🐱 Out Democrat forced to pull bill that would ban genital surgery on minors that actually happens

CatParty


Out gay California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D) has pulled his bill which would’ve banned surgeries on intersex children under the age of 12. Such surgeries can permanently alter a person’s genitals to “correct” biological differences before the person has a say about their wishes and gender identity.

The bill would have banned any genitalia modification procedures on kids younger than 12 unless the surgery was needed to stop immediate physical harm. The bill faced pushback from the California Medical Association as well as parents who felt responsible for their children’s medical decisions, Newsweek reported.

“For three years, we’ve worked to advance legislation, and it’s become apparent that we continue to lack the votes to pass a meaningful bill —one that actually protects intersex people — through committee,” Wiener said.

The bill was held up in the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. There, it seemed unlikely to get a vote to proceed to the Senate floor — effectively stalling it for this legislative session.

Nevertheless, Wiener said he would re-introduce the bill in a future session.

“I’m not giving up, and I stand in solidarity with the intersex community in its fight for bodily autonomy, dignity, and choice,” Wiener said.

This past year, Republican lawmakers in several states introduced legislation banning doctors from providing gender affirming medical care to transgender minors. Much of the rhetoric in support of those bills was about surgery on genitalia, which isn’t performed on transgender youth in the U.S.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) went so far as to bellow about “genital mutilation” during Dr. Rachel Levine’s confirmation hearing last year while talking about transgender children.

While conservatives fear-mongered about the young transgender children who they claimed are getting gender affirming surgery, the laws they proposed to ban the non-existent practice systematically carved out exceptions for such surgery to be performed on intersex minors.

Intersex children are born with any number of chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, or genital features that cause their bodies to physically manifest some combination of stereotypically male or female biological features.

Not all intersex people are born with intersex genitals, but when they are, doctors will often surgically “correct” them by “reducing a clitoris, creating a vagina, or relocating an already functional urethra so a child can pee standing up,” according to Out.

These surgeries occur before they can consent or develop a gender identity, often scarring them for life and creating medical and identity difficulties later on.

“Pausing medically unnecessary genital surgeries until a child is old enough to participate in the decision isn’t a radical idea,” Weiner added. “Rather, it’s about basic human dignity.”

While there aren’t any reliable estimates of the world’s intersex population, a 2000 study published in the American Journal of Human Biology estimates they’re 1.7% of the human population — that’s 125,884,605 people (roughly the entire population of Japan).

In 2017, Georgiann Davis, a researcher on intersex issues, told Hornet, “I’m confident that every single person on this planet has met at least one intersex person in their life, and most likely, they’ve met far more than one person,” many people just haven’t realized it.
 
The bill would have banned any genitalia modification procedures on kids younger than 12 unless the surgery was needed to stop immediate physical harm.

What does this even mean? When would someone's genitals pose anything resembling "immediate physical harm" outside of disease or someone strapping a bomb to them?

This past year, Republican lawmakers in several states introduced legislation banning doctors from providing genital mutilation gender affirming medical care to transgender minors. Much of the rhetoric in support of those bills was about surgery on genitalia, which isn’t performed on transgender youth in the U.S.

Not yet, which is (ideally) why the bills are being made now.
 
What does this even mean? When would someone's genitals pose anything resembling "immediate physical harm" outside of disease or someone strapping a bomb to them?
Optimistically, it's a standard CYA so when some dumbass fucks a venomous snake in the mouth and requires a full penis removal to prevent the venom from spreading to the body, the doctors can still operate and they can't blame this bill for killing the weirdo snake fucker. Kind of like how every abortion debate degenerates into incestuous rape as if those are the only babies that get targeted.

In practice, probably loophole to make the bill lose it's teeth, anyone can bypass the bill by claiming to be ready to 41 themself.

However if it passed like that, we could reasonably assume that every troon in the area that has undergone surgery has officially sworn to their doctor that they are at risk to themself or someone else. That would probably make them easy targets for whatever red flag laws may be in place, just like how having a medical marijuana card can be held against you even if it's legal where you are and you claim you've never used it.

Honestly it could have been an interesting bit of fine print depending on what unintended consequences it triggered.
 
In practice, probably loophole to make the bill lose it's teeth, anyone can bypass the bill by claiming to be ready to 41 themself.

However if it passed like that, we could reasonably assume that every troon in the area that has undergone surgery has officially sworn to their doctor that they are at risk to themself or someone else.
"Cut off my dick, or the rest of my body gets it!"
 
I wonder how this bill defined intersex conditions. I think people think the bill will stop surgeries on ambiguous genitalia. But the article also points out that it would ban surgeries to prevent children from peeing standing up. I have heard that it is common for the urethra opening to sometimes be on the underside of the penis instead of the tip. This developmental problem is easily fixed with surgery, but I don't think most people would call that child intersex? It seems they are using overly broad definitions to inflate their intersex numbers and also prevent surgery that really is in the child's best interest. All in the name of inclusion.
 
Fun fact: Scott Weiner is the same San Francisco politician that actually successfully passed legislation to make knowingly spreading HIV into a misdemeanor instead of a felony in California.
1641428413567.png
He frequents public BDSM fetish events that disguise themselves as gay pride events.
1641428266161.png


1641428343860.png
It should be of no surprise to you that this man would campaign to make spreading HIV a fucking misdemeanor.
 
He’s clearly tired of the tumblrinas trying to barge in on his sausage fests.
 
What does this even mean? When would someone's genitals pose anything resembling "immediate physical harm" outside of disease or someone strapping a bomb to them?
Period blood not flowing out will result it rotting inside. You can holes in wrong enough places that you are getting pee and poop coming out where it's not supposed to be coming from that can result blood poisoning or other infections. You can have issues not getting pee and poop out either not well enough or at all witch will result all sorts if issues, many deadly.
 
Last edited:
What does this even mean? When would someone's genitals pose anything resembling "immediate physical harm"
I presume it means 'to the patient'. Like if they were born without a urethra so would die from not being able to urinate unless doctors operated.

I don't know if that's a real example, but that sort of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin
I presume it means 'to the patient'. Like if they were born without a urethra so would die from not being able to urinate unless doctors operated.

I don't know if that's a real example, but that sort of thing.
Yeah that’s what I was thinking or like cancer or something
 
What does this even mean? When would someone's genitals pose anything resembling "immediate physical harm" outside of disease or someone strapping a bomb to them?
My guess, stuff like testicular or ovarian cancer. Ectopic pregnancy. Severe injury that may require an orchiotomy.

I don’t know if those are considered “immediate”, but if you’re going to ban genital alteration outside of medical contexts, that’s as best a description as I can think of.
 
What does this even mean? When would someone's genitals pose anything resembling "immediate physical harm" outside of disease or someone strapping a bomb to them?
Ever seen interracial porn? Those BBC's can do some serious damage lol.
 
Fun fact: Scott Weiner is the same San Francisco politician that actually successfully passed legislation to make knowingly spreading HIV into a misdemeanor instead of a felony in California.
View attachment 2862316
He frequents public BDSM fetish events that disguise themselves as gay pride events.
View attachment 2862311

View attachment 2862313
It should be of no surprise to you that this man would campaign to make spreading HIV a fucking misdemeanor.
ew, is he dying of AIDS?
 
What does the guy being gay have to do with anything? Is the issue of genital surgery serious or not to these people?
It's a gay news source, so sexuality always matters. But also, if they point out he's gay and then that he didn't get what he wanted, all the standard idiots will presume it's because of homophobia or something rather than any of the myriad of reasons for it.

Intersex is an interesting one, because they're rare and generally stay quiet because they're dealing with a physical condition. But troons constantly claim intersex status to try and validate their bullshit, so he's more likely making a big deal about this for troon reasons than intersex reasons, even though people born with messed-up genitalia and/or other genetic sex-based problems is a real thing that does need to be resolved. Intersex people generally hate troons for co-opting their very real medical issues for their own genderfeels, and I don't trust this guy to actually be giving a shit about the most silent letter in LGBTQIA+++. so I'm de facto calling this a win.

Note also that it doesn't quote a single intersex person, and even states the percentage of them as being higher than that of troons, and yet the only reasons given in the article for wanting the bill to pass involves gender identity. This is clearly troon bullshit under the guise of helping an actual marginalised group of people with medical issues. Fuck off, Weiner.
 
What does this even mean? When would someone's genitals pose anything resembling "immediate physical harm" outside of disease or someone strapping a bomb to them?



Not yet, which is (ideally) why the bills are being made now.
You just answered your own question. Disease. Flesh-eating bacteria are a thing, and the last thing anyone wants is for the 1 in one million chance that a kid has a flesh eating bacteria on his dick and the doctor can't amputate. Regulations are shitty, this is a clear attempt to make them less shitty.
 
You just answered your own question. Disease. Flesh-eating bacteria are a thing, and the last thing anyone wants is for the 1 in one million chance that a kid has a flesh eating bacteria on his dick and the doctor can't amputate. Regulations are shitty, this is a clear attempt to make them less shitty.
It's just that "immediate physical harm" seems like what you'd say in regards to a hostile suicidal person, so my first thought was someone's own penis holding them up at gunpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Next Task
Back