Hacker News Reader

Comment by frellus | Hacker News Reader

Gov. Newsom, as of late, has found his veto pen and hasn't stopped using it. He vetoed one insane law which would have taken parental rights away (AB 957 would have updated California law to clarify that, for the purposes of child custody and visitation decisions, a parent's affirmation of a child's gender identity or gender expression is an essential factor that must be considered in determining the best interest of the child) he also vetoed a bill which would have added caste as a protected class to California’s current anti-discrimination laws, as well as ones to decriminalize psychedelics, and one to require humans in self-driving trucks.

I just can't figure this guy out, but he's such a political animal I can't believe any of these have anything to do with any sort of principles on his side.

View on HN

> insane law which would have taken parental rights away

It sounds like the law would have given more rights to children who’s parents refuse to accept their child’s gender expression.

To me, ‘parental rights’ could often be more aptly named ‘child ownership.’

It's not about "ownership", it's about parents having a right to raise their children how they see best. No one argues against parents naming their baby (well, some on the insane far-left do, going as far as to call gender assignments at birth being wrong).

A parent's job is to raise their child well, to keep them safe, healthy and morally grounded so they can develop into good human adults. Their job isn't to sit on the sidelines and let the state make decisions in these arbitrary situations. Otherwise the only "child ownership" will be the State owning our children, in the long run.

Hardly any politician wins an election only considering their personal beliefs and ignoring that of their electorate.

It's pretty obvious he wants to run for President, so moving a bit to the right as opposed to what he'd do for a purely California political position makes sense.

My guess is this is preparations for a presidential run.

You'd think he'd lose the Gordon Gekko hairstyle first.

I’m not the only one who can’t believe he still keeps that thing! Woo!

To me, his smile is more like The Joker, Batman 1989, when Jack puts on flesh colored makeup but has that smile as he's talking into the TV camera.

Creeps me out every time I see Newsom smile because I believe he is truly a literal psychopath.

Oh, add to it this one: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-08/newsom-v...

He is doing what every Democrat does. Campaign from the left, govern on the right.

But he's not governing on the Right. He's governing from much closer to the center.

As a centrist type thank you Gov Newsom for vetoing that crazy gender identity bill.

I remember as a kid being into feminine things and I couldn't imagine today the pressures on kids to start identifying as a different gender that would come from teachers and other "care givers" in our school system.

I'm also against the people who say that parents shouldn't be notified if a kid is talking to a counselor about identifying as a different gender. I suspect said counselor would push the child in the different direction in order to be a "hero" - it's such a shame that we're doing this to our children while other similar countries (in Europe where they aren't doing crazy stuff) are clearly looking on at us with pity.

Recently I've watched as Bill Maher has taken up the mantle of rejecting this idea as liberalism and I've been happy to see a prominent(-ish) face doing so without fear of "cancellation" or being called bigoted or risking getting fired.

So. Uh. Can’t speak to the bill, or the veto, but

turns out

Letting someone else tell who you are is - generally speaking - a Bad Thing.

And, turns out

If you’re telling someone who you are, and they say “No, you’re not that” - well, that’s generally an even worse thing.

Plus, denying autonomy - and I’ll go out in a serious limb here - IMHO is pretty antithetical to “home of the free”.

They're talking about children. They're denied autonomy all the time. It's absolutely normal and fine usually, they're not mentally developed. Next thing you know I'll be hearing five year olds should be able to sign apartment leases drive cars or smoke cigarettes or work a full time job. After all we wouldn't want to deny autonomy.

(to paraphrase some quotes from some greats)

I cannot rightly comprehend the ignorance of history that would engender such an utterance.

I do not think that this statement is sufficiently genuine to require refutation. Reflection would be more appropriate: perhaps this should be sought in the replacement of the word “children” with any subjugated group, from “women” to “black people” to “Sicilians” to “Irish” to “<any First Nations people> to…

—-

People deserve the support of their families and communities in their self-actualization, and while of course that looks different for children, if you’re the kind of person that doesn’t look at kids as people then I wouldn’t be surprised to find you’re the kind of parent that finds themselves cut out of the lives of their kids as soon as they’re able.

I'm not saying you shouldn't support people in their self-actualization, but the argument that they should be highly autonomous is absurd. We don't let kids drive for a reason, right? We assume they shouldn't be able to buy alcohol or cigarettes right? Or do you disagree with these ideas? After all you're equating not letting kids buy cigarettes as the subjugation of black people in the US.

Sure, I give my kid some autonomy. I let him choose what he wants for breakfast in the morning, for example. But the deck was stacked against him. If he had actual autonomy the pantry would be nothing but candy and cookies. But I've already decided, and removed that autonomic choices from him. I guess I'm a bad parent for not letting him have free reign at the grocery store, letting him fully choose what he'll have every meal.

> perhaps this should be sought in the replacement of the word “children” with any subjugated group, from “women” to “black people” to “Sicilians” to “Irish” to “<any First Nations people> to…

Ok let me try your logic.

Children should not be allowed to work. Women should not be allowed to work. Oof, not good. Well I guess child labor is back.

I could go on and on. Maybe this rule doesn't make nearly as much sense as you think it does.

> I cannot rightly comprehend the ignorance of history that would engender such an utterance.

Yeah, I can't comprehend you suggesting the above logic as the right way to determine if a child should have autonomy or not.

For girls claiming to be boys or boys saying that they're girls, it's a case of them telling someone who they aren't.

I feel like you’re valuing hypothetical kids who would get tricked by nefarious school counselors over real kids who are abused by their parents and kicked out onto the streets for being queer.

Can you spell out what’s insane about AB 957? Because that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

It’s poorly drafted, and family law isn’t an appropriate place for the state to take positions on emerging medical issues. Imagine if such a bill enshrined a parent’s affirmation of the violent psychiatric treatments of the 1930s and 1940s. Wiser to let the courts figure out this issue using their current tools.

The courts will continue to have substantial leeway and the bill makes no mention of medical care:

“Democratic California lawmakers have approved a bill that would instruct courts to consider, among many other factors, whether a parent affirms a child’s gender identity when making custody and visitation decisions.”

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/wireStory/fact-focus-cri...

It assumes that what is in the best interest of the child is to affirm their feelings of gender dysphoria with a name change, and that the court can consider this and grant a name change over the parent's objections.

Why am I against this? It is against parental rights. It takes away the rights of a parent to name their child and raise them as they see fit, and hands it to the state.

I won't even get into what happens with children experiencing gender dysphoria and how the mental health profession is (mis)handling the vast majority of these by affirming the child's dysphoria, and the pressure parents receive that if they do not affirm their child's desire to transition they are putting them at mortal risk.

I don't agree with any of this for children who cannot consent to any other things, legally, until they reach the age of majority. Once they do, it's up to them how to live their lives (with, or without, their parents' support). Nor is this to say I do not believe children have rights, but I see what these family courts do and in a lot of cases how biased they are, I do not think anything good would come of this law pure and simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com