Yeah, again, I’m not trying to argue either way. I’m just saying you can’t pretend to not understand why people are apprehensive, regardless of right or wrong. And it’s not like the medical industry has never gotten anything wrong and we find out it’s been hurting or killing people for decades.
I can’t understand why people can’t just mind their own business. Let me rise my children according to what science says, not what your feelings say. What parents want is to keep their children safe, and puberty blockers helps these children avoid hardships later in life.
You can’t understand why people care about others? I guess we don’t need child protective services. Just let people raise children however they want! No parent has ever abused children before! Mind your own business!
No one has ever used “science” to justify crimes, right? Because as we all know, science has no room for debate and all scientists agree with each other.
I don’t understand why you’re replying to me with this, it’s not relevant to what I was saying. I actually agree with you but you’re sabotaging your own argument with shit logic.
If they actually cared, they would take the time to understand the actual situation and realize that puberty blockers aren’t experimental or dangerous.
Yes, I can. But this law is the opposite of caring about others. You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.
Then we’ve answered your question about why people “can’t just mind their own business”.
You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.
If you’re just going to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so on the basis that they’re just a giant piece of shit out to hurt people for no reason, then there is no discussion to be had, and no progress to be made.
Maybe open your mind to the possibility that that’s not true, and that people simply have legitimate concerns for children, much like yourself, even if they are misplaced. If you want to actually improve the situation you’ll try to empathize and educate them rather than instantly lambast them and treat them like human garbage.
The difference is that a blanket ban, even a temporary one “just in case”, is actively hurting children. In the UK, trans teenagers need several years of counseling and doctor visits and jumping through hoops before they can actively start transitioning. These drugs help at least halting puberty, otherwise total transition is much harder or impossible. I don’t think these drugs should be easily accessible, but right now it’s already so hard to get, that kids are getting them from the dark web in secret!
Sure, there are bad parents, and abusive parents. But you can’t justify saving children by hurting other children. I’m not “assuming” anything. Defending this ban is literally hurting children.
Again, you are still trying to argue about why the OP topic is bad. I know. I agree. That is not the conversation I am trying to have.
But you can’t justify saving children by hurting other children…Defending this ban is literally hurting children.
Other people disagree with you. That is the whole point. They would say the exact same thing about you. That doesn’t make them bad people, it just makes them misinformed.
So, if I had some “””genuine concerns””” about how Jews control the world through a shadowy cabal of financial institutions, owned the world media, etc. etc. would you argue that people should hear me out, empathise and discuss the topic with me?
You’re missing the fact that you could easily replace “science” in their comment with “Facebook”, because those are the “scientists” they’re referring to
Being apprehensive about something you don’t understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn’t be at least).
Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves
These are children we’re talking about. We don’t allow them to make decisions for themselves, informed or otherwise, for lots of things. Parents often cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for their children either.
not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
We also don’t let doctors make many medical decisions. The medical industry is incredibly-highly regulated, regardless of what region we’re talking about. Doctors and hospitals care about money more than anything, like most humans. They will do whatever you want for the right price.
The government makes rules to protect its’ citizens from harm. You can argue that they made the wrong decision, but to argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to make any decisions is nothing short of anarchy.
Uh… you realise this article is about the UK, right? Hospitals and doctors are pretty universally part of the National Health Service, it’s not really about money.
I’m also 100% in favour of anarchy though so I don’t know if there’s any point in discussing anything further with you.
No, they get paid a standard salary regardless, it’s not like in the US where they get kickbacks for certain drugs or some surgeries are profitable or whatever.
Anarchism is a really solid, consistent ideology, based on the fact that power corrupts, and therefore the best way to organise society is by dismantling hierarchies of power, and distributing decision-making across the entire society. It’s essentially the ultimate democracy, where everyone works together and looks after eachother. The only real criticism that can be made of it is that it’s “too utopian”, which is a bit of a self-defeating argument if you ask me!
As an anarchist, yeah that’d pretty much be anarchy.
We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s
Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.
Government officials aren’t licensed medical professionals. They shouldn’t be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.
The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation, not by taking advantage of people’s poor decision-making - this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.
Anarchists are all about rules and regulations, as long as they’re non-hierarchical - to the extent that one of the major phrases associated with anarchism is “Anarchy is order”, and the well recognised symbol of the A within the O. For example, you could agree with a group of friends to take turns to be the designated driver - any of you can freely and voluntarily decide to get a taxi, but you decide to work together for the benefit of the group. If someone takes advantage of the benefit without taking their turn, you’ll quickly all agree to stop driving that friend. This is a really simplified example of how anarchism works.
I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it. It’s a very sensible and coherent ideology.
Predatory loans is a great example - they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices. If you’re poor and you’re struggling to make ends meet, your credit card is already maxed out because you had to fix your car and you can’t afford groceries what other option do you have other than a short term loan?
Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things! You know that, you little rascal! If youre interested in the etymology, the term anarchism comes from the greek “an archos”, e.g. without hierarchy. It is possible to have laws without hierarchy.
An absence of state, definitely. Government? Depends on your definition of government but if you take it to mean state then sure. Lawlessness and disorder, definitely not - I’ve been to several anarchist collective groups and they’re some of the most well-structured, organised and managed events going.
they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices.
Bruh have you forgotten about the global recession of 2006? There were people that had 4 and 5 houses.
You’ve never heard of the auto loan scams?
Never heard of the mobile home scams?
None of those situations are improved by people taking out loans they know they can’t afford.
Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things!
So…how am I supposed to learn, exactly? You’re going to tell me? Wikipedia says something similar. If there’s another definition, that’s not the one I was referring to. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.
Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.
Your average person may feel apprehensive about puberty blockers and hormone treatment because conservative/right wing news propaganda has been lying to people and misinforming them for over a decade on this issue. Your average person may not know better because misinformation is rampant.
But the people in positions of power, such as Victoria Mary Atkins? It’s part of their job to be properly informed, and she is, and she doesn’t care. She still had the gall to cite the Dr. Cass review when pushing through this harmful rule that’s going to irreparably harm trans children.
Dr. Hilary Cass knows better too. The people in power on the right love that review because it gives an appearance of legitimacy to their cruelty against trans people, and lawmakers and judges know they can use it to push though their anti-trans agendas.
Yeah, again, I’m not trying to argue either way. I’m just saying you can’t pretend to not understand why people are apprehensive, regardless of right or wrong. And it’s not like the medical industry has never gotten anything wrong and we find out it’s been hurting or killing people for decades.
I can’t understand why people can’t just mind their own business. Let me rise my children according to what science says, not what your feelings say. What parents want is to keep their children safe, and puberty blockers helps these children avoid hardships later in life.
You can’t understand why people care about others? I guess we don’t need child protective services. Just let people raise children however they want! No parent has ever abused children before! Mind your own business!
No one has ever used “science” to justify crimes, right? Because as we all know, science has no room for debate and all scientists agree with each other.
I don’t understand why you’re replying to me with this, it’s not relevant to what I was saying. I actually agree with you but you’re sabotaging your own argument with shit logic.
If they actually cared, they would take the time to understand the actual situation and realize that puberty blockers aren’t experimental or dangerous.
Yes, I can. But this law is the opposite of caring about others. You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.
Then we’ve answered your question about why people “can’t just mind their own business”.
If you’re just going to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so on the basis that they’re just a giant piece of shit out to hurt people for no reason, then there is no discussion to be had, and no progress to be made.
Maybe open your mind to the possibility that that’s not true, and that people simply have legitimate concerns for children, much like yourself, even if they are misplaced. If you want to actually improve the situation you’ll try to empathize and educate them rather than instantly lambast them and treat them like human garbage.
The difference is that a blanket ban, even a temporary one “just in case”, is actively hurting children. In the UK, trans teenagers need several years of counseling and doctor visits and jumping through hoops before they can actively start transitioning. These drugs help at least halting puberty, otherwise total transition is much harder or impossible. I don’t think these drugs should be easily accessible, but right now it’s already so hard to get, that kids are getting them from the dark web in secret!
Sure, there are bad parents, and abusive parents. But you can’t justify saving children by hurting other children. I’m not “assuming” anything. Defending this ban is literally hurting children.
Again, you are still trying to argue about why the OP topic is bad. I know. I agree. That is not the conversation I am trying to have.
Other people disagree with you. That is the whole point. They would say the exact same thing about you. That doesn’t make them bad people, it just makes them misinformed.
So, if I had some “””genuine concerns””” about how Jews control the world through a shadowy cabal of financial institutions, owned the world media, etc. etc. would you argue that people should hear me out, empathise and discuss the topic with me?
Of course I would, that’s the only way we solve problems.
You’re missing the fact that you could easily replace “science” in their comment with “Facebook”, because those are the “scientists” they’re referring to
I know exactly why people are apprehensive
Being apprehensive about something you don’t understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn’t be at least).
Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
These are children we’re talking about. We don’t allow them to make decisions for themselves, informed or otherwise, for lots of things. Parents often cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for their children either.
We also don’t let doctors make many medical decisions. The medical industry is incredibly-highly regulated, regardless of what region we’re talking about. Doctors and hospitals care about money more than anything, like most humans. They will do whatever you want for the right price.
The government makes rules to protect its’ citizens from harm. You can argue that they made the wrong decision, but to argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to make any decisions is nothing short of anarchy.
Uh… you realise this article is about the UK, right? Hospitals and doctors are pretty universally part of the National Health Service, it’s not really about money.
I’m also 100% in favour of anarchy though so I don’t know if there’s any point in discussing anything further with you.
Hospitals and doctors in the UK are all volunteers?
Well that’s something we can agree on.
No, they get paid a standard salary regardless, it’s not like in the US where they get kickbacks for certain drugs or some surgeries are profitable or whatever.
Anarchism is a really solid, consistent ideology, based on the fact that power corrupts, and therefore the best way to organise society is by dismantling hierarchies of power, and distributing decision-making across the entire society. It’s essentially the ultimate democracy, where everyone works together and looks after eachother. The only real criticism that can be made of it is that it’s “too utopian”, which is a bit of a self-defeating argument if you ask me!
Anyways, nice to chat to you, take it easy!
As an anarchist, yeah that’d pretty much be anarchy.
We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s
Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.
Government officials aren’t licensed medical professionals. They shouldn’t be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.
Some people, sure. Lots of people, absolutely not.
LOL that’s rich. How do you think those people became rich elites? By taking advantage of people who make poor decisions.
I’m getting A LOT of mixed signals here… You’re an anarchist, in favor of regulations? How does that work?
The wealthy elite get their position through violence and exploitation, not by taking advantage of people’s poor decision-making - this reminds me of that “why don’t homeless people just buy a house” kind of attitude.
Anarchists are all about rules and regulations, as long as they’re non-hierarchical - to the extent that one of the major phrases associated with anarchism is “Anarchy is order”, and the well recognised symbol of the A within the O. For example, you could agree with a group of friends to take turns to be the designated driver - any of you can freely and voluntarily decide to get a taxi, but you decide to work together for the benefit of the group. If someone takes advantage of the benefit without taking their turn, you’ll quickly all agree to stop driving that friend. This is a really simplified example of how anarchism works.
I’d encourage you to seek out and read more about it. It’s a very sensible and coherent ideology.
Yes, exactly, exploiting people’s poor decisions. Like predatory loans.
You are intentionally taking away the wrong message.
…what? LOL that’s the polar opposite of anarchy…
Oh ok sure, let me do that:
anarchy noun an·ar·chy ˈa-nər-kē -ˌnär-
1a: absence of government
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2a: absence or denial of any authority or established order
Predatory loans is a great example - they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices. If you’re poor and you’re struggling to make ends meet, your credit card is already maxed out because you had to fix your car and you can’t afford groceries what other option do you have other than a short term loan?
Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things! You know that, you little rascal! If youre interested in the etymology, the term anarchism comes from the greek “an archos”, e.g. without hierarchy. It is possible to have laws without hierarchy.
An absence of state, definitely. Government? Depends on your definition of government but if you take it to mean state then sure. Lawlessness and disorder, definitely not - I’ve been to several anarchist collective groups and they’re some of the most well-structured, organised and managed events going.
Yes it is.
Bruh have you forgotten about the global recession of 2006? There were people that had 4 and 5 houses.
You’ve never heard of the auto loan scams?
Never heard of the mobile home scams?
None of those situations are improved by people taking out loans they know they can’t afford.
So…how am I supposed to learn, exactly? You’re going to tell me? Wikipedia says something similar. If there’s another definition, that’s not the one I was referring to. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Anarchism is not what you believe it to be. The Wikipedia page honestly isn’t too bad for it:
Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.
You mean what the dictionary says it is?
Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.
Can you direct me to the “correct” definition?
Your average person may feel apprehensive about puberty blockers and hormone treatment because conservative/right wing
newspropaganda has been lying to people and misinforming them for over a decade on this issue. Your average person may not know better because misinformation is rampant.But the people in positions of power, such as Victoria Mary Atkins? It’s part of their job to be properly informed, and she is, and she doesn’t care. She still had the gall to cite the Dr. Cass review when pushing through this harmful rule that’s going to irreparably harm trans children.
Dr. Hilary Cass knows better too. The people in power on the right love that review because it gives an appearance of legitimacy to their cruelty against trans people, and lawmakers and judges know they can use it to push though their anti-trans agendas.
Okay but, we’re not talking about those people…