so you would date a transman?

I never made a judgement about who does or doesn’t have the moral high ground nor am I interested in the moral high ground in regards to this debate. You have me confused with someone else and are also assuming weird motivations of others in many of your posts. My point of the post you were responding to was merely , like my previous posts towards you, helpful suggestions.
I think that video is funny and I also think you should read some gender theory, not to make you woke but rather so you can empathize more with the viewpoint you seem to be trying to defeat so you can make crisper arguments.

Maybe you're just using my posts to debate people who aren't me, but I don't believe I've made the claim that puberty blockers or hormones prevent deaths. There's good debate about the impact of such treatments on suicides, but I don't know this to be settled enough to make the point myself. But as I said, death is far from the only metric we use in medicine. Should we not consider using these interventions if they improve quality of life?

So you're answering my question about your choice of language with the question? I thought you didn't like such things.

That’s an interesting question. I certainly wouldn’t categorically dismiss the possibility or go on and on about how i would never date a man with a vagina.

you can just say you wouldn't date a man with a vagina bryce, it doesn't make you less of a person nor a bigot, nor hateful at all

it's no different from not wanting to date someone for any myriad of practical reasons

Well, having a genital preference isn’t bigotry. But, it is not categorically true that under no circumstances would I date a trans man.

Welcome to the 2020s. This is nothing unique or new to the left or the right.

No idea why, but that's not really the point.

What does this even mean? He's able to make a joke at other people's expense and so he's "quite chill"? If anything, it seems to say the opposite.

I'm on the same page as rickroll for very little on this subject, but I'm definitely more in his camp on this one. Genitalia type is going to be a pretty big deal to a lot of people, to the point of it being a complete non-starter regardless of any other circumstances, so being coy about this just sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I think it's wrong to tell people they're wrong for being attracted to who they're attracted to, or choosing what they'd like to "try out". Maybe it would be cool if everyone was more open-minded and willing to try whatever with whomever. but we can't just make it so for ourselves.

But this I basically agree with. I'm not going to say the problem is non-existent, but I'd think there are far more issues with people who are abusive, people who are married, and many other ****ed up things no one's going to put in their profile.

bryce, it's ok for you to have a preference for dick and not date someone without one, you don't need to cover your bases here and say there's a non zero chance out there that there's a vagina out there you'd be plausibly interested in under the right lighting and makeup

I’m very happy you’re perfect and your use of loaded terms is ok whereas mine is not.
I’ll be sure next time I have a depressed, possibly suicidal patient I’ll be sure to prescribe him or her life-saving puberty blockers then.

Maybe one day he’ll will freeze over and you’ll post a reputable study supporting improving quality of life with puberty blockers.

You try to profit off appearance. I see right through. Here is my helpful advice - take morality more seriously. It matters, more and more over time.

What other motivations do you see based on me being the only one to respond to your religious questions in this thread?

This gets into a touchy subject, even more touchy than what we’ve been talking about. So, for now i’ll just reiterate I was NOT saying you should sleep with someone you find unattractive, including deal breaking privates. Nor was I saying an average straight guy would hook up with someone like you’re describing. But there is more to the story here. Absolutely zero people haves admitted some very basic facts about trans people over 100’s of posts earlier so we might not be able to have a productive convo. key word being might.
We are still trying to get people to accept ideas like “a team of doctors isn’t removing children’s genitals for a secret agenda” or “drag queens aren’t the same as trans women” or “ all supporters of trans people arent narcissistic vultures” so i’m not sure we can go there. like it might not be feasible.

I don't know who that person is or anything about her.

just to clarify, in that post I was talking about teddy quinlivan. The person in the most recent picture was finnster. Sorry for coming across as rude. If you read the whole thread you’d understand how much trolling I have endured.

I wasn't trolling you. The names "teddy quinlivan" and "Finnster" didn't mean anything to me. I had to google both names.

No, of course I wasn’t accusing you of trolling me , omg, no! not at all! There’s a lot of confusion here and i know you have other stuff to deal with so just know I was talking about some really grotesque trolling that has occured here.

I don’t expect you to read the whole thread, but teddy quinlivan was a topic of discussion for 50 or so posts.

Wisdom and insight will be foreign if you don’t actively advocate for your self. Your relationship with the self is the moral foundation.

Without that, there is only deception and delusion. You won’t truly know why you do what you do. It will be rationalized to you, you will accept it unconditionally, and then you will falsely believe that you chose it through free agency.

I'd just add to this that my understanding of puberty blockers is they can work in different ways. The ones that downregulate the production of hormones do so at the pituitary. In other words, the hypothalamus still signals the pituitary to produce hormones, but the blockers stop it at this juncture. Other blockers work by blocking receptors for hormones, so the hormones are still produced, but they are prevented from signalling the body.

The distinction is important as "stopping" the release of hormones suggests it may not be possible to restart it. Theoretically, once someone stops taking hormone blockers, puberty should recommence but there is little/no clinical evidence either way.

It's a fair point, however I was largely aping the loaded language used by the person I was replying to:

it is "cruel" to "subject" someone to their normal bodily functions? is it the same as "forcing" someone to take drugs they don't want to?

If you are going to criticise emotive language used by individuals in this thread, then be consistent.

As the the repurposing of cancer drugs, I have no problem here as long as they have been as rigorously tested for their re-intended purpose as for their original purpose, which puberty blockers clearly haven't.

I suspect the majority of children referred to gender clinics receive appropriate care. However, that's not good enough. If someone has cancer, you expect them to receive the best possible care available in all instances. It's not good enough to say that 80% of patients are provided with the best available care if 20% are receiving voodoo medicine, homeopathy or any other treatment that has not been scientifically proven to benefit the patient.

I can't be consistent with such things here as there are too many posts and I'm not really reading them all, mostly skimming for things I'd want to reply to. But anyway, it's your side that's accusing me of wanting to poison children (for some secret agenda), and I think the language chosen is done to try to win the argument without having to admit these are pretty safe meds that most doctors who are the experts in them feel are fine to use.

The vast majority of kids change their minds about transitioning when left alone. The majority. Starting kids down a path that leads to hormones and genital mutilation (which we used to be outraged about when done in some African countries) is not safe when they would’ve outgrown the phase on their own.

How safe is “pretty safe”? The truth is that nobody knows, because these are effectively experimental drugs being tested out on confused teenagers and the long-term effects have not been systematically studied and reported.

They have only been FDA approved for 33 years and around for another decade. Nothing but facts from the fakers.

No part of this is remotely accurate. They’re well-studied treatments that the medical community feels confident using. Just lie after lie after lie from you.

This is the part they like to avoid because it does not help their agenda. In several European countries where they have been doing this to children longer than we have, they are now starting to see that this may not be wise and are curbing it. As a result, the far-left here leave out the parts that don't help them groom more children.

The fact is, the purple hair left do not actually use puberty blockers to help kids buy time until they figure out what is going on inside them. You know this because the way the left responds to a child saying, "I'm trans" is to immediately begin treating that child as if they are the other sex. So, little boy says, "I'm really a girl" they immediately put them on blockers so they stop developing into a boy and then a man with the intention of eventually staring giving that boy female hormones. They feel that the earlier they intervene, the greater the likelihood that the child will appear more believable as the other sex. So, what they say publicly is not congruent with their actual approach to these situations. In fact, they never for a second consider that the child might be going through a phase, which studies have proven is the case in the majority of situations.

You are a god damn liar. None of those drugs are approved by the FDA for poisoning children. They are approved for other uses, such as prostate cancer, endometriosis, precocious puberty. Don't you dare lie.