South Carolina OKs ban on gender affirming care.

[fantome profane]

to something like 20 state legislatures?

There are two groups that are concerned about this issue. Those who it affects, people suffering from this condition and their families as well as the medical professionals who are trying to help, and the second group consists of transphobic bigots and those trying to exploit transphobic bigotry.

State legislatures should not be involving themselves in this issue, at all.

 

[icehorse]

It's not personal. You get too much basic stuff wrong to be informed. You also have consistently shot down good faith discussion.
I'm not repeating an answer I already gave.

Stop it, ffs. you ARE NOT THE JUDGE. You have not been debating in good faith, from word one. I do notice however how frequently you project, it's not a good look.

You act as though your answers are always on point and correct. They most certainly are not. You are a part of the "you've been told" crowd which is a laughably weak retort. You embarrass yourself with such nonsense.

I will make you the same offer I made another poster.

If you want to pick a specific point of disagreement, and start fresh, and stick to that point, I will discuss that with you.

 

[icehorse]

Who made you king of labeling people misogynist and homophobic?

There are solutions that help trans people without negatively impacting women and gay people. As long as you continue to champion zero-sum solutions I think those labels are more than fair.

 

[icehorse]

There are two groups that are concerned about this issue. Those who it affects, people suffering from this condition and their families as well as the medical professionals who are trying to help, and the second group consists of transphobic bigots and those trying to exploit transphobic bigotry.

State legislatures should not be involving themselves in this issue, at all.

That's a false dilemma, sorry.

I'm a part of a GROUP that is trying to defend confused kids from being needlessly mutilated.

We need to find solutions that are not zero-sum, which GAC is

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are solutions that help trans people without negatively impacting women and gay people. As long as you continue to champion zero-sum solutions I think those labels are more than fair.

Transgender people do NOT negatively impact women or gays. It's transphobic to weaponize people like that against trans people.
You say it's bad for women, we already know you don't care what cis women who disagree withyou say. Gays who don't agree with you are homophobic. Allys who don't agree with you are misogynist and homophobic. You've been on about that bull**** for several threads now.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We need to find solutions that are not zero-sum, which GAC is

Amd yet experts who know more than I do about the subject don't agree.

 

[icehorse]

Amd yet experts who know more than I do about the subject don't agree.

As you correctly said earlier, doctors have been treating trans gender people for at least 100 years. So far we're agreed.

But the Dutch protocol was codified around 2011.
The current WPATH version 8 standard of care is based on the Dutch protocol

WPATH is populated with trans activists. Yes, many of them are doctors, but many of them are activists. The proof of this is in the WPATH SOC V8. This is THEIR document that THEY created and stand by. This document is riddled with activist language.

The very title of this thread confirms just how political this issue is.

So the "experts" in this case should be viewed with some skepticism. Because many of them are activists. It could be coincidence, but the current GAC (not the one from 100 years ago), requires that it's patients become dependent on expensive medications for the rest of their lives. I wouldn't be at all surprised when it's discovered that these activists see GD kids as an opportunity to make a lot of money pushing drugs and surgeries.

If we look at the EPATH document offered in the last few days in one of these trans-related theads, we can see that 95% of the research boils down to "okay, we've done GAC, now what". We need to question the efficacy of the CURRENT GAC and stop needlessly mutilating kids until such efficacy has been established.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It could be coincidence, but the current GAC (not the one from 100 years ago), requires that it's patients become dependent on expensive medications for the rest of their lives

That's not true.

We need to question the efficacy of the CURRENT GAC and stop needlessly mutilating kids until such efficacy has been established.

I've already tried explaining to you that the treatments, especially the screenings, have been well developed and improved.
And you keep sayi this like there's a ton of kids having surgery.
And you're use of "mutilation" is more intolerance on your part.

Because many of them are activists.

In other words, you don't agree with them so they are must be these boogeymen activists you're still going on about.

 

[icehorse]

I've already tried explaining to you that the treatments, especially the screenings, have been well developed and improved.
And you keep sayi this like there's a ton of kids having surgery.
And you're use of "mutilation" is more intolerance on your part.

Yes I know. I can paraphrase your arguments. I understand your positions. We just disagree.

In other words, you don't agree with them so they are must be these boogeymen activists you're still going on about.

strawman

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can paraphrase your arguments

Then why haven't you?

strawman

No, it's what you're doing. You reject medical research and call all thise who don't a bigot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Transgender people do NOT negatively impact women or gays.

But they do. He offered evidence that a trans
woman disrupted a meeting of lesbians. This
possibly happened more than once.
And there's the risk that a cis woman might feel
anxious if a trans woman used the same restroom.
These are (claimed) severe societal problems
amounting to "throwing all women under the bus".

 

[Laniakea]

But they do. He offered evidence that a trans
woman disrupted a meeting of lesbians. This
possibly happened more than once.
And there's the risk that a cis woman might feel
anxious if a trans woman used the same restroom.
These are (claimed) severe societal problems
amounting to "throwing all women under the bus".

Making someone uncomfortable used to be equated with hate.
Women also used to be considered the oppressed gender.
Have they suddenly become not-so-useful for pushing leftist agendas?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Making someone uncomfortable used to be equated with hate.
Women also used to be considered the oppressed gender.
Have they suddenly become not-so-useful for pushing leftist agendas?

Black people being arounf makes a lot of white people uncomfortable. So what?

 

[icehorse]

Then why haven't you?

No, it's what you're doing. You reject medical research and call all thise who don't a bigot.

strawman, with some projection to boot.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

strawman, with some projection to boot.

It's no strawman. You have accused people of being homophobes because they don't oppose medical transitions.

 

[icehorse]

It's no strawman. You have accused people of being homophobes because they don't oppose medical transitions.

strawman

 

[Laniakea]

Black people being arounf makes a lot of white people uncomfortable. So what?

Looks like I triggered something in you for you to say something like that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Looks like I triggered something in you for you to say something like that.

Nothing was triggered. I just pointed out how short sighted and "oh well, get yourself" your point is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

strawman

Do I need to go back and quote your posts again?

 

[Laniakea]

Nothing was triggered. I just pointed out how short sighted and "oh well, get yourself" your point is.

Try again.
Only make sense this time.