"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[SkepticThinker]

I read linked material regularly.
But videos far far less so.
It's good to see you laughing for a change.

Same here.

 

[icehorse]

When asked for sources, you provided an anti-trans website with sources that did not support your claims. You ignore actual medical studies, and only choose to believe medical studies that you believe (wrongly) support your arguments. You link to anti-trans articles and websites in lieu of actual medical citation. You misrepresent studies that show the negative efficacy of hormone treatments in one situation as evidence of its negative efficacy when used as a treatment for GD. You equated puberty blockers to castration without explaining that's what you were doing, essentially misrepresenting anybody who supports the medical use of puberty blockers as being in favour of castrating minors. You literally responded to a thread about a non-gender conforming person committing suicide with a link about rape statistics committed by men in women's spaces. You couch every debate about trans rights in terms of the negative theoretical impact it can have on non-trans people, and ignore all studies that suggest these fears are baseless.

**mod edit**

Gish gallop. I'm happy to take one concern at a time.

Also, it's not impressive to me that you seem so unable to separate the message from the messenger, ha!

Also, more strawman arguments in the post above.

If you really cared, you could put together posts that are not positively riddled with fallacies. I think in this case, your accusations are admissions.

 

[icehorse]

Same here.

Great, I look forward to hearing what you think about the article I linked to

 

[icehorse]

I don't accept your premise.
GAC doesn't "start with" talk therapy and then move on from there, never to be visited again.
GAC itself is a medical and psychosocial approach to care and treatment. As in, the two (medical and psychological) are intertwined.

Sigh. If you think my SUMMARY of GAC was wrong in any meaningful way, feel free to share.

But again, my point has been and continues to be that the drug and surgery aspects of GAC should be banned for kids. Until it's been demonstrated that these dangerous, irreversible drugs and surgeries provide significantly BETTER outcomes than talk therapy alone.

Just saying that GD kids feel better after GAC is medically and scientifically insufficient. BECAUSE GD kids ALSO feel better without the drugs and surgeries.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sigh. If you think my SUMMARY of GAC was wrong in any meaningful way, feel free to share.

I just did.

But again, my point has been and continues to be that the drug and surgery aspects of GAC should be banned for kids. Until it's been demonstrated that these dangerous, irreversible drugs and surgeries provide significantly BETTER outcomes than talk therapy alone.

Just saying that GD kids feel better after GAC is medically and scientifically insufficient. BECAUSE GD kids ALSO feel better without the drugs and surgeries.

 

[icehorse]

I don't accept your premise.
GAC doesn't "start with" talk therapy and then move on from there, never to be visited again.
GAC itself is a medical and psychosocial approach to care and treatment. As in, the two (medical and psychological) are intertwined.

And then I asked if you thought my 3-step summary was wrong in any meaningful way...

I'm happy to grant you that the "medical and psychological" interventions are intertwined, but...

Isn't it true that it starts with talk therapy / psychological interventions before it ever progresses to using drugs?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm happy to grant you that the "medical and psychological" interventions are intertwined, but...

Isn't it true that it starts with talk therapy / psychological interventions before it ever progresses to using drugs?

I'm a bit skeptical of that.

A regimen with a psychiatrist could include "talk therapy", but I didn't think the mindset of treatment was necessarily "use talk therapy before prescribing drugs".

This is why these things are best left to experts. They aren't always so simple.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

avalanche of fallacy arguments

You get those wrong as well, such as labeling all criticism against you as a strawman.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You've said many times that you will not read links or watch videos that are posted here. That in itself is an indicator of your intentions. But more to the point, I do not care what the woke, RF bandwagon thinks. I care to find out what the reality is IRL.

But once again, here's one of many links I have provided:

‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It.’

This top doctor has 1,000 times the credibility that your bandwagon does.

She has none because she's full of ****. You must absolutely amd necessarily be a supercententarian to have pioneered this. There is no getting around this fact as it is simple and basic math.

 

[John53]

What has been a bit surprising however is how much you've become woke. I have to say, I didn't see that coming.

Hopefully since you've used it you will be able to tell me what "woke" means. I see it used all the time but have no idea what is meant by it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Gish gallop.

Another fallacy you don't understand. Listing the reasons why I find your debating bad faith is not fallacious.

I'm happy to take one concern at a time.

My issues with you are not based on a single concern. It is based on a history of what I believe to be fragrant dishonesty. How else could a person conflate puberty blockers and castration? How else could a person dismiss dozens of medical studies while presenting nothing but articles from anti-trans websites? How else could a person respond to a person's suicide by implying that their continued existence posed a risk to women? Why else would a person choose to dismiss any and all medical objection to their position as an ideological conspiracy?

What conclusion can possibly be drawn from all of this other than that you are a bad faith debater? Please tell me.

Also, it's not impressive to me that you seem so unable to separate the message from the messenger, ha!

You're right, I shouldn't judge people by what they say and the things they believe. How naive of me.

Also, more strawman arguments in the post above.

That's false. Those are all accurate characterisations of things you have said and done.

If you really cared, you could put together posts that are not positively riddled with fallacies. I think in this case, your accusations are admissions.

How convenient for you. You don't have to answer for your own statements and actions, you can just dismiss any criticism of you as "fallacies" despite betraying no understanding whatsoever of how fallacies work.

I tell you again: If you wish to be treated as a good faith debater, you must demonstrate good faith. A start would be to acknowledge your failed talking points in this thread.

 

[icehorse]

What conclusion can possibly be drawn from all of this other than that you are a bad faith debater? Please tell me

Well you're misrepresenting me on all of those counts, so you've come up with a sort of fallacy buffet, a gish gallop of strawman arguments. And more libel as well.

Again, are you brave enough to debate your claims against me one at a time? Or will you, as usual, hide behind a mountain of excuses, as you did in this last post of yours?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well you're misrepresenting me on all of those counts, so you've come up with a sort of fallacy buffet, a gish gallop of strawman arguments. And more libel as well.

Again, are you brave enough to take your claims against me one at a time? Or will you, as usual, hide behind a mountain of excuses, as you did in this last post of yours?

Are you brave enough to actually debate honestly and address what I have said? I'm not an idiot. I will not let you gull me into letting you set the terms of this issue. Either address what I have said, or admit fault and do better.

 

[icehorse]

Are you brave enough to actually debate honestly and address what I have said? Because I refuse to let you set the terms of this issue. Either address what I have said, or admit fault and do better.

I will debate you one point at a time. Otherwise, you'll go right back to your libelous gish gallop.

If you want to back up any of your claims against me, I'll debate you, but only one point at a time.

Otherwise, you're just guilty of projection and libel.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will debate you one point at a time.

No. You do not get to set the terms.

Answer, or admit fault.

 

[icehorse]

No. You do not get to set the terms.

Answer, or admit fault.

You can level any charges you want against me, but I will only debate them one at a time. So trot out your list of grievances...

 

[Revoltingest]

No. You do not get to set the terms.

Answer, or admit fault.

I recommend considering the value
of your time, & spending it on exchanges
that are little more than enduring
buzzwords & epithets thrown at you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can level any charges you want against me, but I will only debate them one at a time. So trot out your list of grievances...

I know what happens when I let dishonest debaters dictate the terms of discussion. If you want things on your terms, then there's no value in discussing any further with you.

I recommend considering the value
of your time, & spending it on exchanges
that are little more than enduring
buzzwords & epithets thrown at you.

I agree.

 

[icehorse]

I recommend considering the value
of your time, & spending it on exchanges
that are little more than enduring
buzzwords & epithets thrown at you.

says the king of projection

 

[Revoltingest]

says the king of projection

I'm promoted to "king"?
Only yesterday I was "court jester".
Woohoo!