I am still pretty confused by the leap to "respect of transgender people" where did that come from?
Respect of transgender people is what I understood the first article to be about.
"Two patients (aged 74 and 69 years) " is somehow evidence that these drugs are safe for long term use in prepubescent children!! That's not evidence it is safe in elderly men, a study of 2! This is exactly why we should not be giving these drugs to children, there are no studies on their long term safety or efficacy, and of course you are doing exactly what I said you would do, picking out only one of the drugs, and then pretending that is the only one or the end of the process.
This is hormone treatment, not puberty blocking, by the way. When did you say that I would do that? You claimed in your article that these hormone treatments cause 100% irreversible sterility. I proved this claim wrong. Cherry-picking is a statistical and experimental design fallacy, not a logical fallacy. If you claim that something is absolutely true in all cases, it only requires one counterexample to invalidate your argument. So we now know it's not 100%. If it's not 100%, what percentage is it? Where did you get this 100% number from in the first place?
There it is! Thanks for admitting it. Why did you have to try to use such a lame dodge to try to deny it?
It is not a lame dodge. As I said, allowing children to delay puberty and allowing adults to consent to procedures which may result in sterility is very different to sterilising children. Conflating the two is foolish.
There is no such requirement that they wait until they are 18 for the sterilizing hormones nor is that the typical practice, if it was then I wouldn't care, consenting adults can do whatever they want to themselves.
I'm glad you agree that adults should be able to do whatever they want. Yes, it is standard practice. This is the whole point of deferring puberty. The reason to defer puberty is to give people time to think. This standard practice is described in Standards of Care.
Not only have you not proven that you have admitted that the hormones that are used to make people express secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex are sterilizing.
Yes, some hormone treatments cause sterility. This is very different to your claim that all hormone treatments always result in sterility. When we are performing logical reasoning, we must be careful to distinguish between "always" and "sometimes", as they have quite different meanings. But it is a red-herring, because the standards of care do not suggest giving irreversible hormone treatments to children; see above.
No, you have not identified any misunderstanding on my part, if we sterilize everyone who expresses red hair within few generations there will be no more gingers. How long it takes depends if transgenderism is dominant or recessive and how many genes are involved if it is genetic.
I am very confused by your response here. If we sterilised everybody carrying the gene for red hair rather than expressing it, which meant anybody who may father red-haired children, we would eventually remove red hair (barring something like convergent evolution). We would need a DNA test to tell if people are carrying the gene but not expressing it. But if we only sterilised people born with red hair, we would not remove red hair, as I explained before. How, exactly, would sterilising people affected by the gene stop the people carrying the gene from having children?
Hinting at? I thought it was fairly explicit. There is absolutely no element of "involuntary" required for the definition of "eugenics" or "genocide", you are basing that on your feelings, not the actual definitions of those words. I've looked up the words. You already admitted "Yes, some treatments have high risks of permanent sterility" stop trying to back peddle.
This is an absurd argument. Ask yourself, why exactly is eugenics bad? Eugenics is bad because people are forced to do things against their will or without informed consent. It is as simple as that. I don't care whether you can look up words or not. I care if you can understand them.
I am sorry you couldn't answer my rhetorical question.
I didn't answer because I don't care for your attempt at derailing the argument. Let us focus on the issue at hand.
I admire your patience, your effort, and your intelligence.
Sigh. But it's interesting to see, first-hand, the correlation between a fundamental inability to grasp basic science and being a nerp.