>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Ryjkyj:
WTF, people are born with two half/completely whole sets of genitals are the time. I think the numbers for hermaphroditic birth are about one in a hundred, and the doctors and parents decide right then what gender the child is going to have. For better or worse, this happens all the time. It always amazes me that people act like this stuff is so new just because the person chooses their own gender later in life.

It's nowhere near as common as you think. 1 in 100 is ridiculously common... This german study found it to be '2 per 10,000 births with ambiguous genitalia per year in Germany. ',
So, no, it's not super common at all. Not to say it doesn't happen, but also what you're describing is a different thing to this. Gender association and having the deep feeling you are not the sex your body is, is a different thing to having ambiguous genitalia. Also... there are horrendous cases of babies having their sex chosen by doctors/parents in those cases and it being the opposite of what they identify with, and becoming horrendously unhappy people. Very sad.


Yeah, it's been a long time since I took that sociology class. 1 in 100 "differ from standard male or female" and 1 in 1000 have surgery to "normalize genital appearance".

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Anyway, my point wasn't really that a gender change later in life is the same as an operation at birth. Merely that surgery "down there" occurs all the time. We act like the surgery is so uncommon when it's not. It's really just the changing of gender that most people have a problem with. But the point everyone misses is that this girl didn't change her gender... she's always felt she was a girl. She just simply had an operation that changed her physical appearance.

And just wait until the public finds out that she's a lesbian!

>> ^Ryjkyj:

WTF, people are born with two half/completely whole sets of genitals are the time. I think the numbers for hermaphroditic birth are about one in a hundred, and the doctors and parents decide right then what gender the child is going to have. For better or worse, this happens all the time. It always amazes me that people act like this stuff is so new just because the person chooses their own gender later in life.


It's nowhere near as common as you think. 1 in 100 is ridiculously common... This german study found it to be '2 per 10,000 births with ambiguous genitalia per year in Germany. ',

So, no, it's not super common at all. Not to say it doesn't happen, but also what you're describing is a different thing to this. Gender association and having the deep feeling you are not the sex your body is, is a different thing to having ambiguous genitalia. Also... there are horrendous cases of babies having their sex chosen by doctors/parents in those cases and it being the opposite of what they identify with, and becoming horrendously unhappy people. Very sad.

WTF, people are born with two half/completely whole sets of genitals are the time. I think the numbers for hermaphroditic birth are about one in a hundred, and the doctors and parents decide right then what gender the child is going to have. For better or worse, this happens all the time. It always amazes me that people act like this stuff is so new just because the person chooses their own gender later in life.

Stay classy. (<-- that's about all the time I feel like wasting on your ignorant drivel)
>> ^CaptainPlanet:


frankly your disgust comes off a bit conceited. Genital mutilation, or the mutilation of genitals, is never ok. as someone who claims to 'oppose' circumcision, how can you look in the mirror and see anything but an ugly face hypocrite? some people are so 'open minded' their brains really do fall out
as per your Brazilian girl, i'm sure she would love for you to tell her it was "elective surgery", bitch-fuck-holeintheass
you also said that you are lazy, which i am inclined to agree with. anyone who can quote laws strictly dictating these disgusting procedures not be administered to anyone under 18 and at the same time intentionally over looks the fact that the woman in question is 16, is a lazy piece of shit and hope you dead

frankly your disgust comes off a bit conceited. Genital mutilation, or the mutilation of genitals, is never ok. as someone who claims to 'oppose' circumcision, how can you look in the mirror and see anything but an ugly face hypocrite? some people are so 'open minded' their brains really do fall out

as per your Brazilian girl, i'm sure she would love for you to tell her it was "elective surgery", bitch-fuck-holeintheass

you also said that you are lazy, which i am inclined to agree with. anyone who can quote laws strictly dictating these disgusting procedures not be administered to anyone under 18 and at the same time intentionally over looks the fact that the woman in question is 16, is a lazy piece of shit and hope you dead

@MilkmanDan

Please watch the video and interview. There is no way a kid can get anywhere near hormonal treatment, let alone grs, before going through a battery of psychiatrists and doctors over a period of many, many years. Do you think a "dumbass" with mixed ideas about their identity could possibly slip through?

As for calling this "genital mutilation", @CaptainPlanet, I am frankly disgusted at your flippant use of the term. You know what would've been genital mutilation? When a young Tim Petras tried to cut off her penis out of frustration of being in the wrong body. As a strong opponent of genital mutilation (including male circumcision performed on minors), I am doubly insulted, as would surely be Kim. Calling grs "genital mutilation" is akin to calling this "facial mutilation": technically true, connotatively false.

@bmacs27

Talking about consent makes it seem the parents were the ones who pushed this on her, instead of vice-versa. I doubt that's what you meant, but I just thought I'd clarify. Like I mentioned above, gender identity isn't solely a question of sexuality, and it is defined long before puberty. Moreover, the hormonal treatment - which is reversible at any time - spanned at least four psychiatrist-followed years. I'm pretty sure if there had been the slightest inkling of a doubt during that period the shrinks would have picked up on it and vetoed the surgical procedure. Also, please notice that her grs was not "pre-pubescent": seriously, how many kids hit puberty at 16? Moreover, while the hormone treatment is reversible, male puberty is not (cf my above comments).

As for data, there surely is (too lazy to look now), showing that those who come to the idea of grs because of confused sexual identity or problems linked to abuse are kindly redirected during the long psychiatric process. I happen to know a psychiatrist who specialises in transsexualism (in CH you are required by law to see one minimum 1 year before being considered for hormonal treatment, 2 years for grs, in addition to being over 18), and she told me that cases of perceived transsexualism due to childhood abuse and/or confused sexual identity (notably repressed homosexuality) are not rare. There are instances of hormone use, namely in Brazil, for simply lucrative purposes ("dick-girl" prostitution), which I am obviously against if pressured upon the person (sadly the case sometimes).

there are way too many people here that are way too cool with genital mutilation

Above all, please remember it's nothing personal, just the future of our country on the line.

It's not Kenyan, it's "Kenyawaiian". Because Obama's papa was Kenyan, and he (the son) was born in Hawaii. Allegedly.

No one has the time or energy to read--much less list--all the failures of the corrupt regime presently in power, so settle for a single buzz word or two that summarizes the opposition.

I cannot care about the fine tuning between definitions of socialism, marxism and communism, they're all dung from different animals.

Suspend thinking of me (or Blanky) as your idealogical frenemies for a moment and try to see us instead as peeps concerned about fidelity to the Constitution and positive results. I don't give a sh1t about what the Obama regime or liberals in general say they want to do, or claim will happen, my concern is what are the REAL results of following liberal policies such as raising taxes on the wealthy (which then trickle down to us in the form of higher prices and less employment), non-stop government spending of money we don't have and onerous, business-killing regulations.

If this socialist claptrap worked, Europe would have less than permanent double-digit unemployment and less than 4 countries on the verge of economic collapse.

I really don't think you want to go to the tale of the tape (facts-n-sh1t) because from Roosevelt onward, federal tyranny has increased exponentially with the size of the welfare state.

If you want me to stop 'accusing' Obama of being a screw-up, tell him to stop jumping off the same cliff of tried-n-failed socialist baloney with styrofoam wings, then blaming Republicans instead of gravity when he plummets.

I don't say it enough: I wish the left could prove me wrong with examples of success instead of promises that never arrive.





>> ^volumptuous:

What's your point GSF?
Should we learn from people like Cafferty (a know-nothing millionaire pundit with absolutely zero focus on monetary policy or economics) and Ron Paul (a devout racist and sexist dominionist who hates our democracy and would like nothing more than to transfer our dwindling wealth all the way upward) and Blankfist (who's a film maker who identifies strictly to Ayn Randian/Paulian methods of extreme wealth inequality) and Quantum (who can't even get his soshulism/marxism right?) ?
OR
Should we listen to pretty much every single economist on the planet who tells us exactly the opposite of these people?
That's really up to you. But personally, arguing with the likes of these people is the same as arguing against a witch doctor in Africa who performs ritual genital mutilations for religious purposes. There's absolutely no way that person will ever think "oh, ya know you're right. maybe women should keep their clitorises and all this religious stuff is nonsense".
No, it's never going to happen, ever. But it doesn't matter. These videos get at most 2-5 upvotes, and Blanky has to keep promoting his own videos because the rest of the planet doesn't buy into this type of garbage.
So, open your mouth and eat my vomit

What's your point GSF?

Should we learn from people like Cafferty (a know-nothing millionaire pundit with absolutely zero focus on monetary policy or economics) and Ron Paul (a devout racist and sexist dominionist who hates our democracy and would like nothing more than to transfer our dwindling wealth all the way upward) and Blankfist (who's a film maker who identifies strictly to Ayn Randian/Paulian methods of extreme wealth inequality) and Quantum (who can't even get his soshulism/marxism right?) ?

OR

Should we listen to pretty much every single economist on the planet who tells us exactly the opposite of these people?

That's really up to you. But personally, arguing with the likes of these people is the same as arguing against a witch doctor in Africa who performs ritual genital mutilations for religious purposes. There's absolutely no way that person will ever think "oh, ya know you're right. maybe women should keep their clitorises and all this religious stuff is nonsense".

No, it's never going to happen, ever. But it doesn't matter. These videos get *at most* 2-5 upvotes, and Blanky has to keep promoting his own videos because the rest of the planet doesn't buy into this type of garbage.

So, open your mouth and eat my vomit

>> ^DerHasisttot:


The more people are vaccinated, the more likely it is that HPV is not transmitted to the women's children, the more likely it is that HPV is eradicated in the future: No more genital warts and hopefully, no more deaths. Compare smallpox.
Additionally, afaik and researched, there are no serious side-effects.
To be against the vaccine is demonstrably going against the science. Again: No significant negative, much positive.


To be "with the science", you sure are making a lot of unscientific claims. The vaccine industry is run on dogma, not science.

>> ^Enzoblue:

Again, why is the left media so angered by this? The vaccination is stretching the connection of HPV with cervical cancer with some seriously dubious numbers. 6 MILLION women get HPV and only 4000 die from the cancer??? The reason the vaccine is a topic, is because Governor Perry tried to force, BY LAW, all little girls in his state to get it because he was getting kick backs from Merck - the sole producer of this vaccine.
I'm all for vaccines, but this one smells of sleeze. It's curious why the media is taking such an "OMG anti-science" stance.


The more people are vaccinated, the more likely it is that HPV is not transmitted to the women's children, the more likely it is that HPV is eradicated in the future: No more genital warts and hopefully, no more deaths. Compare smallpox.

Additionally, afaik and researched, there are no serious side-effects.
To be against the vaccine is demonstrably going against the science. Again: No significant negative, much positive.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Louis, CK, Conan, OBrien, 2001, ass, father, screw that, tuna, racist, wedding, genitals' to 'Louis CK, Conan OBrien, 2001, ass, father, screw that, tuna, racist, wedding, genitals' - edited by xxovercastxx

@spoco2

Let me get this straight... A young kid gets vaccinated, suffers an adverse reaction to it which leads to "autism like" symptoms. And the vaccine did NOT cause autism? The kid was going to get autism anyway? Bullshit. You have no evidence to back up that position.

BTW, they can make mercury-free vaccines. So why do you statist idiots want to mandate everyone get blasted with neurotoxins?

And typical deflecting argument... you can't argue a position without blurring the debate with ad hominem static. What happened to your false analogy? Did you fart again? You must have if you thought HPV vaccines lower cervical cancer rates. And you're ignoring the unintended consequences of trying to vaccinate a relatively common STD that's usually harmless and goes away without treatment. How's that happen you say? Our body has it's own defense system that eliminates the virus. Maybe we should start vaccinating people for colds, you think? Then no one will have colds anymore!

Neil Miller: "Research has shown that when vaccines only target a small number of strains capable of causing disease, less prevalent strains can replace the targeted vaccine strains. These less prevalent strains graduate from minor factors to major influences and may even become more dangerous. Scientists are now concerned that Gardasil -- which only targets two of at least 15 different cancer-causing HPV strains -- might be allowing HPV strains previously considered minor to flourish and become major influences."

More from the article:
By February 2011, more than 20,500 adverse reaction reports pertaining to Gardasil were filed with the U.S. government -- an average of 12 reports per day [VAERS]. Nearly half of all reports required a doctor or emergency room visit, with hundreds of teenage girls and young women needing extended hospitalization.

In the case reports submitted to the FDA, 89 deaths were described due to blood clots, heart disease and other causes. In addition, many of the vaccine recipients -- young women -- were stricken with serious and life-threatening disabilities, including Guillain-Barre syndrome (paralysis), seizures, convulsions, swollen limbs, chest pain, heart irregularities, kidney failure, visual disturbances, arthritis, difficulty breathing, severe rashes, persistent vomiting, miscarriages, menstrual irregularities, reproductive complications, genital warts, vaginal lesions and HPV infection -- the main reason to vaccinate.

According to Dr. Diane Harper, director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the University of Missouri, 'The rate of serious adverse events [from Gardasil] is greater than the incidence rate of cervical cancer.' [ABC News (August 19, 2009).]

Gardasil is being promoted as 100 percent effective. However, this is a deceptive assessment of its true ability to protect against cervical cancer. Gardasil is effective against just two strains of cancer-causing HPV -- the ones included in the vaccine -- but researchers have identified at least 15 cancer-causing HPV strains!

Gardasil will not prevent infection with HPV types not contained in the vaccine. In fact, during clinical trials of the vaccine, hundreds of women who received Gardasil contracted HPV disease. Furthermore, the drug maker warns women (in its product insert) that 'vaccination does not substitute for routine cervical cancer screening.'
/source
In other words, your propaganda quote from the NCI is horseshit.

you materialistic dickbags should all be replaced by machines. get back to work, meat drones.

also, i just call my ruby a blood diamond. and pretend it's the most valuable because its dripping with the blood of 50 children. i out rank you all. in style, class, wit and genital size.