• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
I wonder if you would say something like that in comparison with the Catholic church and pedophile priests where the church would be compelled to report who that priest is to the authorities.
If you think a child telling a teacher 'I think I am transgender' and 'the priest sexually assaulted me' are equivalent, you are delusional.
 
Last edited:

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
again, how do you propose we go from the teacher learning a kid has GD to the kid undergoing GAC. walk me thru the sequence of events.
*Sigh*
Are you not reading any of my posts? The teacher is not involved at all with the GAC process. The only people involved are the parent and the doctor.

If a child tells a teacher 'I think I am trans, but I don't want my parents to know yet because I am afraid', this teacher has an ethical obligation to respect that child's wishes and their safety and to keep their mouth shut. For the teacher to drag the child out of the closet in front of their parent against the student's wishes, they are causing harm. It's really not complicated.
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
*Sigh*
Are you not reading any of my posts? The teacher is not involved at all with the GAC process. The only people involved are the parent and the doctor.

If a child tells a teacher 'I think I am trans, but I don't want my parents to know because I am afraid', this teacher has an ethical obligation to respect that child's wishes and their safety and to keep their mouth shut. For the teacher to drag the child out of the closet in front of their parent against the student's wishes, they are causing harm. It's really not complicated.
Ok, I understand. Now, for the sake of discussion, let's say GAC could save the kid's life. (You know I think that's unlikely, but it's what GAC supporters say so..) Now what's the teacher to do? He can't tell the parents, so he what, lets the kid die?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
☝️

I would never advocate forcing a child to remain in a physically abusive environment. Imposing a worldview on a child through socialization is not equal to physical violence.
Are you sure? Once again, you are suggesting that you think the body (where "physical violence" happens) is of more immediate importance than the mind.
 
Last edited:

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
This is a fair point.

But trans activists have made it a challenge for all of society to interact with trans people, and that's mostly not true of gays.

How? It seems like this was an argument made against gay people before it was more accepted. Again, I still hear people complain about seeing gay people in public or pride parades, saying things like "If they would only keep it in the privacy of their own room." These seem more like complaints against visibility than arguments against trans inclusivity.

The other crucial distinction is that gay people are comfortable in their bodies, they're just same sex attracted.

Do you suppose gay folks felt comfortable in their own bodies when society openly decried their sexuality, proclaiming it a sin and precribing conversion therepy or declaring it a mental illness?

In addition, it's not uncommon for an INTACT trans woman to declare themselves lesbians, and then raise a fuss when lesbians don't want to date them.

Is it common for this?

Gay people make no such demands on others.

Typically not, but this was a fear straight homophobic folks had. Once again, I still here people say such ridiculous things as "If a gay person hit on me, I'd slug them." Gay people don't make these demands that they can date whoever they want and I doubt this is a common demand from trans people. No one is entitled to date anyone.

Trans activists are actively trying to cancel anyone whose opinion is different than their own, again, consider JK Rowling. I think it's largely trans activists, not trans people who are creating this ill will.

I've defended JK Rowling before, but a recent deep dive into her history has me suspicious that she really is transphobic, or at least not as supportive of transgender rights as she pays lipservice to.

Regardless, transgender people are a marginalized community that has faced stigmatization and violence. They are fully entitled to oppose viewpoints that attack their community.
 

libre

Skylark
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok, I understand. Now, for the sake of discussion, let's say GAC could save the kid's life. (You know I think that's unlikely, but it's what GAC supporters say so..) Now what's the teacher to do? He can't tell the parents, so he what, lets the kid die?
If the teacher is aware of suicidal ideation or plans to commit suicide, those can be handled via existing policies without outing the student.

While I do believe discussing if GAC is an appropriate option with a doctor would help a trans adolescent, I do not believe outing to the parents against the students will is conductive for this.

Healthy treatment and response for trans adolescence always starts with the trans person coming out to their support network. If they cannot do so safely, they are not in an environment where they can safely begin treatment.

Given that many trans people are kicked out of their homes or even physically abused when they come out, the risks vastly outweigh the chance that anything positive comes out of it. Further, it is incredibly dangerous that this bill would actually compel a teacher to out a child in all circumstances where they were being questioned about it by a parent.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Without States Rights you'd have more Freedom
States were the origin of gay rights marriage.
SCOTUS went along only because of that.
Abortion is a right still because some states
recognize it, even though the fed doesn't.

Beware having an all powerful central government.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
As a badly batttered child -- nearly killed twice by my step-father before I was 7 years old -- made ward of the Children's Aid by the court at 7, I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with you. That is my "lived experience."

It might surprise you to learn that I do not consider the courts that saved me to by "tyrants" or "extremely naive." Why would you suppose a drunk who tried to kill a 7 year-old should be the "final authority" over anything in that child's life?
That's different. Most parents are not abusive as paranoid people think most parants are.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
States were the origin of gay rights marriage.
SCOTUS went along only because of that.
Abortion is a right still because some states
recognize it, even though the fed doesn't.

Beware having an all powerful central government.
Abortion is not a right unless you can find it in the bill of rights.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Abortion is not a right unless you can find it in the bill of rights.
You don't recognize any later amendments?
And you don't even recognize the 9th?
(It's in the Bill Of Rights.)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."

I'll tell ya....the familiarity of some people
with their Constitution is sorely lacking.
No wonder someone like Trump is
dominating primaries.
 

Laniakea

Not of this world
You don't recognize any later amendments?
And you don't even recognize the 9th?
(It's in the Bill Of Rights.)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."

I'll tell ya....the familiarity of some people
with their Constitution is sorely lacking.
No wonder someone like Trump is
dominating primaries.
And what are "certain rights"? The right to shoplift? Right to threaten someone? Right to kill someone if that someone is inconvenient?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
But your cells' chromosomes did not change.
No, but guess what sex would be assigned to a person with AIS? Is that person male (because of chromosomes which are usually not tested for at birth) or are they female (because of their visible sex characteristics)?
The point I'm making is that the expression of the sexes is not determined at conception, it is determined through development. And since body and brain develop during different stages in a pregnancy, it is possible to have a "male" brain in a female body, or vice versa.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You don't recognize any later amendments?
And you don't even recognize the 9th?
(It's in the Bill Of Rights.)
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people."

I'll tell ya....the familiarity of some people
with their Constitution is sorely lacking.
No wonder someone like Trump is
dominating primaries.
So how does abortion fit into this?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Exactly. The way psychiatry has changed their approach to trans is not because of “science” but due to trans activism.
I just said it hardly changed anything then. There is no exactly. You're statement is wrong.
You don’t gain insight into the mind in a classroom or in conferences. Psychiatry will face their reckoning over this issue after the gender specialists.
Another uneducated layman whl thinks he knows better than those who actually study it and knows better.
The only thing thats going to happen is transohobes will end up on the wronf side of history.
I’m not denying there are many terrible parents, but putting parents in the position of final authority on the necessary socialization of the child is better than the danger of the alternative. Only tyrants, or the extremely naive, disagree with this structure.
This "final authority" nonsense is why I got stuck with a life a knee problems due to an issue that could have been corrected when I was a little kid but my parents said no and as a result I'll never know a day without pain, limping, burning numbness, aching stiffness and things getting worse (like developing hip pains from being out of alignment).
 
Top