All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[thwhtGuardian]

It’s not super harmful. But like practically all medication it does have side effects….it can decrease bone density for example. Just Google “side effects of puberty blockers” and you’ll see for yourself.

I’d typify UK decision as medical professionals wanting to be slightly surer than they are now that they are using the medication only in appropriate cases, that they (medical professionals) may have used them a tad too quickly in the past. There is no blanket ban on using them.

The relationship between the NHS and the government is complex (at the end of the day the government funds the NHS, so does have influence, of course). But there’s no credible evidence I’ve seen to suggest Government ministers get involved in this sort of medical decision.

If any minister did that, as soon as the evidence appeared in the media…then he (or she) would be forced to resign very quickly.

See that's what I liked least about the issue, it kept saying it was "routinely" prescribed, which does play into that fear that it's prescribed by doctors like you or I give out candy to trick or treaters and yet it went on to say that only 100 NHS patients were currently taking the medication...and even then, how many of those were under 16? How many began taking them before they were 16? What was the average time on the medication for those prescribed? How many visits did the patients have to make before being prescribed the medication?

Curiously, that kind of information wasn't released.

But some how, it's routine.

[Catlady in training]

Outrage as Saudi Arabia picked to head women's rights forum.

UN proves themselves to be a joke on a regular basis, but this is a new low.

[Catlady in training]

It’s not super harmful. But like practically all medication it does have side effects….it can decrease bone density for example. Just Google “side effects of puberty blockers” and you’ll see for yourself.

I’d typify UK decision as medical professionals wanting to be slightly surer than they are now that they are using the medication only in appropriate cases, that they (medical professionals) may have used them a tad too quickly in the past. There is no blanket ban on using them.

The relationship between the NHS and the government is complex (at the end of the day the government funds the NHS, so does have influence, of course). But there’s no credible evidence I’ve seen to suggest Government ministers get involved in this sort of medical decision.

If any minister did that, as soon as the evidence appeared in the media…then he (or she) would be forced to resign very quickly.

Like you said, every medication can have side-effects. I for one always read the entire manual and I'm not gonna lie, with my anxiety it has sometimes almost made me not take something, but then I got over it and unsurprisingly, never had any of those side-effects, as they are usually very rare. Hell, my mother one had a medication for migraine that basically said it can kill her. Whenever I bring it up in conversations, people always stare at me like, why do I read the prescription, no one ever does that.

This reminds me of the panic over vaccines, when doctors could not 100% confirm they do not cause autism, so some people take that as confirmation that they do, which is nonsense. Or the panic over covid vaccines and how we don't know cause there was not enough trials. How did that turn out?

Maybe we should all take a time to read all of the side-effects of medications we routinely take and get more perspective. Or just wait if the next moral panic will be over something we might need for our health.

[thwhtGuardian]

UN proves themselves to be a joke on a regular basis, but this is a new low.

Yeah, talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

[Tami]

Why Trump gets away with so much, while others get prison time.

[Mister Mets]

...you literally illustrated in your quote that you were wrong. People who identify as genderqueer, agender, genderfluid, gender noncofroming, non-binary or intersex are not trans, so a study that tries to lump those identifications together is wrong.

It's staggeringly simple.

You would have a point if I hadn't already engaged in that argument, and if I wasn't told that there's a different reason it's obvious a reporter for The Week lied.
The basic goal post is a bit different from whether you would consider gender nonconforming people to be transgender, since it's more about the style guide choices of a periodical.
Organizations in good standing on the left have similar views.
As the Human Rights campaign put it, "The trans community is incredibly diverse. Some trans people identify as trans men or trans women, while others may describe themselves as non-binary, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, agender, bigender or other identities that reflect their personal experience. Some of us take hormones or have surgery as part of our transition, while others may change our pronouns or appearance. Roughly three-quarters of trans youth that responded to an HRC Foundation and University of Connecticut survey identified with terms other than strictly “boy” or “girl.” This suggests that a larger portion of this generation’s youth are identifying somewhere on the broad trans spectrum."
https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community

Those right-wing radicals at GLAAD had similar views.
"Transgender is a term used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Gender identity is a person’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or boy or girl.) For some people, their gender identity does not fit neatly into those two choices. For transgender people, the sex they were assigned at birth and their own internal gender identity do not match.People in the transgender community may describe themselves using one (or more) of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, and non-binary. Always use the term used by the person.Trying to change a person’s gender identity is no more successful than trying to change a person’s sexual orientation — it doesn’t work. So most transgender people seek to bring their bodies into alignment with their gender identity. This is called transition. As part of the transition process, many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to change their bodies. Some undergo surgeries as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and it’s important to know that being transgender is not dependent upon medical procedures."
https://glaad.org/transgender/transfaq/

The Daily Kos piece on Nex Benedict referred to them as transgender when the understanding that Nex was non-binary.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...&pm_medium=web

"Nex Benedict, a non-binary transgender 16-year-old student at Owasso High School, was brutally murdered in an assault in the girl’s restroom this month. "
There would be some practical questions to policies about usage.

If the adjective transgender only applies to those who identify in gendered roles, legal protections for transgender people would not apply to anyone who is genderqueer, agender, two-spirited, genderfluid, nonbinary, etc.
The public doesn't seem to make much of a distinction. And if you're trying to persuade people to treat transgender individuals with respect, I don't think you want to imply that someone who is nonbinary is fair game.
People who fall outside the gender binary may still seek gender-affirming care.
The article had a paragraph about a nonbinary individual's experiences, so there was no effort to trick people.
Here's a post where I've made my views clear two years ago on what seem to be the main points of contention.

The Human Rights campaign said that the "word “transgender” – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth."

https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community

This includes trans men, trans woman, people who identify as nonbinary and others.

Vitter cheating on his wife was immoral. If they were in an open marriage, it's a different story.

You and I disagree with the GOP officeholders who compare being gay to pedophilia and bestiality, so that comparison isn't relevant.

We may be arguing past one another on deviance. I'm trying to apply it neutrally to consider atypical sexual practices.

I remember an argument a decade ago that any Republicans talking about deviance should have asked former Supreme Court justice Antonin about his unconventional life. He and his wife had nine children, which is an unusual life choice.

Not every Democrat has to be perfect, but if you want people to vote against their policy preferences for moral reasons, they should be really impressive.

Sometimes arguments from Democrats come across like a school board candidate caught slashing the tires of five cars claiming the other guy cut the tires of twenty cars. You could argue that the other guy is four times worse, but it's still a fight between two lunatics.

I don't like Rick Scott, but I also don't like Elizabeth Warren whose advocacy for cancellation of student debt is toxic on many levels.

You asked me who I voted for and donated money for, which is largely limited to moderates in New York.

Preferences in other races is a different goalpost, partly because even informed people don't necessarily know the specifics of particular races (which are also undecided.) In some cases, a moderate amount of research indicates that a Republican candidate is trash. For example, potential Colorado Senate nominee state representative Ron Hanks does not look like someone I could support.
In Missouri, I would back a normal Democrat over Eric Greitens.


The definition of trans as I understand it is that someone's gender identity does not correspond to their sex at birth.

If someone in college identifies as agender, that is probably not the gender on their birth certificate.

I do want to note again that this is the definition of trans used by the Human Rights Campaign, as well as Planned Parenthood, the American Psychological Association and GLAAD.

The difference between 1 in 20 and 1 in 25 isn't really what anyone's arguing about when it comes to policy implications and exaggerations, especially as 1 in 25 in a general college population may end up being 1 in 20 among a non-random selection of college students (IE- those determined to be female at birth.)

Does this also apply to any left-wing candidates who are motivated by religion. For example, should a devout Christian who wants to increase services for the poor be declared unfit to govern? What is the limiting factor?

I suspect you will very quickly find edge cases.

There is a question of who gets to decide what's true and false, or what falls in the category of things that reasonable people can argue about. What should people on government payrolls be allowed to say about the extent to which higher levels of spending led to increased inflation, or the financial consequences of the Florida legislature's vote against Disney?

I have a few posts where I looked at the argument up until December 2022.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6292552

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6292556

Now let's see if Dalak is a troll gaslighting on a sensitive topic for whatever reasons (shits & giggles, wants to make liberals look bad.)

[Tami]

As for the SCOTUS

[Zelena]

Why Trump gets away with so much, while others get prison time.

Depending on whether you are rich or wretched, the Court will juge you black or white" (Jean de la Fontaine)

Nothing really new… That and the cultish support of his followers.

[Mister Mets]

These posts are from New Years 2023. There was a discussion about whether George Santos should be expelled from Congress (circa late December 2022.)

There's a gap between "there's huge evidence that Santos is a crook on top of being a serial liar" and it is so certain that his guilt on financial crimes can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it's worth criticizing someone personally for saying "Financial fraud would be a pretty big deal if you could prove it."

I said he should resign. This is different from saying that he should be forced to resign/ expelled from the Congress. This is based on what we know so far about his shameless lies, but as I said before, if there's enough new information to get "a felony conviction (or a plea bargain to avoid one)" he could be expelled from Congress.

As a New Yorker who has had one congressman resign in disgrace, I know that the procedure in the state calls for a special election in the case of a resignation. Historically, parties underperform in special elections caused by one of their own resigning, but sometimes the right thing isn't what benefits my side in this one instance.

Dalak made it personal.

I said it puts it in doubt, and your reply confirms it as far as I'm concerned. Besides, we had a long discussion about you and truthfulness which had you post proof against yourself so your current arguments about truthfulness and high standards ring hollow. Everyone agrees the guy isn't fit to represent anyone, and as I stated: with this much public evidence the investigators will have oodles more. So Yes, his guilt is all but certain if the system works at all anymore, and that should be painfully clear to anyone with working eyes & brain. I also stated that the blame for this lies on the GoP for not vetting him, the Media for not doing their due diligence, and the local dems for not shouting this all from the rooftops. In the era of Trump politics nothing should be taken for granted anymore and all statements from politicians should be fact-checked: All, not just GoP. I'd love to see anyone lying in their official capacity prosecuted if they are on the government payroll, and have said so for years now.

I responded that I didn't think I was wrong, and definitely not so wrong that it's worth bringing up months later.

I don't really mention old arguments unless you guys decide to get personal. Dalak, as I've said before, I think you were mistaken about whether a mainstream journalist lied, largely based on a misunderstanding of basic statistics, not understanding that the percentage of trans men is smaller than the percentage of trans people, and that statistics about trans men and trans women might be slightly different. This is something you decide to bring up months after the fact multiple times. If you think I said something really outrageously wrong, it could be worth bringing up months later, but I don't think my understanding of a line in a The Week article meets that standard. Since you brought it up, here's the link to the post that you consider to be dishonest and worth bringing up in a discussion about something else.

It's certainly possible that Santos has committed financial crimes, and I'm sure various prosecutors are looking into that question. He also seems sloppy enough that he may easily violate other crimes (IE- false information in financial documents, lying to investigators). This doesn't mean that proving his guilt is all but certain.

We don't currently have a system of prosecuting people for lying in their official capacity, so we would need to change the law to get that to happen. It's a system that is prone to abuse (IE- conservative judges prosecuting anyone who says that Michael Brown had his hands up and yelled "don't shoot") although it may be worth it as a way to force politicians and officials to be more disciplined in their remarks.

If posts get a bit confusing it's because we sometimes split posts in order to respond to specific points.

As usual you attempt to frame the issue completely different than reality, as can be shown here with you posting the proof that you were wrong then and with your summary here. Context is used to help analyze the present and predict the future based on the past, so it matters and bringing up old arguments isn't a bad thing when providing that context.

When you excuse lies from The Week, Shrier, Mitch McConnel, Lindsey Graham, and LibsOfTikTok who spreads harmful misinformation and whips up her followers against hospitals, those who defend LGBT, and those who are LGBT it shows your stated focus on truthfulness is only a focus when it's convenient for you.



I agree with the bolded only because biased lawyers and judges have twisted the law to let the guilty get away with it on many occasions, but his public trail of dirty laundry is just the tip of the iceberg and pretending otherwise is dishonest at best. It doesn't excuse anyone shoving their head in the sand to allow blatant fraudsters to profit from their fraud openly.



As I very carefully stated "in their official capacity" and "on the government payroll" it's not as open to abuse as you'd like to portray, but considering how many would be caught up in this I know it's actually happening is a pipe dream.

I commented on a policy question of how to handle an elected official, and asked for clarity on what I've said that's so unreasonable.

Everyone on a government payroll would include every member of Congress (535), every state legislator (7,000+), everyone in a state or local administration, everyone in the cabinet and then everyone who works for them (press secretaries, legislative assistants, etc.) I'm guessing this also includes judges, prosecutors, various administrators and everyone who works for them. So that's going to include a lot of people. "Official capacity" may be vague. Does that include campaign appearances? If so, the Georgia Attorney General would be factchecking everything Biden said in the state. Press secretaries would be quite vulnerable. There would be some interesting questions about military officials and diplomats, who may lie for strategic reasons. Presumably we could craft exceptions to make sure that undercover cops can't be prosecuted for denying that they're law enforcement, but this will have to be carefully tailored.

This might not cover Santos, since he won't be a government employee for a few more days. He may have run afoul of the law in other ways, but I'm not as certain that can be proven as you are, since your rhetoric suggests the odds that he's committed a crime are 100%, and it's so obvious that anyone who hints otherwise should be called out.

I don't think The Week lied, and I certainly don't think it's so obvious that anyone who suggests otherwise should be called out. Your rhetoric is rather strong, so I'd suggest you back it up by quoting the statements I've made that no reasonable person can agree with, and putting that part in bold, so that others can assess whether your understanding is accurate and merits a strong response. It's easy for people to talk past one another on trans issues given the complexities of nomenclature (Would the term "females" refer to trans women, or anyone with an XX chromosome, or anyone who was assigned female at birth even if they do not have XX chromosomes? Who could be described as "transitioning"?) as well as the various comparisons and what was said when: at one point you thought I was suggesting there were more trans females (defined here in the biological sense) than trans males, when my point at the time was that there had been a greater increase during the last few years of females identifying as trans. There were also some side arguments that aren't about facts as much as the appropriateness of a comparison, but I'm focusing purely on factual arguments here.

[Mister Mets]

Dalak explained his understanding that the study's numbers are much smaller when accounting for people who are AFAB (Assigned Female at Birth.)

Anyone interested can look at your posts and my post side by side and see that your argument here is more gaslighting and refusing to admit to reality.

The TL;DR is this: The Week, Shrier, and You claimed there was a nonexistent spike of 5% young Assigned Female At Birth individuals deciding to identify as transgender based on a study that said the number was far smaller when accounting for only those AFAB who identified as transgender. You've hemmed and hawwed and moved the goalposts and gaslit to obscure that at every turn but be assured you're fooling no one.

I would gladly have campaign speechifying fact-checked and lies punished appropriately, with any fines being a percentage of income rather than a flat fee. I want ALL government employees to be very careful with their words and statements when they are using their official authority to back them up. I include Press Secretaries in there as well as they are free to reply that they cannot answer in cases of issues where they can't answer, but the point about those who's job requires deceit is valid. However any who cannot back up their fact-checking with actual proof will be guilty of abusing the system and be just as guilty of the crime they are attempting to smear someone else with in the cases of Prosecutors & Judges. As Lawyers have to put forth arguments to bring a case they are putting Perjury on the table if they are trying to abuse it as well should they not be on the gov't dime. That's why I said so many would be caught up in it and that's the whole idea is a pipe dream that I still advocate for.

I responded under the assumption Dalak knows the definition of AFAB.

You're misrepresenting the argument.

The goalpost is whether there was a spike/ significant increase in females identifying as trans.

Tendrin suggested there isn't. Multiple times.




I asked what would count as a spike, because it does seem obvious that there is a significant increase. If it's 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 100 that should count as a spike.

You guys seem to be arguing with some points I haven't made, which is frustrating.

If you think I've said something wrong, quote the link and put the section where you think I'm wrong in bold. For example, here's a post of yours which you linked to.



If I misread this, I apologize. But it seems you're suggesting that an increase of females identifying as trans (I've consistently stuck to the Human Rights Campaign definition of trans as "an umbrella term for people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth" although there is till an increase even if you're exclusively looking at trans boys/ men) in younger generations compared to older generations did not occur, and is not a well-documented phenomenon.

But this has happened. It is documented.

https://slate.com/human-interest/201...efore-why.html

I spent way too much time looking through old posts here, and couldn't find any mention of the percentage of females identifying as trans being consistent now or across generations (IE- that a female born in 2005 is as likely to identify as trans as a female born in 1975.)

I'm still curious about what I've said that's ignorant. I still think you guys are responding to strawman versions of my comments.

When I said you posted proof that your arguments lately are gaslighting, I mean these quotes from your posts here.



A quote not from your post:


You admitting your ignorance and denying what you said above:




And here's when you went with the "Oh, I'm just using a definition you're not" which is clearly false as shown by above quotes.


So you are shown describing the results of the study that was used by The Week and Shrier to lie which you have been misrepresenting, shown what I was talking about at the time, shown you admitted to not looking up the numbers but were claiming it's so well known on at least 2 occasions, and shown denying what you had posted clearly. You posted the vast majority of the quotes proving this, and yet you continue to try and convince us that what we read isn't the truth and only what you say now is. Context matters, and the context you've provided for your own arguments shows they are full of lies, misrepresentations, and constant attempts to distract from that.

E: I do not expect you to acknowledge this as you seem incapable of it, but here's one last quote of yours that's important:


So Mets, why should we trust anything you have to say?

The goalpost was that there was a "spike" in AFAB individuals identifying as trans among younger cohorts. This was a point that some of you disagree with.

I was arguing with multiple people, some of whom had a different understanding of who counts as trans, so this isn't just a dialogue between the two of us.

A reporter rounding up 4.2% to 1 in 20 rather than rounding down to 1 in 25 doesn't mean there's no "spike" as the earlier figure was still much lower (a fraction of a percent.)

I don't like the weaponization of humility. We should be encouraged to be honest about what we know and don't know. That said, I knew that the increase in AFAB individuals identifying as trans was greater than the increase in AMAB individuals doing the same. At that point, I didn't spend too much time looking up the specific information about whether AFAB trans people outnumber AMAB trans people among the younger cohort because it's irrelevant to the goalpost of whether there is a spike among AFAB trans people. Later posts did include evidence that more AFAB students in the younger cohort identify outside of the gender they were assumed to be at birth compared to AMAB students, which is further evidence that there has been a significant increase, as this was not the case years ago. And since the 4.2% figure was among college students in general, this means it's a bit higher among students who are AFAB, which suggests the reporter might have rounded accurately to 1 in 20, so your whole point about that disappears.

As for why people should trust me, I don't make personal comments (at least negative ones) except in response to someone directing it my way. I include data or sources, so that people can see where I got my information. I explain the goalposts. I generally have generous interpretations of what people who disagree with me have to say if there's any ambiguity; I rarely go after motives. If I recognize ways there may be a misunderstanding or people talking past one another, I point it out. I get exposed to views of people I disagree with. My own views are not straight-ticket Republican, and I'm willing to point out when people who support Republicans or who are critical of Democrats on a topic are mistaken.

But let's ask the same of you Dalak, why should we trust anything you've got to say? You've been insulting me for months. You've had some bad math while claiming that people are liars. Your response to proof of an increase is ad hominems and tangents. You seem to be unfamiliar with things that are quite well-documented. How frequently do you think you point out when people who are on your side politically are mistaken or too certain about a specific issue?

Dalak doesn't seem to know what AFAB means.

Your lies are marked clearly, with quoted evidence in this post and my last. I've criticized Biden, Hillary, Bernie, Beto, Obama, Manchin and most recently the local Dems that didn't shout Santos' crimes from the rooftops. And when directly confronted with being wrong I admit it rather than endlessly gaslighting about it.



The detailed results were pointed out to you at the time, with 0.3% of the 4.2% actually AFAB, and 3.7% of that total not declaring their birth gender. This is the number you are hand-waving away being used to claim that 1 in 20 AFAB individuals are identifying as Transgender in some sort of spike that doesn't exist.

[Mister Mets]

I responded to the implication that people are not gender nonconforming shouldn't count as trans because they will not seek medical surgeries or other interventions.

In Math, 0.3% of 4.2% would be 0.3% multiplied by 4.2% rather than 0.3% as a share of 4.2%, which would get the wrong number, although I do get where you're coming from.

When have I said that the only people who count as trans are those who identify specifically as trans men and trans women?

You did quote me talking about "females who seek those services" although I thought it would be widely understood that people who identify as nonbinary can still get services. For example, the comic book writer ND Stevenson who identifies as nonbinary, did a comic about their experience with top surgery an year ago.

https://boingboing.net/2021/01/04/re...mberjanes.html

A few hours ago you quoted me saying back in April that the figures for trans people includes those who are genderqueer, genderfluid or nonbinary. So I've been quite consistent on this. That also seems to be the definition of various LGBTQ friendly organizations, which would certainly mean that a reporter isn't lying for going with that definition (unless they specially and unambiguously referred to trans men).

Dalak argues that the reporter was clearly identifying Trans Men.

Here we go again.

Attachment 127857

E: Mets, The Week, and Shrier's Book were clearly only referencing Trans Men aka AFAB individuals identifying as transgender specifically according to his own posted quotes.

This is why you've insulted me dozens of times, brought up arguments months after the fact and wasted hours of your time and then mine (when I make the mistake of assuming there's a simple misunderstanding that can be explained away in one post)?

I am familiar with the view that females who identify as trans men are the only ones with XX chromosomes who are authentically trans, and that those who identify as agender, nonbinary, etc. are just pretending to make themselves seem more interesting or whatever. There's a similar view about bisexual women. I'll note that I don't share these views, that explaining a view is not the same as endorsing it, and that there may be some more nuanced gatekeeping.

Going with a definition of trans from various LGBTQ-friendly organizations is not an indication that a mainstream publication like The Week is lying. That's a normal style guide choice. They clearly reference people outside the gender binary as being trans in case there's any confusion on definitions.

https://theweek.com/life/1006253/the...er-trans-teens

There are some legal implications to saying that the designation of trans only applies to those who identify as trans men and trans women. If there's a law banning discrimination against trans people, and someone is fired for being genderfluid, should judges not consider that law in that context? If a person who is nonbinary applies for financial assistance for a program meant to assist trans people, are they committing fraud?

Even so, there would still be a spike in people identifying as trans men. If the number has gone from 1 in 2,000 to around 1 in 170, that's a more than tenfold increase. We would generally describe it as a spike. If this were completely random, the situation goes from one student for every four typical-sized schools (the average public school in the United States has 514 students) to 2-3 students in each of those schools. That's going to necessitate a policy change.

The parents, commentators and politicians who are reacting poorly to this may also not care about these distinctions. They would consider trans boys equally weird and objectionable to those who identify as genderfluid, nonbinary, agender, etc. Libsoftiktok consistently mocks neopronouns.

In regards to Mets going on about how he always meant all Trans individuals and not only those AFAB:



The last one is from a very recent post, but expect continued gaslighting to excuse lies from him and others.

At this point, I realize Dalak doesn't know what AFAB means.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of AFAB.

AFAB means "Assigned Female at Birth." It primarily refers to individuals who have been assumed to be girls at birth, and raised as girls.

It is a category that includes some trans men, a handful of intersex individuals, some agender people, some nonbinary people, as well as some genderfluid people and other categories, although this also includes the majority of girls and women, since it applies to anyone who was raised to be girls. It's basically the female version of cis.

For example, my mother is AFAB. She was raised as a girl and has identified as a woman for the last 50+ years (she will celebrate her 70th birthday later in the year.)

Dalak decides to go with memes, rather than explanations. This is part of what I mean when I say that he is sometimes evasive. In this case, it comes after I pointed out the definition of AFAB which is not acknowledged.

Misunderstanding?

I'm still looking for clarity, especially since I wanted to figure out how there was no misunderstanding.

How am I mistaken regarding the acronym AFAB?

Does it not mean "assigned female at birth"?

Does it not apply to adult females who still identify as women?

If so, what is your evidence on this?

Dalak goes with another video. I'm removing the link because I can't do two videos in a post.

I was trying to come up with another funny video response to the obvious deliberate misunderstanding going on, and found this serious one:

I asked a question, which seemed to end the discussion.

I would still like to know how I'm mistaken the acronym AFAB or any phrase.

I invite anyone else here to respond, to point out that AFAB does not apply to most women, to suggest that there's something I'm not getting here, or potentially to correct a mistaken Florida Democrat.

As far as I can tell, no one took me up on this.

In response to a discussion a few days later on Ukraine where one poster was a terrible human being, Dalak gave some advice that I may have to take in the future.

We have later exchanges on the topic. If necessary, I'll post those later.

I'd like to think people can see I'm acting in good faith when discussing a sensitive topic.

[Tendrin]

Non-binary[a] and genderqueer are umbrella terms for gender identities that are not solely male or female (identities outside the gender binary). Non-binary identities often fall under the transgender umbrella since non-binary people typically identify with a gender that is different from the sex assigned to them at birth,[3] though some non-binary people do not consider themselves transgender.

Non-binary people may identify as an intermediate or separate third gender, identify with more than one gender, no gender, or have a fluctuating gender identity. Gender identity is separate from sexual or romantic orientation: non-binary people have various sexual orientations.

When you're asking people to assess their identities under these options, how they assess themselves is important. The lack of context in the This Week article is important, especially when it's working to help stir the pot on an anti-trans Abigail-Shrier based piece of BS.

[Kirby101]

UN proves themselves to be a joke on a regular basis, but this is a new low.

Except when the UN condemns Israel, everyone says they are the source of morality.

[Tendrin]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Trustees of Tennessee's only publicly funded historically Black university were removed Thursday under legislation signed into law by Republican Gov. Bill Lee. Black lawmakers and community leaders said state leaders, a majority of whom are white, are unfairly targeting Tennessee State University.

The legislation cleared the state GOP-controlled House on Thursday in a 66-25 vote, and Lee signed off a few hours later without commenting on the controversial decision to vacate the board. He instead praised TSU as a “remarkable institution" as he unveiled that he already had selected 10 new replacements.

“I’m pleased to appoint these highly qualified individuals who will work alongside administrators and students to further secure TSU’s place as a leading institution,” Lee said.

The new appointees, largely from the business community, are now subject to confirmation by the Legislature. Their selection will be critical as TSU is already seeking a new leader because President Glenda Glover plans to retire at the end of this school year.

“All we’re talking about is the board ... It’s vacating some personalities and bringing others in,” House Majority Leader William Lamberth told reporters. “The goal is to make TSU successful.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tennessee...222007196.html

[thwhtGuardian]

You would have a point if I hadn't already engaged in that argument, and if I wasn't told that there's a different reason it's obvious a reporter for The Week lied.
The basic goal post is a bit different from whether you would consider gender nonconforming people to be transgender, since it's more about the style guide choices of a periodical.
Organizations in good standing on the left have similar views.
As the Human Rights campaign put it, "The trans community is incredibly diverse. Some trans people identify as trans men or trans women, while others may describe themselves as non-binary, genderqueer, gender non-conforming, agender, bigender or other identities that reflect their personal experience. Some of us take hormones or have surgery as part of our transition, while others may change our pronouns or appearance. Roughly three-quarters of trans youth that responded to an HRC Foundation and University of Connecticut survey identified with terms other than strictly “boy” or “girl.” This suggests that a larger portion of this generation’s youth are identifying somewhere on the broad trans spectrum."
https://www.hrc.org/resources/unders...nder-community

Those right-wing radicals at GLAAD had similar views.
https://glaad.org/transgender/transfaq/

"Transgender is a term used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. Gender identity is a person’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or boy or girl.) For some people, their gender identity does not fit neatly into those two choices. For transgender people, the sex they were assigned at birth and their own internal gender identity do not match.People in the transgender community may describe themselves using one (or more) of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, and non-binary. Always use the term used by the person.Trying to change a person’s gender identity is no more successful than trying to change a person’s sexual orientation — it doesn’t work. So most transgender people seek to bring their bodies into alignment with their gender identity. This is called transition. As part of the transition process, many transgender people are prescribed hormones by their doctors to change their bodies. Some undergo surgeries as well. But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and it’s important to know that being transgender is not dependent upon medical procedures."
The Daily Kos piece on Nex Benedict referred to them as transgender.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...&pm_medium=web

"Nex Benedict, a non-binary transgender 16-year-old student at Owasso High School, was brutally murdered in an assault in the girl’s restroom this month. "
There would be some practical questions to policies about usage.

If the adjective transgender only applies to those who identify in gendered roles, legal protections for transgender people would not apply to anyone who is genderqueer, agender, two-spirited, genderfluid, nonbinary, etc.
The public doesn't seem to make much of a distinction. And if you're trying to persuade people to treat transgender individuals with respect, I don't think you want to imply that someone who is nonbinary is fair game.
People who fall outside the gender binary may still seek gender-affirming care.
The article had a paragraph about a nonbinary indiviual's experiences, so there was no effort to trick people.
Here's a post where I've made my views clear two years ago.



I have a few posts where I looked at the argument up until December 2022.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6292552

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6292556

Now let's see if Dalak is a troll gaslighting on a sensitive topic for whatever reasons (shits & giggles, wants to make liberals look bad.)

You're still very obviously in the wrong...and again, it's right in the articles you're presenting. "People in the transgender community may describe themselves using one (or more) of a wide variety of terms" "May" does not mean must or always, it means sometimes or possibly. Again, for someone who prides themselves on being correct and accurate this seems like a strange oversight.

Building on that, what you're doing, and the person who presented the study in the Week did, is presenting a false syllogism.

Premise 1: Trans people may also identify as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming or genderfluid.

Premise 2: This study shows a percentage break down of various titles such as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming.

Conclusion: Therefore the total percentage of the study is trans.

The flaw? Not everyone who identifies as genderqueer, non-binary or gender-nonconforming identifies as trans so thus you cannot logically reach your presented conclusion.

And there is no indication that people who may identify solely as genderqueer, non-binary, or gender-nonconforming would be targeted if they're not protected under the umbrella of trans rights as they're still protected under the larger umbrellas of gay rights and basic human rights. But that's rather superfluous, as you wanting to include them under the number of trans individuals so they are better protected comes across solely as a deflection as you haven't illustrated that you value the protection of trans rights to begin with.

If you were to say, "Trans rights are human rights, and using terms like mutilation to describe gender affirming care is wrong." maybe we could entertain your argument about broader legal protections...but without that,no it's a very obvious deflection and nothing more.