Cute idea, but...

I guess I can see the point of the campaign, although I doubt it would go anywhere (as you yourself note, there is "no possibility whatever that an actual program of free distribution of puberty blockers on demand would result from this campaign" so philosophical, religious or other objections are entirely moot.) But for what it's worth, I admit to discomfort with the idea of ANY medical intervention on anyone that seeks to halt or otherwise warp something going on in anyone's body for any reason other than correcting pathology. Puberty is not a pathological development. For that matter, neither are wrinkles or male pattern baldness and I recoil at botox or hair plugs. Puberty is a healthy stage in human life. Yes, there are pathological cases of very early puberty and of course medical intervention is justified in such cases. But the general tendency (which if I'm not mistaken has been exaggerated) for puberty to occur earlier now than it did in former times is largely a result of better nutrition. (Where it is a result of indirect ingestion of growth hormones from eating the meat or milk of animals that have been injected or force-fed with such, well, then, yes, but the solution lies in reform of the horrific industrial farming of meat and milk animals,) I've mentioned this before, but where I part company with trans (and where trans has made IMHO a huge tactical/strategic political mistake) is stressing medical intervention -- whether in the form of puberty blockers or removal of healthy bodily tissue -- rather than just encouraging femmy boys and tomboyish girls to act/dress like the other sex if that's they want to do and not bullying/ostacizing them. I view it as homophobia's latest outfit -- the notion that femmy boys are actually girls trapped in the "wrong" body rather than what they are: sissy/femmy boys who in many (most?) cases would just grow up into femmy gay men if left along and not fed propaganda. And if they want to grow up and live/ act as women -- sure. That's what happened in pre-modern societies that had a defined social role for what are now called trans women -- e.g., katoey, berdache, onnagata. (Where intervention was actually carried out on the body -- e.g., castration -- palace eunuchs/ castratri for opea --it was a species of evil.) For us BLs, the issue is even more relevant because it strikes at the heart of what, to me, BL is all about -- which is helping, mentoring (when asked), supporting a boy as he makes the journey from boyhood to manhood. The one anti argument that carries any weight, IMHO, is that we tend to dispose of boys when they pass out of our AOA. If you commit to being there for a boy, you are THERE for a boy even when he turns into a bezitted, annoying adolescent with hair where there didn't use to be any. Supporting medical intervention to halt puberty -- even if just in jest -- strikes me as underscoring the one real source of the temptation BL has to evil (and all human drives can be tempted into evil from gluttony on) -- to see a boy as nothing more than smooth thighs, silky hair, a bouncy cock, a cute ass, and an open, inquiring, curious, impulsive manner. Yes, that's what initially attracts us -- boys are hot! God designed it that way -- but these do not form the essence of who the boy is. Unless you find those boyish attributes a path to loving him for who he is and what he will become -- not for those attributes themselves -- you should STAY AWAY FROM HIM. SR