Yet another example of beauty standards within SRS. They see hooked noses and hooded eyes as masculine - features that many cis women happen to already have and be dissatisfied with. Many pre-FFS faces in that subreddit already looked androgynous. The desired nose and eyes seem to be the Hollywood celebrity ones, which reinforces dissatisfaction with natural face features.
View attachment 7697436View attachment 7697446View attachment 7697464
View attachment 7697486View attachment 7697489View attachment 7697496
I like how miss half marathon kind of exposes that unless trannies (even the "doll" subtype) lean real head into feminine artifice they'll look like skinny men with long hair. When running a race I would clock him at 50 yards, even if he isn't head and shoulders ahead of the women's pack (pun semi intended). Even post FFS if they don't lean hard into the makeup and feminine clothes it won't read.
I don't like what they did with the middle top row troon. That artificial upturned nose looks bad, there wasn't anything wrong with his preop nose.
View attachment 7699409
What is evidence based?
No, really.
WHAT IS EVIDENCE BASED?
I heard/read this all the time while teaching and going to professional development. Yet the public school system is nigger riddled, full of kids who are violent, can't read, and are criminal reprobates.
I guess what I'm saying is: Your evidence based garbage doesn't help. It makes everything FUCKING WORSE!
So... what EVIDENCE are these jackasses using? What is evidence based??
Evidence based means there's studies (ideally randomized controlled studies, but there are other types with supplemental evidentiary value, mostly used in the process of designing randomized trials) that prove that the therapy/medication/surgery/medical device you're testing is better than doing nothing.
There's some wiggle room - for example there's a large number of studies supporting the idea that prayer and meditation are good for the health with meaningful, objective parameters like measuring blood pressure or pain tolerance.
The issue is that troons had their fingers in the university research pie for at least a couple of decades now and they will do unethical things to promote their ideology instead of going where the facts and evidence and analysis actually lead them. They'll place artificial bias in unvalidated measuring tools (e.g. a "dysphoria questionnaire" for FTMs with many questions that will score higher if they got mastectomy, because those questions rate things like "I have a flatter chest agree/disagree". If you got mastectomy, you will have a flatter chest, and they'll avoid asking questions like "I am satisifed with the cosmetic appearance of my chest" because FTMS might rate that poorly.) They will obscure, manipulate or attempt to mediate politically inconvenient data using tricks of mathmatical analysis, or by just failing to follow up with anyone but the research subjects who are in the tank for them and won't report anything untoward. They won't pursue research questions likely to yield a negative result. Given most of these investigators are going to be gender medicine physicians (endos, surgeons, psychologists etc.) of some kind, they know which side their bread is buttered on and are hesitant or just unwilling to post a negative research finding because of backlash from colleagues and potential loss of patients.
Some troon and pro-troon researchers will even withhold publication of research findings that do not suit their political narrative or try to suppress them. They've admitted to doing that to NYT. That's really really bad. That's totally unethical. What we need is a brave new generation of TERF scientists who aren't afraid to go where the evidence leads, because it's that kind of trial, analysis and meta-analysis (think: Cass Report) that will support policy changes good for all of us, except I guess the predator class troons.
