tented
Administrator
It’s that great line from the film Vanilla Sky: “What is the answer to 99 out of 100 questions?... Money.”
Serious PC thread
- Thread starter mrzz
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 6,152
- Reactions
- 2,961
- Points
- 113
disclaimer: I only gave a diagonal read to the article.
Anyway, consider this: Advertising campaigns often focus on new consumer bases, as established businesses are always to trying find those. In this case, political/ideological orientation is a relatively new way of segmenting the public, a new frontier to explore, so to speak. I am *guessing* a lot of those companies are taking for granted part of their public, assuming (perhaps wrongly, based on your post) that they only have a new share to gain and absolutely nothing to lose.
The fun part is how crazily people like to adhere to the idea that those companies actually "believe" in what they advertise, as if they were part of the "cult". As @tented quoted in a recent reply (and as you know so well), money is what explains it, not "values".
Anyway, my bet is that companies will eventually move to the next frontier, whatever that might be. 20 years back, sports companies were focusing on the part of the public who was trying to embrace a healthier, more sports filled lifestyle. There are zero adds focusing on this segment nowadays.
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
I suspect what's happening is that ESG funds are becoming larger and more powerful. Companies need to ensure they pass the qualifying standards to be investment grade. In the case of climate, you have all these carbon footprint metrics that ESG funds use. It's worth noting that there's research out there showing that none of this actually does a lick of good for the climate! Well another issue ESG funds care about is social responsibility and part of that is LGBTQ(add on. whatever the fuck new letters and symbols float your boat). Enter this Corporate Equality Index... I suspect it's going to be a race between... getting investment funds to buy your shares vs consumers running away from these companies in disgust. At the end of the day if these companies start losing money the ESG funds aren't going to invest. They're there to make money after all. We're already seeing Disney starting to suffer financially from all this woke shit. I love the market. People might try to impose their crap on us, but the markets are impersonal bullshit detectors and normally enforce common sense
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,083
- Points
- 113
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,083
- Points
- 113
There are real life moronic women supporting this..
So if a dude is a misogynist and wants to openly beat up women just identify as trans. Got it!
The whole trans hoax is built on misogyny. Women fight for centuries to gain their rights - then men put on dresses and start beating up women, and yes, there’s women who support this? Internalised misogyny, I think it’s called…
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
the movement is both misogynistic and homophobic as well. It blows my mind that the SJW's don't see this. Or maybe it's just the complete irrationality of their thinking. Proceed down the logic trees and it's inevitable they end eating their own. They're just such dumb fucks they don't see itThe whole trans hoax is built on misogyny. Women fight for centuries to gain their rights - then men put on dresses and start beating up women, and yes, there’s women who support this? Internalised misogyny, I think it’s called…
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,083
- Points
- 113
They don’t think, that’s why. They see their tribe being herded in the opposite direction and they follow. Doesn’t matter if it’s the opposite direction to sanity and morality. If it’s the opposite direction to everything they believed ten minutes ago. Their minds are in lockstep with the herd, and they know nothing different to this, I reckon..
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,083
- Points
- 113
He’s always intense, and of course people hate him, so he’s definitely onto something, and he certainly is in that clip!
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
What America has got wrong about gender medicine
Too many doctors have suspended their professional judgment
For many Americans, the great tragedy of trans rights is the story of how Republican governors and state legislatures are stigmatising some of society’s most put-upon people—all too often in a cynical search for votes. This newspaper shares their dismay at these vicious tactics. In a free society it is not the government’s place to tell adults how to live and dress, which pronouns to use, or what to do with their bodies.
However, nestled within that first tragedy appears to be a second—this time a tragedy of good intentions. On different sides of the Atlantic, medical experts have weighed the evidence for the treatment of gender-dysphoric children and teenagers, those who feel intense discomfort with their biological sex. This treatment is life-changing and can lead to infertility. Broadly speaking, the consensus in America is that medical intervention and gender affirmation are beneficial and should be more accessible. Across Europe several countries now believe that the evidence is lacking and such interventions should be used sparingly and need further study. The Europeans are right.
The number of children and teenagers diagnosed with gender dysphoria in America has soared. One estimate found that there were over 42,000 new diagnoses in 2021, three times the count in 2017. Gender-affirming care, as America understands it, stipulates counselling, which can lead to puberty-blocking drugs and subsequently cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls and oestrogen for boys—used, by one estimate, in 10% of cases). Occasionally, there may be mastectomies and, very rarely in the under 18s, the construction of ersatz genitals from flaps of skin or pieces of bowel. The goal is to align the patient’s body with the way that they think about themselves.
Proponents say that the care is vital to the well-being of dysphoric children. Failure to provide it, they say, is transphobic, and risks patients killing themselves. The affirmative approach is supported by the American Academy of Paediatrics, and by most of the country’s main medical bodies.
Arrayed against those supporters are the medical systems of Britain, Finland, France, Norway and Sweden, all of which have raised the alarm, describing treatments as “experimental” and urging doctors to proceed with “great medical caution”. There is growing concern that, if teenagers are offered this care too widely, the harms will outweigh the benefits.
As we report in this week’s briefing, one concern is that doctors have changed the safeguards built into the original treatment design, devised in the Netherlands in the 1980s and 1990s. Twenty years ago, the typical patient was male, with a long history of dysphoria. Children and teenagers with psychological problems besides dysphoria were disqualified from treatment. These days most patients are adolescent girls. Their dysphoria may be relatively recent. Some are depressed, anxious or autistic, but mental illness is no longer a hard barrier to treatment. Do these patients respond to drugs and surgery in the same way?
It is unclear. And that is because the clinical evidence for intervention in broader categories of adolescents is vague. A formal British review of the clinical evidence, prepared in 2020, found that almost all the studies in this area were of poor quality; one in Sweden came to similar conclusions. When researchers find benefits, the effects tend to be small. It is often impossible to conclude whether they are lasting, or how much the credit is down to drugs or counselling or both. Some older studies suggest that, left alone, most children will naturally grow out of their dysphoric feelings. The long-term effects of puberty-blockers remain unknown, though there are worries about brain development and decreasing bone density.
Medical bodies build safeguards into their treatment protocols, but they vary. And in any case practitioners may ignore them. Whistle-blowers say that some children and teenagers are being put on puberty-blockers after only a cursory assessment. A growing number of “detransitioners”, who regret their treatment, say that they have been left scarred, infertile, with irreversibly altered appearances and were unhappy with how their dysphoria was treated.
America’s professional bodies acknowledge the science is low quality, but say they have a duty to alleviate patients’ mental anguish. Some patients suffer regret in all medical procedures, from knee surgery to liposuction. And they observe that the most shocking allegations about poor treatment are only anecdotes. Speaking on American radio last year, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health and a paediatrician, was very clear: “There is no argument among medical professionals…about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”
Except that there is. And when medical staff raise concerns—that teenage girls may be caught up in a social contagion, say, or that some parents see transition as a way to have a straight daughter rather than a gay son—they have been vilified as transphobic and, in some cases, suffered personal and professional opprobrium.
Medical science is not supposed to work this way. Treatments are supposed to be backed by a growing body of well-researched evidence that weighs the risks and benefits of intervention. The responsibility is all the heavier when treatments are irreversible and the decisions about whether to go ahead are being taken by vulnerable adolescents and their anxious parents.
What to do? To some, the uncertainties that surround medical interventions are grounds for an outright ban. In fact, the lack of evidence cuts both ways. Perhaps, when proper trials are complete, their proponents will be proved correct. The right policy is therefore the one Britain’s nhs and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden seem to be working towards. This would promote psychotherapy and reserve puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones for a system in which patients would almost always be enrolled in a well-run clinical trial.
Ideally, American regulators would insist on trials, too. If the culture wars put that compromise out of reach, professional bodies should uphold their own protocols by welcoming whistle-blowers and advance science by calling on patients to be in trials. Sometimes, they will need to protest against illiberal laws. Above all, they should not add to the tragedy. ■
For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "The dangers of gender medicine"
Too many doctors have suspended their professional judgment
For many Americans, the great tragedy of trans rights is the story of how Republican governors and state legislatures are stigmatising some of society’s most put-upon people—all too often in a cynical search for votes. This newspaper shares their dismay at these vicious tactics. In a free society it is not the government’s place to tell adults how to live and dress, which pronouns to use, or what to do with their bodies.
However, nestled within that first tragedy appears to be a second—this time a tragedy of good intentions. On different sides of the Atlantic, medical experts have weighed the evidence for the treatment of gender-dysphoric children and teenagers, those who feel intense discomfort with their biological sex. This treatment is life-changing and can lead to infertility. Broadly speaking, the consensus in America is that medical intervention and gender affirmation are beneficial and should be more accessible. Across Europe several countries now believe that the evidence is lacking and such interventions should be used sparingly and need further study. The Europeans are right.
The number of children and teenagers diagnosed with gender dysphoria in America has soared. One estimate found that there were over 42,000 new diagnoses in 2021, three times the count in 2017. Gender-affirming care, as America understands it, stipulates counselling, which can lead to puberty-blocking drugs and subsequently cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls and oestrogen for boys—used, by one estimate, in 10% of cases). Occasionally, there may be mastectomies and, very rarely in the under 18s, the construction of ersatz genitals from flaps of skin or pieces of bowel. The goal is to align the patient’s body with the way that they think about themselves.
Proponents say that the care is vital to the well-being of dysphoric children. Failure to provide it, they say, is transphobic, and risks patients killing themselves. The affirmative approach is supported by the American Academy of Paediatrics, and by most of the country’s main medical bodies.
Arrayed against those supporters are the medical systems of Britain, Finland, France, Norway and Sweden, all of which have raised the alarm, describing treatments as “experimental” and urging doctors to proceed with “great medical caution”. There is growing concern that, if teenagers are offered this care too widely, the harms will outweigh the benefits.
As we report in this week’s briefing, one concern is that doctors have changed the safeguards built into the original treatment design, devised in the Netherlands in the 1980s and 1990s. Twenty years ago, the typical patient was male, with a long history of dysphoria. Children and teenagers with psychological problems besides dysphoria were disqualified from treatment. These days most patients are adolescent girls. Their dysphoria may be relatively recent. Some are depressed, anxious or autistic, but mental illness is no longer a hard barrier to treatment. Do these patients respond to drugs and surgery in the same way?
It is unclear. And that is because the clinical evidence for intervention in broader categories of adolescents is vague. A formal British review of the clinical evidence, prepared in 2020, found that almost all the studies in this area were of poor quality; one in Sweden came to similar conclusions. When researchers find benefits, the effects tend to be small. It is often impossible to conclude whether they are lasting, or how much the credit is down to drugs or counselling or both. Some older studies suggest that, left alone, most children will naturally grow out of their dysphoric feelings. The long-term effects of puberty-blockers remain unknown, though there are worries about brain development and decreasing bone density.
Medical bodies build safeguards into their treatment protocols, but they vary. And in any case practitioners may ignore them. Whistle-blowers say that some children and teenagers are being put on puberty-blockers after only a cursory assessment. A growing number of “detransitioners”, who regret their treatment, say that they have been left scarred, infertile, with irreversibly altered appearances and were unhappy with how their dysphoria was treated.
America’s professional bodies acknowledge the science is low quality, but say they have a duty to alleviate patients’ mental anguish. Some patients suffer regret in all medical procedures, from knee surgery to liposuction. And they observe that the most shocking allegations about poor treatment are only anecdotes. Speaking on American radio last year, Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health and a paediatrician, was very clear: “There is no argument among medical professionals…about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”
Except that there is. And when medical staff raise concerns—that teenage girls may be caught up in a social contagion, say, or that some parents see transition as a way to have a straight daughter rather than a gay son—they have been vilified as transphobic and, in some cases, suffered personal and professional opprobrium.
Medical science is not supposed to work this way. Treatments are supposed to be backed by a growing body of well-researched evidence that weighs the risks and benefits of intervention. The responsibility is all the heavier when treatments are irreversible and the decisions about whether to go ahead are being taken by vulnerable adolescents and their anxious parents.
What to do? To some, the uncertainties that surround medical interventions are grounds for an outright ban. In fact, the lack of evidence cuts both ways. Perhaps, when proper trials are complete, their proponents will be proved correct. The right policy is therefore the one Britain’s nhs and the Karolinska Institute in Sweden seem to be working towards. This would promote psychotherapy and reserve puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones for a system in which patients would almost always be enrolled in a well-run clinical trial.
Ideally, American regulators would insist on trials, too. If the culture wars put that compromise out of reach, professional bodies should uphold their own protocols by welcoming whistle-blowers and advance science by calling on patients to be in trials. Sometimes, they will need to protest against illiberal laws. Above all, they should not add to the tragedy. ■
For subscribers only: to see how we design each week’s cover, sign up to our weekly Cover Story newsletter.
This article appeared in the Leaders section of the print edition under the headline "The dangers of gender medicine"
Federberg
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2013
- Messages
- 15,542
- Reactions
- 5,607
- Points
- 113
tented
Administrator
Megan Phelps-Roper has created the podcast “The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling” — an in-depth look at the trans issue. It’s long — 7 episodes, about 45-60 minutes per episode — but I thought it was well worth it.
Kieran
The GOAT
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 16,880
- Reactions
- 7,083
- Points
- 113
They are witch trials, aren’t they? She’s the modern heroic heretic. I’d love to know what her abusers are actually complaining about - and afraid of.
What’s the gist of the podcast?
tented
Administrator
It begins with an interview of Rowling, discussing the reactions to her instantly infamous tweets, then goes on to discuss everything from the history of witch trials, to the history of cancel culture and its associated language, to TERFs, to interviews with trans people, and concludes with another interview of Rowling, this one conducted after Phelps-Roper had done all of this other work. I loved it, but it is a big ask to get others to listen to it.
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
britbox
Multiple Major Winner
I might listen to that one. My son was doing a project on the Witch Trials at school. Seems anyone with some sort of esoteric connection was deemed a "witch" and killed. Kind of explains the raids (colonialism for want of a better word) to wipe out the Indigenous populations and either seize their knowledge or prevent them from using it.
tented
Administrator
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T | THE EASTERNERS - THE SLAVS thread. | World Affairs | 13 | |
|
|
Russia Politics Thread | World Affairs | 82 | |
|
|
UK Politics Thread | World Affairs | 1004 | |
|
|
US Politics Thread | World Affairs | 8540 |