Red Mosquito

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:No he doesn't act like that. You just immediately assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who disagrees with you.

His posts assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who provides gender affirming care. I didn't make him post that.

you live an entirely fact free existence.

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:No he doesn't act like that. You just immediately assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who disagrees with you.

His posts assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who provides gender affirming care. I didn't make him post that.

I believe most of the advocates and medical professionals involved in giving these drugs to children have good intentions. The problem is that they are using these good intentions in place of good science, and now that we are so far down this path and tens of thousands of vulnerable, struggling children have been impacted, these same good-intentioned people are scared to admit what has happened and so they end up rejecting anything that may go against what they've established as the 'right thing'. And I'll admit maintaining the treatment status quo may be of great comfort to people already on that path but it will continue to victimize additional vulnerable children for as long as it's allowed to go on and that's not being 'kind' or going to 'protect trans kids'.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:No he doesn't act like that. You just immediately assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who disagrees with you.

His posts assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who provides gender affirming care. I didn't make him post that.

I believe most of the advocates and medical professionals involved in giving these drugs to children have good intentions. The problem is that they are using these good intentions in place of good science, and now that we are so far down this path and tens of thousands of vulnerable, struggling children have been impacted, these same good-intentioned people are scared to admit what has happened and so they end up rejecting anything that may go against what they've established as the 'right thing'. And I'll admit maintaining the treatment status quo may be of great comfort to people already on that path but it will continue to victimize additional vulnerable children for as long as it's allowed to go on and that's not being 'kind' or going to 'protect trans kids'.

By the way, I don't assume your intentions are bad.

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:No he doesn't act like that. You just immediately assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who disagrees with you.

His posts assume the worst possible intentions of anyone who provides gender affirming care. I didn't make him post that.

I believe most of the advocates and medical professionals involved in giving these drugs to children have good intentions. The problem is that they are using these good intentions in place of good science, and now that we are so far down this path and tens of thousands of vulnerable, struggling children have been impacted, these same good-intentioned people are scared to admit what has happened and so they end up rejecting anything that may go against what they've established as the 'right thing'. And I'll admit maintaining the treatment status quo may be of great comfort to people already on that path but it will continue to victimize additional vulnerable children for as long as it's allowed to go on and that's not being 'kind' or going to 'protect trans kids'.

I do wonder what traction the detransitioners are going to get suing their surgeons. Circular, vibes based standards of care might be thin gruel but what judge is going to want to make determinations on medical issues?

"Disagree with me, and you're a bigot!" is a major source of empowerment these days for the right. This is why we are going backwards in this country, instead of forward. The left keeps shooting themselves in the foot, and round and round we go... No one seems to be persuading anyone of anything here!

...RM changed by not changing at all!

Tree used the word "bigot," not Harmless and me.

RE: that whole detransitioners lawsuit thing

The psychiatric aspect might provide some traction - this provider does very little outside of group therapy, so perhaps they can get some traction on the unaddressed (but later ID'd) mental illness diagnoses.

I suspect Kaiser's defense of their standard of care of puberty blockers->cross-sex hormones-> surgery will be given quite a bit of deference. WPATH provides the standard in this area, they merely rely on their guidance, etc. etc.

B wrote:Tree used the word "bigot," not Harmless and me.

"transphobia" = "dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people" = "bigotry"

tree_ wrote:

B wrote:Tree used the word "bigot," not Harmless and me.

"transphobia" = "dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people" = "bigotry"

Haven't called Bi transphobic either.

B wrote:

tree_ wrote:

B wrote:Tree used the word "bigot," not Harmless and me.

"transphobia" = "dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people" = "bigotry"

Haven't called Bi transphobic either.

MH said there should be a Transphobic blacklist, implying I should be on it.. dunno who else, she wouldn't say

Mr. Yang's very unhelpful political snark aside, hopefully this is eye-opening for some folks:

Social transition at 11
Puberty blockers and hormones at 12
Double mastectomy at 13
Detransition at 17

Acknowledging lobotomies, which I hope we can agree are not a good thing, since the start of modern times... let's say the start of the 20th century... has there been anything else like this done to children to treat identity based or psychological struggles? What is the precedent for this arguably extreme level of treatment in minors?

tree_ wrote:

B wrote:

tree_ wrote:

B wrote:Tree used the word "bigot," not Harmless and me.

"transphobia" = "dislike of or strong prejudice against transgender people" = "bigotry"

Haven't called Bi transphobic either.

MH said there should be a Transphobic blacklist, implying I should be on it.. dunno who else, she wouldn't say

I think she was saying that Matt Walsh should be on the blacklist, not you.

Why’d you delete your post, tree_?

Yeah, I was thinking of a different way to ask it. Why don't we talk about the issues, and not the people who talk about the issues, (particularly the most publicly demonized ones)? That seems more reasonable.

tragabigzanda wrote:Probably because he’ll get attacked no matter how delicately he puts a reasonable question

He knows what he's doing

For instance, maybe you could tell us something Matt Walsh, who you clearly have very strong feelings about, has said that you believe is "transphobic", and why you feel that way. That could be helpful.

tree_ wrote:For instance, maybe you could tell us something Matt Walsh, who you clearly have very strong feelings about, has said that you believe is "transphobic", and why you feel that way. That could be helpful.

Insane

tree_ wrote:For instance, maybe you could tell us something Matt Walsh, who you clearly have very strong feelings about, has said that you believe is "transphobic", and why you feel that way. That could be helpful.

Who would that help?

JuanHamm wrote:

tree_ wrote:For instance, maybe you could tell us something Matt Walsh, who you clearly have very strong feelings about, has said that you believe is "transphobic", and why you feel that way. That could be helpful.

Who would that help?

I want to know what qualifies somebody, in your mind, to be transphobic and why, because ya'll so casually throw around the word.