In other news…
-
I have no issue with someone who wants to do this and has been psychologically vetted. I do have a problem with it becoming a cottage industry with no vetting, just the whims of maladjusted youth milked for profit. If this stops it so much the better.
-
I have no issue with someone who wants to do this and has been psychologically vetted. I do have a problem with it becoming a cottage industry with no vetting, just the whims of maladjusted youth milked for profit. If this stops it so much the better.
@Mik said in In other news…:
I have no issue with someone who wants to do this and has been psychologically vetted. I do have a problem with it becoming a cottage industry with no vetting, just the whims of maladjusted youth milked for profit. If this stops it so much the better.
That’s where I used to be, but not as much, anymore.
-
Saw that. I’ve often said it’ll be malpractice liability that actually stops this. Or at least makes it more sane.
said in In other news…:
Saw that. I’ve often said it’ll be malpractice liability that actually stops this. Or at least makes it more sane.
-
And sanity. I've said it 100x, but when I'm old people will either look back and say "gramps... how dare you be against the idea that kids can change genders?" or "gramps, WTF were people even thinking saying boys could become girls?". Sure hope it's the latter.
-
@jon-nyc said in In other news…:
There’s word that the AMA might be next.
The AMA’s statement was meh. Frankly? While this is a positive story, there’s another part of me that says “Nope… Too little, too late. Reversing your stance AFTER the lawsuits start coming down? Suffer the consequences.”
I’d like to see some type of admission that they were wrong, instead of just a reversal of policy.
-
