-21
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
-21 points (25.6% liked)
Conservative
382 readers
14 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
An article posted by a sock puppet.
I do like socks, but I'm no puppet. I'm interested in discussion about this article because it looks legitimate, which is horrifying. If you're able to disprove the claims, that would be a relief.
Which claims specifically?
How about this? "WPATH removed lower age limits in SOC8 while consulting with child castration fetishists"
That single statement contains 1 claim:
WPATH removed lower age limits in SOC8.
This is true.
It also contains another claim:
They did this while consulting with child castration fetishists.
Based on the article provided, it appears to be true. If that’s the case then I think most sane people would agree they should not consult with them anymore, and revisit any influence they might have had on policy.
Having said that, gender-affirming care has been shown to be a net positive to individuals and society as a whole, so I’m not sure if you’re then trying to go the next step and discredit that in general as a result of this, because that’s how the article reads and is a separate discussion entirely.
I’m not seeking to disprove anything in this article, merely understand what kind of discussion you want to have about it.
This is the sort of useful conversation I was looking to have. I think we're in agreement. In another comment, I wrote this:
Which might not be how you would phrase it, but largely agrees with: