Med Schools Are Now Denying Biological Sex

Today we bring you another installment of Katie Herzog’s ongoing series about the spread of woke ideology in the field of medicine. Her first story focused on the ideological purge at the top medical schools and teaching hospitals in the country. “Wokeness,” as one doctor put it, “feels like an existential threat.”

Katie’s latest reporting illustrates some of the most urgent elements of that threat. It focuses on how biological sex is being denied by professors fearful of being smeared by their students as transphobic. And it shows how the true victims of that denial are not sensitive medical students but patients, perhaps most importantly, transgender ones.

Some of you may find Katie’s story shocking and disconcerting and perhaps even maddening. You might also ask yourself: How has it come to this? How has this radical ideology gone from the relatively obscure academic fringe to the mainstream in such a short time?

Those are among the questions that motivate this newsletter. We feel obligated to chronicle in detail and in primary accounts the takeover of our institutions by this ideology — and the consequences of it.

So far, it has taken root in some of our leading medical schools. Some. Not all. But I’m left thinking: What state will American medicine — or any other American institution —  find itself in after being routed by this ideology?  

If you think reporting like Katie Herzog’s is important I hope you’ll support us by subscribing here.

— BW

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/med-schools-are-now-denying-biological

How have we come to this stage where now its males that identify as women. Dictating and controlling the narrative around what a woman is

The reason, is because sadly in life, females start at a disadvantage, compared to males in life

Females are more so disbelieved than males. More often than not and thus will always face a disadvantage in life based on their sex.

Its degusting how young girls have been let down and disbelieved by our systems.

Case example:


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9831797/Bradford-child-abuse-report-reveals-victim-raped-forced-Islamic-marriage.html

This is the madness of the topsy turvy world of the lefty...

On the first story...
the world has gone mad.

On the second story....
I make no apology for once again listing the towns and cities where the abuse of underage girls has been allowed to flourish by the grooming gangs over the last years.
It's still happening, and the list is ever growing.

SKIPTON
ROTHERHAM
SHEFFIELD
BLACKPOOL
OXFORD
HALIFAX
BRADFORD
IPSWICH
LONDON
TELFORD
PRESTON
DERBY
TORBAY
BRISTOL
BANBURY
CHESHAM
BARKING
BIRMINGHAM
BLACKBURN
ROCHDALE
LEEDS
STOCKPORT
AYLESBURY
YEOVIL
NEWCASTLE
BURTON
ACCRINGTON
ORMSKIRK
KEIGHLEY
MANCHESTER
OLDHAM
PETERBOROUGH
DEWSBURY
LITTLEHAMPTON
MIDDLESBOROUGH
SLOUGH.


Edit to add...before Quill bothers to say it's all 'hearsay', these are towns and cities were Muslim, predominately Pakistani men have been accused, charged, found guilty, and sentenced of the grooming and raping of underage, vulnerable predominately white girls.

Regarding the first story....

Surely accounts like that are one in billion.
Are people (ie the simple minded easily led ones) reading articles like that and believing it's the norm?

Seriously, has anyone here ever been pulled up for calling a man a man, or a woman a woman, or repeating the 100% globally well know fact that WOMEN get pregnant and MEN dont.

Syl wrote:Edit to add...before Quill bothers to say it's all 'hearsay', these are towns and cities were Muslim, predominately Pakistani men have been accused, charged, found guilty, and sentenced of the grooming and raping of underage, vulnerable predominately white girls.

You say Muslims and Pakistani, I say southerners and eastern Europeans.  Without agreeing on instances, at least we agree that people in regions/nations can have a common zeitgeist that we can generalize about.

Very often that zeitgeist involves character traits of which we disapprove...even condemn.

Which is why we have laws. What may be acceptable in uncivilised countries, or what may have been acceptable in the dark ages, is not acceptable now.

Do southerners seek out your northern underage girls to groom and rape?

Syl wrote:Which is why we have laws. What may be acceptable in uncivilised countries, or what may have been acceptable in the dark ages, is not acceptable now.

Do southerners seek out your northern underage girls to groom and rape?

No, they have their own to abuse.  

Is this thread about cross-cultural abuse, or about simple male/female abuse? If the latter, why do you narrow it to cross-cultural situations?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Which is why we have laws. What may be acceptable in uncivilised countries, or what may have been acceptable in the dark ages, is not acceptable now.

Do southerners seek out your northern underage girls to groom and rape?

No, they have their own to abuse.  

Is this thread about cross-cultural abuse, or about simple male/female abuse?  If the latter, why do you narrow it to cross-cultural situations?

It's why you're daughter lives here right?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Which is why we have laws. What may be acceptable in uncivilised countries, or what may have been acceptable in the dark ages, is not acceptable now.

Do southerners seek out your northern underage girls to groom and rape?

Is this thread about cross-cultural abuse, or about simple male/female abuse?  If the latter, why do you narrow it to cross-cultural situations?

This thread highlights cross cultural abuse.

The different thread I started yesterday, concentrated on male/female abuse, at least it was till it was taken off topic.

I despise where this PC bullshit nonsense is going. I fear for the young people growing up. They are just going to become mindless robots, too scared to speak for fear of upsetting someone.

It’s utter bollocks. Seriously.

Well, Southlake, Texas is about as lily-white and pro-Trump as it gets -- they might have money, nice houses and well-groomed gardens, but that's about as nice as Southlake gets.

When I checked (albeit back in 2005 or so) the town had about 14,000 residents, and about 100 of them were black. Of those 100, a good number are former professional athletes (they played for the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers, mostly) and their families.

Regarding the OP, I simply can't believe that med students are actually being taught that transsexual women have ovaries, etc. As in, I don't believe it -- I think it's a bunch of jumped-up anti-left propaganda.

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, Southlake, Texas is about as lily-white and pro-Trump as it gets -- they might have money, nice houses and well-groomed gardens, but that's about as nice as Southlake gets.

When I checked (albeit back in 2005 or so) the town had about 14,000 residents, and about 100 of them were black. Of those 100, a good number are former professional athletes (they played for the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers, mostly) and their families.

Regarding the OP, I simply can't believe that med students are actually being taught that transsexual women have ovaries, etc. As in, I don't believe it -- I think it's a bunch of jumped-up anti-left propaganda.

I don't know about ovaries, the origin of the "seed", but uterus transplants is sparking a lot of patients’ interest.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-transgender-woman-could-get-pregnant/

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, Southlake, Texas is about as lily-white and pro-Trump as it gets -- they might have money, nice houses and well-groomed gardens, but that's about as nice as Southlake gets.

When I checked (albeit back in 2005 or so) the town had about 14,000 residents, and about 100 of them were black. Of those 100, a good number are former professional athletes (they played for the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers, mostly) and their families.

Regarding the OP, I simply can't believe that med students are actually being taught that transsexual women have ovaries, etc. As in, I don't believe it -- I think it's a bunch of jumped-up anti-left propaganda.

I am sure its a case of you cannot believe.
When more likely that you do not want to believe?

If your reasoning is to disbelieve something because you believe its anti-left wing propaganda, then you are not being open minded and have already decided to disbelieve

The very point I was making in regards to how women are constantly disbelieved due to their sex and its happened constantly in history

At what point do you sit up and listen to women?

Only when they hold left leaning views?

So explain this Ben?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/hundreds-of-children-abused-while-in-care-of-lambeth-council-inquiry-finds

Is this how you decide whether something is true or not?

Whether you view and believe the claims of a woman, based on their political leaning?

wow

We can add your reasoning to disbelieve a woman to the fact women are already disbelieved more often than men when going to the Police. As constantly women are disbelieved due to their sex. You add political reasoning to disbelieve

You fail to see your kind of reasoning is not based on finding out the truth. Your reasoning starts from a biased position you will hold on people based on their political leaning

wow

https://thecritic.co.uk/sex-deniers-are-the-new-flat-earthers/

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, Southlake, Texas is about as lily-white and pro-Trump as it gets -- they might have money, nice houses and well-groomed gardens, but that's about as nice as Southlake gets.

When I checked (albeit back in 2005 or so) the town had about 14,000 residents, and about 100 of them were black. Of those 100, a good number are former professional athletes (they played for the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers, mostly) and their families.

Regarding the OP, I simply can't believe that med students are actually being taught that transsexual women have ovaries, etc. As in, I don't believe it -- I think it's a bunch of jumped-up anti-left propaganda.

I don't know about ovaries, the origin of the "seed", but uterus transplants is sparking a lot of patients’ interest.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-transgender-woman-could-get-pregnant/

https://www.livescience.com/60873-men-pregnant-uterus-transplant.html

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, Southlake, Texas is about as lily-white and pro-Trump as it gets -- they might have money, nice houses and well-groomed gardens, but that's about as nice as Southlake gets.

When I checked (albeit back in 2005 or so) the town had about 14,000 residents, and about 100 of them were black. Of those 100, a good number are former professional athletes (they played for the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers, mostly) and their families.

Regarding the OP, I simply can't believe that med students are actually being taught that transsexual women have ovaries, etc. As in, I don't believe it -- I think it's a bunch of jumped-up anti-left propaganda.

I am sure its a case of you cannot believe.
When more likely that you do not want to believe?

If your reasoning is to disbelieve something because you believe its anti-left wing propaganda, then you are not being open minded and have already decided to disbelieve

The very point I was making in regards to how women are constantly disbelieved due to their sex and its happened constantly in history

At what point do you sit up and listen to women?

Only when they hold left leaning views?

So explain this Ben?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/hundreds-of-children-abused-while-in-care-of-lambeth-council-inquiry-finds

Is this how you decide whether something is true or not?

Whether you view and believe the claims of a woman, based on their political leaning?

wow

We can add your reasoning to disbelieve a woman to the fact women are already disbelieved more often than men when going to the Police. As constantly women are disbelieved due to their sex. You add political reasoning to disbelieve

You fail to see your kind of reasoning is not based on finding out the truth. Your reasoning starts from a biased position you will hold on people based on their political leaning

wow

https://thecritic.co.uk/sex-deniers-are-the-new-flat-earthers/

Didge, just a thought, but maybe this thread should not have had two separate links in the OP...with just a tenuous link between them.
They both, imo, deserved their own topic to avoid confusion.

Didgee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know about ovaries, the origin of the "seed", but uterus transplants is sparking a lot of patients’ interest.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-a-transgender-woman-could-get-pregnant/

https://www.livescience.com/60873-men-pregnant-uterus-transplant.html

LiveScience wrote:A fertility doctor says that in theory, men could attempt to become pregnant as soon as "tomorrow" thanks to advances in uterus transplant surgeries. But other experts say that such a procedure won't happen anytime soon because many more studies are needed to know whether it could be done safely.

Dr. Richard Paulson, the outgoing president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), said he thinks it would be possible to perform uterus transplants on transgender women, who are born male and transition to female, according to The Telegraph. Speaking at ASRM's annual meeting, he said he sees no biological reason why the procedure wouldn't work in the male body.

"You could do it tomorrow," Paulson was quoted as saying. "There would be additional challenges, but I don't see any obvious problem that would preclude it. I personally suspect there are going to be trans women who are going to want to have a uterus and will likely get the transplant."

If it can be...it probably will be.

It sounds like something out of a horror film.

A born male will never be able to give birth naturally, even if in the future an implanted uterus into a male body is successful.
The drugs needed to mimic the hormones a pregnant woman naturally produces could surely be harmful to a growing foetus.
A mans body isn't designed to push a baby out, no matter how much surgery he has had to transform...and more drugs would be needed to enable the trans woman to breastfeed.....all in all, it's a horrible thought imo.

They'd have to construct a rubber vagina, no doubt.

Original Quill wrote:They'd have to construct a rubber vagina, no doubt.  

I'm no expert, but I saw a programme once detailing the ops a trans woman has to go through to fully transition. The penis was sliced and moulded into a vagina....I dont think rubber was used.

But even so the male body, even if it is fashioned into a womans, doesn't have the equipment or shape to push a baby out, it would have to be cut out.

They say that the penis is homologous to the clitoris in the female...not the vagina. I don't think that the clitoris plays a part in birthing, which takes place in the birth canal (vagina).

I think a vagina would have to be made whole cloth...or actually, latex, which is sometimes referred to loosely as 'rubbers'. The latex of the rubber tree is the chief source of natural rubber.

But I'm no expert, either.

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Well, Southlake, Texas is about as lily-white and pro-Trump as it gets -- they might have money, nice houses and well-groomed gardens, but that's about as nice as Southlake gets.

When I checked (albeit back in 2005 or so) the town had about 14,000 residents, and about 100 of them were black. Of those 100, a good number are former professional athletes (they played for the Dallas Cowboys or Texas Rangers, mostly) and their families.

Regarding the OP, I simply can't believe that med students are actually being taught that transsexual women have ovaries, etc. As in, I don't believe it -- I think it's a bunch of jumped-up anti-left propaganda.

I am sure its a case of you cannot believe.
When more likely that you do not want to believe?

If your reasoning is to disbelieve something because you believe its anti-left wing propaganda, then you are not being open minded and have already decided to disbelieve

The very point I was making in regards to how women are constantly disbelieved due to their sex and its happened constantly in history

At what point do you sit up and listen to women?

Only when they hold left leaning views?

So explain this Ben?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/hundreds-of-children-abused-while-in-care-of-lambeth-council-inquiry-finds

Is this how you decide whether something is true or not?

Whether you view and believe the claims of a woman, based on their political leaning?

wow

We can add your reasoning to disbelieve a woman to the fact women are already disbelieved more often than men when going to the Police. As constantly women are disbelieved due to their sex. You add political reasoning to disbelieve

You fail to see your kind of reasoning is not based on finding out the truth. Your reasoning starts from a biased position you will hold on people based on their political leaning

wow

https://thecritic.co.uk/sex-deniers-are-the-new-flat-earthers/

I'll believe it when it's not from a source that makes all its money stirring people up about those "crazy woke lefties" and how they're ruining the world.

When something beggars belief, you should question it. And this story definitely beggars belief. It makes me wonder, why aren't all the other media outlets doing stories about this? Sometimes the answer is, they've dropped the ball, but usually, the answer is that it's not really a story, but rather written to stir up a bunch of political shit.

Original Quill wrote:They say that the penis is homologous to the clitoris in the female...not the vagina.  I don't think that the clitoris plays a part in birthing, which takes place in the birth canal (vagina).

I think a vagina would have to be made whole cloth...or actually, latex, which is sometimes referred to loosely as 'rubbers'.  The latex of the rubber tree is the chief source of natural rubber.

But I'm no expert, either.

A trans woman would never be able to give a vaginal birth no matter what the vagina was made of.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:They say that the penis is homologous to the clitoris in the female...not the vagina.  I don't think that the clitoris plays a part in birthing, which takes place in the birth canal (vagina).

I think a vagina would have to be made whole cloth...or actually, latex, which is sometimes referred to loosely as 'rubbers'.  The latex of the rubber tree is the chief source of natural rubber.

But I'm no expert, either.

A trans woman would never be able to give a vaginal birth no matter what the vagina was made of.

Why?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didgee wrote:

I am sure its a case of you cannot believe.
When more likely that you do not want to believe?

If your reasoning is to disbelieve something because you believe its anti-left wing propaganda, then you are not being open minded and have already decided to disbelieve

The very point I was making in regards to how women are constantly disbelieved due to their sex and its happened constantly in history

At what point do you sit up and listen to women?

Only when they hold left leaning views?

So explain this Ben?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/hundreds-of-children-abused-while-in-care-of-lambeth-council-inquiry-finds

Is this how you decide whether something is true or not?

Whether you view and believe the claims of a woman, based on their political leaning?

wow

We can add your reasoning to disbelieve a woman to the fact women are already disbelieved more often than men when going to the Police. As constantly women are disbelieved due to their sex. You add political reasoning to disbelieve

You fail to see your kind of reasoning is not based on finding out the truth. Your reasoning starts from a biased position you will hold on people based on their political leaning

wow

https://thecritic.co.uk/sex-deniers-are-the-new-flat-earthers/

I'll believe it when it's not from a source that makes all its money stirring people up about those "crazy woke lefties" and how they're ruining the world.

When something beggars belief, you should question it. And this story definitely beggars belief. It makes me wonder, why aren't all the other media outlets doing stories about this? Sometimes the answer is, they've dropped the ball, but usually, the answer is that it's not really a story, but rather written to stir up a bunch of political shit.

What a crock of shit reply

So you basically want to place your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" dependent on the media source

Well unless you have your head firmly buried in the sand mate, this is often in the media

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19474061.pregnant-people-row-scottish-governments-vaccination-call/

Maybe you need to check the media a tad more Ben

What is so poor by you here, is that you admit to not being open minded

You are simple in denial of what is occurring

How is stating biological facts stirring up hatred?

Original Quill wrote:

Didgee wrote:

https://www.livescience.com/60873-men-pregnant-uterus-transplant.html

LiveScience wrote:A fertility doctor says that in theory, men could attempt to become pregnant as soon as "tomorrow" thanks to advances in uterus transplant surgeries. But other experts say that such a procedure won't happen anytime soon because many more studies are needed to know whether it could be done safely.

Dr. Richard Paulson, the outgoing president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), said he thinks it would be possible to perform uterus transplants on transgender women, who are born male and transition to female, according to The Telegraph. Speaking at ASRM's annual meeting, he said he sees no biological reason why the procedure wouldn't work in the male body.

"You could do it tomorrow," Paulson was quoted as saying. "There would be additional challenges, but I don't see any obvious problem that would preclude it. I personally suspect there are going to be trans women who are going to want to have a uterus and will likely get the transplant."

If it can be...it probably will be.  

"But other experts point out that the procedure isn't even mainstream for women, let alone men."

Uterus transplants are "still highly experimental," said Arthur Caplan, a professor of bioethics and head of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University's School of Medicine. This means that the procedure is still being studied for its safety and effectiveness in women, and it is performed only as part of experimental trials.

Because of the additional research needed to understand the risks of the procedure and its effect on the fetus, performing a uterus transplant on a man right now would not be responsible, he said. "Surgically, could you put [a uterus] in a man tomorrow? Yeah, but it would be completely irresponsible," Caplan told Live Science.

Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children's Hospital, agreed that the fertility treatment field has not yet reached the point where this procedure could be done in men.

"Even for women, there's still a reason for caution" as researchers collect more information about the safety procedure, Aftab said. "[We're] still far away from understanding enough to be able to do this safely in men," she said.

https://www.livescience.com/60873-men-pregnant-uterus-transplant.html

Didgee wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didgee wrote:

I am sure its a case of you cannot believe.
When more likely that you do not want to believe?

If your reasoning is to disbelieve something because you believe its anti-left wing propaganda, then you are not being open minded and have already decided to disbelieve

The very point I was making in regards to how women are constantly disbelieved due to their sex and its happened constantly in history

At what point do you sit up and listen to women?

Only when they hold left leaning views?

So explain this Ben?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/27/hundreds-of-children-abused-while-in-care-of-lambeth-council-inquiry-finds

Is this how you decide whether something is true or not?

Whether you view and believe the claims of a woman, based on their political leaning?

wow

We can add your reasoning to disbelieve a woman to the fact women are already disbelieved more often than men when going to the Police. As constantly women are disbelieved due to their sex. You add political reasoning to disbelieve

You fail to see your kind of reasoning is not based on finding out the truth. Your reasoning starts from a biased position you will hold on people based on their political leaning

wow

https://thecritic.co.uk/sex-deniers-are-the-new-flat-earthers/

I'll believe it when it's not from a source that makes all its money stirring people up about those "crazy woke lefties" and how they're ruining the world.

When something beggars belief, you should question it. And this story definitely beggars belief. It makes me wonder, why aren't all the other media outlets doing stories about this? Sometimes the answer is, they've dropped the ball, but usually, the answer is that it's not really a story, but rather written to stir up a bunch of political shit.

What a crock of shit reply

So you basically want to place your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" dependent on the media source

Well unless you have your head firmly buried in the sand mate, this is often in the media

https://www.thenational.scot/news/19474061.pregnant-people-row-scottish-governments-vaccination-call/

Maybe you need to check the media a tad more Ben

What is so poor by you here, is that you admit to not being open minded

You are simple in denial of what is occurring

How is stating biological facts stirring up hatred?

I love how there's so much in your reply that has nothing to do with anything I've said

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

A trans woman would never be able to give a vaginal birth no matter what the vagina was made of.

Why?

Because internally men are still different to women even IF it was ever possible to attach a womb, and it has never yet been done to a born male.
How could a man push a baby through the birth canal?
Like I said, I am no expert, but I think even in this sci fi world of messing about with nature, a caesarian would have to be performed to deliver the baby.

Nothing to see here, move along

Apparently these things are not happening

Love to know how if this passed, they are going to tackle sex discrimination and sexism, without people having a sex category

This is how far the US has gone down the gender woo woo rabbit hole

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20210616/remove-sex-from-public-birth-certificates-ama-says?ecd=soc_tw_210731_cons_news_genderbirthcertificate&linkId=100000057443909

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?

Because internally men are still different to women even IF it was ever possible to attach a womb, and it has never yet been done to a born male.
How could a man push a baby through the birth canal?
Like I said, I am no expert, but I think even in this sci fi world of messing about with nature,  a caesarian would have to be performed to deliver the baby.

Caesarian or reconstruction, it could be done. And eventually, somewhere, it will be done successfully.

Advances in prosthetics, implants and bioengineering are allowing us to alter ourselves in new and unprecedented ways -- not only to beautify or overcome deficiencies, but to enhance and exceed our current capabilities. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/designing-bodies-future/index.html

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why?

Because internally men are still different to women even IF it was ever possible to attach a womb, and it has never yet been done to a born male.
How could a man push a baby through the birth canal?
Like I said, I am no expert, but I think even in this sci fi world of messing about with nature,  a caesarian would have to be performed to deliver the baby.

Where are they getting these parts anyway? Are women donating them or are they being built out or pig intestines or something?.

Porcine is a good idea. But I think they are using synthetics because they don't react to the body's immune system.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:
Because internally men are still different to women even IF it was ever possible to attach a womb, and it has never yet been done to a born male.
How could a man push a baby through the birth canal?
Like I said, I am no expert, but I think even in this sci fi world of messing about with nature,  a caesarian would have to be performed to deliver the baby.

Where are they getting these parts anyway? Are women donating them or are they being built out or pig intestines or something?.

Well they are not getting the parts, no such op has ever been performed on a born male.
I think a scant few ops have gone ahead on women so far...and presumably they would have to be donated by a human.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Where are they getting these parts anyway? Are women donating them or are they being built out or pig intestines or something?.

Well they are not getting the parts, no such op has ever been performed on a born male.
I think a scant few ops have gone ahead on women so far...and presumably they would have to be donated by a human.

Yes, I meant generally, in the heart and other organs.  I don't know what they use in a uterine implant specifically, much less a surgically-constructed vagina.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well they are not getting the parts, no such op has ever been performed on a born male.
I think a scant few ops have gone ahead on women so far...and presumably they would have to be donated by a human.

Yes, I meant generally, in the heart and other organs.  I don't know what they use in a uterine implant specifically, much less a surgically-constructed vagina.

I did say that on a TV docu I watched once, a born man was transitioning fully. He underwent several ops, and his penis was cut and shaped to resemble the vagina, obviously he could feel sensations there that a rubber contraction would not have been able to give.

Transitioning is not a procedure for the faint hearted.

Didge said: “So you basically want to place your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" dependent on the media source”


Sorry? You are exactly like that! You’ll believe something if you think it’s a reliable media source and disbelieve the media sources you don’t give any credit to! Most people on this forum are like that.
Most posters will believe a media source if it backs up their own beliefs.

And I just have to add, I somewhat pride myself for being able to accept information that I don't like. For example, I don't want to believe that human activity is dangerously heating the planet. I could have gone the denial route as so many others have, but instead, I carefully looked at what was being claimed, asked myself if it made sense and was in harmony with what I could see for myself, and accepted that it's probably true.

Like everyone else, I have my way of deciding what I think is believable and what isn't, and sorry, but I don't believe that the people responsible for training up the next generation of surgeons and GPs are so afraid of what might be said about them on social media that they're deliberately misleading their students. It simply doesn't pass my smell test.

I could be wrong; I feel like I shouldn't have to say that because it's obvious, but I don't think that I have all the answers or that I never make mistakes in judgement. I just say what I think, and I don't tend to offer my opinion unless I've thought it through.

eddie wrote:Didge said: “So you basically want to place your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I'm not listening" dependent on the media source”


Sorry? You are exactly like that! You’ll believe something if you think it’s a reliable media source and disbelieve the media sources you don’t give any credit to! Most people on this forum are like that.
Most posters will believe a media source if it backs up their own beliefs.

Its called fact checking Eddie

You should try it

At least I do

Ben has admitted to not taking seriously certain media sources not from any view they are accurate but based on political leaning

I believe what is backed up with evidence which I di d here and yet Ben still wants to place his fingers in his ears and go "la la la I', not listening" because he does not want to listen to the truth

Ben Reilly wrote:And I just have to add, I somewhat pride myself for being able to accept information that I don't like. For example, I don't want to believe that human activity is dangerously heating the planet. I could have gone the denial route as so many others have, but instead, I carefully looked at what was being claimed, asked myself if it made sense and was in harmony with what I could see for myself, and accepted that it's probably true.

Like everyone else, I have my way of deciding what I think is believable and what isn't, and sorry, but I don't believe that the people responsible for training up the next generation of surgeons and GPs are so afraid of what might be said about them on social media that they're deliberately misleading their students. It simply doesn't pass my smell test.

I could be wrong; I feel like I shouldn't have to say that because it's obvious, but I don't think that I have all the answers or that I never make mistakes in judgement. I just say what I think, and I don't tend to offer my opinion unless I've thought it through.

Only one way to sum up that garbage

Didgee wrote:Nothing to see here, move along

Apparently these things are not happening

Love to know how if this passed, they are going to tackle sex discrimination and sexism, without people having a sex category

This is how far the US has gone down the gender woo woo rabbit hole

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20210616/remove-sex-from-public-birth-certificates-ama-says?ecd=soc_tw_210731_cons_news_genderbirthcertificate&linkId=100000057443909

Apparently I keep being told this is not happening

All to pander to a belief system, that is not born from reality

Gender woo woo, which is replacing Christianity as the leading belief system in the US

https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

Nothing to see here, move along

https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/07/30/trade-unions-gender-critical-academia/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-57170095

Nothing to see here, move along

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9847741/Man-lost-job-Childline-raising-fears-children-rushed-changing-sex.html

There are already far too many people on this planet for comfort. There are thousands of unwanted and abandoned children all over the world needing loving homes and we are thinking about the possibility of transplanting uteri into people who were not designed to carry a child and give birth?

Vintage wrote:There are already far too many people on this planet for comfort. There are thousands of unwanted and abandoned children all over the world needing loving homes and we are thinking about the possibility of transplanting uteri into people who were not designed to carry a child and give birth?

Couldn't agree more. It's madness. I feel we're all headed into something so catastrophic it'll leave a mark in history that will change the world for good. I'm glad I won't be here. But I think it's needed. Like a purge. Like the Great Flood. As a species we deserve annihilation.

Didgee wrote:

Didgee wrote:Nothing to see here, move along

Apparently these things are not happening

Love to know how if this passed, they are going to tackle sex discrimination and sexism, without people having a sex category

This is how far the US has gone down the gender woo woo rabbit hole

https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20210616/remove-sex-from-public-birth-certificates-ama-says?ecd=soc_tw_210731_cons_news_genderbirthcertificate&linkId=100000057443909

Apparently I keep being told this is not happening

All to pander to a belief system, that is not born from reality

Gender woo woo, which is replacing Christianity as the leading belief system in the US

https://aeon.co/essays/the-idea-that-gender-is-a-spectrum-is-a-new-gender-prison

I don’t think it’s not happening.

Syl wrote:It sounds like something out of a horror film.

A born male will never be able to give birth naturally, even if in the future an implanted uterus into a male body is successful.
The drugs needed to mimic the hormones a pregnant woman naturally produces could surely be harmful to a growing foetus.
A mans body isn't designed to push a baby out, no matter how much surgery he has had to transform...and more drugs would be needed to enable the trans woman to breastfeed.....all in all, it's a horrible thought imo.

Technically, a man doesn't need a womb to grow a baby. It's something that's long been believed possible...that a baby can be implanted into the abdominal cavity and born via surgery but it's never been attempted for obvious reasons. It goes against human nature, and nature has a way of biting back.

All this outrage at being labelled male or female? I actually have an issue with being labelled a 'cis' woman. And I uphold my right not to be labelled or pigeonholed that way.

HoratioTarr wrote:All this outrage at being labelled male or female?   I actually have an issue with being labelled a 'cis' woman.   And I uphold my right not to be labelled or pigeonholed that way.  

What’s a “cis” woman?

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:All this outrage at being labelled male or female?   I actually have an issue with being labelled a 'cis' woman.   And I uphold my right not to be labelled or pigeonholed that way.  

What’s a “cis” woman?

A cis woman was born female, identifies as such and is heterosexual, as a cis male is with being male. If you were born a certain sex but find your gender or sexual identity not lining up with that, you're not cis.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:All this outrage at being labelled male or female?   I actually have an issue with being labelled a 'cis' woman.   And I uphold my right not to be labelled or pigeonholed that way.  

What’s a “cis” woman?

A cis woman was born female, identifies as such and is heterosexual, as a cis male is with being male. If you were born a certain sex but find your gender or sexual identity not lining up with that, you're not cis.

You know what it is? It’s all utter bollocks. I’m bored of people making up new ways of being different and giving it a word. Just be different and shut the fuck up about it.

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:All this outrage at being labelled male or female?   I actually have an issue with being labelled a 'cis' woman.   And I uphold my right not to be labelled or pigeonholed that way.  

What’s a “cis” woman?

Exactly!