ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
What do you think the point of leaving the Watchtower with you was about?
Not with me, at my doorstep. So my parents pick it up, and they do something with it, which everyone is aware almost noone ever does.
Even granting your portrayal of what they do, it pales in comparison to the sheer magnitude of the effort the rainbow industry puts into converting other people's kids. Though it must be said I do not grant your portrayal, since if they were as stubborn as you said, I would have been at the receiving end of it at some point, given my exposure. They don't even do door-to-door anymore from what I can tell. I only ever see them at subway / train stations, standing around with signs, and not approaching anyone, they're just waiting until they are approached.
That isn't the truce though. We have accepted it is ok to try and convert other people to our belief systems. Do conservatives try to stay away from say regulating abortion for other people, and persuading them it is wrong?
??? We are currently in a situation where trans activists are persuading people to their belief system (using a lot of underhanded tactics that my side is not, by the way) and regulating in their favor, and my side is doing the same. Curiously you only complain about me, and never the trans activists, but ok. Anyway, I'm offering that we both stop - a truce. You say that's not a truce because... there's another active war on a completely different issue I have nothing to do with?
And if the trans advocates have managed to convince the judges then that too should be reflected in the outcomes
Right. And if the non-trans activists have managed to convince them that GAC should be banned, and GAC-doctors should be prosecuted, the same applies. What "double standard" were you even arguing against then?
I am fine with making getting testosterone easier for men sure, seems entirely reasonable.
Fine is not good enough. If you're going to go after me for proposing that I ban it for little girls, you better show me receipts for going after the current system for making it so hard to get for men. If not, you're the one with the double standard.
I accept the medical system in many countries is way too restrictive in allowing people access to drugs/treatments. But let's build on this victory not try to roll it back!
You said we shouldn't limit access to GAC because it would violate some sort of truce. I'm telling you no such truce exists, we violate self-determination routinely, for adults, so you cannot call upon it against my proposal to limit access to radical therapies for children. Now you're trying to use the first-person plural to portray it as some sort of victory for me? Why don't you just answer the point rather than trying to convince me this is something I asked for?
This can be a template for how to persuade the medical community.
Yeah, here's the thing. You might convince me if the deal is we abolish the "medical community" as it's seen today. That was what you were implying in your argument - self-determination trumping scientific validity. If the medical community becomes just a bunch of service providers anyone can pick and choose, I might take it. I'm not interested in haggling over what the medical community allows the rest of us.
Why nerf trans people's ability to get the treatment they want rather than buff everyone else's?
Because if we have a system where authorities are deciding who is allowed to use which medicine for what ailment, I want these authorities to prevent usage of very potent medicine in a way that is not scientifically valid, against an ailment that doesn't even have a proper definition, and cannot be reliably detected beyond a self-report.
If you want to give your son testosterone and they want it too, I'd suggest you find a doctor who can try to do it as safely as possible, but sure give it a whirl.
I wish you'd address my arguments the way I actually present them, rather than constantly changing them to your liking. If anything we were talking about giving testosterone to aging me, when I'm starting to run short on it. And I just told you you're far more likely to find a doctor that will prescribe it to a little girl, than to an aging man.
They do not. They attempt to convert them. They even take their own kids along to help
I regret to inform you that you landed on a topic I have considerable personal familiarity with. Every single time I opened the door for them as a kid, they asked if there is an adult in the house, and did an about-face when the answer was negative. The most they'd dare to do is leave their copies of the Watchtower at the door. I knew 3 Jehovah's Witness kids throughout the different schools I went to. Literally none of them ever tried to convert anyone. Not even with a "come over to my house, me and my special friends are having a party" type of thing. If anything they were at constant risk of being converted away from their parents' faith.
We have established processes for how to deal with potential harm to kids where their parents are behind/ in agreement with it. We can just use those as necessary.
If you go through my arguments on the subject, you'll find that precisely none of them are about parents transing their own kids.
If GAC is harmful then sure ban it, but then I want to be able to be taking a good look at all the other harmful things we allow parents to do, because there is no reason the trans issue should be the only one.
I am not in favor of treating GAC in a special way and you haven't shown any way in which my approach would be special pleading. You or singularly focused on likelihood of harm, which I consider irrelevant, and very strange from someone who started the conversation with "thats because most people are not hard consequentialists".
I also don't agree that opting into a treatment or out of one in this context is relevant. We allow parents to make many choices for their kids some of which increase harm by doing something
Among the things we do not allow them to do, is buying whatever medicine fits their fancy. It's completely normal for medicines that are completely mundane by comparison to hormones or blockers (let alone surgeries) to be regulated, and their distribution be limited. Like I said, if you want to move to a system where anyone can buy whatever medicine for whatever purpose they see fit, I have my objections, but I can hear you out. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to allow GAC on self-determination grounds, but are not prepared to turn our medical system upside down. I'm saying if you want one, you must do the other. Self-determination means self-determination for all, not just the magical category of "trans".
We give parents very broad autonomy to indoctrinate their children into what ever oddball belief system they like, but this is the one all of a sudden where we draw the line? It looks like blatant special pleading.
Where, in my entire history of posting long-ass posts on the subject here, have I ever objected to parents indoctrinating their own children into gender ideology?
I just dislike it when people are inconsistent about how much other people's kids belong to them
That's fair, but go ahead and show me an inconsistency I actually have, rather than getting angry at something you imagined.
Separately, if specific doctors are not explaining the procedures and potential outcomes such that patients/parents cannot give informed consent then those doctors should be subject to whatever local disciplinary measures they have.
This is exactly what I want. Subject GAC to the same standards of scientific rigor we apply to other forms of medicine, and subject the doctors practicing it to the same ethical standards that other doctors are subject to. This is currently not the case, so to make it happen I have to convince people that scientific / ethical standards are not being applied by means of public debate, and lobbying for regulation, just like we do for every other aspect of our society.
This is not some new thing we just came up with. We already had this conversation as a society and decided the answer was, your kids, your choices, until you are literally about to kill them, then maybe we will stop you. Let's not open that can of worms because that truce is there for a reason.
Two things here. A truce where progressive parents get to trans their own kids, but they, and the doctors, stay the hell away from more conservative parents in any medical and/or cultural way, is acceptable to me.
But I do not concede that any such truce, in the broad way you defined it, is in effect. We do not let parents order a doctor to remove their kids' appendix for shits and giggles, female circumcision is completely banned in Europe, you'd probably end up in a ton of trouble for off-label use of prescription medicine on your children. You say GAC must be legal, or else we should look at all the other harmful things we let parents do. I say it's the opposite, there's nothing wrong with regulating it, or else we must abolish every single instance of the government standing in the way of self-determination. Right now testosterone is considered so dangerous that an aging low-T man must jump through considerable hoops to convince his doctor to allow him to have some, but an adolescent girl can get it in a 15 minute appointment. If we're regulating adult's access to hormones, we sure as hell can regulate children's access.
Not at all, I don't think you were able to provide a good argument against it
Then in the future, don't change the topic without further comment, if you don't want to leave the impression you're conceding.
Trans people wanting surgeries is (assuming you think it is destructive at all), self-destructive! Therefore my point was correct!
When applied to trans people requesting the surgeries, yes. When it's applied to gender-affirming doctors providing and promoting it, it becomes completely incorrect.
And it can't be that spreading the ideology counts as harming others because otherwise Jehovahs Witnesses who are famously aggressive about spreading their faith which then causes people to refuse life saving treatment would fall afoul of it.
Yes. It's not just spreading the ideology, it's carrying out the actual procedure that is harmful. Also, Jehovah's Witnesses, for all their faults, stay away from other people's children.
So far your arguments seem to come from a place of disliking the trans movement then rationalizing why it is uniquely bad, when it simply does not seem much worse than things we do tolerate when it comes to self-determination, then tying your arguments in knots about it.
False. There are massive qualitative differences between it, and the things we tolerate as self-determination, which you are ignoring.
(only a subset of trans people!)
You know full well this is irrelevant to the argument. I never explicitly argued against "gernder affirming" procedures for adults. I only argue about the scientific accuracy of how they're being sold, but if an adult wants to do it regardless I'm not against it. When it comes to adults, I only oppose the imposition of the trans worldview. The demands to affirm them as women, by allowing them access into female spaces, etc.
Informed consent is hard because sometimes parents giving consent don't understand and sometimes kids don't understand
"And so I think the more we can normalize that it is okay to not get this right away, it is okay to have questions, the more we're going to actually do a real informed consent process. Then what I think has been currently happening and that I think is frankly, not what we need to be doing ethically."
Is not a statement of "informed consent is hard" it's a statement of admission to failure of getting real informed consent.
I agree thats a tough issue, but its one that happens in medicine all the time. Do you think young kids understand what death is, and it might happen because their parents are against blood transfusions or the like?
No.
Do the parents having been raised into a religion that teaches them weird things really have the ability to give informed consent?
Yes.
And the answer is we basically shrug our shoulders and say yeah, close enough. And its only in the most dire circumstances where courts sometimes decide to override it. And I think thats reasonable for trans issues too. If going ahead is going to lead to death then sure override the parents and kids choices. Perfectly happy with that.
The funny thing here is that this logic justifies completely banning GAC. You've been trying to catch me on an inconsistency, but you're the only one with inconsistent views.
But it seems an isolated demand for rigor to require people to be (as the WPATH person themselves said would be ideal) "tiny endocrinologists" when we do not demand that for people going through even riskier treatments.
What gives you the idea that we do not demand it for other treatments? On what grounds are you claiming they're riskier? If you give a kid chemotherapy, and tell them "we're giving you poison hoping that it will kill the thing hurting you. You're going to feel bad for a while, but there's a good chance you will be healthy after that", they will have a far better understanding of the treatment than anything they give related to GAC. These kids are often too young to grasp the first thing about sex, and even when they do, their notion of long-term consequences is still completely warped. This is when parents are supposed to take over, but the ones that are skeptical are often being outright lied to.
Hell the JW'S have a whole network of people whose job it is to convince the hospital and pressure the parents on behalf of the church to not use blood treatments. And we allow that in 99% of cases with no problem at all. When the outcome is a higher risk of death, we allow parents or patients to make stupid calls all the time, yet for trans issues all of a sudden, it's way too risky?
Again, there's a massive difference between letting someone opt out of a treatment, and letting them opt in. We have mountains upon mountains of books of regulations preventing arbitrary opt-in for medicine. Why is transgender care supposed to be different?
If the parents disagree then absolutely I am on board with restricting trans care. If the parents and kid are on board, well we don't intervene until their actions are about to cause a high risk of death in most cases (and sometimes not even then!) why should this issue be different?
You're the one advocating for treating it different
I notice none of this addresses the previous topic of the conversation. If you wanted to talk about the substance of my issues with transgender care, that's fine (I'm more interested in that than the ethical calculus applied to ideologies. But you started with the latter, and are moving on to the former, while leaving me with no conclusion. Please concede or come back.
So you agree that with informed consent then trans people should generally be allowed to have surgeries and we should only step in, in the most unusual situations? I'm confused by your position here.
Well, the confusion seems to be that you're taking my point about not imposing a medical treatment on someone unwilling, and applying it to turning medicine into a free-for-all where anyone who asks for a particular treatment should get it. The former is how modern medicine is supposed to work in the West, and the latter very much is not. Otherwise we wouldn't have tons upon tons of regulations, licences, and various limits on who is allowed to do what in that field.
While I'm a bit anxious about turning medicine into a free-for-all, I'm not against it on principle. Even in cases like the trans issue, it would be a marked improvement over the status quo, where currently specialists lie to parents about the accuracy of diagnosis, negative effects of lack of treatment, the reversibility of the treatment, and where alternative treatments are sometimes banned as "conversion therapy".
Your own post pointed out the people writing WPATH were concerned about making sure their patients were aware of the risks and potential outcomes
In private. In public they work very hard to minimize the perception of those risks. Compare the videos I linked to, to the article from (WPATH member) Jack Turban, for example.
Given that, then by your own logic above why are you worried about this at all? If the patient gives informed consent then no-one is imposing a medical procedure.
Other than what I mentioned above, that the concept is supposed to prevent unwanted treatment, rather than open the doors to any wanted treatment, the problem is that there is no informed consent, as admitted by WPATH itself.
Given that you completely dropped the argument about "good intentions" justifying different treatment of ideologies, and are now changing the subject, I take it you concede it?
They'll be fine if they browse TikTok instead of reading books
Agree with most of it except for this. Tech screwed me up real good as an adult, and I grew up around it's more mundane forms. TikTok feels like techno-crack in comparison. Go outside and play with a stick, kid.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
22hr ago
Sure they do, in that they sympathize with the victims as being misled.
Yeah, when the cult drives people towards self-destructive behavior. When it drives them to harm others, you see people's sympathy starting to wear thin.
And to the extent you're right you're only proving my point. This is a lot closer to how we treat real, actual, historical Nazis vs Nazism, and how I argue we should treat progressives vs. progressivism.
See how they react to people trying to deny blood products to their kids that will kill them. We don't arrest them for attempted murder, we generally just override their decision
Yeah, it's almost like we have a taboo against imposing medical procedures without informed consent, and we only override it in extreme circumstances, let alone imprison people for refusing it. If you didn't go with one of the most milquetoast examples of a cult causing harm, it would become obvious how faulty this logic is.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I don't think this is true. Religious people don't treat cults and fanatics as "accidental harm". Progressives reframe harm caused by the excesses of their ideology as accidental, and my whole argument is that this is based on flawed reasoning.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I'm just talking number of steps here.
And I guess what I'm saying is that this is a flawed way of looking at it. People don't get convinced in steps, and no one makes this sort of calculus when reacting to someone's views.
Assuming the same level of ideological commitment in both then one of those will be easier than the other.
This has not been true either in my direct experience, or from observing others.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
To each their own, I suppose.
I figured stubbornness is a common enough trait, but treating the human body like it's Mr. Potato Head, with full knowledge of what that entails, freaks me out quite as bit.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
I think there's another plausible explanation: they think, with reason, that Blanchard's autogynophilia theories seems factually wrong, in their common form and any form but their weakest, and that Blanchard (advocates, such as Bailey) seem unwilling to engage seriously with counterexamples
I have no issue with people rejecting Blanchard. To the extent I think there's something to it, it's probably fair to describe it as it's weakest form. It's the "knives out" attitude that bothers me, in my experience most opponents don't reallly respond to it.
Consider the ROGD example, there was valid criticism of Littman's study when it came out, but most responses seemed to encourage dismissing the hypothesis outright, rather than verifying it with a higher quality study.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2d ago
Well thats because most people are not hard consequentialists.
Neither am I. None of my reasoning is based on consequences. At most, they're a signal that should have told you that you're going too far.
And if you think about that makes sense. If i just want to honestly help Jews then there is some set of information that can persuade me I am not helping. If i mean to kill the Jews then that avenue is closed.
Neither of those things is true. Plenty of "well-intentioned" people axiomatically reject the possibility of being wrong. They view everything through the lens of their ideology, and nothing you say to them will make them reconsider. OTOH there are people motivated by hate, who are open to changing their mind (see: that dude befriending KKK members).
The modal true believing Nazi is a hateful bigot, the modal true believing WPATH person is someone who cares a lot about trying to alleviate suffering even if circumstances tragically end up such that they are causing more suffering.
Yeah, I've been hearing that argument for years, with Nazis vs. Commies. I never quite bought it, but nowadays I'm buying it even less.
Take another example: should Christians take the excesses of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch trials as cautionary tales about what can happen with too much religious zeal, or just go "haha, I guess things got out of hand, but at least their heart was in the right place"?.
WPATH people didn't "tragically end up" causing harm, it was an inevetible consequence of their progressive zeal. They were literally warned about it, and they rejected those warnings over and over.
I suppose my entire point is that trying to alleviate suffering too much can be just as bad as being a hateful bigot, and progressives have a really hard time reckoning with that.
I feel like "Impressive" is a motte-and-bailey. Musk regularly makes entire series of predictions and promises, and people give him an amount of praise I'd consider valid, if he actually managed to fulfill said promises. But since he hasn't we retreat to acting like the things he accomplished are what earned him the amount of praise he's getting. I heard, on several occasions that "rapid reusability" means rockets turned around as fast, and as often as airplanes. When I see that, I'll be writing my apology letter to Daddy Musk.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
What does "evil" mean to you here, even?
I wish I could give you a cogent answer to that. Moral philosophy has always been a tough nut for me to crack, and whenever someone brings it up I usually head for the nearest exit. Still, I don't think it's as simple as "being opposed to my values". Many, many people are opposed to my values, and it's no skin off my nose. Like I indicated by saying "that's been a sticking point for me too", I think it's the deception that does it for me, combined with the raw amount of effort and coordination required to sustain their project.
The former is okay, but the latter surely is out of place in this forum, being somewhere in the space between "shaming" and recruiting for a cause (even if that cause is just to stand by and do nothing to interfere as you proceed to smite evil).
It's not quite that. I was hinting at a broader point that I should have probably made explicitly. I've been trying to come up with a way to bring this up without running into Godwin's Law, but so far it's the only analogy I have. Give or take a few posters here, we tend to have no issues with calling Nazis evil. The sheer scale of the horror they created is a bit much for most people (which is why even their sympathizers tend to deny or minimize it), no matter their reasons for going through with it, we tend to think they should have stopped and reassessed what they're doing before things got this far. By contrast we don't do that with progressive ideologies, even when they rack up a similar, or greater, body count. "Ho hum, things got out of hand, but their heart was in the right place", and I'm saying their heart being in the right place only makes the ordeal more horrifying.
WPATH is no Lenin or Stalin, they aren't even French revolutionaries, but they did fall into a failure mode common to progressive ideologies, and I'd like that failure mode acknowledged, and remembered next to examples of conservative failure modes, like various forms of chauvinism.
Now, it could be you're just a very consistent moral relativist, and you'd say the same thing, if someone hinted at, say, the people running the Tuskagee experiments being evil. If so, I guess I'd have to approach the argument from a completely different angle, but I'll need to see receipts to believe you are actually this consistent.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Time. If this goes on for the coming years, and investors are satisfied with whatever they're getting out of SpaceX, that will prove me wrong about Elon's unsustainability. If they go on to build a moon base, like they're contracted to, that will BTFO everything I said, and I will write a massive self-flagellating apology. If they pull of Mars, I'll go on one of those Catholic pilgrimage hiking trails, and actually self-flagellate, as an act of contrition for ever doubting daddy Elon.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
These doctors are lying to cover up their ideologically-driven confusion
Yeah, that's been a bit of a sticking point for me too. I think they're aware of not being perfectly honest, but if you see your opponents as even worse, what's a little white lie to ensure the ultimate victory of the cause? I think they can plausibly call themselves well-intentioned, but I also agree with your "both" answer. Is a mass-suiciding cult not-evil just because they really honestly believe that this is the road to paradise?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
I did notice they're making progress between launches a while ago, so the checkbook has long been ready. I doubt I'm wrong about my broader point about SpaceX collapsing, and the revolutionary impact of reusability being a house of cards.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
They genuinely believe that if someone say they're trans there is a special sense that definitely have in their head that is providing them total proof and that it can't possibly be imagined.
Believe it or not, that's already a toned-down version of that worldview. The more hardcore version of Queer Theory would assert that there's nothing to prove. It's like asking for proof of you liking chocolate ice cream. Like I mentioned - not all trans people have dysphoria, not everyone wants to be binary, not everyone even wants to medically transition. The idea is it to enable self-expression, even if that involves hacking off body parts.
The WPATH To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions
Things are starting to move fast in Genderland, or at least faster than I can cover them with while giving any sort of justice to the topic. I haven't even gone through the entire WPATH Files, when the Daily Caller (...News Foundation - an important distinction if you're searching for the source materials) released the WPATH Tapes. By spamming FOIAs they were able to get a hold of over 30 hours of video from the 2022 WPATH summit in Montreal. A lot of it is the same old same old that I brought while covering the Files (you can see the short clip playlist here) - there's a public face of gender specialists where the science is settled, you can either have a happy daughter or a dead son, puberty blockers are reversible, etc., etc... and a private face, where they discuss amongst each other the very same concerns they dismissed, when they were brought up by skeptics of Gender Affirming Care. What's new is that the raw amount of footage allowed me to confidently reach a conclusion about a question that's been bugging for a while - what is these people's deal? Are doctors trying to do what's best for their patients, or are they a bunch of ideologically captured fanatics, blind to the harm they are doing? The answer seems to simply be: yes.
I already remarked how a lot of these clinicians come off as quite sympathetic back when I covered the Files. When you listen to their talks you hear them openly expressing uncertainty about many aspects of Gender Affirming care, discussing the limits of their patients' (and their parents') understanding of some of the interventions, and the importance of bringing them up to speed, or you hear them bringing up known and potential side effects, and ways of mitigating them. With things like this, they almost come off as urging caution... the problem is that if you keep listening you get the distinct impression you're on a train with no breaks.
The Introduction to Trans Health talk is a good example of the good and the bad of that WPATH conference. It opens with a pull-at-your-heart-strings story, of Dr. Ren Massey's FTM transition and the struggle to find acceptance in society and from his parents. I ended up being quite moved by the story myself, and yet, in the fastest "Oh god, oh no, baby, what is you doing?" I have experienced to date, he drops this slide, where he proclaims everything from non-binaries to eunuchs is hecking valid.
I try to be honest about these things - I am biased, I pretty much already reached my conclusion on the subject, and it's going to be a hell of process to change my mind again, but no matter how certain I am of something there's always the possibility of being wrong. The thing is, "being wrong" to me means it turning out that people like Jack Turban were right, that gender dysphoria is a valid diagnosis, that doctors can reliably tell people who have it from people who don't, and they have treatments that are proven to alleviate their suffering.
Well, fuck me then, I guess. It turns out that the "medicalized narrative" may have been used in the past, but it's outdated now. Not all trans people have dysphoria, and not everyone wants to transition from one side of the binary to the other. The doctor's empashis needs to be on removing barriers, and on patient autonomy. Between several name drops of "intersectionality", "power and privilege", or "minority stress", as best as I can gather these folks are certified Queer Theorists, tirelessly working to deconstruct the idea that (cis)heterosexuality is normal. Sure, they'll take into account the consequences of gender treatments, and they'll try to make sure that patient's "transition goals" are within the realm of physical possibility, but there should be no other limits placed otherwise. It feels like they flipped the table. What I thought was a conversation about the state of medical science turns out to be a fight over who's worldview should prevail.
This seems to be the only explanation that can make sense out of the whole thing, and tie up the loose ends of the WPATH clinicians genuine concern for their patients, with wild off-the-wall stuff like the Eunuch Archive, or why they pull the knives out for Lisa Littman and the ROGD hypothesis or Blanchard's categorization of trans people, while remaining unbothered by Dianne Ehrensaft's gender angels and gender Tootsie Roll Pops.
Back when I covered the Eunuch Archive it was declared that I am a bad, bad boy, because in a forum with explicit rules about not booing the outgroup, I limited myself to providing evidence that child castration fetishists have an influential role in setting standards for transgender care, and are using it to promote their fetish, but refused to speculate on their motivation, and wouldn't declare them evil or insane. Other than it not mattering, and me not knowing, there was something unsatisfying about the two explanations that were offered. They were a too lucid to plead insanity, and haven't expressed a callous disregard for the well being of others, or a singular obsession with their own self-gratification, that people straight-forwardly associate with evil. What they do appear to be is completely ideologically captured. They view everything through the lens of Queer Theory and intersectionality, and are simply doing what is considered good in the light of that ideology, that this might involve affirming eunuchs, or transitioning schizophrenics doesn't phase them in the slightest.
All this seems to show the limits of analyzing motivations, and has implications on what it means to "boo the outgroup". That the road to hell is paved with good intentions is not a new lesson, but it seems that it's rarely understood as something more than "sometimes people get carried away trying to do good, and go too far", when some cases are probably better understood as "sometimes ideologies can make you commit obviously grievous harm, with a smile on your face". Perhaps the evil/insane dichotomy was the real Boo Outgroup all along?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
The information in that case is that the value system of the subreddit has heavily diverged from your value system and you should leave.
I thought people with heavily diverged value systems leaving, is exactly what we want to avoid?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
If we are talking about the execrable Star Wars sequel trilogy, capitalism isn't telling Disney to knock it off. All three movies made money hand over fist, and The Farce Awakens set US box office records.
No one knew what was coming during the Force Awakens, and they were cashing in on nostalgia, not on putting a chick in it, and making her gay and lame. If capitalism wasn't telling Disney to knock it off, they wouldn't be whinging about their precious franchises falling off a cliff.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Of course, the problem is that they were hardly neutral arbiters but heavy ideologues themselves
Right, that would be the issue with their analysis, rather than their immigrant status, or aspects of the American culture that they supposedly missed. If you're going to compare someone to the Frankfurt School, I'd guess most people are going to assume that this is what you're trying to say about the group you're comparing them to, which is why these sort of quippy "you know who this reminds me of? winkwinknudgenudge" comments aren't helpful.
And am I missing something or did your extended reply confirm you're only comparing them on superficial things like their region of origin, and complaining about authoritarianism? I don't see you making claims about their analysis, or mistakes they're making being similar.
Come on, give us some substance so we can actually discuss it, if you find the comparison interesting.
Do they remind you of them in any substantial way or just in being from Eastern Europe, and claiming to be fearful about totalitarianism?
Mental Outlaw - Based and FOSS-pilled IT news (may contain farming).
Whose Body Is It - A hippie, new-age, conspiracy-theorist feminist podcast. It might be the very anti-thesis of our forum, now that I think about it, so perhaps some of you will run away screaming. Still, lot's of interesting interviews, and I feel it's the kind of anti-thesis that, unlike the more mainstream / elite forms of feminism, could lead to a synthesis.
Transparency Podcast - Trans dudes discussing the trans-mania. I especially recommend the National Transgender Health Summit series.
EveryBodyShook - A documentary series about the totally schizo, not at all actually happening as we speak, depopulation conspiracy theory.
Ok then that has nothing to do with the origin of the whole argument, which was:
Like I said there is no such truce at the moment, and according to what you're saying now, one is not even being offered, so I reject this entire line of argument.
Have you? Like I said you're constantly reframing what I said to make an answer more convenient for you, rather than answering what I already said. I don't see you saying "yes, let us abolish the system where medicine is only available through prescription" you're haggling over details like which drug should be more available to whom - precisely what I said I'm not interested in doing.
As long as you're in favor of there being a system where authority is used as a safeguard for people using medicine, I want that authority to safeguard a segment of the public that is vulnerable, impressionable, and currently neglected.
My talents were never in academic pursuits, so my time is far better spent financially supporting doctors and scientists who are writing papers about, and critiquing the utter state of transgender care. You may have heard of a certain doctor Hillary Cass recently, and like her there are many others. As far as I can tell anyone whoever bothered doing a systemic review of the state of evidence came to a similar conclusion as she did, including a review commissioned by WPATH itself, which they promptly decided to bury.
They can claim what they want, and I can expose their lies. This is my right as a member of the public.
I do not grant that. The child is too impressionable and ignorant to make an informed decision on the subject, and from personal experience, most parents are intimidated to agree by activist doctors, abusing their authority. This is why I am in favor of taking that authority away from them.
Cool, but I'm not worried about myself, or my family. As the saying goes "we live in a society". You just put on a long spiel about how it's completely fine and nothing new for trans advocates to go around changing the culture, including the opinion of judges. This is what I am doing as well, so please do not stand in my way, as you said you won't stand in case of JWs and trans advocates.
I agree. From ovariotomies, lobotomies, apotemnophilia, to giving the human growth hormone to short boys / synthetic estrogen to tall girls in order to "normalize" their height, you're right that scandals like this aren't new, but they are pretty rare, and should be treated as the aberration that they are.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Especially when it comes to doctors, now that I think about it. They hold a position of trust from the public, so they have an extra duty to make sure their work is done in service of their patients, rather than their sensibilities, or their fanciful ideologies. This is what the WPATH practitioners are in blatant disregard of, they get together at their conferences, and mock the very idea of their approach being wrong, or anyone who brings substantial criticism against them. They refuse debate, and use their political connections to shut down conversations. I don't care if this all comes from "good intentions", the "good intentions" only make the whole thing more horrifying.
Again, nothing I said relies on consequentialism.
More options
Context Copy link