Should minors who wish to leave their parents' religion be given legal protections?

[John Dule]

Are you assuming drag queen = gay?

No? I'm saying that drag queens have a historical connection to the LGBT community. Anyone even remotely familiar with LGBT history would know this.

She's right, though. Numerous "drag queens" at those events have been exposed as sex offenders. And this is not about gay people being pedophiles; this is about drag queens being pedophiles.

There are pedophiles in every walk of life - teachers, coaches, priests, family members. Assuming that all drag queens are pedophiles is what I'm criticizing.

And yet those other professions actually contribute something to society (yes, even priests). Drag queens, meanwhile, are an offensive and misogynistic caricature of both gay men and women. They should be socially isolated and shunned.

[John Dule]

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Unless they're trans minors seeking medically necessary healthcare, right?

I addressed that question already in this thread. Use your eyes.

[John Dule]

My bad, I forgot that libertarianism requires me to view minors as less-than-human and undeserving of basic rights and freedoms.

Unless they're trans minors seeking medically necessary healthcare, right?

I addressed that question already in this thread. Use your eyes.

And you continued to operate on the incorrect premise that transition is done for fun rather than for the necessary medical treatment of dysphoria, a condition whose sufferers you once claimed to have the utmost sympathy for while opposing its treatment. To force people into the wrong bodies is to view them as less-than-human.

Children have the right to identify with any religion or gender they choose. If that religion or gender requires them to physically alter otherwise healthy parts of their body, then the choice should not be left up to them.

Trans people aren't choosing their gender like a religion. Gender and religion are not comparable. Gender isn't  a party line requiring people to alter "healthy parts of the body" the way religions dictate certain behaviors. And those body parts are not healthy, hence why their presence on trans people's bodies leads to often suicidal levels of distress, and if one transitions after their birth puberty has already completed, particularly if they're a trans woman, the unchangeable features from their birth sex leave them exposed and clockable to violent transphobes who will try to kill them for using the bathroom. Transitioning is medically necessary. Circumcision for religious reasons isn't. They are not the same.

Admit it. You've carved out an exception for trans people in an otherwise consistent philosophy of libertarian principles. Why you did that, I don't know (but I have my speculations), but you did it. Your hardline opposition to the liberty of trans youth is not ideologically consistent.

I have given you my answer to this multiple times. I am not going to waste the time it takes to type it out again, especially if you continue to be too dense to understand what I am saying.

[John Dule]

Says the person who is top dense to realize A) transitioning is medically necessary and B) expanding access to hormones for minors does not equate to genital surgery.

I never denied either of those things.

[John Dule]

Says the person who is top dense to realize A) transitioning is medically necessary and B) expanding access to hormones for minors does not equate to genital surgery.

I never denied either of those things.

That's just untrue. On multiple occasions when you've been pressed on why you carve out this ideologically inconsistent, unscientific stance, you go on about genital surgery and ignore hormone therapy, when I make it clear that I'm talking about HRT and not surgery. Learn2Read. And if you do not deny medical necessity of transitioning for transitioning, then forget ideological consistency; it's cruelty you have to answer for.

I don't think you even read my posts, to be honest. You just respond with a word salad refuting arguments nobody was making. Practice reading and then replying to the words other people write for while, and then maybe we can have a conversation.

Jesus Christ.

You need to stop. Seriously. This constant badgering of other users with random non-sequiturs-- responding to arguments they didn't even make-- is not a good look. As I've said multiple times, it is the permanence and irreversibility of the procedure (whether that is a surgery or hormone therapy) that I object to. This is why I have now said numerous times that I don't oppose the use of puberty blockers. This is a perfectly ideologically consistent delineation. Stop. Posting.

Also, it's unbelievable how the mods treat you with kiddie gloves whenever you start these exchanges.

[John Dule]

Your OP is that parents be barred from exercising normal parental discretion if their child chooses to "opt-out" of church/religious teaching.  You've softened this position to something more like a hypothetical ban on infant circumcision, which is facially an idea worth debating on its merits but is still something only Reddit edgelords care anything about.   

What would you categorize as "normal parental discretion" in the case of a minor refusing to participate in cult rituals?

Jesus Christ, dude, you don't drink, you don't smoke, you think drag queens are offensive...what do you do for fun?

Mostly I hike. If you'd like a fuller understanding of what I do in my spare time, go to 37°56'37.9"N 122°37'30.9"W and dig.

[John Dule]

Your OP is that parents be barred from exercising normal parental discretion if their child chooses to "opt-out" of church/religious teaching.  You've softened this position to something more like a hypothetical ban on infant circumcision, which is facially an idea worth debating on its merits but is still something only Reddit edgelords care anything about.   

What would you categorize as "normal parental discretion" in the case of a minor refusing to participate in cult rituals?

You're going to have to be more specific, as the exact context is important.  How old is the child and what exactly is he refusing to do?  Normal parental discretion includes interventions across all four quadrants of the operant conditioning matrix

Earlier in this thread I alluded to the fact that this would only apply to young adults, so let's say a 15-year-old. Let's say he refuses to say grace, attend church services, or go to Sunday school.

[John Dule]

Your OP is that parents be barred from exercising normal parental discretion if their child chooses to "opt-out" of church/religious teaching.  You've softened this position to something more like a hypothetical ban on infant circumcision, which is facially an idea worth debating on its merits but is still something only Reddit edgelords care anything about.   

What would you categorize as "normal parental discretion" in the case of a minor refusing to participate in cult rituals?

You're going to have to be more specific, as the exact context is important.  How old is the child and what exactly is he refusing to do?  Normal parental discretion includes interventions across all four quadrants of the operant conditioning matrix

Earlier in this thread I alluded to the fact that this would only apply to young adults, so let's say a 15-year-old. Let's say he refuses to say grace, attend church services, or go to Sunday school.

The parents could ground him.  Revoke his social media/video game privileges.  Not allow him to go out with friends on the weekends.

The list of possible reactions is almost infinite.  What's your point?

Ok, and I wouldn't argue that these decisions would rise to the level of abuse at first. If the kid were kept in isolation from his friends for an extended period of time, however, I'm sure you would agree that that would rise to such a level.

[John Dule]

If we're talking something like a Fundamentalist LDS sect or Scientology's Sea Org, sure. But most of that already falls under existing child abuse and endangerment laws. You can't exactly ban a parent from requiring their kids go to religious worship weekly (and we shouldn't, to be clear).

And I didn't suggest we should as a matter of policy. What I said is that we should be more zealous in our use of CPS to intervene in situations where parents are forcing their children to be members of their cult via abusive, coercive methods.

[John Dule]

How often do you think this happens?

I don't know. Do you?