Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Sen. Rand Paul criticized for questioning of transgender health nominee" video.

Someone is crazy, that's for sure. When we read about castrating boys to preserve soprano voices we are outraged and incredulous. Look at us now.
45
Stealth sterilization of minors.
21
Yeah, and what about gun rights? Concealed carry for 12-year-olds.
5
@andie_pants It's not hate speech to stand up for preserving reproductive freedom for all children, even if they are LGBTQ. What, only cheerleaders who like frilly pink clothes should get to be moms someday? Oh great.
4
@TroyaJamilyn No one should be deprived of the choice to become a birth parent while they are still a minor. The opportunity to have birth children is a fundamental right. I think it's sinister that we are talking about taking reproductive rights away from a small, misunderstood, and frequently maligned group, while they are still children. Maybe there might be some rare case, where all other treatments were tried and failed, where it could be done, but an honest try of other treatments takes time. I'd expect the trans person to be grown by then. Wow is there a lot of self hate in this society!
4
From LGBTQ+ rights to sterilization of minors . . . Wow, that was fast. What happened to reproductive freedom?
3
Nothing that destroys the ability of a child to become a parent one day should be permitted except in the most unusual circumstances and after everything else has been attempted to treat their dysphoria. Why shouldn't a girl who wears combat boots and has a crew cut -- and does it because she feels she should have been a boy -- be able to become a mom one day? This amounts to prepubescent sterilization of people with "non-normative" psychologies.
3
Reproductive rights are fundamental human rights.
3
@andie_pants Why do you think only Trump Cult would care? Reproductive freedom isn't a Trump thing.
2
@awaynow I'm opposed to any treatment of a minor, especially a prepubescent child, that could deprive them of the choice to become birth parents someday. That opportunity is a fundamental right, and needs to be preserved unless every other possible therapy except gender reassignment was tried and failed to work -- and by then, they may be old enough to decide for themselves. I think the idea that trans people can be deprived of their reproductive rights while still minors, and that it is being couched as some sort of great advance in "freedom" or "privacy," is very sinister. How do you not see through this?
2
@richardandrews9017 I agree. No comparison at all. It does not destroy reproductive freedom and may have important health benefits. But I don't agree with sidestepping questions. LOL
2
Destroying reproductive choice for minors curtails rights.
1
@mystic1160 Exactly. And preserving choices include preserving the opportunity to become a birth parent, if the child wants to one day.
1
@mercyferal Isn't the push for trans medicine implying there is a stereotypical male or female? Why should all the various gender fluid people undergo extensive treatments while minors that will prevent them from having reproductive choice as adults, or that may require lifelong medical monitoring, beyond what simply being trans would necessitate? So what if a trans woman has non-conforming genitalia and bone structure? Better that she have osteoporosis and a higher breast cancer risk? Why? Because someone is put out by seeing a slightly "masculine" trans woman? They should get over it. She's fine how she is.
1
@mystic1160 Far too young. Do people at 15 know for sure if they want to be birth parents?
1
@mystic1160 Lots of people don't feel comfortable in their bodies, for all sorts of reasons. Attack that, and support them. Drastic, permanently life-altering surgery for minors is not the answer. Gawd, I'm just stunned that no one remembers when there was a huge push to deprive LGBTQ adults of marriage equity and parenthood.
1
@mystic1160 And we know early driving will render them sterile in almost every case? Also, create lifelong health risks of various kinds for many, requiring a highly medicalized life? Huh. I didn't know early driving did that.
1
@mystic1160 You've convinced me. No one wants kids anyway.
1
@mystic1160 "Who really gets to decide?" Gee, I hope the pro-drastic surgery in high school crowd gets first dibs. Less isn't more, and more is never enough.
1
@mercyferal None of what you say surprises me, frankly. We live in a sh!t society. The cruelty that people think is funny staggers the mind. Don't think they don't make fun of women breast cancer victims, or shun children disfigured in a fire. (FWIW, the only close white friend I've made in this century is a trans woman. I'm not laughing. I don't know if others will, but I'm not. It's not funny.)
1
The issue is the age. Shouldn't trans people have the same reproductive choices as everyone else? Well, that requires puberty.
1
@thomasc9036 Therapies that preserve all opportunities and basic life choices and reproductive freedom should have to be tried first.
1
The idea that only cheerleaders who wear pink and football captains in blue get to be parents is eeew for me. Believe it or not. Reproductive freedom for all, even "non-normies!"
1
@thomasc9036 I would not allow a parent to choose to have a child sterilized unless all other, less drastic, treatments for the child's condition have been tried and have clearly failed. The right to have birth children is a fundamental right. You are supposed to get to grow up with that opportunity in place. We're supposed to try to preserve that choice for everyone.
1
@cassandrajoiner9933 Oh is it? These are children. CHILDREN. They are no one's property. I support universal reproductive rights. You don't? By way of comparison, I don't occupy my mind in any respect with, say, adult pornography, much less adults' personal lives.
1
@cvf628 Does your local community college have a logic class?
1
@awaynow Kids. Adults, do what you like. Not kids. Kids have rights. Affordability shouldn't be an issue. I support universal health, which means full coverage for all psycho-social emotional therapies, including gender reassignment where needed, or where it is clearly the optimal treatment, whether "needed" or not. But as the saying goes, "that's not my problem." (See, "It's Me, Eddie," recently mentioned in Adam Curtis's latest documentary) I don't have to be "appeased." You're being so rude and aggressive because my argument is the correct one. We're hep to that move.
1
@lennyg1233 I cannot believe that we are discussing treatments that could easily result in sterilizing a MINOR who is trans and diagnosed with dysphoria. This is a reason to permanently eliminate reproductive choice? THIS early? It blows my mind. Where did human rights for so-called "non-normative" people go? They were here just the other day.
1
@awaynow If you had a brain in your head, you'd see this for the sinister proposition that it is. Instead of broadening opportunities for all young people, you support narrowing them for some, and dress it up with insipid rhetoric about the painting called life, and other such nonsense.
1
@awaynow All you've done throughout this thread is ad hominem, some of the most artfully vicious I've ever seen. For what? Honestly, though, it is easier to give up than you think. I don't even plan on staying in America, or the Anglophone world, and regret being here now. Your mentioning Thatcher reminded me. Your problems are your problems, and they're engineered to be insoluble. Get some money and RUN. That's all anyone can commit to any more. Poor kids, born here. Any other developed country is clearly better, and lots of other countries are, as well.
1
@lennyg1233 True of literally everyone, even Trump or Pompeo.
1
@awaynow Other people? Like, adults?
1
@awaynow Because the US is a country that had an exceptionally vicious and vigorous eugenics movement, which I am not sure is gone, and we're duscussing treatments that can render a child sterile for life. But have it your way.
1
@awaynow What data? You have data on children who consented to gender reassignment, and forty or fifty years later are not regretting it? There is no such data, anywhere. No, America doesn't have a history of eugenics! Or of cults, or notable instances of mass hysteria, or some of the most powerful propaganda systems ever devised! We are so calm, well-educated, and broad minded that even our pre-pubescent children are fully equipped to consent to . . . Oh never mind. You win. "Not my problem." My family doesn't live here.
1
Agreed!! I don't think parents should be able to choose therapies that end reproductive freedom for their child, unless EVERYTHING else has been tried first. The opportunity to have birth children if a person so chooses is a fundamental right. How dare anyone take it from trans people.
1
Exactly. It is a matter of upholding reproductive freedom for all. Adults get to decide if they want to be birth parents.
1
@dblock20 What data? Do we have robust data on prepubescent children who transitioned 40 or 50 years ago, and are pleased today? No opportunity for birth children of their own, so what? No regrets? Later medical complications from lifelong medical support, including hormones, so what? No regrets? "First do no harm" is a meta-principle, it applies to ALL medical interventions, even the simplest and least risky.
1
@chriskb2495 I would think the human right at issue here is to preserve reproductive freedom.
1
@jeffthompson1869 Nice discussion! Thank you.
1
If you can prove it impairs the freedom of a person to chose to have birth children one day, a basic human right, then it should be considered. But if not, what's your argument?
1
I don't want someone anti-reproductive choice in that office.
1
That deserves to be questioned. I don't think it should be sidestepped. You admit, though, that it does not prevent fatherhood one day.
1
@richardandrews9017 And why is it unusual in most other countries?
1
@richardandrews9017 Yeah, like the nominee did. I do agree that circumcision may be questioned. There has to be a positive reason to do it, rather than having to justify not doing it.
1
@andie_pants Shame on you.
1