Argentina's president bans gender-affirming care for people under age 18
Argentina's president says he has banned gender-affirming care for people under age 18. A presidential spokesperson said Wednesday the government was repealing a 2012 gender identity law provision allowing such practices with parental or guardian consent.
How on Earth did I call you fat by pointing out that cis-males with obesity issues are far more common than trans people?
Guess you've some confidence to work on buddy, as talking about you didn't even cross my mind. I pointed out a fact about gender-affirming care. Honestly, I assume that people are more or less closer to my age on Lemmy, so I genuinely didn't consider that you might be actually a minor looking to get themselves some gender affirming care.
Yeah, puberty blockers are probably considered gender affirming care, but them not being included is just me being pedantic about the name. I guess "care which affirms your position of not being sure about your gender identity yet until you're old enough to make one".
Do you even read what your typing? or do you just get off on being a dick?
Excuse me?
You're saying gender affirming care shouldn't exist for minors despite not knowing the facts then when the facts are pointed out, you start screaming about me calling you fat.
Get off your high horse.
How is you supporting right wing policies being less of a dick than me pointing out your support of right wing policies, which might be because you don't understand all the facts, not because you actually support the right, which is why I pointed out the facts which you took personal offense at?
Well you're the one who went off on a rant on something I didn't even bring. I was talking about hormone blockers and you went off onto surgeries. Then when I brought up how I also would have liked some gender affirming care when younger you said well there's less trans people than fat boys. I never brought up weight, it's another thing you brought up.
I just, you're attacking me for trying to express my opinion. I'm open for civil discussion but you've been on the offense. If you have any points for anything I actually brought up that would be cool
Are you actively having a stroke? You were pretty politely informed and corrected and nowhere in the above responses were you attacked in anything but the most mild and tame interpretation of the word.
Then when I brought up how I also would have liked some gender affirming care when younger
You mean after you got angry at me, you edited your earlier comment to justify getting angry at me for quoting stats, as if I had actually made a personal slight when you hadn't mentioned your age, gender, sex or health before my first reply.
"I was talking about hormone blockers"
You said "but actual gender affirming care should be left to when you can have a drink over it".
So that sentence would include gender affirming care for cis males (which you hadn't even identified as when I wrote those replies), and the gender affirming care they receive is getting moobs removed.
You wrote like 70% more text to your original comment. Making a wild strawman about how you should have been allowed to use as much testosterone as you wanted to, because you pretend that's what gender affirming care is. (The doctors don't arbitrarily give people bottles of HRT to use willy nilly.)
Puberty blockers are safe and reversible and we have lots of data to back that up.
I'm asking you whether you think teenage boys who may have issues with gynecomastia should be able to have them removed, or would it be somehow morally wrong? Should we make those boys go through their teenage years suffering from something they know they don't like, so that they can decide about it when they're "old enough to be sure"?
I have not attacked you once. I said "get off your high horse". I don't think that's too inflammatory, tbh.
I made those edits immediately after posting my argument. Before responding to you. Sorry. I thought you read the whole argument.
So then when I go to immediately read about how my previous body issues are invalid cause there's more fat boys then trans people kinda hurt.
I made those edits immediately after posting my argument. Before responding to you. Sorry. I thought you read the whole argument.
The "argument" which wasn't there when I replied to it? And how... exactly? If you post a comment, and then start editing it, during the time you are editing it, people can click "reply" and start replying to the unedited comment. Which is why generally you should not go back and add paragraphs of stuff after you posted a comment.
You've edited it several times and no-one can know which edits you did when.
You pretended like I was calling you fat when I pointed out that most gender affirming care is for cis males with gynecomastia (which usually — but not necessarily always — correlates with obesity), despite me not having any idea of your sex or size.
I made those edits immediately. But even so at no point in my original argument did I talk about surgeries. You immediately went into moobs and fat boys.
Also, you didn't know my sex after saying when I was younger I wanted bigger muscles, a foot of height, and a massive dick? Then you really either have read anything of just dotn care to comprehend.
I made those edits immediately.
There was none of that in it when I replied to it, and now there are seventeen "edit edits" and the comment in itself is 600% longer.
/editedpart adding this image and this comment: Is your idea of "immediately" 20 minutes? I could write an entire book in twenty minutes.
edit 2 here's when i posted my comment. now compare the time of me having posted this to the time of you having edited your comment pls.
/endeditedpart
You took something personally and revealed something about yourself while doing that. It's just a coincidence if you are one of those people suffering from gynecomastia. But if you are, wouldn't you want to not have to suffer from it? Or if you're fine and don't have it too bad, surely you can imagine people having it worse to the point they might be bullied so severely as to consider self harm? So why wouldn't we give those kids the treatment for that problem, when we have the resources and technology to do it safely?
Also, you didn’t know my sex after saying when I was younger I wanted bigger muscles, a foot of height, and a massive dick?
That was there neither. You went back to write it because you realised that you had gotten offended by me even trying to offend you, so you wrote in some bullshit after justification so it looks like it. I find that sort of behaviour pathetic.
Why haven't you replied to @FatCrab@lemmy.one to his comment saying;
Are you actively having a stroke? You were pretty politely informed and corrected and nowhere in the above responses were you attacked in anything but the most mild and tame interpretation of the word.
I hate to toot my own horn here, but I agree with him and have not even insulted you despite this behaviour of yours.
Non edit this time,
Why wouldn't I want to give other access to body modifications even if i myself had those problems. Cause what I really needed was better adults to talk to and more people to tell me everything is fine.
And I know I don't have nearly as many problems as teans kids. And it's in abd faith to compare myself. I was originally trying to point out that I don't agree with giving kids drugs to change thrier lives cause then at what point does it get out of control and it's just blown over.
