This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It looks like this is a custody dispute thing, not a runaway thing. I’m open to being wrong, but it looks like the law is specifying that Minnesota will not cooperate with Texas CPS removing children from their parents for putting them on hormones.
It’s unclear to me that there was much interstate CPS cooperation anyways.
FULLTEXT here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?session=ls93&number=HF146&session_number=0&session_year=2023&version=list
This seems to suggest that the child simply has to be present in the state, with or without their parents.
And this is that section:
I don't know much about child custody law, but that section reads to me a establishing jurisdiction for the state of Minnesota to do a child custody determination. Does it necessarily follow from them having the jurisdiction to determine custody that they would refuse to return a runaway minor?
Not necessarily but it does grant them the right to decide, whereas before the parents could argue the court has no jurisdiction.
Does it grant them the right to terminate parental rights or just the ability to award custody between the two parents?
I'm not a lawyer and it remains unclear to me whether something like a petition to terminate parental rights brought by the minor, or a child in need of protective services action brought by a state agency is a subcategory of a "custody proceeding" that Minnesota now claims temporary emergency jurisdiction over, or a separate legal proceeding this law would not give them jurisdiction over. There would then need to be a second step where, refusing to give a child gender-affirming care was considered grounds for terminating rights or a CPS action in an otherwise non-abusive home.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's definitely a lot of explicit text that in the case of "parent X runs away with kid to Minnesota to transition, parent Y sues in other state demanding kid back", the legal process in the other state is to be ignored, and that in the case of "person breaks laws of other state by assisting transition, and flees to Minnesota" the person's not to be handed over.
How it interacts with runaways is murkier: I agree that there's nothing explicitly requiring the state to take custody, but some of those additions do apply in that case and depending on the rest of Minnesota law (of which I am ignorant) that might wind up with Minnesota failing to return the kid.
I don't think minnesota foster care is the relevant outcome- I think this is a bill that will get used by trans kids seeking emancipation. Yes, emancipation is usually a really bad idea, but it's probably a fairly common outcome of late teens alleging extreme abuse, and trans teens pattern match to the kinds of people who regularly get their emancipation requests denied.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Hold on.
So if a kid is abandoned or abused by both parents, it doesn't give the state the authority to remove custody from both of them?
In that situation, if the child is in Minnesota, "the child is present in the state and [...] it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child [...] is subjected to [...] abuse", so there's temporary emergency jurisdiction.
If the child is not present in the state, then there wouldn't be temporary emergency jurisdiction, but that's correct in a bunch of cases (e.g. preventing a family, none of whom live in Minnesota, from asking Minnesota courts to intervene in its custody dispute).
The way I understood his argument is: It's not true that Minnesota courts will be able to take away kids from the parents when both of them are against transition, because this is merely about jurisdiction over cases where the parents are fighting over custody.
My argument is that giving them jurisdiction is enough to give the state the ability to take the kid from both the parents, the same way it would be if the kid was abused by both parents, and the kid ran away to Minnesota.
I wasn't sure what you meant with your previous post and wanted to err on the side of issuing unnecessary clarifications rather than nonissuing necessary ones.
Sorry for wasting your time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So a carbon copy of California’s trans sanctuary law, then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link