Legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, UK supreme court rules

[Politesse]

The doctors enabling it are engaging in something so close to eugenics that I don't know what else to call it.

Medical care.

 

[Politesse]

I don't blame the kids at all, they're victims in this.

"I have only the greatest sympathy for my victims. If only they would stop doing things I don't approve of, I wouldn't have to attack them to stop them from doing them." *sad organ music*

 

[laughing dog]

That isn't Eugenics. Might not be the right treatment, but it isn't "Eugenics".

Fine. Let's call it "socially engineered sterilization of neurodivergent and autistic and sexually abused kids".

Do you really think that's materially different from the selective sterilization of groups of people considered abnormal?

Yes. The latter have no choice in the matter.

Kids don't have as much agency in this as you think. They might be "choosing", but I genuinely don't think they truly understand the magnitude of their choice. The doctors enabling it are engaging in something so close to eugenics that I don't know what else to call it.

You could call it malpractice. But like it or not, the victims of eugenics policies had NO choice.

Letting a 15 year old get a forehead tattoo that says "fuck old people" is something I don't think any rational parent would allow, and I don't think any responsible tattooist would agree to do it.

I think you don’t know tattooists.

I don't blame the kids at all, they're victims in this. I only blame the parents partially, because the system is currently stacked against them in many areas, and they're punished for acting in defense of their child's long-term health and well being if they deny drugs or surgeries. It's the doctors that I blame, and I think it's completely monstrous.

And the successful transitions with happy results are completely monstrous?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That isn't Eugenics. Might not be the right treatment, but it isn't "Eugenics".

Fine. Let's call it "socially engineered sterilization of neurodivergent and autistic and sexually abused kids".

Do you really think that's materially different from the selective sterilization of groups of people considered abnormal?

You aren't stupid. Why are you making such a stupid argument?

 

[Playball40]

I consider it my business to speak out against the sterilization of gay, autistic, and sexually abused youth. I consider it my business to oppose eugenics experiments on children.

Since that's not happening, you should stay in your fucking lane.

Uh huh. The complete hysterectomy and mastectomy of my just turned 19 year old niece, who is both autistic and we're pretty sure sexually assaulted, totally hasn't happened at all. And she absolutely wasn't given a prescription for testosterone at age 17 after a 30 minute planned parenthood appointment, where there was zero mental health eval done despite her having a documented history of anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. And that totally wasn't done without her parent's approval.

Yeah. Totally not happening at all. Except that it does and is happening. It affects people I love, so it IS my fucking lane.

Why do you want to permanently harm youth?

And was this your ADULT nieces choice? If so, It's none of your business.

 

[Playball40]

That isn't Eugenics. Might not be the right treatment, but it isn't "Eugenics".

Fine. Let's call it "socially engineered sterilization of neurodivergent and autistic and sexually abused kids".

Do you really think that's materially different from the selective sterilization of groups of people considered abnormal?

Yes. The latter have no choice in the matter.

Kids don't have as much agency in this as you think. They might be "choosing", but I genuinely don't think they truly understand the magnitude of their choice. The doctors enabling it are engaging in something so close to eugenics that I don't know what else to call it.

Letting a 15 year old get a forehead tattoo that says "fuck old people" is something I don't think any rational parent would allow, and I don't think any responsible tattooist would agree to do it. But doctors are both enabling and advocating for children to "choose" to permanently harm their healthy bodies in a way that frequently results in sterility.

I don't blame the kids at all, they're victims in this. I only blame the parents partially, because the system is currently stacked against them in many areas, and they're punished for acting in defense of their child's long-term health and well being if they deny drugs or surgeries. It's the doctors that I blame, and I think it's completely monstrous.

<Mod Edit> You're saying that ALL FIVE doctors that treated my son are somehow guilty of malpractice. That as parents, my husband and I are ignorant and don't have our son's LONG TERM HEALTH AND WELL BEING in mind? Yeah, you can fuck right off.

 

[Politesse]

I consider it my business to speak out against the sterilization of gay, autistic, and sexually abused youth. I consider it my business to oppose eugenics experiments on children.

Since that's not happening, you should stay in your fucking lane.

Uh huh. The complete hysterectomy and mastectomy of my just turned 19 year old niece, who is both autistic and we're pretty sure sexually assaulted, totally hasn't happened at all. And she absolutely wasn't given a prescription for testosterone at age 17 after a 30 minute planned parenthood appointment, where there was zero mental health eval done despite her having a documented history of anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. And that totally wasn't done without her parent's approval.

Yeah. Totally not happening at all. Except that it does and is happening. It affects people I love, so it IS my fucking lane.

Why do you want to permanently harm youth?

And was this your ADULT nieces choice? If so, It's none of your business.

To conservatives, children are disobedient property, even when they aren't children anymore.

 

[scombrid]

The concert I just went to was terrifying. Florence And The Machine attracts the worst sorts.

What do you even mean by "support"? I think medical decisions should be made by patients, parents, and medical professionals. Not politicians or media personalities. If that's "reckless" - trusting expertise over rhetoric, personal relationships over media-twisted stereotypes - I certainly don't see how. If that's "reckless", the term "reckless" has lost all logical meaning.

Trust the doctors who gave lobotomies to "cure" depressions to tens of thousands of people. And the psychiatrists who diagnosed repressed memories of satanic ritual child abuse.

Because history totally doesn't show doctors being overzealous and reckless at applying a newfangled approach to mental distress.

We will just let the churches fix them. They’ve had the answer all along. They know how to set these confused people straight.

 

[scombrid]

You know because medicine hasn’t change since bloodletting and lobotomies. That should terrify anyone confused about their identity as well as hysterical pearl clutchers.

 

[TomC]

I consider it my business to speak out against the sterilization of gay, autistic, and sexually abused youth. I consider it my business to oppose eugenics experiments on children.

Since that's not happening, you should stay in your fucking lane.

Uh huh. The complete hysterectomy and mastectomy of my just turned 19 year old niece, who is both autistic and we're pretty sure sexually assaulted, totally hasn't happened at all. And she absolutely wasn't given a prescription for testosterone at age 17 after a 30 minute planned parenthood appointment, where there was zero mental health eval done despite her having a documented history of anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. And that totally wasn't done without her parent's approval.

Yeah. Totally not happening at all. Except that it does and is happening. It affects people I love, so it IS my fucking lane.

Why do you want to permanently harm youth?

And was this your ADULT nieces choice? If so, It's none of your business.

To conservatives, children are disobedient property, even when they aren't children anymore.

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

I consider it my business to speak out against the sterilization of gay, autistic, and sexually abused youth. I consider it my business to oppose eugenics experiments on children.

Since that's not happening, you should stay in your fucking lane.

Uh huh. The complete hysterectomy and mastectomy of my just turned 19 year old niece, who is both autistic and we're pretty sure sexually assaulted, totally hasn't happened at all. And she absolutely wasn't given a prescription for testosterone at age 17 after a 30 minute planned parenthood appointment, where there was zero mental health eval done despite her having a documented history of anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder. And that totally wasn't done without her parent's approval.

Yeah. Totally not happening at all. Except that it does and is happening. It affects people I love, so it IS my fucking lane.

Why do you want to permanently harm youth?

And was this your ADULT nieces choice? If so, It's none of your business.

To conservatives, children are disobedient property, even when they aren't children anymore.

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

Ask any child, be they "queer" or straight, whether they'd rather be celebrated and loved, or dehumanized and abused. You'll find there is pretty clear consensus.

 

[laughing dog]

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

To any humane being, any child is a trophy.

 

[TomC]

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

To any humane being, any child is a trophy.

I agree.
But look around you. Do you honestly think that all parents are good parents? That all parents see their children as trophies?
You can't seriously believe that.
Tom

 

[scombrid]

LD wrote “humane”

 

[TomC]

LD wrote “humane”

And I agreed with him.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

To any humane being, any child is a trophy.

I agree.
But look around you. Do you honestly think that all parents are good parents? That all parents see their children as trophies?
You can't seriously believe that.
Tom

I know all parents are not good parents. And I know that even if someone thought their child was a trophy, that they may not be a good parent. And some parents are not humane.

 

[TomC]

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

To any humane being, any child is a trophy.

I agree.
But look around you. Do you honestly think that all parents are good parents? That all parents see their children as trophies?
You can't seriously believe that.
Tom

I know all parents are not good parents. And I know that even if someone thought their child was a trophy, that they may not be a good parent. And some parents are not humane.

Do you realize that I was responding to Politesse?

To conservatives, children are disobedient property, even when they aren't children anymore.

That's what I was responding to.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

To any humane being, any child is a trophy.

I agree.
But look around you. Do you honestly think that all parents are good parents? That all parents see their children as trophies?
You can't seriously believe that.
Tom

I know all parents are not good parents. And I know that even if someone thought their child was a trophy, that they may not be a good parent. And some parents are not humane.

Do you realize that I was responding to Politesse?

You replied to my post that had no comments by Politesse, so no.

My observation and reply stand by themselves.

 

[TomC]

To liberals, queer children are trophies.
Tom

To any humane being, any child is a trophy.

I agree.
But look around you. Do you honestly think that all parents are good parents? That all parents see their children as trophies?
You can't seriously believe that.
Tom

I know all parents are not good parents. And I know that even if someone thought their child was a trophy, that they may not be a good parent. And some parents are not humane.

Do you realize that I was responding to Politesse?

You replied to my post that had no comments by Politesse, so no.

My observation and reply stand by themselves.

Do you realize that the post you responded to was a response to Politesse. Clipping off that part just makes your response nonsensical.
Tom

 

[scombrid]

LD wrote “humane”

And I agreed with him.
Tom

What does “you can’t seriously believe that” mean? That looks accusatory.