Conservatism

[McLaren]

What a boss move at the end.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I echo this.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The fallout from the exposure of a Mermaids trustee has been interesting

Are we as a society too conservative when talking about adults who are attracted to children? Surely it's time to acknowledge the difference between having an attraction and acting on it, and perhaps the route to reducing child sexual abuse is recognising and dealing with people suffering from it.

 

[Biggles]

I don’t even know what to say anymore, except to repeat what @TexRex keeps saying. Modern American conservatism is mental illness.

Just wait: Trumpers will be claiming the beer thrower was Antifa, or FBI ... or the whole thing was a false flag operation.

 

[UKMikey]

The fallout from the exposure of a Mermaids trustee has been interesting

Are we as a society too conservative when talking about adults who are attracted to children? Surely it's time to acknowledge the difference between having an attraction and acting on it, and perhaps the route to reducing child sexual abuse is recognising and dealing with people suffering from it.

"OK groomer..." kidding, KIDDING.

I agree with what you're saying but perhaps we can move forward when we as a society stop stigmatising anyone who refuses to act on their sexual impulses regardless of sexuality, as it's ingrained into human nature to err on the side of protecting children regardless of whether the threat is actual or merely potential.

I fear such an approach will never fly with these greivance addicted outrage junkies anyway.

 

[LeMansAid]

The fallout from the exposure of a Mermaids trustee has been interesting

Are we as a society too conservative when talking about adults who are attracted to children? Surely it's time to acknowledge the difference between having an attraction and acting on it, and perhaps the route to reducing child sexual abuse is recognising and dealing with people suffering from it.

My experience in talking to people about paedophilia is that there's no notable difference in attitude between people that would generally be described as liberals and people that would generally be described as conservatives. The last "liberal" I had a conversation about it with ended the chat with a semi-enraged "No, it's sick, and they're not born that way". I noted how close that was to how homosexuality is viewed by people that are given the "conservative" tag. If more "liberals" actually become liberal we might get somewhere in regards to these poor people afflicted with something they had no agency in.

 

[TexRex]

 

[UKMikey]

 

[TexRex]

This is breathtaking.



In 2021, Arkansas passed a law--the "Save Adolescents From Experimentation" (SAFE) Act--prohibiting gender-affirming hormone treatment, puberty blockers and surgery for minors. Rutledge here asserts that parents with children should seek out multiple medical opinions, but as Stewart aptly points out, what Rutledge is actually saying is that parents need to seek out medical opinions that serve the interests of CONSERVATIVES rather than individual minors and their parents, and that means those that don't prescribe gender-affirming care.

Now the law is presently dead in the water, rendered unenforceable first by a federal court judge in Little Rock and then by a three-judge panel at the 8th Circuit, but this shows where so many conservatives are at. The Arkansas State Legislature passed the law with its overwhelming Republican majority, and when the state's [Republican] governor vetoed it, the same legislative majority was able to override that veto easily.

 

[TexRex]

 

[McLaren]

Isn’t Kinzinger leaving after his term? I was impressed by him speaking out a bunch earlier this year.

 

[Populuxe]

For the non-comic book fans out there, DC is publishing a book called Superman: Son of Kal-El. It stars Jon Kent, son of Clark Kent. Jon is bisexual, and gets a boyfriend in this series. It’s up to 16 issues so far. The title is getting a new name: Adventures of Superman: Jon Kent. Conservative bloggers, YouTubers, and news sites have been spinning the end of the current book as DC cancelling the title because of poor sales. It’s the number 1 comic in the US. Sky News Australia (the Fox News of Down Under) interviewed a homophobe and reported his opinions as if they were facts. Tom Taylor, the writer of the Jon Kent comics, was having none of it.

 

[Populuxe]

For the non-comic book fans out there, DC is publishing a book called Superman: Son of Kal-El. It stars Jon Kent, son of Clark Kent. Jon is bisexual, and gets a boyfriend in this series. It’s up to 16 issues so far. The title is getting a new name: Adventures of Superman: Jon Kent. Conservative bloggers, YouTubers, and news sites have been spinning the end of the current book as DC cancelling the title because of poor sales. It’s the number 1 comic in the US. Sky News Australia (the Fox News of Down Under) interviewed a homophobe and reported his opinions as if they were facts. Tom Taylor, the writer of the Jon Kent comics, was having none of it.

Following up on this, Brandon Morse, the homophobe who was the sole source for that Sky News Australia hit piece, decided to engage Tom Taylor directly on Twitter. It did not go well for him.

 

[TexRex]

Michigan bill could mean life in prison for parents or docs that allow gender transition treatment for minors

Under H.B. 6454, prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones would be treated as a more severe form of child abuse than starving or abandoning a kid.

reason.com

A bill introduced in the Michigan Legislature this week could mean life in prison for any parent or doctor who "consents to, obtains, or assists with a gender transition procedure for a child." The measure—H.B. 6454—amends the state's child abuse statute to define such actions as child abuse in the first degree.

Under current Michigan law, first-degree child abuse is defined as "knowingly or intentionally caus[ing] serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child." It's punishable under Michigan law by "imprisonment for life or any term of years."

H.B. 6454 would add to the definition "knowingly or intentionally consent[ing] to, obtain[ing], or assist[ing] with a gender transition procedure for a child," if the person acting is "a child's parent or guardian or any other person who cares for, has custody of, has authority over a child regardless of the length of time that a child is cared for, in the custody of, or subject to the authority of that person, or a physician or other licensed medical professional." Gender transition procedures are defined to include not just surgical interventions but also the prescription of puberty blockers and hormones.

Yes, under the proposed change, prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to a teenager would be equivalent to severely beating a child. And it would be defined as a more severe form of abuse than starving or abandoning a kid.

The proposed statute says that allowing gender transition treatment for a minor—no matter the child's age—is a more severe form of child abuse than a "willful failure to provide food, clothing, or shelter necessary for a child's welfare," or the "willful abandonment of a child." It would also be defined as a more severe offense than negligence or recklessness that "causes serious physical harm or serious mental harm to a child," someone "knowingly or intentionally commit[ing] an act likely to cause serious physical or mental harm to a child," or someone "knowingly or intentionally cause[ing] physical harm to a child" that is not severe. And it would be in the same category as intentionally causing "a physical injury to a child that seriously impairs the child's health or physical well-being, including, but not limited to, brain damage, a skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocation, sprain, internal injury, poisoning, burn or scald, or severe cut."

Even if you're leery of prescribing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors, it's got to be clear that these things—and even more drastic surgical measures—are worlds apart from the kinds of pointless and savage abuse Michigan legislators would equate them to. Parents and doctors who consent to the former think they're helping, even if this wisdom may be debatable. And while some of these drugs and procedures can come with side effects—well, so do a lot of things. Yet we often still allow these things when a doctor deems them prudent or when the alternative might be worse.

It's one thing to say such treatments for minors should not be a first resort—that we should be cautious, and perhaps even require more medical checks and balances. But it's another entirely to define difficult treatment decisions made by doctors, parents, and kids together as equivalent to beating a child to the point of causing brain damage.

Alas, this absurdity seems to be gaining ground. Michigan is attempting to follow the lead of Texas, which earlier this year categorized the medical treatment of trans minors as child abuse. Enforcement of that policy is supposedly on hold as a lawsuit over it plays out, though recent court filings allege that investigations into trans kids [OK?] are still taking place.

"Yes, under the proposed change, prescribing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to a teenager would be equivalent to severely beating a child. And it would be defined as a more severe form of abuse than starving or abandoning a kid."

Such conservatism. Very liberty. Wow.

Really, there is absolutely nothing to the @LeMansAid bitchfit over "divisive labeling."

 

[Joey D]

While I don't agree with prescribing children hormone therapy, puberty blockers, or allowing reassignment surgery, it's not on the same level as child abuse. I think it's certainly a bad idea and could very likely cause the child more harm as they get older, but it's not the same as beating a kid.

Republicans don't have much of a chance in Michigan this year though since the best person they could roll out for governor is Tutor Dixon. She's nothing more than a shill for the pyramid scheme loving shysters known as the DeVos's. The other candidates that might've stood a chance could figure out how to get people to write on a piece of paper properly so they weren't allowed. Even if this bill passes, it'll get vetoed and they won't be able to override the veto.

I really wish states would start focusing on things that mean something. Michigan has a bunch of problems that need working out before we start worrying about trans kids. Mainly our infrastructure is terrible and the Great Lakes need some serious management. One of our biggest paper mills also just burned down and is both an economic and environmental disaster. That probably needs addressing like right now.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's certainly a bad idea and could very likely cause the child more harm as they get older, but it's not the same as beating a kid.

It could, it could also save their life. Seems like a good thing for the child, their family, and their doctors to figure out case-by-case.

 

[Exorcet]

It could, it could also save their life. Seems like a good thing for the child, their family, and their doctors to figure out case-by-case.

Yeah, it seems like many people are worried about the negative effects of transition at a young age, but don't consider that there can be negative effects by putting it off. Unfortunately it is easier to transition earlier as far as I know just because of biology. Also if people's identities are truly ingrained naturally, then it would make sense that even a child could recognize being trans.

 

[Joey D]

It could, it could also save their life. Seems like a good thing for the child, their family, and their doctors to figure out case-by-case.

I'm still not sure. Supporting the kid by using a new name, different pronouns, and letting them express themselves through clothing, activities, hobbies, and whatnot is one thing. However, having a minor undergo a major biological change while also dealing with puberty is another in my opinion. This is mainly due to minors lacking reasoning ability due to how their brains have developed. Teenagers are still developing their prefrontal cortex and rely more on the amygdala to make decisions, meaning the decisions can be more based on emotion than reason. The age of consent also plays a role too, but varies by state. In Michigan, they have the ability to consent to some care as early as 14. It was 15 years old in Utah, and in some states, it's 16. So before those ages, it would be a guardian consenting to a procedure that would drastically alter a minor's biology. The guardian also might be just making decisions based on what the minor is asking for instead of fully understanding it as well. Unfortunately, there are more than a few doctors that go along with it as well without fully understanding the big picture since there really isn't a consensus yet for best practices.

I have seen incidents through work that lead me to this opinion too, even if they're anecdotal. And as much as I would like to share examples, the discussion of mental health care, especially that of minors is really touchy. So feel free to take it with a grain of salt since I don't feel it's in my best interest to get into it (I hope that makes sense?).

With that said, I still don't think it's child abuse and I don't think it should be outlawed. I do think

 

[Exorcet]

This is mainly due to minors lacking reasoning ability due to how their brains have developed. Teenagers are still developing their prefrontal cortex and rely more on the amygdala to make decisions, meaning the decisions can be more based on emotion than reason.

This is absolutely important, but it's clear that these feelings aren't always "outgrown" with age. There is also individual variance, some people are going to be more prone to emotion than others. You could just go with an approach that works for the average person as a precaution, but that really amounts to lazy medicine.

I have seen incidents through work that lead me to this opinion too, even if they're anecdotal.

I'm sure there are people that regret transitioning, but then there are those who don't. I absolutely feel like more research on the subject is needed to help guide people, but we also should try to address what we can now.

 

[Danoff]

I'm still not sure. Supporting the kid by using a new name, different pronouns, and letting them express themselves through clothing, activities, hobbies, and whatnot is one thing. However, having a minor undergo a major biological change while also dealing with puberty is another in my opinion. This is mainly due to minors lacking reasoning ability due to how their brains have developed. Teenagers are still developing their prefrontal cortex and rely more on the amygdala to make decisions, meaning the decisions can be more based on emotion than reason. The age of consent also plays a role too, but varies by state. In Michigan, they have the ability to consent to some care as early as 14. It was 15 years old in Utah, and in some states, it's 16. So before those ages, it would be a guardian consenting to a procedure that would drastically alter a minor's biology. The guardian also might be just making decisions based on what the minor is asking for instead of fully understanding it as well. Unfortunately, there are more than a few doctors that go along with it as well without fully understanding the big picture since there really isn't a consensus yet for best practices.

I have seen incidents through work that lead me to this opinion too, even if they're anecdotal. And as much as I would like to share examples, the discussion of mental health care, especially that of minors is really touchy. So feel free to take it with a grain of salt since I don't feel it's in my best interest to get into it (I hope that makes sense?).

With that said, I still don't think it's child abuse and I don't think it should be outlawed. I do think

All of that is also a reason why in some cases it must happen. Suicide is a major risk for all teenagers, and it has been statistically shown to be a higher risk for people coping with issues like body dysmorphia that ultimately lead to gender transitioning. It's pretty clear that there is a population of people for which gender-affirming procedures is mentally helpful as adults, and so it is clear that it would have been helpful earlier, at least in the majority of cases.

It is not difficult to imagine that there are many teenagers that commit suicide that might not otherwise have if they had received a gender-affirming procedure. I think, through careful medical and psychological review of individual cases, some of them can and should be helped. If we have a problem with doctors over-prescribing these kinds of procedures to children, there are other ways to address those issues.

If the child is at high risk of suicide (and I don't mean statistically, I mean through individual evaluation), I don't see why we shouldn't prescribe the necessary medical procedure to help them. Information is never 100% in any medical treatment.

 

[TexRex]

These bills and laws are touted as "protecting children" but a blanket prohibition does no such thing. It can't for exactly the reasons pointed out above.

Proponents, especially propagandists, throw around terms like "sexualizing" and "grooming" to link these ideas of which they disapprove to objectification and exploitation without legitimate substantiation. Those attempting to help children understand what they may be going through are branded predators.

They say things like "parental discretion" but what they really mean is their discretion, and these bills and laws make that absolutely clear.

They're restricting access to and even outright prohibiting (even going as far as suing publishers and distributors for that which they deem "obscene") materials that aim to help kids better understand themselves.

They concoct absurd narratives about schools indulging in kids' supposed identification as animals by providing, on school grounds, a means to relieve themselves as if they were actually those animals. They allege this wholly without evidence, the aim again being to link the mere question of one's own gender identity or sexual orientation to sexual fetishism and deviance. The logical (not the word I'm looking for but it'll have to do) conclusion is North Carolina schools proposing broad prohibition on costumes at school events centered on students having fun.

 

[Jezza819]

John Oliver ran an excellent piece about Trans rights on his show this past Sunday. Some of the things that these conservatives come up with as a basis for denying access are just plain idiotic. The part where the kids are addressing these morons is wonderful.

LANGUAGE WARNING

 

[UKMikey]

Your link doesn't work in the UK, is it this episode?

Spoiler: NSFW language

 

[Jezza819]

Your link doesn't work in the UK, is it this episode?

Spoiler: NSFW language

Yes that's it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

All of that is also a reason why in some cases it must happen. Suicide is a major risk for all teenagers, and it has been statistically shown to be a higher risk for people coping with issues like body dysmorphia that ultimately lead to gender transitioning.

Minor point but I believe you are referring to gender dysphoria when you say body dysmorphia - a separate entity.

 

[Danoff]

Minor point but I believe you are referring to gender dysphoria when you say body dysmorphia - a separate entity.

Not the first time I've been corrected on that on GTP. I can't seem to create a bright line there in my mind. I understand the distinction, but making it really meaningful seems to be tricky.

 

[TexRex]

House Republicans seek to shield kids from talk about gender, sexual orientation

A new bill defines sexually-oriented material as "any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects."

reason.com

A new proposal from congressional Republicans would define sexually-oriented material as "any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects." The bill, introduced by Rep. Mike Johnson (R–La.) and co-sponsored by 33 Republican members of Congress, is called the "Stop the Sexualization of Children Act."

Its purpose is to stop schools, libraries, and other institutions from exposing children under 10 years old to those topics, as well as preventing discussions or depictions of other sexually-oriented themes. It would do so by allowing civil lawsuits from parents if federal funds were used to facilitate such discussions. It would also block federal funding for "any program, event, or literature" involving such topics, whether at a school, a museum, a library, or any other institution. And it would also ban all federal funds for institutions with more than one violation in a five-year period.

Discussions like these always get thorny for libertarians, because to condemn the bill may appear to be championing more federal spending. But if you set the funding issue aside here, we've still got a federal statute that would define any discussion of gender identity, gender dysphoria, and related topics as sexually-oriented material, and that alone seems to be worth challenging.

It's also possible to hold both a principled belief that the federal government should be spending less on something in general and that so long as the funding exists, it shouldn't be conditioned on conforming to a particular narrow viewpoint. (For instance, I think it's better for school programs to be funded more locally; I think it's wrong for Democrats to condition federal funding for schools on ridiculously expansive definitions of sexual misconduct and highly politicized definitions of biological sex, as it does under Title IX; and I think it's wrong for Republicans to try and condition certain sorts of school funding on avoiding any discussion of gender issues.)

It's also wrong (albeit typical) for lawmakers to try and sneak extremist proposals into regulations framed around less controversial plans. And with the Stop the Sexualization of Children Act, Johnson has cleverly lumped any mention of gender and sexual orientation in with things like exposing children under age 10 to "nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing."

In much the same way that politicians keep lumping together laws targeting adult sex workers with measures (theoretically) meant to stop child sex trafficking, Johnson's framing here makes it hard for folks to oppose the bill without appearing to support the sexualization of children. (Fans of the measure are already framing it as a bill to stop kids from seeing stripping drag queens.) And it allows the bill's proponents to easily wave off criticism of the measure as perversion or radical sexual liberalism.

But the truly radical side here is the one that wants "any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects" to be off limits for kids.

There are certainly inappropriate ways to discuss these issues with young people, but there are also age-appropriate ways to do so. And it's safe to assume such subjects may come up organically, without being a part of officially sanctioned curriculum.

Some kids will have gay or transgender parents or relatives. They may even have transgender classmates. And television, movies, and, pop culture are full of depictions of same-sex couples and discussions of gender identity. Kids will have questions about these things, and what are teachers, guidance counselors, and librarians supposed to do when they come up—simply say "we don't talk about that"?

Some parents and communities certainly wish any such discussions be avoided, or even any mention of these issues be done in a condemnatory way, but others may wish the subjects to be addressed more neutrally, or even in a positive way. The correct place for such debates to play out is at the local level, where parents and families directly affected may weigh in—not with some national directive that schools can't acknowledge to 9-year-olds that gay people exist.

Johnson's bill would open up schools, libraries, and other institutions to a bevy of lawsuits, since it creates a private right of action for parents "against a government official, government agency, or private entity" if a child under age 10 was "exposed to sexually-oriented material funded in part or in whole by Federal funds."

Again, there's something of a bait and switch going on here. Republicans can claim it's just about not funding certain activities. Meanwhile, it's inviting parents to sue if a grade school library that has received any money from the federal government includes any books with gay or trans characters.

The bottom line is that the "Stop the Sexualization of Children Act" is being promoted as a way to ensure federal money isn't funding nude drag queen shows for kids, or programs centered on sexually-oriented content for children. But it's actually broad enough to ban funds and allow lawsuits for a range of programs—like school libraries or age-appropriate sex education curriculum—that acknowledge sexual orientation or gender identity at all.

Republicans, now going for federal enforcement of a "Don't Say Gay" law (so much for states' rights, but then it was never about states' rights), are reaping the rewards of SCOTUS not shutting down Texas' and Florida's private cause of action scheme to end-around the Constitution.

 

[Populuxe]

When Newsmax says you’ve gone too far…

 

[Populuxe]

I’ll admit to a certain amount of schadenfreude when listening to these idiots praise Liz Truss, but then I remember that at least a third of all Americans believe every word that comes out of their mouths.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Ideology can be dangerous

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/10/19/covid-deaths-us-race/