Comments by "Philip Rayment" (@PJRayment) on "Are Schools Telling Girls to Become Boys? | 5 Minute Video | PragerU" video.

  1.  @jaydenroberts2615  "Except that being trans isn’t really an issue to begin with" It's not the way we were designed to be. "So I wonder what you told them to make them demonise you" With the left, simply disagreeing with them is enough.
    16
  2.  @deddmeme  "Well what did you expect demonizing someone ..." You're assuming an awful lot about what he said. Too much, in fact. And you demonised him.
    16
  3.  @deddmeme  Except that they do. See also the comment above from Will Scoggin, who was labelled a transphobe/homophobe just by being a Christian. Look at many cases of people being labelled homophobes for no reason. An example is the wedding cake makers who were put out of business for refusing to provide a cake with a message that violated their belief. They had no problem serving homosexuals, but balked at endorsing their viewpoint. So while they didn't agree with the lifestyle, they didn't have an irrational fear of them, yet were falsely labelled 'homophobes'.
    13
  4.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  What is that link meant to prove? Your claim was that "suicide rates go down after transitioning". The link doesn't talk about that. "Being isolated from society and having your family reject you isn’t a good thing." I agree, and I don't agree with family rejecting a family member who thinks he's something he's not. But of course that situation applies to a lot of people, including, say, Muslims who convert to Christianity, who are often in danger of being killed by family members. You don't hear the same levels of outrage about that, though.
    12
  5.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  "they commit suicide cause of douche canoes like you who make them feel not valid." You mean like you make people like him feel not valid? Careful, you're risking causing a suicide. That is, of course, if that really is the reason, which I don't think that there is good evidence for. "Not to mention suicide rates go down after transitioning." Evidence? Because I've seen claims to the contrary.
    11
  6.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  "From that article: [snipped]" You're right. I missed that. Sorry. However, the survey was a self-selection survey (not rigorous) and relied on memories (also not rigorous), and was asking people who hadn't committed suicide whether they'd thought more about it or not. So excluded from the survey were those who had already committed suicide. It doesn't show that "suicide rates go down after transitioning", but instead that the rates that trans people think about it goes down. In other words, that's indirect and therefore weak evidence. "What is with the whataboutism? We’re talking about people who are transgender not religion" You said that "Being isolated from society and having your family reject you isn’t a good thing.". My point was that this is not something specific to transgenderism, and can be dealt with in ways other than affirming their dysphoria.
    11
  7.  @unionpepe7864  "lmaooo what about democrats is socialist???" Their ethos. The Green New Deal. "They're all corporate lovers..." So. All that means is that they are also hypocrites. "Second of all what freedom of speech are they trying to take away..." The freedom of speech of conservatives. That's why they support social media censorship of conservatives, and want more. That's why they are asking why cable services are carrying conservative news outlets. That's why they cancel conservatives. That's why they label things they disagree with as 'hate speech'.
    9
  8.  @unionpepe7864  "because in America you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't effect the liberty of another." In theory. "If you rape, beat, or kill that is hurting the liberty other another America." And if you disagree with the left's narrative on LGBT+, or disagree with their stand on climate change, or many other things, then you are hurting the people on the left, and putting society in danger. According to the left, at least. "This same logic applies to free speech, you have the right to say whatever you want as long as you aren't attempting to harm or threatening to harm another person." But, to the left, if it hurts their feelings, you are attempting just that.
    8
  9.  @jaydenroberts2615  "because the means by which we perform those actions are due to conveniences afforded to us by technology we’ve created." Which doesn't mean that we weren't created to do that. That technology doesn't come by chance; it needs to be designed. Humans are so much more complex and yet we are supposed to have just come by chance! That is inconsistent. "And there’s no proof we were designed in a particular way. The leading theory (because it’s been proven) is that we evolved randomly to suit the selection pressures in the environment at the time." On the contrary, there's no proof that we evolved. But there is very strong evidence that we were designed and created, and yes, in a particular way, because the Creator left us a description. The argument for evolution is actually circular, because it's based on a particular scientific method called methodological naturalism which a priori excludes supernatural explanations before even looking at the evidence. In other words, the naturalistic explanation (evolution) assumes that the explanation must be a natural one to start with, hence it's a circular argument. Further, your claim makes little sense. Evolution does not involve changing "randomly to suit the selection pressures", i.e. changing to achieve a particular goal (of suiting selection pressures). It involves random changes, when are then selected by the environment. But those random changes are not goal-oriented. "This isn’t an atheist creation myth, this is a fact" No, it's not a fact. The scientific method involves observation, measurement, testing, and repetition. Goo-to-you evolution cannot be observed (it's in the past), measured, tested, nor repeated. It's a hypothesis that goes against the available evidence (the claimed mechanism, mutations, destroy genetic information rather than generating it, the origin of life is contrary to the laws of physics, etc. etc.).
    7
  10.  @unionpepe7864  "Well because they're probably gonna explain it as democrat communist brainwashing with extremely biased sources not accepted by the scientific community" So, jumping to a conclusion without seeing the evidence. Typical (of the left).
    6
  11.  @unionpepe7864  "no? I read the source material "Irreversible Damage: ..." How is simply describing the contents of a book any sort of rebuttal to my point? Unless you've already decided (but don't show) that the book is wrong? "what about the green new deal is socialist? It involves revamping our aging electrical grid into the 21st century while providing skilled jobs for millions of Americans." It's more than that, and it's how they do that. Rather than leave it to market forces, they plan on imposing things on society. The left-leaning Wikipedia lists some points of the plan, including the following: "Guaranteeing a job ... Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security ..." etc. Nothing wrong with having safe housing, etc., but providing those things as government schemes is socialism. "Again democrats aren't trying to remove conservatives freedom of speech." Except that they are. No, removing free speech is not their goal. Stopping conservatives from spreading their ideas is, however, their goal, which is a denial of free speech. "Democrats aren't passing any laws that restrict conservatives voices." There are ways to do it without passing laws, although even that is being done in some places (e.g. Canada, so not the Democratic Party as such). But so-called hate speech laws fit the bill, when they are worded and applied as broadly as they often are. "Companies are simply banning extremist on their platform right or left that comment threats or try to rally people to a violent cause because then they can be held legally responsible." Simply not true (that that's all that they are doing). I, personally, have been told by my employer that I cannot share my ideas with my work colleagues. I was not threatening anyone, or rallying anyone. This was not to do with being held legally responsible, but due to simply disagreeing with their internal ideological policies. "Corporations aren't under any legal obligation to give you freedom of speech only the government is." Actually, under the law (here in Australia) my political and religious speech is protected. When I was asked if I disagreed with my employer's policies, I told them that I disagreed with my employer's religious and political views. They changed the subject.
    6
  12.  @unionpepe7864  "I think the green new deal is great by providing plenty of alternative power sources instead of just oil" Nothing wrong with providing alternatives. Except when the government is distorting the market to do so and making people pay more in order to achieve that. As I said, it depends on how they do it.
    6
  13.  @jaydenroberts2615  "I don’t appeal to the bible so I don’t care how we’re hypothesised to be designed." You don't care how we were designed? But that is a critical point. (Yes, I know you said "hypothesised", but my comment was based on history and science, not a baseless hypothesis.) "Fact of the matter is we do things which contradict our biology all the time so to say it’s unnatural, in order to not be a hypocrite, you better be ready to forage for food, walk around naked and never cut your hair. That’s the natural state of human beings" What makes you think that that's the natural state? How do you know were weren't designed to cut our hair, farm, wear clothes, etc.? Because of your (presumed) evolutionary beliefs? Sorry, I don't appeal to atheist creation myths.
    5
  14.  @cakemeister5154  If a boy thinks he is a girl or vice versa, then clearly he/she is mistaken. Just as if an anorexic person thinks that they are fat. We don't tell them "yes, you are fat". We get them help.
    4
  15.  @unionpepe7864  "...the market itself had corporations prove that global warming existed and rather then tell the world they covered up the information research how Exxon discovered global warming." I don't believe that Exxon "discovered" global warming. "now I'm not sure what you do for a living but I'm an industrial electrician and we call these things turn overs where we will work for 3 months and be given all those things. so i would expect them to do that if were gonna be doing turn overs all over the country" I don't really follow that sentence, but who "gives" you those things? The companies you are working for, or the government (taxpayers)? "you just restated this point without evidence" You asked what freedom of speech they are trying to take away. I gave examples (i.e. evidence). You simply asserted, without evidence, that they are not. So I restated my point without further evidence, because I'd already supplied some that you had ignored. "hate speech laws are very cut and dry..." So? "...if you attempt to spew hateful rhetoric in public places you are fined, do it 30 times and youre probley going to jail. dont call people racial slurs or advocate to remove their rights" But what constitutes "hateful rhetoric"? My point is that the left call almost anything they disagree with, "hate". It's not just racial slurs; what about calling someone "homophobic" simply for disagreeing with homosexuality? Why isn't that a (non-racial) slur? The left do that all the time. But if conservatives do something equivalent, it's now "hate". "Freedom of speech isnt freedom from consequences." Sorry, no. Freedom of speech IS freedom from consequences when those consequences are punishing someone for freely speaking. You might as well say that you have a right to drive over the speed limit, but should expect a fine or jail if you do so. "You can say what you want as long as its not threating anothers liberty ..." And yet I gave you an example—the very thing that you are replying to—that shows that to be utterly false. "but you still face consequences such as ... losing your job, etc". The only reason you lose your job is because they say that you are NOT free to say things! "...again freedom of speech means the government cant arrest you." What you're trying to say is that freedom of speech simply means that there is no legal penalties, but there could still be other penalties (not just incidental "consequences"). That is a valid point to make, but then I gave that example in response to your claim that "Companies are simply banning extremist[s]...". I showed that that was not the case, so you moved the goal posts.
    4
  16.  @butterflyexists  A completely invalid comparison.
    4
  17.  @bteegy  Because we are told that me must accept and affirm their mistaken views. I agree that we should love people, but loving them includes correcting them when they are making mistakes, such as thinking that they are something that they aren't.
    3
  18. What is actually incorrect about it? Without that information, we should ignore your comment.
    3
  19.  @crippycooke8743  Jumping to the conclusion that the person was a bigot might suggest that you are.
    3
  20. ""Stuff I dont understand scares me" -Dennis Prager probably" And yet he makes videos with lots of evidence and reason.
    2
  21. "Statistics show allowing people to transition reduces the high suicide rates among trans youth." What statistics? I've seen the opposite, and I've also seen that accurate figures are hard to come by. "The problem isn't the transitioning but the discrimination." I don't believe that, and don't believe that there is good evidence for that. Other people suffer discrimination too, but don't have such a high suicide rate. "She claims transitioning is a luring idea spread on social media but how could that be true when society is so negative against it." Easy. Because some trendy sources, including much of the mainstream and social media, is not negative about it, but very positive for it. This is mentioned in the video. "At most they get hormone blockers, which just postpone puberty until they are a little older. It doesn't stop it permanently." The hormones they get can have permanent effects.
    2
  22.  @jaydenroberts2615  Happy to in principle (although I prefer writing, as it allows me time to think about what I'm going to say). I've never used Discord for voice before, but I'm sure that I can get around that. We'll also have to arrange a suitable time.
    2
  23.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  A self-selection study may be the most practicable way to do it, but that doesn't make it a good way. "And suicidal thoughts usually lead to suicide FYI." Except that they asked people who hadn't committed suicide (obviously) how often they'd had those thoughts, and apparently many had a number of times.
    2
  24.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  "yes and those thoughts lessened." Your moving the goalposts. I never said that they didn't lessen. I pointed out that it contradicted your claim that "suicidal thoughts usually lead to suicide". It still does. "It’s near impossible to do studies with suicides because there are almost no records" Yes. Therefore it's near impossible to support the claim that you made. You seem to think that if you make a claim, and there is no good evidence to support it, it's okay to go with bad evidence or excuses.
    2
  25.  @blackriver2531  "Why do you hate trans kids" Why do you assume any of the commenters here hate trans kids? Who has shown any evidence of that? Why have you assumed the worst of the commenters? "if you're concerned then you should work to save trans kids lives with gender affirming care" Why affirm their misunderstanding of themselves? Do you affirm anorexics' and bulimics' mistaken views of themselves? Do you affirm old people who think that they are young, or vice versa? Do you affirm children who think that they can fly by encouraging them to try? Do you affirm anybody who confuses their feelings with reality? Or do you help them by helping them understand reality?
    2
  26.  @digitalmarshhh2968  "why do you think it isn’t the way we’re designed to be?" Easy. Q. What is the way we are designed to be? Answer: X (not a reference to a chromosome). Q. Does this match X? Answer. No. Conclusion: it's not the way we are designed to be. "please cite resources like books and articles that include non-biased science. thanks" Please let me know what you think non-biased science looks like. Until and unless you do that, you can simply dismiss anything I provide as not fitting your bias. "you literally cannot say that your child is someone they’re not..." So if my child says that he is eight foot tall when he's only three foot tall, I literally cannot say that he's wrong? Why not? Do you not accept objective truth? "you have no idea how they feel." Nonsense. If he tells me that he feels like he's eight foot tall, then I have an idea how he feels. But I still know he's wrong. "...so the best thing you can do, is love and accept them instead of trying to “convert” them..." So I should just affirm that he is eight foot tall? Why? That makes no sense. And it's not a loving thing to do to encourage his error. "...back to how they originally were just because you’re afraid of change." What does this have to do with being afraid of change? Answer: absolutely nothing. And neither am I talking about converting them back to something they were. I'm talking about not accepting their misunderstanding of how they are. Seriously, those sorts of nonsense arguments only tend to reinforce that the trans activists cannot make a rational case.
    2
  27.  @randommagician979  "Y’all seriously convinced that being trans is demonizing?" No. But telling people that they are evil to question the trans agenda IS demonising. "Its fine to be trans..." That's not in evidence. "... if someone says they use she/her or he/him or they/them then respect it" If someone says that they want to use the biologically-correct terms, then why not respect that? Why does this 'respect' argument only go one way?
    2
  28.  @blackriver2531  "transphobia isn't having an irrational fear of transgender people at all so you look pretty stupid there, " What's your evidence for that, given that a "phobia" means having an irrational fear? I'm not wrong, nor do I look stupid, just because you say so. "you can't treat trans kids horribly and then say you don't hate trans kids." But I'm not treating them horribly. I'm simply disagreeing with something. Disagreeing does not equate to being horrible. You're disagreeing with me. So you must be treating me horribly (including saying that I look pretty stupid). So I guess that means that you hate me? Or do different rules apply to you? "At the very least you hate happy children..." More utter and offensive nonsense. "Factually speaking bulimia and being transgender have NOTHING in common." Factually speaking, that is complete nonsense. And given that I've already pointed out one thing that they have in common, that you have not refuted, then you are simply repeating an already-debunked claim by simply asserting an opinion. That's not an argument, and shows a lack of logic. "So you don't understand words, definitions, or logic. That sucks." No, that does not follow from what you said. So is more evidence of treating me horribly, so more evidence (by your logic) that you hate me. "also try googling..." No. The person making the claim is the one that has the onus to back it up. It's not my job to find evidence supporting your claims. "There is no study that shows transition harms people." If the transition involves surgery, which means removing healthy body parts, I would call that harm.
    2
  29.  @Greenman1504  "but what if their body how it is makes them sick, makes them feel horrible, depressed and often even suicidal." You mean like people who think they are ugly, or overweight, or etc.? (Which doesn't make them do anything; how they respond is under their control.) You deal with their self-perception. You don't affirm it. "That's the problem, and transitioning has been found to be the solution." No, it's not "the" solution. And quite a few who have transitioned have later regretted it. "Every time, denying people to ability to transition has increased the suicidality, " I believe that there is no hard evidence supporting that claim.
    1
  30.  @JackJack-jm2oj  "how can it be a mistake if science says otherwise" Answer 1: Science is not infallible, so logically, it could be a mistake if the science is mistaken. Answer 2: Science says that people with a Y chromosome are male, and without are female. What 'science' are you talking about?
    1
  31.  @JackJack-jm2oj  "up until this point science hasn't disproven the fact that trans people exist" A silly argument, in that there is no dispute that there are people who exist who consider themselves transgender. "if I go by your logic then there has to be more then two sexes" Huh? Howso? Nothing about my logic says that.
    1
  32.  @JackJack-jm2oj  "your logic "people with a y chromosome are male, and without are female"" That's not my logic. That's simply a scientific definition. "those aren't the only combanations of chromosomes so those aren't the only two sexes" They aren't even combinations. If I was talking combinations, I could have said that those with X and Y (plus all the rest) are male, and those with X and X (plus all the rest) are female. But yes, there are also a very small number of people with an extra chromosome 21 (but that doesn't constitute a third sex), and there are also some with other combinations, such as having two X chromosomes plus a Y. But again, these do not constitute a third sex. People were designed to be either male or female, but we all suffer from copying mistakes (when DNA is copied or when two lots of DNA from parents to child are combined), and some of those copying mistakes affect the genitals or similar. But a copying mistake does not constitute additional sexes.
    1
  33.  @sweeney4727  "changing you chromosome" Evidence? And who is a transphobe?
    1
  34.  @sweeney4727  "TechnocraticDreadnought and [deleted] sorry no" Huh? I have no idea what that means. "u cant change chromosome" Okay, so you can't change from a male to a female or vice versa. "sorry but your a transphobe too" Sorry, but no, I'm not. I do not have an irrational fear of transgenderism or transgender people I disagree with transgenderism. Disagreeing is not an irrational fear. Therefore you are just name-calling.
    1
  35.  @sweeney4727  "ok but u cant change chromosomes even with trans people" I never said you could. Before you edited your post, you, however, indicated that that was possible. I challenged you on that, and then you conceded that it was not possible. So I don't know why you're continuing to argue something that I agree with. "and thats legit the definition of a transphobe" No, that's name-calling. First, a phobia is an irrational fear. So no, it doesn't simply means someone who disagrees. Second, if all you're saying is that I disagree with transgenderism, then why not just say that, instead of using a term that is derogatory? "look up the definition lol "Phobe doesn't always mean "Fear" but dislike or something else" Yes, the term can be used more loosely, but a) it doesn't simply mean disagreement, and b) 'transphobia' is taking its cue from 'homophobia', a word coined in order to denigrate those who reject homosexuality. The origins of the term are in trying to denigrate. Ergo, you are, as I said, name-calling. IDAHOBIT day is an "International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia". So are you trying to say that IDAHOBIT is a day against people even disagreeing with transgenderism (etc.)? Why? No, clearly transphobia is supposed to be wrong. To claim that even disagreeing is wrong is bigotry.
    1
  36.  @sweeney4727  Huh?
    1
  37.  @sweeney4727  Huh? again. I speak English, not whatever it is you're using.
    1
  38. No, it's not technology. It's worldviews, and in particular the atheist worldview that denies that we were created by God, created heterosexual and with two sexes. Technology is simply a tool that Marxists and others use to push their worldviews.
    1
  39. Ummm, yeah? Why? You didn't say. So we shouldn't listen to you.
    1
  40.  @my.name.is.rosie.  And yet you STILL don't actually show that it is. So perhaps the misinformation is yours and your comment is a gateway to fear of PragerU? And why is it a gateway to an irrational fear of transgenderism rather than a gateway to healthy scepticism of transgenderism?
    1
  41.  @knightmare1267  What outdated model? What close-mindedness? That the evidence clearly supports something, and I go with the evidence, doesn't mean that I'm close-minded. A 'transgender' person's experience doesn't change biological, historical, and design facts. And do you also criticise mainstream institutions of learning for not presenting more data, i.e. data that is not supportive of the transgender agenda?
    1
  42.  @knightmare1267  "It's not mainstream, ..." So that makes it wrong or suspect? We must all conform? "...it's a foundation that is heavily biased...: Bias is what the other person has, right? "...is picked apart by even the tiniest amount of knowledge." And yet when I challenge people to produce evidence, typically they either don't, or the evidence doesn't withstand scrutiny. "And the model I was reffering to was an old copy of the DSRM used in Prager U's video that was taken out of context." What's wrong and out of context with it? "What evidence can you show to support your claims?" What claims? I've hardly made any. Rather, I've challenged claims made by others, and they've not responded with anything of substance. "I'm an open minded person, and I'd like to see some valid unbiased criticisms from the other side of this argument" Like the criticisms in the video? Perhaps you should watch it then.
    1
  43.  @matmajthm3222  Religion is your worldview. We all have one.
    1
  44.  @Ferny1415  George is correct. God made man (mankind) in His image, meaning that we have characteristics like His that no other creature has, such as free will, the use of language, ability to understand abstract ideas, a sense of morality, and so on. And He created man in two forms, male and female.
    1
  45.  @Ferny1415  Yahweh, the creator of the word, and the one who we (mankind) rejected, but He paid the penalty for that and offered us forgiveness so that we can be reconciled to Him. There's a lot about Him in the Bible, if you're actually interested.
    1
  46. ​ @LucasC2022  The ones doing the oppressing are the trans activists, who won't allow others to be who they are, people who use the biologically-correct pronouns and correctly understand that one can't change one's sex.
    1
  47. And yet you don't point out anything untruthful in it.
    1
  48. ​ @Tiny_and_Reese  "…if you were hoping I didn't have reasons…" It was more a case of not expecting you to have legitimate reasons. "Firstly, PragerU is a propaganda mill…" So right off the bat, you fail. This is supposed to examples of the untruthfulness, but your "first" point is to make another allegation. "…that was astroterfed by fracking billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks, so their content is always going to be a little wrong in support of the narrative that old money wants you to hear." Yeah? So what is it that causes it to be "a little bit wrong"? That the money came from fracking? Or that it came from billionaires? Or that it came from those two gentlemen in particular? Or that "old money" is necessarily wrong? My point is, you haven't actually pointed out anything wrong! But it seems that simply describing a situation means that something is wrong. "Next, they have on equally flawed speakers like…" Hmmm, more description. What is flawed about Shapiro's comment? You don't say. I can see why you thing Owen is inconsistent, but then given your lack of substance so far, I'd assume you're likely taking things out of context. As for Crowder, you might have a point if he selected individuals to put on the spot, but when he leaves it open for people to self-select, they can always not offer their views if they are not themselves well-versed in the topic. And Ruben—well, you didn't actually point out anything wrong. So it seems that PragerU is lying for money because they have people on that you don't agree with. Which of course is not evidence of them lying, let alone for money. "Here's what they get right, because lying is always easier when you mix it with some truth:" So you admit that you're original claim that it "just can't seem to ever tell the truth" was itself a—well, an exaggeration, to be nice. "…what isn't is the notion that most of them are teenage girls that are coming out, as the CDC study didn't include that in their categorizations. That's the lie she's selling that supports her narrative." It seems that you are correct that the CDC study didn't show that bit. But that might be an error of attribution. You've not shown that it's a lie (something known to be untrue in order to deceive). "That's the "a little bit wrong" that you can see in all of PragerU's videos." So the "little bit wrong" is actually a correct statement according to the reports of the time? Sorry, that's not evidence of lying. Regarding the Section 230 video and their position, you completely miss the point. They are not saying anything in contradiction to a free market position. "But anyway, where they're wrong is in the citing of that quote. See that is in the bill Section 230.... in the Findings" section." I see your point, but again, is it a clear-cut case of lying? That finding is not included arbitrarily; the findings are there to provide rationale for the law. Yes, it's not directly stated as a requirement, but it's reasonable to infer that the intent of the law is that it applies to companies doing that, and as such is an implied requirement. So I'm not saying you can't argue against that, but it appears that their claim is a reasonable argument, not a bald lie or even clearly a half-truth. "Well PragerU, until recently, was suing google for censorship. And was citing Section 230 as their main complaint." As is their right and reasonably so. "Of course nowadays PragerU, Donald Trump and the like are trying to get rid of it…" I've heard suggestions like that, but also the claim that section 230 protection ought to be withdrawn for companies acting like publishers, but remain for other companies that are offering a genuine open forum. "The very premise of her book implies that there's anything dangerous about the process, but there isn't." Yeah, pull the other one. Mutilating their bodies because of a delusion is clearly not a good thing to be doing, and is irreversible. "She outright says these kids are able to get testosterone from any local 7/11 but they're not." Where does she say that? It's not in the video. "Puberty blockers until you're older which have NONE, 0, NADA side effects,…" Googling easily shows that to be false. (So are you lying, or merely mistaken? By your own standard, I'd have to say you're lying). Potential side effects include lower bone density, delayed growth plate closure, less development of genital tissue, headache, fatigue, insomnia, future fertility, and more. Oh, by the way, yes, I Googled to get that. But didn't get it just anywhere. I listed side effects mentioned on the web-sites of the Children's Hospital of St. Louis and the Mayo Clinic. That social media can be a bad influence and at the same time provide some useful information is not a contradiction. So nothing wrong there. "All this, along with the entire notion that any transgender individuals who've stopped transitioning isn't a result of how they are now treated differently by their peers, family, and general support group,… is laughable on it's face." So stopping transitioning could be due to pressure, but transitioning never is? You're indulging in the same kind of apparent contradiction that you're accusing Shrier of. So all in all, some possibly -accurate but mild criticisms, a fair dollop of non-faults presented as though they were, and nothing even approaching the claim that they are lying for money. It seems that my expectation was essentially correct.
    1
  49. "your bias’d and under informed rhetoric runs the risk of harming and misinforming many people." How so? As I understand it, suicide in "treated" people remains at about the same levels as before. And why not treatment to rid them of the dysphoria without endorsing the delusion? We don't treat anorexics, for example, by telling them that they are right.
    1
  50.  @caboose2569  If a male thinks that they are a female (or vice versa), how is that any different to someone who is not overweight thinking that they need to lose weight? Apart from male/female being more black-and-white than whether or not you're overweight? How is it not a delusion to think that you're something that you aren't?
    1
  51.  @caboose2569  "Brain activity and structure in transgender adolescents more closely resembles the typical activation patterns of their desired gender, ..." And yet, their brain activity is obviously within the range of people of their (actual) sex. To put it another way, what determines a female vs. a male "activation pattern" of a brain? "They dont think theyre female or male,..." Clearly they do think that, otherwise they wouldn't have any dysphoria. "they literally THINK and develop like a female or male." But what determines how a female or male thinks? If a female thinks like X, then X is like a female thinks (even if it's also like a male thinks). "...as you so clearly love to cling to purely observable constants,..." Yes, I do love to cling to things we observe as opposed to those we make up. "not evidence enough for you that it is QUITE different from the baseless comparisons youre making?" Because you haven't made your case, and you haven't shown how my comparison is baseless. Have anorexic brain activity and activation patterns been studied in anorexics? Maybe they are different too? When you have an entire industry devoted to finding differences, you're sure to find some. But if you don't look, you won't. After all, an anorexic (to stick with that analogy) clearly has something going wrong in their brain too. But you don't have an industry trying to find justifications for anorexia.
    1
  52.  @caboose2569  DId you reply and then delete your reply, or did you reply and it got deleted in some other way? I got notification of a reply, but it's not here.
    1
  53.  @caboose2569  "Studies shows it works,..." Would they be the same studies that asked those who hadn't committed suicide if they were still likely to? Besides, studies can often be biased too. "...we dont like to treat people like they have an eating disorder for a harmless identity." Harmless? Removing working body parts (as some ultimately do) is hardly "harmless". Affirming people who think that they are something they are not is hardly harmless. "Same reason being homosexual is no longer a "diagnosable illness"." Not surprised at that. The reason that was changed was that activists convinced them to make a change for no good reason. So if anything, you've supported my point! "Also like i said, your misinformed opinion/Pragr's biases has seriously negative impacts on trans peoples mental well being." Citing another one of those questionable studies? You don't name the study, so I can't check on it, but "recalled exposure to gender identity conversion efforts was significantly associated with increased odds of severe psychological distress" indicates a study asking people what they thought; not an objective study.
    1
  54.  @caboose2569  "See this is how i know you dont want to actually learn and are in fact biased..." Because I disagree with you? "(and an actual biggot too... I mean who would defend pathologizing homosexuality?)" I didn't defend it. I pointed out why it was changed. But in any case, we were designed to be heterosexual. Homosexuality is going against our design. "You dont like the facts so you call them bias and you dont want to research from unbias'd sources like government websites..." It's not in evidence that they are facts. What makes government websites unbiased? They can be as biased as anyone else. "(which is where a simple google of those quotes would show they originated from (silly lazy boy)" You're right, although I've looked into such studies before and seen that they don't stack up, so get lazy about looking into even more. After all, the field is rife with invention. For example, Christopher Dummitt, a researcher in the field, said "Everyone was (and is) making it up. That’s how the gender-studies field works." But I've Googled it, and found the study. As I suspected, it was asking people what they thought/remembered, with no apparent controls on their thoughts/memories being accurate. But that's not the only problem. Here are more: * They didn't seek people who had been exposed to "gender identity conversion efforts", but people from so-called transgender people. That is, they selected people where those efforts had failed, not where those efforts had succeeded. There's a methodological bias right there. * They didn't distinguish between different types of efforts. Some efforts could clearly have a bad effect, but it doesn't follow that all will. * As a critique of the study ("NEW STUDY LINKING CONVERSION THERAPY TO DEPRESSION IN TRANS ADULTS & CRITICISM") pointed out, "The key limitation is that the study did not control for comorbid psychiatric illness, the greatest single predictor of suicidality. While mental health conditions are acknowledged as confounders, they are declared unlikely based on the spurious idea that this would require internalized transphobia. Rather, it seems likely that professionals encountering persons with gender dysphoria (GD) and significant mental health problems were more likely to engage in conversations about the merits of transition, which may later be recalled as a conversion effort. Thus, the association found is arguably more likely due to reverse causation." * The study is clearly done by people with an agenda, given that they accept the trans-activist lie that "Transgender persons are those whose sex assigned at birth differs from their gender identity..." Sex is NOT "assigned" at birth or any other time. That is simply one of those inventions. "There is nothing more to say on the issue." Good. Let's see if you stick to that.
    1
  55.  @caboose2569  "Literally proceeds to pathologize homosexuality." Literally proceeds to ignore everything I said, and misrepresents me. That I say that it's wrong does not equate to pathologizing it. You're making that up, and calling me names, while failing to address everything else I said. It seems, therefore, that you are the bigot. And all that despite claiming that there was nothing more to be said! Hopeless.
    1
  56. "This video is stupid and wildly inaccurate." And yet you don't point out anything stupid or inaccurate in it.
    1
  57. "all this? Literally lies." All of it? And even if you're correct about the ages to get things, that might vary from place to place. Which would potentially mean that it's not a lie.
    1
  58.  @moonethealien  Sorry, I should have looked into your criticism a bit more closely. I assume that you're referring to the line that "In Oregon, a 15-year-old can walk into a gender clinic ... and walk out the same day with a prescription for testosterone without her parents' permission." Did you realise that PragerU videos list their sources? Their source for this claim (specific to Oregon) links to a document from the Oregon Health Authority which says "Minors who are 15 years or older are able to consent to medical and dental services without parental consent." So that's one supposed "lie" disposed of. And that didn't even come close to substantiating your claim of it being "all" lies.
    1
  59.  @moonethealien  "yes that’s definitely true that a 15 year old can consent to medical care" So your claim to the contrary in your opening post is shown to be wrong. You're simply adding that certain conditions need to be met, conditions that are subjective and open to interpretation. Just like in some places you can't get an abortion unless the mother's health is at risk, but stress or depression qualifies as sufficient reason to kill the baby. "...but CANNOT get it without the help of a parent via providing Therapeutic evaluation services that would allow them to be eligible for the medication prior to that moment." I'm not following this comment. "No they can’t just get hormone blockers like candy on Halloween." Straw-man.
    1
  60.  @moonethealien  "It’s not wrong, because the videos implications were that the teen could get them “like candy” as said by the OP, which they can’t." Who said "like candy"? That's not in the script of the video. "No the teen cannot get the medication if the parent hasn’t provided them with trans affirming health consultants (endocrinologist, therapists, primary care doctor, etc). Therefore, the teen has the consent of the parent via these provided services. " Are you saying that the teen has to have the consent of their parents to get assessed, but not to have the treatment? "... if they worked and paid for these services themselves ... then by all means they seem mentally capable enough to assess what goes into their body and what doesn’t." That doesn't follow. I suspect that the law allowing them to work that young would be on the basis that their parents have agreed to them working, or that they are working for their parents. "So do you have a real argument against the lies shown within the video that I called out,..." What lies? The only one you specifically claims was the age of consent, which they were correct on.
    1
  61.  @moonethealien  "You’re literally [complaining] over a technically?" If you're referring to the "candy" comment, claiming that someone said something that they didn't say is not a technicality. It's misrepresentation. "No they can’t get a signal thing if not prescribed. They can’t just walk in and get it. End of story. Any other questions? " Yes. When was any of that claimed? You're erecting a straw-man to demolish. "The video implies anyone can waltz in and get medicine..." The video says that teenagers in some cases can get medication without parental consent. That is correct. What you might think it implies says more about how you are imposing your own preconceptions onto it. "Yes if you are prescribed medication that benefits you’re health there shouldn’t be someone that says you can’t have it due to personal opinions." Who is talking about personal opinions? We are talking about ideology and danger. "And if they’re working but it work has something to do with parental approval then the parents should be in control of where the money goes?" If they are children subject to their parents, then absolutely yes.
    1
  62. Oh look it's a critic who vilifies without actually pointing out anything wrong with it.
    1
  63.  @davidlewocz7271  "Back in November prageru made a pro slavery video" No, they did not. They made a video that argued against removing statues of Robert E. Lee, and explained a bit about what he did. Some of what he did, they pointed out, was supportive of slavery. The argument was barely coherent (in that it didn't actually make a case), but it wasn't pro-slavery. That is something that critics chose to read into it. "Prageru has also spread massive amounts of fear mongering and misinformation about schools and politics. " Allegedly. You got the first one (about slavery) wrong, so why should I believe you on this? "They have also had Heather MacDonald, someone who has been against criminal justice reform and has also been denounced by using statistics in the wrong way." Is this your way of saying "They had on a person that believes something that PragerU didn't mention (I don't know; I'm speculating), and who has people disagreeing with her"? "The founder is Dennis prager, who wrote a column in 2008 saying that women should always say yes to sex to their parters whether or not they actually want to." I would want to see that in context. "There’s more but i just gave you objective evidence that shouldn’t be biased" True, it (your evidence) shouldn't be biased. Doesn't mean that it isn't, though. Your slavery claim was wrong, your MacDonald claim was vague, and your Prager quote lacked context. Not really good evidence.
    1
  64.  @unionpepe7864  "Gender and sex are 2 different things." Correct. Sex is whether one is male or female. Gender is an invention designed to allow people to ignore their sex.
    1
  65.  @unionpepe7864  "If I go in a public place and say "I think we should remove the rights of blacks" that's hate speech..." Why? Why isn't it just expressing your opinion (even if it is a bad one)? In fact, you've just confirmed Aiden Aune's point that it's "speech you hate".
    1
  66.  @tommyn3522  "do you genuinely think people would become transgender as part of a brainwashing agenda when they can be ridiculed and bullied by half of a society of people like you?" Yes, because they mostly interact with the other half that thinks it's a great thing. Many leftists live in leftist bubbles where all they ever hear are leftist views. "when people talk about transphobia and hate crimes, you know they're talking about conservative viewer bases like this right?" Yes, I for one know that. I also know that they are insulting labels put on those conservatives because they can't actually makes a reasoned argument. So instead they just try and shut them up. "the difference between liberals and conservatives these days is simply that conservatives attack progressive movements while liberals rely heavily on humanity and emotions." Let me fix that for you: "the difference between liberals and conservatives these days is simply that conservatives attack progressive movements with logic and evidence while liberals rely heavily on humanity and emotions." "libtards hate the police - conservatards begin chanting blue lives matter and getting BlueLM flags " That's called fighting back against the nonsense of the radical left. "libtards chant "black lives matter!" - conservatards begin chanting "all lives matter" when everyone and their mother knows conservatives don't give a [deleted] and never did until the BLM movement became a thing. " No, everybody does NOT know that. That's why, for example, conservatives have been opposing abortion for years, and helping pregnant women. Because they do care for people's lives. It's also why they donate more of their own money, time, and blood to helping others. "libtards talk about any form of discrimination" Not so. They don't talk about the massive discrimination suffered by Christians, not about the 'discrimination' (by denying them the chance at life) against unborn babies, nor about the discrimination they themselves inflict on conservatives, by vilifying them, getting the sacked, cancelling and censoring them, etc. "...where they intellectually belittle people..." You mean that they put reasoned arguments that the left can't answer? Yes, I can understand the left feeling belittled by that. "...and deny that discrimination and hate crimes even exist..." Complete nonsense. "because they're white and have never experienced it themselves" Ben Shapiro (a Jew who you named) has certainly been the recipient of discrimination. You are showing your ignorance and prejudice. "... conservatives have a lot of "gotcha!" points and "I never said I believe that" points when everyone knows what their true intentions are." No, not "everyone"; rather the left, who imagine what their true intentions are. The very fact that you think "everyone" knows, shows that you think that everyone is of the left, despite drawing a contrast between the left and conservatives! You contradict yourself! "claiming that they simply CANNOT be racist because they don't hate black people - while continuing to do the things that black people are saying is racist." Translation: saying that they are not racist (giving a reason), while black people continue to claim that they are racist anyway. That is, you are saying that two groups disagree, but presenting it as though one is wrong and the other is right, without explaining why. "they're just things I've observed in conservative comment sections." No, some of them are ascribing motive that you cannot "observe". You are imagining.
    1
  67.  @unionpepe7864  "sex is your genitals." No, it's whether you are male of female, determined at root by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, and expressed physically in a number of ways, including by secretion of hormones, facial hair, skeletal build, and other things, including by the genitals. "Gender is an inner expression of yourself." Which means what? And if it's an "inner" expression, why express it out loud? And why express it in sexual terms? People are a lot more than just what sex they are. And why insist that others have to refer to them by the wrong sex (male/female pronouns have always referred to one's sex. ) "Without creativity and expression what's the meaning in life? Work sleep procreate die?" I never suggested otherwise, but I don't see what relevance that has here. "We're complex creatures and develop cultures that to our knowledge no other species in the galaxy has done." There are no other species in the galaxy, apart from the non-human ones here on Earth. But yes, we were made extremely complex. Again, relevance? "Basing who a person is down to just their genitals is down right creepy." An argument from opinion, not fact, and incorrect anyway, as it's not down to just their genitals, as I've pointed out above. "because attempting to express opinions to rally people to a cause that's removing the rights of African Americans is a violation of their liberty." No it's not. Removing their rights would be a violation of their liberty (as is not allowing people to use correct pronouns, but the left doesn't care about that ), but expressing an opinion is not. "Expressing ideas that limit the liberty of individuals or groups of people is hate speech." Simply expressing ideas doesn't limit anyone's liberty. By your logic, expressing your ideas here is limiting my liberty, and is therefore hate speech. So you should be fined. By your logic. So are you going to turn yourself in to the hate police?
    1
  68.  @honourwhitehill5918  "Most of the claims they are making are without sources or from flawed sources. For example, the "study" Lisa Littman is heavily criticized and is not counted as a medical study because of its flaws." I appreciate you actually pointing out what the supposed flaws are. Oh wait, you didn't. You said, in summary, "Their claims are flawed because people disagree and it has flaws". Sorry, that's not showing anything incorrect. "Likewise, they have put in lines from "DSM" but they have not specified which one. (DSM was changed several times for corrections and the current one that is used is DSM-5 )" I guess it's hard to nail jelly to the wall. That the DSM keeps changing is hardly an error in her part. "Overall their arguments are contradictory and false." So more claims but still no evidence in support of the claims. Ho hum. "This is just propaganda to scare trans children and their parents." I asked what is actually incorrect about it, and your reply points out nothing incorrect. So I can just dismiss your evidence-free claims.
    1
  69.  @isecretlyvotedemocratbut2426  It might sound reasonable, and it might even be reasonable, but it could also be that thoughts of it increased in one group who were successful but decreased in another group, being the ones that were then surveyed. So although it might seem reasonable, it's not good evidence.
    1
  70.  @jaydenroberts2615  I'm not sure what if anything I need to set up. I have a (little-used) Discord account, and I've used voice/video chat with other applications before; just not with Discord, so I don't know if there's anything different I need to do there. Maybe not.
    1
  71.  @blackriver2531  "you are the commentor who hates trans kids." Except that I don't, so you are flatly wrong. "You compared being a trans kid to bulimia or anorexia or believing that they can fly." Yes, I likened them in one respect—that they are wrong about what they believe about themselves. Which they are, so how does that make your case? "Obviously you're transphobic." On the contrary, obviously you don't understand logic and words. Disagreeing with a viewpoint is not the same has having an irrational fear (phobia) of it. Basically, you are blatantly accusing someone of being something that they are not, on the basis of a false equivalence, apparently not understanding what words mean. This is name-calling, or guilt by false labelling, a completely illogical reason. I'll be happy to accept your apology for your false and slanderous accusation. "the scientific consensus is conclusive, transition is the only proven way to increase the quality of life of trans kids. " Simply false. Or perhaps you can point to the rigorous scientific papers that demonstrate that conclusively.
    1
  72.  @randommagician979  If they want me to use "different" (i.e. incorrect) pronouns, I should respect that? But what if I want to use the correct pronouns of them? Why shouldn't they respect that? Why is the respect only going one way? Why should they be able to dictate my words, telling me that I must use incorrect pronouns?
    1
  73.  @Shadow-go5ky  "because you're transphobic" Except that, as I have pointed out already, I do NOT have an irrational fear of trans people. You are simply name-calling, and without providing any valid reason. "if you think that being trans is anything more than normal??" I'm not even sure what "more than normal" means in this context. "These are real people with real lives you're talking about" Yes. I agree. So what's your point? "what causes trans suicide rates to go up broski, not cool dude." One significant reason that they have high suicide rates is because they are trying to harmonise two contradictory ideas, that they are a particular sex but wrongly think that they are the other sex. This is what is known as gender dysphoria. That is, this particular reason has nothing to do with what other people think; it's a conflict between what they think and reality. "Not very jesus of you." Nonsense. Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6) Jesus does not endorse lies or falsehoods. Yes, Jesus is also love, but the loving thing to do is speak the truth, not endorse falsehoods.
    1
  74.  @jaydenroberts2615  I've got Discord in a browser window on a Windows computer. It has a button that says Add Friend. I assume that's all I need to do to make contact? To save time, I'll give you my name so you can initiate it. It's my first name, a space, and the initial of my surname, with the first and last letters (two in total) being capitals.
    1
  75.  @jaydenroberts2615  Ah, okay. The four-digit number is 8221. You should be able to figure it out from that.
    1
  76.  @blackriver2531  "being transphobic has nothing to do with rational fears" Do you mean IRrational fears? I have already explained why it refers to irrational fears, but you choose to ignore that and restate your baseless claims. "imagine having a 3rd grade reading level" Are you talking about yourself now? Because you're the one that shows he can't read. See also my next point. "can't even do a Google search" Again, evidence you can't read. I never said that I can't do a Google search. I said that it is your job to produce the evidence for your claims; it's not mine. Were you incapable of reading and understanding that? Clearly, having refuted your claims, you have run out of claims and are simply repeating nonsense.
    1
  77.  @Shadow-go5ky  "being transphobic doesnt mean for scared of them" So what do you think it means? And what's your evidence for whatever that is?
    1
  78.  @blackriver2531  "a range of negative attitudes" Does that include polite disagreement? "It is often expressed alongside homophobic views and hence is often considered an aspect of homophobia." The term "homophobia" was coined by psychologist George Weinberg in 1969 then discussed at length in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual, where he defined it as "the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals". He said that it is a "morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight". Hence transphobia also designates an irrational fear (as the suffix "phobia" indicates). "Transphobia is a type of prejudice and discrimination, similar to racism and sexism..." None of which I've shown, so again, it's just name-calling. Simply disagreeing with a view does not constitute prejudice, nor does it constitute discrimination. And I noted that you only answered half the question, not the part about your evidence for your definition.
    1
  79.  @blackriver2531  "Transphobia can include fear, " So I see that you're contradicting Shadow5935 who claimed that "being transphobic doesnt mean for scared of them". Do you two want to sort out your disagreement before trying to disagree with me?
    1
  80.  @blackriver2531  Can't read?
    1
  81.  @blackriver2531  "there is no polite disagreement to have with gender identity" So you're under the delusion that nobody is even capable of politely disagreeing with that position? How close-minded and bigoted of you. I notice that you've not demonstrated any incivility on my part; you've simply deemed my argument to be uncivil because you can't admit to the possibility that people could have reason to disagree. I have demonstrated that it is possible, but you maintain your position in contradiction to the evidence. That is almost the very definition of a bigot.
    1
  82.  @SandyGooen  "I hope for their sake that they’re not trans." Why? Because they might not like someone discussing their choice or possibly disagreeing with them? You must have a low opinion of trans people that you think that they can't handle that sort of thing.
    1
  83.  @SandyGooen  "no because I’m a trans person and I know we handle enough without having to have “friends” who try to debate our validity." I'm a Christian, and I also handle a lot of disagreement from people, which is overwhelmingly more vilification and name-calling than reasoned argument. But I would still not object to someone questioning my views. So sorry, but that doesn't convince me. "There are disagreements with people and then there are disagreements ABOUT people." Yes. So? Those disagreements "ABOUT people" is a disagreement about their claims and views, which is actually just more of the disagreements "with people". This is an attempt to make a distinction that doesn't exist, in order to avoid hearing views that you don't like.
    1
  84.  @SandyGooen  "one debate is over views. The other is over personhood." Ignoring the possibility that there might be someone, somewhere who denies a trans person's personhood, that claim is so ludicrous I don't know whether to laugh or cry. No, it is not over personhood. People who disagree with trans people don't deny that they are people. My employer has a policy that says that we have to respect the views of trans people. I objected to the policy, but in so doing say that I respect all people because they are people, not because of particular views they are hold. I was told that my views are not acceptable and was told that I could not share my views with my work colleagues. So I'm not allowed to tell my work colleagues that I respect all people! That is the sort of idiocy promoted by trans activists, and completely contradicts your claim. "Christians in the west are so desperate to be oppressed. You’re really not." Oh yes we are. We are vilified, discriminated against, fired from our jobs, denied jobs, denied membership in organisations, told to keep our views to ourselves (see my previous paragraph), taken to court and sued, and so on.
    1