What do you think of the medical consensus on this?

[Juxtapose]

Switzerland banning these permanent sterilization and castration treatments for minors that goes under the guise of "gender affirming care."

https://segm.org/Sweden_ends_use_of_Dutch_protocol

Then England follows along a similar route.

https://segm.org/England-ends-gender-affirming-care

More of "ThE sCiENcE" being debunked:

Updates

+1 y

Timestamps in the video:

"We are building the plane while flying it." 18:07

"Name one study." 5:15

"I am struck by her phrase sex assigned at birth." 10:45

"The risks outweigh the benefits." 12:50

"Purposeful spreading of disinformation" 14:47

[DJB72]

It's a good first step. Didn't expect Sweden and Britain to lead the way on this though - and I say that as an Englishman.

Of late my homeland hasn't been the poster child for sanity so it's good to see something resembling actual medicine instead of the craziness of the politically "correct" aka the loony left.

Unfortunately it can't be classified as a consensus until the majority of countries adopt it.

If an adult wants to have themselves sterilised through having themselves castrated or a hysterectomy then that's up to them. Give them a Darwin Award and move on.

As a father, anyone filling my son's head with that shit had best be at peace with their god. I'm Gen-X and "life" in prison is less threatening every year...

[Lliam]

Everything he said is 100%.
So called "gender affirming care" is causing harm. It's a crime against humanity.

I have heard lots of anecdotes, some from personal friends, about girls, for example, who were tomboys and wanted to be boys when they were young, but went on to get married, have children, and be extremely glad that they were women once they grew past puberty.

The fact is, some people are in "the business" of pushing gender "transition" on impressionable children. Those people are whack jobs and criminals.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I still say doctors that perform sex change operations on anyone at all are criminals.

Performing them on children makes it even worse for many, but I don't want people to think that an adult receiving those surgical procedures is any less of a victim. We need the level of outrage over the child victims to also be applied to the adult victims as well.

Way too many times is an adult's safety disregarded as unimportant, especially adult men, we tend to only outrage over bad things happening to women and children, and thats something that society needs to stop doing yesterday.

It should not have even gotten to the point of kids having these surgeries, because people should have put up a stink about it when adults started having them long before then.

People are talking about whether a person is old enough to make stupid choices, but how about we just condemn stupid choices completely instead, and ban the surgery entirely.

Any amount of argument towards ANY situation where it's ok to have the surgery, should not be entertained AT ALL in my opinion. This needs to be nipped in the bud. Ban it, and arrest the doctors doing it.

[Juxtapose]

I believe in the right of adults to ruin their life if that's what they want.

Otherwise I agree 👍

[TheSpaceGnome]

I don't, and I think that additude is why no one gives a shit about adults. Its why healthcare and housing and the economy and dating and the environment is a shitstorm right now. Its why you have to go on rants about corrupt politicians and immoral laws.

If you are going to say fuck it to safety concerns once a person turns 18, then saying they need to be protected as children/teens is completely pointless, because any protection and consideration they got as minors will be nullified upon growing up, and their lives will just get ruined anyway.

I still hold my view that adults need to start caring about the well being of other adults, and anyone who cares for just minors or just adults is a self defeating hypocrite who is ognoring the actual problem of a lack of compassion and familiarity in communities.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Ignoring*

This is also why wages are shit, and why we have people leaving the home they grew up in to buy their own instead of living generationally to save money, start family businesss, and slow urban development spread over wildlife habitats.

All because its seen as "bad" for adults to not suffer and do everything themselves (despite being dependant on countless social and economical systems regardless).

[Juxtapose]

Well my main concern is with your logic, things like the drug war would be justified because doing something like even having too much caffeine is bad for you so why not regulate it if my free will does not matter?

I would rather be free to ruin myself than be put into some sort of cage which probably won't benefit me realistically anyway since when has authoritarianism ever worked out well for the common man?

[TheSpaceGnome]

The drug war IS justified, I'm sick of people smoking, getting drunk, or using weed in my area, especially weed, that shit stinks and should be illegal for the smell alone. 🤮

Too much caffiene CAN kill you and SHOULD be regulated if anything is to be regulated (powdered caffiene for example can easily kill you, caffinated drinks have extremely tiny amounts of caffene in them by comparison.

I'm 100% for a prohibition of cigarretes, cigars, e-cigs, cannabis, cocaine, heroin, alcoholic drinks, etc.
The argument that prohibition doesn't work is flawed, they massively reduced their use in private, and made them all but extinct in public, which is what I want.

[Juxtapose]

I don't think anyone really has a right to tell me what I can or cannot put my body if I am not endangering anybody else. If I do not have bodily autonomy then I don't have anything.

[Juxtapose]

Also prohibition was a massive failure and the drug war is also a massive failure.

[Juxtapose]

www.econlib.org/.../

[Juxtapose]

Crime and public corruption skyrocketed during prohibition.

[TheSpaceGnome]

You are endangering other people if you are drunk driving, smoking around others, becoming intoxicated and iteracting with others, polluting the air, etc. and prohibition was not a failure, nor did it actually increase the number of crimes commited per year.

[TheSpaceGnome]

interacting*

[TheSpaceGnome]

For example if you lived next door to anyone and smoked weed, you would be endangering their lungs. We already have enough problems with pollution caused by drought fires and fossil fuel cars, we need to reduce, not increase.

[Juxtapose]

I posted a source that literally contradicts what you're saying about Prohibition.

I can guarantee you that someone smoking weed next door is of no danger to you whatsoever 🤣

[TheSpaceGnome]

Your source isn't accurate, and breathing in those fumes is hazardous to one's health, so it is a danger, and anyone saying otherwise has failed to understand basic human biology. so your "guarantee" is worthless.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Its important to actually understand things instead of just believing whatever you read on the internet.

[Juxtapose]

Yes, it is. If you want I can provide you with numerous other sources because it is well known that prohibition increased criminality and overall was an astounding failure.

You're going to get more fumes by somebody driving their car around. You're probably not even going to get any smoke from somebody smoking in their backyard. You do know that campfires produce smoke that's not great to inhale, you going to ban those since that produces more smoke? Going to bane cigarettes too?

[Juxtapose]

*ban

[TheSpaceGnome]

There are roughly over 2,000 sources of book authors saying that an afterlife exists. All of them are wrong.

You are wrong.

Sources do not matter, it is proven that breathing in fumes from burning carbon or poisonous compounds is bad for the lungs, it is also proven that thc is neurotoxic when inhaled or eaten, and direct observable evidence I've seen in person confirmed this many times, so you would just be "bible thumping" to me if you continue trying to convince me by posting website links or debating.

I'm not budging on the matter, I've personally verified that I'm correct on this, absolutely nothing you or anyone else says is going to convince me otherwise. It would be like trying to convince me that cats don't exist, I've seen cats, I know they exist, I know anyone saying they don't exist is bullshitting.

And yes, scroll up, I already said that cigarretes and fossil fuel car fumes are a problem, and that I'm pro prohibition, and that we need less of all that crap in the air, not more. Maybe lay off the weed if your memory is that short...

[Juxtapose]

Do not understand how the scientific method and consensus works? Why do you bring up authors that talk about the afterlife when that does not exist in any credible scientific journal? Like what the fuck dude?

[Juxtapose]

Oh cool, you don't know how global warming works either.

Ban all the shit you want, it's not going to stop the problem because you can't control all the other countries in the world. Obviously the solution to this is to invent something that can clean up the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. If we don't do that the problem is not going to be solved regardless of what the West does.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Of course I understand the scientific method, it's why I'm even making my point at all.

I brought it up because because all the websites and books saying any "scientific studies" "verified" thar any of that is safe, are just as unscientific and full of bullshit as all those religious books. And I've personally used the scientific method to debunk them repeatedly, so I do not need to trust a "source" I simply already know the correct answer because I actually use science instead of just trusting others that say they do.

[Juxtapose]

If you knew anything about drugs dude you would know you can smoke weed through a water bong and the vapors are completely non-toxic in the way that smoke is toxic.

Also somebody smoking a cigarette or marijuana in their backyard is not going to do anything to you. Chances are the smoke is going to be blown away from you.

If you are that scared of car exhaust, campfire smoke and whatnot, go live in the woods.

[Juxtapose]

"Sources don't matter"

And you claim to give a shit about science!

[TheSpaceGnome]

No one but you in this thread is talking about global warming. I'm talking about air quality and breathing.

Banning sources of these problems in more and more areas reduces their output substantially, and small sources like smoking typically only effect tiny areas around the smoker because of it's low ppm after spreading out, so for drug fumes specifically, local bans would be sufficient in breathing better if it weren't for importing, because very few people smoke.

Also it's methane, not CO2 thats the source of temp increases. Hold a can of CO2 yourself, it's is ice cold despite not being refridgerated. And as far as CO2 being toxic for animals to breathe, we have plants and algae, so we do not need to invent a solution, as it already exists. But the solution can also catch on fire, and pump more CO2 into the air. Either way go plants some trees.

I could sit here and say, ok, well we could invent a thing that takes carbon out of the air and turns it into rocks, but we need some CO2 in the air, or the plants will die.

Just because humans cough or get diseases or die from smoke inhalation, does not mean we need zero CO2 in the atmo. Volume matters, and excess is usually from cars, factories, and heating systems.

Drug use makes up a small volume, the issue arises when said drug fume sources are nearby to an individual, liked with neighbors, or in a parking lot, or bus stop, or if some dumbass lights a cig and drops it in the woods, burning down a forest, or if chemical compounds in a drugs end up in the public piping systems from sinks and toilets, etc, since no filtration systems for those compounds exists in plumping systems or water treatment facilities.

[TheSpaceGnome]

As for global warming, read up on your geology.

[Juxtapose]

Well it's pretty clear that we are not going to come to an agreement on this. I think bodily autonomy is worth whatever consequences follow from allowing it. I refuse to live as a slave who does not have a say over what goes in my own body.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Yeah I definitely do not share your view on that.

I do not think it makes any sense at all to blanket autonomy vs control to all things. I think each particular problem should be handled with whatever makes sense for it.

So for example banning recreational drugs and fossil fuel cars makes sense (already explained why on that) but banning guns and exotic pets does not make sense (because gun bans increase gun related deaths, and exotic animals get bred fast in captivity, which fends off species extinctions, which benefits ecosystem health, so any dangers they pose is outweighed by their benefits).

So for me it's not autonomy vs control, it's about logic vs nonsense, and in some cases it requies autonomy, in others it required control.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Basically is my view that the smart choice should win, regardless of who makes it.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Would you say thats a decent way to describe a meritocracy?

[Juxtapose]

No, because the smartest choices would minimize the cons from human behavior and subjugate us. It would be like being ruled by an A. I.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I don't agree with that at all.

In order to have freedom A, you must give up freedom B, not just by choice, but often automatically as well.

If I want the freedom to breathe clean air, others must lose the freedom to pollute my area, so its not a matter of subjugation vs freedom, it's a matter of intelligence vs stupidity, because complete freedom is like omnipotence, it is a self contradiction, and thus impossible.

Even if you were the only person on earth, you woud need to impose restrictions on yourself to avoid death or illness. So worrying about obtaining complete freedom is pointless, it simply doesn't exist (and can't exist because you're not invincible).

Worry about the freedom to have or do things that benefit you, and restrict/remove the freedoms that harm. Knowing which is which requires intelligence.

Also A. I. s cannot think at all, so they are at the bottom of the stupid barrel (even bacteria is smarter). Humans are much smarter, the programmer is always smarter than the program.

[TheSpaceGnome]

I do agree it would minimize the cons of human behvior though, which is a good thing.

[TheSpaceGnome]

behavior*

[Juxtapose]

If human society bothers you that much then go live in the woods. You're going to get more smog in a city than you are in a suburb from some guy smoking in his backyard.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Nah. I'll stick to improving society by doing my part to ensure it changes for the better.

[WindAtMyBack]

It's good to see that some agencies still have a little common sense. How this kind of thing is legal for minors anywhere is beyond me. Any "doctor" anywhere in the world should face serious criminal charges for doing any sort of butchery of children.

[goaded]

Oh, look, links to an anti-trans website. That's going to be fair and reasonable. Unlike you, I'm not going to say that science based conclusions are wrong, I'm content that the existing treatments are correct for some patients, and not for others. What you want to do is to do away with them for all patients, even if they would have helped.

It would be nice if right-wingers would consider other people, and not just when it directly affects their own lives.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/DZHT5YhLvcU

[Juxtapose]

All I want is for children to be left out of this.

[goaded]

No, you want to control other people's children.

[goaded]

Why does the link, supposedly to the England’s National Health Service (NHS) new draft guidance for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors go to a public consultation page, and not, you know, and actual new draft guidance for the treatment of gender dysphoria in minors?

www.engage.england.nhs.uk/.../

[Juxtapose]

You want to mutilate and groom them!

Ask them.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose This is my fault. I instructed @goaded to go be stupid somewhere else, and he chose here. My bad.

[goaded]

I don't have to ask them, it's obvious from the fact that it's an anti-trans website. They're lying. So are you, of course.

[Juxtapose]

Haha yeah suuuure, anyone who disagrees with you is lying. Reminds me of Odd saying Walsh doctored a fucking phone call 🤣

[goaded]

They said (in October 2022): segm.org/England-ends-gender-affirming-care "The gender-clinic model of care has been replaced with holistic support and appropriate care" (as if gender-affirming care isn't ever appropriate), then linked to a just-opened consultation about a proposal to expand care for trans children and adolescents.

Had it happened then? No. That was a lie.

Has it happened now? Are there now multiple regional specialised hospitals for trans youth in England? I don't know. Why don't you find out?

[Juxtapose]

You're the one that's so curious about it, you find out about it.

Either way, the further England steps away from that shit the better. Gender affirming care is never appropriate.

[Juxtapose]

If somebody thinks they're an ostrich, you don't carve them up to make them look like a bastardized ostrich.

Whatever happened to treating psychotic delusions as psychotic delusions? Why are we enabling this shit? Are you going to tell an anorexic they are fat?

[goaded]

"Gender affirming care is never appropriate." See? That's the uninformed, hateful propaganda position. How do you know that's true? You don't. So it's a lie, just like the one I pointed out in your link.

[Juxtapose]

Sterilizing and mutilating children for delusions in their minds is never appropriate.

What are you going to say to the otherkin child who says it is their inner truth that they are a dragon? And they have terrible dysphoria until they go through multiple surgeries to look like a dragon.. supposably.

This is insanity.

[Juxtapose]

Anyone enabling this or performing these procedures should be arrested for child abuse.

[goaded]

More lies.

[Juxtapose]

Nice rebuttal 🤣👍

[goaded]

What would be the point of explaining what your lies are, if you're just going to ignore the facts put in front of you in favour of your propaganda?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded When a child is born with a heart condition (as an example), do you know why they're required to go through multiple surgeries as children and adolescents? Don't look it up. I want to see if *you* actually know the answer.

[Juxtapose]

I have good reason to believe that this whole gender ideology thing is profit motivated and I'm sure you think you have your good reasons to believe what you think. It would take a lot to convince either of us and don't you think I feel a similar frustration goaded? Don't you think you appear obstinent and incorrigible to me?

[goaded]

Let me know when I tell you a lie (or just get something provably wrong and refuse to correct myself), then maybe we'll have equal reason to be frustrated.

[Juxtapose]

You do realize that I see you as an unwitting child groomer who is unwilling to listen to anything I post seriously? Somehow all of my sources are miraculously wrong and these people that say they are building the plane as they are flying it are the ones in the right.

[Juxtapose]

I now see how willing you are to be mutually understanding.

[Juxtapose]

It's like my little sister. If I show her anything that doesn't follow her narrative it's a lie or funded by somebody she doesn't like.

But all of her sources are somehow untouchable.

[Juxtapose]

If you have not already, at least watch the video I posted. There have been over 60 large-scale studies done on this and they have found insufficient evidence for gender affirming care doing anything worth a damn.

[Juxtapose]

Big name institutions behind this too. I'll even watch the video and quote the woman so other people can see how ridiculous this bullshit is.

[Juxtapose]

*watch the video again

[Juxtapose]

I timestamped numerous highlights.

[goaded]

I know how you view me, and I also know you are wrong.

Why should I take you seriously, if I can prove your source lied, but you continue to support them? Find better sources.

I'm not spending 20 minutes watching the whole video, but I did skim through the transcript and the commentator turns out to be a covid mask/vaccine denier (16:30), who rants about "woke ideology".

The woman speaking before congress is more interesting, although I wonder how anyone's supposed to get "evidence of long-term benefit", when there's only a very short history of the treatment. (This lack of research is something the NHS appears to be tackling, only prescribing puberty blockers to people who join a long-term study.)

Here are a few other sources, from reputable publications:

"704 (98%) [of] participants who started gender-affirming hormones in adolescence continued this treatment into adulthood. The continuation of treatment is reassuring considering the worries that people who started treatment in adolescence might discontinue gender-affirming treatment."
www.thelancet.com/.../fulltext

"This is the first study in which associations between access to pubertal suppression and suicidality are examined. There is a significant inverse association between treatment with pubertal suppression during adolescence and lifetime suicidal ideation among transgender adults who ever wanted this treatment. [...] favorable mental health outcomes."
publications.aap.org/.../Pubertal-Suppression-for-Transgender-Youth-and

"Conclusion: Given the potentially life-saving benefits of these medications for TGD youth, it is critical that rigorous longitudinal and mixed methods research be conducted that includes stakeholders and members of the gender diverse community with representative samples."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320999/

[Juxtapose]

That goes to show you that there there is a fierce debate over this and you can't just shut people out because they are anti-woke and that's a sacred cow for you.

The masks did not do anything by the way, the six feet thing was completely arbitrary and made up (health agencies originally wanted 10 ft but corporations protested) and the vaccine is completely unwarranted for the younger population. If anything it can even be detrimental.

[Juxtapose]

publications.aap.org/.../Pubertal-Suppression-for-Transgender-Youth-and

I have posted more recent examples which corrects this erroneous claim. If anything there's more evidence this suggests that leaving kids alone and letting them grow out of it will solve most of these problems.

There is nothing wrong with waiting until people are adults before letting them carve themselves up.

[Juxtapose]

And in places where they banned this heinous, experimental treatments? There has not been an epidemic of suicide. Nor has there been an epidemic of suicide surrounding this throughout history.

The claim that you got to trans the kids or they die is emotional blackmail and patently false. You would see suicides all throughout history if that was true related to being trans.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose You're wasting your time. @goaded doesn't understand that human anatomy, particularly the brain, doesn't fully develope and mature until we're in our 20s. It the major reason why when you're born with certain health conditions, you're required to undergo so many surgeries as a child and adolescent. The human body grows and matures into our 20s. He'd rather have "medical professionals" and the government sexualize non-adults and have them be physically changed and mutilated before becoming adults under the guise of "gender care" instead of just having a "You're 18? You're an adult now. Do whatever you want." approach.

[Juxtapose]

@NYCQuestions1976 it just blows my mind how people can swallow this bullshit even with all the information available on the internet proving beyond a doubt that this is a plot by big pharma to rake in dough.

Not to mention common sense alone should tell you that a kid who is liable to say they are a dragon one day and a pirate another day are not in any position to make permanent, life-altering decisions.

[Juxtapose]

And you are absolutely right, our brains don't finish developing until our 20's. 18 is already young enough for allowing people to make life altering decisions.

[Juxtapose]

I would actually argue this is even a sort of soft genocide towards autistic people since autistic girls are especially susceptible to Identity crises. Instead of letting them go through their tomboy phase, they are being taken advantage of.

[Juxtapose]

www.themainewire.com/.../

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose It's another example of, "Let's just default to the big fat stupid bloated grim reaper socialism bullshit government (along with Big Pharmaceutical) to run our lives." and "absolutism". How about, "Fuck no!"

Also, being against one aspect of an overall idea doesn't mean that you're against the idea as a whole. Look at what happened/is happening with Dee Snider:

www.kron4.com/.../

Logic 101, from the article and Snider himself:

"In his lengthy response to being dropped by Pride, Snider attempted to explain his viewpoint, saying, “I’ve recently stated I do not believe young children are ready to decide their gender allocation. I believe their choices should be supported and accepted by their parents, but I do not think kids have the mental capabilities to make rational, logical decisions on things of a magnitude that will affect them for the rest of their lives.”

Snider goes on to describe himself as a “proud moderate,” and a heterosexual who proudly supports LBGTQIA+ rights.”

“The transgender community needs moderates who support their choices, even if we don’t agree with every one of their edicts,” Snider continued. “For some Transgender people (not all) to accuse supporters, like me, of transphobia is not a good look for their cause.”

Nailed it, 100%.

[goaded]

There's nothing wrong with fierce debate, but there is with stopping all research and treatments.

If you've got scholarly articles countering papers, let's see them, they're reasonable sources that don't exhibit bias like the links in your post.

"There is nothing wrong with waiting until people are adults before letting them carve themselves up."
Not that that's what they're doing, but there is a risk in forcing adolescents to allow their bodies to move further and further away from their internal gender.

You wouldn't see "an epidemic of suicide" because trans people are a small percentage of the general population, so a small percentage of total suicides, even if they are more likely to kill themselves.

"The claim that you got to trans the kids or they die is emotional blackmail and patently false."
The claim that that is what I'm saying is a straw man, however your implication that doing nothing for adolescents with severe mental problems won't have any effect really is patently false.

I wonder if there is research into how many people who transitioned as adults say they would have preferred to have been given treatment earlier than they were allowed to. The 98% number from one of the links I gave you shows that the vast majority who got puberty blockers hadn't changed their minds by the time they were adult.

I'll leave you two to keep exchanging conspiracy theories, I'll stick to research and facts.

[Juxtapose]

There is no such thing as an internal gender, that's schizophrenic nonsense made up by child molesters who conducted erroneous, pedophilic experiments.

[Juxtapose]

Children are a huge line in the sand for me and I am not going to let these freaks ruin their lives for the sake of big pharma lining their pockets.

[Juxtapose]

And I already gave you evidence numerous times but you dismiss it every time as nonsense while you throw at me things that have already been.

[Juxtapose]

Debunked

[Juxtapose]

If there is an internal gender, is there also an internal race? And internal age? An internal species? What a bunch of bs

[goaded]

See, there's no point in talking to someone who is absolutely certain of themselves to the point of not looking at evidence. You are your brain, it's internal, and the structure generally tends towards the norm for your sex, but sometimes it doesn't.

By the way, Crenshaw seems to have been pulling one of your debating techniques. His "BJM" (actually "BMJ") study appears to just be an article in the journal which mentions a study done in Canada (McMaster University), on behalf of the Florida government (which wanted to ban gender-affirming health care and keep people like you angry), and which I can't find published anywhere. Perhaps you can find it?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "You are your brain,"

Yes, and the human brain doesn't finish fully developing until we're in our 20s.

[Juxtapose]

@NYCQuestions1976 a fact he conveniently ignores.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 How many people do you know changed handedness? Look, if someone can come up with a harmless way to completely re-organise the physical structure of a brain, that might become an alternative option.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "How many people do you know changed handedness?"

That is such a dumb example. If someone is born right-handed, and they feel like they should be left-handed instead, there's no pharmaceutical hormone therapy as a non-adult, there's no pharmaceutical puberty blockers as a non-adult, and there's no surgery to physically change yourself permanently as a non-adult.

"Look, if someone can come up with a harmless way to completely re-organise the physical structure of a brain, that might become an alternative option."

Do you really want to play this game and open Pandora's Box? Should I call you Lecter or Mengele? Why stop at rearranging the brains of transgender people? Why not rearrange the brains of everyone who's non-heterosexual, and make them all heterosexual?

You really are the socialist version of a goose-stepping moron.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 That is such a dumb response. Like handedness, being trans is not a concious choice. Nobody "feels like they should be left-handed instead", but until relatively recently children were beaten if they used their left hand to write with.

My comment about "a harmless way to completely re-organise the physical structure of a brain" was meant to show how terrible your idea to force trans people into conformance is, rather than helping them live their best lives.

Do you really not see that?

[goaded]

@Juxtapose I just read www.themainewire.com/.../ and it's an interesting perspective on a subset of people reporting as trans (it matches another one from earlier where a psychiatrist drew a tentative line between children who had known they were trans since early childhood and deciding when they are teenagers).

Even it it were entirely honest (it comes from the Daily Caller), it's not a reason to stop all gender affirming care for all minors, and throw out the baby with the bath water, like you want to.

And it's not entirely honest. At least if you think it means, say, the NHS ignores the possibility of autism or children "growing out of it".

e. g. "Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty."
www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

"Treatment for children and young people

If your child is under 18 and may have gender dysphoria, ...

Your child or teenager will be seen by a multidisciplinary team at GIDS including a:

clinical psychologist
child psychotherapist
child and adolescent psychiatrist
family therapist
social worker

The team will carry out a detailed assessment, usually over 3 to 6 appointments over a period of several months.

Depending on the results of the assessment, options for children and teenagers include:

family therapy
individual child psychotherapy
parental support or counselling
group work for young people and their parents
regular reviews to monitor gender identity development
referral to a local Children and Young People's Mental Health Service (CYPMHS) for more serious emotional issues
a referral to a specialist hormone (endocrine) clinic for hormone blockers for children who meet strict criteria (at puberty)"

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded All of the examples you give as comparisons are absolutely nonsensical, because none of them require pharmaceutical hormone therapy as a non-adult, none of them require pharmaceutical puberty blockers as a non-adult, and none of them require surgery to physically change yourself permanently as a non-adult before you're done growing physically, emotionally, and mentally.

Having non-adults get physically altering gender surgery before they're minds are fully matured mentally and emotionally, and before their bodies are done physically growing isn't "helping them live their best lives". It only deals with the here and now, and instant gratification, without considering the long-term, life-long permanent consequences.

[Juxtapose]

@NYCQuestions1976 exactly 💯

[Juxtapose]

For autism I never had to have society organized around me or sterilize and mutilate children.

[Juxtapose]

Not to mention Matt Walsh got his producer approved for testicle removal in 22 minutes.

[Juxtapose]

But thanks for reading that, I think people ignore how I want to see people are affected by this and they are especially vulnerable.

[Juxtapose]

Jfc voice to text typo.

*I these people ignore how autistic people are affected by this

[Juxtapose]

*think

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 It's not about the treatment, it's about whether people can be convinced not to be trans (or gay, or left-handed), which is possible in certain cases where they're not really certain (which is why the treatment is mostly psychological at first), but absolutely not in others.

Finding out the best approach for each individual is important, stopping everyone from getting treatment that is good for some is bad for that group. Obviously.

[goaded]

"Not to mention Matt Walsh got his producer approved for testicle removal in 22 minutes."
An adult producer. Perhaps your problem is the American health care system being all about money and treating patients as customers and doctors as servants. Most places don't have adverts saying "ask your doctor for such-and-such medicine", the doctor tells you what you need (and nobody goes bankrupt).

Presumably your autism (I'm reading that correctly, right?) isn't so bad that you can't function in the world, so why would you need changes made? Do you object to wheelchair ramps, too?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Being born homosexual or bisexual doesn't require pharmaceutical hormone therapy as a non-adult, doesn't require pharmaceutical puberty blockers as a non-adult, and doesn't require surgery to physically change yourself permanently as a non-adult before you're done growing and maturing physically, emotionally, and mentally.

I also don't know of any non-adults taking pharmaceuticals and/or requesting surgery because they can't deal with the existence of wheelchair ramps.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 What do you think your point is? Mine is simply that you don't choose to be red-headed, left-handed, gay, or trans, and that they're all people who should not be excluded from society, even if that means selling left-handed scissors, sun cream, or simply accepting them as they are in society and not passing laws stopping them getting treatment they need because occasionally it doesn't work out.

Nobody's asking you to take hormones, marry someone of the same sex (or even someone with ginger hair); just leave them alone to live their lives!

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Being against surgery for non-adults that permanently changes their anatomy prior to them fully maturing physically, mentally, and emotionally isn't excluding anyone from society.

Also, by all means, please make more stupid comparisons about how taking pharmaceuticals to block puberty and change hormones and surgery for non-adults to permanently alter anatomy is exactly the same as buying scissors and sunscreen.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 But you're not just against "surgery for non-adults" because that's not a thing that happens. Unless you mean breast reduction that can happen for minors for other reasons than being trans (as can hormone treatments). Once again, for the hard of thinking: my point is that NONE of those PEOPLE made a CHOICE to be WHO THEY ARE.

Society simply being accepting of how people are, even if they're "different" would reduce the stresses on them. That's not the approach you're taking.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded So surgeries for non-adults are "not a thing that happens", huh?

www.reuters.com/.../

That's REUTERS, not a fringe news outlet.

Also, where does it end?

katu.com/.../eighth-grader-who-asked-classmate-how-they-could-identify-as-a-cat-called-despicable-by-teacher-report-says-rye-college-england-telegraph-gender

Should classrooms be fitted with litter boxes and scratching posts now?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 So that Reuters article shows fewer than 20 a year, from 24,000 diagnoses a year, from 20 million adolescents in that age range. You have no idea about what was involved in those individual cases, but you're absolutely certain that the doctors and parents and psychologists in those cases are wrong and you're right.

And because you're right, you're not satisfied with just stopping surgery for that one in a million, but all gender affirming health care, affecting tens of thousands of adolescents a year.

As to the row in an English classroom, that's stupid, but no worse that you two insisting that children are being chopped up on a whim. Or that there is a significant number who de-transition while ignoring the fact that that's often, probably usually, people who never underwent any medical intervention.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded my autism required me to be trained extensively to be able to fit into modern society, much more than a normal person. I am well socialized and not a danger to anyone who doesn't threaten me but it was hard. It's difficulties will always be with me to an extent, such as sensitivity to sound.

Wheelchair ramps don't require children to be chemically castrated, mutilated or even indoctrinated into a radical political ideology.

I just don't want this shit pushed on children in in any way. Don't make it look cool, don't let them do it or any of that. Just stop with all this bullshit and leave it for adults.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Right from the Reuters article:

Patients in the United States ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis:

2019: 238
2020: 256
2021: 282

How is that "fewer than 20 a year"?

Also, that story from the United Kingdom is far more on topic and far less stupid than bringing up scissors, sunscreen, and wheelchair ramps.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 It's amazing how often you switch the focus between genetal surgery and non-genetal surgery, whenever it's in your interest.

I specifically spoke about that when I said "Unless you mean breast reduction that can happen for minors for other reasons than being trans (as can hormone treatments)." It's still only about one in many tens of thousands of adolescents.

Feel free to explain why, although you have no idea about what was involved in individual cases, you're absolutely certain that the doctors and parents and psychologists in those cases are wrong and you're right.

And why you're not satisfied with just stopping surgery for that one in a million, but all gender affirming health care, affecting tens of thousands of adolescents a year.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Human beings aren't fully developed and matured, especially mentally and emotionally, until we're in our 20s. That's accepted medical science by approximately 100% of the medical and scientific community. Are you suggesting that this is no longer accurate?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You could get whiplash from changing the subject so suddenly!

Are you pretending that people under 20 haven't developed a personality?

I asked why, although you have no idea about what was involved in the (1 in a thousand diagnosed) individual cases, you're absolutely certain that the doctors and parents and psychologists in those cases are wrong and you're right?

And why you're not satisfied with just stopping surgery for that one in a million, but all gender affirming health care, affecting tens of thousands of adolescents a year.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You brought up scissors, sunscreen, and wheelchair ramps, and you're telling me that I'm changing subjects?

Personality and maturity are two completely different things. A person needs adult maturity to make permanent, life-changing, life-altering, life-long decisions. The 13 year old girl in the story from the United Kingdom identifies as a cat. Is that her personality? Do you think she's mature enough to get surgery to become a cat? Should she be allowed to get whisker, fur, and tail implants if she wants them, prior to becoming an adult?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 I brought up being left-handed, gay, ginger haired and other realities that nobody has control over, just like being trans.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded None of those other realities require surgery that permanently changes your physical anatomy.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Also, to re-emphasize, once you're an adult, you do you.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 So what's your point? This one does, and acting sooner than later (in very rare cases) is likely to result in a better outcome.

You're still avoiding answering the question of why you're absolutely certain that the doctors and parents and psychologists in those cases are wrong and you're right, despite having no idea about what was involved in the (1 in a thousand diagnosed) individual cases that lead to surgery, and why you're not satisfied with just stopping surgery for that one in a million, but all gender affirming health care, affecting tens of thousands of adolescents a year.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Your obsession with the sexuality of non-adults is disturbing. Adolescents don't have the mental and emotional maturity to appreciate and understand the life long consequences of decisions that create permanent physical alterations that will be with them for the rest of their adult lives. Not just with this. With EVERYTHING.

As an example, who would be in a better position to make any sort permanent personal decision that would last a lifetime? You at 15? Or you at 25?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You're the one butting into peoples lives without having a clue about what they're going through and deciding you know better than the one in a thousand diagnosed (which is one in a million) adolescents, their parents, doctors and psychiatrists.

Surprise: they have the right not to be ruled by bigotry.
"The ruling by U. S. District Judge James Moody Jr. on Tuesday says the state of Arkansas violated several sections of the U. S. Constitution when it banned all gender-affirming treatments for people under 18. The 80-page ruling says depriving trans minors of treatments like hormone therapy would cause them irreparable harm, and that delaying care until adulthood would force teens to go through changes inconsistent with their gender identity. "
www.npr.org/.../arkansas-2021-gender-affirming-care-ban-transgender-blocked

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Stating that people shouldn't make permanent adult decisions until they're adults isn't bigotry. It's common sense.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 No, it's based on your beliefs, which aren't necessarily so. And there are many adults involved in the decision, not just the adolescent, as you'd have people believe.

[goaded]

Would you have cancer patients wait until they're 18 before they start chemo?

[goaded]

Oh, and by the way, the telegraph article you linked? Bullshit.

bylinetimes.com/.../

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Many adults, like pharmaceutical companies and rogue doctors that peddle instant gratification for those who are too young to make adult decisions that will last a lifetime.

So now the tally is scissors, sunscreen, wheelchair ramps, and cancer treatments. Marvelous. Should the girl who believes she's a cat be allowed to have surgery before she's 18 years old?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Byline Times is left-wing liberal propaganda.

[Juxtapose]

Leave children alone! This trans ideology bullshit was invented by pedophiles and serves no good!

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You didn't even read the article that included interviews with people who were actually in the room, and once again you know better.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Just because someone you don't like (in this instance, Tucker Carlson) happens to talk about the story, doesn't mean that this story didn't happen. Also, what "people who were actually in the room"? It was a classroom. The other teenagers? The one teacher?

If you have an issue with the story, take it up with ABC and their local affiliate, who thought the story was credible enough to report.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 I don't like Tucker Carlson because he's been proven a liar, time and again. Why don't you read the article? It will answer your questions.

Here's some of it:
"We have taken the time both to establish this individual’s credibility and to safeguard their identity and as such the individual is anonymous and some critical details given to us have been deliberately omitted. I am very aware that the two children who made the recording are also just that – children – and so have taken care to omit details about them and some of the things they are alleged to have said on the day.

I shall refer to the ‘cat’ pupil as ‘Student A’ and the two individuals who made the tape as “B” and “C”.

Our correspondent – present in the room – tells us: I want to make (it) clear that ‘A’ does not identify as a cat.

What, by our source’s account, happened is that there was an ongoing conversation happening between several pupils about identity before B and C engaged with them and – according to our source – as the discussion became increasingly personal and ill-tempered, either B or C then said, apropos of gender: ‘if you identify as a cat or a carrot you are insane’.

In other words, nobody was talking about ‘cats’ until the subject of them was introduced into the conversation by one of the two pupils who later made the recording. This was a broad-ranging conversation about gender and identity between a group of kids in Year 8 which seems to have turned nasty before the teacher intervened.

Our source defends the teacher and says that having started out ‘extremely calm’ she only became ‘irritable’ when the two students became increasingly ‘disrespectful’. "

[goaded]

@Juxtapose You're not autistic, you're just lazy! You need to get out there and interact with people! Stand up for yourself!

... is what assholes say, and so is "This trans ideology bullshit was invented by pedophiles and serves no good!".

How many adult trans people have to say they wish they could have transitioned earlier, before they grew breasts or beards, for you to accept that there are people that medical interventions help?

[Juxtapose]

It's not anything like autism. Are you gonna cut people's arms off if they don't like them? Cut them up to make them look like dragons?

This is insanity.

[Juxtapose]

Autism doesn't need society or children to get fucked up by radical treatment developed by pedophiles and extremists.

[goaded]

I'm just pointing out the similarity in the attacks. In my day, you'd have to spend your days screaming and banging your head against a wall to get an autism diagnosis. You're quite capable of functioning in society, partly because of the help you've been given by a society that accepts you. Just because trans people need different help for different problems doesn't mean they never existed, or that it's reasonable to attack them.

"Extremists" are the ones that diagnosed you and got you help. Calling people "paedophiles" because they disagree with you and work with children is full-on propaganda. (So is the "identifies as an attack helicopter" crap, it's below you.)

[Juxtapose]

John Money and Alfred Kinsey literally conducted child abuse as "experiments" and yes, otherkin are a thing. There are people who want to be dragons and get surgery for it.

There are no long-term studies on the benefits of these surgeries either. The countries who helped kick start this radical, extreme child abuse have dialed it back significantly.

You don't affirm people's delusions or justify their self hate.

[goaded]

Is your autism a delusion? Why do you think all those people are lying to you, and just chosing to pretend they're trans to the extent of wanting radical surgery?

[goaded]

Why don't you try these "4 Ways to Heal Autism Naturally at Home"?
www.naturalautismsupport.com/.../healing-autism-naturally-with-home-treatment

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "Our correspondent – present in the room – tells us:"

So you're claiming that coincidentally there was a representative from the Byline Times in the classroom with the kids and teacher when this incident supposedly occurred, to conveniently claim that it never happened, or happened differently? Makes perfect sense.

Autism treatment doesn't require genitalia surgery as a non-adult. So let's update the tally:

Scissors, sunscreen, wheelchair ramps, cancer, and now autism.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 A correspondent is someone you correspond, communicate, with. So, someone in the room who saw all of what happened, not just a three minute edited recording.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "Our correspondent – present in the room – tells us:"

Used in that context, it implies the person being identified is employed by (insert news outlet here). "We now turn it over to our correspondent in the field, (insert name here)."

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Keep telling me you don't understand English.

correspondent (plural correspondents)

1 Someone who or something which corresponds.
2 Someone who communicates with another person, or a publication, by writing.
3 A journalist who sends reports back to a newspaper or radio or television station from a distant or overseas location.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Keep telling me you don't understand words in the English language that have multiple meanings/definitions and that you don't understand context. You literally proved my point. #1 is an explained example of #2 and #3. So why was there someone communicating with a publication, by WRITING in a classroom, or a journalist who sends reports back to a newspaper in a classroom, during the incident?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 It makes no sense for what they wrote to mean "A journalist who sends reports back to a newspaper or radio or television station from a distant or overseas location." in this context, so naturally you insist they must mean that, rather than the obvious: "Someone who communicates with another person, or a publication, by writing."

The correspondant was in the room at the time, and they communicated what they saw and heard (which was far more than three minutes) in the classroom to the author of the piece. Nobody mentioned cats until the trouble-makers who made the recording brought it up in the same way you and Jux do, to belittle other people.

I can't believe you're still digging the same hole.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Key word: WRITING. Why is a "random person" WRITING to a fringe news outlet about an event? They didn't use the word "source", they used the word "correspondent".

Let me save you the trouble: It's because it happened the way ABC and their affiliate reported it happening, not not the way your "news source" wanted it to happen, because Byline Times is a bullshit far left-wing propaganda outlet.

Now I'm busy the rest of the weekend. Have fun over the next few days foaming at the mouth over your grotesquely stupid obsession with minors having genitalia surgery. Catch you Monday.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 OMG, do you think "writing" is something you can only do on paper? We are corresponding with each other right now. It's maybe a slightly pompous term for it, but the fact remains that the correspondant is a verified first-hand witness to what happened, and they say the kids recording and trouble-making were the only people to talk about identifying as a cat, and I know for a fact that that (cat/helicopter/dragon) is a go-to move of people who want to belittle trans people.

You wouldn't dare do the same to gay people any more, but that's the situation they were in 40-50 years ago, and Jewish people were in decades before that. Or maybe you would, because fascism is coming back into fashion and blaming a minority group for all the troubles of the world is what they do.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded What "go-to" argument? The girl herself said she was a cat!

Being Jewish and/or gay doesn't require gender surgery. I can confirm that second one, as my brother has had zero gender surgeries in his life.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 No, that was the whole lie. Nobody said they identified as a cat until the troublemakers said "if she identifies as a cat she's crazy". That's an anti-trans go-to lie, that identifying as another gender is the same as identifying as a cat or an attack helicopter.

And being Jewish does require gender surgery in males, at a time in their life where no-one belives they could consent; as a baby.

[Juxtapose]

Yes, trans stuff is just like otherkin wanting to be cats.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded That's not what ABC and their affiliate reported. You mean that the liberal mainstream media like ABC gets things wrong?

Circumcision isn't gender surgery, and a lot of non-Jewish parents opt to have it done to their newborns. At least here in the United States. Nice try though. You almost had point. Almost. Closest you've been in years.

[Juxtapose]

Circumcision should be banned outright.

[goaded]

Even if it were, it's still an attempt to belittle or mock trans people.

Yes, the mainstream media (and Republicans and other right-wingers like you) took the story at face value and did no investigation. Did any of them even report that the school had denied it? This rather more skeptical source pointed out the flaws in their reporting, and was rewarded by being contacted by a first hand witness. And your response is to attack the source and their choice of words rather than listen to the point which is that it was only the troublemakers who were talking about identifying as a cat.

"Circumcision isn't gender surgery"
It is genetal surgery (I misread and copy-pasted, because why would anything other than gender problems need gender surgery?).

At the risk of you changing your mind...
"Circumcision should be banned outright."
I agree completely.

[goaded]

Bum. The middle two paragraphs are to @NYCQuestions1976, the others to @Juxtapose.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You mean that the liberal mainstream media took a story at face value without fact checking it at all? That sounds an awful lot like the collusion story Hillary Clinton and her campaign cronies made up and then the liberal mainstream media took that at face value, for over 7 years, as well as the liberal mainstream media (along with Twitter and Facebook) burying anything to do with Hunter Biden and any potential connection to Joe Biden. Imagine that!

You're guessing that the school denied the story, because Byline Times is a fringe liberal agenda and propaganda outlet. ABC News is just as ridiculously liberal as MSNBC. They'd have no reason to deliberately report a false transgender story, or do so little homework to verify that the story is true before reporting the story.

I have no opinion for or against circumcision, but I do know that a circumcised penis on a non-adult doesn't become a vagina. I'm also not surprised that a German would be against something that Jewish people usually do.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 No, I mean almost everyone who reported on it did, and most of them were right-wing. I can't be bothered going over how Durham's investigation was a total flop again. And I'm not "guessing" that "the school denied the story", because they did, and you're indulging in an Ad Hominem attack, again.

schoolsweek.co.uk/.../

I'm not really surprised that you can't see that you, and they, are continuing to spread propaganda. (It also came out on the day that interest rates rose yet again, which will lead to people losing their houses.)

There's also the small matter of cat litter being needed in schools in case of an active shooter, which seems to bother you less than someone using the "wrong" bathroom.

www.insider.com/colorado-teachers-get-human-litter-boxes-for-lockdowns-2019-8

[Juxtapose]

Blame Lori Lightfoot for that lol.

[Juxtapose]

She's letting gangsters run wild.

[goaded]

For the last 20 years?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The only reason that you don't like the Durham report is because it clearly shows how you wasted over seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton and her campaign cronies. Go throw a tantrum about it somewhere else.

Of course the school is now denying the incident. They don't want a microscope any further up their asses.

@Juxtapose The mass closing of mental health institutions across the country starting in the 1970s through the 1990s is a large contributing factor.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Of course you're changing the subject. No, it doesn't. Durham lost both cases he brought to trial, his "recommendations" were essentially the same as the IG made years ago and had already been implemented, it was just a propaganda move by Barr and Trump. Biden let it continue because he knew it wouldn't find a damn thing. What happened to the Italian information about Trump crimes it uncovered, by the way?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You wasted over seven years of your life, and you've got nothing to show for it but sour grapes. Also, it's not changing the subject. It's a different branch of the same tired nonsensical subject. You waste every day of your silly life believing stupid paranoia bullshit that gaslighting far-left liberals and socialists tell you to believe, and you suck it up like a gullible fool. Children need gender surgery. Trump is mean. Everything is racist and sexist. The world is going to flood in 12 years. Wear 10 masks. Success based on merit is discrimination. Big fat stupid bloated grim reaper socialism albatross tax spending government is the best. Blah blah blah, wah wah wah, whatever. You need to get yourself a hobby and then spend all of your time doing that.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 If you were honest about the Durham report, you'd know he says the FBI were right to open an investigation, his major complaint is that it happened too quickly. Presumably it's best to wait until after an election to investigate the people interfering in it. He totally failed to convict anyone in court, and his recommendations were the same as the ones the Inspector General made years ago.

Anyway, since you've moved on from trying to defend the things you've said to parroting more propaganda, I'll let you have a pathetic last word. Again.

[Juxtapose]

The whole Russian thing was DNC disinformation anyway. They knowingly took information from a faulty source because they have a hard on for Trump and the DOJ is being weaponized by Biden.

The special treatment Hunter Biden is getting despite the evidence is astounding. And let's not forget how Hillary Clinton literally smashed electronic devices with a hammer and poured bleach on them.

Not to mention Biden had classified documents in an unsecured location while he had no authority to do that while Trump can declassify documents on a whim since there is no official process for declassification. They are declassified whenever he says they are declassified.

[Juxtapose]

Biden could take documents home right now and retroactively say he did declassified them because he declared them the declassified in his head while having the authority to do so as president.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Your hypocrisy is hilarious. Everything you post is agenda and propaganda! You're so deep in the liberal stupidity pool that you're drowning, and you're too stubborn and gullible to realize that. Every link and source you cite, that you claim as "facts", can eventually be traced back to fringe far-left liberal and socialism nonsense. You wasted over seven years of your life believing bullshit engineered by Hillary Clinton's campaign cronies. Deny it all you want, whether you like it or not, that's exactly what happened, and continues to happen. You're living for a lie. Now you're foaming at the mouth for sex surgeries for non-adults. The things you latch on to defy all versions of reason and logic. It's extremely disturbing.

[goaded]

Wow. Setting off the Durham investigation *was* Trump and Barr weaponising the DoJ. He came up with practically nothing more than the IG report after three years (incidentally disappearing evidence of Trump crimes in Italy).

Legal experts say Hunter's punishment fits the crime (I'm surprised you're not up in arms about him being disqualified from ever owning a firearm again, 2A uber alles!).

ROFL at "poured bleach on them"!

Just read the indictment against Trump. It says nothing about classification of documents, it does say a lot about mishandling national security documents, which is a breach of the espionage act and there's a recording of him showing people with no security clearance such documents.

You know Trump could have avoided any of this by simply inviting the NARA to come and look through his boxes, take everything that belongs to the government and leave the rest. That's what Biden and Pence did. There are no charges related to the 197 (iirc) documents Trump voluntarily returned, just the ones he illegally retained. In a ballroom.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You know what else is in Italy? Wine grapes. Right next to the WHINE GRAPES and the SOUR GRAPES.

Also, Biden (at the time of occurrence) and Pence weren't President. They were Vice President. Totally different rules apply to Vice Presidents compared to Presidents.

Over seven years of your life wasted. How do you redeem yourself? By moving on to gender surgery for non-adults. Well done.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, used Bleachbit. And she smashed electronics with a hammer. But nothing is being done about that!

These legal experts are corrupt assholes that are paid off. A black man got more time for doing less so that's bullshit and you should know that.

Trump could declassify things at will as I already explained.

It's actually disgusting how you think Trump weaponized the department of justice when Biden is the most corrupt president in recent history. Never before has a sitting president gone after a prime rival by weaponizing the department of justice like this. This is more of a joke than when the Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob when he committed various other crimes that were worth much more attention.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 I gave you your last word, you chose to show yourself an idiot. It's irrelevant to the case, but Vice Presidents have had the right to declassify documents since Bush was president. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-documents/

Both of you, just read the indictment. There is a ton of evidence in there, it doesn't accuse him of what you want to claim it does, and neither of you know more than experts, no matter how much you want to believe you do.

There's audio of Trump explaining (to people with no security clearance) how he didn't declassify at least one document, as well as what was in the document. I suppose I'm foolish for thinking Trump's own words would convince you to drop the "he declassified everything in his head" nonsense.

[Juxtapose]

The experts are liars and you conveniently ignore whatever wrongdoings the dems do.

[goaded]

Show me some actual proof and stop pretending there isn't a ton of proof against Trump (including his own recorded words), and I'll pay attention.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You mean just like there was a ton of collusion proof, just because gaslighting liberals like Adam "Censured" Schiff said so? So much for that bandwagon. What's that going out the window? It's over seven years of your life, W A S T E D !

Right from your own nonsense:

"the authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and, in the performance of EXECUTIVE DUTIES, the Vice President"

There are NO CONDITIONS that a President has to meet to classify and declassify information, unlike a Vice President. So how does this not fall under "totally different rules" as I exactly stated?

So the next question is, what "executive duties" was-then Vice President Joe Biden performing in his garage, next to his car?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 There was more proof of obstruction, which a reasonable person (so not you) would suggest collusion, even if it couldn't be proven. Have you heard the audio of what Trump was saying yet? If not, why not?

What was the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted? "Before the 2009 executive order, vice presidents could only classify and declassify documents under certain conditions."

I did say it was irrelevant, but wrong. If documents are taken by accident and returned when found with open and complete cooperation with NARA, there are no charges brought. For that, you have to take them on purpose, lie about not having them, hide them from the government, and it really doesn't help to show them to people with no security clearance, all of which Trump did. Did you read the indictment, yet? If not, why not?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Trump said he had documents. He's allowed to have documents he declassified. A President not returning documents is the same as not returning a library book.

That quote I posted is part of the change since 2009, not prior to 2009.

I read the indictment. There's no valid reason to read it again. I know you sleep with it under your pillow in the hopes that the Censured Hearsay Fairy will float through your bedroom window during the night and 69 with you for being a loyal gullible stooge. You so badly want others to follow you down another pointless rabbit hole, like over seven years wasted believing disproven bullshit wasn't enough of your life wasted. You need to move on.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 OMG, no, he's not. They belong to the government, and that law's been in place since the 1970s.

Here's the whole paragraph you're lying about. It's the only place in the page that "executive duties" appears. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-documents/
"Before the 2009 executive order, vice presidents could only classify and declassify documents under certain conditions. In 2003, former President George W. Bush issued an order in which "the authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President." Prior to that, the vice president only had classification authority "comparable to that of an agency head, having been delegated such authority in a 1995 presidential order," as explained by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists."

[goaded]

AND Trump's recorded showing a document to people without security clearance that he explicitly says he hadn't declassified. (It's at the top of page 3 of the indictment, and the audio is available online.)

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Well done. So now show me the "performance of executive duties" that-then Vice President Joe Biden was performing in his garage, next to his car.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 How many times do you have to be told that accidentally taking documents isn't charged as long as they're returned promptly, with full cooperation? Trump could have done that, too. Instead, he took them on purpose, lied about having them, lied about having returned them all, ignoring a legal subpeona, and showed them to people with no security clearance.

[goaded]

And how many times do I have to point out "in the performance of executive duties" part was referring to the situation UNDER BUSH, NOT OBAMA?

Again, here's the whole paragraph you're lying about. It's the only place in the page that "executive duties" appears. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-documents/
"Before the 2009 executive order, vice presidents could only classify and declassify documents under certain conditions. In 2003, former President George W. Bush issued an order in which "the authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and, in the performance of executive duties, the Vice President." Prior to that, the vice president only had classification authority "comparable to that of an agency head, having been delegated such authority in a 1995 presidential order," as explained by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists."

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Who cares if the change was made under Bush or Obama? You still haven't explained what executive duties Vice President Joe Biden was performing in his garage, next to his car. Also, that diatribe is contradictory:

"As of January 2023, Tom Blanton, director of the independent nongovernmental organization the National Security Archive, confirmed with Snopes that the 2009 executive order was still in effect, and that the vice president was an "original classification authority" in the sense that the elected official could, while still in office, declassify any federal document, including ones that other people have designated classified."

The position of Vice President itself isn't elected. The Vice President is appointed by the person running for President.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 The law does. And your quote just confirms what I'm saying.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded The Snopes article is contradictory. The position of Vice President isn't elected. The position of Vice President is appointed by the presidential candidate. Thus the Vice President isn't an "elected official".

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Obviously you're going to keep ignoring the rather important fact that Trump said he hadn't declassified all the documents, that the charges against him would still stand whether they had been or not, and that Biden and Pence aren't claiming to have declassified them, just that they took them by accident and cooperated with the authorities to return them promptly.

But do carry on with your red herring (the VP is elected with the president, they're both on the ballot).

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Trump said this, Trump said that, blah blah blah whatever. You only get to cry "collusion" once. Over seven years of your life (and counting) W A S T E D !

You cannot independently run for, and be elected as, Vice President. Presidential candidates appoint their running mates. On election day, there's no option to select a President and Vice President on two different tickets. If you write something like that in, it goes as a vote for the Presidential candidate. If you write in just a Vice Presidential candidate, it goes as a vote for that person as President.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 When Trump said the documents he was showing people were secret and he hadn't declassified them, you don't believe him?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Wait a minute... you mean Trump was being a braggadocious blowhard, trying to show off his power to other people? Puffing and exaggerating his own importance over what he did and didn't do? Like every other politician ever? Oh no! To hell you say!

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Just to be clear, you're now admitting that Trump lies?

Anyway, yes, that's the latest Trump defence. Forget all the nonsense about declassifying documents with his mind, his perfect right to keep them, etc.. No! Now he was just bragging and totally not showing people with no security clearance Top Secret attack plans! (What do you think all those people he wasn't showing them to will say under oath? Bearing in mind that if one of them decides to tell the truth, any that lie will be in deep do-do.)

Does the paper sound like newpaper to you? When he says that it's what General Milley gave to him, you think Milley gave him newspapers? Did the US publish their attack plans in a newspaper? He'll be able to show the court what he was showing them, right?

Of course, this is also irrelevant to this case (that will probably be another one, in New Jersey, where the crime was committed). The important point of the recording for this case is that Trump admits he didn't declassify all the documents he stole.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No one important cares about anything you're posting. Trump lives totally rent-free between your ears, and it's fun to watch. All of you far-left liberals and socialists lost all credibility once collusion was debunked. "Oh BuT tHiS tImE iT's DiFfErEnT!" No, it's not different. It's over. Move on. Find something else to do with yourself.

[Juxtapose]

@NYCQuestions1976 yeah, the collusion thing was completely made up by the DNC. I don't trust anything you're saying about Trump now, no matter what they put forth. Just wait after these "discoveries" and they get debunked within 24 hours.

[Juxtapose]

*what they're saying

[NYCQuestions1976]

@Juxtapose Yes, and the DNC (specifically Debbie Wasserman-Schultz), along with Hillary Clinton and her campaign, did the same exact thing to Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard during the primaries ahead of the 2016 election. Just on a lesser scale.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 "No one important cares about anything you're posting."
Says the man who's posted about 50 times in this conversation. You're right, you're not important.

It's not different this time, it's exactly the same as all the other times Trump broke the law. The difference is that he's finally facing consequences, with the fake elector fraud, the Jan 6 riot, and transmitting national security documents (in New Jersey, you can go to the trial) crimes to come. He was equally guilty in both impeachments, but honour means nothing to today's Republican party.

I can't believe you still haven't read the indictment or listened to the cristal clear recording. Actually, I take that back, I know neither of you enjoy facts and evidence.

[Juxtapose]

Your "fact and evidence" keeps getting debunked like a creationist.

1. Covid was bullshit, almost everything concerning that told to us by the authorities was an absolute lie.

2. Trump is being accused of Russian collision which has been debunked numerous times. Meanwhile Biden and his family are some of the most crooked motherfuckers you will ever see in Washington and Hillary Clinton smashed electronic devices with information that would have incriminated her using a hammer xD

3. Trans ideology was invented by pedophiles and its foundation is child abuse. It is wildly inappropriate for anything but adults to engage in this insanity. John Money, the father of "fuckology" made little boys orgasm and simulate sex acts.

4. The Ukraine war is a disgusting proxy war and you hosting that flag of Nazis is repulsive. The Ukrainian government is one of the most corrupt governments in the world and has a lot of Nazis in it that the USA is funding right now along with Germany these other chuckle fucks.

Zielinsky literally called Rupert Murdoch and got Tucker Carlson removed from his position because he was anti-war.

[Juxtapose]

Oh and the USA was the one that blew up the pipeline. Russia is not going to blow up its own assets, especially while the USA was the one doing that military exercise there.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded No one important believes what you're posting. There. I fixed it for you.

"It's not different this time, it's exactly the same as all the other times"

Exactly. A waste of time and taxpayer dollars. I'm still waiting for the super secret important evidence the Censured Schiff said he has.

Trump lives rent-free in between your ears, and it's hilariously awesome. You've wasted over seven years of your life (and counting) believing debunked bullshit.

[goaded]

1. Covid killed a million Americans. More than had to die, fewer in states that didn't believe that vaccines were going to explode your head or some such nonsense. USA #15 for deaths per million.

2. You clearly don't understand what debunked means. It doesn't mean "not enough evidence to bring charges against a sitting president". I expect you want people to believe Russia wasn't interfering on Trump's behalf.

3. It's amazing how you decide that one man, 60 years ago, performing "experiments" that would now be considered totally unethical but weren't at the time, becomes "pedophiles", and the only reason there are trans people, even though they've been in various cultures for millennia.

4. Bullshit. The Nazis are more like American militia movements, a small minority and not in charge of anything (at least since Trump was defeated).

"Zielinsky literally called Rupert Murdoch and got Tucker Carlson removed from his position because he was anti-war."
Oh, sure. It wasn't because Carlson lost Fox News over $750 million for lying through his teeth about the 2020 election.

"Oh and the USA was the one that blew up the pipeline."
Yes, it looks like it.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Everybody who isn't a rabid Trump supporter knows that Trump is guilty as sin. You can hear the words from his own mouth. I can't believe we have to wait another six months for the trial to start.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Rent-free between your ears, and you wasted over seven years of your life. Comical.

[Juxtapose]

1. The covid deaths were greatly exaggerated and fabricated. If you had covid and got shot by a gangster, they would rule it a covid death. Numerous people have spoken up about this but people just don't listen to them because they are brainwashed by the Communist Chinese Party funded media.

2. The burden of proof is on the accuser. There is no agnosticism in legality as far as I am aware of, you are either innocent or guilty. Not to mention that the DNC knowingly used fraudulent material to try and bullshit their way towards convicting Trump of something.

3. Ask my grandparents if such experiments are ethical, lol. And the whole trans thing falls apart when you realize that there have not been an epidemic of suicides concerning this throughout history like people say there should be. You would see people's diaries and other records littered throughout history saying how they could not handle being unable to be the sex they want.

This is something that would normally have affected a very small minority of people but is now being popularized and spread via social contagion, just like multiple personality disorder was.

4. Keep telling yourself that Ukrainian government is not why the most corrupt governments in the world littered with fucking Nazis xD

No, it was literally Zielinsky. Haven't you noticed that all the cable news networks are pro war as fuck? That's not a coincidence, that is media captured by the deep state.

Yes, of course they did. It's insulting to Putin's intelligence to say he would bomb his own country. He's not a nice man but he's not a retard.

[Juxtapose]

*Keep telling yourself that the Ukrainian government is not one of the most corrupt governments

[goaded]

1. "Communist Chinese Party funded media." Really?

2. You also have to prove exoneration. It's different from unproven.

3. How, exactly, do you think anyone would have statistics on suicides for reasons nobody had a name for? It would probably have been lost among suicides of gay people.

4. I don't have to "tell myself", the Nazis were in the Azov battalion, they weren't and aren't running the government.

Didn't you follow the Dominion lawsuit at all? Fox News paid a fortune to avoid having their "talent" testify under oath.

""We are very, very close to being able to ignore Trump most nights," [Carlson] wrote in a text sent on 4 January 2021. "I truly can't wait."

"I hate him passionately," he added."

"that is media captured by the deep state." I thought it was owned by the CCP?

You're really going off the deep end.

[Juxtapose]

1. Yep, the establishment is in bed with China.

2. No, in the United States you are presumed innocent until guilty.

3. If it was real they would have invented a name for it and documented it. Easy peazy.

4. The Ukrainians are incredibly corrupt and I wouldn't be surprised if they are hiding the Nazis covertly.

Because the less you say the better in cases like that.

I don't care if Tucker likes Trump or not, he knows he has to support him over Biden.

Yes, the CCP is with the international deep state.

Says the guy with the Ukrainian flag as his profile picture. I hope you enjoy supporting this awful lots of life for NATO's posturing.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded "Didn't you follow the Dominion lawsuit at all? Fox News paid a fortune to avoid having their "talent" testify under oath."

It was a settlement, just before the scheduled pre-trial discovery. A settlement is a two-way street, dirty on both sides. Dominion could've said no to the money, went through with the pre-trial discovery (the part where both sides need to disclose business records, including voting machine records), had the trial, buried the Fox News network, AND had their payday, but they didn't do that. Why?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Christ on a stick, can't you get even basic facts right? There had already been discovery, which is where things like Carlson saying he hates Trump came from, along with all the internal chatter about Jan 6 and how Trump should stop it.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Discovery happens on both sides, Dingleberry. I'm not talking about information that was cherrypicked and leaked before the trial. So Fox handed over tons of information, and Dominion handed over nothing? Again, if you're Dominion, why settle?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 en.wikipedia.org/.../...ystems_v._Fox_News_Network

Because 100% chance of getting $785 million today is better than letting someone else decide how much they should get of up to $1.6 billion in a few months time.

There was a summary judgement: "is crystal clear that none of the statements relating to Dominion about the 2020 election are true... accusations of criminal activity, even in the form of opinion, are not constitutionally protected."

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 "The New York Times, on August 13, 2022, noted that there had been no movement towards settlement from either Dominion or Fox, and both "are deep into document discovery, combing through years of each other's emails and text messages, and taking depositions"."

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded What a bullshit, non-critical thinking excuse! Juries have a documented history of awarding far more in damages than requested in cases like this. Fox stepped in it and had legitimate reasons to settle. Plus they got away with not having to admit anything by settling. All signs point to Dominion having an open-and-shut case. So why would Dominion agree to settle just before pre-trial discovery?

[NYCQuestions1976]

Oh and of course we can't have a @goaded thread without Wikipedia!

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded So the only leaks were on the Fox side? All of the them? All the more reason to believe there's something rotten on both sides of the settlement.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 For God's sake stop lying about easily checkable things: "why would Dominion agree to settle just before pre-trial discovery?" THEY HAD FINISHED DISCOVERY AND WERE HOURS BEFORE GOING TO TRIAL, dumbass. There was a jury sitting, waiting for the trial to start.

There was nothing to "leak" on the Dominion side because they hadn't done anything wrong! And nothing was LEAKED, they were simply facts entered into record in court filings.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You've got less than zero critical thinking skills. You don't agree to settle an easily winnable case unless you've also got something to hide. It might be something that has absolutely nothing to do with voting or voting machines or this particular case itself. Whatever it is, they didn't want it getting out. Eventually it'll get out, because everything eventually gets out.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 If you had the chance of getting $785 million for sure or a 0.1% of getting nothing, what would you do?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There was no shot of that happening. Juries are notorious for awarding damages far higher than the amount requested.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 No, they're not. And I asked you a question: $785 million, or 0.1% chance of nothing? Hell $785 million, or 0.1% chance of $780 million after weeks of trial?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You only agree to back off from a guaranteed win when you've got something to hide. Basic human nature and common sense.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You still haven't admitted that the settlement was after discovery.

Nothing in front of a jury is guaranteed. Hence, the question: would you take $785 million today or something that might approach $1.6 billion or $0 in a couple of months?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You're making excuses, and implying that Dominion only cared about a payday. You don't agree to settle an open-and-shut case, unless you're also hiding something and/or don't really care about your reputation, only a payday.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You're just making shit up, as usual. Feel free to admit you were wrong and that discovery had not only already been completed, but the jury was chosen and waiting for the trial to start. I won't hold my breath.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There are only two reasons a company would agree to settle an easily winnable case. They're only interested in the money and their reputation takes a back seat, and if they've got something to hide. You have absolutely no ability to read between the lines or comprehend anything that's not spoon-fed to you by far-left lunatic liberals. One would think you would've learned something from wasting over seven years of your life foolishly believing bullshit that was spoon-fed to you. Guess not.

Anyway, and more importantly, it's a big fat holiday weekend here, and the weather should be cooperative for boat time. Have fun foaming at the mouth over stupid shit over the next 4+ days. Catch you Wednesday.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Keep making stuff up, if you like. It's obvious Fox would have lost the case, you don't pay out $785 million if you have the slightest chance of winning.

This way Dominion clearly proved that Fox was lying about them, they got a massive payday, and they got to choose the amount instead of the court that might have decided that only a half billion would have been enough.

I'll enjoy not having to put up with your nonsense for a few days.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded BOTH SIDES need to agree to settle for a settlement to happen, Dingbat. It's not a call made unilaterally by just one side. If you're a person or a company that files a clearly winnable defamation lawsuit, and you decide to settle instead of winning, you either have something to hide, or you don't care about your integrity and you were just in it for the money, which you would've had after the trial anyway.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 What you should concentrate on is that Fox News was willing to pay $785 million to avoid going to court in the case. That's not the action of a company that thinks they have even a chance of winning in court.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Duh. Meanwhile, on the other side, Dominion accepted that settlement offer, when it made absolutely no logical sense for them to do so.

You do realize that you're arguing against your own point, right?

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Well, it's good to see you agree that Fox News knew they didn't have a hope in hell of winning. On the other hand, Dominion got to walk away with $785,000,000 of Fox's money without running the risks that (a) the jury would somehow agree with Fox (infinitesimal), or (b) the court would decide that $1,600,000,000 was more than Dominion could reasonably expect to make in the next few decades and the damages should be lower, maybe even much lower.

Take $785,000,000, or risk only being granted a couple of hundred million? No contest.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I've already explained why that's an absurd hypothetical situation. Go look at the moneys that juries have awarded winning litigators in other relatively similar cases. Juries almost always award far more than the amounts requested. It's happened numerous times over the years.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 No, you haven't. Unless it's happened every time, they were still right to take "only" $785,000,000.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I posted that fact about jury award history a bunch of times already, along with pointing out the you don't agree to settle when you're going to be the clear winner, unless you've also got something to hide, and/or you don't care about your reputation.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Once again: unless juries ALWAYS decide on MORE in damages than asked for, then taking $785,000,000 of Fox News' money is a lot better than a 1% chance they'd get less. And I'm sure juries aren't all that generous when it's a corporation and reputational damages, rather than a person and physical damage or loss of life.

You still seem to be trying to pretend that Fox News would pay out $785,000,000 on a case they could possibly win, although you agreed they couldn't. They were guilty as sin, and if their people went into court and testified under oath, they would have exposed all the lies they'd told their viewers.

The two company's lawyers negotiated an amount that avoided the risks of a court case. Simple as that.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded There's no settlement to be made unless both sides agree, and you don't agree to settle an easily winnable case unless you've got something to hide. It's not an "either/or". It's two separate things. Fox's obvious guilt doesn't mean that Dominion doesn't have something to hide.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You can keep saying that, it will never make it true. What is true, as you admit, is that a company will never pay ouy $785,000,000 in a case they think they have a chance of winning. Fox News could never win that case.

If it had gone to court, Fox News could have argued that the damages couldn't reasonably be the $1,600,000,000 Dominion was asking for, so they should only have to pay, say, $100,000,000. Agreeing to nearly half of an astronomical sum is simply good business, not any indication of "something to hide".

Certainly nothing to hide like having Carlson or Hannity testify under oath that they knowingly lied to their viewers.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It's fascinating to me that you're so focused on what on-air people on FOX did, when in reality, all they did is finally get as good at lying to their viewers as CNN and MSNBC has been for many years now. Those networks set the standard for lying.

A multi-million dollar company like Dominion doesn't accept a settlement in a slam-dunk case unless they're hiding something. Period.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Funny how CNN and MSNBC have never been sued for hundreds of millions of dollars and lost like Fox News did. Not even a good attempt at a distraction.

I don't know how many times I have to explain to you that just saying something over and over and over again doesn't make it true. Courts are unpredictable, even if both sides know who's going to win the case there's a chance you might not get all you're asking for. $785,000,000 is all the proof anyone sensible needs to know that Fox News knew they had zero chance of winning in court.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You don't pay attention to anything that doesn't work with your propaganda agenda narratives.

www.cnn.com/.../index.html

If I was Sandmann, I would've NEVER settled. Unfortunately for him though, like just about all other average innocent people, he didn't have the legal warchest of a multi-million dollar company.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 So, do you think he got $275,000,000? Do you think he would if he'd taken it to court? It's an obviously ridiculous amount to ask for.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Sandmann would've gotten at least the amount he was asking for in his lawsuits, if not more. I've explained numerous times already that juries have a documented history of awarding payouts much higher than what is being requested. It also wasn't a ridiculous amount to ask for in his lawsuits. CNN, along with NBC, deliberately defamed Sandmann and deliberately lied to their viewers. I believe he wound up receiving around $75 million. However the settlements were made confidential, so I'm not sure if Sandmann received $75 million total, or $75 million from each news outlet.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 So, you don't actually know how much money he got, AND you accept that he get less money than he was trying for despite, in your opinion, having a slam-dunk case. Just like Dominion.

How much do you think a teenager's reputation is actually worth in dollar terms?

[goaded]

I suppose you think he had something to hide. (That's what you're saying about Dominion, after all.)

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded You can't financially compare a multi-million dollar company like Dominion to a regular individual like Sandmann. You need money to chase money. Sandmann didn't have the legal warchest and resources that Dominion has at their disposal to fund his case. If Sandmann was wealthy before he filed his lawsuit, then the same reason and logic would apply in his case.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 I'm not. If Sandmann wasn't weathy before, he must have been after winning his first case. Why would he not take the others to court for the full $275,000,000 he was demanding? Is it because he has something to hide? Or is your argument that settling a lawsuit means the side with as "slam-dunk" case has something to hide the utter bullshit I've been saying all along?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded I doubt Sandmann received all of his money immediately and in just one lump sum. He's probably being paid in installments.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 Why? It's not a lottery win. You're still just making stuff up to avoid admitting that you were wrong about Dominion settling.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded It's still considered taxable income. If you were awarded $75 million in a legal settlement and decided to take it all at once instead of installments, 40% to 45% of it immediately goes to the government in federal, state, and local taxes, and a percentage (generally 5% to 15%) would go to your attorneys (depending on the retainer contract). Then there's also a separate "gift" tax similar to the inheritance tax. So if paid in one immediate shot, Sandmann would only get a net of approximately $25 million to $30 million of the $75 million. If Sandmann and his attorneys (or anyone in general) were smart, they negotiated for annual installments, with the first installment also including his attorneys fees.

It also doesn't benefit CNN to pay it all at once, because if they pay in annual installments, they can still collect interest from the portion of the money not paid out yet, so by the time they finish paying out the $75 million to Sandmann, CNN's net loss financially would be next to nothing.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 The point remains that any lawyer for subsequent cases would know after the first case was settled, their client had enough money to pay their fees so no reason not to take it to court (unless taking things to court is inherently risky and they might get less than they could by settling, just like Dominion did).

Dominion and Sandmann both settled out of court. Your claim is that settling out of court means the plaintiff has something to hide. So what did Sandmann have to hide? Or you could simply admit that Dominion didn't have anything to hide and winning $785,000,000 was a very good (and deserved) result for them.

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Once you agree to settle the first case, the other litigators and their attorneys in the other cases will use that as leverage against you to settle those cases. It's a domino effect. The settlement money becomes irrelevant at that point.

Again, you can't compare a multi-million dollar company like Dominion with a legal warchest agreeing to a settlement with a regular individual person with limited means agreeing to a settlement. Dominion had no logical legitimate reason to agree to settle a case that would've been a slam-dunk win for them unless they had/have something to hide.

To play Devil's Advocate, Sandmann himself may not have had something to hide, or maybe he did, or maybe someone in his family did. Every family has one. In your family, it's almost certainly you.

[goaded]

@NYCQuestions1976 You just love making shit up, don't you?

[NYCQuestions1976]

@goaded Nothing I've posted is made up, including the last paragraph of my last post.

[RealMarek]

These procedures should not be done until at least when a person is old enough to be considered able to have sex with an adult. If one is old enough to consent to sterilization, what is that person not old enough to do?

My take on this is that the medical/pharma industry smells money in this, so the trans-industrial complex will not be stopped. The USG oligarchy smells power in it, so it will be promoted.

[NYCQuestions1976]

The human brain isn't fully formed until adulthood. Once you're and adult, you can do whatever you want with your own individual life, as long as you're not infringing on other individuals. Any non-adults (under 18) shouldn't be able to get gender surgery.

[richardcory]

I don't believe in any permanent modification of minors. They are unable to consent to that.

[HappyWoman34]

I think it’s best until the kids are adults.

[gorydetails]

Good for Switzerland. It’s fucked up when Europe is more sane than the US

[OddBeMe]

Sure people get fired for bullshit reasons. She’ll prob get 10 better offers. Like journalists do (Cuomo got that one job at news nation…)

But again…leave the fcking doctors parents and kids alone. Let them fcking decide what’s best.

[Juxtapose]

These treatments are unproven. Quite frankly also unprofessional and WILDLY inappropriate.

It's not okay to sterilize kids because of some delusional belief they hold. You don't "affirm" people's delusions that is insane.

Not even Switzerland is doing this shit to kids anymore.

[OddBeMe]

Unproven treatments don’t become this available dipshit. You just don’t LIKE them.

A doctor and patient should be allowed to do whatever’s in patients best interest. Not your political best interest.

[Juxtapose]

Nope, you're demonstrably wrong. Matt Walsh already proved it.

Wow that's ironic, considering gender ideology is entirely politically motivated by sick, degenerate pedophiles. It was invented by pedophiles too, John Money and Alfred Kinsey are two major contributors towards this bullshit.

The Europeans are waking up to this shit and are starting to dial down the "blindly affirm kids and trans them" nonsense.

[goaded]

Matt Walsh demonstrated insurance fraud, not that people were getting medical care they didn't need. How easy is it for Americans to afford the care they want?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded you don't think being approved for that was a mistake by those diagnosing them?

[goaded]

I don't think it was a mistake, I think it was a business model (and insurance fraud). I also think people asking for that kind of surgery, unless they're running a sting, really feel they need it. I think (and I guess the insurance companies think) they should get psychological help first, but they're adults.

[Exterminatore]

They should ban everything in gender affirming care. At least it’s a step in the right direction.

[theroujdsquarebagel]

I don't know but those people need help, then people ask “why do you care” then they ask “why don’t people care enough” these people actually need HELP

[Unit1]

their life, their rights, their wishes, their decisions.

Nobody can convince me otherwise.

[Juxtapose]

Kids man? 12 year olds?

[Unit1]

I'll just give you an example.
Alexander asks Bob to go out and Charlie will be there. Them be 12 year old plus minus. Agreeing to go out is a form of consent.
I'll leave it at that.

[Juxtapose]

That sounds like something pedophiles would argue to justify their reprehensible behavior. Do you not understand why children cannot consent to adult activities?

[Sasahara]

Good for them, hopefully more countries follow

[Nikki1989]

Why do you care what other people do to their bodies? You could try minding your own business.

[Juxtapose]

I am not a demon who will stand by silently as children are mutilated.

[AngryCarl2]

I don't care. I'm male and I'm staying that way.

[red_knight]

Not sure how I. feel

[Anonymous]

It's their business

[Juxtapose]

Kids can't decide.

[Opinion Owner]

Teenagers can

[Juxtapose]

Not really. They can't consent to sex until 16 or up in most states, can't get tattoos, etc.

[Opinion Owner]

In some countries 13 is age of consent

[Opinion Owner]

Usa is just backwards

[BoopBoopBeep]

Ok so if 13 is mature enough to decide that then I don't want people mad when their 13-year-old gets disrespectful to me and I pop him in the mouth, because that's what happens to adults. You cool with that?

[Juxtapose]

Those places that allow 13 are bonkers and pedophiles.

[BillyBalls]

Can a 13 year old consent to have sex? No!!!

So using the same logic, can a 13 year consent to have a sex change procedure?