Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
There are a lot of (albeit impressive) rhetorical smokes screens I'm choosing not to engage with, but there are many interesting points of conversation to be had here.
Staying on topic here:
This is an interesting take. If it's sometimes a good thing, why does it matter whether or not it's generally a thing? And, what evidence do you have that allowing them to be legal tends to do more good than harm?
It's fair to fearmonger over this topic. It causes severe harm and injury to the children who get it in the vast majority of cases. You're right that it's also important to talk about how few people are actually getting these surgeries, it has no bearing on whether or not it should be legal.
Is your argument that mutilating children during infancy should be legal, or illegal? Or, is your argument that sex change surgeries should be allowed to reverse such mutilation? If it's the latter, would you say that's the only type of sex change operations available for minors?
big fucking yikes.