Jump to content

LBGTQ


Mo Horn

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 but there's no valid reason to even apply "mental" to the illness.


 

It’s not an illness.  It’s a difference.  True trans aren’t defective.  They’re born that way.  They may not feel it at a young age, and feelings might not come on until teen years or later, but they were still always trans.  
 

I do think there are a lot of bandwagon trans for whatever reason.  A lot of weirdos, pervs, and sickos making real trans people look bad.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Goddammit, it is not that big of an ask 

You’re right. I apologize.

 

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, here's the thing on that.  Brain chemistry that isn't quite right is every bit as physical as a pancreas that doesn't work right, or some cells that start to mutate and divide into cancer.

Sure, it's not a broken leg or skull, but there are lots of diseases that involve a malfunctioning body part with no external cause.

So, with the stigma, you're part of the way there, but there's no valid reason to even apply "mental" to the illness.

Research suggests that there are physical differences in brain structure among trans folk. More so ftm.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

 

I try to keep in mind that nature makes humans born with male, female, and hermaphrodite genders. Given the complexity of the human brain, I am bemused by the confusion and resistance at the idea that being transgender is a not uncommon human trait.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Research suggests that there are physical differences in brain structure among trans folk. More so ftm.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

 

Scientific American has lost a lot of cred recently for too much political stuff.  Their President just resigned a few weeks back for that reason.  

 

I'm not sure I trust an author that thinks or hopes people's gender might one day be determined by a brain scan.  It's always the person's choice and no one else's.  Not even the child's parent.  

 

Quote

given the variety of transgender people and the variation in the brains of men and women generally, it will be a long time, if ever, before a doctor can do a brain scan on a child and say, “Yes, this child is trans.”

 

 

I trust that most of SA is still very much science based, but you do have to be careful when quoting or linking them because of things like this  

 

 

GZLw-Mo-CWw-AEZuk-T.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, PRONG HORN said:

 

Scientific American has lost a lot of cred recently for too much political stuff.  Their President just resigned a few weeks back for that reason.  

 

I'm not sure I trust an author that thinks or hopes people's gender might one day be determined by a brain scan.  It's always the person's choice and no one else's.  Not even the child's parent.  

 

 

 

I trust that most of SA is still very much science based, but you do have to be careful when quoting or linking them because of things like this  

 

 

GZLw-Mo-CWw-AEZuk-T.jpg

 

Perhaps the NIH and JAMA will meet your criteria and allow you to consider their findings.

Regarding sports, I do not share the common outrage. Especially for athletes who receive early medical support, as all sport is dominated by both will and genetics, which will be altered by gender affirming medical care.

These past Olympics are a good example of my pov, for the Olympic Committee follows guidelines as to classifying an athlete as male or female. Disagreement is fine with me, but take your beef to the Committee, and leave individuals in peace. I am content letting experts make those kinds of decisions 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8955456/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2804855

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I tend to agree with the notion that the Great Trans Scare was one of the primary determining factors in the election.

Back in October, I posted an article with a quote from the president of the Human Rights Campaign saying she was concerned because she saw that those stupid commercials were gaining traction among white suburban moms with Trump lying about kids coming home from school suddenly transitioned in a single school day.

All of that Sturm und Drang over a vanishingly small number of affected adolescents: $222,000 in scary ads per kid.

Congrats to the haters, I guess.

 

'A very, very small number' of teens receive gender-affirming care, study finds

How many transgender teens in the U.S. are receiving medical care related to gender transitions? According to a peer-reviewed research letter published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, the answer is very, very few.

It's a key data point as Republican lawmakers in Congress and around the country continue to focus on transgender youth in contexts ranging from sports to bathrooms to doctors' offices. In a legislative sprint over the last few years, half of U.S. states have enacted bans on gender-affirming care. Some of those laws have been blocked in court, and one such legal case was just argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in December.

The care at issue includes puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy — medications that help transgender teens develop characteristics that align with their gender identity. Use of these treatments is supported by major American medical groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics.

"It's important to put numbers to the debates that are currently happening," says Landon Hughes, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health. "There weren't any peer reviewed studies that were looking at the rate of hormone use and puberty blocker use among youth in the U.S., and so we wanted to fill that void."

Hughes and colleagues at Harvard and Folx Health, a virtual LGBTQ health care company, used a data set of private insurance claims from 2018-2022 that included more than 5 million adolescents.

"The total number of youth who had any diagnosis of gender dysphoria was less than 18,000," Hughes explains. "Among those folks, there were less than 1,000 [youth] that accessed puberty blockers and less than 2,000 that ever had access to hormones."

In other words, the study found that less than 0.1% of teenagers with private insurance in the U.S. are transgender and receive gender-related medicines.

A recent mental health survey from the CDC found a much higher percentage — 3% of high school students — self-identified as transgender. Not all transgender people seek a medical diagnosis or treatments related to their identity, notes Lindsey Dawson, director of LGBTQ health policy at the research organization KFF. "Much more common is to change hair grooming, style of clothing, using a different name," she says, pointing to KFF research.

Dawson, who was not involved with the research, said the study was notable for the large sample size. "It echoes past work that has found that gender-affirming medical care, including puberty blockers and hormone treatment, is relatively rare among all trans and nonbinary people, but especially so among adolescents," she says.

Hughes says the study puts the political attention on this group into perspective. In the recent election, Republicans spent more than $222 million on anti-LGBTQ advertisements, according to a report by AdImpact shared with NPR.

"It's a very, very small number of people that has managed to eat up all of the oxygen in our political discourse over the last few months," Hughes observes.

The American Principles Project, a conservative political advocacy group that has opposed transgender policy for years, is likely to push for a ban on gender-affirming care for minors under the Trump administration, Jon Schweppe, policy director at the organization told NPR in November.

"We've poll tested that, and we're pretty confident that the American people agree," Schweppe says.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

They’ve done so much already not even sure I can post it all. Harrowing. 

identification - mostly taken away, only thing that remains are existing identification. I’d expect that to be dealt with soon.

stripping all mention of gender identity, changing everything to sex, no accommodation whatsoever.

bathroom ban in federal buildings came out tonight. 

no gender affirming care for those under 19 years old.

no federal assistance for any trans related care. 

trans kicked out of the military.

prisons based on sex at birth. 

Texas wants to retroactively change back DLs.

what else?

Edited by troph
  • Rage+1 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the Idaho legislature is asking the Supreme Court to over turn Obergefell. It’s only a matter of time before that comes back to the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma AG is challenging a ruling regarding changing sex on birth certificates. 

Folks they are coming for it all. 

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who views marriage as an antiquated institution, I haven't followed this legal fight very closely, so I'd like to be educated on the issue.

Since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, on what basis did SCOTUS affirm the right and on what basis could they reverse it?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

As someone who views marriage as an antiquated institution, I haven't followed this legal fight very closely, so I'd like to be educated on the issue.

Since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, on what basis did SCOTUS affirm the right and on what basis could they reverse it?

 

The civil contract of marriage and the rights it’s provides are fundamental and hardly antiquated. 

equal protection and right to privacy which stems from roe v wade, which is why alarm bells went off when roe was overturned. Contraception, interracial marriage, sex other than missionary style between a man and a woman (so gay sex, oral sex, anal sex), are all conceivably on the chopping block. Thomas has said as much. Well, except for interracial marriage, he likes that one.

Edited by troph
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I’ve posted about that before. Berlin was more progressive than the US was during the Obama Admin pre-Hitler.  And yes they came for my people first. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve posted about that before. Berlin was more progressive than the US was during the Obama Admin pre-Hitler.  And yes they came for my people first. 

I think they got to the undesirables first with their eugenics programs and facilities starting in the late 1920s. Since they couldn’t resist and were already in state run facilities (mental hospitals).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:


I think they got to the undesirables first with their eugenics programs and facilities starting in the late 1920s. Since they couldn’t resist and were already in state run facilities (mental hospitals).

That’s probably be right, splitting hairs though. It wasn’t all of a sudden the Jews. It was incremental. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, troph said:

That’s probably be right, splitting hairs though. It wasn’t all of a sudden the Jews. It was incremental. 

I think it was always about normalizing the brutality and horror and working their way to their goals.   I suppose it could be just interpreted as getting their industrialized mass murder of the Jewish and Roma people started required a learning curve and that was means tested on other populations first.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, troph said:

no gender affirming care for those under 19 years old.

If this really was just about protecting children, however misguided, than this is all they would be doing.

But like everything else, children are just being used as a tool to attack people's rights and liberties.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I think it was always about normalizing the brutality and horror and working their way to their goals.   I suppose it could be just interpreted as getting their industrialized mass murder of the Jewish and Roma people started required a learning curve and that was means tested on other populations first.  

It was never just about the Jews it was about everyone but the favored. Jews were especially targeted because they assimilated well and were blamed as the existential threat because they were too successful. The rest of us are just annoyingly in the way. 

3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

If this really was just about protecting children, however misguided, than this is all they would be doing.

But like everything else, children are just being used as a tool to attack people's rights and liberties.

We’ve been saying this for years 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DixonHur said:

As someone who views marriage as an antiquated institution, I haven't followed this legal fight very closely, so I'd like to be educated on the issue.

Since the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, on what basis did SCOTUS affirm the right and on what basis could they reverse it?

 

Essentially the same basis as it affirmed abortion. The death of Roe v. Wade has already ended a number of previously recognized rights. It'll just take time for the law to catch up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2024 at 4:52 PM, Willfully Horn said:

You’re right. I apologize.

 

Research suggests that there are physical differences in brain structure among trans folk. More so ftm.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/

 

I try to keep in mind that nature makes humans born with male, female, and hermaphrodite genders. Given the complexity of the human brain, I am bemused by the confusion and resistance at the idea that being transgender is a not uncommon human trait.

Humans are basically conceived and develop for something like 8 weeks as females. Then a complex process begins if a Y chromosome is present. That process involves the genetic code, in utero conditions, the mother, and biochemistry in the developing fetus. That’s likely where a human first goes trans. From there though there are literally millions of cascading interactions over the life of a human that are not a given to conform to the simple XX or XY template. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...