Which sentence? You wrote "If boys aren’t allowed to transition before puberty strikes", how does that refer to middle-aged men?
AFAIK, you still support sterilizing drugs and mutilating surgery for children with gender dysphoria, provided that their parents have been sufficiently gaslit by Big Trans to go along with it. Is that not corre…
Which sentence? You wrote "If boys aren’t allowed to transition before puberty strikes", how does that refer to middle-aged men?
AFAIK, you still support sterilizing drugs and mutilating surgery for children with gender dysphoria, provided that their parents have been sufficiently gaslit by Big Trans to go along with it. Is that not correct?
If it is correct, you are in the moral and ethical wrong. Sterilizing and mutilating children is a crime against humanity, period.
Are you for or against laws that forbid drugs and/or surgery for gender dysphoric children?
IMO, such laws simply prevent quack treatment, much as laws that require proof that a drug is both safe and effective before it can be legally marketed.
I honestly think it was the start of a very slippery slope when the first surgeon performed a "sex change operation" on an adult male. Even AGP is a psychological problem and shouldn't have been viewed as "fixable" with surgeries. People know it's wrong to let body dysmorphia sufferers have their limbs cut off, so why is it ever okay to cut off a person's sex organs? But SRS has been allowed for years because adults have been allowed to choose it and you can't say no to an adult. Now the same illogical and drastic surgeries have come after the children and no one can figure how to stop them.
I completely agree, except: we DO know how to stop them. Pass laws against the mutilation of children. Elect representatives will who vote for those laws.
Independent of the moral question, there are real questions regarding effectiveness and safety. These are invasive procedures with implications on lifespan that we still don't understand fully. Even if there 100% agreement on the ethical chose of allowing such procedures on the merits, there still should be more discussion on the health tradeoffs.
Which sentence? You wrote "If boys aren’t allowed to transition before puberty strikes", how does that refer to middle-aged men?
AFAIK, you still support sterilizing drugs and mutilating surgery for children with gender dysphoria, provided that their parents have been sufficiently gaslit by Big Trans to go along with it. Is that not correct?
If it is correct, you are in the moral and ethical wrong. Sterilizing and mutilating children is a crime against humanity, period.
I meant boys who grow up to be AGPs. Will fix.
I don't think you know what you're talking about, i.e. you have Lisa wrong.
Yes, he has me wrong.
Are you for or against laws that forbid drugs and/or surgery for gender dysphoric children?
IMO, such laws simply prevent quack treatment, much as laws that require proof that a drug is both safe and effective before it can be legally marketed.
I honestly think it was the start of a very slippery slope when the first surgeon performed a "sex change operation" on an adult male. Even AGP is a psychological problem and shouldn't have been viewed as "fixable" with surgeries. People know it's wrong to let body dysmorphia sufferers have their limbs cut off, so why is it ever okay to cut off a person's sex organs? But SRS has been allowed for years because adults have been allowed to choose it and you can't say no to an adult. Now the same illogical and drastic surgeries have come after the children and no one can figure how to stop them.
I completely agree, except: we DO know how to stop them. Pass laws against the mutilation of children. Elect representatives will who vote for those laws.
Independent of the moral question, there are real questions regarding effectiveness and safety. These are invasive procedures with implications on lifespan that we still don't understand fully. Even if there 100% agreement on the ethical chose of allowing such procedures on the merits, there still should be more discussion on the health tradeoffs.