CharonY

Perhaps it is just an elaborate process just to annul his marriage. It helps to consider that a) white supremacists are not necessarily internally consistent (well clearly they aren't, it is actually one of their hallmarks, similar to certain forms of facism) and b) that they also have a deep root in misogynist thoughts. Specifically, abortion empowers women, which puts them into a station where should not be and as such it is degenerate and to be opposed. At the same time, white supremacists see themselves as victims, so they "feel" that abortions (which they are already opposed for above reasons) are clearly targeting their race (even if evidence shows the opposite). While they are also unhappy with contraception (for similar reasons as mentioned), they are alright with that being provided to black folks or other minorities, though outright sterilization is of course preferred. Ultimately it boils down to the issue that these folks need to always consider themselves as victims to justify their behaviour.

Sorry to take it a bit off-topic, but I wanted to say that there are quite a few far right groups (including Proud Boys) that have this as part of their core ideology. They were really fringe, but the internet has given them prominence and recruitment options. The Great Replacement theory is even bigger than that, and has been feeding off white resentment for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement Trump really just brought it into mainstream in the US, but has been latent everywhere (it falls under the broader umbrella of "you are not like us" and it is easier to pick up if you are a visible immigrant, I guess). Indirectly (or rather, unintentionally, perhaps), essentially if you criminalize abortion at a given stage, it becomes possible that if folks lose their child due to their action (say, taking drugs or causing an accident) can result in prosecution. This is not theoretical, as it actually has happened quite a bit already. Putting in criminal laws can expand these prosecutions.

I think it was outcrop of the morality side-discussion in which the question came whetehr abortion of full-term babies should be criminalized/banned. And the counterpoint from there was that these and other types of late-term abortion (without medical indication) simply do not exist in practice and legislation to that effect would just be moral grandstanding with potentially unintended consequences. Examples for that are criminalization of miscarriages.

But Peterkin is not ??? I mean, both are actually talking points pushed by an overlap of folks. While hyperbolically stated, white nationalism has an emphasis on conscripting white women into reproduction to sustain the white race (especially with a view on an eventual race war). Many in that group do think that abortion targets especially white babies (as they are perpetual victims). Moreover, these far-right groups also have "traditional" views on women, which does include their role as submissive child bearers (in interviews more derogatory terms came up). So in a way both things are certain anti-abortion folks think that they exist or (more on the fringe side), should exist. Of course the replacement theory (i.e. that white folks are being replaced by folks with more pigments) seems to have gotten into US mainstream (and frighteningly, also somewhat into Canada).

To a large part that was caused by putting sycophants in charge. Scott Atlas (someone with no infectious disease expertise) pushed hard for a herd immunity strategy via infections. https://coronavirus.house.gov/news/press-releases/clyburn-trump-atlas-birx-redfield-herd-immunity-report

That's the rub, isn't it? It basically means that in various countries, including the US, moral judgement is taking precedence over medical reality and recommendation. The fact that medically unnecessary late-abortions are often brought one, which simply do not exist (including in Canada, where there are not limitations on abortions) just demonstrates that this is really about moral assumptions and control that are separate from reality (recreational abortions anyone?).

And that is why your analogy is silly. The medical associations determine when abortions are medically indicated. You can make laws that contravene medical indications, but clearly it would be to the detriment of the patient. Likewise, you can make laws to build bridges where engineers tell you not to, but that would be stupid. Organ trade is a bit of a grey area and it is regulated as unfettered trade could be unsafe to patients.

And that is why there are medical associations which provide guidelines and regulation. It is not that criminal law is not in place (e.g. you cannot freely trade with organs). But determining what is medically beneficial for the patient can and should only be provided by health professionals. In your example it would be the equivalent of letting lawmakers rather than trained engineers where a bridge is safe.

Or say, we develop the ability to connect an external womb to a man. Would a father be obligated to incubate the child if e.g. the mother dies or is otherwise unable to bring to term? I.e. can the the needs of one (potential) individual override the needs of another person? Interestingly, Canada has a rather rigid definition of human being. Essentially the Canadian criminal code states that a child becomes a human being when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.

Not to mention that they suffer professional consequences and may not be able to practice if they go against medical recommendations and regulations. Why is then a need to criminalize procedures by folks who are neither medical professionals nor otherwise involved in the process? Or are you suggesting that lawmakers should determine medical necessity and procedure?

The dissent seems to echo that. From the NYT editorial board:

Even without laws preventing it, which healthcare provider would actually do that? At that stage going through with birth or c-section would be safer, as you mentioned. After all, it is still a medical procedure and is subject to medical guidelines. In that regard I think the right (i.e. not able to be criminalized for an action) and medical necessity, reality and regulations are not the same thing. I.e. you can have the right over your body and but you are not entitled to every medical procedure you want. In Canada, for example, there are no criminal restrictions for abortion. But no abortions are provided beyond ~23 weeks. This is an important distinction with severe legal consequences. For example, miscarriages especially late in term could and in fact already are, being investigated as manslaughter. In the US women are failed for manslaughter and even murder for taking drugs while pregnant. In one (now overturned case) a woman was sentenced to 11 years, for example. I.e. it means that during pregnancy, women could and are criminalized for actions, if they could affect the development of the fetus. The most common situation for conviction right now are use of illicit drugs. But realistically that could easily include other potential harmful actions. And considering the biological variability of child development, evidence can be very flimsy. And that is with Roe vs Wade in place.

Not only that, they took away body autonomy specifically from half of the population. I think RBG stated that there would be no equal rights without reproductive rights.

For the way you described it, the answer is no. mRNA cannot simply hop into our genomes. However, there are mechanisms with which especially viral genetic material can be integrated into our genomes via a variety of means, some of which are derived from the viruses themselves, other due to some mechanisms that eventually got into our genomes during our evolutionary history (such as retrotransposons). There have been studies suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 infections might result in some integration based on in vitro studies but follow-up suggested that it is either extremely rare or not happening. For vaccines it is important to remember that much less is introduced into your body and only a small part of the viral genome at that. I.e. even if it was true that infection with SARS-CoV-2 could introduce some genetic material into our cells, the likelihood with the vaccine is actually much lower. I.e. if you are worried about long-term effects, it would make more sense about getting infected with viruses, rather than getting vaccines against them.

Scientific papers only identify effects found in their respective cohort (sounds trivial but is an important distinction). And the overall recommendation based on a range of studies is therefore that it is safe (which may vary a bit based on the criteria of different health agencies). It does not make the claim pseudoscientific, but is rather a simplification for broader communication. I.e. because it is not precise enough for a paper, it does not mean that it is pseudoscientific. If that was the criterion, virtually all statements outside of scientific papers, including on this forum would be considered pseudoscience. I also do not think that anyone confused the recommendation of a health website with a scientific paper nor that is what JC was referring to. Edit: I will add that the evidence level for puberty blocker is not quite as high as for some other treatments (as their use is rare), and since it involves children, it does has some unique ethical issues surrounding consent (which is also why children-specific treatments are difficult to develop). There, added some qualifiers. Is it now semi-pseudoscientific?

It is a simplified statement, but not so much that I would disagree with it. If you take a look at the lit, it shows that after discontinuing suppressors hormonal levels start progressing as through normal puberty. In fact it, is the general consensus of most health professionals. Or conversely, I do not see studies that found irreversible effects of puberty blockers. A little sidebar here: In biology as well as medical sciences all claims require some level of qualifications. SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are very safe. Yet there are rare cases of issues. Should the CDC and other sources claiming that SARS-CoV-2 is safe deemed pseudoscience now? Same with puberty blockers. They suppress the onset of puberty and stopping reverses the process. But we do not know whether that delay itself could have any effects down the road. Heck, even "normal" developmental processes should have qualifiers when you want to be very accurate (because as I have said so many times, in biology there is no strict normality, just stochastic processes with varying degrees of likelihood). However, that is not what you would tell laypersons, as that would just confuse everyone. Thus, in terms of normal health communication it seems to follow what is generally understood with regard to puberty blockers. I also think it a bit weird that you automatically assume that this claim is wrong, without looking at what consensus is among health professionals. I.e. while you imply bias on my side, you do not have any evidence other than your interpretation of two sentences. From there you make a rather big claim of pseudoscience. Meanwhile, you could take a look at other sites that provide information for laypersons. Such as the Mayo clinic and others. There you find things like: And so on. So you would need to extend your claim to well-known health providers as part of as pseudoscientific cabal. I can also provide some literature, but I am honestly not sure whether it warrants the effort. You will be surprised to know that papers have a different target audience and that you use more than one sentence to make a point. Also, reviewers read the whole paper rather than take out a snipped and interpret it to death.

Jesus, that is quite a stretch and most of it is misunderstanding what is written there. The scientific evidence is that for the puberty process, the effects of puberty blockers is reversible. I.e. folks undergo puberty following the same trajectory once use of blockers are stopped. The other statement is not a contradiction but rather states that we do not have sufficient data (as the treatment is not in use for that long) to be sure whether something is going to happen years down the line. This is a potential worry as changes in development could have unknown long-term effects, but these required to be studied and have to weighed against the immediate detrimental effects (e.g. suicide attempts and other mental health issues). It is recommended for folks during use of puberty blockers to have sufficient calcium, Vitamind D and have their BMI monitored.

Yes, cyanobacteria are clearly bacteria and not plants. Plants and animals had a common ancestor roughly 1.5 billion years ago. Arthropods appeared about 500-600 million years ago, the order of Mantodea is about 145 million years old.

In the third study you linked to, they looked at puberty suppressors and gender-affirming hormones. In that group, kids around puberty (i.e. at the lower range) received suppressors, whereas the older ones received gender-affirming hormones (as it is not practice to provide them to per-pubteral patients). The other studies focused more on pubertal suppression. Edit: crossposted with a couple of other posts.

Here, I would ask whether there is any evidence that mental health is different in California than elsewhere. But the cited studies had US (nationwide) cohorts, as well as from the Netherlands. But the decision from Sweden highlights that the situation is not settled. Some advocate counselling, for example. However, it will take another couple of years before we can have data to indicate which approach is better or worse.

What about the opposite forcing them through a change in their bodies that just does not fit with their brains? It is a well-established fact that transgender people are at a much higher risk of suicide. They basically have two choices. Pretend what what they don't feel, in order to conform. This potentially can reduce harassment (not sure whether there is data on that), but it increases risk of self-harm. Or they can undergo social transition, which results in short-term benefits in terms of mental health, but can lead to harassment, which in the longer term again increases self-harm risk. What you seem to fail to understand is that puberty blockers and gender-affirming procedures are recommended by medical professionals, because they improve overall health. Let's follow the data a bit. There is a significant body of evidence showing that kids taking puberty blockers are at lower risk of suicide and other forms of self harm (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-1725 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2958 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cpp0000288) and improved well-being. Now, it does not mean that it is a one-size fits-all situation, but in contrast to the imagined example, the data at least indicates that it is more likely to be detrimental than harmful. There might be better ways out there, but clearly just let them ride it out currently has the worst outcome in terms of suicide and other mental health challenges. So why do we build homes, eat warm meals regularly take insulin, wear glasses and so on? All of that effects our biology in various ways.

I think there is a bit of an issue with the scope of the problem and our desire to use specific narratives. A specific case of abuse, especially involving known names just feels more emotionally engaging and interesting. However, domestic abuse is a widespread issue and IMO the best way to tackle them is to look and talk about population-wide data and patterns.

I thin you are right. Kids are seeming less confused about that then us older folks. I suspect that this is why in the USA there is this huge homophobic and transphobic backlash in terms books with LGBTQ themes or even characters at school.

From I understood from a cursory reading is that the jury basically finds Heard's claims in the op-ed to be false (i.e. they do not believe that she was a victim of abuse the way outlined in the article) and the counterclaim was a bit more specific but it reads like they don't believe that she faked abuse in a particular context. It is one of the reasons why I think that this prominent case is not a great starting point to talk about domestic abuse in general and abuse of men in particular. I think the OP wanted to argue that the claim of abuse is a form of abuse in itself, but did it in a bit of a roundabout way. I think that is a rather complicated issue as I think a lot of us have certain notions how domestic abuse "should" look like, but I suspect that there is a lot more to it, if we started digging in literature a bit. The classic domestic abuse hinges on material power differential, and since the husband traditionally has the earning power, they are considered more likely to be the abuser. But since then other patterns of abuse have been found and I would suspect that power differentials can be quite difficult to quantify. In this particular context both are public figures and certain common patterns of abuse (including isolation from social networks) did not seem to happen. Just because one is more famous than the other does not mean that they have direct power over the other. In fact, one could interpret the situation between them as an attempt to assert power. I don't think that mutual abuse is impossible as such, as both parties might engage in power struggles, even if coming from a less powerful (but still sufficiently independent) position. But again, I these are all just speculations.

At least part of the data on that website is based on EDGAR and the methodology is outlined here: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/methodology