I *think* you're deliberately ignoring my point. (I hope that's the case, anyway.) The damage done to 12-16 yr olds by PBs is not theoretical anymore. We have data. Menstruation is not damaging. The concern is bones, their growth and their density.
-
Read what you’re writing and what it’s responding to. You’re completely avoiding anything that differs from your current viewpoint instead of refuting anything she’s saying, you’re getting huffy about tone when she’s trying to help you understand. Not discussing in good faith.pic.twitter.com/2dNypG0YIB
No, not at all. I've learned some really interesting stuff- and I hope I've challenged some assumptions as well. If you're saying she wasn't coming in good faith to talk to me, I have to agree, but there's still things you can learn from everyone, don't you think?
-
-
100% agree which is why I reach out to everyone of every viewpoint. I just thought Dr Mason came across pretty clearly abt what she meant about blockers and bone density etc it’s hard to be fully clear in so few characters ig.
-
Yeah, I mean, having to give kids a calcium supplement for a few years is PRETTY serious but I'm not sure I understand why psychological difficulties of precocious puberty are worse than psychological difficulties of GD. Was hoping she'd explain.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You've affirmed my assumptions about your honesty in discussions. You push with assumptions onto others and don't listen to actual scientific answers. That's exactly the conversation I expected.
-
Dude is not a scientist. I'm thinking no science classes since high school, and that was geology.
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.