Is the New York Times now rethinking its stance on children and puberty blockers? They seem to be…

submitted by ClassroomPast6178 from nytimes.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]YJaewedwqewq 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Puberty blockers cause osteoporosis in children, and here’s why that’s a good thing.

The narrative that disabled and retarded people are literally superior to normal people is already a thing, lol, and a thing that is pushed by these same people. It's impossible to satirize trannies, since they have genuinely reached a point where they are beyond satire. More absurd concepts do not exist than shit like otherkin.

[–]ClassroomPast6178[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It’s just the logical conclusion of intersectionality. The more victimhood categories you can claim as your own the higher up the progressive stack you can climb. You’re going to have to bend the knee to the disabled, POC, lesbian, transgender, autist, refugee because for twenty-plus years that is exactly what the proponents of this intersectional nonsense have been setting up. They created a fucking monster that is now rampaging through everything, from education to government and media - and we probably have a ways to go before the masses catch on (although they may be learning as companies like Disney, Warner Brothers and Paramount lose money backing this stuff thinking that the masses want films and TV featuring this)