The not-so-bygone days of the state taking children from their parents because government knows better

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'm on cross sex hormones, I'm the best resource you have, I tried to kill myself at 15 over identity issues. Withholding them isn't' do no harm.

The NHS disagrees, based on comprehensive reviews of the evidence, including the ongoing Cass Review. These indicated that research supporting “gender affirming care” is based on low quality and inconclusive evidence drawn from biased samples. They specifically cite both a lack of medical consensus supporting sex reassignment treatments/procedures and a lack of basic quality controls that are normally applied to new treatments.

Changes to NHS guidelines proposed as a result will end the gender affirming care model seen in the US. Even social transitioning is no longer recommended as treatment for children with gender dysphoria because “in most cases gender incongruence does not persist into adolescence” and approaches for social transition should therefore be limited to specific cases where an adolescent is experiencing impaired social functioning and is able to fully comprehend the consequences of gender transition. Puberty blockers and hormone treatments will be restricted to research settings in which patients must enroll to receive them from NHS.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Even if so, does that mean the NHS did not change the information on its website from "fully reversible" to what it is now?


Applying your standards to you, it seems that you would be "biased" as well.
Though it is interesting that you consider yourself a better resource than say, the NHS.
Should I presume that you are a better "resource" than any medical organisation etc? Or just those that go counter to what you claim?

In TWC yes I'm the best resource, I am biased, but unlike TT, I am a direct data point, and I will source my claims, and I myself am a limited source.

Secondly NHS England is not the NHS, notably in Scotland where the government isn't having a moral panic over gender affirming care, no change was taken. Furthermore claims made by transgender trend were accessed by the court did not:

comply with the relevant [legal] rules “and a good deal of it [was] argumentative and adversarial”

-https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/17/appeal-court-overturns-uk-puberty-blockers-ruling-for-under-16s-tavistock-keira-bell

-https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/11/04/puberty-blockers-trans-children-telegraph-glasgow-sandyford-clinic/

They did not, we have the internet, source your claims:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender...ria/treatment/

Although GIDS advises this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be.

There is a lack of statistically relevant evidence, simply because number are so small. Puberty blockers have been applied to cis children since the 1980s. And a double standard has been created for trans children, and minor gripes over possible minor sub average bone density in those completing treatment are overblown and irrelevant in the face off sever psychological distress, self harm, and suicide.

supporting “gender affirming care” is based on low quality and inconclusive evidence drawn from biased samples. They specifically cite both a lack of medical consensus supporting sex reassignment treatments/procedures and a lack of basic quality controls that are normally applied to new treatments.

limited to specific cases where an adolescent is experiencing impaired social functioning and is able to fully comprehend the consequences of gender transition. Puberty blockers and hormone treatments will be restricted to research settings in which patients must enroll to receive them from NHS.

A lack of evidence also invalidates arguments against, not just for, the endocrine society, and wpath are clear, it is the inclusion of unqualified professions which drive this claim.

Secondly hey have not been restricted, they simply proscribed conditional on follow up evidence gathering, children who are not adolescents, do not need puberty blockers, as they are not going through puberty, that is what adolescent means.


These treatments are life saving.

[sumskilz]

puberty blocker are entirely reversible

The proposition that severely disrupting a child’s endocrine system during a critical developmental period could be “entirely reversible” is implausible. The drugs referred to as puberty blockers interfere with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptors, which are not only expressed in the reproductive system, but also in the central nervous system and various parts of the brain:

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) is a hypothalamic decapeptide that, following its release from axon terminals at the median eminence, stimulates the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) from the pituitary gland. GnRH can also reach the central nervous system (CNS), as GnRH neurones in the hypothalamus can have axons that extend into other regions of the CNS including the limbic system (Silverman et al., 1987). In addition, GnRH can cross the blood-brain barrier, from the median eminence, into the third ventricle cerebrospinal fluid, albeit with low efficiency (Caraty and Skinner, 2008). GnRH receptor expression has been demonstrated at sites within the CNS (Jennes et al., 1997, Albertson et al., 2009, Schang et al., 2011) and a range of peripheral tissues (Hapgood et al., 2005, Skinner et al., 2009). Thus, when GnRH analogs are used therapeutically in human and veterinary medicine, it is also important to consider the effects at these non-reproductive sites.

As GnRH agonists (GnRHa) result in continued receptor stimulation, as opposed to ultradian cyclic changes, their administration initially results in an increase in LH and FSH secretion (‘flare-effect’), followed by the down-regulation of GnRH receptor expression in the pituitary gland and suppression of reproductive axis function (Garner, 1994, Chen and Eugster, 2015). GnRHa is typically prescribed when the suppression of the reproductive axis is required, such as steroid-sensitive conditions like prostate cancer, uterine fibroids and endometriosis (Garner, 1994). In children and adolescents, GnRHa can be prescribed for treatment of central precocious puberty (CPP) (Chen and Eugster, 2015) and gender dysphoria (GD) (Hembree et al., 2009) to temporarily halt reproductive development.

Carel et al. (2009) emphasized the need for investigation of the potential psychological effects associated with peripubertal GnRHa-treatment in CPP. Similarly, the potential effects of GnRHa-treatment on cognition during this important developmental period are not well characterized. Wojniusz et al. (2016) recently demonstrated that peripubertal GnRHa increases emotional reactivity (i.e. emotional and behavioral responses to a fearful situation) in girls with CPP, whereas resting heart rate decreased and this effect was more pronounced with longer durations of GnRHa-treatment. Studies, using an ovine model, have also demonstrated that peripubertal GnRHa-treated rams display increased risk-taking behavior (Wojniusz et al., 2011), altered emotional reactivity (Evans et al., 2012) and reduced long-term spatial reference memory (Hough et al., 2016). Physiological changes within the limbic system have also been reported in this ovine model, as peripubertal GnRHa-treatment alters amygdala volume (Nuruddin et al., 2013a) and the expression of hippocampal genes that are involved in endocrine signaling and synaptic plasticity (Nuruddin et al., 2013b). With this growing body of evidence that peripubertal GnRHa-treatment may affect development of cognitive function, there is now a requirement to investigate whether these effects are reversible when GnRHa-treatment is discontinued.

Using rams as an animal model, the study from which I drew that quote found that prepuberty administration of GnRH agonists impaired long-term spatial memory and that “this impairment was not reversed after discontinuing GnRHa-treatment”. In other words, they found that puberty blockers irreversibly alter cognitive functions when administered during a critical window of development. Yes, this is an animal model, but if anything, the effect on people is likely to be more significant, and as far as I can tell, the counter evidence pretty much amounts to professions of faith at this point.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

The proposition that severely disrupting a child’s endocrine system during a critical developmental period could be “entirely reversible” is implausible. The drugs referred to as puberty blockers interfere with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptors, which are not only expressed in the reproductive system, but also in the central nervous system and various parts of the brain:

Using rams as an animal model, the study from which I drew that quote found that prepuberty administration of GnRH agonists impaired long-term spatial memory and that “this impairment was not reversed after discontinuing GnRHa-treatment”. In other words, they found that puberty blockers irreversibly alter cognitive functions when administered during a critical window of development. Yes, this is an animal model, but if anything, the effect on people is likely to be more significant, and as far as I can tell, the counter evidence pretty much amounts to professions of faith at this point.

Lovely post.

Rams are not humans, the onus is on you to present evidence rams brains are analogues to humans, you're claiming if I cut off my arm it'll grow back because jellyfish do it, I am not a jellyfish. Many animal studies even on primates do not bear out to humans. Human brain are more complex, yes, but this also makes them more able to compensate, and does not change the ability to give informed consent to treatment.

Secondly rams don't understand they're on blockers, and maybe distressed by not fitting into sheep society, and forced to take more risks to maintain their hierarchy position, and that the "ill effects" are not by the brain but by external factor. Heightened fear response in humans girls suggests this will not carry over to human, casting doubt on your claims that rams are analogues to humans.

Third, different is not inferior.

fourth, blockers were not made for rams, they were designed for humans, dosages maybe too high, chemicals structures too alien, and suppression too damaging, none of these concerns were raised in the use of blockers for precocious puberty.

finally and most important, reversible, does not mean organically self correcting. If we can trigger correction or provide the GnRH analogues externally, it is still reversible.

[Lord Thesaurian]

A lack of evidence also invalidates arguments against, not just for,

That’s not how evidence works, but even if one adopts this standard, the concession these treatments and procedures lack supporting evidence would mean the prior claims about the latter being disinformation because these procedures are medically necessary and life saving are false.

the endocrine society, and wpath are clear, it is the inclusion of unqualified professions which drive this claim.

Why is the NHS unqualified? I don’t consider your alleged experience with receiving certain treatments or procedures to be a representative sample, never mind a requisite qualification.

Secondly hey have not been restricted, they simply proscribed conditional on follow up evidence gathering

That’s a restriction. Proposed restrictions include not only limiting puberty blockers, hormones and surgery to controlled research settings, but also limiting social transitioning to adolescents who meet certain criteria. That constitutes an indictment of the entire approach of gender affirming care, let alone providing sex reassignment procedures and treatments to minors, which is anyone under 18 in the US.

children who are not adolescents, do not need puberty blockers, as they are not going through puberty, that is what adolescent means.

Even by the UK standard of 16, the proposed restrictions based on commissioned research would render this assertion moot. Children, that is, people below the age of majority in the US or UK, receive sex reassignment procedures and treatments, including puberty blockers, with increasing frequency. The NHS is seeking to restrict this practice, as are several US states.

[The spartan]

I can only guess the reason we’re 50+ posts in and criticism has never advanced beyond slippery slope arguments about hypocrisy is because no one can come up with an effective position affirming what the legislation prohibits.

Do you believe things should be banned by the government unless wholly affirmed? Isn't that a little backwards?

And I am guessing the reason no one is pointing to direct cases of this law being misused by the government is that it hasn't been signed into law, yet.

It’s disingenuous to suggest the ban is out of line with medical consensus. There is no medical consensus on the benefits and risks of these procedures. If anything, the emerging consensus has resulted in similar prohibitions in other western countries.

My guess is that the medical community would like to further investigate and understand these treatments, but this law would prevent that entirely, no? The government has come to a conclusion: no more of this treatment no matter what the medical community thinks.

You may not believe government has a right to investigate and intervene in child abuse cases, but no argument has thus far identified how the legislation conflicts with relevant state law to justify the hype vs the text.

You are sneaking in the presupposition that gender affirming medical procedures are self-evidently child abuse. I obviously believe the government has a right to investigate and intervene in child abuse; the disagreement comes in with how fast and loose the government can play with what counts as "child abuse". I personally think that sending your children to a religious camp is a form (loosely) of child abuse. I could snidely say "You may not believe government has a right to investigate and intervene in child abuse cases..." because you don't want to ban sending kids to religious camps, but that would be stupid.

If they are “incredibly niche” treatments, then the ban will have an accordingly isolated impact and calling it a “chilling medical precedent” is based primarily on one’s imagination. People can’t have it both ways.

How many kids in Florida do you think are receiving puberty blockers or hormones, exactly? And consider this hypothetical: let's the government is passing a bill that would prevent from anyone using the name "Lord Thesaurian" online from posting or communicating any ideas online. That bill would be incredibly niche, targeted, and still setting a chilling precedent from the government, no?

I don’t think OP’s position is representative of conservatives at all, since we know most US conservatives agree parents shouldn’t be allowed to provide their trans children with puberty blockers, hormones or sex reassignment surgery.

OP is no true Scotsman, eh? He doesn't represent conservatives at all! I bet he is even a Dem supporting RINO if you ask me!

I too can imagine all kinds of horror stories under those parameters, regardless of sex reassignment having anything to do with it. I’m sure there are tragedies as well, inherent to any process that involves taking children from parents.

But at least it is targeting the right people, eh? Enemies deserve what's coming to them.

However, I’ve yet to see kids snatched by police vans from their parents’ arms off the street as a result of this chilling precedent. Until this legislation came along, most people seemed to consider the idea of state intervention in child abuse cases to be common sense. If there’s hypocrisy involved, surely it would be to object now.

Probably because the bill hasn't even been signed into law, yet. People are concerned about the implications of the bill, not the pre-cog, future-sight cases that may or may not happen. Again, the government could ban "Lord Thesaurian" from the internet and I wouldn't be saying something as silly as "where are the police vans?" before it was even signed into law.

I am a conservative and I am nervous about big government. I know other conservatives that are equally nervous about big government and some of them have not voted for Republicans since Trump became the nominee.
Your generalizations are wrong.

I agree that his generalizations are wrong, but there is a clear problem of conservatives being inundated with extremists that are quite comfortable with using big government to achieve their ends and that is making people like coughdrop question the sincerity of conservatives being "against big government". I am not at that point, I think there are still a lot more even-keeled conservatives that question even this use of big government, despite Thesaurian claiming your conservative view is non-representative, but there is a reason the GOP is pandering to these laws in particular.

[Infidel144]

In TWC yes I'm the best resource,

No. You are not. Your mere say so is worth nothing.

They did not, we have the internet, source your claims:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender...ria/treatment/

???
That is exactly what I quoted from and linked too in my post (#56).
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender...ria/treatment/

[Lord Thesaurian]

Do you believe things should be banned by the government unless wholly affirmed? Isn't that a little backwards?

And I am guessing the reason no one is pointing to direct cases of this law being misused by the government is that it hasn't been signed into law, yet.

Probably because the bill hasn't even been signed into law, yet. People are concerned about the implications of the bill, not the pre-cog, future-sight cases that may or may not happen. Again, the government could ban "Lord Thesaurian" from the internet and I wouldn't be saying something as silly as "where are the police vans?" before it was even signed into law.

Government taking kids from abusive homes already exists based on broad statutory authority. The onus is on you to justify these allusions to “chilling precedents” with something besides innuendo if you want your commentary to be taken seriously.

My guess is that the medical community would like to further investigate and understand these treatments, but this law would prevent that entirely, no? The government has come to a conclusion: no more of this treatment no matter what the medical community thinks.

The medical community thinks these treatments have no proven benefits for kids vs lifelong risks. Caveats in the legislation in question already cover medical treatments for injury and physical disease.

You are sneaking in the presupposition that gender affirming medical procedures are self-evidently child abuse. I obviously believe the government has a right to investigate and intervene in child abuse; the disagreement comes in with how fast and loose the government can play with what counts as "child abuse". I personally think that sending your children to a religious camp is a form (loosely) of child abuse. I could snidely say "You may not believe government has a right to investigate and intervene in child abuse cases..." because you don't want to ban sending kids to religious camps, but that would be stupid.

Sending kids to a religious camp absolutely would involve potential abuse according to Florida law if the kids at the camp are being physically harmed/neglected or threatened with such by the adults responsible for them, and would be determined by an investigation by the requisite state authorities that may result in arrests and closure of the camp. A quick Google will reveal many such cases, including in red states.

OP is no true Scotsman, eh? He doesn't represent conservatives at all! I bet he is even a Dem supporting RINO if you ask me!

You were the one that appealed to OP’s conservatism. I simply pointed out most conservatives disagree with him on this.

[alhoon]

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-death-of-son/

So, Florida should make a law in order to take kids away from vegan parents to be fair.


@LT: "I simply pointed out most conservatives disagree with him on this."
And I remind you that your sources talk about the opinions of conservatives on trans issues NOT on whether the state should take kids away from their parents over said issues.

[Lord Thesaurian]

So, Florida should make a law in order to take kids away from vegan parents to be fair.

Again, that’s not how the law works. The woman was sentenced for child abuse and neglect that resulted in severe bodily harm and, in this case, death. The article even clarifies that the children who remained alive were being or had been removed from the home following investigations in more than one state. This case merely underscores how uninformed slippery slope arguments throughout the thread have relied on appeals to the alleged novelty of longstanding and nationwide legal structures to parrot manufactured outrage from left wing media.

And I remind you that your sources talk about the opinions of conservatives on trans issues NOT on whether the state should take kids away from their parents over said issues.

This assertion is misleading since we know most Americans, let alone conservatives, agree parents shouldn’t be allowed to provide their kids with sex reassignment treatments and procedures. A majority of Texans, including 73% of conservatives and 67% of moderates, back legislation similar to the one we’re discussing. All comparisons you’ve come up with to illustrate your minority viewpoint have only underscored the extent to which the legislation is consistent with existing legal precedent and statutory authority.

https://uh.edu/hobby/tx2023/culture.pdf

[Infidel144]

This assertion is misleading since we know most Americans, let alone conservatives, agree parents shouldn’t be allowed to provide their kids with sex reassignment treatments and procedures. A majority of Texans, including 73% of conservatives and 67% of moderates, back legislation similar to the one we’re discussing. All comparisons you’ve come up with to illustrate your minority viewpoint have only underscored the extent to which the legislation is consistent with existing legal precedent and statutory authority.

https://uh.edu/hobby/tx2023/culture.pdf

WaPo did a poll as well (pay walled but here is The Hill article via Yahoo):

"A majority of Americans oppose allowing gender-affirming care for minors and transgender women participating in women’s sports, a poll found."
[note the misleading headline/lede]
"A Washington Post-KFF poll found that 68 percent of adults oppose access to puberty-blocking medication for transgender children ages 10-14 and 58 percent oppose access to hormonal treatments for transgender kids ages 15 to 17."

"More than 60 percent said transgender women and girls should not be allowed to compete with other women and girls in youth, high school, college and professional sports."

"A majority of adults surveyed in the poll, 57 percent, said a person’s gender is determined by their sex assigned at birth, while 43 percent said it can be different from their sex assigned at birth."

"Those in the youngest age group, 18 to 34 years old, were most likely to say that gender can be different from sex assigned at birth, but 53 percent of that group said it could not."

"More than 60 percent also said they support allowing transgender minors, both 10 to 14 and 15 to 17, to have access to gender-affirming counseling or therapy."

https://news.yahoo.com/majority-amer...132053232.html

[alhoon]

we know most Americans, let alone conservatives, agree parents shouldn’t be allowed to provide their kids with sex reassignment treatments and procedures.

Which is not the same as most Americans agreeing that the state should take kids from families that may consider giving in to the teenager's insistence and get them to a sex reassignment procedure.
You equate "I am against people allowing their teens to transition" with "I believe this should be a reason to take the kids away from the family."

A majority of Texans, including 73% of conservatives and 67% of moderates, back legislation similar to the one we’re discussing.

https://uh.edu/hobby/tx2023/culture.pdf

Indeed, page three of this link does say exactly that. You could have been a bit more helpful and say "See page 2" or better quote it:
"57% of Texans support (and 43% oppose) legislation that would classify as child abuse in Texas any gender-affirming care sought by parents from medical or mental health professionals to change or
affirm their child’s perception of the child’s sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.
This legislation is supported by: 73% of Republicans and 67% of Independents, compared to the significantly lower proportion of 36% of Democrats. More than half of Republicans (51%) strongly support this legislation."


However, I am not sure Texans represent the Americans as well as you think. 57% of Texans in support of classifying gender-affirming care as child abuse is ... not surprising and what I would expect. Now, if we look in California, we would probably see a veeery different picture.

Keep in mind that (page 3) 45% of Texans support the "Confederate heroes day" as a state holiday in Texas. "Traitor's holiday" should be a better name, but still 45% of Texans support it.
Or that (page 4) 48% of Texans support stripping University faculty of tenure if they teach critical race theory. That is a nice big hit to Free Speech and the reason why Universities had academic immunity / asylum since the 13th century: so that the local bishop or feudal lord could not arrest professors for what they were teaching.

Again, that’s not how the law works. [...]

Yes, I know. It is called "Double standards".
There is a good argument to be made that parents that want to put their kids in a vegan diet will do irreparable harm to them. A very good argument, considering a kid died and that some vegans are militant vegans.

So, why target only the parents that consider gender-change care with that law and not include the also-dangerous vegan parents that consider putting their kids to dangerous diets?
Why should we consider child abuse the gender-change care and not the malnutrition that vegans may force on their kids? Malnutrition is ALSO considered abuse, just so you know.

The answer as to why target parents that consider gender change for their teens is simple: It has nothing to do with actual consideration for the welfare of the kids and everything to do with intimidation. The Republican Legislators of Florida wouldn't give a dime over the health or fate of those few kids, they just wanted to punish those that think that way and also gather applause from their base.
It is not about the kids, it's about intimidation and appealing to the base.

If Florida legislature really cared about kids (in general, including the transexuals) they would try to legislate things like increased maternity bonuses so that mothers can afford to be with their kids more, or better quality food for schools, or legislation to lower the fees pediatricians can ask for treating a kid etc etc etc.

[Infidel144]

Which is not the same as most Americans agreeing that the state should take kids from families that may consider giving in to the teenager's insistence and get them to a sex reassignment procedure.

Define "consider".
Then provide the quote from the bill or law that says that.

And in case you missed it above:
"A Washington Post-KFF poll found that 68 percent of adults oppose access to puberty-blocking medication for transgender children ages 10-14 and 58 percent oppose access to hormonal treatments for transgender kids ages 15 to 17."

[Lord Thesaurian]

Yes, I know. It is called "Double standards".

It’s not a double standard if you understand the basics of how child abuse is defined and prosecuted. I explained those basics and why there is no double standard.

So, why target only the parents that consider gender-change care with that law and not include the also-dangerous vegan parents that consider putting their kids to dangerous diets?

Because the parent in question wasn’t “targeted” nor was she arrested and charged for feeding her kids a vegan diet. She was charged with abuse and neglect resulting in bodily harm and death. Not all vegan parents have malnourished children therefore not all vegan parents are inflicting bodily harm on their children. By contrast, children who undergo sex reassignment procedures necessarily face similar risk of bodily harm as a malnourished child, a neglected child with unsupervised access to a loaded gun, or any of the other examples you’ve come up with. It’s the same standard for child abuse and temporary state custody which already exists. Your opinion is incorrect.

I am not sure Texans represent the Americans as well as you think. 57% of Texans in support of classifying gender-affirming care as child abuse is ... not surprising and what I would expect. Now, if we look in California, we would probably see a veeery different picture.

Texan conservatives are as good a proxy as any for US conservatives, especially at the state level. If there is a poll of Florida conservatives regarding the Florida version of the legislation, feel free to post it. Unless you’re saying you’re not a conservative, I don’t know why you’d bring up California. Safe to say there’s no scenario here where your conservatism is representative of what most conservatives think about this legislation.

It is not about the kids, it's about intimidation and appealing to the base.

The above is a summary of this entire thread and you haven’t offered anything more it seems. Impugning the alleged motives behind a piece of legislation isn’t much good if you can’t make an argument against the legislation itself.

[Coughdrop addict]

The answer as to why target parents that consider gender change for their teens is simple: It has nothing to do with actual consideration for the welfare of the kids and everything to do with intimidation. The Republican Legislators of Florida wouldn't give a dime over the health or fate of those few kids, they just wanted to punish those that think that way and also gather applause from their base.
It is not about the kids, it's about intimidation and appealing to the base.

There's one other reason. It's the same reason for the frenzy of anti-LGBT laws being passed to try and drive LGBT back into the closet. To keep the Republican party viable.

Republicans don't want Billy to know any LGBT people. They want him to think of them as alien, monstrous and threatening, as Republican propaganda constantly paints them to be. In addition in Florida (and likely soon all red states) it is illegal for a teacher to explain to Billy why Sally has two mothers, or that Peter's mom was born a man, even when he asks.

Why? Because Republicans worry he might come to understand LGBT people. If Billy understands them, he is less likely to fear them. If he doesn't fear them, he is less likely to grow up to hate them and want to harm them.

And then why would Billy ever vote Republican?

Understanding something means you no longer fear it, and without fear of the other the Republican party cannot exist.

If Florida legislature really cared about kids (in general, including the transexuals) they would try to legislate things like increased maternity bonuses so that mothers can afford to be with their kids more, or better quality food for schools, or legislation to lower the fees pediatricians can ask for treating a kid etc etc etc.

They don't do it because every penny spent on improving the lives of 99.9% of the population is one that isn't going to someone who already has billions of dollars and bribes Republicans to pass laws to hand him billions more. As for the base, to them government is about taking out their grievances on people they think have wronged them or just flat out don't like. Laws that help others hold no interests to them.

[alhoon]

Because the parent in question wasn’t “targeted” nor was she arrested and charged for feeding her kids a vegan diet.

THAT
IS
MY
POINT.

She was not targeted nor arrested and charged for her dangerous parental preferences. That is the double standard. Why do you find it hard to understand this?
I will repeat: Parents that consider putting their kids on ad blockers have now legislation saying that this is child abuse = targeting them.
Vegan parents that consider putting their kids on a vegan diet do not have such legislation saying that this is childing abuse = not targeting them.

Double standards.

But I will concede that if 2 out of 3 Texan conservatives support X, then it is possible that conservatives in many more states support X. Which, to my horror, would mean that the majority of USA conservatives feel more threatened by the 0.5% of transexuals than by large government and government over-reach.

And why I may not align with the majority of USA conservatives on this issue (or guns), I am a conservative. Not because I "Identify as a conservative", I don't believe you are what you identify as obviously. But I am against gender change without a serious panel of professionals (not progressive hacks that send people to snip-snip room after an hour) saying that the teenager requires this or he or she may commit suicide. I am against shows and media that promote how awesome and brave the 5% of real LGBT people, not those that have been gaslighted by the media (or porn), to think they are LGBT.

But yes, I believe in freedom of expression for that annoying 5% and I believe in their right to demand shows I abhor. All in all, I recognize their right to disagree with me and express their wrong beliefs about gender and sexuality. I also believe the government needs much more to take a child from his parents than the "possibility" the parents (after doctor's instructions) agree to allow their teen to take dangerous puberty blockers.

Last but not least: Why on earth, should I have to demonstrate my conservative credentials to you? I agree with Conservatives in the majority of issues and I have demonstrated these beliefs consistently for the past 15 years in TWC.
I just also believe in freedom of expression and I don't trust large government.

Why? Because Republicans worry he might come to understand LGBT people. If Billy understands them, he is less likely to fear them. If he doesn't fear them, he is less likely to grow up to hate them and want to harm them.

And then why would Billy ever vote Republican?

I have news for you: There are gay Republicans. Many of them in fact. Far less than gay democrats, obviously, but many.

As for the base, to them government is about taking out their grievances on people they think have wronged them or just flat out don't like.

While this is demonstrably not true for the majority of the Republican base, it is unfortunately true for large minority. A vocal one.
Who also say they are Christians and are happy to teach about the Good Samaritan or the value of charity etc. Sure, I should not judge and I am not the one who will Judge them, but it is hard to not blink at this behavior in confusion.

[Coughdrop addict]

I have news for you: There are gay Republicans. Many of them in fact. Far less than gay democrats, obviously, but many.

Most gay Republicans are so far in the closet they're in Narnia. The handful who aren't are happy to support Republican's assault on LGBT rights. If I were to take a guess as too why, it's because they assume that if the base ever did break out the guillotines, they'd be the ones leading the mob or safely beyond it's reach. The idea that they could be the target of anti-LGBT violence or suffer oppression under anti-LGBT laws is something that never crosses their minds.

[alhoon]

Most gay Republicans are so far in the closet they're in Narnia.

The handful who aren't are happy to support Republican's assault on LGBT rights.

The ones I know support Republicans for various reasons, which is not to support an assault on LGBT rights. Some believe in small government and for reasons I am not sure about in 2020-forward think the Republicans still want that. Another one I know is ... well, a religious conservative. Married with a man.
Others are in Trump's cult. Or may prefer the state's republican governors. Or they may be trolls that are attracted to the Republican variety of snow-flakery.

I'm more wondering, why there are no laws against child abuse by christian religious parents by refusing medical help or education by the stick because the Jesus voice in my head said so?

Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ | Idaho | The Guardian

Religiosity Common Among Mothers Who Kill Children (uchc.edu)

Add there that Conversion therapy is legal in Florida. You know, torturing teens either emotionally or even physically with electroshocks and beatings.
But noooooooo. That can't be abuse.

Your teen-aged son has gender dysphoria. In Florida, your choices are:
- kick him out of the house. Not abuse.
- Send him to a center where he will be told again and again how horrible he is, that he is sinful and that he has to pray the gay away and receive beatings. Not abuse.
- Arrange for your teen to see a psychologist that would evaluate whether the teen has gender dysphoria or not, and if the teen agrees, subscribe some medicine. HORRIBLE ABUSE! TAKE THE KID! SAVE HIM!!!!

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I'm more wondering, why there are no laws against child abuse by christian religious parents by refusing medical help or education by the stick because the Jesus voice in my head said so?

Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ | Idaho | The Guardian

Religiosity Common Among Mothers Who Kill Children (uchc.edu)

[Lord Thesaurian]

She was not targeted nor arrested and charged for her dangerous parental preferences. That is the double standard. Why do you find it hard to understand this?

You don’t seem to understand that a vegan diet does not inherently threaten bodily harm to kids. Providing sex reassignment treatments and procedures to them does. /thread

Add there that Conversion therapy is legal in Florida. You know, torturing teens either emotionally or even physically with electroshocks and beatings.
But noooooooo. That can't be abuse.

A divided federal appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional two south Florida laws that banned therapists from offering conversion therapy to children struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In a 2-1 decision, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with two therapists who said the laws in the city of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County violated their free speech rights.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-...orida-n1248518

I'm more wondering, why there are no laws against child abuse by christian religious parents by refusing medical help or education by the stick because the Jesus voice in my head said so?

Many Christian Scientists are prosecuted if their children suffer physical mistreatment and neglect, as your own source mentions. Religious freedom makes this a more precarious proposition than other examples, so I guess as soon as transgenderists admit their creed is a religion, they could potentially enjoy those same protections.