California AB 957 authorizes courts to take transgender kids away from parents.

[F1fan]

I know of many exceptions to that rule.

Odd you didn’t list them. Claims are easy but we want the evidence. Otherwise I assume you are bluffing.

In addition, I have no hostility towards trans people. But I disagree with some of the ideas that trans activists are advocating for.

You seem to side with the hostile side. What business is it of yours who these people are? Leave them alone. I’m not for or against gays and trans people but I am for their liberty to be who they are.

 

[icehorse]

Not at all, but if it pleases you to think as such, then that's just you.

From a secondary source whereas I've sometimes used primary sources.

No, it's clearly not the actual teen that you're concerned about otherwise you'd let the teen, his/her parents, and the physicians & psychologists make such personal decisions.

The problem is that they're often political decisions. And I would say that these should not be considered "personal" decisions as much as medical ones, right?

As for where my concern lies, you could not be more wrong! At every step in every trans thread on RF I have been in support of youth experiencing GD. My horrible, transphobic, alt-right, bigoted, arrogant stance has been that I think we should use talk therapy until a youth with GD has reached an age / level of maturity that allows them to understand all the lifelong, serious implications of taking these drugs.

 

[icehorse]

Odd you didn’t list them. Claims are easy but we want the evidence. Otherwise I assume you are bluffing.

How about JK Rowling as a start? How about me (I thought that would have been self evident)?

You seem to side with the hostile side. What business is it of yours who these people are? Leave them alone. I’m not for or against gays and trans people but I am for their liberty to be who they are.

Now that we have 20/20 hindsight, would you still say "let all those people addicted to oxy continue to be misled by their doctors" ?

 

[anna.]

I already said I'd be happy to debate Kendi. But many who follow Kendi take what he says as undebate-able dogma.

Are you speaking for the many?

And you're rewriting history here - you're the one who started in with the "you sound like..." Everything after that was just responding to the personal attack.

I didn't say, and I quote: "you're a bad..." Those words are all yours.

I took issue with your categorization of Kendi, and you could've responded with your reasoning for why you categorized him as you did. But you didn't, you decided to go with applying to me something I didn't say, and an identity I don't have.

I have an issue with how you present your arguments, it's true. But I don't have an issue with you personally. I'll continue to point out where I think your argument or your approach is faulty, and maybe someday you might consider that doing so isn't a personal attack.

 

[icehorse]

Are you speaking for the many?



I didn't say, and I quote: "you're a bad..." Those words are all yours.

I took issue with your categorization of Kendi, and you could've responded with your reasoning for why you categorized him as you did. But you didn't, you decided to go with applying to me something I didn't say, and an identity I don't have.

I have an issue with how you present your arguments, it's true. But I don't have an issue with you personally. I'll continue to point out where I think your argument or your approach is faulty, and maybe someday you might consider that doing so isn't a personal attack.

And I have issues with how you present your arguments, sincerely. Like in this case, I feel you're making distinctions without a difference, in other words trying to avoid the topic by squeaking out on some technicality.

 

[anna.]

And I have issues with how you present your arguments, sincerely. Like in this case, I feel you're making distinctions without a difference, in other words trying to avoid the topic by squeaking out on some technicality.

That's very much okay with me if you have issues with how I present my arguments! You wouldn't be the first, and you won't be the last.
I've taken to heart some useful criticism over the years, and learned from it. Maybe sometimes I do make distinctions without a difference, but I'm also a casual discussant (just learned that's a word), not a formal debater. I don't aim to be, I don't want to be. So yeah, I make mistakes. But I'm also fairly good at patterns and discrepancies, and I see those in your posts. If you want to discuss this more elsewhere, I'm willing, but for the sake of not derailing this thread beyond where we are now, I'll leave it at that.

 

[icehorse]

I will start a conversation with you, but I'm willing to review this exchange publicly:

You say you're a liberal, but you don't sound like one. Perhaps the liberal suit you wear comes from this manufacturer:

So then I responded in great detail with why I think I'm a liberal. I provided a list of around 27 specific things I believe.

Your response was to jump on one of the 27, and really just with a technicality. So your original question about whether I'm really a liberal was totally abandoned by you.

Did you say anything like "oh, I see all these things we agree upon" or anything like that? No you did not. You didn't even consider amending your earlier statement. As far as I know you still think I'm not a liberal. So you make an accusation, and then you let it stand??

This is why I keep pointing out personal attacks. They seem to me to be tactics to derail the actual conversation.

 

[anna.]

I will start a conversation with you, but I'm willing to review this exchange publicly:
So then I responded in great detail with why I think I'm a liberal. I provided a list of around 27 specific things I believe.

Your response was to jump on one of the 27, and really just with a technicality. So your original question about whether I'm really a liberal was totally abandoned by you.

Did you really think I was going to answer 27 points? Maybe starting by answering one isn't a bad idea?

I didn't "jump" on a technicality. I asked a question that you didn't answer. I also didn't ask if you were a liberal, I showed you why you sounded like a right-winger. Maybe go back and look at what I bolded again, how in your post the right was logical and the left was radical.

Did you say anything like "oh, I see all these things we agree upon" or anything like that? No you did not. You didn't even consider amending your earlier statement. As far as I know you still think I'm not a liberal. So you make an accusation, and then you let it stand??

This is why I keep pointing out personal attacks. They seem to me to be tactics to derail the actual conversation.

You mean why don't I answer like you want me to? I'll bet you can guess what I think about that.
Did I make an accusation? No, I did not. You see what you want to see, and then don't answer the question. It's still unanswered, by the way.
The way I see it, when you use right-wing talking points, you're gonna sound right-wing.
I didn't make a personal attack. I said "you sound like" and you heard "you're a bad." Prove that I'm wrong, I'm listening. The quotes are there to see. As well as you telling me I was "rewriting history." Again, the quotes are there.
Any time you want to explain how you decide that Kendi is dogma and MLK isn't, by all means feel free to answer.

And please let's move this elsewhere, or drop it.

 

[icehorse]

@anna. - your responses here are beyond the pale

 

[anna.]

@anna. - your responses here are beyond the pale

Anytime you'd like to answer my question or expand on your mischaracterization of me, feel free to PM me or start another thread.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If I had a nickel for every time this illogical argument was made..

Minority stress is a real thing.

 

[F1fan]

How about JK Rowling as a start? How about me (I thought that would have been self evident)?

What about her? Can you not complete an argument to defend your claim?

Now that we have 20/20 hindsight, would you still say "let all those people addicted to oxy continue to be misled by their doctors" ?

Completely irrelevant to this topic. Is this all you have to defend your beliefs?

 

[We Never Know]

How about JK Rowling as a start? How about me (I thought that would have been self evident)?


Now that we have 20/20 hindsight, would you still say "let all those people addicted to oxy continue to be misled by their doctors" ?

What many are overlooking... Be it oxy, hormone therapy, or whatever.... To the Dr's its a business, it generates their paycheck.

 

[SomeRandom]

What many are overlooking... Be it oxy, hormone therapy, or whatever.... To the Dr's its a business, it generates their paycheck.

Not in countries outside the US though.
Doctors in all industrialised nations (outside the US) work as literal tax funded workers. The same as road workers or even teachers.
They might act a little hesitant sometimes, depending on various factors. Including politics. But they continuously use puberty blockers and even implement various medical procedures that allow for transition for adolescents. That’s just reality

I can understand not being particularly trusting of the medical industry if you live under the American Medical institution. I certainly wouldn’t trust those guys, believe me. But that’s just not the case in the rest of the industrialised world. For better or worse
Because believe it or not, the governments literally buy in bulk all the medicine at the most reduced rate they can in order to implement them into their tax funded universal health care systems. That’s kind of how they work. Hormone therapy is under that umbrella and has been for several decades now, since these hormone pills are also used for other ailments, for lack of a better word

 

[Guitar's Cry]

This statute authorizes a Family Court to make a finding of child abuse if any single or multiple factors are present. It adds to those factors a newly defined abuse if parents don't "affirm" the "gender identity" of the child. It gives the Family Court authority to find the parents are abusing the child even if this is the only factor present.

It goes further. It eliminates the requirement for someone (the child) to petition the Court. It eliminates the previous parental concurrence that the child does have the particular "gender identity".

Do you mind quoting these from your source?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What many are overlooking... Be it oxy, hormone therapy, or whatever.... To the Dr's its a business, it generates their paycheck.

Welp, that's capitalism, right? (At least in America.)

 

[PureX]

It was a summary only of the changes being made.

Yes, ignoring the context into which they were being proposed.

 

[F1fan]

Not in countries outside the US though.
Doctors in all industrialised nations (outside the US) work as literal tax funded workers. The same as road workers or even teachers.
They might act a little hesitant sometimes, depending on various factors. Including politics. But they continuously use puberty blockers and even implement various medical procedures that allow for transition for adolescents. That’s just reality

I can understand not being particularly trusting of the medical industry if you live under the American Medical institution. I certainly wouldn’t trust those guys, believe me. But that’s just not the case in the rest of the industrialised world. For better or worse
Because believe it or not, the governments literally buy in bulk all the medicine at the most reduced rate they can in order to implement them into their tax funded universal health care systems. That’s kind of how they work. Hormone therapy is under that umbrella and has been for several decades now, since these hormone pills are also used for other ailments, for lack of a better word

My own exverience of the medical business has been up and down. Hospitals seem pretty ethical and in service to the best care. It's private doctors that seem to be more likely to push a profit motive. When I was hit by a car while cycling maybe ten years ago I had to go to a doctor to access my injuries and treatment. I had wrist sprains to deal with, but no severe pain unless I tried to lift something. The doctor said he was going to prescribe oxy for me. I declined because the pain wasn't that bad, plus I don't like taking drugs. He insisted, and essentially thrust the prescription in my hand in case I wanted the drugs. This was before the big lawsuits, but there was already news about the addictive nature of opiates. I tore the paper up as I walked to my car. It all smelled fishy to me.

The USA healthcare system is split between nonprofit and profit, and it is rotten. Democrats still advocate for more access for those who ddon't have insurance.

 

[metis]

The problem is that they're often political decisions. And I would say that these should not be considered "personal" decisions as much as medical ones, right?

I have been and still am against political decisions, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

As for where my concern lies, you could not be more wrong! At every step in every trans thread on RF I have been in support of youth experiencing GD. My horrible, transphobic, alt-right, bigoted, arrogant stance has been that I think we should use talk therapy until a youth with GD has reached an age / level of maturity that allows them to understand all the lifelong, serious implications of taking these drugs.

Again and again, you are making decisions based on what you believe and not what the teen, the parents, and the medical experts may believe after their inquiry as what might be best for the teen. What about this don't you understand???

IOW, you refuse to mind your own business and want to micro-manage others. Thus, unless you have a cognitive position that recognizes the rights of others, I'm done with this.

 

[icehorse]

Again and again, you are making decisions based on what you believe and not what the teen, the parents, and the medical experts may believe after their inquiry as what might be best for the teen. What about this don't you understand???

I disagree. If you can step back and look at the claims from the perspective of common sense, it's clear that the following are the extraordinary claims that I'm criticizing:

1 - That these drugs that totally upset the normal growth and development patterns of physically healthy kids, are safe.
2 - That a young person with GD is less likely to commit suicide if given these drugs.

Perhaps these claims are true (although I think the evidence points in the other direction). But regardless, it is the job of the people making these claims to provide extraordinarily good evidence as to their efficacy and safety. We have enough counter-studies to be skeptical that these claims are true.

So my "beliefs" are based in common sense and in reading studies and summary papers. In most other adult decisions we would not pretend that the teens are qualified. The parents are in a tough spot. The doctors are mostly working outside of their areas of expertise and are overwhelmed.

So you continue to paint an unrealistically rosy picture that "the authorities" have things under control and that their solutions are effective and safe, when the reality is quite opposite.

IOW, you refuse to mind your own business and want to micro-manage others. Thus, unless you have a cognitive position that recognizes the rights of others, I'm done with this.

Last time I checked, this was a forum intended to debate consequential topics. I don't really care whether you're done with this topic or not. It will remain important regardless.