Aha. I was only aware of your first article, which you linked to in the previous pun-day. This is why I was confused by the leap from respect of transgender people to sterilisation.
I am still pretty confused by the leap to "respect of transgender people" where did that come from?
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.
I see. First, the claim from your second article that this results in 100% permanent sterility is demonstrably false.
From Effects of long-term treatment with the anti-androgen bicalutamide on human testis: an ultrastructural and morphometric study
Long-term bicalutamide (50 mg) treatment appears to have very little impact on testis ultrastructure and sperm maturation
This means, essentially, that it doesn't stop sperm from being fertile. The patients in this study used hormone treatment to treat prostate cancer, but these same hormones can be used as hormone treatment for transgender people.
"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.
Other hormone treatments temporarily lower fertility, but revert after treatment has stopped.
Yes, some treatments have high risks of permanent sterility, and these risks must be considered carefully and weighed against other options.
There it is! Thanks for admitting it. Why did you have to try to use such a lame dodge to try to deny it?
Now, you claimed that you objected to the sterilisation of children. This sounds quite reasonable. Obviously, nobody should be sterilised against their will, child or not. However, I'm sure you are aware that there are, sadly, situations in which a child must undergo a hysterectomy for preservation of life. If we can save a child's life by having them undergo a procedure which results in sterility, surely life is more important than fertility. I hope that you would agree that in this case, any sterility caused is well justified. But isn't this sterilisation of children?
No, that would be the stearlisiation of a child in response to an acute and life threatening physical medical condition, they are not choosing physically healthy children who express certain traits for systematic sterilization with hormones. Sterilizing children in this case is more like a systematic eugenics program. If they were giving hysterectomies to children who exhibited certain traits then that would be just as despicable.
But nobody is suggesting anybody sterilise children, because nobody is suggesting hormone treatment for children. The whole point of delaying puberty is to give children more time to decide – to become adults before they can consent to hormone treatment, which may result in sterility.
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.
Now, I would suggest that your objection could be rephrased more precisely. You cannot object to the sterilisation of children here, because no such thing exists.
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.
You are objecting to the right of children to choose treatments which delay puberty, and the right of adults to choose treatments which may result in sterility. Would you agree with this rephrasing?
no, see above
We must be precise language in our language if we wish to get to the heart of the issue.
If in fact transgenderism is a genetic condition, wouldn't that wipe them out in a generation or two?
I don't see the relevance here, and I have never seen anybody claim it to be a genetic condition.
The relevance is that a genocide is any intentional action to decrease the population in whole or in part of any target group. That was the main idea of my article. I don't know how you didn't get that. Of course the claim is that it is a genetic condition, although there is evidence to the contrary. So you don't think it is genetic, interesting, what do you think happens to people to cause it then?
Regardless, this betrays a sadly common misunderstanding of genetics: there is a distinction between being affected by a gene, for example "I have red hair", and carrying a gene, which is "my descendants may have red hair". One may carry the "red hair" gene even though their hair is brown, and pass it on to their children. Red hair is just an example here, and is not necessarily dictated by a single gene.
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.
What you seem to be hinting at here is the idea of eugenics. Eugenics requires involuntary sterility. This is neither involuntary nor certain permanent sterility. Even if transgender were dictated by genes, this is quite a leap.
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.
Is it ok to encourage a 12 or 13 year old girl to wear an old fashioned corset to make her look more feminine?
I don't see how this is relevant, and we have enough to deal with without strange hypothetical issues coming in. Let's focus on the core issue.
I am sorry you couldn't answer my rhetorical question. Anyhow the correct and very easy answer ought to have been "no, it's not OK to do that" and then my follow up question would be "why would it be OK for a 12 or 13 year old girl to wear a dangerous corset, what they call a "binder" to make her look more masculine?