You could determine this pretty easily by uploading an unlisted video and then checking on an unrelated device that is blocking the domain.

Well, there WAS that thing a couple of months ago where Kilmeade said the quiet part out loud, suggesting we should execute them.

There are several companies that provide access to bank payments, but they all tend to have substantial limits, especially for US banking.

Your meaning is unclear for me

Regulation limiting the “approval” powers of the payment processors.

Or, an increase in viability of direct bank payments. There’s vanishingly little reason that instant payments can’t be available.

Only 4% of people who went back to living in their sex assigned at birth for a while cited that their reason was because they realized that gender transition was not for them. When considering all respondents who had transitioned, this number equates to only 0.36%.

I will grant you that the survey includes the information in a much better context compared to the article. However, this paragraph from the survey I take issue with. Those who de-transition are the only subcategory that is compared to the total population in the written text in this way, even if the percentages are subsequently present in a chart.

Taken together, 82% of those who went back to living as their sex assigned at birth at least for a little while

The conclusion on the following page also clearly identifies that de-transition on the basis of identity is uncommon. It also uses “at least for a little while” as though it’s a portion of a larger demographic, which it is not. Perhaps they mean it as compared to those who are currently not living as the gender they identify with, but I think that’s a strained interpretation.

I think it’s disingenuous to attempt to make a claim about the occurrence rate of something which can’t be captured in your survey without noting the incompleteness. Especially so given the controversial nature of detransition within the broader conversation about trans issues. While it is technically true that the claim is made only of survey respondents, I still feel that the way the section is drafted provides/implies a broader framing.

My opinions here are clearly quite pedantic. However, the topic is one where it’s critical that care be taken to avoid giving opponents any reason to discredit the larger work.

Okay… there’s not really any serious question that de-transition is often a result of transphobia, and that the vast majority of those who explore the gender squiggles at some point in their lives do not detransition. But this survey and this article are making an argument using awful, bullshit science and should be called out for it.

This is a survey done on trans people. This does not include those who did explore transition and then came to the conclusion they were cis. There is no valid means for these authors to draw any conclusions about the claim they are making. And, those who are anti-trans could easily take a bad-faith reading of this which is “9% of people who transition questioned their decision before remaining under the trans ideology, which confirms that this is something our children are being pressured into.”

We need people to stop doing fake pseudo-science bullshit analysis and calling it trans science.

It’s not obvious to me that even if the two countries would be willing to do so that there would be enough strength to have any relevance related to China, so I’m not sure how viable it would be

Doing their part in getting us towards the reality where we can push the moon out of orbit.