"As reported in the NYT, I regret commenting on the parents’ comment. However, I stand by my statement in the affidavit that the renal department advised stopping the bicalutamide because the child was experiencing liver damage."
How do you know it wasn't another patient with liver issues? How do you know that Reed had any access to information that proved it was Covid medication, not bicalutamide that caused the damage? How do you know the family is telling the truth?
Well, so much for extensive waiting then. That's been your whole problem this entire time. You care more about proving that I'm a liar than what's actually true. You went for an easy dunk and undermined your entire argument.
Ive cited Reed directly. Her testimony and signed affidavit are publicly accessible. And you're creating a false dichotomy. Different doctors act differently. Some doctors may make patients wait until prescribing blockers. Others, like according to the documents, don't.
I believe that the 20 peopole you're citing could be telling the truth about their experiences(I don't know who they are or what they've said since you've given no sources) and that Reed's testimony is accurate and her documents are real. Neither of those things conflict.
That's not a straight answer. And what basis do they have to say she's lying? She was providing details on specific patients and doctors. Are those people the parents of those same patients or are they the doctors whose notes she provided?
Verified documents by the clinicians themseleves aren't anecdotes. They're evidence. If you think they'd fabricated then you need evidence of your own. But you don't have any. Just like the claim that blockers gave been used on millions to treat GD.
That's as factually incorrect as the claim to that they'd green prescribed to millions of people for gender dysphoria. The youth clinic in Missouri prescribed blockers as quickly as after one single session. All GAC for minors is now banned in Missouri.
I support the Assessment(Dutch-Approach) approach supported by Leeper, not the Gender-Affirming approach supported by *some* US clinics. I don't support dishonestly reality and treating them as the same, as that gets both approaches banned. Good work with that, btw.
My opinion is the one I've said this entire time. They should be prescribed cautiously and with oversight as the experimental treatment that they are. But since you reject that reality completely, the public sees banning them completely as the reasonable alternative. And now you have to live with it
The fact that I'm against it is irrelelevent if the Supreme Court allows it. And the Supreme Court allows it, so you either have to convince the voters against banning GAC for minors or accept their decision when they do vote do vote to ban it. Thats the reality that you refuse to accept.
We live in a democracy. And courts have ruled that trans Healthcare is subject to democratic approval. That is an objective fact. Wishing that weren't true isn't going to make it untrue.
Just like wishing that millions of people have been treated for GD with blockers doesn't make it true.
For decades experts like Leeper have been using the Dutch protocol or other, restrictive and cautious approaches to prescribing blockers. That is an objective fact it's not an objective fact that millions of people have been prescribed blockers for GD.
I already said that I oppose these bans. So your question only makes sense as a deflection from the fact that you're objectively wrong about basic facts, like whether millions of people with GD have been treated with puberty blockers.
And unironically using the "basic decency" line in 2025? yeesh. Did you sustain a head injury sometime around 2018 that made it impossible for you to develop new long-term memories?
Voters are entitled to vote for the policies and candidates that they support. If you want them to not vote for policies and candidates that endanger you, you owe them an argument.
Whether I think that's good or not is irrelevant. It's reality. And once again you have trouble accepting reality.
2/3 Americans reject your supposed "basic empathy." It doesn't exist. Voters in a Democracy are entitled to vote according to their conscience. If you don't want them to the vote to destroy you, then you owe them an argument. But you clearly can't do that if you can't even admit basic facts.
I'd very much like it if trans-activists could convince people to be less transphobic, but judging from the poor quality of your arguments, and inability to acknowledge reality, like how "millions" haven't been treated for GD with blockers, I don't see that happening.
you've spent ten days making dishonest arguments that haven't convinced anyone of anything. Transphobes are going to keep winning and winning if this is the best you can do.
I don't want it, but I'm not surprised that it's popular, given how poorly people like you argue against it. Maybe if you didn't use such blatantly dishonest arguments you wouldn't be losing so badly.
It's happening whether I want it or not. What's not happening is you convincing anyone of anything. Maybe if you weren't so dishonest people would actually trust you and your arguments. But you can't even admit that millions of kids with GD *haven't* been treated with blockers. So I doubt it.
