[15155]

> You are suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming?

Classic strawman argument. Where was anything like this suggested? Are they barred today under existing legislation?

The eventuality of this line of reasoning is that: "special interests who control the DSM (or whatever standards body governs these soft sciences) can influence and determine the outcome of custody battles."

DSM-4 defined "gender-identity disorder" as a thing, that's now been de-pathologized to "gender dysphoria."

Under your framework, a body of unelected, politically and financially-motivated "experts" can now determine the imposition of legal consequences on a whim.

[OhMeadhbh]

There was a question mark at the end of the sentence, indicating a question.

"Are you suggesting that family courts in Colorado should be barred from hearing info from psychologists about the impact of dead-naming?"

It is a simple question. I think it tells more about your viewpoint than you may think that you consider discussions of trans issues "a strawman."

I also appreciate how you have decided that you know my thoughts on a complex subject simply by me asking you to provide more detail as to what you were saying.

It's entirely possible I'm not attacking you. It's possible I don't understand what you're saying.