If you want to end transgender surgeries overnight, encourage those customers to sue the hospitals for botched results. Because there are no good results from these procedures - and because every tranny is a narcissist who will seek out every opportunity to claim victimhood - every operation will result in a lawsuit. The hospitals won’t be able to insure against these surgeries, and the liability will become prohibitive. Bye bye, “life affirming care”.
They already make them sign a lot of paperwork regarding what the surgery actually entails. Which they likely skim through because "BARBIE POCKET." In that paperwork is likely the doctor detailing the exact butchery that they will do, and that all the "bad results" were the expected ones that you signed off on.
Doctors might be evil, but they are not stupid. The majority of them likely already got themselves an ironed out defense for this exact scenario, because even regular doctors have insurance on top of lawyers ready for this exact type of lawsuit to happen.
This isn't normal people insurance, its malpractice insurance. It'll trickle down to just increasing medical insurance as a whole for basically the entire country. That's one of the biggest reasons why medical insurance (and medical treatment in general) is already so high. Its heavily factored by how often malpractice suits are brought about, due to that old joke about how sue heavy Americans are being pretty true.
And for it to even get going, they have to prove they deviated from the "standards of the industry" to qualify as having committed a wrong. As long as these surgeries are condoned by the medical industry, they legally cannot be considered having done a crime as long as they didn't commit a major misstep somewhere else.
That's why I said they have lawyers on top of the insurance. They aren't going to be that easy to nail to the wall until all of society turns against them. Until then, you likely won't even get to trial to try and "redpill" the kind of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
I don't like it in the slightest, either. But we can't count on the system to fix the system either. It'll only happen through extreme force, not clever loopholes.
Because there are no good results from these procedures
Anything is good by sufficiently low standards, and bad by sufficiently high standards. They'll just get 'expert testimony' from doctors making loads of money off of it to testify that this prevented 900 billion suicides, and courts will rule in their favor.
It's certainly worth trying, but easy solutions do not exist when the regime has imperium over truth and falsehood.
"If we can't turn your children into a Frankenstein monster. than we're not going to bother!"
I don't like using the whole "slippery slope" argument (largely because it's often used post hoc and ignores professional activism), but they aren't help themselves when they do shit like this.
"Slippery slope" has another name: "Established precedent".
Observe:
"It's just a slippery slope argument that legalizing weed will lead to more people driving while high!" -> "It's just an established precedent argument that legalizing weed will lead to more people driving while high!"
"It's slippery slope argument to say that not punishing criminals will raise crime rates!" -> "It's established precedent argument to say that not punishing criminals will raise crime rates!"
The person with the curse known as "basic logic" will be called a slippery slope fallacist, because often, all the argument is, is assuming that what happens in micro scale, will happen on macro scale. Which to be fair, isn't ALWAYS true, but there's a reason studies and trial-scale operations exist: Because while not ALWAYS true, it OFTEN is.
I like to say that the slippery slope argument is a request for a limiting principle. Take getting rid of Sodomy laws as an example.
"If we let them have sex with each other, what's going to stop them from trying to get married? And then what if they start wanting to marry teenagers to older men? And then kids?"
Reasonable libertarian: the government shouldn't be involved in discussions of marriage, nor in the sexual choices of consenting adults. Your church shouldn't be forced to acknowledge someone's claim of being married, and marriage is a religious ceremony that shouldn't even be registered with the government, let alone carry benefits. Anyone trying to involve children in sexual matters is a pedophile who deserves exile at a bare minimum. Teenagers should only be experimenting ssxually with other teenagers of a similar maturity. Anything else, pedo shit that deserves exile at a bare minimum. All of these are limiting principles.
Pedo progressive: "We aren't asking for that (mutters: yet).
Utah's largest health care provider looked like it was on the path to expanding gender-affirming surgery options for adults. But in January, the state passed a law banning gender-affirming care for minors. And now the hospital system says it will not offer those additional adult services.
I occasionally subject myself to NPR on the commute, and heard this piece yesterday. Journalists claim to be puzzled as to why this hospital would cancel this program after setting it up and hiring a "surgeon" to lead it. They refused to make the connection between the lack of chemically castrated minors and the need for customers for these assholes.
Amber Chevrier knew something wasn't right with her body since puberty, but she didn't learn the words to describe how she felt until her mid-20s, when she met a trans woman.
It’s even more obvious with “non-binary” and other such bullshit. The minute it became common “knowledge” that you could not be either gender, it became really common to be neither gender, though almost exclusively among people in the most impressionable ages. But it’s totally real, I’m clearly misinterpreting the history of a totally real thing.
If you want to end transgender surgeries overnight, encourage those customers to sue the hospitals for botched results. Because there are no good results from these procedures - and because every tranny is a narcissist who will seek out every opportunity to claim victimhood - every operation will result in a lawsuit. The hospitals won’t be able to insure against these surgeries, and the liability will become prohibitive. Bye bye, “life affirming care”.
They already make them sign a lot of paperwork regarding what the surgery actually entails. Which they likely skim through because "BARBIE POCKET." In that paperwork is likely the doctor detailing the exact butchery that they will do, and that all the "bad results" were the expected ones that you signed off on.
Doctors might be evil, but they are not stupid. The majority of them likely already got themselves an ironed out defense for this exact scenario, because even regular doctors have insurance on top of lawyers ready for this exact type of lawsuit to happen.
Make them use it. It gets more expensive when you use it.
It'll also red-pill the absolute shit out of twelve people if the troon can get a jury trial.
This isn't normal people insurance, its malpractice insurance. It'll trickle down to just increasing medical insurance as a whole for basically the entire country. That's one of the biggest reasons why medical insurance (and medical treatment in general) is already so high. Its heavily factored by how often malpractice suits are brought about, due to that old joke about how sue heavy Americans are being pretty true.
And for it to even get going, they have to prove they deviated from the "standards of the industry" to qualify as having committed a wrong. As long as these surgeries are condoned by the medical industry, they legally cannot be considered having done a crime as long as they didn't commit a major misstep somewhere else.
That's why I said they have lawyers on top of the insurance. They aren't going to be that easy to nail to the wall until all of society turns against them. Until then, you likely won't even get to trial to try and "redpill" the kind of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
I want to argue with you but you are annoyingly correct. How things are isn't how they should be.
I don't like it in the slightest, either. But we can't count on the system to fix the system either. It'll only happen through extreme force, not clever loopholes.
Anything is good by sufficiently low standards, and bad by sufficiently high standards. They'll just get 'expert testimony' from doctors making loads of money off of it to testify that this prevented 900 billion suicides, and courts will rule in their favor.
It's certainly worth trying, but easy solutions do not exist when the regime has imperium over truth and falsehood.
"If we can't turn your children into a Frankenstein monster. than we're not going to bother!"
I don't like using the whole "slippery slope" argument (largely because it's often used post hoc and ignores professional activism), but they aren't help themselves when they do shit like this.
Slippery slope is only a fallacy when A and B have no connection that can even be assumed to be possible. Like neutering dogs giving kids autism.
If you can make a solid argument in favor, then the slippery slope is just caution with a scary name on it to make people back down.
"Slippery slope" has another name: "Established precedent".
Observe:
"It's just a slippery slope argument that legalizing weed will lead to more people driving while high!" -> "It's just an established precedent argument that legalizing weed will lead to more people driving while high!"
"It's slippery slope argument to say that not punishing criminals will raise crime rates!" -> "It's established precedent argument to say that not punishing criminals will raise crime rates!"
The person with the curse known as "basic logic" will be called a slippery slope fallacist, because often, all the argument is, is assuming that what happens in micro scale, will happen on macro scale. Which to be fair, isn't ALWAYS true, but there's a reason studies and trial-scale operations exist: Because while not ALWAYS true, it OFTEN is.
I like to say that the slippery slope argument is a request for a limiting principle. Take getting rid of Sodomy laws as an example.
"If we let them have sex with each other, what's going to stop them from trying to get married? And then what if they start wanting to marry teenagers to older men? And then kids?"
Reasonable libertarian: the government shouldn't be involved in discussions of marriage, nor in the sexual choices of consenting adults. Your church shouldn't be forced to acknowledge someone's claim of being married, and marriage is a religious ceremony that shouldn't even be registered with the government, let alone carry benefits. Anyone trying to involve children in sexual matters is a pedophile who deserves exile at a bare minimum. Teenagers should only be experimenting ssxually with other teenagers of a similar maturity. Anything else, pedo shit that deserves exile at a bare minimum. All of these are limiting principles.
Pedo progressive: "We aren't asking for that (mutters: yet).
And that's how you tell the difference.
The slippery slope was wrong only in that it underestimated the degeneration that would result.
I occasionally subject myself to NPR on the commute, and heard this piece yesterday. Journalists claim to be puzzled as to why this hospital would cancel this program after setting it up and hiring a "surgeon" to lead it. They refused to make the connection between the lack of chemically castrated minors and the need for customers for these assholes.
I do appreciate that they admit to grooming.
Literally. If you never knew what was wrong with you until someone else told you, perhaps it's all in your head.
It’s even more obvious with “non-binary” and other such bullshit. The minute it became common “knowledge” that you could not be either gender, it became really common to be neither gender, though almost exclusively among people in the most impressionable ages. But it’s totally real, I’m clearly misinterpreting the history of a totally real thing.
Every one of the people involved in this needs to be in jail.
It wouldn't be NPR without shitty music.