Groomers aka sexual predators

mrussel1

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Another common title also includes Democrats. 

https://komonews.com/news/local/senate-bill-5599-washington-state-transgender-trans-at-risk-youth-gender-affirming-reproductive-care-without-parental-consent-governor-jay-inslee-family-foster-homeless-children-families-minors-law-legislation

Democrats in Washington want the ability to hide children away their parents so they can swap their junk like a Mr. Potato Head doll. Children can't get a tattoo, buy cigarettes or alcohol but Democrats want them to be able to make life altering decisions without parental consent and not only that, hide the children from the parents. Democrats are a bunch of sick fucks. 

What disingenuous language (from you and from the article - unsurprised on both counts).

Reading the actual bill yields actual information about what will actually happen (fucking go figure).

There are compelling reasons for parents not to be notified about their child's presence in a shelter - if a parent or legal guardian will subject the minor to abuse or neglect; or when a minor is seeking or receiving protected health care services. As explained by the proposers of the law, this is to try to curb the significant suicide rate amongst transgender homeless people.

Also, is your complaint that children SHOULD be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, and alcohol? My god am I ever glad you're on a Pearl Jam forum, instead of someone who does something that matters on the topic.

I don't understand how you ever thought that my complaint was that kids should be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, etc.... The answer is no. I don't think they should be able to do any of those things just like I don't believe kids should be able to have gender reassigning treatment. I have no issue if adults want to make this decision for themselves. 

"There is no such thing as someone else's child. No such thing as someone else's child. Our nation's children are all our children." - Joe Biden

The government has no right hiding children away from parents without undeniable proof that they are being abused and this bill doesn't account for that.

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. Kids aren't always honest and this law is going to hurt more families than it will help. Of course there are legitimate situations where this really does happen and I feel bad for it but it isn't fair to punish all parents in Washington state. The bill was signed today.

“Among its many flaws, the bill assumes families that don’t ‘affirm’ a child’s short-term desires are being abusive. Wrong! Sometimes love requires parents to not affirm their child’s whims. Loving parents guide their children as they grow. Sometimes that means saying ‘no,’ ” Rep. Jim Walsh (R-19)

This same reasoning could be applied to kids that want to do drugs(which are aren't illegal in Washington state). If a kid wants to do drugs and the parents don't approve, should the government be able to take the kids away? No. 

Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder and Democrats are pushing it on our children and trying to normalize it. "A groomer is someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them."

How could a 4 year old possibly understand gender dysphoria? Yet Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions. This is child abuse and fits the definition of a "groomer". 

"Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions"  

All democrats?  A democrat?  A liberal?  Who precisely are you talking about?  I'm a Democrat and I'm not pushing for this.  

Regarding the bill, doing nothing further than reading the article, it says "The bill requires DCYF to make referrals on behalf of the minor for appropriate behavioral health services; and offer services designed to resolve the conflict and accomplish a reunification of the family."

It doesn't say anything about putting a child through surgery, with or without parental notice.  How are you getting from the language in this article to 4 year olds having surgery?  

I've never heard of any Republicans pushing for gender affirming care in youth. I've seen plenty of Democrats pushing for this. All Democrats, of course not, but there are Democrats are pushing this.

The state no longer has to inform the parents where their kids are. They only have to inform DCYF. It used to be that the state had to inform the parents in 72 hours but if the state now gets to make that decision without actual proof. It does say that the state will offer services to resolve the conflict and accomplish reunification but that is not a requirement.

Appropriate behavorial health services includes gender affirming care which the state will now be sharing with youth without parental consent.

“I look forward to a future in Washington where every single family supports their trans youth to achieve the care and success that they need,” he said. “Until that day it’s up to us to make sure that there are safe places for them to learn and grow and thrive.”

“Our hope is for every child to live in a safe and supportive home that is open to a conversation about necessary medical, behavioral, social and psychological care,” Senator Liias (D-Everett), along with Senator Joe Nguyen (D-White Center), wrote in a Seattle Times op-ed. “But that is not always the case, so it’s crucial that we make sure there are supports available and that kids aren’t left vulnerable on the streets.”

It's clear that Democrats in Washington state think they know what's best for the youth but it is taking away parental rights which is scary.

So to be clear, gender affirming care is more than just surgery and hormone therapy.  Does this bill allow for hormone and surgery without parental consent or not?  

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Another common title also includes Democrats. 

https://komonews.com/news/local/senate-bill-5599-washington-state-transgender-trans-at-risk-youth-gender-affirming-reproductive-care-without-parental-consent-governor-jay-inslee-family-foster-homeless-children-families-minors-law-legislation

Democrats in Washington want the ability to hide children away their parents so they can swap their junk like a Mr. Potato Head doll. Children can't get a tattoo, buy cigarettes or alcohol but Democrats want them to be able to make life altering decisions without parental consent and not only that, hide the children from the parents. Democrats are a bunch of sick fucks. 

What disingenuous language (from you and from the article - unsurprised on both counts).

Reading the actual bill yields actual information about what will actually happen (fucking go figure).

There are compelling reasons for parents not to be notified about their child's presence in a shelter - if a parent or legal guardian will subject the minor to abuse or neglect; or when a minor is seeking or receiving protected health care services. As explained by the proposers of the law, this is to try to curb the significant suicide rate amongst transgender homeless people.

Also, is your complaint that children SHOULD be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, and alcohol? My god am I ever glad you're on a Pearl Jam forum, instead of someone who does something that matters on the topic.

I don't understand how you ever thought that my complaint was that kids should be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, etc.... The answer is no. I don't think they should be able to do any of those things just like I don't believe kids should be able to have gender reassigning treatment. I have no issue if adults want to make this decision for themselves. 

"There is no such thing as someone else's child. No such thing as someone else's child. Our nation's children are all our children." - Joe Biden

The government has no right hiding children away from parents without undeniable proof that they are being abused and this bill doesn't account for that.

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. Kids aren't always honest and this law is going to hurt more families than it will help. Of course there are legitimate situations where this really does happen and I feel bad for it but it isn't fair to punish all parents in Washington state. The bill was signed today.

“Among its many flaws, the bill assumes families that don’t ‘affirm’ a child’s short-term desires are being abusive. Wrong! Sometimes love requires parents to not affirm their child’s whims. Loving parents guide their children as they grow. Sometimes that means saying ‘no,’ ” Rep. Jim Walsh (R-19)

This same reasoning could be applied to kids that want to do drugs(which are aren't illegal in Washington state). If a kid wants to do drugs and the parents don't approve, should the government be able to take the kids away? No. 

Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder and Democrats are pushing it on our children and trying to normalize it. "A groomer is someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them."

How could a 4 year old possibly understand gender dysphoria? Yet Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions. This is child abuse and fits the definition of a "groomer". 

"Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions"  

All democrats?  A democrat?  A liberal?  Who precisely are you talking about?  I'm a Democrat and I'm not pushing for this.  

Regarding the bill, doing nothing further than reading the article, it says "The bill requires DCYF to make referrals on behalf of the minor for appropriate behavioral health services; and offer services designed to resolve the conflict and accomplish a reunification of the family."

It doesn't say anything about putting a child through surgery, with or without parental notice.  How are you getting from the language in this article to 4 year olds having surgery?  

I don't know if I would say they are pushing for those changes. But a lot of people got very upset when certain states pass laws that ban certain drugs and surgeries before a certain age. That's what I assumed he was talking about. 
Public health officials have set guidelines when kids should and should not take hormones or have surgery. When Texas and other states proposed a bill that followed those guidelines, It was labeled as transphobia. Even false claims that it was now illegal to be trans in that state, and parents would be charged with child abuse if your kid was trans. None of that was true, but but it was being shared, even had a thread about it here.

So that's very interesting and flies in the face of JB's argument, doesn't it?  His punch line above is "It's clear that Democrats in Washington state think they know what's best for the youth but it is taking away parental rights which is scary."

In Texas and other states, a parent and child CANNOT collectively decide to provide gender affirming care.  Isn't that the gov't taking away the parents rights?  It's the same thing.  

That's not entirely true. There are just limitations on what they can do. And, from what I can tell, those limitations follow the guidelines of medical professionals. For example, Certain drugs are not recommended for people under 16, so its illegal to give them to someone 15 and under.
There is nothing illegal about general gender affirming care. But it was being sold to the public as Texas is making it illegal to be trans, and if you're a boy and wear a dress to school your parents will be arrested for child abuse. And if you're a teacher and don't report it, you'll be fired. That is 100% not true.

So when a state passes laws that follow medical recommendations, and people get all up in arms over it, portray it to mean something that it doesn't, it definitely comes across as pushing one agenda and ignoring the health and safety of the child.

The government has always given boundaries for parents' rights. Some extreme religions don't believe in medicine. The government will allow you to follow that up to a certain point. At some point the government will consider it child abuse if the child is in need of medical care and put the child's safety over the beliefs of the parent. I don't see this any different. If some medications are believed to cause harm to a child, some states won't allow you to give that medication to a child. I really don't understand why anyone is against that, and why its progressive to just do whatever you want to a child. 

HughFreakingDillon

JB16057 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

JB16057 said:

Another common title also includes Democrats. 

https://komonews.com/news/local/senate-bill-5599-washington-state-transgender-trans-at-risk-youth-gender-affirming-reproductive-care-without-parental-consent-governor-jay-inslee-family-foster-homeless-children-families-minors-law-legislation

Democrats in Washington want the ability to hide children away their parents so they can swap their junk like a Mr. Potato Head doll. Children can't get a tattoo, buy cigarettes or alcohol but Democrats want them to be able to make life altering decisions without parental consent and not only that, hide the children from the parents. Democrats are a bunch of sick fucks. 

I’m sorry. I’m not trying to make things personal. But painting an entire political party with that brush is a sign of serious delusion and brainwashing and/or unhinged anger. 

I’d urge you to challenge your sources and maybe seek out actual truth. 

Remember: republicans are the ones who look the other way with guys like Roy Moore and rapist-in-chief DJT, Lauren Boebert (who stood behind her husband, convicted of exposing himself to minors). Need I go on? 

Sickness doesn’t generally subscribe to a particular political leaning. But conservative Christians sure do LOVE their altar boys…and Republican politicians. There’s a reason those robes are so heavy. 

Painting an entire political party with a brush happens pretty much every day here on ATM but I don't see you calling it out when it's Democrats calling all Republicans evil. 

edit: Also, to be fair to you, you're one of the only ones on here that has slightly defended me at least one time. 

I have done so, many, many times. 

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Another common title also includes Democrats. 

https://komonews.com/news/local/senate-bill-5599-washington-state-transgender-trans-at-risk-youth-gender-affirming-reproductive-care-without-parental-consent-governor-jay-inslee-family-foster-homeless-children-families-minors-law-legislation

Democrats in Washington want the ability to hide children away their parents so they can swap their junk like a Mr. Potato Head doll. Children can't get a tattoo, buy cigarettes or alcohol but Democrats want them to be able to make life altering decisions without parental consent and not only that, hide the children from the parents. Democrats are a bunch of sick fucks. 

What disingenuous language (from you and from the article - unsurprised on both counts).

Reading the actual bill yields actual information about what will actually happen (fucking go figure).

There are compelling reasons for parents not to be notified about their child's presence in a shelter - if a parent or legal guardian will subject the minor to abuse or neglect; or when a minor is seeking or receiving protected health care services. As explained by the proposers of the law, this is to try to curb the significant suicide rate amongst transgender homeless people.

Also, is your complaint that children SHOULD be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, and alcohol? My god am I ever glad you're on a Pearl Jam forum, instead of someone who does something that matters on the topic.

I don't understand how you ever thought that my complaint was that kids should be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, etc.... The answer is no. I don't think they should be able to do any of those things just like I don't believe kids should be able to have gender reassigning treatment. I have no issue if adults want to make this decision for themselves. 

"There is no such thing as someone else's child. No such thing as someone else's child. Our nation's children are all our children." - Joe Biden

The government has no right hiding children away from parents without undeniable proof that they are being abused and this bill doesn't account for that.

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. Kids aren't always honest and this law is going to hurt more families than it will help. Of course there are legitimate situations where this really does happen and I feel bad for it but it isn't fair to punish all parents in Washington state. The bill was signed today.

“Among its many flaws, the bill assumes families that don’t ‘affirm’ a child’s short-term desires are being abusive. Wrong! Sometimes love requires parents to not affirm their child’s whims. Loving parents guide their children as they grow. Sometimes that means saying ‘no,’ ” Rep. Jim Walsh (R-19)

This same reasoning could be applied to kids that want to do drugs(which are aren't illegal in Washington state). If a kid wants to do drugs and the parents don't approve, should the government be able to take the kids away? No. 

Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder and Democrats are pushing it on our children and trying to normalize it. "A groomer is someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them."

How could a 4 year old possibly understand gender dysphoria? Yet Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions. This is child abuse and fits the definition of a "groomer". 

"Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions"  

All democrats?  A democrat?  A liberal?  Who precisely are you talking about?  I'm a Democrat and I'm not pushing for this.  

Regarding the bill, doing nothing further than reading the article, it says "The bill requires DCYF to make referrals on behalf of the minor for appropriate behavioral health services; and offer services designed to resolve the conflict and accomplish a reunification of the family."

It doesn't say anything about putting a child through surgery, with or without parental notice.  How are you getting from the language in this article to 4 year olds having surgery?  

I don't know if I would say they are pushing for those changes. But a lot of people got very upset when certain states pass laws that ban certain drugs and surgeries before a certain age. That's what I assumed he was talking about. 
Public health officials have set guidelines when kids should and should not take hormones or have surgery. When Texas and other states proposed a bill that followed those guidelines, It was labeled as transphobia. Even false claims that it was now illegal to be trans in that state, and parents would be charged with child abuse if your kid was trans. None of that was true, but but it was being shared, even had a thread about it here.

So that's very interesting and flies in the face of JB's argument, doesn't it?  His punch line above is "It's clear that Democrats in Washington state think they know what's best for the youth but it is taking away parental rights which is scary."

In Texas and other states, a parent and child CANNOT collectively decide to provide gender affirming care.  Isn't that the gov't taking away the parents rights?  It's the same thing.  

That's not entirely true. There are just limitations on what they can do. And, from what I can tell, those limitations follow the guidelines of medical professionals. For example, Certain drugs are not recommended for people under 16, so its illegal to give them to someone 15 and under.
There is nothing illegal about general gender affirming care. But it was being sold to the public as Texas is making it illegal to be trans, and if you're a boy and wear a dress to school your parents will be arrested for child abuse. And if you're a teacher and don't report it, you'll be fired. That is 100% not true.

So when a state passes laws that follow medical recommendations, and people get all up in arms over it, portray it to mean something that it doesn't, it definitely comes across as pushing one agenda and ignoring the health and safety of the child.

The government has always given boundaries for parents' rights. Some extreme religions don't believe in medicine. The government will allow you to follow that up to a certain point. At some point the government will consider it child abuse if the child is in need of medical care and put the child's safety over the beliefs of the parent. I don't see this any different. If some medications are believed to cause harm to a child, some states won't allow you to give that medication to a child. I really don't understand why anyone is against that, and why its progressive to just do whatever you want to a child. 

Not so sure your statement is true. The bill advancing now, likely to pass, will ban surgeries and puberty blockers.  Neither the AMA or the Pediatric society support this position.  So they aren't following science or the standards that the state follows for basically every other medical and mental health situation.  Isn't that odd? Why do you think that is?

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/14/texas-gender-affirming-care-kids-legislature/#:~:text=Texas House panel advances bills,previous versions of the legislation.

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

benjs said:

JB16057 said:

Another common title also includes Democrats. 

https://komonews.com/news/local/senate-bill-5599-washington-state-transgender-trans-at-risk-youth-gender-affirming-reproductive-care-without-parental-consent-governor-jay-inslee-family-foster-homeless-children-families-minors-law-legislation

Democrats in Washington want the ability to hide children away their parents so they can swap their junk like a Mr. Potato Head doll. Children can't get a tattoo, buy cigarettes or alcohol but Democrats want them to be able to make life altering decisions without parental consent and not only that, hide the children from the parents. Democrats are a bunch of sick fucks. 

What disingenuous language (from you and from the article - unsurprised on both counts).

Reading the actual bill yields actual information about what will actually happen (fucking go figure).

There are compelling reasons for parents not to be notified about their child's presence in a shelter - if a parent or legal guardian will subject the minor to abuse or neglect; or when a minor is seeking or receiving protected health care services. As explained by the proposers of the law, this is to try to curb the significant suicide rate amongst transgender homeless people.

Also, is your complaint that children SHOULD be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, and alcohol? My god am I ever glad you're on a Pearl Jam forum, instead of someone who does something that matters on the topic.

I don't understand how you ever thought that my complaint was that kids should be able to get a tattoo, buy cigarettes, etc.... The answer is no. I don't think they should be able to do any of those things just like I don't believe kids should be able to have gender reassigning treatment. I have no issue if adults want to make this decision for themselves. 

"There is no such thing as someone else's child. No such thing as someone else's child. Our nation's children are all our children." - Joe Biden

The government has no right hiding children away from parents without undeniable proof that they are being abused and this bill doesn't account for that.

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. Kids aren't always honest and this law is going to hurt more families than it will help. Of course there are legitimate situations where this really does happen and I feel bad for it but it isn't fair to punish all parents in Washington state. The bill was signed today.

“Among its many flaws, the bill assumes families that don’t ‘affirm’ a child’s short-term desires are being abusive. Wrong! Sometimes love requires parents to not affirm their child’s whims. Loving parents guide their children as they grow. Sometimes that means saying ‘no,’ ” Rep. Jim Walsh (R-19)

This same reasoning could be applied to kids that want to do drugs(which are aren't illegal in Washington state). If a kid wants to do drugs and the parents don't approve, should the government be able to take the kids away? No. 

Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder and Democrats are pushing it on our children and trying to normalize it. "A groomer is someone who builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them."

How could a 4 year old possibly understand gender dysphoria? Yet Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions. This is child abuse and fits the definition of a "groomer". 

"Democrats are pushing for kids this young to make life altering decisions"  

All democrats?  A democrat?  A liberal?  Who precisely are you talking about?  I'm a Democrat and I'm not pushing for this.  

Regarding the bill, doing nothing further than reading the article, it says "The bill requires DCYF to make referrals on behalf of the minor for appropriate behavioral health services; and offer services designed to resolve the conflict and accomplish a reunification of the family."

It doesn't say anything about putting a child through surgery, with or without parental notice.  How are you getting from the language in this article to 4 year olds having surgery?  

I don't know if I would say they are pushing for those changes. But a lot of people got very upset when certain states pass laws that ban certain drugs and surgeries before a certain age. That's what I assumed he was talking about. 
Public health officials have set guidelines when kids should and should not take hormones or have surgery. When Texas and other states proposed a bill that followed those guidelines, It was labeled as transphobia. Even false claims that it was now illegal to be trans in that state, and parents would be charged with child abuse if your kid was trans. None of that was true, but but it was being shared, even had a thread about it here.

So that's very interesting and flies in the face of JB's argument, doesn't it?  His punch line above is "It's clear that Democrats in Washington state think they know what's best for the youth but it is taking away parental rights which is scary."

In Texas and other states, a parent and child CANNOT collectively decide to provide gender affirming care.  Isn't that the gov't taking away the parents rights?  It's the same thing.  

That's not entirely true. There are just limitations on what they can do. And, from what I can tell, those limitations follow the guidelines of medical professionals. For example, Certain drugs are not recommended for people under 16, so its illegal to give them to someone 15 and under.
There is nothing illegal about general gender affirming care. But it was being sold to the public as Texas is making it illegal to be trans, and if you're a boy and wear a dress to school your parents will be arrested for child abuse. And if you're a teacher and don't report it, you'll be fired. That is 100% not true.

So when a state passes laws that follow medical recommendations, and people get all up in arms over it, portray it to mean something that it doesn't, it definitely comes across as pushing one agenda and ignoring the health and safety of the child.

The government has always given boundaries for parents' rights. Some extreme religions don't believe in medicine. The government will allow you to follow that up to a certain point. At some point the government will consider it child abuse if the child is in need of medical care and put the child's safety over the beliefs of the parent. I don't see this any different. If some medications are believed to cause harm to a child, some states won't allow you to give that medication to a child. I really don't understand why anyone is against that, and why its progressive to just do whatever you want to a child. 

Not so sure your statement is true. The bill advancing now, likely to pass, will ban surgeries and puberty blockers.  Neither the AMA or the Pediatric society support this position.  So they aren't following science or the standards that the state follows for basically every other medical and mental health situation.  Isn't that odd? Why do you think that is?

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/14/texas-gender-affirming-care-kids-legislature/#:~:text=Texas House panel advances bills,previous versions of the legislation.

That was from a few weeks ago, so I'm not familiar with the most recent change. I know the previous ones prohibited blockers before a certain age based on medical guidelines. I don't know what these new restrictions are. I'll read more of it when I have time.

mace1229

I think last time I read up on it there was more focus on the hormone therapy and surgery and there might be more recommendations against using those before a certain age than there are puberty blockers. The previous bills I saw focused on prohibiting hormone therapy before 16, which was the recommended age, and people were very angry.

I'm not sure what the medical field says about the blockers, I am interested in reading on that later.

mrussel1

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

HughFreakingDillon

isn't "sexually" open to interpretation? some cons think all gay people are groomers, for example. they will argue just dressing in drag would constitute a sexual performance. 

OnWis97

HughFreakingDillon said:

isn't "sexually" open to interpretation? some cons think all gay people are groomers, for example. they will argue just dressing in drag would constitute a sexual performance. 

Yeah. Selective enforcement is going to be key in some places.

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

JB16057

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

mrussel1

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

HughFreakingDillon

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

this is the inconsistency many of us see in the R party. everything is "freedom this, freedom that, fuck your mandates, stay out of my life" until it's not "mandate your bedroom (sodomy laws)" "you can't get married" "I'm going to tell you what you can/can't do with your kids" because you guys think you get to draw the line. 

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

JB16057

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

If you take your kids to a movie to see an R rated film, you can do research to see how much "sex" they'll be exposed to. I don't agree that parents should do this(in some instances) but it is their choice but there are tools to be informed on what you're taking them to. I've let my kids watch some R rated movies but not all. 

It isn't right to expect going to a G rated drag show and seeing an R rated drag show which has happened. Probably not super often but it has happened. If you were to ask me to vote on banning "sexualized" drag shows, I would vote no. I don't think I have that right to draw that line because it isn't fair to drag shows in general. I don't think it's worth punishing a whole group of people because of a few bad apples but that does happen all day long. 

JB16057

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

Did you read the law and understand it? There doesn't have to be proof that the child is in danger. It can be made up and the state will go along with it and withhold the location of your child from the parent. That is not OK.