[theprincess]

> the argument against irreversibly treating children is still a reasonable position

Allowing a trans child to go through their natal puberty is not a neutral act. A trans person who "passes" has a much better lifetime outcome thanks to facing less discrimination and having less body image issues (not many people living as females would enjoy being called a man in a dress and harassed regularly based on their body proportions regardless of their chromosomes).

> and not the shallowly insulting straw man argument you present as the only option.

It's not a shallow straw man. Anti-trans activists want to ban care for trans people outright. They want conversion therapy - or what they have slickly labled "gender exploratory therapy" - to be the only treatment available.

If we hadn't lived through many decades where such treatment was already the only option and seen how disastrous it was I may be less inclined to say they are acting in bad faith, but, alas, we know exactly what conversion therapy does: it creates incredibly traumatized adults who are still trans.

[tinus_hn]

All your arguments do not change the fact that it is still possible for reasonable people to simply disagree with you, and it is not a valid argument to put up straw men to take down, just like you’re doing again here, this time anyone against irreversible actions taken on children is claimed to be someone who ‘wants to ban care for trans people outright’.

If your arguments consist of assigning outrageous opinions to people you disagree with, your argument is invalid and you’re bound to be wrong.