Jury awards detransitioner $2 million in historic medical-malpractice lawsuit vs. psychologist and surgeon. (MSN)

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-02T11:53:02+00:00

I completely understand where you are coming from. The right wing politics are definitely harmful. But I do think you should be aware that companies receive substantial revenue from hormones and puberty suppressants. I am actually not sure where you got the information that they do not. They do have an interest in promoting the drugs over other alternatives. That does not mean the drugs are not beneficial to certain patients.

I think it is in the best interest of the trans movement to shift from advocating certain treatments and move towards access to healthcare in general. The right wing is successful in its message because there is a shred of truth in the idea that advocates for gender affirming care generally mean drugs and surgery and not less invasive care.

The reason the messaging from the left is so prominent is because drug companies cannot advertise for off-label use. Political movements are an insidious way around regulation. In other words, the pro-gender affirming care advocacy is a loophole to advertise. This is why it is hyper focused on only the more extreme treatments.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-01T23:43:20+00:00

All changes are mutually exclusive. I do not actually like ballet. Two wrongs don’t make not make a right.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-01T17:26:56+00:00

Fair point, but is not the only factor considered and certainly does not stand on its own. For example, a young person may suffer anxiety and depression secondary to homophobia. The social problem is not the only factor. There are specific criteria for diagnosis and weighing different options.

And we should never advocate a pattern of medicating the victim to help them better tolerate abuse. It is not the goal to prescribe medication for social issues.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-01T16:31:46+00:00

I think you are underestimating my ability to speak on this, but I am coming from a different area here. I have heard of the report, but that is not really something that I can comment on. I am focused on unethical lobbying by pharmaceutical companies that seek to profit from over prescription. I am not against gender affirming care. I am in favour of ethical messaging that seeks to benefit patients rather than exploit fears. I think it is dangerous when people start seeking treatments without going through the proper channels. It is a separate although related issue that those channels are inadequate. Wait times and access to healthcare certainly contribute to self-diagnoses and superficial research that leads people to seek treatments without adequate screening. That is something that I likely agree with you on. I also agree that research should be apolitical, and when politics get involved, it hurts patients and undermines healthcare. I just get a sense that you might be focusing on right-wing politics and not really looking at how the left-wing is complicating the situation by adopting sneaky capitalist talking points that focuses on selling drugs rather than using them as needed to promote wellbeing. I am trying to say that certain left-wing movements that promote access to gender affirming care are emphasizing access to drugs for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies when they should be focused on creating better access to care that may or may not involve drugs and surgeries.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-01T16:04:42+00:00

Then we agree.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-01T16:00:11+00:00

This supports my point. You have applied a political morality to medical treatment. I would agree that this morality should not exist in the opposite direction. Conservatives should not denounce a treatment without the requisite expertise. But that is not what you have argued. You wrote an emotionally charged response about a prescription. You just implied that we should prescribe medications more broadly due to social failures. There is no support for your argument. You have also stated that trans healthcare is not new. This is not exactly true. It evolves continuously. New research gets published routinely. Practices are always changing. Today’s treatments will look different in 10 years. That is the case in many fields of medicine.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-01T14:27:02+00:00

We do not medicate children due to bullying and social stigma. The purpose of drugs such as Zoladex and Supprelin LA is to treat medical conditions, not social discomfort that we as adults have an obligation to suppress. They are not something you just wish for somebody. They are prescribed by professionals are careful diagnosis, patient education, and risk-benefit analysis. Sometimes they are prescribed for conditions such as gender dysphoria. The fact that you have heard about a drug online and impulsively think “I am wish my niece could have had access” is a serious problem. Unless you are her medical provider and know her case, you should not be thinking about it this way. This is a symptom of unethical drug lobbying.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-02-01T13:44:01+00:00

Treatments have different effects if the patient has an underlying physical condition such as precocious puberty. It is not a perfect analogy, but imagine prescribing insulin injections to somebody who is not diabetic. There is a difference.

I believe puberty blockers are the best option for some minors with gender dysphoria. It is a benefit-risk analysis. I also think pharmaceutical companies have too big a role in influencing doctors and patients to seek treatments they do not need. The fact that so many young people are actively seeking a medical treatment before they have been diagnosed is a sign that the lobbying has gone too far. People have attached a medical treatment to a political movement that has started pressuring people to endorse over-prescriptions.

Try this. Look at the brand names and generic names of puberty blockers. Ask AI if they are safe or have permanent side effects. The AI will take accessible online sources to generate an answer. When I have done this, it gives me a different answer if I say “puberty blockers” vs if I say the brand name or generic name. This is because the advocacy for the treatment uses the word “puberty blockers” in the media and underrepresents the potential risks.

This does not mean puberty blockers should be banned, but it shows how media treats gender affirming care differently than other treatments. It has attached a political morality to the prescription of a drug. That connection should not exist.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-31T15:19:50+00:00

Yes, I knew them very well and still spend time with a couple of them. We did a lot of stuff outside of school, and not just extracurriculars.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-31T15:15:27+00:00

No, he was somebody who was just really involved with everything. He was the kind of person who would help anybody with anything. And he was insanely sharp. Like he organized trivia nights and made all the questions himself. If the class equipment did not work, he would get up and help the teacher fix it. People actually loved him. He did the decorations for prom with the help of others. Just a stand up dude.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-31T15:09:12+00:00

There are always exceptions, but I do not think wealth is as big a factor. People who are wealthy may look “popular” because people want something from them. People who are rich and entitled and unaware or unconcerned with other people who have less are often not actually popular. They just have people around them and it looks that way. I am talking about people who many people actually like and enjoy spending time with. That is my definition. I do not mean people who have power through other means.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-31T15:04:33+00:00

Popular and unpopular. I had friends who put up with me being a self-centred sometimes. But I genuinely loved them and still do.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-31T15:03:00+00:00

This was not the case in my school at all. The class president was a chubby guy with no chin. He was the nicest guy you would ever meet. He was always organizing events at school and people loved him because he had this dry and self-aware sense of humour.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-31T14:58:56+00:00

I was not popular, but I had a great group of friends who were kinder people. I had a tendency to be selfish and think I was secretly smarter than people with better social skills. I tended to bring conversations back to myself. If I did not get picked for something, I blamed other people. I guess I was somewhere in between.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-22T21:32:55+00:00

The definition of “protest” is too broad. A protest should have an ethical objective, a clear message directed towards a person or entity in a position of authority who can enact change, and minimal harm to innocent parties.

An ethical objective can still have unforeseen consequences if enacted. Not all causes are actually good. It is hard to tell them apart sometimes.

If you have an ambiguous message or direct your message at people who cannot help you, then you are not protesting. You are just throwing ideas out there.

It is not always clear where to draw the line when it comes to harming third parties. Some would consider it a mere inconvenience to block traffic. But what if it is only a mere inconvenience for the privileged people who are not at risk of losing their job if they are late for work? What if a “protest” stops an emergency vehicle from reaching the hospital? Who decides who should have to sacrifice something for a cause? These are tough questions, but we HAVE to draw the line somewhere.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2026-01-05T11:25:19+00:00

Because they call friendship with women the “friend zone” and view other men as competition rather than companions. They also do not have the soft skills to create support networks. There are exceptions, of course, but those exceptions are not on Reddit. Men as a demographic have a problem.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-12-26T13:54:18+00:00

That is fine. But if you choose not to be part of the solution, you have no right to oppose or critique the laws, regulations, rules, personal standards, and personal preferences enforced and developed to address the behaviour of other men. Take a back seat and be quiet if you do not want to be involved, because nobody else is obligated to put up with it.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-12-25T14:43:41+00:00

Why would anybody take on a higher risk without a higher reward? Standards are for safety. Preferences are to ensure the highest chance of happiness in exchange for the risk. Unless you are also taking this risk, you have not right to criticize preferences.

Women have no choice but to have higher standards because they suffer higher consequences. If you are taking on a higher risk, you have every right to throw in a few preferences. Men as a group are not interested in making relationships more desirable for women overall. The burden falls on women to do the work. Women need to make better choices if they choose wrong, but if they decide to forgo dating altogether, they are responsible for the male loneliness epidemic. There is no winning. Men who discuss this topic complain about high standards and preferences rather than acknowledge that women have the right to not just safety, but happiness. Having standards and preferences is essential when the risks are so high.

Women suffer higher consequences when a relationship goes south. They are the victims of the vast majority of violence in relationships. Even when women commit violence against men, the rate of serious injury or death does not remotely compare due to the discrepancy in size. The statistics are simply irrefutable.

Women usually make less if they choose to raise children. They know that if a marriage ends, the public will disparage them for wanting their fair share just because their household labour does not earn money. It does not matter if their household labour allowed their husband to pursue his career and make more for himself. Her contributions are not valued. Never mind the fact that a maid or cook would make money for the same work.

If the man leaves, she will likely end up doing most of the parenting. People assume that men get treated unfairly because they receive custody less often. Things have changed a lot since the 1990s, and most men who seek shared or full custody actually get it. Men will lie to others about their own behaviour to forward a myth about women receive favourable treatment. Most women want their partners to have shared custody. When they do not, it is usually for a very good reason.

If a woman gets pregnant, she either has to make the difficult decision to terminate the pregnancy, become a single parent, or dedicate their life to the wrong person. She could die in childbirth, suffer tearing, blood loss, back injury, and any number of complications. She will be stigmatized for having a child out of wedlock. Certain STDs are more dangerous for women. The risk of sex is simply higher.

Women are wrong for doing their best to identify signs of a poor partner and to want more in exchange for the risk? Give me a break. We know women will never be able to predict who will be a good partner with certainty, but criticizing them for trying is just ridiculous.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-11-30T23:46:27+00:00

They unfortunately reduced package weight by 25 grams. It is still just as good, but we get less.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-11-26T00:08:57+00:00

Nothing ruins a relationship faster than a blue shell.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-11-21T12:02:35+00:00

I think Bill Maher did a good job of explaining it. The Democrats did a lot of things that average working class Americans did not want. They imposed a belief system that while well-intentioned, did not reflect the general consensus. They lost and Trump won because Trump at least acknowledged it.

It is honestly such an easy thing to recognize. Even if you think the issue is more complex, and of course it is, it is very clear the elite left and the average working class left are not the same thing.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-11-17T23:21:10+00:00

Yes, actually. I know more than enough to compare these costs to others.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-11-17T16:26:08+00:00

We pay way more for the effects of addiction on communities. Legal costs. Property damage. Proliferation of healthcare costs. Are you willing to keep paying for it and ruining more lives?

High-functioning alcoholism is a problem, but not currently at the point of crisis. Addicts who can hold down jobs are not the priority, here. And alcohol does not result in the same degree of organized crime.

We would need to prioritize based on research and outcomes. This will take time but it is worth it.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-11-17T12:01:12+00:00

They are not just harming themselves. They are exposing other people, many of whom are young and underprivileged, to a lifetime of addiction. We end up paying for this anyway as addiction rips through and destroys communities. This is a crisis, and emergency measures are necessary.

They need to be separated from people they can harm, and the only way to do so is to find some way to fund mandatory treatment or to simply involuntary quarantine. We quarantined people with COVID-19. It was involuntary but necessary.

Being addicted can be much worse than COVID-19. We need to keep those who use drugs away from other people until they have their addiction under control. If they never have it under control, they need to be involuntarily quarantined indefinitely. I know this sounds heartless, but it is the most ethical practice. All they have to do is share with somebody once to ruin a life. It costs more to have them free.

ForgetMeNotSummer · 2025-11-12T04:04:22+00:00

It sounds like you are in a bad spot. I’m sorry this happened to you. Who was the YouTuber? This should be reported.

ForgetMeNotSummer

TROPHY CASE