this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
71 points (92.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36682 readers
2341 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I read the section two definition of "chemical and surgical mutilation" and it mentions altering sex organs to remove their biological functions. One of the biological functions of a penis is to produce sperm. So could this mean no more federal coverage for vasectomies as well as stuff like tubal litigation or hysterectomies? And yes, I know that people under 19 don't usually get permanent sterilization procedures anyways, but I still wonder about this interpretation.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/

The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Giant asterisk here. Executive Orders are not laws and cannot be enforced like a law. They are generally directives to the civil service as to how an already existing law should be interpreted or enforced.

This thing has as much power as the toilet paper I'm about to wipe my ass with.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

They should make illegal infant genital mutilation too, I know it used to be a big common practice in the Middle East and the USA

[–] SarcasticCephalopod@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Circumcision is still done to over 50% of the boys born in the US.

[–] SplashJackson@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago

Wow, that's sad.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 10 points 21 hours ago

Shit. That's a declaration of war, if I've ever seen one. That has to be stopped. It goes against, blatantly, the most basic rights of self affirmation.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 41 points 1 day ago (2 children)

(a) The term “child” or “children” means an individual or individuals under 19 years of age.

Uh, fucking what?

[–] Jessica@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 16 hours ago

This is almost certainly to set a precedent for it applying to adults as well so they can later increase the age.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s like the closest to a sane thing in there.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 8 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

if you can join the military at 18…

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au -1 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Yeah but America already considers you a kid until what, 21? They’re a bit behind the times.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

The US age of majority is 18.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

my issue isnt with the 21 or the 19

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)
[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

18 is still a kid, all that shit should be at like 25

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

18 is legally an adult in my country. I’d say anyone over 14-16 is no longer a kid but a young adult.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

plenty of studies showing even 18 year olds are fucking dumb still

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

So are plenty of 28, 38, 48, 58, 68, etc year olds.

Being dumb is related to education and culture. Not age.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

no i mean scientifically brain development continues past 18 and physical immaturity continues to around 25ish, 18 is way to damn young for some things still

that isn’t just culture

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

After 18 months you stop developing new neurons.

At 30 years you start losing them.

All through out childhood and after our brains continue to change. There is no magical biological age when you are mentally perfect, and even if there was it would start degrading before it even finished developing.

Many older teens are capable of formulating well thought of ideas and show great maturity. Many of them are also insufferable hormonal arseholes who shouldn’t be entrusted with anything. But to say they’re less adult than an 80 year old with dementia shitting themselves in nappies is a bit ridiculous when one is closer to a baby in capability.

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

prefrontal cortex specifically, this isnt new, talk about raising the drinking age to 25 for example is old hat

studies have been done even from 18 to 21 show a marked improvement in the us

doesnt really matter if you want to argue culture or biology or a mix of the two

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Other issues: no more circumcision, even if medically needed, and no more other medical procedures that make the tradeoff of saving a life over surgery.

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If infant male genital mutilation ends, I see that as a win.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah; but does Trump’s base?

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Well they do have an obsession with gay stuff, so maybe they prefer their young twinks cut?

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It tracks with their "Christian" beliefs. They don't want abortions and they don't want vasectomies. They want people to pump out kids like baby factories. Also, the birthrate in the US is dropping and they want to make sure there are enough workers to exploit in the future.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 day ago

I wish they had anything with a long-term vision, even one as bad as that.

Parents with young children are very easy to exploit due to a lack of options. They can't just quit/move/start a riot, because they have to worry about their child. They also tend to be very afraid (of many things), which is the Republican bread and butter.

[–] Death_Equity@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

It wouldn't apply to anyone 19 or older, as that definition is an aspect of the order and the age range is defined.

If they passed a law that expanded the definition to all ages, then vasectomies, hysterectomies, mastectomies, circumcisions, etc. would all be banned due to the sloppy and imprecise language.

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Fuck Donald Trump and MAGA. I want a vasectomy and will get one when I choose to. My body, my choice. ✊

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

That's how I read it....

[–] HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I read it as creating a mandate for the government to reduce microplastics that get into the human body because those reduce fertility and sperm count. Except in these kinds of bills, there's always an unwritten addendum that says that the bill doesn't apply if a perceived obligation affects a company's bottom line