Red Mosquito

Ms Harmless wrote:I know a lot about anti-trans stigma and the fears of transphobes about changed bodies; I know because I live it

That's nice. Let me know when it gives you psychic powers.

It probably helps that you interpret any and all criticism, questioning and disagreement as inherently a threat to your very existence and definitionally anti-trans. Such hubris! Under that lens, it must seem as common as breathing. Literally everything that exists contrary to your control is transphobic. You've completely walled yourself off from any alternatives.

I think one of the closest things to a universal human trait is care for children's health, barring a few sickos. To believe otherwise is to have a cartoonish and deeply warped view of the world and people.

Ms Harmless wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Oh you were being hyperbolic.

rhetorically

I stand behind what I meant by the statement

What does this even mean?

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:I know a lot about anti-trans stigma and the fears of transphobes about changed bodies; I know because I live it

That's nice. Let me know when it gives you psychic powers.

It probably helps that you interpret any and all criticism, questioning and disagreement as inherently a threat to your very existence and definitionally anti-trans. Such hubris! Under that lens, it must seem as common as breathing. Literally everything that exists contrary to your control is transphobic. You've completely walled yourself off from any alternatives.

I think one of the closest things to a universal human trait is care for children's health, barring a few sickos. To believe otherwise is to have a cartoonish and deeply warped view of the world and people.

I've walled myself against you

get the fuck over it

"barring a few sickos"

a few bad eggs, yep

It's always the eggs you have to worry about.

I had to crack, it was inevitable; now I'm a good egg, oozing my yolk all over Burt Reynold's existence, for some reason

but I won't speculate over the reasons he's so inexplicably angry at me; to do so would be exercising "psychic powers" I simply don't have

so his powers of logical evaluation over the situation win, this time *shakes fist*

I dunno. I'm too hard on you. Ideology can be a useful life strategy, a life raft to cling to in a brutal world. A church, an identity, etc. Maybe it works for some people, at least for awhile. Undoubtedly your life is hard, so think what you want, though I would caution against resentment. But sorry, I will not be suspending my own thoughts and deferring to anyone who demands authority on social policy based merely on some identity trait.

congratulations to him for being so level-headed

"I will not be suspending my own thoughts and deferring to anyone who demands authority on social policy based merely on some identity trait"

you'd probably better tell your wife / partner that

Ms Harmless wrote:"I will not be suspending my own thoughts and deferring to anyone who demands authority on social policy based merely on some identity trait"

you'd probably better tell your wife / partner that

Mickey reply in 5,4,3,2...

I will no longer trust builders to tell me whether I'm safe walking under scaffolding, I will not bow to their supposed "authority" based on a simple identity trait

Fantastic!

can I even trust my own house now? you've plunged me into an existential crisis

BurtReynolds wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:"I will not be suspending my own thoughts and deferring to anyone who demands authority on social policy based merely on some identity trait"

you'd probably better tell your wife / partner that

Mickey reply in 5,4,3,2...

Why are you using my name, bogman?

B wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:have you asked any NHS Gender care doctors?

The NIH in the US suggests monitoring bone density and cognitive development among youth on puberty blockers and not on puberty blockers, but does not recommend discontinuing their use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7433770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694455/

So, that sounds like an item for informed consent between doctors, parents, and patients. But, OK, fair, there was a sentence in Oliver's 27 minute video that could have included a little more qualification. A real gotcha moment!

Not everyone thinks that is necessary (remember Jack Turban's name, you'll be hearing it a lot as the case in Arkansas plays out over the next few weeks):




Here's a not-super-great-so-dont-claim-i-agree-with-every-single-sentence rebuttal of the whole episode that begs an important question: https://www.city-journal.org/john-olive ... commentary

Oliver’s claim that sterility “can happen” as a result of cross-sex hormones is also misleading. When taken as a follow-up to puberty blockers, sterility is virtually guaranteed, since the organs responsible for producing sex gametes (ova and sperm) are not allowed to develop. These procedures also impact sexual function. Transgender surgeon Marci Bowers infamously conceded that of the 2,000 or so people on whom she has operated, none has been able to achieve sexual satisfaction. Is renunciation of all future reproductive capabilities and sexual function something a 12-year-old can give valid consent to? Perhaps Oliver should have raised this question.

This is a key question here. Can a 6th-grader really make that decision? To comprehend and consent to a life time of medical dependency on hormones and forgo kids and sexual fulfillment... even after talking to a psychologist? I am skeptical they can.

"a lifetime of..."

"medical dependency"

"forgo kids and sexual fulfilment"

honestly? are we still talking about puberty blockers?

I agree with Jules Gill-Peterson, wholeheartedly; sixth graders have a right to address the needs of their bodies and minds now, without the rest of the world feeding them highly hypothetical and speculative fears of what might happen in the far future

puberty blockers are preventative medicine, just like birth control or abortion, and should be normalised as such

Are you an anti-natalist, by chance?

Leor Sapir, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, A leading free-market think tank focusing on Economic Growth, Education, Energy and Environment, Health Care, Legal Reform, Public Sector, Race, & Urban Policy wrote:Lagging behind your same-sex peers in physical development has obvious psychosocial consequences that cannot be reversed the second you stop taking puberty blockers.

That's moving the goal posts. No one expects that your testicles drop the day you go off puberty blockers.

Michael Biggs, a sociologist at the University of Oxford wrote:Is renunciation of all future reproductive capabilities and sexual function something a 12-year-old can give valid consent to?

If a kid is suffering, and this is a possible consequence of the medicine that alleviates their suffering? Yeah, maybe a kid, with consultation of their parent and doctor, can make that choice. Who am I, who has never suffered such things to say no?

Apologies to Jules Gill-Peterson, whoever she is, but I don't endorse puberty blockers for kids without parental consent and doctor consultation, but you know that, because I've said that no less than 15 times in this thread, and no one in this thread, including Harm, has said otherwise.

And what the fuck IS this Biggs review? It's based on 70 kids who got puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones AND surgery? I don't see how that's applicable, even if it did present evidence that ANY of those kids stopped the treatment and were subsequently infertile later in life, which is does not.

BurtReynolds wrote:Are you an anti-natalist, by chance?

if that's a fancy new word for pro-choice, then yes

if it's anti-having children, no; I grieve the fact I can't