Homophobia

[morepork]

Is there a way to ban yourself from opening a particular thread?

Dick pic brother. Maybe tuck it up into a tasteful mangina.

How do you make a hormone?

Don’t open their thread.

[Puja]

What this thread makes me think of:



Puja

[Zhivago]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

The Inferno is a long time ago I guess. What happened to this place? These kind of pointless lame-ass replies are why we lost all of our posters. This place became so insipid, it's sad.

Don't suppose there's an archive of it somewhere?

[Puja]

I'm awfully sorry that my debating isn't up to your rigorous standards. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I have no particular interest in a friendly debate over whether I'm normal or good for society (the answer to both is no, but that has nothing to do with me being bi) and your desire to play "devil's advocate" over my existence is more inspiring me to laugh at you than argue with you.

Nonetheless, please accept my profound apologies for all the value that they're worth and do feel free to use the door if we're boring you.

Puja


PS. Anyone else read his post in Trump's voice? #sad

[Zhivago]

I'm awfully sorry that my debating isn't up to your rigorous standards. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I have no particular interest in a friendly debate over whether I'm normal or good for society (the answer to both is no, but that has nothing to do with me being bi) and your desire to play "devil's advocate" over my existence is more inspiring me to laugh at you than argue with you.

Nonetheless, please accept my profound apologies for all the value that they're worth and do feel free to use the door if we're boring you.

PS. Anyone else read his post in Trump's voice? #sad

You can play the victim card if you want. But I never questioned your right to exist. That's fake news.

[Son of Mathonwy]

We're so far off the rise of homosexuality risking the end of the human race that it's really not a serious point (and it's difficult to see how it ever could be since, for instance, many lesbian couples somehow find a way to have children). Let's just try to keep things non-coercive: let people be what they want to be.

It's not a choice for them. They are what they are. I'm not arguing against that. But let's not add more environmental/psychosocial stimuli that might influence their development without knowing what we're doing. And while we should stand up against discrimination, we don't need to be so radical that we antagonise sections of society that we should align with to fight the more important battle for economic liberation.

Of course, I agree, it's not a choice for them. From your earlier post, I think you are against discrimination but you don't want homosexuality to be seen as 'normal'? Is that your position?

Would you seek to control the language used when speaking about homosexuals (to avoid normalising homosexuality)?
Would you try to intervene (I'm not sure how?) if there appeared to be too high a prevelance of homosexuality in society?
What % of society could be homosexual before homosexuality became too 'normal' in your view?

[Zhivago]

We're so far off the rise of homosexuality risking the end of the human race that it's really not a serious point (and it's difficult to see how it ever could be since, for instance, many lesbian couples somehow find a way to have children). Let's just try to keep things non-coercive: let people be what they want to be.

It's not a choice for them. They are what they are. I'm not arguing against that. But let's not add more environmental/psychosocial stimuli that might influence their development without knowing what we're doing. And while we should stand up against discrimination, we don't need to be so radical that we antagonise sections of society that we should align with to fight the more important battle for economic liberation.

Of course, I agree, it's not a choice for them. From your earlier post, I think you are against discrimination but you don't want homosexuality to be seen as 'normal'? Is that your position?

Would you seek to control the language used when speaking about homosexuals (to avoid normalising homosexuality)?
Would you try to intervene (I'm not sure how?) if there appeared to be too high a prevelance of homosexuality in society?
What % of society could be homosexual before homosexuality became too 'normal' in your view?

I don't believe in controlling language used. I do think it's a bit of a contradiction to say something is both normal and a minority at the same time.

If there was a high prevelance of gender dysmorphism in society I would want to understand why. The % is not important but if it's increasing then why. Understanding demographic changes is surely important and I don't see why understanding demographic changes in sexual orientation and gender identity should be taboo. I don't think that society will be better off by fragmenting genders - seems a bit pointless to me.

So understanding through well funded research why this is occurring would be a priority. If there were avoidable causes then relevant action would be taken. For example, if certain chemicals in food or cosmetics were having an influence then those chemicals could be banned. If certain psychosocial stimuli had an impact (e.g. from societal factors) then it would need to be assessed depending on the situation, but at least increasing awareness among the populace of the impact of those societal influences would be a reasonable step to take and a discussion could be had.

The aim would not be focused specifically against homosexuality/trans etc, but it would be considered necessary to investigate for possible health issues caused by societal changes whatever they are and chemicals that might also have negative impacts on health, just like these days we have an awareness about EDCs. But I'm sure EDCs that we know about are just the tip of the iceberg.

[Puja]

Uh-uh-uh. I'm not "playing the victim card". I'm pointing and laughing at you. There's a fairly significant difference.

Remember - it's not an "appeal to ridicule fallacy" if the subject of the mockery is inherently ridiculous.

Puja

[Zhivago]

Uh-uh-uh. I'm not "playing the victim card". I'm pointing and laughing at you. There's a fairly significant difference.

Puja

It's the internet, bud. If it makes you feel better to laugh at me, then go right ahead.

[Stom]

Great, thank you, you giant cock womble. That's a potentially perfectly good thread derailed by you being an absolute dog turd of a human. Jesus wept.

You know what I hate?

I hate that my friend and her girlfriend are scared to hold hands in public.

I hate that someone I know was beaten for being gay.

I hate that my adopted nation has hosted 3 football matches and chanted homophobic abuse and placed homophobic banners around the ground at all 3.

Who fucking cares about someone else's sexuality. Every single person on this planet deserves the chance to be attracted to whoever they want to be, to go out with whoever they want to be, and to have sex with whoever they want. It's just like 1950's America (Oh, no darling, he's BLACK!). It's the same as the fucking trans toilet argument. No, she's not going to rape your daughter by walking into the girl's toilet. She just wants to fucking piss.

So fuck off you human turd.

[Zhivago]

Great, thank you, you giant cock womble. That's a potentially perfectly good thread derailed by you being an absolute dog turd of a human. Jesus wept.

You know what I hate?

I hate that my friend and her girlfriend are scared to hold hands in public.

I hate that someone I know was beaten for being gay.

I hate that my adopted nation has hosted 3 football matches and chanted homophobic abuse and placed homophobic banners around the ground at all 3.

Who fucking cares about someone else's sexuality. Every single person on this planet deserves the chance to be attracted to whoever they want to be, to go out with whoever they want to be, and to have sex with whoever they want. It's just like 1950's America (Oh, no darling, he's BLACK!). It's the same as the fucking trans toilet argument. No, she's not going to rape your daughter by walking into the girl's toilet. She just wants to fucking piss.

So fuck off you human turd.

I know you wanted a thread where you could have a collective hate session against your so-called adoptive country. Bad luck.

[Son of Mathonwy]

It's not a choice for them. They are what they are. I'm not arguing against that. But let's not add more environmental/psychosocial stimuli that might influence their development without knowing what we're doing. And while we should stand up against discrimination, we don't need to be so radical that we antagonise sections of society that we should align with to fight the more important battle for economic liberation.

Of course, I agree, it's not a choice for them. From your earlier post, I think you are against discrimination but you don't want homosexuality to be seen as 'normal'? Is that your position?

Would you seek to control the language used when speaking about homosexuals (to avoid normalising homosexuality)?
Would you try to intervene (I'm not sure how?) if there appeared to be too high a prevelance of homosexuality in society?
What % of society could be homosexual before homosexuality became too 'normal' in your view?

I don't believe in controlling language used. I do think it's a bit of a contradiction to say something is both normal and a minority at the same time.

If there was a high prevelance of gender dysmorphism in society I would want to understand why. The % is not important but if it's increasing then why. Understanding demographic changes is surely important and I don't see why understanding demographic changes in sexual orientation and gender identity should be taboo. I don't think that society will be better off by fragmenting genders - seems a bit pointless to me.

So understanding through well funded research why this is occurring would be a priority. If there were avoidable causes then relevant action would be taken. For example, if certain chemicals in food or cosmetics were having an influence then those chemicals could be banned. If certain psychosocial stimuli had an impact (e.g. from societal factors) then it would need to be assessed depending on the situation, but at least increasing awareness among the populace of the impact of those societal influences would be a reasonable step to take and a discussion could be had.

The aim would not be focused specifically against homosexuality/trans etc, but it would be considered necessary to investigate for possible health issues caused by societal changes whatever they are and chemicals that might also have negative impacts on health, just like these days we have an awareness about EDCs. But I'm sure EDCs that we know about are just the tip of the iceberg.

You need to be careful with your use of the word 'normal' here. You seem to be taking it to be synonymous with 'common', but that isn't correct and is a bit dangerous and insulting, since if something isn't normal, then it's abnormal, right? 'Normal' depends on context but can certainly mean 'naturally arising', so even rare things can be 'normal'. Left handed people are rarer than right handed, but they're not 'abnormal'.

We also need to carefully keep separate the 'is' from the 'ought'. Science tells us the 'is', ethics tells us the 'ought'.

Science has some way to go with the 'is', but questions of how sexuality is influenced by genetics, the environment, prenatal conditions, diet, family, peer groups, media and society in general are very interesting. Also interesting is the question of whether homosexuality arises (as it does across many species) as an occasional accident or if it is an effective evolutionary strategy (in the right circumstances).

As for the 'ought', the safest position is to allow a natural process to occur, unless we have good reason to do otherwise. Do we have any good reason to do otherwise?
1) there's no convincing reason to think that being gay or straight or bi or whatever makes one happier or makes ones life more valid or ones contribution to society more positive,
2) there's no convincing reason to think that increasing the prevelance of homosexuality in society (even to 100%) would make the species non-viable, since homosexuality does not seem to affect people's desire for children. It is pretty common for lesbian couples to find a way to have children. Also, putting a brake on population growth would hardly be a bad thing in today's world.
So we should leave it alone. Let people be what they feel they are inside, whatever makes them happiest.

And since anti-homosexual social pressures are surely stronger than pro-homosexual ones in most places on Earth, it is ridiculous to worry excessively about the latter. We should try to avoid pressuring people's sexuality in any direction.

In once sense I agree with you that societal and environmental factors which influence sexuality should be understood, but this should be for the purpose of minimizing such impacts (whichever direction the impact is), so people can be as free as possible, but I don't think we should consider any particular sexual orientation to be preferable to any other when making decisions for society.

[Son of Mathonwy]

What this thread makes me think of:



Puja

That's great. I know it's all total bullshit but I love the way you could take the same argument with a mixed sex but all-homosexual island, an all-straight-male island and an all-straight-female island, and conclude that straight males and females are unnatural, since they cannot produce offspring alone.

[Zhivago]

Of course, I agree, it's not a choice for them. From your earlier post, I think you are against discrimination but you don't want homosexuality to be seen as 'normal'? Is that your position?

Would you seek to control the language used when speaking about homosexuals (to avoid normalising homosexuality)?
Would you try to intervene (I'm not sure how?) if there appeared to be too high a prevelance of homosexuality in society?
What % of society could be homosexual before homosexuality became too 'normal' in your view?

I don't believe in controlling language used. I do think it's a bit of a contradiction to say something is both normal and a minority at the same time.

If there was a high prevelance of gender dysmorphism in society I would want to understand why. The % is not important but if it's increasing then why. Understanding demographic changes is surely important and I don't see why understanding demographic changes in sexual orientation and gender identity should be taboo. I don't think that society will be better off by fragmenting genders - seems a bit pointless to me.

So understanding through well funded research why this is occurring would be a priority. If there were avoidable causes then relevant action would be taken. For example, if certain chemicals in food or cosmetics were having an influence then those chemicals could be banned. If certain psychosocial stimuli had an impact (e.g. from societal factors) then it would need to be assessed depending on the situation, but at least increasing awareness among the populace of the impact of those societal influences would be a reasonable step to take and a discussion could be had.

The aim would not be focused specifically against homosexuality/trans etc, but it would be considered necessary to investigate for possible health issues caused by societal changes whatever they are and chemicals that might also have negative impacts on health, just like these days we have an awareness about EDCs. But I'm sure EDCs that we know about are just the tip of the iceberg.

You need to be careful with your use of the word 'normal' here. You seem to be taking it to be synonymous with 'common', but that isn't correct and is a bit dangerous and insulting, since if something isn't normal, then it's abnormal, right? 'Normal' depends on context but can certainly mean 'naturally arising', so even rare things can be 'normal'. Left handed people are rarer than right handed, but they're not 'abnormal'.
I don't much care for a debate about semantics but I just double checked multiple dictionaries (collins, oxford, cambridge) and they all seem to say that normal means usual, which is defined as 'happening most often'. I understand that the individuals concerned might be sensitive to this word, but that's its definition.

We also need to carefully keep separate the 'is' from the 'ought'. Science tells us the 'is', ethics tells us the 'ought'.

Science has some way to go with the 'is', but questions of how sexuality is influenced by genetics, the environment, prenatal conditions, diet, family, peer groups, media and society in general are very interesting. Also interesting is the question of whether homosexuality arises (as it does across many species) as an occasional accident or if it is an effective evolutionary strategy (in the right circumstances).
Agreed - I don't think it should be taboo to investigate this.

As for the 'ought', the safest position is to allow a natural process to occur, unless we have good reason to do otherwise. Do we have any good reason to do otherwise?
1) there's no convincing reason to think that being gay or straight or bi or whatever makes one happier or makes ones life more valid or ones contribution to society more positive,
2) there's no convincing reason to think that increasing the prevelance of homosexuality in society (even to 100%) would make the species non-viable, since homosexuality does not seem to affect people's desire for children. It is pretty common for lesbian couples to find a way to have children. Also, putting a brake on population growth would hardly be a bad thing in today's world.
They may desire children, but we can't get away from the fact that the biological process is what it is. I guess with artificial insemination, sperm donation, and surrogacy the option is there these days, but it seems very artificial and like a lot of extra effort just to replicate what happens naturally. I have nothing against this for people who are already LBGTQ+ but I do think that there are further ramifications that should dissuade us from letting this become the norm. Surrogacy for example is not ideal - who would be surrogates? Would it be poor people selling their body to the rich? That's basically what happens frequently now when surrogates from poor countries/communities are used. I think society's energies could be better directed.

So we should leave it alone. Let people be what they feel they are inside, whatever makes them happiest.
I never said otherwise, rather looking into the scenario what causes children to develop in this way.

And since anti-homosexual social pressures are surely stronger than pro-homosexual ones in most places on Earth, it is ridiculous to worry excessively about the latter. We should try to avoid pressuring people's sexuality in any direction.
I agree here, not much to add

In one sense I agree with you that societal and environmental factors which influence sexuality should be understood, but this should be for the purpose of minimizing such impacts (whichever direction the impact is), so people can be as free as possible, but I don't think we should consider any particular sexual orientation to be preferable to any other when making decisions for society.
I can agree to the principle that people should be free to make an informed decision. But that requires sufficient information, which needs sufficiently funded research and a conducive culture for that research and discussion to take place.

I've commented directly in the quote. You make some valid points which I mostly agree with at least partially. I appreciate you trying to debate the topic, far more interesting than ridicule.

[Sandydragon]

I thought today was a bit weird, then I read this.

WOW.

[Puja]

What this thread makes me think of:



Puja

That's great. I know it's all total bullshit but I love the way you could take the same argument with a mixed sex but all-homosexual island, an all-straight-male island and an all-straight-female island, and conclude that straight males and females are unnatural, since they cannot produce offspring alone.

What's best of all is that someone has actually taken this idea and written a genuine YA novel from it: Rainbow Islands

In the Christian Republic, homosexual people are given two choices—a camp to "fix" them, or exile to the distant islands populated by lesbians and gay men. Sixteen-year-old Jason chooses exile and expects a hardscrabble life but instead finds a thriving, supportive community. While exploring his identity as a transgender boy he also discovers adventure: kraken attacks, naval battles, a flying island built by asexual people, and a daring escape involving glow-in-the-dark paint. He also has a desperate crush on Sky, a spirited buccaneer girl, but fear keeps him from expressing his feelings. When Jason and his companions discover the Republicans are planning a war of extermination, they rally the people of the Rainbow Islands to fight back. Shy, bookish Jason will have to find his inner courage or everything and everyone he loves will be lost forever.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I thought today was a bit weird, then I read this.

WOW.

Haha. It’s quite a ride isn’t it.

I have a moderate level of sympathy with some of your arguments Zhivago, but you’re leaping around all over the place in terms of what point it is you’re really driving at.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I don't believe in controlling language used. I do think it's a bit of a contradiction to say something is both normal and a minority at the same time.

If there was a high prevelance of gender dysmorphism in society I would want to understand why. The % is not important but if it's increasing then why. Understanding demographic changes is surely important and I don't see why understanding demographic changes in sexual orientation and gender identity should be taboo. I don't think that society will be better off by fragmenting genders - seems a bit pointless to me.

So understanding through well funded research why this is occurring would be a priority. If there were avoidable causes then relevant action would be taken. For example, if certain chemicals in food or cosmetics were having an influence then those chemicals could be banned. If certain psychosocial stimuli had an impact (e.g. from societal factors) then it would need to be assessed depending on the situation, but at least increasing awareness among the populace of the impact of those societal influences would be a reasonable step to take and a discussion could be had.

The aim would not be focused specifically against homosexuality/trans etc, but it would be considered necessary to investigate for possible health issues caused by societal changes whatever they are and chemicals that might also have negative impacts on health, just like these days we have an awareness about EDCs. But I'm sure EDCs that we know about are just the tip of the iceberg.

You need to be careful with your use of the word 'normal' here. You seem to be taking it to be synonymous with 'common', but that isn't correct and is a bit dangerous and insulting, since if something isn't normal, then it's abnormal, right? 'Normal' depends on context but can certainly mean 'naturally arising', so even rare things can be 'normal'. Left handed people are rarer than right handed, but they're not 'abnormal'.
I don't much care for a debate about semantics but I just double checked multiple dictionaries (collins, oxford, cambridge) and they all seem to say that normal means usual, which is defined as 'happening most often'. I understand that the individuals concerned might be sensitive to this word, but that's its definition.

We also need to carefully keep separate the 'is' from the 'ought'. Science tells us the 'is', ethics tells us the 'ought'.

Science has some way to go with the 'is', but questions of how sexuality is influenced by genetics, the environment, prenatal conditions, diet, family, peer groups, media and society in general are very interesting. Also interesting is the question of whether homosexuality arises (as it does across many species) as an occasional accident or if it is an effective evolutionary strategy (in the right circumstances).
Agreed - I don't think it should be taboo to investigate this.

As for the 'ought', the safest position is to allow a natural process to occur, unless we have good reason to do otherwise. Do we have any good reason to do otherwise?
1) there's no convincing reason to think that being gay or straight or bi or whatever makes one happier or makes ones life more valid or ones contribution to society more positive,
2) there's no convincing reason to think that increasing the prevelance of homosexuality in society (even to 100%) would make the species non-viable, since homosexuality does not seem to affect people's desire for children. It is pretty common for lesbian couples to find a way to have children. Also, putting a brake on population growth would hardly be a bad thing in today's world.
They may desire children, but we can't get away from the fact that the biological process is what it is. I guess with artificial insemination, sperm donation, and surrogacy the option is there these days, but it seems very artificial and like a lot of extra effort just to replicate what happens naturally. I have nothing against this for people who are already LBGTQ+ but I do think that there are further ramifications that should dissuade us from letting this become the norm. Surrogacy for example is not ideal - who would be surrogates? Would it be poor people selling their body to the rich? That's basically what happens frequently now when surrogates from poor countries/communities are used. I think society's energies could be better directed.

So we should leave it alone. Let people be what they feel they are inside, whatever makes them happiest.
I never said otherwise, rather looking into the scenario what causes children to develop in this way.

And since anti-homosexual social pressures are surely stronger than pro-homosexual ones in most places on Earth, it is ridiculous to worry excessively about the latter. We should try to avoid pressuring people's sexuality in any direction.
I agree here, not much to add

In one sense I agree with you that societal and environmental factors which influence sexuality should be understood, but this should be for the purpose of minimizing such impacts (whichever direction the impact is), so people can be as free as possible, but I don't think we should consider any particular sexual orientation to be preferable to any other when making decisions for society.
I can agree to the principle that people should be free to make an informed decision. But that requires sufficient information, which needs sufficiently funded research and a conducive culture for that research and discussion to take place.

I've commented directly in the quote. You make some valid points which I mostly agree with at least partially. I appreciate you trying to debate the topic, far more interesting than ridicule.

Try the definitions of 'normal' here
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/normal
Particularly the medical definition:
a) free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b) of natural occurrence.

Additionally, do you really think it's accurate to describe left handed people as abnormal?

Even if you do think so, do you think it's helpful to the debate to use a potentially insulting term when you could use terms like 'common' or 'usual'?


Re a society with a higher proportion of homosexuals (even up to the extremely unlikely 100%): I'm not saying such a society would find it quite as easy to produce offspring as ours does: that's not required here. All that's needed is that it would not be likely to bring about the end of the human race. I think it's clear that it would not.

[morepork]

That's right. All the nuances of polygenetic psychocognitive development are covered right here, and if a gap in your understanding of how this pertains to the role of the epigenetic landscape in the evolution of human sexuality, there are blogs and YouTube videos that can point you in the direction of a predetermined narrative. Humanity has survived homosexuality thus far, and I'm sure it will continue to do so without much trouble. Beware the overextrapolation of reductionist biological phenomenon to something as complex as the whole human animal.

[Zhivago]

That's right. All the nuances of polygenetic psychocognitive development are covered right here, and if a gap in your understanding of how this pertains to the role of the epigenetic landscape in the evolution of human sexuality, there are blogs and YouTube videos that can point you in the direction of a predetermined narrative. Humanity has survived homosexuality thus far, and I'm sure it will continue to do so without much trouble. Beware the overextrapolation of reductionist biological phenomenon to something as complex as the whole human animal.

Are you saying it's 100% genetic?

In any case, it's clear that I'm arguing in favour precautionary principle and research. Not sure what there is to dispute about that.

[morepork]

I'm not saying it's anything over and above "it is not a problem". Research as a precaution against what exactly?

[Zhivago]

I'm not saying it's anything over and above "it is not a problem". Research as a precaution against what exactly?

Precaution against an unexpected course of development, a wayward course caused by environmental stimuli (both chemical and psychosocial) that the body does not expect to be exposed to during its development. When I say wayward course, I mean we should be cautious of the impact across many areas of development, not just gender identity and sexual orientation, but other things like physical and mental development too.

The endocrine system is a really finely balanced system and it can be far too easily disregulated. As an example, I would favour a lot more public education about the risks of the contraceptive pill for similar reasons. Perhaps the main underlying point I'm trying to make is that we should be more cautious in general, rather than experimenting with society's children's development so much, an experimental energy driven by our modern progressive social ideology and either a carelessness or a hubris that might have unintended consequences.

You work in the medical research area, right? You must know how much money influences research resource decisions. If not for public policy and research investigating this area, we would be even more impacted by these issues than we are. Compare EU vs US on regulation of EDCs for example. I'm simply saying that we should extend our investigations of this, and that such research will not be covered by the market-driven research funding decisions (unless there's a risk of lawsuit of course).

Regardless what impression might be caused by my posts in this thread, I am very socially liberal - I mean, I did decide to move to Amsterdam afterall (a very socially liberal city) for that reason. But we should not let our ideology blind us.

[morepork]

So...no emergency then. Who is experimenting with child development? Assuming you are alluding to some unregulated hormone bombardment on a whim or something? I'm not convinced this social engineering you believe to be taking place is in fact taking place.

[Zhivago]

So...no emergency then. Who is experimenting with child development? Assuming you are alluding to some unregulated hormone bombardment on a whim or something? I'm not convinced this social engineering you believe to be taking place is in fact taking place.

e.g.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cam ... e-55144148

Or are you denying that such 'treatments' are happening? Or do you claim they're not experimental?

This sort of thing is the sort of thing I'm talking about, although not just overt stuff like this, but less visible stuff like impacts from highly processed food, plastics in food packaging etc. There are a lot of environmental stimuli potentially impacting children's development that we need to be more aware of. Again, my concern is not limited to gender identity and sexual orientation, but is rather more encompassing and holistic. I don't see why we should exclude these issues when it comes to oversight and precautionary principle, just in order to avoid upsetting a particular minority.

And just to add a little bit of argumentum ad auctoritate... I studied endocrinology in university as part of my bachelors, so it's not like I'm coming at this topic without any background. I wrote papers about hormonal pharmaceutical treatments - not on this exact topic because it was a long time ago, before this became in vogue, but on stuff like assessments of the potential use of drugs like tamoxifen for osteopenic menopausal women. It's been a while, so I can't claim to be an expert now, but I have base knowledge that helps me to understand at least how complex the whole endocrine system is, and I don't think we should be so overconfident with how we mess around with it (intentionally or unintentionally).

[morepork]

So...no emergency then. Who is experimenting with child development? Assuming you are alluding to some unregulated hormone bombardment on a whim or something? I'm not convinced this social engineering you believe to be taking place is in fact taking place.

e.g.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cam ... e-55144148

Or are you denying that such 'treatments' are happening? Or do you claim they're not experimental?

This sort of thing is the sort of thing I'm talking about, although not just overt stuff like this, but less visible stuff like impacts from highly processed food, plastics in food packaging etc. There are a lot of environmental stimuli potentially impacting children's development that we need to be more aware of. Again, my concern is not limited to gender identity and sexual orientation, but is rather more encompassing and holistic. I don't see why we should exclude these issues when it comes to oversight and precautionary principle, just in order to avoid upsetting a particular minority.

And just to add a little bit of argumentum ad auctoritate... I studied endocrinology in university as part of my bachelors, so it's not like I'm coming at this topic without any background. I wrote papers about hormonal pharmaceutical treatments - not on this exact topic because it was a long time ago, before this became in vogue, but on stuff like assessments of the potential use of drugs like tamoxifen for osteopenic menopausal women. It's been a while, so I can't claim to be an expert now, but I have base knowledge that helps me to understand at least how complex the whole endocrine system is, and I don't think we should be so overconfident with how we mess around with it (intentionally or unintentionally).

"The judges said their decision was only on the informed consent of a child or a young person, not whether puberty blockers were appropriate themselves.

The ruling said: "The court is not deciding on the benefits or disbenefits of treating children with GD (gender dysphoria) with PBs, whether in the long or short term."

Why do I feel like I've been tricked into attending an undergrad physiology lecture given by the church of scientology?