[a_subsystem]

The blatant egotism/authoritarianism in this thread of believing that the government somehow has a right or duty to raise one's children is stunning.

I have a relative (11 yo) is was an absolute gem of a human. I had noticed over the last 4-5 years she was becoming more reclusive, quiet, and sad in demeanor. She left public school and began homeschooling last year, and it has absolutely turned her life completely around. She is once again becoming more vibrant, enthused for life, and is thriving with new friends from her various weekly activities. I asked her if she liked her new coop school she attends (once per week) and of it she says 'there is way less drama'.

Why does anyone think the potential for abuse by the education system itself and peers therein is less likely than abuse by the family? In fact, my children are now legally allowed to become sterilized in the state of California during school time and that's allowed to be kept secret for me. That is legalized abuse.

For all the problems homeschooling might have, I believe the risks of 'unchecked child welfare' via family/community education FAR outweight the risks of the government run daycare centers on any day. Look at the outcomes: homeschoolers consistently score higher on standardized tests.

[no_wizard]

>In fact, my children are now legally allowed to become sterilized in the state of California during school time and that's allowed to be kept secret for me. That is legalized abuse.

Citation needed. I can find no evidence that this claim is true. In all likelihood, I'm assuming you're talking about SB 107[0] (if not, please link to what you are referencing). This bill is is meant to protect transgender youth and their families who seek refuge in California from other states that discriminate against them for seeking gender affirming care. Which is not sterilization.

[0]: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/oct/31/instagram-...

[1]: Not the forced sterilization program that ran until 1979, which has since ended and there are reparations available for. Sad, tragic, ultimately not what I think this is about though.

[a_subsystem]

Yes, SB107. The bill that enables CA to take custody of your kid if they go there for the purpose of 'gender affirming care'.

Since you appear to like leftist news rags (like politifact):

https://www.newsweek.com/california-attacks-parents-rights-u...

Puberty blockers cause sterilization.

https://wng.org/roundups/study-effects-of-puberty-blockers-c...

Cutting off a healthy boy's dick and testicles is sterilization. Do I need to link to something for that to back up that claim?

In the future, we will look back on the whole of 'gender affirming care' in wonder at how brainless and cruel we could have been to children.

[no_wizard]

First lets address the Newsweek Op Ed, is written by Emilie Kao[0] and Jay Richards[1], both members of the conservative (commonly considered "far right" politically) organization The Heritage Foundation, which has a history of open hostility toward LGBTQ+ and womens rights[2][3].

This is not what I would call "an unbiased source", by any means, and critically the article itself lacks actual citations of the bill that support their position, instead citing a blog written by another conservative (also commonly considered far right) political organization named Alliance Defending Freedom (or ADF), which itself does not directly cite SB 107 either. Rather, it is pure conjecture on their part as to how SB 107 "violates parental rights".

SB 107, from its own text[4], seeks to protect the rights of those who seek gender affirming care will block the release of information, even under subpoena, if under the guise of civil or criminal action against a person or entity that allowed a child to receive gender affirming care or gender affirming mental health care. Meaning, for example, if parents are divorced and one of the parents decides to seek gender affirming care for their child in California, the other parent, if under the guise of such discriminatory law, were to subpoena that information, the state of California will block the subpoena and strictly prohibits law enforcement entities from knowingly making or participating in the arrest or extradition of an individual pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant based on another state’s law against providing, receiving, or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care in this state [California].

This is no different than seeking other valid medical treatment in the eyes of California (and for FWIW, the majority of Americans) and is protected from criminality due to another states laws.

As for World News Group (or WNG as they are known) that is another conservative (in this case news media) organization that prominently advocates anti-LGBTQ+ politics, is not either an unbiased source.

Now as for the sources cited in the WNG, they either no longer exist (the supposed doctor's Tweets have since been deleted it appears and their own article link is no longer valid) or those studies do not say what they purport to say what they claim

For instance, the Endocrine paper[5] states the following

>Medical intervention for transgender youth and adults (including puberty suppression, hormone therapy and medically indicated surgery) is effective, relatively safe (when appropriately monitored), and has been established as the standard of care.

All the sources that supposedly back up the WNG position their links to the Twitter account for user "mlaidlawmd" are broken, missing or otherwise were taken down by the author, though I suspect this wouldn't be considered an unbiased source either.

As for the last piece, I couldn't find anything in SB 107 with regards to removing anyones genitalia, is not what Gender Affirming care provides in the first place with regards to LGBTQ+ youth specifically.

At the end of the day, the opposition to SB 107 is an opposition to LGTQ+ rights and sees gender affirming care and trans people as a problem (or worse yet, things that shouldn't exit). I do not see a way of interpreting SB 107 as a violation of parental rights without this underlying supposition. Replacing "Gender Affirming Care" with "Life Saving Intervention" or "Routine Medical Procedure", does anyone have the same reaction? Should for example, one parent be able to block access and receiving of generally accepted as safe medical care for their child if the other parent seeks it on their behalf, simply based on their beliefs?

[0]: https://www.heritage.org/staff/emilie-kao

[1]: https://www.heritage.org/staff/jay-w-richards-phd

[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/15/project-2025-p...

[3]: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/project-2025-her...

[4]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

[5]: https://www.endocrine.org/advocacy/position-statements/trans...