Outrage as Florida Republicans pass ‘fascist’ bill to remove trans kids from parents’ custody

[iarwain]

If a doctor signs off on it after the child has gone through therapy and other things to be absolutely sure that this is something that should happen, then it is not abuse.

The problem with that statement is that doctors are under pressure to go along with the "gender affirming care" fad.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The problem with that statement is that doctors are under pressure to go along with the "gender affirming care" fad.

Doctors are mandated by law to provide gender affirming care. Biden signed an EO into law for this a
couple of months ago. Doctors that refuse can lose their license and even be sued.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Taking a child from their parents for ANY IDIOTIC REASON (and yes this falls into an IDIOTIC reason) is horrible. It will cause trauma to the child and parent and no, I don't trust any state or government to "just give back" the kid. If we are going to pull the "parent knows best", then even if a situation doesn't fit your religious belief, the state has NO RIGHT to take away the child.

So you support a child being mutilated with drugs and surgery, even if the parent is allowing it to
get attention for themselves as victims?

This is what Munchausen by Proxy is about.

 

[GDL]

it makes me question if I want to be a Christian because it seems the majority of Christians

Maybe you're not a Christian if you think people's opinions should affect your belief in Christ.

 

[JacksBratt]

And educated medical professionals will work with the child and their parents to understand what the child truly means and needs to live a successful life. Are you going through this? Is a child of yours going through this? Then I wouldn't worry too much about it. Let parents parent and medical professionals do their jobs.

My neice thought she was a cat when she was six.... Must be some pretty good doctors to help her out...

My point is.. these kids don't even know what their genitals are for.. nor should they have to worry about it.. They should only be worried about who's turn it is in the sandbox and that A is for apple.

It would have been pretty easy to convince my buddies and me cause we thought girls were yucky until about grade 6.

 

[JacksBratt]

Amen! It is between the child and God. Do we think that the child is so "gone" that the Holy Spirit can't help them discern the pathway they've been called to?

You can convince a young child of almost anything at a young age. That's why it's child abuse.

What if I raised all my kids by telling them that Blue was Green, Green was Red, Red was blue.. Called our dogs Cats, breakfast was supper, supper was breakfast, the TV was a wizzbobber... and any number of other things that you could do if you really were mad.....

This is no different. Boys think girls are yucky and girls think boys are "gross" until the natural hormones kick in and all of a sudden... Billy and Suzy are getting teased for being friends.... Soon Peter is with Sally and Fred is with Wilma....

If there is an issue when they are fully adult and still want to make an adult decision.. then it's between them and God.

 

[BeyondET]

This is no different. Boys think girls are yucky and girls think boys are "gross" until the natural hormones kick in and all of a sudden... Billy and Suzy are getting teased for being friends.... Soon Peter is with Sally and Fred is with Wilma....

Hmm is that something you experienced growing up. that wasn't the case in my neighborhood we all played together boys and girls.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

 

[Eschatologist]

Taking a child from their parents for ANY IDIOTIC REASON (and yes this falls into an IDIOTIC reason) is horrible. It will cause trauma to the child and parent and no, I don't trust any state or government to "just give back" the kid. If we are going to pull the "parent knows best", then even if a situation doesn't fit your religious belief, the state has NO RIGHT to take away the child.

Whether something is "idiotic" or not is subjective. I believe it's idiotic that some states go the opposite route by taking kids away from their parents when the parents refuse to allow them to transition. This happens in parts of Europe as well.

We can't really debate opinions so much as the criteria behind our opinions. The reason I take the opposite view from you is that I view transitioning a child to another sex/gender is equally as bad as maiming a child that has body integrity disorder. When someone desires to be blind but isn't, we don't blind him/her. When someone desires to be confined to a wheelchair but can walk perfectly fine, we don't break his/her legs. We recognize that the mind is the problem, not the body.

The vast majority of people who have gender issues have a problem in the brain, not in the body. Therefore, they should not be changing people's bodies -- least of all children for that matter. This should be handled with counseling, and on occasion, with medication (not hormones).

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes, that's bad, and hardly conservative, as it represents an extraordinary use of state power.

Parents did the same thing with depressed, psychotic, or mentally-challenged kids in the 30s and 40s, and elected to lobotomize those kids. Doctors were more than willing to provide those services, and were paid handsomely,

someone should have said "no", but no one did.

Even accepting this notion for the sake of argument, it seems extreme and lacking proportionality to justify this kind of expansion in the use of state power to address an issue that effects a small part of the population, for whom informed consent of the parents has been obtained. Parental consent is good enough as a basis for our legal norms in general, why this exception?

 

[FireDragon76]

Your opinion is duly noted.

My point is there should not be legislation that takes children away from their parents because the kid wants to be transgender. With attitudes like I am seeing within this thread and others that are lock-step with people like DeSantis, it makes me question if I want to be a Christian because it seems the majority of Christians care about controlling those who aren't Christians and that is not at all who I am or want to be!

There are other people out there in Florida who don't agree with DeSantis' politics, and we are churchgoing people.

Things are getting bad, though. A woman at our church is considering leaving the state and going back to Michigan. I think she is worried about her physical safety. As a trans woman of color, that isn't unreasonable. And these kinds of laws tend to further stigmatize transpeople, especially trans women.

 

[Eschatologist]

Yes, that's bad, and hardly conservative, as it represents an extraordinary use of state power.



Even accepting this notion for the sake of argument, it seems extreme and lacking proportionality to justify this kind of expansion in the use of state power to address an issue that effects a small part of the population, for whom informed consent of the parents has been obtained. Parental consent is good enough as a basis for our legal norms in general, why this exception?

This is assuming the parental consent is given as a result of the child being innately transgender rather than the child being manipulated into thinking he/she is transgender a la Jazz Jennings.

While I also am reluctant to give the state power over much, this exception seems consistent with a lot of other things we don't allow parents to grant consent for. For example, in most jurisdictions, a parent cannot grant consent for their child to have sex with an adult. If a parent is found to have enabled an adult to have sex with their child at an age below the age of consent, they can be charged with a crime just like the adult can be.

So parental consent is not all-encompassing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Studies have shown that the gender confusion phenomena only surfaces in a given civilized nation during its decline. The madness of forcing gender mutilation and chemical damages related to it on children is not at all supported in the history of nations as though it were "a good thing"

"Camille Pagilia argues that from the Greeks to the Romans to now that homosexuality/gender fluidity/etc are what a culture ends up becoming right before it's downfall. The downfall is brought on by the cultures around the dominant culture that are more rigid in gender roles"

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5mjz54

That's an opinion of an author, not a "study". Camille Paglia is not an historian.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is assuming the parental consent is given as a result of the child being innately transgender rather than the child being manipulated into thinking he/she is transgender a la Jazz Jennings.

While I also am reluctant to give the state power over much, this exception seems consistent with a lot of other things we don't allow parents to grant consent for. For example, in most jurisdictions, a parent cannot grant consent for their child to have sex with an adult. If a parent is found to have enabled an adult to have sex with their child at an age below the age of consent, they can be charged with a crime just like the adult can be.

So parental consent is not all-encompassing.

So we should allow politicians and social workers opinions to override that of medical doctors?

Informed consent is good enough in other areas of law and medical ethics, why the exception here?

 

[FireDragon76]

Again, it's illegal for a doctor to refuse to provide transition drugs or surgery, when a child and parent come
to him for such. A doctor can lose his/her license to practice if they refuse.

That isn't true, at least in the US. A doctor or clinician always has the right to refuse treatment on ethical grounds, if they believe the patient is not a good candidate for the medical intervention.

 

[Eschatologist]

So we should allow politicians and social workers opinions to override that of medical doctors?

Informed consent is good enough in other areas of law and medical ethics, why the exception here?

As far as social workers go, their input is already part of the process. Typically, social workers are at the beginning of the evaluation. It's their job to bring attention to any perceived issues in a given family. What happens next depends upon what is determined by law enforcement and sometimes doctors.

Ironically enough, social workers tend to skew left, so they will more likely have a bias in favor of separating kids from their parents if they refuse to allow a child to transition.

 

[FireDragon76]

As far as social workers go, their input is already part of the process. Typically, social workers are at the beginning of the evaluation. It's their job to bring attention to any perceived issues in a given family. What happens next depends upon what is determined by law enforcement and sometimes doctors.

Ironically enough, social workers tend to skew left, so they will more likely have a bias in favor of separating kids from their parents if they refuse to allow a child to transition.

It's very telling you view everything through a partisan lens. It doesn't lend credibility to your arguments. Doctors and social workers have codes of ethics that aren't rooted in political partisanship.

 

[Eschatologist]

It's very telling you view everything through a partisan lens. It doesn't lend credibility to your arguments. Doctors and social workers have codes of ethics that aren't rooted in political partisanship.

I don't claim to be unbiased. I don't believe anyone lacks a bias. It's kind of a human thing. I simply see utility in identifying biases.

Social workers, in principle, have ethics to abide by, but the application of said principles will be affected by their biases. This is true for any profession. And it's not just my opinion that they skew left. Their political preferences have been recorded by numerous studies. Sociology in general attracts those on the left. I'm not saying that makes the discipline invalid, but it does mean that you have to account for the biases present.

 

[FireDragon76]

I don't claim to be unbiased. I don't believe anyone lacks a bias. It's kind of a human thing. I simply see utility in identifying biases.

Social workers, in principle, have ethics to abide by, but the application of said principles will be affected by their biases. This is true for any profession. And it's not just my opinion that they skew left. Their political preferences have been recorded by numerous studies. Sociology in general attracts those on the left. I'm not saying that makes the discipline invalid, but it does mean that you have to account for the biases present.

Why not hand over the apparatus of our society to people that lack real expertise... like politicians? This is what DeSantis' Florida looks like.

 

[Eschatologist]

Why not hand over the apparatus of our society to people that lack real expertise... like politicians? This is what DeSantis' Florida looks like.

I don't like politicians in general. Granted, if we want to talk about handing over things to the government that they don't have proper aptitude for, that is done on a much grander scale in states that are more on the left. Statism is certainly present among much of the right, but it is substantially worse from progressives.

To be fair though, we'd ideally follow mostly libertarian ideals in governance. Neither party has been faithful to that pursuit.