This is how we our country is perceived...

[xipotec]

I'm not even sure what to say to this. Law enforcement has been weaponized against conservatives for some time now and if a parent wants a second opinion on a diagnosis or treatment the state has and can take your kid away from you. I don't see outrage against that. If the state believes that a parent is trying to transition a child without doing due diligence then yes, they should have the ability to remove the child from the home. It is the same as any other child abuse case.

Again this is between the doctor & the patient. The government has no place in this discussion at all. Yes, standards of care are great and helpful but we are individuals and should be treated as such.

Abortion was never a right under the constitution. And hey if you want it to be then vote in to congress those that will add it to the constitution. If you live in a state that doesn't allow abortion then vote in those that will add it to the state constitutions. I am fine with this being a states rights issue. I think a lot of politicians may be in trouble in local elections if people don't like the new laws.

Trans rights are not being trampled. What most of these laws (again not speaking to one as there are many) are to protect children. When you are an adult you should be able to make whatever decisions you want in terms of how you live your life or any elective surgeries that you want to have. When you are a child you don't get that right.

Wow, just wow. If it's none of your business then why are you posting?

I don't believe this is true... I think most parents want their child to be happy but gender dysphoria is a psychological disorder. Whether or not a person transitions they really need a lot of therapy to deal with all of it and probably the family needs it as well. That absolutely needs to be part of the equation.

I haven't seen any anti-LGBTQ trolling. I think you misunderstand that when someone doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they are anti-LGBTQ. We have a difference of opinion. There is no reason to shut down a thread where a civil disagreement is happening. Are you so afraid to hear another opinion?

I'm not even sure what to say to this. Law enforcement has been weaponized against conservatives for some time now and if a parent wants a second opinion on a diagnosis or treatment the state has and can take your kid away from you. I don't see outrage against that. If the state believes that a parent is trying to transition a child without doing due diligence then yes, they should have the ability to remove the child from the home. It is the same as any other child abuse case.

Wow this post is so full of propaganda and lies.......

You can disagree with anyone you want to.

You do not have to right to force your opinions, religious or otherwise, on the rest of us.

So since conservatives are being so oppressed these days, I will end this here as to not make you feel "oppressed" any longer.

Best of luck.

And if everyone just would mind their own business, and stop trying to regulate their opinions on others, we could all get along again.

 

[tink2424]

Wow this post is so full of propaganda and lies.......

You can disagree with anyone you want to.

You do not have to right to force your opinions, religious or otherwise, on the rest of us.

So since conservatives are being so oppressed these days, I will end this here as to not make you feel "oppressed" any longer.

Best of luck.

And if everyone just would mind their own business, and stop trying to regulate their opinions on others, we could all get along again.

I agree no one should be able to force their opinions on anyone else. However I think you are the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Lumpy1106]

The fact you think something is "going on" says somehow this is wrong? If its not wrong than who cares what is going on?

Maybe people are finally able to come out and be who they want, and some people do not like that?

The 80's had plenty of this kind of thinking when people were coming out of the closet....

Maybe its just been there all along and it was repressed? The Trans community is coming out of the closet now, and thats why we have the same groups of people fighting against it , as when the LG community came out in large numbers in the 70-80's

Nothing is going on any differently than other moment in time.

Ahh - got to the bottom of it. This is where we disagree. We did not lock kids away from their peers during their prime developmental years in the 70-80's. This is VERY different. Don't take my word for it; find any interview with kids who are suddenly identifying as trans - many, in fact most, will tell you that they don't identify as male or female. That's not the same thing as being trans. Those are just kids that are not going through puberty in a normal way. Continual isolation will do that. Some will end up being LGB, some will end up being straight, very few will end up being trans - but some will. LET THEM!

 

[Sheryl2059]

Abortion was never a right under the constitution

Depends on who you ask. You also have how the constitution works backwards. All rights are inherently assumed unless some law or another says otherwise. The other way around would mean the only rights you have are the ones explicitly laid out in the constitution or the law. If something is not, you dont have that right.

 

[tx911]

Abortion is tricky, because, while many may view it as an "inherent right" for women, that "right" affects (by terminating) another human. Does the unborn fetus have inherent rights?

The Constitution exists to limit the power of the federal government.

It does not give the federal government the power to require that all states allow abortion. Since it does not expressly grant that power, it is left to the individual states.

 

[drenalin'junkie]

How on earth is this thread still open?
FWIW if you are in any way or not you are always welcome to come with us. You may be subject to bubbles, chocolate and random singing in queues however.

 

[Disneychick13]

Depends on who you ask. You also have how the constitution works backwards. All rights are inherently assumed unless some law or another says otherwise. The other way around would mean the only rights you have are the ones explicitly laid out in the constitution or the law. If something is not, you dont have that right.

It does depend on who you ask. Legal experts definitely have disagreed on the interpretation of many aspects of the constitution. However, you are incorrect about what the constitution Actually says. There is certainly no place in the constitution that you have any right unless it is stated elsewhere.

Due process clause- in the 14th amendment- (which had generally been used to argue abortion rights):
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Or the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Or the 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So basically, if you look at the 9th especially, they are saying that just because a right is not specifically listed doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. That can’t really be interpreted that you have a right to everything unless it’s specified.

That brings in the whole idea of certain things being relegated to the states (via the 10th amendment) if they aren’t inherently stated elsewhere in the constitution. Which we know that clearly abortion was never mentioned anywhere in the constitution. You could ever only look at as being implied (life, liberty, or privacy listed elsewhere). But that’s super vague and it’s really hard legally to ”get there”. Obviously many legal minds have disagreed. Clearly.

Note: I am no legal scholar so anyone who is please feel free to tell me where I went wrong.

 

[tx911]

How on earth is this thread still open?
FWIW if you are in any way or not you are always welcome to come with us. You may be subject to bubbles, chocolate and random singing in queues however.

What's wrong with this thread?

I see people posting differences of opinion in a non-confrontational way. This is exactly what is needed, civil discourse.

Shutting down conversations in which some people post opinions that don't agree with "the party line" is a slippery slope.

 

[gmi3804]

It does depend on who you ask. Legal experts definitely have disagreed on the interpretation of many aspects of the constitution. However, you are incorrect about what the constitution Actually says. There is certainly no place in the constitution that you have any right unless it is stated elsewhere.

Due process clause- in the 14th amendment- (which had generally been used to argue abortion rights):
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Or the 9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Or the 10th: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So basically, if you look at the 9th especially, they are saying that just because a right is not specifically listed doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. That can’t really be interpreted that you have a right to everything unless it’s specified.

That brings in the whole idea of certain things being relegated to the states (via the 10th amendment) if they aren’t inherently stated elsewhere in the constitution. Which we know that clearly abortion was never mentioned anywhere in the constitution. You could ever only look at as being implied (life, liberty, or privacy listed elsewhere). But that’s super vague and it’s really hard legally to ”get there”. Obviously many legal minds have disagreed. Clearly.

Note: I am no legal scholar so anyone who is please feel free to tell me where I went wrong.

Thankfully I saved some time and read your last paragraph first so I didn't have to wade through all the preceding ones.

 

[Kestryl]

It’s difficult to believe that these transgender healthcare bans are “for the kids” when legislators are proposing and supporting bans that affect adults.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/anti-trans-bills-gender-affirming-care-adults/

 

[Smugpugmug]

I really hope the mods step in here and shut this thread down. Seems to be a lot of anti-LGBTQ trolling under the guise of free speech and protecting the children.

These boards are not super heavily moderated so it'll take a while before it gets deleted. I've even seen people be blatantly homophobic multiple times (not anyone posting here) and they're not banned or given points. I keep reporting them but guess that's meaningless lol.

 

[Disneychick13]

It’s difficult to believe that these transgender healthcare bans are “for the kids” when legislators are proposing and supporting bans that affect adults.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/28/anti-trans-bills-gender-affirming-care-adults/

I can’t read the article because it’s behind a paywall, but I did read over the law referenced. It looks like the affect on adults mainly involves forms that need to be filled out/signed (which I think there should have been ample time provided to get in order before the law took effect). The other thing was injections needed to be given by doctors. Yeah that dumb and I hope will be addressed. But the bill seems to be clearly designed to address healthcare of minors. I won’t disagree that this legislation should not have applied to adults at all. That was sloppy.

This is for you @gmi3804 (so you can skip it lol)
Note: I am no legal scholar so anyone who is please feel free to tell me where I went wrong.

 

[Starport Seven-Five]

The fact you think something is "going on" says somehow this is wrong? If its not wrong than who cares what is going on?

Maybe people are finally able to come out and be who they want, and some people do not like that?

The 80's had plenty of this kind of thinking when people were coming out of the closet....

Maybe its just been there all along and it was repressed? The Trans community is coming out of the closet now, and thats why we have the same groups of people fighting against it , as when the LG community came out in large numbers in the 70-80's

Nothing is going on any differently than other moment in time.

Reminds me of the often cited statistics around left handedness. Social stigmas can definitely cause people to hide characteristics about themself:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rising-geography-of-american-left-handedness/

McManus theorizes that the late-Victorian dive in left-handedness reflects stigma against southpaws, of the kind that might have been on display in that elementary school in Oklahoma. He attributes a lot of that to the Industrial Revolution. "Left-handers may also have appeared less capable and more clumsy, as left-handed adults worked on machines that were almost certainly designed with right-handers in mind, and left-handed children were taught to write with steel dip pens that needed to be dragged across the paper from left to right by right-handers, and were not capable of being pushed across by the left hand without digging into the paper and making blots and stains."

 

[RedHead0186]

Reminds me of the often cited statistics around left handedness. Social stigmas can definitely cause people to hide characteristics about themself:
View attachment 793914
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rising-geography-of-american-left-handedness/

Thank you! Correlation does not equal (or at least does not automatically equal) causation. People can take data and make it say lots of different things, just by how it's presented.

The fact that we have more young people stating they are transgender (which, is not the same thing as more young people actually being transgender) as we come out of a global pandemic does not automatically mean the pandemic (or some of its effects) are the reason for this. It could be, or it could not. It is an interesting question? Yes. Does it need more study before any specific conclusions can be reached? It would appear so.

 

[Kestryl]

I can’t read the article because it’s behind a paywall, but I did read over the law referenced. It looks like the affect on adults mainly involves forms that need to be filled out/signed (which I think there should have been ample time provided to get in order before the law took effect). The other thing was injections needed to be given by doctors. Yeah that dumb and I hope will be addressed. But the bill seems to be clearly designed to address healthcare of minors. I won’t disagree that this legislation should not have applied to adults at all. That was sloppy.

This is for you @gmi3804 (so you can skip it lol)
Note: I am no legal scholar so anyone who is please feel free to tell me where I went wrong.

Ah, bummer, it opened up fine on my phone, that's weird. Which law did you think it covers?

The article covers a few bills.:

-HB1215 in Tennessee, which prohibits Tennessee's Medicaid program from working with health insurance companies that cover gender-affirming care. "Managed Care Organizations - As introduced, prohibits any managed care organization that contracts with the bureau of TennCare to provide medical assistance from providing reimbursement or coverage for a medical procedure if the performance or administration of the procedure is for the purpose of enabling a person to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the person's sex, or treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between a person's sex and asserted identity." (https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1215&GA=113.)

-HB2177 in Oklahoma, which, among other things, prevents insurance from covering gender-affirming healthcare for trans adults. "The measure prohibits insurance coverage for any of the services outlined that are performed within the state on any minor or adult." (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/c...OCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/HB2177 INT BILLSUM.PDF.)

-SB129 in Oklahoma, which would "prohibit Oklahoma doctors from providing gender transition procedures or referral services relating to such procedures to anyone under the age of 26." The sponsor claims it's for youth under 26, but obviously 18-26 would be adult ages. (https://oksenate.gov/press-releases/bullard-files-bill-prohibiting-genital-mutilation-youth-under-26.)

-SB12 in Kansas, which would prevent care for those up to 21. Includes adults. (http://kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/SB12/.)

-HB1258 in Mississippi, which would also prohibit care to those up to 21. Again, includes adults. (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2023/pdf/history/HB/HB1258.xml.)

-S0274 in South Carolina, which would de-transition anyone receiving care up to 21 and would block Medicaid from covering transition medications or procedures to all ages- including adults. (https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=0274&session=125&summary=B.)

I'm sure there are others not given in this particular article, which was published in March of this year.

I don't believe any of these passed. Still, it's incredibly clear that anti-trans legislation is limited to kids. (Kids who still deserve medical care, regardless of age.)

 

[Disneychick13]

Ah, bummer, it opened up fine on my phone, that's weird. Which law did you think it covers?

The article covers a few bills.:

-HB1215 in Tennessee, which prohibits Tennessee's Medicaid program from working with health insurance companies that cover gender-affirming care. "Managed Care Organizations - As introduced, prohibits any managed care organization that contracts with the bureau of TennCare to provide medical assistance from providing reimbursement or coverage for a medical procedure if the performance or administration of the procedure is for the purpose of enabling a person to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the person's sex, or treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between a person's sex and asserted identity." (https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1215&GA=113.)

-HB2177 in Oklahoma, which, among other things, prevents insurance from covering gender-affirming healthcare for trans adults. "The measure prohibits insurance coverage for any of the services outlined that are performed within the state on any minor or adult." (http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2023-24 SUPPORT DOCUMENTS/BILLSUM/House/HB2177 INT BILLSUM.PDF.)

-SB129 in Oklahoma, which would "prohibit Oklahoma doctors from providing gender transition procedures or referral services relating to such procedures to anyone under the age of 26." The sponsor claims it's for youth under 26, but obviously 18-26 would be adult ages. (https://oksenate.gov/press-releases/bullard-files-bill-prohibiting-genital-mutilation-youth-under-26.)

-SB12 in Kansas, which would prevent care for those up to 21. Includes adults. (http://kslegislature.org/li/b2023_24/measures/SB12/.)

-HB1258 in Mississippi, which would also prohibit care to those up to 21. Again, includes adults. (http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2023/pdf/history/HB/HB1258.xml.)

-S0274 in South Carolina, which would de-transition anyone receiving care up to 21 and would block Medicaid from covering transition medications or procedures to all ages- including adults. (https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=0274&session=125&summary=B.)

I'm sure there are others not given in this particular article, which was published in March of this year.

I don't believe any of these passed. Still, it's incredibly clear that anti-trans legislation is limited to kids. (Kids who still deserve medical care, regardless of age.)

Thanks for providing that list. I was only talking about the Fl legislation. I’d have to look into those proposed laws to make a reasonable comment.

edited to add:
I’m attaching a link to bills that have passed https://translegislation.com/

While I can see that bills have been proposed that would affect transgender adults, it still stands that the vast majority of legislation appears to involve minors, whether it be healthcare, sports or education. So I will agree with you that it is not limited to kids but is still mostly centered around kids. One could argue that the legislation is a gateway to legislation involving adults, but I really don’t see that happening (by looking at the legislation that didn’t pass). Time will tell.

 

[WebmasterCorey]

This thread is finished. I am going to personally ban anyone spewing hateful anti-LGBTQ on these forums, especially on this one. If you are reading this and are here to spew hate, walk away now.