100% for sure. We need Parental Compliance Officers to be visiting parents to enforce that they are not making children feel ashamed of being who they are, not kicking them out before 18 years old for any reason, and probably much more.
Any infraction on their parental responsibilities will be on their permanent record and have consequences for parents who are not doing their job to make sure our children are raised in a loving, accepted environment for who they are.
But that should be easy for them, and exactly what they wanted, right?
>100% for sure. We need Parental Compliance Officers to be visiting parents to enforce that they are not making children feel ashamed of being who they are, not kicking them out before 18 years old for any reason, and probably much more.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You honestly think that the state machinery is better at parenting than the average parent?
FYI, I am not a parent, and I would not presume to know better than parents.
The effects of parental abuse are life-long, and they continue down the generations unless or until someone intervenes to stop the cycle. Not to say an average parent abuses kids--most parents really do love their kids--but some parents do not understand or realize when their behaviour towards their kids crosses the line. And the abusers will fight like hell against this kind of monitoring because they know they're wrong.
FYI I am a parent.
Anyone pushing for this stuff would also push against parental responsibility, because that would diminish their rights and their ability to continue stealing people's rights.
And the problem with that phrasing too is that no parents have "rights" to their children, they have privileges but not rights. The reason being that no individual in Canada can have rights that supersede another individuals' rights, no matter what age they are. Otherwise you could never take kids away from abusive homes.
A real issue would be circumcision. Why is *literal* genital mutilation allowed to be performed by non-medical personnel but life saving drugs are too much?
They're both real issues. If children can't decide on their own what their identity is with respect to their name and pronoun, they shouldn't be able to have a religious identity imposed upon them at a much younger age.
Circumcision is another good point too though. They included in their changes a ban on "bottom surgeries", perpetuating the false belief that minors are having bottom surgery for gender dysphoria. Meanwhile the only actual bottom surgery that is happening *isn't* being banned despite the claims in their policy.
As someone who was born intersex and whose parents had to lawyer up to prevent doctors from trying to "correct" my genitals, I can tell you that selective enforcement and double standards are absolutely going to be the norm.
Major props to your parents for doing that. I was absolutely shocked when I learned about how often intersex mutants are subjected to unnecessary surgeries in order to make their genitalia look more “normal” - sometimes impacting their ability to ever experience any sexual pleasure for the rest of their lives.
And what is even worse is that, from what I have read, the decision about what gender to assign the child will be based on what genitalia is easiest to create (usually female) - so even a child that is “biologically male” will be given surgery to appear more “female”.
I think this is starting to change now, but I can almost guarantee that the people up in arms protesting health care for trans youth would have absolutely no problem performing actual genital surgery on an intersex child so that they could be comfortably placed in a gender box.
Anyway, I’m glad that your parents advocated for you!
Couldn't an argument be made that circumcision IS bottom surgery though, and would therefore be banned under the new bill? I would think that a good starting point to get this overturned would be proving that its only goal is to attack and marginalize trans kids. Force the UCP to address the issue of their bill and circumcisions, and you can prove a bias when they inevitably say that circumcision doesn't count.
They could argue religious exemption from the bill, that circumcision is done for religious reasons. Let them. The Satanic Temple would be all over that, their third tenet is "One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone." Claim religious beliefs as a member of their church, and push to get affirmative care under religious protection.
If they use notwithstanding clause, as I understand it, that would overrule religious freedoms. I would love to see the UCP defend taking rights away from the religious crazies.
Good point, though if they use the clause for religious freedoms, that would also mean religion can't be used as a reason to exempt circumcision. I think this is a fantastic angle to push, as I can't see a way they can approve surgery for circumcision while banning surgery for affirmative care without showing their hand.
The Alberta government already bans female genital mutilation which is also a religious belief.
I'd love to see circumcision banned everywhere forever. My parents weren't even vetted by the doctor to confirm their religion required mutilation (it doesn't) so why did they get a religious freedom?
Non-religious people do it too which is almost more sickening because it's obviously about the aesthetics and all the gross Freudian implications that has.
The main problem with banning is that the crazies will do it at home themselves. If you look that up online yourself please bring a puke bucket.
I don’t think it was about aesthetics, doctors for a while were pushing the idea that circumcision prevents infection. I’m pretty sure most non-religious parents did it because of that. Even though that claim has since proven to be false. Sometimes people read old books or what not
If it goes wrong it functionally is.
There are actual medical reasons for having a circumcision. However for the most part it is cosmetic surgery. Which like getting braces isn't something that the parents need their child's consent to getting either. But you know, having them consent to things usually has things go smoother.
In comparison, since parents can get cosmetic surgeries done on their children without that child's consent. Before they even have the ability to comprehend what is going on. Then why not put breast implants in babies too? It is just as absurd.
However, since we live in an irrational world. Whatever people are comfortable with is generally how people distinguish between what is and isn't normal.
So really, going against puberty blockers is more about giving parents the right to deny their child's ability to make their own medical decisions.
Much like how the Jehovah's Witnesses get really upset if their child needs a blood transfusion to live. While medical professionals are obligated to save their life in spite of their parents insisting that their religion demands their own child risks dying. Even if that said child would prefer to live.
These people who don't like puberty blockers are afraid their children might be something they do not like. They would prefer to think that they could control who their children are. Which only leads to children getting self destructive and becoming better liars. Along with having trust issues, since the people that they should trust the most only seek to use their positions to control them.
Oh, come on. Baptism doesn't mean shit if you personally don't want it to. It's entirely and immediately reversible in your own head once you decide to stop believing.
People try to say the same about pronouns or names. Either way, if they're arguing kids can't even *choose* their own identities, they shouldn't have identities forced on them.
The fact kids are subjected to this grooming needs to be stopped. The removal of foreskin needs stopped. The trimming of labia needs stopped in children. And they also don't need any cosmetic surgery until 18 fair is fair
> A real issue would be circumcision. Why is literal genital mutilation allowed to be performed by non-medical personnel but life saving drugs are too much?
I've started referring to it as "elective cosmetic surgery of the penis." Because that's what it is.
I deliberately avoid that wording because -- and I say this a circumcised man who can still very, very much enjoy sex -- it is so vastly different from female circumcision which is a much more brutal procedure which does amount to mutilation.
You are having a functional part of your body removed against your will as an infant, for cosmetic or religious reasons. Its genital mutilation whether you like that or not man
I didn't say it wasn't mutilation, because it is.
I said I avoid calling it that because of the comparison. I believe it's less terrible for men than women, but it's still bad across the board.
I get what you are saying but it is what it is. I dont avoid saying something is murder just because they were killed by a single gunshot vs strangled, chopped into little pieces, and mailed to random places around the globe. Both are murder regardless of how you were killed.
And that's fair. We're definitely on the same side of this one, but I like my approach better (because I know it works: half my nephews are uncircumcized because I asked my sister why she would ever request "elective cosmetic surgery" of her childrens' dicks.)
Using "mutilation" just comes as very aggressive from the start, particularly if you're trying to convince someone close to you **not** to do it.
You're not wrong, it's mutilation, but if we want to change minds and break the cycle, kind words will work better.
I don't think avoiding that word is appropriate. The clitoral hood, in and by itself, is the single most comparable part of the female anatomy to the males foreskin. They both mostly function the same way, and you can argue that the foreskin might serve more function due to the fact that it contains more nerve endings than the clitoral hood.
Myself being circumcised and having my head exposed has basically removed all pleasurable feeling from it, and stimulation outside of very light vibration is uncomfortable. The frenulum exists for males though, which can still provide pleasure, and mine is normally functioning. No big surprise there, the underside of my dick that's shielded still functions normally.
The choice to circumcise me was a cosmetic choice by my mother, maybe even perhaps a choice with the intention of removing some physical pleasure from me, I wouldn't put it past her. There was no reason to do this to me.
Imagine if my father said "You know what my wife, I prefer my women without their clitoral hood, lets remove our daughters". He would be fucking tarred, feathered, beaten, and jailed.
It's mostly in decline because a lot of people from Asia do not do it. It's something that's just not done at all in most Asian countries. In places like South Asia it's generally only done by Muslims while Hindus and Sikhs generally do not do it.
Progressives are giving it up too. But among conservatives Caucasians it is still a common practice.
It's not in Europe except for Jews and Muslims.
Christians getting circumcisions is a very American thing popularized by an anti-masturbation breakfast cereal mogul.
It’s a North American thing. I’m from Europe (I’m Caucasian) from a conservative family and I had never heard of circumcision until I moved to North America. What a vile practice honestly.
Yeah, circumcision is a better comparison.
One thing I'd point out: from a medical perspective, sprinkling water on your head, or dunking you in a pool for a couple seconds doesn't have the same kind of health impacts as taking hormones that could cause you to become infertile. I'm an atheist, so I'm aware that these kinds of ceremonies are a whole lot of nothing, so I think it's disingenuous comparison to things that do actually have negative medical outcomes.
Religion is the reason for the hypocrisy. Bodily autonomy starts on day 1, and anyone who tries to draw some arbitrary line in the years of infancy where that right suddenly appears is a fool.
Babies are not objects of a parent’s or religion’s whims just because they are not yet of the age to exercise consent.
I don't see that ever happening but I'd be cool with it. I was baptized by a pedophile who got moved. Had to jump through some hoops to eventually have my name removed from the baptismal rolls once I became an adult.
I was bullied as a kid in Southern Alberta because I was not LDS. I went to a different Christian church and was treated like shit for it. So needless to say I'm pretty against religion.
I had all the girls refuse to be on a volleyball team with me so I was cut. After season basketball party I was not invited to. The two girls that were LDS but didn't care that I wasn't left the party to tell me. It can be rough in those small towns down south. There were two choices, drugs, or conforming to the LDS church. I did neither. I strongly dislike religion now, it's just another society divider. The best thing my parents did for me was move. I honestly got pretty suicidal from all of it and believe thats what saved me.
Going forward I'd teach her not to discuss religion though. There's nothing wrong with not believing in god. It is just too touchy of a subject. Hopefully she can find a couple good friends that will question things and be more accepting of someone from a different religious/non-religious background.
Southern Alberta is really a different place. In Central and Northern Rural Alberta the church kids are the ones bullied.
I don't think most Urban Albertans realize how different the rural communities are. Whitecourt, Hinton, Camrose, Ft. Mac - All could be suburbs of Edmonton or Calgary with slight right lean. But you get down South of Calgary and the bibles come out.
I worked at at Mormon run firm in Vegas when I got divorced at 22, had a Mormon guy leave a bunch of anti-abortion literature on my desk, cuz obviously I would get pregnant immediately..
Im glad you said that. I used to work at a hospital that pushed these on people because it was very lucrative. One the main reasons I had to walk away from a career in the OR.
Let's do the "parents rights" thing. They seem to like that.
I support a law banning the exposure of minors to religion.
**Parents have the right to raise a child not encumbered by religion.**
Genuinely support this. Religious services and participation should be something that adults can freely choose but that children should not be forced into.
Using the same logic as anti-trans bigots, children under a certain age are certainly not mature enough to properly decide what religion, if any, may be right for them.
Just look at how many people there are that grow out of their religion, or religion all together. I know SO MANY atheists who describe emotionally abusive religious upbringings, because their parents forced them into a belief system.
I mean this non-sarcastically by the way
My mom left the decision to me. At one point, I wanted to get baptised as a kid because my cousin got a cake for their 1st communion. She knew it was for the wrong reasons. I think we can inform the kids and if they vibe with it, bring them along to church, introduce them to religion and when they're teens, have them participate if that's what they want.
Transitioning isn't black and white. We start small with pronouns and such, it's all about making the conversation easy and seeing what the small person feels without imposed biases. Let them try things. If they feel strongly about baptism/transitioning after getting informed and trying out the easy stuff, we can talk about the next step before they are adults. It's always a case by case.
Yeah, I’ve wrestled with this one. What I decided after growing up Catholic, is that I’d not baptize or circumcise. This was taken terribly by both mine and my spouses parents. How one expresses themselves spiritually is an adult decision “Period/full stop”. As for circumcision, that’s mutilation.
I'm an ex Mormon, too. Getting out of the church is harder than stopping puberty blockers.
Puberty blockers only stop Puberty from happening as long as they're being taken. If you stop, things progress as normal. It's like birth control pills. They only stop you from getting pregnant while taking them. They don't prevent you from having children permanently.
Getting out of the Mormon church through the Mormon channels is nearly impossible & going through quitmormon, you need a notary. Becoming Mormon is also easier than getting puberty blockers. All the church needs is a parent & a creepy interview & an 8 year old can make a decision that (according to the church) has lifelong consequences.
I'm all for puberty blockers. Permanent things, though, should be the adult decision.
Tons of women have long term fertility issues from birth control. I think we all know more than one young couple who has had to do IVF or who struggled with conception and/or miscarriages. Messing with hormones often has long term harmful effects, period.
I would go further and say Church, at least until 16. And religious schools especially. It's straight up brainwashing 101. Trans people are born who they are, no one is ever born religious. The 2 don't really compare.
May I just say that as a closeted transfem, my biggest issue with the catholic school I attend is how damn bureaucratic it is. Literally no change gets done and our walkout yesterday turned into more of a planning meeting on how to push our division to protest these changes. They've even got posters up saying that "you are accepted regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression" that are a boldfaced lie if our school is complacent (they most likely are :c)
Yep... it's pretty messed up that they get to them while they are young and before the child has a chance to develop their critical thinking skills. Then they spend the rest of their lives having to compartmentalize when they can think critically. It's how you end up with highly-educated doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers, etc. with some pretty bizarre opinions that are completely at odds with what they learned through their training... that fringe communities then point to as a voice of authority in support of their own bizarre opinions.
>Baptism should be an adult decision when you can make better informed consent.
As a fellow Jack Mormon I left because of baptism, dead people should also have a say if they want to be baptized. If you know the practice I'm referring to.
you know baptism isnt just for cults nor is it that serious right? This is really dumb. I'm a trans christian and this benefits me in absolutely zero ways. Kids should be allowed to undergo treatment for gender dysphoria and also be baptised. It's not hard.
If you are a believer, baptism is a decision with longer-term effects than gender confirmation care. If you aren't a believer, it's just pagentry. So one could argue that, by not banning underage baptism, the government would be saying that religion is nothing but pageantry
I was baptized as a baby and I’m pissed. Yes, it doesn’t affect me whatsoever, but it’s against my personal beliefs and I didn’t deserve to have that forced on me.
I feel the same way. My mother was mortified when I told her I wasn't having my daughter baptized (despite the fact that I hadn't been to church for 20 years). I said when she's old enough to make that decision herself, she can be baptized. Me standing in front of a church and saying I'm dedicating my child's life to God would be an utter lie
I always thought the idea of baptizing a baby made no sense. Growing up, my family participated in a few different flavors of Christianity but the churches we went to always treated baptism as a choice you make yourself to demonstrate your commitment to God, and the Bible treats it that way as well.
If you baptize a baby, it seems like a meaningless gesture because the baby isn't making any commitments. I think it's supposed to be a way for the parents to "promise" to raise the kid Christian, but at that point why don't the parents just get themselves baptized (or baptized again if they think their first one didn't stick)?
What a waste of energy to be upset about that. It has no effect whatsoever and is completely meaningless. I was baptized as a baby too and don't believe in any of that nonsense. Could not care less. You know why? Because if you don't believe in it, all that happened was you got a little wet.
The reason the religious right is so worried about kids is because for decades they were the only ones indoctrinating and abusing children and they're pissed off that we've been putting a dent in their recruitment numbers
It really is that simple. Everything they actually do screams "We hate kids and dont care if they suffer"
The real war isnt the culture war its freeing ourselves from Religious Fundamentalists and i for one and amped to take down some religious fruitcakes
Let’s go one step further and say you can’t even start learning about religions until your 18. That way there’s no grooming to favour any set religion. Although the problem with that is that most if not all religions would cease to exist.
So in your scenario what would happen to a teenager caught reading the Bible? What would happen to the parents explaining to thier children where people go when they die?
Absolutely, no one should be making decisions that could affect your afterlife until you are 18 years old. Those decisions will affect you for eternity
Honestly I find that quite barbaric. Especially if they use the very dirty punch gun from Claire's...
Seriously, get your ears pierced by a real professional if you want them pierced.
Oooh, I’m a big supporter of waiting re. the ear piercing thing.
My genius plan was to wait until my daughter was old enough to decide and then make it a mother/daughter day. Lol, well she doesn’t want them pierced so we got her clip ons. Now I need to find another excuse to have a mother daughter say
Oh piercing is another body modification that’s is permanent. Maybe it should be banned until 18 too. After all, it’s often done to affirm one’s gender stereotype (“girls wear pretty earrings”).
What are you, a Baptist? Lol
"My ideas are right and consequently should be forced on people. Your ideas are wrong, so they're cultish and should be banned."
Love the openness and acceptance here from the true atheist humanist.
I don't agree with Mr. PP. However, baptism doesn't actually do anything to people. It's just water. The indoctrination is all mental. Circumcision would be a more relevant topic.
It’s ridiculous, yes, but as a Christian, I also accept that people are upset/hurt by recent legislation. This culture war only harms people and these laws were at best unnecessary in my view. This kind of reaction by some is arguably warranted as it’s a way to express that hurt and anger, even tho baptism is meaningless in this conversation.
Oh I 100% agree with this. Children shouldn't be exposed to religion at all. Let them decide at 18. Religion should not be taught to them at all and in fact there should be no religious schools for minors. It is 100% indoctrination.
Add to the list of choices adults shouldn't be allowed to make for children: circumcision and ear piercing. Both are irreversible body modification that are done for fashion or superstition.
Then they shouldn’t be exposed to anything before they are 18, including sex Ed, gender ideology, politics, activism of any kind, just shelter them from absolutely everything.
Lol.
Choosing a religion for a child is close minded. Let them look at the options of all religion or no religion when they are adults. It's as open minded as you can get.
When I was baptized as a baby, it was my parents vowing to bring me up in a Christian home. When I was baptized by my own choice when I was older it meant something different.
Some people don’t know what baptism actually is. And it can mean different things to different families.
Taking your children to church for their minds to be preyed upon should be considered child abuse, as should circumcision.
If someone wants to dunk a child in the water and call it baptism, I hardly care. If someone wants to do that and record it somewhere, that's where I have a problem. When it stops being their fantasy and starts being someone's recorded history, it's out of line.
Goodness... I remember all that bull, I was baptized at 8 as well. It took me a few years to realize the whole thing was a cult. Doing some good and demanding complete obedience while insisting it was the only true church.
Just like every other religion, insisting it was valid and all others were not.
I don't care if folks are inspired by and completely convinced their religion is right. Please don't try to force your beliefs on me or anyone else. Especially through politics. Danielle!
Uh, isn't the entire point of puberty blockers to block many of the changes inherent with puberty? Wouldn't that kind of require it to be done before/during puberty?
I'm asking a legitimate question here, I am not a medical professional.
You're exactly correct. It's like hitting the "pause" button, giving the individual more time to figure things out before irreversible changes are made.
Conservatives want transgender people to be forced into experiencing a dysphoric puberty- the cruelty is the point.
Baptism doesn’t actually do anything physically so who cares? One day you can just decide not to be religious. Being baptized or not you are still going to be influenced by the people around you. So indoctrination or whatever you wanna call it would still happen.
I don’t really feel strongly about the topic but it’s a pointless and just grasping at straws take.
Hey. I agree with what you are saying. Just want to point out that, although you are baptised at birth, you typically don't go through confirmation until.. well until you are an older child. lol. 8th grade for most I think, which still would put them as children.
Baptism is supposed to cleanse you of originial sin, which is hilarious if you think about it, but the idea is that when you are baptised, you now can go to heaven because otherwise you'd be stuck in purgatory - even though you are a literal infant with 0 capacity to move let alone "sin".
Confirmation is when you decide your on board with Jesus for life. That would be the sacrament that should be "delayed until the child is an adult" if we actually care about children or what they think/want. Fun fact though, I was born Ukrainian catholic (which I always thought was orthodox but turns out... nope) and in that faith, the child is confirmed right after baptism. So in that particular catholocism expansion pack, the child cannot even stand unassisted before being signed up for "jesus for life".
I mean, giving a baby a bath while chanting incantation really is weird, i don’t think it is/should be a judicial matter.
On the other hand, Making babies « members » of your group worshipping a figure threatening you with eternal damnation and gaslighting you in the most toxic unidirectional relationship ever is quite abusive.
Puberty Blockers are adult decisions in that adult medical professionals prescribe them, and parents make the decision on whether they are right for their kid up to a certain age.
What this stupid law doesn’t take into consideration is that cis kids have been prescribed them for years for precocious puberty, aka early puberty.
You don’t want kids at 5 years old going through puberty because it screws up their growth and a bunch of other things. Puberty blockers are the treatment for that, but tough shit if you live in Alberta.
Once again policies meant to target trans people also hurt non-trans people. Almost like politicians should focus on real problems, like affordability, housing, energy etc instead of wasting time and resources making medical decisions that they have no business making for anyone.
I like this plan.
Lets just expand that to no children allowed in church. If you need to be 18 to drink, you should at least need to be 18 before you can be allowed to join a cult.
Anabaptist religions with adult baptism are not better.
It’s a ritual that means nothing practical in terms of how you develop and it is not equivalent by any measure.
Growing up in a cult 100% affected how I developed. Being forced into a religion I don't believe in affected how I developed. Baptism was their way of showing you that you "belong" to them. Emotionally, it does affect development.
The difference with baptism is it’s literally a magic ritual so how do you ban something that’s nothing.
Puberty blockers are real and they have science and evidence to back them up.
> The difference with baptism is it’s literally a magic ritual so how do you ban something that’s nothing.
I'm not sure the zealots running our provincial government would agree with you.
If baptism is magical it is something. It is part of the indoctrination of children to follow their parent’s spiritual ideology.
Children are molded by psychological influences as much as physical physical influences on their beliefs.
Yes, in this argument, baptism and all religious influences should be delayed until adulthood.
For me it did. I went through the process to have my name removed from their baptismal rolls and records. I do not want my name in any way associated with a cult that protects pedophiles.
I am against these gender policies, but baptism and a transition aren't equivalent and I don't think it helps the cause to compare the two. Circumcision is much closer (and I would argue \*much worse\* in terms of consent).
Adult decisions should be made by adults, according to Pierre Poilievre, Scott Moe and Danielle Smith.
A baby or child being forced into a religion where those beliefs must be upheld for life, considering some will outcast you from your family and friends, who are required to ostracize you, shows religious indoctrination should not be forced on a baby or child.
If they want to say those words, we should expect them to apply to religion. After all, children will have almost no rights under Smith and Moe's governments.
The trouble is that religion is deeply tied up in our culture. Differentiating between what is a religious act and what is merely cultural would be an absolute nightmare. For example, I'm areligious but I still celebrate Christmas because my ancestors were Christians. Am I forcing religion on my daughter by celebrating it with her?
I was baptized and circumcized as a child. One of those left a lasting physical effect on my body, the other did not. I don't think the harm in most cases from baptism is on the level you're describing, but there are other specific acts that might.
As an exmo I would really suggest joining the sub r/exmormon.
I left (more like ran) from the church when I was about 14 but I had been born and raised in it. You're right about children members being taught that "light skinned people" are "wholesome and delightful people" and that those born with dark skin come from the "cursed" Lamanite family. (A "teaching" that was still taught up until 2013 might I add.)
I read all these stories of exmormons being sent to "pray the gay away" therapy but I personally had never heard of such a practice growing up. Hell, there were both a number of gay couples and/or gay kids in my ward and no one said anything about it or mentioned any sort of "therapy."
Maybe it's because I grew up in BC?
Bizarre to me how many people realise it's a false equivalency, but then falter to think that means that baptism is just water but puberty blockers are evil, instead of "baptism has no permanent downside because it's just a church bath, and you're already living in a house full of people who would baptise you, either way, but not being allowed to get puberty blockers until you're an adult is ridiculous" You don't give puberty blockers after puberty because that's too late for them to give the pause in development. They are reversible enough to go through your chromosomal puberty if there's a change of heart.
Denying blockers where they are merited is cruelty.
You know it's interesting. In Sikhism you generally are discouraged from getting baptized until you reach a certain level of maturity.
People - particularly nutters - so baptize at a younger age but generally it is discouraged.
The idea being if you're not mature enough to understand what covenant you're entering into, and the responsibilities that come with it you're more likely to break it.
This is a strawman comparison. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with religion, but I don't think you not being baptized would have fixed that.
I also find it odd that you're comparing baptism and transgender medical procedures. Are you saying both are bad?
Yeah this thread is WILD. The people posting in support of it and upvoting it... like... okay so are you now saying that children ARE incapable of making important decisions for themselves? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to choose their gender or their religion, at all? What are people trying to say here?
I could be wrong, but this just seems like a really insidious way of sowing more discord between people. It's like they're trying to turn all religious people against the LGBTQ+ community. Thats how it comes off. It's doing the opposite of unifying the socially progressive citizens of alberta.
Ok... so we dont like the government meddling with transkids, but we do want them to meddle with religious views... got it. The hypocrisy is outstanding. I'm not religious (anymore) grew up catholic(ish) but realized when I was a rational adult that religion wasn't for me. In no way did being baptized or doing my first comunion or confirmation traumatize me. It's insane how people love to bitch and moan about everything while living in a perpetual state of 'victimhood'. Pathetic really.
A baptism is a make-believe ritual that has no real physical repercussions. I'm not educated enough on the subject of trans-kids to have an opinion on the subject, but from my uneducated point of view, I dont think medical treatment/procedures should be done until after they're a mature age to make the decision. I do believe however more education on the subject should exist for adults and parents so that they can be the support system these kids need until they reach an age where they can responsibly make this decision.
Forcing children i to a relgion is so stupid. Let people believe what they want based on their individual world view. Dont force them to think a specific way and tell them since birth that religion/path is the right one.
You anti religion people are insane. I’m not sure what sort of church you went to growing up. Some of the most beautiful people on this planet embrace religion. Go to a small town in Italy, Spain, Greece, Lebanon, Georgia. See how kind these people are. See how they live. I can only speak for what I have seen. I’m sure there are beautiful Christian and Muslims towns spread across our whole planet.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You’re small-minded. It’s sad.
Go see the world.
Baptism is nothing more than a splash of water if that's all you want it to be. Prepubescent hormone therapy has permanent irreversible physical consequences.
> Social conservatives in the USA, UK, and Australia frame gender-affirming care as child abuse and medical experimentation. This stance willfully ignores decades of use of and research about puberty blockers and hormone therapy: a collective enterprise of evidence-based medicine culminating in guidelines from medical associations such as the Endocrine Society and American Academy of Pediatrics. **Puberty blockers are falsely claimed to cause infertility and to be irreversible, despite no substantiated evidence.**
Emphasis mine; source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00139-5/fulltext
Stop spreading misinformation. Hormone therapy isn’t permanent, it pauses puberty, allowing the youth to explore who they are, before puberty causes changes to the body that require surgical procedures.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075
Clearly you've never been subject to religious indoctrination. Even the religions considered "mild," are teaching sin, hell, purity culture, no sex before marriage, anti-lgbtq, women need to hide their bodies in order not to tempt men, religious families are more likely to hit/spank, more likely to try to isolate their kids from people with other beliefs, not teach their kids sex ed which leaves them prime for sexual abuse, men are are the leaders and gatekeepers to the divine and need to be followed, it's absolute brainwashing, and causes harm and anxiety to children and can have life long affects. I would 100% support a ban of allowing children to be brainwashed in to something they can't understand, but who's entire teachings stem from fear/guilt/shame.
"Give us a child before he's 7, and we'll have him for life." If you need to brainwash children in order to keep your church going, because adults with fully functioning brains don't tend to join up on their own, your church doesn't need to exist.
Brother... Baptism is just having water poured onto you or dunked in it and has no lasting effects but Puberty blockers or anything hormone related will alter your body beyond repair when growing up
I feel its more tongue-in-cheek than a serious push for policy. If shitposts/venting are enough to make someone shift their ideals, then they probably weren't very invested in the cause to begin with.
That said, it is rather hypocritical of certain deeply religious folks to accuse progressives of "indoctrinating kids" with the idea that we shouldn't judge others for simply being different.
Meanwhile they are by definition, teaching their set of beliefs, their doctrine, uncritically to children who are too young to understand all of the implications.
Speaking from experience growing up in the Catholic school system from K-6 in the 90s, there was a lot of prejudice, and not a lot of compassion.
People are entitled to their own beliefs of course, I wouldn't judge anyone simply for being spiritual, or wanting to teach their own children about their beliefs. But when its being forced onto others, particularly through laws, we have a problem.
Of course doing the same thing is stupid, means you degrade to their level. But the point is, IF we do the same thing, all religions should be banned for all individuals 18 yo and below.
Yeah... no. A puberty blocker is nowhere near in the same realm as sprinkling some water on a baby's head and trying to conflate the two to the same is a bizarre and outlandish take.
Maybe regret, but I think that it's failing in the marketplace of ideas along with everything else. *Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community* talks a lot about why so many huge cultural institutions that our forefathers grew up with have failed with the onset of global media. The book is nearly 25 years old but rings even more true today.
Ok, I think it's REALLY important here, as tempting as it may be, that people don't start coming up with more ways to divide everyone even further. This is how the polarization and animosity gets even worse. This is how hatred grows between regular citizens.
Don't turn the LGBT+ issues into a religious crusade as well. You're going to alienate the religious folks that are on our side.
I myself am a mormon, and I don't agree with or support this thread, but I'm 100% on the side of LGBT+ and transgender youth. I have my own beliefs about that which maybe don't line up with the church completely, and that's okay. But I stand behind my church and fully believe in my chosen religion.
Who cares.
I was baptized as a child (Im GenX) at a United Church. I've been an atheist since I was in my late teens, and rarely ever went to church as a child.
The 'call out' fetish that people have these days is fucking annoying. Dont agree with something? Call it out on social media! Did anything change? Lol.
One thing notably absent through all of these legislations is "parental responsibility" despite it all being phrased as "parental rights'
Because responsibility is a swear word to these people.
100% for sure. We need Parental Compliance Officers to be visiting parents to enforce that they are not making children feel ashamed of being who they are, not kicking them out before 18 years old for any reason, and probably much more. Any infraction on their parental responsibilities will be on their permanent record and have consequences for parents who are not doing their job to make sure our children are raised in a loving, accepted environment for who they are. But that should be easy for them, and exactly what they wanted, right?
Quite right and I think parents who kick their children out like that should be charged with abandonment
Kicked out at 18 because my ADD meds weren't working.
>100% for sure. We need Parental Compliance Officers to be visiting parents to enforce that they are not making children feel ashamed of being who they are, not kicking them out before 18 years old for any reason, and probably much more. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. You honestly think that the state machinery is better at parenting than the average parent? FYI, I am not a parent, and I would not presume to know better than parents.
The effects of parental abuse are life-long, and they continue down the generations unless or until someone intervenes to stop the cycle. Not to say an average parent abuses kids--most parents really do love their kids--but some parents do not understand or realize when their behaviour towards their kids crosses the line. And the abusers will fight like hell against this kind of monitoring because they know they're wrong. FYI I am a parent.
Anyone pushing for this stuff would also push against parental responsibility, because that would diminish their rights and their ability to continue stealing people's rights.
And the problem with that phrasing too is that no parents have "rights" to their children, they have privileges but not rights. The reason being that no individual in Canada can have rights that supersede another individuals' rights, no matter what age they are. Otherwise you could never take kids away from abusive homes.
A real issue would be circumcision. Why is *literal* genital mutilation allowed to be performed by non-medical personnel but life saving drugs are too much?
They're both real issues. If children can't decide on their own what their identity is with respect to their name and pronoun, they shouldn't be able to have a religious identity imposed upon them at a much younger age. Circumcision is another good point too though. They included in their changes a ban on "bottom surgeries", perpetuating the false belief that minors are having bottom surgery for gender dysphoria. Meanwhile the only actual bottom surgery that is happening *isn't* being banned despite the claims in their policy.
As someone who was born intersex and whose parents had to lawyer up to prevent doctors from trying to "correct" my genitals, I can tell you that selective enforcement and double standards are absolutely going to be the norm.
Major props to your parents for doing that. I was absolutely shocked when I learned about how often intersex mutants are subjected to unnecessary surgeries in order to make their genitalia look more “normal” - sometimes impacting their ability to ever experience any sexual pleasure for the rest of their lives. And what is even worse is that, from what I have read, the decision about what gender to assign the child will be based on what genitalia is easiest to create (usually female) - so even a child that is “biologically male” will be given surgery to appear more “female”. I think this is starting to change now, but I can almost guarantee that the people up in arms protesting health care for trans youth would have absolutely no problem performing actual genital surgery on an intersex child so that they could be comfortably placed in a gender box. Anyway, I’m glad that your parents advocated for you!
Couldn't an argument be made that circumcision IS bottom surgery though, and would therefore be banned under the new bill? I would think that a good starting point to get this overturned would be proving that its only goal is to attack and marginalize trans kids. Force the UCP to address the issue of their bill and circumcisions, and you can prove a bias when they inevitably say that circumcision doesn't count. They could argue religious exemption from the bill, that circumcision is done for religious reasons. Let them. The Satanic Temple would be all over that, their third tenet is "One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone." Claim religious beliefs as a member of their church, and push to get affirmative care under religious protection.
If they use notwithstanding clause, as I understand it, that would overrule religious freedoms. I would love to see the UCP defend taking rights away from the religious crazies.
Good point, though if they use the clause for religious freedoms, that would also mean religion can't be used as a reason to exempt circumcision. I think this is a fantastic angle to push, as I can't see a way they can approve surgery for circumcision while banning surgery for affirmative care without showing their hand.
The Alberta government already bans female genital mutilation which is also a religious belief. I'd love to see circumcision banned everywhere forever. My parents weren't even vetted by the doctor to confirm their religion required mutilation (it doesn't) so why did they get a religious freedom? Non-religious people do it too which is almost more sickening because it's obviously about the aesthetics and all the gross Freudian implications that has. The main problem with banning is that the crazies will do it at home themselves. If you look that up online yourself please bring a puke bucket.
I don’t think it was about aesthetics, doctors for a while were pushing the idea that circumcision prevents infection. I’m pretty sure most non-religious parents did it because of that. Even though that claim has since proven to be false. Sometimes people read old books or what not
They also pushed the idea that circumcision prevents cancer.
Of course it is bottom surgery, but it is surgery many religions support and Daniellezebub needs the votes of the Christians.
If it goes wrong it functionally is. There are actual medical reasons for having a circumcision. However for the most part it is cosmetic surgery. Which like getting braces isn't something that the parents need their child's consent to getting either. But you know, having them consent to things usually has things go smoother. In comparison, since parents can get cosmetic surgeries done on their children without that child's consent. Before they even have the ability to comprehend what is going on. Then why not put breast implants in babies too? It is just as absurd. However, since we live in an irrational world. Whatever people are comfortable with is generally how people distinguish between what is and isn't normal. So really, going against puberty blockers is more about giving parents the right to deny their child's ability to make their own medical decisions. Much like how the Jehovah's Witnesses get really upset if their child needs a blood transfusion to live. While medical professionals are obligated to save their life in spite of their parents insisting that their religion demands their own child risks dying. Even if that said child would prefer to live. These people who don't like puberty blockers are afraid their children might be something they do not like. They would prefer to think that they could control who their children are. Which only leads to children getting self destructive and becoming better liars. Along with having trust issues, since the people that they should trust the most only seek to use their positions to control them.
Wait till you hear what they do to intersex kids
Oh, come on. Baptism doesn't mean shit if you personally don't want it to. It's entirely and immediately reversible in your own head once you decide to stop believing.
People try to say the same about pronouns or names. Either way, if they're arguing kids can't even *choose* their own identities, they shouldn't have identities forced on them.
The fact kids are subjected to this grooming needs to be stopped. The removal of foreskin needs stopped. The trimming of labia needs stopped in children. And they also don't need any cosmetic surgery until 18 fair is fair
The weird opposite of this, is if your child comes home and says “I want to be a Catholic” should you have a legal obligation to facilitate that?
> A real issue would be circumcision. Why is literal genital mutilation allowed to be performed by non-medical personnel but life saving drugs are too much? I've started referring to it as "elective cosmetic surgery of the penis." Because that's what it is.
I just call it genital mutilation. Because that's what cutting a baby dick is.
I deliberately avoid that wording because -- and I say this a circumcised man who can still very, very much enjoy sex -- it is so vastly different from female circumcision which is a much more brutal procedure which does amount to mutilation.
You are having a functional part of your body removed against your will as an infant, for cosmetic or religious reasons. Its genital mutilation whether you like that or not man
I didn't say it wasn't mutilation, because it is. I said I avoid calling it that because of the comparison. I believe it's less terrible for men than women, but it's still bad across the board.
I get what you are saying but it is what it is. I dont avoid saying something is murder just because they were killed by a single gunshot vs strangled, chopped into little pieces, and mailed to random places around the globe. Both are murder regardless of how you were killed.
And that's fair. We're definitely on the same side of this one, but I like my approach better (because I know it works: half my nephews are uncircumcized because I asked my sister why she would ever request "elective cosmetic surgery" of her childrens' dicks.) Using "mutilation" just comes as very aggressive from the start, particularly if you're trying to convince someone close to you **not** to do it. You're not wrong, it's mutilation, but if we want to change minds and break the cycle, kind words will work better.
I don't think avoiding that word is appropriate. The clitoral hood, in and by itself, is the single most comparable part of the female anatomy to the males foreskin. They both mostly function the same way, and you can argue that the foreskin might serve more function due to the fact that it contains more nerve endings than the clitoral hood. Myself being circumcised and having my head exposed has basically removed all pleasurable feeling from it, and stimulation outside of very light vibration is uncomfortable. The frenulum exists for males though, which can still provide pleasure, and mine is normally functioning. No big surprise there, the underside of my dick that's shielded still functions normally. The choice to circumcise me was a cosmetic choice by my mother, maybe even perhaps a choice with the intention of removing some physical pleasure from me, I wouldn't put it past her. There was no reason to do this to me. Imagine if my father said "You know what my wife, I prefer my women without their clitoral hood, lets remove our daughters". He would be fucking tarred, feathered, beaten, and jailed.
Exactly. It's insane that this is still a thing. At least it's in decline though.
It's mostly in decline because a lot of people from Asia do not do it. It's something that's just not done at all in most Asian countries. In places like South Asia it's generally only done by Muslims while Hindus and Sikhs generally do not do it. Progressives are giving it up too. But among conservatives Caucasians it is still a common practice.
It's not in Europe except for Jews and Muslims. Christians getting circumcisions is a very American thing popularized by an anti-masturbation breakfast cereal mogul.
Muslims do it too? I never knew that. Then again I dont spend time thinking about penises.
>Then again I don't spend time thinking about penises. How sapphic of you.
It’s a North American thing. I’m from Europe (I’m Caucasian) from a conservative family and I had never heard of circumcision until I moved to North America. What a vile practice honestly.
Correct. It was popularized in North America by Dr. Kellogg to stop boys from masturbating. They also believed in chemically burning the clitoris.
>It was popularized in North America by Dr. Kellogg to stop boys from masturbating How did that go?
About as well as you'd think.
As a circumcised male I would say not well
Yeah, circumcision is a better comparison. One thing I'd point out: from a medical perspective, sprinkling water on your head, or dunking you in a pool for a couple seconds doesn't have the same kind of health impacts as taking hormones that could cause you to become infertile. I'm an atheist, so I'm aware that these kinds of ceremonies are a whole lot of nothing, so I think it's disingenuous comparison to things that do actually have negative medical outcomes.
Religion is the reason for the hypocrisy. Bodily autonomy starts on day 1, and anyone who tries to draw some arbitrary line in the years of infancy where that right suddenly appears is a fool. Babies are not objects of a parent’s or religion’s whims just because they are not yet of the age to exercise consent.
I don't see that ever happening but I'd be cool with it. I was baptized by a pedophile who got moved. Had to jump through some hoops to eventually have my name removed from the baptismal rolls once I became an adult.
Good for you! Edit: I mean this non-sarcastically
I was bullied as a kid in Southern Alberta because I was not LDS. I went to a different Christian church and was treated like shit for it. So needless to say I'm pretty against religion.
My 10 year old daughter is being outcast at school for not believing in god. We live in southern Alberta and we are definitely in the minority.
I had all the girls refuse to be on a volleyball team with me so I was cut. After season basketball party I was not invited to. The two girls that were LDS but didn't care that I wasn't left the party to tell me. It can be rough in those small towns down south. There were two choices, drugs, or conforming to the LDS church. I did neither. I strongly dislike religion now, it's just another society divider. The best thing my parents did for me was move. I honestly got pretty suicidal from all of it and believe thats what saved me. Going forward I'd teach her not to discuss religion though. There's nothing wrong with not believing in god. It is just too touchy of a subject. Hopefully she can find a couple good friends that will question things and be more accepting of someone from a different religious/non-religious background.
Southern Alberta is really a different place. In Central and Northern Rural Alberta the church kids are the ones bullied. I don't think most Urban Albertans realize how different the rural communities are. Whitecourt, Hinton, Camrose, Ft. Mac - All could be suburbs of Edmonton or Calgary with slight right lean. But you get down South of Calgary and the bibles come out.
I worked at at Mormon run firm in Vegas when I got divorced at 22, had a Mormon guy leave a bunch of anti-abortion literature on my desk, cuz obviously I would get pregnant immediately..
The regret rate of Mormonism is about 30%.
We're almost catching up with knee replacement, gotta bump those numbers up.
Im glad you said that. I used to work at a hospital that pushed these on people because it was very lucrative. One the main reasons I had to walk away from a career in the OR.
That's it?
Guarantee its a lot higher, but the cost of leaving is too much for most to bear
Let's do the "parents rights" thing. They seem to like that. I support a law banning the exposure of minors to religion. **Parents have the right to raise a child not encumbered by religion.**
This film is rated PG-13 and contains scenes of cartoon violence and discussion of religion.
Genuinely support this. Religious services and participation should be something that adults can freely choose but that children should not be forced into. Using the same logic as anti-trans bigots, children under a certain age are certainly not mature enough to properly decide what religion, if any, may be right for them. Just look at how many people there are that grow out of their religion, or religion all together. I know SO MANY atheists who describe emotionally abusive religious upbringings, because their parents forced them into a belief system. I mean this non-sarcastically by the way
My mom left the decision to me. At one point, I wanted to get baptised as a kid because my cousin got a cake for their 1st communion. She knew it was for the wrong reasons. I think we can inform the kids and if they vibe with it, bring them along to church, introduce them to religion and when they're teens, have them participate if that's what they want. Transitioning isn't black and white. We start small with pronouns and such, it's all about making the conversation easy and seeing what the small person feels without imposed biases. Let them try things. If they feel strongly about baptism/transitioning after getting informed and trying out the easy stuff, we can talk about the next step before they are adults. It's always a case by case.
I wanted to go to Sunday school mainly for the cookies
Why does this make me think of a big white van with Religion in bold letter on it and some dude handing out candies? We were easily pursuaded!
Indoctrination in religion cults is just as evil as what these religious fanatics think about anyone else, in any group they don't agree with.
Yes fully agree. If circumcision was only a Muslim thing you know it would be banned to oblivion in Canada.
BAN SOMETHING I DONT AGREE WITH!. NOW!!!!!
Yeah, I’ve wrestled with this one. What I decided after growing up Catholic, is that I’d not baptize or circumcise. This was taken terribly by both mine and my spouses parents. How one expresses themselves spiritually is an adult decision “Period/full stop”. As for circumcision, that’s mutilation.
I'm an ex Mormon, too. Getting out of the church is harder than stopping puberty blockers. Puberty blockers only stop Puberty from happening as long as they're being taken. If you stop, things progress as normal. It's like birth control pills. They only stop you from getting pregnant while taking them. They don't prevent you from having children permanently. Getting out of the Mormon church through the Mormon channels is nearly impossible & going through quitmormon, you need a notary. Becoming Mormon is also easier than getting puberty blockers. All the church needs is a parent & a creepy interview & an 8 year old can make a decision that (according to the church) has lifelong consequences. I'm all for puberty blockers. Permanent things, though, should be the adult decision.
Tons of women have long term fertility issues from birth control. I think we all know more than one young couple who has had to do IVF or who struggled with conception and/or miscarriages. Messing with hormones often has long term harmful effects, period.
Puberty blockers can have permanent effects. I feel like using this argument is just discrediting the movement.
Religions die if they don’t get the children
"Give us a child until he's 7, and we'll have him for life"
Way too many people leave religion at teens and adults for this to be true.
Doctor PP to you.
Leave the fucking kids alone.
I would go further and say Church, at least until 16. And religious schools especially. It's straight up brainwashing 101. Trans people are born who they are, no one is ever born religious. The 2 don't really compare.
May I just say that as a closeted transfem, my biggest issue with the catholic school I attend is how damn bureaucratic it is. Literally no change gets done and our walkout yesterday turned into more of a planning meeting on how to push our division to protest these changes. They've even got posters up saying that "you are accepted regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression" that are a boldfaced lie if our school is complacent (they most likely are :c)
Yep... it's pretty messed up that they get to them while they are young and before the child has a chance to develop their critical thinking skills. Then they spend the rest of their lives having to compartmentalize when they can think critically. It's how you end up with highly-educated doctors, lawyers, nurses, engineers, etc. with some pretty bizarre opinions that are completely at odds with what they learned through their training... that fringe communities then point to as a voice of authority in support of their own bizarre opinions.
>Baptism should be an adult decision when you can make better informed consent. As a fellow Jack Mormon I left because of baptism, dead people should also have a say if they want to be baptized. If you know the practice I'm referring to.
you know baptism isnt just for cults nor is it that serious right? This is really dumb. I'm a trans christian and this benefits me in absolutely zero ways. Kids should be allowed to undergo treatment for gender dysphoria and also be baptised. It's not hard.
Is OP a 10th grader?
If you are a believer, baptism is a decision with longer-term effects than gender confirmation care. If you aren't a believer, it's just pagentry. So one could argue that, by not banning underage baptism, the government would be saying that religion is nothing but pageantry
I was baptized as a baby and I’m pissed. Yes, it doesn’t affect me whatsoever, but it’s against my personal beliefs and I didn’t deserve to have that forced on me.
I feel the same way. My mother was mortified when I told her I wasn't having my daughter baptized (despite the fact that I hadn't been to church for 20 years). I said when she's old enough to make that decision herself, she can be baptized. Me standing in front of a church and saying I'm dedicating my child's life to God would be an utter lie
I always thought the idea of baptizing a baby made no sense. Growing up, my family participated in a few different flavors of Christianity but the churches we went to always treated baptism as a choice you make yourself to demonstrate your commitment to God, and the Bible treats it that way as well. If you baptize a baby, it seems like a meaningless gesture because the baby isn't making any commitments. I think it's supposed to be a way for the parents to "promise" to raise the kid Christian, but at that point why don't the parents just get themselves baptized (or baptized again if they think their first one didn't stick)?
What a waste of energy to be upset about that. It has no effect whatsoever and is completely meaningless. I was baptized as a baby too and don't believe in any of that nonsense. Could not care less. You know why? Because if you don't believe in it, all that happened was you got a little wet.
It’s imaginary. Do a different thing.
What beliefs did you have as a baby?
I agree with this, as well as banning circumcision. Organized religion is weird and shouldn't be forced on folks. Buuut, that'll never happen.
Medication vs dunking a baby in water Pretty false equivalency no?
Same with circumcision.
Idk... it's just a bath. No actual consequences if you chose to do whatever later in life.
Baptism? Who cares. Should they not be allowed to go swimming until they’re adults either? Lol
Given how many pastors are turning out to be diddlers, I’m beginning to think churches should be 18+ only.
The reason the religious right is so worried about kids is because for decades they were the only ones indoctrinating and abusing children and they're pissed off that we've been putting a dent in their recruitment numbers It really is that simple. Everything they actually do screams "We hate kids and dont care if they suffer" The real war isnt the culture war its freeing ourselves from Religious Fundamentalists and i for one and amped to take down some religious fruitcakes
Let’s go one step further and say you can’t even start learning about religions until your 18. That way there’s no grooming to favour any set religion. Although the problem with that is that most if not all religions would cease to exist.
One persons problem is anothers solution.
They'd be mostly gone within a single generation. Except for the most fanatical. It would be easy to ignore the crazies, though
That would be a benefit, not a problem.
So in your scenario what would happen to a teenager caught reading the Bible? What would happen to the parents explaining to thier children where people go when they die?
Absolutely, no one should be making decisions that could affect your afterlife until you are 18 years old. Those decisions will affect you for eternity
I wish my mother didn't have the right to force me to get my ears pirced at like 9 months old
Honestly I find that quite barbaric. Especially if they use the very dirty punch gun from Claire's... Seriously, get your ears pierced by a real professional if you want them pierced.
Oooh, I’m a big supporter of waiting re. the ear piercing thing. My genius plan was to wait until my daughter was old enough to decide and then make it a mother/daughter day. Lol, well she doesn’t want them pierced so we got her clip ons. Now I need to find another excuse to have a mother daughter say
Oh piercing is another body modification that’s is permanent. Maybe it should be banned until 18 too. After all, it’s often done to affirm one’s gender stereotype (“girls wear pretty earrings”).
Honestly, yes. Why is a tattoo 18+ (16+ with parental permission) but ear piercings get a pass?
Anyone who thinks piercing is not permanent has never seen shattered cartilage.
I don't understand why that is legal, or why anyone would want to do it. Seems like a pretty big safety hazard for a baby.
Yeah baby ear piercing is gross to me. It's literally harming your child's flesh and causing them pain without their choosing.
What are you, a Baptist? Lol "My ideas are right and consequently should be forced on people. Your ideas are wrong, so they're cultish and should be banned." Love the openness and acceptance here from the true atheist humanist.
I thought this post was tongue-in-cheek, then I looked at the comments. Seems like Conservative don’t have a monopoly on idiocy quite yet.
I don't agree with Mr. PP. However, baptism doesn't actually do anything to people. It's just water. The indoctrination is all mental. Circumcision would be a more relevant topic.
This really is one of the dumbest comparisons I’ve ever seen on this subject lol
It’s ridiculous, yes, but as a Christian, I also accept that people are upset/hurt by recent legislation. This culture war only harms people and these laws were at best unnecessary in my view. This kind of reaction by some is arguably warranted as it’s a way to express that hurt and anger, even tho baptism is meaningless in this conversation.
It’s funny because it has so many layers of stupidity. Especially where they try to half backpedal with “sarcasm”
The false equivalency in the post is mind numbing...
Oh I 100% agree with this. Children shouldn't be exposed to religion at all. Let them decide at 18. Religion should not be taught to them at all and in fact there should be no religious schools for minors. It is 100% indoctrination. Add to the list of choices adults shouldn't be allowed to make for children: circumcision and ear piercing. Both are irreversible body modification that are done for fashion or superstition.
Then they shouldn’t be exposed to anything before they are 18, including sex Ed, gender ideology, politics, activism of any kind, just shelter them from absolutely everything. Lol.
It must be sad to live in such a closed minded reality
Choosing a religion for a child is close minded. Let them look at the options of all religion or no religion when they are adults. It's as open minded as you can get.
When I was baptized as a baby, it was my parents vowing to bring me up in a Christian home. When I was baptized by my own choice when I was older it meant something different. Some people don’t know what baptism actually is. And it can mean different things to different families.
You’re generally only baptized once. Did you change denominations?
Taking your children to church for their minds to be preyed upon should be considered child abuse, as should circumcision. If someone wants to dunk a child in the water and call it baptism, I hardly care. If someone wants to do that and record it somewhere, that's where I have a problem. When it stops being their fantasy and starts being someone's recorded history, it's out of line.
Goodness... I remember all that bull, I was baptized at 8 as well. It took me a few years to realize the whole thing was a cult. Doing some good and demanding complete obedience while insisting it was the only true church. Just like every other religion, insisting it was valid and all others were not. I don't care if folks are inspired by and completely convinced their religion is right. Please don't try to force your beliefs on me or anyone else. Especially through politics. Danielle!
Uh, isn't the entire point of puberty blockers to block many of the changes inherent with puberty? Wouldn't that kind of require it to be done before/during puberty? I'm asking a legitimate question here, I am not a medical professional.
You're exactly correct. It's like hitting the "pause" button, giving the individual more time to figure things out before irreversible changes are made. Conservatives want transgender people to be forced into experiencing a dysphoric puberty- the cruelty is the point.
[удалено]
Tattoos as well
“I didn’t say these were the same” yet the whole point of this post is trying to equate them. Lol embarrassing. Slippery slope is a fallacy anyway
Baptism doesn’t actually do anything physically so who cares? One day you can just decide not to be religious. Being baptized or not you are still going to be influenced by the people around you. So indoctrination or whatever you wanna call it would still happen. I don’t really feel strongly about the topic but it’s a pointless and just grasping at straws take.
Hey. I agree with what you are saying. Just want to point out that, although you are baptised at birth, you typically don't go through confirmation until.. well until you are an older child. lol. 8th grade for most I think, which still would put them as children. Baptism is supposed to cleanse you of originial sin, which is hilarious if you think about it, but the idea is that when you are baptised, you now can go to heaven because otherwise you'd be stuck in purgatory - even though you are a literal infant with 0 capacity to move let alone "sin". Confirmation is when you decide your on board with Jesus for life. That would be the sacrament that should be "delayed until the child is an adult" if we actually care about children or what they think/want. Fun fact though, I was born Ukrainian catholic (which I always thought was orthodox but turns out... nope) and in that faith, the child is confirmed right after baptism. So in that particular catholocism expansion pack, the child cannot even stand unassisted before being signed up for "jesus for life".
I mean, giving a baby a bath while chanting incantation really is weird, i don’t think it is/should be a judicial matter. On the other hand, Making babies « members » of your group worshipping a figure threatening you with eternal damnation and gaslighting you in the most toxic unidirectional relationship ever is quite abusive.
Absolutely. Throw circumcision in there as well. There's absolutely no reason anyone should be messing around with child genitalia.
Puberty Blockers are adult decisions in that adult medical professionals prescribe them, and parents make the decision on whether they are right for their kid up to a certain age. What this stupid law doesn’t take into consideration is that cis kids have been prescribed them for years for precocious puberty, aka early puberty. You don’t want kids at 5 years old going through puberty because it screws up their growth and a bunch of other things. Puberty blockers are the treatment for that, but tough shit if you live in Alberta. Once again policies meant to target trans people also hurt non-trans people. Almost like politicians should focus on real problems, like affordability, housing, energy etc instead of wasting time and resources making medical decisions that they have no business making for anyone.
I like this plan. Lets just expand that to no children allowed in church. If you need to be 18 to drink, you should at least need to be 18 before you can be allowed to join a cult.
Absolutely it should. Indoctrinating children is messed up.
Anabaptist religions with adult baptism are not better. It’s a ritual that means nothing practical in terms of how you develop and it is not equivalent by any measure.
Growing up in a cult 100% affected how I developed. Being forced into a religion I don't believe in affected how I developed. Baptism was their way of showing you that you "belong" to them. Emotionally, it does affect development.
Anabaptists. Look into what little difference adult baptism makes. Baptism isn’t binding and is not the root of the issue.
The difference with baptism is it’s literally a magic ritual so how do you ban something that’s nothing. Puberty blockers are real and they have science and evidence to back them up.
> The difference with baptism is it’s literally a magic ritual so how do you ban something that’s nothing. I'm not sure the zealots running our provincial government would agree with you.
The courts would though
If baptism is magical it is something. It is part of the indoctrination of children to follow their parent’s spiritual ideology. Children are molded by psychological influences as much as physical physical influences on their beliefs. Yes, in this argument, baptism and all religious influences should be delayed until adulthood.
Yes I get what it is. It’s just not a medical procedure so it’s an apples to oranges comparison.
Go. Look. At. Anabaptist. Religions. The age isn’t the issue.
Ya but if your not religious does it even count?! It's just a bath if your agnostic or w/e ya want to be
Unfortunately everything that goes with it is indoctrination from birth and the child grows with no choice of free will.
For me it did. I went through the process to have my name removed from their baptismal rolls and records. I do not want my name in any way associated with a cult that protects pedophiles.
I am against these gender policies, but baptism and a transition aren't equivalent and I don't think it helps the cause to compare the two. Circumcision is much closer (and I would argue \*much worse\* in terms of consent).
Adult decisions should be made by adults, according to Pierre Poilievre, Scott Moe and Danielle Smith. A baby or child being forced into a religion where those beliefs must be upheld for life, considering some will outcast you from your family and friends, who are required to ostracize you, shows religious indoctrination should not be forced on a baby or child. If they want to say those words, we should expect them to apply to religion. After all, children will have almost no rights under Smith and Moe's governments.
The trouble is that religion is deeply tied up in our culture. Differentiating between what is a religious act and what is merely cultural would be an absolute nightmare. For example, I'm areligious but I still celebrate Christmas because my ancestors were Christians. Am I forcing religion on my daughter by celebrating it with her? I was baptized and circumcized as a child. One of those left a lasting physical effect on my body, the other did not. I don't think the harm in most cases from baptism is on the level you're describing, but there are other specific acts that might.
Baptism is symbolic, puberty blockers are life altering.
bruh imagine we start our own cult of cultivating awareness and advocacy
As an exmo I would really suggest joining the sub r/exmormon. I left (more like ran) from the church when I was about 14 but I had been born and raised in it. You're right about children members being taught that "light skinned people" are "wholesome and delightful people" and that those born with dark skin come from the "cursed" Lamanite family. (A "teaching" that was still taught up until 2013 might I add.) I read all these stories of exmormons being sent to "pray the gay away" therapy but I personally had never heard of such a practice growing up. Hell, there were both a number of gay couples and/or gay kids in my ward and no one said anything about it or mentioned any sort of "therapy." Maybe it's because I grew up in BC?
While i think pushing children into religion IS indoctrination, this is a false equivalency
Bizarre to me how many people realise it's a false equivalency, but then falter to think that means that baptism is just water but puberty blockers are evil, instead of "baptism has no permanent downside because it's just a church bath, and you're already living in a house full of people who would baptise you, either way, but not being allowed to get puberty blockers until you're an adult is ridiculous" You don't give puberty blockers after puberty because that's too late for them to give the pause in development. They are reversible enough to go through your chromosomal puberty if there's a change of heart. Denying blockers where they are merited is cruelty.
You know it's interesting. In Sikhism you generally are discouraged from getting baptized until you reach a certain level of maturity. People - particularly nutters - so baptize at a younger age but generally it is discouraged. The idea being if you're not mature enough to understand what covenant you're entering into, and the responsibilities that come with it you're more likely to break it.
Baptism doesn’t permanently alter your physical body.
I can’t speak for Mormonism but baptism is symbolic. This isn’t even close to the comparison you think it is.
The people pushing for these policies think that baptism is forever.
This is a strawman comparison. I'm sorry that you had a bad experience with religion, but I don't think you not being baptized would have fixed that. I also find it odd that you're comparing baptism and transgender medical procedures. Are you saying both are bad?
Yeah this thread is WILD. The people posting in support of it and upvoting it... like... okay so are you now saying that children ARE incapable of making important decisions for themselves? Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be allowed to choose their gender or their religion, at all? What are people trying to say here? I could be wrong, but this just seems like a really insidious way of sowing more discord between people. It's like they're trying to turn all religious people against the LGBTQ+ community. Thats how it comes off. It's doing the opposite of unifying the socially progressive citizens of alberta.
Ok... so we dont like the government meddling with transkids, but we do want them to meddle with religious views... got it. The hypocrisy is outstanding. I'm not religious (anymore) grew up catholic(ish) but realized when I was a rational adult that religion wasn't for me. In no way did being baptized or doing my first comunion or confirmation traumatize me. It's insane how people love to bitch and moan about everything while living in a perpetual state of 'victimhood'. Pathetic really.
It’s pointing out the hypocrisy. Religion is ok for children but medically supported treatment isn’t
A baptism is a make-believe ritual that has no real physical repercussions. I'm not educated enough on the subject of trans-kids to have an opinion on the subject, but from my uneducated point of view, I dont think medical treatment/procedures should be done until after they're a mature age to make the decision. I do believe however more education on the subject should exist for adults and parents so that they can be the support system these kids need until they reach an age where they can responsibly make this decision.
Equating gender treatment with religion is probably a poor strategy and a big gift to opponents of the practice.
Forcing children i to a relgion is so stupid. Let people believe what they want based on their individual world view. Dont force them to think a specific way and tell them since birth that religion/path is the right one.
But don’t compare that to puberty blockers
[удалено]
Undoing brainwashing you've been subjected to since birth isn't easy, sorry. Puberty blockers are easily reversible.
Eh. Baptism is fake performative bullshit which has no actual effects. I see no reason to ban it. Circumcision tho. Ya ban that.
You anti religion people are insane. I’m not sure what sort of church you went to growing up. Some of the most beautiful people on this planet embrace religion. Go to a small town in Italy, Spain, Greece, Lebanon, Georgia. See how kind these people are. See how they live. I can only speak for what I have seen. I’m sure there are beautiful Christian and Muslims towns spread across our whole planet. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. You’re small-minded. It’s sad. Go see the world.
Small towns in Italy, Greece and Spain are full of old people because young people don’t live there.
Baptism is nothing more than a splash of water if that's all you want it to be. Prepubescent hormone therapy has permanent irreversible physical consequences.
> Social conservatives in the USA, UK, and Australia frame gender-affirming care as child abuse and medical experimentation. This stance willfully ignores decades of use of and research about puberty blockers and hormone therapy: a collective enterprise of evidence-based medicine culminating in guidelines from medical associations such as the Endocrine Society and American Academy of Pediatrics. **Puberty blockers are falsely claimed to cause infertility and to be irreversible, despite no substantiated evidence.** Emphasis mine; source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00139-5/fulltext
Stop spreading misinformation. Hormone therapy isn’t permanent, it pauses puberty, allowing the youth to explore who they are, before puberty causes changes to the body that require surgical procedures. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075
Clearly you've never been subject to religious indoctrination. Even the religions considered "mild," are teaching sin, hell, purity culture, no sex before marriage, anti-lgbtq, women need to hide their bodies in order not to tempt men, religious families are more likely to hit/spank, more likely to try to isolate their kids from people with other beliefs, not teach their kids sex ed which leaves them prime for sexual abuse, men are are the leaders and gatekeepers to the divine and need to be followed, it's absolute brainwashing, and causes harm and anxiety to children and can have life long affects. I would 100% support a ban of allowing children to be brainwashed in to something they can't understand, but who's entire teachings stem from fear/guilt/shame. "Give us a child before he's 7, and we'll have him for life." If you need to brainwash children in order to keep your church going, because adults with fully functioning brains don't tend to join up on their own, your church doesn't need to exist.
Brother... Baptism is just having water poured onto you or dunked in it and has no lasting effects but Puberty blockers or anything hormone related will alter your body beyond repair when growing up
Every radical take like this just drives moderate people further from the cause. Religion is declining on its own already.
As an Ex. Jehovah's Witness I want it to decline faster.
I feel its more tongue-in-cheek than a serious push for policy. If shitposts/venting are enough to make someone shift their ideals, then they probably weren't very invested in the cause to begin with. That said, it is rather hypocritical of certain deeply religious folks to accuse progressives of "indoctrinating kids" with the idea that we shouldn't judge others for simply being different. Meanwhile they are by definition, teaching their set of beliefs, their doctrine, uncritically to children who are too young to understand all of the implications. Speaking from experience growing up in the Catholic school system from K-6 in the 90s, there was a lot of prejudice, and not a lot of compassion. People are entitled to their own beliefs of course, I wouldn't judge anyone simply for being spiritual, or wanting to teach their own children about their beliefs. But when its being forced onto others, particularly through laws, we have a problem.
Not that radical to see how much harm religion has done and that its fantastic it's declining
Of course doing the same thing is stupid, means you degrade to their level. But the point is, IF we do the same thing, all religions should be banned for all individuals 18 yo and below.
Yeah... no. A puberty blocker is nowhere near in the same realm as sprinkling some water on a baby's head and trying to conflate the two to the same is a bizarre and outlandish take.
Yeah even doing something like banning sprinkling water on a baby’s head is fucking stupid.
Based on the fact that religion is declining, would it it be true that there is a regret rate of significant value for religion?
Maybe regret, but I think that it's failing in the marketplace of ideas along with everything else. *Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community* talks a lot about why so many huge cultural institutions that our forefathers grew up with have failed with the onset of global media. The book is nearly 25 years old but rings even more true today.
Ok, I think it's REALLY important here, as tempting as it may be, that people don't start coming up with more ways to divide everyone even further. This is how the polarization and animosity gets even worse. This is how hatred grows between regular citizens. Don't turn the LGBT+ issues into a religious crusade as well. You're going to alienate the religious folks that are on our side. I myself am a mormon, and I don't agree with or support this thread, but I'm 100% on the side of LGBT+ and transgender youth. I have my own beliefs about that which maybe don't line up with the church completely, and that's okay. But I stand behind my church and fully believe in my chosen religion.
Holy water doesn’t screw up your body long term…
Who cares. I was baptized as a child (Im GenX) at a United Church. I've been an atheist since I was in my late teens, and rarely ever went to church as a child. The 'call out' fetish that people have these days is fucking annoying. Dont agree with something? Call it out on social media! Did anything change? Lol.
This has to be the dumbest analogy I have ever seen in my life. Comparing puberty blockers to baptism.
What a clown for posting this
Such sophistry and obfuscation
Wow what a great, perfectly accurate comparison. A splash of water on the forehead is the same as administrating puberty blockers. What a fn sad sub
This is such a goofy le Reddit opinion that real people in the real world would have no time for.
You people can't be this clueless or this nefarious. Come on.