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.
I have trouble understanding that because it was not a topic of that article.
"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.
Not with that study you didn't, it was not even a study of prepubescent children and once again was one of many drugs used in the process. you proved that its effects were able to be reversed in two elderly prostate cancer patients. The drug was being investigated for use in elderly men with prostate cancer! You didn't prove your claim at all about its safety or efficacy for use in healthy prepubescent children to suppress puberty.
"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?"
I am sure I never claimed that any particular drug of the cocktail of drugs they use on these kids had any effects on elderly men with prostate cancer or that that particular drug caused irreversible sterility.
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."
I didn't do any conflation I already countered that by pointing out that your premise is false, they are not only giving the sterilizing part of the treatment to people over 18, they are giving that part to children under 18 as well, this is getting quite circular.
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.
false
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.
quote it
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.
Yes it is important to distinguish between those things, and of course I never said "all hormone treatments always result in sterility." That's what you call a straw man argument, this is why I want you to quote me, because you seem to be making up things as you go and attributing them to me that I never said.
But it is a red-herring, because the standards of care do not suggest giving irreversible hormone treatments to children; see above.
All I see above is your claim with nothing to back it up.
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.
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, your way would of course be way more efficient, if we could test everyone's DNA and sterilize them according to genotype but of course you can have a very effective eugenics program without any genetic testing needed. Remember that for a this to be a genocide they need not wipe out the whole population, they just need to take steps to reduce it.
"How, exactly, would sterilising people affected by the gene stop the people carrying the gene from having children?
those that express the gene or are perceived to, will be stopped from having children with drugs and surgery. They will be unable to pass those genes on. If it is recessive there will be carriers for a while. You choose red hair because that would take a while because it is recessive, how many generations would you need to wipe out brown eyed people if you sterilized everyone with brown eyes?
Even if you were right and they were all just delayed from puberty and then didn't go on with the hormones that you claim they only give to adults that population would reproduce far less than the population of children who were fertile at that time because they went through puberty at the natural time.
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.
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?
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.
It's now derailing to point out the utter absurdity of these so called "treatments". This is a waste of time, you compared giving healthy children powerful hormones to render them sterile to the risk of losing the sense of smell from wisdom tooth to removal. like I said to the other guy we won't agree on this. 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.