4 ms·

Can you spell out what’s insane about AB 957? Because that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

by drewrv 3y ago

junofan 3y ago
It’s poorly drafted, and family law isn’t an appropriate place for the state to take positions on emerging medical issues. Imagine if such a bill enshrined a parent’s affirmation of the violent psychiatric treatments of the 1930s and 1940s. Wiser to let the courts figure out this issue using their current tools.
- drewrv 3y ago
  The courts will continue to have substantial leeway and the bill makes no mention of medical care: “Democratic California lawmakers have approved a bill that would instruct courts to consider, among many other factors, whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identity when making custody and visitation decisions.” https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-critics-twist-california-bill-weigh-gender-103133844 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-cri...
frellus 3y ago
It assumes that what is in the best interest of the child is to affirm their feelings of gender dysphoria with a name change, and that the court can consider this and grant a name change over the parent's objections. Why am I against this? It is against parental rights. It takes away the rights of a parent to name their child and raise them as they see fit, and hands it to the state. I won't even get into what happens with children experiencing gender dysphoria and how the mental health profession is (mis)handling the vast majority of these by affirming the child's dysphoria, and the pressure parents receive that if they do not affirm their child's desire to transition they are putting them at mortal risk. I don't agree with any of this for children who cannot consent to any other things, legally, until they reach the age of majority. Once they do, it's up to them how to live their lives (with, or without, their parents' support). Nor is this to say I do not believe children have rights, but I see what these family courts do and in a lot of cases how biased they are, I do not think anything good would come of this law pure and simple.

Can you spell out what’s insane about AB 957? Because that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

by drewrv 3y ago

Can you spell out what’s insane about AB 957? Because that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

It’s poorly drafted, and family law isn’t an appropriate place for the state to take positions on emerging medical issues. Imagine if such a bill enshrined a parent’s affirmation of the violent psychiatric treatments of the 1930s and 1940s. Wiser to let the courts figure out this issue using their current tools.

drewrv 3y ago
The courts will continue to have substantial leeway and the bill makes no mention of medical care: “Democratic California lawmakers have approved a bill that would instruct courts to consider, among many other factors, whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identity when making custody and visitation decisions.” https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-critics-twist-california-bill-weigh-gender-103133844 https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-cri...

frellus 3y ago

It assumes that what is in the best interest of the child is to affirm their feelings of gender dysphoria with a name change, and that the court can consider this and grant a name change over the parent's objections. Why am I against this? It is against parental rights. It takes away the rights of a parent to name their child and raise them as they see fit, and hands it to the state. I won't even get into what happens with children experiencing gender dysphoria and how the mental health profession is (mis)handling the vast majority of these by affirming the child's dysphoria, and the pressure parents receive that if they do not affirm their child's desire to transition they are putting them at mortal risk. I don't agree with any of this for children who cannot consent to any other things, legally, until they reach the age of majority. Once they do, it's up to them how to live their lives (with, or without, their parents' support). Nor is this to say I do not believe children have rights, but I see what these family courts do and in a lot of cases how biased they are, I do not think anything good would come of this law pure and simple.