Metaphor
Sjajna Zvijezda
Who complained?So much struggle against just using the gender people ask, on a message board.
A simple field people can fill in, if they want to, to say “use this gender.”
And more than 300 posts to complain about it.
Who complained?So much struggle against just using the gender people ask, on a message board.
A simple field people can fill in, if they want to, to say “use this gender.”
And more than 300 posts to complain about it.
You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.
You are mistaken. IMy sex and gender are not the same. I have a sex but I don't have a gender identity. The correct pronoun to use for me--and any human or other animal--is the pronoun that accords with my sex.That is probably true, because most people's sex and gender identity are the same.
It's true I can't read minds, but you posted that to make the implication that you did.You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.
I'm not.You are mistaken. I
He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.
You didn't read his mind. You read his words.He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.
Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!
The words produced by his mind, in the way minds communicate in general...You didn't read his mind. You read his words.He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.
Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!
laughing dog's words may or may not be a representation of what he believes.The words produced by his mind, in the way minds communicate in general...You didn't read his mind. You read his words.He could if he actually payed attention to the words those.minds were broadcasting.You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.Fascinating that you think it follows that 'using pronouns that accords with a person's sex' implies that I'm not interested in people as people.Fascinating. I am much more interested in the person as a person, not their anatomy.
Let me read your mind: you don't think metaphor can read minds!
I say, fuck the 'advice' of any 'academy' that endorses male infant genital mutilation.I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!
I say: my arguments are independent of the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics. They neither endorse it nor reject it. They're arguments about something else - and your earlier reply to me involving the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics did not address my points.I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!
I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!
What about them?How about somebody in a burka?I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.
If you are asking "could I tell the difference between a man in a burka and a woman in a burka just by casually interacting with them", the answer is "probably". But if it's not "probably", I'd probably just use 'they' to refer to them, indicating I was not certain of their sex.
Have you ever spoken to adult human beings? Have you ever noticed that you can usually tell somebody's sex from their voice alone? Or that men and women have different gaits and different heights and different faces and different body fat distributions and different hips and different chests?
Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?
And there used to be a pretty hilarious drag queen show here in town we saw once. You wouldn't realize everyone on stage was actually male.
So, Jarhyn's objection to my correctly observing somebody's sex is that I am 'outing' them or 'doxxing' them, or some other insane-o-sphere delusion that I am revealing information about their genitals that is private.
You, and Jarhyn it seems, appear to believe that most people most of the time can't tell the sex of somebody by merely looking at them. That is such an absurd thing to believe I can't even.
And more importantly just because we can, (assuming we can), does not mean that we should in the first place. And just because we can manage to not, if we can manage such a feat, does not mean that we should even still offer such information where it may be excluded except when we choose to opt into it.Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.
My first pick would be Cher.What about them?How about somebody in a burka?I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.
If you are asking "could I tell the difference between a man in a burka and a woman in a burka just by casually interacting with them", the answer is "probably". But if it's not "probably", I'd probably just use 'they' to refer to them, indicating I was not certain of their sex.
Have you ever spoken to adult human beings? Have you ever noticed that you can usually tell somebody's sex from their voice alone? Or that men and women have different gaits and different heights and different faces and different body fat distributions and different hips and different chests?
Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?
I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.
Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.
And there used to be a pretty hilarious drag queen show here in town we saw once. You wouldn't realize everyone on stage was actually male.
So, Jarhyn's objection to my correctly observing somebody's sex is that I am 'outing' them or 'doxxing' them, or some other insane-o-sphere delusion that I am revealing information about their genitals that is private.
You, and Jarhyn it seems, appear to believe that most people most of the time can't tell the sex of somebody by merely looking at them. That is such an absurd thing to believe I can't even.
![]()
Which one is a guy?
I think if any of them asked me, I'd just say "hun, all imma say is I think you're gorgeous, and I'm jealous. It's not my place to put a pronoun on it though, you tell me what's right and when it's right."My first pick would be Cher.What about them?How about somebody in a burka?I go out in public all the time, and I am unmistakably a man. I would still be unmistakably a man no matter what I did to disguise it. And it is not a crime for people to notice.
If you are asking "could I tell the difference between a man in a burka and a woman in a burka just by casually interacting with them", the answer is "probably". But if it's not "probably", I'd probably just use 'they' to refer to them, indicating I was not certain of their sex.
Have you ever spoken to adult human beings? Have you ever noticed that you can usually tell somebody's sex from their voice alone? Or that men and women have different gaits and different heights and different faces and different body fat distributions and different hips and different chests?
Has all of this escaped your notice your entire life?
I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice. And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong. I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.
Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.
And there used to be a pretty hilarious drag queen show here in town we saw once. You wouldn't realize everyone on stage was actually male.
So, Jarhyn's objection to my correctly observing somebody's sex is that I am 'outing' them or 'doxxing' them, or some other insane-o-sphere delusion that I am revealing information about their genitals that is private.
You, and Jarhyn it seems, appear to believe that most people most of the time can't tell the sex of somebody by merely looking at them. That is such an absurd thing to believe I can't even.
![]()
Which one is a guy?
There's more white guys than black, so, statistically more Chers than Tinas.
The rest are just bimbos I don't recognize. Yeah, I'm old. Sue me.Tom
I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.
I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!
I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom
That your voice might not be obviously male or female is not the same thing as people mistaking your gender. In any case, I have already said it is more difficult to know somebody's sex when talking to them over the phone, and sometimes I don't know just from a lo-fi phone call.I am routinely mistaken for female on the phone. Obviously, at least after passing through the frequency filters of the phone people can't tell the gender of my voice.
You mean: you couldn't determine their sex without seeing their face.And in hiking in the winter I have often found myself unable to determine someone's gender without seeing their face--in evening winter hiking (after work, but that ends up being after dark) I have gotten gender wrong.
SIL?I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.
I never claimed I could always do it with 100% accuracy.Just because we can do it quite well in the easy cases doesn't mean we can always do it.
![]()
Which one is a guy?
I was not aware that you were anti-science.
![]()
Which one is a guy?
I do not believe these 'gotcha' games shed light on anything. If it is supposed to be 'somebody's sex is not always as obvious as you think', I've already said that sometimes the sex of a person can be ambiguous, especially from a still photo with no interaction with the person.
My instinct, looking at that photo, is that they are all guys. They all look like men in drag.
And yet you thought my post, which named nobody and quoted nobody, required a response from you.I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.
I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!
I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom
Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.
If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do? As usual, you are badly mistaken about my intentions.It's true I can't read minds, but you posted that to make the implication that you did.You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.
You are mistaken about that.I'm not.You are mistaken. I
So, watch me and tremble as I invoke my secret incantation of mind reading:If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do? As usual, you are badly mistaken about my intentions.It's true I can't read minds, but you posted that to make the implication that you did.You think wrong. You really cannot read minds.
You are mistaken about that.I'm not.You are mistaken. I
No. Your post did not require a response. However, since I am not an idiot, I recognise it was targeted at me.And yet you thought my post, which named nobody and quoted nobody, required a response from you.I don't need an 'excuse' to refuse to utter the prayers of somebody else's religion.When your sole excuse for being a rude cunt to strangers is that "it's not (or shouldn't be) illegal to be a rude cunt to strangers", it's probably time for you to re-evaluate your behaviour, and maybe your entire moral code.
Perhaps you should think more about that.
I don't pretend to.If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?
As usual, your conclusion is the result of poor reasoning and a lack of precision in or knowledge of the English language.I don't pretend to.If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?
I am sorry that you can't recognise simple activities like 'drawing conclusions from evidence', and mistake them for mind-reading, and that you believe the people drawing the conclusions are pretending to mind-read.
It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".
Yet you claim in a number of posts to be so capable of dissembly. I'll grant this, under the expectation that I only accept it in theory, hypothetical at this point.It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".
It is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.
You are responsible for precisely communicating your thoughts. I am not responsible for your poor communication.It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".
I did not claim you were pretending to mind read. If you cannot resist tossing out accusation of dishonesty, at least you could have theIt is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.
You cannot read my mind, or anyone's mind, except your own.Now, this thing that you bring up wherein you believe that people cannot understand inner workings of your mind from your posts (on account of this hypothetical potential for dissembly) would only be important if it were contextual.
So can I read your mind through reading your words here, or can I not?
Yes, you did claim I was pretending to mind read, in post 375.You are responsible for precisely communicating your thoughts. I am not responsible for your poor communication.It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".
I did not claim you were pretending to mind read. If you cannot resist tossing out accusation of dishonesty, at least you could have theIt is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.honestydecency to make them accurate.
If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?
And a second time I ask do your words reflect the true contents of your mind or do they not? You are the one who continually claims that they MAY not.You cannot read my mind, or anyone's mind, except your own.Now, this thing that you bring up wherein you believe that people cannot understand inner workings of your mind from your posts (on account of this hypothetical potential for dissembly) would only be important if it were contextual.
So can I read your mind through reading your words here, or can I not?
You can read my words.
Usually my words reflect what is in my mind in a straightforward way.And a second time I ask do your words reflect the true contents of your mind or do they not? You are the one who continually claims that they MAY not.You cannot read my mind, or anyone's mind, except your own.Now, this thing that you bring up wherein you believe that people cannot understand inner workings of your mind from your posts (on account of this hypothetical potential for dissembly) would only be important if it were contextual.
So can I read your mind through reading your words here, or can I not?
You can read my words.
For example, when I use a pronoun that is a polite fiction--when I use 'she' for somebody who is male--my words do not reflect what is in my mind.
I do apologize. I did forget that I did.Yes, you did claim I was pretending to mind read, in post 375.You are responsible for precisely communicating your thoughts. I am not responsible for your poor communication.It is quite obvious that those are my conclusions, because I'm the one making them.one would preface that "conclusions" with something like "I suspect" or "I conclude that".
I did not claim you were pretending to mind read. If you cannot resist tossing out accusation of dishonesty, at least you could have theIt is also quite obvious that it is dishonest for you to claim I am pretending to mind read.honestydecency to make them accurate.
You said
If you admit you cannot read minds, why do you continue to pretend that you do?
Okay luv.And, when, exactly, do you "use 'she' for someone who is male?"
My guess is, "Never." As in, you never do, you never have, and you most assuredly never will, at least knowingly/intentionally.
I know the board rules prevent you calling me a 'liar', but perhaps you can skirt around that by saying "I don't believe you" or "I believe your words are counterfactual".So, why act as if something you know never happens is something that at least sometimes happens? There's a word for what people are doing when they do that, but I forget at the moment what that is.
You mean trans activists and gender cultists, who say there is no such thing as same-sex attraction, that people are attracted to particular genders? I agree that those gender cultists are delusional.One more observation, if I may:
There are LOTS--and by lots, I mean "millions"--of people who would quite vigorously argue that there's no such thing as a man who is sexually attracted to other men (you know, instead of women, like they're supposed to be.) They just know, in their minds, that a man claiming to be genuinely attracted to other men is, guess what--
a "polite fiction."
They'd steadfastly insist that gay people can SAY they're drawn to their same sex.
Okay...so, what, exactly? I genuinely don't know what I'm supposed to be concerned about here, that some people are delusional?Can ACT like they are. Can implore others to TREAT them as if they're gay, but...they really aren't gay, because being genuinely gay is "impossible." They're "rebelling against God," or "going through a phase," or "need to buckle down and pray," or, insert whatever other dumbass ignorant reason that the person telling the world they're gay can't really be gay.
I'm sincerely baffled by what you are trying to say.One might be excused for thinking that a gay man, of all people, would get this relatively simple point. Might even connect the dots between making ONE "polite fiction" an incessant rant, while just casually expecting that his own "polite fiction" be accepted and unremarkable.
And, in your case, they'd be wrong.
My first pick would be Cher.![]()
Which one is a guy?
There's more white guys than black, so, statistically more Chers than Tinas.
The rest are just bimbos I don't recognize. Yeah, I'm old. Sue me.Tom
SIL = Sister In Law. One of my wife's sisters.SIL?I have a SIL that people have tried to kick out of the women's room.
![]()
Which one is a guy?
I do not believe these 'gotcha' games shed light on anything. If it is supposed to be 'somebody's sex is not always as obvious as you think', I've already said that sometimes the sex of a person can be ambiguous, especially from a still photo with no interaction with the person.
My instinct, looking at that photo, is that they are all guys. They all look like men in drag.
I think you might have misinterpreted me, or I was not entirely clear. For one thing, I was not discussing genetics or semantics, but I was discussing the practical clinical care given to transgender children by actual pediatricians. The AAP is actually an appropriate authority for advice on pediatric care of any type. Another pediatric organization would be an appropriate authority from which to seek an alternate opinion, but I am not aware of any.View attachment 36426I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!
I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom
Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.
There are experts, and then there are experts.
No single option, no matter how expert, a scientific consensus makes.
Mayo clinic also has a very strong stance on the care for transgender children. They are one of the most well respected medical organizations in the world.I think you might have misinterpreted me, or I was not entirely clear. For one thing, I was not discussing genetics or semantics, but I was discussing the practical clinical care given to transgender children by actual pediatricians. The AAP is actually an appropriate authority for advice on pediatric care of any type. Another pediatric organization would be an appropriate authority from which to seek an alternate opinion, but I am not aware of any.View attachment 36426I was not aware that you were anti-science. The official statements of the American Academy of Pediatrics constitite the united opinion of one of the most respected pediatric organizations in the world, and their statements are based on peer reviewed research that must be vetted by the editors of the most high impact peer-reviewed journals in the world.I say, let's follow the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics!
I'm not big on accepting authority. An authority might agree with me, that's great when it happens. But it's not an argument or evidence beyond somebody's opinion.
Tom
Since you are anti-science, though, that must not mean very much to you.
There are experts, and then there are experts.
No single option, no matter how expert, a scientific consensus makes.
Furthermore, I have not claimed to know very much at all about intersex people whatsoever. In fact, as a transgender woman, I am really astonishingly ignorant regarding intersex people. I know nothing about them or their particular sensitivities. In fact, I am just as likely as anybody else, if not more so, to accidentally offend one of them. My few experiences with them did, however, give me an insight as to how other people might react to me if I became overzealous about my pronoun enforcement. In fact, that is why I tell people, "I prefer she/her, but if you make mistakes from time to time, I won't hold it against you or even really dislike you. I do not seek perfect compliance, merely a general understanding that masculine pronouns do not really reflect how I see myself." I decided that this would be how I spoke after I got flamed for trying to tell an intersex person, "I am very sorry to have offended you, but I only used the word 'hermaphrodite' because I find the word to be very charming. I was not aware that you did not appreciate it. It might take me a long time to adjust to this because I have habitually used the term, in my own niche communities, ever since 1997, and it is very hard to change a two decade old habit, but I promise that I will try." I realized then that I had asked someone's standing pardon for a social error that they found to be profoundly offensive, and I could not find in myself the nerve to refuse the same sort of pardon to others if I had previously asked for it from somebody else.
Regardless, you would not look for the opinion of a geneticist on how to provide practical clinical care for a transgender CHILD, but you would ask a large, well-vetted pediatric organization that has actively attempted to find a good policy.
Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents
As a traditionally underserved population that faces numerous health disparities, youth who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) and their families are increasingly presenting to pediatric providers for education, care, and referrals. The need for more formal training, standardized...publications.aap.org
There is their official POLICY STATEMENT. That is not just a single study by a single researcher, but it is the policy that the entire organization has gotten behind, united, as their consensus on how to properly provide suitable care to transgender children.
I was answering the fanatical accusations, by our resident <Snip> that is tolerated for reasons that I cannot understand except <snip>, that I am motivated by a "gender cult" in the formation of my views on pediatric care. I honestly am unbelievably ignorant about pediatric care and know almost nothing about children except that, theoretically, I used to be one. I have blocked most of my memories of it, though. Therefore, I do not have a personal opinion on the pediatric care of transgender people, but I do believe that it is advisable to seek out an appropriate authority on the subject if one actually is attempting to raise a transgender child. The official policy statement of the AAP constitutes the strongest type of scientific authority because it represents the consensus of several scientists from robustly interdisciplinary backgrounds, not just one.
An appropriate counter-argument would have to be based on the opinions of another pediatric organization, but even that would not make it less valid to argue that a pediatrician that had followed the AAP's advice had done due diligence to seek valid advice on how to proceed in the care of a transgender child, especially if their practice is directly associated with the AAP.
That was all that I meant.
Metaphor tried so hard to frame a decision made by an individual as adults forcing things on them.
You know what was forced on a lot of trans girls by adults who could have done otherwise? Male puberties.
Who, being minors, cannot consent to sterilize themselves any more than they can consent to have a sexual relationship with their gym teacher. For roughly the same reasons.
Are you sure you really want to take the "Welp, the middle-schooler consented and the gym teacher consented. Have fun fucking, you two!" position on this one?
The thing is, when something happens and is forced on someone too young to understand, generally, well, that's the reason pedophilia is special among evil acts.
So when we have no choice but for something to happen, when people express at that age a desire for a specific thing to happen, and when not only is it in our power to fulfill some of that in what we do let happen to them but also even have power to delay this onset so that they may consider... And then we force upon them an immediate and irreversible outcome that is none of those things, but exactly what they do not want...
Well, that carries that same burden as "pedophilia".
Congratulations, if this describes you, you want to rape a child with an unwanted puberty. I did a mental exercise to compare it to an unwanted rape pregnancy but they're both just completely fucked up.
Congratulations, you've just made the argument that giving a vaccine shot to a child who doesn't like needles against their will is basically child rape.
The metaphor is even remarkably straightforward due to unwanted penetration happening in both cases.
Would you like to retract/reformulate this argument?
Because if not, then either you've effectively outed yourself as an anti-vaxxer, or you are in the odd position of arguing that mandatory childhood vaccines are "Child rape-like, but done for a good cause, so it's ok.".
I'm not entirely unsold on the idea that people should have to opt in to reproductive ability, not opt out. So you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.Metaphor tried so hard to frame a decision made by an individual as adults forcing things on them.
You know what was forced on a lot of trans girls by adults who could have done otherwise? Male puberties.
Who, being minors, cannot consent to sterilize themselves any more than they can consent to have a sexual relationship with their gym teacher. For roughly the same reasons.
Except your alternative is to send them to be "molested by the nurse" instead.Are you sure you really want to take the "Welp, the middle-schooler consented and the gym teacher consented. Have fun fucking, you two!" position on this one?
The choice is between pain and death. Children who are so vociferous against them are generally just badly raised.The thing is, when something happens and is forced on someone too young to understand, generally, well, that's the reason pedophilia is special among evil acts.
So when we have no choice but for something to happen, when people express at that age a desire for a specific thing to happen, and when not only is it in our power to fulfill some of that in what we do let happen to them but also even have power to delay this onset so that they may consider... And then we force upon them an immediate and irreversible outcome that is none of those things, but exactly what they do not want...
Well, that carries that same burden as "pedophilia".
Congratulations, if this describes you, you want to rape a child with an unwanted puberty. I did a mental exercise to compare it to an unwanted rape pregnancy but they're both just completely fucked up.
Congratulations, you've just made the argument that giving a vaccine shot to a child who doesn't like needles against their will is basically child rape.
NOPE. I would like you to quit throwing really shitty arguments out against it.<SNIP>
Would you like to retract/reformulate this argument?
Because if not, then either you've effectively outed yourself as an anti-vaxxer, or you are in the odd position of arguing that mandatory childhood vaccines are "rape-like, but done for a good cause, so it's ok.".
True but not in the way you meant it."The wrong puberty" also traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.
Hey @SigmatheZeta let me know your thoughts on this?True but not in the way you meant it."The wrong puberty" also traumatizes our operation of our sexual pleasure.
Once you halt puberty and then give children wrong-sex hormones, you destroy their sexual pleasure for life.
Nobody claimed it is, and that has nothing to do with hormone replacement. You are thinking of genital reassignment, which is not done for kids.A roulade of forearm skin isn't a penis.
Yes, genital 'reassignment' is done on kids, as are mastectomies. That you are ignorant of this while championing medical transition is disturbing but not surprising.Nobody claimed it is, and that has nothing to do with hormone replacement. You are thinking of genital reassignment, which is not done for kids.
It is exceedingly dishonest of you to say I made implications about your position that I did not.I often remind you of this but you keep forgetting, and trying to act like this is ever a thing I have endorsed. Please stop that; it would be exceedingly dishonest to make that mistake again.