What Age Is Acceptable To Identify As The Opposite Sex?

[Argentbear]

Ten year old brides are the exception, not the rule. From 2000 thru 2018 there were under 300,000. Besides that, why does it even matter if you can also cut off their body parts or stop their puberty?

where do you get the idea that body parts are being cut off all over the place?

 

[Argentbear]

Ten year old brides are the exception, not the rule. From 2000 thru 2018 there were under 300,000. Besides that, why does it even matter if you can also cut off their body parts or stop their puberty?

where do you get the idea that body parts are being cut off all over the place?

If you make a claim, I want you to be able to defend that claim. The link doesn't do that.

you asked for a definition not to back up a claim

 

[Kathryn]

where do you get the idea that body parts are being cut off all over the place?

I never said the were being cut off all over the place. The fact is that there was an executive order signed by Tim Walz that stated IN the title as well as in the body that Minnesota is a sanctuary state for LGBTQIA+ people under the age of 18 and that the state could take the parent's rights away from them and do whatever gender defining actions from therapy to surgery, on them.


That's what I've said. And I took it directly from the EO on Walz's Governor Of Minnesota page.

 

[Argentbear]

I never said the were being cut off all over the place.

having body parts cut off of them!

why does it even matter if you can also cut off their body parts

to surgery to remove body parts or add them,

but they want to give young kids the right to undergo sex change procedures.

 

[GoodAttention]

officiate means s/he performs the ceremony

Haha yes, should be to make legal/official.

 

[Kfox]

you asked for a definition not to back up a claim

Okay; in this case, I would ask if you can justify your definition. This can't be done with a link.

 

[icehorse]

Age of consent isn't uniform. In Indiana its 16.
What makes you think you know better than researchers, healthcare providers and the patient being treated?

There is an important causal chain here:

- Of necessity, doctors must frequently rely on other, specialist doctors to establish medical protocols.
- For many years WPATH has been the de facto organization that doctors went to, to receive medical protocols to work with GD.
- We're now seeing that WPATH is guilty of bad medicine and bad science.

So many doctors have - with all good intentions - been duped by WPATH. Country after country in Europe is coming to realization, it will eventually come to the US, hopefully sooner, rather than later.

 

[GoodAttention]

There is an important causal chain here:

- Of necessity, doctors must frequently rely on other, specialist doctors to establish medical protocols.
- For many years WPATH has been the de facto organization that doctors went to, to receive medical protocols to work with GD.
- We're now seeing that WPATH is guilty of bad medicine and bad science.

So many doctors have - with all good intentions - been duped by WPATH. Country after country in Europe is coming to realization, it will eventually come to the US, hopefully sooner, rather than later.

Psychologists and psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5), which is the internationally recognized standard.

The condition to be diagnosed is gender dysphoria, which must identify distress. Treatment with hormones has been established to provide benefit. Capacity to consent to treatment must also be established.

This is where the court system should play a part, confirming capacity and that protocols have been followed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Do explain.

The reason why you choose to do as you did, is subjective and has no objective, emperrical or real reason. It concufes people and they have to ask as they can't objectively observe why you did it.

You seem to be confirming the previous point I made; that gender should be discarded; not used in reference to someone, their biology should be used instead. When you divorce gender from biology, gender becomes meaningless because it means different things to different people so it would be foolish to use it to describe someone unless you know that person very well. Biology is empirical, biology is science, biology is real; gender (as redefined by those like you) is none of those things. That's why when I address someone, I address them according to their biology rather than their gender.

It means different things to different people to choose sex or gender. So it is foolish by you, because unless you are wellknown to the person, you are interacting with. there are different subjective choices and we can't have that according to your subjective rule. Choice should be objective as biologic, emperical and real, but you don't live up to that.
In effect you are using a normative double standard of demanding objectivity by other people and being subjective yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I never said the were being cut off all over the place. The fact is that there was an executive order signed by Tim Walz that stated IN the title as well as in the body that Minnesota is a sanctuary state for LGBTQIA+ people under the age of 18 and that the state could take the parent's rights away from them and do whatever gender defining actions from therapy to surgery, on them.


That's what I've said.

Evidence!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay; in this case, I would ask if you can justify your definition. This can't be done with a link.

I will ask you to only as objective, empirical and real to justify all of your behaviour, life choices and values. No subjective as that is not real. Only the objective is real. So now answer according to your standard.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't generally believe that anyone should be getting married before age 18, OR having body parts cut off of them!

Evidence for the body parts!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If by imaginary you mean; based strictly on your thoughts......... I would say how everybody feels about themselves is imaginary.

A justication is a subjective idea in the thoughts of a person and have no strictly objective, real or emperical referents. I would say that justifications and why people do as they do are imaginary according to your subjective imaginary rules for justification.

 

[Argentbear]

Okay; in this case, I would ask if you can justify your definition. This can't be done with a link.

Why would anyone need to justify the recognized definition of a word?

 

[Argentbear]

There is an important causal chain here:

- Of necessity, doctors must frequently rely on other, specialist doctors to establish medical protocols.
- For many years WPATH has been the de facto organization that doctors went to, to receive medical protocols to work with GD.
- We're now seeing that WPATH is guilty of bad medicine and bad science.

You have made that claim before and have been asked to identify just what is it was bad but you wouldn't.
You admitted you had never even looked at the protocols.
I provided you with a full copy of them and you refused to read them.

So many doctors have - with all good intentions - been duped by WPATH.

How? What evidence do you have for then when you can't even identify just what if anything is wrong with the protocols?

Country after country in Europe is coming to realization, it will eventually come to the US, hopefully sooner, rather than later.

Why?

 

[Argentbear]

Psychologists and psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5), which is the internationally recognized standard.

The condition to be diagnosed is gender dysphoria, which must identify distress. Treatment with hormones has been established to provide benefit. Capacity to consent to treatment must also be established.

This is where the court system should play a part, confirming capacity and that protocols have been followed.

should the courts be involved in every medical decision?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is an important causal chain here:

- Of necessity, doctors must frequently rely on other, specialist doctors to establish medical protocols.
- For many years WPATH has been the de facto organization that doctors went to, to receive medical protocols to work with GD.
- We're now seeing that WPATH is guilty of bad medicine and bad science.

So many doctors have - with all good intentions - been duped by WPATH. Country after country in Europe is coming to realization, it will eventually come to the US, hopefully sooner, rather than later.

Still?

 

[GoodAttention]

should the courts be involved in every medical decision?

All states should have the courts involved as a bare minimum.

If the state already has legislation that isn't obstructive to access care then there is no need for the courts.

 

[Kfox]

The reason why you choose to do as you did, is subjective and has no objective, emperrical or real reason.

I disagree. Biology is empirical, objective, and applies the same to all humans. The same can't be said for gender

It means different things to different people to choose sex or gender.

No; only gender means different things to different people. When somebody says they are a biological male, they are saying they are XY, they have a prostate instead of a Uterus, testies instead of ovaries, a testosterone level of somewhere between 900-1200 instead of 15-20, etc. etc. I could go on but I think you get the point; when people use biology they are being consistent with what they mean.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. Biology is empirical, objective, and applies the same to all humans. The same can't be said for gender

No; only gender means different things to different people. When somebody says they are a biological male, they are saying they are XY, they have a prostate instead of a Uterus, testies instead of ovaries, a testosterone level of somewhere between 900-1200 instead of 15-20, etc. etc. I could go on but I think you get the point; when people use biology they are being consistent with what they mean.

Yeah, that you subjectively choose to use biology as a standard is not emprical, real and objective. You have made a subjective evaluation and that is your double standard.
You subjectively believe in an objective standard as relevant, but that you subjectively believe in it, is what you won't accept other people do.