Kentucky’s ban on gender-transition care takes effect as federal judge lifts injunction

[Pommer]

Where do you get these numbers from?

My fevered brain, I know it’s much closer to 99-1, but didn’t wanna go look for the exact figures because LAZY.

 

[Nithavela]

My fevered brain, I know it’s much closer to 99-1, but didn’t wanna go look for the exact figures because LAZY.

Understandable, have a nice day.

 

[HARK!]

So no evidence. Okay.

That is evidence. I see that you failed to refute it.

 

[HARK!]

Although interesting that there's support on the far right for a big government surveillance state monitoring private individuals' spending habits, this seems off topic for the thread.

Next time you might try reading more carefully. Context is key.

Do you not believe that the government should monitor the spending of tax dollars?

 

[Nithavela]

That is evidence. I see that you failed to refute it.

Even assuming that what you wrote was the unadulterated truth, it's nothing but an anecdote, which is not evidence.

 

[HARK!]

Even assuming that what you wrote was the unadulterated truth, it's nothing but an anecdote, which is not evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is evidence.

I see that you've still failed to refute it.

 

[Nithavela]

Anecdotal evidence is evidence.

I see that you've still failed to refute it.

Okay, if you insist, here's my refutation: I don't believe that you have known people who were helped in their gender disphoria by "christian counseling".

 

[HARK!]

Okay, if you insist, here's my refutation: I don't believe that you have known people who were helped in their gender disphoria by "christian counseling".

I didn't make that claim. Are you suggesting that gender dysphoria is somehow different than other problems that might be remedied through counseling?

Jordan B Peterson might enlighten you.

https://www.youtube.com/@JordanBPeterson

 

[Nithavela]

I didn't make that claim.

Don't try to gaslight people when they can just go one page back in the thread. This was your claim, which I reject as pure hearsay.

I have known people who have been helped by Christian counseling. I have also seen much deep regret from some who have transitioned. Transitioning doesn't address the root problem, and it comes with severe complications.

 

[HARK!]

Don't try to gaslight people when they can just go one page back in the thread. This was your claim, which I reject as pure hearsay.

You might try reading more carefully before you go spouting off false accusations.

Okay, if you insist, here's my refutation: I don't believe that you have known people who were helped in their gender disphoria by "christian counseling".

I have known people who have been helped by Christian counseling. I have also seen much deep regret from some who have transitioned. Transitioning doesn't address the root problem, and it comes with severe complications.

Hopefully you can see how you've twisted my words now.

Have you had a chance to review the facts presented by Dr. Peterson on this matter yet?

https://www.youtube.com/@JordanBPeterson

 

[Velaut]

I didn't make that claim. Are you suggesting that gender dysphoria is somehow different than other problems that might be remedied through counseling?

Right, "I have known people who have been helped by Christian counseling" it doesn't matter which counseling, because counseling is counseling, whatever the problem is.
I would argue that it is not even important that you have known those people. So you could have said "there are people who have been helped by Christian counseling". Of course, i can agree with that.
Following through, "there are people who have been helped by counseling". Doesn't need to be Christian.

And now "there are people who have been helped by care". You won't deny that.
So if you defend Christian counseling because someone was helped by it, please also defend care. That includes gender transition care.
Simple as that!

 

[Velaut]

You might try reading more carefully before you go spouting off false accusations.




Hopefully you can see how you've twisted my words now.

Have you had a chance to review the facts presented by Dr. Peterson on this matter yet?

https://www.youtube.com/@JordanBPeterson

Hi Hark!,
i have read this page and the last. You are right that you did not say that you know people who have been helped by Christian counseling on gender dysphoria.
But that was misleading on your part.
First of all the question was about evidence on Christian counseling on gender dysphoria. An honest reply would have been "i have known people who have been helped by Christian counseling, BUT NOT gender dysphoria to be honest". Accentuating the deviance from the question.(*)
You knew it would be interpreted as on gender dysphoria because that was the context.

Later you even claimed it is evidence. Evidence of what? Evidence of what the context requested, which is Christian counseling on gender dysphoria. The question was not for Christian counseling on anything else. Gender dysphoria.

I'll spell it out: "people being helped by Christian counseling on a field not related to gender dysphoria" is NOT evidence for people being helped by Christian counseling on gender dysphoria.

Nobody twisted your words. You twisted the context of your words.

(*) that is, IF you want to have a honest and clear discussion on the topic. Your twisting of context convinces me that you are not here to do that.

 

[Nithavela]

You might try reading more carefully before you go spouting off false accusations.




Hopefully you can see how you've twisted my words now.

Have you had a chance to review the facts presented by Dr. Peterson on this matter yet?

https://www.youtube.com/@JordanBPeterson

I refuse to read any drivel coming from that guy.

I charitably interpreted your post to be an actual response to my request. I can see now that even that was giving you too much credit.

 

[KCfromNC]

My daughter in law works with another nurse who works part time at Starbucks and they paid for his gender reassignment surgery

I think we both agree that seeing the the free market in action is wonderful, but not sure of the relevance to the thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

Next time you might try reading more carefully. Context is key.

The context is attempting to make an outright prohibition against certain medical treatments into something remotely related to government spending.

Do you not believe that the government should monitor the spending of tax dollars?

I guess if there were anything actual useful in these posts I wouldn't be reading this attempt to get me to make your posts make sense.

 

[HARK!]

The context is attempting to make an outright prohibition against certain medical treatments into something remotely related to government spending.

That's just one aspect of what is wrong with this picture. There is also the harm that these treatments cause. At one time lobotomies were a accepted medical treatment. Before that blood letting with leeches.

 

[HARK!]

I guess if there were anything actual useful in these posts I wouldn't be reading this attempt to get me to make your posts make sense.

I'm not sure what you seem to be having difficulty in understanding. This isn't a nuclear physics tutorial. In fact it is not a tutorial at all. It's a simple yes or no question.

Should a person or group who is spending, be responsible for monitoring their spending?

 

[KCfromNC]

That's just one aspect of what is wrong with this picture.

Is it really related, though? I mean, the bill isn't specifically targeting government funding, to that seems like a red herring.

There is also the harm that these treatments cause.

Interesting assertion.

At one time lobotomies were a accepted medical treatment. Before that blood letting with leeches.

Is the assertion that any field which is less than perfect should be disregarded? Because if so, we can list any failure of past GOP legislation to show the law in the OP is bad. At least if one wanted to be consistent.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not sure what you seem to be having difficulty in understanding.

Nowhere that I can see. And leading with that sort of personal attack rather than addressing what I acutally wrote just shows how desperate the post is to avoid talking about the content of my post. Hard to take it seriously when it has to stoop to such a low.

 

[HARK!]

I guess if there were anything actual useful in these posts I wouldn't be reading this attempt to get me to make your posts make sense.

I'm not sure what you seem to be having difficulty in understanding. This isn't a nuclear physics tutorial. In fact it is not a tutorial at all. It's a simple yes or no question.

Nowhere that I can see.

Then why not just answer the question?