Remember when we were told that there was absolutely no way that children would be allowed to undergo irreversible surgery if they wanted to transition. I was told in no uncertain terms, that the transitioning of children was not ever going to happen. I've been told by the same people that the human brain does not fully develop until age 25. So, while I'm not an expert, it seems reasonable that someone who is legally a child with a brain that has not fully developed, should probably not be allowed to make decisions that will cause (at a minimum) irreversible changes to their bodies.
Well, we now have an advocacy group pushing for the age of irreversible change to 14.
https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb
I'm no scientist, but it seems like a 14 year old's brain isn't developed enough to make that kind of decision with a full understanding of the implications for their future. Further, we still have that whole pesky problem of legal minority and the inability to sign a contract, give informed consent.
Of course, if the quotes in the piece below are accurate, then there are people pushing to start transitioning or steering children towards transition as young as 3 or 4. At this point it doesn't sound like any toddlers have actually started any medical procedures, but it sure does sound like they're pushing to start steering toddlers towards transitioning.
Given how so many of the instances of minority sexual behaviors have been pushed into the mainstream over the last few decades, it seems reasonable to suspect that the groundwork is being laid to justify transitioning every toddler who plays with a toy associated with the opposite sex.
https://www.edfirstnc.org/post/transgender-toddlers-treated-at-duke-unc-and-ecu
Dan will likely bitch and moan about the source, but the only issue is whether of not the quotes in the piece are accurate. If they are accurate, then the bigger scandal is why the MSM hasn't reported this story.
25 comments:
Well, there's at least ONE thing you got correct: You're no scientist.
From the story you cited...
The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said hormones could be started at age 14, two years earlier than the group’s previous advice, and some surgeries done at age 15 or 17, a year or so earlier than previous guidance.
HORMONES (which are reversible) could start at 14. Not the hard-to-reverse surgery, which is "15 to 17."
But the point being:
The international group promotes evidence-based standards of care and includes more than 3,000 doctors, social scientists and others involved in transgender health issues.
The update is based on expert opinion and a review of scientific evidence on the benefits and harms of transgender medical treatment in teens whose gender identity doesn’t match the sex they were assigned at birth, the group said. Such evidence is limited but has grown in the last decade, the group said, with studies suggesting the treatments can improve psychological well-being and reduce suicidal behavior.
SO, the question is: GIVEN the evidence-based standards and informed expert opinion, WHO should be making these sorts of decisions when it's potentially a life-and-death decision? The person themselves along with their family and their medical experts? Or you? Or some conservative politicians?
Care to answer that question directly and clearly?
Is the answer, "Me. It should be conservatives like ME who make that decision for other people and other families?"
If so, what if other people want to make the decision as to whether or not your children/grandchildren should be allowed to go to church with you? Would that be okay?
https://www.transgendertrend.com/nhs-no-longer-puberty-blockers-reversible/
I guess the NHS is to be ignored.
"SO, the question is: GIVEN the evidence-based standards and informed expert opinion,"
Given the increasing amount of evidence, and the increasing numbers of countries that are reversing their headlong rush to "transition" any and everyone, the question is whether of not the "evidence" really says what you want it so say.
" WHO should be making these sorts of decisions when it's potentially a life-and-death decision?"
Well, given the evidence about human brain development, I'd suggest that a child is probably not the best qualified to make irreversible decisions about mutilating their bodies. In any case, those who are legally minor children have always been restricted in terms of entering into binding contracts, why the exception for this one instance? Is a 15 year old really capable of informed consent to a permanent decision like this? Or perhaps teachers, should be making these decisions without involving the parents? Or perhaps we should remove parental authority in this one specific instance and replace it with the authority of a representative of the state.
"The person themselves along with their family and their medical experts?"
I guess that would depend on the counsel of those people, and whether their choices were driven by ideological factors or not. You used the term "experience porn" or something similar earlier. I can't think of a better term to describe a parent or parents who flood their social media accounts with pictures or video of their "trans' 3 year old. They take a poor child who doesn't fit some individual gender stereotype (a girl who plays with trucks for instance) and immediately parade them before the whole world as "trans". Maybe there should be some sort of safeguards or regulation that deal with these types of parents.
" Or you? Or some conservative politicians?"
Interesting that you single out "conservative politicians" as if "liberal politicians" are all somehow free from even the merest taint of legislating based on ideological factors.
"Care to answer that question directly and clearly?"
The answer is that I have no desire to impose my will on anyone, and I do not want to see any politicians legislating based on ideology. Yet, I do think that the government should play some sort of role in protecting children.
Is the answer, "Me. It should be conservatives like ME who make that decision for other people and other families?"
"If so, what if other people want to make the decision as to whether or not your children/grandchildren should be allowed to go to church with you? Would that be okay?"
What in the hell does this mean? Where did you pull this bullshit out from, your ass?
I am always open to anyone who is searching for Jesus to worship anywhere Jesus is being preached.
I think that the problem could be that the introduction of any "science" that indicates any course of action other than full blown "transition" ASAP, is going to be met with skepticism. Despite the fact that those on the APL have nothing but positive things to say about certain European countries when it comes to things the APL likes, those same folks manage to ignore those same countries when it comes to the "science" around "transitioning". Or when scientific studies cast doubt on the wonderful claims of the pro trans folks, the problem must lie with the study, not with the pro trans.
You are right, I did say that I'm not a scientist. However, neither are you. The question than becomes how we deal with the "science" when it's not clear or contradicts our ideological position. My tendency is to think that this disagreement should be met with caution.
There's a saying that you hear from those who have struggled with suicide. "Don't seek a permanent solution to a temporary problem". It seems like allowing a child to make a permanent decision about what might be a temporary problem isn't always the best idea.
Do you really think that a 15 year old can make an informed decision on a medical procedure that has a significant potential to cause irreversible changes to their perfectly functioning, healthy body?
I see you did what I thought you might do and ignore the actual quotes.
Dan again cites "experts" who push the perv agenda. Any "expert" who says sex is "assigned" at birth rather than discovered by medical professionals involved is not an "expert", but rather an activist for the cause whose opinion should be summarily dismissed for this one blatant lie alone. Sex and gender is "assigned" by the reproductive components of the parents during intercourse, not any doctor involved in monitoring the pregnancy.
The answer is that I have no desire to impose my will on anyone, and I do not want to see any politicians legislating based on ideology. Yet, I do think that the government should play some sort of role in protecting children.
Do you or do you not want to see conservative legislators to make decisions about transgender concerns for the parents of underage transgender children?
I believe you are indicating that, YES, I, Craig definitely want to see conservative legislators to decide medical issues about transgender concerns over and against the will of the transgender child and their parents and their medical/mental health advisors.
Am I mistaken?
YOU THINK that you all can create laws that YOU SAY, IN YOUR HEAD it "protecting transgender children..." am I correct?
And if they kill themselves because of having their autonomy taken from them, will you apologize to those parents? Will you reimburse them for the loss of that life?
Or is protecting the life of children only a concern if the child is a fetus?
Do you really think that a 15 year old can make an informed decision on a medical procedure that has a significant potential to cause irreversible changes to their perfectly functioning, healthy body?
Do you really not know my answer to this question?
My answer should be obvious: Given a 15 year old transgender teenager and their parents and their mental and medical expertise VS YOUR opinion or MITCH McCONNELL's or other GOP opinions, I want THE FAMILY to make the decisions, not YOU or other people who have no expertise or personal experience in the matter.
Once again: If you force your political will against transgender people and they end up killing themselves, will you give one single damn? Will you feel ANY remorse for your religious bigotry and oppression?
And if in forcing your will, dozens or hundreds of transgender people kill themselves, will you hold yourself accountable for what you've done? When their parents start suing you all, will you support those lawsuits or will you spit on their pain and deny them the opportunity to seek recompense?
Also...
You used the term "experience porn" or something similar earlier. I can't think of a better term to describe a parent or parents who flood their social media accounts with pictures or video of their "trans' 3 year old.
Do you have no shame? Are you truly SO VERY BIGOTED that you can't imagine that these parents are not working to support their children? Do you acknowledge that you have NO DATA beyond your bigotry to make such accusations against people you don't even know?
To hell with that religious bigotry. And don't deny it's religious. Non-religious experts are not trying to push these laws. It's religious zealots like you who are acting against these families. Shame on you. May no one you love kill themselves because these policies you defend.
"Do you or do you not want to see conservative legislators to make decisions about transgender concerns for the parents of underage transgender children?"
No.
"I believe you are indicating that, YES, I, Craig definitely want to see conservative legislators to decide medical issues about transgender concerns over and against the will of the transgender child and their parents and their medical/mental health advisors."
Then it very likely doesn't matter what I say, because you have already decided what you "believe".
"Am I mistaken?"
yes.
"YOU THINK that you all can create laws that YOU SAY, IN YOUR HEAD it "protecting transgender children..." am I correct?"
Your continued attempts to tell me what I think are disturbing. Especially since your conclusions are so far from reality. No, you are not correct.
"And if they kill themselves because of having their autonomy taken from them, will you apologize to those parents? Will you reimburse them for the loss of that life?"
Why would I apologize to parents I don't know, for something I have no control over. Will you apologize to the children who undergo irreversible modifications to their bodies because you encourage them and their parents to do so?
"Or is protecting the life of children only a concern if the child is a fetus?"
No.
"Do you really not know my answer to this question?"
I think I know what it should be based on other things you said, but unlike you, I choose not to make my decisions about what your answer might be before you have the opportunity to answer.
"My answer should be obvious: Given a 15 year old transgender teenager and their parents and their mental and medical expertise VS YOUR opinion or MITCH McCONNELL's or other GOP opinions, I want THE FAMILY to make the decisions, not YOU or other people who have no expertise or personal experience in the matter.'
That's quite an almost answer. I guess I was wrong, I thought you'd be consistent and say that a 15 year old likely doesn't have the requisite level of brain development to make an irreversible decision.
"Once again: If you force your political will against transgender people and they end up killing themselves, will you give one single damn? Will you feel ANY remorse for your religious bigotry and oppression?"
This tactic of asking the same questions multiple times in the same comment (before I even have the opportunity to answer is idiotic. It's the same answer as before.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34247956/
https://academic.oup.com/jsm/article-abstract/18/8/1444/6956103?redirectedFrom=PDF
One example of how the rosy panacea you insist exists, might not represent reality.
As to studies, your last two sources cited the same research from lead researcher, Elizabeth Hiesel-Gorman, that gave mixed reviews (the "one example" you cited). That was from 2021.
On the other hand...
"Research demonstrates that gender-affirming care—a medical and psychosocial health care designed to affirm individuals' gender identities—greatly improves the mental health and overall well-being of gender diverse, transgender, and nonbinary children and adolescents."
https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/gender-affirming-care-saves-lives
and
"Findings In this prospective cohort of 104 TNB youths aged 13 to 20 years, receipt of gender-affirming care, including puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, was associated with 60% lower odds of moderate or severe depression and 73% lower odds of suicidality over a 12-month follow-up.
Meaning This study found that access to gender-affirming care was associated with mitigation of mental health disparities among TNB youths over 1 year; given this population's high rates of adverse mental health outcomes, these data suggest that access to pharmacological interventions may be associated with improved mental health among TNB youths over a short period."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423
Those from JAMA and Columbia Psychiatry. I'm unsure of the pedigree of your Gorman citation. I could go on, but surely you know that. Scientific American:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/understanding-short-term-impact-gender-affirming-care
Etc.
This isn't about following the research for you, is it? Or if it is, why are you only reporting the minority opinion that agrees with your prejudices? It's about trying to find some research that might prop up your presumptions that are based upon ignorance, not being intimately involved in the reality or the research.
Is that fair (1. that you're not intimately involved with supporting transgender folks? 2. that you're not intimately involved in the research? and 3. that you're just trying to find data to support your presumptions?)
I guess acknowledging that we have quotes from doctors at major university hospitals talking about beginning "treatment" on "trans" children when they're toddlers.
Source? What do you mean by "treatment..."? One would not prescribe hormone blockers to toddlers, you know. Do you mean, "If your child wants to wear a dress and have long hair, let them..."?
The real question is do they have no shame. To parade their toddler all over social media as "trans" because the child doesn't align with gender stereotypes.
1. I don't know that this is reality. Most parents of trans kids I know tend to feel the need to protect them because if it was out that they were trans, their lives/well-being might be threatened.
2. Did you know that people will, out in public, fuss at parents who are with a child they suspect is wearing the "wrong clothes..."? Complete strangers do that, did you know that? Did you know that trans folks - including children (and their parents) fear the mistreatment that will come to them/their kids and that fear is based on harmful words and actions done towards them already?
3. IF it exists that some parents have photos of their trans kids on social media, what of it? Are you suggesting they hide their children in shame? Their kids are who they are and they may well want to post photos of them EVEN IF bigots find it distasteful or disapprove.
Are you suggesting there's something wrong with parents posting picture of their kids on social media?
Since I've never even suggested forcing my will on anyone, this question is stupid.
Great. So you are joining the fight for justice AGAINST the GOP legislation that LGBTQ folks are opposed to? You're being an ally for LGBTQ folks? Or are you just remaining silent (and if you're remaining silent, then what the hell is the point of this post)?
You may not be connected enough with LGBTQ folks, but my LGBTQ colleagues tell me your type of posts are harmful to them and they'd hope you'd join WITH them in opposing these GOP policies that will cause them harm. "They are waging WAR on us... they are out to KILL us and trans people WILL die if these policies stay in place..." that's what I'm hearing.
Are you hearing differently?
At this point it doesn't sound like any toddlers have actually started any medical procedures, but it sure does sound like they're pushing to start steering toddlers towards transitioning.
Explain your meaning. What do you mean by parents/experts are "steering toddlers towards transitioning..."? Do you mean "What Bobby? You want to wear a dress and go by Barbara...? Okay." Is that "steering toddlers towards transitioning?" OR is it just parenting?
Suppose your parents had put dresses on you when you were a toddler? Would you have wanted to transition? Do you think that transitioning is just something you can be talked IN TO? If so, where is your data to support that?
And I am well aware that there are a relative few folks who have "de-transitioned..." but I'm also aware that in many of those cases, they were detransitioning because of lack of support and/or open hostility from their family and friends, NOT because they didn't think they were the gender they'd thought.
Did you know that most trans folks DON'T "de-transition," that it's an outlier result?
Again, how many dresses would your parents have had to put you in to "push" you into being a girl?
It's not the kind of thing you can just "convince" people of. You know that, right?
Fun fact: My dad (born in 1929) was dressed by my grandmother/his mother as a girl for the first ~four years of his life. He came in second place in a Shirley Temple contest. Then my dad's sister was born and Granny cut his hair and well, those early experiences didn't "make" dad into a girl.
It's not the kind of thing you can "steer" people into.
Not sure what my grandmother's motivation was - certainly nothing transgender. I think she just really wanted a girl!
"Source? What do you mean by "treatment..."? One would not prescribe hormone blockers to toddlers, you know. Do you mean, "If your child wants to wear a dress and have long hair, let them..."?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/report-transgender-toddlers-receiving-treatments-at-north-carolina-universities/ar-AA1aLoqH?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=dde8f413a8de4745b49096d7c00a8fc0&ei=12
That's quite a claim. Dr David White is on record as saying that puberty blockers can be started at age 7, and has treated at least one 11 year old. Wouldn't you agree that human puberty is a natural process, and that blocking that natural process by unnatural means might not be healthy? Not unless that means telling a three year old that wearing a dress means that they are "trans".
"1. I don't know that this is reality. Most parents of trans kids I know tend to feel the need to protect them because if it was out that they were trans, their lives/well-being might be threatened."
Ahhhhhhhhh, the "I don't know this to a 100% certainty, therefore I can pretend that it's not a thing by substituting my anecdotes as if they're evidence." ploy. Are you saying that if parents are showcasing their "trans" toddler on social media, and broadcasting the "fact" that the child is "trans" based on their choosing not to follow strict gender stereotypes, that you have absolutely zero concerns about the child being pushed or overly influenced by their parents?
"2. Did you know that people will, out in public, fuss at parents who are with a child they suspect is wearing the "wrong clothes..."? Complete strangers do that, did you know that? Did you know that trans folks - including children (and their parents) fear the mistreatment that will come to them/their kids and that fear is based on harmful words and actions done towards them already?"
Yet none of those things have any relationship to parents who present their toddlers as "trans" on social media and in public. Do you have any problems with parents who have their prepubescent children perform in drag, wearing clothes that sexualize the children, in front of audiences of adults?
"3. IF it exists that some parents have photos of their trans kids on social media, what of it? Are you suggesting they hide their children in shame? Their kids are who they are and they may well want to post photos of them EVEN IF bigots find it distasteful or disapprove."
Still no actual answer to the question asked, just more questions. My question relates to how children process things from their parents. If a toddler is told by their parents that they are "trans", portrayed on social media and in public as if they are "trans", do you not think it possible that the toddler will believe what they've been told by their parents? Even if they have doubts?
"Are you suggesting there's something wrong with parents posting picture of their kids on social media?"
Only in the sense that if parents present their toddlers as "trans" (or anything), that the child might adopt the identity imposed on them by their parents, even if they don't really believe it.
"Great. So you are joining the fight for justice AGAINST the GOP legislation that LGBTQ folks are opposed to? You're being an ally for LGBTQ folks? Or are you just remaining silent (and if you're remaining silent, then what the hell is the point of this post)?"
No. I'm not joining any fight on the side you're on.
"You may not be connected enough with LGBTQ folks, but my LGBTQ colleagues tell me your type of posts are harmful to them and they'd hope you'd join WITH them in opposing these GOP policies that will cause them harm. "They are waging WAR on us... they are out to KILL us and trans people WILL die if these policies stay in place..." that's what I'm hearing."
Ahhhhhhhh, the "I'm simply going to assume that you don't know enough LGBTQXYZPDQ types, and that even if your do, they are the "wrong" LGBTXYZPDQ types because they don't agree with my (Dan's) pet LGBTQXYZPDQ types." straw man.
"Are you hearing differently?"
Why yes, my gay business partner has never once said anything of the sort. Which I'm sure means that he's somehow wrong or not gay enough, or some such bullshit.
"Explain your meaning. What do you mean by parents/experts are "steering toddlers towards transitioning..."? Do you mean "What Bobby? You want to wear a dress and go by Barbara...? Okay." Is that "steering toddlers towards transitioning?" OR is it just parenting?"
When the parent takes a toddler's behavior that doesn't align with gender stereotypes and pronounces the child "trans" before the child is even able to articulate what it thinks. Seems like the data from this expert, might be considered before irreversible medical measure are taken.
"Suppose your parents had put dresses on you when you were a toddler? Would you have wanted to transition? Do you think that transitioning is just something you can be talked IN TO? If so, where is your data to support that?"
If I had been told by my parents from my toddler years that I was "trans" (or anything), had that repeated day in and day out, only allowed to do things that fit the "trans" identity, I think it's highly likely that I would have believed them and become convinced. Are you literally claiming that it is impossible for parents to push a child into believing certain things or engaging in certain behaviors?
"And I am well aware that there are a relative few folks who have "de-transitioned..." but I'm also aware that in many of those cases, they were detransitioning because of lack of support and/or open hostility from their family and friends, NOT because they didn't think they were the gender they'd thought."
Ahhhhhhhh, the "Let's not pay attention to the measly "few" people who have de transitioned, or listen to what they say, or take any responsibility for their disfigured, mutilated bodies." canard. Pay no attention to those people, they don't support our narrative, and therefore should be ignored as much as possible. By all means, let's put words in their mouths,and tell them the right things to think.
"Did you know that most trans folks DON'T "de-transition," that it's an outlier result?"
From what I've seen it's a growing number. But even if it is, are you really suggesting that we should ignore these people, and that people like you bear no responsibility for their disfigured, mutilated bodies?
"Again, how many dresses would your parents have had to put you in to "push" you into being a girl?"
Again, misrepresent what I've said much?
"It's not the kind of thing you can just "convince" people of. You know that, right?"
Really, are you saying that if children are told something (even if it contradicts their physical/natural reality) on a daily basis from the time they are 2 or 3 that it will have zero effect on the children? that children are not shaped and molded by their parents actions? That there are no studies that show that children can be pressured into doing things by parents/family/peers?
"It's not the kind of thing you can "steer" people into."
Quite a claim, with no proof.
"This isn't about following the research for you, is it?"
It's absolutely about following the research. It's about acknowledging that there really isn't enough research over long periods of time to automatically ignore research you don't like.
"Or if it is, why are you only reporting the minority opinion that agrees with your prejudices?"
Because people like you will ignore any research that doesn't agree with your prejudice. Because people like you will try to diminish this research by calling it a "minority position" regardless of the accuracy of the actual research. Your immediate response was NOT to find fault with the research, but to pretend that "minority" research is not accurate or doesn't represent Truth solely because you label it "minority". You have no problem blindly accepting "majority" research even of it comes from groups advocating a particular agenda, because it's "majority". Unfortunately, Truth isn't determined by a majority.
"It's about trying to find some research that might prop up your presumptions that are based upon ignorance, not being intimately involved in the reality or the research."
No, it's about putting research that you would prefer to ignore or belittle solely because you think it's in the "minority", while not even attempting to dispute the findings.
"Is that fair (1. that you're not intimately involved with supporting transgender folks? 2. that you're not intimately involved in the research? and 3. that you're just trying to find data to support your presumptions?)"
It's at least as "fair" as only touting "majority" research as if truth is something to be decided by majority rule. It's at least as fair as trying to pretend that some research isn't accurate simply because you label it "minority".
Why in the world would you think that life is "fair" anyway? Why on the world would you assume that your version of "fair" is the correct version of fair?
Once again we see Dan citing "experts" who are simply activists for the cause who are professionally in the field. Because of their training and knowledge, Dan can pretend they are beyond criticism for assertions other, more honest, rational and fact-based experts contradict. To Dan, such true experts are somehow "religious zealots/bigots" for following the science in a way which doesn't result in the affirmation of perversion and mental disorder.
Dan also lies about suicide among this group of disordered people, hatefully assigning blame for their deaths to those who reject the lie that they are truly born in the wrong bodies...a claim for which there is NO data...as in NOT A SINGLE DEFINITIVE STUDY...which actually supports it. No. There are only those "experts" who are down with the cause.
And what of the motivations of Dan's "experts". While he dares demean the opposition as religious zealots, does that mean his "experts" are influenced by atheism or "progressive" "Christianity"??? It's clear their "religious bigotry" is informed by the doctrine of the LGBTQSTFU agenda of which Dan is a congregant.
It is not conservative opposition to the lie which drives any disordered person to suicide. It's the mental disorder which provokes the false notion that one can be biologically male, while believing one is female. THAT is what leads them to suicide as so many studies have determined, given the high degree of suicide attempts and successes by so many who have "transitioned" but killed themselves anyway.
So I wonder...Dan has expressed his opinion that adults of, say, 50 years old, dating youths of 13, 14 or 15 are pervs. Yet if those youths insist their love is real and kill themselves for being denied their desires for their 50 year old lovers, will Dan stop interfering with the decision of the youths who wish to continue such affairs?
Any child (OR adult for that matter) who sees suicide as a proper response to disappointments are not victims of those who refuse to enable them. They are victims of their own mental disorder and Dan daring to place blame on those who refuse to enable what is clearly mental confusion at best makes him far worse than just a run of the mill liar.
And since anecdotes are like facts to Dan, I'll add mine to Craig's in insisting none of the homosexuals or lesbians I've ever known have worried about anyone "waging war" on them. This is just inflammatory rhetoric typical of the lying left intended to trigger an emotional response they believe will result in more allies to their immoral cause. But, as I've said before, I may simply have encountered a far better class of homosexuals than Dan has.
Is it a fair/reasonable/accurate assessment that you're not intimately, personally involved in supporting the lives of transgender people?
It is a fair/reasonable/accurate assessment that you're not personally, intimately involved in the gender studies research on this topic?
Is it a fair/reasonable/accurate assessment that you're trying to find data to support your personal preferences and opinions?
If it's NOT fair (according to you) that you're only seeking data and only CITING data that supports/agrees with your personal opinions, then WHY are you only citing (sort of) that side of the research?
Ahhhhhhhh, the "I'm simply going to assume that you don't know enough LGBTQXYZPDQ types, and that even if your do, they are the "wrong" LGBTXYZPDQ types because they don't agree with my (Dan's) pet LGBTQXYZPDQ types." straw man.
Do you SERIOUSLY doubt that "Dan's" "pet" (how degrading and dehumanizing) LGBTQ folks are not representing the majority position? Are you SO delusional that you actually think that more than half - more than even ten percent - of LGBTQ folk SUPPORT the GOP attacks on them?
If so, then you probably DON'T recognize it's delusional. Nonetheless, it is.
When the parent takes a toddler's behavior that doesn't align with gender stereotypes and pronounces the child "trans" before the child is even able to articulate what it thinks.
How often does that happen, do you think (in your fevered imagination)? Does it happen for ONE in 10,000 parents? ONE in a million?
Does it matter to you that IF that happens (which remains unseen), that it's a rarity that you're trying to exploit to attack the LGBTQ community? Does it matter that your words HURT people?
I asked:
"my LGBTQ colleagues tell me your type of posts are harmful to them and they'd hope you'd join WITH them in opposing these GOP policies that will cause them harm. "They are waging WAR on us... they are out to KILL us and trans people WILL die if these policies stay in place..." that's what I'm hearing.
Are you hearing differently?"
You dodged:
Why yes, my gay business partner has never once said anything of the sort.
I'm not asking you if your gay partner has not said (to you) that anything about your sort of attacks. I'm asking if you are hearing from ANYONE in the LGBTQ community that they SUPPORT the GOP attacks against them? That they think that the GOP is NOT waging war/attacking them?
Answer the questions that are asked of you. Stop being proud for knowing ONE gay person.
Quite a claim, with no proof.
YOU are the one making the amazing, outlier, obviously stupidly false claim, that YOU could be convinced to become a girl if your parents had said you were a girl. The data doesn't support that. YOU are the one with no proof. Gender identity is innate, NOT something that someone can "Push" you into. YOU YOURSELF almost certainly would agree that people can't nudge you into thinking you're a woman. It's a ridiculous, just-smack-yourself-in-the-face-stupid claim, if that's what you're making.
You said...
I guess acknowledging that we have quotes from doctors at major university hospitals talking about beginning "treatment" on "trans" children when they're toddlers.
and you also said...
That's quite a claim. Dr David White is on record as saying that puberty blockers can be started at age 7, and has treated at least one 11 year old.
I'm sorry, YOU said that they're beginning treatment on - YOUR words - "children when they're toddlers..." Do you think, in your fevered imagination, that a seven year old is a toddler? (THEY'RE NOT, you know, in reality and stuff.)
Or were you making a deliberately false claim?
Or you just got caught up in making shit up that you just didn't care that it's a stupidly false claim?
Why on the world would you assume that your version of "fair" is the correct version of fair?
Aside from the fact that you missed the point, I would assume that my understanding of fair is MORE correct than yours is because mine is based upon reason and observable harm and observable good, while yours is based on religious bigotry and ignorant positions contrary to the data.
"Is it a fair/reasonable/accurate assessment that you're not intimately, personally involved in supporting the lives of transgender people?"
No.
"It is a fair/reasonable/accurate assessment that you're not personally, intimately involved in the gender studies research on this topic?"
No. Although neither are you.
"Is it a fair/reasonable/accurate assessment that you're trying to find data to support your personal preferences and opinions?"
No.
"If it's NOT fair (according to you) that you're only seeking data and only CITING data that supports/agrees with your personal opinions, then WHY are you only citing (sort of) that side of the research?"
Asked and answered.
"Answer the questions that are asked of you. Stop being proud for knowing ONE gay person."
I did, and it's not a matter of pride, it's simply reality that I interact with people of all sorts in the course of my life. I'll leave the pride, and the resultant fall, to y'all.
"YOU are the one making the amazing, outlier, obviously stupidly false claim, that YOU could be convinced to become a girl if your parents had said you were a girl."
Yes, I did say that I could see circumstances where that could happen. Further, even if it didn't happen, how could it be healthy for a child to be continuously told by it's parents to ignore biological reality for their agenda?
"The data doesn't support that. YOU are the one with no proof."
Strangely enough, this is the one case where "Because I say so." might actually be proof of something. You asked a hypothetical question, I gave you my best answer to your hypothetical question. What "data" could there possibly be that proves I'm lying? I'll wait.
"Gender identity is innate, NOT something that someone can "Push" you into. YOU YOURSELF almost certainly would agree that people can't nudge you into thinking you're a woman. It's a ridiculous, just-smack-yourself-in-the-face-stupid claim, if that's what you're making."
Again, with the unproven claims, and ad hom attacks.
Not one attempt to demonstrate that the study referenced is faulty or contains inaccurate information. Not one attempt to deal with the findings of the Finnish expert I mentioned. Just personal attacks, diversions, and unproven claims.
"I'm sorry, YOU said that they're beginning treatment on - YOUR words - "children when they're toddlers..." Do you think, in your fevered imagination, that a seven year old is a toddler? (THEY'RE NOT, you know, in reality and stuff.)"
Actually I was quoting/paraphrasing the medical director from Duke regarding toddlers. In addition to the Duke medical director, I provided another example of an expert who claims that irreversible medical procedures can be begun as early as seven, and who has started irreversible medical procedures on an 11 year old. Do you really support irreversible medical procedures being performed on children between 3 and 11?
"Or were you making a deliberately false claim?"
No, I was quoting what experts have said.
"Or you just got caught up in making shit up that you just didn't care that it's a stupidly false claim?"
No, but you do enough making of false claims for both of us. I know that it's easier to attack me rather than deal with what I've provided, but seriously you are literally attacking me to defend people who want to "transition" prepubescent children.
"Aside from the fact that you missed the point, I would assume that my understanding of fair is MORE correct than yours is because mine is based upon reason and observable harm and observable good, while yours is based on religious bigotry and ignorant positions contrary to the data."
Well, I guess hubris and "Because I say so." are really all you have left at this point.
I literally gave you a study that shows that children who "transition" are given more psychotropic drugs than before they "transitioned", and you have nothing to say about that.
"Not only did it find no significant psychological benefit, but many children had their psychotropic medication increased after gender-related drugs were administered."
Even though one of your most repeated claims is that "transitioning" children will improve their mental health. Are you really suggesting that taking more psychotropic drugs is better for children than taking less?
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20174218/76767/Transgender-Adolescent-Suicide-Behavior?autologincheck=redirected
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180822150809.htm
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
https://winteryknight.com/2023/02/22/new-study-50-of-biological-males-in-womens-prisons-convicted-of-sex-crimes/ (it's easier to post this one link with links to the individual studies)
https://winteryknight.com/2022/10/25/uk-joins-france-finland-and-sweden-backing-off-gender-affirming-care-but-biden-doubles-down/ (again multiple links to countries which have stopped this headlong dash to "transition" everyone)''
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-022-05832-4
Just a few more studies for you to ignore, as well as evidence that more and more European nations are following the science and reaching a different conclusion than you. But they all clearly must be wrong if they disagree with you, right?
Post a Comment