RAMROD 104,160 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 She is so threatened for ridiculous thoughts (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ✧*:･ﾟ 𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘐 𝘸𝘢𝘴 17 (*´艸｀*) ♡♡♡ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharkmanthaC 111,594 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 Why are we still giving this woman attention? she/her/hers 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
misha4ever 1,166 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 A Nazi sympathizer, misogynistic, imperialist supporter is unable to shut the **** up? What a surprise. english is not my native language >.< 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chromatislaps 34,758 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) she's the definition of an ignorant twat . I wouldnt be surprised she'd turn fully homophobic at one point too. Edited April 11 by Chromatislaps 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCgaga 4,279 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) 2 hours ago, laneXcolten said: The only reason you believe the two aren’t comparable is because you believe that being trans invalidates their identity as a woman, so you feel that we need to use “trans woman” instead of just woman. Everyone walks different a different path, everyone has a different experience. The same could be said about where someone grows up, their religion, their background, their appearance, education, sexuality, etc. That argument is a bullshit justification for the dismissal of trans identities. The experiences is a big part of my reason, but it’s not the “only reason”. I know trans women and bio women aren’t the same. They are biologically not the same. Different chromosomes, the existence of menstrual cycles, pregnancies, - these things are “bio women specific” . It doesn’t matter that trans men can get pregnant to me- as I feel the same about men/trans men. It doesn’t matter if you feel different. I can’t tell you not to feel that way, that is how you feel. I do not follow that line of thought. I don’t have to. However, that being said- I own my line of thinking and respect others. This means I will never agree that Trans people are less than cis people. They are equal. I just don’t follow the “I believe I am this, therefore I am this. I wish society had a place for trans people, fem people, butch people, etc- but I will never redefine someone’s sex. I also would never disrespect someone’s pronouns- I may feel differently but I don’t believe in disrespecting others. Edited April 11 by NCgaga Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 5,781 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 2 hours ago, Natalia Kills said: If you can share detailed and objective receipts for these points, you'll change my understanding of this. And yep, I'm aware of the ChatGPT risk. But it is just condensing what was said from the BBC/BBC's LGBT correspondent, which was the one I saw faithfully pulled from the report the best without a clear angle. https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/what-is-the-cass-review-final-recommendations/?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-gaytimes&utm_content=later-42315187&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkin.bio Here's the response from PATHA, which is an int. Professional body of experts in this particular medical field. They specifically cite 1 lit review conducted in the cass report where 101 studies in the field were rejected, many of which were rejected on the basis that they were not a double blind study. A double blind study would require a group of kids identifiying as trans to be forced to not transition in order to draw conclusions on which route is better - an entirely unethical approach to medical studies. Some additional relevant links: https:/twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1778186407271653542?t=sHpMJXk2glTvfLuOhSCkOQ&s=19 This section specifically cites the claim of ending transition before age 25 through alternative therapies (conversion therapy). 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lasagna 2,446 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 7 hours ago, Bronco said: the black dude's surname being shacklebolt oh my GOD that never even occurred to me shes unhinged. that reminds me of this tweet 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natalia Kills 363 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 1 hour ago, Bronco said: https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/what-is-the-cass-review-final-recommendations/?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-gaytimes&utm_content=later-42315187&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkin.bio Here's the response from PATHA, which is an int. Professional body of experts in this particular medical field. They specifically cite 1 lit review conducted in the cass report where 101 studies in the field were rejected, many of which were rejected on the basis that they were not a double blind study. A double blind study would require a group of kids identifiying as trans to be forced to not transition in order to draw conclusions on which route is better - an entirely unethical approach to medical studies. Some additional relevant links: https:/twitter.com/ErinInTheMorn/status/1778186407271653542?t=sHpMJXk2glTvfLuOhSCkOQ&s=19 This section specifically cites the claim of ending transition before age 25 through alternative therapies (conversion therapy). Thanks for sharing! I really appreciate this but I'm not entirely sold these. What's holding me back is that I'm still seeing some bias from these sources. I looked at the peer reviewed article (T&F has a messy rep for publishing over quality) and saw that it was made by a dedicated trans advocate who runs a website on raising a trans child, I'm finding it hard to see the objectivity. If I could see something that's more objective from a healthcare source, I'd be down. Again, I'm not saying they're entirely wrong, but I just don't want to dismiss Cass for being biased when these opposition sources are also at a strong risk of bias (even if they're intentions are good). I also think the 0-25 system isn't about banning care, more about offering comprehensive support post-18, which makes sense to me on more than just transgender identity. But I know that's very easy to be twisted by those with a pro or anti trans agenda and how policy makers perceive this research. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 5,781 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 2 minutes ago, Natalia Kills said: I also think the 0-25 system isn't about banning care, more about offering comprehensive support post-18, which makes sense to me on more than just transgender identity. But I know that's very easy to be twisted by those with a pro or anti trans agenda and how policy makers perceive this research. The 0-25 system is a total fallacy being dressed up in nice fluffy images. It's a total attack on the law of the UK - gillick competency. As someone who works in the youth sector, the writing on the wall couldn't be more apparent as to the dangers behind these deliberate corrosive attacks on the established principle of allowing young people to have any form of independence & safety. Gender affirming care is being used as a wedge issue to push the wider conservative agenda on social issues, much like immigration has been used successfully in the US & UK as a wedge issue to push the actual conservative priorities in the economy. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Rah Rah 1,945 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 It’s sad she has allowed the fear of a very small minority of cis men who purposely pretend to be trans to get into women’s spaces colour her view of an entire community. Sadly I don’t think she will ever change her mind, and I feel for Harry Potter fans who feel guilty for loving a franchise that has brought them so much joy. It also brings the idea of the argument of the art vs the artist up too. Chromatica will live on forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartacus 4,485 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 7 hours ago, 27monster27 said: The original de-transitioners that came out on a more public scale in 2019 transitioned because they were in abusive relationships. It had nothing to do with grooming. I know this isn't your intention, but this Blaire White definition of de-transitioning is hurtful to the original people that came out to speak about abuse. (Again, I know that this is not your intention.) That's why I felt uncomfortable telling my story. I certainly don't want to do anything that may harm the community, but then again... that is my story. -𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐅𝐀𝐌𝐄 𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐆𝐌𝐀™ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggy 10,734 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 God she’s such a miserable asshole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laneXcolten 289 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, NCgaga said: The experiences is a big part of my reason, but it’s not the “only reason”. I know trans women and bio women aren’t the same. They are biologically not the same. Different chromosomes, the existence of menstrual cycles, pregnancies, - these things are “bio women specific” . It doesn’t matter that trans men can get pregnant to me- as I feel the same about men/trans men. It doesn’t matter if you feel different. I can’t tell you not to feel that way, that is how you feel. I do not follow that line of thought. I don’t have to. However, that being said- I own my line of thinking and respect others. This means I will never agree that Trans people are less than cis people. They are equal. I just don’t follow the “I believe I am this, therefore I am this. I wish society had a place for trans people, fem people, butch people, etc- but I will never redefine someone’s sex. I also would never disrespect someone’s pronouns- I may feel differently but I don’t believe in disrespecting others. Okay, that’s all well and good. Nobody is arguing that the biology is different in cis women and trans women. Stating that there needs to be some sort of differentiating vocabulary when talking about trans women or “actual women”, as you said, when we’re not having a conversation specifically regarding someone being trans, or a scientific biological conversation, is dehumanizing, and harmful to that entire group of people. Trans people simply existing does not take away from someone else’s experience. And your experiences do not translate to statistics or facts. What you’re spewing is hurting people, and quite honestly, if you’re not their doctor, and you’re not ****ing them, their genitals are none of your business. Edited April 11 by laneXcolten 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versace 7,860 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 16 hours ago, Blue wig said: I see what you mean, but from what I know about gender affirming care, you need to go through a lot of counselling before anything medical happens, to be as sure as possible that transitioning is what you want, and I think they start just with puberty blockers before any surgery is done; puberty blockers are entirely reversible! They just prevent your body from entering puberty as long as you take them, so when you stop your body just goes through puberty like nothing happened. They're also given to cis kids who have early onset puberty Both these statements are not an absolute truth for everyone and everywhere. There are many places that don’t provide necessary counseling / mental screening for gender affirming care especially when it’s critical for minors. I have heard many stories online, seen videos and know friends where they just walked in and were on puberty blockers/hormone replacement therapy by the next appointment. In some states like Canada you cannot even deny a child the transition if you deem them a bad fit post counseling (otherwise you face jail sentence). Also recent studies suggest that puberty blockers are not entirely reversible and there are testimonies of people who have gone off them having reported side effects, so no you cannot make an absolute claim like “when you stop your body just goes through puberty like nothing happened”. You would need multiple peer reviewed double blind independent studies to make that claim to reiterate it as fact. Puberty blockers aside, there is no guarantee that any drug cannot have a lasting impact or major altercation in the human body especially ones that have been taken for an extensive period. We need to have these conversations truthfully so that people are better educated. No one benefits when we paint a perfect picture imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NCgaga 4,279 Posted April 11 Share Posted April 11 49 minutes ago, laneXcolten said: Okay, that’s all well and good. Nobody is arguing that the biology is different in cis women and trans women. Stating that there needs to be some sort of differentiating vocabulary when talking about trans women or “actual women”, as you said, when we’re not having a conversation specifically regarding someone being trans, or a scientific biological conversation, is dehumanizing, and harmful to that entire group of people. Trans people simply existing does not take away from someone else’s experience. And your experiences do not translate to statistics or facts. What you’re spewing is hurting people, and quite honestly, if you’re not their doctor, and you’re not ****ing them, their genitals are none of your business. You need to calm down. This is a forum where people express their point of view. I wasn’t disrespecting you or anyone. And I used scientific fact. You think trans women are women. That is your opinion . You cannot present that as a fact as it is not one. It is a controversial social and psychological issue. But it is not fact. If I’m encountering a trans woman, I will refer to her as she wants and wishes, as I believe in addressing people respectfully. That doesn’t mean that I must succumb to their thought process as, as they don’t have to do the same for me. These insults that people throw out just because someone doesn’t agree with them is immature and shows your lack of mental capacity Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts