Started By
Message

Massachusetts officials took custody of teenage girl after parents refused gender change

Posted on 9/14/26 at 11:59 am
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
171878 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 11:59 am
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
171878 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:01 pm to
Catholic Parents in Massachusetts Fight State Over Daughter's Gender Transition

Last updated
1 hour ago

Massachusetts officials took custody of the teenage girl after her parents refused to affirm her as a boy, citing their faith, following a school counselor's secret social transition and report to child services. The state holds guardianship, but a judge has paused high-dose testosterone treatments ahead of an October 29 hearing. The family claims abuse allegations were baseless and shares details of Sophie's placement in a boys' dormitory without access to Mass. Attorney Vernadette Broyles pushes for reforms so parental refusal isn't seen as neglect.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
171878 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:05 pm to
If what I am reading is accurate...The state called child protective services on the parents.

Once that label is applied, and they are involved, how do you fight such a thing?

I am glad they are going national, it may be their only hope.
This post was edited on 9/14/26 at 12:41 pm
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
171878 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:07 pm to
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
47579 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:07 pm to
Leftist's subscribe to an evil worldview.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
67169 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:11 pm to
quote:

following a school counselor's secret social transition and report to child services
I'd love to see a picture of this woman, and yes, it's certainly a woman.

High school counselors get to take away your kids and troon them out. What a world.
Posted by Wildcat1996
Lexington, KY
Member since Jul 2020
10868 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:17 pm to
The state has always had the power to take your kid. And when the kid had bruises and burn marks, we all understood it.

This is insane. It’s considered elective by most insurers and not even covered on most plans. It’s no different than a nose job or lipo.

Suicide rates in the trans population are almost 10X greater than the general population.

There are a number of theories on this, but the one that resonates with me the most is the rejection of self.
Posted by MMauler
Primary This RINO Traitor
Member since Jun 2013
24818 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:22 pm to
Every candidate running for every office in America should be asked to tell us their position on this f*cking insanity.
Posted by lionward2014
New Orleans
Member since Jul 2015
14651 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:26 pm to
I genuinely don't understand how anyone with a half functioning brain can support this. Even if you are a "trans rights" person this has to be a bridge too far.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
129903 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:27 pm to
Prog figs then “This isn’t happening.”

Prog figs now “It’s good that it’s happening and here’s why…”
Posted by RFK
Mar-a-Lago
Member since May 2012
3405 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:28 pm to
I feel like there’s more to the story - if a doctor determined the transition was “life saving care” (for example she was suicidal due to her gender dysphoria diagnoses) then the state would have grounds to intervene.

It’s no different than if they refused other life saving care. This is typically the justification states have used.
Posted by Juan Betanzos
New Orleans
Member since Nov 2005
4582 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:33 pm to
I guarantee, if the family was Muslim, then the state would've backed off.... O

State: "Only go after the Jews and Christians"
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
129903 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:33 pm to
quote:

feel like there’s more to the story


No one GAF, jagoff.
Posted by gaetti15
AK
Member since Apr 2013
15776 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:35 pm to
quote:

It’s no different than if they refused other life saving care. This is typically the justification states have used.



I'm going to take "life saving care" measures for a mental illness that just re-enforces the mental illness to begin with
Posted by Barneyrb
NELA
Member since May 2016
7476 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:37 pm to
How old is this kid?
Posted by OccamsStubble
Member since Aug 2019
10729 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:41 pm to
quote:

Massachusetts officials took custody of teenage girl after parents refused gender change


I want to live in a state where I cannot stop my daughter from getting genital mutilation, but I can kill her if I want.
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
82930 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:48 pm to
quote:

I feel like there’s more to the story - if a doctor determined the transition was “life saving care” (for example she was suicidal due to her gender dysphoria diagnoses) then the state would have grounds to intervene.


Except that transition is not only proven to not be life saving care, but increases suicidal ideation.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
171878 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:49 pm to
Your premise fails at only parents handle medical care.

I had to sign papers so my child could get tylenol at school.

Parents are carte blanche' the one and only advocates for medical care. Not some transdyke school counselor or any counselor at school.

This child could be being abused further in a foster home, more so than lying she is a he.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
171878 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:53 pm to
Someone asked grok ...13 now 15 but am not 100%.
Posted by the808bass
The Lou
Member since Oct 2012
129903 posts
Posted on 9/14/26 at 12:54 pm to
quote:

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026)² provides the most direct guidance. The Court evaluated policies that allowed schools to conceal a student’s gender identity and social transition from parents absent the student’s consent.

The Court concluded that such policies likely violate constitutional protections because they substantially interfere with the right of parents to guide their children’s upbringing and development, prevent parents from acting as the primary decision-makers for their children’s welfare, and replace parental authority with state actors.

The Court emphasized that “parents—not the State—have primary authority” over children’s upbringing and rejected the argument that secrecy policies are justified by generalized appeals to student safety. The Court found that these secrecy policies were unlikely to survive strict scrutiny, the exacting review necessary when parental rights are at stake, particularly where these policies excluded parents entirely from decisions involving gender identity and mental health.


LINK
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram