Posted on 09/12/2023 8:28:24 AM PDT by Red Badger
A 19-year-old woman named Chloe Cole, who was medically transitioned as a minor and has since detransitioned, was censored by Instagram over the weekend.
It’s unclear why Cole was censored, but the teen captioned a photo of her bio on the social media platform, wherein she identifies herself as a detranstioner.
Cole’s bio notes that she’s “female” with two X chromosomes and a “former trans kid.” It also says that she was started on testosterone and puberty blockers at age 13, underwent a double mastectomy at 15, and finally detranstioned at 16.
“The big tech overlords think I’m too cute to be on here,” Cole quipped, captioning messages from Instagram, which is owned by Meta.
“Your account cannot be shown to non-followers,” the social media platform said, according to the screenshots. “Your account activity may not follow our Recommendations Guidelines.”
“What this means: Your account and content won’t appear in places like Explore, Search, Suggested Users, Reels, and Feed Recommendations,” the message continued.
Under Instagrams’s “guidelines on violence,” it reads as follows: “Our Recommendations Guidelines help promote content that fosters a safe community on Instagram. We try not to recommend content or accounts that show violence, such as people fighting. This includes: All accompanying text or imagery that encourage violence, include hashtags, terms, and bio.”
Cole is notably suing the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system for her transgender treatment. Recently testifying before Congress, the teenager pleaded with lawmakers to let her story by the “final warning.”
“Doctors are human, too, and sometimes they are wrong,” she said before Congress. “My childhood was ruined – along with thousands of de-transitioners that I know through our networks – this needs to stop. You alone can stop it. Enough children have already been victimized by this barbaric pseudoscience; please let me be your final warning.”
Cole is certainly not alone in taking on medical professionals who perform irreversible transgender treatments on young people. A now-21-year-old Texas woman named Soren Aldaco is suing her doctors in excess of $1 million over transgender medical interventions she received as a teenager.
Soren and her lawyer, Ron Miller, are not only searching for accountability and justice in Soren’s particular case, but want to send a message to medical insurers. “It’s about catching the attention of insurance companies, that they might want to stop insuring this kind of practice,” Miller told The Daily Wire. “And if they stop insuring this kind of practice, practitioners tend to not like to take that risk on themselves, so they stop doing it.”
In the lawsuit, Soren claims that medical professionals in Texas were guided by their ideology and irresponsibly facilitated treatments and surgeries that have led to Soren’s “permanent disfigurement” and have caused “profound psychological scarring.”
“What happened to me was preventable,” Soren told The Daily Wire. “I wanna hold my providers accountable for what they did, and I feel very strongly that ideology was prioritized over my long-term mental and physical wellbeing.”
“It also says that she was started on testosterone and puberty blockers at age 13, underwent a double mastectomy at 15, and finally detranstioned at 16.”
Reporters seem to have a delicacy about indicating wether “bottom surgery” took place. I’d say that that’s the point of no return and as such impacts the story greatly
“Only a completely defeated and domesticated person with no sense of justice would think otherwise.”
No, you are confusing vengeance with justice, and vengeance belongs to the Lord God.
No, I’m not.
A millstone around the neck and into the sea would be justice.
What will ultimately be done to them by God as vengeance will be much worse than what should be done to them by man as justice.
Certainly you are, or you wouldn’t have said “committing violence against them would be justified”. That’s not justice, and misinterpreting the Bible doesn’t make it justice either.
What do you think would be “justice” for having your own innocent child sterilized and mutilated by having their genitals cut off?
I think the death penalty issued by the victim of the crime would be “justice”.
Perhaps you consider someone doing that to their child an “innocent mistake” which only need be repaired with some jail time or community service?
“What do you think would be “justice” for having your own innocent child sterilized and mutilated by having their genitals cut off?”
Well, the first step would be that I would not be the one doing it. That’s not how justice works.
“I think the death penalty issued by the victim of the crime would be “justice”.”
That’s because you mistake vengeance for justice.
“Perhaps you consider someone doing that to their child an “innocent mistake” which only need be repaired with some jail time or community service?”
No.
I wouldn’t be doing it either. The victims would.
If you are under the belief that in order for there to be “Justice” it must be sanctioned and regulated by the state, that was the purpose of my original post.
We need to change the laws to recognize that Justice will be achieved if a victim engages in violence against their mutilator.
“I wouldn’t be doing it either. The victims would.”
Which would make it vengeance, not justice.
“If you are under the belief that in order for there to be “Justice” it must be sanctioned and regulated by the state, that was the purpose of my original post.”
That is a key part of it, though the state is just as capable of delivering injustice as it is of delivering justice.
“We need to change the laws to recognize that Justice will be achieved if a victim engages in violence against their mutilator.”
Then you would just be making the law unjust, rather than making vengeance into justice. Word games don’t change the underlying nature of things.
"That is a key part of it..."
And therein lies the rub.
Because the State says or does not say a thing, does not determine whether the thing is just or not. They are entirely mutually exclusive.
I notice you still have not provided a description of what justice would look like in this case. Are you waiting until 50.1% of the people vote in favor of something before you can decide what "justice" looks like?
I derive what I believe is just or injust from reason, logic and my religion. I believe allowing the victims to engage in violence against the butchers who were supposed to be their protectors would not only deliver justice, it would also serve as a deterrent to other would-be butchers of children.
Obviously, you derive what you believe to be just or injust by what your betters tell you that it is.
“I notice you still have not provided a description of what justice would look like in this case.”
Well, in this case it would look like applying the laws, as they existed at the time that the crime took place. After all, ex post facto laws are unjust on their face, which rules out your entire “solution” from the get-go.
“I derive what I believe is just or injust from reason, logic and my religion.”
Color me skeptical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.