4 ms·

Here is a Scientific American blog post with links to a wide variety of studies for you to delve into. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-p

• LawTalkingGuy 3y ago
  Tell you what, I'll examine any of those studies with you if you wish. If you're serious, tell me which claims resonate with you and we can examine them. My post (parent to yours) outlined enough problems with "studies" in general that I can't think you're seriously suggesting any of them except by inertia at this point. Trying to pick an accurate journal, by reputation, in a time of extreme cancelling doesn't work. Even if SciAm had any standards they couldn't have published a negative article about transition because they would literally receive death threats. If you've got sources that say sex is a spectrum, they're simply wrong. Developmental sex disorders don't make a new sex. Males produce sperm, and females produce eggs. There's no third sex that produces spegg, or what have you. All of these articles contradict basic, and observable, biology. If they were true we'd have discovered it long ago when people and animals couldn't breed in expected ways. It's one of those things that only academics, who've never set foot on a farm, could believe. Further, most of those articles are literally attempted child murder to justify the fetishes of their adult authors. They say things like "puberty blockers are reversible" despite all evidence (and basic logic) showing that they are not. It's impossible to have performed a study on giving children puberty blockers (at regular puberty age, not earlier like in the cases of precocious puberty) because we weren't performing a standard procedure until recently which could be studied. Those authors are saying "things we've never tested, which have huge and systemic impacts on your body, have zero long-term consequences". John Stewart tells us that children are not being given puberty blockers, but doctors are telling us they are - and in sufficient quantity to have studied their impact. Obviously one, or both, of these is a lie. The more you look into trans "science" the more you'll see none of it is even intellectually plausible, let alone the pinnacle of science as you implied.
  • 9wzYQbTYsAIc 3y ago
    > I'll examine any of those studies with you if you wish. If you're serious, tell me which claims resonate with you and we can examine them. What, did you leave your brain at home? It sounds like you want me to walk you through the science? How about you read the research and tell me what your questions are and then I will respond. > If you've got sources that say sex is a spectrum, they're simply wrong. Apparently you've never heard of people with intersex conditions. > despite all evidence (and basic logic) showing that they are not Sources? Also, basic logic built upon faulty assumptions leads to faulty conclusions, no matter how correct your logic is or is not. > children are not being given puberty blockers Medical conditions that require puberty blockers are very rare and, at any given time, not every state has an individual with such a medical condition or such a treatment plan. > The more you look into trans "science" the more you'll see none of it is even intellectually plausible The more you write like that, the more you sound like a foolish human. P.S., "Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called ‘Intelligentzia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw, but encounters it in its easiest synthetic form—upon the printed page." -Albert Einstein, Why War?, 1931
    • roppo 3y ago
      [flagged]