Newsome vetoes bill requiring parents in California to affirm child's gender

[Anonymous]

I was actually surprised to see this this morning.

[Anonymous]

He thinks he's going to run for President when Biden collapses.

[Anonymous]

This is really troubling. All it will do is ensure the status quo of young people being trapped in situations where they cannot be themselves. And suicide rates will continue to be high because of it. This veto WILL kill kids.

Blood is on Newsom’s hands.

[Anonymous]

They think kids will be better off in foster care? This is a parents right to make that choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They think kids will be better off in foster care? This is a parents right to make that choice.

This entirely.
I think that maybe we have gotten too caught up in being progressive that we have forgotten that kids are kids, and that they are constantly evolving.
My child came out a few weeks ago— decided that she wanted to be a “they/he” and wants to go by a different name. Looking through their texts with their friends, this has only been a thing they communicated to anyone since November. When I asked them about it, they said that only have felt like a “he” applied for the past couple of weeks! My gut reaction was to be supportive/show unconditional love, so I had contacted their guidance counselor literally the night they came out and initiated this process to change their names/pronouns at school. If I had waited and just talked to them more, no way I would have done that. I know when you’re sure you’re sure— but at thirteen how can you be so sure you want any labels applied to you— and you sure as hell should have waited more than two weeks before deciding that. That’s shorter than I make them wait before making large purchases! I made them wait three months before agreeing to get their hair colored!
Either way, if this had happened in California, and I had shown any sort of “maybe you should wait” approach, I would have been afraid it could be used against me to get my kid taken away. That’s wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They think kids will be better off in foster care? This is a parents right to make that choice.

This entirely.
I think that maybe we have gotten too caught up in being progressive that we have forgotten that kids are kids, and that they are constantly evolving.
My child came out a few weeks ago— decided that she wanted to be a “they/he” and wants to go by a different name. Looking through their texts with their friends, this has only been a thing they communicated to anyone since November. When I asked them about it, they said that only have felt like a “he” applied for the past couple of weeks! My gut reaction was to be supportive/show unconditional love, so I had contacted their guidance counselor literally the night they came out and initiated this process to change their names/pronouns at school. If I had waited and just talked to them more, no way I would have done that. I know when you’re sure you’re sure— but at thirteen how can you be so sure you want any labels applied to you— and you sure as hell should have waited more than two weeks before deciding that. That’s shorter than I make them wait before making large purchases! I made them wait three months before agreeing to get their hair colored!
Either way, if this had happened in California, and I had shown any sort of “maybe you should wait” approach, I would have been afraid it could be used against me to get my kid taken away. That’s wrong.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is really troubling. All it will do is ensure the status quo of young people being trapped in situations where they cannot be themselves. And suicide rates will continue to be high because of it. This veto WILL kill kids.

Blood is on Newsom’s hands.

Oh please. This law would have been struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of parental rights. If the state can mandate that parents take a certain viewpoint on gender, it could equally be one you don’t like, like prohibiting transition. Amazing to me how progressives consistently fail to understand how basic principles like parental rights & free speech protect them.

[Anonymous]

I think vetoing was the right thing, but this bill seems to be specifically about situations where there is a dispute over custody or visitation. So they wouldn’t be sending kids to foster care, they would be choosing to have the child live with their other parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think vetoing was the right thing, but this bill seems to be specifically about situations where there is a dispute over custody or visitation. So they wouldn’t be sending kids to foster care, they would be choosing to have the child live with their other parent.

That would have been immediately abused by angry parents in a vicious divorce setting.

[Anonymous]

This is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think vetoing was the right thing, but this bill seems to be specifically about situations where there is a dispute over custody or visitation. So they wouldn’t be sending kids to foster care, they would be choosing to have the child live with their other parent.

That would have been immediately abused by angry parents in a vicious divorce setting.

I am the PP you quoted, and I agree. I think that courts need to take all sorts of thing’s into account, and how each parent handles issues such as providing therapy should be considered. But elevating this one thing over all the other issues that a court must consider is just opening this up as an area of potential abuse.