TV personality Mario Lopez in hot water over "insensitive" remarks

[TIC]

a transgender 3 year old is like a vegan cat. we all know who's making the lifestyle choices

[Fenster]

Mario Lopez apology

"The comments I made were ignorant and insensitive, and I now have a deeper understanding of how hurtful they were," Lopez said in a statement to CNN. "I have been and always will be an ardent supporter of the LGBTQ community, and I am going to use this opportunity to better educate myself. Moving forward I will be more informed and thoughtful."

I didn't understand why his comments were "offensive" so took his advice about educating ourselves.


Mario Lopez's comments about transgender kids aren't just dumb. They're dangerous.

The conversations on Owens’ radio show (or in the pages of the Guardian) would have audiences believe that 4-year-old children are waking up one day, declaring a new gender and then undergoing surgical interventions the next day. This narrative is blatantly untrue — and also deliberately contrived to stoke fears of trans people and build support for a growing anti-trans movement in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The reality is much more nuanced.

What is true is that children grow and develop every day in thousands of ways. A 3-year-old is different than a 3½-year-old, and incredibly different from a 10-year-old. As parents, we know that each month brings new developments because we track our children’s development month-by-month. The idea, then, that parents and medical professionals would treat the development of all trans and gender-nonconforming children from ages 2 to 18 exactly the same way betrays the absurdity of the critique from the outset.

Supporting a child’s gender identity and expression is not the same as telling a child that they can be a truck or a dog — a favorite, and offensive, comparison of anti-trans commentators. Children who express a gender different from the gender assigned to them at birth do so in persistent and consistent ways over many months and years.

And being supporting does not mean taking your preschooler in for surgery: No young child is receiving medical intervention of any kind before puberty and no one is receiving surgery until the age of 18 (except in some limited circumstances, where chest surgery might be available around age 16). What children are supposed to receive is a loving and affirming caretaker who can reflect back to them that they are beautiful and loved, no matter what.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...6?icid=related

[Fenster]

So the kids can't have the chop until they're 18-years-old, regardless of what age the gender swap thingy is chosen/discovered (not sure what's appropriate).

Am I the only one who thought they were chopping and changing littleuns? Doesn't sound so mental having to wait until they become adults to get surgery.

[Dark Lord Al]

Who fucking cares , people can have opinions.
Why does this mad world think that everyone should like everyone else.

[Fenster]

Who fucking cares , people can have opinions.
Why does this mad world think that everyone should like everyone else.

Mental isn't it?

Outside this forum I don't know anyone who gives a monkey's about gays/LGBT/trans or any of this stuff.

[TitoFan]

Who fucking cares , people can have opinions.
Why does this mad world think that everyone should like everyone else.

Precisely. Who fucking cares?

Which begs the question as to why Mario Lopez felt compelled (or pressured) to apologize to begin with.

[TitoFan]

Mario Lopez apology

"The comments I made were ignorant and insensitive, and I now have a deeper understanding of how hurtful they were," Lopez said in a statement to CNN. "I have been and always will be an ardent supporter of the LGBTQ community, and I am going to use this opportunity to better educate myself. Moving forward I will be more informed and thoughtful."

I didn't understand why his comments were "offensive" so took his advice about educating ourselves.


Mario Lopez's comments about transgender kids aren't just dumb. They're dangerous.

The conversations on Owens’ radio show (or in the pages of the Guardian) would have audiences believe that 4-year-old children are waking up one day, declaring a new gender and then undergoing surgical interventions the next day. This narrative is blatantly untrue — and also deliberately contrived to stoke fears of trans people and build support for a growing anti-trans movement in the United States and the United Kingdom.

The reality is much more nuanced.

What is true is that children grow and develop every day in thousands of ways. A 3-year-old is different than a 3½-year-old, and incredibly different from a 10-year-old. As parents, we know that each month brings new developments because we track our children’s development month-by-month. The idea, then, that parents and medical professionals would treat the development of all trans and gender-nonconforming children from ages 2 to 18 exactly the same way betrays the absurdity of the critique from the outset.

Supporting a child’s gender identity and expression is not the same as telling a child that they can be a truck or a dog — a favorite, and offensive, comparison of anti-trans commentators. Children who express a gender different from the gender assigned to them at birth do so in persistent and consistent ways over many months and years.

And being supporting does not mean taking your preschooler in for surgery: No young child is receiving medical intervention of any kind before puberty and no one is receiving surgery until the age of 18 (except in some limited circumstances, where chest surgery might be available around age 16). What children are supposed to receive is a loving and affirming caretaker who can reflect back to them that they are beautiful and loved, no matter what.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...6?icid=related

Kudos on wanting to educate yourself on the matter. Funny though, how it's ok to reference and quote an article written by a trans activist...... but it's somehow naive to reference and quote an article written by a religious objector. Seems "double-standardish" to me.... you know?

So I myself went to a different type of source, one that looks at medical issues through the very real prism of economics.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianv.../#76ca2ca77161


I found a little "education", if you will, of my own:


"One example of this is in the UK, where doctors within the country’s national health system (the NHS) have in recent months have critiqued their experiences at the only clinic specialized in transgender medicine for children within the country. Last year, the governor of the Tavistock and Portman Foundation NHS Foundation Trust, Marcus Evans, accused the management of the clinic of having an “overvalued belief in” the expertise of its branch devoted to gender identity, the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS). Evans further accused the trust of “dismiss[ing] challenge and examination.” Then this spring, five clinicians at the Tavistock Centre which is run by the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) allege that this center has been approving “life-changing medical intervention” on children and adolescents “without sufficient evidence of its long-term effects” citing feeling pressured to refer young people for life-altering treatments. There have been at least 18 staff members who have resigned in similar protest over the past three years from the GIDS. In response to these resignations, Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre of Evidence-based Medicine at the University of Oxford, told the Times: “Given paucity of evidence, the off-label use of drugs [for outcomes not covered by the medicine’s license] in gender dysphoria treatment largely means an unregulated live experiment on children.”

Earlier this month, Dr Kirsty Entwistle, a former clinician who worked at the Leeds’ GIDS, detailed how clinicians have been fearful around their work in diagnosing children for fear of being labelled “transphobic.” In her open letter to Polly Carmichael, the director of GIDS, Entwistle wrote:

I think it is a problem that GIDS clinicians are making decisions that will have a major impact on children and young people’s bodies and on their lives, potentially the rest of their lives, without a robust evidence base. GIDS clinicians tell children and families that puberty blockers/hormone blocks are “fully reversible” but the reality is no one knows what the impacts are on children’s brains so how is it possible to make this claim? It is also a problem that GIDS clinicians are afraid of raising their concerns for fear of being labelled transphobic by colleagues.

Echoing Entwistle’s assertions this week, Michael Biggs, an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Oxford, published “The Tavistock’s Experiment with Puberty Blockers” [1] where he analyzes the devastating reality behind GIDS’ treatment of children through the administration of puberty blockers (triptorelin). Biggs demonstrates how Carmichael vastly misrepresented the safety and efficacy of these puberty blockers and avoided publishing the results of a study which examined the use of puberty blockers on these very children. Biggs writes, “The failure to fully publish the results of the experiment—for all 44 children given triptorelin, on all the outcomes that the study measured—suggests that it was a pretext to administer unlicensed drugs rather than an attempt to acquire scientific knowledge.” Biggs shows the links between parent advocacy for the medicalization of their children and the suppression of the negative results of Carmichael’s study which she also misrepresented to the media. He also demonstrates the myriad financial conflicts of interest at the heart of this trust’s practices while maintaining that GIDS is carrying out experimental treatment on adolescents driven in large part by advocacy groups like Mermaids.

What we are facing today is a crisis in medicine and the biotech sector where the demand for treatments and medicines is often being advocated by the patient and patient advocacy groups who are emotionally invested in a certain outcome, regardless of safety or medical wisdom. While sympathy with those suffering from various conditions is warranted, we need to ensure that medical and research establishments are not hijacked by lobby groups who just want doctors to do as they command."

[El Kabong]

What a pussy

[TitoFan]

What a pussy

https://www.inquisitr.com/5559747/ma...report-claims/

[walrus]

Who is Candace Owens

[Spicoli]

[Fenster]

Kudos on wanting to educate yourself on the matter. Funny though, how it's ok to reference and quote an article written by a trans activist...... but it's somehow naive to reference and quote an article written by a religious objector. Seems "double-standardish" to me.... you know?

Are you serious? You don't know the difference between a fact-checked reputable source and unregulated religious/conspiracy propaganda screaming about fire and brimstone and Sodom and Gomorrah?

1. The article I provided is from a world-renowned reputable source (A factual search reveals that NBC News has not failed a fact check by an IFCN fact checker. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/)

2. It has fifteen citations, so we can fact check for ourselves, including scientific research from the The American Academy of Pediatrics (https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-...olescents.aspx)

3. It is clearly labeled an opinion piece, hence the authors credentials - an award winning Lawyer and staff attorney for ALCU (not a loon with zero credentials hiding behind a blog moniker).

4. I clearly stated that I was confused by Mario Lopez apology, what was offensive? He then called himself ignorant and insensitive. I then provided some evidence and facts from the highly informative article, that's all. It doesn't mean you have to agree Mario was "offensive," just appreciate facts from fiction.

[TitoFan]

Kudos on wanting to educate yourself on the matter. Funny though, how it's ok to reference and quote an article written by a trans activist...... but it's somehow naive to reference and quote an article written by a religious objector. Seems "double-standardish" to me.... you know?

Are you serious? You don't know the difference between a fact-checked reputable source and unregulated religious/conspiracy propaganda screaming about fire and brimstone and Sodom and Gomorrah?

1. The article I provided is from a world-renowned reputable source (A factual search reveals that NBC News has not failed a fact check by an IFCN fact checker. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/)

2. It has fifteen citations, so we can fact check for ourselves, including scientific research from the The American Academy of Pediatrics (https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-...olescents.aspx)

3. It is clearly labeled an opinion piece, hence the authors credentials - an award winning Lawyer and staff attorney for ALCU (not a loon with zero credentials hiding behind a blog moniker).

4. I clearly stated that I was confused by Mario Lopez apology, what was offensive? He then called himself ignorant and insensitive. I then provided some evidence and facts from the highly informative article, that's all. It doesn't mean you have to agree Mario was "offensive," just appreciate facts from fiction.

I'm well aware of the difference. It appears you're not.

1. The article you provided was written by a trans activist. Makes little difference whether he's an attorney for the ALCU, a NASA engineer, or a professor at MIT. He's a trans activist. Hence the opinion part you admit to in #3.

2. Fifteen citations? Convenient and misleading bit of information, as many of these just link back to other likewise-opinionated pieces. That's what Trump does. Backs up his bullshit with "quoted bullshit." Same shit.

3. Glad you understand it's an opinion piece. Again... the writer's credentials matter little if the guy's a trans activist. Obviously not the unbiased source you seem to be comically trumpeting.

4. Mario Lopez called his comments (not himself) ignorant and insensitive upon being pressured to do so by his people. He is a TV personality and being on TV is his livelihood. Getting fired over an innocent comment would severely damage his ability to make a living.


If anyone presented a highly informative, unbiased article... it was me. Yet it went ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative. Forbes, in writing about the economics in medicine, including the use of puberty blockers on children, clearly has "no dog in the fight", and can offer a different, unslanted, intelligent perspective on what is a real and increasing problem.

You're welcome.

[TitoFan]

As proof of #4, I offer the following article:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/...193322170.html


Whether rumors of his imminent firing are true or not, it is clear that the network was not pleased by Mario's remarks, and his apology was the only thing that kept him from being fired.

You're a betting man. I'd be willing to make a healthy wager that, if questioned privately, Mario would admit to not being sorry at all..... that he still feels his comments were harmless and not hurtful.

[Fenster]

Jesus funking christ, dude.

Your article had nothing to do with what I read, Mario Lopez or the reasons he apologised, it was irrelevant. Everyone ignored it not just me. If it makes you feel better, feel free to explain what you want me to say about your article.

What is my narrative? () All I did was try to find out why Mario Lopez apologised ()