XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy, alt.politics.republicans, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: joelcrump@gmail.com   
      
   Dave Wainwright  wrote:   
   >On 9/22/2024 7:52 PM, Joel wrote:   
   >> reid  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> She [Joel's GF] is trans and I accept her as that, what is the problem   
   with "basis   
   >>>> for relationship"?  You might not accept that she's trans, I do.   
   >>>> You're basically talking nonsense.   
   >>>   
   >>> You're accepting nonsense.  Pretending you are something you aren't is a   
   >>> mental health issue.   
   >>   
   >> Being behind the times is a mental lameness issue.   
   >   
   >Try reading to catch up.   
   >   
   >"Youth Gender Medications Limited in England, Part of Big Shift in Europe"   
   >   
   >https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/health/europe-transgender-yo   
   th-hormone-treatments.html   
      
      
   Reasonable people may disagree on this, but I'm just saying, trans   
   identity is not a joke, and if you think kids have no rights, you need   
   to broaden your horizons a bit.  I am an authority and I am not going   
   to be contradicted other than in someone's opinion, because supporting   
   families have rights through the consent of their trans child. Whether   
   another adult in the child's life could intervene without the parents'   
   involvement is a matter of debate, even as an authority I would   
   hesitate to just comment off the cuff about that.   
      
   Not to say they couldn't affirm the trans identity, in a child not   
   their own offspring, but to recommend or facilitate access to puberty   
   blockers/hormones, I think we need to have a real discussion of what   
   rights the parents have.  In truth, the general treatment *can* begin   
   effectively at 18 or 16, but does that mean a younger child cannot   
   seek puberty blockers or hormones, prior to maturity?  Can there be a   
   way around an unsupportive parent?   
      
   --   
   Joel W. Crump   
      
   Amendment XIV   
   Section 1.   
      
   [...] 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.   
      
   Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are   
   liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)