Mandatory affirmation
Gender ideologues in California let the mask slip, or perhaps just tossed it away: A new bill, AB 957, directs family court judges to award custody based in part on “a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity,” which the bill defines as intrinsic to the “health, safety and welfare of the child.”
And what “a child’s gender identity” means in this context “a child’s assertion that she or he is the other sex.” So custody decisions will be based partly on a parent’s “affirmation” of a silly lie, one which could end up prompting the child to make drastic changers to her or his body – irreversible damage in short.
How far must a parent go in pursuit of “affirmation”? The bill doesn’t say. “Affirmation” can include anything from allowing your daughter to adopt a male name and pronouns to commencing a schedule of hormones and surgeries that are variously risky, irreversible, and without proven mental health benefit. Puberty blockers, a staple of so-called “gender-affirming medicine,” can produce permanent sexual dysfunction and infertility, diminish cognitive development, undermine bone density and tooth enamel. How much is custody or visitation of your daughter worth to you, the Gender Thugs want to know. Sterilization and splitting teeth?
Not to mention diminished cognitive development.
Today, the notion that “affirmation” is necessarily in the best interest of every child can no longer seriously be believed. In the last two years, England, Sweden, Finland, France, and Norway have all conducted rigorous scientific reviews of pediatric gender medicine and concluded the opposite. The efficacy, far too doubtful. The harms, too grave. These countries—every one of them liberal—responded to their independent reviews by shuttering pediatric gender clinics, curtailing the availability of these medicines, restricting them to experimental settings, or banning them entirely.
It’s a fad, people, and one with far more dire consequences than most.
Good on them.! And to what end otherwise ? So this < 2% minority of XYs who wish they had been born XXs, and an even smaller minority of XXs whose wish is they had been born XY, can persuade themselves into feeling good, and secure within.? (Or should that be 'less insecure within.?')
Misery definitely loves company. And tiny minority misery 10 x more so.
My understanding is that, in recent years, the number of girls claiming to be trans or non-binary has increased to the point where it significantly exceeds the number of boys doing so. See this 2019 article at Transgender Trend:
https://www.transgendertrend.com/surge-referral-rates-girls-tavistock-continues-rise/
We know that a lot of child sexual abuse happens in the family. We also know that it isn’t easy for a child to come forward and accuse a parent. So what a boon for an abusive father.
Mother: I believe in the reality of biological sex, and my daughter is a girl.
Father: My daughter knows she was born in the wrong body and I will do all I can to ensure she gets the gender-affirming care she needs.
Judge: I award sole custody to the father.
Father and child move to a state that provides gender-affirming care, a place that is too far for the mother to travel to more than once a year. The child is put on puberty blockers, the father now has a permanent pre-pubescent child to abuse.
Far fetched? Maybe. But we know how manipulative abusers can be.
It’s not nearly as far-fetched as gender ideology itself!
What came first, this or the states achieving the same thing in the opposite direction?
California is a definite boon to an abusive parent (or just a parent who is particularly keen on winning a custody battle) but can’t you essentially do the same thing in Texas by claiming the other parent is transing their kid?
Now me, I just see this as natural selection: be dumb enough to sterilize your kid and have fewer/no descendants beyond them.
Re other states in the opposite direction
I don’t know of any other states that were able to achieve the opposite direction, denying custody to parents who go along with transing their kids, without a court stepping in and blocking the law. Florida’s law was recently blocked; it does appear to contain language that might remove a child from parental custody, but the news coverage is all about “gender-affirming care”. Maybe someone more skilled at reading these bills can comment.
There was an interesting article at The Distance about an Alabama bill that prohibits cross-sex hormones and surgeries for minors. We all know that right-wing figures are running against the trans issue for a number of reasons that don’t all align with the reasons of GC feminists, but the bills being proposed are generally quite intelligent and careful, indicating that they weren’t thought up by the right-wing politicians who officially propose them. Alabama’s bill is aimed directly at WPATH, challenging their guidance and their assessment of “settled science”. This is a strategy of people who appear to understand the issue, not people who are simply squeamish about people being gender-nonconforming.
The article also discusses lawsuits filed by detransitioners against hospitals and medical groups.
It’s a fad, and also there are no gay people in chechnya or malaysia or uganda or sochi or…
Sad that a once decent blog has descended to the same kind of argument and the same lack of logic as a good (not good) old fashioned gay panic.
Puberty blockers have been weighing on my mind, in particular, lately.
The whole claim is that the blockers prevent the development of sexual characteristics until the child has become old enough to be able to decide for themselves as an adult whether or not to transition. On first glance, this seems reasonable–I’m fine with adults transitioning, though I still agree to the GC in terms of what transition actually entails, and more importantly, permits. (Ie, an adult TIM still has no business in a women-only space, or participating in women’s sports, etc.) At that point, it becomes cosmetic surgery, which is generally up to the person getting it.
But this claim overlooks the fact that the whole reason adulthood exists as a legal category is cognitive development–you don’t suddenly become more able to make decisions about alcohol because you’ve taken 21 trips around the sun; you become more cognitively able to perceive the impacts of drinking after your body (most specifically, your brain) has developed to a point where you can make at least some amount of rational choice about such things.
But that development is both experiential and hormonal–if you stop the hormonal development with blockers, then you impede the very state of being that is supposed to enable you to decide better if you want life-altering surgery.
I know a family who adopted a child with fetal alcohol syndrome. She just hit her 18th birthday, but cognitively, she’s about 12 (and likely will still be at that stage for most purposes for the rest of her life). She’s a genuinely caring, friendly and happy kid–but the notion that she’s now at the point where she could be given the benefit of the doubt upon declaring that she wants to be considered a man is flat-out absurd. While hormone blockers probably aren’t as drastic in their inhibition of development as that, it seems pretty damned likely that the 18 year old who’s been on blockers since they were 12 is not going to be in the same position cognitively as one who actually has had all the brain development that comes with adolescence.
Gender idenniny is not the same kind of thing as the existence of gay people.
[…] a comment by Freemage on Mandatory […]
Gender idenniny REPLACES fay people. That effeminate gay boy? He’s really a girl. Snip snip inject inject
Chad Fungus, whoever you are, your reading comprehension is faulty. This isn’t about adults’ sexual orientation, it’s about adults’ fantasies about themselves being imposed on children.
‘Sex reassignment’ (mutilating surgery and hormone interventions) was invented by homophobic doctors in the middle of the last century to turn gay men into fake women. The ‘trans’ movement has only become more homophobic since then.
Instead of indoctrinating gay, and/or autistic, and/or traumatised children into the cult, which is a recently created phenomenon so that wealthy straight men can indulge their fetishes at work by pretending that they were born like that, why not lobby for the support of same-sex attracted people in those countries? What is happening in the West is exactly what is happening in Iran: if you don’t conform to the strict gender roles for your sex, you get the choice of being medically and surgically transitioned, or the death penalty.
This blog champions the rights of women, children, and vulnerable people, against a profit-driven corporate cult which is determined to remove everyone’s right to say no to this insanity.
Brad Chungus
Is that an attempt to summarise the views you believe Ophelia Benson to have? If so, where has she ever indicated anything like that? Link preferred.
Brad Chungus has proven conclusively that there is no intelligent design.
I have sometimes thought that Ophiocordyceps unilateralis controlling ants in the natural world is rather too close an analogy for comfort to cultish thinking controlling individuals in the human world. Fungicide!