"Children cannot consent to puberty blockers" and being in the wrong body

[Politesse]

How we manage this among minors is complicated both by ignorance and the generalized problems that most of a person's biology is fixed and not readily adjustable.

Even this seems like a highly dubious claim. Human biology is anything but fixed, almost everything about our body changes constantly throughout our lives, from physiology to neurochemistry to our microbiome. None of us are the same person at sixty that we were at six, and some of the largest changes are those made voluntarily or through a medical intervention. We like the myth of the human body as a constant, but a myth is all it is. Life is change, whatever is static dies.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what I meant. The human body generally is not interchangable. We can exchange organs with decent success and modify outward appearances, but generally the body is the body.

 

[Jarhyn]

Why do you keep coming back to this crank and shitheel?

Well the high court ruling was news to me. I think it makes his case better.

It really doesn't,

I thought a person's sign based on a court ruling is better than a sign based on an opinion that he came up with himself...

and they don't offer any answer to the fact that they ARE forcing those outcomes on kids against their consent and for arbitrary reasons, all told.

You don't offer an effective argument

It might be near impossible to give you an effective argument. Perhaps none exist.

And if Chris or the UK assholes believed this, they wouldn't support intervention for those born without gonads. Guess what? They support intervention for people without gonads.

Maybe they don't consider people without gonads to be currently male or female like the others?
BTW I found some interesting things in his latest video:

He said:
"I've been doing this for 4 and a half years"
"You're about the 40,000th person I've had this conversation with".

Chris says to the guy to ask AI "are children being sterilized with puberty blocking drugs and cross sex hormones?"

How does any sex change operation sterilize a child? There's literally nothing preventing them from reproducing when they're adults. Just conspiracy BS. Also AI will give different answers depending on what prompt is given.

The issue here is the careful placement of several ideas so very close together that the observer, from a distance, thinks all the lines cross at the same point and has a hard time telling which line continues from which line.

The lines in close proximity here are "gender confirming surgeries for minors", "gender confirming surgeries for trans minors", "gender confirming surgeries for adults", "rare, but not impossible consequences of puberty suppression", and "rare, but not impossible effects of adulthood transition".

It's kind of like trucking someone with a tongue twister, but more abstract.

Gender confirming surgeries for minors almost universally apply to breast-related things. This is universally mentioned many times to such people and they just don't care. Most of these happen to straight cis people.

The consequences of puberty suppression are rare and generally minor according to all available medical literature and case study. Sterilization is unlikely; any effects on fertility are likely reversible, and the desire to reverse them is vanishingly rare. Again, this is well covered in the literature and shitheels like Chris know this and they just don't care.

This is well covered on these forums. Literally just search threads for gender or sex or trans in the title and all this shit gets paraded out every time.

Taking interest in him is like taking interest in Ken Ham. Some people are going to, but nobody should for long.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know what I meant. The human body generally is not interchangable. We can exchange organs with decent success and modify outward appearances, but generally the body is the body.

"Body is as body does; if body can and does change body, body can and did; big changes are hard, because all the small parts are endlessly complicated."

 

[Jarhyn]

Seriously, I hate to be the guy pulling out a "poisoned well" here, but like... When people say the kind of shit Ken Ham pushes, they really do end up deposing themselves in so many ways.

And it's not even that they can't win free. I'm pretty sure I met Ken Ham in person at some point in my "Christian backstory", although the cracks in Christianity were starting to show for me.

It's just... Until they stop making the obvious errors, it's really hard to accept that they don't make subtle errors, too, and there tends to be a whole suite of positions that inevitably come flowing, much like "the rest of the camel" coming into the tent, whenever you entertain them for even a moment.

When someone lets in a single contradiction in, their whole worldview becomes capable of proving anything, like letting in a monster from the edge of the universe into your mind to possess you to start to consume your mind. You banish them by finding the contradictions and patching the cracks, and eliminating everything suspect founded on it.

They are like... Dangling references in software engineering, or circular reference, leaks, exceptions... It's like debugging but for thought. Some bugs run deep.

Some bugs are just too deep for the development team or company to uproot them, and Valve isn't the only company that can't count to 3.

 

[TSwizzle]

Perhaps lots of people here would think transitioning early is a good thing.

The people that rush sexually confused youngsters into transitioning (chemical castration, breast removal etc) are sinister af. Thankfully there are places that have stopped allowing this.

 

[bilby]

I have still been watching Chris's videos

Why?

What possible benefit do you get from such self-abuse?

 

[bilby]

I have still been watching Chris's videos like this:

It talks about this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...t-female-inmate-in-women-s-prison/ar-AA1tY4rd
and Chris said they made him leave because they were feeling "unsafe".

But this related story is perhaps even worse:

Women allegedly raped in prison by trans-identifying inmate will have to refer to attacker as 'she/her'

A recent ruling in California means that women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation.

reason.com

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender. The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

Maybe people here would have a problem with the news source which talks about "free minds".

I wonder if people here would have any problems with the story.

Who here at this board do you think is okay with rape?

Duh.

The whole fallacy is telling you the answer - Anyone who doesn't agree with every single word "Billboard Chris" utters.

Either you agree wholeheartedly with his incredibly stupid policy platform, OR you are okay with rape.

It's a simple dichotomy; You have to pick one side or the other.

Simpletons love themselves a dichotomy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Perhaps lots of people here would think transitioning early is a good thing.

The people that rush sexually confused youngsters into transitioning (chemical castration, breast removal etc) are sinister af.

Gender dysphoria isn't about sexuality.

 

[Jarhyn]

Perhaps lots of people here would think transitioning early is a good thing.

The people that rush sexually confused youngsters into transitioning (chemical castration, breast removal etc) are sinister af.

Gender dysphoria isn't about sexuality.

Oh, lovely, the circus is starting.

This is about where I think the thread should probably be locked, and put in the "gender thread hall of shame".

Again, @excreationist look to understand truth often in the inverse of the statements of the door that always lies.

 

[Politesse]

I have still been watching Chris's videos like this:

It talks about this:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opin...t-female-inmate-in-women-s-prison/ar-AA1tY4rd
and Chris said they made him leave because they were feeling "unsafe".

But this related story is perhaps even worse:

Women allegedly raped in prison by trans-identifying inmate will have to refer to attacker as 'she/her'

A recent ruling in California means that women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation.

reason.com

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender. The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

Maybe people here would have a problem with the news source which talks about "free minds".

I wonder if people here would have any problems with the story.

Who here at this board do you think is okay with rape?

Personally, I'm pretty suspicious of people who post diatribes about rape when it is committed by a trans person, but ignore, gaslight, or actively make fun of any other victims who report having been raped within the prison system. "Prison rape jokes" are such a common and acceptable genre in US popular culture, it's actually very difficult to have an entire conversation about rape in the prison system, especially concerning rapes with male victims, without someone making such "jokes". Even in supposedly professional settings. We have strict rules about this in the prison education program I work for, and our community liasons - police, guards, lawyers, etc - are the most frequent violators. Kinda hard to make the case that you're a staunch anti-rapist if you make it clear that you think rape is funny whenever it is happening to someone you dislike. Rape is one of those social phenomena, like racism, human trafficking, or genocide, that very few people openly support due to many generations of negative publicity, but most people quietly enable in the case of unsympathetic victims or widely respected perpetrators.

 

[Playball40]

Anything you disagree with so far? I can't answer your question as I don't know what you mean when you say "wrong body." Bodies are neither right nor wrong, they just are what they are.

Apparently being in the wrong body is the justification for transitioning children, sometimes against their parents will. i.e. it involves making their body match their “gender identity”.

Please show me ONE SINGLE verifiable instance of a doctor performing gender affirming surgery on a minor. Just ONE. Show me ONE SINGLE verifiable instance of a doctor prescribing puberty blockers or gender affirming hormones to a minor without a parent/guardians knowledge. I'll wait.

 

[Playball40]

My point is Chris seemed persuasive when he debated University students. I’ve now listened to most of the 54 minute professor Dave video. I guess this is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Maybe I’ll change my mind about breast removal on 13 year olds eventually.

You first need to consider if you agree with the idea that removing a breast of a 13 year old would be justified if the medical evidence demonstrates convincingly that the benefits outweigh the costs, such as in cases of treatment for breast cancer.

I thought often breast cancer only affects one breast. I was talking about breast removal due to being in the “wrong body”. If you remove one breast you can still produce milk.

OMFG, this doesn't HAPPEN. Period. You cannot 'remove' a breast from a person that does not have fully developed 'breasts' yet. You can use puberty blockers to stop the breasts from developing, or the horrible uncomfortable binder, but NO doctor will perform a breast removal or even a breast REDUCTION on a child that has not finished growing.

 

[Playball40]

Anything you disagree with so far? I can't answer your question as I don't know what you mean when you say "wrong body." Bodies are neither right nor wrong, they just are what they are.

Apparently being in the wrong body is the justification for transitioning children, sometimes against their parents will. i.e. it involves making their body match their “gender identity”.

Jebus! You know, if you are going to talk about it, might be best to read up on it first.

Like Chris says, fuck Chris! Chris isn't a doctor, social worker, psychiatrist. He is a fucking political troll.

I think he has had conversations with large numbers of transition fans - maybe hundreds or more. (maybe he claimed thousands?)

Tell you what. You or this asshole, Chris can come talk to me. Perhaps the idea of sitting in the ER with your child hooked up to machines after another suicide attempt is a fun way for you and Christ to spend your time, but as the MOTHER OF A TRANSGENDERED CHILD, I assure you it's not. Don't freaking preach or even push this bullshit narrative - they do NOT have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[excreationist]

About the rape news story - sorry I didn't make myself clear enough about the part I was talking about:

But this related story is perhaps even worse:

Women allegedly raped in prison by trans-identifying inmate will have to refer to attacker as 'she/her'

A recent ruling in California means that women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation.

reason.com

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender. The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

Maybe people here would have a problem with the news source which talks about "free minds".

I wonder if people here would have any problems with the story.

What do you mean by "have any problems with" it?

Sorry I wasn't more specific. I meant the part about:

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender... Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved [to go into a womens prison]. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

If the person with a penis hadn't been allowed to be in the womens prison, multiple women wouldn't have been raped by a person with a penis. Apparently according to the law, a person who is basically just a biological man, can go into a womens prison, only based on their own testimony.
So I'm wondering about the "Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act" and how it was applied in this case which lead to the potential for the rapes by a person with a penis.
It is similar to laws allowing people with penises to be in women's change rooms.

 

[Jarhyn]

But this related story is perhaps even worse:

Women allegedly raped in prison by trans-identifying inmate will have to refer to attacker as 'she/her'

A recent ruling in California means that women may be subject to speech policing from their alleged rapist—who has opted for self-representation.

reason.com

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender will be compelled to refer to the defendant using she/her pronouns, a Madera County judge ruled last week, further complicating a case centered on a crime that was emboldened from the outset by the government.

Tremaine Carroll allegedly raped multiple inmates while at Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla after securing placement there by self-identifying as transgender. The Transgender Respect, Agency and Dignity Act, which took effect in January 2021, allows California inmates to be placed in a facility corresponding with the sex they say they are. Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

Maybe people here would have a problem with the news source which talks about "free minds".

I wonder if people here would have any problems with the story.

What do you mean by "have any problems with" it?

Sorry I wasn't more specific. I mean the part about:

Women who allege they were raped in a California prison by a biological male claiming to be transgender... Under the law, a prisoner need not be on hormones, have had surgery, or undergo a psychological evaluation to be approved [to go into a womens prison]. The government considers their testimony sufficient.

If the person with a penis hadn't been allowed to be in the womens prison, multiple women wouldn't have been raped by a person with a penis. Apparently according to the law, a person who is basically just a biological man, can go into a womens prison, only based on their own testimony.

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

It's almost as if this stupid fucking culture war issue would be less of an issue primarily if we actually identified those likely to rape others and prevented them from having access to victims no matter their sex or gender or genitals.

Instead of pursuing this policy, which would be highly effective at preventing prison rapes, you're being pennywise and pound foolish with this culture war shit.

 

[excreationist]

And if certain people without penises hadn't been allowed in, several people wouldn't have been raped by a particular person without a penis.

It's almost as if this stupid fucking culture war issue would be less of an issue primarily if we actually identified those likely to rape others and prevented them from having access to victims no matter their sex or gender or genitals.

Instead of pursuing this policy, which would be highly effective at preventing prison rapes, you're being pennywise and pound foolish with this culture war shit.

I thought that it would be worse for a female in prison to be raped by a person with a penis than by a woman without one. At least I think that's what they'd say if you asked them. And he apparently did it multiple times. But you don't agree and I can't convince you of that. A lot of people are outraged about people with penises being allowed in women's prisons and them raping women and also being in women's change rooms. So the story was saying that a man that has had a history of rape is able to say he is a woman (and not require anything else) and be able to go to a women's prison. If I was in his shoes I'd also prefer the women's prison and be able to shower with them, etc. Well that's all of my counter-arguments.

 

[excreationist]

So a person's sign based on SCOTUS rulings isn't more likely to be based on facts (or close to the facts) than a sign based on a psychotic person's beliefs about aliens and demons? (which is an example of a opinion they came up with themselves)

First off, you are loading your question the same way as OOP did, so shame on you.

Second off, NO, lacking their actual arguments, they aren't more likely to be more accurate than a homeless drifter with a sign.

We literally have a supreme Court in the US where we have people more crazy than the average homeless drifter making conspiracy theories wilder than the average homeless drifter to support legal theories as wild as the ones demanded by the average homeless drifter.

"literally" "more crazy"?
So if you replaced SCOTUS decisions with those of the average drifter it would improve or stay the same in terms of how crazy it is?

 

[excreationist]

I suppose you're wondering how many people here have a problem with a transwoman being referred to as 'she' in court. I don't have a problem with it but YMMV.

I clarified what I meant in post #155

 

[excreationist]

Chris says to the guy to ask AI "are children being sterilized with puberty blocking drugs and cross sex hormones?"

How does any sex change operation sterilize a child?

Maybe removing the balls or uterous would make them sterile?