EmptySlime

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

Idk, if I had to guess I'd say probably something like renting out an entire resort for the duration plus whatever they did there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Defense Department Dimmadollars

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I thought I had 0 ass for years. Just like you, nothing but bone. Pants always sliding right off me because I had nothing to hold them in place. Turns out, I actually just developed Posterior Pelvic Tilt from all the compensating I did for my bad ankles without realizing it. Also that apparently I have a really high waist and wide hips for a AMAB person and I've basically been wearing my pants way too low all this time.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

Last I knew, yeah. Google bought them years ago. Moreover, I don't remember that "feature" being in Waze before Google acquired them. Those ads were the biggest reason I dropped Waze a while back.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago

Ben if he had actually made it as a screenwriter in Hollywood.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Of course. The only question they ask is "Does this make my side look bad?" If the answer is No, then this is Just, Good, and the Will of the People. If the answer is Yes, then it's a False Flag, a Psy-Op, or the work of the Deep State.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is the majority of detransition occurs due to financial reasons. So basically "I can't afford my HRT anymore," or "I can't afford top surgery right now so I'll go back to presenting as a woman," or what have you. Then once the financial issue is gone a lot of those resume transition.

Full on "I thought I was trans but I'm actually not" detransition seems to be pretty rare. Almost like the current standard of care does a pretty good job at weeding out the people for whom transition isn't the best treatment option. But to the conservatives who've decided this is their new culture war front if literally a single person ever regrets their transition, that's enough to ban it for everyone.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (6 children)

So most of these bills ban pretty much all medical interventions for anyone under 18. Puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, surgery, the whole nine. Some go further and are trying to ban it for anyone under 26. You could theoretically still get counseling but you wouldn't be able to actually do anything.

And yeah sure, on its face that might seem reasonable. Wouldn't want impulsive teens rushing into big irreversible medical changes on a whim right? But those safeguards already exist. You can't just walk into a gender clinic as a 10 year old boy, say the magic words "I'm actually a girl," and walk out with an appointment for bottom surgery and a prescription for titty skittles. It takes long term counseling, social transition steps like trying out a new name and pronouns, wearing clothing that aligns with your gender, etc.

In reality that hypothetical 10 year old boy walking into the clinic is going to get extensive counseling. From that counseling he might try out using a different name, she/her pronouns, or dressing in more feminine clothing. She then might get prescribed puberty blockers here to make sure she has time to do all of this and be sure of herself without being forced into male puberty. A few years go by and last statistics I saw something like 2% of people at this point say, "No I think I actually am a boy," and they go through that slightly delayed puberty. But almost all progress to HRT and later surgery.

Do some people later truly regret their transitions and try to go back? Of course they do. But realistically, transition already has basically the lowest regret rate of any medical procedure out there. A higher percentage of people regret getting something like a hip or knee replacement surgery than regret transition.

Puberty already forces your body through permanent changes that can range from easy, to nearly impossible to reverse. That's why puberty blockers are so important. Imagine if as a young cis boy through some rare medical issue you start going through female puberty. But you're a boy! You know you are. You've got a penis and everything.

But now you're growing breasts. Like big enough that you can't really hide them. Big enough that they get in the way, they're heavy, and you have to wear a bra otherwise they hurt like hell. The other boys in your grade stare at you or bully you because you're a boy but you've got bigger tits than a lot of the girls in your grade. Soon everyone starts mistaking you for a girl. Guys start hitting on you even though you're a guy and you're attracted to girls. A lot of the girls aren't interested in you because they're attracted to more... Traditional looking guys. You get told that you should just accept it. After all you look just like a girl. But you're not a girl damnit. You're a boy. This wasn't supposed to happen. Now imagine they tell you they can't do anything about it until you turn 18... Or maybe 26. Sounds terrible right?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or... Bing it, if you're nasty.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah that doesn't surprise me at all. This has been his M.O. right along.

  1. Rule the most egregious shit that pretty much anyone can see where it leads.
  2. Call the opposition hysterical when they point out the logical conclusion of his ideas.
  3. Pretend to be shocked when the opposition is proved right if he acknowledges it at all.

But hey, just calling Balls and Strikes guys. Nothing to see here.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This particular kind of hearing might not necessarily need to conclude before the election to be impactful. Trump's lawyers arguing with a straight face that his alleged attempt at subverting the election was actually an official act just before the election could be fairly damaging on their own.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My understanding reading this is that they're worried that some of their evidence might have just become privileged and inadmissible via the whole "can't use testimony or communications between the president and his staff" part of the ruling.

I doubt that the SCOTUS ruling actually saves him here. It seems to me at least that the prosecution is agreeing to postpone sentencing mostly to go back and make sure that they aren't likely to lose too much of their evidence on appeal.

view more: ‹ prev next ›