Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Hercules56 said:
No progress in agreement.
Click to expand...
Elaedith said:
What does agreement have to do with it?
Click to expand...
When this thread first got going, it would've been pretty easy to find someone to argue for New Jersey's stated position that school districts have no obligation to inform parents/guardians about gender affirmative actions taken by the school to facilitate social transition of their children.

These days, no takers. :cry:

(You can swap out NJ for any other state or nation where this controversy remains live, and the point remains the same.)

((Hell, you can probably swap the issue out as well.))
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
We've no way of knowing whether a discussion of NJ's current policy of keeping parents in the dark would be productive and healthy or not, but I thought you'd enjoy the local angle. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
I think.it would, but not with the ideologically entrenched crew of posters here. Pretty sure we could list each contributors positions and the refusal to see things any other way in advance, so let's just say that it already happened on its predictable arc.
 
Thermal said:
Funny how that works in both directions, innit?

The claim put forth is that it does happen, and is self evidently inevitable. I don't find any higher burden on myself to provide negative evidence, other than to point out that if it was happening, it should be observable.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you are the one who said you had evidence, and that that evidence was what you based your position on. So do you have evidence? Or do you not? It's a pretty simple question.
 
Matthew Best said:
Yes, but you are the one who said you had evidence, and that that evidence was what you based your position on. So do you have evidence? Or do you not? It's a pretty simple question.
Click to expand...
*Thermal, glancing impatiently at his watch while standing in the open doorway*

Yes. I'll present it as counter evidence and we can debate the merits after the previously requested evidence for the primary claim is shown. In the meantime, shove your reversal of the burden where the frozen tomato paste dwells.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
*Thermal, glancing impatiently at his watch while standing in the open doorway*

Yes. I'll present it as counter evidence and we can debate the merits after the previously requested evidence for the primary claim is shown. In the meantime, shove your reversal of the burden where the frozen tomato paste dwells.
Click to expand...
I'll take that as a concession that you have no evidence. That's all I was interested in, really. I don't think there's any evidence either way, for the reasons already mentioned, and you have more or less confirmed that.
 
Rolfe said:
The usual hyperbole. They're halting the provision of "gender-affirming care" on the taxpayer's dime, as far as I can see. It seems to be the most reasonable thing in these healthcare provisions. I wish they would do the same here.
Click to expand...
It does go a step further: it removes hormone treatment and "sex change" surgery from mandated health care coverage, meaning that insurance companies will not need to provide that coverage on all plans (note that this doesn't prevent them from providing that coverage if they choose). I think this is also good. My health insurance is already too expensive. I don't want to be paying for elective cosmetic procedures for others.
 
catsmate said:
I see Lady Hale has spoken out about the UKSC judgement.
www.theguardian.com

Court ruling on legal definition of a woman ‘misinterpreted’, Lady Hale says

Speaking at book festival in east Sussex, former supreme court president says reaction to judgment ‘very binary’
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

She would, wouldn't she. Seeing as she's about the only judge who has ever taken the opposite view. She has been reversed, with the politest possible form of extreme prejudice. She needs to get over it.

The woman is batcrap insane, talking about knowing a doctor who says there's no such thing as biological sex and other nonsenses. I understand it's another case of "trans in the family".
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
The usual hyperbole. They're halting the provision of "gender-affirming care" on the taxpayer's dime, as far as I can see. It seems to be the most reasonable thing in these healthcare provisions. I wish they would do the same here.
Click to expand...
Indeed! This headline is totally misleading...

"BREAKING: Republicans pass ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ stripping transgender Americans of health care"

... Transgender Americans will still be entitled to the exact same healthcare as every other American. Care and treatment access for diseases, cancers, illnesses etc are unchanged.
 
Ziggurat said:
It does go a step further: it removes hormone treatment and "sex change" surgery from mandated health care coverage, meaning that insurance companies will not need to provide that coverage on all plans (note that this doesn't prevent them from providing that coverage if they choose). I think this is also good. My health insurance is already too expensive. I don't want to be paying for elective cosmetic procedures for others.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't want the NHS paying for it either. In fact I think it's so harmful that it ought to be prohibited in the same way that amputating healthy legs from sufferers from body dysmorphia syndrome is prohibited. However, absent such a provision, it should be funded by the individual who wants it done.
 
Rolfe said:
She would, wouldn't she. Seeing as she's about the only judge who has ever taken the opposite view. She has been reversed, with the politest possible form of extreme prejudice. She needs to get over it.

The woman is batcrap insane, talking about knowing a doctor who says there's no such thing as biological sex and other nonsenses. I understand it's another case of "trans in the family".
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that is bollocks.

I note the BMA, the professional body for physicians, described the UKSC interpretation of the law as a "hugely disappointing judgment", "biologically nonsensical", "scientifically illiterate" while also stating that the judgement
"has no basis in science or medicine" and also "being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people".

So I rather think the former president of the UKSC has plenty of scientific and medical support for her view.
 
The division of the BMA for junior doctors, who are barely out of their seriously captured universities, and even then we're only talking about half a dozen activists, the rest of them being too busy working to bother with internal politics. Cry harder, you lost.

While you're here, I was wondering if this was one of the dolls you're so keen to protect?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1925383243227881576

And what about the bricks? You just as keen to protect them?
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
With all due respect, that is bollocks.

I note the BMA, the professional body for physicians, described the UKSC interpretation of the law as a "hugely disappointing judgment", "biologically nonsensical", "scientifically illiterate" while also stating that the judgement
"has no basis in science or medicine" and also "being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people".

So I rather think the former president of the UKSC has plenty of scientific and medical support for her view.
Click to expand...
That is not what happened. Participants in one branch of the BMA (the one representing resident doctors) at a conference voted in favor of a motion condemning the judgment. But the BMA as a whole has not yet taken any official position.

And their motion is obvious nonsense. How can a legal statement that when a law says "sex" it refers to biological sex somehow be biologically nonsensical? That's essentially self-contradictory. It is a separate question whether or not this is bad policy or bad law, but to say that "sex" in a law referring to biological sex is somehow biologically nonsensical? Who the ◊◊◊◊ do these people think they are?

They are residents. That means that they are young doctors, just out of medical school, and not too far out of university education. They have very little life experience, very little medical practice experience, and they have been indoctrinated into gender nonsense. Nothing about their motion is based in medicine, nothing about it is based on science. It is entirely based on gender ideology. And you have swallowed it uncritically, assuming that their alleged authority (because it isn't even the actual BMA) is enough to convince.

It is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom