Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
180
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Whatever Democrats did, they were doing it wrong

  • There's no evidence backing that up.

    Except that Trump won

  • Do you have any knowledge about those topics whatsoever,

    Do I need to know? What this type of knowledge brings to the debate?

  • The fact you have to pay now for the surgery is completely different from ban with few exceptions. You're completely wrong

  • if this question is in good faith, this might be the right time for you to tell us what you think the process is for transitioning

    I think if you want to change your gender via surgery you should be at least 18 years old. That barrier is put there for many reasons for all sorts of activities, and responsibilities. Having potentially hazardous surgery is perfectly within that framework

  • It's hard to feel they are full children given all this.

    Still they have severe legal limitations of what they can and can't do. If you want to argue that age of majority should be lower, it comes with bunch of other ugly problems, like alcohol, prostitution, adult content consumption ect.

  • Sure, nobody is arguing against the fact it will be harder to get this type surgery - mostly due to financial reasons. But claim that it's getting banned is a filthy fucking lie

  • For teens ages 15 to 17

    Legally still children. You're trying to argue it's fine to do this on 12-17 year olds?

  • Press spreading lies because of an agenda. Colour me surprised

  • “On day one, I will revoke Joe Biden's policies on so-called gender-affirming care. Ridiculous. A process that involves giving kids puberty blockers, mutating their physical appearance, and ultimately performing surgery on minor children. Can you believe this?”

    This is the reason he won. Society ain't happy with plastic surgeries performed on children

    prohibitions on gender-affirming care for both minors and adults

    Only minors, neither article nor my own research point to adult ban. Looks like the article lies on purpose

  • Demonic forces of physics.

    What's next? Banning Einsteins general relativity?

  • Every time I get either downvotes or a non answer like this.

    they rely on more social cohesion to enforce social rules

    How is this supposed to work in situation where individuals aren't agreeing with each other? What about communication overhead when large amount of people is involved in decision making? These are the questions anarchists avoid answering.

    The only thing I know to work in practice is Torrent protocol for data exchange - but it works in an environment where violence is completely infeasible, and it doesn't even try to be fair or equal. It's pure tit-for-tat (aka favor-for-favor) model when there's bandwidth deficit, and pure charity when there's a surplus

    Also, data is perfectly quantifiable, which is not a thing in more complex enviroments

    You just can't apply torrent in the real life

  • Who in their right mind would turn down free weed?

    A non-addict?

  • Anarchy means without hierarchy. That's it. Rules can still be agreed upon.

    Im not aware of any system (outside P2P file exchange protocols) that would make it possible.