Erin

I got from the post right above mine

A round green dinosaur character with acorn eyes stands in a park.

Tama Kyoryu (dinosaur) is a mascot for the parks of Tama Hills, Tokyo. It has acorns for eyes, grass on its belly, and flowers and trees growing out of it.

huh, weird that my family plan through my job is both cheaper than the average, with a higher employer contribution, and significantly better benefits

I mean he was the subject of an intra far right cancellation a couple years ago which might have played a role

the registry act has a date which can be updated by congress which allows anyone without status who arrived in the US before that date to gain legal status

It would be worth asking WES what would constitute discrimination against gay people

reminds me of the trope I saw in 00s Ireland a fair bit, the idea that if there was a writer or artist who you felt was a bit fancy or obscure, people were just pretending to like them

Like, this guy is a public intellectual! what are you doing!

They should get angry about the desecration of our constitution if you ask me

It's in her lunch with the FT, she spills wine on herself or pasta or something, and then after that went up someone pointed out a couple other interviews where she does the same thing.

I mean she clearly has a shtick that works (I've read multiple interviews/profiles with her where she awkwardly spills her drink on herself, it's very rehearsed)

they did it in Cali too I think?

the weak should fear the strong

KING!!! that's so fucking sick

It sits together so weirdly with his stuff on Charlie Kirk

well they'll get a couple days of "holy based" from twitter accounts if they do this, which is from what I can tell their main motivation for everything

but they just appear to not notice that their position on every part of it has changed dramatically, to the point where child abuse investigations are seen as not especially noteworthy or cruel

like something Stephen Bush has talked about a lot is the thing in UK politics now where people are going on insanely massive ideological journeys and not noticing that they have - you see that here too, like people's views on it today are galaxies away from what they thought in like, 2021

(which I also noticed wasn't reported by the people whose beat includes breathlessly covering every piece of GC research about sky high regret rates or w/e, even though you'd think "major public campaign & recategorization of condition by leading researchers" would make news if you work on that)

there's also the campaign to have it recategorized as simply a subtype of disorders around belief/delusion, and not really a thing in its own right that warrants any intervention that isn't Talk Therapy (which cannot cause harm as it is not a compound)

I have noticed that the GC sciencey voices are starting to move away from the idea evidence quality/detransition rates are important by framing it as a mistake "both sides" make and instead unquantifiable ethical concerns should be the sole concern (weighted heavily in favor of inaction)

also this passage later on

I just have a hard time reconciling the idea that the other side of the debate is the one encouraging regressive ideas about gender when I read this. This guy is still really influential! IIRC his clinical partner also tried to frame herself as someone turning on blockers when she'd always opposed

I really don't know how to describe this, but it seems very plain that it's a fucked up thing to do. The parents talk about not wanting their kid to feel shame but he reads as very clearly extremely fucked up to me?

but also practically there's no information hygiene/discipline in those spaces. as long as what you say takes the right "side", it doesn't matter how sloppy you are with your facts. whereas Gordon Guyatt gets raked over the coals for relatively limited claims going the wrong direction, as it were.

I think if you look at what the cutting edge research from genspect et al is (i.e. their posts and groupchats etc.), they moved from "is the detransition rate too high"/"is evidence quality sufficient" to "the risk of harms is so unimaginably great even researching this treatment would be vile"

Per the 2008 Atlantic article where he is interviewed, he's pretty explicit that he's doing it and just delineates pre-pubescent kids (who he can successful stop being trans with an insane expansive family social surveillance system) and post-pubescent kids, who are too late to be helped

that crowd is so all over the shop with this number, sometimes its 80, I've seen >95% thrown around at times, but also per the economist its 20% now (and can you believe it's that high! we're shocked its so high at 20%! it's time for caution!)

yeah they decided to go with "Dems are demanding [specific thing]" and it was so out there as a lie that they are getting fact checked on CNN for it