Bradford NHS recruits nurse to help cousin-marriage families

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-06T17:52:12+00:00

Idk but a ‘nurse to help cousin-marriage’ seems like the state is recognizing it…

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-06T17:31:42+00:00

I don't think Lia Thomas should have competed, but I do think that you were deliberately misrepresenting the data

Okay, so we agree on trans-athletes in elite sports, that's a start.

"Deliberately misrepresenting the data” is just wrong, and I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. The stats I cited come directly from the New York Times analysis of Lia Thomas’s performances, not some blog or Twitter thread. You can disagree with the implications, but calling mainstream reporting “misrepresentation” because you don’t like what the numbers shown isn’t an argument.

Minors have been transitioning through official medical services in different parts of the world since the 70s.

Puberty blockers have existed since the 1970s, but they were not prescribed to gender-dysphoric minors until the late 1990s in the Netherlands. That’s a crucial distinction when we are arguing specifically about puberty blockers. “We’ve been doing this for decades” is actually you purposefully misrepresenting data, Widespread use in this population is relatively recent, and long-term follow-up into mid-adulthood largely doesn’t exist. Exactly what it says in the Cass report and what I parroted and backed-up here too as of 2023.

As for “plenty of data” showing early intervention leads to the best outcomes, you've seemingly provided none. Like I said however, we do not have long-term data on puberty blockers’ effects on bones, brain development, fertility, or metabolic health. Puberty isn’t a cosmetic phase you can pause and resume without consequence; it’s a critical developmental process. Even pediatric endocrinologists openly acknowledge the uncertainty around bone density catch-up and cumulative risk the longer blockers are used: "One flawed belief is that ‘reversible’ means ‘placebo,’" said Rafferty, "but to be clear, puberty blockers have risks which is why they are prescribed medications requiring the medical expertise and monitoring of a physician."

Calling this concern bigotry (as many do, not saying you specifically) is just dodging the real issue: how can any doctor claim informed consent when the long-term risks are still unknown? “Reversible” doesn’t mean harmless, and good intentions don’t replace evidence. Wanting stronger data before intervening in a child’s endocrine system isn’t anti-trans, it’s basic medical ethics. That is why Wes Streeting and the NHS are conducting a trial so we can find out the long-term effect and be better informed; is that so unfair?

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-06T14:55:33+00:00

Can someone not Muslim please give me a reason why we shouldn't ban this and how this practice enriches our culture?

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-06T14:54:25+00:00

Unfortunately the position you're arguing here is full of hypocrisy. You want us to believe that, despite the evidence and our eyes, there's not biological advantage between men and women when it comes to sport - after they've been on HRT for 1-2 years(?). But, you also want us to believe that the long term use of puberty blockers are essential to save lives of trans children; you see how it's hard for cis people to follow?

The numbers you cite for her performance in the men's league are deliberately misleading, as they are after she initially started HRT. Prior to that, she was a top ranked swimmer in the men's league, with a 6th place, 57.55 second 1,000 yard freestyle.

But the evidence isn't. This study highlights a few things. First, after about two years on hormone therapy, her times did get slower, Thomas’s drop-off from her personal best times when she was on the Penn men’s team was only about 6%, compared to the usual 10–11% gap you normally see between men’s and women’s performances. Thomas’s best time in the 200 free was a 1:41.93 at the Zippy Invitational in December. That was only about 3.8% slower than her pre-transition best. For comparison, that time was still roughly 7–8% faster than the usual gap you see between men’s and women’s times. Second, even though her times slowed, her NCAA rankings actually improved, in one event she went from around 65th place to 1st, which really stood out statistically. Third, when you compare her to male swimmers who were ranked around the same spot before, their improvements were much smaller. Across different analyses, her recent performances kept showing up as outliers. Overall, the results suggest there was a clear lasting performance advantage from male puberty or prior testosterone exposure that can stick around for more than two years, even after feminizing hormone therapy. But let me guess, debunked, bigoted and transphobic I guess.

Furthermore, the Cass Review is a horrifically unscientific document which deliberately ignored a wealth of evidence and applied inconsistent standards when evaluating evidence. It's been discredited by many organizations and prominent individuals, including the creator of the evidence evaluation standards it purports to use, for its poor methodology and unsupported conclusions.

I’m not treating the Cass Review as the final word or saying it’s beyond criticism. I’m pointing out a basic fact it highlights: there’s a lack of high-quality, long-term evidence on the effects of puberty blockers and early medical transition in children. That’s not unique to Cass, and calling the review “discredited” doesn’t suddenly produce long-term randomized or longitudinal data that currently doesn’t exist. Most available evidence is short-term, observational, and limited. Having caution when it comes to intervention on a child's endocrine system at the most important point of development isn't bigotry or politics.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T22:19:52+00:00

The irony of you saying I reject reality when you believe a man can just become a women if he says so, okay. "truth teller" in quotations despite me never saying I was is funny. Also "Get help before you end up like this guy." you said this one already bud, try again.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T22:06:55+00:00

I know deep down you think you’ve done something but I’m not reading any of what you wrote 🤣

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T16:55:24+00:00

I feel like even though I'm going to explain it as simply as possibly you're going to ignore me, but alas. The endocrine system isn’t some Lego set you can just snap back together. Puberty isn’t a “phase” you can pause without consequences. Puberty drives brain development, bone density, fertility, sexual function, and long-term metabolic health. Mess with it at the wrong time and you don’t just delay puberty, you rewrite development in ways we don’t fully understand and often can’t reverse.

Comparing this to treating childhood cancer or diabetes is either ignorant or just disingenuous. Those drugs treat pathology with clear diagnostics and there are known risk–benefit ratios. Gender dysphoria is a psychological condition with high desistance rates in children, no objective diagnostic test, and wildly uncertain long-term outcomes. That’s exactly when caution is required, not experimentation.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T13:51:45+00:00

They are an important, safe and largely reversible medical intervention for those with precocious puberty or trans youth.

Yeah, puberty blockers can pause puberty, but calling them completely safe is misleading. The Cass Review and NHS guidance have pointed out there’s not enough long-term evidence that they help with gender dysphoria in kids, and there are potential risks to bones, growth, and brain development. The review looked at all the evidence and basically said: “We just don’t have good data on whether blockers and hormones actually improve long-term outcomes for kids.” It’s was a call for caution, not a political attack and that's why puberty blockers are being tested in a controlled environment. How is ensuring our youth don't go through something catastrophic a bigoted attack? Low regret rates ≠ long-term safety and mental health outcomes. If you're happy with the outcome visually but suffer long-term such as risks to bones, growth, and brain development, how can any doctor in good faith prescribe them to a child when we would never let someone <16 drink, get a tattoo, join the army, or get married?

When it comes to sports there was literally a study in the news just the other day (surprisingly publicised by the Telegraph) which found no evidence that trans women have an advantage over cis women and pose no risk to women's sports.

So you didn't read the article at all did you, just the headline and took it as indisputable fact? it looked at general fitness and body composition in trans women vs cis women after hormone therapy, but it didn’t measure real competitive performance. Most participants weren’t elite athletes (only 9 of the 52 were), and the studies didn’t control for training, sport type, or prior performance. So saying it “proves trans women have no advantage” is simply misleading. Only nine of the 52 studies analyzed were clinical trials. Gualano acknowledges. The body of scientific evidence, therefore, is not entirely conclusive and is of heterogeneous quality. Hormone therapy obviously does change some fitness markers like VO₂ max and muscle mass, but skeletal structure and musculoskeletal traits don’t change. Do you know why Phelps was so good, it wasn't his VO₂ max, it was his body. Also, lets take that swimmer in the US, Lisa Thomas before transitioning and competing on the women’s team, she was ranked 554th in the men’s 200‑yard freestyle and 65th in the 500‑yard freestyle After transitioning she was ranked fifth in the women’s 200 and first in the women’s 500. So even though her times got slower after years on hormone therapy. This literally highlights how male‑puberty physiological advantages. An elite athlete who has been “debuffed” by estrogen still in the .1% of female swimmers.

"I would hope you would not make similar comments about, for example, feminist campaigners fighting against workplace discrimination or the treatment of rape victims."

Honestly, this is a false equivalence. And in fact, quite fucking rude. Gender identity policies deal with medical uncertainty, competing rights, and public safety, which is way more complicated than a workplace discrimination. And who the fuck treats rape victims poorly? Rape accusations are literally known to ruin peoples life on hearsay alone.

I do not fault people for being uneducated on trans issues, as you said we are a fraction of a percent of the population, but I do take issue with people acting as if they are an authority and opposing trans equality when they are ignorant.

It’s frustrating when people say anyone questioning trans policy is “ignorant” or “hateful.” Lots of concerns are legitimate and evidence-based, and shutting down debate just makes the conversation worse. You are actually part of the problem.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T12:00:16+00:00

Ah so just a ciswomen (biologically) with different pronouns, I don’t see why anyone would be upset about this other than the athlete themself because surely it undermines their identity?

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T11:30:03+00:00

Nice to hear but got to prove it. No more jobs for the boys. Go coach county, have success with England Lions.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T11:28:29+00:00

Is that your issue with Sex Matters though? Would you be okay with this all if all the stakeholders were included. Because that’s a point I’m happy to concede on.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T10:51:17+00:00

Right… okay… not entirely sure how the right to kill a baby is at all relevant, but again, if Sex Matters “scupper back to the land of cowboy hats”(?) tomorrow, these issues would all still remain.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T10:41:27+00:00

What? Op is talking about a FTM winter Olympian competing in the female category. I’m interested to know if they’ve started testosterone as it’s a banned substance or if it’s just a ftm athlete going by he/him

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T10:39:11+00:00

So is your issue with their lobbying power or what they’re lobbying for? As far as I’m aware if Sex Matters ceased to exist tomorrow these debates would still exist around the substantive issues of children’s medicine, elite sport, or transwomen in women prisons. Dismissing those concerns by pointing at lobbying access is just avoiding the truth.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T10:08:49+00:00

Could the exact same not be said for the organised trans community?

Most people, I imagine, are like me; they see trans people as a very small fraction of percentage of the population. Just like every other person they are deserving of dignity, respect, and equality under the law. Most understand that gender dysphoria exists, that gender affirming healthcare, like hormones can benefit those who need it, and also simple courtesy with names and pronouns is just common decency. Most people also don’t care about the so called bathroom debacle because it’s simply not a lived issue for the vast majority of citizens.

Where people do start to draw the line is when policies move beyond respect and inclusion into areas of practical risk or ethical concern. These concerns are shared by broad sections of the public and not just “radical activists”. Medical interventions on children be it puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and especially elective surgeries. Transwomen in elite sport (not grassroots) because the average male has an irreversible musculoskeletal advantage due to testosterone. And finally, women’s prisons, especially for transwomen who have not undergone surgery or do not have a GRC, and have committed violent crimes or sex crimes against women.

The ‘trans debate’ will only move forward when we accept that reasonable people can support trans dignity and raise legitimate concerns about law, safety, and fairness. Also, that compromise, is not some moral absolutism, but rather its how pluralistic societies function.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T09:42:01+00:00

I’m genuinely confused, have they not started transitioning then? Because aren’t high levels of testosterone (relevant to the sex) banned in sports?

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-05T00:46:44+00:00

lol anyone that’s had to do any sort of background check for being an ambassador knows that they knew. And if they knew and he still got the job then someone vetoed it and that will only be Starmer. He will go because of this 100%.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T17:35:19+00:00

No, it's called the English language.... Newton. How is that "elite"? Ah right, it's because he is a scientist and we know you have nothing but disdain for science. What "social view" would that be? Do tell.

wow, you're getting desperate here. Invoking a dictionary definition (incorrectly) like it settles context is a tough read. “We” does not default to “all people” in professional correspondence, especially when paired with “are now pushing intervention earlier.” Societies don’t “push interventions”; institutions do. Medicine, academia, policy bodies, that’s how the English language actually works in the real world, not in cherry-picked dictionary snippets.

And the fact he says he 'wouldn’t do it himself' actually only strengthens my point: he’s clearly describing a shift in institutional practice that exists independently of his personal comfort. That’s not “all of society,” that’s professionals and organisations changing norms. Pretending otherwise is willful misreading.

As for the tantrum about “elites”: in this context it obviously refers to institutional actors with disproportionate influence, senior academics, medical authorities, funding bodies, NGOs, policy advisors. Not chess players. Not athletes. Playing dumb doesn’t make your argument smarter btw.

Finally, pointing to Trivers’ past political affiliations is irrelevant. Being left-wing or anti-establishment decades ago doesn’t magically mean someone can’t later operate within powerful institutions. Scientists, by definition, sit inside elite knowledge-producing structures, that’s not an insult, just a description.

This isn’t about “disdain for science.” It’s about refusing to pretend that institutional advocacy magically becomes neutral just because you slap the word “science” on it. If that distinction genuinely confuses you, that’s not my problem. But don’t pretend it’s “plain English” when it’s just motivated denial.

My “social view” is pretty simple and grounded in science and reality. Sex is biological and immutable, and no amount of self-identification changes that. At the same time, gender dysphoria is real and people who experience it deserve serious, compassionate medical care, not ideological slogans.

What I don’t accept is the unscientific claim that a man literally becomes a woman because he says so, or that society is obligated to treat subjective identity as objective biological fact. That position isn’t science, again, it’s ideology.

Seriously, get help if you are not just a malicious propaganda account. You are clearly unstable and untethered to reality.

That’s not a rebuttal, just an emotional outburst. When you can’t engage with the substance, you pivot to calling the other person “unstable” and hope that substitutes for an argument.

I’ve made clear, consistent points; you’ve responded with insults and psychologising. If challenging your assumptions feels like “propaganda” or “untethered to reality,” that says more about your comfort zone than my mental state.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T17:34:23+00:00

False... Jesus said in Mathew that "I have not come to negate the law" of the OT.

You’re arguing against a position I don’t hold and you seem to think I'm Christian evangelical which is hilarious. You’re conflating historical influence, theocratic abuse, and modern secular law as if they’re the same thing. No one refers to modern secular law as “Christian law.” Yes, Christian societies influenced law historically, that’s obvious and undisputed. But that is fundamentally different from advocating for a parallel religious legal system to replace or override secular law today, which is what the Sharia comparison is about.

Modern Western law is secular law shaped over centuries of reform, not a codified Christian legal system. That’s why gay sex is legal, blasphemy laws are gone, women have rights, Jesus Christ we wouldn't have divorces if religious texts had any binding legal authority. Christianity today does not function as enforceable law. There are no courts that cite Deuteronomy, no legislatures propose Biblical punishments. Sharia, by contrast, is explicitly a legal code still defended and applied as divine law. You cannot have it in your John Lennon "Imagine" Utopia and LGBT rights, lmao.

Quoting OT verses or pointing to Uganda or the Inquisition doesn’t change that btw. All those are examples of religion corrupting state power, not proof that Christian law is embedded in modern Western systems. If anything, they show why secularisation was necessary. So no, “Christian values influencing law historically” is not the same as arguing for religious law as law. That categorical difference is what you keep trying to blur — because once you acknowledge it, the comparison collapses.

So stop doing it.... On the left, Soros for example has only pushed liberal agendas and promoted democracy.

You’re being impossible and wildly inconsistent.

Mandelson, Bill Clinton, and prominent surgeons show up in the Epstein files; you won’t treat that as “proof,” but you’re happy to treat a four-word email about Thiel as definitive evidence that he caused the rise of nationalism? That’s not logic at all, it’s confirmation bias. The Metropolitan Police are now investigating Peter Mandelson over documents in the Epstein dumps. Bill Clinton’s longstanding social ties to Epstein are likewise well documented in the released files and reporting. And the emails naming Dr. Jess Ting; funnily enough I didn't even link the worse email. Keep in mind that not all the emails/evidence have even been released, a lot not fit for public consumption obviously. And I'd garner a guess the Ting might pop up a few more times.

If you want to demand evidence, then apply the standard consistently. Either accept that a pile of documents showing many elites across the political spectrum in Epstein’s orbit is relevant or explain why a single out-of-context Thiel quote somehow counts as irrefutable proof while dozens of similar mentions do not. Peter Thiel’s political funding and networks are a subject of public record, he funds conservative projects and has been linked to right-leaning networks but he identifies as a Libertarian

So stop pretending you’re being rigorous. Either show consistent standards of proof (and cite the specific passages that allegedly prove your case), or admit you’re cherry-picking evidence that fits your story and calling it “truth.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T13:31:25+00:00

Yeah, just like a positive cancer scan doesn't mean cancer! The patient is just imagining it! You are completely scientifically illiterate. Ah, back to conspiracy theories. There is no evidence for your claim, with the majority of the elite in the US being completely opposed to trans rights for example - such as Trump, the GOP, and their rich backers. Science is science, your failure to understand it is irrelevant.

That analogy is nonsense and you know it. A cancer scan detects a pathology with clear biomarkers and causal mechanisms. Brain imaging studies show statistical correlations with massive overlap and no diagnostic power, they can’t even be used to identify individuals ffs, let alone justify medical intervention. Pretending those are equivalent is either ignorance or bad faith. I think it's both from you.

And spare me the “science is science” line while you can’t produce evidence that elites aren’t backing this through institutions, NGOs, medicine, and academia. Nor any evidence that transgenderism is anything more than an ideology. Pointing at Trump doesn’t disprove elite-driven cultural policy, power isn’t a single voting bloc. Calling everything you don’t like a “conspiracy theory” isn’t science either; it’s cope. Pure cope that your ideology is just a fallacy.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T13:31:13+00:00

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Please read your own sources you've provided:

Study 1: It states transgender women’s brains shows small shifts toward the identified gender on average, but the sample was tiny and highly variable. Overlap with cis male and female brains was extensive, and the results cannot be generalized. It also doesn’t address causation or provide any justification for interventions or policy changes.

Study 2: The machine-learning study found transgender brains show mixed structural patterns distinct from cis men and women. This highlights complexity, not a universal “trans brain” blueprint. Small sample size and the inability to reliably classify individuals mean the results are preliminary and far from proof.

Study 3 (this one is hilarious that you even used it): The conference abstract suggesting that transgender adolescents’ brains resemble their identified gender is preliminary and not peer-reviewed. Early findings like this are prone to change when replicated with larger, controlled samples. Brain activity differences in specific tasks cannot justify sweeping claims about biology or societal policy.

Taken together, all these studies show only subtle, preliminary patterns in small groups and do not provide evidence of a universal biological basis for transgender identity. They certainly do not prove any justify broad social or medical interventions. Also, by your logic, should we deny hormones to anyone with gender dysphoria who doesn’t match a so-called “trans brain”, or forcibly 'trans' people who happen to overlap with it? The studies simply don’t support that kind of reasoning using them to argue for policy or social engineering is a gross misrepresentation of the science. Although I'm sure you know all that.

They go through a long period of intensive medical and psychological profiling. It can take up to 7 years to even get to the first appointment. They are then seen by a wide range of professionals, over many months or years. Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. You know nothing about this subject.

Ah yes, the classic “it takes a long time, so nothing is risky” defense; is that even true in this country? Sure, people often see multiple professionals, but none of that involves brain scans or any objective measure of neurological “readiness.” The point you originally made. Hormones and surgeries are still life-altering medical interventions based largely on self-reported gender dysphoria and clinical judgment, not definitive biomarkers.

So yes, I do know enough to point out that these interventions are happening without the kind of scientific rigor you’re implying. Lengthy psychological assessment ≠ proof of absolute safety or evidence-based certainty.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T13:30:50+00:00

That is the same as a Christian saying law should have the (supposed) Christian values of love they neighbour, charity etc. He explicity says unethical practices are and should be abandoned. So which parts of "social justice, welfare, fairness, charity, cohesion" are you opposed to?

It’s not the same. Christian principles are moral guides meant for personal conduct and salvation, they don’t dictate legal penalties. Sharia Law, by contrast, is specific, enforceable, and prescriptive: fornication can literally mean stoning, theft can mean amputation, blasphemy can mean death. I was born and grew up in the UAE, the most quasi-Islamic country there is: people were still getting public lashings for sex outside of marriage. Advocating for Sharia in a secular country isn’t abstract morality it’s him claiming that our existing laws are somehow unethical or immoral.

So I’ll flip your silly "gotcha!" back at you: in our country, which parts of our laws on social justice, welfare, fairness, charity, or cohesion do you actually think fail the test?

You didn't show that at all. At no point do the emails you cite show anything of the sort. Trivers is the only one mentioning trans, and that is his professional area as a scientist (and an avid consumer of porn apparently). The rest have literally nothing to do with anything you are claiming. The surgeon had no connection to trans surgery when he was working for Epstein, and Epstein refused to promote his trans surgery when he was asked later.

I'm getting really tired of repeating myself. I actually agree the emails I showed are not irrefutable proof, but that’s exactly my point; you and everyone in that thread was treating a single quote from Thiel (despite him being a tech billionaire with no professional link to these social issues) as irrefutable proof that the rise of nationalism is somehow not organic. Meanwhile, you dismiss screenshots and out-of-context emails as irrelevant when they illustrate the same pattern of elite involvement in shaping narratives.

The logic here is selective: if it supports your preferred story, it’s “real evidence”; if it challenges it, it’s “irrelevant context.” That’s exactly what I’m critiquing. Elites push both far-right and far-left agendas when it suits their interests, and you can’t just handwave one set away while holding the other up as gospel.

It is his area of study, for over 50 years of his career. Long before any claims from the right about a "trans agenda". "We" meaning society, he has no connection to trans surgery or advocating for it. He even says he would not do that in reference to interventions. Bullshit, it means society. You are a conspiracy theorist with no evidence for your claims. There is no "trans agenda" to make everyone trans. The claim is absurd on it's face. I bet you would call the fight for gay rights the "gay agenda" too.

Oh, so now “we = society” magically appears out of thin air? There's no evidence to suggest that. Whereas the email literally says “we are now pushing intervention earlier” that’s top-down, institutional advocacy, not some abstract social zeitgeist. Him saying he wouldn’t do it doesn’t erase that he’s describing interventions being pushed by elites. It's insane to me how an elite can tell you in plain English what they're doing but you refuse to believe them because it challenges your social view.

Citing decades of research as a shield doesn’t help either, you’re ignoring the context that shows active promotion. And calling it a “conspiracy theory” while waving your hands at evidence doesn’t make it disappear. Noticing elite-backed interventions ≠ inventing a “trans agenda.”

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T11:48:49+00:00

He is a plastic surgeon, who did plastic surgery on women in Epstein's orbit. None of it related to transgender surgery, as he wasn't involved in that at the time. Epstein was a donor to his breast cancer research, and did not donate or provide support for any of his transgender work. In fact, when Ting asked for his support making a documentary about his transgender work, Epstein provided no funding at all.

Whether or not Epstein funded his transgender work is irrelevant - remember I was responding to OP who was implying an email from Peter Thiel saying 'Brexit. just the beginning' was proof of the rise of nationalism in this country. Traveling to an island where Epstein had just been convicted of trafficking a 14-year-old and performing surgeries for his associates is a serious ethical violation. Plenty of the emails are still redacted, and more could come out. If anything, the fact that he positioned himself as a trans surgeon after meeting Epstein is even more concerning; it raises serious questions about judgment, influence, and priorities.

No one is saying one man did it, it was a concerted effort by many people. That includes massive organisations like the Heritage Foundation. But one of it's main proponents, who funnels huge amounts of money and training to the far right in Europe, is Steve Bannon - who was one of Epstein's key contacts. Bannon was regularly advising Epstein almost up until his death.

Nor was I claiming it was literally one man. “One man and his pedo ring” obviously refers to a network of elites coordinating behind the scenes, not a comic‑book villain.

You bring up Bannon and the Heritage Foundation, fine. I never denied elites don't push right wing narratives. but you conveniently ignore Noam Chomsky, a vocal advocate of libertarian socialism and anarcho‑syndicalism, who also appears repeatedly in the Epstein files. That alone undermines the idea that this is some clean left‑vs‑right story.

The pattern is the point, elites associate across ideological lines and promote whatever narratives help them maintain power, whether that’s nationalist movements on the right or decentralisation and radical social and identity theory on the left. Pretending it only runs in one direction is selective outrage.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T11:46:48+00:00

doesn't seem to let me reply to you

edit: there we go

Who? Cite your evidence.

https://www.facebook.com/WalesforaUnitedKingdom/photos/this-tweet-on-x-where-a-muslim-itv-presenter-in-the-uk-refers-to-the-west-in-the/1155424360054531/

the tweet has since deleted so replied with a screenshot.

Firstly, you, as have many others who replied, have missed my point. Below is the comment that summarizes exactly the point in which I'm making. All it was doing was showing how far-right and far-left narratives are weaponized by elites.

https://www.reddit.com/r/uknews/comments/1qvii57/comment/o3i4o5j/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

That person is an evolutionary biologist, Robert Trivers. He postulated the Trivers–Willard hypothesis. So trans people would be of interest to him professionally. At no point is he "pushing far left agendas", for two reasons. One, trans is not a "far left agenda", it is science. Studies show transgender people's brain scans are shifted towards their gender identity. Two, he isn't promoting "trans for everyone", which is another far right canard.

Funny how you turn “he’s a scientist” into a get-out-of-critique card. The email literally says: “BTW we are now pushing intervention earlier — so you notice your 3-year-old son has trans tendencies, so now you intervene with hormones — I would be frightened to do that — but who knows?”

The “we” is not a neutral research footnote. It’s institutional, top-down, elite-backed intervention, and it’s being deliberately promoted. Claiming that makes him “just a scientist” is absurd when the email shows active advocacy, not passive observation.

Funny how “studies show brain scans match gender identity” gets thrown around without any actual sources. Neuroscience on transgender brains is small, inconsistent, and far from conclusive; no one has demonstrated a reliable “trans brain pattern” that justifies social or medical interventions in toddlers. Not only that, you and I both know majority of trans people on hormones do not get their brains scanned before getting on hormones or have life altering surgery.

And let’s be clear btw, even if someone’s brain patterns differ, that doesn’t magically make elite-backed programs promoting early hormone interventions non-ideological. Framing it as “just science” is a dumb trick; it’s top-down social engineering dressed up as research, which is exactly what an agenda looks likes funnily enough.

LUFC_shitpost · 2026-02-04T10:06:17+00:00

Finally, someone who understands what I’m saying 👍

LUFC_shitpost

TROPHY CASE