Every Gender crit has to answer the question: Why are trusted medical associations in disagreement with your assertions regarding biology and medicine?
Some questions any conspiracy needs to answer in order to be considered credible:
Logistics (1):
1. How large is the supposed conspiracy?
2. How many people are part of this conspiracy?
3. Are there enough of them to carry out the plan?
@lux_banana@ZenaAndPoppy@SadLilGothy @naomichance_ "You're welcome to relive a traumatic event *again* to satisfy my appraisal of events that I have no way of doubting; don't mind my immediate well-poisoning by calling it a 'narrative' and seeding doubt that you can be trusted to honestly assess your own assault."
I missed this "wake up sheeple" level take from Jane Clare Jones.
"You delude yourself because your personal commitments are to fragile for the truth"
Amazing epistemic arrogance
@RealDJCthulhu I mean, it's totally in-step for Jane "When I say kids should take ecstasy over hrt, I'm obviously joking, but also kids are so impressionable they'll be negatively influenced by patient led care" Clare Jones
How fake “experts” are driving the campaign against trans people
➡️ “Some experts with strongly held beliefs are now using their influential platforms and ‘expert status’ to impact trans lives in a negative way.” ⬅️
https://t.co/Pd4Wr2PCsE
I think Laurie exists on the planet where there are more reasonable explanations for organizations taking small steps to recognize a minority than just "malevolent trans lobby"
@janeclarejones@SamBarber1910 No, I don’t think it’s made up. It sounds like overreach, doing a census that way. What I don’t get is how you claim that this proves some sort of overarching, coordinated ideological program, or how you came to your conclusions about what its ultimate goals are.
Another marriage torn apart by this authoritarian dogma.
Authoritiarian dogma = Im a weirdo who cant stop obsessing about trans womens genital status to the point of converting my spouse into a TRA.
Only cowards attempt to apply 'logical critique' to the follow-up joke highlighting the absurdity of the situation, and not even touch the premise of the argument argued before.