For example, Mermaids in their letter to NHS agreed that blockers leave a person in a developmental limbo and with depression and hot flashes-but their recommendation is to go straight to cross sex hormones as early as possible. /2
-
-
Show this thread
-
Olson-Kennedy, who is across the pond and has been empowered by NIH to administer cross-sex hormones to 8 (?) year olds is now acknowledging that cross-sex hormones are also very problematic as they increase dysphoria. Her solution--surgery as early as possible /3
Show this thread -
And so as more and more evidence emerges that these treatments are not effective at alleviating these kids' distress, instead of coming to the logical conclusion that this entire circus must stop, these activists are advocating for earlier and earlier escalation of treatments. /4
Show this thread -
Colloquially it's known as throwing good money after bad. Philosophers call it "the sunk cost fallacy". Soon, the entire world will know it is medical child abuse. /5
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Apart from the dangers that come with blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery, what sort of a reason is “I always felt so weak, pathetic and inferior to the men” for an obviously vulnerable 16-year-old natal girl (12 when she started) to go down this road? What have we come to?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Just such a terrible idea, driven, no doubt, by a belief that it was helping, but a terrible idea nonetheless and I'm glad people are finally questioning the ethics of messing with child development because of some nonsense theory.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.