Mitchfynde

USAID DEBATE

Claim 1: USAID is not an aid program. (8:17)

It was quite literally the world's largest foreign aid program. If tora sees this post, he's going to claim he never made this claim, but I don't know how else to take what he said. His co-host immediately points this out, with the addition that it's a "bad" aid program.

The projected deaths are not addressed seriously. They refer to it as "pouring money down the drain" even while experts are projecting 10s of millions of preventable deaths. MAGAslop.

Tora goes on to say that USAID was founded by the CIA to cause civil unrest in other countries. I actually don't care if this is true or false. It changes nothing about what I said. Things can be founded for nefarious reasons and then later become good programs, or vice versa. This is called the genetic fallacy.

He goes on to talk about USAID pushing "Marxism" because it funded sex change transitions in sub-Saharan Africa. He notes sarcastically that there are "oh so many trans people there". No surprise that he's against trans healthcare no matter which nation.

Claim 2: I was somehow advocating that we must prevent all preventable deaths by any means necessary taken to the absurd. (10:44)

His solution to my problem is that we should "glass every capitol building" run by a dictator in non-Western countries. Interesting acknowledgement baked into that, or maybe it was a Freudian slip. Obviously this is not my position. This is a strawman argument. I was advocating that we continue to prevent the deaths we were already preventing with USAID rather than end that program.

Claim 3: "Leftists" opposed the capture of Maduro because we were too anti-war / because he was a socialist / or TDS. (11:45)

I believe they were lumping me in here, as they repeatedly refer to me as a leftist. Some of the most extreme leftists may have supported releasing Maduro due to him being a socialist. I would not deny that. I was only opposed to his capture because I viewed it as unconstitutional, a violation of norms, and a reckless foreign policy move that would only create even more global chaos.

Claim 4: USAID was not to the benefit of America. (14:46)

This is a very typical slopulist talking point. Anyone who is consuming anti-Western propaganda will hold isolationist views and then, of course, they will randomly be fully interventionalist when their leader or talking heads insist that some intervention is necessary. A great example being Maduro's capture from earlier.

Preventing death and disease globally benefits America. You can quite literally prevent diseases or even pandemics from reaching your country. You can also bolster relationships with other nations by influencing social issues in other nations. For example, the LGBT issues in sub-Saharan Africa, which are way behind the Western world. Bringing these nations in line with us strengthens both of us.

The truth is that the USA is on thin ice right now. Picking fights with your allies for a year after decades of friendship is not a good look. All of your closest allies are looking to partner with your worst enemies. Americans like to believe they can do everything on their own. You cannot. You must exist in this world. Your isolationism will turn you into Putin's Russia or Hitler's Germany, depending on how far things go. I don't think anyone would be shocked if Trump himself started World War 3 on a random Wednesday on a whim.

You have a childish view of world politics, co-host.

Claim 5: This is a projection. The deaths are not guaranteed. (15:26)

Sure. But you yourself admitted that this is a peer-reviewed study. This projection should be deeply troubling. If the real number ended up being even half of the projected numbers, it would be a Holocaust-level death toll that we caused for no good reason.

She goes on to say the numbers are imaginary... I just don't even know how to respond to this sort of thing. She alludes to the idea that other countries should just do the USAID themselves. Great solution. Sarcasm, if you couldn't tell. The co-host still comes off as about 10x smarter than toradora, even with this slopulist junk.

Tora immediately jumps in to say that the projected deaths are just assumptions, grasping at straws, and dishonest. The UCLA of course is funded by USAID and it's in California so blah blah. Just schizophrenic conspiracy nonsense. The same shit I used to believe.

Claim 6: USAID was funded at the detriment of Americans when the money should have went towards quality of life at home. (20:44)

That's just not how any of this works. If it were, Trump would already be using that money to pump up the quality of life in America. USAID was already cut. This isn't some fantasy future we're imagining. The cuts were already made. Where is the quality of life increase?

Only now will you suddenly have something nuanced to say on the topic. Oh he can't just magically snap his fingers and fix this. Huh. Funny how that was literally always the case. It doesn't matter anyways, because people like toradora here don't advocate for this type of policy. They advocate against it. He views it as Marxism. Bless her European heart though, it was a nice idea at least.

Claim 7: ABORTION DEBATE TIME YEAAAHHH!! (26:46)

"LAW" REFERENCE. He has gained enough favor that they didn't want to mention him by name in the video, but I know it was him. Good job, "Law". You evaded a hit piece. Mostly.

This part wasn't even really an abortion debate, but just a circle-jerk about how women are evil baby killers and abortion is bad because adoption just totally solves the problem. Boring! Skip.

Claim 8: Vaush bad. (42:11)

TRUE!!! Holy fucking based.

TRUMP / JAN 6 / RENEE GOOD DEBATE

Claim 9: Mitch was not MAGA? (46:13)

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Claim 10: Renee Good's tires spinning out on ice was the only reason she wasn't able to murder Jonathan Ross. (47:31)

Not responding to this, just thought it was funny how these novel new theories keep popping up regarding this.

Claim 11: The FBI started Jan 6th. (49:00)

More slopulist conspiracy crap. At this point, I assume toradora is on the schizo spectrum alongside myself.

The group goes on to circlejerk about how killing Ashli Babbitt was wrong because she totally wasn't doing anything threatening like, oh, I don't know, breaching the fucking Capitol building during a riot when there were still politicans inside who were facing death threats from said mob breaching the building.

Claim 12: That I'm arguing for extra-judicial killings based on who I don't like. (51:13)

No, this is not true. While I feel absolutely no pity towards Ashli Babbitt for causing her own death, it actually was an unfortunate outcome in that scenario.

As is typical, of course, none of this group knows anything about Jan 6th. Where Ashli breached was where multiple members of Congress were still inside. You've probably already forgotten this, even though I just said it moments ago, but there was a very big perceived threat of violence towards members of Congress. The officer that shot Babbitt was pointing the gun at her the entire time she was breaching. She had a very strong visual warning.

This is why you guys hate context. In this context, the officer had reason to believe she and the mob behind her were going to kill members of Congress. The other rioters you mention who were a "greater risk" in your estimation, may not have been.

My defense of Renee Good has been consistent. All video footage, especially when played at once, shows that she was fleeing and not attempting to kill Jonathan Ross. Any small danger he was in, he put himself in by not following protocol.

Combine that with the fact that, even if she did try to kill him, killing her back would have done nothing and actually could have ended up killing more people due to a runaway vehicle (which it thankfully didn't). He was trained to know these things. He did not follow protocol.

I'd love to see the proof that officers are expected to shoot cars that are running them over as opposed to getting out of the way. You're making it sound like some states force officers into suicide.

I'm curious to see what you'll say about Alex Pretti next, because his murder was 10x as horrific as Renee Good's.

Oh, one of the co-hosts actually said neither woman should have died. I agree wholeheartedly. That being said, I'm glad Babbitt is dead. It was her fault and every defense you have for Renee Good's killing applies to her, so you have no grounds to oppose this aside from what you've accused me of, support of extra-judicial killing.

Claim 13: The leftist mantra is that everyone is different and everyone should be respected. (1:06:25)

You have been debating leftists for a long time and you haven't heard of the paradox of tolerance by now?

They go on to talk about theory of mind and how I cannot understand that some people may think differently. I have no idea what this circlejerk is about. I think I've been pretty clear that I simply disagree with your way of thinking. Maybe you don't like the way I describe your way of thinking, but that's my understanding of it.

Co-host goes on to talk about how you don't agree on what consequences will be caused by the actions of Trump / ICE. That's the problem. There are facts of the matter. It's not a matter of mind here. We know things about this. The reason I'm so harsh against your ideology is because it ignores those facts. It's quite literally a post-truth belief system and arguably a cult on top of that.

Claim 14: Many Nazis were random innocent people and therefore did not, as I said, dehumanize themselves. (1:10:45)

I understand what's happening here. I simply phrased my hypothetical very poorly. I said "Nazis were real people that existed in history, that they dehumanized themselves by becoming monsters". What I meant was that the people who actually supported or partook in the atrocities. Not just the people who had to do it to survive.

But yeah, actually this was a fair point from one of the co-hosts. My hypothetical was flawed. I can agree to that. I don't think my actual point was difficult to understand though, particularly not for toradora who I assume would have illustrated as much if you didn't step in.

This doesn't apply to MAGA at all. MAGA is not currently under threat to support Trump and what's happening with ICE. Granted, Trump's America is much better that Nazi Germany. It's not the exact same level of monstrosity. But the point was that people have historically became monsters, this does happen, we aren't above it.

Claim 15: Jan 6th was a guided tour. (1:18:20)

Again, complete revisionist history of what took place. The officers strategized a way to lead rioters away from Congress. It's really that simple. No need for any conspiracy.

Claim 16: That I moved the goalposts on whether or not Ashli Babbitt was a threat. (1:19:19)

False. I wish you'd stop trying to use logical fallacies. You don't understand any of them. They aren't simply get out of jail free cards when you're losing an argument.

In my "moved goalpost" response, I said that Babbitt wasn't a threat TO THE OFFICER. She was a threat to Congress. I specified this. I didn't leave it up to interpretation. No goalposts moved.

Congress was not yet evacuated as he claims. Again, really, he just does not know fucking anything about Jan 6th.

Claim 17: Jonathan Ross would have had to been John Wick to step out of the way of a car. (1:25:11)

No response necessary here.

Claim 18: Renee Good was only turning her car away from Jonathan Ross because she was being shot at. (1:26:26)

Was Renee Good John Wick as well??? How did she turn her wheel completely away from him before the gun was even unholstered?

Could it be, I don't know, that she was TRYING TO FLEE and not actually just trying to kill an ICE officer? I mean, honestly, your analysis on this is just so fucking cartoony.

I am adding this comment way later. I just had to come back to this part to note that I keep getting accused of moving goalposts, but then you will make arguments like this and then default back to "it was a fair shoot because he feared for his life, shrimple as". Maybe stick to that argument in the future if that's your real argument? Literally none of these other points matter if you default back to that whenever any of this blatantly false shit is challenged.

Claim 19: This wasn't even about Trump. (1:30:04)

Just included this to be funny. Yes, it has everything to do with Trump. This is Trump's policy causing this. This is being defended by you because of your support of Trump. If this happened under Biden or Obama, I 100% believe you'd have been against it. I was right. This was just an excuse to swallow another Cheeto load.

Claim 20: A co-host claims that I have painted toradora as bad faith / evil so that I default as the debate winner. (1:34:37)

I know this was in the past, but let's remember who blocked who in the present. I was completely open to debating tora again and again. I specifically went after him to debate him. He always jokes about me silencing people, but I haven't really done that, have I? I didn't watch a video once and I called a guy a mean name.

You can talk about my arguments all day long, but don't accuse me of using cheap tactics to duck out of the debate. It's rare for me to give up on debating someone. I usually only do it if someone REALLY crosses a line with me or if they are openly bigoted. I believe tora is a bigot, but I believe him that he doesn't think he is.

I still think there's a chance he gets out of this someday. I don't think he will reconnect with me when he does, because I was too mean, but yeah. As dumb as he is, I can tell there's something good in him and he's definitely not the dumbest person I've debated on here.

Claim 21: Co-host L says that I'm not evil, that I'm just stupid and having misunderstandings. (1:35:10)

Relax, I'm not actually bringing this up as a debate point hahaha. I just thought this was nice. Like, obviously being called stupid isn't nice, but this level of charity was never extended to me by toradora and so I felt like I needed to highlight it. Thank you, L. Obviously not for calling me stupid, but for at least understanding that we're both human beings and probably neither of us is evil deep down.

The only bit I didn't like is that you think I'm not trying to understand. No, I think I actually understand toradora fairly well. I just don't like him or what he stands for. I don't think what he stands for is respectable and I don't think he is a respectable guy. He has certainly never made an effort to understand my point of view.

Of the two of us, who honestly paints the other in a more ridiculous light? He has 0 understanding of left wing politics. He uses every left wing term completely interchangeably. I'm not a Marxist or even a leftist at all and I never have been. He will call me these things and then be FURIOUS when I invoke Nazism. But I will explain my terms very willingly and I don't think I've ever said or implied that tora himself is equal to Nazi Germany shit.

I'll take this moment to clarify, if I haven't done well enough already, that I don't think tora is evil. I do think he is so deep in denial that he has no choice but to use bad faith tactics in debate. I believe that facing the truth about his belief system would hurt him badly, as it did me when I began deconstructing my MAGA beliefs. It will hurt him far worse than it hurt me though, because I got out at the end of the first term. I actually got out because of Jan 6th, which is why I'm so passionate about that topic.

Oh, and yeah, I would have watched it sooner if I knew it existed.

Claim 22: Strict hate speech laws are fascism or at least more fascistic than anything Trump has done. (1:37:34)

No, that's literally just a strict law. I'm biting my tongue so hard right now, because I actually have a theory that "free speech advocates" only actually care about protecting hate speech, but I'll leave that for another day. Not all authoritarian governments are fascist. The draconian UK hate speech laws are just that, draconian.

There is no dictatorial leader, wannabe or otherwise, leading the UK right now. There is no ultranationalism behind said leader. The draconian laws are to protect human rights and may even be succeeding, so there's no disdain for human rights. No militarism. No scapegoating. No controlled media.

The 14 defining traits of fascism all apply to Trump's current regime. Well, all except number 10. Can't lose em all, I suppose.

Claim 23: The co-host turtle talks about invoking your opponents principles when they're breaking them. This is actually not a claim for me to refute, I just wanted to highlight it. (1:39:56)

I like these girls a lot more than I like toradora, I'll say that much. This was probably the most charitable moment in this whole thing so far. She recognized that, oh okay, we actually all use this tactic and maybe it's not completely invalid.

Of course, she immediately says that I'm doing it wrong or whatever. I honestly don't remember what we're even talking about here though. I got a little lost on the topic here. I think this may not have even been about me in this case. All good.

Claim 24: You said that if you had evidence of Trump committing crime, you'd accept it, but that you actually couldn't currently accept it because Democrats are above the law. (1:44:24)

Reminder that Joe Biden allowed his son to be investigated in what was one of the most blatant examples of lawfare I've ever seen in my life WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. Reminder that, actually, he was not above the law. They managed to find one stupid mention of a gun or something in his book and they managed to ding him on that. Otherwise, actually, he was clean.

Another reminder that Hillary Clinton was innocent. Probably every single person you listed off was innocent. Although I didn't verify the rest of them. So maybe you had some point somewhere in there. Trump, on the other hand, is ACTUALLY above the law. The supreme court literally made him above the law. He could not even defend himself in that case. He was guilty as sin.

Oh, and another reminder: the next Democrat that enters office actually WILL be above the law. Because of Trump's supreme court.

TRANS KIDS DEBATE

I'm gonna start this with a warning. This is the entirety of the rest of the post and it's completely insufferable. The first bit is at least funny, but it doesn't stay funny long. If you're going to check out early, this is the place, this is by far the worst part of the video.

Claim 25: The very fucking weird trans / pedo post you made. (1:47:49)

I honestly couldn't believe you read this out loud. This is by far THE weirdest thing you've ever posted. Hearing it out loud had me shook hahaha. I was like cringing half to death. This makes you come off like a complete and utter pedophile. The lady doth protest too much.

Claim 26: A minor and a child are often equated, but wouldn't be in a nuanced discussion and this is not a nuanced discussion. (1:50:46)

You don't think there's any nuance in a discussion when we're talking about a medical procedure and the age range is from 0 to 17? There's no nuance there for you? You honestly don't think there's like... 17 years of experience to go on when addressing a trans minor of that age versus a 2 year old that some crazy mom says is trans? Wait, but you then agree with that, but somehow also disagree. I have no idea what the fuck you are doing in this moment.

Claim 27: No one will get harmed if this is banned. (1:51:39)

These type of bans against minority groups are a slippery slope. There are decades (more likely centuries) of historical precedent to believe that. You guys probably don't consider yourselves conservatives internally. The people enforcing these laws in many states WILL BE. They will be Christian conservatives who hate trans people.

I don't want trans teenagers banned from this. I do believe trans teenagers are sometimes old enough to decide that puberty blockers and maybe hormones [I forget what age it's safe to begin these, so take it with a grain of salt] are an option for them. Now, the surgery, sure. I'll bite the bullet there. I'd be 100% okay with banning those surgeries for minors with the information I currently have.

Depending on the science, which I do forget in this moment, I may be okay with banning under a certain age from treatment. That's a difficult discussion and not one that I want to have with people like toradora who are gender critical as fuck. The co-host is likely not nearly as transphobic, but I don't actually know her.

Turtle then frames what I'm saying as if I'm doing the Narcissist's Prayer argument. This is just a strawman. I never said that we could not ban certain treatments for certain age groups. You made that my position so you could dunk on me. Here's the post.

Claim 28: Puberty blockers are not safe to use for trans children because the dosage is too high. (1:53:53)

This is something you should be referring to literature on. This is never something you should be just saying with nothing to back it up. You and I are not doctors or experts.

Claim 29: The sex with children bit did not sound cooler in your head. (1:55:59)

Bro folded under 0 pressure. You wrote one of the weirdest, most pedophilic arguments I've ever encountered in the wild.

Turtle jumps in on this one to confirm that, yes, if you believe children can consent to trans health care then you must also believe that they can consent to sex with adults. Toradora, I gotta give you credit, you wrote a post so terrible that you even managed to get your friend to call trans health care analogous to sex with children.

My argument is obviously that sex with children is far worse than trans healthcare for children, because we know that not all trans children regret trans healthcare. Sometimes it saves their lives. Sometimes it gives them such better quality of life that they may completely evade the very troubling trans mental health statistics.

Of course, if you mistreat a child, that could potentially be worse than if they had a particularly nicer adult sex moment, I guess? But why on Earth would that ever be the framing? Why would this ever be the analogy you choose? Especially after you go on in the other video I responded to already to say that any adult having sex with a 16 year old goes straight to the woodchipper. You honestly believe a doctor who administers care to a child, who then changes that child's life for the better, is the same as that in all cases?

It just makes it sound like you are saying "hey, we may as well start fucking kids at this point, amirite???" As if we aren't going to notice what you're really advocating for. I don't want to do the whole pedojacketing thing, but you already did it to me for a 45 minute video, so I guess I shouldn't feel too guilty. For future reference, maybe just don't make this analogy again.

Claim 30: Transitioning forever ruins a person's body. (2:01:15)

Oh, I guess she was as transphobic.

Turtle, was this phrasing intentional? I assume you do not believe in trans people then? Because, from my perspective, there is some danger in children transitioning. It's a big change and some things are irreversible. Detransitioners are notoriously depressing and angry at the trans lobby for what was done to them.

But to phrase it as if it's ALWAYS ruining their bodies, to me, is just straight up transphobia. The only reason we medically transition people in the first place is because it appears to have good results while other methods don't seem to have those same results. Well, that, and because adults can modify their body as they please.

As cis people, our main concern is always going to be the people with gender dysphoria. The people who just choose to be trans, I don't think it's any real concern of ours. I'm sure you're not dumb enough to think gender dysphoria doesn't exist as a problem. So maybe be a bit more careful with your phrasing.

Claim 31: You have to explain detransitioners for this to work. (2:02:20)

I would rephrase this. You have to explain detransitioners for this to work perfectly. There is some margin of error here. I don't deny that. As far as I can tell, social contagion is a real thing. So it's no surprise that some people end up transitioning only to regret it.

That doesn't mean the system doesn't work. That means the system makes mistakes. You can say those mistakes are severe for the individuals affected and I'd agree. What you cannot say is that now we cannot continue to help the people who benefit from this.

Stop making assumptions about my positions when you can read what I've said and speak to me publicly at any time. I don't believe in a total free-for-all trans healthcare for children. I implied as much in my goddamn post that you're supposed to be covering. But apparently calling those opinions fringe lunacy didn't register? I believe doctors should be careful about treating children with gender dysphoria. I don't know why you just assume otherwise.

If you are passionate about this topic, here's some advice. Make serious effort to drop the transphobia from your worldview. Stop consuming TERF content. Stop consuming anti-LGBT content. Turn against those people. Make yourself an ally to trans people.

Learn about the positives of transitioning. Learn the details about child transitions, detransitioners, etc. After all of that, now you can advocate for change in good faith. Because we cannot have this discussion in good faith while trans healthcare is potentially on the chopping block. At that point, just stick to your real opinion, which is that trans people are illegitimate as a whole. You don't want to make the system better, you want the system as a whole destroyed.

I hope it turns out that I've misunderstood you. I doubt it, though, because you immediately double down on it being inherently harmful and then saying that you think I like mutilating children.

Gross.

Claim 32: You have done more research on trans kids than I have. (2:03:32)

I'm actually quite sure you have. That's not an argument though. Especially when your research is probably all YouTube videos. You then go on to get furious that I suggest we trust medical consensus over your YouTube research. Very funny and this is why you guys will remain a joke forever and ever. You guys always think consensus is super corrupt whenever you disagree with it.

You guys do not know what you're talking about. You've already admitted to not being a doctor or expert. Grow up.

Claim 33: Climate change data is faulty / baseless. (2:04:27)

This is something I actually don't know anything about at all, but I thought it was funny that you guys believe this. Of course you do. All scientific consensus is just fake, trans people aren't real, everything is a big conspiracy. I was super sad about this one because it confirmed to be that Turtle is actually as bad as tora. Bummer!

Tora then waffles for awhile about me calling him a pedo. Clip at 2:10:47 was particularly funny. "In the leftist framework, what you've basically told them is that transitioning children is really bad, therefore child rape isn't that bad." No notes. That's exactly what I heard and this video has not changed my opinion on that at all.

The clip at 2:12:12 was, I think, that weirdo Tails Prower avatar dude who was talking about children having full consent? That was really fucking funny, honestly. That was peak tumblr shit. I'm glad that we all recognize that dude was fucking insane. Although it was funny that you guys did sort of loop back around to half-agreeing with him, just because he was seemingly anti-trans.

Claim 34: Healthcare for trans kids is analogous to people who blind themselves by pouring bleach in their eyes. (2:22:49)

Apparently this is called Body Integrity Identity Disorder. I learned something today. I don't really feel the need to argue this point. I just wanted to document that you both said it. It's obvious to everyone who isn't a transphobe that this is not analogous.

Turtle goes on to talk about some woman who had the bleach thing done who later turned out to be diagnosed schizophrenic. Honestly, what the fuck are we even talking about? Trans people just need to take anti-psychotics and they'll be cured? There must be some giant conspiracy as to why doctors are unaware of this!

Claim 35: Proper trans healthcare would be "non-affirming". (2:26:31)

You're just saying this. You do go on to explain that underlying issues should be explored. Of course. I don't disagree with this. But you are not qualified to be saying what you're saying or you at least have not provided any information. I suppose you were just circlejerking this point with your friend and didn't expect me to watch.

They go on to circlejerk about bottom surgery. Blah blah blah.

Claim 36: The logical conclusion of arguing in favor of trans healthcare for minors is that children must be able to have full-informed consent to anything. (2:33:18)

This is just an utter lack of curiosity from Turtle. You assume my positions rather than asking me.

The trans kids issue is a very complicated one. I've already shown a nuanced position, which you've ignored. If you paid attention, you may realize that I'm more in favor of regulation in this area than you are giving me credit. I very clearly don't believe children can give full-informed consent to everything. Trans health care is between an individual and whatever doctors are involved.

There has to be SOME regulation taking place there. It cannot be that every child is immediately treated. That's ridiculous. It's frankly insulting that you would even project this on me.

Now, of course, the next post you read from me is me explaining all of this and you guys act like it's coming out of left field. You sound relieved, as if this hadn't already been heavily implied in my previous response. Honestly, this just pissed me off so much. I'm not sure if I've ever been so angry to be agreed with on something.

Claim 37: Children cannot be trans. (2:34:19)

On what grounds can you claim this? I suppose your opinion is that being trans is fully a choice? Gender dysphoria does not factor into this whatsoever? Nobody really knows that they're trans, it's just purely based on their decision to transition as an adult?

Of course, you're disgusted by my TRUTH that the best trans healthcare is for minors. This is undisputable. In the perfect world as far as trans healthcare goes, we'd have a magic machine which could accurately measure who was trans, and we'd treat them as such. They wouldn't need to be raised as the opposite gender. They wouldn't need to be traumatized by unwanted changes during puberty. They could look much more in line with how they feel.

Honestly, it's just a complete lack of empathy for trans people here. Stay mad about it, you fucking cunts. You are in favor of hurting innocent people on purpose and you're angry at me because a couple people catch strays unintentionally. Disgusting.

Claim 38: It's false that trans people have more complications after going through puberty, because going through puberty cures most cases of gender dysphoria. (2:34:38)

One has nothing to do with the other. This is only a point if you do not believe the type of trans people who suffer from gender dysphoria are legitimate and that being trans is purely a choice divorced from that discussion. That does not appear to be the case, as far as I can tell.

It's honestly hilarious that this makes you mad, because you're just advocating to let people suffer from preventable issues. I guess this perfectly loops back to the USAID debate from earlier. Preventing problems doesn't matter at all to you guys if the problem appears too leftist/Marxist/whatever other buzzword.

Oh, but of course, abortion is the worst thing ever and we must prevent the uncreation of a potential person at any cost.

Claim 39: The same gender-affirming surgeries become less invasive after puberty. (2:35:02)

I'm going to be hopeful that this is a misunderstanding. You guys are referring purely to bottom surgery here. I thought it would be clear that I was not referring to bottom surgery based on my previous comments, but you guys are dead-set on strawmanning me.

So let me be clear. I was talking about other procedures, such as facial feminization and top surgery. Those are much less an issue if the individual simply doesn't go through puberty.

Also, yes, I have already discussed in this post that the process is not always followed properly, etc. That's why I call the current system imperfect, which I did not think would be so difficult for you to understand, because I wrongfully assumed that you were capable of good faith. That's my bad though, you have never shown any ability to operate in good faith.

They go on to rant about conspiracies about trans fetishes and trans doctors being evil fetishists, etc. Kill me. These people are actually so insanely disgusting, this is hard to listen to. If I weren't actually insane, I'd skip the rest of the video at this point.

NVM they rant about this for the rest of the video. I don't think I'm even brought up again, so not much to discuss. That's nearly 2 fucking hours ranting about trans kids. Toradora, let me know when you start your transition. I will donate towards your procedures.

If you read this whole post: FUCK YOU! GO OUTSIDE! LEARN TO PLAY GUITAR! HELL, EVEN PLAY A VIDEO GAME! I'm just kidding. I love you. I'm sorry you had to go through this with me.

Bonus meme: