Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

Still waiting to hear what rights I’m trying to take away…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

You CANNOT be serious. Doctors are hired for their medical expertise, not their political or personal beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evidence what happened? (DP). That they had to change while Lia was present? That Lia hadn’t had “bottom surgery”?

But where is evidence that "brightest scholar athletes in this country are told they will lose scholarships and jobs"?

9:00 mark. From the Penn administration. “Don’t talk to the media. You will regret it.”
https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1665860950409244673?s=46&t=X605tXq86EtH5m7JHoGWFQ

The "team mate" is anti-trans conservative who follows Daily Wire, Independent Women's Forum, Newsmax, Tucker Carlson, Tomi Lahren, DeSantis, Trump, "anti-wokeness", etc.

And she is BIG on misgendering people.
https://twitter.com/PaulaYScanlan/

If one political party is on the side of the university administration that threatened you as a 19-year-old, why would you trust that political party? The mainstream media and the Democratic Party have made it clear that they are on the side of the power structure that threatened her. Of course she is going to follow the people on Twitter who believe her and listen to her. You can’t even call her a teammate without using air quotes to imply she’s lying about that basic fact.

One of the things that is absolutely infuriating about this entire discussion is how rabidly and viciously supposedly liberal media and political figures attack women who have spoken up about their experiences with transwomen in spaces that used to be for biological women. And people see this. They see the screaming mob that assaulted Riley Gaines at SFSU. They see the attacks that have immediately come forward towards Paula Scanlan. They see the death threats, the doxxing, the attacks. It’s deeply problematic behavior with misogynist roots and it’s infuriating how supposedly liberal people engage in it.

There is nothing "misogynist" about defending the basic rights of vulnerable people from the political party that is actively trying to take away rights.

People are criticizing her words and actions. This has nothing to do with her gender.

You are accusing Scanlan of lying. Be specific about what you are doing.

Accusing women who tell their stories of harassment and intimidation of lying is absolutely misogyny. It is in fact textbook misogyny.

Accusing RWNJs of misrepresenting the truth is not misogyny.

Women are not fragile flowers that cannot be criticized. That is condescending AF.

What is she specifically misrepresenting? What is she lying about? Please be exact and specific. You have no problem referring to her as a “teammate” in air quotes — do you have evidence she wasn’t actually on the team?

Unless you can identify both specific lies and evidence to support your claims that she lied, you remain correctly identified as a misogynist, because your immediate response to a woman telling a story of harassment and intimidation is to attack her and smear her as a liar.

Most ordinary Americans will hear Scanlan’s interview and be justifiably horrified. So if you are going to attack her and accuse her of lying, you had better have some good evidence of that claim.

She gets no special treatment because she has a vagina. Stop patronizing women.

I accused RWNJs of misrepresenting the truth. Which happens constantly in the US and on DCUM. "Alternate facts" and such. I don't trust a word that any RWNJ says.

Given that in your mind, everyone who asks a question or does not agree with you is a RWNJ, your life must be very difficult. How do you function?

False. The people who have RWNJ positions and align themselves with other RWNJs are RWNJs.

I don't believe anything RWNJs say at face value. It's helpful.

Hey, at least you can artfully define the circularity of your moral construct. In computer code, you are saying:

A = A
A == FALSE

No when I type "A" I get FALSE

Got it...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Evidence what happened? (DP). That they had to change while Lia was present? That Lia hadn’t had “bottom surgery”?

But where is evidence that "brightest scholar athletes in this country are told they will lose scholarships and jobs"?

9:00 mark. From the Penn administration. “Don’t talk to the media. You will regret it.”
https://twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1665860950409244673?s=46&t=X605tXq86EtH5m7JHoGWFQ

The "team mate" is anti-trans conservative who follows Daily Wire, Independent Women's Forum, Newsmax, Tucker Carlson, Tomi Lahren, DeSantis, Trump, "anti-wokeness", etc.

And she is BIG on misgendering people.
https://twitter.com/PaulaYScanlan/

If one political party is on the side of the university administration that threatened you as a 19-year-old, why would you trust that political party? The mainstream media and the Democratic Party have made it clear that they are on the side of the power structure that threatened her. Of course she is going to follow the people on Twitter who believe her and listen to her. You can’t even call her a teammate without using air quotes to imply she’s lying about that basic fact.

One of the things that is absolutely infuriating about this entire discussion is how rabidly and viciously supposedly liberal media and political figures attack women who have spoken up about their experiences with transwomen in spaces that used to be for biological women. And people see this. They see the screaming mob that assaulted Riley Gaines at SFSU. They see the attacks that have immediately come forward towards Paula Scanlan. They see the death threats, the doxxing, the attacks. It’s deeply problematic behavior with misogynist roots and it’s infuriating how supposedly liberal people engage in it.

There is nothing "misogynist" about defending the basic rights of vulnerable people from the political party that is actively trying to take away rights.

People are criticizing her words and actions. This has nothing to do with her gender.

You are accusing Scanlan of lying. Be specific about what you are doing.

Accusing women who tell their stories of harassment and intimidation of lying is absolutely misogyny. It is in fact textbook misogyny.

Accusing RWNJs of misrepresenting the truth is not misogyny.

Women are not fragile flowers that cannot be criticized. That is condescending AF.

What is she specifically misrepresenting? What is she lying about? Please be exact and specific. You have no problem referring to her as a “teammate” in air quotes — do you have evidence she wasn’t actually on the team?

Unless you can identify both specific lies and evidence to support your claims that she lied, you remain correctly identified as a misogynist, because your immediate response to a woman telling a story of harassment and intimidation is to attack her and smear her as a liar.

Most ordinary Americans will hear Scanlan’s interview and be justifiably horrified. So if you are going to attack her and accuse her of lying, you had better have some good evidence of that claim.

She gets no special treatment because she has a vagina. Stop patronizing women.

I accused RWNJs of misrepresenting the truth. Which happens constantly in the US and on DCUM. "Alternate facts" and such. I don't trust a word that any RWNJ says.

Given that in your mind, everyone who asks a question or does not agree with you is a RWNJ, your life must be very difficult. How do you function?

False. The people who have RWNJ positions and align themselves with other RWNJs are RWNJs.

I don't believe anything RWNJs say at face value. It's helpful.

Hey, at least you can artfully define the circularity of your moral construct. In computer code, you are saying:

A = A
A == FALSE

No when I type "A" I get FALSE

Got it...

I'm sorry you struggle with logic.

I disagree with various people. The only ones that I call RWNJs are RWNJs. RWNJs are people who have RWNJ positions and align themselves with other RWNJs.

Got it now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

You CANNOT be serious. Doctors are hired for their medical expertise, not their political or personal beliefs.

You would go see a dermatologist who believes in white supremacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

Still waiting to hear what rights I’m trying to take away…

Protection against gender-based discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

You CANNOT be serious. Doctors are hired for their medical expertise, not their political or personal beliefs.

You would go see a dermatologist who believes in white supremacy?

Yep. Because I’m there for his medical expertise, not his political beliefs. And presumably I’ll never know because I’m sure he’s not spouting off his beliefs the minute I walk in the door.
I know this is a hard concept for you, but not everything has to have moral grandstanding attached to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

Still waiting to hear what rights I’m trying to take away…

Protection against gender-based discrimination.

You need to be a little more specific. If you’re talking about denying basic human rights then you are wrong - no one is doing that. If you are talking about a trans woman’s “right” to compete against biological women in sports, then you are still wrong because that is not a basic human right.

[jsteele]

A judge in Florida just granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's prohibition on gender affirming care for minors. Here is the ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963.90.0.pdf

The ruling has several parts relevant to this discussion:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it. At least one defense expert also has admitted it. That expert is Dr. Stephen B. Levine, the only defense expert who has actually treated a significant number of transgender patients. He addressed the issues conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate.

Despite the defense admissions, there are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham. Many people with this view tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person’s transgender existence. In this litigation, the medical defendants have explicitly acknowledged that this view is wrong and that pushing individuals away from their transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest.

Still, an unspoken suggestion running just below the surface in some of the proceedings that led to adoption of the statute and rules at issue—and just below the surface in the testimony of some of the defense experts—is that transgender identity is not real, that it is made up. And so, for example, one of the defendants’ experts, Dr. Paul Hruz, joined an amicus brief in another proceeding asserting transgender individuals have only a “false belief” in their gender identity—that they are maintaining a “charade” or “delusion.” Another defense expert, Dr. Patrick Lappert—a surgeon who has never performed gender-affirming surgery— said in a radio interview that gender-affirming care is a “lie,” a “moral violation,” a “huge evil,” and “diabolical.” State employees or consultants suggested treatment of transgender individuals is either a “woke idea” or profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry or doctors.

Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

You CANNOT be serious. Doctors are hired for their medical expertise, not their political or personal beliefs.

You would go see a dermatologist who believes in white supremacy?

I’m not the PP but wow does this comment demonstrate your remarkable privilege. You are clearly telegraphing how young, white, fully-abled, thin, and AMAB you are here.

Anyone who is not as favored by the medical establishment as you are lives in a very different world. There is so much deep bias in medicine against women, against the elderly, against the disabled, against POCs, etc, that those of us in these categories already know we’ve been treated by care providers who are bigoted against us. If women started demanding that any provider who held a bigoted view of women leave the field, we’d have many fewer professionals left to treat us. I think if you made the same demand with respect to beliefs about obesity, there might not literally be a single doctor left practicing in the country.

I’m kind of shocked by your entitlement and cluelessness here but I guess I shouldn’t be.

[jsteele]

Another excerpt from the judge's ruling regarding Florida. This directly addresses the dispute we've been having about Scandinavia:

The defendants have asserted time and again that Florida now treats GnRH agonists and cross-sex hormones the same as European countries. A heading in the defendants’ response to the current motions is typical: “Florida Joins the International Consensus.” The assertion is false. And no matter how many times the defendants say it, it will still be false. No country in Europe—or so far as shown by this record, anywhere in the world—entirely bans these treatments.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:A judge in Florida just granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's prohibition on gender affirming care for minors. Here is the ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963.90.0.pdf

The ruling has several parts relevant to this discussion:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it. At least one defense expert also has admitted it. That expert is Dr. Stephen B. Levine, the only defense expert who has actually treated a significant number of transgender patients. He addressed the issues conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate.

Despite the defense admissions, there are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham. Many people with this view tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person’s transgender existence. In this litigation, the medical defendants have explicitly acknowledged that this view is wrong and that pushing individuals away from their transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest.

Still, an unspoken suggestion running just below the surface in some of the proceedings that led to adoption of the statute and rules at issue—and just below the surface in the testimony of some of the defense experts—is that transgender identity is not real, that it is made up. And so, for example, one of the defendants’ experts, Dr. Paul Hruz, joined an amicus brief in another proceeding asserting transgender individuals have only a “false belief” in their gender identity—that they are maintaining a “charade” or “delusion.” Another defense expert, Dr. Patrick Lappert—a surgeon who has never performed gender-affirming surgery— said in a radio interview that gender-affirming care is a “lie,” a “moral violation,” a “huge evil,” and “diabolical.” State employees or consultants suggested treatment of transgender individuals is either a “woke idea” or profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry or doctors.

Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated.

Was the part about dog whistles your language or the court? I didn’t find it when I searched but the PDF search isn’t great.

We have been at odds on some trans issues before, but FWIW I think this is the correct decision, as I believe the FL law was overreaching.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:A judge in Florida just granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's prohibition on gender affirming care for minors. Here is the ruling:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963/gov.uscourts.flnd.460963.90.0.pdf

The ruling has several parts relevant to this discussion:

The elephant in the room should be noted at the outset. Gender identity is real. The record makes this clear. The medical defendants, speaking through their attorneys, have admitted it. At least one defense expert also has admitted it. That expert is Dr. Stephen B. Levine, the only defense expert who has actually treated a significant number of transgender patients. He addressed the issues conscientiously, on the merits, rather than as a biased advocate.

Despite the defense admissions, there are those who believe that cisgender individuals properly adhere to their natal sex and that transgender individuals have inappropriately chosen a contrary gender identity, male or female, just as one might choose whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham. Many people with this view tend to disapprove all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports a person’s transgender existence. In this litigation, the medical defendants have explicitly acknowledged that this view is wrong and that pushing individuals away from their transgender identity is not a legitimate state interest.

Still, an unspoken suggestion running just below the surface in some of the proceedings that led to adoption of the statute and rules at issue—and just below the surface in the testimony of some of the defense experts—is that transgender identity is not real, that it is made up. And so, for example, one of the defendants’ experts, Dr. Paul Hruz, joined an amicus brief in another proceeding asserting transgender individuals have only a “false belief” in their gender identity—that they are maintaining a “charade” or “delusion.” Another defense expert, Dr. Patrick Lappert—a surgeon who has never performed gender-affirming surgery— said in a radio interview that gender-affirming care is a “lie,” a “moral violation,” a “huge evil,” and “diabolical.” State employees or consultants suggested treatment of transgender individuals is either a “woke idea” or profiteering by the pharmaceutical industry or doctors.

Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated.

Was the part about dog whistles your language or the court? I didn’t find it when I searched but the PDF search isn’t great.

We have been at odds on some trans issues before, but FWIW I think this is the correct decision, as I believe the FL law was overreaching.

It was at the very end of section III. Just look for the heading: IV. The challenged statute and rules. It's right before that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure the facility would be happy to look for another specialist who isn't a bigot.

You CANNOT be serious. Doctors are hired for their medical expertise, not their political or personal beliefs.

You would go see a dermatologist who believes in white supremacy?

I’m not the PP but wow does this comment demonstrate your remarkable privilege. You are clearly telegraphing how young, white, fully-abled, thin, and AMAB you are here.

Anyone who is not as favored by the medical establishment as you are lives in a very different world. There is so much deep bias in medicine against women, against the elderly, against the disabled, against POCs, etc, that those of us in these categories already know we’ve been treated by care providers who are bigoted against us. If women started demanding that any provider who held a bigoted view of women leave the field, we’d have many fewer professionals left to treat us. I think if you made the same demand with respect to beliefs about obesity, there might not literally be a single doctor left practicing in the country.

I’m kind of shocked by your entitlement and cluelessness here but I guess I shouldn’t be.

Nope. And I absolutely do stop going to doctors I discover are bigoted.