this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
382 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2492 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1stTime4MeInMCU@mander.xyz 25 points 4 months ago

Extremely rare side effects aside, what about all the kids whose lives you destroy by _not _ intervening? Do you know how many confused cis kids go on blockers, decide they want to stop and go on and live a cis life? It literally almost never happens.

Of the children accessing trans healthcare available to minors, the overwhelming majority are trans kids who do not detransition or regret anything they do to transition. The kid you are “protecting” is that “confused cis kid” who is vastly outnumbered by genuinely trans children who will become transgender adults. By withholding blockers (at the minimum), you are sacrificing the well being of the overwhelming users of blockers, genuinely trans children, for the sake of the wellbeing of an almost non existent subgroup of confused cis kids.

How many trans kids lives are worth sacrificing so that one cis kid might not accidentally do something totally reversible that might increase their risk of cancer the same amount as eating bacon?

When you put it all together like that and the outcome is still a desire to prevent access, one has to ask: maybe the point is to make the trans kids suffer? Maybe the point is to make it harder for them to blend in with cis people? Maybe the point is to not treat their illness in hopes they give up and conform or kill themselves?