Governor DeSantis signs transgender bill

[reason10]

Here are the details:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/desantis-signs-bills-targeting-transgender-treatments-minors-pronoun-use-schools

DeSantis signs bills targeting transgender treatments for minors, pronoun use in schools

One of the bills just signed by DeSantis, SB 254, prohibits anyone under age 18 from undergoing sex-reassignment surgeries or taking prescription-based cross-sex hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The bill would also make permanent a state rule banning Medicaid from reimbursing people of all ages who undergo the procedures.  

The bill, backed by DeSantis and Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, previously passed the Florida Senate in early April before DeSantis signed it in front of children Wednesday.  

"This will permanently outlaw the mutilation of minors. It will outlaw the surgical procedures and experimental puberty blockers for minors," he said prior to signing SB 254. "It will also require any adults receiving these surgeries to be informed about the irreversible nature and about the dangers of the procedures. It will give the courts temporary jurisdiction to intervene and halt procedures for out-of-state children." 

"This is going to create a way to recover damages for injury or death resulting from mutilating surgeries or these experimental puberty blockers that are given to a minor," DeSantis also said. 

Anyone who would mutilate a minor should go to prison. The state of Oklahoma has made it a FELONY. Hopefully Florida will do the same thing. Right now, a hack who hacks up a child gets his/her license suspended. Here's the bill.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/254/BillText/er/HTML

Pronouns?

The governor said another bill he signed, HB 1069, "makes sure that Florida students and teachers will never be forced to declare pronouns in school or be forced to use pronouns not based on biological sex." 

"We never did this through all of human history until, like, what, two weeks ago?" DeSantis told a crowd in Tampa. "Now, this is something -- they're having third graders declare pronouns? We're not doing the pronoun Olympics in Florida. It's not happening here." 

Children attending drag shows? EXCUSE ME?

A third bill signed by DeSantis, SB 1438, is aimed at preventing children from attending drag shows, although it does not specifically name that kind of entertainment in its language, according to Fox35 Orlando. 

"You know, there's these adult performances.... these drag shows, sexually explicit and what they're doing. And look, adult entertainment, you know, people can do what they want with some of that," DeSantis said. "But to have minors there, I mean, you'll have situations where you'll have like an 8-year-old girl there where you have these, like really explicit shows and that is just inappropriate.  

Anyone who would subject a child to this

is a pedophile and a criminal and belongs in prison.

 

 

 

By the way, for those of you delusional left wing retards who believe there are HUNDREDS of genders, perhaps you can 'splain why gender affirming surgery only changes male to female or female to male.

How about Gender Number 97? Can you name it?  Why doesn't the medical community recognize it?

(See how stupid this all sounds?)

[Michael Hardner]

More populism designed to hurt people to make the majority feel better about a fake problem.

Really shameful that they are doing this, under the auspices of helping people.

[CdnFox]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

More populism designed to hurt people to make the majority feel better about a fake problem.

If you claim it's a fake problem ,then what you're saying is that kids aren't getting operations or drugs as noted. But - if that's the case then how is it hurting anyone to ban it for children?

As far as it not helping people, female genital mutilation, which is supposed to 'treat' girls so their sexual urges don't get the better of them and make their lives better, has been seen to be evil since the 70's. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Can you explain how female genital mutilation is in any way substantially different than gender operations or treatments?

[Guest]

48 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

If you claim it's a fake problem ,then what you're saying is that kids aren't getting operations or drugs as noted. But - if that's the case then how is it hurting anyone to ban it for children?

As far as it not helping people, female genital mutilation, which is supposed to 'treat' girls so their sexual urges don't get the better of them and make their lives better, has been seen to be evil since the 70's. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Can you explain how female genital mutilation is in any way substantially different than gender operations or treatments?

Well, there's choice.  I assume that no girl who undergoes that barbaric cultural practice has any choice in the matter.

Whether or not you agree with allowing an underage person the choice to undergo surgery of this kind is one thing, but I assume no-one is forcing them to do it.

Interesting conundrum for me.  Do I believe in respecting the choice of a child who wants to have this surgery?  I have heard of children who followed (tried to follow?) their parent's wishes and refused life saving blood transfusions.  Should they be allowed to, or should the state remove them from their parent's care and deliver the treatment?

Should a child be allowed to choose MAID?  Children are different.  We have a responsibility towards them until they develop enough to make their own decisions.  But what does that mean?  What if their parents agree with their decision?

 

Edited May 18, 2023 by bcsapper

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Well, there's choice.  I assume that no girl who undergoes that barbaric cultural practice has any choice in the matter.

 

Are we claiming that children are qualified to make permanent life changing decisions about altering their body? But not pick their own bedtime   -  the choice isn't really theres, it's the parents. And i'm sure many of the kids who get mutilated are convinced that it's a good idea by the adults around them.

 

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Whether or not you agree with allowing an underage person the choice to undergo surgery of this kind is one thing, but I assume no-one is forcing them to do it.

If you have authority over a child and you tell them something is the right thing to do then they don't really have 'choice', it's an illusion of choice because they're not capable of appropriately weighing the argument.  This is why it's still 'rape' even if a child consents to it.

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Interesting conundrum for me.  Do I believe in respecting the choice of a child who wants to have this surgery?  I have heard of children who followed (tried to follow?) their parent's wishes and refused life saving blood transfusions.  Should they be allowed to, or should the state remove them from their parent's care and deliver the treatment?

Agreed. It's not all that black and white. I"m reluctant to tell parents' they CAN'T choose what's best for their kids. At the same time - some decisions just seem to be obviously dangerous for the kid.

In such cases i try to use the principle of 'least offense'.  What outcome is most likely going to produce the least amount of infringement into rights or protect the most rights.

My feeling is a child can still transition later when they're old enough to weigh the pro's and con's more effectively and the harm done to them in the meantime is less than the permanent harm of altering their bodies and leaving them sterile. This infringes somewhat on the parents rights to decide what's best for their kid, but it preserves the kid's right to choice till a time when they're better suited to make that decision.

If a doctor feels there is some overwhelming reason why it's imperative the kid can't wait, then fine but that bar should be fairly high.

20 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Should a child be allowed to choose MAID?  Children are different.  We have a responsibility towards them until they develop enough to make their own decisions.  But what does that mean?  What if their parents agree with their decision?

 

THis is why i say wait.  I think probably at least till 16, athough that age is off the cuff.

[impartialobserver]

I would say that waiting until they are 18 or even 21 is the best decision. As for pronouns.. I think both sides overreact. The left overvalues the importance of this and the right overreacts to it. Growing up, there was only 1 or 2 kids that I would have guessed were trans or close to it. Now, did I go home with them to find out? No.. but this was before the age of the internet and everybody wanting to know the business of others. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Are we claiming that children are qualified to make permanent life changing decisions about altering their body? But not pick their own bedtime   -  the choice isn't really theres, it's the parents. And i'm sure many of the kids who get mutilated are convinced that it's a good idea by the adults around them.

 

If you have authority over a child and you tell them something is the right thing to do then they don't really have 'choice', it's an illusion of choice because they're not capable of appropriately weighing the argument.  This is why it's still 'rape' even if a child consents to it.

Agreed. It's not all that black and white. I"m reluctant to tell parents' they CAN'T choose what's best for their kids. At the same time - some decisions just seem to be obviously dangerous for the kid.

In such cases i try to use the principle of 'least offense'.  What outcome is most likely going to produce the least amount of infringement into rights or protect the most rights.

My feeling is a child can still transition later when they're old enough to weigh the pro's and con's more effectively and the harm done to them in the meantime is less than the permanent harm of altering their bodies and leaving them sterile. This infringes somewhat on the parents rights to decide what's best for their kid, but it preserves the kid's right to choice till a time when they're better suited to make that decision.

If a doctor feels there is some overwhelming reason why it's imperative the kid can't wait, then fine but that bar should be fairly high.

THis is why i say wait.  I think probably at least till 16, athough that age is off the cuff.

Yes, I'm sure that those young girls who choose to marry men my age in some cultures are not actually making that choice.  Just being convinced, like you say, that it's something they should do.  

Maybe those children, or those undergoing FGM can be led to believe their God wants them to do it, or they should do it because their mother did it before them.   I still think most of them are lambs to the slaughter.

I don't believe they would be the instigators of such procedures though, as I assume those underrage people wanting gender reassignment surgery would be.

 

[herbie]

I'd say thank f***ing God we have doctors, patients and parents making health decisions and not some elected Bozo trying to boost his popularity by deciding for others,

Edited May 18, 2023 by herbie

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

I'd say thank f***ing God we have doctors, patients and parents making health decisions and not some elected Bozo trying to boost his popularity by deciding for others,

Ahem.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/conversion-therapy-is-now-illegal-in-canada-1.5731911

I don't believe in Conversion therapy but it was something people chose, not something they were forced into.  And the gov't took that off the table. 

So what you mean is that you're happy that the gov't and not medical people are making the decisions because you approve of the decisions - and you're unhappy when you don't.

Gotcha.

[herbie]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I don't believe in Conversion therapy but it was something people chose, not something they were forced into.  And the gov't took that off the table. 

And you're going to convince anyone that's a medical procedure? Well there are a few Bible thumping rednecks on this site that'll believe you.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, herbie said:

And you're going to convince anyone that's a medical procedure? Well there are a few Bible thumping rednecks on this site that'll believe you.

It's referred to as such, it's considered to be as such and even had some medical experts backing it.

But - as i said, you don't like it, so what you REALLY mean is that you are FINE with gov't types making medical decisions for people as long as they're ones you like.

Better hope it stays that way

[herbie]

You know damn well 'conversion therapy' not a medical procedure, it's simply a method of forcing someone to believe they're not gay.

Pick a better example to make your point, they're out there.

[CdnFox]

30 minutes ago, herbie said:

You know damn well 'conversion therapy' not a medical procedure, it's simply a method of forcing someone to believe they're not gay.

Pick a better example to make your point, they're out there.

Of course it is medical .  And it's almost the same thing - changing how you were born to something different for various mental reasons.

But - as expected, you are fine with gov't interference with people's medical choices provided it's something you approve of. You defend it, you try to claim "Oh but that's different!!" as an excuse - but that's all it is. An excuse.

No more excuses. Either you're ok with gov'ts making decisions about medical treatments or you're not. We can debate the merits of various decisions specifically but you can't just say you like gov't interference when it suits you and its' terrible when you don't.

[herbie]

It's NOT medical, it's abhorred by legitimate psychologists and psychiatrists. Homosexuality is not a medical condition.

I know my statement could be countered with an actual example of gov't medical interference, go pick one.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

It's NOT medical, it's abhorred by legitimate psychologists and psychiatrists. Homosexuality is not a medical condition.

Of course it's medical.

Genital mutilation is abhorred by legitimate medical people as well but it's still medical.

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

I know my statement could be countered with an actual example of gov't medical interference, go pick one.

Doesn't really matter which one you prefer.   You're really proving my point tho and this one is perfect.

Two medical treatments - both seek to make alteration to a person's gender, both are contentious, both are to treat mental concerns, neither are actually considered to be effective treatments for the underlying problems. Both have physcial and psychological elements to the treatment.

They're almost identical.  But - you think the gov't SHOULD interfere with one and think gov'ts should NEVER interfere when talking about the other.

ANd you seem to be standing by that. 

Well - bad news is that makes you a hypocrite. And that really diminishes any value in your opinoon - you're not basing your opinion on facts or logic, just 'muh feels'.

But hey - free country. So if you wish you can do that.

[reason10]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

More populism designed to hurt people to make the majority feel better about a fake problem.

Really shameful that they are doing this, under the auspices of helping people.

Excuse me, but how is reining in PEDOPHILES somehow populism?  See, I thought you liberals had a problem with pedophiles I guess I was wrong, since you voted for PEDOPHILE JOE.

 

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Well, there's choice.  I assume that no girl who undergoes that barbaric cultural practice has any choice in the matter.

Whether or not you agree with allowing an underage person the choice to undergo surgery of this kind is one thing, but I assume no-one is forcing them to do it.

Interesting conundrum for me.  Do I believe in respecting the choice of a child who wants to have this surgery?  I have heard of children who followed (tried to follow?) their parent's wishes and refused life saving blood transfusions.  Should they be allowed to, or should the state remove them from their parent's care and deliver the treatment?

Should a child be allowed to choose MAID?  Children are different.  We have a responsibility towards them until they develop enough to make their own decisions.  But what does that mean?  What if their parents agree with their decision?

 

Seriously, ARE YOU HONESTLY COMPARING CASTRATION SURGERY AND PUBERTY BLOCKERS WITH BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS?

Are you REALLY THAT FCKING STUPID?

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Seriously, ARE YOU HONESTLY COMPARING CASTRATION SURGERY AND PUBERTY BLOCKERS WITH BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS?

Are you REALLY THAT FCKING STUPID?

Well, the lack of the blood transfusion would kill the child.  So I guess you are that f*cking stupid.

Honestly, bleeding wingnuts.  I shit 'em.

[OftenWrong]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

More populism designed to hurt people to make the majority feel better about a fake problem.

Really shameful that they are doing this, under the auspices of helping people.

Leave the kids alone and let them grow up naturally, until they reach the age of reason. Because they are the most vulnerable.

Keep politics out of it.

Those are conservative values.

[reason10]

8 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Well, the lack of the blood transfusion would kill the child.  So I guess you are that f*cking stupid.

Honestly, bleeding wingnuts.  I shit 'em.

Excuse me, bat guano for brains. A blood transfusion is usually a life saving procedure. Do you not know the difference between that and castration? Are you REALLY that fcking STUPID?

You are a wingnut that has been shit by someone with one more IQ point.

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Leave the kids alone and let them grow up naturally, until they reach the age of reason. Because they are the most vulnerable.

Keep politics out of it.

Those are conservative values.

Exactly. Kids need to be PARENTED, not mutilated.

[reason10]

19 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I would say that waiting until they are 18 or even 21 is the best decision. As for pronouns.. I think both sides overreact. The left overvalues the importance of this and the right overreacts to it. Growing up, there was only 1 or 2 kids that I would have guessed were trans or close to it. Now, did I go home with them to find out? No.. but this was before the age of the internet and everybody wanting to know the business of others. 

For the vast majority of human history, pronouns were nothing more than an inconvenient part of English Grammar class. In California, men were men, women were women and sheep were nervous. Here's an easy lesson: The left needs to find a more important issue that pronouns. Florida is leading the way to a return to logic and common sense.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, reason10 said:

Excuse me, bat guano for brains. A blood transfusion is usually a life saving procedure. Do you not know the difference between that and castration? Are you REALLY that fcking STUPID?

You are a wingnut that has been shit by someone with one more IQ point.

 

Ah, I see where you're confused.  I was talking about the choice, and using the blood transfusion and the religious conviction against it as an illustration of where respecting the choice of a child must be taken into account.  Or not, as one sees fit.  But as I am one who believes in freedom, and the choice of the individual, it represents a conundrum for me.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, failing to understand.   You probably just need to read more slowly.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 

Keep politics out of it.

Those are conservative values.

I agree.  Teach community values by implication.  Don't demonize people as DeSantis has done.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree.  Teach community values by implication.  Don't demonize people as DeSantis has done.

DeSantis's demonization is a direct result and response to the left's demonization of people in the first place. When  you start a culture war, shots get fired from both sides.

The left should have heeded your advice in the first place but once they go down the path then the reaction that we see with desantis is inevitable and unfortunately necessary if they want to stop being demonized.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

1. if they want to stop being demonized.

1.  Do individuals demonize folks for being intolerant ?   For sure.  Does the state need to react by making LGBTQ+ tolerance absent from public life ?  No. 

[reason10]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Ah, I see where you're confused.  I was talking about the choice, and using the blood transfusion and the religious conviction against it as an illustration of where respecting the choice of a child must be taken into account.  Or not, as one sees fit.  But as I am one who believes in freedom, and the choice of the individual, it represents a conundrum for me.

It's nothing to be ashamed of, failing to understand.   You probably just need to read more slowly.

This thread has nothing to do with blood transfusions. You need to read the first post. You're trying to change the subject, and that's pretty pathetic.

There are a lot of topics in this thread: Children getting castrated; pronoun abuse; drag queen shows.

A child cannot get a tattoo, buy a firearm, or even CONSUME alcohol until the age of majority. And somehow you left wingers seem to think a teacher should be allowed to direct a CHILD to a medical facility where he/she can be castrated or mutilated.

Adults find that contradiction telling. When you become an adult, you might get it.