Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>No, that's exactly factual.
>>
>>16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>
>Two words: Bull shit.

Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
number of ways. It's not a child.

>>>>>If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>>>>for
>>>>>this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>>future
>>>>>costs than may result from it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>>'no'
>>>>>then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>
>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>
>>>Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer have
>>>any responsibly towards their child.
>>>
>>>Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>>since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>>highest.
>>>
>>>I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
>>>know that.
>>
>>So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>
>The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age of
>majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.

I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
person.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 10/4/2024 8:59 PM, Joel wrote:
> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>>> unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's exactly factual.
>>>
>>> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>
>> Two words: Bull shit.
>
>
> Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
> authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
> number of ways. It's not a child.

It's 2024 and they most certainly are. Kids in this age group are the
worst ever raised in this country. They are social media products and
totally fucked in their heads.

>>>>>> If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>>> future
>>>>>> costs than may result from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>>> 'no'
>>>>>> then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>>
>>>> Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer have
>>>> any responsibly towards their child.
>>>>
>>>> Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>>> since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>>> highest.
>>>>
>>>> I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
>>>> know that.
>>>
>>> So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>>
>> The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age of
>> majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>
>
> I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
> person.

But you think about it, that's why you picked 11 specifically.

"Turegano <turegano"@x.com wrote:
>On 10/4/2024 8:59 PM, Joel wrote:
>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>>>> unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's exactly factual.
>>>>
>>>> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>>
>>> Two words: Bull shit.
>>
>> Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
>> authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
>> number of ways. It's not a child.
>
>It's 2024 and they most certainly are. Kids in this age group are the
>worst ever raised in this country. They are social media products and
>totally fucked in their heads.

Whatever ...

>>>> So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>>>
>>> The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age of
>>> majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>>
>> I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
>> person.
>
>But you think about it, that's why you picked 11 specifically.

I never brought up anything about it, Swill did, it's right there in
the quoting, he spelled it as a word rather than typing it as a
numeral.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 20:49:27 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18. This isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Citations please?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the U.S.,
>>>>>>>>>>>though, it should be noted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So you can't support your claim??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I defy you to refute it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't do the homework of liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In other words, you can't hear a wise person when you see one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, in other words, I don't do the homework of those who won't support
>>>>>>their clams.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, *you* won't do "the homework" of checking it out for yourself, you
>>>>>want me to prove something I already know to be true. Fuck off and
>>>>>die, burn in hell.
>>>>
>>>>Typical liberal - expect someone else to support or disprove their
>>>>claim for them because they're too lazy to appear credible by doing it
>>>>themselves.
>>>>
>>>>Finish with a hateful remark and get the perfect lib.
>>>
>>>I'll tell you why what I wrote is that of a "typical liberal" -
>>>because it was correct, based in knowledge. You demanding evidence of
>>>something, you can easily verify yourself, is hypocrisy from the
>>>"typical right-winger" who would never ask right-wing figures for
>>>evidence, of their outlandish bullshit. You're a joke.
>>
>>Your a ridiculous individual who thinks someone else should verify
>>your claims for you. You are also incorrect in your use of
>>hypocritical. If I make a claim I will back it up if asked. I don't
>>stomp my feet and act like a child.
>>
>>In short, you can't be taken seriously.
>
>
>I stand by what I asserted. They don't cut tits or cocks off of
>people under 16.

My reply was misdirected. We agree on the issue.
My apologies for any confusion.

On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:59:05 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:

>Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>No, that's exactly factual.
>>>
>>>16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>
>>Two words: Bull shit.
>
>
>Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
>authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
>number of ways. It's not a child.

Not sure why but Swilly is ignoring the fact that the legal defintiion
of an adult is someone over 18.

>
>
>>>>>>If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>>>future
>>>>>>costs than may result from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>>>'no'
>>>>>>then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>>
>>>>Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer have
>>>>any responsibly towards their child.
>>>>
>>>>Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>>>since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>>>highest.
>>>>
>>>>I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
>>>>know that.
>>>
>>>So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>>
>>The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age of
>>majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>
>
>I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
>person.

Well he is Swilly so there's that.

Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> "D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
> news:EbISvgJaigwuKDyvPcegnYFwDabrsnVx@news.usenet.farm...
>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:lnsB1F1B9F5630EB6F089P2473@0.0.0.1...
>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-
>>>> regret-changing-genders/
>>>>
>>>> "I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs."
>>>
>>> You got exactly what you demanded....
>>
>> If a person was lied to by bad actors and got unneeded botched surgery,
>> and
>> only then realized her mistake, don’t you think bad actors still have to
>> be
>> punished?
>
> He is an adult responsible for his own actions..

Most of those people are teenagers, but even if they’re not, they’re all
mentally not right and propagandised.

> if he wasn't then the
> surgery should have been refused.
>
> Which is why I say the age to undergo this should be 21.

Why 21? Mentally unstable people at that age don’t need help anymore and
should be allowed to ruin their life and body? Just because it makes some
Jewish surgeons and pharma companies richer?

Governor Swill wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>> unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> No, that's exactly factual.
>>
>>
>> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>
> Two words: Bull shit.
>
>>>>> If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>>>> for
>>>>> this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>> future
>>>>> costs than may result from it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>> 'no'
>>>>> then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>
>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>
>>> Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer have
>>> any responsibly towards their child.
>>>
>>> Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>> since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>> highest.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
>>> know that.
>>
>>
>> So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>
> The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age of
> majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>
what does it mean

On 10/5/2024 6:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:59:05 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>>>> unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's exactly factual.
>>>>
>>>> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>>
>>> Two words: Bull shit.
>>
>>
>> Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
>> authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
>> number of ways. It's not a child.
>
> Not sure why but Swilly is ignoring the fact that the legal defintiion
> of an adult is someone over 18.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>> costs than may result from it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>>>> 'no'
>>>>>>> then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer have
>>>>> any responsibly towards their child.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>>>> since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>>>> highest.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
>>>>> know that.
>>>>
>>>> So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>>>
>>> The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age of
>>> majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>>
>>
>> I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
>> person.
>
> Well he is Swilly so there's that.

Swill knows the difference between a male and female. Joel does too but
he prefers to mislead his declining mental facilities.

On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 00:01:58 -0700, Colin Cash <ccash@stv.org> wrote:

>On 10/5/2024 6:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:59:05 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>>>>> unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's exactly factual.
>>>>>
>>>>> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>>>
>>>> Two words: Bull shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
>>> authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
>>> number of ways. It's not a child.
>>
>> Not sure why but Swilly is ignoring the fact that the legal defintiion
>> of an adult is someone over 18.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>> costs than may result from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>>>>> 'no'
>>>>>>>> then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer have
>>>>>> any responsibly towards their child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>>>>> since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>>>>> highest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
>>>>>> know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>>>>
>>>> The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age of
>>>> majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>>>
>>>
>>> I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
>>> person.
>>
>> Well he is Swilly so there's that.
>
>Swill knows the difference between a male and female. Joel does too but
>he prefers to mislead his declining mental facilities.

I also know the difference between boys and men. Give me a hairy beast who
already knows his way around the block. Somebody else can teach the virgins.

--
Although Trump is not among Project 2025'- 34 authors, more than half are appointees
and staff from his time as president; the words "Trump" and "Trump
Administration" appear 300 times in its pages. At least 140 former Trump
officials are involved in Project 2025, according to a CNN tally. It’s
reasonable to expect that a second Trump presidency would follow many of
the project’s recommendations.

Two more reasons to not vote for Trump in 31 days.

32) After losing, Trump falsely claimed the election was stolen, even
though his own inner circle, including his campaign manager,
White House lawyers, and his own Justice Department, and attorney general
told him it was not. Barr: "The claims of fraud were bullsh*t."

33) Trump kept telling his Big Lie even after more than 60 legal
challenges to the election were struck down in court,
many by Trump-appointed judges.

"D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
news:rjPWJnoisfTNvuXAneMEWhoKtYOKLCDp@news.usenet.farm...
> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
>> news:EbISvgJaigwuKDyvPcegnYFwDabrsnVx@news.usenet.farm...
>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>> message
>>>> news:lnsB1F1B9F5630EB6F089P2473@0.0.0.1...
>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-
>>>>> regret-changing-genders/
>>>>>
>>>>> "I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs."
>>>>
>>>> You got exactly what you demanded....
>>>
>>> If a person was lied to by bad actors and got unneeded botched surgery,
>>> and
>>> only then realized her mistake, don’t you think bad actors still have to
>>> be
>>> punished?
>>
>> He is an adult responsible for his own actions..
>
> Most of those people are teenagers, but even if they’re not, they’re all
> mentally not right and propagandised.
>
>> if he wasn't then the
>> surgery should have been refused.
>>
>> Which is why I say the age to undergo this should be 21.
>
> Why 21? Mentally unstable people at that age don’t need help anymore and
> should be allowed to ruin their life and body? Just because it makes some
> Jewish surgeons and pharma companies richer?

Because at 21 they are legally recognized as adults in every state and to
the federal government and no longer have any legal call upon their parents
for permission, aid, support or money.

It becomes their decision alone and as such they bear the entire
responsibility for the costs and consequences of their decision..

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j731gjtk3rtp4jkuqr21fvkd0mi21ivfn2@4ax.com...
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>before 18. This isn't a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>dishonestly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Citations please?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I know what I'm talking about, I was referring to within the
>>>>>>>>>>>U.S.,
>>>>>>>>>>>though, it should be noted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>So you can't support your claim??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I defy you to refute it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Refute what? You've made an unsupported claim.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I don't do the homework of liberals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In other words, you can't hear a wise person when you see one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, in other words, I don't do the homework of those who won't support
>>>>>>their clams.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, *you* won't do "the homework" of checking it out for yourself, you
>>>>>want me to prove something I already know to be true. Fuck off and
>>>>>die, burn in hell.
>>>>
>>>>Typical liberal - expect someone else to support or disprove their
>>>>claim for them because they're too lazy to appear credible by doing it
>>>>themselves.
>>>>
>>>>Finish with a hateful remark and get the perfect lib.
>>>
>>>I'll tell you why what I wrote is that of a "typical liberal" -
>>>because it was correct, based in knowledge. You demanding evidence of
>>>something, you can easily verify yourself, is hypocrisy from the
>>>"typical right-winger" who would never ask right-wing figures for
>>>evidence, of their outlandish bullshit. You're a joke.
>>
>>Your a ridiculous individual who thinks someone else should verify
>>your claims for you. You are also incorrect in your use of
>>hypocritical. If I make a claim I will back it up if asked. I don't
>>stomp my feet and act like a child.
>>
>>In short, you can't be taken seriously.
>
>
> I stand by what I asserted. They don't cut tits or cocks off of
> people under 16.

Your assertion is all it is. An assertion.

Meanwhile I refer you to Female Gender Mutilation practiced on females from
birth through 15 according to WHO

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation#:~:text=FGM%20is%20mostly%20carried%20out,rights%20of%20girls%20and%20women.

And lets not forget how Catholics castrated young boys...

According to Joel, these events were and are perfectly acceptable and should
be continue to be legal everywhere... just because.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n941gjh79pnc28afessiqc5tks7fnb77tl@4ax.com...
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>
>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>>No, that's exactly factual.
>
>
> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.

Not according to the law.

Joel crashes and burns.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n941gjh79pnc28afessiqc5tks7fnb77tl@4ax.com...
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>
>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It is
>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>>No, that's exactly factual.
>
>
> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.

They are according to the law.

>>>>If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to pay
>>>>for
>>>>this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>future
>>>>costs than may result from it.
>>>>
>>>>Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>'no'
>>>>then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>
>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>
>>Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer
>>have
>>any responsibly towards their child.
>>
>>Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>highest.
>>
>>I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority wouldn't
>>know that.
>
>
> So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.

Yep, in those states that require you to be 21 to be considered a legal
adult.. the state does have power over you.
You could even, in extreme cases, be made a ward of the State until you
become an adult at 21.

Welcome to Reality... something you know very little about.

"Joel" <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s8e1gj5bfqmt9pdhrvd161s5iocl65tvd4@4ax.com...
> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before 18.
>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>>No, that's exactly factual.
>>>
>>>16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>
>>Two words: Bull shit.
>
>
> Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
> authority.

And authority with neither authority or even knowledge of the issue....
isn't an authority.

> 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
> number of ways. It's not a child.

No, actually it isn't and yes, they are a child under the law in all but a
very few cases (ref. Emancipated Minor)

Which like becoming an adult eliminates any obligations or responsibilities
the parents might have for you.

You want to whack off your dick, you either figure out how to pay for it
yourself, or you find a way to cut or rip it off.

In either case.. your parents are no longer responsible for it or for you.

>>>>>>If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to
>>>>>>pay
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and any
>>>>>>future
>>>>>>costs than may result from it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents say
>>>>>>'no'
>>>>>>then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>>
>>>>Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no longer
>>>>have
>>>>any responsibly towards their child.
>>>>
>>>>Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it, but
>>>>since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>>>highest.
>>>>
>>>>I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority
>>>>wouldn't
>>>>know that.
>>>
>>>So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>>
>>The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the age
>>of
>>majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>
>
> I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
> person.

So what do you think the age of majority should be.. and can you get the
laws in the US changed to recognize that?

Otherwise.. Who cares what you think it should be.

"NoBody" <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:56f2gj5hu6fbmj9v1t7q9gsjh8l5kc995h@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:59:05 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before
>>>>>>>> 18.
>>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse. It
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that's exactly factual.
>>>>
>>>>16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>>
>>>Two words: Bull shit.
>>
>>
>>Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
>>authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
>>number of ways. It's not a child.
>
> Not sure why but Swilly is ignoring the fact that the legal defintiion
> of an adult is someone over 18.

.... or 19 or 21 depending on the state

Alabama and Nebraska is 19
Indiana, Mississippi, & New York are 21

.... now you were saying?

"Colin Cash" <ccash@stv.org> wrote in message
news:vdtcku$28cqe$2@news.mixmin.net...
> On 10/5/2024 6:20 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 23:59:05 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 21:09:11 -0400, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's [GAC surgery] never done below the age of 16, rarely before
>>>>>>>>> 18.
>>>>>>>>> This isn't a
>>>>>>>>> real problem, just a rhetorical point for the phobes, dishonestly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Frankly it should be illegal below 18. Under 18 it's child abuse.
>>>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>>> unnecessary and purely elective cosmetic surgery.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's exactly factual.
>>>>>
>>>>> 16 and 17 year-old people are not children.
>>>>
>>>> Two words: Bull shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Free hint, claimed governor, I don't need your guidance, I'm the
>>> authority. 16 is not in *every* sense, yet, adult, but it is in a
>>> number of ways. It's not a child.
>>
>> Not sure why but Swilly is ignoring the fact that the legal defintiion
>> of an adult is someone over 18.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> If it must be done let the court ordered and the Court will need to
>>>>>>>> pay
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> this massively expenses unnecessary elective cosmetic surgery and
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> future
>>>>>>>> costs than may result from it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Between 18-21 I'm not sure how that would work, but if the parents
>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>> 'no'
>>>>>>>> then the above conditions above would apply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do "parents" have to do with people over 18, retard?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in all states 21 is the legal adult age were parents no
>>>>>> longer have
>>>>>> any responsibly towards their child.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, if you can get all states to agree to 18, then we can lower it,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> since you are talking a national policy here, we have to go with the
>>>>>> highest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I find it interesting that an adult of your asserted superiority
>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>> know that.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a state has some power over a 20 year-old? Fuck that.
>>>>
>>>> The State has some power over all of us and just because you think the
>>>> age of
>>>> majority should be eleven doesn't mean everybody thinks so.
>>>
>>>
>>> I never said anything about making the age of majority 11, silly
>>> person.
>>
>> Well he is Swilly so there's that.
>
> Swill knows the difference between a male and female. Joel does too but
> he prefers to mislead his declining mental facilities.

Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.. specifically his mental
facilities have declined.

Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
> "D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
> news:rjPWJnoisfTNvuXAneMEWhoKtYOKLCDp@news.usenet.farm...
>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
>>> news:EbISvgJaigwuKDyvPcegnYFwDabrsnVx@news.usenet.farm...
>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>>> message
>>>>> news:lnsB1F1B9F5630EB6F089P2473@0.0.0.1...
>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-
>>>>>> regret-changing-genders/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs."
>>>>>
>>>>> You got exactly what you demanded....
>>>>
>>>> If a person was lied to by bad actors and got unneeded botched surgery,
>>>> and
>>>> only then realized her mistake, don’t you think bad actors still have to
>>>> be
>>>> punished?
>>>
>>> He is an adult responsible for his own actions..
>>
>> Most of those people are teenagers, but even if they’re not, they’re all
>> mentally not right and propagandised.
>>
>>> if he wasn't then the
>>> surgery should have been refused.
>>>
>>> Which is why I say the age to undergo this should be 21.
>>
>> Why 21? Mentally unstable people at that age don’t need help anymore and
>> should be allowed to ruin their life and body? Just because it makes some
>> Jewish surgeons and pharma companies richer?
>
> Because at 21 they are legally recognized as adults in every state and to
> the federal government and no longer have any legal call upon their parents
> for permission, aid, support or money.

Is that the only thing you worry about? Well, what if kid’s parents are
okay with that? They’ve been told that “you gonna have a trans kid or dead
kid, your choice”, so they give permission and their insurance is going to
pay for “life-saving” “treatment”? Then what? Is everything fine? Are you
okay with that?

> It becomes their decision alone and as such they bear the entire
> responsibility for the costs and consequences of their decision..

No, if mentally unstable person has been propagandized starting from
childhood and then she cuts of her breasts at 21, it does not magically
makes it okay.

The fact that you don’t have any compassion for the victims of this
industry explains why conservatards are constantly loosing. It’s because
your leaders are the same. They don’t fucking care about you. They will
drop tens of thousands of Haitians in your neighborhood, just like
Republicans in Ohio did, because they will get a cut of the federal money
that comes with those negroes.

You know why a lot of the stories about teens going through life-ruining
surgeries are coming from Republican states? It’s because you people only
care about one thing: money.

In article <lsBdytYGQEuZcRbtZisUkSzOvcBwjpei@news.usenet.farm>, d@ray
says...
> Is that the only thing you worry about? Well, what if kid?s parents are
> okay with that? They?ve been told that ?you gonna have a trans kid or dead
> kid,
>

Dumbest damn argument so far.

Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> In article <lsBdytYGQEuZcRbtZisUkSzOvcBwjpei@news.usenet.farm>, d@ray
> says...
>> Is that the only thing you worry about? Well, what if kid?s parents are
>> okay with that? They?ve been told that ?you gonna have a trans kid or dead
>> kid,
>>
>
> Dumbest damn argument so far.

That’s what those people are told. It’s almost literally a quote from
article I posted earlier in this very thread:

<https://www.worldtribune.com/woman-sues-university-for-double-mastectomy-she-got-at-16/>

> “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”

> That is what a physician told the parents of a Nebraska 16-year-old girl
> who would then go on to get a double mastectomy, according to a lawsuit
> filed by the 21-year-old woman.

So now what? Is that okay? Is that fine?

In article <dsSDKKbzmqvvmJWMAitJiqprNjpTGwbj@news.usenet.farm>,
D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:

(deletia)

Yo, fuckhead, another Jew won the Nobel Prize for medicine today.

You Nazis need to be honest, and refrain from receiving any medical
treatment which is rooted in the discoveries of the dozens of Jews
who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Fair enough?

Tall Henry <not@home.org> wrote:
>In article <dsSDKKbzmqvvmJWMAitJiqprNjpTGwbj@news.usenet.farm>,
>D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>
>(deletia)
>
>Yo, fuckhead, another Jew won the Nobel Prize for medicine today.
>
>You Nazis need to be honest, and refrain from receiving any medical
>treatment which is rooted in the discoveries of the dozens of Jews
>who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
>
>Fair enough?

:)

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Tall Henry <not@home.org> wrote:
>
> In article <dsSDKKbzmqvvmJWMAitJiqprNjpTGwbj@news.usenet.farm>,
> D. Ray <d@ray> wrote:
>
> (deletia)
>
> Yo, fuckhead, another Jew won the Nobel Prize for medicine today.

Funny that you brought up Jews in a thread about trannies. You know what
the root of the problem was. Everyone else might be interested, too.

Remember those books Nazis burned? Yeah:

“When Nazis burned a pioneering trans library”

<https://forward.com/culture/549587/trans-book-burning-library-gay-pride/>

You don’t want to be like those Nazis, oppressing poor Jews like Magnus
Hirschfeld?

<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft>

Transgenderism is Jewish heritage, opposing it is Antisemitism:

<https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/>

That’s why Jews are always pro-transgender.

<https://forward.com/fast-forward/549802/trans-gender-fluidity-jews-accepting-group-america/>

And they have money. Who do you think is paying for all these trans book
readings in public libraries? Who donates to those NGOs?

Good thing we defeated those evil Nazis, amirite? We can now enjoy
everything those monsters were fighting against.

> You Nazis need to be honest, and refrain from receiving any medical
> treatment which is rooted in the discoveries of the dozens of Jews
> who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
>
> Fair enough?

Sure, if you pick up those Nobel prizes on your way out of White countries
and White peoples business.

Fair enough?

"D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
news:lsBdytYGQEuZcRbtZisUkSzOvcBwjpei@news.usenet.farm...
> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
>> news:rjPWJnoisfTNvuXAneMEWhoKtYOKLCDp@news.usenet.farm...
>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "D. Ray" <d@ray> wrote in message
>>>> news:EbISvgJaigwuKDyvPcegnYFwDabrsnVx@news.usenet.farm...
>>>>> Scout <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Leroy N. Soetoro" <democrat-insurrection@mail.house.gov> wrote in
>>>>>> message
>>>>>> news:lnsB1F1B9F5630EB6F089P2473@0.0.0.1...
>>>>>>> https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-
>>>>>>> regret-changing-genders/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got exactly what you demanded....
>>>>>
>>>>> If a person was lied to by bad actors and got unneeded botched
>>>>> surgery,
>>>>> and
>>>>> only then realized her mistake, don’t you think bad actors still have
>>>>> to
>>>>> be
>>>>> punished?
>>>>
>>>> He is an adult responsible for his own actions..
>>>
>>> Most of those people are teenagers, but even if they’re not, they’re all
>>> mentally not right and propagandised.
>>>
>>>> if he wasn't then the
>>>> surgery should have been refused.
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I say the age to undergo this should be 21.
>>>
>>> Why 21? Mentally unstable people at that age don’t need help anymore and
>>> should be allowed to ruin their life and body? Just because it makes
>>> some
>>> Jewish surgeons and pharma companies richer?
>>
>> Because at 21 they are legally recognized as adults in every state and to
>> the federal government and no longer have any legal call upon their
>> parents
>> for permission, aid, support or money.
>
> Is that the only thing you worry about?

Nope, but it is certainly the main one.

> Well, what if kid’s parents are
> okay with that?

Because they aren't allowed by law to abuse or mutilate their child or have
such done to their child.

See, it would be one thing if it was medically necessary, but it's not.

It would be like saying I want the doctors to cut off his left arm because I
want my child to be right handed.

> They’ve been told that “you gonna have a trans kid or dead
> kid, your choice”

Sounds to me like the child needs some serious mental health help and
perhaps even being locked up to prevent themselves from injuring themselves.

A nice padded room and a straight jacked will do to start along with regular
visits from the doctors.

>, so they give permission and their insurance is going to
> pay for “life-saving” “treatment”?

Yea, looking them up in a mental institution.

I mean that's what we do with the dangerously insane.

> Then what?

Well, they either get better or become an adult.

> Is everything fine?

Yep.

> Are you
> okay with that?

With incarceration in an insane asylum for mental illness and the potential
to self harm?

Absolutely.

>> It becomes their decision alone and as such they bear the entire
>> responsibility for the costs and consequences of their decision..
>
> No, if mentally unstable person has been propagandized starting from
> childhood and then she cuts of her breasts at 21, it does not magically
> makes it okay.

No, but as an adult they can mutilate themselves as they see fit, IMO.

As a child.. well, sometimes we have to protect children from their own
stupidity.

> The fact that you don’t have any compassion for the victims of this
> industry

I have compassion for the victims of such unnecessary life altering cosmetic
surgery, which is why I require they be an adult first.

> explains why conservatards are constantly loosing. It’s because
> your leaders are the same. They don’t fucking care about you.

If I didn't care, then why would I care if they parents cut off their
child's dick, legs and the fingers on their right hand?

I mean, as long as they claim it's necessary to the child.. that should be
good enough right?

> They will
> drop tens of thousands of Haitians in your neighborhood, just like
> Republicans in Ohio did, because they will get a cut of the federal money
> that comes with those negroes.

Lame attempt to change the subject.

Should I accept this to mean you're waving the white flag on the other
topic?

Further how could any state government do that unless the Democrat
controlled federal government didn't first allow them to enter the country
illegally?

"Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
news:670429d6$3$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> In article <lsBdytYGQEuZcRbtZisUkSzOvcBwjpei@news.usenet.farm>, d@ray
> says...
>> Is that the only thing you worry about? Well, what if kid?s parents are
>> okay with that? They?ve been told that ?you gonna have a trans kid or
>> dead
>> kid,
>>
>
> Dumbest damn argument so far.

Well, if the kid is going to self injure looks like a solid case for
involuntary commitment to provide treatment and prevent self harm.

Is this really the route that Joel wishes this to go?

I mean that's what is legally required of anyone showing such intent.

Meanwhile, can the parents mutilate their children just because they claimed
or got the children to say they wanted it?

Arms, legs, fingers, toes, how much can they cut off or have cut off before
it becomes child abuse?

D. Ray wrote:

> Skeeter wrote:
>>
>> D. Ray wrote:
>>>
>>> Is that the only thing you worry about? Well, what if kid?s parents are
>>> okay with that? They?ve been told that ?you gonna have a trans kid or dead
>>> kid,
>>
>> Dumbest damn argument so far.
>
>That’s what those people are told. It’s almost literally a quote from
>article I posted earlier in this very thread:
>
><https://www.worldtribune.com/woman-sues-university-for-double-mastectomy-she-got-at-16/>

>> “Would you rather have a dead daughter or a living son?”
>
>> That is what a physician told the parents of a Nebraska 16-year-old girl
>> who would then go on to get a double mastectomy, according to a lawsuit
>> filed by the 21-year-old woman.

We know, or should know, about the diabolical tactics of the "trans
activists."

>So now what? Is that okay? Is that fine?

I don't think that anyone was saying it becomes "okay" at adulthood,
but that it "should be allowed" at adulthood (and not before).