history with respect to homosexuality. But it's a markedly different disorder than transgenderism - one that doesn't require kids having healthy organs chopped off to be something they're not.

---

Just want to be clear here- you are calling homosexuality a mental disorder?

---

Odd that of all the weighty topics being discussed here, you are most concerned with whether or not a guy on the internet thinks the homo is a mental disorder.

---

The question was based on trying to understand how the poster defined "mental disorder" not how the poster defines "homosexuality." Odd that it would trigger you. Are you afraid that homosexuals are normal people?

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

1) At what age do you think puberty blockers are being given? At what age do you think it is appropriate to start?

For a child who is assigned female at birth, Dr. Cartaya says puberty typically starts between the ages of 8 and 13. For a child who was assigned male at birth, the range is between 9 and 14.)

2) At what age do you think surgeries are being performed? At what age do you think surgeries are appropriate?

Breast removal for trans boys at age 15

We have also seen the reverse: moms and dads pushing for FTM top surgery for their childrensome as young as 14 or 15.

I am most interested in the child's freedom to fully mature and make their own life changing decision as an adult, not as a 8-10 year old with who knows what outside voices encouraging them one way or another. Medical professionals as a whole are no less prone to being influenced by outside voices including financial gain than any other group.

---

Starting with your last point. Doctors actually are less prone to being influenced by "outside voices" for many reasons. First, the screening process for med school insures that doctors have uncommon, verging on rare, intellectual abilities. Second, doctors' 7-10 years of training before they practice independently drills into them, almost above all else, the need for evidence-based decision making and the need to protect the patient. Third, powerful disincentives towards ignoring evidence exist in the form of licensure and malpractice proceedings. Doctors are far from infallible, but they are not "like everybody else." The opposite is true.

With that in mind, my understanding of blockers and hormone treatment comports with what the Mayo clinic says:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

Your ages are generally correct. I agree that children that age can't make these decisions for themselves. I also agree that the therapies are not appropriate unless there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. I obviously have no problem with parents who do not seek or refuse treatment even when there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria.

What you and most on the thread are missing is that there can be harm to not acting when there are sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. Doctors are trained to understand the difference between phases and actual dysphoria. Parents are the best judge of what is right for their kids. It is a judgment call and a terrible one to have to make. But if it is my kid, I want to be the one that makes that decision. You want to make it for me.

---

I know many doctors and other health care workers. They run the political, religious, social justice, ethical, money-loving range just like anyone else. I can find you doctors who would never prescribe puberty blockers for children to transition or perform any breast removal surgery on a minor. So are they all wrong? Your description makes it sound as if this is universally accepted care amongst all health care professionals. I can assure you it is not.

As for your judgment call, I ask you the same question I asked before. Which is the worse outcome:

An adult person more fully develops physically and emotionally (some research says this really doesn't happen until 25, but we have largely settled on 18) and makes an adult decision to have surgery/take hormones that can permanently change them and in their mind goes through an unnecessarily challenging adolescence (like a lot of other kids) waiting for what the child thinks is an unfair amount of time.

or

A child takes drugs/has surgery that permanently changes their body and they end up regretting it later in life but the change has now been done and reversal surgeries are difficult, expensive, and have mixed results. Again, It is unknown exactly how much influence a parent or physician or anyone else influenced them in this decision and did not do their due diligence in making sure it was what was absolutely best for the child.

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

1) At what age do you think puberty blockers are being given? At what age do you think it is appropriate to start?

For a child who is assigned female at birth, Dr. Cartaya says puberty typically starts between the ages of 8 and 13. For a child who was assigned male at birth, the range is between 9 and 14.)

2) At what age do you think surgeries are being performed? At what age do you think surgeries are appropriate?

Breast removal for trans boys at age 15

We have also seen the reverse: moms and dads pushing for FTM top surgery for their childrensome as young as 14 or 15.

I am most interested in the child's freedom to fully mature and make their own life changing decision as an adult, not as a 8-10 year old with who knows what outside voices encouraging them one way or another. Medical professionals as a whole are no less prone to being influenced by outside voices including financial gain than any other group.

---

Starting with your last point. Doctors actually are less prone to being influenced by "outside voices" for many reasons. First, the screening process for med school insures that doctors have uncommon, verging on rare, intellectual abilities. Second, doctors' 7-10 years of training before they practice independently drills into them, almost above all else, the need for evidence-based decision making and the need to protect the patient. Third, powerful disincentives towards ignoring evidence exist in the form of licensure and malpractice proceedings. Doctors are far from infallible, but they are not "like everybody else." The opposite is true.

With that in mind, my understanding of blockers and hormone treatment comports with what the Mayo clinic says:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

Your ages are generally correct. I agree that children that age can't make these decisions for themselves. I also agree that the therapies are not appropriate unless there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. I obviously have no problem with parents who do not seek or refuse treatment even when there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria.

What you and most on the thread are missing is that there can be harm to not acting when there are sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. Doctors are trained to understand the difference between phases and actual dysphoria. Parents are the best judge of what is right for their kids. It is a judgment call and a terrible one to have to make. But if it is my kid, I want to be the one that makes that decision. You want to make it for me.

---

You slept through COVID, didn't you?

KaiBear said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

4yrletterbear said:

---

New CA Bill Punishes Parents Who Don't 'Affirm' Their Child's Gender Identity.

CA is replacing parents with the State.

---

Sane parents immediately realize it is time to move to another state. Hasta la vista, Baby!!!!!

---

Many parents don't have the cash reserves to abruptly move to another state . However if I lived in California, would make every effort to leave.

The state has become a woke sewer and it's only going to get worse .

---

Its barely 20 years ahead of Texas....maybe not even that many.

Greg Abbott and the GOP were down in Austin the other day passing new laws to criminalize disrespect for the hair of black people.

Neo-California is on its way

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/texas-crown-act-formally-signed-by-abbott-in-ceremony/

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

1) At what age do you think puberty blockers are being given? At what age do you think it is appropriate to start?

For a child who is assigned female at birth, Dr. Cartaya says puberty typically starts between the ages of 8 and 13. For a child who was assigned male at birth, the range is between 9 and 14.)

2) At what age do you think surgeries are being performed? At what age do you think surgeries are appropriate?

Breast removal for trans boys at age 15

We have also seen the reverse: moms and dads pushing for FTM top surgery for their childrensome as young as 14 or 15.

I am most interested in the child's freedom to fully mature and make their own life changing decision as an adult, not as a 8-10 year old with who knows what outside voices encouraging them one way or another. Medical professionals as a whole are no less prone to being influenced by outside voices including financial gain than any other group.

---

Starting with your last point. Doctors actually are less prone to being influenced by "outside voices" for many reasons. First, the screening process for med school insures that doctors have uncommon, verging on rare, intellectual abilities. Second, doctors' 7-10 years of training before they practice independently drills into them, almost above all else, the need for evidence-based decision making and the need to protect the patient. Third, powerful disincentives towards ignoring evidence exist in the form of licensure and malpractice proceedings. Doctors are far from infallible, but they are not "like everybody else." The opposite is true.

With that in mind, my understanding of blockers and hormone treatment comports with what the Mayo clinic says:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

Your ages are generally correct. I agree that children that age can't make these decisions for themselves. I also agree that the therapies are not appropriate unless there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. I obviously have no problem with parents who do not seek or refuse treatment even when there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria.

What you and most on the thread are missing is that there can be harm to not acting when there are sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. Doctors are trained to understand the difference between phases and actual dysphoria. Parents are the best judge of what is right for their kids. It is a judgment call and a terrible one to have to make. But if it is my kid, I want to be the one that makes that decision. You want to make it for me.

---

I know many doctors and other health care workers. They run the political, religious, social justice, ethical, money-loving range just like anyone else. I can find you doctors who would never prescribe puberty blockers for children to transition or perform any breast removal surgery on a minor. So are they all wrong? Your description makes it sound as if this is universally accepted care amongst all health care professionals. I can assure you it is not.

As for your judgment call, I ask you the same question I asked before. Which is the worse outcome:

An adult person more fully develops physically and emotionally (some research says this really doesn't happen until 25, but we have largely settled on 18) and makes an adult decision to have surgery/take hormones that can permanently change them and in their mind goes through an unnecessarily challenging adolescence (like a lot of other kids) waiting for what the child thinks is an unfair amount of time.

or

A child takes drugs/has surgery that permanently changes their body and they end up regretting it later in life but the change has now been done and reversal surgeries are difficult, expensive, and have mixed results. Again, It is unknown exactly how much influence a parent or physician or anyone else influenced them in this decision and did not do their due diligence in making sure it was what was absolutely best for the child.

---

We allow medical treatments to be performed by some doctors despite the refusal of other doctors to perform the procedure all the time. That does not make the doctors or the treament right or wrong, the discrepancy makes it a judgment call. And again, it should be parents who make the judgment.

Your question is unfair, which is why I did not answer it before. By phrasing the harm in the first option as you do (" goes through an unnecessarily challenging adolescence (like a lot of other kids) waiting for what the child thinks is an unfair amount of time') woefully understates the harm and risk that some teenagers deal with if they are dysphoric.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

1) At what age do you think puberty blockers are being given? At what age do you think it is appropriate to start?

For a child who is assigned female at birth, Dr. Cartaya says puberty typically starts between the ages of 8 and 13. For a child who was assigned male at birth, the range is between 9 and 14.)

2) At what age do you think surgeries are being performed? At what age do you think surgeries are appropriate?

Breast removal for trans boys at age 15

We have also seen the reverse: moms and dads pushing for FTM top surgery for their childrensome as young as 14 or 15.

I am most interested in the child's freedom to fully mature and make their own life changing decision as an adult, not as a 8-10 year old with who knows what outside voices encouraging them one way or another. Medical professionals as a whole are no less prone to being influenced by outside voices including financial gain than any other group.

---

Starting with your last point. Doctors actually are less prone to being influenced by "outside voices" for many reasons. First, the screening process for med school insures that doctors have uncommon, verging on rare, intellectual abilities. Second, doctors' 7-10 years of training before they practice independently drills into them, almost above all else, the need for evidence-based decision making and the need to protect the patient. Third, powerful disincentives towards ignoring evidence exist in the form of licensure and malpractice proceedings. Doctors are far from infallible, but they are not "like everybody else." The opposite is true.

With that in mind, my understanding of blockers and hormone treatment comports with what the Mayo clinic says:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

Your ages are generally correct. I agree that children that age can't make these decisions for themselves. I also agree that the therapies are not appropriate unless there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. I obviously have no problem with parents who do not seek or refuse treatment even when there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria.

What you and most on the thread are missing is that there can be harm to not acting when there are sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. Doctors are trained to understand the difference between phases and actual dysphoria. Parents are the best judge of what is right for their kids. It is a judgment call and a terrible one to have to make. But if it is my kid, I want to be the one that makes that decision. You want to make it for me.

---

You slept through COVID, didn't you?

---

No, I watched health care workers deal heroically and competently with somehting well outside our normal experience.

Frank Galvin said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

For people who attended a Christian school, you guys are big in name calling and insults.

I never agreed with the Cali legislator, I pointed out the equivalence of the state action ( in Cali potential, in Texas actual) inserting itself in the parent-child relationship.

And as I said on the other thread, for the therapies you are afraid of to happen, they have to be prescribed and administered by doctors.

State interference into medical treatment of children as directed by their parents is not a good thing. It is certainly not a " small government" policy.

It is, however, consistent with the theocracy you are trying to build.

---

And as others pointed out, the analogy was a bad one - not the first by you. Your analogies in the other thread were terrible as well, and were rightly mocked.

The issue with "state interference into medical treatment of children," as you conveniently call it, is that there is no universally recognized treatment agreed on by the medical community for said mental condition. The way you describe it, it's as if the state is telling parents they can't allow doctors to prescribe chemo for kids with cancer. We both know that's intellectually dishonest.

The mental disorder of gender dysphoria is a separate animal altogether, and what one doctor diagnoses as gender dysphoria, another doctor may say is a nothing burger. The "treatments" for the mental conditional may also vastly vary. Most medical associations have gone on record as saying prepubescent kids should not be administered puberty blockers. And hormone treatments after puberty are highly controversial, and not generally accepted by the medical community.

In short, this is not an issue as cut and dried as you would like to make it, though I of course understand your attempts to do so, as they are self-serving, albeit ridiculous. There is simply no valid comparison between these two sets of bills.

---

Wow, really hit a nerve here.

Several problems with your post. First, you keep calling it a bad analogy when all I did is compare the fact that both state legislatures (if the California law passes) were making decisons for parents. I understand that conservatives who spend their time chanting about freedom and parent's rights become uncomfortable when they realize that they are acting as the mirror image of their hated enemies. But uncomfortable or not, that is what is going on-conservatives are using the power of the state inside of a family.

Your real response is not that it is a bad analogy, but that there is a reason for the different approaches. Simply put you are right and "they" are wrong. Generally, however, we let parents be wrong when parenting their children. So to make your argument work it has to be we are really right and "they" are really wrong. Like bigly wrong. State interference with parenting is ok in Texas because it protects kids while state interference with parenting in California would be a disaster because it might not protect kids.

But your third paragraph cuts directly against that argument. If there is no generally accepted medical protocol, how can you be certain that gender affirming care of one type or another is "wrong," let alone really, really wrong? Finally, I haven't read the California bill, I do not know what it says. But in the video in the first post the legislator was not arguing for puberty blockers, she was saying that parents should not devalue their children's expression of gender confusion. The thread then transform the woman's word into something else. They have to because aggressive medical treatment of pre-pubescent gender dysphoria is exceedingly rare. Yet this thread, GOP politicians and Fox News would lead one to believe that there are endless lines of woke liberals eager to transform their children.

The truth is that in a very small group of people, children experience something that is unsettling and portends difficulty no matter what road they go down. As you own post acknowledges, there is no cut and dried answer that will work for all kids in that population. I am comfortable that, because any therapy to treat this condition will be prescribed by a doctor, adminstered by a doctor, (doctors who are subject ot professional regulation and legal peril for malpractice) and authorized by a parent, the state needs to step back. You are comfortable that you know better. So we are not going to agree. No problem with that, it is how the world works.

As an aside, I was amused by your "rightful mocking" comment. You seem to present yourself as the thnking man's Christian. In that vein, when is it right to mock someone?

---

You once again illustrate the logic problem with your comparison in the first paragraph by referring to the two bills as "mirror images" of one another, when they are decidedly not to any reasonable observer. Their only similarity is that they are bills that are aimed at "protecting" children, but that's where the comparison ends. You appear to think that evidences some sort of hypocrisy on the part of conservatives - allowing the govt. to step in and tell parents what's best - but I think even a partisan and trans sympathizer such as yourself realizes that it has long been the position of the conservative party to protect children. So, again, your little "gotcha" comparison remains a bad one.

As for bad analogies, I was referring to your little doozie of a strawman on the Calvin Klein thread wherein you stated that "the amputation of a legal mutilates a minor's body...should we outlaw that procedure too," trying unsuccessfully of course to compare the outlawing of gender reassignment surgery in children to procedures that may be medically necessary. As I asked rhetorically in response to your strawman, can you give us an example of an instance in which a child's healthy leg is amputated merely because the child doesn't want it anymore? Of course you couldn't, which is why your comparison was so ridiculous and worthy of mocking.

Not sure what a thinking man's Christian is. When I see ridiculous and evil bull ****, such as the type you propagate, I typically call it out. It's not terribly difficult or challenging.

---

As far as being a "trans sympathizer" I try to have sympathy for those who suffer. Is that ridiculous and evil bull *****

And you seem to think that anytime any one makes a comparison the are saying the two thinkgs are exactly the same. If they were, there would be no need for the comparison But your analysis of the comaprison beween leg amputations and trans surgeries is pretty shallow. No one has a trans surgery for trivial reasons, just as noone amputates a leg for trivial reasons. Your question, not my comparison, was weak.

---

No, Frank, having sympathy for children suffering from the mental illness of gender dysphoria isn't what's evil. What's evil is advocating a cure for their mental illness that is worse than the disease. What's evil is propagating a lie that they can become something that they are not. What's evil is making decisions for them in their youth that will have lasting consequences for the rest of their lives. What's evil is telling them that mutilating, amputating and disfiguring their bodies will make them feel better when studies have proven there is no net benefit to such procedures from a mental standpoint.

That's what's evil, Frank.

And sorry Frank, but your point on amputating healthy appendages was ridiculous and didn't serve to illustrate the point you were hoping it would. Until recently, it has always been viewed as unethical to amputate healthy appendages, whether the reasons are trivial or not. Mental illness has never been an excuse for doing so until now. So we will have to agree to disagree. Your question was stupid just like your point in that thread.

You are going to be on the wrong side of history on this inch issue Frank. Give it time.

---

60 years ago homosexuality was a diagnosable mental disease. People like you were certain they were on the right side of history.

---

I remain on the right side of history with respect to homosexuality. But it's a markedly different disorder than transgenderism - one that doesn't require kids having healthy organs chopped off to be something they're not.

---

Just want to be clear here- you are calling homosexuality a mental disorder?

---

Odd that of all the weighty topics being discussed here, you are most concerned with whether or not a guy on the internet thinks the homo is a mental disorder.

---

The question was based on trying to understand how the poster defined "mental disorder" not how the poster defines "homosexuality." Odd that it would trigger you. Are you afraid that homosexuals are normal people?

---

Is it your position that homosexuality is normal?

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

When a 4 year old boy says he likes the color pink or plays with dolls and your reaction is to put him on puberty blockers, YES the state needs to step in.

Most likely it is a phase or he may be turn out to be gay, but he doesn't magically just become a girl!!

---

Puberty blockers are prescribed at the onset of puberty.So what you describe (and what most of you imagine about the medical treatments at issue) is not happening or not happening in the manner you believe.

---

1) At what age do you think puberty blockers are being given? At what age do you think it is appropriate to start?

For a child who is assigned female at birth, Dr. Cartaya says puberty typically starts between the ages of 8 and 13. For a child who was assigned male at birth, the range is between 9 and 14.)

2) At what age do you think surgeries are being performed? At what age do you think surgeries are appropriate?

Breast removal for trans boys at age 15

We have also seen the reverse: moms and dads pushing for FTM top surgery for their childrensome as young as 14 or 15.

I am most interested in the child's freedom to fully mature and make their own life changing decision as an adult, not as a 8-10 year old with who knows what outside voices encouraging them one way or another. Medical professionals as a whole are no less prone to being influenced by outside voices including financial gain than any other group.

---

Starting with your last point. Doctors actually are less prone to being influenced by "outside voices" for many reasons. First, the screening process for med school insures that doctors have uncommon, verging on rare, intellectual abilities. Second, doctors' 7-10 years of training before they practice independently drills into them, almost above all else, the need for evidence-based decision making and the need to protect the patient. Third, powerful disincentives towards ignoring evidence exist in the form of licensure and malpractice proceedings. Doctors are far from infallible, but they are not "like everybody else." The opposite is true.

With that in mind, my understanding of blockers and hormone treatment comports with what the Mayo clinic says:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

Your ages are generally correct. I agree that children that age can't make these decisions for themselves. I also agree that the therapies are not appropriate unless there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. I obviously have no problem with parents who do not seek or refuse treatment even when there has been sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria.

What you and most on the thread are missing is that there can be harm to not acting when there are sustained and deep-seated feelings of dysphoria. Doctors are trained to understand the difference between phases and actual dysphoria. Parents are the best judge of what is right for their kids. It is a judgment call and a terrible one to have to make. But if it is my kid, I want to be the one that makes that decision. You want to make it for me.

---

I know many doctors and other health care workers. They run the political, religious, social justice, ethical, money-loving range just like anyone else. I can find you doctors who would never prescribe puberty blockers for children to transition or perform any breast removal surgery on a minor. So are they all wrong? Your description makes it sound as if this is universally accepted care amongst all health care professionals. I can assure you it is not.

As for your judgment call, I ask you the same question I asked before. Which is the worse outcome:

An adult person more fully develops physically and emotionally (some research says this really doesn't happen until 25, but we have largely settled on 18) and makes an adult decision to have surgery/take hormones that can permanently change them and in their mind goes through an unnecessarily challenging adolescence (like a lot of other kids) waiting for what the child thinks is an unfair amount of time.

or

A child takes drugs/has surgery that permanently changes their body and they end up regretting it later in life but the change has now been done and reversal surgeries are difficult, expensive, and have mixed results. Again, It is unknown exactly how much influence a parent or physician or anyone else influenced them in this decision and did not do their due diligence in making sure it was what was absolutely best for the child.

---

We allow medical treatments to be performed by some doctors despite the refusal of other doctors to perform the procedure all the time. That does not make the doctors or the treament right or wrong, the discrepancy makes it a judgment call. And again, it should be parents who make the judgment.

Your question is unfair, which is why I did not answer it before. By phrasing the harm in the first option as you do (" goes through an unnecessarily challenging adolescence (like a lot of other kids) waiting for what the child thinks is an unfair amount of time') woefully understates the harm and risk that some teenagers deal with if they are dysphoric.

---

The problem with this analysis is that studies have shown no net benefit from the "treatments" for dysphoria you advocate - hormone therapy, gender reassignment surgery, etc.

When the treatment you advocate for produces no net benefit, it might be a good time to re-think whether those treatments are medically necessary.