Trans doll?

[KingOrfeo]

Doctors are human. Some are affected and some are not.

But the guidelines of acceptable practice are set by the consensus of the medical profession as a whole; cranks have no power over that consensus.

 

[Wings]

I have none, which is why I am asking questions about long term effects instead of making pronouncements. See post #7.... A series of questions. Why do you take issue with asking questions? Do you simply believe whatever you are told, so long as it fits your point of view?

You ascribed a whole lot of things to my simple question.

 

[Rightguide]

No doubt you've seen similar testimony about homosexuality. But the psychological community does not agree. Transsexuality as a pathology was removed from the DSM-5.

Bullshit, here is the findings of renown Psychologist:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...atrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

There's a link to the original WSJ story of you want to register, but the gist of his comments are in this report.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Bullshit, here is the findings of renown Psychologist:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...atrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

There's a link to the original WSJ story of you want to register, but the gist of his comments are in this report.

And no doubt you can find me one or two dissident climatologists who reject global warming; but that is not the scientific consensus.

 

[Libsam]

What is your point? Drug companies have no actual power over doctors. Doctors prescribe meds because they know meds work and homeopathy doesn't. They also prescribe hormones where their medical judgment indicates hormones will help. They don't do anything because Big Pharma tells them to.

Drug companies pay for clinical trials, research and development. They provide continuing education for medical professionals on these clinical trials and R&D.
I'd say they definitely influence opinions.

 

[Rightguide]

And no doubt you can find me one or two dissident climatologists who reject global warming; but that is not the scientific consensus.

Hahaha, I'll do better than that:

http://climatechangedispatch.com/biggest-fake-news-story-global-warming-and-phony-consensus/

 

[VaticanAssassin]

......

 

[KingOrfeo]

Hahaha, I'll do better than that:

http://climatechangedispatch.com/biggest-fake-news-story-global-warming-and-phony-consensus/

But that is not the scientific consensus.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

You ascribed a whole lot of things to my simple question.

You asked a question and I answered it. I ascribed nothing to you but did explain my viewpoint.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

What is your point? Drug companies have no actual power over doctors. Doctors prescribe meds because they know meds work and homeopathy doesn't. They also prescribe hormones where their medical judgment indicates hormones will help. They don't do anything because Big Pharma tells them to.

She already answered this but I am simply cosigning. To think that the billions of dollars floating around Big Pharma ads and giveaways does not influence doctors is a very Pollyanna viewpoint. If that were true, then why were new rules for Doc Swag enactded 7-8 years ago?

 

[Rightguide]

But that is not the scientific consensus.

Your "consensus' is being proved a lie.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Your "consensus' is being proved a lie.

Not by Climate Change Dispatch, it ain't.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What is your point? Drug companies have no actual power over doctors. Doctors prescribe meds because they know meds work and homeopathy doesn't. They also prescribe hormones where their medical judgment indicates hormones will help. They don't do anything because Big Pharma tells them to.

LMFAO!!!


Chug that Kool-Aid KO!!

 

[KingOrfeo]

She already answered this but I am simply cosigning. To think that the billions of dollars floating around Big Pharma ads and giveaways does not influence doctors is a very Pollyanna viewpoint. If that were true, then why were new rules for Doc Swag enactded 7-8 years ago?

It's the doctors who have all the power in that relationship. It's the pharm companies who have to send salesmen, i.e., supplicants, to the doctors.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's the doctors who have all the power in that relationship.

You are in denial.

And being a gigantic hypocrite.

 

[Not Normal]

They are pushing this on children really hard now.

http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/5852d7ef120000c40beef7dd.jpeg?cache=yl0xunxiut

And why this is a great idea is always vague.

For instance, NBC news on transgender kids:

"Experts say children who clearly identify as the opposite gender will benefit from starting to transition sooner rather than later. Kate Snow follows two families on their journey."
http://http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/transgender-kids

Who are these experts? What sort of experts are they? Why are their names and qualifications not specified? What are he long term effects of suppressing puberty? How can a child make a large, likely irreversible decision about his/her sexual health? If a child can consent to "transition" , why can't that same child consent to sex?

But in the name of inclusion and tolerance (really, virtue signalling) no one is asking these questions and instead swallow what they are being fed.

They aren't PUSHING anything. They are reporting about something that has been happening since the dawn of human existence.

I think they do it for even less. I think they do it for attention and are already doing it. You get accolades for being brave and accepting of a kid transitioning. Did you see the video of a mom giving her son hormones, she recorded it and uploaded to YouTube for worldwide praise. An otherwise average mother with average children has no hope of that type of praise.

Well, you do know all about attention whoring.

 

[girlsmiley]

I really don't see the bid deal. Like, what's the big deal?

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

They aren't PUSHING anything. They are reporting about something that has been happening since the dawn of human existence.

No it hasn't.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No it hasn't.

Of course it has. There are passages against transsexuality in the Bible. There wouldn't be if nobody back then were trans.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

Of course it has. There are passages against transsexuality in the Bible. There wouldn't be if nobody back then were trans.

We aren't talking about Transsexuality. We are talking about transgenderism. That's a brand new, very modern concept. The gender =/= sex theory is new. (it was dreamed up in the 80s if I remember correctly, then taught in universities starting in the 90s. Now those women's studies are in power.) A transsexual is a transgender, but a transgender isn't necessarily a transsexual. In today's world, a man can keep his sex (his dick) and still be a woman if he wants.

(it feels odd to me that I have to be the educator in this topic.)

 

[KingOrfeo]

We aren't talking about Transsexuality. We are talking about transgenderism. That's a brand new, very modern concept. The gender =/= sex theory is new. (it was dreamed up in the 80s if I remember correctly, then taught in universities starting in the 90s. Now those women's studies are in power.) A transsexual is a transgender, but a transgender isn't necessarily a transsexual. In today's world, a man can keep his sex (his dick) and still be a woman if he wants.

(it feels odd to me that I have to be the educator in this topic.)

And transgenders in Bible times probably kept their dicks. What difference does that make?

 

[Not Normal]

No it hasn't.

BULLSHIT!

We aren't talking about Transsexuality. We are talking about transgenderism. That's a brand new, very modern concept. The gender =/= sex theory is new. (it was dreamed up in the 80s if I remember correctly, then taught in universities starting in the 90s. Now those women's studies are in power.) A transsexual is a transgender, but a transgender isn't necessarily a transsexual. In today's world, a man can keep his sex (his dick) and still be a woman if he wants.

(it feels odd to me that I have to be the educator in this topic.)

Just because a name was ascribed to it at a certain time, doesn't mean that it didn't exist before that. No one made up the phenomena, someone just named something that ALREADY EXISTED.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

And transgenders in Bible times probably kept their dicks. What difference does that make?

There was no such thing as a transgender prior to the 1980s. Also, the bible is a work of fiction.

 

[LadyFunkenstein]

BULLSHIT!


Just because a name was ascribed to it at a certain time, doesn't mean that it didn't exist before that. No one made up the phenomena, someone just named something that ALREADY EXISTED.

I disagree with the notion that sex and gender are two different things; that is a newly invented concept. And I disagree without throwing a hissyfit. You should try it - just because we don't agree doesn't mean you have to have a temper tantrum. Calm down and state your case like a grown up.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There was no such thing as a transgender prior to the 1980s. Also, the bible is a work of fiction.

What you denied was:

They aren't PUSHING anything. They are reporting about something that has been happening since the dawn of human existence.

And it has. Whatever name you call them by, there have always been people who identify with a sex different from that which their genitals would suggest.