Philosophy Tube / Oliver Lennard / Oliver "Olly" Thorn / Abigail Thorn - Breadtube's Patrick Bateman.

[frap]

On the Uni Challenge he brays "pArSLeY!?" and gets it right but then he holds his mouth open for a weirdly long time, like 4 seconds, face like a mask. Botox, tranquilizers? Seems on something. (IG)
View attachment 6816351

It’s kind of amazing how gigantic and male he looks even with no one else in the frame for reference. He looks like a dumb caveman in a dress.

 

[kazuhiro]

Abi got a reply to his emails.

Alt text.

The statement.

Naturally, this is just not good enough.


Other stuff.

More replies.

 

[Turquoise]

I'm honestly a little surprised that he hasn't turned up on one of the BBC shows like Infinite Monkey Cage. QI might be out of his league but IMC has a massive chaser (Robin Ince) as a co-presenter so maybe he'd have a shot. I love the thought of the general public being subjected to the falsetto and mock humility.

What's this about Robin Ince being a chaser?

Back when he was supporting Ricky Gervais, he used to do a bit about getting back at high school bullies by getting a sex change, sleeping with them and then revealing yourself.

 

[Cr1ms0n_&_C10v3r]

On the Uni Challenge he brays "pArSLeY!?" and gets it right but then he holds his mouth open for a weirdly long time, like 4 seconds, face like a mask. Botox, tranquilizers? Seems on something. (IG)
View attachment 6816351

I think it's just him thinking that he looks more female with his mouth agape. You see the same thing with people like Hontra.

Yeah it's basically a combo of him just being insufferably smug every time he answers a question and thinking letting his mouth hang open like a clueless retard makes him look like a cute woman. He does seem to be "on" something but I'd bet that's just the narc high he's riding and not much else.

 

[AssignedEva]

Naturally, this is just not good enough.

This one's been a long time coming. The Public Consultation on Proposed Service Specifications for Specialised Gender Identity Services for Adults (2018 ) flagged that GPs generally feel like they're not qualified to handle transition related healthcare and very specifically want to hand it off to some sort of consultant or gender identity specialist. Unsurprisingly, their patients tended to want something very different, but GPs often view anything relating to mental health to be outside their remit. Additionally, the way the General Medical Contract is worded has a lot of ambiguity - from the British Medical Association:

Doctors may be asked by trans and non-binary patients to support them in accessing hormone treatment either before they have received support from a gender specialist or with ongoing prescribing once they have been discharged from a specialist gender service:

Prescribing in this field is not part of the General Medical Services contract for GPs and prescribing in this field may be outside the competency of some GPs. Those GPs with relevant training and knowledge in this field may be able to support prescribing prior to, or in association with, specialist gender services.

GPs can provide "bridging prescriptions". These are essentially designed to be harm reduction. The prescription is off-label and is supposed to minimise the risk of the trans people fucking themselves up with DIY hormones. GPs argue that prescribing these medications is not something they're required to do or qualified to do, and that gender identity clinics should take over the responsibility for prescribing hormones. This would be more in line with some mental health conditions, where the GP makes a referral to a mental health team, and the mental health team assume responsibility (and liability!) for the prescription. In fact, GICs can and do offer prescriptions directly, but consultants are often lazy and want to shift their workload back onto GPs.

The other aspect of it is money. GPs feel that all the work that goes in to supporting trans patients is a massive burden on their resources, and again, the funding that is given to gender identity clinics should be getting used to treat their patients. But they want a full-system approach. The GP contract couldn't go through the normal consultation process this year due to the election, and they've had disputes with the NHS since then. They feel that they should get extra funding allocations for dealing with trans patients or that GICs aren't using their budgets and are relying on GPs voluntarily entering into poorly funded shared care agreements. This has also been exacerbated with the employer NIC hike, which GP surgeries can't get relief from (while other parts of the NHS can).

This particular case isn't even the first one - YORLMC issued a letter a few months ago:

They're the statutory body representing and supporting all GPs in Bradford, Airedale, Wharfedale, Craven, North Yorkshire & York - and they've basically said they're going to refuse to keep offering treatments. JPMP are doing something similar, basically trying to force the hand of the NHS. Ollie's probably not going to like the response he gets - I think they probably should have done an equality impact assessment, so he might have a point there, but only a limited one as this is off-label usage and the NHS has previously found that denying puberty blockers doesn't represent direct discrimination if it's being used to treat the different condition of gender dysphoria -

In considering whether discrimination arises, it must be understood that the aetiology and epidemiology of CPP and treatment aims are quite different to that of gender incongruence and/or gender dysphoria. CPP is the early onset of puberty and secondary sexual characteristics (generally accepted as less than 8 years old in girls and less than 9 years old in boys) and it can range in seriousness from benign to malignant variants. The cause is often unclear, but it can be attributable to a number of conditions that may require specialist investigation (such as central nervous system (CNS) tumours, CNS head trauma, genetics, neurofibromatosis type 1, cerebral palsy). GnRH analogues for this cohort will be considered if the child has rapidly progressing symptoms or if bone age is significantly advanced beyond birth age. The physiological aims of GnRH analogues as a response to CPP are to halt pubertal progression and progressive physical development and to preserve or reclaim adult height potential.

NHS England has concluded that no direct discrimination occurs.

- because it's obviously not denying someone treatment for condition X just because they're trans, since they're not getting treated for condition X and are instead being treated for condition Y. The same argument is likely going to hold water when it comes to providing HRT for menopausal women but not transgender patients... which Ollie will hate, because he keeps insisting that it's actually completely the same.

As for CC'ing in the head of the Integrated Care Board... this is a bit embarrassing, because there's not going to be any scenario where the ICB isn't already aware, so it's not much of a gotcha (and frankly is just a bit of a "let me speak to the manager" Karen moment from Ollie). A GP surgery also doesn't actually have to answer the detailed minutiae of their financial understandings of different treatments just because someone (who isn't even their patient) demanded it in an email, hence the preprepared statement - this would likely be more requiring a Freedom of Information request. I would agree I'd like to see a breakdown of potential costing and then also if they requested that funding from the ICB, but as above, that's almost certainly been a conversation that's already taken place. Ultimately GPs can refuse to prescribe unlicensed medications because they don't feel comfortable for assuming medical responsibility for something they don't really understand, and feel that it needs to be actively monitored by the secondary care physician (who usually has more flexibility in prescribing). Ollie's once again encountering the situation where the NHS will consult with patient advocacy groups to build understanding, but isn't going to give them the final say.

 

[Blue Gem Kosher Queen]

1. What's with breadtuber lefties resorting to calling men they find weird/eccentric twinks? Hbomb did it on his plagiarism video. That guy looks like a painfully average pale grown ass man.
2. Chube's resolutions must include seizing any opportunity to talk about himself/own projects, so business as usual.

 

[Sinner's Sandwich]

Some random GP decides (for completely intelligible reasons) to stop offering HRT to troons

This is amazing news! This would have never have happened 2 years ago! Another giant tranny L! Times are changing!

 

[Dromedary]

Personal least favourite bit the shitty head dance he does at 23:33 during a music round. Been watching University Challenge for 20 years and I've literally never seen a contestant do that before

See, he's allowed to be cool and groovy like that because he's LGBTQIA2S+ now, not like those intellectual uptight squares. He's a free-spirited liberated lady, in his disordered mind. Wow, you watched the whole thing, I only saw the clip he posted on IG.

1. What's with breadtuber lefties resorting to calling men they find weird/eccentric twinks? Hbomb did it on his plagiarism video.

It's heterosexual "queers" appropriating/colonizing a very old gay male cruising term for a type- a slight, boyish man. Yeah, the grab "twink" they're allowed to use it on just anyone because like Olly, they're edgy, you see.

 

[The Jackal]

(and frankly is just a bit of a "let me speak to the manager" Karen moment from Ollie)

Telling Choob repeatedly to calm down and stop being such a Karen would be the perfect narc-deflating response to his bullshit whining. It's a shame the people he's emailing couldn't get away with saying something like that.

Other stuff.

Haven't read the review, but I think it's more than likely that the reviewer just used the word 'fetish' in the way people sometimes do to mean 'a strong liking for/overuse of', in other words Choob's character wears lots of eyeshadow. Just an example of hyperbolic language. The fact that he immediately assumed they were criticising him for dressing up as a woman for sexual reasons is very telling. Protesting a little too much there.

 

[kazuhiro]

Haven't read the review, but I think it's more than likely that the reviewer just used the word 'fetish' in the way people sometimes do to mean 'a strong liking for/overuse of', in other words Choob's character wears lots of eyeshadow. Just an example of hyperbolic language. The fact that he immediately assumed they were criticising him for dressing up as a woman for sexual reasons is very telling. Protesting a little too much there.

Presumably he's talking about this review of The Prince, in The Telegraph, in which case you are exactly right. Excerpt:

Thorn, who highlights Hotspur’s attempts to be aggressively masculine, even while flaunting a black eyeshadow fetish (the problem with trying to visually represent gender is that you immediately run into stereotype), knows her Shakespeare: in 2019 she performed the complete works in five days, livestreamed for charity.

Edit: He may have been steaming over that line for some time.

In other news, Olly has guested on a new episode of something called The Alt-Right Playbook, on Nebula.

The list of sources & citations.

 

[Traummaschine]

View attachment 6819778

"Anyway, what kind of fetish wear should use in my next video...?"

Presumably he's talking about this review of The Prince, in The Telegraph, in which case you are exactly right. Excerpt:

So do we think he's too retarded to understand this or does he conveniently misunderstand it so he can push this stupid point?

 

[fish fillet]

What's this about Robin Ince being a chaser?

Back when he was supporting Ricky Gervais, he used to do a bit about getting back at high school bullies by getting a sex change, sleeping with them and then revealing yourself.

He's made a few comments about how being attracted to trans women isn't gay because they're women. It was radio/podcast stuff so unfortunately I can't remember specifics. I wish I'd made a note at the time because saying that once is dodgy, saying it repeatedly is almost an admission he's hot for tranny cock.

 

[Tomboy Tuti]

Haven't read the review, but I think it's more than likely that the reviewer just used the word 'fetish' in the way people sometimes do to mean 'a strong liking for/overuse of', in other words Choob's character wears lots of eyeshadow. Just an example of hyperbolic language. The fact that he immediately assumed they were criticising him for dressing up as a woman for sexual reasons is very telling. Protesting a little too much there.

There is a very tasty hypocrisy to chew into with all these AGPs (I guess Olly is AGP after all) where they pretend something isn't sexual at all and is just part of natural trans-isms. But then behind closed doors they're talking about how sexual it is and how much they get off to it (or how they've been desensitised to it and they need more). In the egg cracking community there's a term called euphoria boner which is completely unironic but occasionally flips to "ironic" for self defense purposes. The transients don't like when called out for having a fetish so they'll say things like euphoria boner and ejaculating into women's clothes being gender affirming which is not exactly a valid defense, just a massive self own. I assume the review here refers to draculas ex girlfriend, where Olly was wearing goth fetish wear but wants the audience to pretend that it's authentic femininity. These people are such perverts that they've replaced the old fashioned taboo perversions of sleeping with your boss, getting a bj from the secretary, fucking for corporate, things which were seen as gross and horrible with something much much worse. They should just admit that they want to make pornos but they never will.

 

[Doktor Grimm]

In other news, Olly has guested on a new episode of something called The Alt-Right Playbook, on Nebula.

Ollie narrating an episode of The Alt-Right Playbook is somehow not a crossover I expected. This one's about trans healthcare, but also the abuse of scientific studies more generally. Be warned -- it's a doozy.

Here's the script, for those sensitive to the sound of Ollie's voice:

Spoiler

Say, for the sake of argument, you're having a discussion with a co worker about healthcare.

Actually, let's go ahead and drop the pretense -- you're having a discussion about trans healthcare.

He says puberty blockers should be banned because some study said they're dangerous, and you're a thoughtful person, so you look it up. Only, when you do, you find the study doesn't say what he said it does. Maybe it says something close, maybe it says the total opposite -- but, more than that, you realize even if it said what he said it did, that still wouldn't support his argument. Dangerous could mean a lot of things: a little, a lot, low risk, high risk. Maybe one study isn't enough to go on. Hell, maybe it's bogus for a whole host of other reasons. Maybe it's written by people with an obvious agenda, or contradicted by a better study he's ignoring.

So, you go back and tell your coworker "hey, the study doesn't say that". And even if it did, you know -- but he simply repeats: "the study said they're dangerous".

He's not just wrong, he's doublewrong.

Institutions create policy documents all the time. Anti bullying policies, climate policies, DEI policies. Your job probably has a bunch of them. But, a lot of the time, these documents exist not to be read or followed, just pointed to. If someone is bullied, harassed, or discriminated against, managers might point to a policy that says "we are committed to not doing that". And... that's it. The more you insist "hey -- these policies aren't being followed, the problem still exists," the more you BECOME the problem.

The document is a dummy argument -- a substitute for the real one. "There's a problem" versus "no there isn't". This isn't a conversation about what some document says or doesn't say; it's a conversation about power.

When your co worker cites a study that doesn't support his argument, he's using that document in a similar way. He's not reading it, just pointing to it. This piece of paper means you have to listen to me. The study could be about plankton, or Henry VIII, or squirrel poop for all the difference
it makes. (Okay, maybe it matters a little. It has to at least look semi-legit at a glance.)

He's not using evidence to inform his position. He's decided what his position is and he's pantomiming evidence to support it.

It's almost as if we've stumbled into The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Little Mickey puts on the hat and declares "I know how this works! You stand up all big and tall and say 'I have a study that says you have to do what I tell you'. That's how you always play it. Well, this time I've got a study, so you have to do as I say!"

And you can tell him "That's not how this works, Mickey. It's a study, not an incantation. It has to actually say what you claim, and it has to be a good study."

"Oh, look at you, moving the goalposts. Look at you, gatekeeping. Deciding which studies count and which ones don't. Well, I believe this one's every bit as good as yours. And I believe it proves me right."

And is that what he believes? Maybe, Maybe not. Remember, the card says moops. You can't prove he doesn't believe that. And for the purposes of "you have to listen to me", that's all he needs.

This is a battle of wills now, not information, each half of the double wrong argument functioning as both motte and bailey. If you successfully expose that study as bogus, he'll move on to another, and you'll only be undermining the scientific method. In his view, if studies aren't always to be trusted, if even quack science can get peer reviewed, who's to say your studies aren't as bogus as his?

And that's if he doesn't change evidence entirely. Okay, maybe I can't prove puberty blockers are dangerous, but this study says trans kids have high regret rates. This one says they're unhappy. This one says they're brainwashed.

He's understood the rhetorical function of science, but not the substance. Or perhaps he's understood the rhetorical function all too well enough to know, for the purposes of argument, substance rarely matters.

From here, you can chart the course of the entire conversation stretching out before you. You might rush in, hold the document under his nose and say "Look, it doesn't say what you said. What's the matter? Can't read?" Which might be satisfying, but does make you look the pedantic asshole. Or you can reject his so-called evidence as patently false -- inadmissible -- and leave yourself vulnerable to being obliterated the moment you make an honest mistake with a citation. Or you can research every single shred of information he puts in front of you, so you can thoroughly debunk each and every one -- which means he simply keeps putting bunk in front of you and drowns you with homework.

And he must see it, too, the conversation laid out in front of him. He hasn't positioned himself to persuade you, but to ensure neither of you ever persuades the other. What is the purpose of this debate then, this ritual? What is it you're really arguing about? Well, your co worker believes that the government -- or a doctor doing what the government tells them -- should force citizens from a minority to do something with their bodies they don't want to do, but he won't say that out loud, because he knows that's socially unacceptable. "I want the government to force people to do what I want with their bodies, no matter how many of them die in the process" is an opinion that isn't likely to make friends.

So, he substitutes the document for the thing he really believes. "It's not me. It's just science." He is appealing to facts when, truthfully, this is a difference in values. Doublewrong is a rhetorical technique to catch you out -- to hide the real argument from you and leave you chasing the substitute.

It also protects him. People deploy these kinds of irrational, paradoxical moves to stop themselves thinking about topics that make them uncomfortable. If your co-worker interrogated his values about the proper relationship between the government and minorities, he might find he's not the person he thought he was, or that his friends and colleagues expect him to be.

And you might, too. Let's not pretend leftists and liberals have the moral high ground all the time. Interrogating your fundamental values is an uncomfortable experience for most people. He probably wants to think of himself as a good person, and yet he also believes -- maybe not even consciously -- that the government should own the bodies of at least some citizens. He knows he'd probably hate that if it happened to him, but he still wants it to happen to others. Doublewrong relieves him of the burden of forming a rational position. The document is his nice big safety blanket.

This plays on a human weakness that spans the entire political spectrum. We all wrap ourselves snug in faulty information. From time to time, we share studies without reading because the abstract conforms to our assumptions. We treat a supposition that is likely as though it's a proven fact. And this is, after a point, necessary; as informed as you are, you do have to stop researching somewhere. You do, at some point, have to go on assumptions, take someone's word, trust that a pattern holds because the video is due before the end of the month. (If you want to charge your patrons and make rent.)

Sorry. But we do sometimes treat research as a ritual rather than a method, because often we want to appeal to facts, papers, authorities without having to do any of that pesky reasoning -- but that is exactly what leaves US open to a doublewrong attack.

The flaw with your co worker's study is he's using it to claim trans healthcare is dangerous and he's wrong. He has a comeback for every way you could try to convince him, but he's still wrong. You can't prove trans healthcare is safe by gesturing at studies, because the opposition won't read them and will write their own studies. You can't prove it with peer review, because they'll game peer review. You can't call them liars, because they'll insist they're sincere. There is no rule they can't pervert, no system they can't twist to their advantage.

You can't just appeal to things that signify reason -- at some point, one of you will have to do some actual reasoning to figure out who's making sense, and, well, it's not going to be them.

Remember: this is a conversation about values. Presuming you know what yours are, you may have to speak them aloud. "I think people should do what they like with their bodies without politicians interfering. And even if I thought puberty blockers were dangerous -- which, by the way, they're not, because on the off chance you actually care about evidence, here's all the good stuff -- I think people have the right to make risky decisions about their health care too. If there was a drug with a 1% chance of healing your terminal cancer and a 99% chance of dangerous side effects, I'd support your right to take it if you wanted."

Now you've avoided the trap of arguing about what some document says. You're focusing on the second, deeper part of the doublewrong instead of the first. You've also put him on the back foot. Now he has to justify his values, which is exactly what he wanted to avoid.

Of course, he may just repeat himself. "The study says they're dangerous." This is not a technique for winning arguments, it's a technique for starting them.

 

[ghjoigcbn]

“I think people have the right to make risky decisions about their healthcare”
Children. You are talking about children.

The irony is painful. Until very recently, the “science was settled” on trans healthcare. If you dared ask questions about these studies, you were a bigot with a secret hatred. Just like if you ask for simple numbers or methods on any study that supports a “ the correct” position, you’re suddenly a wacko anti something denier who just needs to trust the expert, dumb dumb. But now that data showing negative outcomes for trans treatments arent being suppressed, the shoes rather on the other foot. How the worm turns.

 

[Kermit the Impaler]

I'd go 50:50 on Sandi Toksvig being a TERF. That might make it even funnier though, if he was so desperate to be on TV he'd go on a show hosted by a TERF.

Toksvig is a handmaiden so he might have shot. She's the type of TRA who thinks troons are the same as gays.

Sandi Toksvig: 'I'm so distressed by anti-trans 'radical feminists' I could weep'

"I am so distressed by people who call themselves ‘radical feminists’ but are anti-trans. I could weep. I don’t get it. It’s beyond me,” she says. “When the feminist movement started in the 60s and 70s, lesbians were often excluded, because we were told that we would make the movement less palatable. I have been excluded myself, so how could I do that to someone else? It fills me with rage.”

 

[Turquoise]

I'm pro-abortion because the kind of women who frivolously get abortions are exactly the kind you don't want having kids. In fact, I'd raise the 'late-term' limit to 30 years. For the same reason, I'm fully in favor of child castration. 99% of cases are the spawn of Guardian reading, middle-class, latte sipping ghouls.

This is a Darwinian selection event. The mutant genes of the lefties are terminating themselves and we'd be fools, damned fools, to stand in nature's way.

#TransHealthCareForKidsNow

 

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

Olly really doesn't understand the difference between "health care" and doing frivolous stupid things because you feel like it.

I don't want to be a part of funding something that doesn't help people get better. If people want to have tits bigger than their head, they can fund it themselves.

 

[Paradox Mystic]

Olly really doesn't understand the difference between "health care" and doing frivolous stupid things because you feel like it.

I don't want to be a part of funding something that doesn't help people get better. If people want to have tits bigger than their head, they can fund it themselves.

Olly doesn't want a doctor, a person reasonably seeking a doctor would be open to being informed they're wrong and being presented with alternatives. Olly wants a vending machine, you request the thing and Olly wants the NHS to scramble to provide it for you ASAP on the tax payer dime (remember part of Olly's complaint was about the waitlists, not just doctors declining applicants or presenting alternative options.)

Even if we're generous and agree Olly's vending machine idea is correct about healthcare, like Ollie was told there is only 8 clinics that can provide what Olly wants. A quick guess based off a 2021 census means there is about 1 clinic for every 14,250 people likely to seek out those services in the UK. Any reasonable person would understandably conclude waiting in line for a vending machine with over thousands of people ahead of you is going to be a massive wait and that is not including the clinic staff needing time to rest and resupply, and additional resource scarcity due to treatments for the non-trans citizens like hair treatment for balding men.

 

[The Jackal]

“I think people have the right to make risky decisions about their healthcare”
Children. You are talking about children.

Exactly. Even if you accept that this argument is valid (and I'm not sure I do, especially in a country in which healthcare is taxpayer-funded - I'm not sure it can even be meaningfully described as 'healthcare') it should still only apply to adults.

Think about people who are very pro-guns, pro-Second-Amendment, signed up with the NRA and that sort of thing. They would argue that the right to bear arms supersedes the risks that are associated with widespread gun ownership. But most would say (and I'm sure Olly would agree) that this clearly doesn't apply to children. Allowing five-year-olds to carry around loaded firearms entails a level of societal risk that is simply unacceptable. If Olly thinks that children should be allowed to destroy their bodies with unnecessary medical procedures, then it follows that there is no reason he shouldn't be in favour of their carrying guns, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, driving cars and so on. It is a generally-accepted principle that adults should protect children from things which are dangerous. Either Olly doesn't agree with this principle (which would be an insane position to take) or he agrees with it except when it comes to trooning out (which is clearly illogical and suggests an ulterior motive).

He says puberty blockers should be banned because some study said they're dangerous, and you're a thoughtful person, so you look it up. Only, when you do, you find the study doesn't say what he said it does. Maybe it says something close, maybe it says the total opposite -- but, more than that, you realize even if it said what he said it did, that still wouldn't support his argument. Dangerous could mean a lot of things: a little, a lot, low risk, high risk. Maybe one study isn't enough to go on. Hell, maybe it's bogus for a whole host of other reasons. Maybe it's written by people with an obvious agenda, or contradicted by a better study he's ignoring.

So, you go back and tell your coworker "hey, the study doesn't say that". And even if it did, you know -- but he simply repeats: "the study said they're dangerous".

He's not just wrong, he's doublewrong.

It's hard to even wrap my head around how proudly stupid he is. He's essentially saying: "transing children = good, and even if transing children is actually bad, it's still somehow good because I say it is."

And what if multiple studies demonstrate that it is dangerous? What if it becomes an established, scientific fact that it is dangerous? Then of course Olly would find some other slimy way to claim that he's actually right. This is an almost textbook example of anti-empiricism - he decides in advance what he believes the answer should be, and then will fit his argument, however unconvincingly, to the available evidence.