Puberty blockers are not safe. That's true. Their relative risk is judged against suicide, an all too common outcome among untreated trans kids (and adults).
To judge that, we would have to have some idea whether they actually reduce the risk of suicide.
"...a negative association found many years after treatment is compatible with three scenarios: puberty blockers reduced suicidal ideation; puberty blockers had no effect on suicidal ideation; puberty blockers increased suicidal ideation, albeit not enough to counteract the initial negative effect of psychological problems on eligibility. Turban et al. (2020, p. 7) acknowledged that “the study’s cross-sectional design…does not allow for determination of causation.”"
Oh, look, instead of looking for actual evidence, you double down on trying to justify the choice of a known transphobic activist. Google a bit deeper. Of course, given your growing number of comments in this thread flagged for your own transphobic responses it's not surprising.
There are also suicides among treated "trans kids". Don' just use the selective statistics the trans lobby throws around. Or look into the details when they cite actual studies.
Untrue. We’ve been using them for more than 30 years for kids who start puberty at a super young age (it’s called precocious puberty). And as best as science can tell, those kids are healthy when they grow up
You're the one who is trying to rope different arguemnts into the discussion here. That some people you detest who argue B also argue A is irrelevant when it comes to arguements for/against A.
Nope. In case you haven't noticed we're replying to an article about "moral panics". Somebody upthread pointed out that there is currently a moral panic centred on transpeople. Politicians talking about "demons and imps", banning drag shows and "eliminating" trans identity or introducing the felony offence of having the wrong books in the classroom are examples of this phenomenon. Despite the OP's denials, this phenomenon is very much in evidence; the scientific research concluding the net harm of any and all forms gender-affirmative care recently criminalised by the same politicians isn't (and even if it existed, that still wouldn't mean moral panics over transpeople didn't exist)
It was an argument from one of the definitely-not moral panicking Florida legislators whose legislation you're defending. Sounds super scientific to me!
Drag shows aren't necessarily about sexual attraction and most the definitely not moral panicking laws in question makes being a "male impersonator" or "female impersonator" in the presence of children (or in some cases within quarter of a mile of them!) a felony rather than the actual content, which would be a shame for the pantomimes I used to attend as a kid. And strangely, there wasn't much porn in classrooms before the definitely-not-moral-panicking parent vetting organizations started picking titles like Anne Frank's Diary as "sexually explicit"
I never mentioned any specific laws or senators, you did.
But I have seen videos of such drag shows with kids, and examples of the debated books.
So stop bullshitting me. It is absolutely about sexualization and pornographic content. That other examples may exist is besides the point. Specific laws may be badly written, but the intent is certainly not to make Ms Doubtfire illegal.
And even Anne Frank may not be appropriate for children of all ages. Afaik it does contain passages about sex.
haha, the person arguing that laws which explicitly don't mention sexualised behaviour and explicitly do call out such horrors as "sings, lip syncs and dances" whilst being "a performer which exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth" is really all about sexualization and pornography whose legal status is unchanged is accusing me of bullshitting. Funny how they're all so badly written that Mrs Doubtfire would have to avoid singing, but a red blooded alpha male can tell all the smutty jokes to an audience of minors he wants! What next? It's "beside the point" that black people were targeted by Jim Crow laws because it was absolutely about efficient use of bus space?
There's no moral panic here, actually it's entirely normal to make it a criminal offence to have Anne Frank's diary in a classroom if a parent complains!
Ah bless. The person who waded in to deny that there was any moral panic amongst the book-banners and explain that the real problem was doctors being evil orgasm-denying psychopaths for performing the operations their patients demanded wants to talk about awareness of facts.
