6

10 comments

I mean, duh, of course when you frame it like that, it's uncommon: 0% of boys menstruate. 0% of boys have ever menstruated. "Period."

But the gist of the thread is to point out that even if 10-year-old girls were capable of getting pregnant thousands of years ago, it doesn't make sexual abuse of children morally acceptable. Which is of course true. That being said, she shoots down her own argument when she insists that saying "pregnant people" is valid because "people" encompasses "children." So why not just say "pregnant girls"? Because (of course) we can't have the "erasure of trans people" getting in the way of combating child rape. Literally nothing is allowed to take precedence over boo-hoo twanz fee-fees. Presumably she doesn't want to hear safeguarding arguments about how gender bullshit in and of itself is sexualized child abuse. How many mastectomies were performed in the medieval era on developing girls to "make them into boys"? Perhaps she could weigh in on the castrati of yore -- was that barbaric or nah?

Her bio is fun. Drug rave and mushroom mom who wants to "organize, decolonize and abolish billionaires." Argues downthread that rape is a byproduct of capitalism, which is inherently racist and colonialist and needs to be "deconstructed." In other words sexual abuse of kids wasn't a thing until white people came along and took all the bad acid or something.

[–] Carrots90 2 points Edited

I take it as she is excusing puberty blockers.

“Kids aren’t supposed to hit puberty until 19 anyway” or whatever

I don’t think she gives a poop about csa

I'm seeing a lot more of this language come up, not just this prof but other writings. "Pregnant child." So a girl is not old enough to consent to pregnancy but is old enough to consent to surgical mutilation or heavy-duty medication because she "feels" "like a boy" (or "feels" she would rather be, so as to escape exploitative sexualization). Only to get out of the frying pan and into the fire because she's just being roped into a different kind of exploitative sexualization.

There are no "trans kids."

[–] ProxyMusic 0 points Edited

She undermines her own reasoning, though. If it really wasn't normal and customary for kids to hit puberty until their late teens, then why do "trans kids" need to be put on "puberty blockers" at 10 or 11 - and cross-sex hormones so early too?

Or is she of the view that "trans kids" are unusually precocious in the same way they're supposed to be preternaturally wise, enlightened and even divine?