• muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    6 hours ago

    So attack translates to accused of violating consumer protection laws. And care translates to perminantly modification of children’s bodies. Why can a child consent to this perminant modification but not a tatoo or sex? Sounds like double standards to me?

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      And you sound like Tucker Carlson to me.

      If you’re not a doctor or a parent of trans youth how about you mind your own business and stop being so weird.

      Or do you not believe in small government?

      Just asking questions here.

    • Icalasari@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Oh boy, I can tell you’re not here for a good faith argument. Puberty blockers are explicitly TO delay puberty until they can be sure. Nothing wrong with them

      “But why can they consent to-”

      Nah ah, already stated the difference

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Yup, puberty blockers let trans youth prevent the onset of gender characteristics during puberty so that they can make an informed decision on what they want when they are an adult. It’s basically all upsides and, if the youth decides to go ahead with the puberty matching their birth sex it’s trivial to do so… but it keeps that door open so time doesn’t force a decision on them.

    • toomanypancakes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah, also why can children consent to any medical treatment? Not dying of treatable conditions is altering their body, and that’s literally bad. I’m so smart and compassionate, I’m basically literally a doctor.