Scott75

Agreed. I think tatoos are generally -much- less impactful then transgender surgery. From the article I linked to, it doesn't appear to be the parents that are the main issue here. From the article I referenced in my previous post: ** Although medical intervention for minors requires parental consent, many mothers and fathers approve surgery and hormone therapy at the recommendation of affirming medical professionals or even out of fear their child might self-harm if denied treatment. “It’s very hard for parents to know exactly how to evaluate their own kids, and they rely quite heavily on experts to tell them,” said Jane Wheeler, a former regulatory health-care attorney who founded Rethink Identity Medicine Ethics, a non-profit that promotes ethical, evidence-based care and treatment for dysphoric children. “There’s obviously a lot of concern about the capacity for the adolescent or minor to fully appreciate what medicalization really means.” Medical professionals typically follow the affirmative-care model, which is supported by the American Psychological Association, validating a patient’s expressed gender identity regardless of their age. As a result, detransitioners frequently report that getting prescriptions is a breeze. A total of 55% said their medical evaluations felt inadequate, according to Dr. Littman’s survey. In Helena’s case, all it took to get a testosterone prescription was one trip to Planned Parenthood when she was 18. She said she was given four times the typical starting dose by a nurse practitioner in less than an hour, without ever seeing a doctor. Chloe said she was fast-tracked through her entire transition — from blockers to a mastectomy — in just two years, with parental consent. The only pushback she said she encountered came from the first endocrinologist she saw, who agreed to prescribe her puberty blockers but not testosterone when she was 13. But she said she went to another doctor who gave her the prescription with no trouble. “Because all the therapists and specialists followed the affirmative care model, there wasn’t a lot of gate-keeping throughout the whole transition process,” she recalled. “The professionals all seemed to push medical transition, so I thought it was the only path for me to be happy.” Evans, the author of “Gender Dysphoria: A Therapeutic Model for Working with Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults,” now runs his own private practice with his wife in Beckenham, England, where he helps parents struggling with how to address their children’s dysphoria. A variety of studies suggest that as many as 80% of dysphoric children could ultimately experience “desistance”— or coming to terms with their biological gender without resorting to transition. Which is why many professionals like Evans think it’s wise to hold off on potentially irreversible medical intervention for as long as possible. “I’m not against transition. I just don’t think kids can give informed consent.” ** Some other very interesting things from the article on consequences of transition therapy: ** For those who ultimately end up regretting their transition, the consequences of hormone therapy and surgery can be devastating. For Helena, testosterone caused emotional instability that culminated with two hospitalizations for self-harm. While in the hospital she came to the realization that her transition was a mistake. “I saw a montage of photos of me, and when I saw how much my face changed and how unhappy I looked, I realized this was all f****d up and I shouldn’t have done it. It was a really dark time.” Chloe said testosterone altered her bone structure, permanently sharpening her jawline and broadening her shoulders. She said she also struggles with increased body and facial hair. She has a large scar across her chest from her mastectomy, which disturbed her about surgery. “The recovery was a very graphic process, and it was definitely something I wasn’t prepared for,” she said. “I couldn’t even bear to look at myself sometimes. It would make me nauseous.” Gravest of all concerns is her fertility. Although she’d like to have children one day, Chloe doesn’t know whether the viability of her eggs was compromised by years of testosterone injections. She’s working with doctors to find out, and her medical future is uncertain. “I’m still in the dark about the overall picture of my health right now,” she said. • • • The subject of detransitioning is often met with vitriol from the transgender activist community, which claims that stories like Chloe’s and Helena’s will be used to discredit the trans movement as a whole. This is understandable, although unlikely, as research reveals that up to 86% of trans adults feel that transitioning was the right long-term decision for them. But, as more and more children are entrusted to make serious medical decisions with permanent implications, the numbers of disaffected detransitioners is almost certain to grow. That’s why Dr. Anderson feels compelled to speak out on their behalf, as a transgender woman herself. “Some of my colleagues are worried that conversation about detransitioners is going to be more cannon fodder in the culture wars, but my concern is that if we don’t address these problems, there will be even more ammunition to criticize the appropriate work that I and other colleagues are doing.” And, like Anderson, these young people — who will forever live with the consequences of hasty transition — refuse to be silenced. “I want my voice to be heard,” said Chloe. “I don’t want history to repeat itself. I can’t let this happen to other kids.” **

Respectfully, I disagree. I think any transgender person who undergoes transition does it to be their authentic self. I know a lot of sources that say that this is true for the majority of people undergoing transgender surgery. But there are other cases that are definitely not in that category. I suspect the majority of these cases are where the person undergoing surgery is a minor. An article on this: https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/

I was over 50 in 2020, so my wife and I were done having kids, and we had a lot less to lose than younger people from taking the jab. If it wasn't being forced on people I might have taken it, but I really objected the more and more the pushier they got, especially when all the things that they were saying were basically a mix of lies and drivel. I knew someone online who didn't take the covid vaccines for the exact same reason :-p. I lost touch with him, so I don't know if he eventually took them, but I remember him being suspicious of how pushy they were being. As I said, I've been an anti vaxxer, in the true sense the term, for a while now, so ofcourse I did my best to persuade him that they were terrible, but as to what he himself said was his biggest red flag, it was the official pushiness from establishment to take them.

I should probably mention that even when Covid started and I was quite scared of it (I still believed in biological viruses back then), the idea of taking any Covid vaccines never even entered my mind. My mother said that I reacted badly to vaccines when I was a kid and I haven't taken any since. Since Covid started, I've also read a lot more on vaccines, and they've just cemented my viewpoint that there are no good vaccines.

That's a big claim, but I think we certainly agree on the general outlines of the problem. Not really. It's pretty simple actually. The proof is right on health Canada's own site that covid deaths went from 15k to 14k to 19k. from 2020-2022. I can also show you what percent of covid deaths were happening among the multi-vaxed. Health Canada publiched that data as well. That's straight from Health Canada and there's no higher authority on the planet to give out that stat. Covid deaths absolutely were WAY higher in 2022. They were 24% higher than 2020 and 36% higher than in 2021. Biden said that the pandemic was over at the beginning of 2022, and our media in Canada wasn't talking about covid at all for the last 2/3 of 2022. About 86% of all covid deaths in Canada were among the multi-vaxed: If you do the math here, and subtract the total deaths in each column as of Aug 21st, from the total deaths in each column as of Sept 25th, you can plainly see that: during that period 85.7% of the new covid deaths came from the ranks of the dbl-, triple-, and quadruple-vaxed. There were 155 new unvaxed covid deaths, 122 new 2x-vaxed covid deaths, 482 new 3x-vaxed covid deaths, and 323 new quadruple-vaxed covid deaths. That's 1,082 new deaths, with 927 of them coming from the ranks of the multi-vaxed. 85.7%. Health Canada stopped publishing the "Covid deaths by vax status" stats after that Sept 25th report, as it was clearly not looking good for the jabs. There were very few 4xers in Canada at that point and they and the 3xers were dominating the new covid deaths stats. 19,716 people died of covid in Canada in 2022, and if only 80.6% of them were among the multi-vaxed (.806 x 19,716 = 15,891) then "there were more multi-vaxed covid deaths in 2022 than there were total deaths in either previous year". FACT. The charts that I posted were from statista, but they get those stats right from this Health Canada chart: The bottom right chart on this photo is the exact same data that's on the Statista graph for "Sept 25 2022". It's where they got it from. You can absolutely say that more jabbers died of covid in Canada in 2022 than the total number of covid deaths in either previous year. 100% true. It's not "a big claim", it's just the plain and simple truth. The folks at Health Canada absolutely know that, just no one is talking about it. My apologies, I didn't connect your first sentence in the quote above with your second. I thought you were talking about -all- of your claims, not just the ones you've made concerning Health Canada. Anyway, very interesting information, thanks for sharing. I may not have told you this, but around 2022, I came to believe that the alleged Covid virus doesn't exist. I'm not saying that the microbes that they take pictures of don't exist, just that they're not causing what the alleged Cov 2 virus does. I was first introduced to the idea that biological viruses don't exist by a journalist who used to exclusively cover the medical field. The funny thing is that she reverted to believing the biological viruses exist, while I found a group of doctors and other researchers that have become convinced that they don't. These doctors and researchers published a 2 page statement in July 2022 that I think is worth looking at. It can be seen here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/ I know that there are some people who can't fathom all biological viruses not being real, but -can- consider the possibility that the Cov 2 virus isn't real. For those people, I think the following article by a journalist named Iain Davis is good: https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/

This isn't about changing anyone, this is about what labels we use for different categories of people. Secondly, I'm not advocating that terms like cisgender be used all the time, quite the reverse, I think they should be used sparingly, in situations where knowing whether someone is cisgender or transgender is important. The same goes for people who are transgender. In other cases, simply using the gender a person identifies with is sufficient. Yes, you certainly are trying to change normal people to be labeled cisgender. Labelling a person doesn't change the person. "Man" and "woman" are labels too. Terms like cisgender and transgender are just necessary to differentiate between people who may both identify as being of the male or female gender but whose biology doesn't necessarily match their gender identification. In many circumstances, such differentiation is unecessary. As I've said previously, I've lived in Mexico for 3 years now and I haven't used the spanish term for cisgender once. I didn't even know what it was until I looked it up recently.

I haven't always agreed with AOC, but I think that Democrats like her are the best in the party. I haven't fogotten that to win her seat, she had to beat one of the old Democrat dinosaurs that were definitely dragging the party down. Like Bernie Sanders, she was also critical of the Democrats mistakes shortly after Trump won the election. Time Magazine, which I definitely consider to be part of the establishment, made it clear in an article that both Bernie Sanders and AOC lobbed some shots at the Democratic establishment after the Democrats lost the election. Quoting from the article: ** On his own, Sanders would be easy to write-off. But he seldom stands solo. He has inspired a legion of supporters loyal to him, and he made progressive ideas less fringe and cringe than when he offered himself up as socialist alternative to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race. So threatened were Democrats in 2020 of a Sanders nomination, the primaries all but ended inside 48 hours when the party coalesced with shocking speed behind Joe Biden. And it’s why the grimace of gnashing over Sanders threatened to become a gush of self-introspection when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—a progressive paragon—picked up some of the rubble and amplified it in her own framing. Although Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez hit the trail in the end for Harris, it was clear they had their own lens on this puzzle. "Our main project is to unite the working class in this country against a fascist agenda. Period. We have had an enormous setback in this election because the fascist won a lot of working-class support, which has happened before in history,” AOC said on a live-stream later Wednesday evening. “I think what is important is that we have to be able to hold that analysis and have these discussions without turning on each other." An honest discussion about the Democrats’ future? Without turning on each other? That seems absolutely fanciful given the Establishment’s fresh wounds, deep animus toward the likes of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and a shaky alliance with members of The Squad. (In a particularly unhelpful move, Squad member Rashida Tlaib, a Palestinian-American who represents the Muslim- and Arab-rich city of Dearborn, declined to endorse Harris—in part over the ongoing war in Gaza.) Ocasio-Cortez, who again called for a national $15 minimum wage and proposals for universal health care during her hour-long, direct-to-smartphone chat with supporters on Wednesday, kept the pressure on her party for not doing more to connect with the base, even as others in the party argue that their actual problem was too much deference to that side of the tent. “At the end of the day, the ultimate problem is our ability to clearly and forthrightly advocate for an agenda that clearly champions the working class,” she said. For their part, Establishment Democrats were having none of it and immediately pushed back on Sanders—but not explicitly against AOC, who remains a potent force and potentially national nominee. ** Source: https://time.com/7173985/trump-bernie-sanders-aoc-election/ I read your article, and it never says that AOC wants "full control" or anything like that. There is nothing wrong with wanting a media environment where "you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation" without consequences. The main issue is making sure that what is being targetted is actually disinformation and misinformation. I'll end this post with a quote from another article, this one from former New York Times writer Chris Hedges: ** In the end, the election was about despair. Despair over futures that evaporated with deindustrialization. Despair over the loss of 30 million jobs in mass layoffs. Despair over austerity programs and the funneling of wealth upwards into the hands of rapacious oligarchs. Despair over a liberal class that refuses to acknowledge the suffering it orchestrated under neoliberalism or embrace New Deal type programs that will ameliorate this suffering. Despair over the futile, endless wars, as well as the genocide in Gaza, where generals and politicians are never held accountable. Despair over a democratic system that has been seized by corporate and oligarchic power. This despair has been played out on the bodies of the disenfranchised through opioid and alcoholism addictions, gambling, mass shootings, suicides — especially among middle-aged white males — morbid obesity and the investment of our emotional and intellectual life in tawdry spectacles and the allure of magical thinking, from the absurd promises of the Christian right to the Oprah-like belief that reality is never an impediment to our desires. These are the pathologies of a deeply diseased culture, what Friedrich Nietzsche calls an aggressive despiritualized nihilism. Donald Trump is a symptom of our diseased society. He is not its cause. He is what is vomited up out of decay. He expresses a childish yearning to be an omnipotent god. This yearning resonates with Americans who feel they have been treated like human refuse. But the impossibility of being a god, as Ernest Becker writes, leads to its dark alternative — destroying like a god. This self-immolation is what comes next. Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, along with the establishment wing of the Republican Party, which allied itself with Harris, live in their own non-reality-based belief system. Harris, who was anointed by party elites and never received a single primary vote, proudly trumpeted her endorsement by Dick Cheney, a politician who left office with a 13 percent approval rating. The smug, self-righteous “moral” crusade against Trump stokes the national reality television show that has replaced journalism and politics. It reduces a social, economic and political crisis to the personality of Trump. It refuses to confront and name the corporate forces responsible for our failed democracy. It allows Democratic politicians to blithely ignore their base – 77 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of independents support an arms embargo against Israel. The open collusion with corporate oppression and refusal to heed the desires and needs of the electorate neuters the press and Trump critics. These corporate puppets stand for nothing, other than their own advancement. The lies they tell to working men and women, especially with programs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), do far more damage than any of the lies uttered by Trump. ** Source: https://scheerpost.com/2024/11/07/chris-hedges-the-politics-of-cultural-despair-2/ For anyone who's made it this far, I do actually see a few good things in Trump winning. I still hope that RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard become cabinet members, as I think they would both definitely do some good things. But in general, I don't have high hopes for another Trump administration. That doesn't mean I think that Kamala would have been better. She may well have been worse, especially in regards to the war in Ukraine. The bar was just pretty low.

Agreed with all of that. My battle goes a lot further than just the Covid vaccines, I'm against all of them, a stance which I'm pretty sure you yourself don't have. That's fine- I definitely think that being skeptical of covid vaccines for kids is a step in the right direction.

I don't think that it's going too far to merely draw attention to highly relevant facts that come straight from the Health Canada website. Completely agree with you there. That's a big claim, but I think we certainly agree on the general outlines of the problem. It's not really me who's making the claims, it's the authors of a certain study. I just believe that the claims are credible. For the audience, who may not have seen anything on the study in question, there's an article on it here: Vaccines Caused 17 Million Deaths During Pandemic Plus 4 More Takeaways From Largest Excess Mortality Study to Date | Children's Health Defense That number is an extrapolation for the number of deaths worldwide caused by covid vaccines. Another author has come up with an estimate of the number of people killed by covid vaccines in the U.S. His article can be seen here: Google AI just estimated that as many as 1.1M Americans may have been killed by the COVID vaccines | Steve Kirsch I made a thread with Steve Kirsch's article in the opening post in another forum, which can be seen here: https://politicalhotwire.com/t/google-ai-just-estimated-that-as-many-as-1-1m-americans-may-have-been-killed-by-the-covid-vaccines-steve-kirsch.283510/ It's worse than that- there's strong evidence that many were harmed by atleast the mRNA vaccines: Study of 1.7 million Kids and Teens Found Heart Inflammation Only in Those Who Got Pfizer’s COVID Shots | Children's Health Defense ‘Striking Evidence’ COVID Shots May Increase Kids’ Risk of Asthma | Children's Health Defense

Personal attacks, the last bastion of those who have no substantive argument to make. Is this a joke? You just got done saying the poster would fit right in with KKK. No, I didn't. Deluge used a term that is generally considered to be a slur for transgender people and I pointed out that the KKK tend to use slur terms for people they dislike as well. Deluge, on the other hand, clearly used an insulting term on me. Yes, you went on to say exactly that: "It certainly looks like in some ways, you might fit right in." I bet you didn't even notice the difference between what I actually said and what you said I said. Saying that in -some- ways a person might "fit right in" with the KKK is not saying that they would fit right in all ways, and I'm certainly glad that Deluge made it clear that he's -not- a fan of the KKK. The reason I said this to begin with was in large part because of comments such as the following one from Deluge's post #371: ** The key now is to get the trannies, and all the other radical activists, back in their lane so America can recover from the woke infection. ** As I've said elsewhere, tranny and its plural trannies is a word that is now considered a slur by a fair amount of organizations: ** Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,[1] often specifically a transgender woman.[2] During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.[3][4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny The KKK is also fond of using slur words for members of the LGBT community, so they certainly have that in common. My actual response to Deluge's comment was the following in post #413: ** I'm sure the KKK said similar things about black people back in the day too. It's so easy to just say that some other group is wrong and use whatever means is necessary to try to put them "back in their lane", as you say. What's hard is to actually try to understand the other group's reasoning. ** His response, in turn, was the following, in post #443: ** The KKK hates black people and used to murder them, I just want the LGBT community to stay in their lane, and YOU are a troll. ** It was only then that I pointed out that the KKK didn't just hate blacks, but also the LGTB community, and in -that- way, it looked like he'd fit right in. For anyone who'd like to see exactly what I said, the post in question is post #480. Now, there is one point I will concede- perhaps Deluge doesn't hate the LGTB community. But this talk of putting them "back in their lane" sounds -so- very similar to the types of things that the KKK and other hate groups would say about blacks that I found the similarities too glaring to overlook.

You've already got two accounts here [snip] No, I just have this one. You certainly jump to a lot of false conclusions. I may be mistaken, but I think you were recently accusing Radiorum of having 2 accounts too. Whether it was you or someone else, I remember the person provided no evidence for that accusation either.

The insults come out AFTER deceptiveness. I insult people all the time, and it's almost always because the other person is lying or is perpetuating a lie. For starters, as I've told people in the past, there's a big difference between someone saying something that's not true and someone saying something they -know- isn't true. Insulting people because they're saying something that isn't true is the wrong way to go about showing them the error of their ways. The most likely result of insults and other flame bait material is for the entire conversation to devolve into a flame war. As I've said in the past, there is no common "trans agenda". There are transgender people, who have different ideas as to how the world should be, just like there are cisgender people who have different ideas as to how the world should be. I'm actually in the latter category. You seem to be equating cross dressers with transgender people. While there was certainly a great deal of overlap back when transgender wasn't a well known term, they've since gone their separate ways for the most part, at least in places like the U.S. Learned a great deal of this from a Wikipedia article I read just now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transvestism In any case, it -seems- that you have an issue with transgender -and- cross dressers being able to dress the way they like in public. Seems like a classic case of transphobia. In case you're not aware of the term, Wikipedia has a helpful article on the subject. Here's the introduction: ** Transphobia consists of negative attitudes, feelings, or actions towards transgender people or transness in general. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence or anger towards people who do not conform to social gender roles.[1][2] Transphobia is a type of prejudice and discrimination, similar to racism, sexism, or ableism,[3] and it is closely associated with homophobia.[4][5] People of color who are transgender experience discrimination above and beyond that which can be explained as a simple combination of transphobia and racism.[6] Transgender youth often experience a combination of abuse from family members, sexual harassment, and bullying or school violence.[7] They are also disproportionately placed in foster care and welfare programs compared to their peers.[8] Adult transgender people regularly encounter sexual violence, police violence, public ridicule, misgendering, or other forms of violence and harassment in their daily lives.[9] These issues cause many trans people to feel unsafe in public. Other issues include healthcare discrimination, workplace discrimination or feeling under siege by conservative political or religious groups who oppose LGBT-rights laws.[10] Discrimination and violence sometimes originates from people within the LGBT community[11] or feminist movements. As well as increased risk of violence and other threats, the stress created by transphobia causes negative mental health outcomes and lead to drug use disorders, running away from home (in minors), and suicide. In much of the Western world, there has been a gradual establishment of policies combatting discrimination and supporting equal opportunity in all aspects of life since the 1990s. The trend is also taking shape in some developing nations. In addition, campaigns regarding the LGBT community are being spread around the world to improve social acceptance of nontraditional gender identities. The "Stop the Stigma" campaign by the UN is one such example.[12] However, transphobic violence has been on the rise since 2021,[13] accompanied with an increase in anti-trans discriminatory laws being enacted in many parts of the US and other countries.[14][15] ** Full article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia

It's a massive exaggeration. I'm always down for change if it's for the better. Well that's certainly good to hear. I'm not even sure what that means. What I want is for people to be able to define their gender as the gender they identify with. I also think that being more accepting of people who don't fit inside the conventional norms for gender could go a long way to making trans people not feel the need for hormones/hormone blockers and surgery and just be fine with the appearance that their biological sex gives them.

1. Shouldn't that say "I'm not homosexual, I'm normal ?" I don't think so. I think the point Dana was trying to make is that back in the day, people took offense to the term heterosexual, but now it's become normal and that eventually, the same will happen with the term cisgender. I think Dana would agree with you? To be honest, I'm not really sure what the issue is here, so I can't be sure :-p. Lol :-). To be fair, it wasn't me, it was Dana. Dana's certainly sounded righteous, but that doesn't mean she's right on that point. Honestly, I haven't looked into a lot of this 'patriarchy' business and I definitely think that some feminists can go too far.

I don't know if anyone is here to play games. I -do- believe that when people start insulting a person's views or worse, the person themselves, that it greatly impedes any productive discussion. At that point, I don't care whether they are conservative, liberal or something else, the result for me is the same, the quality of the conversation goes down. No, the quality of the conversation drops when dishonesty makes its first appearance. I've certainly seen various people from both sides of this debate accuse their ideological opponents of dishonesty. I myself haven't seen any evidence of anyone -trying- to deceive anyone else. There's a very big difference between being mistaken and trying to deceive others. I entered this thread in post #10. You responded to me in post #18. As to your first question, for some reason, I wasn't able to participate in the poll. Perhaps that's just as well though, because given the nature of this thread, I think it would have been better to replace "I am a man" and "I identify as a man" with "I'm a cisgender man" and "I'm a transgender man". In any case, I'm a cisgender man. As to your second question, as I told someone else (User, I believe), my definition of a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. And yes, I know, this definition includes the word itself. A lot of people are fine with that, but I know that some aren't and I imagine you're one of those people. If you want to know a person's biological sex and believe it wouldn't be inappropriate to ask, you can ask them that instead.

And there's zero thought in that. No, Radiorum just wrote a few paragraphs on the history of the term Cisgender. It's one thing to disagree with a person, another thing entirely to dismiss the work they've put into their posts. No, what Radiorum said was quite accurate. Dana Defosse, the biologist who coined the term cisgender, still speaks about it. Here's a good excerpt on what she's had to say in a recent article: ** While I only intended cisgender to be a neutral term, people may sometimes be intimidated by the word because its universal acceptance reifies the fact that everyone has a gender identity. As scholar Kirby Conrod explains, the term gives voice to the unspoken and previously unnamed assumption of normality that accompanies having a gender identity consistent with the expectations afforded by the sex assigned at birth. Language defining people by their difference is used to reinforce power relations. As Conrod points out, consider how often speakers predicate others’ identities — the woman pilot, the trans musician, the African American senator. Refusal to accept naming the gender identity of the vast majority of society preserves that veneer of normalcy, as in the “I’m not cisgender, I’m normal” trope. This is the same as saying, “I’m not heterosexual, I’m normal.” The word cisgender is shunned because it challenges the false narrative that gender identity depends on biological sex. This is a pivotal paradigm of patriarchy, ensuring that the male gender confers an inherent justification for power over others. The fallacy of the inseparability of sex and gender is inherent in misogyny, and the perpetuation of heteronormativity, cisnormativity and oppressive forms of procreation. ** Full article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/elon-musk-cisgender-twitter-trans-18171527.php

First off, wrong account you forgot to switch Yet another one of your unsubstantiated assertions/insults I imagine, wasting everyone's time. I -know- you can do better, but recently you've gotten bogged down in this trash talk. Except everyone who doesn't. Really CdnFox, can't you see how banal your comments here have become?

Lol, the best defense is an offense ... but try making it believable next time. You're not fooling anyone. I think he may actually be fooling a few, including himself. It reminds me of a great saying: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" :-p.

I think this statement is so obviously untrue that it's best to just quote it and let others decide for themselves who they want to believe. They have. I agree. Now hopefully we can get back to discussing the actual topic of this thread.

Your latest unsubstantiated assertion made me smile. I believe Yoda said it well: In other words I correctly pointed out Your hypocrisy And now you are buthurt and can't refute the point so for some reason you're going to resort to quoting Muppets. No, I'm just pointing out that making erroneous and insulting assertions aren't going to help move the actual topic of this thread forward.

Try reading and responding to my whole comment next time: Alright, I've read your whole comment now and I can only see one assertion you believe that I've made and haven't defended- a "Democrat and Republican" assertion. By all means, quote me on this assertion you claim I've made.

Yes, this continues to be your dumb game. What is this "dumb game" that you think I'm playing? The problem is that different groups of people define men and women differently. You seem to think that ignoring this will just make the problem disappear, but it won't. As I've stated elsewhere, I generally -don't- use that word. I've been living in Mexico for the past 3 years and until just now, I didn't even know whether there was a Spanish translation for the term. I've never needed to know. In any case, I looked it up, and there is in fact a Spanish translation for it. The word is only needed if one is trying to determine whether someone gender identifies with their biological sex or not. There are longer ways to say the same thing, such as "biological male who identifies as a male". It's a lot longer but I'm guessing this could work for people who are offended by the term cis.

I'm not sure how I first heard of Mary Talley Bowden, but she strikes me as a doctor who stuck to her guns despite the Covid narrative machine going after her. She and other doctors recently settled a lawsuit with the FDA in regards to Ivermectin: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/fda-ivermectin-lawsuit/index.html Anyway, I've been following her substack for a bit, and I thought that some here may find her recent free article to be interesting. Quoting some of it below: ** When COVID patients started trickling into my office March 2020, I saw my role as primarily one of a bystander. Watching the news, I assumed all the chaos would land in the hospitals - I was a solo ENT with a very quiet practice, and though I was happy to help if I could, I never imagined I would become embroiled in the forefront of a war. I didn’t stay on the sidelines for long. Because I’m an upper respiratory tract specialist - and one of the few that didn’t close my doors - I became a haven in my community for patients seeking outpatient treatment for COVID. I started with hydroxychloroquine, but after President Trump mentioned it as an option, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy prohibited doctors from prescribing it for COVID. I then used monoclonal antibodies with great success, but, in an effort to get the mRNA shot in every arm, the government took over and then shut down distribution. During the third and largest surge of the pandemic - when I no longer had access to monoclonal antibodies - I turned to ivermectin, and that’s when things got complicated. [snip] Misdirection is a common war tactic and form of propaganda, a technique used to distract attention away from a topic. Thanks to the efforts of MAHA, all eyes have shifted to dropping the Robert F Kennedy nuclear bomb onto the food industry, while our more immediate and severe threat - mRNA manufacturers - strengthen their forces. I, along with many others, can’t help but wonder if BigPharma orchestrated this sudden change in focus and if the Means siblings are being used - knowingly or unknowingly - to drive this change. Several weeks ago, I sat down with Calley Means and Jack Kruse on the Danny Jones podcast and had the opportunity to ask him directly - on camera - his views on COVID and the mRNA shots. The show will air on December 25th or 26th. Stay tuned! ** Full article: https://drbowden.substack.com/p/is-maha-a-misdirection-strategy?publication_id=607316&post_id=152373189&isFreemail=true&r=z34xz&triedRedirect=true

If you think that you can have a fruitful discussion with DUI or any of these other cultists then you're out of your mind. I definitely do, but to be fair, I'm not always right wing. You may remember that I have a decidedly more left wing stance when it comes to other issues, such as in the "Are you a man or a woman?" thread. I -suspect- this may have helped in my conversation with DUI here. I also noted that he actually apologized for going overboard with you, in post #67 in this thread. I'll quote him: Anyway, continuing with your post: I think you know you're preaching to the choir when it comes to the Covid narrative with me. I actually suspect you think I go too far :-p. But that doesn't mean I think we should treat our ideological opponents with insults just because they do it to us. As the old saying goes, "An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind". I'm personally in favour of preserving my eyes :-p.

You may want to cite an impartial news outlet. The CHD has an agenda that is totally bias, and is pushing a debunked 1998 study. I just presented a lot of evidence that the study in question was not debunked, but smeared. This in turn would mean that, far from CHD being biased, it's an oasis of objective news on the subject of vaccines in a desert of lies. No idea where you got that rumour from. According to Wikipedia, RFK Jr. has claimed that he had been told by a doctor that he -had- a worm in his brain, but that it died. Quoting from Wikipedia's entry: ** Kennedy began experiencing severe short- and long-term memory loss and mental fog in 2010. In a 2012 divorce court deposition, he attributed neurological issues to "a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died", in addition to mercury poisoning from eating large quantities of tuna.[383][387] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr. This wasn't some off hand remark, but part of a deposition he gave: ** Several doctors noticed a dark spot on the younger Mr. Kennedy’s brain scans and concluded that he had a tumor, he said in a 2012 deposition reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Kennedy was immediately scheduled for a procedure at Duke University Medical Center by the same surgeon who had operated on his uncle, he said. While packing for the trip, he said, he received a call from a doctor at New York-Presbyterian Hospital who had a different opinion: Mr. Kennedy, he believed, had a dead parasite in his head. The doctor believed that the abnormality seen on his scans “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Mr. Kennedy said in the deposition. ** Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/us/rfk-jr-brain-health-memory-loss.html