Comments posted organically
Homepage

Top Contributors Articles by: Curt_Anderson Donna HatetheSwamp Indy! islander meagain myce Navy2711 oldedude Ponderer ROB3RT tuk22

Recent Article Activity Most Commented Articles Highest Rated Articles All Articles Most Viewed Articles Articles Without Comments

Mamdani Condemns New Yorkers For Making Muslims Throw Bombs At Them
Media by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments)

What do these Bible verses mean...?
Religion by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (88 comments)

The link between COVID vaxes and anxiety disorders
Medical by oldedude (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (38 comments)

Woke Jesus Returns
Religion by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments)

Iran’s impotent new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is a no-show at his own succession rally: ‘The charisma of a boiled potato’
International by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments)

So already, much to the shagren of the right, gas is back down to $90
Alcoholic Beverages by oldedude (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments)

CNN Reports On Japanese Teenagers Who Came To Hawaii For What Could've Been Beautiful Day At Beach
Crime by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (2 comments)

Uh-oh... America loses war in Iran
Fact Check by Indy! (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (15 comments)

Iran Warns U.S. It Has Huge Stockpile Of Supreme Leaders
Military by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (1 comments)

Bill Maher makes fool out of Adam Schiff
Humor by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (8 comments)

Jesse Jackson, Jr pi$$ed at Kammy, the Doddering Old Fool & The ONE...
Media by HatetheSwamp (0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments)

IMAGE UNAVAILABLE
Hobbies by Ponderer (0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments)

New Ohio bill would protect parents who refuse to affirm their child's false identity (we've really come this far) By HatetheSwamp February 11, 2026 1:09 pm Category: Gay & Lesbian (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post & Tips. Write & edit articles How To Post Here

Further proof: A new day has dawned. Woke is the new vile. And. MAGA is the new cool, BABY!

The whole pb's three-headed monster is fighting for this one:

1. Old-school feminists,
2. Anti-TQ LGB groups and activists who are becoming increasingly influential, and,
3. Mommies and daddies and nannas and pappaps who merely want to raise their kids without Big Brother intrusion!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeha, baha

Cited and related links:

1. notthebee.com

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on February 11, 2026 2:09 pm A couple of comments: first, It doesn't change any law about any adult transitioning (that's a good thing). I don't see any drawback. Can they "be a cat?" sure. You just don't go to jail for not "affirming" that 3 year old is whatever they want to be for the day. It also allows parents to track their kids in growing up. As I've mentioned before, my granddaughter used to be a "kitty." My wife and I would play along because this is the OCD child. So she really needs to explore a creative side of her. Now she's a mermaid. Still nothing wrong with that. So the only folks that will whine and complain are the school districts that are trying to lock parents out of the schools. by myce on February 11, 2026 2:10 pm "Parents' rights." Are the parents more concerned with their "rights" over their children, or the best interests of the children? by HatetheSwamp on February 11, 2026 4:40 pm myce, Like that's mutually exclusive. What's the alternative to allowing mommies and daddies and nannas and pappaps the "right" to raise their children? Letting Big Brother do it, right? by oldedude on February 11, 2026 7:01 pm Are the parents more concerned with their "rights" over their children, or the best interests of the children? Legally, parents have both the obligation to raise their children as they see fit (obviously within the laws of their state and federal laws. Obviously, you and I would raise children very differently. I don't think mine are doing bad. At 3 and 5, they are bilingual, they both are in the top two or three of their class. And, they're still both "kids." Wait for it...... And I have no business in how you raise children. If we were really good friends? Maybe??? but to just walk up to you, nottachance. Think of it this way. If it were trumpsters administration telling you how to do that, would you fight about it? I think I would. In turn, within the law (can't beat them, whip them with cords, put them in boiling water, brake their bones, etc). The government has very few restrictions on how to raise them. In the last 5? years or so, every time a school district has attempted to keep parents out of the loop of a child's school participation, the district has lost the court case. Good examples of this is a young woman was beaten, held down and raped. The Fairfax district "chose" NOT to tell the parents their daughter had assaulted. The asshole (MS gang member) was then shipped to Louden county (the county to the west) where he continued to rape women. FYSA, the asshole "said" he was a "Woman" so he could use the woman's facilities, obviously gaming the system. Both districts were sued and lost. What is surprising is the "trans" community would not say a word against this asshole. I think it's an affront to the trans community and they should be plenty pissed and working to unfuck the situation. But no one will. And just an FYI, this was hashed over a few times in depth. AND you were not posting at that time. So this is the Cliff Note version of weeks of posting. by oldedude on February 11, 2026 7:03 pm And Lead. yes. And sorry, I just wanted to catch her up so we're on semi- equal footing. We owe that to her. by Ponderer on February 12, 2026 12:14 pm "Obviously, you and I would raise children very differently. I don't think mine are doing bad. At 3 and 5, they are bilingual, they both are in the top two or three of their class. And, they're still both "kids."" -olde dude Huh. I had always understood that at least one of olde dude's children was in the military over two decades ago. by Donna on February 12, 2026 12:24 pm I find it odd that therapists and doctors are allowed to treat adults for transgenderism but not minors, even with their parents' or guardians' approval. I can't think of another medical condition that's mishandled like that. by Indy! on February 12, 2026 1:02 pm by Ponderer on February 12, 2026 12:14 pm "Obviously, you and I would raise children very differently. I don't think mine are doing bad. At 3 and 5, they are bilingual, they both are in the top two or three of their class. And, they're still both "kids."" -olde dude Huh. I had always understood that at least one of olde dude's children was in the military over two decades ago. - Pondy The story continually changes depending on what lie OD needs to make a "point". by oldedude on February 12, 2026 4:22 pm "Obviously, you and I would raise children very differently. I don't think mine are doing bad. At 3 and 5, they are bilingual, they both are in the top two or three of their class. And, they're still both "kids."" -olde dude like farsante, you should have read the post. But you've been really off your meds today...... In there, I was referencing grandchildren, which I said. You're far more angry than usual, which is really fucking scary. Let me know if you're going to put your IED vest on to kill Jews in Tucson, mmmmmmKAY.. What else is interesting is that we were actually have a pretty good conversation, and you, curt, concha, and farsante come in as stone bitches. by Indy! on February 12, 2026 5:45 pm Your direct quote which you jus requoted yourself... "Obviously, you and I would raise children very differently. I don't think mine are doing bad. At 3 and 5, they are bilingual, they both are in the top two or three of their class. And, they're still both "kids." You clearlys say they are your CHILDREN. by myce on February 12, 2026 9:27 pm I should've put my rant about uptight parents here where the topic is parents. Some parents are terrible. But children who are wards of the state may not fare so well either. Sometimes there is no right answer so I favor personal sovereignty. I hope for parents to also have that value for their children, as appropriate to their age. I do NOT think government should be interfering with the rights of a handful of minors who are trans, need medical care and have parents' permission. The school was absolutely wrong to cover up sexual assault. Some perverts might use loopholes to access targets. The majority of trans people are not perverts. I think it would be a fair compromise to install more single restrooms, etc. in buildings when feasible. by Ponderer on February 13, 2026 7:08 am Look, it's really simple and really sad... Given the freedoms and rights that we have in this country, if a parent wants to raise their child in utter torture and despair to the point that they might attempt to kill themselves, that's the sole prerogative of that parent. Just like how we have to allow parents to withhold lifesaving medical treatment for their child because of their religious convictions. Same difference. by HatetheSwamp on February 13, 2026 7:10 am "Some parents are terrible. But children who are wards of the state may not fare so well either. Sometimes there is no right answer so I favor personal sovereignty." Thanks for that. My dad had a brother who was a mean drunk and had six kids. They lived in my town and my cousins went to my school. What served as CPS back in the day removed them from the home. That was better than having fist fights with your drunk father, but not great. Certainly, there are instances when Big Brother is a solution. But, even then, it's far from ideal. by myce on February 13, 2026 7:39 am There has to be a risk-benefit analysis case by case. I do not think a child should be left to die with parents withholding medical care. On the other hand I've heard of kids being molested, made to eat dog food and murdered in foster care, so it is not entirely safe for the state to take the children either. There is risk of institutional abuse. by oldedude on February 14, 2026 5:58 pm The bill we're discussing is directly related to laws in other states (Colorado for example). That if you don't call your child what pronoun or anything else they "prefer" to be called, you can be arrested for child abuse. The folks that pushed this through are the teachers' union mostly because they lost every court case regarding hiding information about the students. apnews.com by Indy! on February 14, 2026 6:40 pm Question, Odie... Did your parents call you male because that's what you preferred? 🤔 by Donna on February 15, 2026 9:54 am lkde fude is eithdr lying or is misinformed. From AI: In Colorado can parents be arrested for child abuse if they don't call their transgender child the name their child prefers? No, parents in Colorado cannot be arrested for child abuse solely for not using their transgender child's preferred name or pronouns. While HB25-1312 increases protections against discrimination, a proposed section that would have classified misgendering or deadnaming as "coercive control" in custody disputes was removed before passage, ensuring that failure to use preferred names is not criminalized. Legal Protections: Passed in 2025, the law aims to protect against discrimination in public accommodations (schools, hospitals) rather than mandating speech within the home. by Indy! on February 15, 2026 9:56 am OD is wrong again? Shocker. It's almost like Fox is feeding him misinformation on purpose. 🙂 by Donna on February 15, 2026 10:00 am It's easy to understand why he voted for trump 3 times - his brain is spilling over with nonsense. by Indy! on February 15, 2026 10:03 am The dumbing down of America is working perfectly on the Reds. by oldedude on February 15, 2026 10:24 am From an actual RELIABLE sources. As of 20250408- Now, Colorado lawmakers have gone a step further. A new proposal, House Bill 25-1312, would make “deadnaming” and “misgendering” children—that is, not using their preferred name or pronouns—a factor in child-custody disputes. Under the Kelly Loving Act, parents who refuse to use their child’s chosen name or pronouns, even out of sincere concern for the child’s well-being, would be deemed to be exercising “coercive control,” and therefore liable to lose custody.[1] As of 20250508- So yes, to prevent them from having it found UNCONSTITUTIONAL, they slightly changed it, Colorado reversal on misgendering ban is a crisis averted but a danger revealed Kelly Loving Act would have threatened parents’ custody for misgendering their kids The bill would have classified misgendering and deadnaming in certain contexts as unlawful under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Its most controversial provision said that if a parent doesn’t use their child’s preferred pronouns, that must be considered “coercive control” in any custody dispute. This would have negatively impacted a parent’s case for custody of their child, regardless of any other context. The original bill would have also required parents, journalists, business owners, and educators to use people’s chosen names and pronouns in every piece of public-facing content, from news articles to school newsletters. But the Constitution protects the right to call others by any name or pronoun under the sun, even if it causes hurt or offense. Forcing people to use particular language, even with the intention of inclusivity, is compelled speech, and the First Amendment generally forbids it.[2][3] city-journal.org cbn.com thefire.org by Navy2711 on February 15, 2026 10:44 am "On the other hand I've heard of kids being molested, made to eat dog food and murdered in foster care, so it is not entirely safe for the state to take the children either." - Ding Dong in post #14 Oh, you've heard? Well, then it's a 50/50, whether to leave them in the home or remove them. Why do we even have hotlines, screening, caseworkers, investigating with neighbors, teachers, and medical professionals, safety plans, family services, substance testing and services, psychology assessments and services, domestic violence support, placement with relatives, parenting education, caregiver screening, education and placement, court hearings/trials and adoptive services. That must cost the state millions! Why are we doing all of this, only for the kid to be fed dog food and get murdered? Why not just spend 25 cents and flip a quarter to decide whether to remove them? by Indy! on February 15, 2026 11:09 am Colorado reversal on misgendering ban is a crisis averted but a danger revealed Kelly Loving Act would have threatened parents’ custody for misgendering their kids Comical. 🙂 by Donna on February 15, 2026 12:20 pm Once again, olde dude goes into info dump mode to hide the fact that there is NOT such law in Colorado which states that a parent can be arrested for what transpeople call "dead-naming" their child. by Ponderer on February 15, 2026 12:31 pm "The bill we're discussing is directly related to laws in other states (Colorado for example). That if you don't call your child what pronoun or anything else they "prefer" to be called, you can be arrested for child abuse." -olde dude This is of course simply flat-out, 100% asinine, and wrong. From olde dude's later post: "A new proposal, House Bill 25-1312, would make “deadnaming” and “misgendering” children—that is, not using their preferred name or pronouns—a factor in child-custody disputes. Under the Kelly Loving Act, parents who refuse to use their child’s chosen name or pronouns, even out of sincere concern for the child’s well-being, would be deemed to be exercising “coercive control,” and therefore liable to lose custody." That intentionally misgendering or dead-naming a child is a consideration in deciding child custody battles does in no way whatsoever make it "illegal" as olde dude so pig-ignorantly asserts. They ain't gonna lock anyone up over it, od. It is not "illegal" at all. Anywhere. It just makes one look like a bigoted asshole is all. It is always in the court's interest to decide custody of a transgender child by among other things, considering which parent would be less cruel to the transgender child and create the better environment for the transgender child to grow up in. Obviously. Intentionally misgendering or cruelly dead naming a transgender child is evidence more of a concern for that parent's own bigotry and a lack of concern for the transgender child's mental welfare. In the case of custody battles between two parents of a transgender child where one parent accepts and loves them and the other insults and denies who and what they are, I think dead naming and misgendering are absolutely issues that should be considered. Those things are dead giveaways. Blatant symptoms of parental cruelty. by oldedude on February 15, 2026 1:12 pm Under the Kelly Loving Act, parents who refuse to use their child’s chosen name or pronouns, even out of sincere concern for the child’s well-being, would be deemed to be exercising “coercive control,” and therefore liable to lose custody." From John Austin who defined law as the “command of the sovereign backed by sanctions.” The law has both the Normative Framework, and enforcement. So the "law" in this case, makes it "illegal." By doing one act, a person is punished by the courts. Ergo, It's a fucking Law that you can be guilty of. Characteristics of Law Normative Framework: Laws establish standards for acceptable conduct, guiding individuals and organizations in their interactions. They set boundaries for actions, deterring harmful behavior and promoting social order. Enforcement: Laws are enforced by authorities, such as police and courts, ensuring compliance and providing mechanisms for resolving disputes. This enforcement distinguishes laws from mere social norms or customs. Adaptability: Law is not static; it evolves with society, reflecting changes in values, norms, and technologies. This adaptability is crucial for maintaining relevance and effectiveness in governing behavior. Sources of Law: Laws can originate from various sources, including statutory law (laws passed by legislatures), common law (principles established by court decisions), and constitutional law (laws derived from a country's constitution). bing.com ourlawhub.com by Donna on February 15, 2026 1:18 pm Right. But it doesn't criminalize dead-naming as you claimed earlier. by Ponderer on February 15, 2026 1:45 pm And in any event, any parent who insists on dead naming and misgendering the child deserves to lose custody if the other parent is sane and loving about it. by oldedude on February 15, 2026 3:53 pm Not the point. And as usual, you're diverting the subject. by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 6:02 am "Not the point. And as usual, you're diverting the subject." -olde dude Oh! Gee, I'm sorry, olde dude. I thought this thread was about parents who insist on dead naming and misgendering their transgender child and the legal custody situation regarding that at present. Forgive me. Anyways, getting back to the point of the thread (and thanks again for steering me straight, od!), it appears that I am in favor of the "New Ohio bill" regarding custody in cases involving transgender children cited in this thread... and you are not. Would you care to explain why you are of the apparent opinion that a transgender child should be forced to live with a parent who doesn't care about the transgender child's mental welfare, when the other parent actually does care deeply about the transgender child's mental welfare? Or why you seem to think that the fact of a parent caring so little for their transgender child's state of wellbeing shouldn't be a rather large consideration in custody hearings regarding transgender children? . by HatetheSwamp on February 16, 2026 6:26 am "Would you care to explain why you are of the apparent opinion that a transgender child should be forced to live with a parent who doesn't care about the transgender child's mental welfare..." That'ne is po's greatest, DO YOU STILL BEAT YOUR WIFE?, effort ever,... on SS, anyway. Congrats, po. You keep gettin better. by oldedude on February 16, 2026 6:47 am po- more and more we are learning about transitioning at a very early. Assumption #!. the child is below 18 y/o. #2. the law states this the overarching SINGLE REASON do deny custody. Over drug use in the house. Over that parent having different sex partners in the house nightly (increased issues with abuse of the child), and prior abuse charges. and EVERYTHING else. If they want to make it "a" reason, I'm all for that. by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 6:48 am "Or why you seem to think that the fact of a parent caring so little for their transgender child's state of wellbeing shouldn't be a rather large consideration in custody hearings regarding transgender children?" olde dude will certainly have no problem with the question you so deftly ignored, pedophile's bitch. Is he not making such a fuss about this bill because he thinks it's outrageous or uncalled for for some reason? By making such a fuss about it, doesn't he appear to be of the opinion that the hurtful, anti-transgender attitudes and actions of a parent towards their transgender child should not be a legal consideration in deciding custody of a transgender child? I'd just like him to make his case. Or rather, make the case he, to all intents and purposes, appears to be making. He seems to be against this bill, and I am in favor of it. Let's get a debate going! by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 7:08 am Great! Thanks, od! Okay... "the law states this the overarching SINGLE REASON do deny custody. Over drug use in the house. Over that parent having different sex partners in the house nightly (increased issues with abuse of the child), and prior abuse charges. and EVERYTHING else." -olde dude I am going to assume that you came to that conclusion by way of the possible fact that the law doesn't cite any other specific considerations that are deal-killers. I've seen all too well how your mind works. I noticed that of the considerations that you cited, they are about behaviors that are examples of the parent making bad decisions about themselves and their behavior. And no, I am not condoning any of the things you cited. But the thing is, od, they are not direct abuses of the transgender child. Yes, they can certainly be harmful to the child indirectly. But refusing to properly gender a transgender child and dead naming a transgender child are direct abuses of that transgender child. Here's my opinion in a nutshell: A parent with a history of intentionally abusing a child, whether physically or mentally, should be a deal-killer in a custody battle. And if that is put into the law, then all the better as far as I am concerned. So, what's your opinion, od...? by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 7:15 am "If they want to make it "a" reason, I'm all for that." -olde dude I wanted to address this separately. So od, you seem to be of the opinion that since no other considerations are at the level of legal disqualification like this bill makes misgendering and dead naming a transgender child, that no considerations should ever be made legally binding regarding custody, unless all the other considerations that you feel are far worse are made to legally be deal-killers first. Do I have that about right...? by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 9:52 am Perhaps olde dude has realized the true horror that such a bill is intended to address concerning transgender children in custody battles. Perhaps pedophile's bitch himself even gets it now. It may be that they both now know how inhuman their stances on transgender children have been. If so, my work is done here. by oldedude on February 16, 2026 10:04 am My point is that one single element over-rides prior child abuse, meth usage, and any other criteria that is normally viewed during custody battles. Should it be "equal" to the other considerations? Sure. The other thing. WTF is the government over-reach into this? That is nothing less that jpedhc.org ncsacw.acf.gov ohsu.edu by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 10:09 am "My point is that one single element over-rides prior child abuse, meth usage, and any other criteria that is normally viewed during custody battles." -olde dude It absolutely does not "override" those other elements, od. Are you saying that because of this one stipulation being in the law, no other considerations like physical abuse or drug addiction can be made or can have any relevance in a custody case? by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 10:11 am Or... are you calling for a complete listing of all the considerations of a parent's behavior that must list all of the deal-killers in order of their horribleness? by oldedude on February 16, 2026 1:41 pm Welcome to divorce court. And to be sure, the child abuse can be far worse than not being called the gender you prefer for the day. As usual, I don't/won't think in black and white. Here are also some things to think about. Age of the child (which the law does NOT. If the kid is older and questioning their gender, "normal" parents should be able to work with the kid. If it turns out to be a passing phase, so be it. If they get more comfortable with their decision there need to be give and takes for everyone. Obviously, if you don't have a sane family to start with that will be an issue. If the kid is five and identifies as a "cat" (literally), we have another issue. AND I'm only giving you examples of what can happen with the law as it's written. My view is that it's a stupid, unneeded law. AND I agree with you to your point. A 12-14 year old has a chance to offer their own side for the court. To the betterment for the kid, they need to have a voice. Drug use by one of the parent's (again, especially meth) is a huge thing If they're making meth in the house to any state that is usually an immediate transfer to either with another family member and there are "problems" with that or the "foster care" which several folks have pointed that out. by Ponderer on February 16, 2026 2:12 pm Well cool. So, at least you're no longer hyperbolically asserting that this law in any way "over-rides" all other deal-killer considerations. My guess is that there was very likely some instance in a custody battle for a transgender child in some MAGA court where the fact of a parent insisting on dead naming and misgendering their transgender child among other mentally hurtful things, was disregarded as something that shouldn't even be a consideration at all. Hence, the need for the law. by myce on February 16, 2026 6:51 pm Yes Navy(#22), I've heard from people I've met IRL about their experiences living in group homes or being institutionalized as children. I didn't have it so bad, but stepdads who bullied me and a negligent mother which hurts more than the abuse itself. Do you doubt there are pedos and other scum in control of especially the executive branch of the government? Do you doubt there are pedos and other scum in positions of trust? Does it make me a ding dong as you put it for saying so? Sometimes there is no good solution, that is the point I am making. I support social services, crisis intervention, etc. I want programs and policies that are good for people and proven effective. The topic has to do with family law. Emotional abuse can destroy a person like acid on stone. It could drive a person to suicide if they feel they don't have options. That is how I understand what a trans person must be feeling, because I don't understand it to be honest. by oldedude on February 17, 2026 4:15 am Well cool. So, at least you're no longer hyperbolically asserting that this law in any way "over-rides" all other deal-killer considerations. As always, you misread what people say, then LIE about them. If you want to be treated like a human being, you need to act like one. The LAW STILL STANDS. That ONE feature, over-rides all others. I would support it, if it didn't, because the lack of options, as I showed you "twice" maybe thrice that it should be a "factor." but there are far worse things. And I DO understand about the "foster care" fiasco, and adamantly support being with parents or other family members, and what you support, may have kids go directly into that system. I don't believe that's a good thing. by Ponderer on February 17, 2026 5:33 am "That ONE feature, over-rides all others. I would support it, if it didn't" -olde dude Then you should support it, because it doesn't. It in no way "overrides" all the other considerations. By any stretch of the word. You know, you keep using that word and I don't think it means what you think it means. override verb (used with object) 1. to prevail or have dominance over; have final authority or say over; overrule. to override one's advisers. 2. to disregard, set aside, or nullify; countermand. to override the board's veto. 3. to take precedence over; preempt or supersede. to override any other considerations. 4. to extend beyond or spread over; overlap. 5. to modify or suspend the ordinary functioning of; alter the normal operation of. 6. to ride over or across. 7. to ride past or beyond. 8. to trample or crush; ride down. 9. to ride (a horse) too much. 10. Fox Hunting. to ride too closely behind (the hounds). od, please select the definitions that you think apply to your use of that word and I will explain to you why you are wrong. Because none of these definitions describe what this Ohio bill does to any existing considerations in a custody case involving a transgender child. "Your honor, I think that because my client was only physically abusing their child by locking them in the cellar for three years and only feeding them expired dog food twice a week, this can in no way be used against my client, because of how the bill that makes dead naming and misgendering a transgender child a legal consideration in custody cases takes precedence over, preempts, and/or supersedes all other considerations by the fact that it overrides any and all of them." "Okay, who let this babbling idiot into my courtroom...? Baliff...!" by oldedude on February 17, 2026 8:27 am Then you should support it, because it doesn't. It in no way "overrides" all the other considerations. By any stretch of the word. I think it's very interesting that I give you all the information for you to actually read the LAW. And. Either of you are too stupid to read, or you just like to be little bitches, I don't know. It's what the law says... Directly from the law, i>Section 1 of the bill creates the "Kelly Loving Act". Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child. Sections 8 and 9 define deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the "Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act", and prohibit these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation.< The state defines misgendering, or deadnaming a person as "coercive control."" Which is illegal and is a criminal act. Colorado has enacted laws recognizing coercive control as a form of abuse, particularly in custody disputes, enhancing protections for victims and children. So the Judges will consider this as a criminal act, and not a civil act. by Ponderer on February 17, 2026 9:08 am And od, in what way does this law "override" all the other considerations in a custody hearing as you keep insisting that it does? "So the Judges will consider this as a criminal act, and not a civil act." -olde dude And again, how does that "override" all other considerations? Because of this bill, a parent raping their child is no longer a criminal act? It can no longer be a consideration in a custody battle? Rape of a minor has been "overridden" as a criminal act because of this bill? Are you saying that if a parent physically abuses a child, that such an illegal action can no longer be a consideration in a custody hearing... because of this bill? That it isn't even considered illegal, because of this bill? That's ridiculous and asinine. This bill does not "override" anything, olde dude. It simply doesn't. That's why you can't demonstrate how it does and you have to keep talking about things that I am not even talking about. Last Chance: Show me where in the law that it "overrides" all other considerations or explain how it does as you keep on insisting it does. That's all I'm asking. by HatetheSwamp on February 17, 2026 9:11 am Bless your heart, OD. Your patience is historic!!!!! by Ponderer on February 17, 2026 9:16 am Care to help him out here, pedophile's bitch? Can you explain how this bill "overrides" all other considerations in a custody case...? As olde dude keeps pig-ignorantly insisting that it does...? by Ponderer on February 17, 2026 9:25 am "Section 1 of the bill creates the "Kelly Loving Act". Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child. Sections 8 and 9 define deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the "Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act", and prohibit these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation." Nowhere in any of that does this bill "override" any other existing laws or considerations in a custody hearing. olde dude is perfectly free to highlight the parts where he thinks it does..... by Donna on February 17, 2026 10:29 am In his weird mind it does. by oldedude on February 17, 2026 12:02 pm So you're saying the child should have no say in deadnaming, etc. Thanks! by HatetheSwamp on February 17, 2026 12:04 pm "Care to help him out here, pedophile's bitch?" Sorry. I lack the patience, baha by oldedude on February 17, 2026 12:16 pm perra- unlike you, I have better things to do. I actually do have a life. Thank AI! Colorado has passed a sweeping new law that could criminalize certain types of speech, including “deadnaming” or “misgendering” transgender individuals in public spaces. Critics argue it’s a dangerous assault on free expression. Key Facts: Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed House Bill 1312, also called the “Kelly Loving Act,” into law on Friday. The law makes “deadnaming” and “misgendering” discriminatory acts under the state’s anti-discrimination law. It applies to public accommodations like schools, workplaces, and courtrooms. The bill also expands access for changing names and gender markers on official documents like birth certificates and marriage licenses. The law is named after a transgender individual killed in the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs. That means it "overrides" being a bad parent (undefined), not spending quality time with the kids, smoking weed, being a whore[1], taking them to a gun range, taking them out of state without the courts' permission, and all the other things family judges use to decide who gets the kids. leg.colorado.gov by Indy! on February 17, 2026 12:34 pm Is that why you moved out of Colorado, Old Dud? Because one of your kids didn't like you deadnaming them? by myce on February 17, 2026 12:39 pm If only all children could be protected from Christian parents, that would make America great. by oldedude on February 17, 2026 1:54 pm myce- I don't think it's your "broad swath" of "Christianity." To me, it's very much like saying that "all" LGBTQ+ are..... I'm sure you can fill in the blanks better than I, because those folks are bigots as much as that statement. You're in a country that you don't get to murder any religion (not sure if you actually knew that or not). I mean, you could go in to the state of Puebla, MX, which now has a rather large Muslim population. You don't need much to get in there, and you can get lost down there. The Muslims have done pretty well. They've supplied health care for children, safe running water and all sorts of other things. by myce on February 17, 2026 4:23 pm OldeDude, I said, "If only all children could be protected." Unfortunately freedom has a bug since it allows freedom for monsters who destroy freedom, like the Christian Nationalists, aka Nat-C's, aka Christian Satanists. But not all Christians are child-abusing, America-hating psychopaths, and not all Satanists are sadistic psychopaths, and not all Jews want to genocide Palestinians for Greater Israel, and not all Muslims use suicide bombs for self-defense. But all of those religions present problems for civilized people, and they all have their roots in that same place. Maybe the region is cursed forever, or maybe it's just too damn hot, cooked people's brains and the generational trauma lives forever. by oldedude on February 18, 2026 3:49 pm How about meth users? You need to google that and see how many kids are abuse in that. We're talking about purposeful getting the kids into the addiction, and then "renting" them out. Extra if they get their friends to join. Step parents are another huge issue. You can't/won't see the forest for the apparent trees, so you (of course) Pick on things you know nothing about. by Ponderer on February 18, 2026 4:17 pm I must reiterate... "Section 1 of the bill creates the "Kelly Loving Act". Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child. Sections 8 and 9 define deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the "Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act", and prohibit these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation." Nowhere in any of that does this bill "override" any other existing laws or considerations in a custody hearing. olde dude is perfectly free to highlight the parts where he thinks it does..... but he will refuse to because he now knows how asinine and wrong he was. by Indy! on February 18, 2026 5:50 pm by oldedude on February 18, 2026 3:49 pm How about meth users? You need to google that and see how many kids are abuse in that. We're talking about purposeful getting the kids into the addiction, and then "renting" them out. Extra if they get their friends to join. Step parents are another huge issue. You can't/won't see the forest for the apparent trees, so you (of course) Pick on things you know nothing about. This is how pedos expose themselves to the authorities - by knowing way to much about the lifestyle. 😂 Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page