Topic: Pro-family Manhattan Project? FEDs want to fund $300K each tgirl womb transplants 4 bio-imperitive.
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #112,647
Via Britania's most esteemed regularly published journal:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12417181/amp/American-Medical-Association-suggests-taxpayers-fund-300-000-UTERUS-transplants-help-transgender-women-pregnant.html
See attached image for the diagram of a "neovagina".
Is this what the military industry needs to keep up production of cannon fodder?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #1,248,800
I do not think this is real
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,804
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Arguments were made to reduce the cost of the surgery in its Journal of Ethics issue in June titled Patient-Centered Transgender Surgical Care.
It's in their publicly published journal, available for anyone to verify.
> Arguments were made to reduce the cost of the surgery in its Journal of Ethics issue in June titled Patient-Centered Transgender Surgical Care.
It's in their publicly published journal, available for anyone to verify.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,808
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 50 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,809
> dailymail.co.uk
enough said
enough said
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 46 seconds later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,811
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 56 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,815
Because there has never been a successful uterus transplant on a trans woman and if there ever were, it likely not be able to handle a vaginal birth, among other issues
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 15 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,816
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,818
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Here's a link to the website, that has the link to the PDF:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/issue/patient-centered-transgender-surgical-care
Or a link to the PDF directly:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/journalofethics.ama-assn.org/files/2023-06/joe-2306.pdf
Here's a link to the website, that has the link to the PDF:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/issue/patient-centered-transgender-surgical-care
Or a link to the PDF directly:
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/sites/journalofethics.ama-assn.org/files/2023-06/joe-2306.pdf
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,822
@previous (A)
I read this and much of it doesn't track with the daily mail article
A. It's talking about a hypothetical future where this surgery works
B.It speculates how expensive it might be
C. It talks of how some insurance companies pay for ivf
D. It also mentions cis men, trans men, etc who might want to have this procedure
E. It doesn't show that graph
I read this and much of it doesn't track with the daily mail article
A. It's talking about a hypothetical future where this surgery works
B.It speculates how expensive it might be
C. It talks of how some insurance companies pay for ivf
D. It also mentions cis men, trans men, etc who might want to have this procedure
E. It doesn't show that graph
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,832
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
The DM took the time to translate the ivory tower gobbldygook into normal human words, and they made a chart because the original researchers don't have the same data visualization talent a large paper does.
The DM took the time to translate the ivory tower gobbldygook into normal human words, and they made a chart because the original researchers don't have the same data visualization talent a large paper does.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,834
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,835
@1,248,832 (A)
Its weird that you consider the original articles to be ivory tower gobbledygook good. Did you actually read them?
Its weird that you consider the original articles to be ivory tower gobbledygook good. Did you actually read them?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 31 seconds later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,836
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,837
@1,248,835 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yes, the information is correct, but it's dressed up in pretentious language to posture for other academics.
The Daily Mail exists to translate elitist jargon that the public needs to hear about into terms they are familiar with.
Yes, the information is correct, but it's dressed up in pretentious language to posture for other academics.
The Daily Mail exists to translate elitist jargon that the public needs to hear about into terms they are familiar with.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,838
@1,248,834 (C)
@1,248,836 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You are dismissing both the data in the chart (from the prestigious Journal of Ethics) and a tenured paper with a history of shining a light on the underworld.
Yet you cannot cite your sources like I. Sad.
@1,248,836 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You are dismissing both the data in the chart (from the prestigious Journal of Ethics) and a tenured paper with a history of shining a light on the underworld.
Yet you cannot cite your sources like I. Sad.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,839
@1,248,837 (A)
If you thought that this read as elitist and hard to understand, I'm very sad for you
If you thought that this read as elitist and hard to understand, I'm very sad for you
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,841
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You had trouble finding the original paper, even with the daily mail article giving enough information.
Then you dismiss the chart, but can't point out any disinformation with it.
You're a hysterical witch. Stop inflating the post count of my draads, thx!
You had trouble finding the original paper, even with the daily mail article giving enough information.
Then you dismiss the chart, but can't point out any disinformation with it.
You're a hysterical witch. Stop inflating the post count of my draads, thx!
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,843
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,847
@1,248,838 (A)
You want me to cite a source saying that the daily mail is trash? Sure, here you go: https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-is-a-welcome-rebuke-to-terrible-journalism.html
It's so bad that you cannot use the daily mail as a source of information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia!
You want me to cite a source saying that the daily mail is trash? Sure, here you go: https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/wikipedias-daily-mail-ban-is-a-welcome-rebuke-to-terrible-journalism.html
It's so bad that you cannot use the daily mail as a source of information on Wikipedia. Wikipedia!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,848
@previous (C)
> 🐑 BAAA!
> 🐑 BAAA!
Here's something for you to read. Maybe if you can focus for 5 minutes you have a chance of waking up:
https://ailef.tech/2020/04/18/discovering-wikipedia-edits-made-by-institutions-companies-and-government-agencies/
> 🐑 BAAA!
> 🐑 BAAA!
Here's something for you to read. Maybe if you can focus for 5 minutes you have a chance of waking up:
https://ailef.tech/2020/04/18/discovering-wikipedia-edits-made-by-institutions-companies-and-government-agencies/
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,849
@previous (A)
If Wikipedia is also trash, then their ban on Daily Mail articles is even more damning.
If Wikipedia is also trash, then their ban on Daily Mail articles is even more damning.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,850
@previous (C)
The institutions with editorial control over wikipedia didn't want an inquisitive paper with a long history of shining a light on corruption to come meddling in their propaganda campaign.
The institutions with editorial control over wikipedia didn't want an inquisitive paper with a long history of shining a light on corruption to come meddling in their propaganda campaign.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,852
*bonus hole
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,854
@1,248,800 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Not sure if the article is real, but this research has been ongoing for the past decade now.
Not sure if the article is real, but this research has been ongoing for the past decade now.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,856
@previous (E)
I know very well about the research. I'm disputing Ops headline and the Daily mail article
I know very well about the research. I'm disputing Ops headline and the Daily mail article
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 2 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,857
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,859
@1,248,852 (D)
There will never be a fourth hole. Post-op trans women still only have three. Also, if you say ears are the 4th and 5th, fuck off degenerate.
There will never be a fourth hole. Post-op trans women still only have three. Also, if you say ears are the 4th and 5th, fuck off degenerate.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 48 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,876
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,248,883
Tim pool posting
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 months later, 10 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,710
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 10 months after the original post[^] [v] #1,302,712
@previous (G)
Hey now, show some respect. The jezebels and their man bun minions just figured out how to continue the human race!
Hey now, show some respect. The jezebels and their man bun minions just figured out how to continue the human race!