Surely you do not seriously expect me to undertake an extensive, unpaid legal research project into the various and ever-changing laws relating to parental consent to medical procedures in the several states because you made some vague assertions about one, unnamed, state. If you want to cite a specific law with a specific criticism, be …
Surely you do not seriously expect me to undertake an extensive, unpaid legal research project into the various and ever-changing laws relating to parental consent to medical procedures in the several states because you made some vague assertions about one, unnamed, state. If you want to cite a specific law with a specific criticism, be my guest. This sort of vague handwaving? Not a chance.
At any rate, none of this has even the remotest of relationships to the question at hand, which is whether it's correct or reasonable to describe a desired surgical procedure as "mutilation" just because you, a random outside observer, think the person in question shouldn't have it. I take it that you have no actual justification for that position and hence are trying to flee in a cloud of squid ink.
“At any rate, none of this has even the remotest of relationships to the question at hand, which is whether it's correct or reasonable to describe a desired surgical procedure as "mutilation"
So it would seem that to you the crux of the issue is one of semantics. Is it or is it not correct or reasonable to use the word “mutilation” to describe interventions that destroy sexual and reproductive function? Oddly enough, as the parent of a desisted son and caregiver to several additional trans identified children, this isn’t a semantics question for me. You can call it “loss of sexual and reproductive function” if that makes you feel better but I will call a spade a spade and I don’t care if you like it or not.
You insisted that parental consent is always required. It is not.
What is happening here is clear:
You either can’t or don’t want to argue in good faith on the merits of the issue so you resort to discounting things that don’t confirm your biases or that contradict your beliefs. It’s easier for you to feebly attempt to insult me and mischaracterize my positions or claim the information is irrelevant to the semantics than it is for you to wrap your brain around the idea that someone like me who is so not a right wing conservative could still disagree with the left party line on pediatric gender medicine.
I've invited you to have a discussion in good faith on the merits of whatever specific laws you are criticizing; you have elected not to do so. So be it. As I said, I am not your Westlaw research mule.
And your repeated invocations of a personal history that, for all I know, may be a pure Internet fabrication do not alter my point of view, so you can stop trying to harangue me with special pleading. It doesn't impress me.
You got me, I subscribed to this podcast in April (May? Sometime in the spring) of 2020 on Patreon and started sharing about my personal experiences with and shifting views on this issue all so I could have an intricately fabricated backstory to fight with you, today. I can see the future and I have nothing better to do than *lie about my children* on the internet. Imagine: impressing you ain’t on my list of shit to do.
You made a false statement, one that can be disproved with the simplest of internet searches. You have offered no shred of evidence that disproves my direct knowledge of the issue in the PNW.
People like you are why an increasing number of dyed in the wool Democrats (I used to be on the board of the local Democratic Party) are done with the mindlessly affirming left wing on this issue. You suck both at proving your assertions and winning people to your side of the argument. You think you sound smart- in reality you just sound heartless and unable to process information you just don’t like.
For those reading this who might actually benefit from this information (since this dude isn’t capable of that), here’s a link.
Parental notification on Oregon is only for kids under 15. So 14 and under, parental consent with the requisite caveats for custody disputes and the reality that not all parental consent is given without the “live daughter or dead son” emotional blackmail.
The laws in WA are are little more complex in that the existing laws that allow for children to consent to reproductive and mental health services from 13 and up are being redefined by some providers. There’s also the issue of SB 5599 which adds another layer of nuance to the discussion. I’ve described some of these nuances various posts here and I’m not regurgitating them here as I am presently stir-frying chicken and broccoli and and don’t wanna overdo it on the chili sauce. This batch has an extra kick. Cold noodles on the side. Dinner in 10 people!
Surely you do not seriously expect me to undertake an extensive, unpaid legal research project into the various and ever-changing laws relating to parental consent to medical procedures in the several states because you made some vague assertions about one, unnamed, state. If you want to cite a specific law with a specific criticism, be my guest. This sort of vague handwaving? Not a chance.
At any rate, none of this has even the remotest of relationships to the question at hand, which is whether it's correct or reasonable to describe a desired surgical procedure as "mutilation" just because you, a random outside observer, think the person in question shouldn't have it. I take it that you have no actual justification for that position and hence are trying to flee in a cloud of squid ink.
“At any rate, none of this has even the remotest of relationships to the question at hand, which is whether it's correct or reasonable to describe a desired surgical procedure as "mutilation"
So it would seem that to you the crux of the issue is one of semantics. Is it or is it not correct or reasonable to use the word “mutilation” to describe interventions that destroy sexual and reproductive function? Oddly enough, as the parent of a desisted son and caregiver to several additional trans identified children, this isn’t a semantics question for me. You can call it “loss of sexual and reproductive function” if that makes you feel better but I will call a spade a spade and I don’t care if you like it or not.
You insisted that parental consent is always required. It is not.
What is happening here is clear:
You either can’t or don’t want to argue in good faith on the merits of the issue so you resort to discounting things that don’t confirm your biases or that contradict your beliefs. It’s easier for you to feebly attempt to insult me and mischaracterize my positions or claim the information is irrelevant to the semantics than it is for you to wrap your brain around the idea that someone like me who is so not a right wing conservative could still disagree with the left party line on pediatric gender medicine.
I've invited you to have a discussion in good faith on the merits of whatever specific laws you are criticizing; you have elected not to do so. So be it. As I said, I am not your Westlaw research mule.
And your repeated invocations of a personal history that, for all I know, may be a pure Internet fabrication do not alter my point of view, so you can stop trying to harangue me with special pleading. It doesn't impress me.
You got me, I subscribed to this podcast in April (May? Sometime in the spring) of 2020 on Patreon and started sharing about my personal experiences with and shifting views on this issue all so I could have an intricately fabricated backstory to fight with you, today. I can see the future and I have nothing better to do than *lie about my children* on the internet. Imagine: impressing you ain’t on my list of shit to do.
You made a false statement, one that can be disproved with the simplest of internet searches. You have offered no shred of evidence that disproves my direct knowledge of the issue in the PNW.
People like you are why an increasing number of dyed in the wool Democrats (I used to be on the board of the local Democratic Party) are done with the mindlessly affirming left wing on this issue. You suck both at proving your assertions and winning people to your side of the argument. You think you sound smart- in reality you just sound heartless and unable to process information you just don’t like.
For those reading this who might actually benefit from this information (since this dude isn’t capable of that), here’s a link.
Parental notification on Oregon is only for kids under 15. So 14 and under, parental consent with the requisite caveats for custody disputes and the reality that not all parental consent is given without the “live daughter or dead son” emotional blackmail.
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2023/08/15/oregon-tina-kotek-gender-affirming-care-abortion-house-bill-2002/70592245007/
The laws in WA are are little more complex in that the existing laws that allow for children to consent to reproductive and mental health services from 13 and up are being redefined by some providers. There’s also the issue of SB 5599 which adds another layer of nuance to the discussion. I’ve described some of these nuances various posts here and I’m not regurgitating them here as I am presently stir-frying chicken and broccoli and and don’t wanna overdo it on the chili sauce. This batch has an extra kick. Cold noodles on the side. Dinner in 10 people!