Gender neutral kids clothing

Shenshen

Jack Killian wrote: »

The subject of this thread is actually "gender neutral" clothes, which would preclude any discussion on "masculisation" and "feminisation", to be honest.

That aside, it's the false assertion that I outlined in the previous post, where men who don't fit the ridiculous macho stereotype are told that they are "more female", and that gender is "fluid" / sliding scale.

Your own examples showed that; where you labelled males who knit or women who wash cars as somehow "less" of their gender.

They're not "more female" or "more male".

They're male and female. Biological facts. Not behaviours, not hobbies, not interests.

Facts.

I think I need to correct you, I was not labeling. I was repeating labels I had previously encountered, both in this thread and in real life, to illustrate a point.

I'm still confused what the objection to women doing perceived male things and men doing perceived female things actually is.
Apparently even just being neutral in your choice of clothes is objectionable?

stefanovich

Jack Killian wrote:

But the thread title alone ? "Unisex" would be grand, right ?

I used gender fluid as that's what the clothes are marketed as.

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

I think I need to correct you, I was not labeling. I was repeating labels I had previously encountered, both in this thread and in real life, to illustrate a point.

Fair enough. I try to avoid colloquialisms and stereotypes in case they're interpreted as my own view, but I understand that not everyone does that.

I'm still confused what the objection to women doing perceived male things and men doing perceived female things actually is.

Nothing. The issue is the perception. Someone doing those things is not "more male" or "more female". They can't be, as the terms are binary.

Apparently even just being neutral in your choice of clothes is objectionable?

I'd have thanked your post were it not for this bit, because I've no idea how you came to that conclusion / felt the need to ask that question ?

Jack Killian

stefanovich wrote: »

I used gender fluid as that's what the clothes are marketed as.

Fair enough. I still use "used car" because I ignore pointless marketing fads!

Shenshen

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'd have thanked your post were it not for this bit, because I've no idea how you came to that conclusion / felt the need to ask that question ?

Because it's what this thread is about - dressing children neutrally, not immediately identifiable as boys or girls. And this is what a large number of posters seem to have a problem with.
Personally, I'm really curious about why it would be a problem (in particular as girls have been dressed in similar fashion to boys since I was in kindergarden, so I assume the problem is more when it's boys appearing more feminine), but I can't say I've yet heard a convincing point.

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

Because it's what this thread is about - dressing children neutrally, not immediately identifiable as boys or girls.

They're not neutral though. They're making a point and pandering to a demographic.

As are "outdoor pyjama" manufacturers, etc.

Probably best ignored, to be honest; it's a marketing stunt and no-one would have heard of her if it hadn't been so "edgy" and "controversial".

Barry Badrinath

I for one am glad someone has identified and plugged a much needed "gap" in the fashion industry.

A gender neutral kids clothing line is so hip and now and correct and long overdue and and and things.

It shows a high level of zeal to properly exploit peoples PC radar.

All joking aside.....was this clothing line actually needed?

smash

Shenshen wrote: »

Because it's what this thread is about - dressing children neutrally, not immediately identifiable as boys or girls. And this is what a large number of posters seem to have a problem with.

It's not what people have a problem with. If the clothing is neutral then it can't be argued, but if the clothing holds a preexisting associated to a specific gender then taking off the tag does not render it neutral. Not even in the slightest. It is just trying to force a perception/belief on people to cater for a very small minority of adults who want to dress a certain way.

Shenshen

Jack Killian wrote: »

They're not neutral though. They're making a point and pandering to a demographic.

As are "outdoor pyjama" manufacturers, etc.

Probably best ignored, to be honest; it's a marketing stunt and no-one would have heard of her if it hadn't been so "edgy" and "controversial".

I don't honestly know what the clothes in that original link are, other than very ugly.
But I would be happy to see more colours in children's clothes other than blue and pink again.
Interesting enough, there was an interview on Newstalk yesterday afternoon where someone stated that the whole blue/pink thing really only took off in the 1990s, when some clever manufacturers figured out that this was a way of selling twice the amount of stuff to a family that had one boy and one girl.

Worked a treat - reading some of the posts here people really seem to believe it's the end of Western civilisation if a boy should wear pink trousers.

smash

Shenshen wrote: »

But I would be happy to see more colours in children's clothes other than blue and pink again.

It has been a very long time since children's clothing were exclusively blue or pink so this line needs to stop. I mean, every 2nd young lad I see if wearing pink astro football shoes because the professions have them.

Shenshen wrote: »

Interesting enough, there was an interview on Newstalk yesterday afternoon where someone stated that the whole blue/pink thing really only took off in the 1990s, when some clever manufacturers figured out that this was a way of selling twice the amount of stuff to a family that had one boy and one girl.

I wouldn't buy that. Sure the late 80's and early 90's were full of mad coloured clothes. It wasn't unusual to see a man wearing bright colours.

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

I don't honestly know what the clothes in that original link are, other than very ugly.
But I would be happy to see more colours in children's clothes other than blue and pink again.
Interesting enough, there was an interview on Newstalk yesterday afternoon where someone stated that the whole blue/pink thing really only took off in the 1990s, when some clever manufacturers figured out that this was a way of selling twice the amount of stuff to a family that had one boy and one girl.

Worked a treat - reading some of the posts here people really seem to believe it's the end of Western civilisation if a boy should wear pink trousers.

I personally reckon that no-one should wear pink, and would love to see other colours. The "baby blue" for boys is actually vile too.

But I think the fact that the ****stirr I mean marketer in that article chose pink proves that she was completely uninterested in creating "neutral" colours or adding colours like you mention you'd prefer too.

Shenshen

smash wrote: »

It has been a very long time since children's clothing were exclusively blue or pink so this line needs to stop. I mean, every 2nd young lad I see if wearing pink astro football shoes because the professions have them.

I apologise, I should have been more precise. Small children and toddlers. I've recently been trying to buy baby clothes for a pregnant friend who doesn't know (or doesn't want to tell, we're not sure) what sex her baby will be. I ended up buying something online, as there was nothing neutral to be had in the shops here.

I wouldn't buy that. Sure the late 80's and early 90's were full of mad coloured clothes. It wasn't unusual to see a man wearing bright colours.

It took off in the 90s, not the 80s. And she was refering to children's toys and clothes, not to adult clothing.

osarusan

More pictures of the clothing line:

http://www.gardnerandthegang.com/collections/all#


EDIT: I originally posted a different link to a different site which had a different clothing line, which explains the confusion over the next 8 posts or so.

Shenshen

osarusan wrote: »

More pictures of the clothing line:

https://www.instagram.com/gardnerandthegang/?hl=en

Click on 'load more' at the bottom to..ah...load more.

Way too much pink - I don't see how any of those clothes would be "neutral", to be honest.

Barry Badrinath

osarusan wrote: »

More pictures of the clothing line:

https://www.instagram.com/gardnerandthegang/?hl=en

Click on 'load more' at the bottom to..ah...load more.

Awful!

Looks like Mugatu designed them.

This is more about the "designer" gaining praise and notoriety for being the "first" to branch out and introduce this specific type of clothing line.

Only because it's so "in" right now.

Cha ching!

smash

Shenshen wrote: »

I apologise, I should have been more precise. Small children and toddlers. I've recently been trying to buy baby clothes for a pregnant friend who doesn't know (or doesn't want to tell, we're not sure) what sex her baby will be. I ended up buying something online, as there was nothing neutral to be had in the shops here.

That's surprising. Most children's clothes shops seem to carry endless stock of cream/white/beige clothes.

osarusan wrote: »

More pictures of the clothing line:

https://www.instagram.com/gardnerandthegang/?hl=en

Click on 'load more' at the bottom to..ah...load more.

EDIT: Sorry, that link takes you to the full range of clothes sold by whatever retailer the actress has done her 'collaboration' with, not just to the range in question.

http://www.gardnerandthegang.com/collections/land-of-no-difference-ss2016

"IT IS ALL ABOUT STANDING OUT FROM THE BACKGROUND"

I thought it was about being neutral? :rolleyes:

Bob24

Shenshen wrote: »

Way too much pink - I don't see how any of those clothes would be "neutral", to be honest.

I am not sure everything in that instagram page is part of the specific "neutral" line.

But yeah I don't think sending a kid to school dressed like this would be giving them a service: https://www.instagram.com/p/BGD_G7ZtWiB/?taken-by=gardnerandthegang&hl=en

(disclaimer:I am not saying it should be banned, just that it would likely have a negative impact on the kids's social life)

osarusan

As I said, Sorry, that link takes you to the full range of clothes sold by whatever retailer the actress has done her 'collaboration' with, not just to the range in question.

No idea where to find the actual kids' clothing range in designed by the actress - probably because it isn't on sale yet.

sunny2004

Some look fine some look stupid, bit like going into any shop

YOU DONT HAVE TO BUY THEM haha...

smash

osarusan wrote: »

As I said, Sorry, that link takes you to the full range of clothes sold by whatever retailer the actress has done her 'collaboration' with, not just to the range in question.

No idea where to find the actual kids' clothing range in designed by the actress - probably because it isn't on sale yet.

Is it not the link I posted in reply to yours?

osarusan

smash wrote: »

Is it not the link I posted in reply to yours?

That link is to the Gardner and the Gang website, which is a different company with different lines of clothes - only one of which is the line that is the collaboration with the actress mentioned in the OP.

The pictures there are from all of their different lines and designs, not just the line being discussed in this thread. I'm not sure if some of the pictures are from that line, or none of them are.

I can't find any link to that specific line - just to the website in general.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

That link is to the Gardner and the Gang website, which is a different company with different lines of clothes - only one of which is the line that is the collaboration with the actress mentioned in the OP.

I can't find any link to that specific line - just to the website in general.

The line I linked to is called "LAND OF NO DIFFERENCE" so I assume that's the line. Although the promotional shots from the OP's article are all from their general clothing line.

osarusan

smash wrote: »

The line I linked to is called "LAND OF NO DIFFERENCE" so I assume that's the line. Although the promotional shots from the OP's article are all from their general clothing line.

No, the collection is called 'The Lion’s Heart'.

I am not even sure if any of the photos from either the article linked in the OP or the website itself even contain photos of the line.

You'd assume that the photos in the link in the OP would be (considering the way it's written and even the instagram picture embedded in it - you'd certainly imagine that that photo is from the line), but as you say, they seem to be from the company in general rather than this specific line.

Jack Killian

Another quick question.

Would the "they should wear what they like" brigade be ok with them wearing adult clothes like lingerie, or tattoos, or earrings or tongue and nose piercings ? Even fake tan and makeup ?

Just trying to get my head around the mindset and where this new "line" is being drawn, and whether it's purely pushing the agenda of blurring the line between male and female or whether it's a genuine and consistent "wear what they want" that I just don't understand.

Edit : basically is it as acceptable to those people to "adultise" a child as it is to "feminise" them ?

And if not, why is blurring the lines between male and female more "acceptable" ?

Shenshen

Jack Killian wrote: »

Another quick question.

Would the "they should wear what they like" brigade be ok with them wearing adult clothes like lingerie, or tattoos, or earrings or tongue and nose piercings ?

Just trying to get my head around the mindset and where this new "line" is being drawn, and whether it's purely pushing the agenda of blurring the line between male and female or whether it's a genuine and consistent "wear what they want" that I just don't understand.

You mean you never dressed up in your mom's frilly nightie to play princess when you were a little girl?

As for body alterations, my mom took the pragmatic approach. We were allowed to get anything pierced that we liked, anything shaved off that we liked and anything we liked dyed any colour we liked. But getting a tattoo came with her promise of no more pocket money, ever. So we waited with that until we earned our own money.

I still think it was rather sensible - there's no damage done that won't heal or grow out eventually, a piercing once removed just leaves a small scar. Tattoos are more permanent and should therefore be considered more carefully.

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

You mean you never dressed up in your mom's frilly nightie to play princess when you were a little girl?

Er, I know the topic is all about blurring lines and all that, but........

Yours sincerely,
Jack

Shenshen

Jack Killian wrote: »

Er, I know the topic is all about blurring lines and all that, but........

Yours sincerely,
Jack

What? I work with a lady in her 50s called Jack - short for Jacqueline.

osarusan

http://www.gardnerandthegang.com/collections/all#

here's a link to all collections. Under each item, it says which collection it's a part of .

If you go to the homepage and bring up the 'Lion's heart' collection and click on 'shop' then all of the items will be from the collection.

Ironically, and bafflingly, the first two items for sale are 'baby sets' that come in both pink and navy.

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

What? I work with a lady in her 50s called Jack - short for Jacqueline.

Bad enough that I can't wear pink - or even knit - without someone assuming I'm gay or effeminate, now you're saying I can't even use my name ?

Bob24

Shenshen wrote: »

What? I work with a lady in her 50s called Jack - short for Jacqueline.

If that is the way she spells it - it definitely isn't a common form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_%28given_name%29#Variant_and_diminutive_forms

The diminutive for Jacqueline is Jacquie, Jackie, Jacque or Jacqui, which also has many variants.

Duggy747

I think that collection looks rank, the clothes look like something the characters from Rocko's Modern Life would wear.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

No, the collection is called 'The Lion’s Heart'.

I am not even sure if any of the photos from either the article linked in the OP or the website itself even contain photos of the line.

You'd assume that the photos in the link in the OP would be (considering the way it's written and even the instagram picture embedded in it - you'd certainly imagine that that photo is from the line), but as you say, they seem to be from the company in general rather than this specific line.

The Lion’s Heart is their general collection.

Shenshen

Bob24 wrote: »

If that is the way she spells it - it definitely isn't a common form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_%28given_name%29#Variant_and_diminutive_forms

The diminutive for Jacqueline is Jacquie, Jackie, Jacque or Jacqui, which also has many variants.

That's the way she spells it - she's even got it down that way on the office list. I think really that's here choice, not wikipedia's, no?

osarusan

smash wrote: »

The Lion’s Heart is their general collection.

From the link in the OP:

Jaime King just shared a sneak peek at her upcoming kids’ collection with indie retailer Gardner and the Gang, and it’s all kinds of adorable.

The collection is titled “The Lion’s Heart” and features playful patterns, bright colors and — as you can see from the sweatshirt — a super sweet message. But, TBH, what we’re digging most about the collection is that every piece was designed to be gender neutral.

smash

osarusan wrote: »

From the link in the OP:

And?

There are big banners on the designer's site that says "The Lion's Heart" and it links to their general collection. Or to what appears to be their general collection because it's bloody endless.

Foxhound38

Shenshen wrote: »

That's the way she spells it - she's even got it down that way on the office list. I think really that's here choice, not wikipedia's, no?

I just wish adults from all sides would stop putting their political and social baggage on kids and just allow them to be kids.

If your boy wants to play with a barbie doll, get him a barbie doll. On the other hand, don't freak out about the lack of "gender fluid clothes" for your three year old in the shops, because chances are the kid doesn't really give a s*ite.

People on both sides really need to understand that not everything has to be about them and their issues.

osarusan

smash wrote: »

And?

There are big banners on the designer's site that says "The Lion's Heart" and it links to their general collection. Or to what appears to be their general collection because it's bloody endless.

Keep scrolling down the list of clothing items and the title of the collection eventually changes.

Bob24

Shenshen wrote: »

That's the way she spells it - she's even got it down that way on the office list. I think really that's here choice, not wikipedia's, no?

Sure it is not about her - just saying it is unusual and first assuming someone called Jack was a woman was indeed kind of weird. Nothing else.

Grab All Association

https://joeystylesyou.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/starfleet_uniforms_late_2360s.jpg

Let's all just wear Starfleet uniforms.

ceadaoin.

wakka12 wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/24/trans-women-could-get-pregnant-within-next-ten-years_n_8627006.html
Hmm maybe not as long as you think. And so what if they can't reproduce, do you think infertile people born as women are less real women just because of this?

Of course not. The definition of female is "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs" A female who is born infertile still fits that definition. She is of the sex that can bear children, whether she as an individual can or not does not change that.

Transplanting a womb into a female who already has a female reproductive system is different than putting one into a male whose body is not designed for such a thing. It even says in the article that even if a transplant were possible, the amount of drugs needed for a biological male to sustain a pregnancy would have lasting effects on the child. Not to mention the problem of implanting the foetus in the first place given that there would be no vagina or cervix. It would be completely unethical to subject a foetus to that.

Shenshen

Bob24 wrote: »

Sure it is not about her - just saying it is unusual and first assuming someone called Jack was a woman was indeed kind of weird. Nothing else.

1) I'm not from Ireland or any English speaking country. Jack is not a name that exists in my native language, and the only Jack I know here personally is a woman.

2) I don't assume that the names people choose for them on the forum are their own, or have anything much to do with their real selves. I'm not Chinese, for example, despite the name.

3) I have a tendency to assume I'm talking to females unless it becomes otherwise obvious. No idea why, always had.

I think it's kind of weird you'd be spending that much time wondering about why a total stranger didn't guess another total stranger's sex online instantly.

One eyed Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

1) I'm not from Ireland or any English speaking country. Jack is not a name that exists in my native language, and the only Jack I know here personally is a woman.

2) I don't assume that the names people choose for them on the forum are their own, or have anything much to do with their real selves. I'm not Chinese, for example, despite the name.

3) I have a tendency to assume I'm talking to females unless it becomes otherwise obvious. No idea why, always had.

I think it's kind of weird you'd be spending that much time wondering about why a total stranger didn't guess another total stranger's sex online instantly.

:pac:

Jack Killian

Shenshen wrote: »

1) I'm not from Ireland or any English speaking country. Jack is not a name that exists in my native language, and the only Jack I know here personally is a woman.

2) I don't assume that the names people choose for them on the forum are their own, or have anything much to do with their real selves. I'm not Chinese, for example, despite the name.

3) I have a tendency to assume I'm talking to females unless it becomes otherwise obvious. No idea why, always had.

I think it's kind of weird you'd be spending that much time wondering about why a total stranger didn't guess another total stranger's sex online instantly.

Sooooo [this language pun alert] .... you don't know Jack ?

Bob24

Shenshen wrote: »

1) I'm not from Ireland or any English speaking country. Jack is not a name that exists in my native language, and the only Jack I know here personally is a woman.

2) I don't assume that the names people choose for them on the forum are their own, or have anything much to do with their real selves. I'm not Chinese, for example, despite the name.

3) I have a tendency to assume I'm talking to females unless it becomes otherwise obvious. No idea why, always had.

I think it's kind of weird you'd be spending that much time wondering about why a total stranger didn't guess another total stranger's sex online instantly.

Not a native English speaker either. And spent about 20 seconds between my 2 previous posts on this ... it's ok not that much time.

Anyway I didn't mean to attack you or anything, sorry if it came across that way but to me you also came across as trying to lecture the other poster without knowing anything about them which is why I reacted.

Jack Killian

Bob24 wrote: »

Not a native English speaker either. And spent about 20 seconds between my 2 previous posts on this ... it's ok not that much time.

Anyway I didn't mean to attack you or anything, sorry if came across that way but to me you also came across as trying to lecture the other poster without knowing anything about them which is why I reacted.

I'm just wondering how much of the thread they read, as I'd already posted objecting to the use of "identify as" terminology for people who ARE male (no "identify as" required) by saying "I'm male. I don't "identify as" male; I AM male".

Bob24

Jack Killian wrote: »

I'm just wondering how much of the thread they read, as I'd already posted objecting to the use of "identify as" terminology for people who ARE male (no "identify as" required) by saying "I'm male. I don't "identify as" male; I AM male".

And btw - with only posts irrelevant to the discussion (I mean literally everyones', including mines) since you asked it, no one actually addressed your original question which I though was fairly interesting:

Jack Killian wrote: »

is it as acceptable to those people to "adultise" a child as it is to "feminise" them ?

And if not, why is blurring the lines between male and female more "acceptable" ?

(that was your summary but people can go back 2 pages earlier to find the longer version)

Annasopra

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

And, as I said, these things can effect their mental health too, and generally they get much better help than trans folk do. I'm not trying to belittle your, or anyone else's position here, but far more people have accepted help for - and come to terms with - much, much worse thingd than feeling like they were given the wrong body. I refuse to considered "ignorant" by you or anyone else for pointing out the facts, like I have, and feeling that trans people have been betrayed by society at large.


Sadly, yoy are 100% correct. Again, it's unfortunate, but life is rather **** and I'm not sure I, or many others, would be here if we didn't face that fact. These people... They feel bad and want to feel good. They'll do anything to feel good. Tell any lie. Slam any person trying to tell them otherwise. You can see where I'm going here.


You don't care? Are you saying you're gender fluid? Because I'm sorry, but I just don't see how that can be worked into an effective society. I really don't. You'll need two pictures on your license for a start...

Look, the uncomfortable question here is at what point does it make more sense to help yourself work in society over going through the war of forcing society to work around you?
Because the people who say you can do the latter, are the one's doing the damage..


Getting this emotional is not an argument. I do not hate, contrary to what some higher power may believe... FFS half of these people are attempting suicide after the fact, In the most tolerant parts of the world and it's hitting like you're choosing to blame us, because it's easier than blaming the people who wanted to feel good, and selfishly did so by signal virtuing. If I have a child and he wants to wear a dress at home, it's not happening. He can be unhappy for a while, but here's the thing. I have no control over what happens in school. None whatsoever over what the other boys will do to him, and thats just the sad reality, but I face it.
One persons disapproval vs his entire class.
Unhappiness at home, vs the guaranteed devastation of his school life and future.
Life is unhappy, unhappy choices have to be made.


Men disgust you? I'll do you the favour of not addressing that.
As for the rest of the post, again, I don't hate. Nowhere have I alluded to that. I'm certainly not a knife wielding piece of ****. And if I didn't care, I'd say nothing. You are entitled to live your life, I didn't say you weren't. If someone is happy, fine. I don't agree with transgenderism, but I live and let live. Ironically enough, That's actually what tolerance is. You cannot say you tolerate something/one you like or agree with. It's only when something you disagree with, that your tolerance comes into question.

Someone's happy, fine. But most aren't. And that's not right. And automatically blaming people like me without focusing on anything else isn't going to do anything either.

I am truly sorry if you have taken a harder path in life. But I just can't ignore that people are pushing you, just so they can fill their selfish need to feel better about themselves. I certainly don't feel nearly as good, writing this.

I'm going to leave it here.

Honestly the line that you are continuously pushing that SRS is unsucessful and that most people are unhappy after it is actually a transphobic and offensive argument and it is very easy for me to see why Lyaiera got emotional and angry and lashed out. You claim that live and let live and you tolerate trans people but actually your arguments display the opposite.

You misrepresented the Swedish study used earlier to posit that surgery is not a succesful option. It very clearly stated on the Swedish study the complete opposite.

"Such studies have been conducted either prospectively or retrospectively, and suggest that sex reassignment of transsexual persons improves quality of life and gender dysphoria."

Not only that but the overwhelming scientific stands against your ludicrous claims of lies and denial.

Here are 71 peer reviewed scientific articles detailing how transition surgery is effective.

http://www.cakeworld.info/transsexualism/what-helps/srs

noaddedsugar

You can live and let live and tolerate without actually agreeing with something.

Renegade Mechanic

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Honestly the line that you are continuously pushing that SRS is unsucessful and that most people are unhappy after it is actually a transphobic and offensive argument and it is very easy for me to see why Lyaiera got emotional and angry and lashed out. You claim that live and let live and you tolerate trans people but actually your arguments display the opposite.

You misrepresented the Swedish study used earlier to posit that surgery is not a succesful option. It very clearly stated on the Swedish study the complete opposite.

"Such studies have been conducted either prospectively or retrospectively, and suggest that sex reassignment of transsexual persons improves quality of life and gender dysphoria."

Not only that but the overwhelming scientific stands against your ludicrous claims of lies and denial.

Here are 71 peer reviewed scientific articles detailing how transition surgery is effective.

http://www.cakeworld.info/transsexualism/what-helps/srs

You don't get to call something "phobic" just because it disagrees with you.
Nor is it offensive.
And I don't see how any of my posts here have amounted to the opposite of tolerance, either.
I'm here, arguing on an Internet forum.
Would I go out on some nutcase protest against it? No. Would I assault/interfere with any one? Of course not. Would I call one out in the street or jeer at them? Nope.
That's not tolerant. That's phobic. That's offensive. That's hateful.

Discussing my scepticism here... just isn't.

And I don't blame them or hold anything against them for lashing out. Why would I?
However, I refuse to be implicated as some form of cause for the outburst, which I have a sneaky suspicion you are attempting to do.

Does it improve the quality of life. Likely.
Does it fix it permanently? For the biological, albeit unpalatable reasons I outlined earlier, I don't believe so.
Is it the answer? I don't believe so.
Might it be better to explore more options in getting the help and support necessary to come to terms with the body you have and facilitate acceptance of the same?
I believe so.

I do not consider scepticism, offensive or phobic.

MadDog76

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Honestly the line that you are continuously pushing that SRS is unsucessful and that most people are unhappy after it is actually a transphobic ............

........... I stopped reading your post at that stage because I realised there would be no point.