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

[Dalak]

Starting with the bolded. You fear a pandemic of people castrating others for the crime of not having had orgasm.

This is a rational fear? What does that have to do with transgender people or gender affirming care? As in, besides this association in your head, where is there anyone promoting a standard of gender affirming care that includes the threshold of never having orgasms, all by itself, qualifying people for surgery?

And yes, "nearly all" is vague. But peer-reviewed studies are not, and that is the source for the low instance of regret.

And back:



Jamie Reed was not a whistleblower. Your exactly one NYT article strives very hard to make her not look bad, but the fact is that nothing backed up her claims.

And there "seems" like a lack of studies to you, because the many scientific studies that do exist contradict what you believe.

You believe there is "pressure in the media and academia to say nothing if it's not in service of a particular narrative."

How are you not hearing yourself? What pressure?

Are you suggesting that the tiny, marginalized minority of transgender people in the world -- are somehow exerting some -- power over everyone else? Like, media and academia are both unfortunately largely driven by profit, I thought ... but in your head, trans folk are exhibiting pressure, somehow? How? Ahem: "They are not the 1% you are looking for."

Your statement there is exhibition of paranoid conspiracy thinking. There remains a strong bias against trans people in much of society, and media and academia are not magically exempt from that. If they are reporting facts you don't like, that doesn't make a conspiracy.

You say you don't see how anyone can read what you've said and conclude transphobia, but -- haven't like multiple people here done that?

How do you not see it, if it's happening to you, multiple times?

You do not, in fact, like specifics and consistently dismiss or ignore specifics that are counterfactual to your ongoing political, personal, and transphobic biases. This has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, by numerous people.
.
Leave trans people alone, Mets. Your transphobic bias 'castrate people who've never had orgasms', is in plain and disgusting view.

Those things have been backed up with specifics, calling you to account on multiple items, over a lengthy period of time, and none of it has ever mattered to you. You'll continue to gaslight and sealion away, making requests for evidence that we all know you will also ignore. Why would any of us expect it change now?

if you can't figure out where you're being transphobic, why multiple people have called you to account on this, after all that has been said and done already, *that's* not going to change either.

It's just another disgusting example of the same argument used to deny lesbians and gay men agency and control over their own desires and bodies as well.

And frankly, it's *none of Mets' business* who or has not had an orgasm, and it's a REALLY gross thing to jump to.

Naw. I'm going to let it, and you, continue to bury yourself... which I must add you're doing an *excellent* job of at this time. Please proceed, local conservative, in talking about how other people orgasms are definitely your business.

So, orgasms are a matter of sexuality.

The topic is gender care.

The two are not the same thing.

It is bias that makes it seem to you as if an aspect of sexuality (orgasms) is the most relevant factor in gender affirming care.

Mental health is a complicated matter. I think it makes the most sense to leave care decisions to the individuals involved and their licensed, professional providers. For other matters, you might agree with that idea. When it comes to transgender people, your bias apparently makes you think your opinion should somehow enter into the equation.

The uninvited interest into sexual identity, orientation, or any aspect of sexuality whatsoever, is inappropriate and invasive.

Gender affirming care and transgender rights in general are about entire lives, people, and families.

You may have your private curiosity about the sexuality of transgender people, no one is in control of your thoughts. But in particular as the conversation has revolved around gender affirming care for children, reducing the matter to sex ... is, again, at best inappropriate. Many, myself included, might consider it somewhat offensive. Many may indeed consider this apparently automatic association in your head to be disgusting.

In any event, there again would be the bias: You seem to think that reducing transgender rights to sex is somehow perfectly acceptable. Many, myself included, do not think so.

Obsession with 1% of the population to score political points in a matter that is no one's f**king business is par for the GOP course.
Meanwhile their "concern" for the medical implications doesn't extend to the untold damage their abortion bans are doing to millions of women.
But it does stop the conversation from turning to what the GOP is doing to the country and how dysfunctional it's elected officials are.

"No one's arguing that she's wrong about mutilation." is another specific unforced error that made many think that Mets is transphobic. And it's use demonstrates the user believes the language they are using is valid, which is why making such an outrageous claim about castration demonstrates that Mets believes this is happening enough to worry about but not enough to bring up specifics that haven't been debunked in posts he's replied to (Singal, Reed, etc). This habit of salacious statements goes back to him comparing teaching young kids about equality to teaching them about a politician cheating with a prostitute while wearing diapers, abortion and deadly diseases like sickle cell anemia. These specifics have been pointed out before, to no real change in behavior or hesitance to defend Transphobes in the GoP.

That's without getting into the focus on studies & specifics when he won't admit the truth about what they state when they run counter to his feelings, or how he keeps avoiding how he claims you can't hold what he doesn't reply to against him while holding Dems not responding to a Tshirt against them nationally as proof of a secret acceptance of open borders. It also doesn't get into how he won't acknowledge instances where he was shown to correct others when he's factually in the wrong. If standards of behavior, debate, or anything else are only applied to some & not others, they are Double Standards and thus an indicator of bias and dishonesty by the ones who apply them in such a way.

On the Bolded, you are right Tendrin but it's nice to point out evidence that will be actively ignored or excused without acknowledging the actual reason it matters. I don't think Mets will change, but it shows context necessary to try and understand what's going on. And this picture is gold:

Attachment 137750

/10char

[AnakinFlair]

Gone are the days when personal disputes were settled if not with words then at least with fists.

No. Instead, we've reverted to the wild west.

[Deathstroke]

Nearly one in five Americans believe Taylor Swift-Biden conspiracy, poll finds

So really the headline should be "Nearly one in five Americans are stupid beyond comprehension."

[Deathstroke]

That would require that first he has Trump's hand removed from his ass.

Speaking of asses, I just heard that Johnson named Marjorie Taylor Greene as one of the impeachment managers for the Mayorkas debacle. That should prove entertaining.

If I remember correctly, she was one of the managers when their first attempt failed so miserably.

[kidfresh512]

Willis: I listened to the argument this morning, where did an excellent job pointing out how dishonest you were with the court on Monday, and I'm actually surprised that the hearing continued. But since it did, here I am.


Fani on the stand and she is giving it to them.

Fani Willis, in discussing how she objects to records requests made by the defense lawyer Ashleigh Merchant, tells her, “I’m not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial.” It is the defendants, she said, who are on trial for trying to steal an election.

[zinderel]

"No one's arguing that she's wrong about mutilation." is another specific unforced error that made many think that Mets is transphobic. And it's use demonstrates the user believes the language they are using is valid, which is why making such an outrageous claim about castration demonstrates that Mets believes this is happening enough to worry about but not enough to bring up specifics that haven't been debunked in posts he's replied to (Singal, Reed, etc). This habit of salacious statements goes back to him comparing teaching young kids about equality to teaching them about a politician cheating with a prostitute while wearing diapers, abortion and deadly diseases like sickle cell anemia. These specifics have been pointed out before, to no real change in behavior or hesitance to defend Transphobes in the GoP.

That's without getting into the focus on studies & specifics when he won't admit the truth about what they state when they run counter to his feelings, or how he keeps avoiding how he claims you can't hold what he doesn't reply to against him while holding Dems not responding to a Tshirt against them nationally as proof of a secret acceptance of open borders. It also doesn't get into how he won't acknowledge instances where he was shown to correct others when he's factually in the wrong. If standards of behavior, debate, or anything else are only applied to some & not others, they are Double Standards and thus an indicator of bias and dishonesty by the ones who apply them in such a way.

On the Bolded, you are right Tendrin but it's nice to point out evidence that will be actively ignored or excused without acknowledging the actual reason it matters. I don't think Mets will change, but it shows context necessary to try and understand what's going on. And this picture is gold:

All of this is is a good part of why I left this forum for a number of years. Imagine my disappointment when I came back to see that he hadn’t changed at all. That he was still using the same ‘just asking questions/trying to be specific/semantics into the ground’ tactics against everyone who dared question or contradict him. That people were still engaging with him in good faith.

I’m glad to see that folks like you and Tendrin, Kirby and WBE still fighting the good fight, though.

[zinderel]

No. Instead, we've reverted to the wild west.

So really the headline should be "Nearly one in five Americans are stupid beyond comprehension."

Just the way the fundamentalists and fascists running the GOP into the ground want us.

[comictimes]

Explosions in Russia's Belgorod Spark 'New Weapon' Fears

[Mister Mets]

Naw. I'm going to let it, and you, continue to bury yourself... which I must add you're doing an *excellent* job of at this time. Please proceed, local conservative, in talking about how other people orgasms are definitely your business.

I'll note you made the provably false claim that the only controversies about anyone transitioning without sufficient psychiatric services apply to adults, when responding to posts about a story involving a children's hospital.

This puts your criticism of the New York Times in some perspective, since it's obvious you don't read the articles you complain about.

So, orgasms are a matter of sexuality.

The topic is gender care.

The two are not the same thing.

It is bias that makes it seem to you as if an aspect of sexuality (orgasms) is the most relevant factor in gender affirming care.

Mental health is a complicated matter. I think it makes the most sense to leave care decisions to the individuals involved and their licensed, professional providers. For other matters, you might agree with that idea. When it comes to transgender people, your bias apparently makes you think your opinion should somehow enter into the equation.

I didn't think it's the most important factor in gender affirming care, although it does seem to be a factor.

I wonder what categories of medicine you think people in the center-left to right treat differently than they do trans issues.

"I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked.

"That is correct," Mueller said.”

This was argued years ago. Meuller clarified he didn't look into the question of whether he would indict Trump as a prosecutor because it wasn't within the scope of his task. He didn't consider the question because it's up to Congress to do so.

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/sta...79766103937024

Lawyers are supposed to be able to follow judge's orders and compartmentalize.

Attachment 137750

/10char

The Lancet report was based on the Netherlands and data collection ended in 2018, which seems to suggest it applies to people who identified as trans in 2013 (it's supposed to cover a five year period) in a particular European country with certain levels of gatekeeping.

It provides some information, but won't really let you know if we can expect a maximum of two percent of American minors who identified as transgender in 2021 to identify that way in two years.

And there is a problem for credibility if claims don't match reality.

[Mister Mets]

The Tangled Fates of Fani Willis and Her Biggest Case




With the hearing today on this mess. I personally still don't see anything that has to do with the actual case. If she did something illegal then yeah she should get in trouble etc. But it still all amounts to salacious, gossipy desperate legal maneuvering that to be fair Fanni brought on herself. The stakes were clear. The case is huge, in every perspective. And she knew they would be threatened and picked apart in every perspective. Will see if it ends up costing her and potentially the American public though getting justice.

It seems like at most it can get her picked off the case just because of optics. Assuming no illegalities clearly defined by the money part of things.

A specific legal problem is that prosecutors are not supposed to benefit financially from a case.

There were already questions that Fani Williams' friend was not conventionally qualified for this particular case. It's a really bad look if it seems that she made any decision that increased the amount of his billable hours.

The uninvited interest into sexual identity, orientation, or any aspect of sexuality whatsoever, is inappropriate and invasive.

Gender affirming care and transgender rights in general are about entire lives, people, and families.

You may have your private curiosity about the sexuality of transgender people, no one is in control of your thoughts. But in particular as the conversation has revolved around gender affirming care for children, reducing the matter to sex ... is, again, at best inappropriate. Many, myself included, might consider it somewhat offensive. Many may indeed consider this apparently automatic association in your head to be disgusting.

In any event, there again would be the bias: You seem to think that reducing transgender rights to sex is somehow perfectly acceptable. Many, myself included, do not think so.

I don't reduce transgender rights to sex, but it is an aspect of human lives and relevant to policy, just as it is in decisions about child marriage or castrato singers.

Obsession with 1% of the population to score political points in a matter that is no one's f**king business is par for the GOP course.
Meanwhile their "concern" for the medical implications doesn't extend to the untold damage their abortion bans are doing to millions of women.
But it does stop the conversation from turning to what the GOP is doing to the country and how dysfunctional it's elected officials are.

In the case of abortion, that argument makes sense if you think a fetus is worthless.

If it has any value, there are tradeoffs.

"No one's arguing that she's wrong about mutilation." is another specific unforced error that made many think that Mets is transphobic. And it's use demonstrates the user believes the language they are using is valid, which is why making such an outrageous claim about castration demonstrates that Mets believes this is happening enough to worry about but not enough to bring up specifics that haven't been debunked in posts he's replied to (Singal, Reed, etc). This habit of salacious statements goes back to him comparing teaching young kids about equality to teaching them about a politician cheating with a prostitute while wearing diapers, abortion and deadly diseases like sickle cell anemia. These specifics have been pointed out before, to no real change in behavior or hesitance to defend Transphobes in the GoP.

That's without getting into the focus on studies & specifics when he won't admit the truth about what they state when they run counter to his feelings, or how he keeps avoiding how he claims you can't hold what he doesn't reply to against him while holding Dems not responding to a Tshirt against them nationally as proof of a secret acceptance of open borders. It also doesn't get into how he won't acknowledge instances where he was shown to correct others when he's factually in the wrong. If standards of behavior, debate, or anything else are only applied to some & not others, they are Double Standards and thus an indicator of bias and dishonesty by the ones who apply them in such a way.

On the Bolded, you are right Tendrin but it's nice to point out evidence that will be actively ignored or excused without acknowledging the actual reason it matters. I don't think Mets will change, but it shows context necessary to try and understand what's going on. And this picture is gold:

A fact-checker wouldn't address that claim because it's more about opinion than fact.

That's all I meant. I get that people think I may have lied about that, but this gets to my comment that people may be offended by what I said if they don't care about the specifics. I addressed this over a year ago.

With the T-shirt thing, a prominent Democrat (member of house leadership, Vice-Chair of the House) was in public with an open borders message. You guys seem to be trying to imply that open borders is as unwelcome in the Democratic party as opposition to interracial marriage, which does not track.

Willis: I listened to the argument this morning, where did an excellent job pointing out how dishonest you were with the court on Monday, and I'm actually surprised that the hearing continued. But since it did, here I am.


Fani on the stand and she is giving it to them.

I'm not sure this will convince anyone.

It's a bad thing for a prosecutor to make decisions that benefit her romantic partner financially, especially if some of the money gets back to her.

[Tendrin]

Fortunately, I included links to multiple arguments, and my 'provably false claim' is just you trying to ignore everything in favor of one thing again to play dismissive arbiter again, while ignoring a huge mountain of evidence.

As usual.

Please spare us your condescending horseshit and *leave trans people alone*.

[Tendrin]

The ACLU of Colorado and a transgender 18-year-old are suing the Children’s Hospital of Colorado after it canceled his gender-affirming surgery on the same day he took the last step in confirming a surgery date with his insurance company.

Caden Kent (a pseudonym used to protect the plaintiff’s identity) and the ACLU of Colorado are suing CHCO, where Kent received treatment at the TRUE Center for Gender Diversity since he was 16. Kent had been receiving treatment from the clinic for 20 months and eight months of treatment in preparation for top surgery at the time of the cancellation.

Kent submitted an insurance authorization letter on July 13 last year, the final step before setting a date for surgery. On that same day, he was notified by a CHCO physician’s assistant that the hospital would not move forward with the procedure. Kent was provided with no further explanation, but the hospital announced it would no longer provide gender-affirming surgery.

The cancellation has left Kent and his family to begin the lengthy consultation and treatment process again, as well as leaving them with the entire bill for the procedure if it is to be completed before he heads off to college later in the year.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trans-18-...125244490.html

[Adam Allen]

I didn't think it's the most important factor in gender affirming care, although it does seem to be a factor.

I don't reduce transgender rights to sex, but it is an aspect of human lives and relevant to policy, just as it is in decisions about child marriage or castrato singers.

Like 24 Hours ago:

I don't think anyone can read what I've said on this topic, and conclude that I fear and hate trans people (Unless you think I'm lying but that's no longer about what I've written.) I am concerned about castrating people who have never had orgasms. That's where I'm coming from.

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

[babyblob]

THe FBI Informant Alexander Smirnov made claims about Biden and his son and the payments they received as bribes that the GOP is using as their basis for the impeachment of Joe Biden as been arrested for making false statements and creating a fictitious record.

Of course we all know this will not cause the GOP to back off. The will start to yell about a cover up and the FBI protecting Biden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...d-fbi-burisma/

[achilles]

Well, looks like Putin finally murdered that guy he poisoned. He had to know this was going to happen, yet he voluntarily went back into Russian custody when he was safe in the West. Well, not safe, but safer. I guess he was determined to be a martyr.