I’d consider it. But it would have to be based on an anonymous user poll over like 5 days and not just a request from you.
That’s fair. Further discussion should be in its own thread anyway. Standby.
Someone told me my ideas are bullshit, “I’m being hate speeched!”
The Cass Review (published April 2024) is an independent, NHS-commissioned review of gender identity services for UK children and young people. It concluded that evidence for medical interventions (puberty blockers, hormones) is “remarkably weak”, calling for a holistic, psycho-social approach rather than immediate medicalization.
You must mean some other “science” I guess.
Maybe read the 34 references in this statement and explain to me how acksully there can be no more discussion about “the science” because it’s already settled. https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/health-policy/positions/2026-gender-surgery-children-adolescents.pdf
“Black people are obviously lower intellect than white people”
“Gays disproportionately molest children”
“Woman don’t have the constitution required to vote”
“Trans identity is not real. It’s a delusion”
It’s not hate speech. It’s just disagreement.
1 Like
How you present your arguments is persistently hateful in a grotesque way, at the very least.
3 Likes
That’s some really bad (mostly dishonest) calculating there. If you were really mad about people being forced to participate in delusions you wouldn’t “discuss” things like a dogmatic reactionary.
He has control over the site and, if it came to it, is probably the sole legal owner.
Props to simp for never using his control of the domain against anyone or even vaguely threatening to use it, but it’s not by chance. Back in the days when this was a democracy (in this case before this site started operating, but we were working things out on exiled) he unilaterally grabbed the domain and kept control of it. Like I said, he has, in fact, acted like he is keeping it in trust, but he did just put the entire site at his mercy all on his own.
You are not an honest debate opponent. You make a post calling the entire idea of trans identity a delusion then cite a single study saying a medical intervention may not be effective at one aging stage.
You are purposely ignorant, but not stupid. You do this because your goal is to propagate hate, not discuss science.
This software is “Discourse” not “Discord” and it’s freely downloaded software on a server that Spidercrab administers.
1 Like
Oh. My bad. Dammit.
I have started a thread on this topic.
1 Like
These are all statements that can be proven true or false. The first statement is the subject of 200 years of “research,” from Galton and later. If it were true it would be bad for the world, but we would have to deal with it. However, the work of Gould (Mismeasure of Man) and others before and after, including the social science that was a core part of Brown v. Board case, showed it to be false, which makes sense because there’s no link between pigmentation (a fairly discrete genetic trait) and “intelligence” (for which over 1000 genes have been identified as “correlated”).
The only one of these propositions that supporters claim is beyond science is the trans one, because supporters have to buy into a framework where it is beyond verification. This is the apex of non-falsifiability and a sort of ur-example of when something stops being science and starts being ideology. Trans ideology is not an invitation to science, its basic structure requires an anti-scientific epistemology characteristic of postmodernism.
I used to be all for the democratic ownership of this site and would have happily participated in setting up some kind of organization to be the owner, but man, I would be shocked if anyone wants to own it at this point.
None of what he is saying is hate speech, so probably out of luck on that.
Simp if I am wrong about you why not just agree to not post on the one topic that causes all the problems? Post on anything else you want.
Why not agree that the community is not interested in that “debate” and there is no world in which it will ever be fruitful?
Absent this, it really cannot be anything more than you choosing to be disruptive and trying to spread hate.
How much are you willing to investigate your claims here?
Here is a 39 page paper written by 9 MDs, PHDs and a JD, all who are professors at numerous different highly regarded schools of medicine and posted by Yale that goes over all of the multitude of issues with the Cass review.
How much are you willing to investigate your claims?
“A new analysis from BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood (ADC) concludes that the McNamara et al. critique of the Cass Review is not a genuine scientific effort, but a politicized attempt to influence outcomes of ongoing U.S. litigation.”
and
“Critiques of the Cass Review: Fact-Checking the Peer-Reviewed and Grey Literature”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2025.2455133
Or if you prefer video format, here is Forrest Valkai, a Biology PHD candidate, who’s work in the below video is reviewed by 13 PHDs across Biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine, and anthropology
And in case you need it, here is a works cited of 377 works that he used in his research.