Not as long as the room is calling for the curtailing women's rights and advocating for the unnecessary maiming of children.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
It's been shown to you that it's not rare. The difference between gender and biological sex has also been explained to you, to which you continue to ignore.
That does not provide examples of gender affirming care. I asked you for *examples* of it.
Interesting. No one is calling for curtailing women's rights. As well, related, what're your thoughts on circumcision?
When? That 30 minute video? If so, there are millions of species of animals, and he mentioned maybe a dozen exceptions to the norm?
It seems that you assume that anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is unaware of the distinctions between sex and gender. But I do understand the distinctions, so your blanket argument doesn't apply here. If you think I'm wrong, show me specifically where I've said something about sex vs. gender that you think is wrong. You didn't like my tree climbing example, but you failed to come up with a different one, and you didn't explain what you thought was wrong about tree climbing.
Hmmm. I gave you a summary of the protocol that doctors are following. This protocol has been followed tens of thousands of times. But ok, let's see where this goes:
When a GD kid who hasn't yet gone thru puberty is given puberty blockers, that's an example.
When a GD kid who hasn't yet gone thru puberty is given GAC specified hormones, that's an example.
Both of those things happen frequently in the world of GAC.
This gets back to the law of unintended consequences. I don't think anyone on this forum is consciously supporting the curtailing of women's rights. But I think that in supporting the trans activist agenda, you are unintentionally curtailing women's rights. This is the zero-sum problem I've mentioned before.
I don't know all the details in terms of if it's ever medically necessary, but when it's not, I'm opposed.
That said, circumcision does NOT come with a lifetime of medical interventions, it rarely causes complications, it's rarely dangerous, and it rarely ends normal sexual functions. The same cannot be said of GAC.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
The complexities of human genetics has also been explained to you.
No you don't, and you've demonstrated this throughout this entire thread alone. No, I will not be wasting time combing through every specific little instance; it's clear from the very title of this thread.
As well, your "tree climbing" example was and is asinine, ten, and eleven. Because as stated, climbing a tree is not a gendered activity, nor is it a form of gender expression as (which was also given) it is for a "man" to wear a dress and heels.
No they don't. Not only are there bans in 18 states for puberty blockers (which are safe), the average cost for such hormonal treatments are $1,200 per month, and range from $4,500 to $18,000 for medical implants.
Gender affirming care is more often than not using preferred pronouns. Dressing in a way that makes one comfortable in their own body. Grooming and accessorising.
A ciswoman plucking facial hairs or even shaving to maintain a feminine appearance is gender affirming care.
And you're wrong. These scare-tactic hypotheticals of "safe-spaces" being invaded either flat don't happen or are not what you make of them, and bogus issues like sports are just that; a bogus smoke screen.
I'll help you out here; there is no medical need for circumcision. Ever. It is flatly and purely genital mutilation, and worse in that it's without consent.
Guess again. As well circumcision does reduce glans sensitivity and thus often sexual enjoyment for men.
On the contrary to your claims, gender affirming care does not have these kind of risks either, and even in the Finnish trials that you've touted a few times, they still recommended gender affirming care despite there being insufficient research on the issue.
There is what's overwhelmingly normal, and there are rare variations.
Let me ask you this, what percentage of trans people have the rare variations you're talking about?
And I asked you to provide a different example of something that you would consider a "gendered activity". Please provide one so that we can proceed.
Thousands of kids have been put on GAC drugs.
And yes, I agree that less invasive ideas like dressing and grooming are sometimes used. But let's step back for a minute and ask the more basic question:
When a GD kid comes to a doctor for help, what's the most basic goal the doctor should be trying to achieve?
Well here's an easy to find link for you, on just one of these issues. A list of 800, and counting times that trans women have knocked women and girls off the podium:
List of Female Athletes by Sport | She Won
Answer my "basic goal" question and we can proceed from there, thanks.
I accept your knowledge on this topic. But notice I've never supported this intervention, and my opponents on this thread ARE supporting GAC.
As for consent, I agree that circumcision is overwhelmingly done without consent, but guess what. GAC is frequently done even when the doctors admit that the kid and their parents do not understand the implications of the treatment.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Yeah, it's more common than you think. Add to that the element of natural testosterone and estrogen levels.
The absolute ridiculousness of an example being right there in the segment you quoted is perfectly illustrative of your consistent bad-faith arguing.
Citation needed.
Most commonly used. As well your "basic question" is not basic at all, and is a loaded hypothetical that neither of us are qualified to answer.
Wow, a transphobic site with (so far as I saw) no credible sources listed anywhere. Shocking. Also a smokescreen issue; sports are not the end-all-be-all of existence, and this argument hinges on sexist outlooks on women while simultaneously ignoring athletically exceptional women. Do better.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
You want to say all that but yet you don't know how research works. You make this obvious when you harp on about control groups.
You claim all that, yet many, many medical organizations do not agree with you. And each one of them collectively has far more experience, studies and resources to draw on when researching the topic.
Here, yeah most people are with me.
I have a far better grasp of this than you, including how the prejudices you hold have been easing in society until your team grew so offended by our existence politicized us. It's those activists at PTA meetings outing students and insisting the bathrooms have litter boxes for furries. It's activists who harass women with PCOS when they have to pee. It's acivists like you who repeatedly make threads about the subject spreading lies and misinformation because you just cannot leave someone like me alone.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Yes, you have. Man up and own your ****.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
All talk and no degree, professional experience or decades of study.
So it's an interesting article, but a few things jumped out:
1 - the conditions are indeed rare
2 - they use the term "gender" (and variations on that term), but they use it loosely.
So how do you define "gender" and how do you think the authors define "gender"?
Sorry, can you be more specific? What segment are you referring to?
I offered the example of "tree climbing" because I think most people would assume that that tends to be a masculine activity. But I'd also say that it's an activity that many tomboys might pursue as well, and statistically fewer feminine girls would pursue.
So I am offering an example. Perhaps it's flawed. But instead of just insulting me, give me a better example of what YOU'RE talking about.
This was easy to find:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/
I disagree. GD is a mental condition. As with all medical interventions, the first principle is to do no harm. Given that, the first goal in treating GD should be to improve the mental health of the kid with GD.
Most kids with GD are not trans. Most of them are gay. We should not take gay kids down the path of exploring whether they might - on the off chance - be trans. That intervention path - even the early stages of it - has many negative side effects, and is premature.
And... we're back to understanding factual, falsifiable claims, sigh.
That site contains a long, long list of specific, easily verifiable, factual claims. It does not matter WHO makes a factual claim, it matters only whether or not the claim is true.
For example, I hate trump. But every once and a while he says something true. The fact that I hate him does NOT change the truth or falseness of his claims. (Although, as a tangent, I would say he lies a lot.)
As for the importance of sports, you brought it up, and asked for a link, which I provided.
I'm quoting experts, I'm providing citations, that's what we do here on RF, right?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Yeah. I still get caught up in the modern usage of they as a plural, but that's on me. Language changes and evolves, especially English with its finely honed skills and thousand plus years experience in assimilating words from other languages (and yet it's so emotionally dry).
Amd then the thread title itself, the "expansion" of language (really more of a revival of an archiac usage with they/them) amd discussing "new" ideas (rather just unknown to most modern Westerners as it isn't relevant to them) and claiming it's all Orwellian. Which of course the implications, that it's related to Ingsoc and Newspeak, is just absurd as what we see happening today is the opposite of what happens with the ever shrinking Newspeak, something that fundamentally and radically changed the core and fundamental principles of English to the degree even future generations in a post-Ingsoc world would have difficulty understanding the texts from before Ingsoc.
Yeah. "Her penis" is going to send shockwaves that reverberate through time that confuses future generations to the point they won't know how to reproduce (doublegood win for BB).
You have gripes, I got that. But you refuse to be specific. You're just standing on the sideline hurling insults with nothing to back them up.
My offer still stands, are you brave enough to take me up on it?
We're all impressed with how brave you both are
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
THE. SEGMENT. YOU. QUOTED. Read it back as many times as you need.
Thank you.
So 0.03% of adolescents diagnosed (that's important) with gender dysphoria received hormone blockers. That is nowhere near as widespread or common as you've touted it here.
In fact, the article itself stated: "Gender-affirming care for youths takes several forms, from social recognition of a preferred name and pronouns to medical interventions such as hormone therapy and, sometimes, surgery."
Then provide not only a psychological and physiological makeup for this hypothetical individual, as well as your medical credentials designating not only your professional expertise on this issue but your designation as their primary care physician and psychologist.
No, I decried your use of "safe spaces" being invaded as a misdirection, and the argument of sports as a bogus smoke screen. Bravo showing it to be a bogus smoke screen, while you still fail to give example of any RIGHTS of women being curtailed by the simultaneous addressing of trans issues.
There are over 1100 posts on this thread. I will respond to your request if you point me to exactly what you're talking about. I still don't know what you mean when you say "THE SEGMENT"?
Thousands of kids have been given puberty blockers and/or hormones, correct?
What part of my claims about how medicine ought to work do you disagree with? Do no harm, are you okay with that principle?
This aspect of dealing with GD is not rocket science.
Most kids with GD are not trans. Assuming that they are trans, which is what GAC does, is bad medicine.
Here's a link to a recent report. There are hundreds of pages of documents, but one of the conclusions is that GAC is frequently bad medicine.
This report is about an organization called WPATH. WPATH is seen in the medical world of gender dysphoria as the foundational, leading authority. Included in the documents is a 10 page list of citations demonstrating that all the major medical organizations follow WPATH's lead.
In this report there are videos and transcripts of top WPATH officials admitting that - in various ways - they are doing and advocating for bad medical practices:
The WPATH Files — Environmental Progress
I gave you a sports example. It shows women's rights to fair competitions are being curtailed. There are other ways in which women's rights are being curtailed, but it's not up to me to educate you.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
You've had those specifics and all you do is scream strawman.
But at least now I have an idea where you picked up all these terms and concepts you get wrong.
pick one and let's dig into it. otherwise, stop disrupting the conversation.
And while you're at it, skim through the docs I just linked to in post #1118. Those docs back up what I've been saying all along.