nonailsleft

joined 2 years ago
[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

I don't think they are. I never read or hear anything about gender affirming care being limited to things that are reversible. It's a deliberate euphemism that can be used for anything. If the fight isn't about irreversible changes, why not separate the two so at least one can get accepted?

I'm personally against the breast enhancements for children that you mention as well, but in that case I think it's generally accepted as tattoo's are: with permission from the parents and not paid by the public.

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

Can't say if it's the state of todays' world but this almost made me laugh

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think it's because the term 'gender affirming care' is explicitly chosen to be able to include surgery. If it's 99% about reversible hormone treatment, maybe that needs to be decoupled in order to make it more acceptable to the public

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Thanks for all the info. Can you explain how hormone treatment for children would be non-permanent? I'd think that adding or substracting hormones, like say growth hormones, would always leave traces throughout ones further life

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Get ready for 4 years of government officials trying not to sound too 'elitist'

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are you sure you have enough guns?

view more: ‹ prev next ›