Children are brutal when it comes to peer pressure and such. They do not engage in white lies, they say it as they think it is.

If you send your boy in a pink mini dress to school, you will not be doing him a favour.

There should be some rules on how humans present themselves when in public and in groups. I mean, if society would be such that ypu could walk down the city center naked with all reproductional organs exposed with nothing but a kkk t shirt, this simply would not find acceptance.

In summary, kids minds and kid environments like school are fertile grounds for bullying under peer pressure etc. It is good if a school promotes freedom of expression and tolerance, but some very vocal minority groups want everything yesterday and are pushing it down everyones throats.

Having had a close family member losing 5 years of his life and his savings to a fortuneteller crook has made me realize that people with too much of an open mind, in a crisis situation, will believe the most ridiculous coping strategies told to them by others. Kids are often insecure and easy to influence, I think they should be kept away from people promoting irreversible things like gender changes. Cigarettes , gambling and alcohol are forbidden to be promoted to minors, so should be this.

I understand that we have to realistically look at the effects these changes have on individuals. But I don't think that we have reached any kind of "optimal social rules". Deciding to stop right here and now seems arbitrary, and I'm reasonably certain that there have always been people making this exact argument for any kind of change.

> What do you mean by "healthy adults"?

By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.

Edit reply due to rate limit: yes I edited because I realised I’d already written this in the comment you were replying to, you just hadn’t bothered to read the comment before replying. I wanted to highlight how foolish you were. I hope you understand now.

And yes mutilating one’s body is harming it, I have no qualms in telling you this in a very direct non-quiet fashion. Stop encouraging people to wreck their bodies.

> Comfortable as the sex they were born with, acting however they like, without harming their bodies.

> I would have thought that was clear but if you were asking genuinely there’s your answer.

Yeah. It was clear to me that you were using "healthy" to assert that transgender people who transition are "unhealthy." That surgery is "harm." Your later edit

> > > Many people against gender theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.

> By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.

shows that you understand your initial statement to be a dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not to say the quiet part loud.

The topic here is about principles and rights of free speech. You've swerved into a debate about the legitimacy of transgender existence. I'm not here for that debate; you can keep yammering if you like.

You seem to be making some very strong assumptions about intent [E] and have been since your first response in this thread. As an outside observer, those assumptions don't seem supported by the conversation up to this point.

Instead of assuming this person is strongly biased and bigoted, perhaps can you instead assume they simply did not make the point they were trying to make as clearly as they would have liked, and thus revised their statement accordingly?

Something something positive intent and the like. Assuming negative intent when there's very little signal to support that assumption speaks more to your own prejudices and biases than anything else.

Trust, but verify. It's one thing to recognize a dog whistle and flip out. It's quite another thing to hear a dog whistle, ask for elaboration, and nope out when negative intent is revealed.

Yes I edited because I realised I’d already written this in the comment you were replying to, you just hadn’t bothered to read the comment before replying. I wanted to highlight how foolish you were. I hope you understand now.

And yes mutilating one’s body is harming it, I have no qualms in telling you this in a very direct non-quiet fashion. Stop encouraging people to wreck their bodies.

The ad-hominem response is little more than confirmation that I hold the higher ground.

I told you to stop harming children and you think that is ad hominem and proves you have the moral high ground?