So let me get this right, if I object to the sterilization of children, if I object to state sponsored camps lying to children's parents then I am hurting people?
You make this claim about "sterilisation of children". Where is it coming from? What is the logical argument that starts at an article about treating transgender people with respect, to the sterilisation of children?
This is what I was attempting to get at with "conflating freedom and respect with sterilisation". To conflate two things is to take two unrelated concepts and merge them in a generally incoherent way, or mistakenly treating them as if they were equivalent.
When did I say anyone was unworthy of respect? Quote me.
When did I say you were saying anybody was unworthy of respect? Quote me. However, I don't care for this tiresome and ridiculous game of yours.
Another straw argument, when did I claim "all transgender people wish for physical treatment"? quote me.
You may not have explicitly claimed that. You made this strange leap from an article which I interpreted as being about respect of transgender people to sterilisation of children. I made the mistake of trying to understand where this leap came from, and tried to deconstruct your reasoning. I figured your reasoning was that some transgender people wish for physical treatment, and some physical treatment results in sterilisation, therefore transgender (sometimes) results in sterilisation. Please illuminate me on your actual thought process.
It's clear to me that you are still ranting about something you didn't read.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
This is a very good way to shut down conversation, but not a good way to educate, inform or convince me that you have anything valuable to say. I did read your article, but this is really beside the point. In this case what is clear to you is not true. This same experience may be applicable elsewhere.
Stop blaming any misunderstandings on not reading the article. If I am misconstruing your article so badly, perhaps it is not entirely the fault of the reader, and you need to take more care and smaller steps in explaining your reasoning. Try to form a logical argument.
What are you talking about? Who is sterilising children? If the article addresses this, tell me where. Is this something you believe is happening? Or was this a thought you had, unrelated to the article? Yes, I object to the slaughter of mice in a field of buttercups just out of Marseille, but this is hardly relevant to the conversation.
You are making this conversation very hard, because if I try to understand what you are saying and ask if I understand your points correctly, you accuse me of constructing straw-men; if I ask you to explain what you are saying, you accuse me of not reading the article.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
In the article they discuss giving children hormone treatments to prevent puberty and then to change their secondary sexual characteristics, the result of doing that is sterility. They try to be misleading because the first part of that is usually reversible but the second part causes sterility. If in fact transgenderism is a genetic condition, wouldn't that wipe them out in a generation or two?
Is it ok to encourage a 12 or 13 year old girl to wear an old fashioned corset to make her look more feminine?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit