(06-08-2016, 11:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You haven't spoken to a single doctor to determine how they have counseled a single patient on this topic. Again, I don't understand how a Liberterian would care about how doctors counsel someone else or what recommendations they might make to someone else.
How many studies have been conducted of prepubescent children to determine if they are transgender IOT determine "most" of them go back to normal after puberty? I'm guessing none.
I don't need to speak to a doctor. There has been a study showing this ...
(06-08-2016, 11:21 PM)Benton Wrote: Doctors shouldn't push for any treatment.
They should provide all the information so the patient can make an informed decision.
doctors shouldn't be doing this at all. If they explained the risks there is no way any reasonable person would allow this to happen to a child. It is literally mad science.
(06-08-2016, 11:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You haven't spoken to a single doctor to determine how they have counseled a single patient on this topic. Again, I don't understand how a Liberterian would care about how doctors counsel someone else or what recommendations they might make to someone else.
How many studies have been conducted of prepubescent children to determine if they are transgender IOT determine "most" of them go back to normal after puberty? I'm guessing none.
dont waste your time, he'll just deflect and then throw up a random youtube video that supports his views
(06-09-2016, 02:31 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I don't need to speak to a doctor.
If you want to have an informed opinion about what these doctors are "pushing" you certainly do need to talk to them to actually know what they are "pushing." Otherwise, you're just making it up.
Quote:This is the first study to examine mental health in these children . . .
Accepted December 8, 2015
In the first study of its kind the researchers didn't study what you claimed has already been studied which means you have fabricated two things in a post which is only two sentences in length. That's quite an accomplishment.
(06-09-2016, 02:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: doctors shouldn't be doing this at all. If they explained the risks there is no way any reasonable person would allow this to happen to a child. It is literally mad science.
1.
a person who advocates liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
2.
a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished fromnecessitarian ).
Again, as a Libertarian why are you so concerned about others exercising their liberty and free will?
(06-09-2016, 02:36 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: doctors shouldn't be doing this at all. If they explained the risks there is no way any reasonable person would allow this to happen to a child. It is literally mad science.
Where did you get your medical degree from?
Most advances in medicine have been viewed the same way. We learn more about humans every day, including the parts that may be out of step in each of us. Giving hormones to someone with thyroid problems or insulin to diabetics was, at one time, mad science.
(06-09-2016, 06:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey guys. in the spirit of the olive branch; I'll take this one:
"That guy ignores science because of religion".
Weren't you just on a high ground because people were acting childish acting like the other side?
Oh I'm sure you have a good reason for why this isn't blatant hypocrisy and I can wait to read it.
But I'll bite - one study doesn't have conclusive results. Especially once you consider how many studies are doctored to have 'sexy' results. I'm sure with enough time I could find a study proving hormone therapy gives rise to the zombie apocalypse.
You'd have to believe it because it was a study and they're without fault (apparently).
Our father, who art in Hell
Unhallowed, be thy name
Cursed be thy sons and daughters
Of our nemesis who are to blame
Thy kingdom come, Nema
(06-07-2016, 01:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, but that would be why I had the additional commentary. The point of the Breitbart article was an attempt to say that allowing the young trans woman to compete was unfair, the point of the original article was telling the story of the young trans woman competing and doing well and allowing both sides of the argument regarding her competing to have their expressions in the media.
My jab at the thread title was because it was erroneous. The rest of my post was focused on how there was no evidence that the situation was unfair to anyone involved. There is not enough evidence to support any such claim, only the opinions of some competitors and spectators. So my post was actually discussing the topic, as was my follow-up post. But you decided to only focus on the bit about the title.
It doesn't really matter if the person won or not, the point of the matter is that they were in the state championships, thus they had to win some in order to get there.
Now with that said, because they were in the State finals, it was preventing a true genetic Female from getting a chance to be there and a possible sports scholarship via national recognition.
I know a lot of you really get all riled up on this stuff, but gender identity is fluid where as chromosome identity is not. This boy should not be competing against other girls, no matter the hormone level. It is still a physical trait that can't be altered just by putting some chemicals into your body.
Like it or not, it is an advantage over the greater majority of the girls in sports, only the best girls (as you saw, by him getting to the state championships) will still be able to compete vs a boy, in which case, they would be able to beat most boys in the first place.
If you don't think it's such an advantage, then name a woman that as beat Michael Johnson or Usain Bolt in a competitive run?
(06-09-2016, 10:52 AM)Benton Wrote: Where did you get your medical degree from?
Most advances in medicine have been viewed the same way. We learn more about humans every day, including the parts that may be out of step in each of us. Giving hormones to someone with thyroid problems or insulin to diabetics was, at one time, mad science.
Uhm those were done to find a cure for a disease. Are you saying that chopping it off/or attaching one to them is the cure for their disease?
(06-09-2016, 06:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm those were done to find a cure for a disease. Are you saying that chopping it off/or attaching one to them is the cure for their disease?
I think I have decided to not engage in conversations about LGBT issues with those that are unwilling to correctly identify people. I know that the individuals doing this will not care that they are continually exhibiting micro aggressions and will likely mock the concept anyway, but the behavior is not conducive to a productive conversation on these issues and is a form of mockery.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(06-09-2016, 07:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think I have decided to not engage in conversations about LGBT issues with those that are unwilling to correctly identify people. I know that the individuals doing this will not care that they are continually exhibiting micro aggressions and will likely mock the concept anyway, but the behavior is not conducive to a productive conversation on these issues and is a form of mockery.
No Doubt, it's annoying when people ignore the XX/XY part of the equation or tuck their tail and run.
Science is all good and dandy because it ignores feelings, such as a person's religious beliefs. However, according to the LBGT group, feelings are more important than science on certain subject matters, which is kinda backwards from what they keep pushing onto others. Basically, this means to me that they are no better or worse than anyone else that tries to use feelings as a justification for an answer.
Either ignore science or embrace it, either way, keep your "wittle feelings" out of it.
(06-09-2016, 06:56 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Uhm those were done to find a cure for a disease. Are you saying that chopping it off/or attaching one to them is the cure for their disease?
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: m6moCD1.png]](http://i.imgur.com/m6moCD1.png)
