Yup. That's how a lot of change happens in this country.

I've been saying for years that medical malpractice lawsuits will get insurers to stop insuring doctors who offer this "care," and will shut down trans clinics.

[–] Tq231442 Cervix owner 31 points Edited

Welp then Europe is fucked lmao. Good luck trying to sue here. Nobody gave a fuck when a hospital (probably) killed my baby, I doubt they'll care about a few mangled teenagers.

I'm so sorry this happened to you. I lost my first baby due to medical negligence. It'll be 2 years in July, and I'm still angry about it. 💔

[–] Tq231442 Cervix owner 25 points

Two years coming up this summer too, she was also my first baby. Hugs sister 💜 your baby was lucky to have you as a mama for as long as she/he was on this Earth.

You have a right to be angry about something like that. That's terrible.

I'm so sorry to you both. I can't imagine how it must be to lose a baby 💕

I'm terribly sorry that happened to you. That's awful, hopefully someday that will change and people will be held more accountable. Love to you.

Hmmm at [only] "26% of Democrats disagreeing with medically transitioning children" :: raises eyebrow::

I will always throw doubt onto any poll that claims to know anyone's views on transgender care, but especially Democrats.

Polls are flawed at the best of times, but I know Democrats that wouldn't confess their true feelings about this to family members, let alone anonymous pollsters. The consequences of wrong think are just too high, depending on your circles or place of employment.

Over this issue I switched my affiliation from Democrat to Independent. There could be some of that too.

[–] Caerulea 2 points Edited

Excellent point. When I see statistics on USA political opine, they never show information on population movement between the parties.

It's interesting, because I'm used to seeing regular data on voter movements between parties here.

Edit: They also often link this to specific causes here. Which is useful data both for the public, and for the parties themselves.

Agreed, right now TRAs have framed this as a 'progressive' and LGB issue, they're very good at blanketing it under the rainbow to better their chances of this shit happening. Naturally the average democrat wants nothing to do with republican ideas and being 'anti-rainbow' is effectively that. It wouldn't surprise me that if you managed to get them to speak truthfully they would be a lot more in line with our views.

I also think there are a large number of Democrats who think that there are very small cases were transing a kid is warranted but who believe there are far too many kids getting transed. I've seen this thought process in people who are halfway up the mountain...

That's very out of line with all other polls I've seen on this topic.

Sadly, in this country lawsuits speak louder than medical ethics.

Awful that it had to happen this way, but so proud of these detransitioners for speaking up about the appalling standards of care and the lie they were sold.

"Transphobia" is starting to be seen for the fiction that it is. What really matters here is 💸💸

[–] Riothamus scrote 16 points

The Economist is the premiere Very Respectable Person magazine.

Always analytical, never ideological.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here. But first let me say I am subscriber to the Economist and have been a loyal reader for so many years. I've probably paid thousands over the years in subscription fees. The journalism is very good even if I disagree their point of view on a particular topic they usually present 'both sides' in a balanced way.

However any new reader should realize that they have an ideological point of view just like any other media publication. Their ideology can be loosely summarized as classical or economic liberalism. It happens to be a viewpoint that I generally agree with, so it doesn't bother me. They have been doing sane reporting on trans lunacy for quite a few years now.

I would encourage anyone to subscribe, just don't go in thinking that their perspective is 'neutral' or not in anyway ideologically motivated. Frankly I find it refreshing that they are transparent about their ideological stance, instead of other organizations which claim to be wholly neutral. I consistently seem to be better informed than most people about current affairs based solely from news I get from The Economist.

I both agree and disagree with you. I subscribe to it too. And, of course, they are reporting from a stance of economic liberalism. However, even though I have substantial disagreements with their point of view, it's clear that their dedication to factual reporting is greater than the average "respectable" publication. Their intended audience seems to include a lot of people in the business of making money. And you can't make money consistently if you're unwilling to look at the facts.

They are a great, great news source. But you're right, don't expect neutrality.

Lenin famously derided The Economist as “a journal which speaks for British millionaires.”

Capitalism has become so entwined in the fabric of our society that it’s no longer seen as an ideology. But it is, in the same way Islamic teachings are seen as default in Pakistan.

[–] Riothamus scrote 9 points

True, but The Economist takes it as a given and just gives straight-up analysis without preaching in favor of an ideological outcome.

Everything is filtered through Free Trade Uber Alles without any morality judgements. They provide very useful fact-based reporting with economic projections.

[–] Tq231442 Cervix owner 4 points

I might just fuck around and start paying for a subscription lol

Hit 'em in the wallet. That's the only way anything changes in America.

I know there’s a case in Canada of a woman suing her doctors. I hope she encourages other detransitioners in Canada to follow suit.

Load more (2 comments)