18

6 comments

[–] Alexiares [OP] 11 points (+11|-0)

A good quote to think with:

Not a hint of a mention is given to the immense pushback against this kind of gender ideology, including for the harm it causes to children, from thousands and thousands of left-wing radical feminists, and indeed, from people – men and women – across the whole political spectrum. As the editorial itself states, “(I)t is important to use evidence to debunk the false claims being made”: and the evidence of immense opposition to extreme gender ideology coming from left-wing feminists is as overwhelming in reality as it is invisible in the editorial. Inclusion of the radical feminist and indeed of the wide-spectrum political opposition to the transitioning of children would, of course, detract from the pitch that attempts to slur and undermine by association with social conservatives. In my view, this is a commonly-deployed and lazy strategy of “guilt by association” that is often very well-received on the political Left, and regarded as making obsolete the need for any real evidence. The tacit maxim is that, if conservatives agree with you on anything at all, then you must be wrong in that specific belief, and if you persist in asserting that belief, then you are deliberately aligning yourself with conservatives, which is axiomatically a bad thing and makes you a bad person. The fact that there are some issues on which both conservatives and socialists can both agree and both be right – such as, for example, that the sexual abuse of children is evil – proves how imbecilic it is to base one’s political belief system on automatically supporting everything that conservatives oppose, just because conservatives oppose it.

Do some of you know that Tori Amos line about "I don't think you're leaving because me and Charles Manson like the same ice cream"?

It is a serious problem with people automatically saying the opposite of others just to be contrary. They want to prove how Left they are by hating anything and everything someone on the Right says or likes. That is immature. That is so juvenile.

So what happens when conservatives say they like clean air, exercise, fresh fruit, and not stabbing themselves in the eye with a fork?

I was happy to see this was written by a gay man as men, gay or not, seem not to care much about our situation. There's Glinner, Mr Menno, and ???

The editorial goes on to defend puberty blockers as “falsely claimed to cause infertility and to be irreversible, despite no substantiated evidence”. It refers to a dominant “infertility narrative” that, it claims, tends to be focused on “child-bearing ability”, and it makes a further attempt to undermine objections to puberty blockers by again asserting an association with conservatives’ putative “commitment to women’s role as child bearers”.

So the Lancet is straight up lying.

[–] zuubat 4 points (+4|-0)

I also have to wonder why a medical journal is publishing research on menstruation-shaming.

Wouldn't a paper or editorial on that subject belong in a journal of sociology or anthropology?

[–] Alexiares [OP] 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

That's a good question, usually this type of research would be in sociology or anthropology as you say, or the now forbidden women's studies journals. (Edited to add missing words – sheesh.)