That would be Republican parents. Can’t let those with suspect thinking making decisions for anyone, not even themselves, don’t you know?
So if I’m getting this right - if it is passes, then trans kids will be…what, literally illegal?
Not sure if I’m getting my head around this.
Yikes.
Not a lawyer, from what I can tell it makes puberty blockers for children rx only and prohibits SRS or any medical procedure intended to transition a child (I assume child means 18 or younger)
Violate these provisions and risk being reported for child abuse / presumptive (meaning, I think, it’s on you to prove to CPS otherwise) determination of child endangerment
The law has no retroactive effect
~Max
If it passes, the potential worst scenario is that parents of a trans child go to jail, lose custody, and the kid winds up with another family who likely are anti-trans and attempt to “de-program” and get the kid to accept their assigned-at-birth gender.
I doubt that would happen in all cases, but I would also except there to be a few examples made.
That’s not very common though, is it (the surgery I mean)? So they’re making something rare illegal just to scare people?
A common strategy.
Remember about 10 years ago when red states started passing laws making Sharia law illegal?
Same deal.
News flash, the modern Republican party sucks.
Puberty blockers are already prescription only. I read this as saying doctors can’t prescribe them to children unless the children meet this bill’s definition of in “intersex.”
So far as I know the only time you get gender “re-assignment” surgery in someone underage is when the child is intersex. Again, so far as I know, NO surgery is being done on under-age children.
If someone has different information please share. But I doubt that this happens.
^ This.
Which means children suffering from precocious puberty are screwed by this. They’re not intersex, they’re not trans, they’re just entering puberty way too early. Aside from the social problems caused by this (6-7-8 year olds being expected to act like the little adults they appear to be and being punished when they don’t, young girls being subjected to sexual harassment/advances, etc.) it can also result in stunted growth. Correlated with increased mental illness and substance abuse, probably as a result of the above issues.
Well, how bad could it be, you ask? What’s the worse that could happen? How about a five year old giving birth.. Which apparently I’ve linked to be fore according to the forum software. I dunno, maybe Texas Republicans think that would be a good thing.
I know a lot of trans adults and college students, and some parents of trans kids. I’ve never heard of sex-confirmation surgery done on them as kids. It’s sometimes done to intersex infants (and probably shouldn’t be) and teenage girls sometimes get breast implants (which is a form of sex-confirmation surgery, although of course it’s typically done to cis girls and women) but that’s about it.
The sole purpose of putting the language about surgery into the bill is so that when people oppose the bill, the right wingers can claim that they support performing surgery on children.
Yes but the bill makes it child abuse without a doctor’s order.
Not my read, it has an exception for drugs dispensed under Subtitle J, Title 3, Occupations code (Pharmacies).
The whole bill looks like one big “gotcha!”
~Max
That’s not how I interpreted that section and I think I’m right. My interpretation is that the law makes an exception and prohibits the prosecution of pharmacists for the dispensing puberty blockers ( probably because the pharmacists have no say in the diagnosis and treatment decisions), but allows for parents and doctors to be prosecuted for prescribing and facilitating treatment with puberty blockers in non-intersex minors.
Wouldn’t giving children prescription medication without a prescription already be illegal, and fall under already well defined areas of child endangerment and abuse?
The intent is to make a chilling effect for healthcare providers to provide the proper treatment that a trans child needs. Things are worded vaguely enough to allow for selective enforcement, a favorite tool of authoritarians.
How is Texas House Bill 643 requiring “drag shows”, in which it includes any “performance in which a performer exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer’s gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience for entertainment”, to be defined as a “sexually oriented business” likely to affect Houston Grand Opera’s January 2023 production of Mozart’s Marriage of Figaro in which (as is completely standard for this work) a cisgender female soprano is cast in the male role of Cherubino?
(Short answer: Not at all for this particular production, because the bill even if passed would not go into effect until September 2023. In the longer term, though, what’s the impact? Are Texas opera companies supposed to just stop putting on any works with travesti roles in them? How about school and community theater groups that routinely cast female actors to play male characters?)
Or Peter Pan
Not sure, as the bill does specify that they also have to serve alcohol to be considered a sexually oriented business. I don’t know if they serve or not.
Once again, I assume not, based on the alcohol requirement.
However, this does mean that Drag Queen Story Hour would also be perfectly acceptable. (I assume they don’t serve alcohol at those, anyway.)
Or re-runs of Monty Python.