to whoever posted this, this is misinformation at best, fake news at worst. while the trail did award the mother full custody, "chemical castration" won't be occuring. Hormone blockers, which is the medication in question, (which isn't started until the child starts puberty, so in another four years or so until ANY medical intervention occurs). IS COMPLETELY REVERSIBLE. Google Texas transgender child and this case will come up. no one should trust a random twitter account for political news, that's how people end up radicalized (such as anti-vaxx).
The kid's mom, siblings, teachers, doctors, school counselors, classmates, have all said that they consistently for years have wanted to live as a female. The Dad is the only one who says otherwise. Mind you, they aren't making any medical transitions at this point. No transition surgery is legal until 18, when the kid is making the decision on their own anyway. At the age of twelve, you would potentially put them on hormone blockers, to TEMPORARILY delay the onset of male puberty (which is noted by psychologists to be very emotionally destructive to transgender youth). The ruling basically means that the kid gets to wear the clothes they want or get called the name they want at school, which I'm not sure the government should really have that much a hand in anyway, as long as school clothes are "appropriate" and whatnot. There are so many witnesses INCLUDING THE KID saying this is
how they want to live. Again, when we're talking about transitioning when it comes to children this young, it doesn't mean anything medical. The kid isn't doing anything permanent, but his father won't let them dress or use the name they prefer. The vast majority of psychology studies indicate this is harmful for the child.
Whether or not you agree with my stance on transgender issues, I think it's important to acknowledge that this is false information, and the spread of it on any platform is really truly harmful. It's contributed greatly to polarization and hatred of those with different political beliefs.
Correction: it looks like the ruling was changed to joint custody instead of the previous ruling of custody for the mother. I wanted to point out something suprising when I read up on the case since it's been updated. The father has earned $$$$$ from crowdfunding a campaign to remove the child from their mother. (Forbes said at least $80,000, vox reports $139,000. I'm not supportive of the father making the trial so public, especially because he clearly gained so much money from it.
Thanks so much for doing the research! I really appreciate this, 'cause I must admit I was suuuuper biased against the mom. That tweet really does twist the story.
As long as you also realize that just because a kid wants something doesn't mean it's good for them. That's what parents are for, to provide that buffer between possible destructive behavior and guiding them safely. The kid's 7 so who knows if they'll continue to want what they want now in the future. It's a serious issue when parents stop being parents and start being vending machines for their kids wants.
Comments