Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Jury Finds Doctors Liable for Malpractice in Gender Surgery Lawsuit

A jury awarded $2 million in damages to a 22-year-woman who underwent breast removal surgery as a teenager.
Click to expand...

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.—A jury on Jan. 30 found a psychologist and surgeon liable for malpractice after they supported and performed breast removal surgery on a 16-year-old girl who at the time identified as transgender.

Fox Varian, now 22 and no longer identifying as transgender, was awarded $2 million in damages, with $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, and another $400,000 for future medical expenses.

The jury found that in many respects the surgeon and psychologist had skipped important steps when evaluating whether she should go forward with the surgery and had not adequately communicated with each other. These missteps were a “departure from the standard of care,” they decided.
Click to expand...
 
Emily's Cat said:
It would be really refreshing if just once in a while you would call out the mean-spirited bullying that males with transgender identities engage in toward females. Or even call out the mean-spirited bullying that trans privilege supporters on this very site engage in toward those of us who recognize that males are not females, and that allowing males to have legal access to female spaces is a massive problem for females.

At some point, we just get entirely fed the ◊◊◊◊ up with constantly being called bigots and transphobes and nazis for simply wanting to exclude males from our sports, and from spaces where we're naked or vulnerable.

Why do you never seem to view *that* behavior as bigoted and vile?
Click to expand...

I just saw the most recent example and composed this response, which I'm posting here to save the mods the trouble of moving it here (whilst, of course, leaving the posts that prompted it untouched).

wareyin said:
I brought up your anti-trans rhetoric because you specifically asked for examples of your right-wing views.
Click to expand...

Gender criticism is not anti-trans. We have every sympathy for people with gender dysphoria, and accept without reservation that they should not be discriminated against, and that every reasonable accommodation should be made for them. We just disagree that the abolition of female only spaces, services and sports leagues is a reasonable accommodation.

Gender criticism is not right wing. There are many, many people on the left who put the feelings and needs of all females (especially those who have been the victims of male sexual abuse and harassment) ahead of the feelings and needs of a tiny percentage of males.
 
Last edited:
Louden Wilde said:
Re: nomenclature. I did a pubmed search and see plenty of uses of "transwomen" as well "trans-identified individuals".
Click to expand...

Bbbbut, y'aint never gonna find anyone referring to people as 'trans-identified' in medical papers and documents. ;)


*** waiting for Thermal's inevitable nit-pick *** :rolleyes:

Louden Wilde said:
I agree the former enabled the "trans is an adjective just like tall, black (etc)" gambit by activists.
Click to expand...
Yup, it sure did

Louden Wilde said:
In the clinical settings, folks have become more sensitive in the last few decades as to what might potentially offend patients or patient parents/caretakers - perhaps to an extent that obscures the condition/what's actually being discussed. We moved from "mentally retarded" to "intellectual disability" to "intellectual differences"; disabled to "differently abled (I also see "specially abled" in pubmed). In the "denial of what they are" realm, there's "MSM" - men who have sex with men - which was developed so public health folks could track sexual behaviors/disease spread in guys who don't consider themselves gay (or bi).

As far as fostering dialogue- it seems we're at an impasse with terms - and pretty much everything else. Towards the end of the Biden admin, there were Democrats suggesting that maybe males shouldn't be in girls/women sports, but they've been castigated.
Click to expand...
Indeed... all part of the bull-◊◊◊◊ Political Correctness invasion - people aren't short, they're "vertically challenged", or they're not deaf, they're "hard of hearing", or they're not blind, they're "visually impaired".

Complete bollocks - all of it.
 
Trausti said:
Jury Finds Doctors Liable for Malpractice in Gender Surgery Lawsuit
Click to expand...
There need to be a lot more of these sorts of cases to really put the frighteners on the captured quacks who are butchering these victims, and make them realized there might be consequences for their malfeasance.

The only problem is that these situations are so traumatic for detransitioners that they often don't want to do anything other than try to just get on with their lives. It takes a truckload of courage and commitment to stand up and be counted, especially when you know the lawyers for these quacks are going to do everything they can to blame, humiliate and embarrass you.

If I recall correctly, this young woman was interviewed on the street by "Billboard Chris". She came up to him in the street and told her story.

Brainster said:
Trial lawyers and malpractice insurers will put a stop to a lot of the nonsense involving minors.
Click to expand...

Oh, I hope so.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
It takes a truckload of courage and commitment to stand up and be counted, especially when you know the lawyers for these quacks are going to do everything they can to blame, humiliate and embarrass you.
Click to expand...
As are all the members of the trans community who welcomed and celebrated your entry into the fold and encouraged you to become your authentic self and taught you what to say to your endocrinologist to get your life-saving medication and told you to abandon your transphobic family, move to the city and live on the street in a tent if necessary, because you have them, your new loving rainbow family.

Just don't ever say any of it was a mistake or you're persona non grata. Even random conflicted blokes on discussion forums will say that taking bad advice is something of a theme with you.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not true. They were clearly defined. The TRAs made clear definitions unclear, on purpose, in order to create loopholes that did not previously exist. And they can do it again with whatever words you choose, as long as they have power.

This fight has always been about goals, and who has the power to achieve their goals. It has never, ever been about definitions or ambiguity or any other semantic quibble you might have.
Click to expand...
I disagree, If you can create a loophole, then it already existed it was just that no one had noticed it yet.

If gender terms hadn't been used as sex terms in the law and on sports team labels and toilets etc then I don't think this tra stuff would be happening, or at the very least it would be much harder and lots of laughing would ensue.

offtopic:
John Freestone said:
As a short man, 5'6", I also find the dishes do my back in, and you've made me wonder if a low step of some kind might help.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
As a 6'4" tall man, I have to bend over considerably to do dishes, I can't do them with a remotely straight back, which is indeed tiring. Not sure a step would really help you much.
Click to expand...

I'm 5'9" and just ran to my sink to doublecheck and I don't bend at all when doing the dishes, I just put my arms out. I guess it's designed for that sort of height, im in the uk so might be different elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
John Freestone said:
Things like this make me feel bad for giving you a hard time. You seem pretty new to the gender rabbit hole. It's deep and extensive! I'm pretty sure there are thousands of cases like the one you mention. After all, it's been known for decades that the majority of kids who declare they're trans, with 'watchful waiting' instead of affirmation, turn out to be gay. So there's quite a community of self-styled 'straight trans', male and female, in what are in fact gay relationships (with or without bodily interventions). Homophobia is live and kicking in many places. This is one of the disgusting tragedies, that organisations like Stonewall did such sterling work against homophobia, and then pushed transgenderism, which undermines so much of the earlier work. A lot of LGB, of course, distance themselves from or completely reject the validity of the T.

There is also the opposite, straight people identifying into self-styled 'homosexual' roles. Some say that a high proportion of heterosexual TIMs are autogynephiles, where their sexual desire for women either includes a fantasy of themselves as women (many start from transvestism) or the latter takes over their obession completely to the exclusion of actual women. Those in relationships with women may demand that they and their partner are now lesbians (again, with or without bodily interventions).

The females I've read about have a different trajectory, and autoandrophilia seems much less common if it exists at all. Many of the younger females, still in school or college, declare they are gay boys and date boys (who, if they're straight, may just take advantage of the situation, and if they're gay, may or may not care - gender identity is replacing sex in this generation's conception of sexual orientation). It is thought that this may be a reaction to unwanted sexual attention or abuse from heterosexual boys and men, while gay men seem safe and may share some of the same typically feminine interests. A lot of these girls read gay male fiction and begin to identify with the characters.

Sarah Mittermaier has been analysing these kinds of motivations through lurking on the trans online spaces. Worth looking her up on Substack. And then there's lots of info on Genspect and similar sites.
Click to expand...
Thanks i'll have a look.

Re the red: As I've posted here a gazillion times I've never understood how the T is included with the LGB? The LGB are going against what society pressurises people into, but the T want to conform to what society pressurises people into but want to switch roles to conform. How is the LBG and T even together? They're working at cross purposes.
 
smartcooky said:
Some of you may have read about the controversy over San Jose State University having a transgender identifying male in their women's volleyball team. Long story short, much like the Will Thomas affair, players complained and were threatened to keep quiet. Coach was fired for taking a stand, players received death threats and the house of a complainant was shot at. (all the usual TRA responses when people tell them things they don't like).

Well, the USDE's Office for Civil Rights has ripped SJSU a new one, and found they have violated Title IX.

www.ed.gov

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Finds San José State University Violated Title IX

Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found that San José State University (SJSU) violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX).
www.ed.gov www.ed.gov

Here is a shortlist of what SJSU must do...

  • Issue a public statement to the SJSU community that SJSU will adopt biology-based definitions of the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ and acknowledge that the sex of a human – male or female – is unchangeable;
  • Specify that SJSU will follow Title IX by separating sports and intimate facilities based on biological sex;
  • State that SJSU will not delegate its obligation to comply with Title IX to any external association or entity and will not contract with any entity that discriminates on the basis of sex;
  • Restore to individual female athletes all individual athletic records and titles misappropriated by male athletes competing in women’s categories, and issue a personalized letter of apology on behalf of SJSU to each female athlete for allowing her participation in athletics to be marred by sex discrimination; and
  • Send a personalized apology to every woman who played in SJSU’s women’s indoor volleyball (2022–2024), 2023 beach volleyball, and to any woman on a team that forfeited rather than compete against SJSU while a male student was on the roster—expressing sincere regret for placing female athletes in that position.
I hope and expect this will encourage more gender critical people to stand up and be heard about the injustice on this issue.

Beware all those institutions still allowing transgender identifying males to compete in women's sports. Accountability is coming for you...
Click to expand...
Should have called it the females volleyball team and the problem would not have arose.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Arighty. So Thermal completely agrees that males should not be allowed in female intimate spaces... but denies that there has been any sort of organized group of activists who have lobbied both politically and socially in order to try to normalize males using female intimate spaces at their whim. Clearly Stonewall, Mermaids, GLAAD, ACLU, Advocates for Trans Equality, Trevor Project, Stand with Trans, Human Rights Campaign, WPATH, and nny of the other many organizations dedicated to advocating for the expansion of transgender privileges are figments of our collective imagination.
Click to expand...
Are your links all charity's? I looked at the first three and noticed that mermaid exists in the UK as a british charity?
 
smartcooky said:
As are the following individuals (and these are just the ones who warrant their own Wikipedia page....)
Click to expand...
You've got Hbomberguy as part of your list?

Is this just a list of people that acknowledge that the whole trans thing is happening in our societies?
 
p0lka said:
I disagree, If you can create a loophole, then it already existed it was just that no one had noticed it yet.
Click to expand...
Wrong. In this case, if sex and gender are the same then the necessary loophole does not exist, or if it does, its so small that its very difficult to use. Separating sex and gender allows bad actors to create loopholes big enough to drive a White Freightliner through.
 
p0lka said:
I disagree, If you can create a loophole
Click to expand...
There was no loophole. Title IX said sex, not gender. It meant sex, not gender. There was no ambiguity in Title IX, ever.

The Biden administration didn't care.
p0lka said:
If gender terms hadn't been used as sex terms in the law
Click to expand...
Title IX says "sex". Is that a gendered term?

According to the Biden administration, yes. Because any sex term can be turned into a gendered term. Because this was never actually about terminology. This was never about any ambiguity.

Everything you think you know about this is wrong.
 
smartcooky said:
Wrong. In this case, if sex and gender are the same then the necessary loophole does not exist, or if it does, its so small that its very difficult to use. Separating sex and gender allows bad actors to create loopholes big enough to drive a White Freightliner through.
Click to expand...
OK let's look at what you posted,
smartcooky said:
Wrong. In this case, if sex and gender are the same then the necessary loophole does not exist
Click to expand...
I agree.
smartcooky said:
or if it does, its so small that its very difficult to use.
Click to expand...

once again I agree, the loophole would have to exist to be used,

why did you say "wrong" and are disagreeing?
 
Ziggurat said:
There was no loophole. Title IX said sex, not gender. It meant sex, not gender. There was no ambiguity in Title IX, ever.

The Biden administration didn't care.

Title IX says "sex". Is that a gendered term?

According to the Biden administration, yes. Because any sex term can be turned into a gendered term. Because this was never actually about terminology. This was never about any ambiguity.

Everything you think you know about this is wrong.
Click to expand...
Im in the UK and didn't know anything about title ix, so went to the ed.gov website to look at it as I couldn't find the actual ruling, and yeah it's all sex based, definitely. Thanks for that.

Yeah sorry, I take back the idea that the loophole must have existed in the first place sorry, as I then went to the wiki and saw that US governments had introduced the gender = sex concept, thus creating the loophole that did not exist before. Wiki says it was obama, then trump rolled some things back, then biden, according to wiki.

Edit: What might have happened if they hadn't have introduced that concept?.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
This is a really weird argument.
Click to expand...
Word.
Ziggurat said:
Why would you deny that trans rights advocates exist?
Click to expand...
I deny that ones with mysterious powers exist.
Ziggurat said:
Given the recent passage of trans rights legislation, why would you deny that they have influence?
Click to expand...
Because their argument stands alone, without their further input.
Ziggurat said:
Nope. There was no ambiguity in Title IX. The Biden administration decided to make "sex" include gender identity anyway. Do you think that was by accident?
Click to expand...
Nope. I think it was their legal team that realized the can of worms was open, and as i keep saying, the argu.eny has its own legs and extrapolates without our theorized hypnotists.
Ziggurat said:
Nope. The California prison law I linked to had nothing to do with clarifying ambiguity. It was entirely about creating entitlement for trans people.
Click to expand...
No new entitlements were granted that I can see. The policy built off the kind of reasoning we saw in Bostock, that gender discrimination is at its core a form of sex discrimination. Whether it was good or bad is a seperate matter, but California did its typical California thing as I would expect it to do. At the time, public support was overwhelmingly in favor of these provisions.
Ziggurat said:
I never said there was. But straw is all you have, so straw is what you use.
Click to expand...
You and others have said the medical community has capitulated to trans ideology. My argument is they were ahead of the curve and on board before there even was a popular trans movement to even try to influence anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom