That’s sunburn. Should have worn more sunscreen.

It will go away in a few days.

Not really, Raspberry Pi had that same issue with its 32 bit distros.

I actually don’t think I saw any of your posts talking specifically about puberty blockers, so thank you for summarizing.

I am not sure what you mean by “missed time” and “runs its remaining time out.” GNRH agonists work by downregulating the pituitary gland, which results in decreased hormone secretion. When those hormones stop, so does puberty. When those hormones resume, puberty resumes, typically 6-18 months after stopping the med. There is no magical set of checkboxes or hidden time schedule the body must follow: the entire process is hormone-mediated. “Arrest” is the correct medical term to describe this process, though “pause” is a good non-medical substitute.

You are incorrect about the dosing: it is comparable to that for use in other conditions. For example, for leuprolide (one of the most common meds used,) the starting dose is 3.25 mg per month or 11.25 mg every 3 months with a max of 22.5 mg every 3 months. This is comparable to the dosing for adolescent endometriosis and fibroids, and lower than the dosing for central precocious puberty (7.5-15 mg monthly or 11.5-30 mg every 3 months.)

Leuprolide has been used in children as young as 1 year old and can be continued until 11 or 12 for central precocious puberty. Endometriosis and fibroids are teen indications, so it has been used for children of all ages (as well as adults of all ages.) The result and intended effect are the same as central precocious puberty or for kids with growth hormone deficiency: to arrest puberty temporarily, at which point it can be safely resumed. The big difference is that the blocking for precocious puberty happens much earlier and for much longer, while the blocking for growth hormone deficiency happens at the same time (start of puberty.)

It’s important to note that people who take a treatment are not “test subjects.” Test subjects are those enrolled in clinical trials. They are given informed consent related to the trial, enrolled with strict parameters, and followed-up on in a systematic way. “Leuprolide Acetate for Puberty Suppression in Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth: A Comparison of Subcutaneous Eligard Versus Intramuscular Lupron” (2022) is an example of a study that used test subjects. You going to the doctor and getting a medication is not.

I’m willing to wager that you were perfectly fine letting endocrinologists use their medical expertise to judge whether giving medications like leuprolide to toddlers and young children is medically necessary, and that your objection to it and similar meds magically appeared when those same doctors judged it medically necessary to give these same medications to transgender early teens. If this is indeed the case, it raises the question of whether you’re actually concerned about these medications, or whether you’re actually using it as an excuse to block access to safe and effective medical treatments for trans teens.

Forgive me if I’m misremembering as your original post appears to have been deleted, but I distinctly recall you mentioning an “irreversible” decision to medically transition. Though medical transition is actually partially reversible, I felt it was pretty clear we were both talking about medical transition (as opposed to surgical transition, which is irreversible.)

Puberty suppressing medications have been used for a wide range of medical conditions for the last 40 years. They are not the same as medical transition, and they are reversible. So it appears you may be conflating two different therapies that are typically taken years apart.

“People are saying” is not the medical standard of care, and medical transition does not counteract puberty. Regardless of what “people are saying,” doctors are not routinely offering medical transition to 12 year olds.

If you want to have the conversation, as you put it, it helps to get the basic facts straight.

Where are you getting that 12 year olds are medically transitioning? Standard of care is 16+ and only recently has WPATH given the opinion that down to 14 may be appropriate in some cases.

Also, no one is “forcing” these kids into any sort of decision. These decisions are being made between the patient, parents, and doctor after thorough evaluation and discussion take place.

You’re getting downvoted because you’re repeating false rhetoric.

No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.

Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. However, many of us think teens should be able to medically transition. In fact, decisions about transitioning are often happening several years later than decisions about sex.

Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.

If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.

Listened to Ologies with Alie Ward on my morning commute.

You sure?

https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for-the-environment

Chiropractic is literally based on the teachings of a ghost while haunting its founder.

No, really. Look it up.

It very much depends on you. I personally think most people should start with New Who, because it’s much faster paced and The Doctor starts out a lot more likable. I personally started with New Who, then started mixing in Old Who during Capaldi’s first season. Which turned out rather nicely, because early Capaldi actually resembles the First Doctor in many ways, and it was interesting to see how elements of the show unfolded.

For reference, Old Who starts with An Unearthly Child (1963.) New Who starts with Rose (2005.)

Lol yeah it’s been 20 years. Will be amazing if it ever launches.

Weird that the party that has been explicitly anti-LGBT for several decades would suddenly turn out to be anti-LGBT. I’m as shocked about this as I am that Ant Man and The Wasp had both Ant Man and The Wasp in it.

So terrorists.

Yeah, and NYC’s cost of living is going to make that the case for a higher percentage of people. These initiatives are really targeting middle and lower income people outside of cities.

Sounds like you’re in that uncomfortable spot where you need to pay to do your taxes but it’s probably not worth it to pay an accountant. Paid software is probably ideal for you, but I personally wouldn’t use TurboTax out of principle just because of how obsessively they lobby to keep the system like this.

The agency also is inviting all states with a state income tax to sign up and help people file their state returns for free. During the 2024 pilot, tax agencies in Arizona, Massachusetts, California and New York helped people directly file their state taxes.

The agency also is inviting all states with a state income tax to sign up and help people file their state returns for free. During the 2024 pilot, tax agencies in Arizona, Massachusetts, California and New York helped people directly file their state taxes.

The agency also is inviting all states with a state income tax to sign up and help people file their state returns for free. During the 2024 pilot, tax agencies in Arizona, Massachusetts, California and New York helped people directly file their state taxes.

You’re comparing apples to oranges. King was talking about moderates who were vacillating over supporting civil rights out of fear of tension, not kids in the foster care system. I’m 100% for updating the Civil Rights Act to say you can’t discriminate against trans people, period, and automatically invalidating all the insane laws out here.

What we’re talking about is pulling kids out of homes. And the evidence on that is clear: Bad homes are better than foster care. I’m sorry that your childhood sucked, but statistically speaking, your life statistically would not have been any better if you had left home, and may have actually been worse. Yes, it should obviously still be an option in extreme situations, but your proposal that such a thing should be implemented when the evidence shows that it will cause more harm is not a viable solution to the problem. All it will do is put more stress on an already broken system.

Sure, magically if we could make the foster system perfect tomorrow, and magically could fix all the laws tomorrow, then maybe it would make sense. But if we had that sort of magic, we could magically fix shitty parents, too.

Well, no. For the past decade, Republicans have been doing shitty things and then complaining the Democrats don’t do enough to stop them. They filibuster any actual useful law, and then push a bunch of terrible laws in red states while using Republican-appointed judges to back them. The Democrats are forced to drag Republicans kicking and screaming and kiss their asses just to keep them from shutting the water off before they set the house ablaze.

That doesn’t make them an “accomplice,” that makes them the only thing stopping this lunacy at a national level. If Republicans get a filibuster-proof majority in Congress and the presidency next election, they 100% will pass the red state laws on a national level and you’ll be pining for the days where the Democrats were doing damage control.

What specific thing did the Democrats have the opportunity to do that they didn’t do? Not some vague “They should have done more,” what specific law did they have the clear numbers for that they refused to pass?