I think the powers of the federal government should VERY limited. Either I am a genius or everyone else who doesn’t understand this is stupid. The ENTIRE purpose for the colonies / states forming a “Union” is to provide a common defense and also provide a uniform currency (most people don’t realize that each state used to issue its own currency. I actually have a fair amount from various states).
That said - like EVERYTHING else knuckleheads over correct. It’s common fckn sense that children are not allowed to do certain things. Following your argument there should be nothing that we prohibit parents from doing if they see fit. Allowing a child to transition before their brains are even remotely close to being fully formed is stupid.
Parents who would do this are definitely stupid, but you're talking about a vanishingly small number of parents and kids.
In order to protect them from themselves you would invite the government to have the final say, above that of parents?
In this hypothetical of ours, where the government isn't pushing lgbtq+ crap all the time like they do in real life, are we saying that they restrict oversight of parental decisions to sex change surgeries and exogenous hormones?
Then yeah. If that's the boundary of their involvement but it wouldn't happen that way. Same way you argued for intervention because we allow it for physical abuse, they'd claim a duty to intervene whenever harm is being done. What's harm? Well... not giving the kid every government approved pharmaceutical is you doing harm. Send the kid to a school that doesn't have a rainbow over the door, you're harming the kid. Even the opposite of what you want here. If you don't trans the child the second it says it's trans then you're harming the child, which is approximately the current government policy.
Make a deal with the government, you might as well be entering into a compact with the devil. Every "we'll protect you" ends up "now you have to do what we say." I don't know how many examples you need to see. They're gonna screw you every time.
Yes, I agree there's a cost, in the form of a few loonies who will spend the rest of their lives being walking advertisements for sticking with your born sex, if we don't hand over parental decisions to the apparatus of the state, and the state is anti-trans. Would you, in turn, agree that there's also potentially a cost in giving more power to people who surveil our every communication (including these posts), routinely lie about very consequential shit, and have an established record of not giving a single fuck about you?
An occasional trans kid doesn't justify the government taking over family decisions. I'm shocked to see conservatives so easily tricked into inviting the state into their home.
I think they want a freebie. They want a law which reflects their values and changes other people's lives but which leaves them unaffected. But if this is actually important, then how much would you pay? Would you accept a weekly interview in your living room with a social worker if no more kids got transed? Monthly? How about just your kid has to sit down with a government child welfare agent once a month at school and talk about how it's all going at home. If the social worker isn't satisfied, agents could put cameras throughout your house. If child welfare is important, let's talk about what sort of protection programs people would support. Safe to say that someone who wants daily interviews and cameras in every home cares more about kids than someone who says no to government monitors. We have to save the children, right?
