- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jury rules against dad trying to save his 7-year-old from gender ‘transition’
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:20 pm to ShortyRob
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:20 pm to ShortyRob
I'll summarize.
1. There is zero science backing up transitioning a 7 year old. In fact, the actual science that has been done indicates that it's a near certainty, the 7 year old would NOT be dysphoric post puberty.
2. The idea that the state would allow a mother to do an elective PERMANENT procedure of basically any other sort to a 7 year old is laughable. Even in cases without an specific law, if a parent went to court to stop another parent from any of the following to a 7 year old, the parent would win going away.
A) Boob Job
B) Nose Job
C) Lipo
D) Tattoo
E) Gauge Piercings
F) Gold Teeth
I could go on. The parent would never fricking lose.
The end.
1. There is zero science backing up transitioning a 7 year old. In fact, the actual science that has been done indicates that it's a near certainty, the 7 year old would NOT be dysphoric post puberty.
2. The idea that the state would allow a mother to do an elective PERMANENT procedure of basically any other sort to a 7 year old is laughable. Even in cases without an specific law, if a parent went to court to stop another parent from any of the following to a 7 year old, the parent would win going away.
A) Boob Job
B) Nose Job
C) Lipo
D) Tattoo
E) Gauge Piercings
F) Gold Teeth
I could go on. The parent would never fricking lose.
The end.
2
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:23 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
2. The idea that the state would allow a mother to do an elective PERMANENT procedure of basically any other sort to a 7 year old is laughable. Even in cases without an specific law, if a parent went to court to stop another parent from any of the following to a 7 year old, the parent would win going away.
A) Boob Job
B) Nose Job
C) Lipo
D) Tattoo
E) Gauge Piercings
F) Gold Teeth
Hell. I might add that in all of the above cases, even if the other parent didn't go to court, there's a damned good chance that CPS would step in to prevent it if they became aware. In fact, I'd bet my house on that too!
And ya know what? CPS would win.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:24 pm to ShortyRob
quote:you’re reading comprehension seems to have declined markedly of late. Let me try again. Let’s look at breast implants for a 7-year-old.
”OMG......don't give me any examples that might directly mirror doing this to a 7 year old...............if you bring up breast implants or tattoos, I only want to talk about late teenagers!!!!!"
First, I am not aware of any Texs or federal law which would prohibit such a procedure. You said something about FDA. You are correct, in that the FDA does not approve that device for use at that age. That does not prohibit anyone from using it, it simply has certain statutory and regulatory implications. Under current law, no doctor is going to be sent for to jail if he were to give breast implants to a seven-year-old.
Second, I think it is an extraordinarily bad idea to put breast implants in a seven-year-old. it is one of many thousands of things that I think are a bad idea, but that I do not believe should be prohibited through the coercive power of government .
Third, I do not think that the government has any business whatsoever prohibiting a parent from giving consent to the ridiculously bad idea of consenting to a breast implant procedure for her 7-year-old … regardless of how bad an idea I think that procedure would be. AGAIN, The occasional bad decision by a parent is not adequate to justify a broader regimen of governmental interference in people’s lives.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:27 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
There is zero science backing up transitioning a 7 year old. In fact, the actual science that has been done indicates that it's a near certainty, the 7 year old would NOT be dysphoric post puberty.
I have a sneaky suspicion that this is being done for that purpose. The mother probably thinks there is zero difference between men and women and is going to raise her son as a daughter to prove it. She's keeping records, and will submit peer reviewed material after a few years. Probably a book as well.
I hope not. I just don't understand why else a mother would do this to her son.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Nope.
ou’re reading comprehension seems to have declined markedly of light
And, yeah. I hope you don't think such low grade insults actually affect me.
quote:
First, I am not aware of any taxes or federal law which would prohibit such a procedure. You said something about FDA. You are correct, in that the FDA does not approve that device for use at that age. That does not prohibit anyone from using it, it simply has certain statutory and regulatory implications. Under current law, no doctor is going to be sent for to jail if he were to give breast implants to a seven-year-old.
The state would rule in favor of any parent trying to stop it and you know it.
quote:This is just stupid.
Second, I think it is an extraordinarily bad idea to put breast implants in a seven-year-old. it is one of many thousands of things that I think are a bad idea, but that I do not believe should be prohibited through the coercive power of government .
quote:
Third, I do not think that the government has any business whatsoever prohibiting a parent from giving consent to the ridiculously bad idea of consenting to a breast implant procedure for her 7-year-old … regardless of how bad an idea I think that procedure would be. AGAIN, The occasional bad decision by a parent is not adequate to justify a broader regimen of governmental interference in people’s lives.
Then stick with, "I support this shite" and be done with it. No need for all the interference running because we ALREADY KNOW that you liberals are OK with this.
That isn't news.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:28 pm to BeefDawg
quote:I did not raise any of the issues that you discuss. I simply responded to other posters who did raise them.
No, you're sick because you're actually trying to apply relevance in your stupid hypothetical to the James Younger case, which makes you appear to be defending the mother and the court in their decision to make a life-altering and irreversible physical and biological change to a child's gender.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:28 pm to Azkiger
quote:This experiment has already been done at least twice of note.
I have a sneaky suspicion that this is being done for that purpose. The mother probably thinks there is zero difference between men and women and is going to raise her son as a daughter to prove it. She's keeping records, and will submit peer reviewed material after a few years. Probably a book as well.
In both cases, the child fricked with ended up killing themselves.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:28 pm to AggieHank86
Aggiehank equates child abuse to a "bad idea" and since its "just a bad idea" it shouldn't be unlawful.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:28 pm to Malik Agar
quote:
I fully expect that kid to grow up and butcher everyone that ruined his life.
that kid will commit suicide by 13.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:29 pm to DeusVultMachina
quote:Yup
Aggiehank equates child abuse to a "bad idea" and since its "just a bad idea" it shouldn't be unlawful.
Basically. If you are an adult and you groom your VERY minor child to believe they are the opposite sex, you can then use that child abuse to justify your NEXT step in the abuse chain!
And frick that evil old state for noticing!
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:30 pm to Flats
quote:no, I am defending the position that government simply needs to stay itself out of parental decision-making.quote:You're obviously defending this proposed action.
Everyone in this thread is advocating for the nanny state, and they do not even seem to know it.
if government keeps its nose out of the matter, I certainly acknowledge that some parents will make bad decisions. As I have said previously, that is a cost of limited government.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:31 pm to Azkiger
quote:
She's keeping records, and will submit peer reviewed material after a few years. Probably a book as well.
At the very least, she'll be a hero to her facebook friends. So brave!
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:31 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
D) Tattoo
I did see a few cases of parents charged with child abuse for getting tattoos on young children. The laws vary by state, as they should IMO.
The judge was never going to let this guy win. I found this in another article:
"Per the custody order, the only parent authorized to oversee James’ psychological counseling is his mother."
Then we have this unintentionally hilarious line:
"After observing James and his behavior, I cannot see how his counselor at Dallas Rainbow Counseling could have diagnosed James with gender dysphoria."
The Federalist
The entire situation is disgusting. If the dad goes postal he wants me on the jury.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:31 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Third, I do not think that the government has any business whatsoever prohibiting a parent from giving consent to the ridiculously bad idea of consenting to a breast implant procedure for her 7-year-old … regardless of how bad an idea I think that procedure would be. AGAIN, The occasional bad decision by a parent is not adequate to justify a broader regimen of governmental interference in people’s lives.
How far does this go?
Transable kid who wants to be blind?
Is there no line? So long as parents and child consent its given a green light?
At some point I feel a line needs to be drawn. Give me a child from birth and I can have them believing anything by the age of 7. There needs to be safeguards in place where parents don't get to bulldoze over their children. I get that you're pushing against government interference in people's lives but hopefully you do agree that there needs to be some sort of line drawn in the sand.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:31 pm to ShortyRob
I also have to say that I fail to see why it should be legal to groom your child to think he's the opposite sex.........and then CASTRATE him..........but NOT legal to groom your child to believe they should want to frick you.........and then frick them.
Hell. As horrific as the latter is, at least if they one day get away from you, they aren't STILL being raped!
Hell. As horrific as the latter is, at least if they one day get away from you, they aren't STILL being raped!
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:No
no, I am defending the position that government simply needs to stay itself out of parental decision-making.
You are advocating that the state should stay out of parental child abuse by calling it "decision making"
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:33 pm to ShortyRob
quote:I am the only person on this thread posting in favor of limited government, and I am attempting to respond to about a dozen different posters making arguments which (in many cases) are utterly irrational.quote:Oh My God. Just really. Go ahead. Act like the thread doesn't exist.
I NEVER avoid the tough questions,
It is certainly possible that I have missed a point or two, but I specifically asked you to present one single, discrete “edge“ issue that you want to discuss. I think it is extremely telling that you have declined to do so.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:33 pm to kengel2
quote:
this dude murders his wife would anyone be surprised?
If I was on the jury I wouldn’t vote to convict him tbh
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:34 pm to ShortyRob
Just what other things, if I'm a mental health pro, should I be allowed to groom my child to do and then, follow through on because he "asks" me to?
Because, I suspect that most well trained mental health pros can pretty much manipulate a child under 7 into wanting to do ANYTHING.
And, of course. We wouldn't want the state to interfere!
Because, I suspect that most well trained mental health pros can pretty much manipulate a child under 7 into wanting to do ANYTHING.
And, of course. We wouldn't want the state to interfere!
Posted on 10/22/19 at 12:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I also have to say that I fail to see why it should be legal to groom your child to think he's the opposite sex.........and then CASTRATE him..........but NOT legal to groom your child to believe they should want to frick you.........and then frick them.
Great point.
Giving parents TOTAL control over their children will allow some pretty grotesque things.
A line needs to be drawn, and I hope that for most people in this country hormonal therapy/ puberty blockers, and chemical castration for a 7 year old is well beyond that line.
If you're 18 and still want all that, go for it. But 7?
Page 18 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News