jerryskids

Good point. It makes more sense that the man who enabled the Abraham Accords consciously decided to steal precious artifacts from Israel. He probably also killed a puppy with them.

6.03 Ewen Ferguson FTW$#@! @KSB2424

Can you at least explain to me why I as a man should give a fock what Maybelline does?

I think that parents are being guided to not question or challenge their child's feelings, and I think that is a big mistake. My objective is to get parents information -- remember, the good and the bad that we talked about? -- including going through exhaustive counseling to identify other mental health issues and determine the rare, true cases of gender dysphoria.

Gary Woodland @dain11279

I explained by BL got boycotted, and I've explained the differences between BL and Nike/Maybelline. You either don't like my explanations or don't understand them. Carry on.

@patweisers44

I think you are off by a significant amount with your 99%, which is the crux of why we have this debate. If you listen to the pod, kids (in the UK) were being fast tracked to invasive procedures after a handful of counseling sessions. You can call that "mismanagement," but I've mentioned here that we've gone from 0 to 100+ (I forget the number) of gender clinics in the US, whose very existence depends on positive assessments. Also you specifically call out "prepubescent" kids. I presume (hope) there is more care in that area, but the ROGD (or whatever you want to call it that avoids that triggering name) happens in puberty, primarily girls who are suddenly uncomfortably in their flowering womanhood and the attention it gets from boys. Anyway, back on topic, I am indeed surprised that there is no surgical equivalent of the FDA for surgery. There are of course SOPs for surgeries in general to make them safe, and I'm sure all surgeries follow those procedures. Your link makes a case that the lack of oversight is a bad thing, so if your defense is that we should continue doing a bad thing for gender surgeries, congrats I guess. Similarly for off-label drugs, using them poorly may be legal but it doesn't make it right. I agree with your assertion that we should disseminate as much info as possible, good and bad. Unfortunately your side controls the info, and any attempts to provide the bad are attacked. Finally, I'd have to think on the agency for surgeries. To add another FDA-level bloat to our medical system is concerning.

MSM bias has long been a particular burr in my shorts. People like you and me look into things enough to not be easily fooled by the bias. But we are not representative of most of the country, who relies on sources like the NYT and CNN because they are perceived as bastions of impartial news by the unsophisticated masses.

Doesn't sound like he wants to worry about it. Maybe we can just grab the lowest-odds player on some betting site when he comes up? Seems most people here have FanDuel.

They did say there is no conclusive research guiding the decisions in the part I quoted, which is one of the main points of the podcast: how can we be doing these things, particularly to children, without such research? In no other medical field would this be allowed. I thought about "modifying" but didn't like it for some reason that I can't think of now, and it does seem better (certainly less provocative) as I read it in your post, so I'll go with that unless I can remember my original objection.

In case you two harbor any mistaken ideas that the NYT is unbiased, some light reading for you: https://www.influencewatch.org/for-profit/new-york-times/ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/public-editor/liz-spayd-the-new-york-times-public-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html An oldie but a goodie. I like this because it helps to explain the insidious implementation of bias, for that "derrr we printed an article so we're not biased" crowd.

Yes, there are references, and some of those are scientific. Those references, however, do not exactly support what you think they do. For instance: Also, I said "gender destroying" because I find the phrase "gender affirming" to be equally biased and I avoid it whenever possible. The process of using hormones, chemicals, and/or surgery to mutilate one's sexual organs is not exactly "affirming;" rather, it is the opposite. I'm still trying to think of a good word, because "destroying" is admittedly going to rankle some snowflakes. If you have any ideas I'd be open to them.

https://www.thefp.com/p/when-gender-ideology-corrupts-medicine-tavistock I see it has a transcript now, if you'd rather read instead of listen.

Your first sentence shows a lack of understanding of logic and drawing a logical conclusion. Baker Boy pointed out many situations where your false conclusion is incorrect. Nike selling yoga pants to trans women does not erase women; where do you get these conclusions from? Your last paragraph has been my position all along. I don't drink BL or its competitors so I have no personal skin in the game; my comments have been limited to the marketing gaffe and not understanding what they are actually selling (an image, not a beer).

I don't see it on the cnn home page, perhaps you can point it out to me: https://www.cnn.com/ CNN does have an article buried somewhere, if you search for "Georgia," it's about the 7th one down. Same with NYT, I presume I'm missing it: https://www.nytimes.com/

Thanks, and sorry I missed this when you posted it. Your first link has a good series of definitions of terms, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion of medical consensus or actual research. Your second link is clearly politically-driven: - It's a committee opinion, not research-based. - Second bolded talks about their opinions driving the recommendations. - "Medically necessary", really? Later they also say the following: Aside from the fact that certain medications like whatever cocktail helps men to lactate have not been tested on the impact of the infants drinking the... output, it amazes me that they are saying any doctor with a pulse can prescribe gender-destroying medicine. Anyway, I strongly recommend you listen to that Free Press pod I suggested in another (I think) thread recently; if you need the link let me know. It talks about the concerns that I share, and why Britain and other European countries are doing massive changes in the way they approach this subject.

All of this fish talk makes me think we should jihad a fish forum.

I have no idea what that word salad of a first sentence means, but the large session beer brands like BL are absolutely selling an image, and it is precisely because there isn't a lot of product-related differentiation with competitive offerings, which by the way makes the boycott easier. Think of most beer commercials, they have clydesdales or frogs or people sitting around the campfire, they aren't talking about fermentation temperatures for lager yeast. Nike does sell an image to some extent, but the situation is different, and if you can't see that, that's on you. They sell separate products for men and women. Men don't associate themselves with women's yoga pants, so I can't see them overly caring. Plus the male golf demographic is different than the male piss beer demographic. That being said, I'd be interested to see what happens if Nike ran an ad campaign with some trans male equivalent of Mulvaney, and if discussion picked up steam on social media. Because I don't think there is all that much differentiation/barrier to change for a guy to switch to a different brand golf shirt, much like BL. Maybelline has nothing to do with men, why are you even discussing it?

@RogerDodger

It's been discussed ad nauseum, but BL was the "one that blows up" for some combination of, (1) they forgot they were selling an image, not a beer; (2) that marketing lady was a piece of work, and (3) the butterfly effect. These false equivalencies are silly. Nike giving yoga pants to Mulvaney doesn't impact a men's golf shirt. Was Apple ever selling anything but a metrosexual vibe? Maybelline, really?

I learned that the voice in the commercials is actually Bob Parsons, the founder and the "P" in PXG (Parsons eXtreme Golf). He sold Go Daddy and became a billionaire, and decided to poor his time/money into his two biggest passions: golf and Harley Davidsons.

If the Leftist MSM reported on it, you might think that some black people can be violent. We can't have that.

I thought about him at 3.09 but went with Fatty Reed, in part because he's rated higher but also he plays PXGs and my daughter is interning there (and they are HQ'd here) so it is a bit of a homer pick. My daughter works on their apparel side; she has gotten me a few shirts an some golf slacks for free which are super nice but super expensive! ($100+ retail).

Fock @edjr, I was going to take McCarthy. Give me a few minutes to reset... 4.03 Keegan Bradley @KSB2424