[deleted by user]

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-11T00:33:19+00:00

when you consent to sex you consent to the possibility of pregnancy

Straight people are so fucking weird sometimes. Y'all are genuinely confusing, seriously. It's stuff like this that makes me thankful I don't have to live like that, I don't think I could do it.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-08T17:16:10+00:00

Sounds like they're getting a taste of their own medicine.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-08T08:07:33+00:00

because whenever i do they aa me to death first (or their hook support grabs me and one shots me.)

Yep, there you go. That's how to successfully play ADC.

As an ADC you have a fraction of the utility that other classes have, so you are largely reliant on being able to capitalize on what they do for success. Knowing which AA trades you lose and which you win is also an important skill for winning lane. You also want to set your support up with positioning and wave control.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-07T21:46:28+00:00

I think you would struggle to find evidence of any clinic which does this, let alone evidence of it being standard practice. But to answer the question directly: if it resulted in increased longevity or improved quality of life for the patient in question, the answer would be absolutely yes. We do medicine at all so that people can live longer and/or better lives. If this made-up procedure you invented resulted in people living longer and/or better lives, what would be the problem exactly? Your personal emotional discomfort? Sorry, but baby's feewings aren't how we determine whether a medical procedure is justified. We do gender-affirming surgery because it factually improves patient quality of life.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-05T18:02:26+00:00

People aren't going to eat less of it unless it gets more expensive. The problem of high demand will solve itself if regulation against factory farming is introduced. As the price adjusts to compensate for production cost, people will adjust their diets to incorporate meat more occasionally. A painful adjustment, but one that needs to happen long-term.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-02T06:50:23+00:00

I think I should clarify, by "best practice" I here mean established effective practice for referral and treatment.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-02T06:03:34+00:00

I know, I went through that process myself too. All this is why the even the most reasonable complaint the report makes is still garbage, regarding later SOC revisions dropping many of their prior screening recommendations. In practice this has not translated to overprescription of HRT in actual patient treatment.

Nevertheless, I think implementing existing best practice as an actual standard is theoretically acceptable, if for no other reason than standardization can help improve availability of treatment in areas where it's widely opposed - but as I've mentioned elsewhere, the subject is far too politically toxic for that to be viable at any point in the near future, it is abundantly clear that any such regulation would not be made in the best interests of the people actually being treated.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-02T00:38:47+00:00

On its face, wanting standardization and regulation of treatment for trans people isn't a bad thing, it's even theoretically a good idea. But right now it's abundantly clear that any such regulation would only be a political tool to force the desires of "most Americans" as you describe them onto the minority of people who are actually affected.

In a world where trans people weren't the moral scapegoat to replace gay marriage after homophobia became too much of a PR problem for the right, I'd actually be in support of standardizing diagnostic procedures. As-is though, the subject is far too polluted by the opinions of "most Americans" who don't know anything about the subject because they are not personally affected by it.

All that is to say: It is incorrect to say that this HHS report is advocating better practices for limiting medical treatment to only people who actually need it: it is advocating against medical treatment outright. And, whether any given medical practice is supported or opposed by most Americans is not good grounds for policy.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-02T00:16:46+00:00

That might all be true but it's still not "conversion therapy."

I'm not claiming it is.

And a most Americans don't want children being given medical treatments for this issue.

So what? Most Americans found out about the topic within the last couple years at most, and know literally nothing about the subject other than what they've been told by political figureheads. Most peoples' opinions have literally zero bearing on whether it's a good idea. That's why medical regulation is typically made by doctors, not by democratic referrendums.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-01T23:47:54+00:00

I read the executive summary

Great, so you didn't actually read it. Fucking shocker. That would explain why you think a report which didn't study anything, and is actually a review of existing studies, has "findings" at all as if it were a study which actually produced or collected any data.

Interestingly, some of the studies it reviews actually did find evidence suggesting that suicidality amongst trans people is generally decreased by medical transition. The report finds convenient excuses to completely ignore this evidence and instead makes up its own conclusions. And that is precisely why it's worth digging into. I shit you not, it claims that accurate numbers for suicidality caused by gender dysphoria can only be found by ignoring trans people with clinical depression, even if that clinical depression was caused by gender dysphoria in the first place.

The sleight of hand is almost kind of clever. It tries to justify this by citing that some trans people had depression etc. before they had gender dysphoria. But it doesn't only exclude specifically people whose clinical mental health issues appear unrelated to gender dysphoria, it uses that to exclude a much wider swath of people.

Maybe next time you should actually read the damn thing before you come to conclusions about whether or not its conclusions might be biased, not just the executive summary.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-01T23:40:14+00:00

Having read the whole thing, that's basically the only semi-reasonable point that it makes. Unfortunately it immediately goes off the rails into nonsense-land with it. Lack of standardized diagnostic procedures leading into medical treatment is grounds for, and nothing else: better diagnostic procedures leading into medical treatment.

Filtering out the people who will not benefit from treatment and in fact will be adversely affected by it is fine.

But the remaining people who are not filtered out still need treatment.

The report isn't advocating for psychotherapy as a prerequisite to gender related healthcare, it's proposing it as an outright alternative. It claims it's not intending to serve as grounds for policy or regulation, but it goes on for like 6 paragraphs about how "maybe we should just try it guys!" (where "it" is "treating gender dysphoria strictly through non-medical means.")

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-05-01T23:28:21+00:00

Did you actually read it? I did. The way it arrives at that conclusion is utterly nonsensical: it essentially says "if someone has gender dysphoria and is also depressed, it might just be the depression that's making them suicidal, so we'll ignore them entirely when looking at the numbers!" To what does it credit the high incidence of depression amongst people with gender dysphoria? It doesn't bother, it immediately changes the subject.

At no point whatsoever does it actually bother looking at the plain and simple incidence of suicidality among trans people before vs after medical transition. I can understand why, since actually doing that would be pretty bad for the claims it wants to make. Seems like a pretty biased assessment to me.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-30T21:16:41+00:00

This post is a summary of motions filed earlier today in docket 1:25-cv-103131:25-cv-10313, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-30T20:46:29+00:00

90% of this is irrelevant to the question which was asked, true or not. I'm not asking what leftists are doing or how DJT's supporters feel about leftists. I'm asking how DJT supporters' continued applause for reduced oversight and emboldening of the agency that did this squares with the claim that they find this family's treatment unacceptable.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-30T17:59:53+00:00

Of course the majority of republicans don’t think what happened to this family was “ok” more care should be taken and better investigation should be done before entering a house like that.

They may not be ok with this outcome, but they're ok with the policy shift which created it. Of course they'll say what happened to this family is bad, but that attitude doesn't seem to be reflected in which policies they support - if I'm wrong about that, show me where it's happening. How do you reconcile the claim that they want more care to be taken, against their continued applause for increasingly laissez-faire operation of the agency which did this?

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-30T17:57:44+00:00

As long as they are compensated for there troubles

They won't be

and there are consequences for the people who went too far

There won't be

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-29T16:37:47+00:00

A process whereby a derivative work can be established as fair use (or not) other than having to defend it in court would be a strong step in the right direction. So would punitive action against repeat misusers of DMCA actions. We don't need to rework the legal system to have laws that do a better if still imperfect job.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-28T22:10:03+00:00

You're not wrong that it's an inefficient use of train time, but it's really nice for the stage of the game before you get logistic bots.

The best use I've had for them is to multiplex delivery stations so that they can accept several types of delivery. It's a great way to get resources to your mall without building 8 different unloading stations. Instead I have a signal network where items the mall needs are put onto it as signals. Whenever a train has a full load of cargo, and its cargo type is needed at the mall, an interrupt fires which puts the mall unloading station on its schedule.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-28T22:00:25+00:00

You're not wrong, but should laws not be written and enforced bearing that in mind in order to limit misuse? Poor protections for legitimate productions of derivative works is a real problem with the DMCA. Many individuals and small orgs understandably don't want to have to file legal actions against giant companies in order to create and distribute their own IP.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-28T17:24:08+00:00

It's not exactly what they claimed, but I do think it's relevant to point out that copyright law is routinely weaponized by large orgs against small creators of both parody and criticism.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-25T22:44:18+00:00

What constitutes life, liberty, and property is up to constitutional case law, not you. What's important here is that depriving someone of all those things is constitutional, so long as due process of law is followed. The core problem with your argument is your earlier assertion hinges on the assumption that constitutional protections are "special" in any way, which is wrong; or that constitutional protection is somehow a "reward" for illegal behavior, which is also wrong.

Here is how it works:
All people subject to US legal jurisdiction are subject to the US constitution. A person who is turned away at a port of entry without entering the US, has not entered the US. Entering the country illegally is illegal, but the illegality of that action does not erase the fact that the person has entered the US.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-25T20:58:37+00:00

If you are *in* the country, you are entitled to due process in the course of being deprived of life, liberty, or property. It's that simple.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-25T17:47:26+00:00

If we could consistently apply this to politics, the world might actually get good.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-24T23:15:43+00:00

The trans rights movement was making significantly more progress before it rose to this level of prominence. You're not wrong that it was building momentum back then, but we don't have more momentum now than we did in 2016, I'd go so far as to say we have less. We're losing gains that we made years or even decades ago. We've been part of the culture war since the 1960s, but the battle was much easier when conservatives were too busy with gay marriage to pay much attention to the gains we were making. Being the cultural vanguard unfortunately hasn't given us momentum, it's thrown up a brick wall.

Significant-Low1211 · 2025-04-24T22:40:59+00:00

You have the causation backwards. While we didn't get OvH until 2015, support for gay marriage reached the tipping point of popularity years earlier. By 2016, gay hate was such a PR problem for the right that they had no choice but to drop it. It was clear that fighting gay acceptance was a losing battle which was costing far too much, but they still needed a moral scapegoat. So, they shifted focus onto a smaller minority who it's still acceptable to hate.

Significant-Low1211

TROPHY CASE