Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Emily Lake]

Mostly because fundies bully them too much.

What are you basing this assumption on? Have you interacted with any detransitioners? Have you read their stories or bothered to find out anything about it at all?

FFS, at least look into the Keira Bell suit.

Read the research. Or even just this board--it's already been pointed out. Most who detransisition do so because of social pressure, not because they feel they made the wrong choice.

I HAVE read the research, and the litigation, and the stories of actual detransitioners.

 

[Emily Lake]

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

Well, no. I’m aware that many European countries have now reversed their position on “gender affirming” mutilation of minors. That’s because the evidence of long-term benefit is lacking. In short, this is all experimental and these children used as guinea pigs.

Applying that reasoning, no improvements in treatment care would ever be adopted.

You assume that a child with atypical gender behavior needs “treatment”; why? Perhaps if adults quit lying to them their “dysphoria” will go away.

Best to just beat it out of them or send them to Marcus Bachmann's "clinic" for "treatment". Got news for you. They don't "grow out of it".

Well, actually, if left untreated, something over 80% of children with dysphoria DO grow out of it during puberty.

80% grow out of it before reaching puberty. That is, before anything is actually done. By the time it reaches the stage of puberty blockers the grow out of it group has grown out of it, 98% who do puberty blockers end up being trans.

No. Don't rephrase my statement to reflect your imagination.

If there is no intervention, over 80% of children who display gender dysphoria grow out of it DURING puberty.

 

[Jarhyn]

Military research into ways to control adrenal response to stressors is horrifying.

We can at least agree on that. I'm fairly certain the technologies that would construct the application already exist and are past clinical trial. The only absent elements are specific connection to that part of the brain, and linkage of the "throttle" to a given, internally controllable... I'm unsure of a word for it. "Soma"?

The former is merely "stick it there, instead of here, with this electrochemical link rather than that other link, but how do I safely do the sticking in this new brain region?"

The latter is merely picking something that works for the user, which can be determined arbitrarily from a variety of mechanisms or triggers already in use in similar technology

I'd say we're going to hear about some ill-advised experiment exposed in that in the next 15-20 years that will have happened in only 5-10 years.

Do you ever base your posts on reality, or are they all based on what you imagine should be the case?

I mean, you're "fairly certain" based on what? Some science fiction you read once?

I'm fairly certain because the University of Minnesota currently has a lab with multiple technologies in clinical trials including implants which read brain activity and use that to drive electrically controlled systems, and to drive data back into the brain.

As the adrenal gland is a gland of the brain operated by neural stimulation, that means that said technology can see application in this way. The only question is whether you have any faith that humans are not going to build that.

I have no such faith. Humans are going to build that.

 

[Emily Lake]

I keep coming back to the sneaking suspicion that the 1-5% of vocal, shitty anti-trans folks who use the 2% of desisters to keep the 98% remainder of trans declared indivuduals from accessing blockers are just bitter because they themselves were forced against their objections through a puberty towards something they privately didn't want.

Fuck your malicious imagination.

Or hey, let's turn that around.

I keep coming back to the sneaking suspicion that the vocally pro-sterilization of kids are just secret homophobes and pedophiles that want to trans the gay away while keeping technical adults locked into the bodies of children for their own perverted pleasure.

Yeah. Not so great. So how about you NOT fucking make malicious and denigrating snipes like that and maybe try to act like a whole fucking human being for a while, hmm?

 

[Jarhyn]

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

Well, no. I’m aware that many European countries have now reversed their position on “gender affirming” mutilation of minors. That’s because the evidence of long-term benefit is lacking. In short, this is all experimental and these children used as guinea pigs.

Applying that reasoning, no improvements in treatment care would ever be adopted.

You assume that a child with atypical gender behavior needs “treatment”; why? Perhaps if adults quit lying to them their “dysphoria” will go away.

Best to just beat it out of them or send them to Marcus Bachmann's "clinic" for "treatment". Got news for you. They don't "grow out of it".

Well, actually, if left untreated, something over 80% of children with dysphoria DO grow out of it during puberty.

80% grow out of it before reaching puberty. That is, before anything is actually done. By the time it reaches the stage of puberty blockers the grow out of it group has grown out of it, 98% who do puberty blockers end up being trans.

No. Don't rephrase my statement to reflect your imagination.

If there is no intervention, over 80% of children who display gender dysphoria grow out of it DURING puberty.

No he didn't rephrase it, he corrected it. I'm going to really enjoy it when he posts a reference to the actual data, and shows how you doctored the language to come to that conclusion.

 

[Emily Lake]

Jebus... you make it sound like it is a brand of sneakers or jeans that children just have to have to be cool. I don't think anyone on the planet WANTS to be transgendered.

I think perhaps you don't actually understand what social contagion is.

I mean, nobody WANTS to be anorexic, or have dissociative personality disorder, or have repressed memories of ritual satanic child abuse, or to cut themselves... and yet these things have been observed to manifest in clusters, at aberrant levels of prevalence when they've been heavily discussed and reported on among teens. Especially so among teenage girls.

Anorexic: This is a manifestation of the pressure to be thin.

Repressed memories of satanic abuse: Blame the "therapists" that "find" them. It didn't happen.

I can't address the other two.

All of those were part of social contagions. They were reported on, and the idea was latched onto by vulnerable young people, and then they emerged in clusters at well above the level of reasonable prevalence.

Social contagion is a thing, and it can have disastrous effects for young people. It's also something that girls are more susceptible to than boys, generally speaking.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's a choice. it meets the most basic and primitive definitions of choice.

Lolololololol

No.

It's an involuntary process that is a necessary component of the development of an individual within a species.

 

[Jarhyn]

I keep coming back to the sneaking suspicion that the 1-5% of vocal, shitty anti-trans folks who use the 2% of desisters to keep the 98% remainder of trans declared indivuduals from accessing blockers are just bitter because they themselves were forced against their objections through a puberty towards something they privately didn't want.

Fuck your malicious imagination.

Or hey, let's turn that around.

I keep coming back to the sneaking suspicion that the vocally pro-sterilization of kids are just secret homophobes and pedophiles that want to trans the gay away while keeping technical adults locked into the bodies of children for their own perverted pleasure.

Yeah. Not so great. So how about you NOT fucking make malicious and denigrating snipes like that and maybe try to act like a whole fucking human being for a while, hmm?

There we go. There's the virulent "everyone must breed" mentality we were all waiting to see come out!

"Pro sterilization". No more than I am "pro abortion". I believe in people's right to choose.

I am pro-choice. You are anti-choice. Or I guess anti-some-choice. You like to take your bodily autonomy a-la-carte. I get that. Well, I don't actually. You only like people having exactly the same choices you get or understand that you want.

Your moralization over the bodies people choose to have is rather trite.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's a choice. it meets the most basic and primitive definitions of choice.

Lolololololol

No.

It's an involuntary process that is a necessary component of the development of an individual within a species.

I think the list available at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_eunuchs takes that 'necessary' of yours and flushes it down a toilet

 

[Emily Lake]

There we go. There's the virulent "everyone must breed" mentality we were all waiting to see come out!

WTAF are you on about? Nobody has to breed. But taking that choice away from a child who is too young to really understand the consequences of it is a fucked up thing to do.

"Pro sterilization". No more than I am "pro abortion". I believe in people's right to choose.

Nah. You believe that children who are too young to understand the consequences, and who are unlikely to be able to foresee their own future desires, should be allowed to be sterilized at their say-so... and you think that's a fine idea.

I am pro-choice. You are anti-choice.

I'm pro-choices-made-by-fully-developed-adults.

You like to take your bodily autonomy a-la-carte. I get that. Well, I don't actually. You only like people having exactly the same choices you get or understand that you want.

Your moralization over the bodies people choose to have is rather trite.

Your willingness to sacrifice the health and well-being of children so that you feel better about your own choices as an adult is self-serving, reckless, and completely lacking in anything remotely resembling actual care or compassion.

 

[Jarhyn]

With testosterone and estrogen, we know the effects of exposure. We have seen those effects, and the effects of having control over them, and those effects are broadly positive.

We know SOME of the effects of testosterone and estrogen ON THE BODIES THAT DEVELOPED TO PROCESS THEM AT THOSE LEVELS.

We know very little about the effects of cross-sex hormones, and what we do know indicates an increase in risk for many illnesses, including heart attack and stroke, as well as things like vaginal atrophy and earlier onset of dementia.

And also the effects on the bodies where their factories were removed.

We absolutely know the effect of the various sex hormones because we have observed the effects of those hormones on people since people had those hormones as a part of their biology.

We know the effects of testosterone because the fact is, we have centuries of documentation on the different experiences between people with testicles and eunuchs, at various ages of becoming eunuchs.

We know those effects and the fact is that the people taking these hormones know the effect.

You may take some great issue and insult from the fact that some people do not want ovaries or testicles, and you may wish to manufacture all sorts of reasons to deny them access, but we know the effects of an absence of sex hormones on the human body, too.

The fact is, I'm going to take your claims that people who have ovaries have improved health and outcomes and file it in the circular file because the same claim has been made to defend circumcisions and is just as spurious.

It's a claim based on fear, not even of the unknown, but of things you are willfully ignorant of.

Look buddy. If you have some deep seated psychological need to cut your balls off, go ahead. But FFS stop trying to dress it up as some fancy noble bullshit rather than acknowledge it as the borderline fetish that it actual is. Seriously. You're putting a lot of effort into singing the praises of neutering yourself... almost like you need to convince others so you can convince yourself that it's somehow normal to want to cut your own nuts off.

It's not normal. But it's your body and you're a grown ass adult. You don't need anybody's permission (except a QUALIFIED doctor). But you also aren't going to make a lot of headway trying to make it seem like it's not a very strange and troubling thing for a person to do.

The funny part is, I mostly kept it a secret until after I had actually explored a difference in hormonal levels.

It is neither strange nor troubling except for the people who find themselves to incurious or conceited to accept that other people have different relationships with their bodies.

We have come to it at last that your mask is off and you are finally opening up to denigrate people who have made choices which prevent them from creating offspring.

You are so pro-reprodiction that you are calling it a sick fetish to do something that stands in the way of that, and to paint reprodiction-agnostic folks as pro-sterilization. It reminds me of the anti-choice movement and how they call people who are abortion agnostic, or in immediate real need of an abortion "abortionists" and "pro-death".

Can you somehow not see yourself in that mirror?

 

[Emily Lake]

It's a choice. it meets the most basic and primitive definitions of choice.

Lolololololol

No.

It's an involuntary process that is a necessary component of the development of an individual within a species.

I think the list available at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_eunuchs takes that 'necessary' of yours and flushes it down a toilet

Given that your link goes to a list of a bunch of different stuff, well, no, it doesn't. I'm also really struggling to follow your leap from "cutting off balls" to "not having puberty" seeing as the two aren't synonymous.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's a choice. it meets the most basic and primitive definitions of choice.

Lolololololol

No.

It's an involuntary process that is a necessary component of the development of an individual within a species.

I think the list available at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Chinese_eunuchs takes that 'necessary' of yours and flushes it down a toilet

Given that your link goes to a list of a bunch of different stuff, well, no, it doesn't. I'm also really struggling to follow your leap from "cutting off balls" to "not having puberty" seeing as the two aren't synonymous.

Many folks on that list were castrated BEFORE they reached puberty but somehow managed to live very long and often influential, healthy, and happy lives.

Most of them also had their penises cut off, too. I wouldn't, but then I don't dislike orgasms, and a lack of testosterone doesn't change that sort of thing, or prevent it.

Necessary is generally understood as "they'll die unless". Living 10-15 years longer on average does not seem to fit the bill.

And biologically speaking, we know the effects of castrating organisms with ovaries, too. We have observed it millions upon millions of times across the animal kingdom. Alex Trebek swore by it.

 

[Jarhyn]

The funny part is, I mostly kept it a secret until after I had actually explored a difference in hormonal levels.

It is neither strange nor troubling except for the people who find themselves to incurious or conceited to accept that other people have different relationships with their bodies.

We have come to it at last that your mask is off and you are finally opening up to denigrate people who have made choices which prevent them from creating offspring.

Lololololololol.

Yes, I spend a lot of time denigrating myself. Totally. Uh huh.

Yes by being hypocritical about the decisions of others while making similar decisions yourself.

You are so pro-reprodiction that you are calling it a sick fetish to do something that stands in the way of that, and to paint reprodiction-agnostic folks as pro-sterilization. It reminds me of the anti-choice movement and how they call people who are abortion agnostic, or in immediate real need of an abortion "abortionists" and "pro-death".

Can you somehow not see yourself in that mirror?

Nah. I'm calling people who support the "right" of children who don't know any better to undergo unnecessary medical intervention that will leave them sterile as people who are "pro-sterilization of kids".

So you continue to misrepresent my views. Does that mean I get to call you "pro-abortion"?

Further sterilization does not happen until actual tissue is removed, something that happens exclusively above the age of 18, and I've already pointed out, personally, I think that should be 21, not 18.

There is no sterilization before that point and the people doing it are not children.

So you are calling people who do not exist "pro-sterilization" if that is the case.

You are literally inventing an enemy and going on a witch hunt!

Your particular obsession with removing your own balls is a bit more than being reproduction-agnostic.

You paint it as an "obsession", but the fact is that if I had been able to have done what I would today accept someone else asking for, it would be a lot less of a big deal for me today. Of course, your viewpoint being enforced is exactly that didn't happen.

Tinkerbell effects.

You've already said you're doing it because you don't like how you behave with testosterone in your system, so it doesn't have anything to do with trying to avoid reproduction.

I don't like how I feel and what invasive thoughts I have to deal with on a day to day basis. You have invented "behavior".

Avoidance of reproduction can be accomplished in a number of ways, ranging from simple condoms to straightforward vasectomies.

Indeed, and that's not why I'm doing it.nifnthats why I was doing it, I would have gotten a vasectomy.

You're not doing that, you're not doing it so you don't reproduce.

Correct, I'm not. I'm doing it to tailor the experience I have of existing as a brain in a body.

You're doing it because somewhere along the way you've become a bit obsessed by the idea of being a eunuch.

No, I've become "obsessed" with the idea that I don't like the effects of testosterone, and it is a fact I do not. I am not alone on this planet in that way and it would be foolish of you to think I was. Among 7 billion people I have a good number of peers in this.

Honestly, you've always been a bit grating, but that's not a big deal. Lots of people are grating. Hell, there are people I frequently agree with that I find grating.

But seriously... you've gone somewhere different. Your entire approach to communication, the clarity of your writing, the cohesion of your thoughts have all become degraded over time. You used to be abrasive, but understandable and rational. Most of what you write now borders on word salad, and has gone well over into the realm of fantasy and irrationality. Even if I do find our interactions to be difficult and annoying... I am actually concerned that your mental health is spiraling and that you genuinely need professional help. I don't have to like you to still want you to get help.

I would very much like YOU to seek help for your hate, for your bigotry, and for your inability to accept the experiences and thoughts different from your own.

Instead I expect you will continually commit to hypocrisy, denigrating those who make decisions you fail to understand and don't put any effort into trying to understand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I dunno. Human average lifespan has increased dramatically along with the abundant availability of calorie rich food. Evolution seems to be working pretty well at selection in favor of those who limit their caloric intake and maintain regular physical activity.

I'm not sure that evolution has any part in this. Lifespan beyond reproduction is just whipped cream. And there are a LOT of fatty fatty boombalatties out there that have kids before they croak.

Until recently if the parents died too early the kid probably died also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

 

[Jarhyn]

I dunno. Human average lifespan has increased dramatically along with the abundant availability of calorie rich food. Evolution seems to be working pretty well at selection in favor of those who limit their caloric intake and maintain regular physical activity.

I'm not sure that evolution has any part in this. Lifespan beyond reproduction is just whipped cream. And there are a LOT of fatty fatty boombalatties out there that have kids before they croak.

Until recently if the parents died too early the kid probably died also.

Unless the parent's families spawn enough non- or less reproductive members who can raise children in their stead...

Big families can also contribute back-up parents in addition to back-up children.

But beyond that, no, life beyond reproduction is not "whipped cream". Life is not necessarily about reproduction, it's about the living of it. Others may see that as a goal, but those that do ought expect everyone to agree or care or contribute to that goal.

Some, if not most major technologies were made by those who couldn't or did not want to reproduce.

It's actually a trope, to the point where it makes it into storybooks. There's a whole slew of books chock full about how wizards never get laid because they're complete and utter dorks.

I'd say that's pretty "nuts and bolts" but sometimes, as in the case of Jia Xian or Cai Lun, well... Let's just say they had neither.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jebus... you make it sound like it is a brand of sneakers or jeans that children just have to have to be cool. I don't think anyone on the planet WANTS to be transgendered.

I think perhaps you don't actually understand what social contagion is.

I mean, nobody WANTS to be anorexic, or have dissociative personality disorder, or have repressed memories of ritual satanic child abuse, or to cut themselves... and yet these things have been observed to manifest in clusters, at aberrant levels of prevalence when they've been heavily discussed and reported on among teens. Especially so among teenage girls.

Anorexic: This is a manifestation of the pressure to be thin.

Repressed memories of satanic abuse: Blame the "therapists" that "find" them. It didn't happen.

I can't address the other two.

All of those were part of social contagions. They were reported on, and the idea was latched onto by vulnerable young people, and then they emerged in clusters at well above the level of reasonable prevalence.

Social contagion is a thing, and it can have disastrous effects for young people. It's also something that girls are more susceptible to than boys, generally speaking.

Repressed memories weren't about young people falling for a fad, they were about incompetent therapists that didn't realize they were creating the false memories, not recovering them. (And, yes, the issue was known. My parents were both psychologists, they were aware of how easy it was to create false memories in the 80s. They knew that when using hypnosis to help someone remember where a lost item was that there was a decent chance the "memory" would be false--if the object turns out not to be there no big deal.)

 

[Jarhyn]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

It is.

As is preemptive removal of the prostate in families where prostate cancer is extremely common.

And Emily is BACK on cutting now?

Kids who get blockers when they want them almost never actually ask nor need to be cut, at least not unless they want to remove their gonads, which nobody here is saying should happen before someone is AT LEAST 21.

People should be expected to know whether they want breasts before they grow them, and given the information they need to decide that, and if they decide against it, they should not be made to do it.

It's not rocket science. It is the path that yields fewer requests to have breasts removed, mostly on account of their absence.

 

[Toni]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

I believe that it’s an option now offered many women. We know about Jolie’s surgery because she’s famous and chose to be open about her choices.