tahira @ tahira @hilariouschaos.com

Posts

72

Comments

57

Joined

4 mo. ago

Moderating

---

Perhaps most telling: 77 percent said they disagreed with the idea that gender identity should override biological sex in such domains as sports, healthcare, or public data — but would never voice that disagreement aloud.

The facade is crumbling. Most people don't like or agree with gender woo

Trans-identifying males on estrogen are significantly more likely to develop breast cancer than non-trans-identifying men. One cited analysis estimated the risk to be 22 to 40 times higher.

Taking wrong-sex hormones will fuck you up

Moreover, many of the studies included in the Bustos review suffered from extraordinarily high loss to follow-up—some exceeding 40 percent! This should be a glaring red flag, since it stands to reason that the very individuals most likely to regret their surgeries might be the ones least likely to return to the same medical providers who facilitated their transition. Many detransitioners report feeling harmed, betrayed, or even traumatized by the gender medicine industry, and therefore want nothing more to do with it. As a result, they vanish from the follow-up pool entirely. Their absence from post-operative data does not mean they are happy—it means they’re gone. If anything, high attrition should lead researchers to assume that regret is being undercounted, not that it is rare.

The science behind pushing gender woo is plain garbage. Sampling bias like that is Stats 101

https://archive.is/W4AWZ

The tide is turning, liberals are finally waking up to the harsh truth of reality

Detransitioners told the FTC how comorbid mental health issues were ignored, ‘gender’ was promoted to them over all other forms of suffering, and ‘transition’ was presented as a panacea for all their problems.

This is not scientific medicine. It is fraud.

We're past peak gender woo as a society. Sanity has finally prevailed

Autistic children and young people deserve better protection – not an ideological gender journey without the possibility of a return ticket

Today's "gender-affirming" medical treatments are on the wrong side of history. They'll be looked back on like lobotomies

https://www.shewon.org/

It’s there, extravagantly, in Andrea Long Chu’s Females: A Concern, which defines the “barest essentials” of “femaleness” as “an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes”.

Sick porn-brained men don't get to define womanhood and will never be women

There are facts in the article yet you're still trying to shoot the messenger. Is this really the best you can do?

Is any of it incorrect?

So there's nothing incorrect about the facts and you're left with nothing other than shooting the messenger?

But Copeland’s fictional erotica took a dark turn in 2021, when he published a story titled “Dangerous Obsession.” In the story, Copeland describes becoming obsessed with a local business owner, who he ultimately murders to assume her identity. The woman murdered in the story is a real individual who was living in Copeland’s community at the time.

It's a fetish

So you don't dispute the facts?

Why are men so obsessed with invading women's spaces? They've been told "NO" loud and clear but don't care about consent. Such male behavior

natural puberty

So you understand the issue and just want to pretend you don't.

It matches their sex. Stop harming kids

Men don't belong in women's spaces no matter how they identify. This man couldn't have murdered her if he wasn't in the wrong ward.

You're right that men are dangerous. They belong in men's spaces, even if they feel like women

Don't support violence against women

So you approve of violence against women? Be honest

We will one day view “gender-affirming care” in minors with the same revulsion that we now view frontal lobotomies. Until then, many children will continue to suffer tragic—and irreversible—consequences.

If you support this, you're on the wrong side of history

I didn't define sex that way, the entire field of biology did. That's literally the biological definition. You're pushing unscientific nonsense if you claim otherwise