Transgender - Part 2

[Gethelred]

Please be aware that the tolerance of anti-trans language on BF is at an all-time low. Jokes and insults that are trans-related, as well as anti-trans and bigoted rhetoric will be met with infractions, threadbans etc as required. It's a sensitive (and important) topic, so behave like well-mannered adults when discussing it, PARTICULARLY when disagreeing. This equally applies across the whole site.

 

[Chief]

You really have ignored a lot of that video

Talk about one aspect and it's "y u no tok bout da rest???"

**** me.

So pick something else in there you want to talk about.

 

[the_interloper]

Talk about one aspect and it's "y u no tok bout da rest???"

**** me.

So pick something else in there you want to talk about.

It seemed like you thought you could just debunk the whole video by doubting the intentions of the person who was talking, a convenient way of ignoring the points made i guess.

You're free to talk about any of the content if you wish.

 

[Chief]

It seemed like you thought you could just debunk the whole video by doubting the intentions of the person who was talking, a convenient way of ignoring the points made i guess.

She spoke shite and has done so many times.

You're free to talk about any of the content if you wish.

 

[Chief]

I suppose "suffering irreversible damage" isn't a loaded statement at all.

Some cancer treatments cause people to suffer irreversible damage.

The recipients often get to live longer, but if the conservative mob don't like it then these should these treatments be banned?

 

[Carringbush2010]

It seemed like you thought you could just debunk the whole video by doubting the intentions of the person who was talking, a convenient way of ignoring the points made i guess.

You're free to talk about any of the content if you wish.

Not uncommon for the types who can't debunk, so they criticize the source, in turn makes any salient content invalid, coz the source is bad.

 

[Beerfish]

Not uncommon for the types who can't debunk, so they criticize the source, in turn makes any salient content invalid, coz the source is bad.

There's no need to debunk the rantings of bigots. They do that themselves.

 

[Gethelred]

Not uncommon for the types who can't debunk, so they criticize the source, in turn makes any salient content invalid, coz the source is bad.

This feels like a defense cloaked as an accusation. As in, the first people on this forum to try and attack the source on any number of other issues - whether we're talking media bias, climate science, propaganda or its effect - are also the first people who will accuse others of being unable to debunk their sources.

I've seen you do it before.

Now, there's also another issue at play here. This could be read as a criticism of how this forum adjudicates misinformation or conspiracist sources, so I'd like to answer that particular version of this argument before we get bogged down in the other: if you share a link to a site or person who is known to have been dishonest or have been flexible with the facts in the past, you are spreading their reach should they do so again. A lie or deliberate misinformation frequently takes longer to debunk or disprove than it does merely to utter.

To call out what is done to misinformation in this way as you have above is ignorant of the effects of propaganda and is extremely naive.

 

[faible]

Not uncommon for the types who can't debunk, so they criticize the source, in turn makes any salient content invalid, coz the source is bad.

Plenty of sources have shown they're not to be treated in good faith. Relying on unfalsifiable statements, or like Trump does, lie so frequently and so rapidly that actually correcting all the lies is impossible.

 

[Chief]

Not uncommon for the types who can't debunk, so they criticize the source, in turn makes any salient content invalid, coz the source is bad.

Go back and look at my comments on the CONTENT of the speech.

• The numbers - are they high? Dunno. She doesn't include any analysis. Why not? She's anti-trans, assume the worst intentions when she makes omissions in a speech on treatments.
• The code used - Are doctors using that code as expected? Dunno. She doesn't explain. Medicare could be well aware of it and using that code is what the doctors are supposed to do. The birth sex of the person is on Medicare's files. She's anti-trans, assume the worst intentions when she makes omissions in a speech on treatments.
• The treatment given - is it "dangerous"? If taken in excessive amounts, yes. Otherwise, no.
• Were the amounts prescribed excessive and dangerous? Don't know, she doesn't give any details. She's anti-trans, assume the worst of her when she makes omissions in a speech on treatments.
• "Damage" - Is it damaging to achieve the desired outcome from a medical treatment? Technically, it can be, but the result without treatment would be worse.

But the replies are about disagreements on the medical description of testosterone.

Why might that be? Think hard.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There's no need to debunk the rantings of bigots. They do that themselves.

Don't think anyone would disagree with that. (or anyone worthy of the time of moment), so not sure what your point is.

 

[Beerfish]

Don't think anyone would disagree with that. (or anyone worthy of the time of moment), so not sure what your point is.

I think it was pretty clear. Bigots don't tend to have any 'salient content'.

 

[Carringbush2010]

This feels like a defense cloaked as an accusation. As in, the first people on this forum to try and attack the source on any number of other issues - whether we're talking media bias, climate science, propaganda or its effect - are also the first people who will accuse others of being unable to debunk their sources.

I've seen you do it before.

Now, there's also another issue at play here.

This could be read as a criticism of how this forum adjudicates misinformation

or conspiracist sources, so I'd like to answer that particular version of this argument before we get bogged down in the other: if you share a link to a site or person who is known to have been dishonest or have been flexible with the facts in the past, you are spreading their reach should they do so again. A lie or deliberate misinformation frequently takes longer to debunk or disprove than it does merely to utter.

To call out what is done to misinformation in this way as you have above is ignorant of the effects of propaganda and is extremely naive.

How could it not be, see why below?

Plenty of sources have shown they're not to be treated in good faith. Relying on unfalsifiable statements, or like Trump does, lie so frequently and so rapidly that actually correcting all the lies is impossible.

Doesn't mean what they say can't be taken in good faith

She's anti-trans, assume the worst

The bold is exactly what I stated in the post you're all so quick to rally against in reply to.

To be clear, haven't seen the vid or read the information,

Not the point.

The point is, as our Chief has displayed here, don't worry Chief you're not alone, is the instant dismissal of anyone's info / statement / argument (whatever term you wanna use) because of who they are < not what they have stated / said.

This tactic is used ad nauseum on these boards from all corners of debate.

For example, let's say bio female athlete brings up concern about women's sports integrity = ok

Bigot brings up exactly the same statement = statement dismissed coz bigot.

Lesson there for everyone.

 

[faible]

Doesn't mean what they say can't be taken in good faith

It really can.

You lie and make things up enough, and the onus is on the speaker to prove that what they're saying isn't simply made up bs.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think it was pretty clear. Bigots don't tend to have any 'salient content'.

99 % of the time, but to say bigot or whatever your fav target is can't provide salient content would be naive and akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la to ignore.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It really can.

You lie and make things up enough, and the onus is on the speaker to prove that what they're saying isn't simply made up bs.

See post 1987

 

[faible]

See post 1987

Doesn't really change the point.

Someone like Trump for example, has now lied so much and for so long that we should just assume it's a lie or misrepresentation and work backwards, not the other way around. Guilty until proven innocent.

If someone is a proven anti-trans activist, then assume they're not coming from an unbiased, impartial positon.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Doesn't really change the point.

Someone like Trump for example, has now lied so much and for so long that we should just assume it's a lie or misrepresentation and work backwards, not the other way around. Guilty until proven innocent.

If someone is a proven anti-trans activist, then assume they're not coming from an unbiased, impartial positon.

You may know the old saying.

'Assume: Makes an ass out of u and me' < If there was ever salient advice, this is it.

Guilty until proven innocent is the antithesis of liberal democracy, being a liberal democrat I can't agree with this concept.

It also dismisses any possible important points in discussion / debate. It's the mindset of the vengeful justice warrior or the irrational progressive.

 

[Gralin]

You may know the old saying.

'Assume: Makes an ass out of u and me' < If there was ever salient advice, this is it.

Guilty until proven innocent is the antithesis of liberal democracy, being a liberal democrat I can't agree with this concept.

It also dismisses any possible important points in discussion / debate. It's the mindset of the vengeful justice warrior or the irrational progressive.

so you'd take Trump at face value until proven wrong

every time?

 

[the_interloper]

Doesn't really change the point.

Someone like Trump for example, has now lied so much and for so long that we should just assume it's a lie or misrepresentation and work backwards, not the other way around. Guilty until proven innocent.

If someone is a proven anti-trans activist, then assume they're not coming from an unbiased, impartial positon.

That can be a very subjective label to be honest.

 

[Chief]

The bold is exactly what I stated in the post you're all so quick to rally against in reply to.

To be clear, haven't seen the vid or read the information,

You should.

Not the point.

The point is, as our Chief has displayed here, don't worry Chief you're not alone, is the instant dismissal of anyone's info / statement / argument (whatever term you wanna use) because of who they are < not what they have stated / said.

You took "She's anti-trans, assume the worst" out of a list of reasons I gave, and responded to that.

So you're arguing against my assumption on her character, not against my points on the poor speech she gave.

No, you want to talk about why I think she's untrustworthy on this topic.

 

[Chief]

Were the amounts prescribed excessive and dangerous? Don't know, she doesn't give any details.

 

[faible]

You may know the old saying.

'Assume: Makes an ass out of u and me' < If there was ever salient advice, this is it.

Guilty until proven innocent is the antithesis of liberal democracy, being a liberal democrat I can't agree with this concept.

It also dismisses any possible important points in discussion / debate. It's the mindset of the vengeful justice warrior or the irrational progressive.

It’s not a court of law. If you repeatedly demonstrate you can’t or won’t act in good faith, then you rightly lose the benefit of the doubt as to whether you’re acting in good faith.

No different to all the anti-vaxx folk, they repeatedly lied or misrepresented information to the point where they lost the right to be assumed to be presenting factually accurate information in a fair and unbiased manner.

 

[faible]

That can be a very subjective label to be honest.

And yes I agree, there’s a difference between being an interested party with an opinion (eg women in sport) and being anti-trans.

 

[the_interloper]

And yes I agree, there’s a difference between being an interested party with an opinion (eg women in sport) and being anti-trans.

I'm glad you think this way, some ITT don't though

 

[Beerfish]

99 % of the time, but to say bigot or whatever your fav target is can't provide salient content would be naive and akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la to ignore.

1% of the time by your own definition. I'm comfortable with that although I think 1% of bigots is still on the high side.