The costs of trans visibility

Well no I can't. I was really curious though if you think they're going that way because they're smaller than the US-- that was what you alluded to in your post and I was intrigued about what sort of logic you were using there.

It Is like with COVID, they are smaller so if they disagree with fauci It doesn't matter.

If they agree though then that's a confirmation fauci Is right

For deadly diseases for kids (or incapacitated adults), TO PROTECT THE VACCINATED INDIVIDUAL, I am not always against.

Like for COVID just vaccinating all elders in nursing homes even if legal tutors (im case of dementia etc) had doubts, sure.

Given it's a severe government intromission though it must be a golden standard vaccine for a deadly disease, and mandating it must work.

In the sense that if I end up mandating the polio vaccine I actually inoculate the kids, I don't wait for the parents fining them if they don't.

But ofc no vaccine mandate for (legally capacious) adults ever and no vaccine mandate for third party advantage.

Paternalism for people who can't choose for themselves is necessary. Not for all free adults though, and no utilitarian, collectivist "do this for others"

It’s easier to get census among smaller, homogeneous groups of people. These three countries have relatively homogenous populations and employ different health care systems than us. I will give Lucio credit for actually stating the actual relatively minor differences as opposed to when it was brought up before by Meiser and Losern it was claimed that these countries were outright banning any and all GAC.

Admitting 1) puberty age individuals who come out as trans with no early history of that can very probably be confused (that's the PR term: we say, pushed by radical leftists, but it's exactly the same) 2) concurring mental illness for self defined trans puberal age individuals is a red flag that increases the chances of not being actual trans 3) puberty blockers/hormones/surgery AT MOST should be the exceptional rarity, not the standard of practice when facing self defined trans of 12y

Isn't a "small difference".

It's the total, absolute, negation that the folly of "just believe the kid and drug him into the opposite sex" has scientifical backing. It doesn't, clear and simple.

And so, every single healthcare professional who lied about this and gave drugs to even a single 12y old which we could have saved from that, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, the rest of his miserable life should be hell for him or her.

No one, but you, believes that the current US medical communities recommended treatment is based upon your "just believe the kid and drug him into the opposite sex” philosophy.

Ok so they never prescribe blockers before a thorough assessment of at a very minimum many months and 5+ 1 hour long encounters with the specialist right?

If you believe what you just wrote, do you agree anyone who prescribed puberty blockers for a self defined trans minor within 3 encounters should be stripped of his license, jailed for years for severe minor abuse, and disgraced as a fully fledged monster by society at large, akin to a minor sexual offender? Be registered for life as a monster?

Is "intromission" the right word here? How about it being a severe invasion of personal autonomy, like the right to make medical decisions generally?

Now, again, I get "protecting the children", but are you an absolutist here and the state owns children or should parents have rights? If so, when should the state be able to take away those rights?

I think according to your usual definition of "radical leftists" it's the radical leftists who think this decision should be in the hands of the state.

Oh no, not the gateway drug! Those puberty blockers - safe and effective unless you are involved in GAC.

I think the answer to the rest of your hyperbolic statement, as usually is the case, is “it depends” on the specific facts.

I'm new to this thread, but seems like you definitely have among the most braindead takes lol. Despite being kind of right about a few things. Guess that's what happens when you get all of your "news" from the big outrage machine and don't do a ton of thinking for yourself

I always find it kind of interesting when people like yourself are so invested in trans issues, like you clearly spend hours of your day posting in this thread and reading about anything pertaining to trans identity. Usually it's either that it's affected them personally some way, or they're just emotionally stunted with far too much free time on their hands, but in either case they tend to care far less about the well-being of gender dysphoric people than they do flexing their believed moral superiority and "owning the libs/fascists"

it doesn't in many countries. India isn't radically leftist, Japan isn't, china even isn't lol (not culturally at least).

but if a country radically moves left against all common sense of 20 years ago, what words would you use to convey that objective fact?

people who graduated med school in 1996 had perhaps 0, to 2 patients overall in 20 years who "identified as the other sex", and 50+ per year today.

which words would you use to describe this unprecedented thing in the history of humanity? we lived 100k + years as **** sapiens sapiens, with most people never interacting with any trans, and now they are everywhere? caused *entirely* by radical cultural invention of a minuscule group of Marxists with immense power in academia and the media?

do you realize the extent of the takeover of cultural norms by freaking radicals who till a while ago 99% of people considered a circus.

and no **** no it has nothing to do with homosexuality where we call female homosexuals after a Greek island where poetresses 3k years ago already described the not-so-rare phenomenon

you're wrong, they've been this way in 1996 as well

I am interested in anti Marxism as a core moral value.

I consider Marxism with a huge margin the biggest self-made (human) threat to humanity ever.

current iterations of Marxism are often about trans issues. it can be other stuff at other times. But they choose what to deal with and we have to react.

There is no more moral endeavour than to fight Marxism is you are a humanist. even if you have kids like I do, there is nothing more important for their future than reducing the extent of Marxism impact in life.

I admit I care very little for the quality of life of the 0.1 or less of humanity when the 99.9% is put at risk. I think it's morally horrific to discuss trans issue more than 10 minutes every couple of years.

but Marxists want to push them every day, so we have to defend ourselves from Marxist aggression

He already admitted that he has a hard time using "radical" correctly. He probably just means there are a lot of them.

in some countries, for some topics yes.

for some specific cultural issues the anglo world is absolutely out of whack with history and more radical than basically all other humans who ever lived on average.

didace you aren't stupid at all and you know the meaning of words.

if a "normal" position today wouldn't be considered normal 40 years ago, that's a radical shift politically.

in many countries, your grandfather moral preferences are more or less still shared across society with some small drift. that's the normal evolution of culture. not a ****ing war which calls one or two generations ago fascists because they had different values.

There were 100 trans athletes last year. Of the 300;000 people that identify as trans, less than 1;200 under 18 had any surgeries in highest calendar year. Compare that to 600k kids were physically abused and 61% of 8th graders use drugs.

we can't discuss kid physical abuse and kids drug abuse under current forum rules, because the underlying reasons can't be discussed.

a hint which is legal under forum rules: danish kids with 4 danish grandparents have close to 0 abuse and drug abuse, and you know that

I'm sure you the meanings of most words, too. But you can't help yourself in using some in a provocative way because you think it will help make your point. Sure, it's a legit rhetorical device when pandering to the crowd, but when no one here is actually dumb enough to fall for it, where does that put you?

I actually have no idea what this means.

And I disagree with you completely about our societal shift. I see it our policies and issues of today as an attempt to live up to the values of the Constitution for a broader group of people. Let people live their lives and keep the govt out f their homes, family life and medical decisions, I think your views are a threat to the wellbeing of our society, or maybe just Italy. Really, you probably have no effect at all.

it's not about "falling for it" , at least not around here.

I just want to claim something that I believe is objectively true. in some cultural issues the anglo world is totally ****ed up in a way it's hard to express on words, and being a moderate today requires being fully against what the left claims.

i mean even the fact that we are discussing male biological advantage in sports. really? someone denying that obvious biological reality should be ostracized outside of any discussion circle as a living joke, a meme, a disgrace. "pizzagate" conspiracy level of ridiculousness.

it is insane we even have mentally healthy adults arguing in favour of biological men competing with women in sports.

normality would be normal leftists taking the guys aside and telling them "are you on drugs? are you psycho? the ****? how does this idea even gets entertained in your head? you are a joke and go **** yourself".

NORMALITY. decent people you would leave your children with 2 hours to run some commissions. how is this even a ****ing topic jfc.

every single person who is in favour of Lia Thomas like situations is lost from civil society. unrecoverable. a tumor

the government ****ing pays for healthcare roflmao, if you start with "it's unconstitutional for the state to ever put a dollar in healthcare" the we could have a point

All this has nothing to do with how you have used radical in different ways.