Red Mosquito

Ms Harmless wrote:just one example

https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... ?r=US&IR=T

Eeek, lots of bad content in there. Intentional misinformation?

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:just one example

https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... ?r=US&IR=T

Eeek, lots of bad content in there. Intentional misinformation?

explain

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:just one example

https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... ?r=US&IR=T

Eeek, lots of bad content in there. Intentional misinformation?

explain

Only one of these statements in this paragraph is what the cited Reuters article actually says.

A Reuters investigation found that, as of 2021, fewer than 1,500 youth in the United States under the age of 17 were taking physician-prescribed puberty blockers, and fewer than 4,500 on hormone therapies. Less than 300 received mastectomies or "top surgery," and only 56 youth under the age of 17 have received gender-affirming "bottom" or genital surgery.

Ok it is happening, but it's a good thing.

BurtReynolds wrote:Ok it is happening, but it's a good thing.

I dunno, the activists seem worried about the narrative shifting because normies can support nice euphemisms like"gender affirming care" but are less supporting of orchiectomies and the like in minors.

Saw a good one in the wild about puberty blockers being reversible and then backpedaling to "well, no medical interventions are fully reversible".

I posted a link to an article about bad news for trans people and three of you turned up to mock it

minors are not having orchiectomies, simple schoolboy

this is what I've been saying, it doesn't matter how often I say "minors aren't having surgery", one of you will turn up and express your "concern" about minors having surgery

puberty blockers are in most ways fully reversible; there is a 1% regret rate for those that took them into adulthood, which is a lot less than many other medical procedures

I'm all for people coming with different perspectives and opinions in here but when I express fear about the tide changing and the world becoming more dangerous for us, I'd appreciate less "no that's good actually", especially when you want me to believe you're not a transphobe

you fundamentally don't believe this is about necessary medical care, or you wouldn't be doing this; nobody is doing it about chemotherapy, which is horribly invasive with permanent effects, and is given to minors

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:just one example

https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... ?r=US&IR=T

Eeek, lots of bad content in there. Intentional misinformation?

explain

Only one of these statements in this paragraph is what the cited Reuters article actually says.

A Reuters investigation found that, as of 2021, fewer than 1,500 youth in the United States under the age of 17 were taking physician-prescribed puberty blockers, and fewer than 4,500 on hormone therapies. Less than 300 received mastectomies or "top surgery," and only 56 youth under the age of 17 have received gender-affirming "bottom" or genital surgery.

this is what you're counting as "lots of bad content"?

this isn't contradicting anything, it's going into more detail about the findings

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:just one example

https://www.businessinsider.com/florida ... ?r=US&IR=T

Eeek, lots of bad content in there. Intentional misinformation?

explain

Only one of these statements in this paragraph is what the cited Reuters article actually says.

A Reuters investigation found that, as of 2021, fewer than 1,500 youth in the United States under the age of 17 were taking physician-prescribed puberty blockers, and fewer than 4,500 on hormone therapies. Less than 300 received mastectomies or "top surgery," and only 56 youth under the age of 17 have received gender-affirming "bottom" or genital surgery.

this is what you're counting as "lots of bad content"?

this isn't contradicting anything, it's going into more detail about the findings

The Reuters article clearly indicates those are the additional people starting those treatments, not the total.



As a side note, you ghost edited this post while I was typing this:

Ms Harmless wrote:... minors are not having orchiectomies, simple schoolboy this is what I've been saying, it doesn't matter how often I say "minors aren't having surgery", one of you will turn up and express your "concern" about minors having surgery puberty blockers are in most ways fully reversible; ...

Which is contradicted by that article.

Fucking appalling behaviour in this thread. Disappointed in you lads.

dimejinky99 wrote:Fucking appalling behaviour in this thread. Disappointed in you lads.

As far as I can tell, people are just trying to get facts straight. Can you specify which behaviour you find appalling and why?

it would be comical if it wasnt so sad that montana is refusing to let a transgendered lawmaker speak on transgendered bills for a third day is all you need to know how the GOP feels about transgendered if you didnt know anything else

No it's just that Republicans are evil Nazis who want to kill trans people. I know this because my entire world view is based on Star Wars.

BurtReynolds wrote:No it's just that Republicans are evil Nazis who want to kill trans people. I know this because my entire world view is based on Star Wars.

I mean...

Spoiler: show

tragabigzanda wrote:Slight clarification: They initially didn’t let Zephyr speak on the trans bill (HB 99) after she said the GOP would have “blood on their hands” the next time they “bowed their heads in prayer.”

I won’t argue your larger point here, but “they have blood on their hands” is some of the most tepid and overused language in all of politics. If someone saying their opponents have “blood on their hands“ is notable as context for censoring speech, then no politician should be given time on the floor. Any floor.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:No it's just that Republicans are evil Nazis who want to kill trans people. I know this because my entire world view is based on Star Wars.

I mean...

Spoiler: show

I didn't think my eyes can roll all the way around, but this dumb post did it.

BurtReynolds wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:No it's just that Republicans are evil Nazis who want to kill trans people. I know this because my entire world view is based on Star Wars.

I mean...

Spoiler: show

I didn't think my eyes can roll all the way around, but this dumb post did it.

Funny, equating people who disagree with Republicans and a Star Wars world view did it for me!

Yeah genius I said that "anyone who disagrees with Republicans", and not specifically the low IQ brainlets who spend all day talking about a kids show and making up insane shit about how Republicans just want to kill trans people.

Btw if you bothered to look up trans murderers, you won't find a lot (or any) of white dorks in polo shirts and tiki torches. Not to mention the question of if they are Republicans in the first place. So your post made no sense whatsoever.

I think you all are underestimating how dangerous the charged language around trans rights and children has become. If the language stays at "genocide" and "blood on your hands", the Nashville mass murderer is only the start.

The people with the umbrellas and assault rifles are not cops.