Nobody ever challenges this freak spontaneously and nobody ever asks him what his sexual orientation is. The only time anybody would ever ask follow-up questions is if he casually dropped "I'm asexual" into some unrelated conversation unsolicited, which might solicit some polite (or even genuinely curious) response. But of course, if questions -- or "challenges" as he calls them -- are such a bother, why would he volunteer the very information that provokes those challenges when he doesn't need to in the first place? Hmmm...
Cool. Challenge accepted, slag.
I feel like this is 100% unconstitutional on some level
I'm sure it is. What do they propose holding states "accountable" for, exactly? They're banning specific medical treatments and procedures under certain circumstances, not forcing one like the feds want to do with the damned Wu Flu vaccine. And those restrictions specifically involve minors, who are routinely afforded stronger protections under the law (and burdened with more constraints and restrictions as well) and in fact don't even have full legal autonomy over themselves in the first place.
What actual injury are they alleging states are causing by prohibiting permanent, irreversible and controversial physiological and surgical changes being made to children who aren't even finished physically developing yet? How do the feds plan to argue against the parents' rights to make medical decisions for their own children? How will they respond when opposing counsel (in the inevitable litigation) points out they already can't override parents' wishes re: medical care of their children when they object on religious grounds, and so have no basis to claim authority to do it in this case?
It's such a fucking can of worms that I can't wait for them to open. If they really do pursue this, they're essentially telling every parent in America "lol fuck you, you're not in charge of your children's healthcare anymore." The state (in the "nation" sense) literally usurping parents' authority over their own kids and punishing anyone trying to stop it.
It was mentioned many pages back that part of the reason all the anti-grooming stuff in Texas sort of sprang up seemingly out of nowhere and scorched its way through the legislature, steamrolling anyone who got in the way and got signed into law in record time was that parents had started openly threatening to shoot school board members personally if they didn't back off the obvious grooming shit they were encouraging in the public schools.
The legislation was a no-brainer for Texas (despite Austin's leftist infestation) since for one thing they take their gun rights and responsibilities very seriously and for another, they don't shy away from actually using the damned things to settle disputes when it becomes clear there's no other option. I've no doubt the legislature and governor there agreed with the parents on this one, but even if they didn't, they were still savvy enough to realize if they
didn't act pre-emptively to stop this shit, they really
would have some school board shootings on their hands. When law-abiding citizens with a lot to lose start openly threatening gunplay, even in Texas, people pay attention because something has gone horribly wrong.
Now imagine telling those same parents that not only is that legislation protecting their kids null and void, but they'll be personally punished if they try to intervene when random perverts want to meet with their kids privately to talk about sex and emerge with a medical and surgical plan to dose the kid up and mutilate him, and there's nothing they can do to stop it.
They need to be really careful with this shit. You do not fuck with mama bear's cubs, at least not in conservative areas. The tree of liberty occasionally demands to be fed with blood, and this is a situation that could very well keep it well-fed for decades if these idiots keep acting like they're invincible.