Well, that sure got personal real quick. Care to share how you've reached that conclusion?

Not at all personal, just my perception based on your posts toward people, not just in this thread, but others as well.
As far as personal attacks, I don’t even know who you are. You seem to have been around the poker scene for a long time and have had experiences with old schoolers and stuff. But your responses to people do not strike me as being accepting of those who hold alternative opinions.

It's 100% personal - rather than respond to any of the points I've made, you decided to talk about what kind of person I am. And don't get me wrong, I'm not deeply offended or anything.

As for the actual substance of the post, I'm honestly a little perplexed by it. I definitely can be condescending at times, but for the most part I try to avoid anything as personal as you're suggesting. I wonder if you're assuming that when I push back against a point of view, that I'm judging the person with that point of view, and/or not accepting of them, which typically is not the case. Kinda hard to know much about strangers on a forum, so I do my best not to make assumptions about them, but admittedly there have been a few people with whom I probably come across as judgmental, like washoe or maybe lozen. It really is about their posting and not them as people, but I could probably do better with making that distinction. But "one of the least tolerant and most judgmental people I’ve seen on this board"? Well, I'm not here to try and dissuade you from that opinion, but I do find it a little surprising.

Look. I can see what you’re trying to do, but I’m not going to fall into your trap. I’m sorry you’re feelings are hurt.
But just look at your post that I originally quoted. You talk about stupid *** bills and refer to their concern for children as bullshit. Really? Do you think they feel their concerns are bullshit? No. You’re just attacking. Maybe you should consider where they’re coming from, why they think the way they do. Would you also say that someone who feels children should not be allowed to smoke cigarettes, that his concerns are unfounded? People can legitimately want to lookout for children as they view them as a vulnerable population. That can be true and it doesn’t help anyone to bash them.

One of the weird things about the transgender controversies is that almost everybody doesn't realize that the biggest aspect to the subject is that it involves major, difficult changes and little else. This is supposed to be understandable to a seven year old's IQ but some sort of cognitive dissonance works against this simple realization. The easiest way to see that I am right is to notice that in most cases where it is controversial as to whether someone should change some aspects of their life from x to y, a large component of the debate is whether it is better to be x than y. If that is considered a close decision, people rarely make a big deal about what others choose. And of course very few nowadays have a strong opinion about whether it is preferable for you to be a man or a women. The actual debate is more along the lines of what it means when someone wants to go to the trouble. A debate that to everyone but the religious nuts should not take on the importance that it does.

I think part of the problem is people try to oversimplify things. The fact is, we haven’t been able to accurately define what is a man. What is a woman? There is still debate over whether it is possible for a man to become a woman and vice versa. There is a mental health component we are ignoring which is the increased incidence of suicide amongst trans people. Even after they have surgery. And since the push now is to speed up hormones and surgery before a thorough psychiatric evaluation, possibly we are doing them a disservice. Think about this, Bruce Jenner was once named woman of the year. This is a person who never had a period. Never experienced sexual harassment in the workplace as a woman. Never experienced a lot of the trials and tribulations of a woman, but he is woman of the year. I admit he’s had his own struggles, but as a tranny, not as a woman. I think there is a lot more that we don’t explore that we need to. Starts with respecting that we’re all human though.

i dont really understand most of this post, but it's unquestionably true and not particularly close that being a white male is "better" for outcomes than anything else at pretty much all stages of world history including today and going forward.

I think this a naive because these people don’t seem to care at all about changing the medical community’s opinion. They just want some of the most corrupt people on the planet to pass laws outlawing a class they don’t like. Sort of similar to how the “intelligent design” community bypassed scientists all together and tried to go straight to high school level textbooks. A pretty big red flag they probably don’t even really believe their own BS or realize their reasoning isn’t very good.

I have no issue with people being concerned about children. which is why I said "there are a good number of people who aren't actually hateful of transgender people" (speaking about those with concerns).

My issue is with people who are hateful of transgender people, but claim to be trying to protect the children, while putting forward or supporting laws that show said supposed concern is nothing but a charade.

Laws restricting gender-affirming surgery for kids - likely very much rooted in concern for kids. They may or may not be good laws, but I can appreciate where they're coming from at least.

Laws restricting gender-affirming care for kids - could be rooted in concern for kids, but lawmakers should really be doing some research on the topic, and consider letting the experts in the field guide their work:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9418844/

And my suspicion is that there are some for whom it's not about kids at all, and this is just a step on their way to where we're now seeing lawmakers in multiple states going - laws restricting gender-affirming care for everyone. That's an example of what I'm taking issue with - transphobes who are cloaking their transphobia with bullshit concern for the kids which isn't really their concern at all.

Reread your post, man. You, in a very passive-aggressive manner, imply that people who oppose transgender are, as you say, hateful of them. How do you know they have hate in their heart? Why is it not possible that they simply believe that a man cannot become a woman and vice versa. You know, I’m many jurisdictions a man can have his birth certificate changed that says he’s a woman. That man, and this does happen, then proceeds for life saying he’s a woman and never acknowledging he was born male. You think his doctor would ever think to consider prostate cancer as he gets older? He’d still have that organ. Biological females who go the other direction are also still susceptible to some female problems. Beyond the fact that there really does exist sex chromosomes XX and XY and one may attempt to live as the other but will never function as the other. Some people believe this at a scientific level and base their philosophy on this. They don’t have to be “hateful.”

So you just don't believe trans people exist, because if you did then this post is incredibly disrespectful and invalidating. You use the name Bruce instead of Caitlin, the pronouns he and his instead of she and her, you use the term tranny, and you imply (or explicitly state?) that she's not really a woman.

Even with those beliefs, why is there a need for lawmakers to step in and say that a medical professional isn't allowed to provide gender-affirming care for an adult? Why not simply let the medical professional decide what is best for their patient?

Language exists as a function to represent how we perceive the world. Yes, I believe that a man, born a man, cannot “transition” into a woman no more than I as a white man can “transition” into a black man. If I perceive a thing as male, he would be the pronoun to represent that.

I know you’re in Canada, maybe things are different there, but here in USA we have long abandoned a patriarchal system of healthcare. Healthcare decisions are made in conjunction with the patient, not for the patient. We develop a plan of care together.
Again, using loaded terms like “gender-affirming” implies that the person is the wrong gender trapped in the wrong body. Many people simply believe, whether it is based in science or religion or whatever, that this is impossible. In which case, gender-affirming would not be pumping testosterone into a female but giving testosterone to a male who is suffering from hypogonadism, etc. First the question as to whether or not “transitioning” is a real thing needs to be decided before the rest and that hasn’t happened yet.
Regarding children, no, I don’t think we should be upsetting their hormonal balance especially when they are not in a position to make such a decision for the reasons previously stated regarding their lack of maturity and cognitive development.
Why is there a need for lawmakers to step in? Well, why is there ever a need for elected officials to intervene on behalf of vulnerable populations? And certainly, regardless of how you feel about trans youth, I think you’d agree that they are a vulnerable population

Yes, actually, us doctors have figured out how trans people work. It's truly not that complicated.

Yes, with the patient. My questions still stand, and I was talking about adults, because those are the laws I can't see any sensible justification for. Why do lawmakers need to step in and tell doctors they can't offer gender-affirming care to adults?

So, if all the patient’s documentation says female and the patonever tells you he’s trans, how would you know?

Again with gender affirming. Fits right into the far left talking points. But I do agree with you that mentally competent adults should be free to mutilate their bodies but I do not oppose laws that forbid children from it.

le sigh

Because patients typically aren't that dumb, and most medical record systems have ways to display this. Look, if a patient wanted to mislead a doctor about nearly anything, they could and with negative health consequences. Why that's so relevant only in this situation is less of a mystery than I wish it was.

Very good job avoiding the question. You’re very skilled. Perhaps you can run for office with that sort of deflection.

We are right back to the reason the omnibus thread was closed and should be permanently again.
Multiple posts from a previously banned poster, which have become increasing transphobic and reflecting his alt right sources for his medical opinions.
Just about time for him to create a eugenics thread to spout more of his nonsense or just ban him, or reban him for the third or fourth time, like he initially suggested.

I appreciate your tolerance and acceptance of people with different views. Claiming I use alt-right sources (gee, I didn’t know the British Medical Journal was alt right), and calling me trans phobic are precisely the personal insults I was referring to earlier. Attacks I have refrained from. You should try it.

My suspicion is that the percentage of people expressing concern for children who are transphobes with bullshit concern for children is well over 50%.

I think we've established that the disrespect in her posts is permissible here.