https://youtu.be/9UmGp4wGMJ0?si=_0Dw9DQj5Pt4Y117
"Joe Biden's pathway to victory is easier than we think"
Interesting (and good, I think) analysis!
https://youtu.be/9UmGp4wGMJ0?si=_0Dw9DQj5Pt4Y117
"Joe Biden's pathway to victory is easier than we think"
Interesting (and good, I think) analysis!
Beth Hart - Fire On The Floor CD Review
Beth Hart February 23rd, 2017 Boston, MA Concert Review
"I can't complain. I got to be Jim Morrison for the first half of my life, and Ward Cleaver for the second half." - Warren Zevon.
wokeness.jpg
Reminds me of a few folks.
...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.
Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!
I know a non-binary, gender-fluid AMAB person who wouldn't call themselves trans at all, and has no interest in HRT.
F1nnster, a well known streamer, recently came out as gender-fluid specifically, and specifically avoided the trans label even while supporting trans charities and starting HRT.
Another person I know online only realized that they were trans after a stop at non-binary. For many people, such as Nex Benedict, they may come out as non-binary to themselves or their family as a step along the way to acknowledging being trans.
All of this is to say it's very complicated, and assigning 'transness' to people who describe themselves as gender fluid or non-binary is a mistake.
Yeah, except the "study" was garbage and it even admits it by literally saying the results can't actually be applied with any accuracy to the population at large. But heck, even if that wasn't outright admitted it's the obvious conclusion by anyone with any knowledge of polling.
It's flawed from the start as they selected the 615 athletes they sent the questionnaire. Who did the selecting? What were the criteria? What was the geographic spread?
The answer?
We don't know...which is problematic, if you're attempting to say the results are typical. And there's a lot more we don't know like: what were the respondents ages? Where do they live? How do they self identify politically? Are they college educated?
Without those filters you can't tell if the sample presents an accurate cross section of the population which again is problematic if you're attempting to paint a picture of the larger population.
And then there's the very issue that the questionnaire was sent by mail, which is limiting. Who opens unsolicited mail? Older people, not younger people so you're going to skew your responses.
And finally, of the 615 sent the survey only 143 people responded. And because there were no filters we have no idea how representative even that small population is.
It's frankly silly that the survey was even published, and sillier still that you think it means anything even though it admits that no broader conclusions should be drawn from the responses given.
Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!
It definitely is, my future brother in law for instance describes themselves as gender-nonconforming. He wears what on a woman would typically be called a "tasteful" amount of makeup, not emo or goth, just natural toned foundation, light eye shadow,non-dramatic eyeliner, mascara and nude lipstick...and he's a straight guy engaged to my sister. He's definitely in the minority in that he isn't gay and self identifies as gender-nonconforming, but he's definitely not alone so it really just illustrates that it's VERY silly to lump these various groups of people under any single umbrella other than human.
You're always seem to pride yourself on wanting to be correct and accurate Mets, this seems like a very obvious case where you definitely were not. Why not own that?
Last edited by thwhtGuardian; 03-28-2024 at 10:49 PM.
Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!
Which doesn't mean it's definitely harmful and definitely needs to be stopped right away.
Like I said, it's been done for years now if it was super harmful you'd think there would be studies illustrating that and lots of publicly known cases where the harm was clear that you could point to...but you can't. So what does that say?
Looking for a friendly place to discuss comic books? Try The Classic Comics Forum!
Outrage as Saudi Arabia picked to head women's rights forum.
Saudi Arabia's UN ambassador, Abdulaziz Alwasil, has been chosen to chair the world body's Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) after the country's bid for the position remained unopposed.
Such posts rotate among the UN's five regional groups, and are usually confirmed unanimously, in a precedent that other countries may have been unwilling to upset. The Asia group, which includes Saudi Arabia, unanimously confirmed the Saudi candidacy.
The choice has prompted a backlash from rights groups, who note the country's track record on women's rights. Saudi Arabia ranks 131 out of 146 countries on gender equality, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF)."Saudi Arabia's election as chair of the UN Commission on the Status of Women shows shocking disregard for women's rights everywhere," Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch (HRW), said.
"A country that jails women simply because they advocate for their rights has no business being the face of the UN’s top forum for women's rights and gender equality," he added.
"Saudi authorities should demonstrate that this honor was not completely undeserved and immediately release all detained women’s rights defenders, end male guardianship and ensure women's full rights to equality with men."
Ahead of the appointment, Amnesty International already issued a statement condemning the move.
"The Commission on the Status of Women has a clear mandate to promote women's rights and gender equality and it is vital for the chair of the commission to uphold this," Amnesty International's deputy director for advocacy, Sherine Tadros, said.
"Saudi Arabia’s abysmal record when it comes to protecting and promoting the rights of women puts a spotlight on the vast gulf between the lived reality for women and girls in Saudi Arabia, and the aspirations of the Commission," she added.
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.
It's not harmful.
The bone density issue is not an issue and these drugs will still be prescribed to cis children suffering from precocious puberty -- that fact alone should tell you how political this actually is. You are speaking from a country that has years long waiting lists to even have a first appointment with a gender clinic and an entire political party that has been in charge for quite some time going all in on political transphobia.
Last edited by Tendrin; 03-29-2024 at 02:29 AM.
Funny how the party that never cared about how kids with pre existing medical conditions, how insurance would screw them over, now suddenly cares about the medical well being of children