News Forum - Minnesota becomes a refuge for transgender children facing conservative laws in other US states

[Thaiger]

Transgender youth and their families have increasingly found themselves at the heart of a contentious nationwide debate in the United States, with parents like Mary and her 16 year old child, Jasper, seeking refuge in states that offer them protection and support. Their tumultuous journey started in Texas, but due to mounting concerns for their …

The story Minnesota becomes a refuge for transgender children facing conservative laws in other US states as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Karolyn]

Both sides of this are extreme, irrational, and stupid, making mountains out of molehills. And a 16 year old is not a child FFS

[Marc26]

13 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

Both sides of this are extreme, irrational, and stupid, making mountains out of molehills. And a 16 year old is not a child FFS

Are you out of your mind?

 

16 is absolutely a child 

 

I have no comments on the whole story 

 

 But to be so incredulous that 16yrs old "isn't a child " is just downright weird 

[Karolyn]

37 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

Are you out of your mind?

16 is absolutely a child 

I have no comments on the whole story 

 But to be so incredulous that 16yrs old "isn't a child " is just downright weird 

Difference between 16 and 18 must be minimal. If you accept 18 is adult, then 16 is basically the same age. Some mums and dad's are 16, some married couples are both 16.

I'm sure in the US, a 16 year old can migrate unaccompanied, across state boundaries. To call such migration 'refuge' is ridiculous, unless the 'child' feared violence. 

[Marc26]

50 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

Difference between 16 and 18 must be minimal. If you accept 18 is adult, then 16 is basically the same age. Some mums and dad's are 16, some married couples are both 16.

I'm sure in the US, a 16 year old can migrate unaccompanied, across state boundaries. To call such migration 'refuge' is ridiculous, unless the 'child' feared violence. 

My initial reply to you was too harsh, I apologize

 

16 is still very much a child, not a young child, but a child nonetheless

 

But, I don't know where you are from, but we tend to baby our kids to a later age than Europeans and Australians

 

And by definition the term is correct, Minnesota and other states are becoming a refuge against extreme Republican controlled states

 

This is the kind of things people are seeking "refuge" from

So yes, people feel the need to seek "refuge"

 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/oklahoma-woman-molar-pregnancy

[Wackamole]

59 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

Difference between 16 and 18 must be minimal. If you accept 18 is adult, then 16 is basically the same age. Some mums and dad's are 16, some married couples are both 16.

I'm sure in the US, a 16 year old can migrate unaccompanied, across state boundaries. To call such migration 'refuge' is ridiculous, unless the 'child' feared violence. 

nothing ridiculous about calling it refuge, if their rights are being taken away where they come from.

(also your 16=18 argument doesnt hold, or we could maybe go on and say 13=16=18.. anyway some 16 year olds are adults and some 24yo are kids, all depends on their own circumstances, but legally 16 is a child)

[DazD]

I was going to say blame the Parents but its more the Teachers in The US that are pushing this along with The Party of Peadofiles theres no way Kids under 18 should be allowed to have their meat & two veg or their top ten hits hacked off. Its similar to FMG we see in backwards Countries but can anyone really expect anything different when they have a Geezer with a long history of sniffing kids in The White House if The Yanks don't want Nonces they need to stop voting for them.

[Karolyn]

1 hour ago, Wackamole said:

nothing ridiculous about calling it refuge, if their rights are being taken away where they come from.

(also your 16=18 argument doesnt hold, or we could maybe go on and say 13=16=18.. anyway some 16 year olds are adults and some 24yo are kids, all depends on their own circumstances, but legally 16 is a child)

The argument about age does well hold, especially in this context, where we are talking about informed consent in medicine. (No fan of Republican nonsense, me.) 13 is a young adult in such a context, because they can understand the implications of 'transition'.

Informed consent is what protects the rights of young people, from parents in cults, who wish to prevent their kids having blood transfusions. 

If anything is terrible about the Republican attack on trans minors, it's the implications for informed consent. Not for narcissistic self-expression, or self-identity LARPing. Which concern liberals more, I think

Edited April 28, 2023 by Karolyn

[Marc26]

9 minutes ago, Karolyn said:

The argument about age does well hold, especially in this context, where we are talking about informed consent in medicine. (No fan of Republican nonsense, me.) 13 is a young adult in such a context, because they can understand the implications of 'transition'.

Informed consent is what protects the rights of young people, from parents in cults, who wish to prevent their kids having blood transfusions. 

If anything is terrible about the Republican attack on trans minors, it's the implications for informed consent. Not for narcissistic self-expression, or self-identity LARPing.

But the thing is, you say 16yrs old is not a child

 

Yet, they are seeking "refuge" from laws explicitly stating they are a child and shouldn't receive such care

 

So in the eyes of their opponents, they certainly are children

 

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with you entirely

Because on their side, they are saying a 16yr old should have the right, hence making them an informative consenter, so not a child in that case..........

 

But there is all sorts of angels

The laws stating they are children

And just the emotions of it

If your kid is going through something at 16, they are still very much your child............

[Karolyn]

20 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

But the thing is, you say 16yrs old is not a child

Yet, they are seeking "refuge" from laws explicitly stating they are a child and shouldn't receive such care

So in the eyes of their opponents, they certainly are children

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with you entirely

Because on their side, they are saying a 16yr old should have the right, hence making them an informative consenter, so not a child in that case..........

But there is all sorts of angels

The laws stating they are children

And just the emotions of it

If your kid is going through something at 16, they are still very much your child............

Informed consent is at best tangential to age. It's about capacity of understanding. So in such a context, someone of any age could, in theory, give informed consent, but in reality, very young, pre-pubescent kids won't. Whereas any teenager can unless they are retarded.

Informed consent never gets challenged, excepting in single issue politics. It does get challenged in the abortion issue, similarly. But there is no need to do so, since the discontent is with the procedure itself. There is no need to bring in the subject af age, in a way that undermines informed consent. Which protects young people needing blood transfusions, etc.

But that's just the retardedness of one side, that is only 1/2 the problem then, isn't it? Because what are called trans resources, are scarcely normal, medical information are they? Are they a valid, scientific basis for allowing any healthcare?

Unlike, for example, Thailand, where its basically seen as a cosmetic procedure. And the culture has its own ideas about the subject. Western, basically meaning American, trans literature has a very different focus and tone.

To the point of pushing de-medicalisation, which itself places anything related to trans healthcare - it's not medical, but it's healthcare? - outside of the category, of medical resources.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Karolyn

[Pinga]

There's a huge difference between Thai ladyboys an US "transwomen". A ladyboy typically knows he is not a woman, and will identify as a ladyboy - not a girl. They dress and even have surgeries to look like women, but only in order to attract straight men and/or customers. A US "transwoman" on the other hand typically actually believes he is a woman - which is a mental illness.

Fast forward to teens thinking they're the opposite gender - this usually doesn't happen in a normal society - even if they are gay then they'll identify as a gay man/woman. But the idea that they are the opposite gender or that it is even possible has to be implanted in their head by their parents or surrounding society. Boys don't just wake up and decide they're girls - it's 100% a recent thing as a result of deranged parents who think it's "cool" to have a trans child. This should be outlawed IMHO.

Fast forward even more to hormone treatments and surgery - none of it should be allowed on kids - even at 18 they aren't really mature enough for this to be allowed. In the US people can't even drink until they're 21, so there's no reason why they should be allowed to undergo life changing surgery without being mature enough to understand the consequences.

[Karolyn]

Actually per Ray Blanchard and Mike Bailey, there are two types of transsexual. Surely not neccessarily of transgender, a concept that exploded as a fad in recent years. And is surely sociological, more than medical or sexological. 

One is similar to what Thai call 'kathooey' and these are early onset, behaviorally effeminate, and of frail appearance, as well as with a, sexual orientation towards men.

Type two is the autogynephile, like Bruce Jenner. Late onset (often after retirement) and typically male in their appearance, mindset, and life history choices - from career choices, to chosen passtimes, to sexual partners.

Neither type literally believes they are women. Transsexual always meant someone who wanted the anatomy and/or social role, of the opposite biological sex. Transsexual always was a problematic concept, but it did not base itself, upon claims of self-identity.

In new age subculture, individuals will signal an identity by claiming they are really swans, trees, and such. Honestly, I take cobtemporary trans identities as a similar social phenomenon, rather than sincere psychiatric or willful delusion. We're it psychiatric, which is to say organic, it wouldn't spread so fast. 

Such a narcissistic emphasis on identity, was missing from clinical examples, just a few years, ago. And it's missing from narratives in Asian and Latin American societies such as Thailand.

'Kathooey' doesn't have a convenient gloss in English. Ladyboy isn't appropriate. Gay or homosexual isn't appropriate, despite their androphilia, and transgender certainly isn't. They aren't intersex, by the strict medical definition of ambiguous genitalis, but the connotations are closer to intersex than the others - congenital abnormality, and innate ambiguity.

Though it seems odd, eunuch comes close. Per Buddhist belief, they are people karmically reborn with a pathology that destroyed their masculinity, in the same way castration leaves someone womanly. And this defaults them to the status of women. So the cultural concept is nearest to 1/2 eunuch and 1/2 intersex.

If you were to take the words 'ladyboy' and 'shemale' Semantically, at face value, without certain acquired connotations, they would ironically come close to expressing a biological male, who is without male-ness, and thus naturally part female, both explaining their natural demeanor and looks, and prescribing for them a social role, which is closer to that of women.

I don't think of gays or lesbians as 100% men or women, tbh. Just a few years, ago, the notion of 'brain intersex' was commonplace to explain matters of sexual orientation. Well if they are 'born that way', they can't be 'just like you and me' and they must also be pathological. Depending how much of it is nature, as opposed to how much is nurture, of course. They do have atypicalities in their behaviors, and their digit ratios, but these are biased towards the effeminate homosexuals. Well doesn't that point us back to square one