Hot Pink List

The LGBTQ protest thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,484
6,988
113
They were enough to get banned by major sporting bodies. And you are strawman arguing again.
...
Sorry but there aren't. Go read the statements; that athletics organization was explicit that they never had a trans woman competing at any elite level to base their decision on. The closest I have seen is one swimmer who was competitive (but not dominating) cis women. It's a made up crisis to get the suckers rile up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,484
6,988
113
To be fair to Butler, he read somewhere that 98% of people who go on puberty blockers eventually continue with opposite sex hormones.
Therefore he thinks 10 year olds going on puberty blockers are "locking themselves in" to choosing surgery later.

Since he doesn't think a 10 year old can make the decision to have surgery, he is against allowing 10-year olds to go on puberty blockers.

(As I understand it, this is the logic he has been using.)

Of course, that conclusion depends on interpreting that 98% figure as "going on puberty blockers causes kids to get surgery".
I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether or not that is a reasonable conclusion to draw.
Well the other option would be that the medical professionals do a good job of determining whether the person actually has gender dysmorphia and there's no way But would believe that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Valcazar

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
That, is a government (note the .gov address) that is an official peer review journal. Non partisan and completely legit.
Are you actually serious? Did you even read the big box at the top of the page that says "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more about our disclaimer." It's not a journal. It's a database that links to articles and journals and straight up says so.

Did you even look at the source of the article you linked though? First click the DOI link right below the blue "Archives of Sexual Behaviour" banner. It'll take you to the original source, where right at the top it says "Letter to the editor".

This is a letter from a Micheal Biggs, BA., PhD. to the editor of the a journal called Pediatrics , but the letter wasn't accepted by the journal so it was posted online. He's a sociologist, not a medical doctor or a psychiatrist or an endocrinologist. He has zero valid qualifications and what you linked is not his study but his unqualified, unreviewed remarks on another study. And given that you don't understand the difference between a study, a journal, an archive, a database, and a website, you're not qualified to evaluate it.

I know exactly what happened. You googled what you wanted to prove (immediate confirmation bias), find a link that backed you up, any immediately posted it and now you're stuck looking foolish and trying to defend your rash behavior in not actually looking into what you found.

You prove over and over and over that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but that you don't even fully read or look into things. Do you know how dangerous it is to push opinions based on such poor research? We're talking about children's lives here. Do you not care about that? You care so little you can't even read full sentences or investigate the sources of things you find? Are their lives worth so little effort?

Jesus Christ, have some fucking empathy and take at least 3 minutes to fully read things before you condemn children to half-formed, ill-advised opinions.
 
Last edited:

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,673
6,407
113
Are you actually serious? Did you even read the big box at the top of the page that says "As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more about our disclaimer." It's not a journal. It's a database that links to articles and journals and straight up says so.

Did you even look at the source of the article you linked though? First click the DOI link right below the blue "Archives of Sexual Behaviour" banner. It'll take you to the original source, where right at the top it says "Letter to the editor".

This is a letter from a Micheal Biggs, BA., PhD. to the editor of the a journal called Pediatrics , but the letter wasn't accepted by the journal so it was posted online. He's a sociologist, not a medical doctor or a psychiatrist or an endocrinologist. He has zero valid qualifications and what you linked is not his study but his unqualified, unreviewed remarks on another study. And given that you don't understand the difference between a study, a journal, an archive, a database, and a website, you're not qualified to evaluate it.

I know exactly what happened. You googled what you wanted to prove (immediate confirmation bias), find a link that backed you up, any immediately posted it and now you're stuck looking foolish and trying to defend your rash behavior in not actually looking into what you found.

You prove over and over and over that you not only don't know what you're talking about, but that you don't even fully read or look into things. Do you know how dangerous it is to push opinions based on such poor research? We're talking about children's lives here. Do you not care about that? You care so little you can't even read full sentences or investigate the sources of things you find? Are their lives worth so little effort?

Jesus Christ, have some fucking empathy and take at least 3 minutes to fully read things before you condemn children to half-formed, ill-advised opinions.
What he did was critique the methodology. It was included because they felt its valid enough to publish. Ate you stating you think this govt website published false information?

The simple premise is that the studies are flawed due to a lack of proper method used. He explanation clearly shows that.

My empathy is for long term proper treatment.
 
Last edited:

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
What he did was critique the methodology.
He did more than that. And different fields have different methodologies.

It was included because they felt its valid enough to publish. Ate you stating you think this govt website published false information?
So you're saying the websites own disclaimer is wrong? You can't really be this obtuse. Seriously?

Besides, it was an open letter. Meaning the journal rejected it and the author took it upon themselves to publish it. No one, except the author, felt it was valid enough to publish or it would have been included in Pediatrics.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,673
6,407
113
He did more than that. And different fields have different methodologies.



So you're saying the websites own disclaimer is wrong? You can't really be this obtuse. Seriously?

Besides, it was an open letter. Meaning the journal rejected it and the author took it upon themselves to publish it. No one, except the author, felt it was valid enough to publish or it would have been included in Pediatrics.
The US govt did. Disclaimers are nice but publishing is stating you think the article makes valid points. Unless you think the US govt would publish false medical information?
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,673
6,407
113

Here is a new warning about side effects including sterilization. From the FDA. Which btw HAS NOT approved puberty blockers for transgender minors.

Basically doctors are doing the same thing they did with Ivermactin.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,673
6,407
113

This one is from the British NHS. They are awaiting clinical trials. Like any other drug. Beyond that they are banning except "exceptional" circumstances.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,673
6,407
113
Basically Dinklemouse you can't claim proper studies were done when they obviously weren't presented either to the FDA or NHS for approval for widespread use. Its buyer beware.

And in Britain until proper studies(one starting next year there, one underway in Canada now) are done they won't recommend it.

Game set match.
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
The US govt did. Disclaimers are nice but publishing is stating you think the article makes valid points. Unless you think the US govt would publish false medical information?
You're serious? The US government put a disclaimer saying "we didn't publish this, we're merely linking to it, the fact that we've linked to it doesn't mean we think it's true or correct", and you're seriously going to say that the fact that they've linked to it does indeed mean it's true???

You're not trolling? You legitimately believe that? Why do you think the US Government put that disclaimer if it wasn't true? I'm speechless here. Tell me you're just been an asshat troll and don't legit believe that that, because if you legit believe that then I don't even know how you matriculated from elementary school.
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
Game set match.
You literally don't know the difference between a study and an open letter, and literally dismiss disclaimers in big boxes on pages you link to. You cannot be trusted to understand anything you find.

If anyone depends on you for anything, may God have mercy on their soul.

Game set match? You're barely drooling on your bib sitting on the sidelines of a ping pong tournament, your definitely not winning any tennis matches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,673
6,407
113
You're serious? The US government put a disclaimer saying "we didn't publish this, we're merely linking to it, the fact that we've linked to it doesn't mean we think it's true or correct", and you're seriously going to say that the fact that they've linked to it does indeed mean it's true???

You're not trolling? You legitimately believe that? Why do you think the US Government put that disclaimer if it wasn't true? I'm speechless here. Tell me you're just been an asshat troll and don't legit believe that that, because if you legit believe that then I don't even know how you matriculated from elementary school.
My above links continue to hurt your claims of legitimacy in studies. Two of the largest approval bodies haven't approved them.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Frankfooter

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,408
1,703
113
My above links continue to hurt your claims of legitimacy in studies. Two of the largest approval bodies haven't approved them.
Your continued defiance of a disclaimer on a website thaslt you reject out of hand and your insistence that an "open letter" is a "published study" continue to hurt you claims of anything you post actually saying what you think it does.

Nothing you have posted up to now has actually said what you said it did or been where you claimed it was. I'm not wasting any more time looking into them to explain to you to try and educate you when you're so dug in you can't even admit that a disclaimer exists for as reason.

As I said, God help anyone that depends on you to make decisions for them. Talk to the ether, because I'm not wasting anymore time talking to someone who literally can't admit they didn't read a disclaimer or didn't read an entire sentence.

So you have any idea how wrong and foolish and idiotic you look? And you claim "game set match"? This isn't a game. It's people's lives, and you can't even admit a disclaimer exists.

Get help, dude. Seriously.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
32,673
6,407
113
Your continued defiance of a disclaimer on a website thaslt you reject out of hand and your insistence that an "open letter" is a "published study" continue to hurt you claims of anything you post actually saying what you think it does.

Nothing you have posted up to now has actually said what you said it did or been where you claimed it was. I'm not wasting any more time looking into them to explain to you to try and educate you when you're so dug in you can't even admit that a disclaimer exists for as reason.

As I said, God help anyone that depends on you to make decisions for them. Talk to the ether, because I'm not wasting anymore time talking to someone who literally can't admit they didn't read a disclaimer or didn't read an entire sentence.

So you have any idea how wrong and foolish and idiotic you look? And you claim "game set match"? This isn't a game. It's people's lives, and you can't even admit a disclaimer exists.

Get help, dude. Seriously.
Lol. Run rabbit run. The FDA haven't approved it for use with Transgender kids. The British NHS banned their use until a proper study is complete. Verify it with your own links.

No studies to approve the drug have been done and presented for approvals.

I hope they get them soon. That they come out as safe. But until they do giving them to kids is negligent.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
103,487
29,762
113
Lol. Run rabbit run. The FDA haven't approved it for use with Transgender kids. The British NHS banned their use until a proper study is complete. Verify it with your own links.

No studies to approve the drug have been done and presented for approvals.

I hope they get them soon. That they come out as safe. But until they do giving them to kids is negligent.
You really don't understand how badly you lost this argument, do you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Toronto Escorts