Extermination

Hi there

I’m Lizzie. I have no idea who is still posting here, but I’m the owner of the site. Alan Fox drew my attention to a recent post by Erik about LGBTQ+ people. I read it with growing horror, culminating when I arrived at these words:

 [LGBTQ+ people] exist sure enough and extermination is not the way to deal with them, but

“but”.

I set up this site as a venue in which people who wanted to discuss issues such as evolution, theism, and morality in good faith with people with who vehemently disagreed with them, could do so with minimal censorship.  I have been absent from the site for many years now, though I continue to pay the hosting fees.

I could simply delete Erik’s post. He would consider it “cancel culture”.  Yes, indeed I do wish to “cancel” those views from this blog. Committed as I am to uncensored discussion between people with radically opposing views (as exemplified in the original posting rules for the site) I will not provide a platform for articles that are Nazi-adjacent. I am deeply worried by the rise of right-wing fascism in the world, and I will not facilitate the propagation of such views.

No poster capable of considering, albeit rejecting, “extermination” as a “way to deal with” people like my own beloved daughter is welcome to post those views here. Every day I worry for her safety from people who want to exterminate her.

Alternatively, I could simply pull the plug on this site.

I will sleep on this. I would also welcome comments from any posters still active here. If there are hardly any left, I will probably do that last thing.

186 thoughts on “Extermination

  1. keiths:
    This is Fox News, after all.

    Have you ever looked at the difference in Fox coverage between multiple shootings when the shooter is black, and when the shooter is white? Guess which one is front page news, and which one is barely a footnote?

  2. There’s a big party going on at the White House following Biden’s signing of the Respect for Marriage Act.

    Erik must be loving it.

  3. keiths:
    There’s a big party going on at the White House following Biden’s signing of the Respect for Marriage Act.

    Erik must be loving it.

    As I understand it, this new law is pretty weak sauce. It does not impose on states the requirement to perform same-sex or inter-racial marriages, it only requires states to accept such marriages performed in other states. And it seems to have been possible to pass only by including provisions that allow anyone who wants to, to refuse to serve anyone they claim their religion disapproves of. Apparently the votes just weren’t there to guarantee the right to marry nationwide, much less to have all marriages treated equally under the law.

  4. Flint,

    Like you, I had hoped for a stronger law, but as they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The law is still a big deal despite its limitations. Given the threat posed by the Supreme Court , it was important to get something passed sooner rather than later, so I understand why the good guys were willing to make concessions.

    And it will still annoy the hell out of Erik.

  5. keiths:
    Flint,

    Like you, I had hoped for a stronger law, but as they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The law is still a big deal despite its limitations. Given the threat posed by the Supreme Court , it was important to get something passed sooner rather than later, so I understand why the good guys were willing to make concessions.

    And it will still annoy the hell out of Erik.

    I suppose this depends on a prediction of how the Court would rule. I personally don’t think they’d have made same-sex marriage illegal nationwide, I think based on other decisions (like Roe) they’d simply have ruled that there is no Federal protection for such marriages, and tossed the decision back to the individual states. The result being exactly what this new law says. Religious carve-outs would have emerged from subsequent cases, the results eventually matching this new law. If I’m right about how the Court would rule, this law protects nothing we’d have lost anyway.

  6. Flint:

    I suppose this depends on a prediction of how the Court would rule.

    It depends not on a prediction, but rather on the non-negligible possibility that the Court could rule adversely. We buy flood insurance not because a flood is predicted, but because a flood is possible.

  7. keiths:
    Flint:

    It depends not on a prediction, but rather on the non-negligible possibility that the Court could rule adversely. We buy flood insurance not because a flood is predicted, but because a flood is possible.

    I agree, this law guards against the chance that the Court would decide to start making rights outright illegal, rather than merely letting the red states do it. This new law protects same-sex marriage in exactly the way the Dobbs decision protects reproductive rights.

  8. Flint: As I understand it, this new law is pretty weak sauce. It does not impose on states the requirement to perform same-sex or inter-racial marriages, it only requires states to accept such marriages performed in other states. And it seems to have been possible to pass only by including provisions that allow anyone who wants to, to refuse to serve anyone they claim their religion disapproves of. Apparently the votes just weren’t there to guarantee the right to marry nationwide, much less to have all marriages treated equally under the law.

    In addition to being weak on the gay side, “RFMA also offers explicit protections for religious groups with moral objections to same-sex or interracial marriages: They are not required to provide goods or services to the marriages they object to and their tax-exempt status cannot be rescinded for refusing to perform or respect a marriage.”

    Thus one might spin it even as a win for conservatives and traditionalists. It certainly is no gain for equal marriage activists, but rather locks the current legal status quo into place.

    What is mildly amusing in the current atmosphere is how the executive-legislative and judicial branches of government are having a slapfight with each other. Slaps do not take either side closer to victory in the fight, but they think that exacerbating the unsportsmanly behaviour is the way to go, instead of toning it down and handling the matter with the seriousness it might deserve. If one wants marriage to be respected, one should consider statistics like 40% of children being born out of wedlock and USA having the world’s highest rate of single-parent households, i.e. one would think that broken marriages is a problem and also low status of marriage is a problem – marriage is not being seen as any sort of right, nothing to crave for or aspire to. One could perhaps wish that marriage regains the respect it historically had, instead of ensuring total mockery and ridicule of it.

    Another related topic: What do you guys think of pronouns? Are there enough of them or do we need more? Which ones are “proper”? Should there be laws about “pronoun-shaming”?

  9. Erik:
    Thus one might spin it even as a win for conservatives and traditionalists. It certainly is no gain for equal marriage activists, but rather locks the current legal status quo into place.

    Yes, true enough. This law doesn’t grant any new rights, it only guards against the Court (that is, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) flat outlawing same sex marriage nationwide. Which means after the Court gets its hands on it, we will have red islands where rights are denied and blue islands where they are protected. Maybe that’s better than nothing, if you live on a blue island.

    If one wants marriage to be respected, one should consider statistics like 40% of children being born out of wedlock and USA having the world’s highest rate of single-parent households, i.e. one would think that broken marriages is a problem and also low status of marriage is a problem – marriage is not being seen as any sort of right, nothing to crave for or aspire to. One could perhaps wish that marriage regains the respect it historically had, instead of ensuring total mockery and ridicule of it.

    I don’t quite buy the slant you are putting on this, because you presume that children born out of wedlock or raised by single parents are universally and necessarily bad things — despite the contrary experience in Sweden and other skandinavian countries. What, exactly, does marriage buy you? If you are committed to a partner, you need no ceremony telling you that (and when it became legal, the partners of many same-sex marriages had been together for decades). If you wish to raise a child by yourself, why should you have to go through the charade of a marriage? Should “respect for marriage” be an attitude that enforces unhappy marriages?

    Personally, I think the institution of marriage is becoming obsolete, but there is no license to be irresponsible. I doubt there is any surefire way to know in advance if a relationship can be durable, with or without a wedding ceremony. I don’t look back with fondness at the days of marriage as a quick-fix for an unintended pregnancy. I would strongly prefer a program of universal effective free birth control. I see traditionalists as seeking to force people into marital misery to raise an unwanted child. Unwanted children (because the Court opposes both abortion and birth control) only serve to make incompatible “marriages” far more onerous. Is that really what you want?

  10. keiths:

    It depends not on a prediction, but rather on the non-negligible possibility that the Court could rule adversely. We buy flood insurance not because a flood is predicted, but because a flood is possible.

    Flint:

    I agree, this law guards against the chance that the Court would decide to start making rights outright illegal, rather than merely letting the red states do it.

    The Supreme Court can’t “make rights outright illegal”. It’s a judicial body, not a legislative one. What it can do is rescind the (federal) constitutional right to same-sex marriage, just as it rescinded the (federal) constitutional right to abortion. States would nonetheless still be allowed to confer rights on their citizens. As of November, California’s state constitution guarantees the right to abortion and contraception, and the US Supreme Court has no power to step in and “make those rights outright illegal”. Congress has the power to make abortion and same-sex marriage illegal nationwide (once the Supreme Court has ruled that those aren’t constitutional rights), but the Supreme Court does not itself have that power.

    Absent the Respect For Marriage Act, a Court that overturned Obergefell would not only have 1) opened the door to the banning of same-sex marriage by individual states, it also would have 2) allowed those states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed legally in other states. Worse still, it would have 3) reactivated the Defense of Marriage Act (still on the books), meaning that the federal government would no longer recognize same-sex marriages. Each of those three consequences would have been tragic.

    The RFMA unfortunately doesn’t protect against (1), but it does protect against (2) and (3). That’s a very big deal, and it’s why proponents were willing to compromise in order to get the legislation passed. It was the right move.

  11. Flint, earlier:

    I suppose this depends on a prediction of how the Court would rule. I personally don’t think they’d have made same-sex marriage illegal nationwide…

    They don’t have the power to do so. See my comment above.

    I think based on other decisions (like Roe) they’d simply have ruled that there is no Federal protection for such marriages, and tossed the decision back to the individual states. The result being exactly what this new law says.

    No, the result would have been quite different. Such a ruling would have permitted (1), (2), and (3) as described in my comment above. With the new law in place, only (1) is possible.

  12. Erik:

    It [the Respect For Marriage Act] certainly is no gain for equal marriage activists, but rather locks the current legal status quo into place.

    It actually doesn’t lock the current status quo into place since it doesn’t prevent states from outlawing same-sex marriage if Obergefell is overturned. See my comments to Flint above.

    And while it doesn’t expand equal marriage rights beyond what they currently are, it does protect some of those rights against the fallout from an overturning of Obergefell. In that sense it really is a gain for equal marriage activists. They had reason to celebrate.

  13. Flint: This law doesn’t grant any new rights, it only guards against the Court (that is, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) flat outlawing same sex marriage nationwide. Which means after the Court gets its hands on it, we will have red islands where rights are denied and blue islands where they are protected.

    Same-sex marriage is not a right, just like marriage in general is not a right, never was. So, Respect For Marriage Act does not protect any rights, does not give respect to anything either.

    You are clarifying well enough that marriage is a charade for you. That describes it well.

    Flint: I don’t look back with fondness at the days of marriage as a quick-fix for an unintended pregnancy. I would strongly prefer a program of universal effective free birth control.

    For at least two hundred years, there have always been two quick-fixes after the fact: Marriage and abortion. By the way, contraceptive devices are millennia old, if you did not know – evidently not, otherwise why would you think there was just one quick-fix. What’s the word – uninformed? And there was also another a bit slower fix: Give birth in secret and get rid of the child, usually off to an orphanage.

    Flint:
    I see traditionalists as seeking to force people into marital misery to raise an unwanted child. Unwanted children (because the Court opposes both abortion and birth control) only serve to make incompatible “marriages” far more onerous. Is that really what you want?

    So to you, marriage is a charade and children are unwanted. In that kind of society of course marriage has lost all meaning and respect and there’s no way to get it back.

    What I want? Were it up to me, I would not have allowed the LGBTQ+ hypocrisy any leeway. I would rather have abolished marriage from law instead of adding to the legal nonsense by instituting non-marriage as if equal to marriage and a right too.

    The following effect can be expected from abolishing marriage: Before the law, both married and unmarried people are equal, also children born in and out of wedlock are equal – quite in line with the spirit of times. At the same time, marriage as a church sacrament and private weddings remain, so those who still appreciate these things can do it. Problem solved. But no, LGBTQ+ gang always preferred hypocrisy, pushing nonsense redefinitions into law, ascribing to themselves rights that never were anybody’s rights. And so on.

    The LGBTQ+ hypocrisy is further exemplified with the “misgender” mania and the pronouns nonsense. If they really want people to be equal, then logically they would advocate for one single pronoun for everyone, not an unknown number of unknown shapes of “proper” pronouns, to everyone who feels like inventing them.

  14. I dunno, Eric, if others’ lifestyle doesn’t affect you, how do you get to interfere unasked?

    Live and let live.

  15. Erik, permit me to politely see things differently here.

    Erik: Same-sex marriage is not a right, just like marriage in general is not a right, never was. So, Respect For Marriage Act does not protect any rights, does not give respect to anything either.

    This opens a can of worms that has been a subject of debate for centuries. A viewpoint I personally agree with is the “state of nature” foundation, where everyone is born with the right to do anything physically possible regardless of the consequences to themselves or others. In a civilization, this is a Bad Thing, because people do not wish to be harmed by others. So there is a constant tension between rights and restrictions.

    For at least two hundred years, there have always been two quick-fixes after the fact: Marriage and abortion. By the way, contraceptive devices are millennia old, if you did not know – evidently not, otherwise why would you think there was just one quick-fix. What’s the word – uninformed? And there was also another a bit slower fix: Give birth in secret and get rid of the child, usually off to an orphanage.

    So to you, marriage is a charade and children are unwanted. In that kind of society of course marriage has lost all meaning and respect and there’s no way to get it back.

    This is NOT what I said. For many, marriage is perfectly desirable, and for them it’s comfortable. And I would estimate the large majority of children ARE wanted, often wanted badly. I simply deny the connection between marriage (a formalized declaration of emotional commitment) and children (an optional choice once any sort of durable emotional commitment has been established.)

    What I want? Were it up to me, I would not have allowed the LGBTQ+ hypocrisy any leeway. I would rather have abolished marriage from law instead of adding to the legal nonsense by instituting non-marriage as if equal to marriage and a right too.

    You are stumbling over your own prejudices here, I think. So let me try to disentangle this. Consider the “Hollywood marriages” where actors and actresses married multiple times, but always for short periods. Were those really “marriages” in your view? Yeah, they went through the legal motions and paperwork of marriage and divorce, but there was nothing durable about any emotional commitment. They were “legally blessed flings”.

    Conversely, consider same-sex couples who had long-standing dedication to one another and neither partner strayed — BUT the law prohibited them from formally legally declaring the actual reality. Were those NOT marriages?

    However, there remains the issue of distribution of property and children when a relationship fails. Marriage laws can be useful in codifying the processes necessary to resolve these situations, but other approaches are possible.

    The following effect can be expected from abolishing marriage: Before the law, both married and unmarried people are equal, also children born in and out of wedlock are equal – quite in line with the spirit of times. At the same time, marriage as a church sacrament and private weddings remain, so those who still appreciate these things can do it. Problem solved.

    Yes, I agree with this. Those who wish to undergo a religious ceremony certainly shouldn’t be prevented from doing so. But what actually matters is the commitment between partners, not the State paperwork.

    But no, LGBTQ+ gang always preferred hypocrisy, pushing nonsense redefinitions into law, ascribing to themselves rights that never were anybody’s rights. And so on.

    No hypocrisy here that I can see. If same-sex couples wish (for whatever personal reasons they may have) to codify and declare their commitment to one another, what’s wrong? Let’s say you fall sincerely (and permanently) in love with someone. Why decide that person A is dandy, but person B is hypocritical? In either case, marrying under the law simply ratifies what already exists. A durable emotional commitment is what matters, not the paperwork and red tape. You are drawing a distinction here not based on real-world relationships, but based only on your own bigotry.

    The LGBTQ+ hypocrisy is further exemplified with the “misgender” mania and the pronouns nonsense. If they really want people to be equal, then logically they would advocate for one single pronoun for everyone, not an unknown number of unknown shapes of “proper” pronouns, to everyone who feels like inventing them.

    The pronoun wars arise from a purely linguistic situation – most languages assign genders to people. Romance languages also assign gender to nouns generally, which requires memorization. German, for example, has three genders. Your reaction, I think, comes because English has only two genders and requires that one or the other be applied regardless of the underlying reality.

    I agree with you that a single pronoun would simplify the language without doing any collateral damage, but that change would do nothing to address the fact that at the margin, sex is not universally binary. There are edge cases. But you seem to be of the opinion that if we pretend hard enough (or legislate accordingly), somehow this edge cases will vanish, probably back into the closet. What the current gender battles have made clear is that the number of edge cases is enormously larger than most people ever suspected. They are real people with normal human emotions and needs. Calling them hypocrites, claiming their relationships don’t exist, simply creates a worse problem when there is no need for a problem to begin with. This is truly an area where things that do not directly harm you are none of your business.

    A puritan was once defined as a person who fears that someone, somewhere, is having fun. You seem to fit the definition of a homophobe.

  16. keiths:
    The RFMA unfortunately doesn’t protect against (1), but it does protect against (2) and (3).That’s a very big deal, and it’s why proponents were willing to compromise in order to get the legislation passed. It was the right move.

    You are quite right, thank you. The Court can make anything legal, but can’t make anything illegal. My understanding of the headlines (I haven’t read the bill) is that it at least makes the attempt to require states to recognize marriage performed in other states. If so, then it does protect against (2).

  17. I concur with keiths re the effect of the RFMA.
    At issue:

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

    DOMA Section 3 codified that same-sex marriages could not be recognized by the Federal Government, and Section 2 gave states explicit permission to deny recognition to marriages performed in other states. SCOTUS ruled both unconstitutional, in Windsor and in Obergefell respectively.
    RFMA reverses those DOMA positions, in an effort to protect the status quo against Thomas, Alito, and the MAGA troika.

    It appears that people who object to same sex marriage are generally (but not always) religious and generally (but not always) bigoted. They all seem quite confused, in that they fail to understand that marriage is a strictly secular institution. At least their predecessors who fought against inter-racial marriages had a practical aim in sight: fornication was also illegal, so they could deter the production of those nasty mixed race babies.
    But the anti-gay crowd claim that the very existence of same-sex marriage degrades their marriages, via some undescribed mechanism.
    Here’s the thing: marriage is secular; it confers different tax treatment (sometimes beneficial, sometimes not…) survivor benefits and crucially next-of-kin status.
    If you object to same-sex marriage, or interracial marriage, go find yourself a sufficiently bigoted Baptist church where you can celebrate your Holy Matrimony under whatever rule system (including what constitutes divorce, heh) that you wish. Leave other people’s marriages out of it.
    As I noted when last this chestnut made the rounds here, according to the Roman Catholic Church, I am married; according to the US Government, I am married.
    Just to different women.
    In terms of levels of commitment, there is a hierarchy:
    1) Get married
    2) Buy a house together
    3) Have a kid together
    People not appreciating this hierarchy has nothing to do with “Respect for marriage” or the lack thereof.

  18. What’s nice about the second graph is that it shows that individuals are shifting their attitudes. It isn’t just younger, more tolerant people replacing their less tolerant elders.

  19. Jock:

    It appears that people who object to same sex marriage are generally (but not always) religious and generally (but not always) bigoted

    I ran across this while foraging for those other graphs:

  20. Alan Fox:
    I dunno, Eric, if others’ lifestyle doesn’t affect you, how do you get to interfere unasked?

    It has affected everyone for decades already through legislation, court orders, corporate wokeism and universally publicised LGBTQ+ propaganda. Are you living under a rock or something? It’s 21st century.

  21. Erik: It has affected everyone for decades already through legislation, court orders, corporate wokeism and universally publicised LGBTQ+ propaganda. Are you living under a rock or something? It’s 21st century.

    Was at a long and pleasant lunch today at our friends’ house who happen to be gay. Seemed quite civilized without a whiff of wokeism.

    Not sure what “it” refers to in your first sentence.

  22. Yuugh.
    Just revisited the TSZ thread discussing Obergefell.
    It’s the combination of condescension and ignorance that’s mind-blowing.
    Erik and FMM have some truly weird ideas.
    Yikes.

  23. Erik: It has affected everyone for decades already through legislation, court orders, corporate wokeism and universally publicised LGBTQ+ propaganda. Are you living under a rock or something? It’s 21st century.

    This is evasive. What legislation has interfered with you personally? What courts have found against you, in what cases? Why do you even bother to read material you don’t like, rather than calling it propaganda”?

    Yes, it’s the 21st century. Maybe people are learning that tolerance doesn’t actually hurt them. It’s the intolerant bigots who are living under rocks.

  24. Erik: It has affected everyone for decades already through legislation, court orders, corporate wokeism and universally publicised LGBTQ+ propaganda.

    Yes, you are right. I cannot help but notice it.

    I spend more time noticing Coca Cola advertisements than I spend noticing LGBT issues. Add to that the time noticing all of the other advertisements. And then there is all of the time spent talking about football games, soccer games, baseball games — none of which happen to interest me.

    You objecting to what should be a non-issue. Somehow you are over-sensitive to this issue. That’s your obsession playing up.

  25. Flint: This is evasive. What legislation has interfered with you personally? What courts have found against you, in what cases? Why do you even bother to read material you don’t like, rather than calling it propaganda”?

    I call it propaganda because it is. I read it because it is part of my job. Part of my job is to keep people at the job happy with the work conditions. The corporate policy is to be LGBTQ+ friendly. This friendliness is of course a mere hypocritical sham front because it is in vogue. In reality there are no LGBTQ+ people employed because those people hardly exist outside activist groups (and who would hire an actual LGBTQ+ activist?). And so on and so forth. But you can keep yourself blissfully unaware of all the related issues and enjoy living under a rock.

  26. Erik: I call it propaganda because it is. I read it because it is part of my job. Part of my job is to keep people at the job happy with the work conditions. The corporate policy is to be LGBTQ+ friendly. This friendliness is of course a mere hypocritical sham front because it is in vogue. In reality there are no LGBTQ+ people employed because those people hardly exist outside activist groups (and who would hire an actual LGBTQ+ activist?). And so on and so forth. But you can keep yourself blissfully unaware of all the related issues and enjoy living under a rock.

    In other words, no legislation has interfered with you personally, you have not been the target of any court cases. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you knew several people, perhaps even friends, who are LGBTQ but haven’t told you, so you don’t yet know you’re supposed to hate them.

    You don’t seem to understand that being LGBTQ friendly simply means, do not discriminate against people for no other reason than who they are. You certainly don’t understand that anti-discrimination policies are only necessary because people like you MAKE them necessary, by going out of your way to discriminate against them. But I can understand that the primary way to rationalize your bigotry is by accusing tolerant people being ignorant. If only they hated like you do, they’d understand the need for hate, like you do.

  27. Can someone please link to Erik’s comment? I can’t find it. If it’s been deleted, can someone please post the comment in full?

    Lizzie cut off the comment at the word ‘but,’ creating the impression Erik went on to justify extermination. I’d like to see if that’s actually the case, or if Lizzie is lying by omission. I’d like to believe her, but she is a leftist, and leftists do have a habit of lying.

  28. There’s a comment stuck in the pending queue from the apparently newly-registered commenter ”Design Wins (I ❤︎ Cellular Machines)”. It reads:

    Can someone please link to Erik’s comment? I can’t find it. If it’s been deleted, can someone please post the comment in full?

    Lizzie cut off the comment at the word ‘but,’ creating the impression Erik went on to justify extermination. I’d like to see if that’s actually the case, or if Lizzie is lying by omission. I’d like to believe her, but she is a leftist, and leftists do have a habit of lying.

    Design Wins,

    You can find Erik’s comment here.

    Erik did not go on to justify extermination, but neither did Lizzie accuse him of doing so, nor did she even imply that he did so.

  29. Flint: In other words, no legislation has interfered with you personally, you have not been the target of any court cases. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you knew several people, perhaps even friends, who are LGBTQ but haven’t told you, so you don’t yet know you’re supposed to hate them.

    And why have I not been the target of any court cases? Because I do not hate them. I understand and handle these matters as part of my profession. For me, it is all about being professional.

    LGBTQ+ people have gained privileges and uberrights which is falsely called equality. If this seems like hate to you, it says a lot about your capacity of tolerance, namely that it is not there.

    Flint:

    You don’t seem to understand ….. But I can understand that the primary way to rationalize your bigotry is by accusing tolerant people being ignorant…..

    Nah, it’s you who don’t understand. But I have tolerance for your ignorance.

    Have a happy turn of the calendar.

  30. Finally years of debate and investigative journalism in Sweden can be found in English, so you can slowly start informing yourselves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow-XwdauYr0

    A few highlights. When a child gets into its head that it is “in the wrong body”, the relevant doctors are automatically 100% supportive. There allegedly is a procedure called “evaluation” but it always agrees with the child. Not a single exception ever. On the other hand, when after some treatment the subject decides to detransition, there is no support. Also, there is no support when the treatment produces adverse effects.

    What is called “gender-affirming care” with puberty blockers in one narrow medical field is called “chemical castration” in another narrow medical field. The drugs and the treatment are the same. Despite the known side-effects in the second narrow medical field, the side-effects are either denied or treated as entirely new information by the medical experts in the first medical field.

    The reaction of LGBTQ+ organisations is denial that side-effects exist. Denial that detransition exists. And the official stance: Failure to always fully affirm transgenders is transphobia.

    Note: Don’t even try to bash the journalists. They did their research properly. You do your research.

Leave a Reply