LawTalkingGuy
There's a difference between an honest archive of potentially reprehensible things that might motivate someone to harass someone and a site which actively promotes harassment. Example, _Something Awful_ (at least back in the day).
Would KF be better, in your mind, if the threads contained links to archive sites whose archives contained the doxxing information, but they didn't repost it on KF? Separate the comments from the data?
> often it takes five minutes (like checking out stats on the uk gov website regarding criminal convictions of British Pakistanis for having sex with under 16 year olds to settle the myth of Pakistani child rape).
The claim is that the police/courts/government are actively ignoring sex-trafficking and child sex when they perceive there to be a racial group of perpetrators, so one would expect the stats on prosecutions to be misleading. It's not about which race is more likely to commit a crime in Britain, but which races are potentially being "allowed" to and thus which victims are unlikely to be helped. The claim is not that Muslims or Pakistanis are more rapey than other people, just that they're less likely to be prosecuted in Britain's current legal climate.
There is a comment by a police officer "The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) found a chief inspector told a missing child’s father that Rotherham “would erupt” if it knew that multiple Asian gangs were sexually abusing children" which indicates a blindness towards certain groups, and because the issue is police perception of their ability to prosecute without being called racist, that chief inspector's view is relevant to likelihood of investigation and arrest and therefore prosecution.
A UK parliament study on the issue deliberately clouds the issue by saying "The vast majority of convicted child-sex offenders in the UK are single White men", which shouldn't surprising in a country where the majority is white. This misses the claim of unequal police attention though, which is the real issue.
I don't think you researched the actual claims of the people who brought that up and thus haven't disproven it.
When we used to say disinformation I imagined deep webs of false references, faking critical data.
Now I can lookup most "fake news" and find the truth of it, generally a too-broad take on quoting someone, within minutes. It's just that for partisan reasons people don't look, and when they have it pointed out they tend to say "yeah, that might be wrong but it's still mostly right in spirit" and keep on going.
It seems like hyper-partisanship or tribalism instead of being primarily based on bad data because the data so rarely comes into question.
KF is ultimately an archive site. It "keeps receipts" in their words. If storing someone's posts is bad, is archive.org bad for performing the same function?
If KF supports harassment campaigns then make that case, but they seem not to. I've seen more harassment and threats on Twitter (literally!) than on KF threads.
If suicide is your metric, are you also against storing the words of people you find objectionable in case they commit suicide when discovered? What if a neo-nazi was recorded being a nazi and killed himself, is that bad?
I personally support storing the speech (because it's censorship not to allow it) and I support legal charges for people who go beyond - let the courts sort of the fine lines.
Comcast has an all-women Open Source Program Office, which sounds like a way to include females in engineering. But they define women as "females and males who want to be seen as female" which doesn't help women actually get jobs.
The Scottish National Party has sex-quotas to achieve more-equal representation by men and women, but they let men who claim to be women take these seats.
Are either actually inclusive? Are they inclusive of women? If you have a daughter, do either of those measures better her life.
And yet both actions meet the 'Social' criteria of ESG scores, and serve to boost a company's rankings and thus lower its interest rate on sustainability linked loans.
> If they asked her to stop, and she didn't stop, she's in the wrong. Yes, absolutely report her to HR. What was the point of this story?
"I pray for everyone, saints and sinners, to have a better life." - "Fire the witch, she's using hateful spells against me!"
You took something you had no context or scale for, you don't know if she loudly and rudely prayed at her desk, or casually commented that she prays daily for many people of whom the OP is one, and yet you immediately agree that she should be examined for ability and worthiness to have a job for her actions.
> > do you believe someone refusing to use neo-pronouns is "bullying"
> If something is a large part of your internally perceived identity & someone else actively denies that part of your identity, is that okay?
You've jumped a few steps. Where did not participating in your identity become "actively denying" it? I don't believe you can literally be a furry-kin but I don't follow furs to their place of work to make the case that their belief renders them less useful as engineers.
> Do you have an experiential framework with which to tackle that identity scenario in the first place, to understand in any fashion how they feel about that?
Yes, throughout history people have believed things I do not think are literal truth. Catholics believe that their cracker has a certain god-nature as they eat it, I do not but this doesn't constitute religious oppression - even if I refuse to promote it.
> Are you willing to employ empathy?
Are you? If I agree with your claim that you like movies it costs me nothing, but if you want me to agree with your claim that you have changed sexes and want me to support changing laws to accommodate you, this does. Are you considering the feelings of everyone impacted by the required changes for that worldview to be accepted, or only the person making the claim?
> > in return anyone that refuses to use neo-pronouns should be bullied themselves
> No, but they should be made aware that they're being assholes.
Are they though? Is Riley Gaines an asshole for protesting men entering women's sports? At what point do you feel it's reasonable to label and other someone for their disbelief and lack of support for someone else's religious beliefs?
Refusing to use misleading terms or labels, to call a man a woman for instance, is required in stating the premise that women's sports, and safe spaces, are being invaded by males - invalidating the point of women's spaces. If you're forced to call a man a woman, or he a she, you aren't allowed to actually speak.
> It doesn't justify it, but it should be well-understood that attacks from the left are not predicated on nothing.
Saying that attacks are based on something is an attempt to justify them.
> The hilarious part of this statement, at least in this specific context, is that it goes both ways. Our monkeys are flinging shit at their monkeys, and for some reason their monkeys are throwing shit back!
> You wanna know a true story from right-wing cancellation?
You've drawn a simple map, with good people in a group called "the left" and everyone else, including Hitler of course, in a group called "the right".
I'm descended from people who escaped communism, and have some relatives who did not, so I'm very anti communism/socialism/marxism, you could say "anti-left", but "anti-communist" would be more accurate. I'm not "right", let alone "alt" or "far", because those aren't ideologies you can subscribe to, they're merely labels for people who disagree with the academic left.
For instance, my views on sex and gender and thus neo-pronouns don't come from my position on some political compass, they come from being a father and seeing the impact of sex and sex-based actions on my children and then on females in general.
> As you put it, this is a common tactic for those on the authoritarian right.
You were right, up until that last word. Othering and violence is a common tactic of authoritarians. Left/right is not relevant to believing people should be beaten for their words.
> This is the extermination the other person is referring to. Murdering people based on shit they heard online, without actually bothering to interact with those people or build any kind of basis of empathy, to understand the challenges they face in a world where they feel the need to lash out like you've seen.
Riley Gaines was merely speaking about the actual disparate impact to "female women" on her and her teammates. She was screamed at and bullied out of finishing her talk, chased and hit, and unlawfully confined be people who refused to even listen to her, let alone try to empathize with her, before literally calling for her death, her extermination.
Female is a real group you can point to, "males who want to be called women" is not. If you can't empathize with women, how do you expect them to empathize with their attackers?
At what point do you ask "Am I one of the baddies?"
The difference, I feel, is that I know many people whose identity is "leftist" or "progressive" and I don't personally know anyone who identifies as a "rightist". The right is a centuries-old boogeyman of the left, and it encompasses everyone who disagrees with the critical-analysis class-based views of the left.
The worst term the left has is "far-right" which just means very-heretical. The worst thing you can do is let your opinions diverge from the groupthink.
Regardless, it's not an argument. Your emotion has no direct weight on the correctness of an outcome you're arguing for, and trying to appeal to other's emotions in an attempt to sway them is attempting to bypass their critical analysis.
Argue the facts and let emotions happen. They "are you" but should not drive you.
> "Everyone agrees with me but they're too afraid to say it" is a convenient excuse to hold reprehensible beliefs that you don't want to take responsibility for. If everyone is afraid to say something, maybe that's because it's disgusting?
No, likely outcomes and consequences for discussing something are rarely aligned. You're discussing hounding people out of work/home/politics because of your emotional take on what they're saying, without any actual analysis of it or how actionable it is.
In my mind, that's incredibly dangerous (and thus, if I chose to use emotional language - disgusting) but I'm not advocating taking away your right to say it.
> Again though, while there I am certain are some examples of people being bullied to that point, I have a hard time seeing it.
James Damore is a great example. He didn't broadcast his views - he responded privately to questions in a hiring review panel at Google, discussing how the company could improve its hiring of women by understanding the roles it was offering in the light of modern psychological analysis using the "Big Five" traits model.
Specifically, he did not say that women were worse engineers in any way, either holistically or in individual skills, OR less suited to engineering than males. He argued that Google's roles were less suitable for "traditionally female" interests. Again, this was privately, in the context of a panel trying to evaluate why Google wasn't great at hiring women engineers.
His communications were leaked, with the context stripped, in an edited form without any references to gawker-style media who were prompted with the lead 'white guy says - "Don't hire women"' to prompt them into the "right" emotional headspace to write an attack piece.
To tie this back to emotion, obviously someone read his words and let their emotion at those words (I myself don't like psychobabble) override their analysis of what was said. Their emotions are "valid lived experience" but the attacks they called for, and lies used to do so, are not helpful or justified.
And yet our cities are being destroyed by having a mere 2-10k junkies in an extreme state of decay, using the hardest drugs and living, robbing, and dying in the streets.
> many people leave US jail more addicted than when they came in
That'd be hard in this case. They're already on all the drugs they can get, but especially the hardest. But they also don't need hard prison, they could be kept in a wet paper bag if you gave them their drugs. Initial cleanup wouldn't be hard.
> What's more, not all drugs have blockers that a person can take (eg: Meth, cocaine, nicotine),
Those aren't the drugs that are being abused in the street-drug camps. (Not to minimize meth, but it's no Fentanyl...)
And even without blockers, there is regular assisted detox which is better than death.
> and not everyone can get access to those blockers.
We'd make sure they could though, that being the point. For the price we spend on clean needles we could give every junkie their blockers. Jail and programs are cheap compared to dealing with the ongoing mess, crime, and death.
> The US has [...] virtually no willingness to spend money on social programs
Canada and other countries are also having this problem, but even the USA spends a lot on social programs. The people are just getting tired of those programs being counter-productive such as the "safe" drugs supply and decriminalization.
> US jails don't detox people with blockers
We're talking about fixing things though, so that could change as easily as anything else. Certainly more easily than hiring enough ambulance attendants to continually revive the dying.
> Blockers are great things, but if a person does not want to do the blockers - it will not be effective.
Yeah, jail never polls well. That's why it's not an option though. There are many laws they're breaking, even leaving out any drug and drug-predicate crimes, and the sentence for those easily covers any authority needed to require, and time to administer, the treatment.
> It looks like Portugal has long decriminilized all drugs
No, though. Or not the related crimes, such as possession and public intoxication. They use the criminality for force you into treatment. But you don't come out with a criminal record for the drug crimes, so if that was all you did it is sort of decriminalized... Michael Shellenberger interviews João Goulão, head of Portugal's drug program, who says with a chuckle that the legal force is part of the voluntary program.
> I think this conversation also goes to why the term 'addiction' is often no longer used. Detox is one thing, but teaching someone how to deal with stress takes more. When I was a heavy tobacco user, the habit part was a distinct and big part of the overall "addiction." It was one thing to get off of nicotine, it was another to learn that the way to deal with stress was not to go
We're talking about street use of fentanyl though, where you've got at least a 25% chance/year of death. That they don't reach full recovery through one intervention isn't a problem. Once we've saved their life, and the lives and prosperity of people they were dying near, we can get to work on their stress.
Also, the people who want to redefine the terms and reshape the conversation are, to a large part, the ones who have gotten us where we are.
There are many ways to see criminal law - as a punishment, or as a tool.
Portugal uses it as a tool. They know, because many of the founders are ex junkies, that junkies can't say no to another dose. They have to remove the dangerous option and that's handled by taking you off the street, for which they use the crimes as an excuse to remove your autonomy temporarily. Critically, they don't stick you with a criminal record for anything self-harming - when you get clean your record is also clean.
As a parent I believe in talking to kids, explaining, making them allies. But if they misbehave dangerously you simply pick them up and carry them away. You don't pretend that a 3yo, or even an 8yo, can understand everything well enough to just the dangers in a situation so sometimes you just take control.
Given that junkies have less reasoning capability and willpower than a 3yo, I think that trying to reason with them "Oh come on, don't you want to put down the drugs and not feel awesome? Don't you want to sign up for a 'meaningful' life with a 9-5 job?" is going to work because drugs are engineered to take that ability away.
IMHO the correct response, for where we've let ourselves get on the West coast, is to take everyone who ODs and throw them in an ambulance when narcan-ing them rather than leaving them on the street. To give them suboxone when we get them to a holding facility. After a day or two of good food and TV and smokes, etc, etc, but no more hard drugs - but also no more desire for them or detox pain from not having them - you ask if they want to continue the program. The trick is that both paths lead to the program - one directly and one via a bit of a cooldown in a more traditional jail (though still super low-security) until they come to the conclusion on their own. This is where you use the criminal charges, from whatever they did to obtain those drugs, to justify the captivity.
There's a good documentary (Vancouver is Dying, I think) where one of the government guys helping people, pushing for new laws, had spent five years on the street himself as a casual habit took him to rock bottom from a high-status life, so he knows all sides of the issue, and he thanks the people and the systems that gave him the opportunity to live again. There are many such stories, but his - juxtaposed with the misery people are currently in - was heartwarming and breaking.
Opioids don't have to be a life sentence.
How much did you end up using?
And did you notice it abstractly, similar to "I've been using food delivery too much recently", or did it have a physical or mental toll before you noticed?
Congratulations.
Portugal did not decriminalize use of drugs! Public use of drugs, and being uncontrollably high in public, is criminal and they use the court system to force people into voluntary rehab (the other choice is prison) where they use an evidence-based drug treatment system and up to a few years of job skills and counseling before releasing the person. Decisions are made by a panel of doctors and ex street-junkies who know the truth of the situation and what the addicted will say and do.
Portland Oregon on the other decriminalized the drugs - as in you can buy and inject anything in front of a cop and pass out in your own vomit in the middle of the sidewalk and the police can't even move you.
Regrettably they knowingly chose to reference Portugal as if they were following its advice while using the terminology to describe a completely different system.
> Actually one thing I would be curious to try is to substitute ketamine for opiates. It might work out that some people prefer it and it’s far less harmful on the body.
That feels like the joke about Freud trying to cure Cocaine addiction with Heroin and merely inventing the speedball.
What do you think of Suboxone? It blocks withdrawal symptoms and the further effect of opioids, making users not suffer or want more drugs during the process. At the end, the user is not dependent or addicted, and is ready for actual rehabilitation.
No, I know people who've been hooked meth and heroin (all different people) who not only tried them for the high, but used them "safely" for years before they lost control.
EDIT: Here's a post from an HN user who followed exactly this path - no intention of self harm at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36965442
This single anecdote disproves your "nobody starts" claim.
> They do it because there’s no better life path open to them. It’s really a form of suicide.
No, less than one in twenty at most wants to die or has circumstances that would make the average person want to be dead if they had the addiction treated. (Which with modern drug-based methods is actually pretty easy.)
> Criminalizing will make the suicide process faster and less visible to you.
It's not suicide though, that's just want you're saying. It's your opinion. Given that most people recognize this isn't suicide, and most users did not and do not want to die, it should not be treated flippantly and the responses shouldn't be denigrated.
Banning hard drugs is like banning unsafe food or medical products - it's what we expect our government to do.
> Making it illegal would be like criminalizing sugar because of the obesity epidemic.
That would work and would save a lot of lives. And fwiw, the argument isn't if we should criminalize sugar which we already do in many goods and forms, it's about at what point the FDA should set the allowed value.
It doesn't sound friendly the way you say it, as if the "general audience" can't think for itself and needs to be convinced and tactics (ie, not facts) are needed to do so.
How about: "It's a technique to connect with a general audience."
It feels like it was common practice until just recently.
> Unfortunately about half the population doesn't have empathy for anyone they don't grow up with, and some of those have empathy for no one at all.
You know, everyone feels the same but they think it of a different 50%...
But it's not that - it's that I want to have a discussion of alternatives and feasibility without being hampered by either side's forced emotional manipulation instead of policy points.
I live in a drug city and I hear the "think of the pain of the junkies" all the time - as if I've never had drugs impact my family. As if we didn't reach this point through 20y+ of only thinking about the short-term interests of the druggies. As if me not falling over and sobbing with the person delivering the message is a sign of my massive inhumanity.
And then I go to a different meeting and I hear "think of the family of the random-attack victims", etc. As if I've never considered crime victims until they showed me how and my failing to sob along with them and adopt their policy decisions is because I hate the common man.
I really just want to discuss options. How much does jail cost vs street life vs treatment, how much greater or lesser risk is someone at on this drug vs that. Only once we know what we could do can we actually decide what we should do.
> I know a thing or two about these folks and they're all suffering before they started using. They often start by self medicating because they were traumatized or incredibly impoverished due to a series of unfortunate accidents.
fwiw, none of the people I know who have died or had their lives ruined through drugs have been the type of suicidally circle the drain. They're a seemingly random subset of people, of all political and economic stripes, and levels of abuse of disforture. Many were addicted via medical opioids and many via casual party usage. They aren't a special subset, they are us. There but for the grace of not encountering a laced joint, go I.
I don't doubt that many of the worst off people have significantly more pain that the average person, but I don't think that's relevant - they need treatment not because they're worthy for having a large enough victim card, but because it's not only doable (the options I want to discuss) but because I believe it's the best moral action for society as well.
> So, yes, I believe it's the right thing to do to treat rather than imprison.
Of course, but where our cities went wrong is people sabotaging the system under a false pretense of kindness by rejecting any imprisonment or coercion as part of treatment. Their drug and mental problems are used to prevent them from being charged with their crimes where we could enforce treatment.
In the short term it's always better to have another hit. We've proved rats will push a cocaine button all day until dead, why we need to witness it in people is beyond me. We need to remove the button.
This isn't true. You give them opioid antagonists such as Suboxone. It's not a one-and-done thing, true, but while on these meds they do not want and could not enjoy the drugs.
A full treatment plan, such a Portugal uses on anyone caught uncontrollably stoned in public, can take up to a few years and involves eventual job programs, etc, to leave the person happily employed and housed.
> but the hard work has to come from the person them-self.
No, this is old stigma-based thinking, just from the other point of view. There's no need for someone to do the monumental task of detoxing and through shear willpower, deny any future hits. The antagonists take effect almost immediately, blocking the need, and quickly the desire.
> "go to treatment, do 30 days of parole - or go to jail." The effectiveness of this kind of treatment AFAIK is tantamount to a joke.
True, that is nonsense. It needs to be jail, but your choice of jail with rehab or just jail, and it needs to be until a body of experts (many themselves ex users of the same drugs) feels you are ready to be released based on evidence-based treatment plans. Then, back to jail to serve your remaining sentence if applicable or released into the public if your crimes were only drug related and you're unlikely to re-offend.
I'm listening to one of the main voices of modern transgenderism. They began social transition of their son back in ~2006, with a roadmap of blockers, hormones, and surgery planned. She went on to run one of the most influential organizations which worked with schools and government bodies to implement policies and laws.
If she's doing something it's central to the standards of care and the actions of the movement. She speaks openly about it, at TED no less, so it's not like she was badgered by a journalist into saying the wrong thing. This is her conception of acceptable, and thus probably your government's.
> You are very actively talking about these cases
Well yes. If I was to speak only theoretically people would be saying "that never happens". Would more examples help, so it's obvious it's not just a single case?
But, even if it was only a single case, how does that invalidate the issue of biased diagnosis.
> but what about the opposite? Trans kids who are kept from proper medical attention by their parents?
Let's start with "what's the definition of a trans kid?". Because I certainly don't think that a boy playing with dolls counts, gay or otherwise. Nor, any case where the child is reacting to external sexual stereotypes, whatever they are. That's other people's baggage, not a condition in the child which requires repair.
So most, if not all, "trans kids" are just kids. They require no treatment. They are perfect the way they are.
If you mean people with disorders of sexual development ("Intersex"), then they may require puberty blockers (precocious puberty), hormones (PAIS, etc), or surgery (undescended testicles, imperforate hymen, etc) but those are evidence-based medical interventions for tangible problems.
So you tell me, what medical attention is proper in what cases?
"Jack’s favorite outfits were the tutu and the snow-white costume [...] that was fine but not for Dad [...] the conclusion of the sort of years up until she was about two was that I had a very sensitive quite a feminine little boy who was probably gay but Jack’s dad did not approve of our child’s effeminate behavior [...] at six she asked when she could have the operation to make her really a girl". -- Susie Green, Mermaids CEO - TED Talk - 2017
The Canadian criminal code was specifically updated, with input from Mermaids and similar institutions, to ban conversion therapy. Except of the sort that Susie practiced on her son.
"It would not criminalize conversations in which a person expresses an opinion on sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, unless that conversation forms part of an intervention designed to make a person heterosexual or cisgender." -- From Bill C-4 to modify the Canadian Criminal Code + Charter
It's illegal to try to make a gay kid hetero but there's nothing to prevent you making them trans by drugging them and removing their organs while they're underage.
If you care about people's freedoms to be themselves you need to see the nightmare that this is.
"Jack’s favorite outfits were the tutu and the snow-white costume [...] that was fine but not for Dad [...] the conclusion of the sort of years up until she was about two was that I had a very sensitive quite a feminine little boy who was probably gay but Jack’s dad did not approve of our child’s effeminate behavior [...] at six she asked when she could have the operation to make her really a girl". -- Susie Green, Mermaids CEO - TED Talk - 2017
Susie Green ran Mermaids, one of the largest pro-trans organizations, and they helped write the UK (and through them, the rest of the world's) school guidelines. She counts as an "ally", though with friends like those ...
> 2. "why does he then need further intervention to be that girl" - Nobody needs any interventions to be a girl. "Girl" is just a label.
Susie Green got her son Jackie a "vaginoplasty", cosmetic surgery to turn his penis into a non-functional semblance of a vulva and vagina, on his 16th birthday.
> 3. "a child who wants to be a girl totally needs to lose his dick and the parents are Nazi's if they question it" - Advocates do not believe this. Trans adults can have SRS if they want it but it's not "required" for anything and it is not offered for children.
Obviously it is offered, as shown above. And "top surgery" (non-medically indicated mastectomies) for Girls are regularly performed on children as young as 13.
“It’s absolutely vital. If they feel their body is changing against their will, that’s when we get a lot of suicidality, self-harm, lots of young people talking about wanting to be dead. If you’ve got a child who’s suicidal and self-harming because their body is changing against their will, nothing is done to fast-track or deal with that need.” -- Susie Green
Not only are medical interventions needed, but without them your child might (48% chance she says!) attempt suicide.
> 4. "Where is the research showing that children come up with 'gender dysphoria' without adult prompting them" - Most transgender adults were once transgender children. It's quite common to see them say on twitter, tumblr, etc. that nobody told them about gender dysphoria when they were young, and that they had to create their own vocabulary for it when they tried to explain their feelings to their parents.
Other kids were convinced they must be pirates. Or, were just as convinced they were the other sex, but weren't told that sex change was possible and eventually they realized it wasn't real.
But we have the perfect example with the Green family. They not only told their son that he couldn't do certain things, but it was because those were girl things. When he came to them and said he wanted to be a girl it was just repeating their claims back to them - that he wanted to play with dolls and wanted whatever was wrong with him fixed so that he could.
> 5. This one is just confusing. Of course they wouldn't use the same words and independently develop the same medical treatments we have now.
Right. They'd have various childhood angst regardless, but not having been told that there was a problem with them (and a solution, snip snip) they'd simply get over it when age appropriate.
> Reimer was not transgender, and it always confuses me why anti-trans people think what happened to him supports them. He knew he was a boy, others ignored him, and he suffered greatly as a result, in many of the same ways that transgender people suffer when they aren't allowed to decide their gender for themselves.
Because it shows the problems with messing with children sexually, and how Money - despite the experiment proving him wrong - went on the claim David's story as a great success. It doesn't prove me right, but it shows that trans medicine is built on a tower of lies.
> Note re: "Why isn't the much more likely explanation - that these adults are pedophiles" - This is not a more likely explanation.
Money had David and his brother strip and simulate sex acts while he watched. This was so revolting that the twins eventually refused to see him anymore.
"As part of the therapy process, Money had David and his twin brother Brian assume sex positions with one another to more firmly encode “Brenda’s” sexual identity. When the twins refused, they were subjected to verbal abuse from Money, a BBC account explains. At times, other colleagues watched as the boys engaged in “sexual exploration.” Pictures were collected, and are presently being held as property of the Kinsey Institute."
> 6. "Where, without an adult telling them that a sex change is a real thing is possible for them to have, do you have children asking to be surgically changed to look vaguely like (ie, cosmetic only) the other sex?" - Children generally do not ask for SRS. Apart from that, I'm not sure what your point is here?
That they ever do ask is proof that an adult fed them that nonsense.
"at six she asked when she could have the operation to make her really a girl" -- Susie Green, Mermaids CEO, about her son Jack
> 7. "How many children, without weird homophobic parents, want their genitals surgically modified?" - This is pretty clearly a reference to the conspiracy theory that transition is a form of gay conversion therapy. Like many conspiracy theories, it's really stupid.
It's true, see the answer to #1.
> It's the transphobes who say children should only play with toys that match their gender.
Nah dog, the top person pushing trans in the UK disagrees with you.
> Homophobes are generally transphobic as well.
The Islamic Republic of Iran supports trans surgery and provides it to gays and lesbians free of charge, with the other choice being death. They very much believe in transing the gay away.
> Note re: "why not just agree with me?" - Because you are wrong about many, many, many things. There's more than this that you're wrong about,
You haven't shown a single one, or even made a good attempt.
But again, if I'm wrong about all this and it's not what is done and said, why not simply agree with "children should not receive gender surgeries for non-medical reasons"?
You say it isn't done but you won't condemn it.
This Reuters article claims 282 "U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis" in 2021 alone - https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran...
That's a minimum of 140x more in a year than you say have ever happened.
> WPATH distinguishes between children and adolescents for treatment but since we have been using children to mean under-18 I felt prepubescent child would be clear enough. Of course if you had opened the document that would have been clear but my apologies.
You clearly said "no interventions on the prepubescent" and that is so obviously not true, otherwise you couldn't block puberty.
I did open it, but have seen the WPATH guidelines before so I knew you were wrong.
If you had read your own source you'd have seen that under XI-Surgery - Criteria - Top Surgery it says
"Criteria for mastectomy and creation of a male chest in FtM patients:
3. Age of majority in a given country (if younger, follow the Standards of Care outlined in section VI)"
And the Standards of Care in Section VI say:
"Physical Interventions for Adolescents - Irreversible Interventions:
Chest surgery in FtM patients could be carried out earlier [than the age of majority] ..."
> This interpretation also has the benefit of being supported by actual evidence, that is an aggregate regret rate of ~1% across 27 studies for SRS.
You were telling me this never happens, so how can there be a study of the results. Make up your mind.
> > Why did Jackie Green have his penis removed because of his father's distaste for gay people?
> I wasn't familiar with this person so I was taking your word for it that this person had detransitioned and that she considered the surgery a mistake.
Not she, they're a boy. He had his penis removed.
And they've never known anything else so how would they know? In fact, their mother is one of the ones who popularized the "have a dead son or a live daughter" line, so Jackie has been told that this literally saved his life.
> distorting the story for your own purposes.
Listen to Susan in her own words in her TED talk describe their motivation for telling their toddler (3yo!) that he was a girl - his father's homophobic dislike of his son playing with girls' toys.
> In fact [he] hasn't and its frankly disgusting that you are
Sure, it's not the bigoted grooming and penis loping that's disgusting, it's me pointing out that it happens which is disgusting.
It's exactly this continual gaslighting from you child-transition advocates - it never happens, but if it does it's awesome - that we parents have come to expect.
In terms of # of correct guesses, sure. In terms of damage from guessing incorrectly over time, usually not.
The trick is to separate processes - A CSS update probably isn't very risky, and an auth or login update probably is. Don't bundle them into "website updates".
Run ahead with the layout changes and spend some time on failure-planning for the auth change.
Which trans people did I mention? I called out Susie Green and "Dr's" Kinsey and Money. If I didn't talk about trans people, just "doctors" and advocates, how could I be claiming anything about trans people's beliefs?
But sure, please do list out those mistaken beliefs you think I touched on.
> Given that genital surgery for children is not something that transgender activists are advocating for
If it isn't happening, why not just agree with me? If it doesn't need to happen, why not support laws banning it?
> I must ask you why you seem so fixated on the topic?
That's straight out of the narcissists prayer. "That doesn't happen, but if it does it's no big deal, and why do you care so much anyways?"
I'm a parent and this is infesting our schools. I care because I have had kids, I have been a kid, I have empathy for other people and their kids, I want useful schools, and I don't want my tax money spent hurting people.
Not true, puberty blockers have to be taken before puberty. By definition.
> > SRS is exceedingly rare for under-18s
No, it's not rare, it's happening at full pace at most clinics. But, even if it was rare, why is it happening to even a single child.
If it doesn't happen to children, and doesn't need to, would you support a law banning it?
> and the massive focus you are putting on it suggests to me that your sources are extremely biased or outright disingenuous.
Why did Jackie Green have his penis removed because of his father's distaste for gay people? Don't you care that young children are being subjected to gay conversion therapy because of their parents bigotry?
That was 100% of the penises young Jackie had so your statistics about rarity, even if true, are irrelevant to him.
> The vast, vast majority of gender affirming care for children is social transition, then maybe puberty blockers, then maybe hormones.
The vast majority of the lifetime of surgeries and surgical fixes and other medical interventions would usually happen after the age of 18 but once "social transition" has begun - ie, the school telling other students that you're now a girl, your new names, dressing "like a girl", etc, - you're very likely to continue with a lifetime of medicalization. Whereas doing nothing, no "treatment" at all, is likely to cause the patient to desist in the "belief" that they are the other sex.
Everything you've said here is dead wrong. SRS is happening to kids, the WPATH does recommend medical interventions for children, and the vast majority of kids groomed into this go onto to further treatments - just after 18. But they have little choice at that point, as blockers, hormones, and partial SRS (ie, top surgery) have often already been performed which leaves them no option to stay unmodified and healthy.
I imagine that the mission parameters were that he take a check and remove money from the account.
It would also make sense that this is the CEO's account, or one he also controls, because he's in on the test and can give informed consent. Also, probably the CEO doesn't have any special access so breaking into his identity wouldn't impact the bank the way breaking into the IT manager's account might.
If this was a fake account (one with no real user) then they wouldn't have discovered this flaw because Mitnick couldn't have called the user. Having a real person be exploitable is essential to proper discovery of the full scope of the problems.
"A pattern begins to emerge as we survey some of the best and longest outcome studies on gender transition: the longer the studies and the better the methods, the more negative the results. " - https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/02/60143/
Also, the posts by detransitioners who explain how their doctors, specifically, did not care to investigate confounding signals or perform valid surgical aftercare. And how hatefully they're treated by the trans community, without any concern for the validity of what they say.
> your peer reviewed paper
Their papers are failing peer review, that's the point. The "studies" they claim to have done are intentionally bad. Tavistock in the UK failed to record the sex of many of their patients. Other clinics don't follow up with patients and have reported all loss-of-contact results as positive interventions. This is what you'd expect from a field that's more concerned with returning the "progressive" answer than facts.
> Since you seem to have some expertise in this area, do you have any feelings about the accuracy of measured outcomes for other elective surgeries, or is it just the one that happens to be a culture war talking point?
Oh, please forgive me for being more interested in bogus medical treatments being forced on children without their parent's knowledge.
They call it gender dysphoria but they (WPATH) don't recognize that it's the parent's dysphoria. (Source: Susie Green from Mermaids in her TED talk saying they transed her son because her husband wasn't happen with his 'girly' interests.)
Why wasn't the intervention to counsel the father?
If the son is clearly "a girl", why does he then need further intervention to be that girl? We're told that adults can be the other gender simply by stating they are - but children probably need "treatment". An adult male in women's prison with his dick fully intact is "as much of a woman as anyone else" but a child who wants to be a girl totally needs to lose his dick and the parents are Nazi's if they question it. Why are the standards so different?
Where is the research showing that children come up with 'gender dysphoria' without adult prompting them, and that these are the words they'd use and the interventions that they'd have asked for without "therapists" like Kinsey and Money? Why isn't the much more likely explanation - that these adults are pedophiles and through fixating on these children sexually during development, that they've caused intense emotional damage? (John Money has been shown to be lying - claiming the transing of David Reimer was a success despite David himself saying otherwise, and complaining about the pedophilic abuse that constituted his treatment.)
Where, without an adult telling them that a sex change is a real thing is possible for them to have, do you have children asking to be surgically changed to look vaguely like (ie, cosmetic only) the other sex? How many children, without weird homophobic parents, want their genitals surgically modified? Children being focused on their genitals is a red flag for sexual abuse - not a sign that surgery is needed.
Without relying on known pedophiles such as Kinsey and Money, explain why wanting to be a dinosaur doesn't warrant surgery but wanting to play with dolls does.
Ask yourself if any of this could have anything to do with adult sexual interest in those children...
This is simply your side's baggage. So many stupid decrees.
Both sides are nuts, but the dems aren't even trying to justify what they say - it's a purity test to believe the right things without needing an explanation. It wouldn't be a useful shibboleth if it was something everyone else would say anyways.
Nobody explained how Fauci could know if the Wuhan lab leaked or not and even asking for details was called white supremacist. There's no rush to investigate Wuhan, or trans medicine, because they want to scream at you for not believing entirely - not to discuss the subtleties of real-world situations.
If a boy thinks he must be a girl, because he wants to act like his parents or teachers think a girl should act or how a boy should not act, how is the dysphoria not with the adults?
The little boy would just happily play with dolls, or wear a pink shirt, without external intervention.
> but [Gender Dysphoria] is treatable through transition.
How does surgical intervention help this boy? Or, are we admitting that it only helps with homophobic adults who now don't feel that it's wrong for him to play with dolls?
If you truly believe that this is the supported medical intervention, then you should be able to find a clear explanation of this - including the adults who are giving the child these restrictions and this gendered-soul vocabulary - and the surgical interventions it requires. A doctor and their clinic should have this on their webpage and they should be proud of the work they do.
But... as we all know, "this never happens". The medical establishment supports performing hormonal and medical interventions (the clinics exist, they see patients who get "treatment") but when parents ask for the why they're given a run-around.
Traditionally if I ask why (symptom cluster X) leads to a diagnosis of one thing, versus another, I get that explanation. Why this is probably a burst appendix vs something else, and why this surgery is appropriate and another not. With trans diagnosis you don't get this - you don't get an explanation for why your perfectly functional child needs these interventions, but not those.
> being trans is not considered a mental illness
And yet at least half the kids pushed into "therapy" because of gender are autistic and greater than half have life-altering trauma and signs of failed coping - anorexia, cutting scars, etc. This isn't being considered and kids are being prescribed puberty blockers on the first visit to clinics - often not even with a psychiatrist who is equipped to handle the question.
> For other, less brain-wormed people
This is literally all your side has. Any parent concerned must be sniffing the racisms or mainlining ivermectin, etc.
Try treating this like any other new medical treatment and explain why it intervenes in the ways it does.
Vaccines are ever so tiny and you can't see them with your naked eye, making it much more reasonable that RFK Jr does not fully understand vaccines. And, Biden and his government assured me that there was no Wuhan leak before going to Wuhan to investigate, which shows a pattern of untruthful interactions with the public.
I haven't met a perfect politician, but if you rank them by what they don't understand some are clearly worse than others.
How do you claim the right to learn from the works of others and then demand government regulation and forceful intervention to keep from having to share whatever paltry innovations you may develop?
Most people are paid for doing things every day, they don't get to create one thing and never work again. Expanding creators compensation laws is regressive and only helps a few elites survive job uncertainly, not the bulk of the people. We're better off limiting this sort of thing specifically to help everyone advance, share the knowledge.