Note the whole premise of their argument is that any teenager in question is trans and that should be assumed because they say they are, and showed up at a trans clinic, and any risk is fine because other trans adults say they wish they had such a treatment (not even that they had it and it was successful, just that they didn't enjoy puberty and wish they had drugs).

The Bayesian shit WAS the whole modus operandi for the last decade which seemed reasonable when it was a hundred kids showing up and each one got attention. Then there were lines out the door and each kid was given prescriptions on the spot without any counselling or exploration of why they are there.

So the only solution is to dump money into it to deal with the influx, but if you're going to do that you need at least a minimum of evidence of the care you're about to dole out at large scale.

That's the missing context, it's a whole system that needs to be formalized eventually, not a localized least bad decision making process based on good vibes

I wouldn't call "There's the exact same amount of absolutist activist schizos but sometimes they clash with Sephiroth /pol/cels" nuance

every morning i see happy transphobic news like this, my day becomes immeasurably wonderful

I know right! hahaha

I didn't reach it in time sadly to see what they were larping as

There was a banned from SomethingAwful last year, and the owner of the site revealed the had been using a sock to send himself hate messages so he could complain about how transphobic everyone was.

That wasn't why he was banned, though, and they let him get away with it for years. It's almost like they have a propensity for lying and should never be taken at face value, especially on the internet.

Subject matter expertise: transcience

Thanks! I made it awhile back from Charles Barkley art

It's Kobe when his helicopter was going down

>marsey

@DWHITE___________DYNAMITE

Yup, that's why they banned all opposing opinions lol. I knew it was bad awhile back when Dr. Harriet Hall's book review complimenting "irreversible damage" was taken down (a first on sciencebasedmedicine.org) but I'm almost glad Dr. Hall died a year or so after so she didn't have to see what's become of things, almost.

None of the subs are used for what they are

Not sure when liberals in general dropped the ball on this shit or why, not just the stuff but all of it.

It is a great testament to the hubris of mankind that we claim to be able to change a man into a woman, and yet we cannot explain how even the humble obese housecat is capable of such mysteries

honestly I'm amazed myself! I can't even walk on them because that shits like legos so I'm assuming xhe's just too smart and has learned to distribute xer fat equally across like the magician's bed-of-nails trick

My owner is the best. He got me a little acupuncture bed. Feels great.

the "we" in question:

Transphobes take notes, this is peak satire

How did they ever come to the conclusion that chopping peepees off was the optimal solution instead of just going to therapy?

Reality has a transohobic bias

Listen BIPOC man, I'm not a chud and I'm not disparaging the hilarity of the ultimate truno reverse card here

It's endlessly funny that a large percent of the affected are unfrickable terfs who are gigamad about s, I'm just here though to also make fun of the fact that it only took one gigafoid to unfrick their whole agenda.

Unfortunately since hormonal induced changes are largely irreversible without surgery e.g. like when you get transbitchtits from estrogen, the buck doesn't stop at humiliating r-slurred feminists, it keeps going, and ends with grooming kids, so I think everyone, when presented with the facts, can safely agree that:

They're not allies, that's why.

Thanks I guess was speaking broadly inclusive to the disturbing amount of patient across all the research lost to follow up across all of these studies suggesting it is indeed potentially harmful because we can't even track how many of them killed themselves after transitioning outside of narrow parameters

Trans activism groups have reacted with a bizarre circular argument, which is that double-blind, randomized trials are unethical because the control groups deny effective care. In other words, they want to block the sort of studies that can test efficacy because they insist it's already efficacious.

I don't think you can do "good science" even like this. Once the idea, the seed of shit is planted in someone's head, they'll react badly to non-affirming procedure. It's like someone who believes they're being gangstalked or were abducted by aliens, they already have their truth and will schizo out whether you affirm or oppose them. If you push back, they're just gonna think you're doing an elaborate stalker/ conspiracy.

The only real way to test if there even is such a thing as ingrained transness, would be to effectively have 2 timelines, with the patient basically not discovering the concept in one of them and comparing their mental health outcomes. The closest real world scenario to that is maybe detransitioning amnesia patients but I don't think that would be allowed in this century

Because you literally ignored the point I made about being an Ioannidis convert like all r-slurs do and proceeded to ramble about how tHE eviDEnCE IS AcKtuAlLY BiAseD without applying the same standards to the data you hold up as gospel, did you even read what I shared or are you just trying to shill?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False

You and @DWHITE___________DYNAMITE shluld do a live-streamed debate

THanks! And my bad, I always get the darn acronym wrong

WPATH

Warpath

Transphobes are gross

I knew what song was gonna be played before it started