So then I read it. It's okay as an analysis and they obviously did a lot of work on it, but it's also not the "debunking" of transkids' gender care that right-wingers who haven't read it think that it is. It's more a condemnation of how NHS has implemented care for transkids, which is a lot different than here. And it's particularly focused on ordinary GPs dispensing blockers/hormones to this recent avalanche of teens (mostly bio-female) who appear to have just woken up one day and announced that they're trans, which is a very different population from people like Jazz.

Anyway, since that thread with the pumo was about blockers, I want to focus on that part, in which the reasoning of the report was surprisingly ... poor. Here are a few of the problems that jumped out at me:

+ it purports to ascertain whether blockers are "effective," but the only measures of effectiveness it considers are whether administering them is shown to improve mental health , and the only measures it considers are depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. But transkids desire these not as a substitute for Wellbutrin, but to prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics. On that score, they seem to be 100% "effective." The report nowhere considers whether that is a valid desire in its own right.

+ The report completely ignores it, but I'll bet if you asked transkids why they wanted blockers, 95% of them would say that they want to avoid becoming some clocky obvious-trans adult, and desire to be fish instead. The closest it comes is two paragraphs on "passing," which it dismisses by proclaiming (without evidence) "being able to ‘pass’ is of great importance to some transgender adults, and not to others." That's nice, but if the "some" is 99% and the others are 1%, that would seem to be important. In the second paragraph, it says passing isn't important given the "impact puberty blockers *might have* on adult height for those who subsequently go on to masculinising/feminising hormones." For transgirls, this is essentially saying, "you'll be better off being clocky and six feet tall; don't risk missing out on that!"

+ Even on its own narrow terms of "effectiveness," the report makes the same error that it criticizes a lot of the research for -- failing to have a control group. That is, in concluding that blockers don't affirmatively *improve those mental health measures, it relies only on a small NHS study (while dismissing, for reasons it doesn't explain, a Dutch study that showed strong improvement). But even with the NHS study, it's not comparing transkids who got blockers with transkids who didn't. If the kids who didn't get blockers had major declines in those mental health measures as they progressed through puberty into adulthood, then the static mental health of the kids on blockers is obviously an improvement. It's just weird that it doesn't even *consider that obvious potential for Type II error.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47606686)

I guess that's what you actually want though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47606700)

Leuprolide acetate/decapeptyl/other blockers I've seen suggested for children are obviously insane to use on physiologically healthy children and should be banned immediately. I disagree that the desires of children for whatever physiological changes they want in their body could ever outweigh their mental well-being, which is obviously going to be compromised by blocking literally all sex hormones. It makes sense that there are no controls to any of these studies, because the effects of hormones are very fast and very obvious, and there are ethical concerns with doing this kind of stuff to children.

What I read was relatively accurate when it comes to FtMs, who are very often much more 'non-binary', will eventually grow out of it, have their biological clocks start ticking, etc. Almost every single FtM I've known has come to want children or at least were ambivalent to the idea, no matter how adamant they may have been when they were younger.

I think their conception of puberty blockers for females being unnecessary is obvious flame, though. Besides the obvious breast development, irreversible hip development will result without retarding puberty in some way. I've heard good things about tamoxifen and raloxifene. Maybe low-dose testosterone, but I am wary about imposing irreversible changes (voice, most obviously) on children.

I didn't read much of what it said about MtFs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47606734)

This is essentially a physiological question, as well. One might as well ask 'why is it obvious that a person's vascular well-being might be compromised by a blood clot?' The amygdala and all other parts of the body involved in emotional regulation are prompted by sex hormones. They need sex hormones almost like the alimententary canal needs saliva and other gastric juices. Without it, the entire system fails to function properly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47606780)

"They need sex hormones almost like the alimententary canal needs saliva and other gastric juices. Without it, the entire system fails to function properly."

Observing that two things interact with each other is different from saying "they need" each other. And your blood clot analogy is poor -- we know that the brain and heart muscles require oxygen to be delivered by the blood, so if the blood stops being delivered then the brain can't brain and the heart muscles can't muscle. I don't think anyone with any knowledge on the subject has posited that the amygdala will cease regulating emotions if deprived of either T or E from age 12-15.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47606812)

You've been here long enough to anticipate my retort to this claim.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47606856)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28025851/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9230649/

I do retract my statement about it starving the amygdala, specifically. More complicated than that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47606916)

I suppose it will be immediately obvious to you how that's a different circumstance than the circumstance of maintaining low estrogen in a bio-female from the age of 12 to age 15. We can observe, for example, that we don't see 9-11 yo girls experiencing depression due to their lack of estrogen. That strongly suggests that estrogen isn't necessary to ward off depression. Indeed, I suppose one would find that level of depression in cisfemales 14-20 are an order of magnitude higher than in cisfemales before puberty.

But this is EXACTLY THE KIND OF INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSION I WAS HOPING TO REALIZE ITT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607017)

I still don't see how the uncertainty here supports use of GnRH antagonists, the most extreme possible pharmaceutical solution, over the use of selective hormone modulators or opposite-sex hormones.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607063)

Additionally, my MtF found the potential height-suppressing effects of Lupron to be desirable. I’ll bet there are very few MtFs who would desire to be 6’3” as she otherwise might have been. But here too, Cass describes the height risk as unquestionably negative.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607149)

far better her than anyone who makes of living off of the practices in question or anyone who already ideologically opposes them.

she's like Feynman with that O-ring.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607165)

it's unique because this discipline went from being DSM defined mental illness to "denying children puberty blockers in trans genocide." perhaps if the advocates of this didn't push such extreme policies and took such radical positions based on bleeding edge research conducted by partisan hacks there wouldn't *be* so much pushback and such wild swings in policies?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607289)

SG Report on AIDS

I’ll bet if I googled for 3 mins I could find many more but I’m at da gym on my phone rn

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607335)

additionally, gender care for children involves the potential immediate and permanent harm to children, potentially based on weak science. there is a much more urgent need put the brakes on it then other things.

the surgeon gender's reports were also not conducted solely be the surgeon general. he chaired and approved it. similar to cass. many people participated in the report.

and finally, cass was the president of the college of pediatrics and a chair of the academy of child disability. framing her as as an "outsider" is misleading. it's not like she was a back surgeon. pediatric gender affirming care is brand new and is under the umbrella of a overall area of medicine she is an astounding expert. what, if she worked in practice as a gender affirming care pediatrician for a year to get that credentral you'd find her more persuasive?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607464)

I can 100% guarantee you that this is the only time in the history of such reviews that clinicians experienced in the field have been excluded from such an undertaking.

AIDS was also new in 1986 (much newer than child gender care was in 2024), but for whatever reason they didn't deem it important to exclude providers of AIDS treatment from that review.

I don't think the response "but this topic makes right-wingers get real mad" is an adequate explanation for why expertise was eschewed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607662)

"So, what do you think?"

"The compassion thing to do here is cut Billy's dingaling off. It's the only way to prevent suicide."

Cass rightly realized that 100% of these people are in a cult and brainwashed, or grifters making a profit, or both. Hth.

I think what you're trying to say here EPAH is that you want to get your propaganda straight from the cult leader. Here's your kool-aid.

You know none of this is surprising when your Mormon upbringing is taken into context. Studies show people who leave the Mormon church are far more likely than average to fall into a different cult. It all adds up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607677)

There are many people who take the view that education and experience in a given topic should be disregarded in arriving at the correct answer (see vaccines, AGW, voting) but those people are generally regarded as dumb.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607693)

your reluctance to acknowledge the validity of the reasons people are reluctant to accept without skepticism the consensus of "pediatric gender care professionals" is a big reason why this shit is so politicized to begin with. many people want to stamp "THIS IS THE SCIENCE" on things to end the conversation, but now when "THE SCIENCE" is from an unquestionably qualified doctor, with a qualified team, chosen by the NHS, creates a study, suddenly you, a layman, react by quibbling with her credentials.

if you're right that this is unprecedented, it's because this acceleration of treatments and consensus based on weak science is also unprecedented. i think you would be better served by accepting that there is at least *some* validity to this rather than going on a counsuela-esqe conspiracy on how some things were intentionally excluded solely because of the aNtI-tRaNnY cOnSpIrAcY.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607738)

It resulted in some shortcomings in the analysis, which are laid out in the OP. Would you quibble with any of those? For example, how can we know that there was no improvement in mental health outcomes (found by the NHS study but contradicted by the Dutch study) if we aren't comparing the kids who received blockers with a similar population of kids who didn't receive them? That's just a very obvious Type II error that they either don't recognize, or recognize but chose not to address.

Also, why would we think that improving mental health outcomes is the goal of blockers, when a vanishingly small number of the recipients would describe that as their goal? Again, the input from a clinician in the "assurance group" may have prompted these (otherwise inexperienced) people to consider that issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607747)

this is what i pushed back on from your OP. you've now moved debate to why specific studies were excluded.

my point from the beginning is that a QUALIFIED outsider conducting a study is often a good thing, and something that happens frequently across many disciplines. having someone in the "pediatric gender affirming care" community conduct it would have reduced it's validity to the public. there is a very real bias in that community, which many trannies recognize, so having an outsider conduct it was a good thing.

and again, this outsider is a world class pediatrician, so your attack on her credentials seems weak to begin with.

i cannot intelligently respond to your Qs re: blockers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607756)

This isn’t just “conducting a study.” I’m pretty sure this is the only case in medical history in which the findings of an outsider without prior experience in a given field were deemed conclusive, and the basis for a national policy. You should be curious why this is the only such case. (As a person who is persistently attacked here by right-wingers for your sin of having a friend who is trans, the reason why shouldn’t be a huge mystery to you).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47608171)

this is why we have independent directors, no? so long as cass is qualified and has the capacity to meaningfully understand the studies, isn't her being an outsider and presumably less-influenced by the politicization of this this a potentially good thing?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607169)

As for her inexperience, also no. As above, if she had had clinical experience she would have known that the intent and purpose (and resulting measure of efficacy) for kids seeking blockers is to suppress secondary sex manifestation. But she either (A) concluded from the research papers that the purpose is to reduce suicides, or (B) knows the real purpose but intentionally avoids stating it because she in fact has a normative preference on this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607236)

i can't comment on her experience specifically, only that having an outsider conduct research is valuable, and routinely done in many disciplines. it's especially valuable in a highly politically charged situation like this. even if you're right that it's 100% the right wing's fault, that wouldn't change the rationale of having an outsider conduct the study. if some gender care advocate conducted it no one would take it seriously. and, be honest, if cass's conclusions aligned with your thoughts, you'd be *LAUDING* the fact she's an outsider.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607246)

Just saying this as a truism isn’t super useful. I can post links to the right-wing fundraising efforts I observed. Can you post links to these “plenty” things?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607251)

c'mon bro, this thread is for ALLIES. if you're going to challenge me on whether there has not been a lot of poor and biased research here and insist i provide proof, i guess we can call it, because i'm not going to write a book report on it. i say it as a truism because it's so undeniable i can't believe someone is good faith would challenge me to provide proof. you know my position on this shit and that i'm an ALLY. can you treat me that way rather than "have you even read?" or "source?" when we're discussing this casually on xoxo and i came in saying i haven't read the report yet. maybe my skimming and second-hand understanding of it is flawed, but let's not treat this like we're in court and you want me to provide a citation to everything, especially things i think we both know are true.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607397)

The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate.

The controversy surrounding the use of medical treatments has taken focus away from what the individualised care and treatment is intended to achieve for individuals seeking support from NHS gender services."

this is in the key findings without even opening the report. what the fuck are you talking about?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47608548)

FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, she operates from the (also unspoken) assumption that the GOAL of blockers is to improve mental health outcomes. But the kids want them to keep from growing boobs and Adam’s apples, not to improve their mental health. She does note in one sentence that blockers are 100% effective in achieving that (intended) outcome.

Do you see what I mean in this last paragraph? It’s like supposing that Ozempic users take it to improve their depressive symptoms, and then measuring its efficacy only by that metric.

Edit: I’m now recalling that she dismissed the Dutch study because the kids were simultaneously receiving therapy, so she concluded that it’s not good evidence that blockers ALONE improve mental health. I highly doubt there are any trans kid gender doctors who advocate avoidance of therapy and reliance only on blockers though, so it’s kind of an irrelevant point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47621543)

this is what you said. you can't shift to "ackshually i was disagreeing with the reports conclusions" when were talking about what the report contained.

just admit you were glib and incorrect or disappear to implicitly admit it. but don't argue in bad faith, you're better than that, or at least aspire to be since you're constantly mocking "xo debate and logic." we all pop off and say incorrect things on the internet sometimes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47621573)

"my understanding is that the report's findings include that the the policies and research regarding gender affirming care has often been unscientific and doesn't provide the justification for some the extreme interventions"

Does it make no difference to you what *exactly Cass was investigating. Had she only been measuring the effects on cholesterol, then issued "conclusions" that "puberty blockers are ineffective" (without telling her reader "effective for what"), then you were later told that she was measuring only cholesterol, would you nonetheless go around trumpeting, "The Cass report concluded that puberty blockers are ineffective and unsupported by the scientific evidence!!"

You can respond "yes" if you like, but then at least we know your mentality.

Every other scientific review on drugs reports conclusions like "Ozempic was found to be effective in reducing patients' weight" and "Lipitor was found to be effective at lowering LDL," etc. Can you think of any *valid* reason why Cass's summary conclusions declined to tell the reader ineffective AT WHAT? I'm racking my brain, but really can't think of a good reason to make a sweeping statement of efficacy without telling readers what you were measuring.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47624891)

Why would a girl not want to grow boobs if she weren't a whacked out nut job?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47621918)

Mammals are male or female. Anyone in the west can wear their hair how they please, dress how they please, and adopt whatever name they please, and prance around how they please, provided they do not run afoul of the law.

No one is "transgender". No one ever has been.

Anyone mutilating children or giving them poison to sterilize them, shrink their genitals, or erase their sexual capacity should be crushed under stones.

Everyone knows the above is true. "Reports" are meaningless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607234)

if you can dispute that, in the way an astronomer could dispute the caveman's claim, you are welcome to.

but you cannot. you can dither about literal genetic deformities occurring in some decimal percent of unfortunate mammals. but you cannot, and never will, point to the existence of mammals on planet earth and credibly explain that they are not sexually dimorphic.

they are male or female.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607257)

no amount of cultural advocacy or ethical argument is relevant.

homo sapiens are mammals, and mammals are male or female, at least since the dawn of mammalian life. This is beyond dispute and the threshold fact that you must begin with. HSs are also cultured and social, and they can enact male behaviors or female behaviors as they wish, and adopt whatever identity pleases them as individuals, understanding that the community will always treat them according to its own standards.

You can argue for different social standards to accommodate different male/female behaviors, like wearing skirts. But the individuals in question are no less m/f than any kangaroo or koala.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607291)

Let me take a stab at a different issue: I suppose you also subscribe to the conclusions of the 2% of climate scientist who say AGW is a hoax? The likelihood of agreeing on both for reasons that aren’t ideological is close to zero (or whatever 2% times 2% is) (I’m guessing you’ll say it’s 4%)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607314)

But if you aren’t permitted to change the topic, and ultimately concede this very basic fact about dimorphism, you cannot escape the fact that each and every human being, save some genetic errors akin to those born without a particular organ, is a male or a female from some point of differentiation in utero.

This means the claim of transgenderism (I’m actually not what my genes indicate with regard to male/female) is demonstrably false.

You are. You’re male. Anyone number of tests prove it beyond dispute.

So you’re left with exactly what I wrote: an ethical argument that males or females should be socially permitted to express all kinds of behavior traits, eg. wear dresses. And I’m fine with that being legal, so long as they’re fine with people like me laughing and disassociating with them, as we would with people who choose to walk on all fours.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607400)

If we recognize that there are gays, and we define gays by a set of well-defined social behavior, it's quite stupid to draw a line saying "BUT TRANSGENDER ISN'T REAL."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607669)

But we can now extend that observation of behavior to anything. If a cat likes to bark like a dog is it a transdog? Is a Filipino who learns Norwegian a Scandinavian? Is a nigger who goes to Harvard Law a scholar?

We quickly run into the definitional problem of what something is vs how it behaves. A light bulb that doesn't turn on isn't a trans-darkness machine. You have to be able to define what something is independent of how it behaves. Gays may behave like faggots but they are adult human males. They're men whether or not they're gay. The property of their behavioral definitions does not affect what they are intrinsically. We could therefore call gays men who behave gayly. Saying well bluhh gays exist isn't the tautological victory you think it is when you sub in a definition that includes their state of being and their observable behavior, ie men who behave like faggots exist. But they are still men. It therefore follows that boys who cut their dicks off do exist, but in a sane society they wouldn't be allowed to go under the knife. Your son is a boy no matter how he behaves. There's no behavior that can change that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607710)

A few responses:

+ We have some things and we don't have others. Since we don't have horses that behave like cats, it's rather hard to know how society would categorize such a beast. In contrast, we observe consistent categorical behavior that we can all recognize as "gay" and "trans."

+ From your observation that we "could call gays men who behave gayly," it would seem that you would agree that we could call men who desire to live as women and vice versa "trans." Either one is just a shorthand for the observed behavior.

+ It sounds like what you're really arguing against is the assertion one sometimes hears from advocates that "trans-men ARE men" or "trans-women ARE women." I completely agree that those statements are incorrect. But that's also a much different position from what started this subthread, which was the pumo's assertion that "there's no such thing as transgender."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607737)

Now that you've conceded that your son is in fact a boy, we can talk about what ought to be done about this. That's an open-ended question and I'm not qualified to answer that being not the parent. What would I do if I had a son who wanted to be a girl? I don't know. But I would start with Talk Them Out Of It. You've read the reports on Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria. Now I'm not saying that applies to your case, but obviously it does happen to *some* trans-behaving youths, especially teenage girls (who in prior generations were normally just cutters or druggies or had some other emotional problem).

Circling back here to the basic premise of what OUGHT to be done to men who feel like they want to be women - well, I can't totally be sure. In my subjective opinion there are two types, gay men who want to look like women so more straight guys will fuck them, and ugly as fuck straight men who want to look like women for attention (like Admiral Rachel Levine). The latter group here is profoundly more annoying, and make up the bulk of them (also known as AGPs or AutoGynoPhiles).

I have no idea if your son is just a fag or an AGP (I'm guessing just a fag). But here's my medical recommendation... why not let him grow the fuck out of it as opposed to causing irreversible damage? Did that EVER occur to you? Was he like, beating your door down every night screaming eww get this cock away from me? As I said above, there were no prior generations where transitioning was evil possible. We SHOULD be able to elucidate from that that there were not high rates of kids killing themselves because they didn't have access to Lupron and the knife.

I will concede that your son is someone who for whatever reason (at a remarkably young age when one has zero clue about the world and is largely helpless) feels like a girl. But that's just a starting point. Not all roads have to lead to Rome and it's obvious to me that the American Pediatrics Association is largely corrupted by woke ideologues. Just because someone feels a certain way doesn't mean you ought to put them on puberty blockers. They used to put gay men on Lupron to try and get them to stop fucking other men, and we don't do that now, either.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607746)

I guess neither of us can really quantify the issue in the first paragraph, except I'll posit than I've interacted with around 40-50x the number of trans-people that you have, and I think your sense of this is off. On forms, for example, trans people normally identify as trans (see 2020 census). And in response to all these anti-trans bills, the position of the opposition is "trans-youth shouldn't be prohibited from school sports," not "trans-girls ARE girls, therefore they shouldn't be prohibited." So I feel like your perception of how this issue is treated in the community itself is inaccurate, and instead based on a caricature that you're exposed to by right-wingers. In fact, we've got at least one trans person here on the board, and I haven't seen her say "I AM A WOMAN."

As for my own situation, they are both quite different from the more recent phenomenon of 15 yos announcing they're trans. Since I don't have any experience with that issue, I refrain from making emphatic declarations about it. But lots of people are proudly ignorant, and deem themselves equipped to make such proclamations without having any experience in it. I would describe these people as unserious, and ideologically motivated.

But yeah, mine were emphatic, and couldn't be talked out of it. As for the option of forcing them to "grow the fuck out of it," if that were a guaranteed (or even likely) outcome it would have been a great choice. But even the Cass Report finds that something around 90% of kids who were persistently and adamantly trans from age 2-4 remained trans in adulthood. If that's the far more likely outcome, I'm pretty sure they'll be happier as fish than as some clocky 6'2" transperson with a beard. And their happiness is in fact my #1 goal. So you can see how I arrived at it.

"They used to put gay men on Lupron to try and get them to stop fucking other men." I don't think that's true, since Lupron wasn't invented until 1973. Did Mike Fart tell you this "fact"?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607768)

Your points distilled:

You know a lot of trans people (I believe this to be irrelevant), trans people identify as trans on forms (this is evidence they acknowledge they are not actually a different gender than the one they were born into?), and the argument that jacked dudes should be allowed to compete in women's sports is not rooted in the widely professed gender ideology belief that trans women are real women? Uhh you're a lone wolf on this one. Everyone else is saying they are really women. Also if they're not real women what's the rhetoric for allowing them to compete against broads? I don't get it. Them being real women is the rhetoric. What else could it be? I'm not a woman but let me compete in the women's category? Why not just have a trans category?

To truly understand trans you have to divide the fags from the AGPs. Some AGPs formerly known as sissies, cross dressers, transvestites in prior eras don't fully identify as women. I knew one who went by genderqueer and it was whatever he was feeling that day whether he was a broad or not. So you may have a relatively chill AGP on the board or whatever who isn't too intense about it. Or you might have someone who is like Lynn Conway who is a criminal sociopath who is bilking people with the trans identity shtick. In some other era he'd be like a Ponzi schemer or something. So yeah it's a real kaleidoscope of fucked up. The fag ones are the quietest because they just want to fuck hot guys and don't usually like the limelight, but then again there are the Dylan Mulvaney grifters who used the whole operation to make a fortune on social media. It's truly a basket of deplorables.

Your paragraph about dismissing right wingers who believe in ROGD is essentially meaningless just because you don't have any experience and don't talk about it doesn't mean you can't do the research and come to some conclusions. I linked you to the book on Amazon and someone else linked to a full throated attack on the book. I mean you can read both sides. It's fairy obvious ROGD is real and I've seen no credible study disproving it. In my generation I grew up with a lot of girls who were into cutting and now they're all trans. It's a well known fact teenage girls are often depressed and anxious and fall into fads. You can see this in every era. I'm sure in the 80s they were doing something. These temporary mental illness fads are bad but girls detransitioning is pretty sick to have to go through if it can be avoided. I dated a chick once and after we broke up she moved to Santa Cruz and became a dyke and then a man and then married a chick. It's like ok great but I know you used to love cawk. I have a hard time believing any of this "I always knew" crap. Reasonable suspicion is applied, here.

Even if I bought that your kids were persistent we probably have very different definitions of what standing up to them is. Again, this technology wasn't available until 10 years ago. So what did trans kids of yore do? They obviously didn't all kill themselves. There was no recorded pandemic of child suicide due to gender dysmorphia (or anything). I guess in the past they just had to grow up and live normal lives. I can't imagine any situation even if my kids were begging me to transition I would never allow it in a million years. It would not happen on my watch. You just have to put your foot down and say no. No one ever lost their mind for the first 100,000 years of the human species because they couldn't go on puberty blockers and hormones. If you don't chop them up, life does in fact go on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47608270)

now it's up 40,000% in 5 years but social media is NOT a factor and "rapid onset gender dysphoria" is a right wing myth!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607510)

Your observations apply equally to homosexuality. Explain why that is now an accepted category of normal human behavior but trans isn't.

The answer "but it creeps me out" is perfectly acceptable, and then we'll know what we're dealing with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607680)

No trans advocate can explain why there were no trans kids ten years ago. If the myth that they are all suicidal is true why was there never a pandemic of kids killing themselves? No one in your generation transitioned as a kid. Shouldn't there have been way more suicides? No one can explain this on your side. Admit that it's a brand new phenomenon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607728)

So your arguments are obviously based on an ideological view rather than principles we usually describe as “objective.”

For example if I just declare that Jesus loves trans-people equally and his teachings command that it is imperative to all who follow him to be solicitous of them lest yee go to hell, there’s nothing you can really say other than “not my Jesus.” But arguments like that are pretty boring and there’s no good way to tell who won.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47608188)

What we do about gays is different than the notion that they exist in the wild. In your example you are fully entitled to believe that Jesus loves the gays. That's your truth. I'm not here to tell you that my truth is better than your truth.

I'm here to tell you that you can't base society around a total embrace an acceptable of homosexuality in the way that our society has. Which is a rather long and complex argument. But in my view our treatment of the issue writ large has a deleterious effect on society. I would never suggest that someone who is gay ought not to be gay, or that they should strive to change themselves. But rather the boundaries we create around them are important. If you're interested I'll type up a pamphlet but I doubt you're interested.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47608246)

Now show me the test that proves a man can be a woman (originally proposed circa 2010)? I'll wait.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607485)

It's more akin to being gay. One cannot conduct a physical test to determine if a person is gay, but we seem to accept that this is a genuine category of human behavior, and we take them at their word when they say they prefer a nice juicy cock to a vagina.

I predict that you will be unable to draw a contrast with transgenderism that is based in logic, and will thus give a response based on some other mode of argumentation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47607708)

Epah: "but can't someone be GAY?"

*repeat 100x*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5521078&forum_id=2#47612639)