jerryskids

Regarding the bolded: not really. Actually, that's exactly a concern.

Married? Da fuq$#@! Congrats! Tell us about this guy.

Ben Wa Hogan balls?

It's interesting. "Gender affirming" implies... affirming. So the therapy encapsulated within are designed to "affirm" the patient's belief that they are a different gender, not to have difficult discussions which might lead the patient to conclude otherwise. We certainly see that in the 150+ for-profit gender clinics that have popped up in recent years. "Reproductive healthcare" is also interesting, as it is a euphemism for "abortion" which is the opposite of reproduction.

You are the "slow clap" guy from Not Another Teen Movie -- you just don't seem to get social interactions. I'll try to explain, although I doubt it will help. - Commenting on public figures on a message board is not the same as commenting on the people who actually post here. - However, you can certainly insult the people who post here. - Here is a tricky part: for your insult to be taken as humor, you need to establish something of a friendly rapport with that poster. Otherwise, it just comes off as being a d1ck. - The same general approach applies to family members. For instance, there are guys here who joke with each other about banging their wives. This only works if you've established a friendship. If you were to say it, it would come off as creepy/stalky, because you don't seem to want to make friends here. - That all being said, even with a friendship, it would be hard to pull off "fat and ugly and a biotch" as a joke. Because none of us would say that. HTH

Focus Sean, I gave an extreme example of legislating to exceptions. I believe that some (not sure here) have argued separately that (1) child rape means parents shouldn't be involved ever, and (2) rare diseases dictate abortion until birth for all. My point was that eliminating medical transitions for children is a self-contained topic, not legislating to exceptions.

I don't think this is "legislating to the exceptions." An example of that would be the Left saying "some 10 yr old might get raped by her father and become pregnant and not realize it until she is crowning, so everybody should have abortions until birth, and kids shouldn't need parental consent." There is no "so everybody" in the case of children getting permanent medical sex change procedures.

Good one, Beavis.

Re: your second paragraph, I don't believe that the Tennessee law under review makes it illegal for kids to seek therapy. If it does than I object to it. Presuming I'm right, I'm talking about the specific topic under review, which is not the larger umbrella of "gender-affirming care." I feel like I'm typing the same thing again at this point; I'm not sure if you get it. I still object to putting a system in place which encourages medical transitions of children. Yes, it's only the LPGA now, but if this takes hold and enough people share your attitude, it will become the norm for all sports. Imagine a future where a boy shows ability in golf (or tennis or soccer or...), but also is having questions about his gender. Instead of riding it out for a while, the clock is ticking, he (with his family) need to decide NOW if he wants to become a girl.

A few comments: - SCOTUS hears only a fraction of the petitions brought to them. It's disingenuous to say they are just doing their job. They thought this was worth hearing. - It is the Left that obfuscates medical transitions by lumping them under the happy sounding "gender affirming care" umbrella, not the other way around. Nobody is arguing that kids shouldn't be able to talk to a therapist about their gender confusion.

Provide a link to where your family has been insulted in a way similar to what you said about MDC's wife. TIA

There is a difference between calling each other names, and being so insulting to someone's family. Sorry you can't see that. I cleaned out some PM space if you want to send me something.

Ah, the classic peefoam copy and paste response. Dang, you pwn3d me. Glad you could clap emoticon yourself. The rest of us think you suck.

I know MDC doesn't need my support, but this post is pathetic. What the fock is wrong with you? Why would you needlessly attack someone's wife in such a way? I'll ask again, please delete your account. You are a large net negative on this site, and we would all be better for it.

I didn't say it was a question; I was looking for your response. The statement of fact means that despite your "it's only a few people so we shouldn't discuss it," SCOTUS saw it worth addressing. Because, we aren't a democracy/mob rules society, and we address questions of rights for minorities. I don't know if you have kids, but since you are a teacher who deals with them on a daily basis, I'm fascinated that you think it's a nothingburger that SCOTUS is considering making it a constitutional right for minors to get irreversible sex change operations. It's not silly, it's incredibly dangerous.

How about you respond to me first: It happens but it's rare. But... There is a Supreme Court case going on as we type which is attempting to make gender transitions for minors a constitutional right.

Doesn't look like a huge slide. This from Barron's. Annual decline attributed to cost controls. https://www.barrons.com/articles/ford-motor-stock-ev-sales-93e49a85?siteid=yhoof2

It happens but it's rare. But... There is a Supreme Court case going on as we type which is attempting to make gender transitions for minors a constitutional right.

At birth makes sense. "Gender transitioning before hitting puberty" does from a scientific level, but I'm concerned about setting up systems that encourage kids to make decisions to medically transition before puberty. Lefties here tell me that never happens but... anyway, I could also see a potential legal issue where woke parents sue to allow little Johnnie to become Joanie because he thinks he's a girl and loves golf!

No

No. I think it was reasonable to shut down initially, since we didn't know what we were dealing with. We knew by the fall though that young people were not at significant risk. Kudos to schools that went live then. BTW, by this same argument, masks should have been eliminated in schools, as well as social distancing. Facial communication and play time are critical to development.

I agree with the spirit of this, especially the middle. Early on we were wise to follow the advice of the medical experts. But over time, they went off the rails, keeping restrictions in place well after we knew that the young and healthy were basically fine. The extended time that schools were shut down was critical; we basically sacrificed the development of all those kids in the interest of some combination of power grab, virtue signaling, and sucking the teet of the teachers unions. To @IGotWorms comment of "get over it," the sad thing is that the next time there is a pandemic (and there will be -- heck, Ima guess China hasn't shut down any of their activities), at least half the country is going to view it as "crying wolf" , and it will be completely justified. These folks lost our trust. Unfortunately, if the next one is the real thing... might be very bad.

Four years of the DOJ under Joe showed nothing? Consider us shocked! How so?

Got into the catnip already, I see. Have fun!

Well, you've changed in a single post from "civics, b!tches!" to the above pablum. Go get dinner and watch MNF Rusty, it's probably best.