Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Define 'extremely early' and let us know the statistical percentage of humans in your category. Humans start puberty at different times. There is no reason to treat kids with early onset of puberty. Maybe we should study outliers but, the definition of outliers has been diluted by the queer radicals.It's when puberty starts extremely early. It was the impetus for the original use of puberty blockers.
Precocious puberty - Symptoms and causesDefine 'extremely early' and let us know the statistical percentage of humans in your category.
Is that your common person opinion or your professional medical opinion?Humans start puberty at different times. There is no reason to treat kids with early onset of puberty. Maybe we should study outliers but, the definition of outliers has been diluted by the queer radicals.
I asked you a question about when you think it's too early for a kid to start puberty and your stats that show how many kids are affected, at what age, etc. That would give a good insight as to whether or not this is a real problem or not. You are assuming it is and seem to promote either shooting kids up with hormones or hormone blockers or maybe cutting off body parts. So prove it.Is that your common person opinion or your professional medical opinion?
From a stupid, ignorant, vapid poster.What a stupid, ignorant, vapid post ^^^^^
I'm not assuming anything Short Bus, I've actually researched this a little before spouting an uniformed opinion like you.I asked you a question about when you think it's too early for a kid to start puberty and your stats that show how many kids are affected, at what age, etc. That would give a good insight as to whether or not this is a real problem or not. You are assuming it is and seem to promote either shooting kids up with hormones or hormone blockers or maybe cutting off body parts. So prove it.
Do you agree with PP’s ad?Triggered?
Another falsehood spewed by CG: “puberty blockers cause no harm”. One of the main hormone blockers given is known to lead to bone loss and increase the likelihood of osteoporosis later in life.That's thing about sharing your opinions with the public. We all get to sit and have a good laugh.
Also if you morons are curious, the people with medical knowledge, rather than your common knowledge, say puberty blockers cause no harm and are actually helpful to people with gender dysphoria since the physical changes that come along with puberty can exacerbate feelings of dysphoria.
Removing children from families who refuse the surgery.How far does "Planned Parenthood" want to go besides killing the unborn?
dailycaller.com
They already block puberty by providing abortions.These people are evil.
Planned Parenthood under fire for ad that pushes puberty blockers
Planned Parenthood is receiving backlash for an ad that teaches teenagers different ways of delaying puberty including the use of puberty blockers, which can halt voice deepening and menstrual cycles.www.dailymail.co.uk
Leftists hate themselves and by extension, hate everyone and everything, and are showing us how many creative ways they can come up with to end the human race. If you can't kill them before birth, just sterilize them.They already block puberty by providing abortions.
Is this how you debate? With declarations to the gallery? I acknowledge that one of the side effects of hormone blockers is calcium deficiency, and possible bone loss and an increased risk to osteoporosis. But why didn't you include how much of an increased risk? Why didn't you mention that this is why physicians treating teenagers with hormone blockers monitor bone density so that they can adjust medications and treatment as needed?Another falsehood spewed by CG: “puberty blockers cause no harm”. One of the main hormone blockers given is known to lead to bone loss and increase the likelihood of osteoporosis later in life.
You're not the sole authority or even an authority of when puberty blockers are appropriate. That isn't your choice to make for others.A valid time when hormone blockers are appropriate a three-year-old experiences signs of puberty. When males show signs of prepubescent puberty, typically their voices become much lower and other signs such as facial hair. Because of the way the bones are rushing to connect during this phase, these males (without puberty blockers) are much shorter than their peers and remain so. Hormone blockers given to prepubescent kids who are exhibiting signs of prepubescent puberty help slow down the process significantly.
But, do you agree with pp's ad?I certainly don't agree with you morons.
If you disagree with it then sure. I'm comfortable with that being my bellwether.But, do you agree with pp's ad?
First I will ask you, how do the following two statements made by you coincide:Is this how you debate? With declarations to the gallery? I acknowledge that one of the side effects of hormone blockers is calcium deficiency, and possible bone loss and an increased risk to osteoporosis. But why didn't you include how much of an increased risk? Why didn't you mention that this is why physicians treating teenagers with hormone blockers monitor bone density so that they can adjust medications and treatment as needed?
You're not the sole authority or even an authority of when puberty blockers are appropriate. That isn't your choice to make for others.
Don't base it on me brother, I'm asking how YOU feel about it.If you disagree with it then sure. I'm comfortable with that being my bellwether.
No, first I'll ask you to define "harm" in this context. I don't see any harm. Bone density is monitored and calcium deficiencies delt with just like side effects to every medication.First I will ask you, how do the following two statements made by you coincide:
“puberty blockers cause no harm” and
“I acknowledge that one of the side effects of hormone blockers is calcium deficiency, and possible bone loss and an increased risk to osteoporosis” ? Let me save time: these two positions are polar opposites.
You started off the portion I quoted by stating "A valid time when hormone blockers are appropriate a three-year-old experiences signs of puberty. When males show signs of prepubescent puberty...", I was pointing out that there are other valid times for hormone blockers according to people who are not you. You get to make your points and I get to make mine.Do not continue to alter my statements and your effort to control how others debate is telling. You wrote, “You’re not the sole authority or even an authority of when puberty blockers are appropriate. That isn't your choice to make for others.”
You have no evidence of me stating anything to support your false premise.
Its fair to point out the places where your arguments lack reliable data. Instead of complaining about this why dont you present it? So far your argument is that puberty blockers cause harm (despite the medical community saying otherwise) and that this harm presents itself in these increased risks to calcium deficiency but you dont tell us how risky or what percentage of people on these puberty blockers actually experience long term bone density problems. Where's your work?If you believe that your debating tactics are in someway superior to others, you would not be criticizing factual information with statements such as “why didn’t you do this” or “why didn’t you say that”.
Im not researching support for your arguments. Thats your job.All of my statements are easily researchable and I count on readers to research who care about the issue.
You level quite a few accusations but I challenge you to present any evidence that i have been deceitful in my acceptance of verified fact if you can.You pretend to agree after you’ve been exposed for deception, as noted above.
Those are innocuous phrases that you are trying really hard to make appear sinister.Give readers more credit, they are certainly not hanging on your every word, nor on mine. Phrases such as “pinning you down” making “declarations to the gallery” are comical at best. Revealing, but comical.
More evidence presented by clinical studies: “Dr Michael Biggs (an advisor to SEGM) has been calling for the release of data from the Tavistock’s experiment since 2019. A subset of the data were finally released following the judicial review into puberty suppression at the Tavistock clinic. Biggs’ reanalysis has just been published in the Journal of Paediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism. It finds that after two years on GnRHa, the Z-scores for a significant minority of the children had declined to a level that should trigger clinical concern. For the hip, one third of Z-scores were below -2. For the spine, over a quarter of Z-scores were below the threshold of -2. Some had even fallen below ‑3; such low bone density is found in only 0.13% of the population.”No, first I'll ask you to define "harm" in this context. I don't see any harm. Bone density is monitored and calcium deficiencies delt with just like side effects to every medication.
You started off the portion I quoted by stating "A valid time when hormone blockers are appropriate a three-year-old experiences signs of puberty. When males show signs of prepubescent puberty...", I was pointing out that there are other valid times for hormone blockers according to people who are not you. You get to make your points and I get to make mine.
Its fair to point out the places where your arguments lack reliable data. Instead of complaining about this why dont you present it? So far your argument is that puberty blockers cause harm (despite the medical community saying otherwise) and that this harm presents itself in these increased risks to calcium deficiency but you dont tell us how risky or what percentage of people on these puberty blockers actually experience long term bone density problems. Where's your work?
Im not researching support for your arguments. Thats your job.
You level quite a few accusations but I challenge you to present any evidence that i have been deceitful in my acceptance of verified fact if you can.
Those are innocuous phrases that you are trying really hard to make appear sinister.
Good luck J-mac with “pinning down” (his phrase not mine) CG for a basic answer to your straightforward question. Several posts later he still has not answered it. Shocking! LolDon't base it on me brother, I'm asking how YOU feel about it.
I really think future generations are going to look back at us and declare us barbaric for interfering with normal growth processes simply to conform to cosmetic whims, much like we consider head and foot binding to be barbaric.Giving children medication to prevent their bodies from changing sounds very dangerous to me and I don't even know all that much about it. That just goes from having common sense which you obviously don't or don't give a shit about children so you can just fuck off now while the rest of us work on voting the republicans back into congress so this kind of shit doesn't happen to innocent children without getting spayed or castrated and a lockup ever again.
Oh, I know, but sometimes it's useful to identify for all to see those who are here to debate, and those who arent..aren't.Good luck J-mac with “pinning down” (his phrase not mine) CG for a basic answer to your straightforward question. Several posts laters he still has not answered it. Shocking! Lol
