Newsnews

Sat Feb 2, 2019, 11:08 PM

Pelosi's Equality Act/ Parents can't stop sterilization/ puberty blockers without child abuse charg

But now, one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top legislative priorities, the Equality Act, could give the transgender community a vice grip over the medical profession. It could open the floodgates for lawsuits against doctors who don’t fall in line with transgender ideology.

Politicizing the medical treatment of gender dysphoria could lead to more prosecutions against parents who refuse to aid in the sterilization of their children. As more doctors recommend that children take puberty blockers at age 11, cross-sex hormones at 16, and undergo “sex-reassignment” surgeries at 18, parents who resist could face charges of child abuse and lose custody of their children.

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/pelosis-equality-act-could-lead-more-parents-losing-custody-kids-who

"The American Psychological Association’s manual of mental disorders classifies gender dysphoria as a mental illness. Research shows that 75 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria who go through puberty without any transgender treatments actually become comfortable with their bodies.

But the transgender movement ignores these statistics, aggressively pushing for gender-dysphoric children to be treated with non-FDA-approved uses of drugs, even though side effects can include loss of bone density, decline of cognitive ability, and infertility.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, describes it as “institutionalized child abuse.”

18 replies, 445 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pelosi's Equality Act/ Parents can't stop sterilization/ puberty blockers without child abuse charg (Original post)
Sundogs_Place Feb 2019 OP
Grumpy Pickle Feb 2019 #1
TM999 Feb 2019 #2
Sundogs_Place Feb 2019 #5
Currentsitguy Feb 2019 #11
TM999 Feb 2019 #12
Currentsitguy Feb 2019 #13
TM999 Feb 2019 #14
Currentsitguy Feb 2019 #15
TM999 Feb 2019 #16
Currentsitguy Feb 2019 #17
TM999 Feb 2019 #18
Charlie Mike Feb 2019 #3
Duke Lacrosse Feb 2019 #4
Lowrider1984 Feb 2019 #6
Sundogs_Place Feb 2019 #7
Lowrider1984 Feb 2019 #8
Duke Lacrosse Feb 2019 #9
Lowrider1984 Feb 2019 #10

Response to Sundogs_Place (Original post)

Sat Feb 2, 2019, 11:57 PM

1. Children are NOT cognitively able to make a life-changing decision about their gender until at least

18 years of age.

Doing anything to " alter " their hormones or body structures before age 18 is absolute insanity.

Marxist move toward infertility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 06:15 AM

2. If you are over the age of 18 and believe you can 'change your sex'

then you are not a cognitively functioning adult.

It really doesn't matter at what age, it is still absolutely insane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 12:40 PM

5. I don't believe most can make an informed decision about something so life altering until they live

some life. 18 is even to young in my book. In Hawaii they are going to make the smoking age 30 so that they're old enough to understand what smoking does to their body, but in Calf Democrats encourage children under 18 to mutilate themselves.

Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:03 PM

11. No, but

They are adults and are presumably free to wreck their own bodies if they are nuts enough to so chose. Children are still under the control of their parents and are thus unable to consent to invasive medical and surgical procedures. This is all beside the point that it is dangerous and irresponsible to either hormonally or surgically alter a still growing and developing body.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:07 PM

12. Medical doctors should not be doing this on men or women

of any age. It is grossly inappropriate, unprofessional, and based on no scientific merit. It is the normalization of a mental illness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:13 PM

13. I don't disagree

Just saying leaving kids out of it for a moment that presumably one owns their body and can do with it as they please. I have no intention of doing so, and really what others chose to do, crazy or not, is not my concern or business. It affects me not in the least. This is the bargain I have made by demanding people keep their damn noses out of my life, which is more important in the long run than saving people from their crazy.

Now if you get in my face or the faces of the children in my life we're going to have issues.

Basically my attitude is go be crazy somewhere else, preferably as far away from me as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:40 PM

14. How do we balance individual freedom and societal good?

Can we say that actions such as this do not affect you or I in the least?

I believe they do because there is no objective good that occurs from sex reassignment surgery. It normalizes a mental pathology. It is not grounded in any science whatsoever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 05:57 PM

15. I am rather small L libertarian in my world view

It is critically important to me that no one make my business their business. Really, in terms of how I approach the world, it is the MOST important thing to me. To that end, it is incumbent upon me to reciprocate. If the smack junkie several doors down finally shoots up enough to off themselves, that's their prerogative. One less idiot in society. If some dude wants to put on a dress, hang out on a street corner and earn $20 the hard way, I will not be availing myself of their "services", so I don't really give a damn. If the local drunk decides they have finally had enough and decides to take the .38 Express out, it's their body, not mine.

The MOST important freedom we have is individual freedom, and for that to be real it must include to freedom to do really dumb things and make bad decisions.

My interaction with society is on my own terms, and preferably as infrequent as possible. It is mostly confined to dealing with clients on the phone and occasionally on site, and the occasional night out for a meal or drink. If I had a Star Trek style replicator, I'd probably not even go out for those. It would help to avoid the annoyance and inconvenience of being surrounded by bunches of other people, which I find generally unpleasant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:21 PM

16. To a degree I can think the same way.

Last edited Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:54 PM - Edit history (1)

However, I am not a libertarian. I am an American conservative. I always will lean towards more individual freedom over less but I do believe it is acceptable and good for society to define some behaviors as objectively good and harmless for both the individual and collective and other behaviors as objectively bad and harmful for both the individual and collective.

Take your example of a smack junkie. Sure in the privacy of his own home, he can kill himself with the junk. But where there are junkies, there is increased crime. Does his freedom to shoot up and be involved in violence and theft outweigh his neighbors preference for security and safety to raise their families?

It is not easy finding that balance. I react strongly to this particular situation because I was in the field. I watched politics trump clinical and scientific reality. I watched a mental illness become normalized. And as it became normalized it become glamorized and advertised. Then it became a mark of 'liberalism'. Finally, we have a contagion of teenagers in a generation who believe they are not their sex and are radically harming their physical bodies with their parents encouragement and support. Slippery slope arguments may not technically be valid but they are culturally reasonable and observable. From my perspective as a trained clinician, it was easy for me to see this type of trajectory and negative outcome.

Really I think it comes down to our system of ethics. I am a deontologist. The rules, the intent, the action, and the consequences are all important to me in making a determination of whether a 'freedom' is valid for both the individual and the collective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM999 (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 06:50 PM

17. What you say makes sense in a perfect world, however...

Several questions arise. What constitutes "Society"? Who gets to decide what is good for it, and what standards do they use? By what right may they impose their will upon others, and to what level of force will they resort to?

I would say the only real tangible standard we can use is the line in the sand when real physical harm is inflicted upon others or their property. If the junkie wants to shoot up, that is their, and possibly their family's problem, not society's at large. The moment they break into my home to steal things to further their addiction, now it has become a larger issue. If you want to put on a dress, and potentially even mutilate yourself, but otherwise cause no problems to those around you, I can feel sorry for you, even urge you to seek help, but beyond that my hands are tied. If however in the process of me advising you to seek help you violently attack me, again now we have a problem that can be acted upon.

I just can't see any other standard that isn't unnecessarily intrusive and arbitrarily repressive. Our legal system, is at least in theory, supposed to grossly err on the side of caution.

I am not a mental health professional, but then again neither are most people who craft laws and policy, hence the need, in my opinion to need to establish a standard of tangible harm.

I don't however disagree that things are going to hell in a handbasket. All I can say is that those who end up harming others will be dealt with by society (or a well armed individual) in due time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Currentsitguy (Reply #17)

Sat Feb 9, 2019, 07:57 AM

18. Hardly perfect. It is reality.

The smallest unit of any society is the family. We can see the function or dysfunction in a society by the state of the family. From there governments should be local. Our Republican model is one of the best the world has ever known but sadly both establishment parties bought into the big government model of 20th century.

I disagree. There are other types of harm than just physical. To pretend that a man putting on a dress and undergoing surgery causes no problems to those around them seems woefully naive to me. Since, this mental illness was changed to a liberal social good, we have seen much tangible harm that is not violent.

Obama integrated the mentally ill into our military. I worked as an Army Psychologist. I spent a great deal of time determining if someone could join up and whether someone had become to mentally unstable to remain. This insured that our military worked as it needed to. Morale, unit cohesion, and readiness are far more important than making the Army a social experiment for men and women who suffer from the delusion that they are not the sex they actually are.

Another area of harm is in public facilities. Women rightfully expect safety, security, and proper boundaries in sex segregated areas like gym showers, public bathrooms, etc. Allowing men who suffer from the delusion that they are not the sex they actually are has harmed countless women.

Finally we have the youth that have been harmed, from story hour with a tranny in public libraries to compelled speech requirements at public schools and universities.

So no, physical harm is not the only harm, and these harms are quantifiable. They trample upon other's rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sundogs_Place (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 06:57 AM

3. Give all minors credit cards and make Pelosi personally responsible for covering the debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sundogs_Place (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 11:24 AM

4. LOL @ "vice grip"

A Freudian slip?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sundogs_Place (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 02:17 PM

6. 18 years old?

Most psychologists believe that the decision-making part of your brain does not fully develop until you are 25 years old.

I've always said that I have no objection to same-sex "marriage", since gays and lesbians have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.
I just worried that they would want to make it mandatory!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lowrider1984 (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 3, 2019, 06:57 PM

7. Mandatory.. They sure did didn't they. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sundogs_Place (Reply #7)

Wed Feb 6, 2019, 02:19 PM

8. Well.......

lock me up. I will not comply!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lowrider1984 (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2019, 05:18 PM

9. My decision-making faculties weren't solid until I was about 40.

I'm a late bloomer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duke Lacrosse (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 8, 2019, 01:35 PM

10. Hah!

I'm 69, and my wife SWEARS mine haven't developed yet.
But, what does she know!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Newsnews