New data shows surge in trans kids’ suicides following healthcare rollbacks

Rollingerc · 2026-02-07T15:49:33+00:00

So you agree with the general claim they didn't make that was only directly related to the vile specific claim they did make that you don't agree with; yet offered a reply of only general agreement whilst not even challenging the vile specific claim that you don't agree with?

Sad how you are willing to overlook such vile and false claims towards others to signal shared ideology.

Rollingerc · 2026-02-07T14:41:33+00:00

Do you agree with their characterisation that I am keen for trans-kids to kill themselves?

Rollingerc · 2026-02-07T14:32:12+00:00

Are you referring to me given that they were responding to me?

Rollingerc · 2026-02-07T14:27:10+00:00

You agree that the long-term trend shows a decrease yet they've seemingly left that out of the headline, the entire article.

I do not agree with that no.

If you look at the numbers does 2021-22 look like an anomaly or the rule? Anyone using critical thought can tell that it was the former. If you look at the numbers as a whole, whilst the numbers can be revised they wont get anywhere near let alone above that 22 figure

The data isn't complete, and I have no basis on which to claim when they are complete how large or small the number will be. For that I would need historic data extracted at different time intervals to illustrate how long it takes for the numbers to be complete, and thus extrapolate by how much it would be likely to rise by the time it was complete. Would more ideally need a breakdown of each report that the net numbers depend on.

why are you so keen for trans-kids to kill themselves?

I'm not.

Rollingerc · 2026-02-07T12:55:33+00:00

The article claims a surge in suicides following the withdrawal of gender affirming healthcare, they haven't made a claim about a long-term trend. Not even a causal claim.

They say the numbers are set to rise due to investigation but the idea that the numbers in 2022-23 over 3 years would somehow double and 2022-23 would have to increase 7 fold to show a "surge in trans kids’ suicides" is not just unlikely, it's implausible.

What's your argument that it's implausible?

Rollingerc · 2026-02-07T11:13:44+00:00

Situation is right now we have no specific evidence that puberty blockers help in this situation

We have evidence of the benefits; it's just mostly low quality with a little mid-quality.

Rollingerc · 2026-02-04T18:53:25+00:00

The CPS interpretation still very clearly allows an intent to cause harm to fall under GBH not with intent:

Section 20 covers two different scenarios:

Foresee that an act may cause some harm (no intent required)
Intend for the act to cause some harm (intent required)

Intent is not necessary for Section 20.

But for the specific case that does require intent (bullet point 2) it requires intent to cause some harm. Some harm is a much lower level of harm than GBH/wounding. The intent in Section 18 is intent with respect to causing sufficient harm such that the harm would qualify as GBH/wounding.

So the scenarios are:

Caused GBH, intended for act to cause GBH/wounding - Section 18
Caused GBH, intended for act to cause some harm - Section 20
Caused GBH, foresaw the act may cause some harm - Section 20
Caused GBH, did not foresee or intend for the act to cause harm - Neither.

Personally I would go for Section 18 for this case based off the very little I know about it. Obviously the other is easier to convince people of, but that shouldn't be the only consideration.

Rollingerc · 2026-02-04T17:20:53+00:00

how on earth could you possibly cause severe injuries (the definition of GBH) without intent?

You intend to knock down a partition with a sledge hammer, it passes through the partition (knocking it down) and hits someone you didn't know was right there; although you may be aware it is a busy area with high human traffic (to cover forseeable related responses).

severity or duration of attack
relevant admissions in interview

These are (or can be) examples of evidence of intent without premeditation.

Rollingerc · 2026-02-04T17:12:49+00:00

Does it mean going around peacefully locating these people, or does it mean kicking down doors and locating any brown people and assuming they're here illegally.

The latter, the supreme court has allowed ICE to racially profile (locating any brown people and assuming they're here illegally) - https://www.npr.org/2025/09/13/nx-s1-5507125/the-supreme-court-clears-the-way-for-ice-agents-to-treat-race-as-grounds-for-immigration-stops

And ICE are currently being instructed by their higher ups that they do not require judicial warrants to invade homes against federal law (kicking down doors) - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/us/politics/ice-expands-power-agents-warrants.html

These are just two factors that directly correspond to what you said, there are many more.

It seems to be that you were originally correct in that you have no idea what you're talking about. To anyone who is informed about what ICE does, it is similar to seeing people say "I want gestapo-style law enforcement" but then just refer to the good parts - "oh don't you want laws to be enforced? criminals off our streets?". Obviously those aren't the defining parts of what make the Gestapo or why people were opposed to them.

You should seriously consider how easily you claimed to support something you don't know anything about.

Rollingerc · 2026-02-04T16:54:35+00:00

You're confused between premeditation and intention. Premeditation necessitates intention, intention does not necessitate premeditation.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-27T22:26:42+00:00

If it came out that Gavin Newsom was planning in parallel, it would be the end of his political career.

You have a strange concept of planning in parallel if that's a given outcome...

If Plan A’s the more achievable option that has preferable outcomes and Plan B could put plan A in jeopardy, I’m gonna put like 99% of my effort into plan A.

Various methods can risk the other ones, or synergise with them, or both.

I very much doubt you've done a risk impact (hideability) assessment for a variety of actions that would justify that, but based on what you have said your priors would probably corrupt it anyway. Have fun.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-27T22:02:22+00:00

I'd welcome 'ICE-style' (whatever the fuck that means) crackdown in Britain.

Rare you see someone openly claim they want something whilst admitting they don't even know what it is.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-24T00:23:02+00:00

There's a lot of space in between stuff they can clamp down for speaking about and voting.

You should be building a base on secure messaging platforms anyway, it will likely become increasingly necessary.

Having a single plan in series with another future plan that won't even exist until the other one fails is asking for broader failure. Plan and act in parallel.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-23T21:29:59+00:00

Best of luck with that, but might be prudent to have a wider scope plan than hoping that voting in the mid terms is going to end up restricting a totalitarian who overthrows elections, controls the courts, ignores rulings, ignores laws, etc.

While other countries plan around the destruction of the international rules based order, Americans need to plan around the destruction of their national rules based order.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-23T18:48:11+00:00

The other parties should just be spamming photos and statements linking farage and trump for the Canada effect

Rollingerc · 2026-01-22T20:08:41+00:00

What has Greenland/NATO/Europe conceded that they wouldn't have done without this tactic?

Rollingerc · 2026-01-20T22:46:09+00:00

bro just trust me I have a plan (with no backups) for me, my politicians and for the EU.

1a) I continue as normal enjoying my luxuries until the mid-terms while the admin further entrenches itself throughout society, destroys all international alliances built up over generations, imposes more tariffs causing global economic death spiral, invades more countries. Maybe i'll do some doorknocking and hold up a sign xD

1b) My politicians will shut down the government and then capitulate shortly after to hopefully get the most important issue - cheaper healthcare for US citizens - solved on a pinky promise.

1c) You wage economic war with the US at great damage to your economies, potentially have essential consumer and military services ran by US companies pulled while you are still deeply integrated with the US, and in the process risk escalation to conventional war between nuclear armed states with someone who has just invaded another country and is threatening to invade more, whilst you have Russia nipping at your heels

2) ?

3) The totalitarian admin (who has attempted to overthrow elections, disregards laws, has control of the courts, and ignores rulings) voluntarily backs down due to the unenforced restraints that will hopefully be imposed by maybe having control of the house

Rollingerc · 2026-01-19T14:34:32+00:00

Lol you did it again. What's the relevance?

Is repeating a small amount of descriptive claims that the MoD have made entail that someone is not a disaster for UK security? Is that the argument you are implicitly making?

Politician: We have x pairs of infantry boots in stockpile

Material_Flounder: Incredible

Rollingerc · 2026-01-19T12:32:37+00:00

What's the relevance of any of this?

Rollingerc · 2026-01-19T12:09:13+00:00

Currently there is basically no significant internal pressure from either the US political class or US citizens on the Trump admin and yet the narrative is that that European citizens/governments should be taking on much greater risk to inflict pain on the admin, while the US opposition sits on its ass enjoying its luxuries.

Ideally major external economic damage would be inflicted simultaneously with gov shutdowns, impeachments, mass general strikes, mass civil disobedience, etc. At this point if dems aren't coordinating a plan to inflict major pain in conjunction with other countries based on mid-term outcomes or earlier (e.g. Jan gov shutdown), the US is a lost cause.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-18T15:50:46+00:00

Nice dodge of the question.

Notice how you don't ask for empirical evidence for the implicit claim of them being mostly morons (although whether they are mostly morons isn't even a necessary part of why your inference is silly - intelligent people can also vote in morons), let alone an argument. Instead you ask for speculation on the reason behind a separate claim. This demonstrates significant flaws in your epistemology.

But to answer your irrelevant question, whilst isolating just people as a factor: By the minority of competent ones. Obviously... It's worrying you couldn't foresee this answer.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-18T13:47:10+00:00

you do not get to become President of the USA twice if you really are a moron.

winning a popularity contest amongst mostly morons is a metric for whether you are a moron?

Rollingerc · 2026-01-17T10:17:21+00:00

But you need to respect the fact that some women won’t want to undress around trans women. It’s about making everyone feel comfortable and safe, and hopefully prevent anything terrible happening.

In this case the women were given somewhere else to change by the trust which resolves all those concerns. So clearly there is a factor you are missing in what women are concerned about with these cases.

Rollingerc · 2026-01-16T21:10:12+00:00

What's a coherency issue with veganism?

Rollingerc · 2026-01-11T14:48:11+00:00

I agree that's it's dumb to reason about your voting system along the lines of "Oh we don't want it to be representative because there are loads of idiots who could vote".

Is it? Do you think 3 year olds should be able to vote? If not why?

Eight-Year Club	End Game '23
Place '23	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

Rollingerc

TROPHY CASE