The witchhunt continues...

[icehorse]

I believe that Christianity is a lie, but I also believe that you should have the right to live that lie, as it's your life.

A person can change their minds on religion. They cannot undo the harmful side effects of blockers or of course surgeries.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

OMFG. Yes indeed, critics have a toolkit of debating techniques... and so do apologists!!!

Thank you captain obvious.



That consensus was slap-dash at best, and is now falling apart.

Puberty blockers are safe!!!!! There are many studies showing the opposite. For your claim to be true, there must be no opposing studies, and you must have long term results. You don't seem to realize that YOU are the one making extraordinary claims.


several strawmen.

Bahaha that is one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a while. If that were true then *zero* medications are safe because all have side effect studies that range, all of which have unsafe contraindications in some uses. But the overwhelming consensus, despite your inane claim it's 'falling apart' is that it is safe.

Back on my ignore you go. I have no time for those insisting everyone else has extraordinary claims only because they can't actually authenticate theirs, with more investment in shifting the burden of proof than having good faith dialogues.

Good luck with that biases prejudice pretending to be a concerned citizen.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So your point is that you don't believe people when they say they are transgender? Is that it?

Nope, I have never said this.

What's with the references to "lies" and "truth?"

I would be telling a lie if I said a transwoman is a woman because I do not believe they are. Transwomen are not lying when they say they are a woman because they believe that.

A transgender person is someone whose gender identity doesn't correspond with the sex registered to them at birth.
A transgender man is a transgender man.
A transgender woman is a transgender woman.

A cisgender person is someone whose gender identity corresponds with the sex registered to them at birth.
A cisgender man is a cisgender man.
A cisgender woman is a cisgender woman.


The "truth" is that some people feel like their gender identity doesn't match the sex they were registered with at birth. Who are you to say that's a lie?

I Never said they are lying.

Do you think it's a lie when a homosexual person "feels" attraction to someone of the same sex? How would you determine that?

Nope.

 

[Father Heathen]

So true! And not knowing who you are. My dad recounted how he would bully a person and once followed him all the way to his home. At the door step, the guy had a bag of marbles and laid it squarely on my dads head... the last time my dad bullied him. The guy figured out who he was:

watch

Although I consider your religion a pile of poopoo, I would never want you to be harassed or discriminated against because of it. You should be able to live your life in peace (while allowing others to do the same.)

 

[icehorse]

Bahaha that is one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a while. If that were true then *zero* medications are safe because all have side effect studies that range. But the overwhelming consensus, despite your inane claim it's 'falling apart' is that it is safe.

Back on my ignore you go. I have no time for those insisting everyone else has extraordinary claims only because they can't actually authenticate theirs, with more investment in shifting the burden of proof than having good faith dialogues.

Good luck with that biases prejudice pretending to be a concerned citizen.

I see us as fellow liberals fighting against some truly evil people. We CANNOT assume our opponents are idiots. They are in fact quite intelligent and not to be underestimated.

Therefore, if you choose to be an apologist for trans activists, you need rock solid arguments. Your arguments have been weak in many ways, including this last post of yours. To give you just one example, in this last post of yours, it's all too easy to infer that in your opinion all adverse side effects are equal? Not a good argument, I'm sure you'll agree.

Several posts ago I listed a few of the extraordinary claims you're apologizing for. I'm the critic here. It's you the apologist who is on the hook to provide extraordinarily good evidence to support your claims.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Man oh man, the number of strawmen in this thread is STAGGERING !! Do you really think any of the posters in this thread are arguing against respect and equal opportunity?

That was a response to, "Which kind of thinking? That trans people deserve respect and equal social and economic opportunity?" You call that a straw man, a logical fallacy? It's not even an argument. It's not even a bare claim. Can you answer the question for him? I can't.

Field hockey was just hockey until ice was invented?

Good example. With the rise of online shopping, the phrase brick-and-mortar store became necessary. Once there was just space, but following coining cyberspace, it became meatspace for many. Once there were cell phones, landline (or home phone) became a word, too. It's a pretty common phenomenon.

What are the characteristics of a male brain or a female brain

Do you mean mind? I doubt you mean anatomy, although there are differences there, which are discussed here. If so, I'm sure that you are aware of differences in behavior and thinking between men and women in general beginning with what toys and games children prefer, and who they like to be with.

I'm at risk here of offending by generalizing, but I find that women like to be pursued more than men. I don't know any men that obsessed over wedding planning and their "big day." And then there's the fact that if a man talks dirty to a woman, that's sexual harassment, but if a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $4.95/minute.

This is pretty funny:

I have said many times the lie I was talking about was the lie I would tell if forced to say a transgender woman is a woman

OK, and by woman, you mean biologically, right? Has that ever happened to you or anybody you know or read about? Nobody ever tried to force me to say that about themselves or anybody else.

My point has always been that it is not true a transgender woman is the same as a biological woman.

You've made that point many times. Why? Is anybody disagreeing?

when you refer to a woman what characteristics are you referring to that you decided to use the word woman?

It depends on the context. When talking about biological women, some of the characteristics relate to reproduction, including ovulation, menstruation, and the capacity to conceive and gestate. When talking about all people that feel like women of any genotype, it's limited to behavior and appearance.

you are dismissing my disagreement by claiming it is an emotional outburst?

Outburst was your word. I wrote, I would not have an emotional reaction to people choosing to use those words that way." My reaction is rational and compassionate (tolerant).

So what do you think my objection is based on?

An aversion to transexuals. You argue that your purpose is prevent people like your coworkers from having to say things they find objectionable, but I don't find that credible. I feel the same way about many things, but this is not one of them. Forced prayer would be one. But this is about empathy and tolerance.

Incidentally, I Googled Clizby Wampuscat to see if that was some person or fictional character. Clizby took me to a TV show related to the game Clue with Garrett Morris of SNL, and Wampus cat is an imaginary feline. Any comment on what that name means to you and why you chose it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

From my perspective the trans activists have managed to flip the whole conversation on its ear. They have managed to get most people to believe that their extraordinary claims are "correct" and "accepted" and "well proven".

Zooming way out, and trying to look at this issue with as much logic and equanimity as I can muster, I've come to conclude that - in reality - many of the trans activist's claims are in fact EXTRAORDINARY.

All of the apologists I'm debating on this thread seem to have forgotten that THEY are defending EXTRAORDINARY claims. The apologists assume an air of "rightness" (perhaps righteousness?), and act as though as a critic, I'm the one who has to do all the proving.

It's all bass-ackwards.

In general wouldn't it seem that if an apologist is defending extraordinary claims, they ought to be the ones who are keeping current on the issue?

As an apologist, it's your job to know that many trans women have recently decided that they don't want to make any attempt to look like women. That's an aspect of apologizing for extraordinary claims and behaviors, right?

Now it's my job to know that the things you say are true, even though you can't show me that they are true, and I can't find anything indicating that they are.

Okey dokey.

You think it's an extraordinary "claim" to ask you why you believe that "What's new-ish however is trans women who make no attempt to look like women using these facilities. It's no longer uncommon to see trans women sporting full, thick beards."

Okey dokey.

So do not forget: You have chosen to assume the role of an apologist for extraordinary claims. The general rule is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's on the apologist, not on the critic.

Oh, I have? News to me.

And BTW, as a courtesy, a few posts ago I listed some of the extraordinary claims you are apologizing for.

You mean these "extraordinary" claims that nobody has made?

- That children who are universally viewed as too young for many adult activities can somehow, accurately appreciate the long term impacts of having their bodies permanently mutilated.

- That in an industry rife with profiteering, extremely expensive medical interventions - in this one instance - are above reproach.

- That all other environmental factors can be ignored

- That we cannot call this a "disorder"

- That we can ignore the sharp rise in suicidal thoughts across all teenagers.


Okey dokey.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Okay, I am going to go through this ONE MORE TIME.

Here's what you said, in answer to the following question:


You said:
"Legal and emotional reasons. However, that child is still not their actual child."

You said ACTUAL child.

Not BIOLOGICAL child.

Unless you are equating these terms, which has some pretty obvious negative implications. As I have REPEATEDLY STATED, I have no issue with saying an adopted child is not the same as a biological child. What I have a problem with is saying that an adopted child is not someone's ACTUAL child.

If you now acknowledge that this was wrong, or a misstatement, you just need to say so.


But your way of saying this was that they were not their ACTUAL child. That was the issue. You equated BIOLOGICAL with ACTUAL, implying that you somehow think adopted children are not ACTUALLY the children of their parents. You don't seem to believe this, but you DID say it. All I've been doing is pointing that out to you.


It is true that ACTUAL and BIOLOGICAL are two different things, and that what constitutes someone's "ACTUAL" child is clearly a matter of interpretation. Do you understand?

I fine with the stuff you said about how you treat trans people, even if you don't necessarily BELIEVE they are the gender they associate with, as long as you treat then how they wish to be treated. That's fine.

And I clarified and agreed with you after you made this point about the word actual in posts 604 and 655. The word actual does not affect my point at all. Did you not see where I agreed with you already?

 

[SkepticThinker]

yes.... just close your eyes and keep saying to yourself "the medical field are all saints, the pharmaceutical field are all saints, abortionists aren't there for the money - they are all saints"

Not to say there aren't any good ones in any field

So, just a little slumber, just a little sleep and watch what happens when they go after your children/grandchildren.

You do realize that pretty much everywhere outside the United States, healthcare isn't a for-profit business like it is there. Right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize that pretty much everywhere outside the United States, healthcare isn't a for-profit business like it is there. Right?

And there are no trans people outside of the US! Checkmate atheist!!!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope, I have never said this.

I would be telling a lie if I said a transwoman is a woman because I do not believe they are. Transwomen are not lying when they say they are a woman because they believe that.


I Never said they are lying.

So the "lie" part is referring to YOU telling a lie when you call someone what they want to be called?

Nope.

Why not? It's also just based on "feelings."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I clarified and agreed with you after you made this point about the word actual in posts 604 and 655. The word actual does not affect my point at all. Did you not see where I agreed with you already?

I'm not going over it again, so let's just agree that it was a misstatement that I am being overly anal about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That was a response to, "Which kind of thinking? That trans people deserve respect and equal social and economic opportunity?" You call that a straw man, a logical fallacy? It's not even an argument. It's not even a bare claim. Can you answer the question for him? I can't.

Good example. With the rise of online shopping, the phrase brick-and-mortar store became necessary. Once there was just space, but following coining cyberspace, it became meatspace for many. Once there were cell phones, landline (or home phone) became a word, too. It's a pretty common phenomenon.

Do you mean mind? I doubt you mean anatomy, although there are differences there, which are discussed here. If so, I'm sure that you are aware of differences in behavior and thinking between men and women in general beginning with what toys and games children prefer, and who they like to be with.

I'm at risk here of offending by generalizing, but I find that women like to be pursued more than men. I don't know any men that obsessed over wedding planning and their "big day." And then there's the fact that if a man talks dirty to a woman, that's sexual harassment, but if a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $4.95/minute.

This is pretty funny:

OK, and by woman, you mean biologically, right? Has that ever happened to you or anybody you know or read about? Nobody ever tried to force me to say that about themselves or anybody else.

You've made that point many times. Why? Is anybody disagreeing?

It depends on the context. When talking about biological women, some of the characteristics relate to reproduction, including ovulation, menstruation, and the capacity to conceive and gestate. When talking about all people that feel like women of any genotype, it's limited to behavior and appearance.

Outburst was your word. I wrote, I would not have an emotional reaction to people choosing to use those words that way." My reaction is rational and compassionate (tolerant).

An aversion to transexuals. You argue that your purpose is prevent people like your coworkers from having to say things they find objectionable, but I don't find that credible. I feel the same way about many things, but this is not one of them. Forced prayer would be one. But this is about empathy and tolerance.

Incidentally, I Googled Clizby Wampuscat to see if that was some person or fictional character. Clizby took me to a TV show related to the game Clue with Garrett Morris of SNL, and Wampus cat is an imaginary feline. Any comment on what that name means to you and why you chose it?

I absolutely love that kid! Just love him. Great episode!

 

[metis]

Yes. And the ones who later regret it are forever marred.

It can work both ways.

But there are noticeable side effects on a growing young child.

They are generally safe and often used for other reasons. Here's from the Mayo Clinic: Puberty blockers for transgender and gender-diverse youth

I don't agree with your position for children. My daughter spanked her child.

I didn't, but sometimes gave them a swat.

Why should government make such a personal decision? Do they live with the teen in their intervention?

Now you're arguing my position, so thanks for agreeing.

There are times when government should intervene.

Yes, as I'm not opposed to the FDA restrictions for just one example.

Suicide for those who are trans are higher that the average populace. Why? Because there are psychological issues. So.. .yes, we should not let blockers be used for this purpose until they are adults and their bones and growth are not affected. IMHO

Again, you clearly are using politics, not real medical sources for your conclusion on this. If you had wanted your children to not even consider looking into this both psychological and medical issue, and if you want to let the government make decisions for your children, then you can have your opinion, but I personally don't feel that government should interfere with such personal family matters unless there's an established clear & present danger.

IOW, I'm going by the science, including the consensus within the medical arena, and then trying to make sure whether they go along with my feelings of right v wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please do, what you said does not answer my question.

.

...

I would be telling a lie if I said a transwoman is a woman because I do not believe they are. Transwomen are not lying when they say they are a woman because they believe that.

...

Well, I won't answer unless you explain not how you believe, but how you know that a woman is a woman.
Because that is the crux of the matter, belief versus knowing.

As here is an example of how a denition can work, but that is not the same as knowing.
I define God to mean a supernatural creator of the universe. Does that mean, that I know that God is a supernatural creator of the universe?

So we need to figure out how you know a woman is a woman and what the truth is?

 

[Debater Slayer]

You and I have been disputing these claims for the last several weeks. You do not have the rock solid "all the experts agree" foundation that you think you do. A few of the studies upon which a large portion of policies have been built, are now facing harsher scrutiny and are not holding up well to this scrutiny.

It's good that studies in any scientific or medical field routinely face scrutiny. That's a core part of science.

It's worth noting that no developed country, aside from some parts of the US, has banned gender-affirming care whether for minors or adults, however. They only differ in the conditions and professional diagnoses they require people (especially minors) to meet before providing specific parts of the care, such as hormone therapy.

Remember that you've chosen to defend the side that is making several EXTRAORDINARY claims:

- That children who are universally viewed as too young for many adult activities can somehow, accurately appreciate the long term impacts of having their bodies permanently mutilated.

What's up with the misrepresentations that you keep putting forth in these discussions? You don't seem to me as an unintelligent person, so I think you're probably aware that you're inaccurately rewording others' positions when you do this. It makes engaging you on any serious topic a counterproductive and tedious affair because it means I spend more time correcting misrepresentations than discussing whatever the topic is.

Very few people are saying that children can "accurately appreciate" anything medical. The point is that the diagnosis, evaluation, and appreciation of the possible benefits and risks should be decided by professionals and parents (when the person is a minor), not by politicians and legislators. Even in the European countries you cite that have reviewed their approaches to gender-affirming care for minors more than once over the years, they don't ban it. They still let medical professionals make the medical evaluations.

- That in an industry rife with profiteering, extremely expensive medical interventions - in this one instance - are above reproach.

"Above reproach" is not something I've ever said about any medical field. It is good that current studies on gender-affirming care receive scrutiny from qualified professionals. It is not good when unqualified politicians and ideologues think they're presenting relevant or useful criticism of current evidence when they merely make professionals' jobs harder to carry out, ban medical care that is sometimes life-saving, and rely on politics instead of peer-reviewed science to assess or reassess the benefits and risks of a form of medical care.

- That all other environmental factors can be ignored

I never said that. Just as I said before, it really seems that you have made it a habit to rephrase others' points or attribute weaker positions to them instead of engaging what they actually say and addressing it.

Environmental factors shouldn't be ignored, but so far, there's no evidence that indicates any specific environmental factors clearly cause gender dysphoria or that it can be treated by addressing those. Otherwise it would be so much easier for many trans people to get treatment instead of having to worry about the bans on gender-affirming care that ideologues keep trying to push through.

- That we cannot call this a "disorder"

We can if qualified, peer-reviewed consensus determines that it meets the specific criteria for a disorder. Since neither of us is a qualified professional, calling it a "disorder" right now would be a mere expression of an unqualified personal opinion with no medical significance or grounding.

- That we can ignore the sharp rise in suicidal thoughts across all teenagers.

We can't. That's why banning gender-affirming care for those who need it is a heinous act that medical professionals have consistently stood against. It's also why access to mental health care is essential, but many of the same anti-trans ideologues and politicians don't spend a fraction of the effort they spend trying to ban gender-affirming care to try to make mental health care more accessible or raise awareness about it.

Your side

I never claimed to have a "side"; I have my own views regardless of what anyone but medical professionals think. Don't try to lump me in with some real or imagined "side" to make it easier to attribute positions to me for which I never stated support.

is making all of these extraordinary claims and your evidence is shaky. Not too many years ago electro-shock therapy was considered good care. So was thalidomide. Odds are that in a few years much of the approved "gender affirming care" in practice today will be seen as equally tragic.

Those odds were determined by whom? You? Or ideologues and politicians?

If medical professionals find a better treatment and publish evidence about it, I will support the better treatment. For now, that hasn't happened, and gender-affirming care remains necessary for many people—and the fact remains that, as I said, none of the European countries you keep mentioning have banned it even for minors. They have only emphasized that irreversible procedures for minors should be handled very strictly, which also directly contradicts the notion that doctors are handing out prescriptions for hormone therapy or surgery like candy.

I'm not going to reply to you further because I find it largely pointless and, as I said above, tedious because of the repeated misrepresentations and rephrasing of what I actually say, so you don't have to bother responding. It seems to me from this thread and others that you have decided to adopt a specific ideological view—which is both demonizing and demonstrably harmful—that you want to maintain regardless of evidence or other arguments, and you rephrase, misrepresent, and exaggerate other people's points to that end. This makes any discussion a largely unproductive endeavor.

The only useful thing I have come out with from this thread is a cautionary tale about the impact of lending too much credence to unreliable ideologues while dismissing or ignoring scientific evidence. In another thread not long ago, you were supporting the inaccuracies spread by Jordan Peterson about Bill C-16 (which have since become even more demonstrably false now that the bill has been law for over six years), and then now you're starting all of these threads against gender-affirming care while echoing some of his points that he has made during his recent crusade against "trans activists"—while working for the Daily Wire. I would think it should be easy to see the discrepancy, inconsistency, and unreliability displayed by denouncing supposed "ideology" while working for and promoting such a glaringly ideological and partisan outlet and repeating many of its prevalent viewpoints, but apparently it isn't always so easy.

I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in fixating so much on banning or compromising one group's professionally recommended medical care that I become impervious to any evidence to the contrary. Until qualified, relevant medical professionals find a better alternative, I won't support banning what they currently regard as the best treatment option for many trans people.

Have a good day.

 

[We Never Know]

Yes. And the ones who later regret it are forever marred.

Yes. Sometimes hormones are necessary and I am thankful that your daughter is able to make us of properly used drugs to help suppress her breast cancer.

But there are noticeable side effects on a growing young child.

I don't agree with your position for children. My daughter spanked her child. Are you against government intervention Department of Children? (Different words in different states) Why should government make such a personal decision? Do they live with the teen in their intervention? Their issues or seen their psychologist?

There are times when government should intervene.

Suicide for those who are trans are higher that the average populace. Why? Because there are psychological issues. So.. .yes, we should not let blockers be used for this purpose until they are adults and their bones and growth are not affected. IMHO

"Because there are psychological issues"

Which one causes which? (see table with % below)
Does sexual identity crisis cause the psychological issues
Or do the psychological issues cause sexual identity crisis

Table 1.​

Mental Health Diagnoses Among Transgender Patients and the General Population

Diagnosis​	Transgender population​	Control population​
n=10,270 (%)​	n=53,449,400 (%)​
Mood disorder​	4720 (46)​	4,802,280 (9.0)​
Major depressive disorder​	3210 (31)​	2,549,270 (4.8)​
Dysthymia​	700 (6.8)​	739,450 (1.4)​
Bipolar disorder​	1200 (11)​	685,300 (1.3)​
Anxiety disorder​	3220 (31)​	3,194,050 (6.0)​
General anxiety disorder​	1260 (12)​	1104270 (2.0)​
Panic disorder​	460 (4.4)​	393,690 (0.74)​
Phobic disorder​	300 (2.9)​	77,830 (0.15)​
Social phobia​	220 (2.1)​	29,860 (0.06)​
Agoraphobia​	90 (0.87)​	43,660 (0.08)​
Post-traumatic stress disorder​	690 (6.7)​	275,730 (0.52)​
Obsessive compulsive disorder​	210 (2.0)​	113,200 (0.21)​
Psychotic disorder​
Schizophrenia​	260 (2.5)​	196,820 (0.37)​
Schizoaffective disorder​	230 (2.2)​	88,140 (0.16)​
Adjustment disorder​	830 (8.1)​	631,320 (1.2)​
Dissociative disorder​	130 (1.3)​	51,690 (0.10)​
Somatoform disorder​	100 (0.97)​	96,410 (0.18)​
Personality disorder​	610 (5.9)​	199,860 (0.37)​
Cluster a personality disorder​	20 (0.19)​	6750 (0.01)​
Cluster b personality disorder​	350 (3.4)​	62,660 (0.11)​
Borderline personality disorder​	320 (3.1)​	47,390 (0.09)​
Cluster C personality disorder​	20 (0.19)​	7700 (0.01)​
Eating disorder​	210 (2.0)​	133,510 (0.25)​
ADHD​	1070 (10)​	916,370 (1.7)​
PDD​	250 (2.4)​	109,710 (0.20)​
Autism​	150 (1.5)​	83,760 (0.16)​
Chemical dependence​
Substance use disorder​	1040 (10)​	1,410,960 (2.6)​
Alcohol​	440 (4.2)​	737,820 (1.4)​
Cannabis​	390 (3.8)​	334,230 (0.63)​
Cocaine​	140 (1.4)​	144,200 (0.27)​
Opioid​	120 (1.2)​	157,150 (0.27)​
Amphetamine​	80 (0.77)​	69,940 (0.13)​
Tobacco user​	2380 (23)​	5,252,940 (9.8)​
Percentage with at least one diagnosis​	5940 (58)​	7,311,780 (13.6)​

Mental Health Diagnoses Among Transgender Patients in the Clinical Setting: An All-Payer Electronic Health Record Study - PMC

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses among transgender patients in clinical care using an all-payer electronic health record database. Of 10,270 transgender patients identified, 58% (n=5940) had at least ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Because there are psychological issues"

Which one causes which? (see table with % below)
Does sexual identity crisis cause the psychological issues
Or do the psychological issues cause sexual identity crisis

...​

I don't know. Do you know that?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes that would be untrue.

Nope, transgender women feel like and think they are an actual woman. They are not lying. I have never accused them of lying. You have accused me of calling them liars which is untrue.

Ok, Just note you have never defined the characteristics of what a woman or man is. When a transgender woman says they are a woman what are they actually saying about themselves? What characteristics do they think make them a woman?

It is interesting that instead of answering my question above many people, you included, would rather insult me that answer the question.

How is my response in Post #517 not an answer to your question? I wrote:

The Cambridge Dictionary has updated its definitions of man and woman, by adding the following (rather than replacing the existing definitions):​

​

Woman: "an adult who lives and identifies as a female even though they have been born as a different sex,"​

Man: "an adult who lives and identifies as a male even though they have been born as a different sex."​

No, it is forcing people to participate in a lie.

It is harassment to force people to say in public things that are untrue. This is straight out of 1984.

And how are these two posts of yours NOT saying that calling a transwoman a "woman" is a lie?

 

[icehorse]

Now it's my job to know that the things you say are true, even though you can't show me that they are true, and I can't find anything indicating that they are.

Okey dokey.

Not what I'm saying at all. When ANY critic challenges YOUR extraordinary claim, it IS up to you to provide extraordinary evidence.

You think it's an extraordinary "claim" to ask you why you believe that "What's new-ish however is trans women who make no attempt to look like women using these facilities. It's no longer uncommon to see trans women sporting full, thick beards."

Okey dokey.

Again, not what I'm saying, sigh...

As a courtesy I just again did an internet search on the phrase "trans women with beards", and then I skimmed through the hundreds and hundreds of images the search engine found. Now I have not done a temporal analysis of these images. But that said, MOST of them look very recent, and it's in my experience, this habit is much more prevalent than it was just a few years ago.

All that said, one of the claims you are apologizing for is that it should be okay for trans women to use women's restrooms. That's the extraordinary claim. when I bring up a criticism, it's on you to provide extraordinary evidence, not me, the critic.

Oh, I have? News to me.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've lost sight of what you're actually doing in this thread. I'm happy to have reminded you that your posts are concerning a consequential topic. If you've forgotten that, perhaps you should take more care?

You mean these "extraordinary" claims that nobody has made?

- That children who are universally viewed as too young for many adult activities can somehow, accurately appreciate the long term impacts of having their bodies permanently mutilated.

- That in an industry rife with profiteering, extremely expensive medical interventions - in this one instance - are above reproach.

- That all other environmental factors can be ignored

- That we cannot call this a "disorder"

- That we can ignore the sharp rise in suicidal thoughts across all teenagers.


Okey dokey.

As another courtesy, I will connect some more dots for you. But really, you're starting to look quite irresponsible!

All of the claims I listed above are direct or logically indirect foundations to the claims of the trans activists you are apologizing for. For example, whenever an apologist trots out the "standard of care" defense, the implication is that they are in lock step agreement with everything the medical industry does. IF not, then again it's on you - the apologist - to explain why sometimes you trust the medical industry and sometimes you don't.

These conversations are built upon layers and layers of logical claims, were you not aware of that?