Funny events in anti-woke world

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,268
5,900
118
Country
United Kingdom
The person who wrote the piece we're both reading has no idea what conversations they had with the kid.
Really? So you reckon they didn't even read the research, just assumed as you're doing now?

Yes, in that section it says may. That doesn't justify saying "distress associated with social and/or medical transition among youth who grow up to be cisgender is not meaningfully comparable to the distress associated with delaying or discouraging transition."

If anything, I softened the stance by describing it as "one is better than the other". The author not only states that one is better than the other, they claim that the situations are so far from one another that they aren't even meaningfully comparable. It's beyond absolute.
A procedure that is largely reversible and allows the kid to make their decision at a later stage is indeed not directly comparable to a process that is much less reversible and shunts the kid onto one particular track unless they want to undertake larger procedures later.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,592
930
118
Country
USA
A procedure that is largely reversible and allows the kid to make their decision at a later stage is indeed not directly comparable to a process that is much less reversible and shunts the kid onto one particular track unless they want to undertake larger procedures later.
Why do you bother accusing me of misrepresenting something when you believe exactly what I'm saying and have expressed it repeatedly for a long time?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,370
6,887
118
Country
United States
Seeing all the #BlueLivesMatter folks getting mad at a different police state is darkly hilarious.

"Look at those monsters attacking journalists, which is somehow different than American cops attacking journalists"
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,174
5,462
118
Australia
Those same cops who panic at melanin and start blasting away? Those cops?
Setting aside one’s feelings about what passes for a police officer in the United States, on a purely logistical level yeah, them. Mind you, given their paranoia it’s a wonder any of them can do undercover or plain clothes work since they seem to pull an iron at the drop of a hoodie
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,268
5,900
118
Country
United Kingdom
Why do you bother accusing me of misrepresenting something when you believe exactly what I'm saying and have expressed it repeatedly for a long time?
I don't believe what you're saying at all.

Hormone blockers are largely reversible. Much more so than puberty itself. Puberty blockers offer an opportunity for gender-questioning adolescents to come to their own decision later, rather than forcing them down a specific track. For that reason I believe hormone blockers should be widely available for pre-pubescent kids.

Is that what you believe? Because thus far, you seem to have been pushing to restrict pre-pubescent kids' access to hormonal treatment, thereby obligating them to go through less reversible bodily changes during puberty-- essentially pushing them towards one specific physical outcome and making it harder for them to choose.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,913
1,780
118
Country
United Kingdom
They settled with him for half a million dollars, and publicly apologized, because their review, inspired by the accusations of conversion therapy that you are repeating, was filled with "errors."
The accusations in question were of serious breaches of professional conduct, such as the aforementioned incident in which he allegedly forced a teenager to undress and verbally abused them. That claim was later acknowledged by CAMH to be unsubstantiated (although not necessarily untrue), and CAMH absolutely shouldn't have publicized it in the form they did. Again, I stand by the fact that it is a believable accusation based on an understanding of Zucker's method.

People like Zucker like to pretend that there is a difference between the desistance-based therapy that they practice and conversion therapy, particularly as the legality of conversion therapy has become increasingly questionable. However, both approaches are based in the use of coercive behavioral modification techniques. The stories of parents being told to take their children's toys away and punish them arbitrarily for gender non-conforming behaviour, and of children becoming withdrawn and emotionally disturbed as a result, are not from this report, they are from the observations of other therapists, including those who support Zucker and believe that his method works (particularly Michael J Bailey, whose publicly expressed views on trans people might be described as even more hostile than those of Zucker).

But also, "CAMH stands by its decision to close the child and youth gender identity clinic." So yes, his clinic was closed. You are wrong on all counts.
It's not "his" clinic though, he just worked there until he was fired. The decision to close the clinic came after he was fired, and while related to the accusations that the clinic was practicing conversion therapy, it's clear that the problems with that clinic went far beyond Zucker himself. That clinic, for example, used to be called the Clarke institute, its director for many years was Ray Blanchard, who viewed transwomen as either gay men or perverted straight men and who turned out to have close ties with a right-wing think tank that advocated scientific racism and eugenics. An organizational culture had clearly developed there that was deeply, deeply hostile to trans children and viewed the goal of treatment as enforcing desistance through coercive control. That may not be illegal (yet) but it is child abuse, and as someone who has routinely tried to advance the TERFy claim that gender shouldn't matter, I struggle to see why you have so little problem with the idea of punishing and hurting children for displaying gender non-conformity.

Oh wait, no I don't. I'm absolutely familiar with this brand of hypocrisy.

Including this time, when you read the sample for people regretting transition, where I was talking about the sample for people not regretting transition.
No, that's not what I did.

What I did is to note that the "sample" (case studies aren't a sample) of people not regretting transition was framed in response to another citation, the aforementioned letter, that I then followed up on.

Let me show you this. The opening sentence of the text you quoted from page 6 reads.

"Recent case studies suggest, on the contrary, that transition may be beneficial and appreciated by some youths who grow up to be cis."

On the contrary to what?

This indicates that this sentence, and the following paragraph, is intended to be read as a continuation of the previous paragraph, which describes the aforementioned letter and the problems with it (which, you will note, does not include the fact that it draws conclusions from a small number of case studies, because that's not actually a problem). I was actually describing the same paragraph, but I did so within its appropriate context as a continuation of the argument in the previous paragraph, whereas you seem reluctant to do this for some reason.

The author extrapolates from two data points (I may have said two people earlier, if so I apologize, one of the data points had two people, so 3 people total).
Again, learn what a case study is.

Saying words like "data points" doesn't make you sound smart, it makes it clear you can't understand or appreciate the basic purpose and utility of different forms of research.

They conclude, based on wholesale, unempirical rationalization the ultimately cis- people would feel gratitude for the experience of transitioning, explained by a "fact" that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever, one which given any honest consideration flies in the face of the argument for transition in the first place.
This is simply not true.

You know how I know that, because there is an actual conclusion, which opens as such.

"In this article, I have argued that desistance research is of very limited relevance in debates surrounding clinical models of care for transgender and gender creative youth and fails to provide support to the wait-and-see and corrective models. The conservatism of those two models vis-à-vis prepubertal social transition is not supported by desistance studies. Not only do we have good reasons to doubt the accuracy of reported persistence rates, but these observations are disconnected from the clinical decisions health care professionals face surrounding models of care. Moreover, transition for those who would grow up cis does not appear comparably harmful to delaying transition, and both the corrective and wait-and-see model pose signifcant risks of harm."

I have marked the bit that is relevant, which should perhaps indicate how small a part of the overall point being made it is given that the conclusion continues for two more paragraphs.

You will note the phrase "comparably harmful". That phrase denotes a comparison. There is no argument here that cis people would always or necessarily feel gratitude for the experience of having transitioned and there doesn't need to be, because the point is comparative.

The point of the bit you are struggling with is actually a response to the kind of argument you are making, which (and prepare for a mind-blowing realization) is why I posted this article in the first place. The point is that even if you could produce accurate statistics regarding desistance or retransition that didn't come from child abusers, it would not necessarily support the conclusion you are attempting to draw from it. You are inferring harm where there is literally no evidence for it, and expecting us to buy it simply because you believe that quoting statistics makes you sound smart. Meanwhile, as mentioned, the side you are supporting cannot even provide isolated examples which actually demonstrate the harm you are alleging or provide some theoretical mechanism to explain it. We are just supposed to take it on faith.

Well, no. I'm not taking anything on faith from people who think child abuse is acceptable.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,592
930
118
Country
USA
I don't believe what you're saying at all.

Hormone blockers are largely reversible. Much more so than puberty itself. Puberty blockers offer an opportunity for gender-questioning adolescents to come to their own decision later, rather than forcing them down a specific track. For that reason I believe hormone blockers should be widely available for pre-pubescent kids.

Is that what you believe? Because thus far, you seem to have been pushing to restrict pre-pubescent kids' access to hormonal treatment, thereby obligating them to go through less reversible bodily changes during puberty-- essentially pushing them towards one specific physical outcome and making it harder for them to choose.
Me: They claim its better to start transitioning a cis- child than not transition a trans- child.
You: That's a total misrepresentation.
Me: It isn't, and also it's what you believe.
You: No I don't, I believe it's better to start transitioning a cis- child than not transition a trans- child. It's more reversible.

Silvanus, you want to literally arrest the development of teenagers to meet the arbitrary legal ages before making life changing decisions. You are suggesting drugging children for arbitrary reasons.
I stand by the fact that it is a believable accusation based on an understanding of Zucker's method.
You mean you stand by whatever "fact" supports your position or demonizes the stances you hate, regardless of veracity. In this topic of conversation, you are Seanchaidh defending Russia.
As someone who has routinely tried to advance the TERFy claim that gender shouldn't matter, I struggle to see why you have so little problem with the idea of punishing and hurting children for displaying gender non-conformity.
Because gender is a social construct. They were socializing children to match the typical gender stereotypes associated with their sex. Is that stupid? Absolutely. But not at all for the reasons you think. It's stupid because liking dolls doesn't turn a boy into a girl. Is it child abuse to take the dolls away? Absolutely not. Good parents try to raise their kids to like certain things and limit others. We want kids to like healthy foods and eat less candy. We take away sharp objects from young children. There are infinite things we won't let kids have even if they want them, adding dolls to that list is stupid and arbitrary but it's neither punishment nor child abuse.
The side you are supporting cannot even provide isolated examples which actually demonstrate the harm you are alleging or provide some theoretical mechanism to explain it.
Say what you want about Matt Walsh, "What Is A Woman?" had more "samples" than this paper does.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,268
5,900
118
Country
United Kingdom
Me: They claim its better to start transitioning a cis- child than not transition a trans- child.
You: That's a total misrepresentation.
Me: It isn't, and also it's what you believe.
You: No I don't, I believe it's better to start transitioning a cis- child than not transition a trans- child. It's more reversible.
So much rewriting of how the conversation has gone.

First of all, you didn't say "start". It's a subtle rewrite to soften the original paraphrase you wrote, which was "better to transition a cis child than not to transition a trans child".

Now, what I pointed out was that there's a great deal more nuance in what they wrote. They talked at length about how hormonal blockers have less permanent impact, and how it *may* be beneficial. When you cut all that out and just said "transition a cis child", you give a misleading, much more absolute impression.

As for the "believe what I'm saying"-- I took that not to mean you were saying I agreed with your description of the researchers' position. I took that to mean you were saying I agreed with your position. Because you quite often insist your opponents secretly agree with you.

Silvanus, you want to literally arrest the development of teenagers to meet the arbitrary legal ages before making life changing decisions. You are suggesting drugging children for arbitrary reasons.
There's nothing "arbitrary" about puberty-- it results in drastic physical changes that make any later transition more difficult.

And there's nothing "arbitrary" about the reason: that the kid sees it as beneficial, and it can avert significant distress and potentially trauma.

Temporarily delaying development of physical characteristics, thereby allowing the kid to decide later what they want to do permanently =/= "arresting development". You're the one subscribing the kid to the more permanent developments here, specifically because it aligns with your preconceived idea of how they should develop, against the kid's wishes.
 
Last edited:

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,913
1,780
118
Country
United Kingdom
You mean you stand by whatever "fact" supports your position or demonizes the stances you hate, regardless of veracity.
The "stance I hate" in this case, being that it is acceptable to abuse gender non-conforming children.

Like, let's be absolutely clear and unambiguous about that. That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether it's acceptable to abuse children. I don't think it's acceptable to abuse children. I don't think it's acceptable even if you're not forcing children to undress and verbally abusing them.

But let's be clear here. One of Ray Blanchard's specialties was "phallometrics." The man made a fucking career out of measuring kids' erections, and you're pretending that it is somehow unreasonable to believe that one of his closest coworkers and supporters could have crossed the line into sexual abuse as part of so-called treatment.

For someone apparently horrified by the idea of exposing teenagers to non-sexualized images of masturbation, it's weird that you would be so ride or die for a clinic where grown men showed teenagers actual pornography and made detailed observations regarding the tumescence of their dicks.

Because gender is a social construct.
You don't even know what that means.

It's stupid because liking dolls doesn't turn a boy into a girl.
I'm not the one defending the idea that it does.

We want kids to like healthy foods and eat less candy. We take away sharp objects from young children. There are infinite things we won't let kids have even if they want them, adding dolls to that list is stupid and arbitrary but it's neither punishment nor child abuse.
Honestly, if you weren't defending child abuse I'd feel bad for you right now. No self-respecting person should ever stoop to this level of desperation.

It is not okay for me to lock my child in their room for weeks on end because another parent might occasionally ground a child to punish them for bad behavior. Treating a child arbitrarily, in a way that causes them lasting harm, impinges excessively onto their life or which seeks some kind of broad suppression or control over their personal development is child abuse.

Taking away a child's toys temporarily because they misbehaved at school is not abusive, taking away a child's toys as a deliberate means of trying to suppress their gender identity or sexual orientation is abusive.
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,370
6,887
118
Country
United States
Setting aside one’s feelings about what passes for a police officer in the United States, on a purely logistical level yeah, them. Mind you, given their paranoia it’s a wonder any of them can do undercover or plain clothes work since they seem to pull an iron at the drop of a hoodie
There's a reason that undercover cops tend to get attacked by other cops, especially the obvious ones
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,270
7,059
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Has the Babylon Bee ever managed to be funny by accident? You'd think at some point the law of averages would kick in, but so far everything I've seen from them is about as funny as finding a lump on your balls.
I think they're trying to be the Onion but I've yet to see them actually succeed. Which is kinda sad when even the onion can't keep up with real life anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,592
930
118
Country
USA
First of all, you didn't say "start". It's a subtle rewrite to soften the original paraphrase you wrote, which was "better to transition a cis child than not to transition a trans child".
That's not a change. It would be a contradiction to call someone cis if they transitioned and remained transitioned. Calling them cis inherently means they began transition and then changed their mind. Adding the word "started" doesn't change the meaning.
Now, what I pointed out was that there's a great deal more nuance in what they wrote. They talked at length about how hormonal blockers have less permanent impact, and how it *may* be beneficial. When you cut all that out and just said "transition a cis child", you give a misleading, much more absolute impression.
I've properly represented their position. You just fail to understand words if I say them, apparently. They said basically "A is better than B", and you've somehow deleted out most of the sentence to get to "they want to do A". Perhaps you should try reading with more nuance.
As for the "believe what I'm saying"-- I took that not to mean you were saying I agreed with your description of the researchers' position. I took that to mean you were saying I agreed with your position. Because you quite often insist your opponents secretly agree with you.
You agree with my description of the "researcher's" position.
There's nothing "arbitrary" about puberty-- it results in drastic physical changes that make any later transition more difficult.
The arbitrary part is the age. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to say 18, though that number could be higher or lower depending on what and where specifically something happens. Why do we wait until 18 to let people do things for themselves? Because it's an approximate timeline where individuals are reaching physical maturity. We give people the length of adolescence to grow into physical adulthood before they start making serious personal decisions. If you block puberty, you prevent the individual from reaching their physical adulthood, which makes waiting for age 18 a completely arbitrary timeline.
The man made a fucking career out of measuring kids' erections.
Funny. I looked this person up, and it seems he made a career advocating for sex-change surgeries, before more current gender theories made that framework "transphobic." I found no immediate evidence he practiced phallometrics on anyone but sex offenders. If you had a strong track record of presenting me correct info, I might dig further, but since you're almost always factually wrong, the first page of google seems like due diligence.
Treating a child [in a way] which seeks some kind of broad suppression or control over their personal development is child abuse good parenthood.
Parent's are supposed to guide their children's personal development. You are supposed to control your kids.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,464
816
118
Country
United States
So I was playing Modern Warships yesterday, and by playing I mean logging on, and playing only when I feel like it which has been never done recently, and I looked up one of the things noted, and I googled called YJ-21, and it literally freaked me out.


The missile can go hypersonic, and attack land plus ship targets. But I can't find its accuracy, and precision numbers, for example, a scud that is hypersonic isn't accurate enough to strike within 1 meter of a target while a Javelin which is accurate, but slow can.

And I conclude what I always conclude the US needs a larger defense budget to counter it, build defenses, and a better weapon than it.