you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (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 - 1 fun -  (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 - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Sure. I didn't suspect that you were lying.

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 - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it means so much to you to be called a liar, do it yourself.