Oh, look, an antisemitic dog whistle and a complaint about people pushing an ideology. In one sentence? That’s fun.

I got here too late, and ngl, I feel like I missed a joke I would have liked.

Please, be reasonable:

return post.Contains("Twitter") || post.Contains("elon") ?  "loser" : "cool"; 

Mine is just running stock, but depending on what you’re trying to do with it I could imagine that a few things might not be palatable to some.

1. The read only by default file system
2. It kinda nukes everything on the system on update
3. So much of how it handles the Linux side user profiles depends on there only being the default user

I got it eventually. I tend to put my nose right up to the screen to uncross my eyes enough, and slowly pull it away until it comes into focus, but the right one is harder because it’s supposed to be closer, and therefore bigger.

Cross eye is easier for me, but these are never cross eyed.

I’m having a really hard time making out the one on the right, but the one on the left definitely is.

Either this is implying that Linux users are hiding who they are to fit in, and Windows users are comfortable in their own skin, or this is just transphobic as fuck.

If it’s the former, this may be the wrong sub for you. If it’s the latter, this may be the wrong world for you.

But it would make the rich richer, which makes it a good bet. I think the only thing that would stop private companies being allowed to develop beachfront property in the strip is if it were to turn out to be less profitable.

But that’s true of all governments that aren’t really looking out for their people.

Oh, that sounds serious, what’s Ligma?

You accept, must the frog

Good luck with that, granddragon88

That’s a cool narrative you made up. You actually aren’t required to have your birth year in your username on most sites.

As someone who shares your birth year, I think you gotta accept that the HH meaning is enough of a stain to avoid putting it in your usernames

The headline doesn’t say that

I know this is what-about-ism but I really wish we cared half as much about Meta having already destabilized the last two presidential elections.

I don’t think I’ve hated reading something I so emphatically agreed with before

This article you keep posting in lieu of a response doesn’t really make a strong argument against consent to argue against.

It largely seems to be coming from a standpoint that hormone blockers are a thing that adults inflict on children, rather than something that children are asking for, and being allowed to take from the adults in their lives.

The article you post also only really states that gender dysphoria isn’t real, but all of the sources to your source do not question this.

But the permeance of puberty blockers, which was the only point made before your post was edited, is important to any consent question.

There is a spectrum of things where we decide that it’s okay for children to decide for themselves, and things they cannot. I think, in no reasonable person’s mind, is it okay to allow a child to decide whether or not to cut off a limb. I think, in no reasonable person’s mind, is it problematic to occasionally allow a child to eat what they want. Why is this issue closer to the limb cutting model than the junk food model?

Looking at other articles posted by OP, I am getting the impression that those side effects are not well studied at this time.

I do not think you’re representing this article accurately.

The part of the article that I think you’re talking about cites this article as its source: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

But both your source and that article, only refer to hormone blockers with questions that have yet to be answered.

It then references an article from Stat, which is a relatively small sample size of women who have experienced bone thinning.

I don’t see anything claiming stunted growth. The article then mostly goes on to talk about hormone therapy, which is generally not started until someone is 16, which is the age of consent in a large portion of the US, and doesn’t seem to apply to this conversation.

It’s also worth noting that bone thinning would be a side effect, and nothing I’m seeing cited shows a study of how often that occurs.

I think, to be convinced that puberty blockers are not safe for children, I would need to see a study that shows that the intended use of puberty blockers are generally non reversible, instead of a site that asks whether or not they might not be, or a study showing the side effects to be particularly life alerting in a way that is worse or more common than the side effects of other drugs that we are okay with prescribing to children.

I cannot find a credible source that says that puberty blockers are permanent: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

This is debatable because your call to stop indoctrination is coming from a place where you want children to only experience one world view that is unconcerned with facts.