Younger, the biological father and an Orthodox Christian, is morally convicted that this is all wrong and is also concerned about the possible side effects of the hormone treatments his ex-wife plans to introduce to his son, which include lifelong infertility from chemical castration. He says that when James is with him, he identifies as a boy and “violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home.” But he lost his case. As a result of the jury’s decision, Younger will likely be forced to take a class on transgenderism to correct his wrongthink.
Government should not be interfering with Younger’s attempts to stop this injustice. It should intervene on his behalf to protect James by stopping child gender “transitions” entirely.
Why does Texas not have a state law preventing irreversible chemical castration of minors, especially when there is sworn testimony that the child appears not to want it, and at the very least only one parent is pushing for it?
If this castration can happen in the supposedly conservative state of Texas, it can happen anywhere. If the Texas legislature fails to enact such a law at the next available opportunity, we should draw our own conclusions about the fate of the state (and perhaps the rest of the nation).
Excerpts from this article:
Why does Texas not have a state law preventing irreversible chemical castration of minors, especially when there is sworn testimony that the child appears not to want it, and at the very least only one parent is pushing for it?
If this castration can happen in the supposedly conservative state of Texas, it can happen anywhere. If the Texas legislature fails to enact such a law at the next available opportunity, we should draw our own conclusions about the fate of the state (and perhaps the rest of the nation).