You noticed he's refusing to actually engage with the "is separating a 16 year of kid on puberty blockers from their family and forcing them to de transition a good thing?" question despite it being the explicit, stated result of the policy too huh
Why You Should Have Your Eye On Florida
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
Twitter is not a legal document. This is the actual opinion being followed. Read through it. Every single time, it says "[things] can be abuse". Much the same way shooting someone in the face can be self-defense, it doesn't mean that it necessarily is.
Did the resulting investigation lead to charges? Was the child taken away? Forced to de-transition? A CPS worker reading the policy said "my family might be violating this order", they investigated and then took no action, and now she's sued them. Do you really think someone can be competent enough to become a governor but also so incompetent as to be that completely ineffectual? Or maybe, just maybe, the goal isn't what you think it is.
Oh sure. He'll never answer the question directly. In part because he doesn't give a shit what the damages are. Look at his posts. Nothing but excuses to ignore the damage being done. Once you've decided not to give a shit, you just need an excuse. Any excuse will do.
Last edited:
It's not beneficial to the argument to answer for a false premise. If I accused Bernie Sanders of kicking puppies, you would not waste the time to say "kicking puppies is bad".
Dude, the only example they gave of "medically necessary" is testicular cancer necessitating an orchiectomy. It's calling everything else child abuse that they intend to prosecute.
You're either lying or are dramatically uninformed: they started investigating, the ACLU filed an injunction, and a judge put a stop to the investigation pending a future hearing. They didn't close their investigation. The parent is still suspended. The case is still very much open
Judge blocks Texas child abuse investigations of parents seeking gender-affirming care for trans kids
“Families should not have to fear being separated because they are providing the best possible health care for their children," an ACLU attorney said.
www.khou.com
Or in other words:
So enlighten me: what's their *actual* goal in pretending to want this stuff? Are they just virtue signaling to their conservative base who actually wants to jail the parents of transgender kids and force the kids to detransition? Because that also says a lot of very bad things about the conservative base.
And you never answered the question on whether or not kids who're undergoing gender affirmation procedures should be forced to detransition
And now we're talking about whether kicking puppies is good or not instead of talking about what imaginary Bernie Sanders is actually doing.
It does not use the word prosecute a single time. You really don't understand the amount of inference you're doing.
I ma neither of those things. Nobody has been charged, nobody has been removed from their parents, nobody has been pressured to detransition, and nothing you posted after this refutes any of those.
It's a completely moot point. Nobody but you has even suggested the possibility of that happening.
I meant the collective you and not you personally obviously, it's the collective you that's the problem in most regards. I never bought from Amazon much (probably like 5 things on average a year) because I knew the only way Amazon prices were so good at the start was because they were taking losses, which will result in other companies that can't afford to take losses to go out of business and thus Amazon monopoly. And, Amazon has factually caused prices to increase. People can't think long-term nor do they know what power they actually have. People are like Amazon is too big but you all can stop buying from them. Or people complain that Congress sucks but you can vote them all out.
I think a 3rd-party would have to come about by some super rich but super good person because it wouldn't be in the best interest to the current funders to want a 3rd-party.
Both
It's an incredibly big assumption to think that all people thinking kicking puppies is bad. Reality does not bare that out
And, spending time on internet forums, I would hope people would pick up on that some people are going to argue with the meaning of 'kicking' and 'puppy' and probably even 'the'
This is exactly my point. MysteriousGX is trying to goad me into arguing the merits of kicking puppies, because many people would bite on that argument, and then we're no longer acknowledging that nobody was kicking puppies in the first place.
The Texas law is calling anyone who let's their child use puberty blockers to transition a child abuser
Then YOU state you YOU think it says
I'm trying to find out if I disagree with you or not but you just complaining about others and not actually stating anything. You've done the opposite of persuading me
Like, you complained about someone pointing out an investigation and 'how it didn't have an effect' when that investigation was court ordered to be stopped/postponed. That's the opposite of convincing. I'm squinting so hard trying to figure out your leap of logic there. A judge is not the government and the directive still stands. The investigation is, so far, showing what the directive intends. It intends to invade people's privacy, just in case there might be a crime. Of course the court would and SHOULD throw this out, it's illegal. You MEANT to investigate when something illegal is done not when someone does something you dislike
Lmao, you got me. When a state attorney general describes something as child abuse to be investigated, they aren't actually going to prosecute afterward. They're just, y'know, checking for curiosity's sake
News: "New law passed just minutes ago makes murder legal"
You: "I don't know why you are getting upset, nobody's killed somebody yet"
So, in order for this chain of "logic" to make sense, the state attorney's office is going to determine that "child abuse" is happening if gender affirming care isn't "medically necessary", which is described as desperate cancer surgery and specifically not gender dysphoria. Then, instead of taking legal action to make the child abuse stop: ie, stopping the gender affirming care and causing a detransition, the state attorney's office would...just let the "child abuse" continue? For some reason?
Maybe stay off of YouTube for a bit, you seem to have lost the ability to see how multiple different statements relate to each other and only think in sound bytes
That is how child abuse laws work. A child repeatedly covered in bruises could be child abuse or they could be learning to skateboard. Children cannot be relied upon to report their own abuse, so we check up on them if they show symptoms of abuse, that is the purpose of mandatory reporting. A rational justification for investigation does not necessitate prosecution. The opinion written states that procedures that could sterilize a child can be child abuse, and of course they can. Anyone can imagine a scenario where a parent is drugging their child in a way that they shouldn't. There absolutely are crazy parents in the world who really wanted a son or daughter and got the other. The AG specifically mentioned Munchausen syndrome by proxy in the opinion, as an example of why the law may take interest in a parent medicating a child.
But they're not going to find much of that sort of abuse going on, so nobody is going to be prosecuted.
Again, the only example they described as medically necessary was removing a testicle due to cancer. Then they spent pages saying things gender dysphoria wasn't a valid reason.
So unless most trans kids in Texas have cancer, the Texas AG is gonna consider their treatment as child abuse
It also describes hormones and puberty blockers as not medically necessary and thus child abuse. Which you'd know if you weren't lying about reading the order
What is your interest in lying about every aspect of this, from the AG's opinion, to the governor's order, to the actual linear time about the first investigation into it?
Seriously, the forum will literally not let me quote whole pages of legalese. While pages of legalese is necessary to quote what you claim isn't there, because that's how law works. You're asking for a sound byte that doesn't exist because somehow you can't read two pages of words and have them relate to one another, and you've already proven that you're going to discount any sort of summarization on account of accepting neither the AG's or Governor's summarization of the order and opinion, where they straight up call puberty blockers child abuse
Last edited: