The costs of trans visibility

lol, no one is a bigger ideologue than the online bigots who assert that they know more about biological reality than the actual medical/psychological community.

It’s insulting that people like you believe that you have some right to control others medical decisions. It’s insulting that you believe this is a big business/money grab and never provide any proof when repeatedly asked. It is insulting that you repeatedly reject any care not based on first determining if there is a mental illness component It is insulting that your plan is to follow the lead of universal health care countries who have banned certain procedures as your only explanation for an action plan. It’s insulting that you use “we” when discussing an American issue. And your trans jokes you pepper in every so often are insulting too.

It is most insulting that you think you should speak on an issue affecting 12,000 American teens and recommend criminalizing the acts of people attempting to help them resolve their issues based on what Fox News tells you to think about it.

I suggest you read my post again as that's not what I said.

These numbers are from one of the articles you linked and relied on to make your counter arguments.

Then how come online bigots like Matt Walsh can make several of them walk face first into his not-very-subtle or particularly intelligent traps?

So then, explain your solution for an on going policy and treatment plan for the 12;000 teens receiving medical treatment with a gender dysphoria diagnosis?

Sure, the professional ideologues at NASA will tell you the Earth is round, but that's because they've rejected astronomical reality in favor of subjectivism.

Because he's a sophist who trades in rhetoric and cheap "gotchas" while the actual experts who know what they're talking about are actually trained in evidence-based medicine. Why doesn't Walsh try publishing his takes in a professional journal?

The first comment makes more sense now that the second one explains your mindset. Blows up?? LOL. He typically very politely points out errors. It might be a little jarring to you since he's the only one who does it semi-regularly, but "blows up about it every time he thinks someone uses the wrong pronouns for anyone" is a pretty wild assertion.

There's a whole lot of declarations in that post I've not seen any evidence for. But I'd be fine with a study to see if there's any truth to them.

Exactly. And yes, I guess that's not exactly what you're suggesting, Elrazor, but then what are you suggesting? There has been no data that I've seen that "gender affirming medical professionals in America were not more interested in ideology than medicine", so why should politicians and legislators be passing far-reaching bans rather than making good faith efforts to get more information?

Right, it's a single study so I wouldn't present those numbers as gospel. But insurance figures seem like a pretty good indicator that the number isn't massive. For example, if someone had evidence to show the actual numbers were 2-3x higher, my conclusion would be the same, and I'd be surprised if out of pocket procedures were much more than a handful.

presumably its same reason you'd want politicians to make any decision in any field

being that you can vote them out

I guess you didn't notice that coordi was the one who used the terminology "blows up" in the post I was replying to?

I don't know why he thought what I was describing would be called a blow up, but you'd have to ask him about that. No, no one has ever "blown up" at me about using the wrong pronouns, but that's not what I or anyone else had been asserting.

You think scientists have definitions of what a woman is that's rooted in science? Is that your argument?

I think scientists know more about biology than people like Matt Walsh who make yootoobes for halfwit incels.

I mean, you repurposed the verbiage to call someone out in a very pointed and specific way. Maybe that points to you feeling that you are 'blown up' at. In Uke's defense for what may or may not be 'blowing up' it's understandable that someone who is impassioned about something (as Uke seems to be) gets frustrated at some % of this thread antagonizing them on purpose. The best of that end are people who refuse to change for anything, big or small and the worst end are just not great people. People who want to make other people feel bad, or need to feel right even at others' expense. It's not a very fun crowd to engage with

There are many instances in this thread of people asserting that people 'blow up' to the point that it invalidates other forms of activism taking place in regards to trans people. Rickroll has stated that he considers most of Trans activism to be on the side of overbearing in terms of expected behavioral shifts

EDIT: Shouldn't have said there are many, I'm not tuned enough into this thread. If you scroll up and read Rickrolls piece you'll see that people do think that and I don't think it's an uncommon view to hold

Already said in some form but while (still) on the topic of pronouns, maybe if this is such a point of contention for you, you don't really care about the well being of Trans people. Changing behavior is hard, but if you're so staunchly opposed to something that shouldn't matter that much (to the person changing their behavior, I'm sure pronouns and identity have a lot more on avg importance to the people requesting), but if the goal is to create a better world for those involved, this seems like a relatively easy and simple issue to tackle. You can still think you're right and yada yada, just be a bit nicer so we can get to all the juicy stuff like 'indoctrination'

LOL dude, WTF? Why would I care who said it first? You could have simply replied to him with "I don't know anyone that blows up either, which is why I didn't say that", or "He doesn't blow up (and I never used that term), but Uke mentions it every time he thinks someone uses the wrong pronouns for anyone". But instead, you directly replied to him with:

[QUOTE=chillrob]Really? Uke blows up about it every time he thinks someone uses the wrong pronouns for anyone. And there are others like him all over the place.[/QUOTE]
It's OK if you didn't word things the way you meant, but don't put it on me when I respond to what you actually said.

Is it your claim that they have a definition of woman rooted in science?

Can you answer that?

Because I could understand what he meant. I used coordi's definition of blowing up and he didn't disagree when I said that uke fit it. You're the one butting into the conversation because you disagree with his definition of blowing up, and somehow blaming me for it. 😵

LOL, OK then. Let me know in the future what public forum conversations I'm allowed to join and which ones I need to stay out of, and when you mean what you say and when you mean something completely different.

Such a clever edit note, because this is just like taking hyperbole literally. 🙄

You're welcome to add your opinions.

But if you're coming in just to dispute the usage of an idiom, at least direct your criticism to the person who used the idiom first.

Your refusal to answer a simple question followed by insults tactic is plain for everyone to see.

I've made my position clear and your putting words in my mouth and pretending you can't understand basic English is trolling.

We have the ability to rewind the tape here. You claimed that experts practice evidence based medicine. Walsh claims they don't know what a woman is. I asked if it was your claim that the experts have evidence for a what a woman is. That is an absolutely completely reasonable question given your post.

My claim was:

Hope that helps. Sound the words out carefully and I think you'll get it.