Heartwarming trans story

[dutchy]

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ?
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

Perhaps Peter wasn't speaking to those ignorant of Jehovah's will.

And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.

Which Jews were uneducated about God?  Which of them didn't know obeying God comes first?  I mean, if there's anything I've learned from Jewish scripture, it's that.

David had time to sit around and be king and his violation was mentioned and he wasn't beat down for it and he was given the chance to live
do you believe that gift was from God or Nathan?

Neither !
Most 'King David' stories are partly/entirely legendary.
After some study one can easily see that two persons were edited together in the final Jewish edition.
A feminine blood brother / spiritual soulmate of prince Jonathan playing the harp to sooth king Saul ....and a testosterone driven warrior that killed Goliath as a teenager and ten thousands up ten thousands as an adult ..and liked multiple wives and did not let another competitor..Uriah get in his way to get the best looking woman he'd seen.

The Jews In Babylonian exile had snippets of multiple written story lines and multiple left over oral traditions. Add to that all Babylonian creation and flood stories, Cain and Abel and more....
There was no big Jewish oral bible that was written down eventually.
There are Jews who edited the oral and written traditions into something that clearly reveals the human efforts more than accurate history.

Ps i am not talking about the prophets, that's an entirely different matter.
No the historical books.

[none]

dammit.. editing gone wrong

[none]

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ?
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

Perhaps Peter wasn't speaking to those ignorant of Jehovah's will.

And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.

Which Jews were uneducated about God?  Which of them didn't know obeying God comes first?  I mean, if there's anything I've learned from Jewish scripture, it's that.

David had time to sit around and be king and his violation was mentioned and he wasn't beat down for it and he was given the chance to live
do you believe that gift was from God or Nathan?

Neither !
Most 'King David' stories are partly/entirely legendary.
After some study one can easily see that two persons were edited together in the final Jewish edition.
A feminine blood brother / spiritual soulmate of prince Jonathan playing the harp to sooth king Saul ....and a testosterone driven warrior that killed Goliath as a teenager and ten thousands up ten thousands as an adult ..and liked multiple wives and did not let another competitor..Uriah get in his way to get the best looking woman he'd seen.

The Jews In Babylonian exile had snippets of multiple written story lines and multiple left over oral traditions. Add to that all Babylonian creation and flood stories, Cain and Abel and more....
There was no big Jewish oral bible that was written down eventually.
There are Jews who edited the oral and written traditions into something that clearly reveals the human efforts more than accurate history.

Ps i am not talking about the prophets, that's an entirely different matter.
No the historical books.

it would be typical of a testosterone drive male... in your words... not to elevate him because of your reasons to multiple folks because it is just too unbelievable archetype in your assessment... to do what a single man could do
besides the implication of fabrication... as if 8 wives taken and one by means to be challenged later by Nathan...
which was what I was asking about
was that gift of not getting beaten down ( or killed ) from God or Nathan...?
Gingis Kahn did more and I don't see you being overtly religious about that...

[dutchy]

^^^
Not sure what you are trying to say !
I was pointing out that two different archetypes were edited into a single David figure !

[none]

^^^
Not sure what you are trying to say !
I was pointing out that two different archetypes were edited into a single David figure !

yes I understand that
do you think that the event is a bulls**t concoction?
It doesn't look like you do think it is not in character of a single person yet Gingis Kahn...
and still unanswered is do you believe that David not dying by the hands of Nathan after his interrogation was a gift from God or Nathan?
or is it just a religious belief that any person deserves mercy for having 8 wives and one taken by means notable enough to note?
she was married and he took her to bed and didn't want to marry her initially and she got pregnant and didn't want the child to be his...
do you think it was a blessing from God or Nathan that he wasn't killed?
and scripturally children are blessings yet I am deviating by using that word in that context so maybe you can understand what I am asking...

[dutchy]

^^^
Not sure what you are trying to say !
I was pointing out that two different archetypes were edited into a single David figure !

yes I understand that
do you think that the event is a bulls**t concoction?

Yes ! I think most  OT biblical events raise as many questions as they try to answer.
Most events have been edited in one way or another, or completely invented, or something in between.

A guy trying to stabilize the arc in a reflex is immediately killed by 'god'. but, but.... the arc was falling on the ground if not for the intervention of this person. Huh ?
No, shouldn't have touched the arc......BAMMMmmmmmm to Sheol.

I do not pretend to know what is true and what is fiction in certain biblical events.
But the moment God is portrait as narcissistic , impatient , cruel , treats sin randomly (who he likes can almost do as they please without much consequences....those not part of that 'club' are treated like dirt).... then it does not resemble God , but how the elite have always organized society.
And their wicked ways are projected upon 'god', and the sheep are controlled even more.
Because this 'god' looks/thinks/act a lot like their kings and rulers .
How convenient for those in charge.

[none]

^^^
Not sure what you are trying to say !
I was pointing out that two different archetypes were edited into a single David figure !

yes I understand that
do you think that the event is a bulls**t concoction?

Yes ! I think most  OT biblical events raise as many questions as they try to answer.
Most events have been edited in one way or another, or completely invented, or something in between.

A guy trying to stabilize the arc in a reflex is immediately killed by 'god'. but, but.... the arc was falling on the ground if not for the intervention of this person. Huh ?
No, shouldn't have touched the arc......BAMMMmmmmmm to Sheol.

I do not pretend to know what is true and what is fiction in certain biblical events.
But the moment God is portrait as narcissistic , impatient , cruel , treats sin randomly (who he likes can almost do as they please without much consequences....those not part of that 'club' are treated like dirt).... then it does not resemble God , but how the elite have always organized society.
And their wicked ways are projected upon 'god', and the sheep are controlled even more.
Because this 'god' looks/thinks/act a lot like their kings and rulers .
How convenient for those in charge.

well i can't make you answer the question...?

[dutchy]

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ?
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

Perhaps Peter wasn't speaking to those ignorant of Jehovah's will.

And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.

Which Jews were uneducated about God?  Which of them didn't know obeying God comes first?  I mean, if there's anything I've learned from Jewish scripture, it's that.

David had time to sit around and be king and his violation was mentioned and he wasn't beat down for it and he was given the chance to live
do you believe that gift was from God or Nathan?

Neither !
Most 'King David' stories are partly/entirely legendary.
After some study one can easily see that two persons were edited together in the final Jewish edition.
A feminine blood brother / spiritual soulmate of prince Jonathan playing the harp to sooth king Saul ....and a testosterone driven warrior that killed Goliath as a teenager and ten thousands up ten thousands as an adult ..and liked multiple wives and did not let another competitor..Uriah get in his way to get the best looking woman he'd seen.

The Jews In Babylonian exile had snippets of multiple written story lines and multiple left over oral traditions. Add to that all Babylonian creation and flood stories, Cain and Abel and more....
There was no big Jewish oral bible that was written down eventually.
There are Jews who edited the oral and written traditions into something that clearly reveals the human efforts more than accurate history.

Ps i am not talking about the prophets, that's an entirely different matter.
No the historical books.

it would be typical of a testosterone drive male... in your words... not to elevate him because of your reasons to multiple folks because it is just too unbelievable archetype in your assessment... to do what a single man could do
besides the implication of fabrication... as if 8 wives taken and one by means to be challenged later by Nathan...
which was what I was asking about
was that gift of not getting beaten down ( or killed ) from God or Nathan...?
Gingis Kahn did more and I don't see you being overtly religious about that...

I really don't understand why i should have a moral answer on events i don't believe happened.
Yes Kahn was an asshole derived from what we know about historical evidence.
David ? Was he as real as portrait ?

[none]

So if a master wants sex with a slave who believes in Christ...what then  ? Should he/she summit or object to his/her master ?
Where is the fine line , Peter doesn't mention it at all ?

Perhaps Peter wasn't speaking to those ignorant of Jehovah's will.

And most uneducated poor slaves couldn't make a clear distinction when their harsh masters wanted something from them that required a strong rejection.

Which Jews were uneducated about God?  Which of them didn't know obeying God comes first?  I mean, if there's anything I've learned from Jewish scripture, it's that.

David had time to sit around and be king and his violation was mentioned and he wasn't beat down for it and he was given the chance to live
do you believe that gift was from God or Nathan?

Neither !
Most 'King David' stories are partly/entirely legendary.
After some study one can easily see that two persons were edited together in the final Jewish edition.
A feminine blood brother / spiritual soulmate of prince Jonathan playing the harp to sooth king Saul ....and a testosterone driven warrior that killed Goliath as a teenager and ten thousands up ten thousands as an adult ..and liked multiple wives and did not let another competitor..Uriah get in his way to get the best looking woman he'd seen.

The Jews In Babylonian exile had snippets of multiple written story lines and multiple left over oral traditions. Add to that all Babylonian creation and flood stories, Cain and Abel and more....
There was no big Jewish oral bible that was written down eventually.
There are Jews who edited the oral and written traditions into something that clearly reveals the human efforts more than accurate history.

Ps i am not talking about the prophets, that's an entirely different matter.
No the historical books.

it would be typical of a testosterone drive male... in your words... not to elevate him because of your reasons to multiple folks because it is just too unbelievable archetype in your assessment... to do what a single man could do
besides the implication of fabrication... as if 8 wives taken and one by means to be challenged later by Nathan...
which was what I was asking about
was that gift of not getting beaten down ( or killed ) from God or Nathan...?
Gingis Kahn did more and I don't see you being overtly religious about that...

I really don't understand why i should have a moral answer on events i don't believe happened.
Yes Kahn was an asshole derived from historical evidence.
David ? Was he as real as portrait ?

you either believe the event took place or not, I am not asking if the names are accurate

[dutchy]

^^^^
Why are you being so difficult ?
I said two distinct characters from a partly/wholly fictional king David are crammed together in the book of Samuel.
A feminine, soulmate of a prince, harp playing guy.
A testosterone warrior that liked the battlefield and women.

It's very hard to believe that such dualistic archetypal person could be one and the same guy.
The writers of Samuel have created a person that is partly/mostly fictional.
So the events that are portrait should not be considered bothering with to much from a moral point of view.

Unless you think it's important to talk about the morality of Darth Vader too.

[none]

^^^^
Why are you being so difficult ?
I said two distinct characters from a partly/wholly fictional king David are crammed together in the book of Samuel.
A feminine, soulmate of a prince, harp playing guy.
A testosterone warrior that liked the battlefield and women.

It's very hard to believe that such dualistic archetypal person could be one and the same guy.
The writers of Samuel have created a person that is partly/mostly fictional.
So the events that are portrait should not be considered bothering with to much from a moral point of view.

Unless you think it's important to talk about the morality of Darth Vader too.

meh, you type mostly coherent english yet undescernible vocal communication
is that not same person?

[8livesleft]

^^^^
Why are you being so difficult ?
I said two distinct characters from a partly/wholly fictional king David are crammed together in the book of Samuel.
A feminine, soulmate of a prince, harp playing guy.
A testosterone warrior that liked the battlefield and women.

It's very hard to believe that such dualistic archetypal person could be one and the same guy.
The writers of Samuel have created a person that is partly/mostly fictional.
So the events that are portrait should not be considered bothering with to much from a moral point of view.

Unless you think it's important to talk about the morality of Darth Vader too.

Regarding duality, you know how the old jewish kings lived hundreds of years? Maybe the simple explanation is that we're talking about multiple people taking the same name.

Like the Dread Pirate Roberts...

Anyway, as you both were...or carry ye both onwards...hehe

[none]

if we count David's wives there were at least 8 David's and average of 72x8= hundreds of years... that's one old man

[dutchy]

^^^^
Why are you being so difficult ?
I said two distinct characters from a partly/wholly fictional king David are crammed together in the book of Samuel.
A feminine, soulmate of a prince, harp playing guy.
A testosterone warrior that liked the battlefield and women.

It's very hard to believe that such dualistic archetypal person could be one and the same guy.
The writers of Samuel have created a person that is partly/mostly fictional.
So the events that are portrait should not be considered bothering with to much from a moral point of view.

Unless you think it's important to talk about the morality of Darth Vader too.

Regarding duality, you know how the old jewish kings lived hundreds of years? Maybe the simple explanation is that we're talking about multiple people taking the same name.

Like the Dread Pirate Roberts...

Anyway, as you both were...or carry ye both onwards...hehe

Yeah they had several storylines with different characters mashed into a 'King David' avatar.

[none]

^^^^
Why are you being so difficult ?
I said two distinct characters from a partly/wholly fictional king David are crammed together in the book of Samuel.
A feminine, soulmate of a prince, harp playing guy.
A testosterone warrior that liked the battlefield and women.

It's very hard to believe that such dualistic archetypal person could be one and the same guy.
The writers of Samuel have created a person that is partly/mostly fictional.
So the events that are portrait should not be considered bothering with to much from a moral point of view.

Unless you think it's important to talk about the morality of Darth Vader too.

Regarding duality, you know how the old jewish kings lived hundreds of years? Maybe the simple explanation is that we're talking about multiple people taking the same name.

Like the Dread Pirate Roberts...

Anyway, as you both were...or carry ye both onwards...hehe

Yeah they had several storylines with different characters mashed into a 'King David' avatar.

same thing with Jesus, eh?

[8livesleft]

^^^^
Why are you being so difficult ?
I said two distinct characters from a partly/wholly fictional king David are crammed together in the book of Samuel.
A feminine, soulmate of a prince, harp playing guy.
A testosterone warrior that liked the battlefield and women.

It's very hard to believe that such dualistic archetypal person could be one and the same guy.
The writers of Samuel have created a person that is partly/mostly fictional.
So the events that are portrait should not be considered bothering with to much from a moral point of view.

Unless you think it's important to talk about the morality of Darth Vader too.

Regarding duality, you know how the old jewish kings lived hundreds of years? Maybe the simple explanation is that we're talking about multiple people taking the same name.

Like the Dread Pirate Roberts...

Anyway, as you both were...or carry ye both onwards...hehe

Yeah they had several storylines with different characters mashed into a 'King David' avatar.

same thing with Jesus, eh?

"Yeshua" was supposedly a very popular name back in his day...

[none]

^^^^
Why are you being so difficult ?
I said two distinct characters from a partly/wholly fictional king David are crammed together in the book of Samuel.
A feminine, soulmate of a prince, harp playing guy.
A testosterone warrior that liked the battlefield and women.

It's very hard to believe that such dualistic archetypal person could be one and the same guy.
The writers of Samuel have created a person that is partly/mostly fictional.
So the events that are portrait should not be considered bothering with to much from a moral point of view.

Unless you think it's important to talk about the morality of Darth Vader too.

Regarding duality, you know how the old jewish kings lived hundreds of years? Maybe the simple explanation is that we're talking about multiple people taking the same name.

Like the Dread Pirate Roberts...

Anyway, as you both were...or carry ye both onwards...hehe

Yeah they had several storylines with different characters mashed into a 'King David' avatar.

same thing with Jesus, eh?

"Yeshua" was supposedly a very popular name back in his day...

YEAH

[meAgain]

*

[meAgain]

*

[dutchy]

All human beings are subject to the "laws/rules" of the world we live in.  It has nothing to do with what you or I personally believe. 

i think it does. No authority can ever force me in doing things i consider evil.
I don't trust the rulers of this current world,....i don't need them to represent my cause/morals, because these same rulers can come after 'you' in the blink of an eye.
That's why i personally don't understand the interference of Christians in politics to enforce certain laws/ruling.

Your view is very close to the erroneous claim, "What is true for you is not necessarily true for me"  The touted out "my truth" vs. "your truth".  But that is illogical.  There is no "my truth" and "your truth" there is simply Truth. 
 

No i agree there is only TRUTH.
I do not trust any current earthly self appointed representative of 'TRUTH'.
Until a true representative of the TRUTH emerges ( Jesus returning) , i don't see any point of picking between the 'blind and crippled' self appointed representatives that have failed miserably .

I'm not sure what you mean by convincing others of a better way gets muddy.  Yeah, no kidding.  Scripture tells us if they do not accept, sometimes you have to shake the dust off our sandals and move on.  But you do move on proclaiming the Truth.  You don't say, well, this is useless and silly, the heck with everyone.  You keep proclaiming Truth, because of the hope in those who will listen and hear and change and be saved.  And because we should always stand up for Truth.  And don't mistake that to mean we should be cruel or forceful or be shoving things down someone's throat.  THAT is not at all what I am talking about.   

Jesus said the most about abandoning wealth, earthly treasures and living an extremely humble life.
In my lifetime i have heard Christians squirm, lie, deny the essence of this TRUTH, because they bought a big house, had kids in university and a prosperous future ahead.
Some rather focus on abortion, euthanasia and modern ethical codes instead.
Which scripture hardly addresses compared to what scripture says about abandoning wealth.
So again...the TRUTH IS, but humans are poor representatives of TRUTH.

We never know when someone might realize the truth of which we speak.  We are expected to plant seeds.  I've heard countless stories of people saying it wasn't until I was older or until  X happened that I remembered the wise words of my father or best friend or that street evangelist or whatever and I had my epiphany and was finally in a place to "get it".  Our job is to be a witness to Truth.  Again, I've never once said anything about force.  That word usually comes from those who disagree with me. 
 
Mark Twain expresses this phenomenon well in this quote:
 
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."
― Mark Twain

Well i think THE TRUTH requires abandoning everything one knows.
It's extremely painful, because all of our former foundations are removed underneath us.
And 'i remembered the wise words of 'X' that i initially dismissed' seems a common theme among all men from all religions and cultures.
I think it doesn't have anything to do with planting TRUTH seeds and finding TRUTH.

I disagree.  People condemned slavery for years, and finally it was outlawed.  And slavery decreased when it was outlawed.  It didn't perfectly change hearts, end discrimination or racism, but it was an awesome start and certainly prevented the continuation of a horrible human rights violation.  It is a myth to think or believe the same number of abortions would occur were it to be illegal.  People use to get married when they found out they were pregnant prior to Roe v Wade.  Yes, some still sought abortion, but not nearly the numbers we see today.  There is also the fact that the laws a society has effects or influences its people's hearts.  Abolishing slavery helped some to realize how horrible and cruel the practice was and helped people to see all humans as equal.  If our society decided to make abortion illegal, it might help influence others in showing we value life. 

Under the surface modern slavery is still alive and kicking.
If one needs three jobs in absolute horrific circumstances, to feed one's children,...one is anything but free ,but in name only.
When i visited the USA in 2014 i went to some 24/7 mall in L.A. after midnight out of curiosity .It was like i entered Sheol,....could anything in life be more meaningless, useless and do we need this endless cheap trash for sale ? It was a very disheartening experience i must say.
Laws can stop one thing, but immediately a new form of injustice emerges.

Speaking out about abortion is just as necessary.  It is the greatest human rights violation of our time.  Does this mean we should shame or yell at those who get or support those who get abortion?  Nope.  That would not be my strategy.  Neither I nor my Church turns those people away.  We are there when their worlds begin to fall apart post abortion – and it will.  We welcome them in – no shame or judgment necessary.  Speaking truth in love and charity is possible and is certainly my aim. 

I admire your efforts to help others !
However, to say abortion is the greatest violation ?
Sending grown up men into war, to protect a petro-dollar or some other beyond evil interests of the ultra rich is far more evil.
The unborn are unaware when someone takes their life ( Yes i do think the unborn represents LIFE), the young adults are aware !
And most Christians ,as survey showed, were for invading Iraq and most post WW2 wars fought by the USA.
These things seem extremely contradictory , that i long gave up to try and understand this anti abortion - pro war attitude.
Ps this is not directed to you, but in general

I have never called a woman who has an abortion a murderer.  I view her as a victim.  I don't shout "murderer", nor ever would, but in conversations about the issue, we must discuss it for what it is and not permit those in favor of abortion to hide behind their coward less words like "health care"/"reproductive rights" and never speak truthfully about what abortion actually is, what it looks like, and what we are talking about. 
 I hope I just answered. 
 

Thanks, yes you did !

I don't think acknowledging truth is claiming a moral highground.  There is right and wrong.  You have the freedom to do as you like.  Like I've mentioned multiple times on this forum, I have never nor will ever interfere in someone's immoral life decisions, especially if society has deemed them legal.  But if we are talking about these topics/having discussions, I have no choice but to speak truth.   
 If I meet someone who has had an abortion, or cheated on their spouse, or is in a gay marriage, I would treat them NO differently than anyone else.  I would befriend them, I would respect them, I would never say anything, unless they brought it up and wanted to know my thoughts/position.   
 Kevin and Kiahanie like to suggest I'm out there committing hate speech crimes and persecuting those in the LGBTQ community.  Hardly!  I barely have time to raise my own 8 children.  Sorry to disappoint, but I ain't got much time for other people's kids!  Unfortunately, more and more of those on the other side of these issues are insisting on shoving some of this stuff in our faces, making it impossible to ignore saying something.   
 But what I will always do is speak truth.  This is a forum right?  Where we voice our opinions and debate issues?  And that's what I do.  I think the fact that we actually debate whether it's ok to kill an innocent human life in the womb is a little cray cray – seems obvious to me, but if I need to continue to speak out that no one has the right to deny the right to life to the unborn, I consider it an obligation.  And I will vote at the ballot to change any laws that I believe are human rights violations or harmful and dangerous to others and I would expect others to do the same.   
 

No i like your edgy and fiery character !!! As a dutch person i have to control myself over here.
We never say ' could it be that i feel you may have understood me wrongly',...we say 'what you say is wrong'
It's a huge cultural difference which needs more than a few sentences to explain.

Eight children ? Wow,.....nothing but admiration if one can organize that properly in life.

[meAgain]

*

[kevin]

perhaps its time to reset the conversation to the basic issue: human rights.

people disagree about LGBTQ issues, about whether its normal, or conforms to various church teachings, or whether its the best way for people to live their lives . . .

all that is quite normal, but it is beside the point.

the point is that in a free and civil society, people are free to decide for themselves how to live their personal lives, irrespective of whether other people approve, for any reason.

free people make decisions all the time about their own lives, without the need for acceptance or approval from people who choose other ways to live. some people risk their lives rock climbing, other people choose to live in cities with  higher crime rate, sometimes people become vegetarians in spite of their neighbours loudly asserting that its unnatural or unhealthy. we accept other people's lifestyle choices all the time. LGBTQ orientations are no different, or should be.

the key is to leave other people alone to live their personal lives in peace.

this is not hard, or shouldnt be. sadly, all too often it is, for some people.

[Kiahanie]

And some people ride bikes.

I posted the OP as a story of love and decency overcoming societal restraints. Of someone finding decency and their daughter through their faith.

Apparently some did not see it that way. Gotta be their god and their faith, otherwise the decency is falsely inspired.

[dutchy]

perhaps its time to reset the conversation to th ebasic issue: human rights.

people disagree about LGBTQ issues, about whether its normal, or conforms to various church teachings, or whether its the best way for people to live their lives . . .

all that is quite normal, but it is beside the point.

the point is that in free and civil society, people are free to decide for themselves how to live their lives, irrespective of whether other people approve, for any reason.

free people make decisions all the time about their own lives, without the need for acceptance or approval from people who choose other ways to live. some people risk their lives rock climbing, other people choose to live in cities with  higher crime rate, sometimes people become vegetarians in spite of their neighbours loudly assertingin that its unnatural or unhealthy. we accept other people's lifestyl;e choices all the time. LGBTQ orientations are no different, or should be.

the key is to leave other people alone to live their lives in peace.

this is not hard, or shouldnt be. sadly, all too often it is, for some people.

I agree with everything you wrote.

There is a catch though you didn't touch, ...education.
All my three children attended non religious schools and non religious higher education.

When we decided for that option, the schools were neutral (without any ideology) in our neighborhood and bible classes were given for those children who wanted to attend such lessons, just like some other extra classes.
The funny thing was that most children wanted those extra biblical lesson.
My daughter told me the other kids knew nothing about the bible (she did) but it was one of the favorite lessons because the person telling the stories was a great storyteller.

Fast forward, now children of the age as early as eight are exposed to 'spring fever' lessons and (group) masturbation options/ideas and of course full exposure to transgenderism in all it's forms.

I'm glad my children are away from this type of indoctrination.
Just as we did not want any religious indoctrination, i don't want a liberal ( is it really liberal ?) education for my children .
I want my kids to be as free as possible from any colored opinion,...that's what parents are suppose to do....not the government and it's preferred religious/social narrative.
I want schools to be as far away from any form of indoctrination.
And that doesn't mean schools cannot teach about social behavior and etiquette, human rights, respect and love towards anyone and anything, discrimination towards minorities including transgenders !
But not guided from a specific  religious , liberal,  or humanist conviction.

But it seems so damn hard nowadays to defend a neutral position.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

As a doctor, I hope you agree a person cannot change their biological sex.  Taking hormones or having a surgical procedure or legally changing one's name does not change a person's biological sex.

As a doctor, I likely have a much more granular understanding of biological sex than you do.  Nature is rarely all-or-none, yet humans use labels to divide things into discrete categories, and then we teach these categories to kids.  Terms such as "life," "species," and "sex" seem to have pretty simple definitions when we teach them to kids, but when you really delve down into them at a low level, there is always an exception or edge case no matter how strictly you make your definition.

My understanding of biological sex is as a complex interaction of genotype (chromosomes,) phenotype (your bodily presentation including hair, voice, and fat distribution,) physiology (bodily function,) neuroanatomy (brain structure), neurophysiology (brain function,) primary sex characteristics (what you're born with), and secondary sex characteristics (what you develop during puberty.) When all of these line up, you get a cisgender male or female.  When they don't, you get one of the many intersex conditions out there, and I personally consider transgender people as part of that intersex spectrum.  Researchers can physically see the difference between a transgender person's brain and a cisgender person's brain on an MRI: it is a real, unchangeable, biological finding.

Based on this, I would say that genotype and neuroanatomy are the completely unchangeable aspects of biological sex, neurophysiology is mostly unchangeable, primary and secondary sex characteristics are partially changeable, and phenotype and physiology are mostly changeable.  With this lens, when the two unchangeable things (genotype and neuroanatomy) are at odds, you arrive at the classic mind-body problem, and thus far the only medical solution that has ever worked is to change the body.

As for 'a child is not born into the wrong body', that too is exactly as I've stated.  Often a person who suffers from gender dysphoria will claim they feel they are in the wrong body.  I acknowledge that is what they feel, but them feeling it, believing it, or saying it, doesn't make it so.  Again, I hope as a man of science you agree.  A boy thinking he is a cat doesn't make him a cat.  A white person thinking he is black doesn't make him black.  A boy thinking he is a girl doesn't make him a girl.  Doctors and health care professionals need to acknowledge they are dealing with a mental/psychological issue and I would hope admit there is nothing wrong with the individual's body

Again, as I've repeatedly mentioned in my post, being transgender is not merely a "feeling."  It is not a mental health disorder.  It is not psychological in nature.  Your claim goes against over 85 years of medical history and research:

• In 1939, there is a documented case of a trans man using testosterone pills
• In 1947, Alfred Kinsey opened the Institute for Sex Research and popularized the term "transsexual"
• In 1952, the first gender confirmation surgery took place in the US
• Starting in 1966, John Money tried the thing you suggested.  He tried to use psychology to convince a boy who had a botched circumcision he was a girl.  It ended extremely poorly, because no amount of psychology could fix what was an underlying biological problem.  This case was pretty much the nail in the coffin for the "it's all in your head" theory.
• Meanwhile, also in 1966, endocrinologists started publishing papers about the success of treating transgender people from an endocrine perspective, laying the groundwork for how we approach it today.
• In 1979 (45 years ago), the first WPATH guidelines became the standard of care for treating transgender patients.
• After decades of research, being trans was officially removed from the mental disorders by the American Psychiatric Association in 1987 and the World Health Organization in 1992 (homosexuality was removed in 1974.)

At the very, very least, if you completely ignore all the developments leading up to it, it has been definitively recognized as not a mental disorder for the past 32 years.  If you would like to change that, you're more than welcome to go through med school, get a degree, become a researcher, get funding, do your own series of studies, do a meta-analysis of your studies, and publish them for the rest of the community to peer review.  Otherwise, your position is about as informed as someone who knows almost nothing about bats insisting to a chiropterologist that they must be birds because they look like one to you.

I might be rejecting your notion of the premise of being transgender if you are claiming a trans woman is actually a biological woman.  That is not true.

Yes, I am claiming a trans woman is a woman, and a trans man is a man, and these are biological phenomena.

Once again, What I said is exactly what I meant.  Who has determined that boys liking girl things and girls liking boy things equals trans?  It doesn't.  So, just like I said, I find the article heartbreaking that the father may have been influenced by the LBGTQ ideology that suggests if one is drawn to things that are typically more popular in the opposite sex, must mean he is trans.  IMO, that is a dangerous and unhealthy ideological claim, not to mention perpetuating sexual stereotypes, labeling, and not seeing the unique individual in front of them for who they are.

Did you not actually read the article?  The father says that, growing up, his trans daughter spent time fishing, camping, and competing in archery.  In what social circles do you consider these "girl things?"

The father knew that she was trans because she told him.  And then after she told him, he told her she was sinning and was going to hell.  And then he prayed and read the Bible, after which he concluded that she was telling the truth and really was the girl.  He says that God outright told him, "This is how your daughter was born. I don't make mistakes as God. So she was made this way. There's a reason for it."  It makes no mention of any influence by any outside LGBTQ ideology.  Where are you getting this nonsense?

To even implant the idea or notion that if you are a boy and you prefer a lot of the more stereotypical girl things, it might mean you were meant to be a girl, has serious potential to mess with someone's head.  Newsflash:  you can be a "feminine" boy and you can be a "masculine" girl and that is OK!  We are all unique.  It doesn't mean you were meant to be the opposite sex and it doesn't mean you need to present as the opposite sex.  I would hope no one would think we ought to encourage those individuals who don't match gender stereotypes that there is no place/room/acceptance for them, if they don't transition to the opposite sex. 

I don't know where you're getting this.  No one is suggesting that boys must like stereotypical boy things and girls must like stereotypical girl things.  This isn't the 1950s.

Trans people are their own people.  Some like stereotypical things that match with their gender identities, some like things that match with their sex assigned at birth, some are a mix.  What any cis or trans person happens to like has nothing to do with their gender identities.

One's preferences do NOT determine their biological sex.  And if a person is about to go down such a serious track as wanting to present themselves as the opposite sex, then I pray that they are not using cues like their preference for Broadway musicals in their decision making.  It is perfectly fine to be a boy and do "girl things" – whatever that means.  It saddens me if that is part of what is going on in one's motivation to being trans.  How about we let people like what they like without making them feel they need to look like a boy to like those things or you need to look like a girl to like these things, especially if in doing so they are causing harm to their bodies.   

That is not the experience of any trans person I've ever talked to.  Trans people are not cis people who like things the opposite sex has.  They're people who are literally the gender opposite of the sex they were assigned at birth.
 

SIDEBAR:  What did you mean in your question above that being trans is a fact?  Did you just mean it is a fact that trans people exist and that transgenderism is real?  If so, I agree.  Or did you mean it is a fact that a trans woman is a biological woman?  Which I and a medical exam would disagree with.

I mean that trans women are women and trans men are men.  I'm not going to quibble over "biological" because as per my first paragraph there's no one singular true definition of the term, and also because it ignores other aspects of sex and gender that are equally pertinent, such as gender expression and gender roles.

With "medical exam," again the question arises of which medical exam we're doing.  A general appearance exam vs. a cardiovascular exam vs. an MRI of the brain vs. an x-ray of the forearm vs. a pelvic exam vs. a CBC vs. testosterone/estradiol/FSH/LH/progesterone levels vs. a CT abdomen and pelvis.  Some will align with genotype, some will align with gender identity, and some will show no noticeable sex or gender differences.

Even looking at the exams you're thinking of, a breast and pelvic exam on a transwoman who is on long-term HRT and has had gender confirmation surgery will much more resemble that of a cisgender woman post hysterectomy than a cisgender man.
     

He is a boy and will always be a boy.  He is free to dress, act, or present himself in any way he desires, especially if that is what is necessary for him to emotionally cope in this world, but he does remain male, with XY chromosomes and a penis, unless during "affirming care" he decides to get someone willing to remove a perfectly healthy functioning body part of his.

This is incorrect.  The person in the story is a girl, was always a girl, and always will be a girl.  She was a girl when she went fishing and camping with her dad.  She was a girl when she did archery competitions.  She was a girl when her hair was short, and still a girl when she grew it out.  She was a girl when she was using the boy's bathroom, and was still a girl when she started using the girl's bathroom.  She will remain a girl regardless of whether she chooses to get gender confirmation surgery in the future or not.

Which by the way would cause his body to not function as well and could cause him lots of problems down the road.  And I think it very odd that we cannot be honest about just how insane doing something like that is.
 
Really?  You don't see the naked emperor walking down the street?  Or you see him, but don't have the courage to warn him he has been deceived.
 
Seriously, why are we not allowed to admit that?  That is the most bizarre thing about all of this.  If a person said they felt like they were always meant to be blind and they are experiencing a lot of stress and anxiety in not being blind and desire to have their eyesight permanently destroyed, I would like to think there isn't a doctor in the world that would do something that would permanently destroy this person's eyesight.

No, I don't see any naked emperor walking down the street.  I don't see anyone walking down the street naked.  That's what clothes are for.

I don't get this weird fascination with the anti-trans crowd with genitals.  As a cis guy, the last thing I want to do is walk into a bathroom and have a bouncer tell me, "Sir, I don't need to see your penis, but I need to be assured that you have one.  Again, definitely do not show me, but I can't let you enter unless you assure me that you have a nice, round, plump glans attached to a sleek shaft that's firmer on the top and softer on the bottom, leading down to two plump testicles held snugly in your scrotal sack.  No, you don't absolutely need to show me right now, but I will accept an identification card proving that, at some point, a doctor flipped your penis back and forth between their fingers, gently squeezed each testicle, looked everything over up and down, and confirmed in writing that your penis is indeed there.  In short, I need to have intimate details about the one thing that you should never, ever, ever show me in public."

And yet... when you speak of "biological sex," despite how granular I mentioned it above, I can't help but think that you're thinking primarily of my penis.  When you talk about the girl in the story, you mention her XY chromosomes and her penis.  You then spend the next 8 sentences talking about penis surgeries, calling it the "most bizarre" part of being transgender.

As a cis person, I personally find dysphoria to be the most bizarre thing to imagine, as I have no frame of reference as to what it must feel like to not be at home in one's own body.  But if I were dysphoric, I can see how it might drive me to want to get a vaginoplasty.  That actually follows quite logically from me: if you really felt that uncomfortable, why wouldn't you want to fix it?  I'm actually slightly more confused by the people who experience dysphoria yet don't feel compelled to get gender confirmation surgery.  Yet you seem hung up on the penis itself, which may explain why you focus way more heavily on trans women in your posts than you do on trans men.

The reason I'm calling this out is that only 5-13% of trans women have even gotten bottom surgery, and only about half actually want it in their lifetime.  You're putting your penis surgery squick at the forefront of the discussion, but in reality it is the afterthought.  Imagine going to a baking competition, only eating the icing off the cakes, and then trying to judge the entire competition based off that: sure, the icing plays into the overall picture and bakers can use icing to enhance the overall product, but the icing is not the cake.  Trans men and trans women are people, and they are so much more than just a single surgery that most of them never even get.

Yes, your following quotes led me to think you were claiming I thought trans people do not exist or that I was trying to erase them or comparing my views to those who think that  . . .

You've clarified in this post that you don't think trans people exist, at least not biologically.  You fundamentally don't acknowledge that a trans man is a person is a man who was born with a feminine body and assigned a female sex at birth, but was also born with a male brain, realized he was male at an early age, and may choose to live his life as a man from thereafter.  You call it a mental disorder, suggesting it is something to be treated with psychotherapy and medications.  You liken it to a boy thinking he is a cat, implying it's some sort of delusional thinking.  You say you acknowledge that trans people exist, yet you fundamentally refuse to acknowledge the biological reality of what it actually means to be trans.  You will not even acknowledge that trans men are men and trans women are women.  You may not be aiming to erase the word "transgender" itself and you do indeed recognize that people exist who don't identify with their assigned sex at birth, but you are very clearly ignoring the fundamental core elements of their existence.  I think if you truly understood that, we'd be having a very different conversation, even though we'd likely still disagree on some points.
 

If you agree that trans people have a higher rate of depression and suicide, then why did you say, " It is also a shame when woke left ideologues use fear mongering techniques like telling someone their child will die if they aren't permitted to undergo gender 'affirming care'.  That is not based on fact?" If you agree the suicide risk is real, then why would you call messaging about suicidal risk "fear-mongering?"

Easy.  I think climate change is real, but am not a fan of fear mongering climate alarmists.  It's disingenuous to suggest the world will only last 5 more years unless we ban all gas using cars today!

So you're quoting a hypothetical person who says a child will die, and you're saying your hypothetical person that you invented should have said "may" instead of "will" so it would be less exaggerated?

To clarify: We both agree that suicide is a risk, and that many transgender teens will try to kill themselves, but obviously not 100% will.  So you specifically brought this up with a fictional quote suggesting 100% just so you could point out your own fictional quote was not 100% accurate?  Am I understanding this correctly?  Surely I must be missing something here?

Parents are being feared and shamed into believing the only option for their child is to get them on the gender "affirming care" train.  Suicidal ideation is a serious matter.  In fact, so serious, it ought not be touted out like that.  And it is.  I've heard this implication multiple times, "Would you rather have a dead daughter or trans daughter?" That's uncalled for.  The implication is the parent is choosing embarrassment or extremist religious objections over their child's life!

I agree with you that suicidal ideation is serious.  However, the only proven treatment for trans people is transition.

The fact is that for a large percentage of trans teens, "Would you rather have a dead daughter or a trans daughter?" is not an exaggeration.  True, it's not every teen, but it happens often enough that the rhetoric does have a lot of truth behind it.  And while I agree that not every parent has their personal beliefs at the forefront, the vast majority of news stories I've seen where the parent had a change of heart started with a parent making a judgement based off their own personal attitudes and religious beliefs.  I concede journalists may be using bias in whom they choose to interview, but I have anecdotally noted this with several trans people in my personal and professional life as well.

Personally, I do not like to use such emotional rhetoric, so I would not say something like, "Would you rather have a dead daughter or a trans daughter?" to a parent.  I disagree with you that it's completely uncalled for, but I don't see how it's particularly helpful.

That's a horrible accusation and the truth is there are a very long list of reasons a parent wouldn't want their child to go through a gender "affirming care" program.  To have doubts about a particular program or to wonder if permitting your child to take hormones is wise/healthy and be told well if you don't do this they may die, is cruel and inaccurate because there simply is not enough evidence showing going down the "affirming care" track will prevent your child from committing suicide.  And no one should be shamed, or fear mongered into doing something dangerous and experimental.  AND it's not your kid!

I agree with this.  As a doctor, this is something that to me warrants a clear and open discussion with both the parents and child to see what the concerns of both parties are and try to determine what would actually be the best for the child.  There is no 100% right or wrong answer, but the discussion does need to be clear and open.

However, let's say you brought your teen into my office, and they express very clearly that they were raised as a boy but knew as an early age they were a girl and still are a girl, and wishes to transition.  They may further express recent thoughts of suicide, and may even show signs of self-harm via cutting.  You reply with an anecdote of a time when they were a young child and pretended they were a character from their favorite TV show, and used to have chats with their imaginary friend who was also a character from the show, and implore me to refer them to a psychiatrist who could help them realize they are a boy.  In this instance, I'd be noting a fundamental disconnect in how you are perceiving the reality of your teen's life, and that disconnect would be a barrier to a fruitful discussion as long as you continued to believe this.  If at some point you were to finally accept that your teen's reality was not the same as their childhood fantasies, we'd be able to actually have an open discussion of your concerns.

This is the disconnect we are having now.  We can't discuss the actual concerns because of this fundamental disconnect between us.  And regardless of how logical your view on it may seem to you, the consensus of the experts who have been studying this for nearly a century is that it's not a fantasy, mental illness, fad, or whatever else.  The consensus is that trans men are literally men and trans women are literally women.

If you have concerns or questions or doubts or want to try a different approach, gender "affirming care" is not the only game in town.  In fact, I suggest showering the child with love and affection and doing everything in your power to keep them safe from harming themselves or being harmed from others is a good start.  You should not feel pressured to act against your instincts and conscience in doing what you believe to be in the child's best interest.

As a father, what you listed are the bare minimum of what any parent should be doing in their child's life.  But loving them and doing what's in their best interest means actually listening to them and believing them.  If your child whom you've raised as a girl says, "I'm a boy," and you respond, "So you want to be a boy?" and they say, "No, I don't want to be a boy, I am a boy," and this goes on for years and years and years, you need to at some point finally accept that they do not want to be a boy but rather are a boy.  Otherwise, you are not doing everything in your power to keep them safe and make them feel loved.

AND experts in gender care say more specific research is needed to determine whether medically transitioning as a minor reduces suicidal thoughts or suicides compared with those who socially transition or wait before starting treatment.  Studies show medical and surgical gender transition has not resulted in credible mental health improvements.

A review published just last year showed that the majority of studies do find a reduction in suicidality with gender-affirming care.

AND even less is known about the long term effects of hormonal and surgical interventions in this population.  Effects on fertility and sexual function remain unclear.  AND a side effect of puberty blockers has been shown to increase suicidal thoughts and we are yet to know the long term results of these drugs on cognitive development.

Yes, some long-term effects of transitioning are still unknown, but those risks are more than outweighed by the benefits in the vast majority of cases.  Dealing with both known and unknown risks is all in a day's work for doctors.

Puberty blockers have been studied for 50 years and used medically for 40 years.  They're a decade older than Prozac, to put it into perspective.  How much longer is long enough for you - 200 years?

AND people should be told that often those who have gender dysphoria also have higher rates of other mental health issues, so we need to be careful in claiming gender dysphoria is the cause of a person's anxiety/depression/suicidal ideation.  Often this predominance of pre-existing mental health problems prior to the onset of gender dysphoria is not considered.  One de transitioner claimed she had been sexually abused and had an eating disorder, but was quickly assessed as gender dysphoria being the cause of her depression and suicidal ideation and was started down the "affirming care" track as the answer.

Yes, this is common knowledge in the medical community.  Several of my trans patients struggle with coexisting mental health issues.  We identify and treat these just as we would in a cisgender person.  I have had trans patients whose mental health stressors are pretty much entirely due to being trans, but I have never had a single cis patient who thought they were trans due to a mental health disorder.

While that detransition case you mentioned is unfortunate, it is also the exception, and it sounds like her medical practitioners had not done their due diligence.

So, that Mooby is why I do not think a parent should be told gender dysphoria equals suicide for kids who aren't enrolled in gender "affirming care".  Not true and pretty crummy to lay on concerned parents.  And that is why I don't think the fact that depression and suicide might be higher in the trans community that means the gender "affirming care" program is the answer.  The fact of one does not necessitate the need of the other.

I agree somewhat.  I don't think parents should be bullied with threats of suicide, but I do think they should be aware that it is a factor.  And I agree that depression and suicide alone should not drive our decisions, but even if the depression and suicide rates were exactly the same in transgender people as they are in cisgender people, I would still favor transition as the primary evidence-based treatment for gender dysphoria.  Gender confirmation is necessary regardless of its impact on suicide, but its impact on suicide should also not be ignored.

Maybe you didn't realize you did this, but I would say you misrepresented almost everything I said.  Or at the very least just didn't understand my position.  You often seemed to respond more to what other people have said or done in your response to me, which isn't really responding directly to what I said at all.  But maybe now with my further explanation you can see what you did and can understand why I accused you of responding to things I didn't say and beliefs I don't hold.

Fair enough.  Did this reply do a better job of understanding your position and explaining why I think it's still harmful?

You think someone who you prescribed "affirming care" to is going to come back to you in a couple years and tell you they've decided to de transition, or do you think they would go to someone else or no one at all?

I think they would come back to me.  You'd be surprised at what people will just come in the office and tell me: I can't repeat it here because of privacy laws, but the answer is pretty much anything and everything. The most I can say is that I've had patients discuss similar concerns with me in the past, so I have no reason to think this is some magic area where suddenly everyone is too afraid to say anything ever.

You've told a nice narrative of what the typical trans person goes through before regretting it, but I've seen nothing in the real world that adds any substance to this.

Meanwhile, others are clinging on to the little research they have and again tout the things like exit surveys showing trans people happy with their decision.  I mean we are talking about people who now have trouble going to the bathroom.  They have no sexual feeling in their genitalia.  They have infections and sores from vaginal and penal surgeries.  They've suffered bone loss .  They can never have children.  They struggle finding partners.  So, yeah, I guess you could say, well at least their gender dysphoria has been reduced, but I think that is putting the bar pretty low in what we would now conclude as a victory.

Risks of any treatment exist, but the risk of an informed decision is different from whether the decision is needed in the first place.  As above, 90% of trans women have never had such a surgery and half don't even want one, but for those who do, I agree that they need to understand both the risks and potential benefits.


Some hard truths are results of long term studies of adult transgender populations failed to demonstrate convincing improvements in mental health, and some of these studies suggest their treatment actually caused harm.


A hard truth is the question about whether the benefits of youth gender transitions outweigh the risks of harm remains unanswered.     

Many are speaking out that they were misdiagnosed with gender dysphoria.  Some are admitting they went to 2 or less office visits with a doctor before being put on hormones.  Some admit once they were started on that track it inevitably led to the desire for irreversible surgery.  Some say they are now forever maimed and or are still suffering negative long term health consequences from their treatment.
Some do say this, yes. And there are guidelines in place to try to protect against this. The WPATH guidelines, while not perfect, do go a long way to help prevent this from happening. I am personally in favor of standardizing their use.

How do their guidelines prevent things like that?  A confused person can come in, who has spent hours in chatrooms on social media, where he/she has received tips and tricks to get cross sex hormones.  This is what happens.  Kids are coached what to say and what not to say in their little 5 minutes with their doctor.  It wouldn't be the doctor's fault if he/she recommends gender "affirming care" and prescribing hormones, because the kid said 'all the right things'.  The program is certainly easily manipulated.

Guidelines are there to make sure we do everything we can to correctly identify the people who need treatment and those who don't.  If everyone is manipulated, lying, and/or conspiring then we can do a lot of harm in medicine - the medical history makes up roughly 80% of our decision making (including pretty much all of psych), so your concerns go way beyond this one area.  As someone who deals with misinformation from social medial constantly with my patients on every subject imaginable, it's an endless struggle.  That's why it's important to refine guidelines over time and continue to educate the public on the actual facts and not what they see on TikTok.

Plus there are clinics who have admitted they are comfortable prescribing puberty blockers or hormones based on the first visit as long as both child and parent are on board.   
 
And we are hearing about parents of minors who sought gender affirming care who said they felt pressured or rushed to proceed with treatment.
 
Some clinics say the demand is so high now, that when a kid comes in it is almost more formulaic.  We ask why they are here, we know they have already been seen by a doctor, so we see no reason to not give them what they came hoping to get, and we move them on their way.  They appear very grateful, so we tell ourselves we are helping and have already improved their mood.  "Next! . . . .   

If they're deviating from the standard of care and causing harm, they can be sued for malpractice.  Here in the US, doctors are pretty spooked about litigation, so if these clinics actually had a fear of getting sued they would change that practice.
  

I am not anti trans, I'm anti harmful and ineffective programs for kids.

Thank you for clarifying.  I will not attempt to label you as anti-trans, though I still do think we have a fundamental disconnect as noted above.

Gender dysphoria ought to be defined and diagnosed as a psychiatric, not a medical condition.  And this is important.  Words matter.  How we define something matters.  There is no biological basis for gender dysphoria.  To issue treatment which includes surgery makes no sense.  And why is gender dysphoria treated differently than any other mental disorder?

At the risk of sounding elitist, deciding what is or isn't a medical diagnosis and how to classify it is its own field with teams of experts who make decisions based on the data.  Neither you nor I am qualified to decide how a single pet diagnosis should or should not be classified.

That being said, the current medical view is that gender dysphoria is a psychiatric disorder due to being transgender, which is a biological phenomenon.  We have to treat the underlying cause, not just classify it how we like and then make decisions based off that classification without evidence.  Giving a trans person with dysphoria an SSRI does not work and transition does work, no matter how hard you may wish the opposite were true.

I think we need to look more into the self-fulfilling prophecy of "affirming care".  There is a study that found 98% of adolescents who took puberty blockers then went on to take cross sex hormones as well.  "Affirming care" is essentially sealing the deal, so I really wish its advocates would stop suggesting we're just" talking" right now and buying some time, as they like to say, for the child to better figure out what they want to do.  Let's not ignore how much "affirming care" may be disrupting the natural course of identity development.

Gender identity is developed in early childhood, long before hormones are started.  The reason that most kids who block puberty go on to transition is that they already knew they were trans years before they ever started the puberty blockers.  Kids who are not trans tend to not ask for them.

Are long term health issues from treatment being studied?

Yes

I think there are many ethical concerns that ought to be taken into consideration with all of this.  Is it ethical to permit such young children from making such life altering decisions when their brains aren't even fully developed yet?

Yes.  Brains are not fully developed until your mid-20s.  We routinely let people make life-altering decisions before that.

With people under 18, it's an informed discussion between the child, parent, and doctor.  The child has a say in the decision but is not unilaterally making it.  Meanwhile, we routinely allow cisgender teens with certain health conditions to completely go against their parents' wishes and make life-altering decisions (look up "medical emancipation.") 

Why would we encourage harming a perfectly healthy body, when what we are dealing with is psychological?

Because it's not purely psychological.

You ignored the question, though. Alabama law SB184 makes it a class C felony for a parent to take their child to the doctor for gender confirming treatment. Since you called for parental rights, where is the right of that parent to seek treatment for their own child?

The more information that comes out demonstrating much of the harm at worse and ineffectiveness at best of "affirming care", I would think parents and states should have the right to fight to stop the practice.  Do you disagree?  The outcome is too unclear at this point and I definitely think it could be justified to not offer "affirming care" in one's state.  Since it is so controversial and the evidence simply not strong enough regarding the benefit, we should put a pause to it, just like they have already done in other countries.  To ignore what other countries are already finding out is negligence. 

So you do support these laws that make it a felony for parents to make their own decisions for their child?  You've spoken at length about how parents shouldn't be forced into a certain mode of action, yet of the two of us you're the only one who supports parents being forced into a certain mode of action.

Why are you dancing around whether you support this law or not?

I gotta run for now.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

The case is John and Jane Parents 1, et al, v. Montgomery County Board of Education, et al, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-2034.  Three parents in Montgomery County, Maryland could not challenge a Maryland school district's policy against telling parents if their children identify as transgender or gender nonconforming.

The federal judge in Maryland who dismissed the case last August said the parents do not have a fundamental right to be promptly informed of their child's gender identity.

This case?  It says nothing of the sort.  It says that the guidelines did not violate parents' rights and notes that the guidelines make every attempt to include the family.  Nowhere does it mandate that the family pursue gender confirmation.

Choosing to pursue gender transition is a family matter, not to be authorized by public schools without parental consent.

Nowhere does it say schools can help a child transition without their family's consent.

Then do you agree that the Alabama law should be repealed, since it makes it not a family matter?

The family can do what it wants.

NO, IT CAN'T!  The law makes doing what the family wants a felony.  There is a lawsuit, Rev. Eknes-Tucker v. Marshall, brought by parents against this law because it deprives them of their parental rights.  Do you support this law, which makes it a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a parent to help their child transition?

The state just doesn't want the program.  The family is free to go elsewhere to find the program.

NO, THEY CAN'T!  The law makes it a felony for the parents do to anywhere to help their child transition.   Do you support this law?

Is banning parents from consenting to a medicine for their child also totalitarian, as in the Alabama law?

No.  I would hope lots of so called "medicines" would be banned if those "medicines" are harmful/dangerous/ineffective.

I'm confused.  You have claimed you value parental rights to refuse treatment, which is a right they already have.  You have mentioned parental rights several times.  But you support the law that actually makes it a felony for their parents to make a choice.  How is this consistent?

Do you support the rights of parents or not?  Or is it that you support their rights only when they make the choices you like?

LOL!  I didn't bring God up.  The article that this thread is about did.  I was responding to that.  And my response was to say the left should stop equating Christians with being anti-trans.  And if the father in the article was a hateful bigot because of his Baptist faith I was saying how much I hate when certain religious groups distort Christ's teachings and when people do abusive things in the name of God.

Ah, ok.  I misunderstood where you were coming from, then.

[kevin]

its all about control, mooby.

[meAgain]

*    

[none]

I need two Bathshebas

[Kiahanie]

••••
And I think on that note, it is time for me to distance myself from IGI again. 
••••

Thank you. You have some very distressing notions.