Opinions are things you believe. Flags meant to show what side you’re on would be something more like virtue signaling.
Also, I just found the word ultracrepidarian.
a person who criticizes, judges, or gives advice outside their area of expertise.
In my more cynical moments, I sometimes think that it’s all virtue signaling, all the way down. People believe things not because they believe them, but because they think that the person they define themselves as being is supposed to believe these things. It’s not a conscious decision. We all just define ourselves as something, and we fly the flag that something is supposed to fly.
Even if the patient was an adult and wanted to try it? (I daresay some religious people would.)
But now you mention it, the people who want to ban gender affirming care for kids or even adults also say it isn’t medical treatment.
Something I’ve heard is that the idea a person should have a consistent personality across all situations is specific to individualistic cultures like the US, and more collectivist cultures expect a person to behave very differently depending on the relationship between them and the person they are interacting with. At any rate, it seems plausible our personalities are to some extent constructed rather than simply the result of experiences etc.
As for opinions, we believe what people we respect and like say. It’s very noticeable that when someone leaves or gets kicked out of a religious or political group over a disagreement on one issue, and they end up hanging around with and listening to their former ‘enemy’, they will generally flip all their other opinions to match those of their new social group, even if they are diametrically opposite to what they believed before.
This is getting tiresome. There is such a thing as objective reality. There is no inherent symmetry between people who accept objective reality and those who attempt to reject objective reality. Yes, both sides say “we’re right and you’re wrong”, but what’s relevant is that one side really is right and one side really is wrong.
Yes, and that’s exactly why I said you should defend gender affirming care on its merits, ie you need to convince people it really is beneficial, rather than telling them they ought not care whether medical treatment being given to children helps or harms them.
Agreed?
Umm, most of the folks opposing, some, gender affirming care already, clearly, do not care whether medical treatment being given to children helps or harms them.
If so many people are already against gender-affirming treatment for trans people, why did the GOP have to spend over $200m on anti-trans propaganda during the last election?
Oh right - because they’re “Evil MFers”.
Jeez, some people can’t take a joke.
If they didn’t care, they wouldn’t oppose it, duh.
Doctors who provide gender affirming care?
You know what else they are?
Informed about the specific needs of their patient.
For fuck’s sake you tiresome shitheads, take the discussion over to one of the trans Pit threads.
When someone actually tries to post something actually relevant to the thread it keeps getting bulldozed by your damned bickering.
Meanwhile, the second episode of Gavin Newsom’s podcast is out… and this time his guest is Michael Savage, who’s also here to tell him that Democrats should stop supporting trans people if they want to win.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/gavin-newsom-podcast-20213385.php
I couldn’t read your link because it threw a fit over my ad block and I’m not going to turn it off just because it triggers the SF Chronicle, but that’s a pretty idiotic summary by them, considering how the topic of trans people didn’t come up until the last 5 minutes of the over an hour long podcast (Newsom asked Savage why he thinks Republicans won, and Savage brought up the trans issue). They discussed it for less than a minute in total.
I wonder if the article’s author actually listened to the podcast, or if they just downloaded the transcript and Ctrl+F’d for the word ‘trans’.
I personally don’t see how this info contradicts the summary. It happened, didn’t it? Plus, I assume there’s more issue taken with Savage being a guest to begin with than anything else.
Generally, publications with journalistic standards do thinks like putting the most important things that happened in the headline; headlining with a 30 second interaction is pretty laughable. But you’re right, given the website’s cancerous ad block policy, I cannot find out if the body of the article likewise pretends that these thirty seconds define the conversation, or if they’re more honest there.
Yes, the San Francisco Chronicle presumably still thinks that we can cancel our way to cultural dominance, even though that’s precisely how the media ecosystem that got Trump elected came to be.
I realize you aren’t in the U.S. but I want to point out that yesterday our high court announced it will take up that very question.
~Max
Damn, it’s even more evil when you read the story. She didn’t die from blunt injury, but from dehydration. Stepmom was convicted of capital murder.
~Max
Yeah, it gets even worse when you find out that the girl was adopted and apparently her biological mom was trying to get her back when she died?
Who the fuck gave these animals a child?
That’s horrific. Why did they even have custody?