SCOTUS case: Trans rights for minors

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZenMode
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 263
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
I'm not saying you have to care, but I think people generally have a heighten concern for the safety and well-being of children because they often aren't mature, experienced, informed and can be easily manipulated. There are laws, legal protections and resources unique to minors for a reason.

I don't recall ever having any concern about what happens in anyone's bedroom. I don't recall ever carrying about prostitution. Societal impacts aside, I don't even care about polygamy.
Click to expand...
Do you have the same concerns about children "because they often aren't mature, experienced, informed and can be easily manipulated" when it comes to religion?

Seems if you were consistent, you would be very concerned about young kids being forced into something which may cause irreparable harm to them later, even though their parents and pastors/preachers/bishops supported it? Also, many many thousands of examples of rape and abuse can be provided by allowing kids into the church systems.

Should the government and courts get involved and not allow children into church or near religious teachings before they are adults?
 
Last edited:
UNCatTech said:
Plenty of modern drugs, that were not available thousands of years ago, artificially manipulate natural occurring actions and substances in bodies.

You do realize the list is a mile long of things that we didn't have a thousand years ago that have improved our life expectancy, our health, and our lives, correct?

It's fine if you don't understand or seek to understand, but why would you believe that you have any right to make a decision for others? Especially if you don't understand?
Click to expand...


What exactly am I not understanding? Best I can gather is there are some that want to allow males to take puberty blockers to prevent themselves from hitting male puberty and also the opposite (females wanting to prevent female puberty). Some think it should be allowed for minors, others think it shouldn't. Am I missing something there?
 
finesse said:
You're missing that this should be nobody's business except the child, parents and the several doctors involved. Neither the government or the citizens have any vested interest.
Click to expand...


Do you think someone's bank account is the business of the government?
 
UNCatTech said:
The seatbelt isn't for you, it's for the other drivers.

It's proven that a seatbelt will help one to stay in a position where they can better control the car in the event of an accident.

If it were not for the hurting of others, I would be against seat belt laws.

This applies to most laws for me. If the law protects one person from another, I'm for it. If the law is meant to protect one from themselves, hmmm...
Click to expand...

You're joking, right? Seat belts are primarily to help you stay in a position to control the car and not to prevent driver/passenger injuries?
 
EhringhausSouth said:
Seems to me the best course of action would be counseling and a reality check, and adults being the adults as opposed to playing into the delusion. Again, wild it's even a discussion.

ETA: If they are suicidal, put them in a mental institution so they can be monitored and kept safe.
Click to expand...
What happened to smaller government and letting people make the best decisions for themselves?
 
superrific said:
I didn't ask you about having concern. You said you have "concerns" which is a different meaning, and it just blows my mind that you think your concerns matter at all when you know absolutely nothing about a) the medical basis for transgenderism; b) the various treatments under debate; c) what the lived experience of gender dysphoria feels like; d) how parents, doctors and patients communicate about these issues.

You just don't have to have your own fucking opinion about everything. Recognize that there is a lot of shit in this world you know nothing about, and temper your behavior accordingly. You might note that, even though my wife is a child psychiatrist, I have not expressed any opinions about gender dysphoria. You know why? I don't know enough about it to form an informed opinion.
Click to expand...
You need to calm down. You're being too loud.
 
UNCatTech said:
Well then age is the wrong metric.

I know teenagers that are more mature than 40 year old men.


How would you feel if you needed medical care and they told you the care you need is readily available and would be more effective the sooner you took it. Then told you the government was going to protect you so you cant choose to have the care until you are 60. (I'm figuring you are somewhere in your 40's).
Click to expand...
I agree that age is the wrong metric. I was in no place to make important decisions as an 18 year old.

No two things are the same. Not all surgeries are the same. The reason for surgeries isn't the same.

There are situations where the government should protect children. I'm not saying this is it, but this could be considered among the valid reasons.
 
EhringhausSouth said:
What exactly am I not understanding? Best I can gather is there are some that want to allow males to take puberty blockers to prevent themselves from hitting male puberty and also the opposite (females wanting to prevent female puberty). Some think it should be allowed for minors, others think it shouldn't. Am I missing something there?
Click to expand...
You seem to be missing that it isn't our choice and the government shouldn't make laws denying these people the right to make their own choices with the support of doctors and parents. Not politicians.
 
ZenMode said:
I agree that age is the wrong metric. I was in no place to make important decisions as an 18 year old.

No two things are the same. Not all surgeries are the same. The reason for surgeries isn't the same.

There are situations where the government should protect children. I'm not saying this is it, but this could be considered among the valid reasons.
Click to expand...
Agree. I just see this more as attacking trans rights than protection.

Maybe they should focus on areas where there is a greater risk.
 
ZenMode said:
You're joking, right? Seat belts are primarily to help you stay in a position to control the car and not to prevent driver/passenger injuries?
Click to expand...
No.

I'm saying that by keeping the driver and passenger in place it not only protects them, in many cases it allows them to also maintain control of the car therefore reducing risk and protecting others.

I'll look up one of the articles I've read and post it. They changed my mind because I realized there was more to seatbelts than simply personal choice.
 
ZenMode said:
This is one that I go back and forth on. Where is the sweet spot that protects minors and protects the medical rights of parents and their children? Without a doubt, there are young children who believe they are in the wrong body and will feel the same way for their entire lives.

There's also no doubt that kids can be impacted by social pressure or other external and internal factors and surgery at a young age can have dire consequences. There's also the question of the right of parents to get medical care for their children.

Transgender rights take center stage at the US Supreme Court. Here’s what to know

Click to expand...
The “sweet spot” is keeping the decision solely in the hands of the children, the parents, and their doctor. Once a child is of age, the decision should be theirs and their doctor to make.

Why is it the right is so eager to go big government intervention when it comes to what we do with our bodies, but doesn’t want government interfering in things like education and basic healthcare?
 
EhringhausSouth said:
Haha. I figured you'd think so. So to clarify, you think someone's bank account is the business of the government, but not preventing harm to minors?
Click to expand...
The government has an intrinsic interest in the financial well being of the nation. It doesn't matter what I think. It's hard cold reality. They can garnishee your wages, freeze your accounts and all sorts of things.

They neither have that interest in a child's health nor any investment. Thought your type was small government. This is a definite nanny state idea. You should be embarrassed and ashamed for supporting it.
 
finesse said:
The government has an intrinsic interest in the financial well being of the nation. It doesn't matter what I think. It's hard cold reality. They can garnishee your wages, freeze your accounts and all sorts of things.

They neither have that interest in a child's health nor any investment. Thought your type was small government. This is a definite nanny state idea. You should be embarrassed and ashamed for supporting it.
Click to expand...

So basically you are saying chemical castration of minors should be allowed?
 
EhringhausSouth said:
So basically you are saying chemical castration of minors should be allowed?
Click to expand...
Come on, man. Using terminology like that sounds a lot like "abortion is murder." These are difficult questions. The science is difficult and the ethics are even more difficult. Reasonable people can disagree. Let's give some grace to the people most affected by it, which are the kids, the parents and the doctors, but definitely not the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top