Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

As part of coaching young children I need to be Garda vetted i.e. we must check that you are not a paedophile. That's how safeguarding works, you don't get to be super sensitive and say how dare you ask me to be vetted. The children come before my sensitivities. Most well adjusted people don't have an issue with that.

Erm, Garda vetting has feckall to do with checking whether or not anyone’s a paedophile 😁 It has nothing to do with protecting children either, and everything to do with protecting the organisation. It doesn’t prevent an allegation being made either -

https://www.thejournal.ie/court-childcare-worker-sexual-assault-creche-5056878-Mar2020/

As for the rest of it, well I can’t figure out for the life of me either why anyone wouldn’t want to engage in any rational, nuanced or calm debate about safeguarding with you when your starting point is that they’re a pretty sensitive group characterised by depression, autism, self-harm, etc etc, and according to you their need for outside validation is driven by angst and self-doubt… because that’s totally rational, like what’s their problem really?

Yes, a return to science-based care is what’s needed, like lobotomies, blood-letting and in extreme cases - call in the God squad for an exorcism when the patients condition is beyond all medical and scientific knowledge, and if that fails… well, antipsychotics are a wonderful drug 😁

Clopenthixol is a mixture of cis and trans isomers. Zuclopenthixol, the pure cis isomer, was later introduced by Lundbeck in 1962, and has been much more widely used. Both drugs are equally effective as antipsychotics and have similar adverse effect profiles, but clopenthixol is half as active on a milligram-to-milligram basis and appears to produce more sedation in comparison.

Clopenthixol is not approved for use in the United States.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clopenthixol

You're right when using your unique definition of transphobia but just about everyone else is using the more standard definition which includes an element of hate or discrimination.

When it's preceeded by homo or trans the hate or discrimination aspect is heavily implied, especially when used by outlets reporting on the subject, and I think that's the issue at hand for the other posters.

Check the post you initially replied to.

I know what you're saying, I just disagree with it.

But the quote is the opposite of what you said she said.

Not to mention the idea that a transoman can't experience violence from men...? 

 "The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women - ie, to male violence

On the debate as to whether JK Rowling is transphobic - I dont believe she it, based on her original statements it was a expression of difference in experience making a clear distinction between what is a biological female and a transwoman. That is undeniable.

What seems to have happened her though is the pile on to her genuine expression of views has resulted in a kind of "enemy of my enemy" situation. It is a base human instinct to gravitate more towards those who defend you and away from those who attack you. Rowling has submitted to this instinct in some ways. She could continue to express her legitimate views without unwittingly amplifying those more extreme transphobic views of some of those who have rowed in on her side. They have cleverly hijacked her side of the message. Someone reads her views. See she has also engaged with someone who has expressed the same view. Seeks out that individual and subsequently are drawn into the orbit of more extreme views.

Don't take my word for it on the comorbidities, two studies i found in about 2 minutes on Google scholar.

I won’t, nor would I take the word of any of the former Governors of the Tavistock under whose oversight they shìt the bed, jumped out and left everyone else to clean up their mess. If you imagine their protestations were motivated by giving a shiny shyte about medicine, science, data or evidence, or even the patients under their care, and not simply by political shenanigans to disguise their own incompetence, then I’ve got some magic beans you might be interested in.

You started off about safeguarding, then veered off into lamenting the lack of medical and scientific rigour, then expect that I’m not already familiar with Marcus Evans or David Bell, as if anyone should take anything they have to say about anything seriously. I don’t think so, neither did the Tavistock’s medical director -

According to the trust, a review of Bell’s claims by its medical director, Dr Dinesh Sinha, “did not identify any immediate issues in relation to patient safety or failings in the overall approach taken by the service in responding to the needs of young people and families who access its support. As in any review of this nature, it did identify areas for improvement and made several recommendations. The trust’s chief executive is tasked with developing an action plan for how these will be implemented.”

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/feb/23/child-transgender-service-governor-quits-chaos

It should have been obvious the point I was making about your chiming in with the former clinical head of the Tavistock about a return to ‘science based care’ - it’s precisely because of your ideas about ‘science based care’ which were shown to be pseudoscientific garbage, is the reason neither scientists nor clinicians put any stock in the those ideas any longer, and why science and medicine have moved on from them, albeit too late for some of the people who were the victims of their fcukwittery as they sought to make a name for themselves. Clinicians like John Money -

During his professional life, Money was respected as an expert on sexual behavior, especially known for his views that gender was learned rather than innate. However, it was later revealed that his most famous case of David Reimer, born Bruce Reimer, was fundamentally flawed. In 1966, a botched circumcision left eight-month-old Reimer without a penis. Money persuaded the baby's parents that sex reassignment surgery would be in Reimer's best interest. At the age of 22 months, Reimer underwent an orchiectomy, in which his testicles were surgically removed. He was reassigned to be raised as female and his name changed from Bruce to Brenda. Money further recommended hormone treatment, to which the parents agreed. Money then recommended a surgical procedure to create an artificial vagina, which the parents refused. Money published a number of papers reporting the reassignment as successful.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

You’ll find plenty of his works on Google Scholar too, only of any use as toilet paper, if you’re in a pinch.

They can, but when they do so they instantly become an enemy. You can agree with everything they believe for the most part, but just one belief that goes against the hivemind, will get you tossed to the other side, labelled as a right winger, because of literally one opinion.

I'd put a few quid on Anna apologizing very soon.

Out of the loop, but what's TYT?

Left wingers having not embracing all 'woke' ideals is farily commonplace - why would they?!

The problem is that if you adopt one stance, then you automatically get labeled woke as if you accepted every single one of them. Hell, some of them would even class Jonathan Pie as woke because he said he supported activism against gey rights in Russia and in favour of XR demonstrations.

It's another of ironies of the anti-woke traits: for all their hatred of the 'woke' they adapt the exact same techniques and all-or-nothing approach that they decry the woke for.

The Young Turks, a large news/current affairs commentary channel on YouTube. They have been very progressive or even woke in the past but the reality is starting to hit them, especially Ana.

Repeating things because others have told you it's true, is the complete opposite of being an independent thinker, unless of course you consider parrots to be independent thinkers.