[ SECRET POST #5396 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5396 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #772.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Um, while I will say that yes, some warnings and indications are overused (possibly due to aggressive CYA or those bizarre California laws - yes, me writing this down has been know to cause cancer in lab animals), but for something affecting hormones directly related to reproduction to possibly have effects on fertility? That would not be in any way surprising to me and would actually be something that I would sort of expect.

[(Anonymous)]

"Utereus-haver might not be able pump out babies" is a hell of a thing to prioritize over the kid's mental health.

[(Anonymous)]

da

I'm not sure whether you're a troll or just incredibly dim, but acknowledging the potential side effects of a medication is not prioritizing having babies over a kid's mental health. It is, in fact, a crucial element of the decision-making process, and of that whole "informed consent" thing.

[(Anonymous)]

Because people don't just "acknowledge and move on." they use it as a bludgeon because "bUt WhAt If ThEy EnD uP iNfErTiLe!!1!1!!!!11 BaN iT fOr UsE bY aNyOnE uNdEr EiGhTeEn!!!!1!!1!!!1111!!!!1"

[(Anonymous)]

Oooh, just say you're an idiot beforehand, we could save so much time.

[(Anonymous)]

Take your own advice.

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I did not say anything about prioritization at all (also, this would be true for people with functional reproductive organs of all sexes). I was commenting on the fact that it is weird not to acknowledge that something that affects reproductive health might affect all parts of it, that this isn't about a warning just being strapped on. It also wouldn't necessarily be considered a negative thing for some people.

[(Anonymous)]

Considering the infertility bit is used as a bludgeon, I don't trust people who hang off it.

[(Anonymous)]

It is a possible side effect and would be literally criminal to just not inform people who use the medication beforehand. That doesn't change just because it makes you uncomfy. You can't be this stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

They’re not stupid. They’re not talking about the warning being there in the first place. They’re criticizing the people who use the warning warning and the possibility as an excuse to demonize puberty blockers completely. People like JKR, obviously.

[(Anonymous)]

This whole thread was about "these things don't have side effects". Which they do. And pretending like there aren't any just because someone might use that information for something bad is at best disingenuous and at worst intentionally harmful.

[(Anonymous)]

Saying they’re “stock side effects” is where I think anon went wrong, sure. But nothing else in their comment reads as saying “there are no side-effects to puberty blockers”. Infertility is genuinely a side effect that is listed for pretty much every medication, so the people who act like that side effect is reason enough to never take puberty blockers are the people anon is talking about(and you’re not one of those people, nor are any of the other anons in this thread, just to be clear).

Though the possibility would obviously be higher in medication that directly effects hormones like puberty blockers do, that’s completely true. I just didn’t see anon say anywhere that the warning shouldn’t exist at all, whether on the box, or from the doctor prescribing it. Just that the warning shouldn’t be this be all end all for whether the person decides to take it or not. It should obviously be a consideration if it would bother them, of course.

[(Anonymous)]

I generally do agree with you here and quite honestly, I'd take the risk of possible infertility over another dead trans teen any day, justfor the record. I think I'll just chalk this all up to a general case of internet miscommunication and quite frankly, I'm too tired right now to follow this further.

[(Anonymous)]

Do you know what else has a profound effect on your hormones which has been proven through extensive research? Parabens. Do you know where they are? In almost every make-up and beauty product.

https://www.ewg.org/what-are-parabens

Parabens can act like the hormone estrogen in the body and disrupt the normal function of hormone systems affecting male and female reproductive system functioning, reproductive development, fertility and birth outcomes. Parabens can also interfere with the production of hormones.

Adolescent girls who wear makeup every day had 20 times the levels of propylparaben in their urine compared to those who never or rarely wear makeup (Berger 2018). The use of body and face lotions, hair products, sunscreens and makeup have all been predictors of and correlated with remarkably increased levels of urinary parabens (Sahki 2018, Nassan 2017, Braun 2014 and Fisher 2017).

Weird that we don't ban selling make-up products to teenage girls, but puberty blockers is a hill so many people want to die on.

[(Anonymous)]

And who in this here thread wants to band them? Nobody, that's who. This was all based on someone saying "puberty blockers don't have side effects" (which is factually wrong) and people rightfully disagreeing with them. Stop moving the goalposts just because you're out of actual arguments.
And bloody fucking hell, if you think make up has the same concentration of hormones as puberty blockers you must be pretty damn stupid.

[(Anonymous)]

Why are all of you twisting what anon was saying for zero reason? They’ve not saying these side effects don’t exist, they’re saying the universal probability of the side effects happening is overblown. It’s only TERF-types who act like the side effects will always take place in everyone who takes them, and that the risks are definitively not worth taking them. That’s who anon is talking about when they say the side effects are used a bludgeon by those with an agenda. They’re not saying the side effects don’t exist, that they shouldn’t be listed on the medication, or that doctors shouldn’t warn about them before prescribing them.

Istg you all decided to take the most bad-faith reading of what anon has been saying, and I have no clue how it benefits you.

[(Anonymous)]

Read the whole fucking thread. Started with "there are no side effects" to which the reply was "actually there are even though I don't think it's that bad in the grand scheme of thing" to which someone else went off with "noooo there's no way of knowing whether those side effects are based on the medication" which is complete bullshit. And then airt started obsessing about mentioning side effects being evil because only terms do that, as are you. You are just so far up your own ass that you WANT so see and call everyone a terf that you can't actually understand what's being written.

[(Anonymous)]

I literally didn’t call anyone in this thread a TERF. I was saying that they’re the people anon is referring to when they mentioned side effects being used as a bludgeon. You’re just too much of an angry idiot to have any reading comprehension right now.

I also never said side effects are never bad, or that they’re evil. You’re just putting words into my mouth when you can’t find anything to twist. And when did I ever mention the anon who said “there’s no way to know if side effects could be from another med, it’s just as likely they’re from parabens probably” much less defend them? So you’re also inventing other positions that I never took. If that was the anon who started this thread, then no I would never defend that, because it’s nonsense. Obviously a medication that directly effects hormones like puberty blockers would have a higher risk of side effects related to hormones.

I was only talking about the first anon that never actually said “there are no side effects”. Take a step back and actually read what people are saying, before you accuse others of being too far up their own ass to read correctly.

[(Anonymous)]

How am I supposed to know if you're the same anon? There are several different ones here and at least two of them have thrown the terf term at anyone who disagrees with them.
And top poster literally said "what's supposed to be the downside". I mentioned a possible downside and it went on from there. I don't actually really disagree with you for the most part so I'll take my leave here.

[(Anonymous)]

What are you talking about? First comment was "they can just stop using the medication", second was "there can be side effects though", and third was "yeah but that's true of any medication".

At NO POINT did anyone say "puberty blockers have no side effects" until you came screaming in.

[(Anonymous)]

The third anon actually said "nah that's just a stock warning they slap on everything and who's to say it even comes from the puberty blockers" which something very different than what you're referring to.

[(Anonymous)]

"Infertility is like cancer and heart disease in that it is a stock warning they slap on just about everything. There are so many possible causes of infertility that it is pointless to try and lay it at the door of just one thing anyway." =/= "Puberty blockers have no side effects at all."