DOJ tramples on the Constitution

This idea about being the gender your genitals say you are (penis for a man and vagina for a woman) has been scientifically proven to be wrong. This all has to do with the chromosomes you are born with (definition = a threadlike structure of nucleic acids and protein found in the nucleus of most living cells, carrying genetic information in the form of genes).

The idea of forcing a child to be what their genitals say he/she should be is neanderthal thinking. You cannot teach a man to be a man or a woman to be a woman if their genes say otherwise. This is not a choice that anyone can make.

The Republican "macho men" want to impose their ideas on people no matter what science says. The Alabama law is ridiculous and therefore there is good reason for the government to attempt to find out who and why this imposition of the transgender law that Alabama is trying to impose is unconstitutional.

The reality is that this gender problem is NOT GOING TO GO AWAY when you grow up and be an adult. Again, this is not a choice that is made by the person (adult or child).

Not allowing doctors to do the things that the children need to feel better, be more healthy with the gender they were born with, and to cause them to feel like they are something they are not supposed to be is pure cruelty and should be punished.

Read this article and find out more about this:

Sex and Gender Identity

 

The idea I'm a woke type is ludicrous.

So, who decides about transgenders after they reach their majority? Will you try to ban health insurers from including reassignment surgery the way you have with contraceptives and abortion?

 

According to the woke secular progressive left elites, disagreement with them over policy matters or original intent of the constitution is to them probable cause and in their twisted minds “reasonable” suspicion.

 

So you want to use the police powers of the federal regime to criminalize ideas, Science, and belief that is different than your own. Got it.

 

No, I want to use police powers to support what science (not political or personal ideas) tells us is correct.

Science is not a belief but a fact. Science tells us what is real and what is fantasy. Evidently, you believe that just because a person (or a group of people) believes something is right, it is right. Life does not work like that. Using a stupid (but real) example, there was a time when people believed the world was flat. Science proved they were wrong. Do you believe those people believing the world was flat had a right to impose their beliefs on others?

 

The reality is that about 85% of children with GID desist after they finish puberty if they are left alone.

Social transition, feeding then puberty blockers and cross sex hormones is what should be a crime.

 

I suppose insurers can insure whatever they want. But I would like to require them to insure the doctors against malpractice when they get sued.

That's how this insantity is going to be stopped, by malpractice suits agains the wannabe Mengeles.

 

You quote that as if it was an established fact. It isn't

and here is a more recent study that shows that the 85% you mention is actually only about 4%.

If you are going to make a statement, you should do as much research as possible so you don't look as a fool.

 

So, you propose that in addition to the other 5 or 6 test hospitals do on newborns that we add a DNA gene coding assessment. Ignoring that hospitals do not have the capability to analyze (or even find) the millions of genes in a strand of DNA, just check chromosome 23 and assume for the sake of discussion hospitals have the technology to do even that (despite the fact they probably don't.) What do you suppose they will find? I'll tell you what, a baby born with a vagina will have two X chromosomes, so no help there. What other impossible DNA/genetic test do you think a hospital should do before putting male or female on the birth certificate? What is the assessment criteria, or what genes should be assessed for what attributes that would determine that two X chromosome baby has what other genes to override the prime assessment?

 

I think that is what @XXJefferson#51 said.

 

I was addressing what happened in Alabama. I don't know enough about the subject to give opinions on what is best or not as far as how to approach the subject. I just know that preventing the doctors from doing what they believe is in the best interest of the child is not what anything should be about. Letting the macho Alabamans call the shots with their balls and not with their common sense is just plain wrong.

 

No he didn't. He supported the Alabaman government making it illegal to let the doctors do the scientifically proven approach to transgender kids. He criticized the government of the U.S. for seeking (through subpoenas) the records of the people that were involved in the Alabaman law so they could see if there was any special or biased reason for that law being done.

 

I don't see your 4% statistic. What I see are transgender activists criticizing research they don't like.

Here are facts:

https://www.statsforgender.org/desistance/

 

You are saying it is OK for the government to stifle someone's speech, thought, and public action if the government has some scientist(s) backing up their belief. The 1st amendment makes no such clarification.

 

What is the state’s interest here?

 

I am not going to continue this thread as my goal was to prove that what Alabama did was wrong and these studies don't prove that what they did is right.

Nonetheless, I did peruse some of the articles on the link you offered and there is no consensus of studies that show the 80% number. In fact, the 2 (of many) studies that gave that number were done more than 10 years ago and there are newer studies that offer other numbers (such as 39% in one study).

Anyhow, this is not a theme that I have much interest about. My children and grandchildren do not have this disorder and I do not personally know anyone that has it.

 

I can understand your position, but it does not address the realities of the case which has two big problems whatever your personal beliefs. One, if a doctor and a parent disagree on what procedure should be done on a minor, the parent wins hands down every time. Two, the federal government is far off the range subpoenaing a political organization that was doing things perfectly proper. legal, and constitutionally, but pushing for something the government doesn't like.

 

From what I gathered of everything that was written and offered by the OP, the government is simply trying to gather information and doing it in a way that some people think it is unconstitutional. I do not think this topic is of enough importance to the nation where this should be a major point of discussion. I think it is some critics trying to find "anything" that proves their biased points.

It was funny to note that every single news source carrying this event is a right-sided media news source. NONE of the big media companies, not even FOX news, is covering this issue. Each media source covering it is small and super biased against the left. Simply stated, the OP goes to prove more about the author than the story itself. He is evidently an extreme right biased person cherry picking stories that he thinks prove his points.

It is a waste of time debating with him.

 

I think the courts are going to decide people over 18 can contract for reassignment surgery.

 

What ivory tower? Just because you said it does not make it true and you made a whopper. Not even Fox, Newsmax or other conservative news outlets can verify your claim. Not a single one.

You may want to stop reading the Qnon threads.

 

Yes, and did you read the part you didn't quote?

Let's start with this: "Agency subpoena powers vary. Many agencies have investigative subpoena powers but statutes and circumstances prescribe the nature of this power. In some situations, an agency may only be authorized to act in response to a complaint or grievance. The Board of Mediation and Arbitration (CGS §§ 31-95 to 42-99), for example, is authorized to issue subpoenas when investigating labor grievances and disputes and the Board of Labor Relations can issue subpoenas as part of its investigation when it receives an unfair labor practices complaint (CGS § 10-153e(f)).

In most instances, the agency can issue subpoenas under its own authority. The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management when acting under certain statutes is an exception. The secretary must apply to the court and provide an opportunity for both sides to be heard. The court must find that the requested information is reasonably necessary to carry out the statute's purpose and that the secretary has made reasonable efforts to obtain the information before it will issue a subpoena (CGS § 16a-5).

An agency's investigatory powers are used to enforce their statutes and regulations and, similar to the federal prosecutor, the agency can be given broad discretion to investigate potential violations. The purpose of the investigative subpoena is generally to allow the agency to make a determination whether there has been a violation of the law. Like the federal grand jury, it may not be clear at that stage precisely what conduct may be in violation of the law. When a statute grants investigative power, the courts have held that substantial discretion is vested in the agency “to engage in pretrial discovery to gather evidence in advance of the filing of specific charges.”

Several statutes specifically state that a subpoenaed party will not be excused from providing evidence that might be self-incriminating. The Board of Labor Relations, Social Services, and the State Bar Examining Committee have this power. But these statutes also provide that none of this evidence will be used against the individual in a criminal trial."

The part I highlighted in bold is what separates a criminal subpoena and an investigative subpoena. '

Then we have this: "The government need not justify a subpoena by presenting evidence that demonstrates probable cause and courts uphold subpoenas as long as it is fairly clear that they further the grand jury's investigation and not the prosecutor's separate interest. Prosecutors may not engage in arbitrary fishing expeditions or select targets out of malice or with intent to harass (United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 301 (1991)). Subpoenas that serve little purpose and could be considered “shams” have been criticized by some courts but are usually upheld with this high presumption of regularity."


The part I highlighted in bold and underlined is quite clear that the agency does not need to justify its subpoena. They can't do a fishing expedition, and the only way to quash that subpoena is through the courts and make that argument. So far, Eagle Forum has not chosen that route yet. But until then, its legitimate until proven otherwise.

 

Neither do I. But it bothers me that children are being groomed into mutilating their bodies. If you read the stories of detransitioners they will break your heart.

 

One comment to your post. "Mutilating" their bodies is not what they are doing. They are "changing" their bodies to the sex they feel they are. Change is NOT mutilation.

 

By itself you're probably correct that it is not terribly significant. Like one dog barking in the night probably means nothing. But 50 dogs barking in the night probably has significance. The action of discussion granted is just one little piece, but it is part of a boiling cauldron of the political leadership weaponizing the government against anyone who sounds like they might be an antagonist or just thinks differently. It should not be ignored.

 

On the other hand, there is such a thing as digging every possible bit of dirt to try to have the house spotless, which is by nature of humankind, an impossibility.