Talk:Greg Abbott

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Clear Bias

This article has clear liberal bias. I will only list a couple of examples because they are numerous. It says that Abbott is a racist, and presents the butchering of children in a favorable light. The tone must be changed to a more appropriate one. ^{— Unsigned, by: Elz777 / talk / contribs}

Must? —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am serious.

This wiki seems to be very snarky, and while I can laugh at it, I believe that you guys should develop it into more of a respectable wiki. I generally like the idea of what you guys have started here, but I do believe that it needs much improvement.--Elz777 (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I will try to remember that next time. Thank you.--Elz777 (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not saying that you must remove the snarkiness, but I am suggesting such changes to this wiki, such as the elimination of foul language. Don’t you agree?--Elz777 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Bongolian (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if Abbott's law against trans medicine for anyone under 21 also included the usual exemptions for intersex genital assignments, circumcisions, and teenage breast implants. That might show some "clear bias". Chillpilled (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does exempt those born with "a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development" (the age is also 18).

And yes, from my interpretation, had the bill not specifically targeted procedures "for the purpose of transitioning a child's biological sex", Sec. 161.702 (4) ("remove any otherwise healthy or non-diseased body part or tissue") would've outlawed circumcision. (Funny how the "waah! body mutilation!" folks never seem to moral panic about the normalization of circumcision in the USA, although to be fair such is in decline...) Breast augmentation for minors appears not to be covered, although such is fairly rare (less rare than transgender surgery for minors though). BobJohnson (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)