Swiss medicos go public; Tim Walz under scrutiny; surgery not so rare; Chilean clinics in legal vacuum; US fast-track for hormone docs; long wait in NZ; no advice on"chest-feeding"; pro-trans Germany
We don't pay you enough. Thank you again, Bernard, for this excellent round up.
Hubris of policy-makers aside, the concept of "trans refuge states" and the practice of removing children from parents' care when parents are not willing to play along with a fantasy that will destroy their childrens' bodies and lives are both simply evil.
So, American plastic surgeons acknowledge the uncertainty of the efficacy of surgical interventions in adolescents and our Australian plastic surgeons go, hey, let's just butcher late teens for no reason at all except...what? Money? When did we get so stupid?
I have a fantasy of a non-violent sex-realist underground railroad that would free gender-confused youth from their trans ally custodial parents and reunite them with the parent who does not want to see them subjected to gender drugs and surgical mutilation. The pitfalls and legal risks are enormous, but the cause is a just one.
Why did Walz back a law that allows Minnesota courts to deprive sex realist parents of custody of their children if they oppose the other parent's plan to subject their children to so-called gender affirming medical care?
It's simple. Trans activists have captured the leadership of the Democratic Party and convinced them to support gender identity ideology. Among liberals and progressives, "saving trans kids" has become a moral crusade.
Neither Walz nor any other Democratic governor would risk their political careers by appearing to side with "transphobes," the term activists, allies and even the media apply to anyone who questions any element of the trans agenda.
It is not an exaggeration to say Democrats would have viewed Walz's opposition to the pro-trans custody law as being tantamount to advocating the re-segregation of lunch counters and buses in the South.
We don't pay you enough. Thank you again, Bernard, for this excellent round up.
Hubris of policy-makers aside, the concept of "trans refuge states" and the practice of removing children from parents' care when parents are not willing to play along with a fantasy that will destroy their childrens' bodies and lives are both simply evil.
So, American plastic surgeons acknowledge the uncertainty of the efficacy of surgical interventions in adolescents and our Australian plastic surgeons go, hey, let's just butcher late teens for no reason at all except...what? Money? When did we get so stupid?
I have a fantasy of a non-violent sex-realist underground railroad that would free gender-confused youth from their trans ally custodial parents and reunite them with the parent who does not want to see them subjected to gender drugs and surgical mutilation. The pitfalls and legal risks are enormous, but the cause is a just one.
Thank you for these updates!
I just wanted to add that these drugs also harm young boys, although I know the special Rappoteur's job is the risks to young girls.
True! Re boys, see the embedded video. B
Why did Walz back a law that allows Minnesota courts to deprive sex realist parents of custody of their children if they oppose the other parent's plan to subject their children to so-called gender affirming medical care?
It's simple. Trans activists have captured the leadership of the Democratic Party and convinced them to support gender identity ideology. Among liberals and progressives, "saving trans kids" has become a moral crusade.
Neither Walz nor any other Democratic governor would risk their political careers by appearing to side with "transphobes," the term activists, allies and even the media apply to anyone who questions any element of the trans agenda.
It is not an exaggeration to say Democrats would have viewed Walz's opposition to the pro-trans custody law as being tantamount to advocating the re-segregation of lunch counters and buses in the South.