New Executive Order: Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

Absolutely. They handed this presidency to Trump on a plate and still don't appear to realise why they lost the election. It will be a very interesting four years. I hope the worst predictions from Project 2025 (dictatorship, abolition of abortion, removal of gay marriage rights) don't come to pass. Project 2025 is very anti pornography so I'll be interested in seeing if they do anything about that.

I find it really odd that it's the people that think child experimentation is FINE who are warning about project 2025.

They've already shown their moral compass to be askew (charitably) and their judgement and ability to rationally analyse facts entirely absent.

It just reads as tin foil hat to me, especially since Trump has repeatedly said it's nothing to do with him at all and does not represent his views. It's basically lies to say this has anything to do with Trump, as he has repeatedly said Susie Wiles (now his chief of staff) has repeatedly said and many others. They've even described it as 'far right' and compared it to the 'far left' stuff like child sterilisation that they're trying to end.

A Guide to Project 2025 - FactCheck.org

Wouldn't it just. I'm not going to pass by the opportunity to safeguard children from sterilisation and body mutilation because I fundamentally disagree with the politicians who've produced these EOs.

It's time that all those criticising this, clarify what they're doing to insist that all the political parties and organisations that signed up to trans extremism finally start prioritising children's safety rather than a niche adult ideology.

If there is a section of Project 2025 you would like to talk about, you could start your own thread on it.

Trump has repeatedly disavowed project 2025. It's some cloud cuckoo land conservative ideas, not fact. And none of it is as batshit mad as sterilising children and having all state agencies doubling down on this and suppressing free speech about it. Which is what the Democrats have already done. They did all this without a democratic mandate and removed democratic free speech on this issue, so, you know it's a bit tin foil hat isn't it to be pointing to some ultra conservative wish list that HASN'T happened as some terrible ogre when sterilisation and mutilation of children HAS ACTUALLY happened. And yet the Democrats would be carrying on with that experimentation on children if they could.

🎯

It would have been far better if the democrats had done what Trump’s doing about gender ideology.

But they didn’t.

It encapsulates the out of touch elite, doesn't it? Unwilling to listen.

Please read up on the next stages of Project 2025
so that you are not surprised when they happen
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf

I've been so surprised about Obama.

Like a lot of people, I liked him overall, although I wasn't as starry eyed as many - in many ways he was a typical pro-capitalism, pro military American president.

But it seems like he is now completely blind about where the Dems are going wrong, clueless, out of the loop in a way that shocks me.

That video of him lecturing those black men about not voting for Harris because, he said, they didn't want to vote for a woman - my mouth dropped open, it was like looking at a man confidently running off of a cliff, completely unaware.

He'd only been in office a few days and he's managed to get right on top of this issue. Good for him. I wish other countries would follow suit on this particular issue.

The Dems have lost their way, though. And as long as Obama is their household god, I don't see things changing anytime soon.

Peter Thiel who gaves us Palantir a.k.a. Big Brother, don't think he says anything without an (AI) agenda.

But other than that, I thought Newsom is less crazy than a lot of other possible candidates. Not perfect, mind, but acceptable in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps with Gretchen Whitmer as VP candidate.

At least he is less likely to start WW3 on a whim than a few others.

I have googled so now know that transmasculine means female and vice versa.

So over the course of that study 64% of natal women persisted with transition as opposed to 81% of natal men..

Lumping them together and averaging the figure as 70.2% creates a ridiculously false result for both groups.

From https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9516050/

'Discontinuation of hormones was defined as failure to obtain another prescription > 90 days following completion of the most recent prescription. This study found that the 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2% with 81% for the transfeminine group and 64% for the transmasculine group.'

Both articles seem to refer to a 30% rate of discontinuation of hormones

From the https://archive.ph/zoTc8 article:

'In terms of the numbers, the highest-quality studies* *suggest that it could be between 5 and 10 percent of people detransition due to a change in their identity.
Now, if you’re talking about people who just stop hormones, that estimate in North America would be between 16 and 30 percent. But there’s a lot of reasons why trans people may choose to stop hormones — because of side effects, or just simply because they’re happy with where they’re at. It really bothers me when people take these higher figures and say that this is an avalanche of people detransitioning.'

Is it from the posts further down the thread?
https://archive.ph/zoTc8
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9516050/
There are various percentages bandied about in them

Peter Thiel said years ago that one day the Dems would be stupid enough to nominate a candidate from California.

Not sure they'd do it twice in a row, though Newsom is said to be Obama's favourite.

Gavin Newsom wants to be candidate, too

Does anyone know about this figure and where it might be from?

https://x.com/amayadeakins/status/1885455027629666574?s=46

“Hi, gender affirming care expert and @wpath member here. I want to take time to remind everyone that the current #detrans rates are estimated to be+/-30 percent. This doesn't include those who #desist or continue to transition.”

One of our problems in speaking about all this is that talking about fertility and future sexual experiences with children can be incredibly difficult. All parents know how hard it is to get the age appropriate / correct levels of information to our children. The yuck factor as they contemplate parental sex lives. And the inability of children to understand issues like future fertility, the implications of mutilating your bodies so that you'll rarely if ever have orgasms and satisfying sexual experiences.

The fact we've allowed these toxic people to persuade children that these are sacrifices worth taking is unforgivable.

My understanding of the new surgical trend for penile implants is that it's one of those things, like Viagra, that was developed for older men with ED, and it's now become fashionable for younger men in the porn industry.

For a man with chronic ED, fair enough. A healthy young man having it done? I suppose it's up to him whether the economic incentives outweigh never having a natural erection for the rest of his life. I can't think of many things less erotic than pushing a button to pump up your cock.

But that's at least working with an actual penis, and we forget what an amazing organ it is. The idea that you can replicate it with some combination of female body tissue plus nuts and bolts is bizarre.

I think one of the things that got Lord Winston concerned about this issue was transpeople having completely unrealistic ideas of what surgery could do for them. There are people profiting from this extreme body modification that don't really have an interest in them having a realistic idea.

Last time I looked, yes. An inserted rod so it's permanently erect. Or a different kind of rod so it's semi erect. Or pump it up with water, with a pump concealed in the testicles.

Either way it was fucking ridiculous. I understood hardly any women did it though.

I know nothing about surgery, but I shouldn't imagine there's any kind of surgery that can take a bit of rolled up arm skin, and make it erect when you're feeling horny.

"(b) convene States’ Attorneys General and other law enforcement officers to coordinate the enforcement of laws against female genital mutilation across all American States and Territories;"

I've thought this before, now it flooded back: This is really akin to FGM that the UN and other agencies try to eradicate - when it is done in poorer countries according to their patriarchic values. FGM is done with an intention to control the woman, too (even if female practicioners do this).

And additionally, I've realized that it is pretty strange that a belief that circulates around sexuality makes it impossible for many who underwent surgeries to enjoy that, compared to a physically healthy person. We really will be looking back on this like we do now for lobotomies.

Incredible. Finally