Woke lawmakers in Colorado state that parents must medically castrate their children or risk apprehension by the state who will do it for them

[Aristides]

7 hours ago, User said:

Just pointing out facts. You don't need me to provide you a link to just click on the one you did to see it was wrong. 

No, you are just confirming that you have nothing to backup the bullshit you are trying to flog and neither does West.

[Nationalist]

This is disgusting. Charging parent for trying to keep their children whole, while they are children. It's fcking grumome.

Libbies that support this monstrous act have no soul and have sold out to pure hatred.

[User]

6 hours ago, Aristides said:

No, you are just confirming that you have nothing to backup the bullshit you are trying to flog and neither does West.

I have the link you posted. You got the wrong link. 

[Aristides]

28 minutes ago, User said:

I have the link you posted. You got the wrong link. 

Clearly you are a waist of time. You have nothing.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Clearly you are a waist of time. You have nothing.

I noticed you are ignoring the actual links that I posted which prove your entire argument is wrong

Kind of being a little bit of a chickenshit aren't you?

[Aristides]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I noticed you are ignoring the actual links that I posted which prove your entire argument is wrong

Kind of being a little bit of a chickenshit aren't you?

I wasn't talking to you.

Edited May 18 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

Just now, Aristides said:

I wasn't talking to you.

Of course not   You rarely have anything to say to the truth  

[Aristides]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course not   You rarely have anything to say to the truth  

I read the bill you posted. and it doesn't say anything about what West and others are claiming.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312

https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2025a_1312_signed.pdf

Edited May 18 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

I read the bill you posted. and it doesn't say anything about what West and others are claiming.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312

But it does absolutely say that gender affirming care denial is child abuse and the state will take corrective measures. The end result is the same. If the parents don't provide chemical castration in the form of gender affirming chemicals then the state can consider that abuse, remove the children and take actions to provide it.

So the substance is still there

West claimed the state can use the Coerced control provision to take the kid and apply the treatment and he's correct. Even surgeries could be covered by that. 

The others, mainly user, are making the claim that the state can utilize the law i posted to bypass the parent's wishes and provide the drugs or surgery to the kid because denying gender affirming care is coerced control.  And although he's using some inflammatory and colourful language to describe that it is in fact substantially true. 

Now.  i think we both would agree that we're ok with the state removing a child from a harmful environment and providing the necessaries of life, as would be required by Canadian law. Kids should be fed, and be and feel safe.   And you might go so far as to say that if the kid wants to identify as a different sex then it's best to allow them to do that.

But.... I don't believe that should be license to conduct unnecessary elective medical treatments with permanent life altering effects against the parents wishes. I believe that is a gross abuse of power and serious gov't overreach.

Don't you agree? or do you feel that's appropriate?

[West]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But it does absolutely say that gender affirming care denial is child abuse and the state will take corrective measures. The end result is the same. If the parents don't provide chemical castration in the form of gender affirming chemicals then the state can consider that abuse, remove the children and take actions to provide it.

So the substance is still there

West claimed the state can use the Coerced control provision to take the kid and apply the treatment and he's correct. Even surgeries could be covered by that. 

The others, mainly user, are making the claim that the state can utilize the law i posted to bypass the parent's wishes and provide the drugs or surgery to the kid because denying gender affirming care is coerced control.  And although he's using some inflammatory and colourful language to describe that it is in fact substantially true. 

Now.  i think we both would agree that we're ok with the state removing a child from a harmful environment and providing the necessaries of life, as would be required by Canadian law. Kids should be fed, and be and feel safe.   And you might go so far as to say that if the kid wants to identify as a different sex then it's best to allow them to do that.

But.... I don't believe that should be license to conduct unnecessary elective medical treatments with permanent life altering effects against the parents wishes. I believe that is a gross abuse of power and serious gov't overreach.

Don't you agree? or do you feel that's appropriate?

You are just being gaslighted. Bottom line is leftists want to make money off of medical castration of minors and will now be using the state to do it. Vile stuff 

[robosmith]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 

It does seem pretty clear that The law does not expressly demand castration, but that if a court finds that denying chemical castration in the form of gender affirming drugs is Part of denying gender affirming care then they will be found guilty of coercive control and therefore child abuse, and the state can take action to require the treatment. 

And he's right, you're quoting the wrong law. 

Here's a deeper dice. 

Bill_Analysis_-_Analysis_of_House_Bill_25-1312-_Legal_“Protections”_For_Transgender_People.pdf

The information provided by Robo wrong is misleading. It's true that the law does not specifically state that it require parents to provide surgery or chemical castration.  But what it does say is that if they don't they could be guilty of child abuse and the state will take the appropriate steps which would include such gender treatments against the will of the parents. 

 

Sorry, but the lp is actually closer to the truth

You MAGA CULT AFPI "analysis" is clearly politically driven because the source is a PAC and not based on the analysis of an MD or any scientist.

Quote

Attack on Reason and Science. The standard by which HB 25-1312 would violate parental autonomy is a farce. Sex is biological, binary, and immutable.  

.....

among many others

IS NOT SCIENCE. Duh

'

Edited May 18 by robosmith

[CdnFox]

57 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You MAGA CULT AFPI "analysis" is clearly politically driven because the source is a PAC and not based on the analysis of an MD or any scientist.

 

'

It's perfectly accurate. Do you have a source that refutes it? And I'll remind you that every single time you've claimed to know more about law the courts wind up producing a ruling that agrees with me and not you  

59 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IS NOT SCIENCE. Duh

Not relevant. We're talking about the law. Did you forget what we were talking about again? No wonder you're so frightened by me  

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But it does absolutely say that gender affirming care denial is child abuse and the state will take corrective measures. The end result is the same. If the parents don't provide chemical castration in the form of gender affirming chemicals then the state can consider that abuse, remove the children and take actions to provide it.

So the substance is still there

West claimed the state can use the Coerced control provision to take the kid and apply the treatment and he's correct. Even surgeries could be covered by that. 

The others, mainly user, are making the claim that the state can utilize the law i posted to bypass the parent's wishes and provide the drugs or surgery to the kid because denying gender affirming care is coerced control.  And although he's using some inflammatory and colourful language to describe that it is in fact substantially true. 

Now.  i think we both would agree that we're ok with the state removing a child from a harmful environment and providing the necessaries of life, as would be required by Canadian law. Kids should be fed, and be and feel safe.   And you might go so far as to say that if the kid wants to identify as a different sex then it's best to allow them to do that.

But.... I don't believe that should be license to conduct unnecessary elective medical treatments with permanent life altering effects against the parents wishes. I believe that is a gross abuse of power and serious gov't overreach.

Don't you agree? or do you feel that's appropriate?

It refers to names and dress, that's all.

[User]

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

Clearly you are a waist of time. You have nothing.

I have the facts. You can't deal with those so you play these dumb games instead. 

Edited May 18 by User

[Aristides]

7 minutes ago, User said:

I have the facts. You can't deal with those so you play these dumb games instead. 

You have nothing, nada, zip, bupkis. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

You have nothing, nada, zip, bupkis. 

I see you finally found the link all on your own. ROFL

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

It refers to names and dress, that's all.

No ,it doesn't. It refers to 'misgendering' as well, and a number of experts have already weighed in that denying medical treatment is a form of misgendering.  Taylor and francis  for example directly connects them

Full article: Misgendering and the health and wellbeing of nonbinary people in Canada

If you don't allow 'gender affirming care', you're not affirming their gender.  It's right there in the name. 

 

I notice you didn't answer my question either. Kinda sounds like you know you're in the wrong here and you're trying to dance around it 

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, User said:

I see you finally found the link all on your own. ROFL

So what is your evidence? Show me where it states what you claim.

[Aristides]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No ,it doesn't. It refers to 'misgendering' as well, and a number of experts have already weighed in that denying medical treatment is a form of misgendering.  Taylor and francis  for example directly connects them

Full article: Misgendering and the health and wellbeing of nonbinary people in Canada

If you don't allow 'gender affirming care', you're not affirming their gender.  It's right there in the name. 

 

I notice you didn't answer my question either. Kinda sounds like you know you're in the wrong here and you're trying to dance around it 

I'm not in favour of chemical or surgical intervention before puberty. I think people should go through it before making any decisions regarding physical changes.  I'm not supporting this bill, I'm just saying that it doesn't say what the OP claims it says. 

[CdnFox]

51 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I'm not in favour of chemical or surgical intervention before puberty. I think people should go through it before making any decisions regarding physical changes.  I'm not supporting this bill, I'm just saying that it doesn't say what the OP claims it says. 

Well at least we can agree on that much.

I worry that he's more right than you are, but time will tell. We'll see how it's enforced and applied

[Deluge]

On 5/17/2025 at 9:07 AM, Hodad said:

Holy shit. You clowns don't even care if a story is even remotely true before you kick off the circle jerk. Hell, there's not even a story to react to, and Mr. Velcro Shoes is ready to ride his rascal scooter to war.

It's like when one monkey starts howling and shaking the cage and then all the rest join in. But none of them even know what they're howling about. 

Get off the internet. It's not safe for you lot. 

Easy, a$$hole. 

Colorado IS prepared to stick it to parents that misgender their children. They call it "coercive control". Read about it below. 

If there are too many words or if the words get too big, ask your boyfriend to help you. 

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb25-1312

Edited May 19 by Deluge

[WestCanMan]

On 5/17/2025 at 9:25 PM, CdnFox said:

Bill_Analysis_-_Analysis_of_House_Bill_25-1312-_Legal_“Protections”_For_Transgender_People.pdf

The information provided by Robo wrong is misleading. It's true that the law does not specifically state that it require parents to provide surgery or chemical castration.  But what it does say is that if they don't they could be guilty of child abuse and the state will take the appropriate steps which would include such gender treatments against the will of the parents. 

When they say "get it done or you're guilty of child abuse" it's the same as them "requiring it". 

This is like the covid fascism where you lose your job if you don't take the jab and then you can't get EI, CERB, etc... You get to choose between the economic devastation of losing your career and your home or taking the Fauci juice.

In this case it's "give your kid the juice" or: wear the label of 2nd-worst criminal after pedophile and lose your job.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

When they say "get it done or you're guilty of child abuse" it's the same as them "requiring it".  job.

Well that was my point.  It may not say it outright but the result is exactly the same. 

 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

This is like the covid fascism where you lose your job if you don't take the jab and then you can't get EI, CERB, etc... You get to choose between the economic devastation of losing your career and your home or taking the Fauci juice.

LOL yeah,  "Do what i say or i'll blow your brains out with this gun.... but remember it's your choice". 

This is a little different but again it shows how the gov't can twist the meaning of words and definitions to create massive human rights violations. 

The law actually only says you can't misgender, deadname or the like. So at first blush it seems like as long as you don't call your biological male child who now considers themselves to be a female  a male  You're fine. So many are  saying "well you should respect their gender of choice so that's fine' 

But now they've raised that to the level of 'Child abuse".  If  a woman who gave birth to a son and raised a son now suddenly calls her son a son she's guilty of child ABUSE? This is the same as beating  a child? Or starving a child? It's in the same class of crime according to this law.  There is no  intent to harm the child, the parent has a different opinion and may not feel it's healthy to just accept this. 

However.  this is just the start.  All you have to do is decide that refusing to provide gender affirming care is the same as refusing to affirm their gender verbally and now you've got a problem. 

Misgendering is illegal, and denying care is misgendering. Boom.  

This is how they sneak laws past people that the people may not tolerate otherwise. 

[West]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

When they say "get it done or you're guilty of child abuse" it's the same as them "requiring it". 

This is like the covid fascism where you lose your job if you don't take the jab and then you can't get EI, CERB, etc... You get to choose between the economic devastation of losing your career and your home or taking the Fauci juice.

In this case it's "give your kid the juice" or: wear the label of 2nd-worst criminal after pedophile and lose your job.

The bill is about as vile as it gets. Targeting people's children now because they disagree with extremist ideology is disgraceful. 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, West said:

The bill is about as vile as it gets. Targeting people's children now because they disagree with extremist ideology is disgraceful. 

It's like they don't want the illegal immigrant vote, which is odd, because they brought them into the US banking on it.

Maybe 2% of the people from Latin America are anti-Christianity and in favour of chemical castration.