Yes.
She never made the comparison. Only you did.
She merely pointed out the you reached for ever younger examples to “prove” your righteousness, in a somewhat clumsy attempt to brow beat by provoking negative emotional responses (single examples do not a trend make, nor do they indicate a broader policy. Note my earlier comment around malpractice (not that there is sufficient evidence presented for the layman to judge the latter)).
I am quite sure you believe yourself.
At least two of us posting in this thread are, broadly speaking (and probably small “c” ) conservative, which often makes us look positively right wingers in the context of this community (not a statement of political support for a particular party), yet you appear to have lost both of them.
You are twisting the words of others into gross parodies, spitting them back with a thick coating of vitriol. This undermines any real point you are trying to make.
Further, I ‘m unclear as to the validity of your basic thrust, which appears to be advice of caution by professional bodies on the basis that “social contagion” might account for part of the increase in young people seeking medical intervention (no shit Sherlock, kids spent small fortunes on Fidget Spinners not so long ago).
Surely this amounts to “be careful” not “do not ever”?
Or are you arguing that the possibility of doubt or error should preclude any action?
Honestly, I’m not the least bit surprised that, even post transition, such a vilified group should have a high mortality rate from suicide. I can imagine how hard it must be. Christ, some people feel justified in mercilessly persecuting people for the crime of “having ginger hair”.
Note, nothing here describes what that suicide rate might have been, amongst the same individuals, if they had remained hidden and therefore not considered as a single group.
No, sorry, your arguments are not as strong as you assert and screaming them into our faces with added invective isn’t bolstering them.
That said, they are not invalid. Just not conclusive.
The invective is invalid and pointless.
