• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trans women are not women (Part 8)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stochastic terror machine go brrrrrrrrrrr

‘She Needs to Be Executed’: The Far-Right Is Doxxing School Officials They Think Are ‘Groomers’
On far-right forums, there’s been a significant spike in ultra-violent rhetoric, with users posting threats against specific teachers.

“This stuff isn’t going to change at this point until there’s body bags,” one member wrote. “Straight to the woodchipper for them,” another replied.

“**** a woodchipper,” another wrote in response. “If some teacher did that to my kid, I’m going to go straight to them and literally beat them to an inch of their life.”

But then things escalated. An account called ProudKoreanAmerican clearly felt that posting threats online was just not enough, and posted the physical address of the superintendent of Cataford’s school district, Leslie Torres-Rodriguez, on five separate occasions. The account then called for her execution.

“The superintendent is supporting leftist grooming in her schools. She needs to be executed by our judicial system,” ProudAmericanKorean wrote.

The false allegations have resulted in myriad hostile, vulgar, and threatening emails and phone calls to officials in the Hartford Public Schools District, a spokesperson told VICE News.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jgm3xx/far-right-groomers-doxxing-school-officials



(The address ProudKoreanAmerican posted was a house previously owned by Torres-Rodriguez, according to a review of public records, but she sold it in 2017 and currently lives at a different address.)

Wouldn't be the first time some fascist showed up and threatened some uninvolved family based on out of date information.
 
Last edited:
That actually supports SuburbanTurkey's comment. It shows that a doctor in the UK acting in such a way "flippantly" is being disciplined. I find that reassuring.

The case dates back to 2017 IIRC, which is less than reassuring.

Of course I'd rather it hadn't happened in the first place but there will always be bad medical practitioners.

He was at Gender GP which has been promoted by trans rights activists.

"Trans affirming" health care seems to be asking for puberty blockers and hormone treatment on demand.
 
The case dates back to 2017 IIRC, which is less than reassuring.



He was at Gender GP which has been promoted by trans rights activists.

"Trans affirming" health care seems to be asking for puberty blockers and hormone treatment on demand.

Trans activists have been consistently demanding that NHS improve wait times for years without success. Inadequate resources remains the root problem.
 
Still not understanding what point you are trying to make.

Not all trans rights activists will see what Dr Webberley did as a problem, given that GenderGP is still active and supported by Mermaids, the biggest lobbying group for affirmative trans health care for under 18s.
 
Not all trans rights activists will see what Dr Webberley did as a problem, given that GenderGP is still active and supported by Mermaids, the biggest lobbying group for affirmative trans health care for under 18s.

What's the alternative?
 
Not all trans rights activists will see what Dr Webberley did as a problem, given that GenderGP is still active and supported by Mermaids, the biggest lobbying group for affirmative trans health care for under 18s.

That still leaves me with an "and?" Extremists exist on any issue you can think of, why would you expect trans issues to be different?

This sidebar was about the point that at least in the UK acting "flippantly" regarding trans medical treatments will result in disciplinary action from the relevant body. In other words the cases of medical practitioners being disciplined is demonstrating that trans treatments in the UK are not "flippant" no matter what any extremist on either end of the spectrum may want.
 
Research, evidence based medical treatments and a properly funded health service.

Well yeah, but I mean what's the alternative for regular people? They can't wave the magic wand and make the NHS un-**** itself. Lord knows that they've been complaining about this specific issue for a long time now to no avail.

When good solutions are not available, sometimes the best you can do is recommend the least bad solution.


We're probably going to see such reasoning explode here in the US as half the country is likely going to make abortion outright illegal in the very near future. People needing this care are going to face some hard choices, which may well include using sketchy online pharmacies, doctor shopping abroad, and receiving less than stellar medical care outside of officially sanctioned channels. The return of the back-alley abortion in other words.

I wouldn't categorize people facing these decisions as preferring substandard medicine, rather just making do in a depraved situation beyond their control. The scorn rightly belongs to the ghouls creating these circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that Mermaids are extremists?

Yes and no. As an organisation I know it does good work and helps and supports kids and I support what it does there, however in terms of some of their goals, their stance on medical treatments and political stances yes they are extremists.
 
Yes and no. As an organisation I know it does good work and helps and supports kids and I support what it does there, however in terms of some of their goals, their stance on medical treatments and political stances yes they are extremists.


How can you separate these two aspects? They "help and support kids" into irreversible body-altering medications and surgery. They are not interested in helping children talk through their issues and perhaps decide that transitioning is not for them, they are only interested in pushing every child they come in contact with into social transition, puberty blockers, breast binding, genital tucking, wrong-sex hormones and mutilating surgery.

That's the help and support they offer. That's what you're supporting?
 
The replies to this tweet are an utter joy.

https://twitter.com/PeteJStanton/sta...65417578729475

I had not realised that the man who withdrew his £15,000 sponsorship for the women's cycling race because a man wasn't allowed to compete has they/them pronouns in his Twitter bio. Says it all really.

I love that the race received large donations to make up for the male who pouted and took his ball home!
 
It's probably worth asking why trans care in the NHS is in such shortage that so many patients are relying on such sketchy online clinicians.

Strikes me as a bit of circular reasoning for the system to fail to provide adequate care, then point to people seeking out sub-optimal care as a reason to not provide adequate care.

Trans patients in the UK would not be doctor shopping in weird corners of the internet or abroad if there weren't a systematic failure to provide timely care through the NHS. The absurd wait times to get proper care are well documented.

ETA: The article about the suspension is from 2019. Surely the NHS has made strides to resolve this shortage of qualified doctors since then, right? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Isn't it interesting how those wait times are being driven by the 4000% increase in people self-declaring themselves to be transgender, especially among teens who have had no history of any dysphoria prior to puberty?

It's sort of like finding ourselves with too few psychiatrists when teens on Instagram start self-diagnosing in droves with Dissociative Identity Disorder.
 
All these damn trend chasing lefties!

On the one hand, this graph is useful to your argument precisely because left handedness is not something that's likely to be trend chasing. It's not easy to pretend to be a lefty, and it provides no benefit to do so. So we have an example other than trendiness to explain why measured rates would vary even though the true underlying rate is likely fixed.

But the problem is that your example does not actually discount trendiness as an explanation for any other cases. In particular, just because other causes can produce changes in measured rates doesn't mean that any particular rate isn't changing because of trendiness. Just because left handedness was undercounted then and not overcounted now doesn't mean that other things cannot be overcounted now.

And in regards to transgender, it's actually quite easy to pretend to be transgender. Being transgender *is*, in a very real sense, just pretending. And unlike being left handed, there really is a benefit to doing so. Tiktok, instagram, and other social media platforms have created these weird little online communities where feigned conditions really can give people status, which is why so many people do just that. Just look at the people faking Tourettes, for example. And it doesn't even necessarily have to be people intentionally faking it either. Teenagers are not exactly qualified to self-diagnose psychological conditions, but they try to do it all the time on social media. People can talk themselves into believing they have certain conditions, such as autism or ADHD, or in the case of depression, maybe even actually having those conditions. Young girls in particular seem especially vulnerable to this. Why would transgenderism be any different?

tl;dr: you have presented a possible alternative explanation, but it doesn't actually provide evidence against explanations such as social contagion. Nor can it explain observed phenomena such as clustering, which social contagion can. So... it's really not as compelling as your constant repetition indicates you think it is.
 
That still leaves me with an "and?" Extremists exist on any issue you can think of, why would you expect trans issues to be different?

This sidebar was about the point that at least in the UK acting "flippantly" regarding trans medical treatments will result in disciplinary action from the relevant body. In other words the cases of medical practitioners being disciplined is demonstrating that trans treatments in the UK are not "flippant" no matter what any extremist on either end of the spectrum may want.

I must agree with Darat on this one, at least partially. (Don't be concerned. I'll get to the disagreement soon enough.)

He's right, though. The examples presented show that in the UK, there are at least some standards, and there is at least some enforcement of the standards.

The question is what happens in a "regular" case. Is the screening adequate? I think the answer is that there is a lot of study of this issue and a lot of places have concluded that people are way too quick to decide that someone is really trans and to begin life altering medical treatment.

In the US, there is effectively no impediment to medical transition once someone reaches their 18th birthday, and trans rights activists want it that way. Prior to 18, there is effectively no barrier to medical transition if you have parental consent, and trans rights activists want it that way. In fact, trans rights activists want to also remove the parental consent provision. Various European nations have different levels of barriers in place, but some of them are quite liberal in allowing medical transition.

As a consequence, an awful lot of people have begun medical transition, and there has been, in particular, a huge number of girls who begin changes that cannot be completely reversed. There has also been a huge increase in the number of these transmen who decide that they really were girls all along.

For the people arguing here, what I think would be helpful is if you could tell us what sort of provisions you think ought to be in place. SurburbanTurkey recently opined that by age 16, a person can generally make medical decisions. From the context of the remark, I think it's accurate to say that he would want few if any barriers to a sixteen year old seeking medical transition.

Does that seem wise to anyone else?



We can debate all day long about what exists where, but when some people complain that there isn't enough gatekeeping to prevent hasty decisions that will be regretted, it seems odd to argue that point when your own position is that there should be little or no gatekeeping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom