banning puberty blockers for trans kids but allowing cis kids (who have been using them for like four decades without harm) on the start of pride is pretty absurd.
it also shows that it's not actually about protecting kids but about impose section 28.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.
If that's correct, then this isn't really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its 'normal time' is very different from delaying 'normal time' puberty to a future 'late time'--the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.
Isn't that kind of like arguing that because we've been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it's used primarily on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there's definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?
for cis kids they would take them to delay puberty until a time in the future at which point they come off the blockers and everything works fine, which defeats the main terf talking point of "irreversible changes" or being dangerous to children.
the only difference is that trans children would take them only until they can start taking hormones.
Unless someone is against trans people existing, is there any merit to doing this? Why make a person go through puberty twice just because they're "too young" to decide?
Trans people have been chosen as the current boogeyman of the UK for them to expiate for their own failings as a country, and for the consecutive disasters provoked by the Tories. It's a sleight of hand that allows them to distract the public with a fear without basis on reality in order to avoid taking responsibility of their own failures.
As you step off the train you are met with the void. As the last glimpse of the train disappears you realized you are doomed to wander the void forever.
(I honestly don't really know were this comment is going. It just sounded funny in my head.)
They generally refer to themselves as "gender-critical feminists".
The first part "trans-exclusionary" is pretty self-explanatory. "Radical" meaning they believe the whole system needs an overhaul, and mostly comes from the branch of feminism that TERFs/gender-criticals grew out of.
Not quite - they believe gender is a social construct, to the point that it literally doesn't exist, and the material reality of your biological sex is all there is. Historically, sociology followed biology, and sexual dimorphism is therefore the root of inequality between the sexes (particularly the fact that only females bear children). It's a compelling argument, particularly to a Marxist.
People can dress how they want though, none of my business.