https://winteryknight.com/2024/01/19/are-puberty-blockers-reversible/
So, if the Experts who are pro "trans" and who've actually written the guidelines for "transing" are ready to admit that puberty blockers are not "reversible" as the MSM, the APL, and Dan have insisted, shouldn't the entire conversation about "transing" children be revisited?
It seems like "bone loss", "disruption of brain development", and "infertility" are significant negatives and should probably be given more attention.
6 comments:
the MSM, the APL, and Dan don't really care about these people. They're just political props. Like kids are.
I think that for the majority of those groups this is exactly the case. They'll always need one more trendy "victim" group and once they need a new one, they'll abandon the others without hesitation.
What's interesting is that the people who continually tell us that the "experts" must not be questioned and that the "experts" are always correct, don't seem to interested in the "experts" when they produce evidence that doesn't support the narrative. At that point, it usually switches to ad hom attacks, rather than refutation of the data.
Oh yeah! How often have we seen Dan refer to opposition experts as "religious or conservative extremists"? I submitted an article to him at his blog describing a GOP committee questioning border patrol agents affirming how cartels are controlling and profiting from the invasion of illegals, and he dismissed it in just the manner I described, without the slightest effort to provide countervailing evidence.
He's done it in discussions about LGBT claims, and climate claims. It's always the same. He doesn't visit our blogs as much anymore because we won't let him get away with it. That puts him in too great a bind, so he's bolted like the coward he is. Typical leftist stuff.
I've seen multiple instances where he's offered the work of advocacy groups as "expert" when those groups have a significant stake in the results of whatever they submit. Years ago he argued against the evidence of multiple doctors regarding the damage caused by anal sex, and the health risks specific to gay men.
Everyone that provides "data" (his god) that doesn't agree with the narrative he's committed to is automatically derided as some sort of irretrievably biased source. It's his way of avoiding dealing with the data by engaging in ad hom attacks against the messenger.
That's how he rolls.
Yep, the ad hom and shoot the messenger are his most common tactics. It's especially funny when a "right wing" source posts a video or direct quotations of someone and Dan dismisses it because of the source. As if truth is dependent on where it's written or spoken.
Post a Comment