Right? This is what is also complete hypocrisy on Republicans part. On one hand, they (erroneously) equate trans with surgeries when they want to condemn youth healthcare. But somehow all adult trans people are no-surgery self-identifying "men in dresses".

OK with laughing over your own joke, but if you burst out and are not even able to finish uttering it, then I think this is a bit childish.

it is human experimentation

No it is not. It is a well thought out medical intervention, with extensively studied effects, and life saving outcomes for trans youth.

For the most part of this video Vaush debunks every argument that puberty blockers are an experimental treatment https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=HhYruaFZEOI

American Psychological Organization about young transgender people https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/advocating-transgender-nonbinary-youths

Or do you think trans people just pop out of thin air as fully grown adults? You understand that trans people once were kids like everybody else right? And finally have you ever spoken to a transgender person and ask what it is like growing up trans? All these ignorant morons fearmonger like this therapy is pushed onto unknowing kids and parents, presented like it is a cool video game. Guess what, people actively seek this therapy for their kids or themselves because they know what it is doing, it stops unwanted sexual features to develop, and it is reversible.

What was your problem again?

So yes, exactly the fact that many religions are anti-LGBT is a point of identity conflict for many people. Some LGBTQ+ people might have been religious before realizing or coming out. So this is a point of discussion in itself. And most leftish people wouldn't really care to have it. Ergo, a need for a "space."

a “put your money where your mouth is” fallacy

Is this a "fallacy" or is it an "angle"? Probably it is little more than straw-man attack, because you know even homeless people need actual homes not just places to crash, and it is also a form of ad hominem attack that typically targets progressive/social change demands (do you really hear that often the opposite, like "if you hate homeless people that much, why don't you support gassing them?"). I don't know if people call those fallacies these days, I tend to see them as tactical conversational attacks. A fallacy is sth you can easily fool yourself with.

Possibly the domain is visible with a traffic monitoring tool. Everything else is between you and the bank via HTTPS. Having said that, whatever is not over https is visible to whoever sits on the same network as yourself.

This is not just about the pressure put on academics to publish, but it is a whole systemic rot, that is not even remotely living up to the "peer reviewed evidence" myth.

The whole idea of an intermediary authority for scientific publishing is a scam, and it corrupts people who want/need to be in the pyramid. The whole thing is ill-conceived, needs to be abolished, and a new thing should be put in its place. At some point someone said, "I can ditch all this and just publish research on my blog, then people will criticize and build upon that". No publisher, no paywall, no problem. If we follow this example, all of these issues can disappear overnight. But the vast majority of professionals value their career more than anything else, including our tantamount tenets of what science communication should look like.

You might object that "intermediary authorities" and "peer review" are essential to prevent disinformation and conspiracy theories. Well, we are past this point aren't we? Did this system prevent conspiracy theories and disinformation, hoaxes, and fraudsters this far? No, so how exactly will it prevent all of these terrible things in the future? If anything, building arguments in the open without paywalls might deter at least some of the conspiracy theorists that brandish paywalls as further evidence of cover-ups and secrecy, and ditching the horrible jargon and high-brow style might actually help the common sense of scientific arguments just shine, and combat the rising anti-intellectualism of right-wing conspiracy theorists.

Like, if you explain Elsevier's etc business model to any lay person (Pay me money so that I let you publish to my super-selective journal and feed your vanity) they have the most funny reactions, because to anyone who is not conditioned to this absurdity, it just sounds like a pyramid scheme.

That is great to hear

This always makes me wonder why isn't the feminine that is all inclusive. It occurred to me it is because males would take offense to be called women, where (at least traditionally) this is not the case the other way round.

Definitely

Oh snap he was banned. I had the perfect comeback, I will save it for another instance.

Came here to say this. The top left guy is also pretty chill.