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

[icehorse]

I'm on Methotrexate, which has a lot of side effects but is important to me because of my fight with nasty bouts with psoriasis, and that and cortisone are the only items that seeming work with me. IOW, all meds have side effects, therefore all doctors need to take that into consideration and I'm confident most do.

I think your confidence is somewhat misplaced Especially on this topic.

The above is not from a medical source

As I said, it's a summary of 300+ research papers.

BTW, I've noticed in some of your other posts that right-wing politics seems to be quite important to you, so I do tend to think that's likely your main real driving force on this.

Ah... if I had a nickel for every time I've heard this illogical argument.

Let me run through - again - what I think is happening over and over again these days in our hyper-antagonistic, partisan world of politics:

1 - The radical, progressive left puts forth some ridiculous claim.
2 - Our not-to-be-underestimated opponents on the right jump on the claim using obvious logic.
3 - When a liberal like me uses the same obvious logic to criticize the ridiculous claim, I get this sort of ill conceived "you sound like a right-winger" accusation.

Liberals have to police the ridiculous claims and initiatives put forth from radical progressives, because if we don't, our opponents will certainly make hay from them.

 

[We Never Know]

Just throwing this out there since we should follow the experts....

"Many transgender children decide they want to take hormones that allow their bodies to develop as the gender they identify with. Doctors can prescribe estrogen or testosterone at gradually higher amounts to mimic the puberty of the female or male gender. The Endocrine Society recommends that kids start taking these hormones around age 16, but doctors will start them as early as 13 or 14."

What Is Transitioning? What Parents Should Know

Raising a transgender child may be unfamiliar territory for many parents. WebMD offers information on methods of transitioning and what to expect.

www.webmd.com

 

[anna.]

1 - The radical, progressive left puts forth some ridiculous claim.
2 - Our not-to-be-underestimated opponents on the right jump on the claim using obvious logic.
3 - When a liberal like me uses the same obvious logic to criticize the ridiculous claim, I get this sort of ill conceived "you sound like a right-winger" accusation.

By Jove, you've come to the right conclusion!

Because you label the left the way the right does (everyone left of center is a radical), and you use the same arguments the right does, you - sound like a right winger!

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

Why the ‘Classical Liberal’ is Making a Comeback

A perfect storm of political upheaval has led to the resurgence of a label with centuries-old roots.

www.politico.com

 

[icehorse]

You say you're a liberal, but you don't sound like one.

Well I think I'm a liberal:

In no particular order, I believe in: free speech, protecting the environment, universal health care, women's rights, taxing the rich, reversing the income and wealth gaps, strong social security, massive cuts to our "defense" budgets, universal childcare, raising the minimum wage, equal pay for equal work, massive improvements to our education system (including much stronger support for teachers), a strong separation of church and state, ending and reversing the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders, relaxing most drug laws, marriage equality for all, pro-choice, much stronger restrictions on guns, prosecuting white collar thieves (e.g. bankers who default, Wall Streeters...), rebuilding and maintaining our infrastructure...

I probably forgot a few things.

But I think the following are bad ideas:

- Pursuing equity, rather than equality
- Affirmative action, rather than merit
- Identity politics, rather than finding common ground
- Diversity of skin color, instead of diversity of thought
- Ibram X. Kendi, rather than MLK
- Trans-women on International Women's Day
- Dogma, rather than debate

 

[anna.]

I probably forgot a few things.

But I think the following are bad ideas:

- Pursuing equity, rather than equality
- Affirmative action, rather than merit
- Identity politics, rather than finding common ground
- Diversity of skin color, instead of diversity of thought
- Ibram X. Kendi, rather than MLK
- Trans-women on International Women's Day
- Dogma, rather than debate

That's very poetic

But if you want to see diversity of thought, why don't you allow for Kendi's diversity of thought?

Or is this diversity of thought something you define, and everyone else has to follow?

 

[We Never Know]

That's very poetic

But if you want to see diversity of thought, why don't you allow for Kendi's diversity of thought?

Or is this diversity of thought something you define, and everyone else has to follow?

"But if you want to see diversity of thought"

They actually said..

"Diversity of skin color, instead of diversity of thought

 

[anna.]

"But if you want to see diversity of thought"

They actually said..

"Diversity of skin color, instead of diversity of thought

Read it again, you'll see that the first item is the "bad idea" and what follows after "rather" or "instead" is the "good idea."

 

[We Never Know]

Read it again, you'll see that the first item is the "bad idea" and what follows after "rather" is the "good idea."

Whoops my bad. I was multitasking and missed that. Carry on

 

[icehorse]

That's very poetic

But if you want to see diversity of thought, why don't you allow for Kendi's diversity of thought?

Or is this diversity of thought something you define, and everyone else has to follow?

You forgot the debate part. I'm happy to debate Kendi. I refuse to take Kendi as dogma.

Notice how this exchange has gone. I disagree with you on a few points, so you (and others), jump to the dogmatic, intersectionalist, identity politics driven response: "you're a bad ...."

 

[anna.]

You forgot the debate part. I'm happy to debate Kendi. I refuse to take Kendi as dogma.

Notice how this exchange has gone. I disagree with you on a few points, so you (and others), jump to the dogmatic, intersectionalist, identity politics driven response: "you're a bad ...."

I didn't forget the debate part. Unless you're defining Kendi as dogma, so as to eliminate him from the diversity of thought category? Because otherwise it would be inconvenient.

Notice how this exchange has gone. I disagree with your categorical elimination of Kendi, so you tell me I've "jumped to the dogmatic, intersectionalist, identity driven response" of "you're a bad..." which of course, I never said you were a bad anything. That's your strawman.

 

[Friend of Mara]

It seems you're conflating safety with efficacy? Maybe I've got that wrong?

In any case, we cannot extrapolate long term efficacy from short term efficacy.

Define long term. We have both 5 and 10 year studies. Both meet the "long term" requirement. Unless your "long term" is something nigh untestable like 50 years.

I disagree. Here is yet another paper:

https://media.spinster.xyz/c4bf3420f2f7f427293e410453d266624b47b5d5b2490bd9d24c7a2f0837e697.pdf

This paper documents an analysis of over 300 other papers focused on whether puberty blockers are safe. Here's the summary finding:

View attachment 82196

I'm still going through the last one but this one is not a study at all. It is from a political organization whose core statement is that the concept of transgenderism is homophobic and ought not exist. They listed several studies and I was combing through a few of them and of the ones that I saw every single one was either over stated or outright mistaken on the severity of the side effect. For example the one listed specifically for skeletal issues (because that is the one they mention several times) links to a study that doesn't say that it is permanent but only that it requires further study. Which fair I guess. When they find something harmful I am all ears.
They linked to that same study about fertility issues. The only thing about puberty blockers that were mentioned was "The current management of transgender involves therapies that could induce infertility"

Which... yeah. We have gone over this. The actual transition process where we replace the hormones usually causes fertility issues that an be permanent. Though that is not the stage we are on with the puberty blockers.

 

[F1fan]

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

Are you a conservative?

Have you not noticed the political and social hostility towards trans people that exists only among conservatives?

 

[metis]

I think your confidence is somewhat misplaced Especially on this topic.

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

As I said, it's a summary of 300+ research papers.

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.

 

[VoidCat]

I don't think it's correct to say that "nobody bats an eye". These other conditions are fundamentally different that GD, so I think - to put it simply - you're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Maybe. I was mad at the time and mostly speaking through emotion when I made that post cuz i had been reading on the Ashley treatment. So I now have made a new thread on the topic of growth attenuation to not mess with your thread. I do not want trans issues brought into the thread but if you or anyone else wish to talk about the acceleration of disabled childrens growth feel free on this thread:

Growth Attenuation

tagging @Shadow Wolf @Guitar's Cry cuz they might be interested and @SomeRandom for the fact she might be interested and also cuz I'm scared this discussion might get heated and it'd be good to tag a mod to keep an eye on it. I've never seen anyone discuss this topic on here and it's a very...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Shaul]

Both completely ignoring, and intended to hide the fact that there are many extenuating conditions applied to this 'authority'.

It was a summary only of the changes being made. The only pertinent change was adding not affirming gender identity as a factor for determining child abuse. The summary did that. It didn't ignore any change being made. Whatever "extenuating conditions"[sic] you think already existed in the statute and were known and should not have been included in a summary of the changes being made. The intention of the summary was to note the changes, not a re-summary of the entire statute. Nor should it have done so. That doesn't mean there was any intention of hiding anything.

Speaking of intentions, I think your real intention is to try to refocus off the main issue of discussion. That main issue is that the California State legislature has now made it a criminal offense for parents to not "affirm the gender identity" of their children and authorizing a Family Court to remove a child if they are found to have done so. Focusing on a side issue of how the statute was summarized is trivial when compared to the implications of these changes. You are the one doing the ignoring and the attempt at hiding.

 

[metis]

That main issue is that the California State legislature has now made it a criminal offense for parents to not "affirm the gender identity" of their children and authorizing a Family Court to remove a child if they are found to have done so

Maybe they should contact the ACLU-- seriously.

 

[Shaul]

The actual text (from the link) says:

3011.​

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:
(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.

(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity.


Which clearly makes affirmation of the child's gender identity a factor in determining the best interests of the child. That is different from "authorizing courts to remove children from the custody of their parents for failure to affirm the child's gender identity."

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".

 

[F1fan]

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".

The courts will decide based on experts in gender identity, and not right wing politicians. You are the opposite.

 

[icehorse]

I didn't forget the debate part. Unless you're defining Kendi as dogma, so as to eliminate him from the diversity of thought category? Because otherwise it would be inconvenient.

Notice how this exchange has gone. I disagree with your categorical elimination of Kendi, so you tell me I've "jumped to the dogmatic, intersectionalist, identity driven response" of "you're a bad..." which of course, I never said you were a bad anything. That's your strawman.

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

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.

 

[icehorse]

Are you a conservative?

Have you not noticed the political and social hostility towards trans people that exists only among conservatives?

I know of many exceptions to that rule.

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