Nice article that mentions Skirtcafe favorably

[moonshadow]

The sandwich suffers collateral damage. Feel bad for the sandwich.

Hehehe.... indeed!

[crfriend]

The sandwich suffers collateral damage. Feel bad for the sandwich.

Hehehe.... indeed!

I was at my local the other evening enjoying a round of Guinness and a nice chat with a woman there I know and eventually got around to ordering a hamburger for supper.

The conversation continued, and eventually the 'burger showed up -- with a knife stuck into it. This is new; usually there are toothpicks. So I commented to the bartender, "My god! Stabbed in the back! What did that poor burger ever do to you?" which greatly amused my companion. The answer came back, "That's the way they're serving them now. I didn't do it." Making matters worse, when I pulled the murder weapon from the poor thing a string of cheese got pulled out of it in the process.

'Twas a good 'burger, though -- provolone cheese and sauteed onions. Yummy.

[moonshadow]

The conversation continued, and eventually the 'burger showed up -- with a knife stuck into it. This is new; usually there are toothpicks. So I commented to the bartender, "My god! Stabbed in the back! What did that poor burger ever do to you?" which greatly amused my companion. The answer came back, "That's the way they're serving them now. I didn't do it." Making matters worse, when I pulled the murder weapon from the poor thing a string of cheese got pulled out of it in the process.

Must be one of those burgers you eat with a fork and knife! I've had a few of those.

As for me, as much as I didn't feel like working yesterday, I did get a hook up on some nursing home food yesterday. The baked pork chop was surprisingly good. You could tell it was processed as hell, but man, you didn't need a knife to cut it... of course these things are served to people who probably don't have teeth, so there's that.

But yeah, it was pretty good. Also had a side of kale and some macaroni and cheese. They gave me on of those little cups of sweet tea. My god was that stuff sweet! Believe it or not, I do like sweet tea, but I don't care for it "southern sweet". This stuff could also most double for pancake syrup. It even looked thick as I swirled the glass. I was grateful for the gesture. But goodness, I'd suggest they cut back on the sugar a bit.

[Fred in Skirts]

Must be one of those burgers you eat with a fork and knife! I've had a few of those.
As for me, as much as I didn't feel like working yesterday, I did get a hook up on some nursing home food yesterday. The baked pork chop was surprisingly good. You could tell it was processed as hell, but man, you didn't need a knife to cut it... of course these things are served to people who probably don't have teeth, so there's that.
But yeah, it was pretty good. Also had a side of kale and some macaroni and cheese. They gave me on of those little cups of sweet tea. My god was that stuff sweet! Believe it or not, I do like sweet tea, but I don't care for it "southern sweet". This stuff could also most double for pancake syrup. It even looked thick as I swirled the glass. I was grateful for the gesture. But goodness, I'd suggest they cut back on the sugar a bit.

They process some of that food almost to the point it is no longer food, so that those of us that are toothless can eat it. Some places like the local hospital where I have had the dubious pleasure of partaking of a meal or two. Do try to make it tasty.

As for sweet iced tea, I like my iced tea slightly sweet, when I make it I add about 3 tablespoons of sugar to a gallon of tea. As it sits in my fridge it does get sweeter on its own.

As for hot tea I like it a little sweeter I use two teaspoons of sugar to about an 8 ounce mug of tea with milk or cream.

[r.m.anderson]

Old soda fountain simple syrup - liquidfied sugar with flavoring added
Lemon-Lime
Cherry (remember the ole cherry cokes - add a shot of this to the coke)
Root Beer
and Sweet Tea - stop when the stirring spoon stands upright !
Next best thing to a shot of caffeine !

[pelmut]

This article echos my concerns and those of many others.

According to that article

There have been mounting criticisms of a study into the effects of puberty-blocking drugs when used to treat young people with gender dysphoria - including concerns raised by Newsnight.

 
No sources are quoted for these "mounting criticisms", but that sounds to me like a journalistic fudge for a noisy pressure group trying to drum up support for an idea with no substance.  Newsnight had previously found unnamed "experts" making vague claims which they passed on to the N.H.S. Health Research Authority, the claims were investigated and found to be groundless.  The method used to check the claims was then challenged and the H.R.A. gave satisfactory answers to all the points raised.  Now Newsnight is trying to keep the story running by echoing the 'concerns' which they themselves stoked up before the report dismissed them.

I have plenty of contacts with transgender people and their families; the only concerns I have ever heard about puberty blockers are the hoops that trangender children have to jump through before they can begin treatment and the anxiety they develop as a result of the delay.

[Daryl]

This article echos my concerns and those of many others.

According to that article

There have been mounting criticisms of a study into the effects of puberty-blocking drugs when used to treat young people with gender dysphoria - including concerns raised by Newsnight.

 
No sources are quoted for these "mounting criticisms", but that sounds to me like a journalistic fudge for a noisy pressure group trying to drum up support for an idea with no substance.  Newsnight had previously found unnamed "experts" making vague claims which they passed on to the N.H.S. Health Research Authority, the claims were investigated and found to be groundless.  The method used to check the claims was then challenged and the H.R.A. gave satisfactory answers to all the points raised.  Now Newsnight is trying to keep the story running by echoing the 'concerns' which they themselves stoked up before the report dismissed them.

I have plenty of contacts with transgender people and their families; the only concerns I have ever heard about puberty blockers are the hoops that trangender children have to jump through before they can begin treatment and the anxiety they develop as a result of the delay.

Critique one sentence from a long article if you will, but speaking of "noisy pressure groups trying to drum up support for an idea with no substance" is downright ironic when you're advocating for the trans/gender narrative.

[pelmut]

Critique one sentence from a long article if you will, but speaking of "noisy pressure groups trying to drum up support for an idea with no substance" is downright ironic when you're advocating for the trans/gender narrative.

I don't know anything about a 'trans/gender narrative'.  I am transgender, I know lots of transgender people personally and many more through online transgender groups.  We are a varied bunch but have a few things in common and have amassed a great deal of knowledge about being transgender.

Are you referring to that knowledge base as a 'trans/gender narrative' or do you mean something written by ignorant journalists echoing the same old nonsense, time and again, until people begin to believe it?

[pelmut]

Critique one sentence from a long article if you will,...

[OK, I'll tackle the others...]

I will also point out that puberty blockers as a means to make room for people to decide is making room for people to decide whether or not to undergo surgery.

No, they delay puberty long enough for the child to make an adult decision about what gender it is (and, incidentally, to comply with the law which assumes that all children become responsible adults overnight at exactly the same number of days after they were born).  They stop the child potentially going through an inappropriate puberty until the decision can be taken about which puberty is most appropriate.  When that decision has been made, puberty can proceed under the body's own hormones or under medically controlled and administered hormones; the final decision being taken by the well-informed adult patient themself.  Some, but by no means all, can then go on to have genital surgery if they feel they cannot be accepted by society without it.

If puberty blockers are refused and the person is obliged to go through an inappropriate puberty, they may then have to spend many years and large sums of money trying to medically reverse the effects of that puberty; that could include several types of surgery.  If that surgery succeeds, they will then be in a position to consider whether or not to have genital surgery, which they could have had much earlier if they had been given puberty blockers.  They have, in effect, wasted years of their life fighting to reverse a wrong decision.

Some children who have been refused puberty blockers turn to the drugs black market in a desperate attempt to prevent puberty or to masculinise or feminise their body.  Not only is this dangerous because of the dubious drugs themselves, but unchecked alteration of hormone levels can have serious consequences; endocrinology is a complex subject and not amenable to D.I.Y. experimentation.  Unfortunately there are a few people each year who are not actually transgender but are persuaded to go down this route; they are the 'regretters' who are paraded by the hate brigade as evidence for refusing to treat the needs of genuinely transgender children.

That surgery is for changing sex. Sex, not "gender" (except as a synonym for "sex").

The surgery does not change their sex, it alters the appearance of their external sexual characteristics (genitals and breasts) so that they can be accepted by society as the person their gender tells them they are. 

I still see no reason to keep reifying the concept of "gender", since "sex" works just fine.

You have no reason to distinguish between your own personal sex and gender because you are lucky enough to have them in the alignment that society expects; when you are discussing them in the wider context, or in the context of transgender, you need to be clear about the difference between them.

[I think I have now dealt with the main points you raised.]

[Stevie D]

Once again, Pelmut has written with wisdom and accuracy.
Read, take note and learn, people.

[Daryl]

Once again, Pelmut has written with wisdom and accuracy.
Read, take note and learn, people.

Yes, we poor ignorant unwise uneducated just need to learn.

Please don't read that as if it was dripping with sarcasm.

[Daryl]

Critique one sentence from a long article if you will, but speaking of "noisy pressure groups trying to drum up support for an idea with no substance" is downright ironic when you're advocating for the trans/gender narrative.

I don't know anything about a 'trans/gender narrative'.  I am transgender, I know lots of transgender people personally and many more through online transgender groups.  We are a varied bunch but have a few things in common and have amassed a great deal of knowledge about being transgender.

Are you referring to that knowledge base as a 'trans/gender narrative' or do you mean something written by ignorant journalists echoing the same old nonsense, time and again, until people begin to believe it?

Oh, the old false dilemma tactic. Sigh.

It is disingenuous for you to say "I don't know anything about a 'trans/gender narrative'" while simultaneously asserting it all the time, don't you think?

Thousands of years and billions of words of theology founded on the principle that an entity called "God" created the universe and set out laws for human affairs, still leaves it as a set of beliefs, not "knowledge". It is only "amassed" knowledge in the sense that it is an extensive knowledge of theological beliefs.

The personal experience of being religious is a kind of knowledge too; knowledge of that experience; but even personal experience of God does not make God exist.

"I am a creature made by God" is a belief, not knowledge.

The field of "creation science" uses real scientific information to support creation theory, but creationism is still just a belief, not knowledge.

Theological beliefs are not valid arguments outside of the field of theology itself, and are certainly not valid justifications as foundations of law or government policies.

In case it's not obvious to you, I am making a pretty direct analogy between gender theory and theology.

[pelmut]

..It is disingenuous for you to say "I don't know anything about a 'trans/gender narrative'" while simultaneously asserting it all the time, don't you think?

I really do not know what a 'trans/gender narrative' is.  I am trangender, I know a lot of transgender people and I am learning more and more about the reality of the lives transgender people lead.  From this knowledge I am trying to explain some of the things about transgender people that seem to be widely misunderstood.

I am not quoting mantras put about by some 'authority' or pushing some newly-invented belief system, I am just trying to explain transgender in the terminology that makes sense to me and which is generally agreed amongst actual transgender people to give the best explanation (so far) of our condition.

[Daryl]

Critique one sentence from a long article if you will,...

[OK, I'll tackle the others...]

He says then doesn't, tackling my post instead...which is fine.

I will also point out that puberty blockers as a means to make room for people to decide is making room for people to decide whether or not to undergo surgery.

No, they delay puberty long enough for the child to make an adult decision about what gender it is (and, incidentally, to comply with the law which assumes that all children become responsible adults overnight at exactly the same number of days after they were born).  They stop the child potentially going through an inappropriate puberty until the decision can be taken about which puberty is most appropriate.  When that decision has been made, puberty can proceed under the body's own hormones or under medically controlled and administered hormones; the final decision being taken by the well-informed adult patient themself.  Some, but by no means all, can then go on to have genital surgery if they feel they cannot be accepted by society without it.

You just confirmed my statement 100%. It was a lot more words but just the same result: puberty blockers are a means to make room (time) for people to decide whether or not to undergo surgery (medical procedures) to change sex (or "gender" if you prefer).

If puberty blockers are refused and the person is obliged to go through an inappropriate puberty, they may then have to spend many years and large sums of money trying to medically reverse the effects of that puberty; that could include several types of surgery.  If that surgery succeeds, they will then be in a position to consider whether or not to have genital surgery, which they could have had much earlier if they had been given puberty blockers.  They have, in effect, wasted years of their life fighting to reverse a wrong decision.

Some children who have been refused puberty blockers turn to the drugs black market in a desperate attempt to prevent puberty or to masculinise or feminise their body.  Not only is this dangerous because of the dubious drugs themselves, but unchecked alteration of hormone levels can have serious consequences; endocrinology is a complex subject and not amenable to D.I.Y. experimentation.  Unfortunately there are a few people each year who are not actually transgender but are persuaded to go down this route; they are the 'regretters' who are paraded by the hate brigade as evidence for refusing to treat the needs of genuinely transgender children.

Yes, let's not "parade" the victims of your ideology.

That surgery is for changing sex. Sex, not "gender" (except as a synonym for "sex").

The surgery does not change their sex, it alters the appearance of their external sexual characteristics (genitals and breasts) so that they can be accepted by society as the person their gender tells them they are. 

The surgery changes what sex they appear to be, their sexual morphology, to allow others (society) to perceive them as the other sex. This is what "sex change" means. But do you really truly want to tell people who have the desire to change sex that they only have that desire because society won't accept them as they are, not because they really want the visceral experience of having the body of the other sex?

I still see no reason to keep reifying the concept of "gender", since "sex" works just fine.

You have no reason to distinguish between your own personal sex and gender because you are lucky enough to have them in the alignment that society expects; when you are discussing them in the wider context, or in the context of transgender, you need to be clear about the difference between them.

Actually, society does not accept my "alignment". By the definition that the trans movement (which you endorse) uses, I am "trans" on "gender presentation" grounds at least, as I am quite often reminded by members of "society". So don't you tell me what I am or what my experience is just because you don't like my statement.

"Gender" is a metaphysical assertion like "soul". To speak of it as being misaligned with a physical characteristic (like sex) is as incoherent as saying that a person's soul is misaligned with their body. It only works if you assume two other things first: 1 the reality of the soul, and 2 the characteristics of the soul that make "misalignment" possible. Those two things are beliefs, not real things.

Treating beliefs as if they are real things is called "reification". There is no reason to reify the belief called "gender".

[Daryl]

..It is disingenuous for you to say "I don't know anything about a 'trans/gender narrative'" while simultaneously asserting it all the time, don't you think?

I really do not know what a 'trans/gender narrative' is.  I am trangender, I know a lot of transgender people and I am learning more and more about the reality of the lives transgender people lead.  From this knowledge I am trying to explain some of the things about transgender people that seem to be widely misunderstood.

I am not quoting mantras put about by some 'authority' or pushing some newly-invented belief system, I am just trying to explain transgender in the terminology that makes sense to me and which is generally agreed amongst actual transgender people to give the best explanation (so far) of our condition.

"generally agreed amongst actual transgender people" is the authority you are citing, then. Self-authority even. Worse than that, your use of "actual" means that you are asserting the authority to determine who is and who isn't authoritative in the field of inquiry that you name as "transgender". A person could be one of you in every way except agreement with you, and suddenly have no valid opinion at all. Do you see the circularity of that?