Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

tpr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 379 posts

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#251

Post by PartiallyTyped »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #231
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again completely missing the point, nobody is bullying them because they are gay, nor are they being bullied. They are facing the consequences of purposefully breaking the social contract by harming LGBT people.

> Again completely missing the point, nobody is bullying them because they are gay, nor are they being bullied. That's not what the list says.

so why aren’t my gay friends on that list?

After all, if they are being bullied because they are gay, all gay people should be listed on there.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#252

Post by transcoderx »

vidarh wrote: post #245
transcoderx wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Oh, look, instead of looking for actual evidence, you double down on trying to justify the choice of a known transphobic activist. Google a bit deeper. Of course, given your growing number of comments in this thread flagged for your own transphobic responses it's not surprising.

[flagged]

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#254

Post by transcoderx »

stonogo wrote: post #250
transcoderx wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dysphoria actually dissolves in most cases, not just in a few cases. And the hormone blockers allegedly also prevent the dysphoria from dissolving in many cases.Hormone blockers also have severe side effects, even possible sterilisation. Since most people end up not actually being trans, more people are now hurt by pushing transitioning as the solution for everything. And you absolutely can not deny that it is be…

Sure I can. Watch: It is not being pushed. I'm on my phone so I can't back that up, but we've already established in this thread that is sufficient grounds to be believed.

Yeah you can say that, but then you just signal that you don't want to be taken seriously.

Not sure how you manage to live in so much denial, but if you can truly pull it off, congratulations! May it work out well for you!

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#255

Post by transcoderx »

vidarh wrote: post #249
transcoderx wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citations? If you look into the actual studies, the picture may not be so clear cut. For example a lot if results actually only taje older people into account (who transitioned when they were older). What analogy do you see to the satanic cult thing? Children were told they had been abused, and many caregivers were being sentenced. Who is being told what in the trans hype? Children are falsely being told they are not…

0.2%-0.3% regret: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8105823/ 1% regret: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33968550/ Meanwhile, finding actual studies of regret of cosmetic surgery is much harder, because nobody cares or want to stop people from getting boob jobs unless they're trans . So we're stuck with poor quality surveys like this one [1] claiming 65% regret, this one done for a group with a profit motiv…

The first study is a survey of surgeons, which seems rather useless. What warrants the assumptions that they would learn about the long term outcomes of their surgeries?

The second claims to have looked into several studies, which might include ones like the first one. Would be nice to have an actually useful direct study, especially for young people.

As for cosmetic surgery, you brought that up. I don't think it is as worrying, as many of them are reversible, and they don't sterilize the recipients. Somebody regretting to get a nose job is hardly in the same category as someone regretting they cut off their penis.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#256

Post by transcoderx »

notahacker wrote: post #237
transcoderx wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard demons and imps as an argument. Can you explain to me why children need to see drag shows, which are about sexual attraction, and why they need porn in the classroom?

It was an argument from one of the definitely-not moral panicking Florida legislators whose legislation you're defending. Sounds super scientific to me! Drag shows aren't necessarily about sexual attraction and most the definitely not moral panicking laws in question makes being a "male impersonator" or "female impersonator" in the presence of children (or in some cases within quarter of a mile of them!) a felony rat…

I never mentioned any specific laws or senators, you did.

But I have seen videos of such drag shows with kids, and examples of the debated books.

So stop bullshitting me. It is absolutely about sexualization and pornographic content. That other examples may exist is besides the point. Specific laws may be badly written, but the intent is certainly not to make Ms Doubtfire illegal.

And even Anne Frank may not be appropriate for children of all ages. Afaik it does contain passages about sex.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#257

Post by themitigating »

transcoderx wrote: post #247
themitigating wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3383545/

That appears to be one single case.

I realize that people like you on the right have the sole purpose of wasting time.

https://chiro.org/pediatrics/ABSTRACTS/Acetaminophen.shtml

Is that enough? And by the way this is a higher rate the abortion pill that was banned.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#258

Post by klyrs »

at_a_remove wrote: post #225
Timon3 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just made a wild jump. Do you think hormones are a type of surgery?

That's weird. I used the conjunctive and , not "hormones, a subtype of surgery ." Did you read it another way by accident?

Your parent was complaining about you shifting the goalpost from surgery to medication. They could have done so with less snark, but the complaint is fair: hormone blockers are less invasive than hormones, which are in turn less invasive than surgery. All three call for different criteria. Ignoring that difference is seen by some here as intellectually dishonest.

And to answer your question, no, I believe that such matters should largely be decided between doctor and patient. I do not think that highly polarized politics should be driving medical decisions, and that medical ethics boards are much better suited to make policies in situations like this.

Re: After 30 years, a father is exonerated in 'Satanic panic' case

#259

Post by notahacker »

transcoderx wrote: post #256
notahacker wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an argument from one of the definitely-not moral panicking Florida legislators whose legislation you're defending. Sounds super scientific to me! Drag shows aren't necessarily about sexual attraction and most the definitely not moral panicking laws in question makes being a "male impersonator" or "female impersonator" in the presence of children (or in some cases within quarter of a mile of them!) a felony rat…

I never mentioned any specific laws or senators, you did. But I have seen videos of such drag shows with kids, and examples of the debated books. So stop bullshitting me. It is absolutely about sexualization and pornographic content. That other examples may exist is besides the point. Specific laws may be badly written, but the intent is certainly not to make Ms Doubtfire illegal. And even Anne Frank may not be appro…

haha, the person arguing that laws which explicitly don't mention sexualised behaviour and explicitly do call out such horrors as "sings, lip syncs and dances" whilst being "a performer which exhibits a gender identity that is different than the performer's gender assigned at birth" is really all about sexualization and pornography whose legal status is unchanged is accusing me of bullshitting. Funny how they're all so badly written that Mrs Doubtfire would have to avoid singing, but a red blooded alpha male can tell all the smutty jokes to an audience of minors he wants! What next? It's "beside the point" that black people were targeted by Jim Crow laws because it was absolutely about efficient use of bus space?

There's no moral panic here, actually it's entirely normal to make it a criminal offence to have Anne Frank's diary in a classroom if a parent complains!

Post reply on HN