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.
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.
BananaSpike@lemm.ee 4 months ago
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.
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 4 months ago
Which claims specifically?
BananaSpike@lemm.ee 4 months ago
How about this? “WPATH removed lower age limits in SOC8 while consulting with child castration fetishists”
BobaFuttbucker@reddthat.com 4 months ago
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.