But bringing up commonality invites the question of why the two should be compared. I’m just pointing out that they are way more dissimilar than they are similar. And I’m not alone.
https://twitter.com/lgballiance_usa/status/1571930073971970049
1 Like
I know some make these arguments, but the issue isnt about what’s an illness and what’s a normal/natural condition.
Characterize the desire to be the opposite gender however you want - the issue becomes an issue when third parties start encouraging kids to make unnecessary, drastic, permanent mutilations to their physical body, and when you start expecting forcing society to not only accept, but also indulge those individual’s physiological fantasies.
Transgenderism is what it is. Removing your sex organs/blocking their development is not transgenderism, it is a form of body dysmorphic disorder or body integrity identity disorder. It’s no different than encouraging the guy who believes he is too tall to cut his legs off at the knees so he can then feel like a “normal” height.
2 Likes
A pedophile brings harm to others. Being transgender does not.
Your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins.
Strawman. We aren’t opposed to anyone “being transgender.” We are opposed to the harm caused when activists demand acceptance by forcing women to allow the inclusion of males in:
Women’s sports
Women’s spas
Women’s restrooms
Women’s locker rooms
Women’s domestic violence and sexual violence shelters
Women’s prisons
Women’s gyms
Etc.
Your right to put on womanface and claim you are a woman ends where private women’s spaces begin.
2 Likes
Except you’ve been against things like puberty blockers.
But if a 12 year old has the right to permanently mutilate their body, surely they’re also capable of making other decisions about their bodies… Why are you ok with denying that 12 year old her happiness in those other situation, but not this one?
If a pedophile inherently brings harm to others (which I agree), then so do these transgender enablers. I can respect a consistent argument, even if I disagree with it. But you can’t have it both ways, which is why this is such lunacy.
2 Likes
That’s a symptom. The opposition is to letting children dictate life-altering choices when they’re deemed to immature to make such decisions in literally every other aspect of life.
2 Likes
I’m opposed to two things for separate reasons.
- Forcing females to accept males in their private spaces and other female only activities.
- Transing kids.
If adults want to mutilate themselves and males put on woman face, they should have the right to do that and they should face the social consequences for it.
However, doctors and other health professionals should not be allowed to experiment on kids (blockers, hormones, surgery). Our society has the right to tell doctors what they can and can’t do to people that aren’t of the age of maturity to consent to the “care.”
2 Likes
Blockers are not experimenting–they were developed for precocious puberty.
Right - to treat a physical condition by delaying puberty until a more typical age. Not to facilitate a psychological fantasy by preventing puberty indefinitely.
The experiment is the end goal being advanced with their off-label use.
3 Likes
Off-label use is very common in the medical world. It’s very rare for a drug company to seek approval for an off-label use that is found. That doesn’t make it experimental.
Consider one that I have run into–the standard drug for kidney stones you can pass is actually a prostate drug.
1 Like
It’s not the drug company’s responsibility. It’s the doctors prescribing it.
It’s literally the definition of what is being done. They are conducting experiments because no one knows for sure how the human body responds to puberty being blocked all the way through the typical ages of puberty. You can claim all you want that if someone takes puberty blockers until they are 18, then all of a sudden, instead of following the path of everyone else by taking cross sex hormones, decides to go off puberty blockers and just live their life without meds, that their puberty will just start at 18 and end 3 or so years later and they’ll be fine from then on. You can’t claim that because there has been literally no medical study saying that is what will happen because NO ONE HAS DONE THE EXPERIMENT. That’s what makes this an experiment.
1 Like
And kidney stones are an actual physical condition. As I said, the experiment is how the puberty blockers are being used. There is nothing experimental about passing kidney stones.
Taking a break from the trans wars for a fun item. Twitter is all a-Twitter. Could not happen to nicer guys
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/report-elon-musk-plans-to-cut-75-of-twitter-workforce/
Report: Elon Musk plans to cut 75% of Twitter workforce
Twitter Tells Staff There Aren’t Plans for Companywide Layoffs
2 Likes
Another fun item. Today is a laugh a minute. They did not call the police. They just turned off the heat and left. LOL
3 Likes
In other Twitter news, the merger is kinda sorta supposed to close this month, or else Elon goes back to court and likely loses to Twitter and has to buy them with interest. So should just be a few weeks now before he’s calling the shots…
2 Likes
Puberty blockers work as expected, there’s no experiment.
Perfect solution.
Your exact statement:
they were developed for precocious puberty
This is correct. There are no expectations for how puberty blockers work on teens who should’ve already been through puberty. Because such usage is indisputably experimental. It is not what they were developed for.
If you cannot appreciate the rather huge difference between delaying early-onset puberty for a couple years, and preventing puberty indefinitely and well beyond normal developmental parameters, then you are never going to be capable of grasping the problems with such usage.
1 Like
Why should they behave any differently? We already know what happens–go off them, puberty takes it’s normal course. Time doesn’t change that. No experimenting.
Exactly - you are incapable of grasping the arguments being made. Physical growth and development in your teens is entirely inconsequential. Got it.
I reluctantly ask again - since puberty is one of the primary developments complicating the lives of teens, why is it not the normal standard of care to delay puberty until one’s 20s, when you are far more capable of handling the changes and emotions that comes with it? Even today, the mere suggestion of this standard would be considered grave medical malpractice. Except when it’s a tool for the trans crowd, then it’s completely safe and without consequence and openly encouraged.
1 Like