Trans Kids

[Strike 5,261]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

You want the govt to ban surgery and drugs based on your beliefs.  Republicans want to decide what to do with other people's kids.  Get it?

Not one person here has said these things should be banned.  They should not be permitted until a person is an adult, for various reasons.  We restrict kids from doing a lot of things in life.  Are you suggesting we remove a minimum drinking age, statutory rape laws, etc....? 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

You want the govt to ban surgery and drugs based on your beliefs.  Republicans want to decide what to do with other people's kids.  Get it?

My beliefs? My belief is that a kid shouldn’t have a sex change operation and it shouldn’t be kept from parents that their kid is transitioning at school or undergoing counseling towards it. You don’t have those beliefs?

[BuckSwope 654]

21 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Republicans want to do the same thing.

I'm guessing the irony of his post was lost on him.  

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Not one person here has said these things should be banned.  They should not be permitted until a person is an adult, for various reasons.  We restrict kids from doing a lot of things in life.  Are you suggesting we remove a minimum drinking age, statutory rape laws, etc....? 

Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting.  No more laws for minors.

Is this what you call intelligent debate?

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Just now, BuckSwope said:

I'm guessing the irony of his post was lost on him.  

There is much that is lost on him

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

I'm guessing the irony of his post was lost on him.  

There was no irony. I’d like you to take a stab at pointing it out though. I’ll hang up and listen. 

[Strike 5,261]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting.  No more laws for minors.

Is this what you call intelligent debate?

I don't know.  I think so, when I'm responding to someone who says the prevailing attitude is to BAN things NO ONE has suggested banning.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

There is much that is lost on him

No, you can’t rebut what I said. That’s why you tossed in beliefs. Again, do you not hold those beliefs? 

[MDC 7,164]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I appreciate the info.  What one calls "grow out" another might call "never really were and just were confused like a whole lotta kids going through hormonal changes and societal pressures."   

That’s why I put quotes around “grow out.” I think for some kids it’s a phase they go through organically. Others I think have parents who aren’t nearly as cautious as they should be.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't know.  I think so, when I'm responding to someone who says the prevailing attitude is to BAN things NO ONE has suggested banning.

Minors, dummy, this thread is filled with people that want to ban gender affirming care for minors.  Quit being obtuse.

[Engorgeous George 2,164]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

As I wrote yesterday I’m open to these arguments. But I’m also concerned about their source: I want our decisions on these issues to come from the advice of medical health experts, and not from religious moralists or people who think the whole thing is gross or perverted. And even though I acknowledge that hormone blockers and surgery could in some instances be harmful, and even though I am uncomfortable with prepubescents undergoing such treatment, I am just as uncomfortable with the government interfering with private decisions between doctors and patients. 

I have heard from physicians in corporate health care organizations.  I don't know that I have heard from medical ethicists.  Not that the first is necessarily impugned by their financial interests, though as a society we are always mindful of such conflicts, and not that the latter are necessarily more thoughtful.  In my limited experience the latter also seem, often, to be associated with catholic iuniversities and hospitals and that, of course, may color their academic outlook.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There was no irony. I’d like you to take a stab at pointing it out though. I’ll hang up and listen. 

It's self evident.  You're just not smart enough to understand, I'm sorry.

[Strike 5,261]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Minors, dummy, this thread is filled with people that want to ban gender affirming care for minors.  Quit being obtuse.

Which goes to my comment.  You don't want to "ban" cutting penises off of children.  Do you also want to get rid of "bans" on 30 year old men having sex with those same children?  A yes or no answer will suffice.  And yes, this is intelligent debate.  It shows that we put all sorts of age related restrictions on activities a child can partake in. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

Minors, dummy, this thread is filled with people that want to ban gender affirming care for minors.  Quit being obtuse.

So you’re back to being ok with kids getting sex change operations and puberty blockers? 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

It's self evident.  You're just not smart enough to understand, I'm sorry.

I’m smart enough to know you got  your ass kicked, again.  You’re having a bad week. 

[Engorgeous George 2,164]

39 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

If the parents are abusive then they should be held accountable for being abusive. Regardless of the reason. So non-sequitur. We are at a place where liberals think that they should decide what’s best for someone else’s kid. 

So in your mind it has gone from it takes a village to raise a child to the village takes your child.

[TimHauck 2,633]

4 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Minors, dummy, this thread is filled with people that want to ban gender affirming care for minors.  Quit being obtuse.

@EternalShinyAndChrome wants to ban it for 18 and 19 year olds too

[Engorgeous George 2,164]

43 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I don’t believe this is true and I don’t think you have any evidence that it is beyond certain anecdotes that are hotly denied. 
 

And just as you googled diverticulitis, I can Google “Gender Affirming Treatment” and get all sorts of information from various medical websites with details about treatment, risks, etc. So I’m not seeing any difference. 

Perhaps by googling "affirming" you are stacking the deck.  Would the results be the same for gender reassignment surgery in minors?  It might be, but it might not be.  

[BuckSwope 654]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

There was no irony. I’d like you to take a stab at pointing it out though. I’ll hang up and listen. 

Do you need me to explain irony or just how your post was ironic? 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

3 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Do you need me to explain irony or just how your post was ironic? 

Yes. I also would like to know what your “mixed feelings” are about notifying a parent that their child is undergoing counseling at school? 

[BuckSwope 654]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

This is one of my main concerns as well.  When all you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails.  In fact this is a general issue these days:  in an earlier discussion @The Real timschochet commented about following the experts in this and some other areas; one was climate science.  But if all of the funding is for finding evidence to support one position, and articles to the contrary would make you a pariah in the field, your incentives are clear.  DEI is another example:  if you hire someone to do DEI for your company, you can rest assured that they'll find problems, because if they didn't, why does their job exist?

Sorry for the sidetrack.  Back to trans, what you describe is part of the encouragement I've mentioned numerous times as a major concern.

This is a good post and should be repeated, as it's good to keep in the back of your mind.   

A similar thing was brought up in a pod about the study from GA about the voting process.  The people largely said it was OK and reported good results, but it's important to remember that they were asked after they voted, and that can skew results a bit.   

As far as medicine and the profit motive goes, we have to keep in mind those incentives as well.   I would be more comfortable if these clinics were set up to just handle patients AFTER they have been diagnosed by an doctor outside of that clinic.   It removes that feeling of them just pushing them through for the more profitable procedures.  

[BuckSwope 654]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yes. I also would like to know what your “mixed feelings” are about notifying a parent that their child is undergoing counseling at school? 

Again? I've already posted about that.   

[GutterBoy 2,898]

14 minutes ago, Strike said:

Which goes to my comment.  You don't want to "ban" cutting penises off of children.  Do you also want to get rid of "bans" on 30 year old men having sex with those same children?  A yes or no answer will suffice.  And yes, this is intelligent debate.  It shows that we put all sorts of age related restrictions on activities a child can partake in. 

You're seriously asking me if I want to allow 30 year old men to have sex with children?

Intelligent debate everyone.  This is strike.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Again? I've already posted about that.   

You said you had mixed feelings. What are they? And now do the irony please. Thanks 

[Strike 5,261]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

You're seriously asking me if I want to allow 30 year old men to have sex with children?

Intelligent debate everyone.  This is strike.

Of course not.  As I said,

Quote

And yes, this is intelligent debate.  It shows that we put all sorts of age related restrictions on activities a child can partake in. 

The lack of intelligent debate is your refusal to respond to an extreme analogy because that analogy shows that your assertion is sh*t. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

Of course not.  As I said,

The lack of intelligent debate is your refusal to respond to an extreme analogy because that analogy shows that your assertion is sh*t. 

And what assertion is that?

[MDC 7,164]

13 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

Not saying I agree with it, but the "urgency" is to block puberty before it starts.    The meds are mostly pointless if you start them at 16, no? 

I’m saying why would you chose to block puberty at all knowing that 65-90% of kids are going to grow out of being transgendered anyway?

Let’s say you had a pre-pubescent kid who has a non lethal medical condition that up to 90% of children grow out of within a few years. What’s the more prudent course of action:

1. Wait a few years to see if your kid grows out of it.

2. Immediately introduce a potentially dangerous treatment.

 

[Strike 5,261]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

And what assertion is that?

Are you focking kidding me?  Hey all, you know how you know someone really isn't interested in a good debate/discussion?  When they just dance around the issue such that you spend more time defining what you're actually discussing than on the discussion itself.  But I'll play, one more time.  This is your assertion that I responded to:

Quote

You want the govt to ban surgery and drugs

Then, when pressed on a blanket ban, you got all huffy and said it was only about kids.  So, I replied,

Quote

Do you also want to get rid of "bans" on 30 year old men having sex with those same children?

It's pretty simple ask really.  What people are suggesting is that we not allow life altering drugs and surgeries until a child reaches adulthood.  Your assertion isn't based on anything other than calling it a ban.  If you don't want people making rules for "other people's children" then you should be ok with removing other age related restrictions as well.  I'm simply asking if that's true and, if not, why not.  This is absolutely an intelligent discussion based upon your assertion.  Why won't you respond to it? 

[TimHauck 2,633]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Are you focking kidding me?  Hey all, you know how you know someone really isn't interested in a good debate/discussion?  When they just dance around the issue such that you spend more time defining what you're actually discussing than on the discussion itself.  But I'll play, one more time.  This is your assertion that I responded to:

Then, when pressed on a blanket ban, you got all huffy and said it was only about kids.  So, I replied,

It's pretty simple ask really.  What people are suggesting is that we not allow life altering drugs and surgeries until a child reaches adulthood.  Your assertion isn't based on anything other than calling it a ban.  If you don't want people making rules for "other people's children" then you should be ok with removing other age related restrictions as well.  I'm simply asking if that's true and, if not, why not.  This is absolutely an intelligent discussion based upon your assertion.  Why won't you respond to it? 

I don’t see why it wouldn’t be called a ban even if it only applies to a certain age.  This is an odd rant.

[BuckSwope 654]

20 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You said you had mixed feelings. What are they? And now do the irony please. Thanks 

How about we don't, and skip ahead to your dumb "tl;dr" reply, since we both know that's where this "conversation" is heading. 

Eta: my mixed feelings comment meant I addressed it on other days and already said the reasons why.  

[Strike 5,261]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t see why it wouldn’t be called a ban even if it only applies to a certain age.  This is an odd rant.

This has nothing to do with the position I'm asking about, but thanks for playing.

[BuckSwope 654]

10 minutes ago, MDC said:

I’m saying why would you chose to block puberty at all knowing that 65-90% of kids are going to grow out of being transgendered anyway?

Let’s say you had a pre-pubescent kid who has a non lethal medical condition that up to 90% of children grow out of within a few years. What’s the more prudent course of action:

1. Wait a few years to see if your kid grows out of it.

2. Immediately introduce a potentially dangerous treatment.

 

I get that, and I agree.  I am just relaying my understanding of the counterargument. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

4 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

How about we don't, and skip ahead to your dumb "tl;dr" reply, since we both know that's where this "conversation" is heading. 

Eta: my mixed feelings comment meant I addressed it on other days and already said the reasons why.  

You got noting. Hint: Gutterboy is a moron with rage issues and can’t keep his own words straight. Don’t jump on his bad wagon.  Also, you got nothin. 

[MDC 7,164]

6 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

I get that, and I agree.  I am just relaying my understanding of the counterargument. 

“We have to introduce puberty blockers before puberty!” isn’t much of an argument.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

11 minutes ago, Strike said:

Are you focking kidding me?  Hey all, you know how you know someone really isn't interested in a good debate/discussion?  When they just dance around the issue such that you spend more time defining what you're actually discussing than on the discussion itself.  But I'll play, one more time.  This is your assertion that I responded to:

Then, when pressed on a blanket ban, you got all huffy and said it was only about kids.  So, I replied,

It's pretty simple ask really.  What people are suggesting is that we not allow life altering drugs and surgeries until a child reaches adulthood.  Your assertion isn't based on anything other than calling it a ban.  If you don't want people making rules for "other people's children" then you should be ok with removing other age related restrictions as well.  I'm simply asking if that's true and, if not, why not.  This is absolutely an intelligent discussion based upon your assertion.  Why won't you respond to it? 

Please go back and read the thread before you chimed in.  It started with HT saying that we're at a point where liberals want to decide what's best for someone else's kid, and I replied that Republicans want to do the same thing.

Then you started denying a suggested ban and asking about 30 year old men having sex with kids.  That's where you get ignored.

[Strike 5,261]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Please go back and read the thread before you chimed in.  It started with HT saying that we're at a point where liberals want to decide what's best for someone else's kid, and I replied that Republicans want to do the same thing.

Then you started denying a suggested ban and asking about 30 year old men having sex with kids.  That's where you get ignored.

None of this addresses my point, and your diversions don't either.   Isn't having a law on statutory rape deciding what's best for someone else's kids?    Why won't you address that point?  Right, because it undermines the retarded point you're trying to make. 

[GutterBoy 2,898]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

None of this addresses my point, and your diversions don't either.   Isn't having a law on statutory rape deciding what's best for someone else's kids?    Why won't you address that point?  Right, because it undermines the retarded point you're trying to make. 

Yes strike, both Democrats and Republicans came together to decide that not getting raped is what is best for kids.  I'm sure parents agreed as well.  So both sides decide what's best for kids, which was my point to tardcore.  Thanks for your intelligent posts on this matter.

[Strike 5,261]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

Yes strike, both Democrats and Republicans came together to decide that not getting raped is what is best for kids.  I'm sure parents agreed as well.  So both sides decide what's best for kids, which was my point to tardcore.  Thanks for your intelligent posts on this matter.

Another non-responsive response.  But hey, you got your political shots in so you're good.  I guess this guy is a Republican then:

https://www.newsweek.com/sc-democrat-cezar-mcknight-introduces-bill-ban-gender-transition-surgery-minors-1577365

[Hardcore troubadour 14,988]

3 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Yes strike, both Democrats and Republicans came together to decide that not getting raped is what is best for kids.  I'm sure parents agreed as well.  So both sides decide what's best for kids, which was my point to tardcore.  Thanks for your intelligent posts on this matter.

Lol. He just gets dumber.  Funny and sad. 

[Strike 5,261]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Lol. He just gets dumber.  Funny and sad. 

Well, he got shut down calling everyone racist when he was proven to be one so he "pivoted."