You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Erin Reed / Anthony Reed II / @ErinInTheMorn / @ErinInTheMorning / @ErinInTheNight / _supernovasky_ / beholderseye / realitybias / AnonymousRabbit - post-op transbian Twitter/TikTok "activist" with bad fashion, giant Reddit tattoo. Former drug dealer with felony. Married to Zooey Simone Zephyr / Zachary Todd Raasch.
@Flamin Park wasn't talking about sister sizes. She was saying that a 36D looks the same as a 32B in terms of breast size in comparison to body. As in, a D cup on a woman with a 36" band looks as small as a B cup on a woman with a 32" band. Like scale models? Am drunk.
No, it does not Snaggle Tooth. First and foremost, this is an activist op-ed (journal comment) and not an actual study. Gender-affirming care is preventative care Second, the author is an epidemiologist, and thus not really qualified to make these claims. Arjee Restar . Third, just like every other article or paper you troons bleat about, the author never established "causation" in any meaningful way.
I wondered if Tony was going to post this after I saw Leor Sapir mention it.
I don't feel that "the author is is an epidemiologist, and thus not really qualified to make these claims" is a strong point — some of the best analyses of transgender-related research are by people whose expertise is in other fields, but who are intellectually honest and able to critically assess papers
"A recent article in the respected medical journal The Lancet, dated July 26, emphasizes that gender-affirming care serves as preventative healthcare."
This is the Restar comment piece that utterly misrepresented the evidence: see here and here.
I went to read the paper expecting something a bit more substantial, but it turned out to be a very short (7-paragraph) opinion piece written by someone who outright admits they're a troon. Nice "paper", Tony!
Excerpt said:
For the growing 1.6 million U.S. trans people, mental health problems are particularly pressing given the disproportionally high levels we experience. My reflexive observation as a social epidemiologist and an Asian American/Filipina trans woman
I actually came across a rabbithole here, so I apologize in advance for the long post. I found that in addition to being a troon, Arjee Restar also has an antagonistic history with Dr. Lisa Littman (of ROGD fame).
So... Tony is on a crusade against the idea of Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria being a new social contagion fueling troonery. As part of his crusade, he misrepresents what is essentially a mere opinion piece published in The Lancet as if it's authoritative or reflective of the beliefs of everyone at The Lancet. In reality, the opinion piece was authored by a single troon (Restar), who obviously has a vested interest in supporting troonery and even has a history of trying to discredit ROGD. wow What an interesting coincidence!
Arjee Restar has been mentioned previously on the Farms. In the SRS thread [1] [2], it was pointed out that Dr. Littman was an assistant professor at the Brown University School of Public Health when she published her paper on Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria. It was published in 2018, and the controversy extended into 2019. At the same time, Arjee Restar was also at the Brown University School of Public Health - as a doctoral student focused on transgender health.
Despite what Tony would have you believe, the ROGD paper was never "withdrawn" by the journal it was published in (PLOS One). A bunch of trans rights activists and their allies in academia threw a hissy fit, but they only succeeded in having the journal reviewers make some inconsequential edits. This is explained in more detail by this interview with Dr. Littman.
It's interesting to note that - in response to the initial controversy - Brown University retracted its press release promoting the paper. Also, Arjee Restar was one of the academic troons who tried to attack Littman's methodology; Restar published a critique here, and Littman actually directly responded to it via a Letter to the Editor.
I'm not an academic (so hopefully someone can chime in), but this sounds unusual to me. Brown University clearly didn't have Littman's back - they almost immediately caved to troon shrieking and retracted the press release. Then a troon doctoral student at Brown University put out a public critique of Littman's ROGD paper. And finally, Littman ended up leaving Brown University in 2020. Was she pressured to leave? It isn't clear. However, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if Restar and other troons at Brown University were responsible for forcing her out.
As a side-note: If you look up Restar's academic work, he writes almost exclusively about troons, gay men, and HIV. Even when he writes about Covid, it's in regards to how troons are (supposedly) "disproportionately affected" by it. tl;dr Arjee Restar is a troon obsessed with troonery, and he has a history of trying to discredit ROGD. It's pathetic that Tony linked to an opinion piece written by Restar and is acting like it means anything. With that said, I thought The Lancet was a serious & respectable journal, so I'm a little surprised they published this garbage.
Self-administration of GAC, for example, is one approach to expanding access that has been successfully deployed in “real-world” settings in countries like Thailand—a country that has historically made quality and affordable GAC services available to trans people throughout the world, without hinging on clinical diagnosis requirements.
Similar adaptations in the context of the U.S., like making hormones available behind the counter, providing self-administration training to trans patients, and allowing pharmacists to be able to provide counselling and administer injectable hormones, could be empowering tools when delivered within safe, supportive health systems.
The idea of the cause being "social contagion" or some simikiar malarkey
Is just junk science promoted by people like Lisa Littman.
[......] Restar et al. (2019), surveying young trans women, found that they had an “initial self-awareness of transfeminine identity” at an average age of 9.9 years, first engaged in “transfeminine expression in private” at 12.9 years, and disclosed their transness to others for the first time at 15.8 years.
This is interesting when combined with this other study from Restar:
Moreover, we also found that the age of first consensual oral/anal/vaginal sex among this sample is lower than the U.S. average in cisgender (non-transfeminine) women (15 vs. 17 years old), an indication for the need of early-in-life sexual health and risk prevention interventions. In particular, young trans women of color, who may be particularly vulnerable to HIV/STI, reported sexual debut at roughly 13 years of age, earlier than both white young trans women (18 years old) and the U.S. average for cisgender women (17 years old).
He's basically admitting that the average young MtF troon is being groomed awakening at 10 years old and is getting molested having sex at 13-15 years old. Restar's recommendation in regards to this is to have gender-affirming interventions with little kids and teach them about safe sex.
it wouldn't surprise me. the productisation of education mean that students hold a huge amount of power, as universities care more about catering to their whims than maintaining high standards of teaching and research.
this is in "Lancet Regional Health- Americas" and is a comment piece, you'd expect journals to maintain their reputation and i doubt (hope) this wouldn't be published in the main journal. i'm not sure what the status of comment pieces is, whether they are reviewed, but its not original research. i imagine getting a paper in the main journal of The Lancet would be a career-making development, having a comment in some tiny related publication, not so much. unless you're intellectually dishonest enough not to bother distinguishing and no one checks, which is what Tony is banking on.
@Flamin Park wasn't talking about sister sizes. She was saying that a 36D looks the same as a 32B in terms of breast size in comparison to body. As in, a D cup on a woman with a 36" band looks as small as a B cup on a woman with a 32" band. Like scale models? Am drunk.
Nah, that's not the case fren. The cup size represents the difference between the under breast circumference (band size) and the bust circumference. So a woman who's a 36 D has a 36" under boob with 40" bust and a 32 B is 32" band with 38" bust (D represents a 4" difference and B is a 2" difference).
If keeping band size constant while increasing cup size increases cup volume and if keeping cup size constant while increasing band size also increases cup volume, then increasing both at the same time would increase cup volume as well.
this is in "Lancet Regional Health- Americas" and is a comment piece, you'd expect journals to maintain their reputation and i doubt (hope) this wouldn't be published in the main journal. i'm not sure what the status of comment pieces is, whether they are reviewed, but its not original research. i imagine getting a paper in the main journal of The Lancet would be a career-making development, having a comment in some tiny related publication, not so much. unless you're intellectually dishonest enough not to bother distinguishing and no one checks, which is what Tony is banking on.
Having a comment published in any Lancet journal has sufficient status that an academic from Nottingham in England wrote in basically immediately to complain:
Richard Armitage said:
If totalising claims—such as “Gender-affirming care is preventative care”—are to be published in highly influential medical journals, it is of paramount ethical importance that they are accompanied by accurate, transparent, verifiable, and honest interpretations of the evidence used to support them. Without this, such claims constitute nothing more than misleading and discrediting ideological dogma which, as with Restar's Comment, have no place in The Lancet publications, and should thus be entirely disregarded.
I looked through Zac’s campaign expenditure reports. TL;DR: I think Zac and Tony have paid for their recent travel with Zac’s 2024 campaign funds, and maybe have used them to pay for their upcoming wedding.
In his 2022 campaign, Zac spent $24,824.16. This spending was all pretty normal, with the top payees being for the design and production of campaign materials and of his website ($7,306.19), campaign management ($3,720), and bank fees ($2,744.21).
But really the total expenditure is inflated, because it also includes the distribution of Zac’s leftover campaign funds: $1,902.05 to the Missoula County Democratic Central Committee, $1,879.45 to the Zootown Arts Community Center, $1,842.25 to the Blue Mountain Clinic (a local healthcare clinic), and $1,841.23 to the Montana Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.
If we take those out, Zac’s 2022 campaign spent $17,359.18.
Zac’s 2024 campaign — the one he’s not supposed to be raising money for yet — has already spent $26,276.79. This money has gone to just three payees, one of which is ActBlue (payment processing for campaign contributions). The other two are:
$12,100 to Abbey Lee Cook & Associates, for "compliance services"
$10,000 to Jamie Van Valkenburg, for "campaign scheduling"
$10,000 on "campaign scheduling"? Zac hadn’t spent nearly that much in his first campaign, and his 2024 campaign hasn’t started (he hasn’t officially been registered yet!). The closest thing to "campaign scheduling" in his first campaign were his payments to Wildcat Creek Consulting for "Campaign management - labor, budgeting, event planning, & design" (and a few other monthly "campaign management" payments).
So over his entire 2022 campaign he spent $3,720 total on campaign management, and yet in his not-yet-started 2024 campaign he’s already spent $10,000 on "campaign scheduling". I think it’s this money that has paid for his and Tony’s various trips across the country and abroad.
But what about the "compliance services"? I initially skipped over this — sounds boring, right? But Zac hadn’t spent any money on "compliance" in his 2022 campaign.
So who is this company he’s paying, Abbey Lee Cook & Associates? Well, Emily Harris (emily@abbeyleecook.com) appears in the email chain about Zac not sorting out his 2022 campaign account, promising to resolve the problem, suggesting they’re doing something for Zac’s campaign.
But there isn’t actually a website at abbeyleecook.com — the domain is registered through Google and is set up with Gmail, and that’s it. Which is weird for a political consultancy.
Code:
; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t ANY abbeyleecook.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 32373
;; flags: qr rd ra ad; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 24, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 512
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;abbeyleecook.com. IN ANY
;; ANSWER SECTION:
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN SPF "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN RRSIG SPF 8 2 3600 20230828044955 20230806044955 29530 abbeyleecook.com. GLUM94/UmB2KlXOe4e+jO65A1mOa1s/5AdqF0VoidG83yD6YiEDZfn/m uz19mnyWYBn2k9GhCKP+kzuhKtNLt2Os/4+XeluQIikSjKBvCDgXhNhn th4edIAxvXUy0AO+wEyXyEjdg0bizbLo1rZAcTW2nMc/gEjLgdF0fy7u InQ=
abbeyleecook.com. 300 IN CDS 500 8 2 7F0D7076AF55B593DF64A7493F6EE6815B048381ABD24F6621E46C58 35B28014
abbeyleecook.com. 300 IN RRSIG CDS 8 2 300 20230828044955 20230806044955 500 abbeyleecook.com. X4Acppg/lph9KM+aXAJLjOhsTF3qLVq6yeKd3S9I70nAnwbym/vIUXRZ TRiK4HDTtLbNQp1cV8P7yjqcDEwUMzWyD6iKuqxuHnuRQzdRMN0q6hIY t5gNwggkgH+oEpPf6unLfJCCDgX19+Q3RjfByZYFwsLgq8+HM9DsXPSu Nz9PuBg+ljPcUIqS+DvtkK/eIyecosiJTnGyvVB9IFKy2AxVQtyIdgJE TyDsQqyhkLHOav4/+nD0wxjEtKKn8H5/OFRxxS3YtI4pPO0rYjRFoDdi GvYbWZfyt7LK1DGHUA5Phw9fI4PyE9f3JkgenRD4MYKvuw6q2XyX+nBs eU2oIg==
abbeyleecook.com. 0 IN NSEC3PARAM 1 0 1 32E3BB61019A3F82
abbeyleecook.com. 0 IN RRSIG NSEC3PARAM 8 2 0 20230828044955 20230806044955 29530 abbeyleecook.com. iXnO+EVn85Q1Sd0Mt+H1CIKgyROvTlk9t3h2HYiDIh1k+uVKV2b5G52G oJXz9mOjZpxgOmFzmQAjfDCaBJdOubvWZ8ZoixXp3kplBRkyKhT/Y+Ik FF44d/tFqGiMcZA+YG0RN9GlMEoXxjsyBQVK2zECNwXFZtJG4UMYQ33e uy4=
abbeyleecook.com. 300 IN DNSKEY 257 3 8 AwEAAcLI4oHUD6V7K+noFK4/JMKxgQo2EAD35BQcXmvFirpaQWlqf3sQ 4qIycG9yzOy5Q3RBQuJX7DYHFN4RJE50gEKJlBozZdI0wIN7/DHLnAjZ Jvrpr5zHVyKYGwqoUE6X0Grwms924lJ5ASgfQPbMpIFfegDSyP0lV1uv Xq04EIjXW6k11jrEEYtj405Yc/EgKTARx1u/ola6wVa6FTy2s3ESYQo9 vc+pzlEtvrLI6ES3OgrfyIEG0IqX5GyD6ElbRAxLlO+N/d1f3ISR2aQi pAfY0pwwsfCIZz/fEX1H8nh5lbtrzdfF2zVDgfl1W89UVKXziXf3uUUi bajCFcZk4fM=
abbeyleecook.com. 300 IN DNSKEY 256 3 8 AwEAAZ5aTmQABNAr+ODexATerw0mbx6I/HoWYSc8NNvI85wl7dSK80ih mATLKq9ur+cVBQ0eHp7FwH/tuD5geMYyfBilpMCcu8cfiaoYyZZlEmV8 GcrDU5SUbDkQFokJt/OsbSV0XrqHAmtCNOdHOz7PzNC8qj58iP9aAyTG FYsOoSTb
abbeyleecook.com. 300 IN RRSIG DNSKEY 8 2 300 20230828044955 20230806044955 500 abbeyleecook.com. JMnEnEf03/I9OpKJUYfVSrh26F4vayYMJBoVZqD5857UUSidJlCxPPRq kq7lKBjJZL0FYup+FSZJsOZLWbELI6n3imnxfdKOVD2ONagNhB64pVMd ZOJlwlP1WIDLE32FqN9wkDsafX+/TKO6nrByBLlFQplCf1K08xA1hWCM nETOMaMyFDUp4dQZQs04fcVA8tICiNcwSuVX2ObVxojC6cLafrHPUTyl 0NLxCW7z5pv2aOR6ybPgdWa6qkVeY0pfB/5BJzVyJpJDuFKSUocBzYnB l74RyAqPeRixxye3pzh2k5qVOZvjsXdrT1yjZ9hFUAU/aNmuwxcw2JJ7 uLDXlw==
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 include:_spf.google.com ~all"
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN RRSIG TXT 8 2 3600 20230828044955 20230806044955 29530 abbeyleecook.com. l8D4TUkrraIV0ObwjrBvfrCf+2rH8J4YCAmRSTH2dUpvKxlRPRQ7VG0j fQP6B+JGNgQpb7Aurg3fxth92ITIB3Fg/6RIvLeYb4XeHTr5Pim5iSmS uelOBflyS+x4YxFj0UEEUCacVv76I/sEWQGo6SL2AndAkMpSkdBSb8YC nrU=
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN MX 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN MX 1 aspmx.l.google.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN MX 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN MX 10 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN MX 10 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 3600 IN RRSIG MX 8 2 3600 20230828044955 20230806044955 29530 abbeyleecook.com. BY6xEevEqqiXwTUK4hjgaMHpiDsquPZfJGlTdTCx6huBgiyrDT4chehz /2oomNE1zNku6+A/I7sgrRApD8kB86iS5W7YujkRw8nCEBsQy1ObfXTR 3sGyD3HE9W6Q97MrpvVnqI81FmavcH/I7n2ijugg6maLljpMl7riYs7B oIA=
abbeyleecook.com. 21600 IN SOA ns-cloud-a1.googledomains.com. cloud-dns-hostmaster.google.com. 3 21600 3600 259200 300
abbeyleecook.com. 21600 IN RRSIG SOA 8 2 21600 20230828044955 20230806044955 29530 abbeyleecook.com. QL4nukzVnbtakALLelvzKnI6cvWCniGV85fSOd+4WJsNrN5Tp9gNFB95 43Is3DDH/JGGEHfNTOCOY2x8F77P2OAOrOhzSwv8B6Zgh1L30E1wwlM2 OiryUhhwXUFaSuRCZ+nxjzRpyFDf5oa3Xj6KCzLDrvG/VGQPhpDyl4Zw 3Xw=
abbeyleecook.com. 21600 IN NS ns-cloud-a2.googledomains.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 21600 IN NS ns-cloud-a4.googledomains.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 21600 IN NS ns-cloud-a1.googledomains.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 21600 IN NS ns-cloud-a3.googledomains.com.
abbeyleecook.com. 21600 IN RRSIG NS 8 2 21600 20230828044955 20230806044955 29530 abbeyleecook.com. gG40/HCsKYVjZWXp7atWYtineRC1ubS1ZXDk1ud7Fonq/700qnm2XnuY qCJ1mNdapdKITVBHd7RvvqLo1NeWEdVmQae4GFjtv+Tn4KQkjQaKFyRn sjToH+B9/iw4rWtiJCm2FOyVe+iAb0P+xHW0FT4rFiZKLlzsUsXsVyAC Dv0=
;; Query time: 44 msec
;; SERVER: ###.###.###.###
;; WHEN: Wed Aug 09 11:23:08 BST 2023
;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 2592
If we look up Abbey Lee Cook and Associates on the Montana Secretary of State’s website (business number C1192249) things look pretty normal:
But it lists as ABNs (assumed business names) "Anchor G" and "The Windsor Ballroom". Looking up "Anchor G" we find anchorggatherings.com (archive), which talks about "live events, weddings and bespoke floral for those born to run and raised rowdy". And at the bottom of the page, a mention of Abbey Lee Cook and Associates:
Along with this endorsement of Abbey Lee Cook herself:
A bride said:
It's not easy to handle the logistics of a weekend-long wedding event, but Abbey was a rock throughout the whole planning process!
So, has Zac used his campaign funds to pay $12,000 to a political consultancy that barely seems to exist, or has that $12,000 of other people’s money been put towards his and Tony’s wedding?
Edit: New SQLite dump attached, updated to include Zac's campaign spending.
Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) · Aug 9, 2023 · 8:32 PM UTC
Groundbreaking new study in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that among transgender people obtaining top surgery, the regret rate is only 1%.
The study, published Wednesday, reviewed 134 cases of top surgery.
Regret rates continue to be low!
Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) · Aug 9, 2023 · 8:33 PM UTC
Full link to the study here.
Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) · Aug 9, 2023 · 8:41 PM UTC
Correction: the regret rate actually appears to be 0%. 1% was in reference to an earlier study. They appeared to find no regretters in this sample.
"They appeared to find no regretters in this sample." But the sample has a 40.9% loss-to-follow-up rate! They report the results from 139 women but 96 others have just disappeared. And the authors excluded 10% (13) of the people who did respond, because they said they had high satisfaction and high regret — the authors say that they think these people didn't read the survey instructions properly, so their high-regret scores go in the trash.
As well, as Jeremy Shaw pointed out on Twitter, the satisfaction rate is a solid 5/5 and the regret rate is a solid 0/100 — almost everyone in the study reported the exact same scores, 5/5 and 0/100. It seems likely there is an external factor responsible for this; Shaw suggests "potential Hawthorne (observer effect) bias. This is a bias where the respondents alter their responses because they are aware that they are being observed or studied." Even Robert Mugabe (pbuh) didn't rig elections this badly. @JeremyShawMD, tweet 1689366726591328256 (archive)
So nobody regrets getting surgery?Jesus he's reaching North Korean election levels of bullshit.Literally if his claim was remotely true then how come the majority of TIPs choose not to get the surgery then?
I come before you all once again feasting on @Geranium scraps and hoping to be part of uncovering some true and honest campaign finance violations.
Mrs. Abbey Lee Cook’s political career seems to have ended since she hitched her cart to a moderate Dem in the heart of MAGA country on Staten Island.
She started as Max Rose’s Finance Director on his first campaign in 2018 and then moved on to Campaign Manager for his losing 2020 bid for reelection. Fun Fact: Max marched in a BLM protest during the Summer of Love on Staten Island which is heavily “Back the Blue” territory. His opponent seized on pics of him marching in this protest while other BLM marches in the city turned into riots. Less affluent sections of NYC were burned and trashed by BLM that summer and that was lights out for Max. Suffice it to say, he lost. Abbey doesn’t appear to be involved in his losing 2022 rematch campaign against the same rep that beat him in 2020.
Allegedly Abbey “splits her time between MT and NYC”, sounds more like she rented out whatever property she owned and bolted out of the NYC metro area in the last quarter of 2020 like every other middle-class white person over 25 did that year (hyperbolic statement but here is a source). The 524 E 6th Ave address her LLC is registered to is a house built in 1886 in Helena as stated in her bio, and was closed on in September 2020.
She does appear to be primarily a wedding planner at this point, Her Anchor G event venue seems to do the odd “political” event but weddings seem to be their bread and butter. Here is where the violations come into play: The Abbey Lee Cook & Associates LLC Geranium mentioned only shows up as having given donations as in the link provided but not really doing any business. Mrs. Abbey has at least 3 registered businesses: Anchor G Inc and these 2 LLCs.
I am going to keep fishing but on the surface, this either looks like a campaign fund laundering scheme or Zac paid $12,100 for Abbey Lee Cook & Associates to write a couple of emails.
"They appeared to find no regretters in this sample." But the sample has a 40.9% loss-to-follow-up rate! They report the results from 139 women but 96 others have just disappeared. And the authors excluded 10% (13) of the people who did respond, because they said they had high satisfaction and high regret — the authors say that they think these people didn't read the survey instructions properly, so their high-regret scores go in the trash.
Based on the headline it appears that only F to M troons were included in the study. Not self admitted autogynephile's like Tony. Therefore, at best the paper could only speak to maybe half the troon population.
"They appeared to find no regretters in this sample." But the sample has a 40.9% loss-to-follow-up rate! They report the results from 139 women but 96 others have just disappeared. And the authors excluded 10% (13) of the people who did respond, because they said they had high satisfaction and high regret — the authors say that they think these people didn't read the survey instructions properly, so their high-regret scores go in the trash.
I can't believe you bigots would find something wrong with a highly impulsive population returning a 0% regret rate with perfect satisfaction. That doesn't prove any of your claims about cults or other hateful lies, it simply proves that these scientifically proven remedies for gender dysphoria (WHICH IS NOT A MENTAL ILLNESS BIGOTS) have once again proven flawless. Not that they are right for all trans people since being trans is not a condition that should be medicalized, only a state of joy which should be 150% subsidized by taxpayers.
Troons are delusional, so even if they've been botched and are suffering from horrible post-surgery complications, they will still insist that they have NO REGRETS YOU GUISE. They're afraid that their surgeons will ghost them if they complain too much in public, and the wider troon community might also ostracize them for being a debbie-downer. Pooners are particularly vulnerable to this.
Even just admitting it to themselves is a terrifying prospect, because what do you do if you're a botched troon who regrets getting surgery? There is no going back. You have irrevocably altered your body in a ruinous way. I imagine this is where suicide comes in for many of them. Others just disappear, maybe quietly detransition and try to make the best of it.
Very few actually take a stand and fight back against the SRS butchers and the troon community who led them down this path.
For those coming from the Community Driven Happenings Feed, I'm not our Tony researcher, that's @Geranium. @William Tyndale was mistaken and is trying to literally genocide @Geranium but WE WILL NEVER STOP WINNING. Or wearing our rainbow LEGO earrings.
For those coming from the Community Driven Happenings Feed, I'm not our Tony researcher, that's @Geranium. @William Tyndale was mistaken and is trying to literally genocide @Geranium but WE WILL NEVER STOP WINNING. Or wearing our rainbow LEGO earrings.
What an interesting coincidence!
Restar's recommendation in regards to this is to have gender-affirming interventions with little kids and teach them about safe sex.
