Why are Transgenders such a serious political issue in this election?

[User]

On 2/14/2025 at 12:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not in the field, so I defer to the experts.  Psychology and mental health medicine and general medicine is working through this as we type.

Ah... so you can criticize my position but then balk at the question posed to you and claim you are not an expert. So, how can you criticize anything I propose here if you will turn around and claim you defer to the experts?

On 2/14/2025 at 12:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

2. Not about the 5 year old, then but a 17 year old ?  How do you know that contemporary approach to gender issues, from the medical community, is incorrect ?  You seem to say so.

How does any of this follow my point about knowing that jumping off a bridge will result in your death? That doesn't change if you are 5 or 17. I know because of physics and seeing what happened to others who did jump off bridges to their death. I did not have to personally know someone who did jump from a bridge to their death to figure this out. 

On 2/14/2025 at 12:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

3. I didn't say you must.

This is your line of argument. 

On 2/14/2025 at 12:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

4. Whether or not these things are happening doesn't necessarily bode poorly for what professionals and the common response might be.  If people are overreacting to children making random statements about their gender, and getting medical people to make ill-considered responses then that could be abuse, and error and so on.  It doesn't mean that the overall approach is sound, you need more evidence of what's happening.  For that reason, I trust medical institutions for the most part.

Whether or not these things are happening is most of the point here as this entire thread is about why this is even an issue as you and others put forth arguments as if it is not one or you and others only argue that it is a culture war and bad only in as much as it is opposed by those on the right. 

There is no if. People are in fact doing this to small children. Why do you keep making these arguments and statements as if you don't know this is happening?

In the end, you are starting to disengage from this topic as your points are being challenged and simply defering to the experts. If that is your big argument in the end, then you have no argument. Why are you even discussing this if everytime your positions get really pushed and challenged, you balk and say "experts"

 

On 2/14/2025 at 12:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

5. By 17 they are for sure.  This is a kind of slippery slope discussion: 3 years old, no but 17 yes... so what about 13.  We may be arriving at an agreement point which is there's no one-size-fits-all solution.  I would definitely say it's wrong to "affirm" a 3-year old in any formal sense, or to punish them for saying something like that at 3 also.  They're 3.  Dr. Erica Anderson (a trans woman) explained the process at length to Jesse Singal in his podcast and that's where I first heard about the process.

There is no slippery slope here. These things are happening to 3 year olds and you have not offered anything from YOUR ARGUMENT to explain why it magically stops at 3 year olds nor are you willing to say where the line is. 

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Some people want to let biological men (female in gender) able to compete in sports against biological women, and want to allow biological men (female in gender) able to enter change-rooms made for biological women.  Some people, including some biological women, naturally have a problem with that.  These aren't simple issues to solve, so people disagree.

Yup, I certainly don't agree with these. I think there should be seperate public washrooms for trans.

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Calling something "progress" is just hiding behind smug self-righteous labels, it doesn't actually address the issue.  What is "progress" is entirely subjective.

The issue is entirely about the smug self righteous discrimination inflicted against trans people. The struggle against that is a textbook example of what progress is about.

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't even think a lot of people on the right and left are mature enough intellectually to debate these issues.  The right is filled with ignorant bigots and the left cares more about protecting the feelings of aggrieved groups than what is right. 

Protecting aggrieved people from ignorant bigots is always the correct course of action. Fùck the bigots, every last one of them. If that means every right winger then fùck every last one of them too.

10 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The left almost always determines their position on issues based on what is least likely to offend the group involved that's seen as the most marginalized.  That's not an intellectually serious moral stance, it's just trying to not feel or look bad.

I'd definitely rather see them rub the bigots noses in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because that's what mostly offends the right wing.

[User]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Yup, I certainly don't agree with these. I think there should be seperate public washrooms for trans.

We should redesign the entirety of society to accommodate the less than 1% with mental issues....

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The issue is entirely about the smug self righteous discrimination inflicted against trans people. The struggle against that is a textbook example of what progress is about.

No, it is not. When you have leftists pushing this garbage onto society, it is not merely about any so-called discrimination against trans people at all. 

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Protecting aggrieved people from ignorant bigots is always the correct course of action. Fùck the bigots, every last one of them. If that means every right winger then fùck every last one of them too.

Protecting how? From what? 

When folks on the left are pushing that men and boys get to compete against women/girls, it is us protecting the girls and women from folks like you. 

 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Adolescents are more uninformed about sex issues in the USA 

 

i'd be genuinely curious to see some real research about that. I feel like it's not true, or more accurately that's not the whole picture, but I don't actually have the stats to back that up. I wonder if it's more cultural, with young adults being more likely to be discouraged from preparing for the possibility of sex with birth control products like condoms. I have heard anecdotal tales that young men or women being caught by their parents with condoms is just as bad as being caught with weed, especially the girls. I think that's less true in Canada. But again, no stats or strong arguments to put forward so...

[Moonlight Graham]

On 2/14/2025 at 1:42 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. I'm not in the field, so I defer to the experts.  Psychology and mental health medicine and general medicine is working through this as we type.

Are they acting on science or on feelings?  I very much worry about how any expert field can be compromised when supporting certain facts or opinions can be considered "offensive" and therefore puts the jobs or reputations of experts at risk, which then leads to self-censorship.

[eyeball]

57 minutes ago, User said:

We should redesign the entirety of society to accommodate the less than 1% with mental issues....

No, to accommodate the millions of bigots with dicks for heads.

It is what it is.

1 hour ago, User said:

No, it is not. When you have leftists pushing this garbage onto society, it is not merely about any so-called discrimination against trans people at all. 

Yup, it's obvious it always been the leftists you hate most.

1 hour ago, User said:

Protecting how? From what? 

With the law, from bigotry.

1 hour ago, User said:

When folks on the left are pushing that men and boys get to compete against women/girls, it is us protecting the girls and women from folks like you. 

I don't push that and like I said I wish people who do would focus on using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms instead.

If you people had stayed the fùck out of the way of that this likely would have been settled years ago.

But you keep pushing your trash so...

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, User said:

1. so you can criticize my position but then balk at the question posed to you and claim you are not an expert. So, how can you criticize anything I propose here if you will turn around and claim you defer to the experts?

2. How does any of this follow my point about knowing that jumping off a bridge will result in your death? That doesn't change if you are 5 or 17. I know because of physics and seeing what happened to others who did jump off bridges to their death. I did not have to personally know someone who did jump from a bridge to their death to figure this out. 

3. Whether or not these things are happening is most of the point here as this entire thread is about why this is even an issue as you and others put forth arguments as if it is not one or you and others only argue that it is a culture war and bad only in as much as it is opposed by those on the right. 

4. There is no if. People are in fact doing this to small children. Why do you keep making these arguments and statements as if you don't know this is happening?

5. In the end, you are starting to disengage from this topic as your points are being challenged and simply defering to the experts. If that is your big argument in the end, then you have no argument. Why are you even discussing this if everytime your positions get really pushed and challenged, you balk and say "experts"

6. There is no slippery slope here. These things are happening to 3 year olds and you have not offered anything from YOUR ARGUMENT to explain why it magically stops at 3 year olds nor are you willing to say where the line is. 

1. Because your approach pretty clearly involves not following the experts I think.

2. Well, you know the former statement as fact because of what physics does to the human body.  But you don't have those frameworks to answer the latter question.  No, you don't have to personally know someone but in the example of transgender care it might add context to some of the things you're saying here.

3. Yes, it's a culture war if people put forward that there are broad and terrible impacts for the approach that the medical community is taking. You can't prove that this is happening by quoting one or two cases.  Politicians, on the other hand, can quote abuses and imply or claim outright that these are the normal cases not the exception.

4. Doing what ?  Making mistakes, not following the recommended processes, or committing acts of negligence ?  Sure.  But as I said, you have to prove that this is the case rather than just quoting some cases.  And certainly the politicians, such as Trump do the exact opposite.  They lie about it to get people whipped up.  They exploit ignorance and negative emotions to leverage advantage for themselves.  

5. Well, maybe because I am not so arrogant to think I know more about topics than people who do it for a living ?  Come to think of it, that's why I actually read the views of many others on the subjects of history, economics, medicine, climate change and every other topic.  Similarly, I *am* an expert in some fields so I know that people talk over the facts to leverage advantage.  This is happening right now with fear-mongering over Elon Musk and his DOGE squad... But that's another topic.

6.  There is very much a slippery slope.  Or are you willing to stop using the term 'children' to refer to 17-year olds ?  Or can we stop talking about children and only talk about 17-year olds moving forward ? 

42 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Are they acting on science or on feelings?  I very much worry about how any expert field can be compromised when supporting certain facts or opinions can be considered "offensive" and therefore puts the jobs or reputations of experts at risk, which then leads to self-censorship.

1. Sure, that's a concern but is it happening ?  Keep in mind that the entire public sphere is poisoned by people with an agenda right now.  I would say that finding an organization that seems to resist popular sentiment to address facts is like finding gold: believe them.

[herbie]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Adolescents are more uninformed about sex issues in the USA 

Because of the number of stubborn prudish people like User. One who don't understand that "rights" are either for everyone or no one. Ones that are so sexually repressed they won't dare speak the subject among themselves let alone their kids.

Why is your 14 yr old in the shower so damn long? If they're not already f^cking someone they will be in the next few years. Stop fooling yourself.

[User]

20 minutes ago, herbie said:

Because of the number of stubborn prudish people like User. One who don't understand that "rights" are either for everyone or no one. Ones that are so sexually repressed they won't dare speak the subject among themselves let alone their kids.

Why is your 14 yr old in the shower so damn long? If they're not already f^cking someone they will be in the next few years. Stop fooling yourself.

You only accuse me of being a prude because I think it is disgusting that an adult is arguing about having sex with children being OK and quibbling over 15 being OK while refusing to ever stipulate when they draw the line. That adult is you. 

Why don't you explain what "rights" you are talking about, as my argument doesn't diminish that at all. 

And now you are talking about screwing 14 year olds in the shower. You are sick pervert. 

[herbie]

More like you're simply a contrarian ass like CdnFox who wishes to keep arguing endlessly by making claims the opposite of what was said was said.

The laws of the land were clearly stated and I did not disagree with them. You're the one insisting they're disgusting and an 18+ one week old is an adult and it is illegal and disgusting to sleep with an 17 + 51 weeks old person.
Like I said, YOU are the sicko.

Edited February 16 by herbie

[User]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

More like you're simply a contrarian ass like CdnFox who wishes to keep arguing endlessly by making claims the opposite of what was said was said.

The laws of the land were clearly stated and I did not disagree with them. You're the one insisting they're disgusting and an 18+ one week old is an adult and it is illegal and disgusting to sleep with an 17 + 51 weeks old person.
Like I said, YOU are the sicko.

No one is forcing you to coninue to post your nonsense here. I have repeatedly given you several points and you just ignore them. 

You are on here talking about screwing 14 year olds in the shower, you have some serious issues. 

 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, to accommodate the millions of bigots with dicks for heads.

 

One man thinks his penis is a vagina 

Millions of men think he's wrong. 

Therefore clearly it's the millions of men who are wrong  because they're "bigots".

 

[eyeball]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Therefore clearly it's the millions of men who are wrong  because they're "bigots".

Yeah peckerheads like I said. Oh, and don't forget the vaginaheads, there's probably millions of them too.

[CdnFox]

9 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yeah peckerheads like I said. Oh, and don't forget the vaginaheads, there's probably millions of them too.

Considering you never get laid and you have your previously identified mental health issues, I suppose it's not surprising that everywhere you go all you see is vaginas and peckers   

I hate to break it to you, it's not them it's you.

[herbie]

OMG the continuation of a dead thread by Social Retrogrades thinking or wanting trannies to be a political issue.

[User]

4 minutes ago, herbie said:

OMG the continuation of a dead thread by Social Retrogrades thinking or wanting trannies to be a political issue.

You make them a political issue, we are just pushing back. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

OMG the continuation of a dead thread by Social Retrogrades thinking or wanting trannies to be a political issue.

I note that your participation is pretty heavy here. Are you referring to yourself as the social retrograde who wants trannies to be a political issue? Cuz you sure talk about it a lot for someone who doesn't

[herbie]

It was pretty clear on the first page that Transgenders weren't an issue in any election in Canada at the time of the initial post.

Therefore the only responses are to the prudish inanity of the one who dug it up. I'm done with anyone that f*cked in the head and I hope you are too.

[User]

19 minutes ago, herbie said:

It was pretty clear on the first page that Transgenders weren't an issue in any election in Canada at the time of the initial post.

Therefore the only responses are to the prudish inanity of the one who dug it up. I'm done with anyone that f*cked in the head and I hope you are too.

Done?

You have never really engaged here yet. You keep avoiding my posts clearly articulating point by point why this is in fact a political issue and one because people like you are pushing it and folks like me are opposing it. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

It was pretty clear on the first page that Transgenders weren't an issue in any election in Canada at the time of the initial post.

It's not clear at all. It may not be a platform plank but quite frankly you've got mentioned just a couple of days ago by Carney Who indicated that the liberals would continue to pursue their social agenda. There's no doubt that there's an underlying theme that the liberals pursued climate change and trans rights and everything else at the expense of Canadians who needed economic action instead and they are turning to someone who will provide that.

2 hours ago, herbie said:

Therefore the only responses are to the prudish inanity of the one who dug it up. I'm done with anyone that f*cked in the head and I hope you are too.

I'm not, i'll still talk to you even i f you are a little inane.  

[User]

On 2/16/2025 at 1:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

1. Because your approach pretty clearly involves not following the experts I think.

The "experts" are not experts in all aspects of policy or implementation or all fields discussed here. Your argument has basically turned into the logical fallacy of argument from authority. 

On 2/16/2025 at 1:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

2. Well, you know the former statement as fact because of what physics does to the human body.  But you don't have those frameworks to answer the latter question.  No, you don't have to personally know someone but in the example of transgender care it might add context to some of the things you're saying here.

Might... but you have yet to argue where anything I say here needs that context. 

On 2/16/2025 at 1:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

3. Yes, it's a culture war if people put forward that there are broad and terrible impacts for the approach that the medical community is taking. You can't prove that this is happening by quoting one or two cases.  Politicians, on the other hand, can quote abuses and imply or claim outright that these are the normal cases not the exception.

I did not quote one or two cases and the "medical community" is not a tyranny pushing this stuff, it is the politicians and those with power to do so. To the point of this thread, again, it is being asked why this is even an issue, the answer as I have made repeatedly is because it is being pushed as an issue. The fact that myself and others push back is not what made it an issue. 

To the point I keep making, it is a culture war when this is being pushed just as much as when it is being opposed.

On 2/16/2025 at 1:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

4. Doing what ?  Making mistakes, not following the recommended processes, or committing acts of negligence ?  Sure.  But as I said, you have to prove that this is the case rather than just quoting some cases.  And certainly the politicians, such as Trump do the exact opposite.  They lie about it to get people whipped up.  They exploit ignorance and negative emotions to leverage advantage for themselves.  

If people are doing this... then that is the case and it is happening. That is the point. You did not answer my question: Why do you keep making these arguments and statements as if you don't know this is happening?

On 2/16/2025 at 1:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

5. Well, maybe because I am not so arrogant to think I know more about topics than people who do it for a living ?  Come to think of it, that's why I actually read the views of many others on the subjects of history, economics, medicine, climate change and every other topic.  Similarly, I *am* an expert in some fields so I know that people talk over the facts to leverage advantage.  This is happening right now with fear-mongering over Elon Musk and his DOGE squad... But that's another topic.

And yet... you are still here making arguments. If you are going to balk at challenge and just say "experts" then stick with that from the beginning. 

Also, arrogance has nothing to do with being able to argue facts. The "experts" are not always right nor are their findings always based on fact either. 

On 2/16/2025 at 1:46 PM, Michael Hardner said:

6.  There is very much a slippery slope.  Or are you willing to stop using the term 'children' to refer to 17-year olds ?  Or can we stop talking about children and only talk about 17-year olds moving forward ? 

17 year olds are children. Even in Canada. You are just nitpicking on the term and avoiding the substance of the point here. Your argument makes no distinction on age. So why does it stop at 3? Where is your line? We can't talk about only 17 year olds because you have not provided any reason to based on your own argument. 

 

 

[Videospirit]

It's an issue because of Brain rot overflowing from the US. Many conservative Canadians are heavily influenced by American culture and stop acting like Canadians and embrace the same crazy shit the republicans call for.

Hopefully Trump's Vileness turns more Canadians away from this idiocy.

[CdnFox]

42 minutes ago, Videospirit said:

It's an issue because of Brain rot overflowing from the US. Many conservative Canadians are heavily influenced by American culture and stop acting like Canadians and embrace the same crazy shit the republicans call for.

Hopefully Trump's Vileness turns more Canadians away from this idiocy.

It's an issue because people on the left nearly as bright as they think they are choose to be insulting and ignorant and angry and hateful and bigoted rather than actually address the legitimate concerns that some people have how about things like having some guy wave his dick and their daughter's face in a change room.

The left has made this hostile. Now that they've made it a culture war instead of a rational discussion one side has to lose and the vast majority of people decide that if somebody's got to lose it's going to be the transgenders. She's why we're now seeing transgender rights being stripped away in both Canada and America without further debate and rules like parents rights to know are being implemented

The idiocy as you mentioned is entirely yours and your sides. Is a shame that unlike many of the movements in the past a reasonable discussion couldn't be held we're understanding could be worked out. But your hatred and bigotry wouldn't allow for that so we are where we are. You attack people and their children they're going to react

[Michael Hardner]

On 2/18/2025 at 2:38 PM, User said:

1. The "experts" are not experts in all aspects of policy or implementation or all fields discussed here. Your argument has basically turned into the logical fallacy of argument from authority. 

2. Might... but you have yet to argue where anything I say here needs that context. 

3. I did not quote one or two cases

4. and the "medical community" is not a tyranny pushing this stuff, it is the politicians and those with power to do so.

5. To the point of this thread, again, it is being asked why this is even an issue, the answer as I have made repeatedly is because it is being pushed as an issue. The fact that myself and others push back is not what made it an issue. 

6. To the point I keep making, it is a culture war when this is being pushed just as much as when it is being opposed.

7. If people are doing this... then that is the case and it is happening. That is the point.

8. You did not answer my question: Why do you keep making these arguments and statements as if you don't know this is happening?

9. And yet... you are still here making arguments. If you are going to balk at challenge and just say "experts" then stick with that from the beginning. 

10. Also, arrogance has nothing to do with being able to argue facts. The "experts" are not always right nor are their findings always based on fact either. 

11. 17 year olds are children. Even in Canada. You are just nitpicking on the term and avoiding the substance of the point here.

12. Your argument makes no distinction on age. So why does it stop at 3? Where is your line? We can't talk about only 17 year olds because you have not provided any reason to based on your own argument. 

 

 

1. I am not talking about activists, I'm talking about the medical/health experts only.  I feel like the tactic of picking out extremists on the other side of an issue and painting their views as the central thesis of that side is not honest.  And it's not argument from authority, it's trusting expertise and listening to opposing views and discussion from within that group.

Here's a counter example.  If, in 1990s, I stated that there was no opposition to Climate Change theory whatsoever and portrayed skepticism by quoting a know-nothing who cited volcanoes as the cause of CO2 or somesuch then that would not be honest.  In fact, that's what happened in the liberal media.  That, in itself, was an inconvenient truth.  There was opposition to climate change from reputable climate scientists, even if it was a minority view.  I do not want to branch into a different topic here, it's an illustration of how the culture can and should use honest experts.

2. I'm arguing meta, as in arguing about how we argue.  You say that you know for sure things about the topic of transgender as sure as you know that gravity works (I think).  That's what I'm talking about.

3. Sorry, I didn't mean "you" as in "user", I meant "you" as in "a person".

4. I'm really glad you said that.  I agree that politics shouldn't lead in such areas - it should follow.

5. I doubt that the medical/psychological practitioners started working in this area after politicians brought it up.  At some point, it ended up in the public sphere.  I have some hunches as to how that happened but I don't have a full history.

6. You seem to be saying that the politicians are more the ones "pushing" it - correct ?  I haven't thought of that.  It makes sense, but as I haven't heard of it.  What's an example ?

7. It's only the point if it's getting as much attention as it deserves.  I'll admit that that is subjective but I'm sure you agree that their are limits as to how much attention it should get either way, ie. we should devote much more attention from the medical side or we should devote zero political attention.  Negligence is a problem, for sure.

8. I don't think I am.  I'm mostly making medical arguments.  I never said negligence and poor practice doesn't happen, and I'm pretty sure of that.

9. I'm mostly making meta- arguments.  I can't argue with you, at least not yet, because I don't know what "pushing things onto children" means.  Even now.  You seem to be saying politicians are "pushing things"... well let's get there and figure it out.  Maybe we will agree.  I can draw a line between institutions that are supposed to be factual and objective... and the political sphere where people are supposed to be persuasive, but honest.  I can agree that all politics has to be kept in check by a skeptical public.  If one side is allowed to bullsh!t then it gives more room for the other side to, and so on.

10. But you can find other experts who disagree, in cases where there is doubt.  If you can't, then you are definitely in strange territory.  Someone doing this is not in the frame of "Copernicus vs The Church" as they sometimes say because Copernicus was an expert and the pope was ignorant.  Someone saying that the experts are all wrong has a HUGE burden of proof, extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence etc.  Again, I would point you to the podcast interview with Jesse Singal and Dr. Erica Anderson (trans doctor) to edify your knowledge about gadfly experts etc.

The point about experts not being entirely fact-based is wise.  If you read "A Brief History of Time" by Dr. Stephen Hawking you will learn that he was personally frustrated and p!ssed off at papers that challenged his theories.

11. And I would say you are putting an unwitting reader into a mode where they may think you are talking about young immature children.  So - meta-wise - can we agree on clarifying language ?  Why not ?  It would make both of our arguments easier to figure out.

12. My argument is (while still meta, as we're speaking of the language of the discussion) that the term "child" is inexact enough to require us to define it before we engage.  Or are you saying that there should be no distinction when we are talking about 3- or 17- year olds.  Canada even has a legal distinction, did you know ?

Interesting discussion, anyway.  It takes a lot of time to reply to these but I am starting to prefer the meta discussion to the discussion.  

Cheerio 

[SkyHigh]

On 2/9/2025 at 3:18 PM, CdnFox said:

Actually there is. The political movement does not have to be run by politicians, in fact most or not.

However we have seen the school boards who are political bodies and often elected in many cases strongly push circumstances that will encourage children to be trans and repress anyone who challenges that. We've had many many articles about that here it has been discussed many times.

So if your argument was based on that, you lose

I lose?

This is why you are often such a poor and uninteresting interlocuteur, everything with you in zero sum. People with even a small amount of experience in high level decision-making pride themselves on their abilities to find common ground amongst people of different opinions and on being able to employ a charitable interpretation of others arguments, you fail miserably on both counts.

If we follow your flawed zero sum analogy, you're scoring on your own net.

School boards? Really? Then you should be just as outraged with school boards banning books they don't agree with, those trying to impose religious beliefs in schools.( Ie: both Louisiana and Oklahoma requirements to post the ten commandments in classrooms . Not to mention state GOVERNMENTS trying to put creationism on the same level as evolution), but you're not are you? because you only get your dander up when it goes against your juvenile presuppositions (as an example our last conversation was about how mean and insulting Trudeau saying that the US missed an opportunity to elect a progressive woman to the presidency was, but Trump saying Canada should be a state was simply a little joke. Still think that?)

Now to the topic at hand. Pew research estimates the number of trans/nonbinary population of the US to be just shy of 50'000, with a fraction of them having had any kind of gender reassignment procedures and that fraction gets even smaller for those under 18( and in conversations we've had about gun control, you have said that 17 isn't really a child)

Let me be clear I don't think anyone under 18 should be subjected to any procedure that could not be reversed if they wanted, but we're taking about a group that could probably be counted on two hands. Hardly cause for the outrage expressed by the conservative "mouvement"

My point was and is that this is just a way for the Republicans to divert the attention of their voters from the fact they have no real solutions. For example Trump said 10 years ago he had a better health care plan two weeks away, yet today still has nothing but a concept of a plan, Trump ran on bringing down grocery prices (amongst others) and now as prices continue to rise he has no solutions, Trump vowed to drain the swamp yet Musk, and I could go on.

In conclusion,  in the greater scheme of the problems facing North America the trans issue is inconsequential as it effects an extremely small percentage of people, most just because of ignorance not only of science but how it feels to them based on bigoted religious beliefs. The fact that the best you had was school boards and no actual policy makers shows that all you have is your own bigoted feelings