Chie

You say experimenting. But, is it? If you are talking about puberty blockers they have been around since the 80s and are generally used for kids with precocious puberty. They are pretty well understood and not particularly dangerous. If they were actually as dangerous as people claim, the recent "ban" would have included all children, including cis children, not just trans children. Given cis children still have access to, and are prescribed them, they can't be that dangerous as "more evidence would be required" across the board. And you can't say that it's a different situation for trans kids as trans kids and cis kids take blockers for much the same reasons. You can't even say that trans kids are on them longer, some kids start puberty as young as 5/6 and could be on the blockers for longer than some trans kids would be. Where's the danger then? Why aren't more studies required to understand the safety of blockers then? Outside of blockers, which are totally reversible btw, transition for a kid is nothing more than a name, pronoun and clothing change. I was a trans kid myself, in a time where I didn't have the language to communicate it, as it wasn't really discussed. But I knew what I was, and I would have given anything to have the opportunity to transition earlier in life and gain access to blockers. People treat kids like they are idiots who dont know who they are, they do. And the evidence (literally hundreds of studies) ignored by the Crass report shows that gender affirming care in young people, improves their quality of life, mental health and reduces suicide rates among trans youth. A lot of my friends will tell you the same and the last reason any of us are doing this is "autogynephelia". If I wanted to get off on femininity, I would have just worn girl clothes and had a wank. I didn't. Parents? Parents don't always want or know what is best for their child. The reason parents shouldn't be told is, what if the parent is abusive? Overly religious? A wing nut that believes only what GB News tells them is true and decides to uh "beat it out of them"? Buys into far right ideology? People who say this also generally say "safety of the child" and yet, don't actually care about the things that a child really should be protected from. And, in fact, are advocating for a child possibly being forced into an actual dangerous and abusive situation. There is a superb level of entitlement that these types of parents have in regards to their child. They believe their child should exist to suit their own wants, needs and desires and be only what they want them to be. And any deviation from the perfect plan, the child is rejected and punished in X way. A cold hard truth some parents need to learn is, your child doesn't owe you shit. Your child doesn't exist to suit you. Your child isn't on this earth to make you happy. So, rather than be an asshole towards them, try to earn their respect by listening to them, understanding them and learning why they feel he way they do and respecting it. The biggest thing I find funny in all of this is....no. one actually talks to trans kids to find out how they ACTUALLY feel. Everyone instead seems to think they can dictate how they SHOULD feel. People need to talk to trans kids more and watch GBeebies less.

The penis isn’t removed at all 🙂. It’s inverted to create the vaginal canal.

Detransition rate is 1% roughly. Roughly 90%+ of those who detransition, re transition, citing social attitudes, pressures and family issues as the reason why they detrans in the first place.

1. Heat of the moment. Idk what to tell you. It happens. 2. That's still your suggestion though. Data shows 58% of boomers who watch porn online are into trans porn. And 58% is still 58% tho. I charge for photos, just so you know. Good rates though.

People like you meaning people like you. Idk how else to say that. 1. That study is done by Emma Hilton, a member of "Sex Matters", a highly transphobic hate group, who have pumped out all kinds of nonsense about trans people. It's can't be taken seriously and into account as the researcher is biased to one particular extreme view point. As for the YouTube video, im struggling to find any existence of him as a doctor outside of his social media platform. To me, that's a video on YouTube, pinch of salt etc. If you want a reasonable study, read the one done by the American Military a few years back. It shows a small advantage and disadvantage in the people it tested, acknowledged the reduction in muscle, strength etc etc and if I remember correctly, didn't call for a ban, but an extension of the time someone is on HRT before they are allowed to compete as there was a clear on going decline etc. Don't quote me on that last bit, it's been a long time since I read it. 2. I made a mistake. I thought it was by knockout. He still won though, whether featherweight or not. It was only not so long ago that the claim was "a cis woman could never beat a trans woman" and "a trans man could never beat a cis man". Iv heard that said to me in person by numerous idiots over here. Yet that has been proven wrong in that instance. You mention heavier weight classes, you can suspect, but if it was proven incorrect at this level, it could very well be proven wrong at higher levels. 3. Of course it matters. You can't just ignore it. It's literally the opposite of what the anti trans peeps claim. It's like the bathroom issue. They don't want to acknowledge trans men in that debate as, forcing trans men back into women's bathrooms, would literally force masculine male looking trans men, that you can't tell apart from cis men, into the same space as cis women. Not that I think the trans men would do anything to them, not at all. I just think it's kinda funny that in theory, it opens the door to the exact same thing that they are accusing trans women of doing, that they currently aren't. Aka actually cis pervy guy claiming "I'm a trans man I belong in here". I don't genuinely think that btw, I just think the irony is amusing. 4. They still aren't always winning, they still aren't always placing first. The majority of medals and records are still being set by cis women and trans women are not dominating in the way the anti trans lot claim. Whenever I ask anyone to give examples they always come up with the same 3/4 names. That's out of the thousands of trans competitors all over the world, who are not managing to outperform their cis counterparts. Genetics and genetic susceptibility will always play a huge role in sport. And outliers will always exist. Take me, as iv said before, im trans. I did the ancestry DNA test that included the traits aspect about two years ago. I discovered from that, that I have something called the sprinter gene and also a genetic trait that allows my body to be able to handle higher than average levels of oxygen in the lungs. In theory, if I got off my ass more, I could probably train myself to quite a high standard and become a pretty decent sprinter. Would my success be because of what I was born as, or as a result of hitting the genetic lottery? How would you tell? There are plenty of cis women out there who have these traits also who DO actually dominate their respective sports. Is that fair on other women who don't have those traits? Should we start testing the genetics of all competitors to see if they are able to compete against their peers fairly? 5. Yes. My idea of fairness in sport would be what I wrote just above "testing the genetics of all competitors" and then placing people into categories that align with others on their genetic and physical level. You say: "If it's the principle of just competing that counts, they can compete in the men's or open categories". It's not though, every sports person wants to do their best and score as highly as they can. Thats the whole idea behind "competitive sport". You can't force trans women into the mens category as 1. They aren't men. And 2. They would be at a significant disadvantage due to the effects of HRT on the body. THAT is what wouldn't be fair.

Tavistock did have issues. Hence my original celebration many months ago as it seemed getting regional centres was going to help matters and give trans people better access to healthcare. As for the Cass report. Whatever that article claims. It still doesn't change the fact that the case report ignores mountains of evidence to the contrary of what the report claims. And demands unreasonable conditions, in order to accept that evidence.

A typo, but I mean…

I responded and then deleted. 1. The comment was written after reading an overview, that chose to omit several important things about the report. And after discovering those things, I deleted my comment. 2. I celebrated the initial findings that led to the opening of several new regional centres. In the hope that it would cut waiting times and provide better healthcare for trans people. That celebration was premature as waiting lists etc are higher than ever. 3. The cass report chooses to ignore hundreds of case studies that show the proven benefits of gender affirming care. Including studies that show how well understood puberty blockers are in trans youth. Ignored on the basis of “they weren’t double blind studies”. Which is literally impossible in this situation, as a double blind study would involve giving one group blockers, and another group a placebo. And the group given the placebo would notice pretty quickly that the blockers WERE NOT working. Cos, ya know, puberty. So demanding a double blind study is ridiculous and asinine. Puberty blockers have been around, used and studied since the 80s. They didn’t just appear in the last five years. 4. The scientific world is in agreement with us. See point 3. 5. Follow up question to point 3. Cisgendered kids take puberty blockers to stop precocious puberty. Some start taking these blockers as young as 5-6 years old. Meaning these cis children could be on blockers for up to six years before they are taken off, and allowed to go through puberty. Trans kids take the exact same blockers for near the exact same reason (delay puberty), for the exact same amount of time. If these blockers are so dangerous, why is it only trans kids that have been banned from taking them? Surely it would be cisgendered kids too right? No? 6. Regarding sport. To answer your question, yes. Funny isn’t it how people like you shout the word “biology” and claim that taking hormones still leaves an unfair advantage. And yet, last year, a trans male (born female) boxer scored three knock outs against a cis male opponent. Even Leah Thomas, the transphobes go to, won one single race, one time. And yet competed in a myriad of races she didn’t even come close to winning. It’s almost like the hormones they take are having an effect of their body. Reducing and increasing their performance to levels equal to their cis counterparts. But that would be madness no? 😅 7. All this hate from middle aged people. And yet…https://mashable.com/article/pornhub-year-in-review-2023 Kinda makes you wonder why we get all the hate, given you all apparently obsessed with searching trans porn online. Apparently 58% of you are more likely to regularly search it up.

"Fox countersued, telling the high court that being accused of racism was a “reputation-destroying allegation” and “career-ending” Okay Lawrence. Not the other 4348 things then. I agree, I should have called him racist myself on twitter. I could do with a new car.

Im an exams invigilator, and exams at RGS are held in the school hall with overflow into the attached cafeteria, not gym. As far as I know, that hasn't changed. So, idk where you heard that, but as far as im aware they haven't switched the location for exams.

Ima have to ask. What's he done now? I see a new discussion with no link to anything. What happened?

Selection of nostalgia xD

Nil

I love the covid conspiracy. It's the gift that just keeps giving. "Durrr but de jabs are dangerous and people are dying" Majority of people currently taking the covid vaccine: People with chronic illnesses and the elderly. Ya know, the people that could drop dead at any minute anyway. The sad part is, these idiots do not have the cognitive ability to think this through. They see a death and "urrrr its de covid jab". Not, "well, they were 85 years old" or "they did have heart disease". Nope, its "better stand out on de corner in de Ramsey wearing de blue t-shirts, that will stop it, de boss told me so".

I looked into first timer buyers a couple of years ago. The average at the minute in the uk is 4.64% according to Right Move. First time buyers goes up to 5% in years six and then continues climbing the longer it takes you to pay off the loan, to 8.5% in year 18. And has a dodgy looking "etc" at the end of it, so no doubt it continues climbing. That coupled with the minimum buy back of the shared equity being 5% at a time, and taking into account a mortgage on top of that, and rising costs in energy, mortgage rates that were rising and everything else at the time....im was better off where I was.