Her case is called a “first of its kind” in the article and I doubt she has a chance of winning. She makes it sound as if never had parents or a legal guardian.
I would be shocked if many trans youth don’t deeply regret the decisions so blindly approved by today’s therapeutic community. This just seems so insanely poorly considered and poorly understood to irrevocably alter the human body after, what?, 12 months of adolescent gender questioning? Like, wtf? I say this as an AOC-supporting, Biden-voting mostly woke liberal. This is just insane.
Such a stupid take. Look at the plunge in suicide rates with access to gender-affirming care. Isn't it enough to let people live? Or is it all contingent upon you feeling good about it?
I love the title of this… if you read the article, it states that the study was pulled not because anything was false, but rather b/c they supposedly did not get express permission (though the author seems to dispute this) to publicly attribute the statements made by the survey respondents.
Not surprising, b/c when you’re attacked for anything but toeing the line nowadays, nobody will dare speak out since they don’t want the lynch mob coming after them.
TL,DR; the evidence actually DOES support ROGD, but since the respondents didn’t publicly say “yes, attribute my name to my statements,” the ethics board decided to squash the study (pure chance that it helps their preferred narrative).
>>Adults can make their own decisions. And trying to take that right away from them by declaring them mentally ill doesn't cut it.<<
Do you believe this as a truth? So you hold the same truth for purchasing a handgun? Or is it not a truth, and just something you selectively say, but act like it is a truth?
Sorry, but you either do not understand what I posted (which was extremely easy to understand for anyone of average intelligence) or you are simply moronic in your questioning.
You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.
Well, I highlighted exactly what you wrote, which you posted as a truth, and I asked do you believe this in all cases? I find the question of freedom that you bring up to be very interesting. I'm not taking a side on the overall issue, I am just wondering, do you really believe that someone declared mentally ill can make their own decisions, yes or no? The question is not whether you agree with the with mental assessment, the question do you believe in individual freedom enough that extends to those even declared mentally ill in the relevant setting.
Mostly true. The caveat is that it is the business of society to protect those who are unable to protect themselves - children mostly.
This is quite similar to any other topic regarding sexuality - anyone thinking it is any of their business what other, consenting adults do is a pervert.
These posts could only be made by men who are entirely oblivious of the massive amounts of diaper-changing, toilet training and bathing of babies and children, and intimate care of the elderly and disabled, that the women of the world spend a good portion of our lives doing.
These posts could only be made by men who are also either clueless or just don't care about how many times in life girls and women are subjected to men and boys flashing their dicks and jerking off at us in public and in places like classrooms and schoolyards, rubbing their dicks up against us in crowds, and commanding us to suck their dicks.
Finally, these posts could only be made by men fortunate enough to have grown up and gone through life so privileged, pampered and protected that they've never been targeted or victimized by one of the many, many sex predators about - and who hew to the fairy-tale illusion that most human sexual encounters are between consenting adults who are equally matched in size, strength and power and are equally willing.
Sorry, but you either do not understand what I posted (which was extremely easy to understand for anyone of average intelligence) or you are simply moronic in your questioning.
You'll have to do better if you wish to be taken seriously.
Well, I highlighted exactly what you wrote, which you posted as a truth, and I asked do you believe this in all cases? I find the question of freedom that you bring up to be very interesting. I'm not taking a side on the overall issue, I am just wondering, do you really believe that someone declared mentally ill can make their own decisions, yes or no? The question is not whether you agree with the with mental assessment, the question do you believe in individual freedom enough that extends to those even declared mentally ill in the relevant setting.
The question, as posed, is far too broad and ambiguous to be meaningful.
Well, I highlighted exactly what you wrote, which you posted as a truth, and I asked do you believe this in all cases? I find the question of freedom that you bring up to be very interesting. I'm not taking a side on the overall issue, I am just wondering, do you really believe that someone declared mentally ill can make their own decisions, yes or no? The question is not whether you agree with the with mental assessment, the question do you believe in individual freedom enough that extends to those even declared mentally ill in the relevant setting.
The question, as posed, is far too broad and ambiguous to be meaningful.
The use of the term, "a truth", is odd.
It is broad, yes. Very broad and complex. Which is why it is interesting.
It is not too "ambiguous to be meaningful", because society has struggled with this issue as long as there has been societies. We have obviously mentally ill people walking the street, sometimes threatening people with violence. Can society decide to lock them up for the greater good, or is personal freedom a greater priority? Seems like society should, but declaring them mentally ill can be used for bad purposes, or to deny/prevent/silence them.
This issue creeps into many things. This topic among them. It's a hard one to balance, but choosing not to answer doesn't make the issue go away.
The question, as posed, is far too broad and ambiguous to be meaningful.
The use of the term, "a truth", is odd.
It is broad, yes. Very broad and complex. Which is why it is interesting.
It is not too "ambiguous to be meaningful", because society has struggled with this issue as long as there has been societies. We have obviously mentally ill people walking the street, sometimes threatening people with violence. Can society decide to lock them up for the greater good, or is personal freedom a greater priority? Seems like society should, but declaring them mentally ill can be used for bad purposes, or to deny/prevent/silence them.
This issue creeps into many things. This topic among them. It's a hard one to balance, but choosing not to answer doesn't make the issue go away.
No, not really interesting for a message board. If it is something that "society has struggled with ... as long as there has (sic) been societies" then this is not the place to try to address it.
My original point was simple - regarding "gender affirming surgery", I generally don't think it is a good idea. But I do not think that it is reasonable to take this option away from competent adults. And labeling adults incompetent simply because they wish to undergo such surgery is not reasonable.
Now, if you want to try to comprehensively address issues of personal freedom, mental illness and societal rights and responsibilities, knock yourself out.
I would be shocked if many trans youth don’t deeply regret the decisions so blindly approved by today’s therapeutic community. This just seems so insanely poorly considered and poorly understood to irrevocably alter the human body after, what?, 12 months of adolescent gender questioning? Like, wtf? I say this as an AOC-supporting, Biden-voting mostly woke liberal. This is just insane.
It is broad, yes. Very broad and complex. Which is why it is interesting.
It is not too "ambiguous to be meaningful", because society has struggled with this issue as long as there has been societies. We have obviously mentally ill people walking the street, sometimes threatening people with violence. Can society decide to lock them up for the greater good, or is personal freedom a greater priority? Seems like society should, but declaring them mentally ill can be used for bad purposes, or to deny/prevent/silence them.
This issue creeps into many things. This topic among them. It's a hard one to balance, but choosing not to answer doesn't make the issue go away.
No, not really interesting for a message board. If it is something that "society has struggled with ... as long as there has (sic) been societies" then this is not the place to try to address it.
My original point was simple - regarding "gender affirming surgery", I generally don't think it is a good idea. But I do not think that it is reasonable to take this option away from competent adults. And labeling adults incompetent simply because they wish to undergo such surgery is not reasonable.
Now, if you want to try to comprehensively address issues of personal freedom, mental illness and societal rights and responsibilities, knock yourself out.
Good enough then. I agree with your position on this topic, and that was never the issue in case you thought otherwise. I was hoping for a more thoughtful discussion on the basis for that belief, but it is a dead end, so time to move on.
No, not really interesting for a message board. If it is something that "society has struggled with ... as long as there has (sic) been societies" then this is not the place to try to address it.
My original point was simple - regarding "gender affirming surgery", I generally don't think it is a good idea. But I do not think that it is reasonable to take this option away from competent adults. And labeling adults incompetent simply because they wish to undergo such surgery is not reasonable.
Now, if you want to try to comprehensively address issues of personal freedom, mental illness and societal rights and responsibilities, knock yourself out.
Good enough then. I agree with your position on this topic, and that was never the issue in case you thought otherwise. I was hoping for a more thoughtful discussion on the basis for that belief, but it is a dead end, so time to move on.
Fair enough.
And my apologies for my initial negative reaction. In real life we might be able to have a good discussion.
Obsessing over the choices someone else makes about their own body is a mental illness. I wonder how many bigots will regret their bigotry 10 years from now? When they get let go from their jobs and become unemployable? When they lose relationships with their families? When they die angry and alone?
Leftist states such as New York or California don’t permit anyone under the age of 18 to get a tattoo, with or without parental consent. Yet many leftists think kids as young as 12 or 13 should have the right to undergo “gender affirming” surgery even without parental consent. What’s the logic of that?
I would be shocked if many trans youth don’t deeply regret the decisions so blindly approved by today’s therapeutic community. This just seems so insanely poorly considered and poorly understood to irrevocably alter the human body after, what?, 12 months of adolescent gender questioning? Like, wtf? I say this as an AOC-supporting, Biden-voting mostly woke liberal. This is just insane.
Obsessing over the choices someone else makes about their own body is a mental illness. I wonder how many bigots will regret their bigotry 10 years from now? When they get let go from their jobs and become unemployable? When they lose relationships with their families? When they die angry and alone?
What you're considering "bigotry" is just realism, common sense, not living in lala land.
The mess you people attempt by labeling people as bigots for that.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.