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

[Powerboy]

Just to briefly get into the trans discussion that Dalak and Mets are having. I will politely insist upon calling it a discussion.

When I first became aware of how much of an issue trans was becoming, I looked into it. I saw an interview with Abigail Shrier. I watched a bunch of Jesse Gender podcasts and still do.

It took zero time (5-10 minutes) after the Shrier interview to start watching the JG podcast and pause it to check the claims.

A huge amount of Shrier's research was simply interviewing parents from three websites that were specifically anti-trans. She never even spoke to the kids.

She also hugely quoted the study by Lisa Littman, who coined the phrase, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a controversial, scientifically unsupported hypothesis which claims that some adolescents identify as transgender and experience gender dysphoria due to peer influence and social contagion.[5]"

Maybe Shrier did not know how discredited Littman's study was. Then again, I found out quickly and I'm just doing a post on CBR. She wrote a book published nationwide that could have a horribly negative effect on an already marginalized group. And I'm supposed to believe she didn't know how discredited it was? Bull! She had a predetermined viewpoint that wouldn't change based on facts. I started mildly in that viewpoint but, y'know, facts.

Speaking to your point about why identifying openly as trans has diminished again, when I was young, my mother, not knowing I was bi or gay, said, "If these homosexuals don't think what they feel is wrong, why do they hide it?", a question so completely ignorant of reality that I just walked away.



https://theorion.com/85233/opinion/a...-limited-data/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-...ia_controversy

[shooshoomanjoe]

Fast food seeing a drop in low income people

Two weeks ago, my wife, child and I went to Taco Bell and it was a little over $20. I was reading an article the other day that stated retired people, who once were the bulk of canned food donors to food pantries, are now receiving food from pantries.

Today, there are more people working two jobs to make ends meet than before the pandemic.

And yet, the Biden admin has conned people into believing that things are fine.

[thwhtGuardian]

I'm well aware of this. I think I might be the first person on the forum to make that argument that this is a possible cause of an increase. But that's different from the question of whether there is an increase.

It also hasn't been demonstrated that 100% of the increase is due to people who would otherwise suffer being affirmed.

If you think what I've said is so outrageous it merits insults, you should post the comments so that readers who think that what I said is reasonable will see that you think that they deserve to be called names. Right now, we're in agreement that sexism shouldn't be downplayed. The disagreement would be whether a particular comment was an example of that.

The question shouldn't be whether I defended a politician, but whether I was wrong on the merits at the time. It shouldn't be considered suspicious to say something accurate about someone reprehensible. Critics of politicians are not served by arguments that fall apart when faced with the facts.

I hope we're all in agreement on this. If somebody feels differently, they should consistently clarify this.

It's not insulting to say that someone is a terrible person because they support anti-trans legislation and defend the politicians who spew vile, racist garbage...it's just a statement of fact.

If you don't like being lumped in with terrible human beings then the answer is to simply an unequivocally say, "I believe trans rights are human rights and that anyone who says that gender affirming care is mutilation is a terrible person."

And if you can't do that?

Then you have no one to blame but yourself when you're lumped in with garbage people. It's very simple.

[Dalak]

Radical thought: isn’t there a good case for sticking to board rules and avoiding insults altogether?

They almost never move the discussion on in a constructive way, and I think in most cases leave the insulter and insulted in a more stressed and sad mood.

Somebody says something that appears terrible…comments on it can be worded something like “I disagree with that strongly because..”

Pointless insults are useless impediments to conversation, but they aren't the only ones being thrown up. If a poster refuses to accept/post evidence and they continue interjecting asking for time to be spent humoring their Sealioning, it isn't constructive. Lying about others isn't constructive either, especially when one posts the evidence proving said lies aren't truthful.

Behaviors like this should be able to be called out for what they are without being labeled as insults.

Just to briefly get into the trans discussion that Dalak and Mets are having. I will politely insist upon calling it a discussion.

When I first became aware of how much of an issue trans was becoming, I looked into it. I saw an interview with Abigail Shrier. I watched a bunch of Jesse Gender podcasts and still do.

It took zero time (5-10 minutes) after the Shrier interview to start watching the JG podcast and pause it to check the claims.

A huge amount of Shrier's research was simply interviewing parents from three websites that were specifically anti-trans. She never even spoke to the kids.

She also hugely quoted the study by Lisa Littman, who coined the phrase, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, "Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a controversial, scientifically unsupported hypothesis which claims that some adolescents identify as transgender and experience gender dysphoria due to peer influence and social contagion.[5]"

Maybe Shrier did not know how discredited Littman's study was. Then again, I found out quickly and I'm just doing a post on CBR. She wrote a book published nationwide that could have a horribly negative effect on an already marginalized group. And I'm supposed to believe she didn't know how discredited it was? Bull! She had a predetermined viewpoint that wouldn't change based on facts. I started mildly in that viewpoint but, y'know, facts.

Speaking to your point about why identifying openly as trans has diminished again, when I was young, my mother, not knowing I was bi or gay, said, "If these homosexuals don't think what they feel is wrong, why do they hide it?", a question so completely ignorant of reality that I just walked away.

https://theorion.com/85233/opinion/a...-limited-data/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid-...ia_controversy

Gee, guess who The Week defended in their same lying article: "Some doctors and researchers say the conversation about transgender youth is stifled by a climate of fear, with those who question medical interventions risking their careers. When Lisa Littman, a behavioral science professor at Brown University, published a paper suggesting that gender dysphoria among teen girls might be attributable in part to "social contagion" and underlying psychological issues, she said she met with a "strategy of harassment and intimidation" from trans activists. She lost a consulting job, and the university removed a link to her work from its website. When the American Booksellers Association last summer mailed out sample copies of Irreversible Damage, a book by journalist Abigail Shrier that raises similar questions, the blowback from the trans community was so fierce that the association issued an apology for what it called "a serious, violent incident." Doctors fear the same reprisals, said Laura Edwards-Leeper, a clinical psychologist who works with transgender youth. "Everyone is very scared to speak up," she said."

No references as to why these people were targeted (HINT: for the misinformation they spread), just harassment & intimidation. It's also an example of how one can say only factually true things and result in people drawing a conclusion that's not in line with facts (That these people were targeted unfairly).

Fast food seeing a drop in low income people

Two weeks ago, my wife, child and I went to Taco Bell and it was a little over $20. I was reading an article the other day that stated retired people, who once were the bulk of canned food donors to food pantries, are now receiving food from pantries.

Today, there are more people working two jobs to make ends meet than before the pandemic.

And yet, the Biden admin has conned people into believing that things are fine.

Maybe you should look into why Fast Food prices are so high when groceries aren't instead of blaming someone who has no control over global food markets. It won't stop you from blaming Biden for things that are proven not to be his fault (As history has shown) but at least you'll be better informed.

It's not insulting to say that someone is a terrible person because they support anti-trans legislation and defend the politicians who spew vile, racist garbage...it's just a statement of fact.

If you don't like being lumped in with terrible human beings then the answer is to simply an unequivocally say, "I believe trans rights are human rights and that anyone who says that gender affirming care is mutilation is a terrible person."

And if you can't do that?

Then you have no one to blame but yourself when you're lumped in with garbage people. It's very simple.

Being classified as a terrible person because of one's own behavior isn't a good thing, but it isn't an insult per-se. Screaming "You are a terrible person!" at someone counts, but as anyone can see that's not what is happening here.

[Lieutenant]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elect...bama-election/


https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...ocrat-00149205


a Democrat who ran on reproductive rights, flips seat in Alabama House of Representatives


A Democrat who campaigned aggressively on abortion access won a special election in the Alabama state Legislature on Tuesday, sending a message that abortion remains a winning issue for Democrats, even in the deep South.

[Mister Mets]

Radical thought: isn’t there a good case for sticking to board rules and avoiding insults altogether?

They almost never move the discussion on in a constructive way, and I think in most cases leave the insulter and insulted in a more stressed and sad mood.

Somebody says something that appears terrible…comments on it can be worded something like “I disagree with that strongly because..”

That would be nice.

As everyone can see, the "trouble with nomenclature" is that someone keeps using it as an excuse to avoid acknowledging that he understands Addition, Subtraction, and what "The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters" refers to. This is not being honest, respectful, or arguing in good faith. To review again:



Oh, and a visitor from the past wants to chime in on arguing about the semantics excusing how reporting a spike among Trans Individuals coming from those AFAB is something to worry about, but a slightly smaller spike in AMAB identifying as Trans isn't worth reporting.

So it's clear that if there's a surge in anything it's ALL individuals identifying as Trans, which has been explained to you years ago and more recently thanks to our resident Catlady in training. Of course with the increasing Anti-Trans bigotry since that study came out those numbers will be going back down.

And lastly - When we were wrong about Nex we admitted it, while you are still floundering around years later doing everything to refuse to admit you were wrong about The Week. You persist in bringing up so many theories (WITHOUT EVIDENCE: Here's a direct request - Provide evidence for these claims or stop making them.) about possibilities that they didn't just lie to help support the Anti-Trans Bigotry that LOTT, Shrier, and so many others were building back then and they needed science that sounded true in order to avoid the rightful calls of bigotry they have earned. So are you going to post evidence to prove that the Reporter contacted the creators of the only study they cited about this specific aspect, checked anonymous respondents for their chromosonal status, or whatever wild theory you want to come up with next . . or will you continue refusing to?

And a call back to something I forgot to reference earlier - The Forum Rules & Guidelines make it unwelcoming to those who engage in bigoted hate speech and lie rather than accept the truth, which sadly fits your average Trump voter. Their behavior is what makes them unwelcome on these forums, just like it's your behavior that results in people discussing how it (And you who engage in it) is wrong . . which leads you to claim it's a personal attack since you can't admit that.

As always: The Week-

I reread a lot of posts from 2023.

I legitimately wasn't confident about your argument (that the reporter failed to do basic due diligence on whether people who identified as nontraditional genders were disproportionately likely to be male and therefore would skew statistics about spikes in females identifying as transgender) until about November. I think it's in this post.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...ak#post6637594

If anybody would like me to post several messages quoting a hundred comments mainly between the two of us, with some commentary, to demonstrate the misunderstanding, say that you think I'm lying about this, and I'll do it when I have the time.

[hyped78]

Fast food seeing a drop in low income people

Two weeks ago, my wife, child and I went to Taco Bell and it was a little over $20. I was reading an article the other day that stated retired people, who once were the bulk of canned food donors to food pantries, are now receiving food from pantries.

Today, there are more people working two jobs to make ends meet than before the pandemic.

And yet, the Biden admin has conned people into believing that things are fine.

As if Trump would make it better!

Economic stats in the US show that things are indeed markedly better, which is not to say they're perfect

[hyped78]

It's not insulting to say that someone is a terrible person because they support anti-trans legislation and defend the politicians who spew vile, racist garbage...it's just a statement of fact.

If you don't like being lumped in with terrible human beings then the answer is to simply an unequivocally say, "I believe trans rights are human rights and that anyone who says that gender affirming care is mutilation is a terrible person."

And if you can't do that?

Then you have no one to blame but yourself when you're lumped in with garbage people. It's very simple.

A person who supports that e.g. trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports is a terrible person? Or stopping the routine administration of puberty blockers to kids based on an independent, non partisan, 4-year medical review? Just trying to understand because you made a sweeping statement

[Dalak]

I don't claim to understand the decision, but as far as I can tell it seems Mister Mets would rather everyone reading assumes he lacks the ability to understand the most basic of Math skills (Adding & Subtracting) rather than admit to dishonestly pretending not to understand it here.

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.

I maintain the bolded part at the end gives the game away, so he can post whatever he likes at this point. I've made it clear how I feel about dishonest revisionism carried out after the fact by politicians in office as well as less lofty individuals. Given the behavior on display for years now, this particular boy has cried wolf far too often for it to be accepted as genuine.

E:

Incidentally, when I said I get where you're coming from, that doesn't mean that I understood it before.

This is from his direct reply to my claiming it was a false misunderstanding. I'm just flabbergasted at this entire decision to rush headlong into this situation.

[thwhtGuardian]

A person who supports that e.g. trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports is a terrible person? Or stopping the routine administration of puberty blockers to kids based on an independent, non partisan, 4-year medical review? Just trying to understand because you made a sweeping statement

On the subject of people who don't think trans women are women and should thus be barred from competing: depending on how ugly their arguments are, yeah, they could be terrible people or if the arguments are mild and stem from being simply uneducated they could just be woefully misinformed.

On the latter part that decision in the UK was pretty unequivocally ugly.

[hyped78]

On the subject of people who don't think trans women are women and should thus be barred from competing: depending on how ugly their arguments are, yeah, they could be terrible people or if the arguments are mild and stem from being simply uneducated they could just be woefully misinformed.

On the latter part that decision in the UK was pretty unequivocally ugly.

The UK decision by the NHS was informed by an independent, non partisan, medical review that includes a highly skilled Assurance Group. If you think you know more about medicine and paedriatics than them, in order to call it "unequivocally ugly", then that's just ridiculous.
What qualifications do you have that show that you know more than they do? Are you a doctor or anything of the sort?

As for the first part of your post, it's just laughable that you can't even accept that there are opposing viewpoints that can be made without having to be labelled "terrible" or "misinformed".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/68564019

"BBC Elite British Sportswomen's Study 2024: Athletes on ‘difficult’ transgender debate
More than 100 elite British sportswomen have told the BBC they would be uncomfortable with transgender women competing in female categories in their sport"

"But many have expressed fears over sharing their opinion publicly because of concerns they would be seen as discriminatory." ---> because of, apparently, people like you, who display ideological radicalism about the topic (and I’m not even saying that you’re wrong, just that it makes zero sense to shut down debate on these topics, as you’re doing)

[thwhtGuardian]

The UK decision by the NHS was informed by an independent, non partisan, medical review that includes a highly skilled Assurance Group. If you think you know more about medicine and paedriatics than them, in order to call it "unequivocally ugly", then that's just ridiculous.
What qualifications do you have that show that you know more than they do? Are you a doctor or anything of the sort?

As for the first part of your post, it's just laughable that you can't even accept that there are opposing viewpoints that can be made without having to be labelled "terrible" or "misinformed".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/68564019

"BBC Elite British Sportswomen's Study 2024: Athletes on ‘difficult’ transgender debate
More than 100 elite British sportswomen have told the BBC they would be uncomfortable with transgender women competing in female categories in their sport"

"But many have expressed fears over sharing their opinion publicly because of concerns they would be seen as discriminatory." ---> because of, apparently, people like you, who display ideological radicalism about the topic (and I’m not even saying that you’re wrong, just that it makes zero sense to shut down debate on these topics, as you’re doing)

The American Academy of Pediatrics vehemently disagrees with the UK's stance, as does the Mayo clinic, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and many other medical bodies.

It's ugly. Period.

On trans-sports, as I said if the person is mild and respectful there is space for dialogue and education...but too often it's just full of ugly sexism.

[hyped78]

The American Academy of Pediatrics vehemently disagrees with the UK's stance, as does the Mayo clinic, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health and many other medical bodies.

It's ugly. Period.

On trans-sports, as I said if the person is mild and respectful there is space for dialogue and education...but too often it's just full of ugly sexism.

So you’re gonna look at just some medical bodies and conveniently ignore others, in the name of ideology? It wasn’t a decision just here in the UK, the same is happening in France, Sweden, Norway and these aren’t politically driven decisions like there in the US:

“The U.K. is not the only European country that is rethinking how to approach gender-affirming care for minors. Several countries, including traditionally more progressive nations like Sweden and Norway, are changing guidelines at least in part due to questions from some doctors about the risks of such procedures. The changes in Europe are occurring more often at the health care policy level initiated by medical professionals, rather than through new or adjusted laws pushed by legislators, and experts say they haven’t been politicized to the extent they have been in the U.S.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-cou...are-for-minors

Or:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuac...-among-minors/

And it’s not like US medicine > European medicine. So when you say “It’s ugly. Period” - that is just your opinion (and I don’t believe you are a doctor or an expert on that area, it seems - I’m not either), certainly not a fact

Or this, for example:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...m-bells-in-nhs

“ So, when hundreds of messages were leaked from an internal forum of doctors and mental health workers from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, it was bound to spark interest. WPATH describes itself as an “interdisciplinary professional and educational organisation devoted to transgender health”. Most significantly, it produces standards of care (SOC) which, it claims, articulate “professional consensus” about how best to help people with gender dysphoria.

Despite its grand title, WPATH is neither solely a professional body – a significant proportion of its membership are activists – nor does it represent the “world” view on how to care for this group of people. There is no global agreement on best practice. The leaked messages (and the odd recording) – dubbed the WPATH files – are disturbing. In one video, doctors acknowledge that patients are sometimes too young to fully understand the consequences of puberty blockers and hormones for their fertility. “It’s always a good theory that you talk about fertility preservation with a 14-year-old, but I know I’m talking to a blank wall,” one Canadian endocrinologist says.

WPATH’s president, Dr Marci Bowers, comments on the impact of early blocking of puberty on sexual function in adulthood. “To date,” she writes, “I’m unaware of an individual claiming ability to orgasm when they were blocked at Tanner 2.” Tanner stage 2 is the beginning of puberty. It can be as young as nine in girls.

Elsewhere, there are extraordinary discussions on how to manage “trans clients” with dissociative identity disorder (what used to be called multiple personality disorder) when “not all the alters have the same gender identity”. Surgeons talk about procedures that result in bodies that don’t exist in nature: those with both sets of genitals – the “phallus-preserving vaginoplasty”; double mastectomies that don’t have nipples; “nullification” surgery, where there are no genitals at all, just smooth skin. And doctors discuss the possibility that 16-year-old patients have liver cancer as the result of taking hormones. The problem is not necessarily the discussions themselves, but that the organisation is not so open when speaking publicly.

The views of WPATH matter to the UK. For years, the organisation and its SOC have been cited as a source of “best practice” for trans healthcare by numerous medical bodies, including the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council – and still is. The Royal College of Psychiatrists refers to WPATH in its own recommendations for care.“

(Disclaimer: the Guardian is a left-wing newspaper; the entire article is quite interesting)

[thwhtGuardian]

That anti-trans policies are sadly becoming more normalized in other countries doesn't actually support your view that it isn't ugly.

[Username taken]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/majority-u...171756248.html

Americans have soured on Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip, reflecting shifting attitudes toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as it vows to expand its military campaign deeper south into the Palestinian city of Rafah.

According to a Gallup survey released on Wednesday, 55% of Americans now disapprove of Israel’s actions, while only 36% approve. The drop in support for Israel’s military campaign is evident in all three major party groups, including an 18-point drop in approval among both Democrats and independents and a seven-point decline among Republicans.

In November, after the militant group Hamas launched its deadly Oct. 7 attack on Israel and captured dozens of Israeli hostages, Gallup found that 50% of Americans approved of Israeli military actions while 45% disapproved.