I have trouble understanding that because it was not a topic of that article.
You appear to have trouble understanding most things. Try reading the article.
You didn't prove your claim at all about its safety or efficacy for use in healthy prepubescent children to suppress puberty.
As I said, this particular drug is not a puberty suppressant. This is one type of hormone treatment that comes after and is used on adults.
quote it
Read it.
All I see above is your claim with nothing to back it up.
If you could read, you would see plenty to back it up.
I never said "all hormone treatments always result in sterility."
the result of this treatment in 100% of cases is permanent sterility.
Please explain the difference between these two propositions.
If that is what you are claiming of course you are wrong, it would not happen right away but with every generation there would be only a fraction as many people carrying that gene…
You really do not understand basic genetics. This makes no sense. Read what I said and think about it.
If it is recessive there will be carriers for a while.
Do not use technical words whose meaning you do not understand. There will be carriers for more than a while, because you are not sterilising the carriers. Look up what a punnet square is, and repeat the process with a recessive red-hair gene over many generations. In fact, keep doing it until you manage to sterilise all the carriers. That should keep you busy for a while. If you finish, take a photograph of your working out, and I will point out where you went wrong.
So now disturbed children are giving informed consent so it's ok to target certain populations for sterilization , how can anyone be informed when the safety and efficacy studies have not be conducted?
Disturbed children? You seem to be calling transgender people disturbed here, but before you said @improv was lying when he said you called transgender people disturbed. Was he really lying, or was he just prescient?
Nobody is "targeting certain populations for sterilisation". This is a completely insane fabrication. Perhaps you should read the article.
The issue at hand is that parents should be informed of their children's activities at summer camp and that they should not be given powerful and dangerous drugs that have not been tested for long term safety and efficacy for children that render the targeted population of children sterile.
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?
Not being informed and being lied to are very different things. If you think these two are the same, it's no wonder you're confused. And as I've already said, sterilisation of children is very different from the right of children to defer puberty, and the right of adults to choose treatments which may result in sterility, which is what is in fact discussed in the article.
this is my last reply to you, clearly you are way too triggered to make sense and frankly I don't care. TLDR
I'm sorry I couldn't help you to appreciate the beauty of scientific rigour.
Le sigh.