yes it is a good thing we do thing to harm them if they decide against transitioning

wot

Transitioning is a problem in itself.

yeah, but you said actions are morally neutral so explain how this action is good if you believe actions are also morally neutral. @Fondboy

Who wants to bet that he's about to claim that puberty blockers don't have any bad side effects?

@Fondboy
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
-Dr. Michael CRICHTON, MD (RIP)

Scientific consensus is dependent on the consensus of collected data, not from people agreeing with each other

Ok, what proof would look like is if you got a large random sample of transgenders, then half physically transition, and half do psychotherapy, and in ten years there are significantly lower suicides among the transitioners, you actually have a data point

I'm looking, but seeing nothing that looks like actual data points

All that seems sure is that those who go through transitions still have much higher suicide rates than the general population

I think you would have some major ethical concerns with conducting a study like that.

I can't hlep but think people giving out money would balk at the part of your plan where you talk about "and then years later we tally up the number of people from each group that have committed suicide."

Oh, apparently we have a scientist to contradict the doctor.
Please, continue @Salacious Swanky Cat.

That guy is basically saying the same thing as me

...
Ok.

I'm saying that's what scientific consensus actually is. Obviously there will be agenda-driven people who make the incorrect claim that it's just people agreeing

Data is interpreted, it can be misinterpreted repeatedly, especially since people have a model for incorrect interpretation after the first occurrences

Jon > John. Change my mind.

I can't @Clive, you're obviously correct

John comes before Jon alphabetically.

Personelly, IDC. I come before you anyways, so... *shrug*

And by the ascii code later letters have higher values

Therefore n is > h

Sorry didnt mean to change subjects

IDC really, I'm waiting for Fondest.

So true

Ok, bed time for realz, I'll check back for facts tomorrow

Might as well change it, he'll never acknowledge.

It has been said *“assault weapon is a political term.”* No. It has a real, measurable, definite meaning: “Assault weapons” have but ONE definition; Automatic ᵃⁿᵈ/ₒᵣ burst fire compatible detachable box magazine fed firearms. If it’s semi-automatic, it’s NOT an “assault” anything.
*“No, that’s assault rifles”* (ussually followed by a mindless personal attack). A distintion without a difference. The ACTUAL “political definition” at work is “machinegun,” which, in the 193Ø's, made some sense, since “light machineguns” refrenced automatic weapons light enough to be man-portable, as opposed to “heavy machineguns,” which required emplacement to be effectively employed. In reality, however, any continuous feed firearm is a machinegun, *even if user operated.* After all, at the end of it all, it doesn’t fire itself; You still have to do SOMETHING.
*“Wait, you’re saying an autocannon is* a machinegun?”
Yes. An autocannon is a large-barreled machinegun. And for you autistic spergs who will inevitably insist you are right because… Uh… Let me know why, so I can continue to ignore you.
I would like to let you know, *by your own rules,* that you can no longer refer to underwater submarine borne weapons as torpedos, *since torpedos refer to what are now called naval mines.*
Step into at least the 196Ø’s, please and thanx.

lol mandatory calling us autistic

LOL 🤣

¿Don't you hate discovering 5 minutes later that you put *"and"* instead of *"I"*? Derp.

nope

must be the autismo

@Mandatory Carry waiting for me?

youve gotta clarify that last statement for starters

@Mandatory Carry except Assault Weapon has an actual legal definition, with technical specs, and it isn't an Assault Rifle.

The umbrella term "assault weapon" is a shitty metric.

It's Fondest.

What do you expect.

If anything it'll likely be used for ignorant and malicious purposes.