3 ms·

uhh, no. https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1269407862234775552?lang=en https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1269407862234775552?lang=en She is against womens rights b

uhh, no. https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1269407862234775552?lang=en https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1269407862234775552?lang=en She is against womens rights being taken away. Trans people already have all the same rights as anyone else. Please name one right a trans person does not have that anyone else does

cellwebb 2y ago
in some states, using the bathroom that most closely aligns with their gender
- Jonovono 2y ago
  ? That's not a right. There is a reason women fought decades for their own sex spaces
  - fao_ 2y ago
    Women were initially against segregated bathrooms though
fwip 2y ago
This exact same argument was used against gay marriage ("gay people can get straight married!" and interracial marriage ("anybody can marry somebody of the same race!"). If predominantly one class of person wants to do something, you can easily discriminate against them by outlawing that specific action. In contrast, articulating the "women's rights" that are being hurt by trans rights usually end up in an awkward formulation like "the right to have a place in which they won't see somebody they think is a man."
- Jonovono 2y ago
  So again, what right do trans people not have? They can get married. It's very easy to articulate the womens rights that are being violated lately. Simply talk to any women in the real world Losing access to single sex spaces (bathrooms, prisons, sports leagues, etc). Men are statistically more violent than women and you are suggesting we should just let them freely into womens spaces. This is why they have fought for their own spaces
wizzwizz4 2y ago
In the UK: access to GnRHa hormone blockers during childhood. Routinely prescribed for precocious puberty in cis kids, yet literally illegal to prescribe to trans kids. Because, you see, after excluding all studies not carried out in the UK, restricting to studies on trans kids, and then individually discarding the studies that remain, there's no evidence of safety. In fact, there's no evidence at all! Further research is needed before we feed experimental drugs to our vulnerable children. (We have to pass an emergency prohibition about this, because those meddling "doctors" won't listen. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/727/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/727/made) Cis kids are… biologically different, somehow? So the studies demonstrating safety and efficacy apply just fine to them. Yeah, that's totally the reason: medical necessity. Not politically-motivated discrimination against a protected minority, no siree.
- Jonovono 2y ago
  I'm not sure what you are arguing, but yes, unless a clear medical emergency the science definitely says kids should not be taking puberty blockers. Nearly every country is cracking down on giving them to kids (trans or not) https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...
  - fao_ 2y ago
    You just cited the report that the poster above you referenced as cherry-picked, which is rather amusing! Regardless, and it's anecdata -- but everyone I know who is working in the fields of medicine on the subjects the cass review covers, have pointed out numerous critical flaws in it that undermine every single point it makes. It's actually somewhat worse than if you got a PDF paper from Natural News dot com, a site that I discovered in the mid 2010s was rehosting and editing medical papers to say whatever they wanted.

cellwebb 2y ago

in some states, using the bathroom that most closely aligns with their gender

Jonovono 2y ago
? That's not a right. There is a reason women fought decades for their own sex spaces
- fao_ 2y ago
  Women were initially against segregated bathrooms though

fwip 2y ago

This exact same argument was used against gay marriage ("gay people can get straight married!" and interracial marriage ("anybody can marry somebody of the same race!"). If predominantly one class of person wants to do something, you can easily discriminate against them by outlawing that specific action. In contrast, articulating the "women's rights" that are being hurt by trans rights usually end up in an awkward formulation like "the right to have a place in which they won't see somebody they think is a man."

Jonovono 2y ago
So again, what right do trans people not have? They can get married. It's very easy to articulate the womens rights that are being violated lately. Simply talk to any women in the real world Losing access to single sex spaces (bathrooms, prisons, sports leagues, etc). Men are statistically more violent than women and you are suggesting we should just let them freely into womens spaces. This is why they have fought for their own spaces

wizzwizz4 2y ago

In the UK: access to GnRHa hormone blockers during childhood. Routinely prescribed for precocious puberty in cis kids, yet literally illegal to prescribe to trans kids. Because, you see, after excluding all studies not carried out in the UK, restricting to studies on trans kids, and then individually discarding the studies that remain, there's no evidence of safety. In fact, there's no evidence at all! Further research is needed before we feed experimental drugs to our vulnerable children. (We have to pass an emergency prohibition about this, because those meddling "doctors" won't listen. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/727/made https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/727/made) Cis kids are… biologically different, somehow? So the studies demonstrating safety and efficacy apply just fine to them. Yeah, that's totally the reason: medical necessity. Not politically-motivated discrimination against a protected minority, no siree.

Jonovono 2y ago
I'm not sure what you are arguing, but yes, unless a clear medical emergency the science definitely says kids should not be taking puberty blockers. Nearly every country is cracking down on giving them to kids (trans or not) https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/ https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-r...
- fao_ 2y ago
  You just cited the report that the poster above you referenced as cherry-picked, which is rather amusing! Regardless, and it's anecdata -- but everyone I know who is working in the fields of medicine on the subjects the cass review covers, have pointed out numerous critical flaws in it that undermine every single point it makes. It's actually somewhat worse than if you got a PDF paper from Natural News dot com, a site that I discovered in the mid 2010s was rehosting and editing medical papers to say whatever they wanted.