Binders. The world has gone mad.

trisher why are you so against girls getting proper fitting and advice on binders? Why do you prefer that they do this in secret with potentially damaging results?

I thought a transgender clinic in 1933 was interesting and the 1930s in Berlin was such a time of tolerance and diversity. I think realising what happened to permissive societies in history is helpful. If that makes you uncomfortable perhaps you should ask why?

So now you're deciding I feel uncomfortable? trisher you aren't doing yourself any favours by this continually attributing thoughts, feelings etc to people that they've not said. You are showing yourself up to be delusional at best or dishonest at worst. Please only refer to what I've actually said not what serves your purpose.

if a girl is happier having sex that's OK, but if she is happier wearing a binder that doesn't matter???? once more for the umpteenth time, no sex is not desirable for underage girls but if they're going to do it then protection against STIs or pregnancy is paramount. And again for the umpteenth time if a girl is determined to wear a binder I want her protected from unintentional consequences so want her to have the protection of it being properly sized and fitted for her.

And my questions trisher?
I was polite enough to answer yours
. . .

Doodledog

It is not possible to stop people from having sex. Even in societies when fornication is punishable by death or flogging it happens. Humans are hard-wired to do it, and no amount of regulation will prevent that.

Contraception can help to prevent pregnancy and can stop the spread of STIs, which is why condoms are free and readily available to young people. Not to encourage them to have sex, but as damage limitation.

Binders are not the same at all, and to point out the differences between the two things will only lead to posts pointing out the errors in comparison (or contrast) that would be inevitable if someone tried to do so.

Could you expand on that last paragraph which is far too deep for a simple mind like mine to understand.

You didn't answer if a girl is happier having sex that's OK, but if she is happier wearing a binder that doesn't matter????

It is not possible to stop people from having sex. Even in societies when fornication is punishable by death or flogging it happens. Humans are hard-wired to do it, and no amount of regulation will prevent that.

Contraception can help to prevent pregnancy and can stop the spread of STIs, which is why condoms are free and readily available to young people. Not to encourage them to have sex, but as damage limitation.

Binders are not the same at all, and to point out the differences between the two things will only lead to posts pointing out the errors in comparison (or contrast) that would be inevitable if someone tried to do so.

Do you think a young girl fully understands the ramifications of having sex at a young age, that she appreciates what pregnancy feels like or what it feels like to have an abortion? Ah you'll say but she will do it anyway- which is exactly the point of binders.
Much as she won't appreciate the finer pints of having sex ,the young girl won't appreciate all the problems involved in gender change. If she feels upset and disturbed enough to buy a binder stopping Lush selling them won't stop her binding. She will find other and more dangerous ways of doing it.
But both having sex and wearing a binder may make her feel happier why would you deny her either of them?

I thought a transgender clinic in 1933 was interesting and the 1930s in Berlin was such a time of tolerance and diversity. I think realising what happened to permissive societies in history is helpful. If that makes you uncomfortable perhaps you should ask why?

trisher

Rosie51

Many of us think that binders, which can cause irreversible damage, should only be administered and monitored by qualified professionals. I don't think anyone has said they promote transgenderism, although the partner to Lush in this enterprise is a transgender one. We all know some girls want them to avoid the male gaze. You on the other hand appear to be happy for young girls to be the subject of commercial exploitation, and any damage they do to themselves is incidental. I'm not at all keen on young girls using binders, but because I acknowledge some will I want them properly protected. I'm not keen on underage youngsters engaging in sex but because I acknowledge some will I want them as protected as is possible, hence no objection to free condoms, although any age can purchase them from shops and dispensers in toilets etc.

That's OK then here's a link where girls can free themselves from exploitation because their binder is free. morfmanchester.blogspot.com/p/binder-scheme.html
let's spread the word and stop the exploitation!

Nope, sorry that won't do at all! It's not being charged for or free that I object to with the binders it's the lack of any professional supervision. How many more times do I need to say that these things can cause irreversible damage, but if they were fitted by professionals, and their use monitored that damage would be severely limited.

Why is it acceptable to give condoms away when it could be argued to promote sexual activity?
In my experience (though possibly not yours) promoting the use of condoms is to try and persuade young people who shouldn’t be involved in sexual activity to at least take precautions.
I haven’t said binders promote transgenderism, though all your posts seem to make that link. Is that because you think the use of binders promotes transgenderism?
Any thing that potentially damages children too young to understand the ramifications of their actions is unacceptable. I’ve said that binders can cause damage and I don’t feel that your excuse that any damage is reversible is a good reason to use them.

So I’ve answered your question, now you could answer mine.
Do you think it acceptable that something you admit can cause damage, even if it is potentially reversible should be promoted and supplied to underage children by a soap firm?
Why do you always drag Nazis into your posts? It seems as if you can’t back up your claims with anything more present day.

Why is your name a common noun. Was it a spelling mistake like Pollygo or did you think it would make you stand out?

Rosie51

Many of us think that binders, which can cause irreversible damage, should only be administered and monitored by qualified professionals. I don't think anyone has said they promote transgenderism, although the partner to Lush in this enterprise is a transgender one. We all know some girls want them to avoid the male gaze. You on the other hand appear to be happy for young girls to be the subject of commercial exploitation, and any damage they do to themselves is incidental. I'm not at all keen on young girls using binders, but because I acknowledge some will I want them properly protected. I'm not keen on underage youngsters engaging in sex but because I acknowledge some will I want them as protected as is possible, hence no objection to free condoms, although any age can purchase them from shops and dispensers in toilets etc.

That's OK then here's a link where girls can free themselves from exploitation because their binder is free. morfmanchester.blogspot.com/p/binder-scheme.html
let's spread the word and stop the exploitation!

In case it's not obvious, that was to trisher. Rosie does not resort to snide digs at other posters.

You lost me at 'if you bothered to read the thread'. Having been called a liar, I am no longer prepared to respond to insulting or personally disparaging posts.

Many of us think that binders, which can cause irreversible damage, should only be administered and monitored by qualified professionals. I don't think anyone has said they promote transgenderism, although the partner to Lush in this enterprise is a transgender one. We all know some girls want them to avoid the male gaze. You on the other hand appear to be happy for young girls to be the subject of commercial exploitation, and any damage they do to themselves is incidental. I'm not at all keen on young girls using binders, but because I acknowledge some will I want them properly protected. I'm not keen on underage youngsters engaging in sex but because I acknowledge some will I want them as protected as is possible, hence no objection to free condoms, although any age can purchase them from shops and dispensers in toilets etc.

Doodledog

O. K. . .

Rosie mentioned a 16th century Act.
so trisher responds (rather than answering Rosie's point) with an historic example of transpeople being one of the numerous groups to be persecuted by the Nazis in the 1930s/40s.

Where is the logic there?

trisher brings in condoms as a comparison to binders.
People are confused (understandably, IMO)
so trisher points out that condoms have a 15% failure rate, which can result in pregnancy (although not at the rate of 15% of girls getting pregnant, which demonstrates another failure to understand statistics, more of which later).

This is then compared to the side effects of binders, which are reversible if they are applied correctly, but not unless. So now we are comparing failed condoms to 'successful' binding.

We then leap to the idea that the use of condoms will lead to abortion at a young age (when by trisher's dubious statistical analysis they will prevent 85% of pregnancies). Obviously, this ignores the fact that not all condom failures will lead to pregnancy, and of those that do, not all of the pregancies will happen to young girls, but let's ignore that for now.

The next leap of logic is to the idea that 'perhaps' we think that abortion at a young age is ok, that it wouldn't be traumatic for the girls involved, and that we think that binding would be worse. Nobody said any of those things, but hey, don't let any of the above nonsense get in the way of a chance to (try to) score a point and divert the conversation down an entirely spurious alley.

Well actually if you.bother to check the thread you will find I responded in detail to the allegations about the Act in question including the main use it was put to which was not to eradicate people of other religions at all, but to line the pockets of those in authority (so good try but it isn't actually true)

I then posted a real examle of eradication which was that the first transgender treatment clinic in Germany was shut down by the Nazis in 1933. Now I realise that none of you like to be linked to such extremism, but it is true that Berlin in the 1930s was the most sexually liberated city in the world and that some people found this offensive and that some people wanted the sexually different eradicated and that the Nazis did this. How that links in to the anti-trans movement we now see would seem obvious to me. I look on it as a sliding scale I know I'm at the libertarian end and diametrically opposed to authoritarianism. But where you come on that scale is something everyone should consider.

I have asked many times why it is acceptable for condoms to be given away when it could be argued the promote sexual activity (whatever the level of pregnancy involved when binders are to be restricted because they promote transgenderism? I still haven't an answer. The only real answer is that sexual activity in young people is accepted as inevitable whereas transgenderism is seen as somethng which is preventable. But stopping providing binders won't stop girls doing it. They will simply use less safe methods, just like without condoms they would have less safe sex.

It's not a spurious alley ts and examination of cultural norms

Rosie51

??? well analysed as always Doodledog

As Rosie51 said.

??? well analysed as always Doodledog

O. K. . .

Rosie mentioned a 16th century Act.
so trisher responds (rather than answering Rosie's point) with an historic example of transpeople being one of the numerous groups to be persecuted by the Nazis in the 1930s/40s.

Where is the logic there?

trisher brings in condoms as a comparison to binders.
People are confused (understandably, IMO)
so trisher points out that condoms have a 15% failure rate, which can result in pregnancy (although not at the rate of 15% of girls getting pregnant, which demonstrates another failure to understand statistics, more of which later).

This is then compared to the side effects of binders, which are reversible if they are applied correctly, but not unless. So now we are comparing failed condoms to 'successful' binding.

We then leap to the idea that the use of condoms will lead to abortion at a young age (when by trisher's dubious statistical analysis they will prevent 85% of pregnancies). Obviously, this ignores the fact that not all condom failures will lead to pregnancy, and of those that do, not all of the pregancies will happen to young girls, but let's ignore that for now.

The next leap of logic is to the idea that 'perhaps' we think that abortion at a young age is ok, that it wouldn't be traumatic for the girls involved, and that we think that binding would be worse. Nobody said any of those things, but hey, don't let any of the above nonsense get in the way of a chance to (try to) score a point and divert the conversation down an entirely spurious alley.

trisher I definitely do not think that having an abortion at a young age is OK and it won't significantly affect the girl, not as much as binding will anyway. you are just being deliberately offensive even making the suggestion that's what I'd think. I'm sorry to say I think you're sinking to a level beyond contempt with some of your remarks.
Just for the record that 15% failure rate applies across all ages who do not use the condom properly, not just with young people. You have stated yourself it's a 2% failure rate when used correctly. And the boy is vulnerable to disease transfer from the girl you know. That aside what on earth has condom use got to do with binders? You conflate them because it suits your agenda. Are you as concerned that some gay youth may be transmitting sexual diseases to each other because they too don't use them properly?

I apologise Rosie51 brought up an Act passed as an example of persecution (although actualy there were many prpominent Catholics in the UK) in the16th century.
So I brought up a historice incidence of trans perecution by the Nazis.

Rosie51 of course the boy using the condom isn't damaged it's the girl having sex with him. As I posted before there is a recorded 15% failure rate That's 15 girls out of every 100 getting pregnant. Compared with which possible skin irritation, possible loss of elasticity and other possible side effects all of which will resolve if the binding is done properly simply lose real relevance. Or perhaps you think that having an abortion at a young age is OK and it won't significantly affect the girl, not as much as binding will anyway.

trisher there are recorded instances of binders causing physical damage to the wearer. Please give us your examples of where a man or boy wearing a condom has been physically damaged by it. At least the condom is trying to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy to avoid harm. The binder does not promote physical health in any way with a very real risk of physical damage.
Why you keep emphasising misuse of condoms but bellow The girl using a binder can find so much information about how to do it safely on line. If used properly it should not interfere with the surgical process. The exact same level of information is available about condom use and as they accommodate a good range of erect penis sizes there isn't the added problem of correct measurement!

eh? I made a link between Catholics and Nazis? I don't think so! I have never mentioned Nazis. And incidentally it wasn't just Catholics affected, anyone who didn't attend Anglican Church could be and were fined.
For anybody interested in the truth my post was at 20.14 yesterday.

Chewbacca

Young people, including girls, can harm themselves with a whole raft of things; drink, drugs, self harming...... they're all out there, easily accessible, all will cause them long term damage to one degree or another. But we don't promote them doing any of those things because we know, as adults, that they're not a good idea and so the responsible adults will counsel, advise and guide them away from those choices. Why on earth would any sane, responsible adult promote the use of chest binders, that are also harmful, particularly in view of the fact that if that girl does decide to transition, she'll be making the surgical process more difficult?

Why is supplying a binder seen as "promoting binding". but supplying a condom isn't seen as "promoting sexual intercourse"?
Who follows up the condom and sees it is used properly and the individual it was supplied to isn't causing any longterm damage?

The girl using a binder can find so much information about how to do it safely on line. If used properly it should not interfere with the surgical process.
And as you are blaming Lush you should know there is a scheme in the UK that gives out free binders morfmanchester.blogspot.com/p/binder-scheme.html

OnwardandUpward

Also dying to hear the link between Nazi's and Catholics made by Trisher!! ??

Actually the link was made by Rosie51 yesterday. You can find the post if you wish. Of course if you don't understand what the act was meant to do you won't understand that it was about. Catholics. or my reply to Rosie51

Also dying to hear the link between Nazi's and Catholics made by Trisher!! ??

Rosie51

I now have a vision of a head in a condom, not the nicest image as I'm off to my bed ??

? Apologies for my atrocious syntax!

Apart from the connection that trisher has made up, what is the link between condoms and binders?

I now have a vision of a head in a condom, not the nicest image as I'm off to my bed ??