ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
Removing obstacles from a path is not "putting them on a path". Do you object to roads, because they put criminals on the path towards bank robbery?
It sounds like arguing semantics to me. If one hand the public health administration is removing obstacles, and on the other the education system is telling kids they might be "born in the wrong body" if they don't fit into a given mold, and than hide the information about the child's transition from parents, that sounds like it all adds up to putting children on a path to transition.
Which "mutilations" had the minimum age requirements changed? What are the new requirements?
The following recommendations are made regarding the requirements for gender affirming medical and surgical treatment:
(...)
F. The adolescent has reached Tanner 2 stage of puberty for pubertal suppression.
G. The adolescent is the following age for each treatment:
- 14 years and above for hormone treatment (estrogens or androgens), unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 15 years and above for chest masculinization; unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 16 years and above for breast augmentation, facial surgery (including rhinoplasty, tracheal shave, and genioplasty) as part of gender affirming treatment; unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 17 and above for metoidioplasty, orchidectomy, vaginoplasty, and hysterectomy and fronto-orbital remodeling as part of gender affirming treatment unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame.
- 18 years or above for phalloplasty, unless there are significant, compelling reasons to take an individualized approach, considering the factors unique to the adolescent treatment frame"
H. The adolescent had at least 12 months of gender affirming hormone therapy, or longer if required to achieve the desired surgical result for gender-affirming procedures including, Breast augmentation, Orchiectomy, Vaginoplasty, Hysterectomy, Phalloplasty metoidioplasty and facial surgery as part of gender affirming treatment unless hormone therapy is either not desired or is medically contraindicated.
6.12.f- The adolescent has reached Tanner stage 2 of puberty for pubertal suppression to be initiated.
6.12.g- The adolescent had at least 12 months of gender-affirming hormone therapy or longer, if required, to achieve the desired surgical result for gender-affirming procedures, including breast augmentation, orchiectomy, vaginoplasty, hysterectomy, phalloplasty, metoidioplasty, and facial surgery as part of gender-affirming treatment unless hormone therapy is either not desired or is medically contraindicated.
There's also points A-E, but everything about minimum ages has been removed.
Edit: I think they mention the 18 years for phalloplasty when they elaborate on the chapter.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
Is there a way to crawl profiles for pronouns? Just ran into a therapists saying she noticed it as a wider trend in her profession
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
Is it not charitable anymore to honestly state your opinion on the analogy a user made
Never has been?
I might honestly think a lot of things people post here are absolutely retarded, but I am not allowed to say that. Also note that the ban went to the parent comment, and this is just a warning to not make the conversation worse.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
I can buy that cis allies were the majority of participants just due to relative sizes of each population, but if you're telling me that trans people were sitting it out, I'll need something tangible. Like, if I go to some trans subreddits and look up what they were saying about Gina Carrano's bip/bap/bop joke, do you think the prevailing sentiment is going to be "who cares"?
I'll also need a definition of "actual trans person" that is accepted by the trans community itself. If you're angling for limiting them to trans-meds, that is already dismissed as bigotry by the trans community itself.
My impression is that Last Week Tonight is relevant because it is the Schelling point for a certain type of pro-establishment left person to know what the current thing is.
I agree with that, I'm just not sure if I'd grant that it's satire or comedy.
Edit: Hold on, I'd like to amend that. I don't know if you can be "relevant" and "preaching to the choir". Sure, the choir in this case is pretty massive, but it's still people who have 100% bought into the narrative you're putting forward. To put it another way John Oliver, feels about as relevant as Matt Walsh.
Every once in a while the Cathedral still manages to concoct something that feels like everyone has to keep up with - "Don't Look Up", "Get Out"..., ok I'm already coming up short, and the latter is already quite dated, and indeed my point is that these instances seem to come up a lot less frequently. More like dying twitches of something, than a real cultural force.
Two years ago, AOC didn't have pronouns on her Instagram profile, and when called out on it by rabid wokeists, she quickly apologized and put them in. It will be interesting to see if she will make a similar about-face here or if the pronouns are gone for good.
If she took them down, she's probably prepared to tell anyone calling her out to pound sand. But I don't think it will even be necessary, it's really starting to feel like this election result knocked the wind out of the Blues.... which I don't quite understand, it wasn't really a landslide so I don't see what warrants a repudiation of their old strategy, Trump didn't manage to take away power from them in his first term, so I don't see a reason why they should fear that this time around, and yet it seems like they feel the need to fall in line somehow.
I'm basically a single-issue voter on this issue of identity.
Fair enough, there are issues that move me this way too. But I think it's important to recognize there are valid reasons why either side won't drop everything to get your support. It's a very limited set of circumstances where a one-issue voter gets to exercise influence.
This wing can actually win primaries/elections in very left-leaning areas; for example, they are going to be running San Francisco as of the recent election
I don't think I heard of this. Who won, and what are they planning to do for meritocracy?
On the other hand, the anti-hereditarian meritocrats on the Republican party, like Ramaswamy, seem to get slaughtered in primaries.
And then they get appointed to high positions by people who win them... what's the problem?
I'll give a line: better for the country than the median citizen in some measure combining ability to assimilate and ability to contribute.
I don't think it's the ability to assimilate that's the problem, because that's actually pretty high for most people. The problem is that there is next to no pressure to assimilate anymore, the very idea of putting such pressure is seen as deplorable, and higher immigration will necessarily lower that pressure even more.
Given how dominant US culture and values are globally, it shouldn't be very hard to find a huge number of people making this cut.
It would still imply mass deportations, wouldn't it?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
9d ago
So he's scandalous and unqualified? Again, why is everyone losing their shit?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
I have to say that the thought of letting Kamala have her win being the more prudent choice long-term did occur to me.
Really? "Fail to support" transition, or "try to block their kid from accessing the relevant medical treatments"?
Without doubt, the former. There's a high profile case of a sex-trafficked teenager that the authorities refused to release to her grandparents, because they used her birth name, which resulted in her being sex-trafficked again.
This is without going into the question of whether there are any relevant medical treatments to begin with, or if it's just glorified cosmetic surgery/intervention.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
There is written record of the Secretary for Health demanding that the WPATH removes minimum age requirements from their Standards of Care so that the Biden administration can better pursue their goals related to trans issues. WPATH did comply, in violation of their own procedures of how the SOC is supposed to be determined.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
If we were talking about media broadly, I'd agree, but I think the broadest category that can be used fairly for the purposes of this conversation is "satirical publications". Is the any cathedral satire that matters at this point?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
Even the trans community has been somewhat bothered by the "pronouns in bio/email" stuff,
So howcome they did absolutely nothing about it for all these years? Why did they participate in dogpiles on anyone who did voice their concern (including the occasional trans person, funnily enough)?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
The bigger issue is that the barrier to entry is so low publishing online now that theonion.com doesn't hold much value.
So why did the Babylon Bee manage to overtake them in terms of relevancy?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
Well, like I said, I don't know enough about any of these people to even make a vibes-based guess as to whether you or I am right, but if nothing else the grudge mechanics you're proposing are complicated, and what I put forward is simple.
Also, I think you're misunderstanding my position. "Guys can beat the shit out of each other, and drink a beer together the following evening" isn't about "tough publicly, cordial privately" (or vice versa as you say later). When guys fight, it's a real fight. It's just that afterwards they can still be friends / work together, and arguably the fight helps to facilitate that to begin with.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
It might have happened to intra-party disputes between different factions afterwards, but it's definitely not the modal outcome when dealing with Trump.
Well, we are talking about intra-party disputes, that leaves people in the position where after settling who's top dog, they still have to deal with the fact that they're on the same team. Also didn't Vance was oppose him originally and now he's his VP?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
As a non-American I don't feel very confident in my impression of these intra-party struggles for power, but somehow the way you talk about it feels off. You don't feel like "guys can beat the shit out of each other, and drink a beer together the following evening" applies here?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
I think the Democrats unleashed the most massive wave of bot and shill astroturfing that they ever have before onto Reddit in the last year or so.
I swear even we got hit with splash damage on this one. I even got a response to that post telling me how I'm wrong and how all the responder's friends are posting coconut memes, which he promptly deleted possibly realizing it made even less sense in the context of the conversation than to comment I was complaining about.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
10d ago
That was never an issue until they started cracking down on non-progressive subs. In my opinion these sort of structural "it was inevitable" explanations tend to be wrong.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
Can someone explain to me why is everyone freaking out about this guy? I pick up a fair amount of American politics by osmosis in places like this, and the name does sound familiar, but I have no idea why everybody is losing their damn mind.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
I'm actually a big fan of Tulsi after seeing her several times on Rogan
Interesting, I kind of had the opposite experience. I liked her as along as I only saw her in clips or short interviews, but on Rogan she came off as pandering a lot.
Not enough to turn me off from her, but I have to say I grew cautious.
if I believed the ideals side was going to win, I would immediately become a die-hard Trump supporter.
That's interesting. So what are the things you love about Trump so much that would make you a die-hard supporter, if his (or the Republicans') stance on immigration wasn't an issue?
I believe that if you actually hold the ideals-based notion of identity, then the Matt Yglesias/Noah Smith-wing of the Democratic party is the right political home for you.
A single tweet / substack in the wake of a lost election doesn't make for a good argument that an ideals-based identity person belongs in that wing. Particularly when one of these is written by mr. "I want wrong right-wing ideas to be discredited, while wrong left-wing ideas gain power".
I also don't understand why Trump(ist)'s stance on immigration is enough to turn you off from otherwise die-hard support, but you are apparently able to tolerate the Democrat's constant abuse of the very notion of meritocracy.
I always thought that support for legal, skilled immigration was the best litmus test for this divide---if you are on the ideals side, then it is a no-brainer win-win and if you're on the blood-and-soil side, then it is very dangerous.
I don't think it's dangerous (let alone very), I even agree it's a clear win, given the benefits and the small schale of that particular form of immigration, but if you can't think of literally any risk or downside, I'd say you lack imagination.
That aside, I'd say most people are skeptical of skilled immigration, because they see it as a foot-in-the door for mass immigration (no one said how high the skills have to be to count as "skilled").
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11d ago
No, and making it so is likely to result in a wave of exit from banks and into cash-stuffed mattresses.
It's standard procedure in Europe. It actually saved me money when someone managed to clone my wife's card.
You would reject any procedure they have and any amount of work they do that ostensibly furthers that procedure in non-political cases as just covering it up.
The stated procedure they have doesn't enter the picture here, so I'm not even rejecting it. I'm saying they'll try to come up with any excuse to remove that photo.
I expect someone who's seeking the truth to attempt to falsify their belief first, especially if they're well aware the test they proposed is onerous. What you're doing, on the other hand, is the equivalent of a flat earther who smugly offers their interlocutor to go to space and see for themselves.
What are you talking about? I'm offering to do it myself, I just don't want to go through the process you describe as onerous yourself, if it will be met with an after-the-fact justification, and a refusal to change one's mind.
I'm putting the onus on you because I believe my case is more plausible
I'm not talking about the onus of going through the work, I'm talking about the accusation that I'm not willing to change my mind. I'm the one that put forward a test, you and sarker are coming up with excuses for why it won't necessary prove anything, if it comes out the way I predict.
When you hear hooves, you think horses, not zebras
And by that logic I think that an organization that doesn't have a healthy balance of opinion in positions of influence will use their rules in a biased way.
and if you're convinced a malicious agent has replaced your random sample with 100% zebras
Who told you the sample was ever random?
Originally you said it doesn't happen, and the reason why authorities do it, is because the child is denied medical care. At the very least I'd expect you acknowledge that it happens sometimes given the evidence. The reason this was such a big story was it's particularly egregious nature (the double sex-trafficking part), but there were other stories of custody disputes based on nothing more than pronouns / identity affirmation. It was almost enshrined in law in California but for a veto.
This is false. Anybody that made a comprehensive review of evidence came to the conclusion that the evidence is of poor quality. This includes WPATH, which commissioned several systematic reviews, and refused to publish them when the evidence didn't say what they wanted to say it.
More options
Context Copy link