So what do you say to a prepubescent child who is convinced that they would like to change their sex from the biological one that they currently exist in to the opposite sex? Perhaps they feel like a girl trapped in a boy's body or a boy trapped in a girl's body?
Is it okay to say "sure" - go ahead! Let's have intrusive nearly irreversible surgery that will cost at a minimum around $20,000 just to rearrange the sex organs from an innie to an outie or outie to an innie. That doesn't include the cost of cosmetic changes to breasts, adams apples, and such. Doesn't include hormone treatments, and other medical costs. On average the cost to "transition" from one sex to another can run into the $200,000-$300,000 range without too much trouble.
All that also begs the question about who pays for the transition for a minor. It's rarely covered by insurance (although some laws are trying to change that) and the child generally doesn't have the income to pay. In one pretty famous case between two parents on opposite sides of the issue, a judge ordered the parent who was opposed to the transition to bear the cost. Ironic, huh?
There are limitations to when a child can get piercings without parental permission and you cannot even get a tattoo in most states under 18 years old unless you are accompanied by an parent or guardian. Funny how we enter a realm where some would like to make it illegal for a parent to prevent the change of their child's "sex" - while still allowing that same parent the right to make sure their children don't make immature decisions about a piercing or a tattoo.
From a statistical standpoint about 20% of all people who transition from one sex to the other end up with regrets. The suicide rate among those who have these regrets is incredibly high.
While we do not have numbers quite yet on whether or not children who transition prior to puberty are more or less likely to hold regrets, the reality is that the regret percentage goes down the older someone is when they choose to make the transition. If regret is more frequent the younger someone is, then it would tend to reason that it may be even higher than 20% for those who choose to transition prior to puberty. I am guessing that people who get a tattoo when they are a minor have more regrets than those who wait till they are older. That just seems to be common sense.
So the question is if hypothetically 75% or prepubescent children who transition never regret it and 25% do regret it, what are the pros and cons of waiting till they are older to make a better more informed decision? From the pro standpoint, the transition will be much easier prior to puberty. Hormone blockers can be an effective tool to make it a cleaner transition and with a body that has not fully developed either way, the physical transition can be easier in a child. On the flip side, we obviously don't know which people be fine and which will regret it. But it seems like a pretty big problem to spend a quarter million dollars on what is an almost irreversible surgery to change someone's sex and then find out later that they believe that they did the wrong thing.
To some degree this is the same argument that we see with a lot of things right now as it pertains to "parental rights". The majority of parents want more control over raising their own children when it comes to social issues and most certainly sexual ones. I get the feeling that many people on the left believe that parents are the bad influence on children and that children would be better served learning their social and sexual norms from teachers, movies, and the media. Like CRT or whatever, the idea of parents having any say in a child's perceived sexual orientation is a big problem for the left. As if Parents are simply politically backwards and are not actually looking out for the best interests of their children.
So the argument rages on. Not sure where it all ends, but it will end eventually. One way or the other.
36 comments:
I thought the prevailing opinion now is not to dictate at what age, whether during pre or post pubescence, but that the person actually experiencing gender incongruities or anomalies or preferences should be the one to decide whether or when or what kind of course they should take regarding gender, and not have that decided for them by anyone.
It should be left up to the person.
Anyone aiding and abetting the transitioning of a minor child is guilty of child abuse and should be labelled a level 3 sex offender and banished from society.
Leftists are taking advantage of a fad where teens, especially girls, are seeking the next cool thing, and gender dysphoria seems to be it.
This is fucking pure evil, so naturally the left approves.
I don't think children who found their parents trying to be sensitive and understanding when their child spoke to them about not feeling right about the gender preference assigned to them -- I don't think those children would say that their parents were "guilty of child abuse and should be labelled a level 3 sex offender and banished from society."
It should be left up to the person.
So are you saying that a 10 year old child has the maturity and experience in life to make a life altering decision such as this, and that a parent who believes that the decision is premature is wrong and insensitive?
Do you understand how many times you have to say "no" to a 10 year old child who believes that their latest desire is life or death, whether it be a sleep over at a friends house, a new game on PlayStation, or that they really need McDonalds that night?
You have never really given a straight answer... but I am guessing you are not actually a parent yourself.
And let's be clear... someone is male or female based on the chromosomes they were born with. Nobody "assigned" them their body and sexual organs like it was a chosen color of a car you purchased. Yes doctor, can you please make sure our child had a penis, blond hair, and hazel eyes? Can you please "assign" those physical biological qualities to that person?
So let's follow just a "little bit" of science here Reverend.
Leave the silly political rhetoric out of it, unless you prefer to be called a "groomer" and then we can play silly semantic games instead of having a mature conversation that includes science.
We have a President who remembers this
Clinton offered himself as the tribune of the new America, one welcoming of racial minorities, feminists, and gays. He was thought to embody the spirit of the 1960s and something of the insurgent, free-spirited character of the new left. Gingrich presented himself as the guardian of an older and “truer” America, one grounded in faith, patriotism, respect for law and order, and family values. Gingrich publicly pledged himself and his party to obstructing Clinton at every turn. Clinton, meanwhile, regarded Gingrich as the unscrupulous leader of a vast right-wing conspiracy to undermine his presidency.
Yet, despite their differences and their hatred for each other, these two Washington powerbrokers worked together on neoliberal legislation that would shape America’s political economy for a generation. They both supported the World Trade Organization, which debuted in 1995 to turbocharge a global regime of free trade. Their aides jointly engineered the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which did more than any other piece of legislation in the 1980s and 1990s to free the most dynamic sector of the US economy from government regulation.
Major pieces of legislation deregulating the electrical generation industry and Wall Street followed closely in the telecom bill’s wake. Clinton and Gingrich also worked together to pare back the welfare state, sharing a conviction that the tough, disciplining effects of job markets would benefit the poor more than state-subsidized “handouts”. Clinton’s collaboration with Gingrich had facilitated the neoliberal order’s triumph.
That order is now on the wane, its once unassailable principles of free trade, free markets, and the free movement of people now disputed on a daily basis. Meanwhile, public attention focuses on yet another chapter in the culture wars, with the American people divided, irredeemably it seems, over vaccination, critical race theory, and whether Donald Trump should be lauded as an American hero or jailed for acts of treason.
Yet, beneath the churn, one can detect hints of new common ground on economic matters emerging. Trump and Bernie Sanders have both worked to turn the country away from free trade and toward a protectionist future promising better jobs and higher wages. Senators Josh Hawley and Amy Klobuchar have both been warning the American people about the dangers of concentrated corporate power and the “tyranny of high tech”; and bipartisanship is driving movements in Congress to commit public funds to the nation’s physical infrastructure and to industrial policies deemed vital to economic wellbeing and national security. It is too soon to know whether these incipient collaborative efforts indicate that a new kind of political economy is in fact taking shape and, if it is, whose interests it will serve. But these developments underscore, once again, the importance of looking beyond and beneath the culture wars for clues as to where American politics and society might be heading.
Gender identity and gender expression are critical parts of sexual violence prevention.
Rigid beliefs about gender, sex and sexuality have been identified as putting someone at higher risk for perpetrating sexual violence.
You really want to limit education for conservative viewpoints.
Crazy people attack gays.
I have seen it happen.
Show your irrelevant plagiarism, alky -
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/05/america-politics-culture-wars-republicans-democrats
fucking moron
Do you understand how many times you have to say "no" to a 10 year old child who believes that their latest desire is life or death, whether it be a sleep over at a friends house, a new game on PlayStation, or that they really need McDonalds that night?
You have never really given a straight answer... but I am guessing you are not actually a parent yourself.
The pederast has never been a parent. Thank God for that.
Roger - can you tell us what all of these words have to do with the thread at hand?
You really want to limit education for conservative viewpoints.
No dumbass, we want to keep kids in school and their teachers focused on their education, leaving sexual lifestyles completely out of it.
No sane parent wants some purple-haired, tatted up fuckstick who looks like he fell face-first into a fucking tackle box telling his students how he took it up the ass from his "partner" last night.
Gender identity and gender expression are critical parts of sexual violence prevention.
So a ten year old who wants a sex change operation is more in danger of sexual violence than a ten year old who doesn't or somehow if that operation is not granted at age 10, they are suddenly more prone to sexual violence?
Or what, exactly, is your point?
Groomer James is all over this kind of State Sponsored sickness.
"
You have never really given a straight answer... but I am guessing you are not actually a parent yourself" CHT
James, are you a parent?
I am glad Jill Biden is Safe.
But.
My point is that this is more like before we accepted that some people are born gay.
Teaching children over the age of about 7 can make up their own minds. The limitations to kindergarten is just another ridiculous story. Because you think it will turn them gay.
Culture wars
Ten years old children need parental concent.. I would not allow it. He would be bullied by people like you
The pederast has never been a parent. Thank God for that.
EXACTLY!!!!!
Yes, he never slipped one past the goalie.
My point is that this is more like before we accepted that some people are born gay.
A 10 years old can demand that they are gay one day, straight the next, bi-sexual the next, and then determine next Tuesday that they are assexual. None of that matters. They don't need to remove a penis or build one in a surgical procedure to determine sexuality and nothing is permanent.
If you are not bright enough to see the difference between accepting gays into the community and having a ten year old demand to be changed from one sex to another... well then... you are as stupid as Rat claims! Are you that stupid?
or do you just not have a "real" argument to make here?
Because it sounds sort of like you agree with me and disagree with the Reverend but cannot do so without throwing in some sort of strawman.
Teaching children over the age of about 7 can make up their own minds. The limitations to kindergarten is just another ridiculous story. Because you think it will turn them gay.
No stupid. No one worries that it will turn them gay. It has no business being part of the curriculum at all, period.
I accept the fact that people are born gay. I have two gay nephews. One is as flamboyant as they can be, and his brother is the exact opposite.
Our public school system has no business discussing sexual lifestyles or orientations in any grade at any level or any age ever. Period. Full stop.
Leftists are sick enough to see an opportunity to groom small children, take advantage of their ignorance and immaturity, and guide them down a certain path. Because leftists are THAT fucking evil.
Actually I mis read this article.
I don't think that we are qualified to get insurance or government payments to be castrated and surgery to get a vagina..
Plain Groomer
The Likely hood of a US Recession Soars.
What is Biden plan to overcome "Food Shortages " ?
I don't think that we are qualified to get insurance or government payments to be castrated and surgery to get a Vagina..
Educate yourself Roger
Kosilek v. Spencer A decade AGO.
It had to go to SCOTUS
I don't think that we are qualified to get insurance or government payments to be castrated and surgery to get a vagina..
Unless you're a prison inmate. Then the taxpayers get stuck with the tab for your 'add-a-dick-to-me' surgery.
Teaching children over the age of about 7 can make up their own minds. The limitations to kindergarten is just another ridiculous story. Because you think it will turn them gay.
Roger... the age of consent to have sex in most states is 16. How can you reconcile the idea that a 15 year old is not old enough to decide to actually "have sex" but that a 10 year old is old enough to literally change their entire sex?
But a 7 year old? Not even old enough to understand or feel sexual attraction. All they are doing at that age is mimicking actual sexual behavior if they appear to be sexual to any degree. Nobody should be "teaching" 7 year olds about something they do not have any understanding of.
It sounds to me like you are looking to "groom" children into a particular way of thinking rather than to allow them to develop at their own speed and with the assistance of their parents and other family members?
Is that what this is about Roger?
Afraid if you let children decide for themselves, that your grooming attempts later on will be less effective?
"Educate yourself Roger
Kosilek v. Spencer A decade AGO."
Cali is asking the impossible.
Scott asked James a simple Question.
Q, I am guessing you are not actually a parent yourself ? CHT
Where are the "Defund the Police " Democrats?
reply to Ch's 1:43
There are children who are considered to be a certain gender who at an early or later age feel drawn toward being a different gender.
It may be a gradually increasing sense on their part.
No parents in such a case should insist that the child is locked into the gender the parents may wish. Nor should they rush the child into some life altering operation. The child while growing older should, in consultation with both psychological and medical counselors, have the final say in making such decisions.
Stop throwing up silly straw examples. These are sometimes decisions that require much patience, time, and understanding on everyone's part.
Godless James.
James did you father a child?
As always the pedo chat answer a direct question
No child should be allowed to make such an incredible fucking decision like gender surgery, when they aren’t allowed to get a tattoo
You’re mentally disturbed
*can’t not chat fyac
There is nothing godless in my 5:31.
Nor did I say a child should at an early age decide about gender surgery, so don't lie.
As for "learning" about sex, I remember that in the third grade I was tremendously attracted to a lovely little girl who was in the second grade, though I didn't understand why and didn't want to let anyone know about it.
And I never felt any desire to dress or act or play like a girl instead of a boy.
But those things that were true of me are not true of all children.
There is nothing wrong or extreme in what I am now saying or in what I said at 5:31.
What is wrong is the way you blatantly mischaracterize and distort what I saY.
Post a Comment