Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Emily Lake]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

The antagonization of testosterone and/or pituitary hormone through chemical means such as Spironolactone for several years to confirm that the desire to delay, alter, or prevent the onset of puberty is actually a firm intention.

Sexual development is not as urgent a matter as you make it out to be and 4-6 years is more than enough years to desist.

The human body can tolerate an onset of sexual development anywhere from 8 to 18 with few to any side effects.

We aren't talking about cutting. You brought up cutting, yet nobody is advocating for that.

Why are you being so dishonest in your framing? Do you LIKE being dishonest? It's not justified no matter what it is you think you can get from it.

The Mississippi bill prohibits giving puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery to minors. I don't think I'm being dishonest at all.

Additionally, puberty is a time-bound process that involves multiple processes. If you block puberty for say, a normal and healthy young male until they're 18... they don't then go through 6 years of puberty lasting until their mid twenties. They get maybe half a year of puberty. Puberty blockers don't "delay" the process, they BLOCK the process. Additionally, the lack of appropriate hormones causes problems with bone density that NEVER recovers.

If a male doesn't get the surge in testosterone that naturally occurs during puberty, their penis doesn't lengthen, it doesn't develop adult sexual sensitivity, their testicles don't descend properly, and they don't develop the ability to produce sperm. Applying high levels of estrogen doesn't help with any of that - the child still doesn't develop into a full adult. You end up locking a young male into a permanently immature body.

If a female doesn't get the surge of estrogen and progesterone, the won't develop fully functional lactation glands, she won't begin menses, and vaginal and clitoral sensitivity don't develop. If you give that young girl high levels of testosterone instead, it gets worse, as testosterone can degrade ova, and also contributes to vaginal thinning leaving her at high risk of tearing and infection.

So I ask again - what exactly do you think is REVERSIBLE about puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery? You're the proponent of allowing children to sterilize themselves for something that is not well understood and is known to genuinely resolve itself if puberty isn't interfered with.

Defend your position with something more than wishes, please.

 

[Emily Lake]

Development doesn't stop nor does it need to. Physical development doesn't need happen all at the same time, and has been observed across all of time for millennia, even deferring puberty permanently does not prevent humans from reaching adulthood.

Even following reaching adulthood, further, it has been observed that administration of hormones lead to sexual development.

It's not immediately necessary to force this 1% of people to experience puberty.

You need to supply extraordinary support for your extraordinary claims. This is incredibly innaccurate.

I mean, literally - permanently differing puberty prevents a human from reaching adulthood. 100% it does that. It doesn't stop chronology from happening, and they'll attain a chronological age of majority according to the rules of their country... but they will absolutely NOT reach physical adulthood. Physical adulthood REQUIRES sexual maturity, something which only occurs through the process of puberty.

And no, application of hormones in adulthood does NOT lead to sexual development. If it did, we'd have men clamoring for high doses of testosterone so they could have bigger dicks, and we'd have women taking high doses of estrogen to get bigger boobs. But that's not what happens. It is 100% not what happens. Because that's not how it works.

 

[Emily Lake]

This won't make gay people disappear any more than it will make straight cis people disappear when people figure out they are gay.

Is it okay if a young boy or girl is gender non-confirming? Or do we tell the child that they're probably in the wrong body?

We tell them exactly what has been supported by the LGBT confirming majority:

Seek to change only that of your body which is absolutely necessary for your own happiness, and learn to make peace with as much of it as you may.

Make all decisions slowly and with great thought, if they are decisions that are not commonly made.

They are not "a boy" or "a girl". They are "themselves first and foremost". It is up to them to decide who they want to be and how they want to act and present themselves.

It is not up to adults to tell a child they are in the "wrong" or "right" body, but if they don't like the body they were born into, or what consequences may arise from it's features, and they bring that up to an adult, the question "why do you think you were born into the 'wrong' body?" Is what the adult should, and generally does ask, and continue to ask, for as long as someone expresses this belief.

The response to the answer may be information as to how that issue may be resolved.

Of course, again, dishonest framing from some will twist the concept of an adult asking a child what THEY mean about being born in the wrong body into accusations of an adult telling them that they were.

All of this is based on some fantasy version of what you think ought to happen, not what does happen.

FFS, my 16 year old niece spent a full fucking 30 minutes with a "gender specialist" who promptly prescribed her testoserone! She has a family history of bipolar disorder, and she had been in therapy for depression and anxiety for a year. She had never shown even the tiniest inkling of gender dysphoria. She decided within the space of a fucking MONTH that she was "nonbinary". The only reason it took her that long was becuase that was the soonest the "gender specialist" could see her.

30 goddamned minutes.

That's how long it took this fucking "specialist" to give my niece drugs that will PERMANENTLY damage her body and have a high likelihood of leaving her sterile.

And you think this is some wonderful thing that all kids should be able to do at their fucking whim, because you're working from a goddamned science fiction view of some hypothetical future utopia where actual fucking biology and evolution no longer apply.

 

[Emily Lake]

And again, bad faith. Nobody but you lot are talking about "cutting".

Well, you know, except for the people actually doing the goddamned cutting.

https://uihc.org/health-topics/top-surgery-transmen#:~:text=Though most individuals undergoing top,that top surgery is appropriate.

Though most individuals undergoing top surgery are 18 or older, younger individuals may be considered for the procedure if the patient, their legal guardians, and their mental health professional are in agreement that top surgery is appropriate.

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-age-can-you-get-top-surgery#short-answer

Depending on your circumstances, you may be able to get top surgery as young as age 16.

https://www.turkeltaub.com/transgen...-age-limits-for-gender-affirming-top-surgery/

Plastic surgeons who perform top surgery often have differing philosophies about operating on minors. Some may only operate on those who are 17 years of age, others on those who are 16 or 17 years old whereas some would consider even younger individuals, often on a case by case basis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html

Dr. Gallagher, whose unusual embrace of platforms like TikTok has made her one of the most visible gender-affirming surgeons in the country, said she performed 13 top surgeries on minors last year, up from a handful a few years ago. One hospital, Kaiser Permanente Oakland, carried out 70 top surgeries in 2019 on teenagers age 13 to 18, up from five in 2013, according to researchers who led a recent study.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, you know, except for the people actually doing the goddamned cutting.

Kids who don't want breasts are being forced to grow breasts because you and your ilk deprive them of access to medication that can prevent that outcome until they are sure they either do or do not want those breasts.

That said, this bill doesn't prevent cutting on breasts. Plenty of teens can still get breast augmentations. Oh, not that kind of cutting? Ok then, bad faith.

As it is, HRT and blockers are exactly the remedy to prevent cutting on kids, because kids who get the body they want without needing surgery are what you get when you allow access to medication.

Do you WANT to see people cut rather than happy the first time? Because your way is a path to kids cutting on themselves.

Education on both the projected results of someone's development and knowledge of how those processes can be electively subverted prevents this. It prevents kids from ever even thinking about cutting their bodies in that way.

Either way, we can be sure that this bill forces kids into a body they will hate, and want to have cut.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

The antagonization of testosterone and/or pituitary hormone through chemical means such as Spironolactone for several years to confirm that the desire to delay, alter, or prevent the onset of puberty is actually a firm intention.

Sexual development is not as urgent a matter as you make it out to be and 4-6 years is more than enough years to desist.

The human body can tolerate an onset of sexual development anywhere from 8 to 18 with few to any side effects.

We aren't talking about cutting. You brought up cutting, yet nobody is advocating for that.

Why are you being so dishonest in your framing? Do you LIKE being dishonest? It's not justified no matter what it is you think you can get from it.

Emily doesn't understand that we put young people in suspended animation; the growth process just stops; they don't age at all.

Oleg doesn't understand that his facetious mischaracterization is dishonest framing.

Development doesn't stop nor does it need to. Physical development doesn't need happen all at the same time, and has been observed across all of time for millennia, even deferring puberty permanently does not prevent humans from reaching adulthood.

Even following reaching adulthood, further, it has been observed that administration of hormones lead to sexual development.

It's not immediately necessary to force this 1% of people to experience puberty.

Why is it necessary for the remaining 99%?

If it's such a great idea, and has no harm, why not do it to all kids?

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

The antagonization of testosterone and/or pituitary hormone through chemical means such as Spironolactone for several years to confirm that the desire to delay, alter, or prevent the onset of puberty is actually a firm intention.

Sexual development is not as urgent a matter as you make it out to be and 4-6 years is more than enough years to desist.

The human body can tolerate an onset of sexual development anywhere from 8 to 18 with few to any side effects.

We aren't talking about cutting. You brought up cutting, yet nobody is advocating for that.

Why are you being so dishonest in your framing? Do you LIKE being dishonest? It's not justified no matter what it is you think you can get from it.

Emily doesn't understand that we put young people in suspended animation; the growth process just stops; they don't age at all.

Oleg doesn't understand that his facetious mischaracterization is dishonest framing.

Development doesn't stop nor does it need to. Physical development doesn't need happen all at the same time, and has been observed across all of time for millennia, even deferring puberty permanently does not prevent humans from reaching adulthood.

Even following reaching adulthood, further, it has been observed that administration of hormones lead to sexual development.

It's not immediately necessary to force this 1% of people to experience puberty.

Why is it necessary for the remaining 99%?

If it's such a great idea, and has no harm, why not do it to all kids?

Is that some soreness I detect on your part over being forced through puberty?

The fact is, it's not necessary for humans to go through puberty, just like it isn't necessary for humans to keep reproducing or existing at all.

The thing is, some people WANT to go through puberty, and reproduce.

Some people want a different puberty, and don't care if they reproduce (though this doesn't take that off the table for everyone anyway.)

So, it's not necessary for the remaining 99%. It's optional.

Take your fallacy of the excluded middle and pound sand.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

The antagonization of testosterone and/or pituitary hormone through chemical means such as Spironolactone for several years to confirm that the desire to delay, alter, or prevent the onset of puberty is actually a firm intention.

Sexual development is not as urgent a matter as you make it out to be and 4-6 years is more than enough years to desist.

The human body can tolerate an onset of sexual development anywhere from 8 to 18 with few to any side effects.

We aren't talking about cutting. You brought up cutting, yet nobody is advocating for that.

Why are you being so dishonest in your framing? Do you LIKE being dishonest? It's not justified no matter what it is you think you can get from it.

Emily doesn't understand that we put young people in suspended animation; the growth process just stops; they don't age at all.

Oleg doesn't understand that his facetious mischaracterization is dishonest framing.

Development doesn't stop nor does it need to. Physical development doesn't need happen all at the same time, and has been observed across all of time for millennia, even deferring puberty permanently does not prevent humans from reaching adulthood.

Even following reaching adulthood, further, it has been observed that administration of hormones lead to sexual development.

It's not immediately necessary to force this 1% of people to experience puberty.

Why is it necessary for the remaining 99%?

If it's such a great idea, and has no harm, why not do it to all kids?

Is that some soreness I detect on your part over being forced through puberty?

The fact is, it's not necessary for humans to go through puberty, just like it isn't necessary for humans to keep reproducing or existing at all.

The thing is, some people WANT to go through puberty, and reproduce.

Some people want a different puberty, and don't care if they reproduce (though this doesn't take that off the table for everyone anyway.)

So, it's not necessary for the remaining 99%. It's optional.

Take your fallacy of the excluded middle and pound sand.

But it's not being marketed as optional. It's being marketed as something that trans-kids need, and others can ignore.

I'm proposing a thought experiment here. What if every child could choose to delay puberty, and maybe as adult, to never go through it for whatever reason? And yes, of course I'm talking about an option only, but one that is available for everyone regardless of their gender identity.

Are 10-12 year old kids capable of making that decision? Or should it be their parents' choice? I would imagine, if you ask a child if she wants drastic changes in her body, she'd probably say no unless pressured by friends, family and societal norms to do otherwise.

 

[Rhea]

I think the opposite. That most kids can’t wait to be thought of as adult.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, you know, except for the people actually doing the goddamned cutting.

Kids who don't want breasts are being forced to grow breasts because you and your ilk deprive them of access to medication that can prevent that outcome until they are sure they either do or do not want those breasts.

Kids who don't want to be 6' are being forced to grow to 6' because you and your ilk deprive them of access to medication that can prevent them from growing!

Have you ever really, genuinely, seriously thought about your position, and the impact it has? I mean, with actual objectivity?

That said, this bill doesn't prevent cutting on breasts. Plenty of teens can still get breast augmentations. Oh, not that kind of cutting? Ok then, bad faith.

As it is, HRT and blockers are exactly the remedy to prevent cutting on kids, because kids who get the body they want without needing surgery are what you get when you allow access to medication.

Do you WANT to see people cut rather than happy the first time? Because your way is a path to kids cutting on themselves.

Education on both the projected results of someone's development and knowledge of how those processes can be electively subverted prevents this. It prevents kids from ever even thinking about cutting their bodies in that way.

Either way, we can be sure that this bill forces kids into a body they will hate, and want to have cut.

Your strawman is visible from space. Be careful how you wave around that torch.

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact is, it's not necessary for humans to go through puberty, just like it isn't necessary for humans to keep reproducing or existing at all.

I've never heard an argument from "humans don't need to exist" before. That's an interesting one.


ETA: On the other hand... if it's not necessary for humans to exist at all, what is your opposition to suicide?

 

[Jayjay]

...what is your opposition to suicide?

This is a weird tangent, but personally I think there should be easily available suicide booths for everyone, Futurama style. It would save us from a lot of grief.

Though maybe only for adults.

 

[Oleg]

I think the opposite. That most kids can’t wait to be thought of as adult.

Yes. Which makes them easy to manipulate. Parents need to protect their children from that.

 

[Oleg]

I've never heard an argument from "humans don't need to exist" before. That's an interesting one.

That viewpoint would explain why trans-activists are so nonchalant about sacrificing kids to their ideology.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

Puberty blockers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So? Tomboys are tomboys. Masculine desires doesn't mean they wish to be male. You're trying to bin everybody into "male" or "female", reality is nuanced. It's only the ones with major mismatches that actually want to change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

by someone who hates the LGBT community.

As someone who doesn't hate the queers,
There's a bunch of stuff I don't think underage people are in a position to choose, however much they might want it(at the moment).
Sex and babies is one. Sacrificing schooling for a job is another. Sex change body mods is a third.
Tom

Is there anybody on here supporting sex change mods for minors? I don't think so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seek to change only that of your body which is absolutely necessary for your own happiness, and learn to make peace with as much of it as you may.

I am not against an adult doing what an adult wants to do with their body. I get that body dysphoria is a thing and comes in many different variants. But there seems to be a forgetfullness about adolesence. It is absolutely normal for a young person to feel awkward and weird. Nearly all of us go through some sort of phase. But before that phase meant certain clothes, music, hair style, slang, etc. We grew out of it. Now it's injections and irreversible surgeries. You're stuck. Doing this to a child is not "affirming," it's mutilation.

And who on here is supporting surgery or injections for minors??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Sex change body mods" is a bad faith reference to cutting. Quit trying to hand wave and DARVO your bad faith.

Stop making up things, attributing them to me, then getting upset about them.
It's bad faith, to be charitable about it.

Then what does it mean if you're not talking about surgery and hormones?

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact is, it's not necessary for humans to go through puberty, just like it isn't necessary for humans to keep reproducing or existing at all.

I've never heard an argument from "humans don't need to exist" before. That's an interesting one.


ETA: On the other hand... if it's not necessary for humans to exist at all, what is your opposition to suicide?

I think that was pretty apparent when I outlined my thoughts on what we should do about drug addiction: make it free, and make places where even homeless can access whatever drugs for free, and where education and housing and employment assistance are also free.

I have no absolute problem with folks killing themselves. I just want to make sure all the other options are available, and people are informed that what they are doing is, in fact, killing themselves.

Either way, humans WILL continue to exist.

None of this is "necessary". To say it is, is invoking up an "argument from nature".

And who on here is supporting surgery or injections for minors??

I will point out, some minors do get injections, but this law won't really stop that at all.

You know, one of the most common questions I've gotten during my own process has been when I bring up testosterone to a new doc, whether I wanted to increase my dosage of testosterone. Doctors are really OK with freely prescribing more testosterone to those who produce it, young teens, as this question came up when doctors noted my own slow puberty. I turned them down.

Testosterone is usually administered as an injection. Nobody on the "bad faith" side of the fence is decrying that. They just aren't talking about it because if they did, it would be clear they have no foot to stand on.

The law makes exceptions for mutilating intersex kids and giving "low T" folks more.

The law legalizes forcing kids to take injections, and imposing cutting on kids. It only outlaws procedures and treatments elected by the minor, and only when those elections are "nonconformist".

It doesn't ban breast augmentation, nor penile enhancement, even for minors, if their parents approve.

For that matter it doesn't ban child beauty pageants either.

If I was making a law to protect kids, the first thing I would target is child beauty pageants, giving kids hormone treatments without their explicit consent, and pass serious laws banning infant genital mutilation.

How are they seriously in here claiming a law protects kids when it clearly contains a provision that further enshrines the legality of infant genital mutilation, and forced hormone administration?

They aren't here to protect kids, they are here to protect their impunity in doing exactly the things they accuse others of.