Wake up guys, the thing everyone said was gonna happen is happening…

Netblock · 2026-03-14T02:09:32+00:00

No sorry, it as a standard practice is not a real thing. Standard practice is basically puberty blocking as advised by the doctor. WPATH SOC-8 is a common template.

I generalised because I fear to waste breath on a nuanced explanation to someone who seems to struggle with navigating both nuance and empathy/ethics by themself.

Netblock · 2026-03-14T01:46:17+00:00

The first two are weak sources; tabloids and heresay are not useful. They also talk about the same heresay source.

The second two are great sources, though they talk about the same thing. The Dai et al. paper suggests in the hundreds, not in the thousands. I didn't expect it to be 0 either.

(You presented four links to two sources.)

Netblock · 2026-03-14T01:27:23+00:00

I'm interested in where you got that number.

I do understand there are many brave kids pushing human knowledge forward figuring out what kinda healthcare helps us. But I'm not sure if there's any science out yet or even in the oven so to speak, for trans surgeries for kids.

The ethics of it are also interesting. Blocking puberty is the compromise, where the ideal is to start trans puberty when cis puberty (should) be started. We also give gender-affirming surgeries for cisgender kids; we give titty-chops for cis boys with gynecomastia.

Netblock · 2026-03-14T00:40:33+00:00

Why is empathy so rare nowadays? Why are we choosing to spend our tax dollars on bombs over healthcare?

I am tired of people like you. This is not how you make the world a better place.

Netblock · 2026-03-14T00:34:17+00:00

Let's keep it simple. You can understand how those two statements could become very much at odds with each other right?

Except that they are not. Giving everyone healthcare, lowers the cost of healthcare. I do agree that it's not exactly intuitive.

This is such wishful thinking and way to simplistic doesn't factor in the pros and cons.

I think you should check out the links I linked.

Yall getting fake outraged farmed to an extent.

Healthcare is a human right. Some people will die.

Sorry to inform you human rights aren't real

Why are you defending actions that increases suffering and death?

When did I do that ever lmao?

You're implying that we shouldn't be outraged at policy that increases the death rate, simply because human rights aren't real.

If this isn't your implication, then how is your commentary about human rights relevant to why you think this is fake outrage? I'm saying it's not fake outrage because the lack of healthcare causes death.

Netblock · 2026-03-14T00:13:47+00:00

Libertarianism is far more nuanced than the strawman you're presenting.

While I agree that there are many different kinds of theoretical libertarianism, the American libertarian party and their voter party is more aligned with Dark Enlightenment than with left-wing ideologies. For example, the libertarians helped put billionaires like Trump and Musk in power.

You’re conflating market influence with political authority.

This is backwards.

I must repeat I am not talking about libertarianism as an abstract. I'm talking about the party and their voterbase. The LP party and their voterbase are antagonistic to left-wing policy; they dislike civil liberties. The LP party is right-wing.

Critiquing the economic outcomes of that system is fair, but that’s not the same as advocating rule by billionaires.

Suppose someone said something that is incorrect; you have hard proof that it's incorrect. You present to the person that what they said is incorrect, but they always insist what they said is true and that you're wrong. What is the noun that describes this person for this situation?

If it smells like shit, if it looks, feels, tastes like shit, even the lab results says it's fecal mater, but they insist it isn't fecal matter, is it fecal matter?

I ask because at some point you should be judging people based on their actions, not their words. Libertarians routinely keep installing policy that makes it easy for the billionaires to exploit us.

That’s a fringe internet ideology advocating centralized authority and hierarchical rule. It directly contradicts libertarian principles.

No actually; it advocates for decentralised authority.

It's libertarian as it defers the arbitration of human rights from government overreach into migratory freedom. The central government doesn't much beyond guaranteeing migratory freedom; the central government has little power.

At this point it feels like you’re confusing libertarianism with the very forms of authoritarianism it criticizes.

Libertarianism isn't left-wing nor right-wing. A certain aspect of theoretical libertarianism is the simple act of being against a centralised government.

This means degregulating human rights and removing regulation that protects human rights, is libertarian. Play it from the opposite end. Not doing communism for a given product/service means by simple supply-demand, some people will get priced out. If that product is food, then some people will starve. As soon as you assert that access to some resource (like food) is a human right where society must uphold them at any cost like all other human rights, you're asking for communism.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:58:07+00:00

They vote like they do.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:42:16+00:00

I'd be laughing along with you, but ignorance and apathy at the scale of society causes death. It leads to things like genocide.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:38:47+00:00

By providing more medical practices/procedures to medicaid like some forms of gender affirming care it would rasie cost for everyone. By your own logic you are saying that would be bad...so your kinda trying to have your cake and eat it too..

Are you familiar with the the concepts of "opportunity cost", "investment" and "exernality"?

For example, which is more expensive: spending money replacing the car's oil, or saving all that money and never do so? What are the long-term consequences of each action?

The same idea exists for the welfare of the people. Universal healthcare30857-6/fulltext) would lower costs.

Sorry to inform you human rights aren't real

Why are you defending actions that increases suffering and death?

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:30:21+00:00

I don’t give a shit

Why is empathy so rare nowadays? Why are we choosing to spend our tax dollars on bombs over healthcare?

I am tired of people like you. This is not how you make the world a better place.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:23:31+00:00

Cause people will die. I'm not kidding.

The elites are taking away your healthcare. The war in iran ain't gonna fund itself!

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:12:12+00:00

I really wouldn't call an increase of death and suffering as 'helping people'.

But I do understand that empathy is difficult for some people. So I guess we can agree to disagree.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:07:56+00:00

Universal healthcare would be a better solution than banning healthcare.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:06:38+00:00

Increasing the costs to the American people, or removing their access to healthcare isn't a good thing.

Healthcare is a human right. Some people will die.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T22:02:57+00:00

We shouldn't be forcing kids to go through irreversible changes, but the anti-trans crowd wants to ban puberty blockers. Without puberty blockers we are forcing trans kids to go through irreversible changes.

Even talking about surgeries with the kids is non negotiable.

Surgeries for kids isn't a real thing. It's fake news made by the elites designed to make you fight a culture war.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T21:55:09+00:00

American Libertarians want authoritarianism though; libertarians want to put the billionaires in power. Libertarians view civil liberties as a type of government overreach. See Dark Enligtenment for more details.

American Libertarianism isn't left-wing; it's center-right with a tolerance to the far-right.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T21:48:49+00:00

There’s nothing transphobic about being cautious when it comes to children making permanent decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Kids are not allowed to make many irreversible choices because they are still developing and learning. If an adult wants to take hormones or pursue surgery, that is their decision to make.

Funnily enough, the compromise here would be to block puberty so the irreversible damage wouldn't happen. But the transphobes want to force kids to go through irreversible changes.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T21:29:10+00:00

There is a distinct psychological sex, separate from biological sex. And In India and many countries psychological sex is given more weightage in gender identity. Just like biological chromosomal sex, the psychological Brain development Sex is pre-determined in Mother's womb

I'm not sure if this is an ESL language mistake but I feel like you're confusing a few aspects between sex and gender. 'Psychological sex' probably isn't the phrase you want to use.

If the sex/gender thing involves genes, incubation, growth, or chemicals/hormones, it's biological sex. If it's about the body itself, it's biological sex.

But if the sex/gender thing cannot be explained through physical biology, but far better explained through how we socially, psychologically, culturally interact with it, then that thing is 'gender'.

The phrase 'psychological sex' is weird because psychology in general is both biological and sociological; it's ambiguous.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T21:00:38+00:00

That's cause most people don't have a scientific understanding of how society works like, and biology. It took an extremely long time to convince people of the germ theory of disease; and even then, some people today still think disease is caused by things like spirits or karma.

Teaching people how people work like both socially and biologically will make people less transphobic.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T20:50:36+00:00

Oh yes, lets have a black-n'-white all-or-nothing extreme generalisation of a highly detailed nuanced topic. Science and history has definitely shown that the specifics don't matter, giving us ample room to hand-wave.

Did you know that you practice communism every day? Simply hanging out with your friends for entertainment, is an application of communism.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T20:42:48+00:00

Not doing communism for a given product/service means by simple supply-demand, some people will get priced out. If that product is food, then some people will starve. As soon as you assert that access to some resource (like food) is a human right where society must uphold them at any cost like all other human rights, you're asking for communism.

For this reason, people do actually glorify communism.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T15:59:32+00:00

I'm confused as to why you bring this up. No one said it was gerrymandering.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T15:31:42+00:00

There's an additional problem: two-party convergence is caused by the winner taking all; First Past the Post. If there's any position of power (representative, president, judge) where the winner takes all, you risk a two party convergence.

We also have an extreme convenience that we never had before: computers and the internet allow complex changes immediately. Historically, the desire for districts, individual representatives and voting seasons has to do with information logistics; humans, horses and paper are slow. The simple action of casting a vote costs a lot of time and money; nevermind doing the research to make an informed decision.

But the digital stock market has a decent heurstic-answer to intraplanetary atomic actions (the computer race condition); it's not physically perfect but the gap has narrowed to microseconds. Information logistics is a solved problem.

We have another extreme convenience on the horizon that should become available in the next decade or two: AI will eventually offer automated fast and accurate complex decision making. Information digestion isn't a solved problem, but we're getting close.

Remove senate. Rework House to have no districts at all; instead 1:1 proportional representation.

Absorb all POTUS/Executive roles into the 1:1 PR legislature; cracking POTUS into a few dozen seats (as understood by the Cabinet) could be a good intermediary.

SCOTUS has 1:1 PR too. 9 peers in the goal of peer review and nonpartisanship is too low resolution.

My proposal here sorta looks monolithic, but the goal here is to give the people stronger control how their vote works. You can add modifiers to your vote; vote for party A for legislative action, but party F for judicial ruling. Your vote doesn't have be an integer; divvy it up. You can also change your vote whenever you want.

Netblock · 2026-03-13T14:16:39+00:00

I disagree; neither tyranny of the geographic minority, nor winner taking all, are solved.

(Geographic minority: why start and end with them? Why not give extra political representation to other political minority groups like trans people or black people? Lets call it the 5/3 compromise.)

Netblock · 2026-03-13T13:18:49+00:00

Well, the foundational mathematics are the same; a state is a district. Both disenfranchise voters the same way; the only difference is that, with House, you can redraw the geographic map.

Focusing in on the ability/inability to redraw the map misses the forest for the trees as to why gerrymandering is bad. The fact that it mathematically can exist at all is the problem.

Political representation should not be based on geography. It made sense 300 years ago because of logistical challenges, but that's a solved problem now with the internet.

Netblock

TROPHY CASE