You are again assuming that “proven harms” is not a term that can be manipulated. How would you feel about a potential future government banning anything about trans/gay people because it (according to them) has proven harm against children? Its not really that much of a hypothetical either as numerous states in the USA are heading down that route.
The whole premise of proven harms is that it is not manipulated - but proven. Stop trying to change the narrative, when the fact is, that harms which correspond to children also apply to other ages - thats the thing where talking about.
I’m not assuming, I am stating this, as ‘proven’ doesnt change meaning (otherwise its just misinformation).
I’m not changing the narrative, I am pointing out that there is no objective standard for proven harms, at best in a cohesive society you can get a general agreement on something like that, but there is always going to be the possibility of it being manipulated by a bad actor in power. Do you really think it would be beyond a hard right government to dredge up some “studies” showing that the “gay agenda” is damaging kids?
We all know its bollocks but that wouldn’t stop them abusing a precedent set now.
Yes, there is a possibility that a malicious actor may fabricate “studies”, im not denying that - in fact I agree with your comment.
It is important to realise that by supporting such efforts people will get hurt. Of course, banning isnt a valid option, and certainly not bans which concentrate within a particular minority.
It is those who let this happen that should dace the consequences - not the people, not the minorities and not anyone (regardless of gender, race or age). It may have appeared that I support banning but I dont.
You are again assuming that “proven harms” is not a term that can be manipulated. How would you feel about a potential future government banning anything about trans/gay people because it (according to them) has proven harm against children? Its not really that much of a hypothetical either as numerous states in the USA are heading down that route.
The whole premise of proven harms is that it is not manipulated - but proven. Stop trying to change the narrative, when the fact is, that harms which correspond to children also apply to other ages - thats the thing where talking about.
I’m not assuming, I am stating this, as ‘proven’ doesnt change meaning (otherwise its just misinformation).
I’m not changing the narrative, I am pointing out that there is no objective standard for proven harms, at best in a cohesive society you can get a general agreement on something like that, but there is always going to be the possibility of it being manipulated by a bad actor in power. Do you really think it would be beyond a hard right government to dredge up some “studies” showing that the “gay agenda” is damaging kids?
We all know its bollocks but that wouldn’t stop them abusing a precedent set now.
Yes, there is a possibility that a malicious actor may fabricate “studies”, im not denying that - in fact I agree with your comment.
It is important to realise that by supporting such efforts people will get hurt. Of course, banning isnt a valid option, and certainly not bans which concentrate within a particular minority.
It is those who let this happen that should dace the consequences - not the people, not the minorities and not anyone (regardless of gender, race or age). It may have appeared that I support banning but I dont.