Many lives may be lost is total bullshit - make psychiatric care available and the trans-delusion goes away for 99.9% of them, The rest are the 1/100 000 births that have chromosomal damage in some way, affecting development of body, brain and brain-body selfidentification.
That miniscule group may indeed need surgery, hormonal treatment and whatnot.
I guess the full-text articles don't mention the increased risk of cancers (pnacreatic cancer esp.) due to hormone treatment? I believe an increased risk of factor 50 is the low-end general estimate.
Brushing your teeth with radium-infused toothpaste (an actual product once upon a time) seems safer.
You're in deed correct that none of the pieces I quote here at-length mention anything. They are exclusively 'positive' (if that's indeed the right word to use here) about the entire charade. The 'national guidelines' do mention 'side-effects' in the most generic ways (no specifics given), and neither does anyone notice that the so-called 'puberty blockers' so liberally prescribed by EEPB were once used for chemically castrate sex offenders (in the US to my knowledge, perhaps also elsewhere).
“Note the (presumably self-inflicted) scar tissue just above the tattoos.” To me it does not look like scar tissue, but the marks left by a tight sock which was pulled down to reveal the tattoo.
Many lives may be lost is total bullshit - make psychiatric care available and the trans-delusion goes away for 99.9% of them, The rest are the 1/100 000 births that have chromosomal damage in some way, affecting development of body, brain and brain-body selfidentification.
That miniscule group may indeed need surgery, hormonal treatment and whatnot.
I guess the full-text articles don't mention the increased risk of cancers (pnacreatic cancer esp.) due to hormone treatment? I believe an increased risk of factor 50 is the low-end general estimate.
Brushing your teeth with radium-infused toothpaste (an actual product once upon a time) seems safer.
You're in deed correct that none of the pieces I quote here at-length mention anything. They are exclusively 'positive' (if that's indeed the right word to use here) about the entire charade. The 'national guidelines' do mention 'side-effects' in the most generic ways (no specifics given), and neither does anyone notice that the so-called 'puberty blockers' so liberally prescribed by EEPB were once used for chemically castrate sex offenders (in the US to my knowledge, perhaps also elsewhere).
“Note the (presumably self-inflicted) scar tissue just above the tattoos.” To me it does not look like scar tissue, but the marks left by a tight sock which was pulled down to reveal the tattoo.
I refer to the several almost parallel marks on her leg just above the ankle?
Yes, those look to me like they were caused by the tight socks which was lowered to reveal the tattoo, but I could be wrong.
Fair enough; I could be wrong, too.
No this is marks of razor, a loot of them