A while back I posted links to a company selling fancy, high dollar, underwear sized for small children which was designed to "pack" little boy genitals in a way that could cause harm to the child's development.
Well now, Target has decided to get into the act and is launching a line called (I believe) Tomboy X.
What's interesting is that these "packing" and "binding" undergarments come in sizes intended for children.
https://www.bustle.com/style/target-tomboyx-humankind-pride-collab
Because children need to start the potential damage to their genitals as early as possible, right?
6 comments:
Here's what the nation's medical experts and advisors are saying to conservative legislators and busybodies:
Butt out. Stop with this anti- and unscientific nonsense and leave expert advice to experts. And for all that's good on God's green earth, STOP penalizing and threatening legal actions against experts and the families of LGBTQ folks. That's causing MORE actual harm.
That's my summary. here's the link, if expert medical advice means anything at all to you:
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-states-stop-interfering-health-care-transgender-children
Craig... "Because children need to start the potential damage to their genitals as early as possible, right?"
WHAT "potential damage" is being done to genitals by chest binding (what binding refers to)?
What damage is being done to genitals (vagina) by "packing" (putting the equivalent of a sock in your pants)?
Is this something you're just pulling out of your ass (which MIGHT be harmful)?
As with all clothing, you need to buy and wear clothes properly. Because, duh.
In searching through medical advice, I can't see anything that suggests harm to genitals by chest binding or "packing..." (Also, I think you're doing it wrong. Little cisgender boys don't pack, that's something that transgender boys do.
Dan,
I've already posted links to the medical concerns about "packing". Which is not the same as "sticking a sock" in your drawers. Maybe you forgot the big hubub about wearing under britches that were too tight and it's negative effects on healthy function of the male reproductive system?
Crushing, packing, or otherwise restricting the male genitalia is the concern.
I guess your anal sex fixation just can't stay hidden.
FYI, this is a supplement to the first time I talked about this, I see no reason to repeat things that are readily accessible.
Good Lord. "Packing - according to YOUR websites you referenced - refers to transgender boys (ie, people who were born with vaginas) sticking or "packing" socks in their pants to give the look of having a penis.
https://xtramagazine.com/health/binding-packing-safely-178972
How does a person with a vagina harm their "male genitalia..."? They don't have it, as you'll recall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packing_(phallus)
I'm no expert in this, but I think there is the notion of "tucking" a penis in/down/away to give a smoother look, but I have not seen (from you or anyone else) any suggestion that young boys are doing it. Maybe they are.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/tucking-5093120
In any case, all of the LGBTQ friendly sources I've seen (just now reading up on this because of the outcry of anti-LGBTQ conservatives like you, so I'm clearly no expert) they offer warnings about what NOT to do to cause any harm.
If you're going to attack "the gays," at least use the right terminology. And again, I'm no expert at all on this, but noticed right away that you appear to be misusing your words in your frantic efforts to fearmonger.
Have NO idea what you think an "anal fixation" is or why that would come up in this conversation. It's certainly nothing I've raised.
Sounds like more conservative fearmongering.
Dan,
As I pointed out earlier, this is in the context of being a supplement to my previous citation regarding another company who is producing underwear that crushes the genitals of male children in preparation for "transitioning". Those products are produced in sizes for extremely young children. What I'm pointing out is that we're seeing Target mainstream something that was previously a bit more fringe.
The reality is that preventing normal, healthy growth of children bodies seems unhealthy at a minimum, harmful at worst.
"I'm no expert in this, but I think there is the notion of "tucking" a penis in/down/away to give a smoother look, but I have not seen (from you or anyone else) any suggestion that young boys are doing it. Maybe they are."
Clearly you're not. Strangely enough, you responded to my earlier reference regarding a company making underwear for small children that did exactly this. I guess you have the unique ability to respond on a topic, while simultaneously having "never seen any suggestion" that the topic was actually happening. Impressive.
"If you're going to attack "the gays,""
If you're going to attack me, then at least be accurate and stop lying.
Dan's anal fixation.
"Is this something you're just pulling out of your ass (which MIGHT be harmful)?"
It's good to see you acknowledge that (per actual medical experts) anal sex is harmful. (No I'm not going to go back and re hash that with you. It's not hard to find.)
Are you not smart enough to figure out who I'm "attacking" or do I have to spell it out in detail using words of less then three syllables?
"If you're going to attack "the gays," at least use the right terminology."
Yeah, Craig. Like "pervert", "sexual deviant", "practitioner of abomination", "hellbound violator of God's laws regarding human sexuality", "science denier", "liar". There are so many appropriate terms to use.
"I'm no expert in this," says Dan. But clearly he's turned on by it.
"If you're going to attack me, then at least be accurate and stop lying."
It wouldn't be progressive Christian grace-embracing if he wasn't lying.
"Are you not smart enough to figure out who I'm "attacking" or do I have to spell it out in detail using words of less then three syllables? "
Wow. Talk about low hanging fruit!! (No pun intended...but I'll run with it.)
Post a Comment