←back to thread

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 4 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.646s | source
Show context
stego-tech ◴[12 Jul 25 22:01 UTC] No.44545563[source]▶
[flagged]
replies(13): >>44545616 #>>44545682 #>>44545696 #>>44545710 #>>44545757 #>>44545790 #>>44545791 #>>44545797 #>>44545819 #>>44545845 #>>44545912 #>>44546077 #>>44546515 #
cultofmetatron[dead post] ◴[12 Jul 25 22:34 UTC] No.44545757[source]▶
[flagged]
afavour ◴[12 Jul 25 22:36 UTC] No.44545773[source]▶
I think your comment would be well served by adding some reasons why.
replies(4): >>44545835 #>>44545850 #>>44545853 #>>44545885 #
1. beejiu ◴[12 Jul 25 22:44 UTC] No.44545835[source]▶
Because youths don't have developed critical thinking skills and HRT is an invasive medical treatment!?
replies(2): >>44545849 #>>44545994 #
2. dymk ◴[12 Jul 25 22:47 UTC] No.44545849[source]▶
Zero kids are getting HRT without their parents consent, don’t spread transphobic FUD
replies(1): >>44545910 #
3. beejiu ◴[12 Jul 25 22:55 UTC] No.44545910[source]▶
It's not about the kids of their parents, it's about other parties that are promoting or encouraging HRT to other people's kids.
4. NPC82 ◴[12 Jul 25 23:10 UTC] No.44545994[source]▶
Putting aside that MDs trained in medical ethics should be the ones to decide the end-all debate of HRT for those under 18y/o (or maybe 24 by your standard) -- I would imagine "tips" here is mostly about logistics of navigating the US health system and filling in health-effect anecdotes where science has yet to affirm/study (which encompasses more areas of health than you might think). Also, "Invasive" and "non-invasive" are usually reserved for surgical contexts so I'm not sure I would apply that here.