Breast Mourning
submitted 1 year ago by Musky from (i.imgur.com)
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago* (4 children)
Yeah, they go through your medical history, and get a prescription on the first visit.
It would not have been walk-in-walk-out. They would have been in there one or two hours.
And they would not have been a child.
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (3 children)
Nothing I said was a lie. Their child is 19. He walked in and walked out after one hour-long meeting. That's what I said. That doesn't refute your claim that you need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria before you get cross-sex hormones, because that's what I was replying to, and you are still very wrong, because that is not true, and you're trying to deflect from that.
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (2 children)
Sure. I didn't suspect that you were lying.
I was merely clarifying for the reader that although this was your friend's child, they would have had to have been an adult.
I agree that planned parenthood will prescribe hrt from informed consent at since sites, rather than psychiatric evaluation. I didn't know that.
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (1 child)
Yes, you did. You questioned my integrity when you said:
It would not have been walk-in-walk-out. They would have been in there one or two hours. And they would not have been a child.
in response to my saying:
The child of a friend walked right into Planned Parenthood with no such diagnosis and walked right out with hormones after one meeting.
By taking exactly what I said and adding your own interpretation. You added the claim the child must have been underage. You claimed I said they walked in and walked out, when you can clearly see I wrote "after one meeting." You're being disingenuous, and you inferred I was misinterpreting what I claimed "for the reader." You are disingenuous and misread/intentionally misinterpret so that the "reader" would think me a liar. That's not acceptable.
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 1 year ago (0 children)
If it means so much to you to be called a liar, do it yourself.
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~2 users here now
view the rest of the comments →
[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (4 children)
[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)