Thread by @QuestionPDX

THREAD: Gender industry "ethicists" never tire of helping drug manufacturers offload shoddy products.

Enter "OPS," something so unethical that once ethicists taste it they lose their bearings completely.

Allow me to illustrate...

#GenderCritical
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103366/

2/ OPS stands for ongoing puberty suppression.

As in forever. Let it sink in.

Recall that puberty-suppressing drugs were developed to help kids whose puberty comes on too soon. Their use is steeped in controversy, foremost because they damage bone development; but also...

3/...because their ensuing decrease in popularity due to these problems left the industry wondering where it could offload them next.

Which fueled the brilliant idea of suppressing puberty in perfectly healthy kids, in the name of "gender."

4/ Little boys who have the wrong favorite color (pink!), or little girls who play with the wrong toys (trucks!), could be spared the indignity of developing secondary sexual characteristics that are have not been approved for those interests.

5/ Because the development of healthy ovaries in a truck lover, or testes in the pinkly inclined, isn't woke and must therefore be medicated away at all costs.

6/ But then pesky ethics investigations throughout Scandinavia and the UK curtailed that practice too. Even in the Wokiest US-of-A some state legislatures started asking unprofitable questions.

It became necessary to look for an over-18 market.

7/ And yet, one might ask, how does one go about marketing puberty blockade to those who are...beyond puberty?

Answer: By ensuring that patients *never* make it beyond puberty, at any age. The forever thing.

8/ Those who continue to take puberty-blocking drugs forever can reach a Peter Pan Neverland known as "nonbinary."

In the process, they can avoid all of the pesky things that sex hormones do for male and female bodies. Such as ensuring that the brain, bones and organs function.

9/ It's such a good idea that a bunch of people in Europe, the US and Australia who already make money from selling puberty-blocking drugs got together and agreed that selling them some more was...

10/ ..."consistent with the proper goals of medicine to promote well-being."

But, in case anyone had doubts, a medical ethicist made super-duper sure, and concluded that it was so very, very ethical for doctors to offer these drugs...

11/ ...to adults on request, that perhaps doctors shouldn't weigh risks and benefits of drugs at all. I mean, who do they think they are? Right?

And, by the way, as long as we realize that doctors shouldn't say no to patients...

12/ ...it's also important to rememeber that parents shouldn't have any say in their children's treatment.

Got that?

So, once again: Ethics teaches us that once we realize that a dangerous childhood drug should only be offered to adults who don't need it...

13/ ...we must also realize that children should also get dangerous drugs they don't need.

And it's unethical to tell anyone (except doctors and parents) "no."

Because ethics.

14/ But enough of second-hand accounts of this humanitarian breakthrough! Let the ethicist speak for herself:

15/ "[I]t is no longer the job of physicians to do their own weighing of the costs and benefits of transition-related care."

AND ALSO

"[P]arents should lose veto power over most transition-related paediatric care."

Short and sweet.

16/ It's been said that ethics is a euphamism for "what you can get away with."

The person who said that was probably an adult.

Fortunately, that can now be cured.

@threadreaderapp unroll