“Guys, I wish you’d at least hear out the man’s reasons for beating his wife; why are you so intolerant?”

Love to see people knowing what a narcissist is, beyond “self aggrandizing”

That’s friction right away, but the resulting social change would be pretty interesting to see

That’s alright. We don’t have to mean the horizon of modern knowledge, when we say people have the opportunity to self-educate with the latest research. Even if we stick to popularized-and-mostly-true digestible information, there’s still a useful line to draw here.

Sure. Does the use of a word cause harm? Okay, bad word to use.

Does the use of a word alleviate harm? Great word.

The fact that’s a dangling modifier is so perfect

The good thing is that upstanding people can now have more license to morally condemn with full confidence. (You know, like MAGA does constantly without any basis)

She wasn’t scared

The reply correctly highlighted the idea that AI is ‘impressive’. It wasn’t a denial of your critiques of AI.

A more accurate analogy: The earth is round and germs make people sick

Stanford

Same reason the BBB funded them by over $10,000 per undocumented ‘target’, making one of the most well-funded armies in the entire world.

It’s not meant to operate as a deportation force, it is a paramilitary meant to serve the administration’s corrupt whim.

My bad on the phrasing. I meant individual acts and actors, and spoke too broadly.

deleted by creator

“What? The two books of the bible aren’t John and Psalms?” -Some Christians I knew, practically

Yup. The admin knows that a blue wave is an existential threat to corruption. They have no interest in allowing a free and fair election. Every fight to protect democracy is now critical, from here until Nov 2026.

Every month, they’ve committed further abominations against law and process. 12 more to go.

That’s a lot of words for a post that doesn’t contain a single substantive rebuttal to anything it’s complaining about.

Also, the phrase “entitled to their opinion” has almost never been applied to matters of opinion, and needs to die in a fire yesterday. Apparently that’s an opinion I’m entitled to.

Sounds great IF she does agree. She’s dropped this ball before. I agree with you, except very tentatively.

Naaaah, she was throwing around the Cass Review last I checked (a year ago). This wasn’t a virtuous arbitration between two differently informed parties. She’s always done reactionary politicking and shouted “lalala cant hear you” whenever forced to break bread with mainstream trans advocacy.

Cheers to her if she’s opened her eyes a bit, but I’m not holding my breath.

It works the same way that children approach other invasive medical interventions. If there’s great harm and a costly intervention, then child, parents, and doctors work to decide if the intervention is appropriate. As a nice black and white example, it would be unthinkable to avoid giving a young leukemia patient chemotherapy where necessary.

Thus, the threat of harm has to be measured, and the danger of the treatment has to be measured. This happens. We understand that cases of gender dysphoria can cause real harm. These are only diagnosed when a child demonstrates a “persistent, insistent, and consistent” transgender identity. The doctors working with these children do the due diligence to ensure these are real cases with a strong need: the cases where we would be doing harm by failing to act.

Puberty blockers, despite unwarranted infamy, are excellent for buying a little time to ensure the proper judgement. These do not usually have permanent consequences. Other HRT treatments can be applied when we have high confidence that they are preventing harm. Again, that’s pretty much like any other invasive pediatric treatment.