NHS England Prohibits Access to Puberty Blockers at Gender-Identity Clinics, Limits Them to Research Settings

[Callisto]

It would be nice if they stopped advocating in the first place. That's what caused the mess to begin with. Transsexualism has nothing to do with politics. Now everyone is delusional, thinking we're all on the verge of being killed or killing ourselves and are so helpless and need to be rescued. That stuff makes me angry, because it's just more infantalizing of minorities based on fear mongering. I've noticed white liberals love that, with their savior complex. But I'm a grown man and can take care of myself. No, there's no trans genocide.

Truth. This is what happens when any collective/community allows the fringe and extremism to run unchecked. Worse, when the insanity runs its course, it's the people who just ever wanted to live their lives who have to contend with the mess left when these activists slink off.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Truth. This is what happens when any collective/community allows the fringe and extremism to run unchecked. Worse, when the insanity runs its course, it's the people who just ever wanted to live their lives who have to contend with the mess left when these activists slink off.

Right. It's so difficult to just be thrown into this mess, as I certainly didn't ask for it. I don't really have anything to do with the "trans community" anymore because of the unhinged mental illness and fetishism. I really don't need to be thrown in with an unkempt man in a dirty dress with facial hair who calls himself "Maggie David" and who has an alternate personality that's a 12 year old boy. Or the mentally unstable, suicidal female (who had a cared, too) they allowed to get a double mastectomy. True story. So I'm glad this course correction is happening. I couldn't imagine it getting worse. I just hope it's as painless as possible.

 

[Callisto]

Right. It's so difficult to just be thrown into this mess, as I certainly didn't ask for it. I don't really have anything to do with the "trans community" anymore because of the unhinged mental illness and fetishism. I really don't need to be thrown in with an unkempt man in a dirty dress with facial hair who calls himself "Maggie David" and who has an alternate personality that's a 12 year old boy. Or the mentally unstable, suicidal female (who had a cared, too) they allowed to get a double mastectomy. True story. So I'm glad this course correction is happening. I couldn't imagine it getting worse. I just hope it's as painless as possible.

The transpersons I know don't bother with the current so-called community, either. Most transitioned years ago, the most recent began last year. It's become a sideshow and is the antithesis of what transgenderism has ever entailed or been about.

 

[Ignatius A]

No Kennedy videos for me.

Ths truth has that effect on people.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The transpersons I know don't bother with the current so-called community, either. Most transitioned years ago, the most recent began last year. It's become a sideshow and is the antithesis of what transgenderism has ever entailed or been about.

Well said. That's my experience, too.

 

[Ignatius A]

Yes, it does. It literally does. You've just said it in this very sentence. If some women don't produce ova, then "women produce ova" is not a rule.

I mean, that's what it means.

The rule for distinguishing between men and women is one produces sperm the other eggs. Period. If the rule doesn't apply in a specific case that doesnt negate the rule it indicates something is different. It does t make that person's different gender. *Staff Edit* There is no compelling reason to bend society to people's "feelings".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The rule for distinguishing between men and women is one produces sperm the other eggs. Period.

Except you've already acknolwedged that not all women produce eggs, and I am willing to bet you also understand that not all men produce sperm.

So you're obviously wrong, and it's not a rule.

If the rule doesn't apply in a specific case that doesnt negate the rule it indicates something is different.

It means it's not a rule. If I say "It is a rule that men have black hair" but then people point out that not all men have black hair, it means the rule I stated is false and obviously "having black hair" isn't the sole deciding factor of what is or is not a man.

It does t make that person's different gender. *Staff Edit* There is no compelling reason to bend society to people's "feelings".

Society is already "bent" to people's feelings. I get that you want it to be bent to YOUR feelings, but most people seem to disagree.

Y'know, like educated people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ths truth has that effect on people.

Do you believe his opinions are "The Truth"?


Oh, you guys....post some video of a politician's
screed....something likely to be a big waste of
time....something that requires turning off other
things like music. And then if we don't watch
your fulminating lunatic, you guys get all....

 

[icehorse]

Yes, it does. It literally does. You've just said it in this very sentence. If some women don't produce ova, then "women produce ova" is not a rule.

I mean, that's what it means.

Civilization runs on categorizations. We use them all the time, even when they're not 100% perfect. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a categorization that doesn't have a few exceptions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Civilization runs on categorizations. We use them all the time, even when they're not 100% perfect. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a categorization that doesn't have a few exceptions.

That's very interesting, professor. I have never in my life ever considered the possibility that categories exist and are a thing.

Of course, it has literally no impact or relevance whatsoever on anything I wrote. But it sure is interesting.

 

[Ignatius A]

Except you've already acknolwedged that not all women produce eggs, and I am willing to bet you also understand that not all men produce sperm.

So you're obviously wrong, and it's not a rule.


It means it's not a rule. If I say "It is a rule that men have black hair" but then people point out that not all men have black hair, it means the rule I stated is false and obviously "having black hair" isn't the sole deciding factor of what is or is not a man.


Society is already "bent" to people's feelings. I get that you want it to be bent to YOUR feelings, but most people seem to disagree.

Y'know, like educated people.

Right women that don't produce eggs are not a different gender. Something is out of the ordinary.

No I don't want bent to my feelings but I don't deny biology because of your delusional thoughts or feelings

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right women that don't produce eggs are not a different gender. Something is out of the ordinary.

So you acknowledge that "producing eggs" is not a DEFINING TRAIT of women, because you don't say that a person who can't produce eggs isn't necessarily a woman. So to say "the rule is that women produce ova/eggs" is false.

Why can't you just say that? Do you really, really want the world to be as simple as you feel it should be? Why not just admit it's complicated?

No I don't want bent to my feelings

Yes you do. You clearly care very, very much about everyone adopting YOUR understanding, and FEEL very strongly about those that do not.

but I don't deny biology because of your delusional thoughts or feelings

Nobody denies biology. You don't have to deny biology in order to understand how gender and biology work and are different things.

Like I said, it's not hard. Just educate yourself.

 

[Ignatius A]

Yrsm

So you acknowledge that "producing eggs" is not a DEFINING TRAIT of women, because you don't say that a person who can't produce eggs isn't necessarily a woman. So to say "the rule is that women produce ova/eggs" is false.

Why can't you just say that? Do you really, really want the world to be as simple as you feel it should be? Why not just admit it's complicated?


Yes you do. You clearly care very, very much about everyone adopting YOUR understanding, and FEEL very strongly about those that do not.


Nobody denies biology. You don't have to deny biology in order to understand how gender and biology work and are different things.

Like I said, it's not hard. Just educate yourself.

Yes it is a defining trait. In order for your rationale to work a woman that doesnt produce eggs would have to be a a different gender. Is that your assertion?

If I find a human being born with 6 fingers or only one arm then that means human beings dont have 5 fingers or two arms. Correct? They are a new species of creature right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yrsm

Yes it is a defining trait.

You've already acknowledged it is not, since you wouldn't say a person who doesn't produce eggs isn't necessarily a woman.

Have you really failed to consider your own position this hard that you don't even understand what your own statements mean?

In order for your rationale to work a woman that doesnt produce eggs would have to be a a different gender. Is that your assertion?

No, that's YOUR assertion, since you believe "producing eggs" is a DEFINING TRAIT of women. I don't. If YOU were consistent, you would insist that there are NO WOMEN who don't produce eggs. But, obviously, this would be absurd. So it is absurd to make this a DEFINITIONAL STANDARD FOR WOMEN. Yet you're still insisting it is. Why? You've already conceded it's not.

If I find a human being born with 6 fingers or only one arm then that means human beings dont have 5 fingers or two arms. Correct?

No, it means that you cannot DEFINE a human as EXCLUSIVELY having only five fingers on both arms. This isn't that complicated.

Again, YOU are the one who came up with a definition akin to "All humans have five fingers on each arm", and when met with examples that counter this you just say "Well, obviously, they're still humans".

If you accept that there ARE humans with more or less than five fingers on each arm, then you must also accept that HAVING FIVE FINGERS ON EACH ARM is not a DEFINING TRAIT OF BEING HUMAN. In exactly the same way that if you accept that there ARE women who don't produce ova, then you must accept that PRODUCING OVA is not a DEFINING TRAIT OF BEING A WOMAN.

This really isn't that hard to understand. What's confusing you?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Or the mentally unstable, suicidal female (who had a cared, too) they allowed to get a double mastectomy.

Who are you talking about?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Who are you talking about?

Someone I knew.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Someone I knew.

Ah, I see. I thought they were a public figure.

If you don't mind sharing, were they an adult when they had the surgery?

 

[Ignatius A]

You've already acknowledged it is not, since you wouldn't say a person who doesn't produce eggs isn't necessarily a woman.

Have you really failed to consider your own position this hard that you don't even understand what your own statements mean?


No, that's YOUR assertion, since you believe "producing eggs" is a DEFINING TRAIT of women. I don't. If YOU were consistent, you would insist that there are NO WOMEN who don't produce eggs. But, obviously, this would be absurd. So it is absurd to make this a DEFINITIONAL STANDARD FOR WOMEN. Yet you're still insisting it is. Why? You've already conceded it's not.


No, it means that you cannot DEFINE a human as EXCLUSIVELY having only five fingers on both arms. This isn't that complicated.

Again, YOU are the one who came up with a definition akin to "All humans have five fingers on each arm", and when met with examples that counter this you just say "Well, obviously, they're still humans".

If you accept that there ARE humans with more or less than five fingers on each arm, then you must also accept that HAVING FIVE FINGERS ON EACH ARM is not a DEFINING TRAIT OF BEING HUMAN. In exactly the same way that if you accept that there ARE women who don't produce ova, then you must accept that PRODUCING OVA is not a DEFINING TRAIT OF BEING A WOMAN.

This really isn't that hard to understand. What's confusing you?

You can keep screeching it doesnt change anything. Women produce egss not sperm. Men produce sperm. That doesnt cease to be a rule because you can find a woman that doesn't produce eggs or a man that doesn't produce sperm.

Beyond that you sure as hell aren't a different gender just because you "feel" like you are.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ah, I see. I thought they were a public figure.

If you don't mind sharing, were they an adult when they had the surgery?

Yeah, I think they were 20. And by "mentally unstable", I meant they had an unstable identity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can keep screeching it doesnt change anything.

Sounds like an emotional argument to me.

Women produce egss not sperm.

Except some don't, and you still call them women. So this is false.

Men produce sperm.

Except some don't, and you still call them men. So this is false.

That doesnt cease to be a rule because you can find a woman that doesn't produce eggs or a man that doesn't produce sperm.

Yes it does. That's literally what a rule means.

"It is a rule that all swans are white."
"What about black swans. Are they not swans?"
"No, obviously, they are still swans."
"But they're not white."
"They're still swans, though."
"So then the rule 'all swans are white' is false?"
"No, all swans are white. That's the rule."
"But what about the exceptions?"
"They're exceptions."
"So not all swans are white?"
"Correct. Not all swans are white, obviously."
"So... What's the rule for deciding whether or not something is a swan?"
"The rule is all swans are white."

This is the level you are currently functioning on. It's baffling.

Beyond that you sure as hell aren't a different gender just because you "feel" like you are.

Since gender is a social construct, yes you can.