I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m finding your posts the most valuable ones in the thread. Please write as much as you want to.
Ditto. I’m not posting (until now) because I have nothing to contribute. But I have much to learn, and Una is educating me.
Amen.
Someone really ought to be cataloging Una’s posts, they are golden. 
That’s a good point if its true. If there more money to be made trying to gender conform kids than to assist them in transition that would blow that argument right out of the water.
Yes, there are unscrupulous people out there. I don’t know how many of them there are in this teeny tiny little corner of the world but there was a case in China of men who poisoned baby formula because they thought that they could make a little more money by replacing milk with plastic derivatives. This sort of avarice is not unique to the Chinese.
Because it sounds like something close to hormone treatments until you find out what they are. It sounds like you are interrupting the natural course of biology for the sake of making the road to transgenderism more available until you consider the benefit versus the harm (and take into consideration the very steep hurdles we overcome before we ever get to this point, I am assuming the hurdles to get here are very steep considering how much concern there is over false positives).
Because we are talking about interfering with normal biological functions. How long have we been using puberty blockers? 10 years? 20 years? Its pretty new isn’t it?
I’m really only concerned with minors. At 18, I think we let the 18 year old decide. How long can we block puberty? Can we block it until the kid is an adult or would that stunt their long term development?
I appreciate your perspective and information.
I agree that its hard to keep hormones away from kids, steroids were ridiculously easy to get when i was a kid (I think its harder now because of all the negative publicity surrounding steroids).
Yes, there is a lot of ignorance being fought here. I feel like I am being enlightened. At a crass level I am now the most well informed person on the subject in almost every social situation I am exposed to (I’m the one eyed man in the land of the blind). I can defend the transgender position on almost every issue and a quick google search will back me up. Not a single one of the parents I know with would risk their child killing themselves to avoid having a transgender child.
I don’t have the time for serious research right now. But a Canadian therapy center–in which transgender minors were counseled to* not* be transgender–closed last December.
So, somebody was making money by pretending that transgender was not a real orientation. No more–but who else might still be in the business?
Good people acknowledge when their humor has hurt others and apologize, instead of adding further insults. I’ve apologized to you in the past, so why are you so amused by hurting me?
And this is why it’s a sexist attack: It states that “all men” do something, and then points and laughs at the men who state they don’t do that thing.
Did you note that not one other person in here read it the same way as you? And when are you going to reply to everyone else who read it a similar way to me? Why aren’t you demanding an apology from them?
And there is absolutely NOTHING insulting about the phrase you quoted, “Um…wow, you really are reading a whole lot of…something…into that post. Good luck.” Cite to these “further insults?” Cite or retract.
More likely you’re trying to play the “fake wounded innocence” game. Because I’ve *never *had anyone try that with me on here, having just wandered onto this message board yesterday… :smack:
Kids have been prescribed HGH and undergo many medical treatments which “interfere” with normal biological functions. One can say that prescribing HGH for stunted growth is correcting a serious physical disorder, and I’d argue so is transition. It comes down to whether you believe transition is medically necessary for the overall well-being and quality of life of the patient - or if you believe it is not.
I believe puberty blockers have been around for about 50+ years, but used for transition assistance since the 1990’s.
Kids bodies are pretty flexible. There is very little evidence that delaying puberty for 1-3 years causes permanent damage or stunting. To put things into perspective, sometimes kids who have gone through full male puberty and then start hormones at 18 can still develop incredibly well into a female body, with the possible exception of hip width.
There is very little to no information on kids with puberty blocked for extended periods of time, because no one (barring crazy exceptions) does that.
All men are fucking idiots.
That goes for you too, Derleth.
I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t a fucking idiot at times. I consider myself quite accomplished in that field.
For what very little it’s worth, I also find that #notallmen cartoon intensely irritating, or, in modern parlance, “problematic”.
It runs into trouble in the very first panel. A signal alerts #notallman to an instance of “reverse sexism”. Now, firstly, there’s no such thing as “reverse sexism”. There’s just sexism. Saying women are crazy bitches? Sexism. Saying men are insensitive pigs? Also sexism. There’s no “reverse” about it. Things either are sexist or they aren’t.
Secondly, the “man signal” implies that sexism against men is taken so seriously that every instance is flagged, and by a modified bat-signal no less! In the real world, sexism against men is so effectively ignored that one often has to battle to get women to acknowledge that it exists (if you’re one of those women who does acknowledge it…shut up we’re not talking about you so stop derailing (OMG I can’t even #femininitysofragile)) For example, the fact that men comprise 40% of domestic abuse victims but get only 2% of sheltered housing is sexist. When women get lighter prison sentences than men who commit the exact same crimes that’s institutional sexism in action. The fact that young girls raped by older men are given sympathy and support, but young boys raped by older women are told to count themselves lucky while their abusers get slapped on the wrist is sexism. There’s no bat signal for these men. There’s just women ignoring them or telling them to “man up” (again, if you’re a woman who objects to this generalisation…shut up! Stop making this all about you!)
The second panel is relatively unobjectionable, other than the beer ad on the phone booth. Because men love beer. Along with tits and football, beer is literally the only thing men understand. If you can’t see why this is problematic, imagine if the character was a woman and the ad was for tampons, Barbie dolls, or pretty pink princess outfits.
Panel 4 says men are “defended”, “protected”, and “voiceful”, which is true…unless they’re domestically abused, sexually abused, mentally ill (in which case they’re far less likely to receive proper care than women), homeless[sup]1[/sup], or fall into any one of a dozen other unfortunate categories.
Panels 5 and 6, however, are where it really goes off the rails. In panel 5, a woman is about to make a generalisation which, in all likelihood, is about all men. You can tell by the construction “I’m just sick of how men…”. I defy anyone to finish that sentence in a plausible way which doesn’t generalise about all men, so the idea that this woman could have just been talking about men who catcall, or men who commit sexual harassment is implausible on its face. This is supported by the fact that the cartoonist didn’t care to let the woman finish her thought, leaving it open to be interpreted as any generalisation.
The second problem is that this is all supposedly taking place in the real world. I’d wager everything I own that never, in the history of human interaction, have two women been bitching about men in a bar only to be interrupted by some random dude saying "Actually, I’ll think you’ll find that’s a little bit sexist. Never happened. The cartoon is clearly meant as an analogue to online discussion. But here’s the thing about online conversations…they’re online! If you’re going to make bigoted generalisations online, someone is going to call you on it. If you don’t want that to happen, you should either moderate your comments, steer clear of controversial subjects, or (crazy thought) stop being fucking bigots! Jesus Christ, people, this is internet 101. Generalise or don’t, but if you do, don’t be surprised if you get a backlash. And don’t be surprised when you suddenly realise your moral authority to complain about sexist generalisations about your gender/race/religion has evaporated.
[sub][sup]1[/sup]Interesting sidebar: I saw the funniest thing on Twitter the other day. It was an advert which said “Of every four homeless people, one is a WOMAN!” (the dun-dun-dunnn was implied) Personally, I think the bigger problem is that out of every four homeless people, four are homeless, but there you go.[/sub]
And Poe’s Law strikes again. Someone help me out?
Hey! I’m a virgin. Never fucked anybody or anything.
I’m just a plain ordinary vanilla idiot.
Geez.
“I’m just sick of how men are often portrayed as idiots in commercials.”
“I’m just sick of how men who are victims of domestic violence often get no support. Or worse, sometimes they are ridiculed.”
“I’m just sick of how men are viewed as unsafe around kids.”
Holy shit! Your content-free drive-by has shown me the error of my ways. I repent of my sins and shall devote myself henceforth to the good fight, battling against bigotry in all its forms. Unless it’s about men, in which case, fuck 'em, amirite?
People like you are the reason Portlandia exists.
All very laudable sentiments, but do you really think they’re plausible within the context of the cartoon?
Dude, chill. You get tweaked by a comic, you get tweaked by a content-free post. Maybe you’re taking this men’s rights SJW thing too far. Take some deep breaths and relax.
We also have legal pot over here in Portlandia now, if that will help.