And so it begins.....

[flockofseagulls104]

My solution:
If we are going to go this way, instead of trying to sort it out in terms of political correctness, let's do it scientifically.

I was taught the main biological determinant of sex in the human species is the chromosome pair. Males are XY and Females are XX. Has that changed? Until biological males can conceive and give birth to babies, and/or biological females can produce sperm to impregnate a female, that is the definition of sex.

Flock, you sound just like the laws in some of the Southern states in segregated south who attempted to "scientifically" define what a Negro was.

Predictable. What a maroon.

[Spock]

We're talking about a minor. Accordingly, the hormone injections required both a doctor's prescription and parental consent. I believe the boy, the doctor, and the parents. If BiT thinks they're all wrong, and he has the right to disregard the boy's identity, he's got the burden of proof.

A doctor's consent? You act like doctors, without exception, are perfect, moral, and all knowing. I can find a doctor that will:
* Kill a baby in a womb, regardless of reason or stage of pregnancy
* Prescribe opioids even though they are not medically necessary
* Prescribe medications to allow a person to voluntarily end their life.

I can prove the girl's gender. Her identity is a mental state. She may think she's Pocahontas or Hitler. I can't prove that. I can prove she isn't Pocahontas or Hitler. You would probably agree with me on that. Anyway, what she thinks she is is not relevant to the situation (athletic competition).

Broadening this out a little to pubescent and pre-pubescent children. Bob acts as if the Doctor's prescription solves a large part of the problem. I fundamentally question ANY doctor's long-term knowledge on these matters.

The fad of hormonally and surgically messing around with young children who lack knowledge of consequences is very new. No one has knowledge of the long-term consequences-either physically or emotionally to these minor children who are not capable of understanding the ramifications.

If a 25 YO wants a sex change fine-Go ahead. It is an exponentially different choice for a 15 YO and should be treated as such.

[Bob78164]

We're talking about a minor. Accordingly, the hormone injections required both a doctor's prescription and parental consent. I believe the boy, the doctor, and the parents. If BiT thinks they're all wrong, and he has the right to disregard the boy's identity, he's got the burden of proof.

A doctor's consent? You act like doctors, without exception, are perfect, moral, and all knowing. I can find a doctor that will:
* Kill a baby in a womb, regardless of reason or stage of pregnancy
* Prescribe opioids even though they are not medically necessary
* Prescribe medications to allow a person to voluntarily end their life.

I can prove the girl's gender. Her identity is a mental state. She may think she's Pocahontas or Hitler. I can't prove that. I can prove she isn't Pocahontas or Hitler. You would probably agree with me on that. Anyway, what she thinks she is is not relevant to the situation (athletic competition).

Broadening this out a little to pubescent and pre-pubescent children. Bob acts as if the Doctor's prescription solves a large part of the problem. I fundamentally question ANY doctor's long-term knowledge on these matters.

The fad of hormonally and surgically messing around with young children who lack knowledge of consequences is very new. No one has knowledge of the long-term consequences-either physically or emotionally to these minor children who are not capable of understanding the ramifications.

If a 25 YO wants a sex change fine-Go ahead. It is an exponentially different choice for a 15 YO and should be treated as such.

On what basis do you challenge the expertise of the doctors and parents who are consenting to the decisions of these minor children? What are the statistics for suicide among minors caused by gender dysphoria?

These interventions are saving kids' lives. And unless you're either a parent or a doctor of one of the kids, as far as I'm concerned, you've got no business sticking your nose into the decision. --Bob

[Beebs52]

A doctor's consent? You act like doctors, without exception, are perfect, moral, and all knowing. I can find a doctor that will:
* Kill a baby in a womb, regardless of reason or stage of pregnancy
* Prescribe opioids even though they are not medically necessary
* Prescribe medications to allow a person to voluntarily end their life.

I can prove the girl's gender. Her identity is a mental state. She may think she's Pocahontas or Hitler. I can't prove that. I can prove she isn't Pocahontas or Hitler. You would probably agree with me on that. Anyway, what she thinks she is is not relevant to the situation (athletic competition).

Broadening this out a little to pubescent and pre-pubescent children. Bob acts as if the Doctor's prescription solves a large part of the problem. I fundamentally question ANY doctor's long-term knowledge on these matters.

The fad of hormonally and surgically messing around with young children who lack knowledge of consequences is very new. No one has knowledge of the long-term consequences-either physically or emotionally to these minor children who are not capable of understanding the ramifications.

If a 25 YO wants a sex change fine-Go ahead. It is an exponentially different choice for a 15 YO and should be treated as such.

On what basis do you challenge the expertise of the doctors and parents who are consenting to the decisions of these minor children? What are the statistics for suicide among minors caused by gender dysphoria?

These interventions are saving kids' lives. And unless you're either a parent or a doctor of one of the kids, as far as I'm concerned, you've got no business sticking your nose into the decision. --Bob

You are aware of those who regret undergoing procedures, righr?

[BackInTex]

Suicide rates among the mentally ill are high across the board. That doesn’t mean we should approach the depressed with “You’re right, your life sucks.”

[Spock]

A doctor's consent? You act like doctors, without exception, are perfect, moral, and all knowing. I can find a doctor that will:
* Kill a baby in a womb, regardless of reason or stage of pregnancy
* Prescribe opioids even though they are not medically necessary
* Prescribe medications to allow a person to voluntarily end their life.

I can prove the girl's gender. Her identity is a mental state. She may think she's Pocahontas or Hitler. I can't prove that. I can prove she isn't Pocahontas or Hitler. You would probably agree with me on that. Anyway, what she thinks she is is not relevant to the situation (athletic competition).

Broadening this out a little to pubescent and pre-pubescent children. Bob acts as if the Doctor's prescription solves a large part of the problem. I fundamentally question ANY doctor's long-term knowledge on these matters.

The fad of hormonally and surgically messing around with young children who lack knowledge of consequences is very new. No one has knowledge of the long-term consequences-either physically or emotionally to these minor children who are not capable of understanding the ramifications.

If a 25 YO wants a sex change fine-Go ahead. It is an exponentially different choice for a 15 YO and should be treated as such.

On what basis do you challenge the expertise of the doctors and parents who are consenting to the decisions of these minor children? What are the statistics for suicide among minors caused by gender dysphoria?

These interventions are saving kids' lives. And unless you're either a parent or a doctor of one of the kids, as far as I'm concerned, you've got no business sticking your nose into the decision. --Bob

On the basis that nobody knows what the long-term suicide rates will be among those who (as part of a VERY recent fad) had an irrevocable choice made for them as minors by others when they are completely incapable of understanding the ramifications.

YOU have absolutely no idea whether or not these interventions are saving kids' lives long-term.

[Bob78164]

Broadening this out a little to pubescent and pre-pubescent children. Bob acts as if the Doctor's prescription solves a large part of the problem. I fundamentally question ANY doctor's long-term knowledge on these matters.

The fad of hormonally and surgically messing around with young children who lack knowledge of consequences is very new. No one has knowledge of the long-term consequences-either physically or emotionally to these minor children who are not capable of understanding the ramifications.

If a 25 YO wants a sex change fine-Go ahead. It is an exponentially different choice for a 15 YO and should be treated as such.

On what basis do you challenge the expertise of the doctors and parents who are consenting to the decisions of these minor children? What are the statistics for suicide among minors caused by gender dysphoria?

These interventions are saving kids' lives. And unless you're either a parent or a doctor of one of the kids, as far as I'm concerned, you've got no business sticking your nose into the decision. --Bob

On the basis that nobody knows what the long-term suicide rates will be among those who (as part of a VERY recent fad) had an irrevocable choice made for them as minors by others when they are completely incapable of understanding the ramifications.

YOU have absolutely no idea whether or not these interventions are saving kids' lives long-term.

Not one of those choices is made for the minors by others. They are made by the minors with the consent of those who know them, love them and care for them. And since you're not family and evidently don't know anyone in that position, that's not you. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Suicide rates among the mentally ill are high across the board. That doesn’t mean we should approach the depressed with “You’re right, your life sucks.”

By calling transgender kids mentally ill, you're demonstrating your own hateful bigotry. Not much I can do about it but call it out, but you can rest assured I'll do so each and every time bigotry like that rears its ugly head. --Bob

[Spock]

There are obviously cases where a caregiver is mentally ill and wants to turn her boy into a little girl. Also, this can happen in cases of acrimonious divorces.

https://savejames.com/

Save James is a heartbreaking story of a little boy who is being torn apart (literally) by a possibly mentally ill mother in a bitter custody battle.

He is being prepped for sex-change surgery at age 6 and being prepared for chemical castration at age 8.

The mother is pushing for this and calls him "Luna."

The father is fighting against it.

But, I suspect Bob is all hunky-dory with the idea of chemical castration at age 8-for Pete's sake.

He says it should be up to the parents and a doctor-well, what if the parents disagree?

[Bob78164]

There are obviously cases where a caregiver is mentally ill and wants to turn her boy into a little girl. Also, this can happen in cases of acrimonious divorces.

https://savejames.com/

Save James is a heartbreaking story of a little boy who is being torn apart (literally) by a possibly mentally ill mother in a bitter custody battle.

He is being prepped for sex-change surgery at age 6 and being prepared for chemical castration at age 8.

The mother is pushing for this and calls him "Luna."

The father is fighting against it.

But, I suspect Bob is all hunky-dory with the idea of chemical castration at age 8-for Pete's sake.

He says it should be up to the parents and a doctor-well, what if the parents disagree?

Having scanned a few of the documents, it looks like a case where the father is utterly unwilling to accept that his child is transgender and is doing everything he can to force the child to remain a boy.

Where is your evidence that the mother is "possibly mentally ill"? Where is your evidence that the impetus for this procedure isn't coming from the child?

This is happening in the Texas courts, so I have difficulty believing that they aren't giving the father every benefit of the doubt. If the Texas courts are consistently finding against the father in this case, I'm thinking that they're satisfied the father is just trying to effectuate his own prejudices against the transgendered at the expense of his daughter.

And when parents can't agree and the dispute ends up in court, the usual standard is the best interests of the child. I see no reason to think that the courts are departing from that standard in this case. --Bob

[tlynn78]

There are obviously cases where a caregiver is mentally ill and wants to turn her boy into a little girl. Also, this can happen in cases of acrimonious divorces.

https://savejames.com/

Save James is a heartbreaking story of a little boy who is being torn apart (literally) by a possibly mentally ill mother in a bitter custody battle.

He is being prepped for sex-change surgery at age 6 and being prepared for chemical castration at age 8.

The mother is pushing for this and calls him "Luna."

The father is fighting against it.

But, I suspect Bob is all hunky-dory with the idea of chemical castration at age 8-for Pete's sake.

He says it should be up to the parents and a doctor-well, what if the parents disagree?

Having scanned a few of the documents, it looks like a case where the father is utterly unwilling to accept that his child is transgender and is doing everything he can to force the child to remain a boy.

Where is your evidence that the mother is "possibly mentally ill"? Where is your evidence that the impetus for this procedure isn't coming from the child?

This is happening in the Texas courts, so I have difficulty believing that they aren't giving the father every benefit of the doubt. If the Texas courts are consistently finding against the father in this case, I'm thinking that they're satisfied the father is just trying to effectuate his own prejudices against the transgendered at the expense of his daughter.

And when parents can't agree and the dispute ends up in court, the usual standard is the best interests of the child. I see no reason to think that the courts are departing from that standard in this case. --Bob

The contortions one goes through to hang on to an entrenched position are mind-boggling.

[silverscreenselect]

Having scanned a few of the documents, it looks like a case where the father is utterly unwilling to accept that his child is transgender and is doing everything he can to force the child to remain a boy.

Where is your evidence that the mother is "possibly mentally ill"? Where is your evidence that the impetus for this procedure isn't coming from the child?

This is happening in the Texas courts, so I have difficulty believing that they aren't giving the father every benefit of the doubt. If the Texas courts are consistently finding against the father in this case, I'm thinking that they're satisfied the father is just trying to effectuate his own prejudices against the transgendered at the expense of his daughter.

And when parents can't agree and the dispute ends up in court, the usual standard is the best interests of the child. I see no reason to think that the courts are departing from that standard in this case. --Bob

My quick research of this case indicates that the only people reporting on it are sensationalist right-wing media and websites. What I have been able to find out is that the mother is a pediatrician and that she got expert medical testimony regarding the child's orientation. The only evidence that the father seems to have are his self-serving statements of what the child wants and how the child behaves when in his custody. Not surprisingly, many six-year-olds will try to please whatever parent they're with at the time.

Usually, in a case like this, the court will appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child. I would expect that would happen here.

[Bob78164]

There are obviously cases where a caregiver is mentally ill and wants to turn her boy into a little girl. Also, this can happen in cases of acrimonious divorces.

https://savejames.com/

Save James is a heartbreaking story of a little boy who is being torn apart (literally) by a possibly mentally ill mother in a bitter custody battle.

He is being prepped for sex-change surgery at age 6 and being prepared for chemical castration at age 8.

The mother is pushing for this and calls him "Luna."

The father is fighting against it.

But, I suspect Bob is all hunky-dory with the idea of chemical castration at age 8-for Pete's sake.

He says it should be up to the parents and a doctor-well, what if the parents disagree?

Having scanned a few of the documents, it looks like a case where the father is utterly unwilling to accept that his child is transgender and is doing everything he can to force the child to remain a boy.

Where is your evidence that the mother is "possibly mentally ill"? Where is your evidence that the impetus for this procedure isn't coming from the child?

This is happening in the Texas courts, so I have difficulty believing that they aren't giving the father every benefit of the doubt. If the Texas courts are consistently finding against the father in this case, I'm thinking that they're satisfied the father is just trying to effectuate his own prejudices against the transgendered at the expense of his daughter.

And when parents can't agree and the dispute ends up in court, the usual standard is the best interests of the child. I see no reason to think that the courts are departing from that standard in this case. --Bob

The contortions one goes through to hang on to an entrenched position are mind-boggling.

Did you read the transcripts in Spock's link? I have, now. It's becoming quite clear what's going on. The kid has always presented to her peers as female, and the mother had to ask for a court order to prevent the father from "outing" the kid TO OTHER STUDENTS AND PARENTS as transgender. In Texas.

I can understand why the Court reached the conclusion that it was the mother who had the child's best interests at heart. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Where is your evidence that the impetus for this procedure isn't coming from the child?

The child is 6. The child has no understanding what the short-term, let alone long-term repercussions of "his" decisions are.

many six-year-olds will try to please whatever parent they're with at the time.

As proven by his behavior when around his mother.


In the timeline it says the couple separated in April 2015 and that James started wanted to wear girls attire that fall. Also assertions that the mother had several breakdowns prior to April 2015. The mother is likely mentally unstable. James may be acting out or being coerced into this behavior.

[silverscreenselect]

Also assertions that the mother had several breakdowns prior to April 2015. The mother is likely mentally unstable. James may be acting out or being coerced into this behavior.

And yet it's the father who refused to comply with the court's earlier orders (rather than going through the legal appeals process) and had a temporary restraining order placed against him.

The mother brought expert testimony to the initial hearing. The father did not, and, in fact, refused to have any interaction with the counselor who was treating the child.

[Bob78164]

Having scanned a few of the documents, it looks like a case where the father is utterly unwilling to accept that his child is transgender and is doing everything he can to force the child to remain a boy.

Where is your evidence that the mother is "possibly mentally ill"? Where is your evidence that the impetus for this procedure isn't coming from the child?

This is happening in the Texas courts, so I have difficulty believing that they aren't giving the father every benefit of the doubt. If the Texas courts are consistently finding against the father in this case, I'm thinking that they're satisfied the father is just trying to effectuate his own prejudices against the transgendered at the expense of his daughter.

And when parents can't agree and the dispute ends up in court, the usual standard is the best interests of the child. I see no reason to think that the courts are departing from that standard in this case. --Bob

My quick research of this case indicates that the only people reporting on it are sensationalist right-wing media and websites. What I have been able to find out is that the mother is a pediatrician and that she got expert medical testimony regarding the child's orientation. The only evidence that the father seems to have are his self-serving statements of what the child wants and how the child behaves when in his custody. Not surprisingly, many six-year-olds will try to please whatever parent they're with at the time.

Usually, in a case like this, the court will appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child. I would expect that would happen here.

It did happen here. One of the linked documents demonstrates that a guardian ad litem was appointed for the child.

It's becoming clear that the people (on this Bored and elsewhere) who would interfere are a lot more interested in advancing their own ideology -- no "healthy" child could possibly be transgender at that age -- than in actually looking at what's best for the child. Which means that they're trying to make the child a pawn in their ideological struggle. These are the same people who try to defend "conversion therapy" to "convert" gay people to straight, notwithstanding the demonstrable harm that it does. And that's despicable. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Also assertions that the mother had several breakdowns prior to April 2015. The mother is likely mentally unstable. James may be acting out or being coerced into this behavior.

And yet it's the father who refused to comply with the court's earlier orders (rather than going through the legal appeals process) and had a temporary restraining order placed against him.

The mother brought expert testimony to the initial hearing. The father did not, and, in fact, refused to have any interaction with the counselor who was treating the child.

And the father who was physically violent.

"ln response to Luoa's choices, the Father has engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including physical force, toward the Mother. His actions are clearly intended to threaten and intimidate the Mother. Further, the Father has engaged in emotionally abusive behavior toward the child (as example only, haircutting and other non-affiming actions). Although unclear if this behavior rises to the level of family violence at this time, the Father's aggression is becoming more common and more intense."

And again, this is happening in Texas. It defies credulity to think that a Texas court would go along with the story that the father is trying to paint. --Bob

[BackInTex]

notwithstanding the demonstrable harm that it does. And that's despicable. --Bob

You mean like blocking the natural changes of a person's body through puberty? Or by rendering certain organs useless for the remainder of child's life?

Yep, despicable.

[flockofseagulls104]

...a lot more interested in advancing their own ideology

Really, bob-tel? I guess you are not at all involved in advancing your own ideology.

[Spock]

notwithstanding the demonstrable harm that it does. And that's despicable. --Bob

You mean like blocking the natural changes of a person's body through puberty? Or by rendering certain organs useless for the remainder of child's life?

Yep, despicable.

A mother (and an ideology, for that matter) that wants to castrate an 8 YO boy might have a few issues of her (their) own to deal with.

Under SSS's and Bob's ideology, we can obviously castrate 8 year old boys. Is there a lower limit that you are good with? Can we cut the nuts off 7 year olds? 6 YO's? 4 YO's? What's your bottom limit?

[Bob78164]

notwithstanding the demonstrable harm that it does. And that's despicable. --Bob

You mean like blocking the natural changes of a person's body through puberty? Or by rendering certain organs useless for the remainder of child's life?

Yep, despicable.

A mother (and an ideology, for that matter) that wants to castrate an 8 YO boy might have a few issues of her own to deal with.

Under SSS's and Bob's ideology, we can obviously castrate 8 year old boys. Is there a lower limit that you are good with? Can we cut the nuts off 7 year olds? 6 YO's? 4 YO's? What's your bottom limit?

You're clearly not listening. We're not talking about a boy. We're talking about a transgender girl who is in the process of transitioning.

Your terminology betrays your prejudices here. I'd be willing to bet we're actually talking about hormone therapy, whereas you're using the invented ideological term "chemical castration."

Your only "evidence" that the mother has any issues is that you disagree with the choice she is willing to facilitate on behalf of her child. The child's wishes have been vetted by the mother, a guardian ad litem, a neutral judge, and the treating physician. It's only the father, whose prejudices have driven him irrational to the point of physical violence, who disagrees.

But you think you know better, and what's worse, given the opportunity, you'd use the power of the state to forcibly take the choice away from the family, all because you just don't like the choice they're making. Like most Republicans, you're all for your own personal freedom, but you're perfectly willing to intervene the moment you disagree with the choices someone else wants to make by virtue of their own freedom. --Bob

[BackInTex]

you'd use the power of the state to forcibly take the choice away from the family--Bob

You're clearly not listening. The father, as much a family member at the mother, wants this. The family has two choices. I, Spock, Flock, and all other sane people who actually care about the child rather than the agenda prefer what the father wants.

[Bob78164]

you'd use the power of the state to forcibly take the choice away from the family--Bob

You're clearly not listening. The father, as much a family member at the mother, wants this. The family has two choices. I, Spock, Flock, and all other sane people who actually care about the child rather than the agenda prefer what the father wants.

You're defining yourself as sane because you agree with the father's bigotry. By your reasoning, it's absolutely impossible for the choice to facilitate a transition to be sane. No transgender person could ever be accepted by that reasoning. That's bigotry, pure and simple.

Except for the father, though, whose propensity toward physical violence undercuts his claim toward interest in the child's welfare, the people who actually know the situation -- the mother, the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician -- all agree with the child's wishes. So I'm glad that it looks like bigotry will lose this particular battle. --Bob

[BackInTex]

you'd use the power of the state to forcibly take the choice away from the family--Bob

You're clearly not listening. The father, as much a family member at the mother, wants this. The family has two choices. I, Spock, Flock, and all other sane people who actually care about the child rather than the agenda prefer what the father wants.

You're defining yourself as sane because you agree with the father's bigotry. By your reasoning, it's absolutely impossible for the choice to facilitate a transition to be sane. No transgender person could ever be accepted by that reasoning. That's bigotry, pure and simple.

Except for the father, though, whose propensity toward physical violence undercuts his claim toward interest in the child's welfare, the people who actually know the situation -- the mother, the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician -- all agree with the child's wishes. So I'm glad that it looks like bigotry will lose this particular battle. --Bob

I'm defining myself as sane based on reality and not making life changing decisions based on what a 3,4,5, or 6 year-old tells me.

Apparently our definitions of sanity differ. I'll take mine.

Oh, and the "bigot" thing? Name calling? Sure child, keep it up. Water off a duck's back. You can't bully me into silence.

[Beebs52]

you'd use the power of the state to forcibly take the choice away from the family--Bob

You're clearly not listening. The father, as much a family member at the mother, wants this. The family has two choices. I, Spock, Flock, and all other sane people who actually care about the child rather than the agenda prefer what the father wants.

You're defining yourself as sane because you agree with the father's bigotry. By your reasoning, it's absolutely impossible for the choice to facilitate a transition to be sane. No transgender person could ever be accepted by that reasoning. That's bigotry, pure and simple.

Except for the father, though, whose propensity toward physical violence undercuts his claim toward interest in the child's welfare, the people who actually know the situation -- the mother, the child's guardian ad litem, the neutral judge, and the treating physician -- all agree with the child's wishes. So I'm glad that it looks like bigotry will lose this particular battle. --Bob

I don't think this has to do wi5h bigotry. Kids don't know their heads from their ass til they're, oh, 21 or so. Enabling major surgery and chem8cal intervention for something so truly life changing at 8 is abuse. Are you okay with your kid saying no to vaccinations at 8?
The child doesn't have to undergo such drastic measures.