←back to thread

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

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 1 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | 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 #
beejiu[dead post] ◴[12 Jul 25 22:56 UTC] No.44545912[source]▶
[flagged]
kennywinker[dead post] ◴[12 Jul 25 22:59 UTC] No.44545926[source]▶
[flagged]
giingyui ◴[12 Jul 25 23:04 UTC] No.44545952[source]▶
I always wonder if these arguments are ever made in good faith. Comparing a treatment for diabetes to HRT. But there are people who really are off the deep end. So who knows.
replies(1): >>44546014 #
1. kennywinker ◴[12 Jul 25 23:12 UTC] No.44546014[source]▶
Made in good faith. And HRT is very rarely given to minors. The standard of care is puberty blockers until their 18.

Question about your good faith:

Do you have a problem with puberty blockers when given to non-trans kids? I.e. for precocious puberty