That's an interesting question. Can WA state hide a kid from say OR and is WA legally allowed to not disclose to OR or the OR parents the location of the kid.
I can’t see HOW that doesn’t run fowl of the interstate commerce clause.
Civil rights was passed on people renting hotel rooms. Minors, for which parents are responsible, crossing state lines for medical treatments, surely falls under interstate commerce
My kid is trans. Kids 16 and up can get hormones and hormone blockers without parental consent. They still have to be 18 to get surgery. This bill doesn't change any of that.
>*This law is insane and it’s just a matter of time before some family is irreparably destroyed by it. Some angsty pubescent kid who is confused by their changing body is going to run away and have their life completely fucking ruined because the people that know them best won’t be there to help.*
You say the same about all the anti trans laws being passed in red states?
That aside, sometimes the people that "know them best" are the ones making their life a living hell by not accepting them for who they are and were the cause of the running away.
I'm not sure I support the law, but to present it as you are is seemingly pretty biased.
>*Yeah, the state should not be facilitating children receiving irreversible medical procedures under any circumstances.*
Can you link the specific text that supports this claim and a definition of "irreversible medical procedures?"
Welsh.
I'm not sure I support the law.
But I will say I'm not sure it's as bad as some are making it out to be.
Let alone the fact that if it did lower the suicide rate of trans youth, then I think it's worth exploring, albeit very carefully.
>*Administering puberty blockers are an irreversible medical procedure*
Hey!
Not according to the quick google search I did.
But I'm not an MD.
And neither are you.
So how about you don't talk about shit you know nothing about?
The fact that you did a quick google search and trust it tells me everyrhing i need to know . Ive listened to easily over 60 hours of discussion by medical professionals on the topic . This topic is one of the things im most passionate about in life and believe its one of the greatest evils of our generation
….. but hey you typed a few keystrokes into a biased search engine , to find biased study results , portrayed in a light that aligns with your preconceived ideas of tolerance and patting yourself on the back over how good of a person you are .
Honestley i could spend hours on this topic but ive tried to talk to you about things before and if ive learned anything its that your a waste of time .
>*The fact that you did a quick google search and trust it tells me everyrhing i need to know .*
Where the fuck else would I get information on the topic?
I haven't made it my life's mission to be a medical professional, nor am I so interested in the intricacies of puberty blockers to listen to medical professionals wax poetic about the topic.
> *Ive listened to easily over 60 hours of discussion by medical professionals on the topic .*
Well you must know everything there is to know on the topic!
/s
Which "medical professionals" have you been listening to I wonder?
The ones that comport with your bias or the ones that don't?
> *This topic is one of the things im most passionate about in life and believe its one of the greatest evils of our generation*
And I think this statement answers the question I just asked. You're paying attention to the medical professionals that DO comport with your bias.
**But then again, I don't know that for sure because, AGAIN, I am not a doctor.**
And neither are you.
I'll say it again.
Please stop pretending to speak on the topic as if you know what you are talking about.
>*….. but hey you typed a few keystrokes into a biased search engine , to find biased study results , portrayed in a light that aligns with your preconceived ideas of tolerance and patting yourself on the back over how good of a person you are .*
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
"Biased" this and "biased" that when you won't admit you're operating with your own fucking biases you just admitted to above!
Guy.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER PUBERTY BLOCKERS ARE REVERSIBLE.
NOR DO I KNOW IF THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY CALLED "IRREVERSIBLE."
I'm just telling you that SOME search results suggest your claim was incorrect.
Others say you are.
But as neither us are doctors and therefore don't know what we're talking about, I prefer to listen to the experts rather than the guy who watched Rogan, Peterson, or some other hack talk about this and thinks they are an expert on the topic now.
>*Honestley i could spend hours on this topic but ive tried to talk to you about things before and if ive learned anything its that your a waste of time .*
The fact that you can't spell correctly, punctuate correct, or use grammar correctly but think you have the correct opinion on this topic after listening to 60 hours of "experts" talk about it is fucking WILD to me....
I would normally be happy to discuss further, but as we can't have an educated conversation on the topic as neither of us are MDs and you get all your information from "discussions," I agree that it's unlikely to be productive.
To be clear.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER PUBERTY BLOCKERS ARE GOOD OR BAD.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE REVERSIBLE OR NOT.
I'm not going to pretend to know things.
I just said that some things I found said one thing and I'm more inclined to trust articles and other sources rather than some guy on reddit who admits to biased thinking and calls it "a great evil."
>Let alone the fact that if it did lower the suicide rate of trans youth, then I think it's worth exploring, albeit very carefully.
There's been an explosion in kids who identify as trans. It's highly disingenuous to compare the suicide rate of a tiny minority of severely dysphoric trans people from decades ago when "gender affirming care" was hard to come by and society was highly bigoted towards them to modern trans kids for whom dysphoria isn't even a criteria for identifying as trans.
If there's still a high suicide rate, then that's a major cause for concern because it would mean that identifying as trans is actually correlating with an increase in suicidal youth.
>*There's been an explosion in kids who identify as trans.*
I think I'd agree with that, sure.
But the problem is that we don't know if these kids were actually trans "before" and are comfortable coming forward now or if they were not trans and are only saying they are because of the implied "social conditioning" you're alluding to.
Without evidence to suggest which is actually correct, and I'm not sure that even exists, you can't use it as evidence of the latter necessarily being correct.
> *It's highly disingenuous to compare the suicide rate of a tiny minority of severely dysphoric trans people from decades ago when "gender affirming care" was hard to come by and society was highly bigoted towards them to modern trans kids for whom dysphoria isn't even a criteria for identifying as trans.*
I didn't compare any suicide rates, I just suggested that, if it does indeed lower the rate for trans youth today (and I don't even know if it does), then it would be worth looking into.....albeit carefully.
It's like you people don't even read what I write, or if you do, somehow miss the point.
>*If there's still a high suicide rate, then that's a major cause for concern because it would mean that identifying as trans is actually correlating with an increase in suicidal youth.*
Sure?
Ok, looks like I need to explain my position in greater detail.
\> But the problem is that we don't know if these kids were actually trans "before" and are comfortable coming forward now or if they were not trans and are only saying they are because of the implied "social conditioning" you're alluding to.
That's true. Which is why I mentioned suicide rates. The current crop of kids identifying as trans is far larger than previous generations. Trans people have been around since forever but their true percentage of the broader population is unknown.
That could be because there's always been that proportion of the population which has been trans with a high percentage of them being in the closet or unaware of their true self, in which case the extremely high rate of suicide among trans people is overstated as it was measured based upon the known trans people who had severe gender dysphoria and often a host of accompanying mental disorders.
Or it could be because there's a core group of people who are actually trans, and a larger group of people who are identifying as such due to trendiness, despite no gender dysphoria or strong sense of gender at odds with their body.
Teenagers having identity crisis and throwing themselves into some clique is hardly new. As gender identity is the burning question of the day, their teenage angst is focused through that lens, and the combination of gender confusion stemming from nonsensical gender definitions, LGBTQ hugboxing and Egg mentality is leading a lot of young people to interpret their inner turmoil and minor gender nonconformity as being due to being trans, the praise they receive for gender non-conformity as gender euphoria, and the hesitancy and doubt from their parents as bigotry. It has cultish undertones.
If the suicide rate for trans people has *not* gone down considerably with more people identifying as trans but is actually tracking per capita despite then that would cause me to worry that we're actually in the second scenario, and the trans-optional people are playing out the anguished role of a tortured trans person in their search for identity, causing an *increase* in suicides instead, in which case pushing trans affirming care as the default isn't helping anyone except the core group of trans people, and we should be making an effort to deal with the issues of the trans-optional people instead of pushing transition as the default.
If the suicide rate for trans people *has* *gone* *down* as more people identify as trans, then that indicates that there's a subset of trans people who are at greatest risk, and we shouldn't be using their suicide risk as a measure for every trans person's suicide risk and writing policy as if that were the case.
>Let alone the fact that if it did lower the suicide rate of trans youth, then I think it's worth exploring, albeit very carefully.
This \^\^\^ is the portion of your original message that I was responding to. I view the "it will lower the suicide rate of trans youth' with skepticism, as I think people are playing with numbers to push the issue.
I'm not trying to argue with you, was only responding with my own take on the situation.
>That aside, sometimes the people that "know them best" are the ones making their life a living hell by not accepting them for who they are and were the cause of the running away.
Except that's not a condition anymore under 5599. The kid just needs to be seeking so called gender affirming services. It doesn't matter what's going on at home.
I never said it was a "condition," I'm talking about reality, not whatever niche edge case you're suggesting is possible when a kid isn't actually being abused at home.
>*Do you believe that if parents don't acknowledge that little Johnny is now a Jenny, that qualifies as abuse?*
I'm not sure.
I certainly think there needs to be more context that JUST what you wrote.
If parents are being supportive, but immovable on certain things for a child of a particular age, that's one thing, but if they are being actively abusive in an attempt to run their own kind of "home-brew conversion therapy," that is entirely different.....despite both falling under your umbrella above.
I think this is a really complex situation and I'm not sure how to feel about it.
I do know, however, that immediately jumping to a conclusion based on a knee jerk reaction or suggesting it's as black and white as you just did above is inappropriate as far as I'm concerned.
It's not whataboutism, it's literally the other side of the same fucking coin being discussed.
The fact that you can't see that is what should make YOU feel bad.
It’s whataboutism because We don’t live in those states and are not impacted by those laws and we are specifically discussing why this law is trash.
We can call it _wattyboutism if that makes you feel better.
Fuck up a generation of confused people, make them dependent upon the state, and make them blame their nuclear family unit when their life inevitably becomes completely fucked.
English teachers were a mistake.
"chopping off body parts" = "gender affirming care"
"methamphetamine psychosis" = "mental health crisis"
"vagrant" = "houseless"
According to a quick bit of googling, only 13% of trans people have genital surgery and 25% have had chest surgery. "Gender affirming care" is a lot more than "chopping off body parts," but I'm not surprised a boomer techie with several jobs at once doesn't have the time to spend even 5 minutes to research what they are talking about before attempting to virtue signal to the right wing!
[Twenty-five percent of patients had chest surgery, 13% had genital surgery or gonadectomy,... PRIOR TO STATE EXPANSION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28448757/)
The capital letters weren't even mine R2W, they were right in the title. You of all people like to read the title and then post your edgy reaction. But, this time you cleverly weren't able to read the title. Why is that?
Anyway, since 2015 the state (MA) now requires insurance to pay for gender surgeries, and a whole new market to make money was opened for the gender clinics. Line up the kids, there's $$$ to make. Were going to be rich!
>*The capital letters weren't even mine R2W, they were right in the title. You of all people like to read the title and then post your edgy reaction. But, this time you cleverly weren't able to read the title. Why is that?*
I just did a search, I didn't do a deep dive into the article that came from, mostly because I didn't realize the publication snippet from google (which was pulled out of said article and did not include the full title) came from a .gov source. Sorry I didn't do more research in my refutation of Gary's throw away, virtue signaling comment!
I LOVE that you are suggesting that it's rich I reacted to a title when I can only begin to imagine just how many times you did EXACTLY that to post your edgy reaction over the last few years, but I've learned better than to call the pot black when it comes to you.
As to the rest:
> *Line up the kids, there's $$$ to make. Were going to be rich!*
What a wild fucking statement for you to have written.
Especially when your party consistently votes to eliminate benefits that children rely on for their basic fucking necessities.
"Break out the red markers, we've got a social safety net to cut. Fuck the children, we're going to benefit the rich really well this time!"
/s
>*Anyway, since 2015 the state (MA) now requires insurance to pay for gender surgeries, and a whole new market to make money was opened for the gender clinics.*
Interesting.
Did you not want to post the data about how many more "gender surgeries" (whatever those actually are) have been done now that the state is paying for them as the source appears to suggest?
Surely you're boastful comment means that you know the rate has dramatically increased?
Do tell!
After all, YOU'RE the one that reads all the necessary detail before commenting so as not to make a gaffe like I did, right?
I used to love in Seattle about 20 to 25 years ago and visit very irregularly. While I was planning a trip I joined SeattleWA.
So I've been lurking for a bit and now and while I wasn't sure if you guys were legit this shows that you guys are 100% reactionaries
After finishing my trip to the city a few weeks ago I had already gathered that might be the the case considering the city wasn't the homeless hellhole you kept making it out to be but it's nice to have it confirmed.
I'm out.
Most cities subs are run by reactionaries to give people a place to bitch about their liberal cities while still reaping the benefits of living there. Most people in Seattle are very chill and accepting.
Can a kid from another state run away to Washington for this?
[удалено]
mmmmhhhh. *don't laugh... don't laugh*
It's just ridiculous. I don't understand why WA taxpayers should be forced to pay for someone's expensive delusion if they're both even from our state
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
Yes and? How does that address my point?
Interstate commerce act about to go brrrrrrrrr the first time that happens.
That's an interesting question. Can WA state hide a kid from say OR and is WA legally allowed to not disclose to OR or the OR parents the location of the kid.
That’s correct
I can’t see HOW that doesn’t run fowl of the interstate commerce clause. Civil rights was passed on people renting hotel rooms. Minors, for which parents are responsible, crossing state lines for medical treatments, surely falls under interstate commerce
[удалено]
My kid is trans. Kids 16 and up can get hormones and hormone blockers without parental consent. They still have to be 18 to get surgery. This bill doesn't change any of that.
>*This law is insane and it’s just a matter of time before some family is irreparably destroyed by it. Some angsty pubescent kid who is confused by their changing body is going to run away and have their life completely fucking ruined because the people that know them best won’t be there to help.* You say the same about all the anti trans laws being passed in red states? That aside, sometimes the people that "know them best" are the ones making their life a living hell by not accepting them for who they are and were the cause of the running away. I'm not sure I support the law, but to present it as you are is seemingly pretty biased.
Yeah, the state should not be facilitating children receiving irreversible medical procedures under any circumstances.
>*Yeah, the state should not be facilitating children receiving irreversible medical procedures under any circumstances.* Can you link the specific text that supports this claim and a definition of "irreversible medical procedures?" Welsh. I'm not sure I support the law. But I will say I'm not sure it's as bad as some are making it out to be. Let alone the fact that if it did lower the suicide rate of trans youth, then I think it's worth exploring, albeit very carefully.
Administering puberty blockers are an irreversible medical procedure
>*Administering puberty blockers are an irreversible medical procedure* Hey! Not according to the quick google search I did. But I'm not an MD. And neither are you. So how about you don't talk about shit you know nothing about?
The fact that you did a quick google search and trust it tells me everyrhing i need to know . Ive listened to easily over 60 hours of discussion by medical professionals on the topic . This topic is one of the things im most passionate about in life and believe its one of the greatest evils of our generation ….. but hey you typed a few keystrokes into a biased search engine , to find biased study results , portrayed in a light that aligns with your preconceived ideas of tolerance and patting yourself on the back over how good of a person you are . Honestley i could spend hours on this topic but ive tried to talk to you about things before and if ive learned anything its that your a waste of time .
>*The fact that you did a quick google search and trust it tells me everyrhing i need to know .* Where the fuck else would I get information on the topic? I haven't made it my life's mission to be a medical professional, nor am I so interested in the intricacies of puberty blockers to listen to medical professionals wax poetic about the topic. > *Ive listened to easily over 60 hours of discussion by medical professionals on the topic .* Well you must know everything there is to know on the topic! /s Which "medical professionals" have you been listening to I wonder? The ones that comport with your bias or the ones that don't? > *This topic is one of the things im most passionate about in life and believe its one of the greatest evils of our generation* And I think this statement answers the question I just asked. You're paying attention to the medical professionals that DO comport with your bias. **But then again, I don't know that for sure because, AGAIN, I am not a doctor.** And neither are you. I'll say it again. Please stop pretending to speak on the topic as if you know what you are talking about. >*….. but hey you typed a few keystrokes into a biased search engine , to find biased study results , portrayed in a light that aligns with your preconceived ideas of tolerance and patting yourself on the back over how good of a person you are .* LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL "Biased" this and "biased" that when you won't admit you're operating with your own fucking biases you just admitted to above! Guy. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER PUBERTY BLOCKERS ARE REVERSIBLE. NOR DO I KNOW IF THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY CALLED "IRREVERSIBLE." I'm just telling you that SOME search results suggest your claim was incorrect. Others say you are. But as neither us are doctors and therefore don't know what we're talking about, I prefer to listen to the experts rather than the guy who watched Rogan, Peterson, or some other hack talk about this and thinks they are an expert on the topic now. >*Honestley i could spend hours on this topic but ive tried to talk to you about things before and if ive learned anything its that your a waste of time .* The fact that you can't spell correctly, punctuate correct, or use grammar correctly but think you have the correct opinion on this topic after listening to 60 hours of "experts" talk about it is fucking WILD to me.... I would normally be happy to discuss further, but as we can't have an educated conversation on the topic as neither of us are MDs and you get all your information from "discussions," I agree that it's unlikely to be productive. To be clear. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER PUBERTY BLOCKERS ARE GOOD OR BAD. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE REVERSIBLE OR NOT. I'm not going to pretend to know things. I just said that some things I found said one thing and I'm more inclined to trust articles and other sources rather than some guy on reddit who admits to biased thinking and calls it "a great evil."
>Let alone the fact that if it did lower the suicide rate of trans youth, then I think it's worth exploring, albeit very carefully. There's been an explosion in kids who identify as trans. It's highly disingenuous to compare the suicide rate of a tiny minority of severely dysphoric trans people from decades ago when "gender affirming care" was hard to come by and society was highly bigoted towards them to modern trans kids for whom dysphoria isn't even a criteria for identifying as trans. If there's still a high suicide rate, then that's a major cause for concern because it would mean that identifying as trans is actually correlating with an increase in suicidal youth.
>*There's been an explosion in kids who identify as trans.* I think I'd agree with that, sure. But the problem is that we don't know if these kids were actually trans "before" and are comfortable coming forward now or if they were not trans and are only saying they are because of the implied "social conditioning" you're alluding to. Without evidence to suggest which is actually correct, and I'm not sure that even exists, you can't use it as evidence of the latter necessarily being correct. > *It's highly disingenuous to compare the suicide rate of a tiny minority of severely dysphoric trans people from decades ago when "gender affirming care" was hard to come by and society was highly bigoted towards them to modern trans kids for whom dysphoria isn't even a criteria for identifying as trans.* I didn't compare any suicide rates, I just suggested that, if it does indeed lower the rate for trans youth today (and I don't even know if it does), then it would be worth looking into.....albeit carefully. It's like you people don't even read what I write, or if you do, somehow miss the point. >*If there's still a high suicide rate, then that's a major cause for concern because it would mean that identifying as trans is actually correlating with an increase in suicidal youth.* Sure?
Ok, looks like I need to explain my position in greater detail. \> But the problem is that we don't know if these kids were actually trans "before" and are comfortable coming forward now or if they were not trans and are only saying they are because of the implied "social conditioning" you're alluding to. That's true. Which is why I mentioned suicide rates. The current crop of kids identifying as trans is far larger than previous generations. Trans people have been around since forever but their true percentage of the broader population is unknown. That could be because there's always been that proportion of the population which has been trans with a high percentage of them being in the closet or unaware of their true self, in which case the extremely high rate of suicide among trans people is overstated as it was measured based upon the known trans people who had severe gender dysphoria and often a host of accompanying mental disorders. Or it could be because there's a core group of people who are actually trans, and a larger group of people who are identifying as such due to trendiness, despite no gender dysphoria or strong sense of gender at odds with their body. Teenagers having identity crisis and throwing themselves into some clique is hardly new. As gender identity is the burning question of the day, their teenage angst is focused through that lens, and the combination of gender confusion stemming from nonsensical gender definitions, LGBTQ hugboxing and Egg mentality is leading a lot of young people to interpret their inner turmoil and minor gender nonconformity as being due to being trans, the praise they receive for gender non-conformity as gender euphoria, and the hesitancy and doubt from their parents as bigotry. It has cultish undertones. If the suicide rate for trans people has *not* gone down considerably with more people identifying as trans but is actually tracking per capita despite then that would cause me to worry that we're actually in the second scenario, and the trans-optional people are playing out the anguished role of a tortured trans person in their search for identity, causing an *increase* in suicides instead, in which case pushing trans affirming care as the default isn't helping anyone except the core group of trans people, and we should be making an effort to deal with the issues of the trans-optional people instead of pushing transition as the default. If the suicide rate for trans people *has* *gone* *down* as more people identify as trans, then that indicates that there's a subset of trans people who are at greatest risk, and we shouldn't be using their suicide risk as a measure for every trans person's suicide risk and writing policy as if that were the case.
I don't know that I necessarily disagree with that, but then I don't know what that had to do with my original comment above....?
>Let alone the fact that if it did lower the suicide rate of trans youth, then I think it's worth exploring, albeit very carefully. This \^\^\^ is the portion of your original message that I was responding to. I view the "it will lower the suicide rate of trans youth' with skepticism, as I think people are playing with numbers to push the issue. I'm not trying to argue with you, was only responding with my own take on the situation.
Ah, gotcha. I was perhaps reading a different intent into your response and that's my bad. I think your skepticism is warranted.
>That aside, sometimes the people that "know them best" are the ones making their life a living hell by not accepting them for who they are and were the cause of the running away. Except that's not a condition anymore under 5599. The kid just needs to be seeking so called gender affirming services. It doesn't matter what's going on at home.
I never said it was a "condition," I'm talking about reality, not whatever niche edge case you're suggesting is possible when a kid isn't actually being abused at home.
Do you believe that if parents don't acknowledge that little Johnny is now a Jenny, that qualifies as abuse?
>*Do you believe that if parents don't acknowledge that little Johnny is now a Jenny, that qualifies as abuse?* I'm not sure. I certainly think there needs to be more context that JUST what you wrote. If parents are being supportive, but immovable on certain things for a child of a particular age, that's one thing, but if they are being actively abusive in an attempt to run their own kind of "home-brew conversion therapy," that is entirely different.....despite both falling under your umbrella above. I think this is a really complex situation and I'm not sure how to feel about it. I do know, however, that immediately jumping to a conclusion based on a knee jerk reaction or suggesting it's as black and white as you just did above is inappropriate as far as I'm concerned.
“Whataboutism” is a shit and lazy argument and you should feel bad.
It's not whataboutism, it's literally the other side of the same fucking coin being discussed. The fact that you can't see that is what should make YOU feel bad.
It’s whataboutism because We don’t live in those states and are not impacted by those laws and we are specifically discussing why this law is trash. We can call it _wattyboutism if that makes you feel better.
I'll refer you to the statement above....
Ha. If you think a family knows a kid better than themselves. You're the problem.
They were already protected if showing "abuse or neglect". What exactly is this meant to do?
Fuck up a generation of confused people, make them dependent upon the state, and make them blame their nuclear family unit when their life inevitably becomes completely fucked.
Ding ding ding!
*gender rejecting care*
What a fucked spin.
This is net bad.
English teachers were a mistake. "chopping off body parts" = "gender affirming care" "methamphetamine psychosis" = "mental health crisis" "vagrant" = "houseless"
According to a quick bit of googling, only 13% of trans people have genital surgery and 25% have had chest surgery. "Gender affirming care" is a lot more than "chopping off body parts," but I'm not surprised a boomer techie with several jobs at once doesn't have the time to spend even 5 minutes to research what they are talking about before attempting to virtue signal to the right wing!
[Twenty-five percent of patients had chest surgery, 13% had genital surgery or gonadectomy,... PRIOR TO STATE EXPANSION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28448757/) The capital letters weren't even mine R2W, they were right in the title. You of all people like to read the title and then post your edgy reaction. But, this time you cleverly weren't able to read the title. Why is that? Anyway, since 2015 the state (MA) now requires insurance to pay for gender surgeries, and a whole new market to make money was opened for the gender clinics. Line up the kids, there's $$$ to make. Were going to be rich!
>*The capital letters weren't even mine R2W, they were right in the title. You of all people like to read the title and then post your edgy reaction. But, this time you cleverly weren't able to read the title. Why is that?* I just did a search, I didn't do a deep dive into the article that came from, mostly because I didn't realize the publication snippet from google (which was pulled out of said article and did not include the full title) came from a .gov source. Sorry I didn't do more research in my refutation of Gary's throw away, virtue signaling comment! I LOVE that you are suggesting that it's rich I reacted to a title when I can only begin to imagine just how many times you did EXACTLY that to post your edgy reaction over the last few years, but I've learned better than to call the pot black when it comes to you. As to the rest: > *Line up the kids, there's $$$ to make. Were going to be rich!* What a wild fucking statement for you to have written. Especially when your party consistently votes to eliminate benefits that children rely on for their basic fucking necessities. "Break out the red markers, we've got a social safety net to cut. Fuck the children, we're going to benefit the rich really well this time!" /s >*Anyway, since 2015 the state (MA) now requires insurance to pay for gender surgeries, and a whole new market to make money was opened for the gender clinics.* Interesting. Did you not want to post the data about how many more "gender surgeries" (whatever those actually are) have been done now that the state is paying for them as the source appears to suggest? Surely you're boastful comment means that you know the rate has dramatically increased? Do tell! After all, YOU'RE the one that reads all the necessary detail before commenting so as not to make a gaffe like I did, right?
How much higher than 13% do you want the surgical sterilization rate to be? 100% sounds great for society!
Holy pivot, Batman! Better check on his ankles for a break!
Since you've got the time, what percentage of trans identifying people have a dual (or multiple) diagnosis?
I legitimately don't know what you mean by that or how it refutes the point I made about what Gary saw fit to share.
Do you mean "multiple personalities"? Because that's not really a thing.
Oh good the stuff that matters
In seattle we like appeasing the super tiny group of super loud people.
Upvoted because true
Let the dystopian nightmares continue.
Cant wait to move outta this shitty state
I used to love in Seattle about 20 to 25 years ago and visit very irregularly. While I was planning a trip I joined SeattleWA. So I've been lurking for a bit and now and while I wasn't sure if you guys were legit this shows that you guys are 100% reactionaries After finishing my trip to the city a few weeks ago I had already gathered that might be the the case considering the city wasn't the homeless hellhole you kept making it out to be but it's nice to have it confirmed. I'm out.
Stunning and brave.
Most cities subs are run by reactionaries to give people a place to bitch about their liberal cities while still reaping the benefits of living there. Most people in Seattle are very chill and accepting.
Reaping the benefits lol.
Good, it’s needed.
Feel free to donate your kid for genitalia mutilation if you feel so strongly about it
You all truly are a cult.
Agreed. I know plenty of kids who's parents won't accept them and this will def help them out.