mhaze,

Thanks for the light reading, but none of it justifies the rejection of transgender rights or not treating them with respect.

The Cass Review presents a case for more research and carful consideration when treating transgender youth, not for the banning puberty blockers or gender-affirming care. It also emphasises the need for more individualised and evidence-based handling of each case, which is far from an outright condemnation youth transitioning.

The mishandled rape case at the hospital is an example of a failure in the institution's policy, not an indictment transgender individuals. The problem lies in the hospital's response, not in the broader issue of transgender rights.

Presenting the the isolated school assault case as representative of the effects of transgender-inclusive policies is dishonest. All the article manages to do is make a case of improving safety protocols rather. It provides no reason to condemn transgender rights as a whole.

The study on puberty blockers raises concerns about their long-term effects; it does not say that the treatment should cease. The article calls for careful monitoring and more research; it recommends exercising greater caution rather than rejecting transgender healthcare altogether.

The detransitioning study shows that an overwhelming majority of transgender people don't regret their transitions. It also discredits your suggestion that gender-affirming care is widely harmful and points to the need for better support systems.

But thank you for highlighting the areas where improvement is needed. It’s a far more constructive way to contribute to the discussion than getting yourself all tangled up trying to undermine the credibility of others.

I don't get tangled up over the credibility of others. Often its quite easy to examine it. You just need to highlight their lack of logic or unstated hypocrisy or, most often, bring forth facts they'd prefer didn't exist.

mhaze,

No, you don't get tangled up over the credibility of others. But you certainly did get tangled up trying to undermine my credibility for a while there, which resulted in nothing more than egg all over your face.

//You just need to highlight their lack of logic or unstated hypocrisy or, most often, bring forth facts they'd prefer didn't exist.//

Then start doing that instead.

By the way, you'll be happy to know that Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner has had reconstructive surgery, so she no longer has a penis. Although, I do find your focus on the genitalia of others a little disconcerting.

" which resulted in nothing more than egg all over your face."

I'm always fascinated by those people who think their mere assertion is proof. Anyone who points out the lack of evidence or logic for their views is considered chastised by mere assertion. Its not a path to the truth but it certainly helps their misplaced self-esteem.

" Although, I do find your focus on the genitalia of others a little disconcerting."

Oh I'm sorry. I was just using the terms as a metaphor and point of difference between really-trooly men and women. Sorry if it had you reaching for the fainting couch. In the future I use prostate and uterus as the metaphor to better protect your Victorian sensibilities.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/madelineleesman/2024/08/28/new-taliban-law-bans-women-from-speaking-in-public-n2643996

"New Taliban Law Bans Women From Speaking in Public"

I wonder if the rule applies to trans women as well?

mhaze,

I've already explained why you had egg all over your face:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10466#363858

I'm always fascinated by those people who think their denial is proof.