***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

This post is beautiful.

When presented with something that gets in the way of your argument just say they are lying

But yeah, lets act like me suggesting you are reactionary on this topic was outta pocket

what. are you. talking. about!?

for stonewall to write a statement talk about the wait times.,
but you DON'T talk about the fact that oooh THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, THEY DIDN'T COLLECT DATA, AND CLINICIANS FELT PRESSURE TO ADOPT THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROACH

you are obviously obfuscating.


Where do you think this pressure came from? from the ether?
do you think there are a lot of conservatives pressuring people into a affirmation only treatment plan?


you are grasping desperately at straws and call me reactionary? please.

 

[Based Jesus]

"Gender ideology is objectively goofy" is a wild statement

 

[osh kosh bosh]

"Gender ideology is objectively goofy" is a wild statement

it leans on circular logic, various unfalsifiable statements.
and it has a scant amount of evidence backing it.

what would you call that?

maybe it is true that we all have a gendered soul lurking within our bones.
maybe one day they will discover it.

but right now, as we speak, there is little to no evidence for most of it.

there are people who suffer from gender dysphoria whose lives will be greatly improved by transitioning.
but what this says about the concept of gender about sex for the other 99% of human beings I think is minimal.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Okay so to be clear.

You believe there is no way of knowing the ideological valence of gender theory.
it could be progressive it could be conservative,
unless we read the minds of each gender clinicians, there no way of knowing what their thoughts on gender ideology are.

if you met a gender clinician, you would have no idea if there were conservative or progressive.

and concepts like gender identity, male/female assigned at birth. all these things that come from gender ideology.

that has zero or littel impact, on separate doctors, in different countries, all are making similar mistakes.



okay man.

I am saying the ideology of the admins and doctors there means little because my point was about bad incentives in healthcare. Anyone could be a victim of that

The fact the government didn't review the place earlier is a function of a macro problem as well with how the Tories run the NHS.

It was open during the 90s, well before more gender theories came along. Doctors, nurses, and admins in the NHS don't always have a say over where they work, many of them are stuck in their jobs. I don't know all this. But you claim that you do because it is easy for your argument

The fact that the clinic lacked mental health services is a major issue. You give doctors and therapists with limited treatment options then they will work with what they have. But of course, you don't want to discuss this anything like this, because only the culture war bull**** is more convenient for your argument.

You would never let anyone make these many assumptions (right or wrong) to push back against your arguments. As usual, you are just relying on hypocrisy and some light goalpost moving

You just run your mouth being dismissive because you are upset at anything that gets in the way of your reactionary attitude toward a group of people.

 

[RustyShackleford]

what. are you. talking. about!?

for stonewall to write a statement talk about the wait times.,
but you DON'T talk about the fact that oooh THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE, THEY DIDN'T COLLECT DATA, AND CLINICIANS FELT PRESSURE TO ADOPT THE AFFIRMATIVE APPROACH

you are obviously obfuscating.


Where do you think this pressure came from? from the ether?
do you think there are a lot of conservatives pressuring people into a affirmation only treatment plan?


you are grasping desperately at straws and call me reactionary? please.

Dude you just called everyone liars. that was a lazy convenient way to argue your point

So ****ing spare me

It even said activists, the ones you complain about, agreed with the move.

But you don't want to grapple with anything that because in the way with whatever pathetic **** your are doing right now

Like I said, I have my own issues, but people like you are not interested in discussing this topic in any way close to reasonable

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I am saying the ideology of the admins and doctors there means little because my point was about bad incentives in healthcare. Anyone could be a victim of that

The fact the government didn't review the place earlier is a function of a macro problem as well with how the Tories run the NHS.

It was open during the 90s, well before more gender theories came along. Doctors, nurses, and admins in the NHS don't always have a say over where they work, many of them are stuck in their jobs. I don't know all this. But you claim that you do because it is easy for your argument

The fact that the clinic lacked mental health services is a major issue. You give doctors and therapists with limited treatment options then they will work with what they have. If the clinic doesn't have the compacity to offer years-long therapy for trans kids, and they want to give them a treatment that they think will improve their mental state, then you just incentive them to go down one road over the other. Incentives can drive outcomes regardless of ideology. But of course, you don't want to discuss this anything like this, because the culture war bull**** is more convenient for your argument.

You would never let anyone make these many assumptions (right or wrong) to push back against your arguments. As usual, you are just relying on hypocrisy and some light goalpost moving

You just run your mouth being dismissive because you are upset at anything that gets in the way of your reactionary attitude toward a group of people.

and they weren't doing affirmative care model in the 90's
it. didn't. exist.

im not saying all transition is bad, or all trans health care is bad.
im specifically talking about the affirmative care model which stated around 2013 14
well past the point that gender theory was everywhere on college campuses


the fact that multiple doctors, in multiple countries, are making the mistakes, and all you can point to UK specific factors.
I HAVE NO DOUBT, that particularities of each countries healthcare impact this topic in different ways.

but man...this is an just feels like you are being ridiculously obtuse about this.

You just run your mouth being dismissive because you are upset at anything that gets in the way of your reactionary attitude toward a group of people.

just to be clear i do not have negative feelings towards trans people. i have to make this clear.
this is about the gender affirming model.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Dude you just called everyone liars. that was a lazy convenient way to argue your point

So ****ing spare me

It even said activists, the ones you complain about, agreed with the move.

But you don't want to grapple with anything that because in the way with whatever pathetic **** your are doing right now

Like I said, I have my own issues, but people like you are not interested in discussing this topic in any way close to reasonable

Its clearly lying by omission.

if I tell you lets bring your child to this great doctor, the wait times are long tho,
but I leave out,

oh he's doing a treatment that has no evidence,
and the doctors feel pressure (from where????) to adopt this course of treatment
and they don't actually check of it's working

its a lie by omission.



you raise bar for to impossibly high levels when something implicates your ideological allies.
that's what's pathetic here.

 

[RustyShackleford]

and they weren't doing affirmative care model in the 90's
it. didn't. exist.

im not saying all transition is bad, or all trans health care is bad.
im specifically talking about the affirmative care model which stated around 2013 14
well past the point that gender theory was everywhere on college campuses


the fact that multiple doctors, in multiple countries, are making the mistakes, and all you can point to UK specific factors.
I HAVE NO DOUBT, that particularities of each countries healthcare impact this topic in different ways.

but man...this is an just feels like you are being ridiculously obtuse about this.

Dude I made my ****ing point about a specific part of the discussion that critics give little attention to.

You moved the goalpost to recenter the discussion on how it is just progressive rot, and you based that argument on a bunch of assumptions

I am telling you a) your argument handwaves too much for me to accept it, b) My point was about how bad outcomes happen absent of ideology

I'm not being obtuse, you just don't like I am not buying the **** you selling without question

just to be clear i do not have negative feelings towards trans people. i have to make this clear.
this is about the gender affirming model.

I am taking about progressives

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Dude I made my ****ing point about a specific part of the discussion that critics give little attention to.

You moved the goalpost to recenter the discussion on how it is just progressive rot, and you based that argument on a bunch of assumptions

I am telling you a) your argument handwaves too much for me to accept it, b) My point was about how bad outcomes happen absent of ideology

I'm not being obtuse, you just don't like I am not buying the **** you selling without question

okay man.

I am taking about progressives

okay. just wanted to be clear.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Its clearly lying by omission.

if I tell you lets bring your child to this great doctor, the wait times are long tho,
but I leave out,

oh he's doing a treatment that has no evidence,
and the doctors feel pressure (from where????) to adopt this course of treatment
and they don't actually check of it's working

its a lie by omission.



you raise bar for to impossibly high levels when something implicates your ideological allies.
that's what's pathetic here.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it the observable truth

You are guessing, in the face of counter-evidence, but go forbid someone doesn't find that compelling

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Just because you believe it doesn't make it the observable truth

You are guessing, in the face of counter-evidence, but go forbid someone doesn't find that compelling

okay fine man, fair enough

 

[rexanglorum]

im saying that, Jon Stewart was willing to confront absurdities and enforced media narratives even from ideological allies during the run up to the iraq war and over the course of the his first run on the daily show.

and now he seems unwilling to the same now that the some of the obvious absurdities coming from his own side.

so either he was never committed to this ideal, or he is letting in group pressures influence his judgment. either way this represent a decline either in him or my previous estimation of him.



also please let's be clear, I don't want narratives to start I never said anything negative about trans people,
i certainly didn't call them malignant.

I made specific and pointed criticisms of gender affirmative care model, and trans maximalist activists.

Fair enough, I know you're not anti trans people.

Where I would push back would be on a couple this.

1.) I don't see a media consensus or groupthink around trans people, in general, or gender affirming surgery in particular. For one thing, conservative media considers trans people to be, at best, brain washed victims and more often, as sexual predators. Plenty of Liberal/Centrist sources believe that trans rights are not real, genuine civil rights but are some sort of frivolity which all serious people must publicly rebuke lest we offend some imagined retired dentist in Michigan who but for trans rights, would be vote for Democrats. In my estimation, the majority of the media considers trans people and pro trans policies to be some combination of confused, dangerous, or as something to be embarrassed to be associated with.

If you're talking about progressive and left media, then sure, the vast majority are very pro trans including pro gender affirming surgery. But is it really a groupthink or an enforced narrative. Based on what I see in left/progressive activism and my extensive consumption of alternative left media is that we are radically pro trans because we believe trans people when they say that they had bodily dysphoria before HRT/surgery and that that dysphoria was apparent from a very young age. I'm trans maximalist in the same why that I'm a maximalist for diabetics because I want diabetic people to get insulin and relief from their condition immediately and not have to spends years seeing a psychologist to make sure they are really, really sure they are diabetic before getting insulin.

2.) In what ways would you consider gender affirming surgery for trans people to be absurd in ways that gender affirming surgery for cis people is not? Cis men get surgery to eliminate fatty deposits on their chest in order to live in a body with a more outwardly masculine appear. Cis women get breast and butt implants to look more outwardly feminine.

3.) I'm not a doctor of medicine nor am I a bioethicist so I don't know exactly where a lower age limit limit should be set for HRT/surgery. After all, no two year old could give consent and even at like six or seven, it's a good idea to wait before proceeding with HRT/surgery. But once puberty sets in or will soon set in, that young person almost always knows whether they are trans or cis. The cis kids get their own hormonally based gender affirmation through puberty. By denying trans kids puberty blockers/HRT, you're the one subjecting a minor to gender affirmation.

One may argue that puberty is natural and HRT is not, while technically true, the same can be applied to insulin and serotonin. A majority of people get their insulin and adequate levels of serotonin naturally while a minority of people get what amounts to insulin and serotonin replacement therapy. With holding those two things from minors would be considered cruel and medically negligent. I don't see how HRT is is any different.

I'd agree that nonconsensual gender affirmation is terrible but otherwise, I don't know what pro trans positions can be reasonability considered excessive.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Walker a scumbag for his

 

[osh kosh bosh]

1.) I don't see a media consensus or groupthink around trans people, in general, or gender affirming surgery in particular. For one thing, conservative media considers trans people to be, at best, brain washed victims and more often, as sexual predators. Plenty of Liberal/Centrist sources believe that trans rights are not real, genuine civil rights but are some sort of frivolity which all serious people must publicly rebuke lest we offend some imagined retired dentist in Michigan who but for trans rights, would be vote for Democrats. In my estimation, the majority of the media considers trans people and pro trans policies to be some combination of confused, dangerous, or as something to be embarrassed to be associated with.

ive said this before but; there isn't a broad consensus, and I think if you explained what was happening to the average democrat they would be opposed to it.

it has consensus within highly education spaces dominated by progressives.
so despite their small number they have disproportionate impact in places like medicine,academia, activist groups and in the media.

you can see this by in how willing so many basically ideologically progressive media institutions and activist group
are willing to distort informational space in order to validate the these ideas.

for example recently the University of Washington medical team put out a press release for a new study.
stating that that gender-affirming care "dramatically reduces" depression and suicidality.

but careful analysis showed of the that actual paper doesn't support claims nearly that strong,
and might actually say the opposite.

emails leaked of UW reachears conceding the headlines might be too strong,
but because of the positive media coverage they don't correct the record.

"FYI, I read through his exceedingly long (very, very long) article, which claimed the research was flawed or, at worst, made up,
but given the extremely positive pick up by mainstream media, I would agree and just let this be."

there's countless example, the sloppiest and most flat out wrong reporting you will find
is anything in a progressive outlet that covers trans topics.

studies with tiny sample sizes, and inconclusive findings, or fundamentally broken methodologies are CONSTANTLY touted by progressives as being definitive.
and then you have people like Jon Stewart who open debate with implicit framing that there is no debate or controversy surrounding these treatments.

it's nasty.

pro trans because we believe trans people when they say that they had bodily dysphoria before HRT/surgery and that that dysphoria was apparent from a very young age.

the problem is that was the old cohort that typically presented with gender dysphoria,
it was generally male, typically very young, and persistent gender dysphoria that did not desist over time.
now we have a total flip in the demographics and age of the people presenting,

many people are still using this mental model to think about trans issues, when it isn't true anymore
you now have huge numbers of pubescent girls with various other mental health issues. presenting with gender dysphoria.

and there is no way to know if the dysphoria will go away as people hit puberty or will persist.
and we do not have good data on the rates of people who will regret what ever harm they do to their body via transition.

not acknowledging this, or spreading this idea that, there we know definitively that there are low regret rates and if you say you are trans you are
is dangerous mis information that has lead to real and truly heart breaking stories.

and when you add in the entrepreneurial nature of the american health care system.
it's a recipe for disaster.

2.) In what ways would you consider gender affirming surgery for trans people to be absurd in ways that gender affirming surgery for cis people is not? Cis men get surgery to eliminate fatty deposits on their chest in order to live in a body with a more outwardly masculine appear. Cis women get breast and butt implants to look more outwardly feminine.

To be clear, I consider gender ideology to be absurd. self id relies on circular logic and the concept of some knowble gender ghost that lives in your body that you have to seek out is what is absurd imo.
gender affirming surgery can be a life saver FOR SOME PEOPLE. it is not absurd in all circumstances.

also if gyno surgery could cause the destruction of your endocrine, the total loss of sexual function, sterility, and a massive risk of complications
I would hope that there would incredibly rigorous gate keeping of any minor wanted to access that surgery.

and I certainly would not accept a child self reported diagnosis as the deciding factor.

I'm not a doctor of medicine nor am I a bioethicist so I don't know exactly where a lower age limit limit should be set for HRT/surgery. After all, no two year old could give consent and even at like six or seven, it's a good idea to wait before proceeding with HRT/surgery. But once puberty sets in or will soon set in, that young person almost always knows whether they are trans or cis. The cis kids get their own hormonally based gender affirmation through puberty. By denying trans kids puberty blockers/HRT, you're the one subjecting a minor to gender affirmation.

One may argue that puberty is natural and HRT is not, while technically true, the same can be applied to insulin and serotonin. A majority of people get their insulin and adequate levels of serotonin naturally while a minority of people get what amounts to insulin and serotonin replacement therapy. With holding those two things from minors would be considered cruel and medically negligent. I don't see how HRT is is any different.

I'd agree that nonconsensual gender affirmation is terrible but otherwise, I don't know what pro trans positions can be reasonability considered excessive.

these are difficult questions without easy answers,
I think there are people who would really benefit from early intervention.

but i dunno my read of the evidence I think that number is probably really really really small.
I think there needs to be an acknowledgement, that transition is really risky, it has lots of side effects both physically and socially

and it should be the absolute last resort after all other therapeutic non surgical options are explored.
and despite what some people will tell you, this is not currently the case.

and most of all people should not obfuscate the risks, and problems with the gender affirming care model.

 

[RustyShackleford]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/07/...ytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

This was really interesting. Crazy that he did this 3 semesters in to law school as well. Political prodigy.

I want to read the author of this article's book. But mans asking $30 for it

Welp, finna go my usual thing of going into the library and bothering the librarian to order it.

Catch me at the counter at Windmill library like...

 

[gry60]

 

[dwalk31]

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[frink85]

Oathkeepers are arguing they went to keep the Jan 6 rally safe for the crowd when all their texts/emails/call records say stuff like “prepare for violence” and “this is a war”

 

[Fozz]

Walker a scumbag for his

Man, this is just sad. I feel bad for these kids.

 

[sneeker]

ive said this before but; there isn't a broad consensus, and I think if you explained what was happening to the average democrat they would be opposed to it.

it has consensus within highly education spaces dominated by progressives.
so despite their small number they have disproportionate impact in places like medicine,academia, activist groups and in the media.

you can see this by in how willing so many basically ideologically progressive media institutions and activist group
are willing to distort informational space in order to validate the these ideas.

for example recently the University of Washington medical team put out a press release for a new study.
stating that that gender-affirming care "dramatically reduces" depression and suicidality.

but careful analysis showed of the that actual paper doesn't support claims nearly that strong,
and might actually say the opposite.

emails leaked of UW reachears conceding the headlines might be too strong,
but because of the positive media coverage they don't correct the record.

"FYI, I read through his exceedingly long (very, very long) article, which claimed the research was flawed or, at worst, made up,
but given the extremely positive pick up by mainstream media, I would agree and just let this be."

there's countless example, the sloppiest and most flat out wrong reporting you will find
is anything in a progressive outlet that covers trans topics.

studies with tiny sample sizes, and inconclusive findings, or fundamentally broken methodologies are CONSTANTLY touted by progressives as being definitive.
and then you have people like Jon Stewart who open debate with implicit framing that there is no debate or controversy surrounding these treatments.

it's nasty.



the problem is that was the old cohort that typically presented with gender dysphoria,
it was generally male, typically very young, and persistent gender dysphoria that did not desist over time.
now we have a total flip in the demographics and age of the people presenting,

many people are still using this mental model to think about trans issues, when it isn't true anymore
you now have huge numbers of pubescent girls with various other mental health issues. presenting with gender dysphoria.

and there is no way to know if the dysphoria will go away as people hit puberty or will persist.
and we do not have good data on the rates of people who will regret what ever harm they do to their body via transition.

not acknowledging this, or spreading this idea that, there we know definitively that there are low regret rates and if you say you are trans you are
is dangerous mis information that has lead to real and truly heart breaking stories.

and when you add in the entrepreneurial nature of the american health care system.
it's a recipe for disaster.




To be clear, I consider gender ideology to be absurd. self id relies on circular logic and the concept of some knowble gender ghost that lives in your body that you have to seek out is what is absurd imo.
gender affirming surgery can be a life saver FOR SOME PEOPLE. it is not absurd in all circumstances.

also if gyno surgery could cause the destruction of your endocrine, the total loss of sexual function, sterility, and a massive risk of complications
I would hope that there would incredibly rigorous gate keeping of any minor wanted to access that surgery.

and I certainly would not accept a child self reported diagnosis as the deciding factor.




these are difficult questions without easy answers,
I think there are people who would really benefit from early intervention.

but i dunno my read of the evidence I think that number is probably really really really small.
I think there needs to be an acknowledgement, that transition is really risky, it has lots of side effects both physically and socially

and it should be the absolute last resort after all other therapeutic non surgical options are explored.
and despite what some people will tell you, this is not currently the case.

and most of all people should not obfuscate the risks, and problems with the gender affirming care model.

I guess the issue here is setting or pushing the boundaries further on what is considered or acceptable in this current society. for me personally, I don't support nor agree with such treatments or discussions for the young as the person is still developing. gender dysphoria is not predetermined upon birth not like which is virtually and obviously the sex trait of the person. the feeling of such gender incompatibilty is generally psychological rather than premeditated by biological urges or function scientifically speaking. there are several factors involved and not just that. social interaction, isolation, environmental influence can also play a part on those things. honestly, this is one of the rare instances that I agree with Ben Shapiro.

now, if we are going to allow or accept a third gender in our society in the future, would this be acceptable or create a conflict if the 3rd gender wants to be assimilated either or to both sexes or one particular gender? like for example in instances of gender related areas or activities? I keep an open mind on the matter but I believe certain boundaries shouldn't be crossed or til everything is put into order.

I believe the whole debacle started when it became politically forced when society is not yet ready to accept nor the study behind it is not fully understood to be considered as such. do I make sense?

 

[Methodical Management]

I’m getting ads meant for @aepps20 again.

I wonder if some of the satire actually influences this. Personalized advertising is exceedingly (and perhaps deliberately) opaque, but it’s possible that keywords may have played a role here above and beyond any presumed demographic affinities.

I could probably get this blocked if we had the destination URL, but in this instance I think there's merit to taking their money, donating it to a cause they’d hate, and laughing at them.

Should you see any ads containing offensive slogans, be sure to let me or another member of our staff know.

"Antifa revenge"

I'm saying you are not making a general analysis

You are just using it as a vehicle to air your grievances with progressive views on gender. Which I feel are somewhat reactionary

Well I was addressing the clip

But It's just the apotheosis of why I don't like his new show.

gender ideology is born progressive institutions, and the ability to ask question about it without being labeled a bigot is enforced by progressives.

You sure showed him.