California bill that could punish parents who don't 'affirm' children's gender is 'reckless:' psychotherapist
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Affirmative care for children is a "child-led" approach that ignores children's immaturity, the head of Genspect said about pending California legislation.
A California bill aims to control parents' medical decisions about their children by compelling them to provide "gender-affirming care," a psychotherapist told Fox News.
Parents fighting custody battles could be liable for child abuse if they don't "affirm" their kids' gender under the recently amended AB 957. The legislation, if it becomes law, would require judges presiding over such disputes to favor the parent who best "affirms" the minor's preferred identity, though it doesn't outline what "affirmation" includes.
Democratic state Sen. Scott Weiner from San Francisco co-authored a bill that would compel parents to "affirm" their children's gender.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)
"For the state of California to bring in a bill based on this new approach is so high-handed and reckless, it's going to cause an awful lot of distress," said Stella O'Malley, an Ireland-based psychotherapist who heads Genspect. The group advocates for evidence-based approaches to gender distress, according to its website.
"There's a range of issues with this bill. For starters, they don't define what is affirmation," O'Malley told Fox News.
The legislation passed California's lower chamber May 3 and originally proposed that the courts decide whether each parent in a custody battle was affirming of the child's gender. An amendment added last week added criteria for what constitutes parental responsibility for child welfare, requiring that parents must affirm their child's gender identity if they are to be judged fit for providing for "the health, safety and welfare of the child" in a court of law.
"A key aspect of the affirmative approach is that it's child-led," O'Malley said. "The affirmative approach believes the child knows better, which is basically denying the immaturity of a child."
"Never before in the history of mankind have we had children leading adults, have we had children leading professionals in the decisions around their care," O'Malley continued.
An author of the bill, Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, said at a March hearing children should be affirmed in "every possible way."
"Whether it's based on their gender, whether it's based on how their studies are in school, it doesn't matter, our children should be affirmed," she said.
Wilson wants to "draw a line in the sand" against anti-trans legislation nationwide, she told The San Francisco Chronicle this month.
California Sen. Scott Wiener, a co-author of the bill, has also advanced another bill that would require foster parents to affirm the gender identities of children placed in their homes. Last year, Weiner introduced SB 107 to make California a "refuge" for children's sex changes without parental consent.
Demonstrators protest in support of rights for transgender youth.(Fox News )
So-called gender-affirming care, which can range from therapy sessions to surgeries, is a fairly new medical approach that began gaining traction around 10 years ago, according to O'Malley. She said there isn't enough evidence to suggest the approach works, saying there has been "sloppy scholarship" in the field.
Studies have shown that transgender patients who receive medical interventions as a form of treatment reduces the risk of mental illness, with one study finding that regimens of hormones or puberty blockers led to lower suicidality and depression rates over 12 months.
Critics, meanwhile, have argued that the California bill erodes parental rights and could make the failure to affirm a child's gender a form of child abuse.
"We have many references in history where the state tried to take the place of the parents, and it hasn't worked," O'Malley told Fox News. "So this new way, there's no reason for us to think it will work."
A state senate committee hearing on AB 957 is scheduled for June 13.
Neither Wilson nor Weiner responded to a request for comment.
Tags
Who is online
80 visitors
Imagine the government threatening parents this way?
And our critical thinkers tell us that this is not like a Stalin type regime!
I think you've now seeded more articles attacking transgender people than others have seeded about Trump.
What is your hangup about this? Live and let live for god's sake.
Is that the way you see it?
Young children are in the government's care, not their parents?
You do realize how radical this shit is, right?
I'm talking about your obsession with the topic of transgender. This is not a major issue to the vast majority of people.
I don't believe in letting young children make such a decision. Nor, do I like teachers hidding things from parents or government threatening parents.
This is not a major issue to the vast majority of people.
I disagree.
Did you type that with a straight face??
I couldn't even read it and keep a straight face. The ignorance in that was hilarious.
So you don't have a problem with the state attempting to usurp parental rights and impose its doctrine upon them under threat of punishment them if they don't comply?
This is standard practice under autocratic regimes....Germany's Hitler Youth, Stalin's child soldiers....today's China and North Korea.
This is attacking transgenders?
Please take off your Democrat tinged glasses- you might see the world more clearly.
Yes, live and let live. Let parents decide what is best for their children- and not a bunch of fascist Democrats.
As for seeded articles- everyone would have to post multiple articles for years to equal your Trump volume.
Of all the stories you post, you think a state a passing an actual law that redefines the relationship between parent and kids isn’t worth discussing?
The paradigm is undefeated.
Left assaults the country’s mores.
Right notices and objects.
Left accuses the right of engaging in culture wars for noticing what the left is Doing.
Didnt read the article. Not interested in becoming obsessed about a topic that effects a tiny part of the population. You guys are obsessed with it enough for all of us.
Yes, ignore laws that actually governs peoples private family relationships.
Maybe another post obsessing over a single school placing a library book on the book shelf for the grade levels the books publisher recommends, instead?
Genspect:
Am I the only one not surprised this is proposed in one of the most liberal state governments in the country?
Creating a divide between parent and child or removing the child from parental custody is just another Marxist step to destroy the USA from within. The far left refuses to acknowledge it.
2015
2016
2020
And here we are, in 2023:
And the POTUS welcoming bare breasts on the White House lawn ...
You know the left isn't even remotely good with facts.
Apparently neither is the right as this bill does nothing of the sort that is being portrayed.
It only gives judges discretion when deciding custody battles...
It stops just short of telling judges to award custody to the parent that best supports the delusion that a child is capable of making a decision about it's gender.
Stops short huh....
A nice way to put it doesn't do what this seed portrays.
Then don't you think you should look up the bill instead of playing "Telephone"?
What does that even mean. Show me where in this bill it strips any parents of any rights.
Again, it is about custody battles.
I think it's only CA so far. But, I'd bet that if they succeed, WA, NY, MI, MA, and IL will be close behind. I'm glad my own kids are long past childhood, because one of my sons used to "think" he was a dinosaur when he was in his 3-yr-old Dino Stage, and one of my daughters "thought" she was a tap dancer and nearly wrecked our hardwood floors with her patent leather Sunday shoes (they "clicked" so nicely on the wood!)
It means quit being lazy and look up the fucking bill and read it instead of going off what others tell you. You aren't getting all the information.
So you can't tell me this supposed information?
If you are too lazy to look it up, you're too lazy to comprehend it. That's something you have to deal with. Not my problem.
So no, you cannot tell me this compelling information yourself. So I come to the conclusion there is no other info...
Re: your first paragraph - Think about this: Kids under 17 can't even enlist in our miliary and serve our country. There are many other things they're also not legally allowed to do - and for good reason. Their brains have not fully developed into adulthood (approx. age 25-26) to rationally make those decisions.
There isn't any wisdom in the government allowing children to make decisions about taking hormone-altering drugs and submitting to irreversible surgeries. It is child abuse.
Seems like it was just a few days ago that progressives on this site were so adamant that they and they alone would decide to raise their kids now happily endorse the state intervening in child raising.
It's interesting that countries like England, Norway, Sweden etc are banning puberty blockers for minors while state like California seem to be embracing the approach taken by Iran.
I never thought I'd see Americans approve of genital mutilation.
Puberty blockers are not genital mutilation. It is preventing the onset of puberty.
Surgery is. It's very popular in Iran. Get rids of gays.
This is true, but I don't see how it applies to this article.
You are correct. Since I didn't mention puberty blockers in my comment 6.1, why did you feel the need to state the obvious to me? Also, why did you misrepresent my comment? Not cool.