Still worried about trannies, then?
Not worried about transvestites at all. You're displaying the knee jerk reaction to any criticism, anything not full support, as if trans people are perfect, and can never be criticized. Sorry homie - ain't no one above criticism.
At this point, I know a few, mostly through interactions in stores. I'm pleasant, even chatted with them. In a world where there are a fir number pf people who do have a problem with them, they appreciate a person who treats them as human. I'll note more than half of them stopped. Some just figured that as a gay person, they didn't need to "play dress-up" others decided a more traditional approach was the way.
No, mon ami, if you paid attention, it is not the transgender people I have issue with so much. They are just people, with all the pluses and minuses that individuals have. My issue is with the doctors who enjoy experimenting on them, who seem to be in a hurry to get really invasive with them, and were working the age down at which they start amputating primary and secondary sex organs on children way too young. It is the academics who preach that an ever increasing number of people are not the gender they were assigned at birth, and hose who believe that these children will never change their minds - we see this in the denigration of detransitioners. It is the schools that have been given the right to hide gender affirming treatment to children from the child's parent.
Assuming you are of the age of majority, I fully support you doing anything to your body you wish. As long as you aren't doing harm to others, you are free to take any measure on your body you feel like.
Here is what happens when your attitude that all things transgender are above reproach. Read this, and tell me that this is a great way to handle the issue https://www.newstatesman.com/p....
One of my favorite parts of the Tavistock Center FTA "From the middle of 2014, puberty blockers became routine clinical practice. On top of this, the service moved from an “age” to a “stage” approach, whereby access to medical interventions would be dictated by an individual child’s stage of puberty – in this case Tanner stage 2 – not their age. Provided a child had reached this early stage of puberty they could potentially be referred for puberty blockers. “Twelve is an arbitrary age,” Carmichael told the press at the time. Those starting puberty “aged nine or ten” could be considered for treatment from now on."
You think this is appropriate?