I'm not concerned about the transgendered thing in the slightest. The 2nd part though, and the accompanying article are worring af though - I can't imagine a context in which a little girl lingerie show is appropriate, or anything less than disgusting

Welcome to our Brave New World. Ain't we happy?

As an adult who as a child dressed in the opposite gendered clothes and acted like the opposite gender, I am HIGHLY ALARMED by all the trans stuff targeted at kids. Forcing these complex topics and labels on young kids is absolutely child abuse. Kids need to be left time and space to figure out who they are as people, while also growing to understand concepts like time, permeance and gender. Labels are inherently constraining and not good for young kids anyhow.

There are many reasons why kids might want to be the opposite sex, many of which aren't permanent or biological. Kids have a hard time putting words to these reasons. But if we tell these kids this is because they are "trans" and put on them all these ideas that kids cannot fully comprehend, we will end up with kids who grow up to be adults permanently scarred both emotionally and physically, possibly left infertile by this direction.

We don't let kids get tattoos in childhood because we know they cannot comprehend permanence and who they might become later in life. We don't let kids get married or consent to sex because we understand they aren't capable of fully understanding the consequences of these things. Yet, many want us to let a 8 year old go on hormone therapy to permanently change their growing body. It's NOT right.

Yet, many want us to let a 8 year old go on hormone therapy to permanently change their growing body. It's NOT right.

The minimum age for hormone therapy is 16. 18 or 21 for any surgery.

But they are looking to change that part. And yes, they put kids on puberty suppressors before age 16.

They're not looking to change that part. There's no good reason to, especially since it would cause trans youth far more harm than benefit and among other things severely reduce adult sexual function.

Puberty suppressors are not hormone therapy, are fully reversible, have been used safely for decades, and are explicitly to allow trans youth time to mature before making the huge decision of whether to let their body develop male or female. They're the direct result of acknowledging that young teenagers may be too young to make that sort of decision just yet.

If you think suppressing puberty does not have serious consequences to how your body develops, you don't understand how the body functions. Long term use of the stuff is not good.

And again, there are trans kids going on hormone therapy. Look it up. Some kids with parental and doctor's permission are being allowed to do this, and it's just not wise to jump the gun like that.

If you think suppressing puberty does not have serious consequences to how your body develops, you don't understand how the body functions. Long term use of the stuff is not good.

These suppress only sex hormones, not the rest of puberty itself - so they continue growing taller for instance, and just don't develop secondary sexual characteristics. This may in fact be closer to 'normal', given that puberty has been happening earlier and earlier at an accelerated rate. A century or two ago, puberty didn't even hit until the mid to late teens.

Regardless, the benefits still far outweigh the costs - most would rather have a happy kid with slightly stunted growth than a kid who's dead from suicide or heavily depressed from dysphoria. Even if puberty blockers shaved a decade off the average lifespan (which it doesn't), most people would still consider it far better than the alternative.

And again, there are trans kids going on hormone therapy.

How old are you talking? I know of rare exceptions where 14 year olds have been approved for HRT (sometimes because they have severe body dysphoria and are incredibly suicidal), but they are not the norm, and are usually given a much lower dosage that imitates normal puberty. The standard is still 16.

Neither are they jumping the gun, because in those cases they need a lot of doctors' approval and assessment to get there.

Well it is jumping the gun if anyone thinks an 11 year old or even a 16 year old has the brain development to understand permanence and consequences. I understand how the hormone and puberty suppressants work. One of my closest friends counsels in this field.

But on top of all of it, there is damage done when kids are not given the opportunity to learn who they are at an early age, psychologically. Kids need to be given a chance to exist outside of complex labels they don't have the capacity to fully understand.

It's not necessarily about understanding permanence and consequences (which I believe 16 year olds at least definitely do), but about wanting to stop things that cause them pain, which requires no maturity.

It's precisely the understanding of permanence that makes them so desperate to start in the first place - they understand that many of puberty's effects are irreversible.

Kids need to be given a chance to exist outside of complex labels they don't have the capacity to fully understand.

I agree, but that's what puberty blockers are for. It buys them time. Right now, the evidence is that persisting gender dysphoria at the onset of puberty (12, 13) is practically certain to persist through life, with figures at or approaching 100%. By that age, these are kids who in all likelihood are going to grow up to be transgender adults.

So, when allowing medical intervention, the worst case scenario is that maybe 1% of youth treated realise they aren't trans after all or don't wish to transition. They go off the blockers, and just have puberty later than their peers. Maybe (though there's no evidence for this) they experience some stunted development, but are otherwise able to lead perfectly normal lives, including having children of their own.

Whereas if you deny such intervention to trans youth, the worst case scenario is that 99% of them grow increasingly distressed with their bodies, and will likely meet the current benchmark of about 41% attempting suicide. Rates for depression, anxiety and other mental health issues skyrocket during puberty for untreated trans youth; in the meantime, they'll be stuck developing bodies at odds with their identities, that may necessitate expensive and painful surgery in future to rid themselves of the dysphoria.

On the other hand, allowing that intervention eases that pain, and allows them to develop bodies phenotypically similar to others of their gender (voice, bone structure, etc). This eliminates a large contributor to psychological distress, and makes it a lot easier for them to blend in, reducing their vulnerability to assault and allowing them to have a normal life.

This approach has had overwhelmingly positive results. Here's a follow-up study done on trans youth who went on blockers followed by HRT. 7 years later, there were no regrets, all were satisfied, and their mental health was assessed to actually be better than that of their non-trans peers. This is all the more striking in comparison with that of trans youth who are not able to transition, as well as those who are only able to transition in adulthood. Other studies on socially transitioned pre-pubescent children show similar positive results, finding them to have normative mental health compared to the high occurrence of non-transitioned trans children their age.

Early medical intervention does actually save lives, and significantly improves the quality of those lives. While I understand the concern that someone who isn't actually trans may end up receiving treatments that are wrong for them, the chance of this happening is statistically very low, and the damage done to that individual would be minimal.

Okay, I can see where you are coming from with the puberty blockers. I did a little more research on them, and while they can have an negative impact on the body (like any pharmaceutical) the emotional impact of possibly being in the wrong body and having that forced on you more strongly in the middle of an already intense time in anyone's life could cause way more damage.

My biggest issue with it lies on the psychological side when kids are younger than puberty age, just because of my own personal experience. I dressed in opposite sex attire until about puberty, could even go as far as saying I wanted to be the opposite sex, but it was for reasons I could not articulate yet. Not necessarily because I was trapped in the wrong body. My parents did a good job of protecting me from outside influence and labels which allowed me to become who I truly am. Once I got older, I learned that adults labeled me homosexual or transgendered, but because those concepts never reached me, I got to just be me without it meaning anything more than me being me. And in reality, I never gave it much thought. I just did what I liked and what made me feel comfortable at the time. The growing approach of actively labeling these kids makes me concerned for those who might be on the fence or dressing in opposite sex attire for other reasons. Sometimes dawning labels is not beneficial for kids because if they don't know who they are yet, how can we force adult concepts on to them which tell them who they are?

Kids need time to just be and figure themselves out as they grow up and while it's very small circles of society which seem to be jumping the gun, I worry if the approach is going to continue to grow. And I worry about the kids getting these constricting labels at an early age. Labels are always constricting. Adults like to keep things neat and tidy, but life and nature are never that simple.

Yeah, I agree with that, which is why I mentioned young teenagers rather than children. From the stories I've heard of kids with a similar childhood as you, their desire to be the other sex was usually down to reasons that weren't technically about that: e.g. a boy who wanted to be a girl so he could play with 'girl toys', and a young lesbian who thought that the only way she'd be 'allowed' to like girls would be if she were a boy. By the time they hit puberty, their response to physical changes or impending physical changes usually overrides that, and then it becomes a biological rather than social issue.

This was one problem with the DSM-III and IV, where you and others would likely have met the criteria for Gender Identity Disorder. It's behind the alleged stat of 80-90% of trans children not growing up into trans adults. Many of them weren't actually trans in the first place, despite meeting GID criteria. But we're now on the DSM-V, which places less emphasis on stereotypical interests and closes some of those loopholes to more effectively screen for trans kids.

For me, while as a kid I desperately wanted to be a boy, at the onset of puberty I discovered to my horror that I was attracted to boys. I thought that this meant I'd 'have' to be a girl, then (which is also what everyone had been insisting I was) and was very upset but resigned. Yet with the physical changes came major, major body dysphoria that made it impossible for me to just accept what others were telling me I was, and after spending my teen years in clinical depression I eventually came out at 21 and transitioned to male. The past 7 years since have been the best of my life.

That's one reason I have trouble believing that kids might submit so easily to the labels forced on them. It didn't work for me, despite my own and everyone's efforts (conservative Christian upbringing) and my complete lack of knowledge that gay trans men could even exist. I was convinced I couldn't be trans if I liked guys. I have no reason to expect my identity to be any more resilient than others, and so I'm sure that if a young teen were wrongly labelled as trans, they'd notice that and do something; admitting one was wrong is embarrassing and difficult, but it would be nothing compared to experiencing one's body develop in a way that feels completely wrong.

I've been reading up a lot on the protocol for trans youth, and the doctors and psychiatrists involved are all very aware of the issues you mention. There's a lot of emphasis of treating each child as a separate case, and taking things slowly. Their priority is in reducing distress rather than putting them on any particular transition path: e.g. if a kid is extremely upset at having long hair, give them a haircut. If they really want a partcular toy or clothes that's for the 'wrong' gender, let them. These are all done without social transition, and continuing to refer to them as their assigned gender and pronouns. But if those things are themselves a persistent source of distress, they change them accordingly and see what happens. It's basically a harm-reduction approach with a lot of monitoring to see what works and what doesn't.

I know of one frustrated mother with a feminine son where well-meaning adults keep asking if he's a trans girl, or peers telling him he should be a girl, but he's adamant that he's not, and angry that they keep asking. Should they push him further, it's possible he might get confused, but it's the sort of thing that would come up in any psychiatric assessment - "Why do you want to be a girl?" / "I don't want to be a girl, but everyone keeps telling me I should be" - and would be an instant red flag that this kid is not trans.

Same approach at puberty - IIRC one study on trans youth found that only about a third were assessed to be suitable candidates for puberty blockers, and out of that third not all of them chose to do so, even if they were firm in their trans identity. So it's definitely not a matter of adults taking non-gender-conforming kids and pushing them straight into social transition and then puberty blockers, because there are a lot of checks and balances along the way.

How is that second article normalizing it? It's pointing out how people are shocked and opposed to it and find it inappropriate.

Yeah, was going to say the same thing. The article attacks the idea of it.

That said, that shit is disgusting and should be made illegal.

For or against, constantly having it on people's minds is what is important to the process of "normalization".

It's a "doth protest too much" thing. One picture surely would've sufficed, but the story's loaded with pix and a video. They know what they're doing.

By opposing it in too much detail, they secretly support it!

DARE to keep kids off drugs!

And now HRT is being approved for children. This has potential make an entire generation non-fertile and unable to reproduce.

You do realize trans people are, like, a fraction of a percent of the population, right? If there were a massive conspiracy to depopulate the world, they'd have way better methods.

I always wonder why the sudden push for that movement when it is such a small segment of the population. Maybe could be possibly related to the transgendered nature of Satan?/occultism?

Or, alternately, lots of people think being horrible for no reason to people just trying to live their lives is a Bad Thing.

Of any group to choose to do that for--this specific one? I find it highly u likely it's random

Consider the significance of identity to an individual and how that changes when they transition. There is a reason why a lot of the LGBTQ community is highly sexualized and full of porn culture.

I'm not challenging nor have I the justification nor how horrible it really is. I truly agree equity and equality need to be rehashed and there's horrible maltreatment going around. I'm simply challenging the media and tptb's choice in a social issue given the many different ones around that could easily arguably justify a greater social presence or media presence or overall affect more people than this one issue. That's all I'm saying. The outrage makes sense. The singling out of this topic amongst others doesn't is all

There is a reason why a lot of the LGBTQ community is highly sexualized and full of porn culture.

Most of us are just folk. Insofar as things are sexualized, it's a response to a culture that would prefer to keep us hidden.

Insofar as things are sexualized, it's a response to a culture that would prefer to keep us hidden.

Could you please explain this?

Suppose you spent your whole life burying your sexuality because other people didn't like it or thought it was too "dirty" or "deviant". Every activity that is perfectly normal to another couple - kissing your beloved, holding hands in public, having a wedding, having or adopting a child - gets shamed up one side and down the other when it comes to you.

When you break away from that worldview, and find yourself an accepting community, do you think you're going to go "well I should really suppress things a bit and try not to make people uncomfortable"? Remember, the people who are uncomfortable with it are the same people who have spent your entire life telling you that your happiness equals the decay of society as we know it (and that's if your lucky - many of them think it's a personal moral failing on your part). It's not so surprising that some folks have no interest in playing along after that sort of treatment.

Like, I'm a relative moderate, and I had the advantage of changing my worldview long before I knew I was trans. But even I feel unbridled disgust for the worldview with which I was raised, especially when I've seen the people who lectured me on the sanctity of marriage get divorced after decades of misery, the people who told me they just want civil debate equating me to a child molester, and the people telling me they're "just looking for the truth" dismissing overwhelming evidence as conspiracy or lies.

Suppose you

Why are you writing like this? Seems very emotive.

That's because it is.

Because he is explaining what its like to be them.

Intentionally so, I'm trying to help people understand where others are 'coming from'.

Suppose you spent your whole life burying your sexuality

The number of people born with gender dysphoria is estimated to be about 0.005% to 0.014% in males and 0.002% to 0.003% in females (http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Page 454). This shows that only a minute number of people have gender dysphoria due to internal influences.

What we see today is gender dysphoria up to 1.2% in New Zealand high-school students (http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(13)00753-2/fulltext) and a more average percentage of 0.5% in Massachusetts adults (http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300315?journalCode=ajph).

This shows that most people with gender dysphoria didn't spend their whole life with it, as you've claimed, but instead have been externally influenced by peers, media, school, and society in general later on in life.

Remember, the people who are uncomfortable with it are the same people who have spent your entire life telling you that your happiness equals the decay of society as we know it.

This could just as well be turned the other way around. Do you know how often the word "bigot" is thrown around when people criticize the LGBT community? I don't oppose the LGBT community simply because they are different than me. I oppose it because I have legitimate concerns for society.

I have never gotten any constructive feedback after I voice my opinion. Just a bunch of emotions and buzzwords.

It's not so surprising that some folks have no interest in playing along after that sort of treatment.

Yeah, no kidding. The same goes for me.

Like, I'm a relative moderate...

You are extremely out of touch with history because relatively speaking, you are a radical. I am the moderate one here.

...especially when I've seen the people who lectured me on the sanctity of marriage get divorced after decades of misery...

This didn't happen so much 75+ years ago. Society has been on a steady downhill course for quite a few decades now. The efflorescence of the LGBT community is yet another example of this.

...the people who told me they just want civil debate equating me to a child molester...

I don't think being in the LGBT community means you are equatable to a child molester, but I believe that the LGBT community is the next step towards enabling pedophilia. It is a slippery slope. If kids have the cognitive ability to think up their gender, why can't they consent to sex too?

...dismissing overwhelming evidence as conspiracy or lies...

Could you elaborate on this please?

The number of people born with gender dysphoria is estimated to be about 0.005% to 0.014% in males and 0.002% to 0.003% in females (http://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Page 454). This shows that only a minute number of people have gender dysphoria due to internal influences.

The full page is paywalled, but I suspect you are grossly misinterpreting those numbers, which are several orders of magnitude below the usual numbers. I usually use numbers between 0.2% and 0.5%, depending on where a person in question is drawing the line. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates 700k trans people in the US, which accords with my numbers.

0.005% is 1 in 20,000, which would yield 15,600 trans people in the US. /r/asktransgender alone has triple that number of subscribers (just shy of 45,000) and is, as the rest of Reddit is, predominantly US-based, so that number fails even a basic smell test.

Even if that is a correctly cited number, and I seriously doubt that it is, the discrepancy has many other possible explanations. Maybe only a small fraction seek or access treatment, or maybe the DSM is using a much stricter definition (e.g. "has had sex reassignment surgery") that lowers the number.

What we see today is gender dysphoria up to 1.2% in New Zealand high-school students

Alternately, 1.2% of NZ high school students are happy to troll a poll. See this article on problems with very small subgroups being drowned out by trolls, misunderstandings, or deliberate sabotage.

But again, even if that number were accurate, so what? Unless you have evidence to suggest that many of them don't feel that way decades later - and you don't, because the only evidence even suggestive of such a conclusion is in small children and is full of holes - all you've shown is that youth are more likely to self-identify than the old. But that's true for e.g. sexuality, as well; Millennials are many times more likely than the pre-WWII generation to identify as LGBT in general (which, because of the relative prevalences, is effectively a number for LGB people).

This shows that most people with gender dysphoria didn't spend their whole life with it, as you've claimed, but instead have been externally influenced by peers, media, school, and society in general later on in life.

As above, it shows nothing of the kind, even assuming that your numbers are accurate (which I do not think they are).

Do you know how often the word "bigot" is thrown around when people criticize the LGBT community? I don't oppose the LGBT community simply because they are different than me. I oppose it because I have legitimate concerns for society.

No, you don't. None of your concerns are borne out by fact, and yes, it is a little bit unpleasant to have my well-being in my private life ascribed to a shadowy and motive-less conspiracy to destroy all that is good and decent.

Yeah, no kidding. The same goes for me.

I don't really hope to win over someone who thinks whites are hopelessly discriminated against, that Trump is Literally The Most Oppressed, and that colonialism was great for everyone involved. Your post history is practically a checklist of bullshit far-right talking points, which means you're effectively operating in a totally different reality from me. There's not a lot of point.

You are extremely out of touch with history because relatively speaking, you are a radical. I am the moderate one here.

'Relative' there was 'to other LGBT people', not to history as a whole. I freely admit that I think most of history got this one wrong.

Society has been on a steady downhill course for quite a few decades now.

I mean, aside from things like violent crime, major wars, economic stability, and "number of billions of people starving".

The percentage of single mothers, feminism (the two are related)

checks another box

Oh! Oh! I think that's a bingo!

I don't think being in the LGBT community means you are equatable to a child molester, but I believe that the LGBT community is the next step towards enabling pedophilia.

Okay, setting aside how absurd this claim is for a second - why? How is it possibly worth setting up a massive, multi-decadal, multi-stage conspiracy involving every major medical organization on the planet to normalize diddling kids? Who the hell benefits? Even if we - for some reason - took for granted that everyone in power is a pedophile, someone with that kind of absurdly far-reaching power doesn't really need to worry about public views anyway.

The logic is that if kids have the cognitive ability to think up their gender, why can't they consent to sex too?

Because one is demonstrably damaging to them and the other is not.

Could you elaborate on this please?

You know very well what I'm talking about. So no.

I love discussing the word bigot because the people who use it the most seem to be the most "intolerant of the viewpoints of others," which is the textbook definition of a bigot.

The whole point of putting the spotlight on it is to give the impression it is much more common than the numbers indicate.

I oppose that. I hate pride parades. But I cannot make myself not LGBT.

What does being LGBT mean to you?

being either not exclusively attracted to the opposite gender or having a gender identity differing from the one you were assigned at birth.

being either not exclusively attracted to the opposite gender...

That would make you bisexual, not LGBT.

having a gender identity differing from the one you were assigned at birth.

That would make you transgender, not LGBT.

My point is that this is all identity politics. Just like you can be good at chess but not belong to any club, you can be gay or transgender or bisexual and not belong to the LGBT community.

I'm not talking about the LGBT community, I'm talking about the state of being LGBT.

Gay people aren't exclusively attracted to the opposite sex either.

I think you're just getting hung up on semantics.

I'm not talking about the LGBT community, I'm talking about the state of being LGBT.

You can be lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender but that doesn't make you LGBT by default. This is important to distinguish especially when you boldly claim that "I cannot make myself not LGBT".

What do you think the B and T stand for?

I know what it stands for, and patronizing me isn't going to get you anywhere.

Bacon and tomato, apparently. (and L is for lettuce).

I suspect this is a troll account (not the Russian bot kind, the KenM kind). Or he/she is insane. The post history is bizarre, to say the least.

I'm not a troll account but my post history is in fact extremely bizarre. Well, I took too many shrooms. Yeah, I fucked up haha. But I wouldn't let being LGBT distort the validity of someones arguments so I hope you can find it in you to do the same.

What did I say that was bizare?

That's a diverse community and can't be painted with a broad brush like that. Lesbians and gay men, for instance, have very different sexual behaviors, in aggregate. And even then individuals vary.

I know that the LGBT community is diverse which is why I said "a lot" and not "all of". If you think I am pulling this out of my ass, just go to any single pride parade out there and report what you see. Everyone stereotypes to some degree or another.

Of course I don't. I presented two broad aggregates of behavior, didn't I?

Of course I don't.

What are you referring to?

And yes you did, fair enough. Care to tackle my claim though?

I think there is some truth to it, but the data needs to be decomposed. Its like saying that America is a fabulously wealthy country. We have tremendous inequality so it depends on where you point the camera.

Of any group to choose to do that for--this specific one?

It's an easy fix. Fixing, say, poverty requires sorting out all sorts of social and political problems. Not being dicks to people doesn't require any resources (if anything, it requires fewer than being dicks to them).

Intangible fixes seem to be a lot harder to fix than tangible ones. Err. At least to combat argumentatively in the political spectrum

Because society only made advances in ethics concerning transgender people? Yea right. Not blacks, gays etc. no no

Not at all what I said

NONONO That can't be it! It must be the "make everyone transgender agenda of TBTB. Wait, you're saying TBTB actually suppressed transgender people for centuries? Well huh umm

Baphomet has both male and female features, so yes.

Yet they are constantly under fire and threatened.../s

Yes, they are. I lost my family when I decided to transition, as have around 1 in 4 of the (many) other trans people I know. Others have lost jobs, homes, or any number of other things for it.

Degeneracy is on the agenda. That is what they are pushing, the same as they did in Germany prior to WW2.

That is what they are pushing, the same as they did in Germany prior to WW2.

You do realize the Nazis started out by literally burning research on LGBT people, right?

I mean the other side.

They didn't push "degeneracy". They pushed an excessive purity agenda and a whole bunch of conspiratorial thinking.

What might those methods look like? Maybe a nationwide compulsory vaccination program? What else?

What might those methods look like? Maybe a nationwide compulsory vaccination program?

Not a very effective one, given that infertility rates have fallen over past decades.

I saw this today and it bothered me also

It's only left-wing transgender people who encourage pedophilia. Right wing trannies such as myself are virulently opposed to it.

How are they encouraging it in any way? To be honest I think that statement is just asinine.

Um I don't think children should be wearing lingerie but that's just me.

Ew, I can't even stand to read that. Yeah, it's really outlandish. I agree with you in that regard. I still don't think that justifies your conclusion for such a large group—the majority of which, I'm hoping, would agree with us.

large group of whom? Liberals?

Liberals love pedophilia. See: pizzagate

How much of the U.S. do you suppose lean left? Do you consider all of them in this group?

Around 50%

Yes, all of them.

That don't make no sense. What about asexual liberals?

they lie.

How so?

The entire democratic party is about molesting children. It's in their platform. So if they consider themselves a liberal, saying they're asexual is just a cover for their deviant behavior.

Since when is being a democrat any indication of someone's sexuality? It's not like it goes heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, democratic, etc.

Well their sexuality can dictate which gender they want to molest.

So you admit that they have a sexuality unique from their political leaning?

Yes, but the only actual asexuals are right-wing.

This goes back to my question. Why is their sexuality linked to their political beliefs?

Because there is no motivation for a truly asexual person to join the democratic party. If they're asexual, then they do not want to molest kids, and therefore will be right wing. But heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals alike do have a motivation for being a Democrat.

Are you saying there's no other reason to be democrat? Does that imply there's no other reason to be republican as well?

Yes, only a child molester would want to be a Democrat.

The Democratic Party is Communist, so even the "the Democrats are too far right for me types" in r/socialism are child molesters too.

Not everyone who is right-wing is a Republican. I'm not one.

I still don't understand why everyone who leans left is a molester.

lingerie is just underwear. Kids should wear it.

Trannies belong in a loony bin.

mad.

Gender dysphoria. "Want to be rid of their own genitals". If someone said they wanted to hack off their hands because they simply hated them, you'd call them insane, right?

Well I don't have genital dysphoria personally. I have dysphoria about everything else related to my appearance.

The example you were giving is an actual disorder.

The DSM still considers Gender Identity Disorder to be a disorder. But the widely recognized treatment for it is transition. Nothing else has been shown to work. Trans conversion therapy doesn't work for the same reason gay conversion therapy doesn't.

Hahaha, so funny. I hope you find that loony bin soon.

Haha, you don't have a comeback to what I said.

The sexualizing of children is pure abhorrent betrayal of those who most need to be protected

Agreed. It is the sign of the age. The great beast 666 predicted the rise of the woeman and the worship of the child. It's downright frightening to me what they are doing to kids.

Yahoo is reporting on a story with the child lingerie, and the article states people think the show has totally crossed the line and called the images 'shocking'.

Yet they included plenty of photos.

Of course they did. Outrage, shock, anger and perversion all get them clicks that way.

I find the encouragement of transsexuality in children to be the first step in depopulating the West

Lol, the first stage? You're a few decades late to the party. This is just another little tactic in a long line of tactics aimed at destabilizing and depopulating us.

If you haven't listened to cutting through matrix with Alan Watt, you should. If you have, tonight's episode touches on this. If a farmers herd wasnt reproducing he'd get alarmed. if he was trying to cull the population this would be a less bloody route.

I've been thinking about this again lately... and increasingly I am in support of such measures, if only for the entertainment value.

The Transgender Agenda is specifically targeting children for a very long time. Like the Drag Queens in public libraries thing.

I don't know why when i bring up the Drag Queen in Libraries thing i get ridiculed but something is going on and this.

war is not working as a generational thing, so different techniques to depopulate have been developed.

The demons loves this kind of stuff

I hate replies like this. Demons do not actually exist and if they did, you should read their history. They were called Daemons once and were actually bringers of knowledge. You could raise a Daemon if you needed help in a particular field. They came as scientists or just general helpers. Like a daemon based internet almost. Not the most evil thing I have ever heard of. Then the church came along and didn't like knowledge...the rest is history. All you do is quote some bible propaganda, like a good slave to god. Read up on things. Knowledge is power to recognise what is really going on.

Verizon owns Yahoo now. Wonder how the Verizon corporate leaders would feel about this?

They're probably placing their orders based on the photos...

THey took down the pictures from the 2nd article.

*transgender

DARE to keep kids off drugs!

Yes, they are. I lost my family when I decided to transition, as have around 1 in 4 of the (many) other trans people I know. Others have lost jobs, homes, or any number of other things for it.

Agreed. It is the sign of the age. The great beast 666 predicted the rise of the woeman and the worship of the child. It's downright frightening to me what they are doing to kids.