Australian Politics Forum - The Tranny Agenda

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84496
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #840 - Yesterday at 7:04pm

SadKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 6:58pm:

So by your logic, since you can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects gender affirmation, you lose?

Your English is failing you... given your hilarious attempt to turn it into something about me again and not the realities - along with your mind.

Corrects:-

"So by your logic, since you any person can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects accepts gender affirmation, you lose that person is wrong in saying it does?"

Well - yes - they are wrong ......

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Online

#FightStupid

Posts: 17269
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #841 - Yesterday at 8:02pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote Yesterday at 7:04pm:

SadKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 6:58pm:

So by your logic, since you can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects gender affirmation, you lose?

Your English is failing you... given your hilarious attempt to turn it into something about me again and not the realities - along with your mind.

Corrects:-

"So by your logic, since you any person can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects accepts gender affirmation, you lose that person is wrong in saying it does?"

Well - yes - they are wrong ......

But I explained already that the recommendations are supporting better outcomes for gender affirming care, but you rejected that because there isn't a direct quote from the author (because it wasn't the aim of the study), saying they support gender affirmation.

How does that not equally apply to the inverse and your position?

They don't say directly that they reject it, so you're saying the safeguards in their recommendations means it's rejected?

You've just done what you've rejected from others.

You can't have it both ways.

So which is it?

Especially since you're the one who suggested they accepted it and demanded others prove it.

You've failed miserably and by your own standard to prove your point from the review.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 104609 Melbourne Gender:	Re: The Tranny Agenda Reply #842 - Yesterday at 8:36pm
Back to top	IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84496
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #843 - Yesterday at 9:16pm

SadKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 8:02pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote Yesterday at 7:04pm:

SadKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 6:58pm:

So by your logic, since you can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects gender affirmation, you lose?

Your English is failing you... given your hilarious attempt to turn it into something about me again and not the realities - along with your mind.

Corrects:-

"So by your logic, since you any person can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects accepts gender affirmation, you lose that person is wrong in saying it does?"

Well - yes - they are wrong ......

But I explained already that the recommendations are supporting better outcomes for gender affirming care, but you rejected that because there isn't a direct quote from the author (because it wasn't the aim of the study), saying they support gender affirmation.

How does that not equally apply to the inverse and your position?

They don't say directly that they reject it, so you're saying the safeguards in their recommendations means it's rejected?

https://media.tenor.com/GGsAuhNz75YAAAAM/katonen-leo-pointing.gif

You've just done what you've rejected from others.

You can't have it both ways.

So which is it?

Especially since you're the one who suggested they accepted it and demanded others prove it.

You've failed miserably and by your own standard to prove your point from the review.

What are you raving about? The moment you started off on the wrong foot - I stopped reading the nonsense. You've never yet heard my 'position', since you've wound all discussion up in your chosen path of personality clash rather than actual issues.

'They don't say directly' - no need to - a full range of diagnostics and treatments automatically precludes the current false approach of instant 'gender affirmation' from a list on the desk, and starting on the Low Road of drugs and cutting from there.

I've 'failed' in nothing - the review will overturn the current approach of instant gender affirming - the reviews under way and the stopping of such things as puberty blockers in nation after nation show the way this is going. At the end of the day the 'transgender' community will be once again miniscule - all the pretenders or false leads will be weeded out, leaving only the very tiny number of 'real' ones - the intractables (if such a term as real can be applied to this gross distortion of reality)... and as I've said over and over - those who remain - last transwomen standing, so to speak - may then receive better care.

Defined as 'the confusion between mind and body' - in a perfectly normally functioning body - that leaves only one resolution.... it's a head problem.

You are on the wrong side of history.

You clearly have issues with understanding, and forever try to turn any discussion into a personal dispute - you lose again.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84496
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #844 - Yesterday at 9:18pm

God, you're a waste of time - and deliberately so - but it's not working.

"But I explained already that the recommendations are supporting better outcomes for gender affirming care, but you rejected that because there isn't a direct quote from the author (because it wasn't the aim of the study), saying they support gender affirmation."

I said nothing of the sort, rejected nothing of the kind.

I am more than aware that the recommendations are supporting better outcomes for those who think or hope they have gender issues... nothing at all to do with 'gender affirmation' other than dispensing with it.

You just keep going round and round in your own head.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 84496 Proud pre-1850's NO Voter Gender:	Re: The Tranny Agenda Reply #845 - Yesterday at 9:41pm
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 84496 Proud pre-1850's NO Voter Gender:	Re: The Tranny Agenda Reply #846 - Yesterday at 9:42pm
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

SadKangaroo

Gold Member

Online

#FightStupid

Posts: 17269
Mianjin (Brisbane)

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #847 - Yesterday at 9:44pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote Yesterday at 9:16pm:

SadKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 8:02pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote Yesterday at 7:04pm:

SadKangaroo wrote Yesterday at 6:58pm:

So by your logic, since you can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects gender affirmation, you lose?

Your English is failing you... given your hilarious attempt to turn it into something about me again and not the realities - along with your mind.

Corrects:-

"So by your logic, since you any person can't quote anywhere in the case review that rejects accepts gender affirmation, you lose that person is wrong in saying it does?"

Well - yes - they are wrong ......

But I explained already that the recommendations are supporting better outcomes for gender affirming care, but you rejected that because there isn't a direct quote from the author (because it wasn't the aim of the study), saying they support gender affirmation.

How does that not equally apply to the inverse and your position?

They don't say directly that they reject it, so you're saying the safeguards in their recommendations means it's rejected?

https://media.tenor.com/GGsAuhNz75YAAAAM/katonen-leo-pointing.gif

You've just done what you've rejected from others.

You can't have it both ways.

So which is it?

Especially since you're the one who suggested they accepted it and demanded others prove it.

You've failed miserably and by your own standard to prove your point from the review.

What are you raving about? The moment you started off on the wrong foot - I stopped reading the nonsense.

Then as usual, it's pointless engaging with you, white flag accepted, we're done.

Back to top

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84496
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #848 - Yesterday at 9:56pm

Your fanatical clinging to 'gender affirmation' in the days of 'fact-based diagnosis' is the greatest white flag ever presented.

You cling desperately to the last floating match after the shipwreck and just keep going round and round in circles, trying to smokescreen your utter defeat by loading your responses. It's not working.

There is no more 'gender affirmation' in the Civilised World.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35453
Gender: female

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #849 - Today at 12:17am

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote Yesterday at 9:56pm:

Your fanatical clinging to 'gender affirmation' in the days of 'fact-based diagnosis' is the greatest white flag ever presented.

You cling desperately to the last floating match after the shipwreck and just keep going round and round in circles, trying to smokescreen your utter defeat by loading your responses. It's not working.

There is no more 'gender affirmation' in the Civilised World.

I swore to myself i wouldn't bother, you're just too ridiculous but this couldn't go uncorrected.

The Cass Report is a raft of recommendations for gender affirming care, you preposterous old fool.

Just because you don't agree with what a thing sounds like, it doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

aquascoot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 34679
Gender: male

Re: The Tranny Agenda
Reply #850 - Today at 4:53am

mothra wrote Today at 12:17am:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote Yesterday at 9:56pm:

Your fanatical clinging to 'gender affirmation' in the days of 'fact-based diagnosis' is the greatest white flag ever presented.

You cling desperately to the last floating match after the shipwreck and just keep going round and round in circles, trying to smokescreen your utter defeat by loading your responses. It's not working.

There is no more 'gender affirmation' in the Civilised World.

I swore to myself i wouldn't bother, you're just too ridiculous but this couldn't go uncorrected.

The Cass Report is a raft of recommendations for gender affirming care, you preposterous old fool.

Just because you don't agree with what a thing sounds like, it doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist.

incorrect.

the trans issue was the number one issue for undecided voters in america

if harris had come out and said

a woman is an ADULT FEMALE HUMAN she may have won the election.

people with common sense know that is what a woman is

the refusal of morons like yourself to speak with common sense makes you come accross as arrogant smug superior dickheads (which you are)

till you realise this character flaw, the majority of people are going to treat you that way and rightly so

Back to top

IP Logged