>>494137>it is associated with worse outcomesEven if we assume evidence to this end to be compelling, it may serve a purpose not yet considered, such as making people less vulnerable to actually violent mental health afflictees or discouraging degeneracy such as homosexuality and transgenderism.
>removing the stigma does not pose a significant risk or resource investment>organizing protests, changing education curricula, etc. is not a significant resource investment>removing stigma cannot have negative consequences>regardless of proof of its causative natureYou can't just assume that removing the stigma has negative effects to justify investing resources into removing it.
>It belongs there, but your challenge to my ethical claim is irrelevant. If you don't see how it followsFinish this sentence
>>I don't understand science or the nature of evidence>I don't understand science or the nature of evidence>Also I'm not equating morality with law, I'm pointing out the practical reality that an individuals moral beliefs are not going to change an entire society's behavior.This argument is about morals, and if you're going to use a legal argument for it then you're effectively equating them.
>ask me how I know you don't value your own timewhom are you quoting
>If I act like a woman does that make me a woman?No, your behavior does not define womanhood, but makes it apparent that you're a woman.
>I guess sex is different from gender in your opinion.>clearly false conclusion about my opinion made solely to offendand I thought it couldn't get any more obvious
