Tuesday, August 2, 2022
I'd Seen This Story
https://winteryknight.com/2022/08/02/woman-regrets-transforming-after-only-2-hours-of-counseling/
I saw this story the other day and flagged it as something I wanted to check out, and possibly write about. Fortunately WK beat me to it. The fact that we're seeing more of these stories about parents and medical "experts" who are prematurely encouraging children to "transition", seems to indicate that we really don't know what's happening with these children.
https://abcnews4.com/news/nation-world/fda-warns-puberty-blocker-may-cause-brain-swelling-vision-loss-in-children-rachel-levine
Strangely enough, this news about the FDA warnings hasn't been widely reported either.
I'm seeing reports that puberty blockers might affect brain development and function as well, although I haven't done all of the research yet.
This rush to get children to transition, despite the incredibly high potentail risks involved strikes me as problematic. To be clear, I'm merely suggesting that when dealing with children that it's better to proceed slowly and with caution when making decisions that are irreversible and potentially damaging to the children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
"This rush to get children to transition,..."
Can you document that this is even a thing in the real world? That is, can you document with actual data and support that people are actually rushing, pushing, encouraging children to transition then?
I'll wait. But when you can't document it because it's a made up claim, will you admit that and apologize for making the suggestion?
Or let me take a step back and get you to define what you mean by a "rush to encourage transition..."?
Here's another clarifying question I have for you, so I better understand the point of your post. It sounds like to me that you're suggesting that transitioning in general is wrong. Always wrong. Is that correct?
If so, and you had a child who was always telling you that she's a girl and said that to you for years, starting at 5 and keeping on up the adolescent years and into her teenage years s. Even though she was born with a penis, she's telling you all those years that she's a girl. Is there ever a point that you would support her in transitioning? Perhaps as an adult?
Would you condemn her or shame her or otherwise make her feel bad about being a girl? Would you misgender her and refuse to call her her by her new name, if she chose one?
The only proper course of action is to discourage any transition therapies where legal minors are concerned. They'll survive, and if suicidal, their issues are definitely not "gender identity".
Some things to watch out as a news consumer, so that you're not taken in by less-than-responsible or outright false news:
1. WHO is reporting? Is the reporter credible and using journalistic best practices? Does it list the reporter's name? Is it a legitimate news agency, as opposed to an opinion site?
2. When speaking of technical questions, are they citing a credible source? When they reference a credible source (CDC, FDA, AMA, etc) does the link lead to the actual source OR a partisan outfit TELLING you what the legitimate source is saying, without actually linking to it?
3. If they link to a second credible source, is that second source even talking about what the story is about?
4. Is the story ONLY being reported in sources with extreme biases (ultra-right, ultra-left, white nationalist, etc) and not in the actual mainstream media? This is especially important if the story in question is making some rather explosive claims (cancer treatment found, transgender people are mostly sexual predators, transitioning is extremely dangerous medically, etc)
For starters. Your link to "ABC4news.com" fails in at least three of these areas.
Be careful who you listen to. If they demonstrate they're not being reputable, listen to what they're demonstrating and not what they're saying.
Art,
The fact that minors are legally unable to agree to a contract, or give informed consent should be enough to put the brakes on these sorts of things. Unfortunately, it seems like too many parents are encouraging or enabling these choices.
Dan,
I simply don't care about your condescending list of bullshit that is just more example of the crap you expect from others, but not of yourself.
The fact that I picked one link out of multiples that you found things to nitpick is irrelevant.
The reality is that we're seeing this kind of story more and more often.
Dan, who trumpets NPR dares to condescend. What a buffoon. As per usual, he does nothing to dispute anything in either story. All he does is try to cast aspersions on who's telling them. Typical. In the meantime, he'll provide far less credible crap from his NPR, BBC and other leftist sources as if gospel. Dan's not concerned with truth, but only with promoting the agenda of the perverse.
"Can you document that this is even a thing in the real world?"
Yes.
"That is, can you document with actual data and support that people are actually rushing, pushing, encouraging children to transition then?"
I've done so previously, and it's relatively easy to google other examples.
"I'll wait. But when you can't document it because it's a made up claim, will you admit that and apologize for making the suggestion?"
No need. You can either look back at the documentation I've provided in earlier posts, or google double mastectomy (12,13,14) year old girl.
"Or let me take a step back and get you to define what you mean by a "rush to encourage transition..."?"
Again, I've written expensively on this, but because you've complained of memory lapses, I'll give it a shot.
1. Minors are not legally able to give informed consent, nor legally able to enter into contracts.
2. Minors brains, cognitive abilities, and the like are not fully developed.
3. Minors have a tendency to make all sorts of changes as the grow to full maturity.
As a general rule, it's a bad idea to look for a permanent solution to a temporary (or potentially temporary) situation. As we get more data on the effects of the various drugs and procedures involved in these "transitions", we see more side effects and concerns. As a general rule I would always suggest delayed gratification to any minor who wants to make major changes. As a general rule, it's better to take one's time and do a thourough investigation of all the positives and negatives before making irreversible alterations to one's body.
So, NO, you can't support your claim. You literally didn't because you literally can't. Just to be clear.
And I notice you're not answering about whether you'd EVER support a loved on in transitioning, whether you'd do something as small as call them by their chosen pronouns and names. So, it's not really about concern and support for transgender people. It's once again about pushing your religious views on others.
Is that a fair summary?
As to this:
"1. Minors are not legally able to give informed consent, nor legally able to enter into contracts."
This is true. Which is why they may need concerned adults to help them make the best decisions along with them/for them, along with their expert advisers. The question is: Would people like you EVER actually support them if they were actually transgender?
The answer appears to be, No, you would not. But you tell me.
"2. Minors brains, cognitive abilities, and the like are not fully developed."
Agreed. So? Does that mean if they THINK they might be interested in playing baseball, we forbid it? If they THINK they might be interested in camping or rock wall climbing or other activities with potential risk, we forbid it, saying we know best? If they THINK they are homosexual, do we discourage that and send them to a Christian camp to "unlearn" it or do we support them in their consideration of their natural, God-given orientation?
"3. Minors have a tendency to make all sorts of changes as the grow to full maturity."
Agreed, which is precisely why we need to have understanding, non-judgmental parents/families/supporters who support them in safely exploring those changes.
To best help, families and supporters need to be well-informed.
For instance, do you know that, while it's an early time to study, MOST people (85-95%, depending on the study) don't "detransition" and those who do "detransition" do so most often because their loved ones are guilting or pressuring them to change, NOT because they think they were mistaken?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/
Do you support children who may be transgender getting information about what that means and support if they ultimately want to try it out?
If not, don't pretend to be concerned. People see through that sort of hypocrisy and lack of support/"pretend" support. (ie, you only THINK you are supporting transgender kids, but your mind hasn't fully matured to see that you aren't really supporting them.)
"It sounds like to me that you're suggesting that transitioning in general is wrong. Always wrong. Is that correct?"
I personally think that trying to irreversibly rearrange one's physical reality to accommodate one's mental illusion, is a bad idea. However, if adults want to rearrange and mutilate their healthy, normally functioning, bodies, who am I to tell them that they can't?
"If so, and you had a child who was always telling you that she's a girl and said that to you for years, starting at 5 and keeping on up the adolescent years and into her teenage years s. Even though she was born with a penis, she's telling you all those years that she's a girl. Is there ever a point that you would support her in transitioning? Perhaps as an adult?"
I doubt I'd ever support that in the sense of being a cheerleader and telling them how wonderful it is, but I have no problem with my adult children choosing to make decisions I don't agree with and support. I would certainly encourage thorough investigation of all the positives and the negatives before deciding.
"Would you condemn her or shame her or otherwise make her feel bad about being a girl?"
It all depends on what you'd consider condemnation or shaming.
"Would you misgender her and refuse to call her her by her new name, if she chose one?"
I have no idea.
Once again, we see the attempt to move the focus away from the topic of the post, and toward some bullshit hypothetical crap.
I looks like Dan doesn't understand that difference between I've already posted links to additional stories that are similar to this one, and see no need to re post information that's readily available at my blog and on google, and "I can't support my position".
My position is that it's a bad idea to encourage or facilitate minor children to make irreversible changes to their bodies until they are adults.
The fact that this is even controversial tells me that the narrative is more important than the individuals.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11070129/Woman-26-underwent-double-mastectomy-hormone-therapy-detransitioned.ht
Here's teh deal, this women went through irreversible surgical mutilation of her body based on 2.5 hours of consultation, are we seriously suggesting that this was an adequate amount of consultation before a decision of this magnitude.
For comparison, I'm looking at a second round of surgery on my spine at some point, bey the end of September I will have had 4 consultations with my dr or his pas, at least two consultations with a pain management dr, and two consultations with a radiologist and spinal injections. But that a much more significant procedure/as well as the mental health ramifications of the process can get the green light in 2.5 hours. Yeah, that's how medical professionals roll.
"And I notice you're not answering about whether you'd EVER support a loved on in transitioning, whether you'd do something as small as call them by their chosen pronouns and names. So, it's not really about concern and support for transgender people. It's once again about pushing your religious views on others."
It's about truth and reality. I will not use what someone wants to believe is their chosen pronouns. I'm not going to call any dude "she" just because he's mental and believes himself to be a chick. I don't see indulging delusion to be helpful in the least...because in the long run it never is. I would, however, encourage the dude to provide a convincing argument...with facts and evidence...to prove he's not a dude despite all the physical evidence which confirms it. Until he can do that, I'm certainly not going to call him by "his chosen pronouns" any more than I'd call Dan a Christian when all evidence belies the claim.
True concern, compassion and support for those who pretend to be "transgender people" is not demonstrated by enabling their delusion. Dan's clearly more concerned with pushing the LGBT agenda than the people who suffer from delusion. Indeed, he exploits the deluded to further that evil agenda.
"The question is: Would people like you EVER actually support them if they were actually transgender?"
A moot question given no one is ever "actually" transgender. My support for the deluded does not include enabling the delusion.
"Does that mean if they THINK they might be interested in playing baseball, we forbid it? If they THINK they might be interested in camping or rock wall climbing or other activities with potential risk, we forbid it, saying we know best?"
None of those interests include a distinct and specific intention to purposely mutilate one's self in a manner irreversible. That's not risk. That's masochistic. All of those activities can be indulged safely and responsibly. Purposely damaging a perfectly functioning body to appease a delusion is necessarily mental.
"If they THINK they are homosexual, do we discourage that and send them to a Christian camp to "unlearn" it or do we support them in their consideration of their natural, God-given orientation?"
First, God didn't give them such an orientation anymore than He gave an adulterer his. He did, however, give us all the means and ability to overcome our carnal urges which do not align with His Will in order to be what He expects us to be. That doesn't include being homosexual, adulterous, insisting one is of the opposite sex than one's biology confirms one is or any other leftist deviancy and perversion. So yes, we discourage our kids from indulging immoral passions for their own good and for His Glory. Progs reject the Will of God to impress the world.
"If so, and you had a child who was always telling you that she's a girl and said that to you for years, starting at 5 and keeping on up the adolescent years and into her teenage years s. Even though she was born with a penis, she's telling you all those years that she's a girl. Is there ever a point that you would support her in transitioning? Perhaps as an adult?"
Never. And as one who seeks to be a good parent as God expects and intends on to be, I would not indulge nonsense of any kind, including the nonsense my son insists he's really a girl. He has no idea what that means and only a lying progressive asshole would dare suggest he's a "she" who was born with a penis. What a child molester Dan is!!
Even into adulthood I would never support a dude or chick transitioning, regardless of who the dude or chick is to me. Never. It's wrong, so why would I? I would support the person getting his/her mind right with reality and the Will of God...not appeasing the pervs of the world like some progressive Louisville fake Christian.
And of course few threads would be complete without Dan pretending we've not proven our positions more comprehensively than he's ever done for his. Dan likes to pretend each thread is detached from history and no points were made, established and supported well if not outright proven true. It's just another way Dan intentionally lies.
Dan just posted a link from the Guttmacher institute. The Guttmacher institute is an offshoot of Planned Parenthood, and is unashamedly pro abortion. I occasionally cite their data because it's hard for pro aborts to argue against their numbers because they are so clearly pro abortion. In this case, I'd suggest that offering Guttmacher as a neutral and unbiased source for anything is absurd and would therefore ignore anything from Guttmacher as hopelessly biased.
I think that Dan is trying to suggest that most or all efforts to hold abortion clinics to standards of care similar to other surgical centers are wrong and should not be imposed. It'll be interesting to see if he actually dealt with the specific restrictions that I've already mentioned.
I deleted two of Dan's comment because I'm tired of his bullshit tactic where I simply makes assumptions about the facts of a story based on the "source" of the story. It's a childish and ridiculous tactic, which I've addressed enough. If Dan wants to demonstrate that the facts in any given story are false, I'll gladly deal with that, but this idiotic notion that a source you don't like renders the facts false isn't worth any more time.
Craig...
"tactic where I simply makes assumptions about the facts of a story based on the "source" of the story."
Craig, come on. Be an adult. That's not a "tactic. " That's rational adult reading for comprehension. It doesn't matter a damn bit if you can find a page on the Internet that says pink dinosaurs from Mars were flying over your house last night. It would be a false story and not only that, it would be a stupidly false story.
The Bible tells us that bad company corrupts good character. If you can find a story mentioned mentioned in ABC, BBC and NPR news and you can also find it on KKK website, that doesn't mean anything that is on the KKK website. But if you can only find it on the KKK website, only an idiot would take it seriously.
This is a false story. That you can find one source for it is part of the problem but the source itself is not a problem. The problem is that it is a stupidly false story . And the greater problem is that you're willing to pass on false witness and a stupidly false story.
This is the shame of modern conservatism. Facts don't mean a bit to you all given the evidence Of you all repeatedly and endlessly passing on false unfalse, stupidly false, ridiculously and embarrassingly and slanderously false stories. If you can't find a legitimate source that should be a warning to you.
Good God in heaven, you all can not possibly be this moronic.
. Even if it was a real story, and it's not, it doesn't mean anything. This is not best medical practices. This is not what LGBTQ folks are at promoting. Do you understand that? Any doctor that did this surgery after a 2 hour Chat would get in trouble. It's not best practices.
I've provided a plethora of examples of Dan's favored sources being wrong in a manner that good journalism would never allow. Dan will instead pretend they're reporting what they've heard, but it seems to me good journalism requires skepticism of EVERYTHING heard to such an extent no honest investigation can find fault in it, or that such work will expose it as false. But Dan just follows like a good craven sheep.
"If Dan wants to demonstrate that the facts in any given story are false, I'll gladly deal with that..."
I can't prove that ghosts and bigfoot and little pink gorillas In pretty little tutus don't dance around your bed at night. No one can prove a negative. But if you're the one making a crazy sounding claim, and your only source is a crazy website, the onus is on you to support it.
I'm telling you this does not exist in the real world. All you have to do is prove it. If it exists, prove it. You can't and you won't. Citing one nut job story does not make it real. I don't know what about rational adult reasoning you're failing to understand.
The onus to prove a story is always on the one making the outlandish claim.
"That's not a "tactic.""
Sure it is, it's literally deciding that the facts of a particular story are irrelevant only because of the source that contained the facts. If there was even the smallest attempt to address the facts, instead of summarily dismissing them, you might have a point.
The rest is just bullshit excuses for ignoring the facts of the story as presented.
So, Dan doesn't want to address the facts in any given story, he'd rather prate about Bigfoot and bullshit.
Look, if you say that something "doesn't exist in the world", then I point out that that something does actually exist, then your claim is dis proven. It's not my fault that you make these absurd, blanket, claims that are easily dis proven by one example.
But hey if you want to make these claims and not prove them, go right ahead.
But, be specific, what is the exact "claim" you are referring to?
"If you can find a story mentioned mentioned in ABC, BBC and NPR news and you can also find it on KKK website, that doesn't mean anything that is on the KKK website. But if you can only find it on the KKK website, only an idiot would take it seriously."
Here we see Dan presuming he can dictate what qualifies as legit journalism. Yet I've provided numerous posts, each with numerous examples, of the poor quality (to be gracious) of journalism by those (don't recall a specific ABC example) Dan cites as those by which all others must be judged. Being a leftist sheep, Dan will swallow whatever those sources feed him without question, and particularly if it aligns with his corrupt perspectives. The reason there are newer, rather fledgling, sources for news is because of the poor quality and lack of honesty in those sources Dan regards as the gold standard. And more often than not, they're digging more deeply in the stories if not actually breaking the news in the first place. So the smart money is to withhold judgement on anything reported by the likes of ABC, NPR or BBC until one can verify the info from the sources Dan dismisses because they report what he doesn't like to hear.
Then of course pretending that in any way we're relying on "KKK" sources is just Dan's deceitfulness inventing the worst possible scenario to disparage the sources from which we do find stories he doesn't like. This is similar to the character of most of leftist media.
Craig...
"then I point out that that something does actually exist"
You. Have. NOT. Done. This.
You cited a story from a fantasy website with NO proof that says purple elepants with wings and flatulence live in your lunchbox.
Let me know when you can actually prove it.
Until then, you're a foolish emotional child.
"what is the exact "claim" you are referring to?"
? Your post about someone who allegedly transitioned after 2 hours of counseling. That Is an outlandish, counterfactual claim with no support beyond this one story from a disreputable source. Such an incident would be contrary to best practices for mental and medical health professionals. This does not happen in the world. The story is almost certainly false.
If this were reality, other legitimate news sources would report on it.
And even if it were true, it would be meaningless because it's contrary to best practices established by established by mental and medical health professionals and LGBTQ advocates.
Do you understand why the story itself is false and if you're going to try to claim that it's true, the onus is on you, the one making the outlandish claim, to support your story with something beyond an unreputable source?
If no one else in the whole wide world was reporting that green flying saucers filled the skies over every major city in the world last night except for one less than reputable source, you wouldn't believe it. Would you? Because it's a stupidly false claim.
This is basic Media Consumption 101 for adults. You've been played. Don't be a useful idiot.
Support your dubious claim or be an adult and apologize for passing on gossip and slander and rumors.
"You. Have. NOT. Done. This."
1. This is terrible and incoherent grammar.
2. Can you be specific regarding what you're claiming I haven't done?
3. Because you don't like a source, doesn't mean that the facts are incorrect.
4. I'll always point to stories that prove your blanket, universal claims wrong. Unfortunately, you rarely point to anything to prove your claims correct.
"You cited a story from a fantasy website with NO proof that says purple elepants with wings and flatulence live in your lunchbox."
1. No, I didn't.
2. The fact that you don't like the source, doesn't invalidate the facts being reported.
3. Never mentioned elephants at all.
4. Are you now suggesting that someone's lived experience doesn't prove anything?
"Your post about someone who allegedly transitioned after 2 hours of counseling. That Is an outlandish, counterfactual claim with no support beyond this one story from a disreputable source. Such an incident would be contrary to best practices for mental and medical health professionals. This does not happen in the world. The story is almost certainly false."
Yet, for all your bluster. For all your vitriol. For all your insistence. For all your bitching. You haven't actually proven that the women who the story quotes extensively is lying. You haven't provided one bit of factual evidence to prove your claim that the story is "almost certainly false". Nothing except your hunches.
"And even if it were true, it would be meaningless because it's contrary to best practices established by established by mental and medical health professionals and LGBTQ advocates."
This is really interesting. Your claim was that this sort of thing never happens, yet when confronted with evidence to the contrary you simply dismiss it is "meaningless". Because no one ever goes against the "best practices" in any discipline.
It's also strange that you think that it's appropriate for "LGBTQ advocates" to be setting standards for medical procedures and mental health concerns.
"Do you understand why the story itself is false and if you're going to try to claim that it's true, the onus is on you, the one making the outlandish claim, to support your story with something beyond an unreputable source?"
Interesting that you don't seem to hold your claims to the same standards you demand of others. You're claiming that the story is almost certainly false, so prove your claim. Your problems with the source don't diminish the Truth of the claims.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020
1. I guess the BBC will now become "unreputable".
2. It's literally the subject of legal actions, are you going to suggest that all her testimony is false before she gives it?
3. The BBC story addresses two similar cases.
Craig...
" The fact that you don't like the source"
You know what? To hell with you all. I'm done. Stupidly false claims, slander, gossip, lies, unsupported innuendo... ALL of this false witness is an abomination before God and basic human decency.
Stop with the lies. Apologize, seriously, deeply apologize.
Or just stop writing. The world is way too full of bullshit for you all to keep passing on these stupidly false and slanderous idiot claims to get buy-in from fellow idiots who don't give a flying flip about truth, facts, justice or decency.
I'm done (at least for now). Tell hell with you.
"It's also strange that you think that it's appropriate for "LGBTQ advocates" to be setting standards for medical procedures and mental health concerns."
Oh, you think that strange? How about women who listen to other women medical experts and experts in general who advocate for best treatments for women? Is that strange, too?
You do recognize we have a history of literally persecuting and causing harm to LGBTQ people? Women? Black people?
You do recognize that the AMA and APA have that in their history? Of course advocates are going to keep an eye And what these experts are advising.
No more oppression.
Given Dan's devotion to the BBC as one of go-to examples of reliable, professional, gold-standard news sources, I'd say it's game, set and match.
"You haven't provided one bit of factual evidence to prove your claim that the story is "almost certainly false". Nothing except your hunches."
Not "hunches", Crag. "Desperate hope" that what he wants to be true is true so that he can go on pretending his perspective is Godly.
Getting back to your BBC link, we see a typical response from the pro-perv faction, that regret is rare among those who "transition". We also see the advocate for disorder speaking of "years of research", or some such, without acknowledging the lack of evidence that the disorder is real to the extent that butchery of a perfectly functioning body is the way to go. Statistics show that such surgeries don't save any more lives than not having the surgery does. These people have real mental problems and Dan's "experts" don't truly care about helping them, or are way too incompetent to every truly help at all.
But that's OK. As a "historically oppressed and marginalized group", facts and truth don't matter.
"You do recognize we have a history of literally persecuting and causing harm to LGBTQ people? Women? Black people?"
I love how Dan loves to pull this out whenever he's at a loss to provide substance. That "whenever" is close to "always", and substance from Dan is far more rare than regret by those who've transitioned.
Marshal...
"...a loss to provide substance."
I guess that Marshal doesn't think our real history of of very real oppression is "of substance" and I disagree.
Damn, once you come up with a source that Dan can't use to dismiss the facts, then he goes into his high dudgeon mode and runs away. Except he doesn't.
Yes Dan, I think it's strange that "LGBTQ" "experts" are telling "medical experts" what the standard medical treatments should be. Medicine, historically, has been rooted in more of the hard sciences (biology, chemistry, etc) not gender studies. Of course you've never answered these questions that I can recall.
Given the biological reality that many drugs are prescribed differently for males and females, how does a Dr choose to prescribe drugs to a biological woman who identifies as a man? Does the Dr prescribe based on her biology, or her identity? If the Dr prescribes according to her identity rather than her biology, and she dies, is the Dr responsible for her death?
Yes, I do think that the notion that only women are capable of treating women, or that only blacks are capable of treating blacks, etc is absolutely absurd. Separate but equal here we come. When my wife is ill, we'll go to the best available Dr for whatever the problem is regardless of their sex.
"You do recognize we have a history of literally persecuting and causing harm to LGBTQ people? Women? Black people? You do recognize that the AMA and APA have that in their history?"
What a strange bizarre non sequitur. It's almost like anything that isn't exactly what those groups want is automatically and only "oppression". Like when the white devil Dr's diagnosed that oppressive sickle cell thing, damnable racist oppression.
By all means, pretend that "oppression" is limited to American white people, and that it's possible to completely eradicate it.
What a lying buffoon!!
"I guess that Marshal doesn't think our real history of of very real oppression is "of substance" and I disagree."
Let's look at what I said in context:
First, Craig said:
"It's also strange that you think that it's appropriate for "LGBTQ advocates" to be setting standards for medical procedures and mental health concerns."
The lying buffoon's reply was:
"Oh, you think that strange? How about women who listen to other women medical experts and experts in general who advocate for best treatments for women? Is that strange, too?
There's a HUGE difference between "advocates" and "medical experts and experts in general". But it's not at all strange that you constantly feel the need to pervert a clearly typed statement to make what for you passes for an actual point. Then,
"You do recognize we have a history of literally persecuting and causing harm to LGBTQ people? Women? Black people?"
To which I responded:
"I love how Dan loves to pull this out whenever he's at a loss to provide substance."
But what substance was there in Dan's response to Craig as presented above? Craig speaks of advocates and the proper question to him should have been "what do you mean when you said 'LGBT advocates'?" In Dan's first question, only medical experts schooled in women's health have any authority advocating for best practices in women's health because their expertise is in women's health. But there's no LGBT medical experts because they're still either men or women and their being pervs doesn't change their biology.
So pull out the "historically oppressed" crap doesn't add substance in any way. It's wholly irrelevant to Craig's question.
Oh, but then Dan goes on:
"You do recognize that the AMA and APA have that in their history? Of course advocates are going to keep an eye And what these experts are advising."
There's two problems here, one in each sentence. First, the first: this is just another form of the "historically oppressed" bullshit, but with a twist: he both suggests that the "experts" in the past who supposedly caused LGBT pervs harm did so intentionally and acted against the oath they took to do no harm simply because the people were pervs. But then, they were the "experts" of their time and in the APA were working to correct or treat the delusions and unnatural urges of the LGBT of that time. Dan doesn't like those experts because they weren't yet on board with the agenda of perversion.
Then, the second question: This implies the "experts" of today can't be trusted despite Dan's insistence that "experts" are to be worshiped as all knowing and beyond questioning. Well, which is it? The fact is that this is just another way of Dan saying what he always says: The "experts" who say what he likes are omniscient, while those who oppose the agenda as the fraud it is are "quacks" and "religious zealots" (not necessarily a bad thing).
The bottom line is that because pervs were historically oppressed, they must be supported without question today. That's why Dan brings up "historically oppressed" when he can't actually defend the indefensible.
Post a Comment