"The vaccine ruined me but I'd do it again because I was supposed to."

WPATH says that parental consent should be obtained for treating transgender kids except "when caregiver or parental involvement is determined to be harmful to the adolescent."

The problem—and it's a big one—is that they consider anything but affirmation to be hateful/harmful.

The system is rigged to irreversibly damage children for profit while shielding doctors from liability and the public from the truth.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/29/kid-gender-guidelines-not-driven-by-science/

Fair enough.

Why do they keep telling me trans people exist? I’ve never denied the existence of people who are mistaken about their identity.

Is it not happening, or should we not be worried that it’s happening?

Speak plainly, Kamala. Just say you don’t want to help white people.

https://twitter.com/endwokeness/status/1575945239872737282?s=46&t=AYIdDeCfBIXAknEmwdJS1w

I hate to break it to you, but you have a mind virus, too.

We owe you all an apology. We (the powerful) have been abusing our power to mock the weak (Biden, Harris, Trump, Clinton, AOC, woke media/corporations, celebrities, etc.). Real satire punches up, and since no one in the multiverse is above us, it's time for us to just listen.

We also make jokes about gender ideology. As everyone knows, trans people are pathetically weak and powerless. They could never get anyone canceled or punished for misgendering them. We can mock them with impunity and nobody ever comes to their aid. Big Tech sides with us.

The libs are mad that racial discrimination might come to an end.

https://newrepublic.com/article/167924/supreme-court-equal-protection-clause

I'm convinced our harshest critics have never actually visited our website.

It seems to me they should be immune because they aren't speaking when they host the speech of others. They're carriers/conduits. But then they shouldn't be able to censor viewpoints by claiming a 1A right to not carry unwanted messages. As carriers, they aren't speakers.

The case SCOTUS will hear is interesting because it has to do with content recommendation algorithms. To what extent should social media companies be liable for messaging they promote by recommending it algorithmically?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be able to moderate at all. Section 230 allows for moderation of the indecent/obscene or unlawful. But it shouldn't give them the ability to take down viewpoints they don't like while calling it "hate speech" or "misinformation."

Why can't people be free to be wrong? If someone says something demonstrably false, you can refute them. You don't have to — and shouldn't want to — muzzle them.

Sometimes war is unavoidable. In a just war, good men lay down their lives for the sake of others. It's bloody, vicious, and terrible, but it's not without sacrifice, courage, or other virtues. The same can never be said of abortion — it is always and only selfish and cruel.

I'm not commenting on what I'm "fine with." I'm commenting on what Section 230 explicitly says. What needs to be prevented is Big Tech's censorship of *viewpoints* under the guise of objective, "good faith" content moderation of the kind described in Section 230.

The medical community hopes to continue offering "gender-affirming care" to "children and adolescents" without any opposition by having their critics either silenced or prosecuted (or both).

While they've accused critics of spreading "disinformation" and "coordinating, provoking, and carrying out" threats, they haven't supported those claims, nor have they disputed the facts that have been reported about the procedures and treatments these hospitals offer.

Rather, they've doubled down on "gender-affirming care" for "minors and adolescents," saying they "stand with" the physicians and nurses offering it. So instead of denying what's been reported, they're admitting it's happening and saying it's good that it's happening!

The only thing they really seem to be disputing is that gender-affirming care amounts to child abuse. If you think it does — that is, if you think it's abusive to mutilate or chemically castrate minors — then you're not just wrong, you're a threat. This is as insane as it gets.

What they're calling for is a complete media blackout on this issue. They hope to make it criminal not to abuse children, but to report on that abuse. It's every bit as evil as it is insane.

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/3672270-medical-groups-call-on-doj-to-investigate-threats-targeting-gender-affirming-care/

After being back online for just a single day, Libs of TikTok has already been hit with yet another 7 day suspension for “hateful conduct.”

Libs of TikTok is suspended again, not for violating a policy, but for opposing an agenda. The medical community, the government, and big tech are all colluding with each other to silence opposition to child abuse.

We all have a solemn moral obligation to throw all the weight we have behind anyone who dares fight back.

Call me crazy, but I think bomb threats and child mutilation are both wrong.

Some people are still stuck in the "it's not happening" phase, denying the reality of radical gender-affirming surgeries on minors. They haven't yet transitioned to "it's good that it's happening." But they always do, and it doesn't take long.

So you’re thriving, then?