Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.global-warming > #780735

Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On May 24, 2026 at 10:13:17 AM MST, "zendejo" wrote
<6a1331ad$0$26$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/23/26 7:05 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:

...


These twelve claims have been bouncing around skeptic literature and political
speeches for the better part of two decades, usually delivered with the
confidence of someone who just discovered the one weird trick climate
scientists don't want you to know. They deserve serious engagement anyway —
because burying bad arguments without examining them doesn't make them go
away.
To be fair: a few of these actually land. Some climate advocates have
overstated their case, some headlines did outrun the evidence, and one IPCC
paragraph genuinely cited a WWF brochure like it was peer-reviewed research.

The problem is that the set as a whole mistakes the map for the territory.
Poking holes in a press release, a political speech, or a sloppy headline
isn't the same as poking holes in the physics. The ocean doesn't care how the
IPCC communicates its findings. Glaciers aren't waiting on a methodology
dispute to finish melting.

What follows is a point-by-point breakdown — crediting what deserves credit,
correcting what doesn't, and explaining why "climate scientists sometimes
communicate badly" and "the planet isn't warming" are very different claims.\

And, I predict with 100% certainly, zendejo will show no actual understanding.
Even when someone goes point by point he will just dismiss and stick with
ignorance and conspiracy. zendejo does not care about accuracy or evidence or
science... like most trolls zendejo cares far more about tribalism and
scapegoating.

> https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/a/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/7E90482A76C15A7B2D2473E6EDC911C0.refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf
> 
> Alarmist Claim #1: Antarctic Peninsula is shrinking
> FACT: 2008 peer-reviewed paper in American Geophysical Union found “a
> doubling in snow accumulation in
> the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.”

The 2008 study on snow accumulation is real, but this response conflates two
separate phenomena — and that's worth unpacking.

**Snow accumulation ≠ ice sheet mass balance.** Increased snowfall on the
western Antarctic Peninsula is actually *consistent* with a warming climate,
since warmer air holds more moisture and produces more precipitation. More
snow falling doesn't tell you whether the peninsula is gaining or losing ice
overall.

**What the broader science shows:** The Antarctic Peninsula has been one of
the fastest-warming regions on Earth. The relevant losses come primarily from:
- **Glacier flow and calving** — glaciers accelerating toward the ocean and
breaking off
- **Ice shelf collapse** — Larsen B (2002) and others disintegrating
- **Basal melting** — warm ocean water melting ice from below

These outflow mechanisms can and do outpace increased snowfall accumulation.

**On the accumulation study itself:** Increased snow accumulation in *one
region* of the peninsula doesn't characterize the peninsula as a whole, and
subsequent research has shown significant net mass loss from the region when
all factors are accounted for.

**The honest takeaway:** The original "shrinking" framing may be imprecise —
Antarctica is complex, with East Antarctica behaving differently from West
Antarctica and the Peninsula. But citing a single precipitation study to
dismiss ice loss concerns misrepresents how glaciologists actually measure ice
mass (using GRACE satellite gravity data, not snowfall records).

The science supports concern about net ice loss in the Peninsula region, even
while acknowledging regional complexity.

> Alarmist Claim #2: Glaciers are melting throughout the world.
> FACT: A UN Report in 2010 reported that “glaciers increasing despite
> climate change… glaciers in many areas of
> the world are increasing.”

This one follows the same pattern as the first — a real data point being used
in a misleading way.

**What the 2010 UN/UNEP report actually said:** It acknowledged that some
glaciers in specific regions (parts of Scandinavia, New Zealand's west coast,
parts of the Karakoram range) were advancing. This is not disputed.

**But here's the problem with the framing:**

Regional exceptions don't overturn the global trend. The World Glacier
Monitoring Service, which tracks thousands of glaciers worldwide, has
documented a clear, accelerating pattern of net global glacier mass loss over
decades. Cherry-picking advancing glaciers while ignoring the overwhelming
majority that are retreating is a classic misrepresentation.

**Why some glaciers advance:** Local topography, precipitation patterns, and
regional climate variability can cause individual glaciers to grow even in a
warming world — just as the Antarctic snow accumulation example above shows.
Scientists are aware of this and account for it.

**The actual global picture:**
- The vast majority of the world's monitored glaciers are losing mass
- Glacier loss is accelerating, not stabilizing
- Major systems (Alps, Andes, Himalayas, Rockies) show dramatic net retreat
- Sea level contribution from glaciers and ice sheets is measurable and
growing

**The honest takeaway:** "Glaciers are melting *throughout* the world" is a
slight overstatement if taken literally — but "glaciers are *increasing* in
many areas" as a counter-narrative is far more misleading, because the net
global mass balance is unambiguously negative and worsening.

Nuance cuts both ways. It doesn't rescue the denial argument here.

> Alarmist Claim #3: The IPCC stated the Himalayan glaciers would melt by
> 2035. .
> FACT: The IPCC got that unsubstantiated and false statistic from a World
> Wildlife Federation brochure. In
> January 2010, Time magazine article, Himalayan Melting, How a Climate
> Panel Got it Wrong: “Glaciergate” is a
> “black eye for the IPCC and the climate-science community as a whole.”

This one is **substantially true** — and intellectual honesty requires saying
so clearly.

**What actually happened:** The IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report did
include a claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. This figure
was traced back to a WWF report, which itself cited a non-peer-reviewed
source. It was a genuine error that should not have passed through IPCC
review. The IPCC formally retracted it in 2010.

**This was a real and legitimate criticism.** The IPCC's own procedures
require reliance on peer-reviewed literature, and this slipped through.
Scientists and the IPCC itself acknowledged the mistake. That's not spin — it
happened.

---

**Where the argument overreaches, however:**

**One error ≠ invalidating the whole.** The IPCC report runs to thousands of
pages drawing on thousands of studies. One sourcing failure in one paragraph,
while serious, doesn't impugn the broader conclusions about glacier loss —
which are well-supported independently.

**The underlying concern remains valid.** Himalayan glaciers *are* losing mass
at alarming rates, documented by satellite data and direct measurement. The
2035 date was wrong; the directional trend is not.

**"Glaciergate" was real but limited.** Investigations following the scandal —
including by independent bodies — found no evidence of systemic fraud or
widespread errors in the IPCC's core findings.

---

**The honest takeaway:** This is a legitimate criticism of IPCC process and a
genuine embarrassment. Acknowledge it fully. It just doesn't do the work the
argument needs it to do — discrediting the broader science on glacier retreat.


> Alarmist Claim #4: Polar Bears are disappearing.
> FACT: Director of Wildlife Research with the Arctic Government of
> Nunavut: “Of 13 populations of polar bears
>   in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going
> extinct, or even appear to be affected at
>   present.”
> FACT: In the 50’s and 60’s there were between 5,000 and 10,000 polar
> bears. Today there are between 15,000 and
> 25,000.

This one has a kernel of truth but involves some important context-stripping.

**What's legitimate here:** Population counting for polar bears is genuinely
difficult, and there was real scientific debate around 2007-2010 about the
status of various subpopulations. Some Canadian populations were indeed
assessed as stable or increasing at that time. Overstating imminent extinction
was a fair criticism of some advocacy messaging.

**Where the argument has problems:**

**It's geographically incomplete.** There are 19 recognized global
subpopulations, not just the 13 Canadian ones cited. Selecting only Canada
leaves out populations in Russia, Norway, and Greenland, some of which show
more concerning trends.

**The concern is primarily forward-looking.** The scientific worry about polar
bears isn't mainly "they're dying right now" — it's that sea ice, their
hunting platform for seals, is declining rapidly. A population can appear
stable today while its habitat is being undermined. The IUCN lists them as
*Vulnerable* based on projected habitat loss, not just current counts.

**The data has moved on.** More recent assessments show several
subpopulations, including the Southern Beaufort Sea and Western Hudson Bay
populations, have declined meaningfully. The quote reflects a specific moment
in time.

**The quote itself is from a government wildlife official, not peer-reviewed
literature** — the same standard of sourcing the other arguments criticize
climate science for using.

**The honest takeaway:** "Polar bears are disappearing *right now*" was indeed
sometimes overstated in public messaging. But using stable short-term counts
to dismiss long-term habitat-driven risk misrepresents how conservation
science actually works.
> 
> Alarmist Claim #5: May 2013, President Obama claimed the climate is
> warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago.”
> FACT: Nature reported “For the period [1998-2012] the observed trend of
> temperatures is … not significantly
> different from zero and suggests a temporary hiatus in global warming.”
> FACT: The Economist reported “over the past 15 years, air temperatures
> at the Earth’s surface have been flat …”

This one requires the most careful handling because the cited sources are real
and the "hiatus" was genuinely debated within climate science — but the
framing still misleads.

**What's true:** Surface air temperature warming did slow between roughly
1998-2012. Nature, The Economist, and climate scientists themselves
acknowledged and studied this. It wasn't fabricated.

**Why the framing is still problematic:**

**1998 is a cherry-picked start date.** It was an exceptionally strong El Niño
year — a statistical outlier and artificially high baseline. Starting a trend
line from a peak makes any subsequent period look flat. Climate scientists
noted this explicitly at the time.

**Surface temperature ≠ planetary heat content.** The oceans absorb
approximately 90% of excess heat trapped by greenhouse gases. Ocean heat
content continued rising uninterrupted throughout the entire "hiatus" period.
The Earth was still accumulating energy — it just wasn't showing up as
dramatically in surface air readings.

**The hiatus ended decisively.** Post-2014, surface temperatures surged. The
2010s became the hottest decade on record. 2016, 2019, 2023, and 2024
successively broke records. The "pause" is now clearly a temporary fluctuation
within a long-term trend, not a refutation of it.

**Short periods are statistically noisy.** Climate scientists use 30-year
baselines for good reason — 15 years contains enough natural variability that
detecting trends is genuinely difficult, even when they exist.

**On Obama's claim:** "Faster than anticipated" was arguably imprecise
political language during the hiatus period — that's a fair point.

**The honest takeaway:** The hiatus was real in surface data, scientifically
interesting, and worth discussing. It has since been fully explained and
superseded by resumed warming. It was never evidence that the underlying trend
reversed.

> Alarmist Claim #6: 2014 was the warmest year in modern record by 0.02
> degree.
> FACT: Only a “38% chance 2014 was the warmest year on record.” Margin of
> error, which on average is 0.1 degree
> Celsius, made “impossible to conclude 2014 was the warmest year”
> according to the Berkeley Earth Surface
> Temperature (BEST) project stated,

This is one of the stronger factual objections in this series — the
statistical criticism is largely valid.

**What's correct here:** NASA and NOAA did announce 2014 as the warmest year
on record, but their own data showed the margin over 2010 was roughly 0.02°C —
within the measurement uncertainty. The BEST project's ~38% probability figure
is a legitimate statistical observation. Presenting it as a definitive record
without acknowledging the uncertainty was imprecise science communication.

This is a fair criticism of how the finding was publicly presented.

---

**Where it still doesn't go where the argument wants it to go:**

**The uncertainty cuts both ways.** A 38% chance of being #1 still means it
was almost certainly among the top 2-3 warmest years ever recorded. The
uncertainty doesn't suggest it was actually a cool year.

**The long-term trend is unaffected by this.** Whether 2014 was #1 or #3 on
the list is essentially irrelevant to whether the planet is warming over
decades — which it demonstrably is, well beyond any margin of error.

**Subsequent years resolved the question anyway.** 2016 surpassed 2014 by a
margin that *was* statistically significant. Then 2023 surpassed 2016. These
records aren't within measurement uncertainty — they're clear.

**The objection targets communication, not the underlying science.** Sloppy
headlines claiming certainty where there was probabilistic uncertainty is a
media and messaging problem, not evidence against warming.

**The honest takeaway:** The "warmest year" framing was statistically
imprecise and deserved this criticism. It doesn't, however, constitute
evidence that warming isn't occurring — just that one data point was
over-communicated.

> Alarmist Claim #7: In 2000, Democrats started saying that the science is
> settled.
> FACT: I started getting phone calls from scientists disagreeing so I
> made a speech on the floor showing how many
> scientists disagreed.

This one is qualitatively different from the previous claims — it's a personal
anecdote, not a cited study or report, and it's worth treating it on those
terms.

**What's being argued:** That scientists privately disagreed with climate
consensus, evidenced by phone calls to a (presumably congressional) office.

**The problems here are significant:**

**It's purely anecdotal.** Every other claim in this series, for better or
worse, cited a paper, a report, or a named source. "Scientists called me" is
not verifiable, not quantifiable, and not scientific evidence of anything.

**Dissent exists in every scientific field.** You could find scientists who
dispute germ theory, evolution, or vaccine efficacy. The existence of
dissenting voices doesn't tell you whether the preponderance of evidence
supports a position. What matters is the weight of evidence and the proportion
of expert agreement.

**The actual consensus figures are robust.** Multiple independent analyses —
Cook et al., Oreskes, Doran & Zimmerman — consistently find 97%+ of actively
publishing climate scientists agree on human-caused warming. This has been
replicated across different methodologies.

**"The science is settled" is worth nuancing honestly.** Climate scientists
themselves often push back on this framing — not because warming is uncertain,
but because science is never fully "settled." The core attribution of warming
to human activity is extremely well-established; precise regional impacts and
feedback sensitivities involve ongoing research.

**The honest takeaway:** Receiving phone calls from skeptical scientists is
not a measure of scientific consensus. This argument substitutes personal
political experience for systematic evidence — the opposite of what the other
claims at least attempted to provide.

> Alarmist Claim #8: Global warming is causing more tornadoes.
> FACT: A NOAA scientist rejected global warming link to tornados stating
> “no specific consensus or connection
> between global warming and tornadic activity.”

This is the most scientifically accurate objection in the series so far — and
it deserves a straight answer.

**The NOAA quote reflects genuine scientific caution.** Unlike sea level rise,
ocean heat content, or glacier retreat, the tornado-climate connection is an
area where climate scientists themselves have been consistently careful and
measured. This isn't a fringe dissenting view — it's mainstream climate
science.

**What the research actually shows:**

Tornadoes are exceptionally difficult to study in a climate context because
the historical record is unreliable — detection has improved dramatically with
Doppler radar, making it hard to distinguish real trend increases from better
observation. NOAA and the IPCC have both explicitly declined to attribute
tornado frequency trends to climate change.

The atmospheric dynamics are genuinely complicated. Warming may increase some
ingredients for tornado formation (moisture, instability) while potentially
decreasing others (wind shear). The net effect remains uncertain.

**Where some nuance still applies:**

There is ongoing research into whether tornado *seasonality* and *geographic
range* may be shifting. Some studies suggest tornado alley is expanding
eastward. These questions are live in the literature — just not settled.

**On the original "alarmist claim":** If politicians or media figures were
asserting a clear warming-tornado link as established fact, that was indeed an
overstatement not supported by the scientific literature at the time or since.

**The honest takeaway:** This one is essentially correct. The tornado-climate
connection was overstated in public discourse, and the scientific community
itself has been the primary voice of caution here. Credit where it's due.

> Alarmist Claim #9: Global warming is causing hurricanes to increase in
> intensity and frequency.
> FACT: Geophysical Research Letters found “since 2006 tropical cyclone
> energy has decreased dramatically” to the
> lowest levels since the 1970s. Global frequency of tropical cyclones has
> reached a historic low.

This one is similar to the tornado question — partially valid, but the framing
conflates two distinct claims.

**What's legitimate:** The Geophysical Research Letters finding on decreased
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) around 2010-2013 is real. Global tropical
cyclone frequency does show natural variability, and the claim that
*frequency* of hurricanes is clearly increasing due to warming is not strongly
supported by the scientific literature. The IPCC itself has been cautious on
this point.

So the frequency half of the "alarmist claim" is genuinely overstated.

---

**Where the argument breaks down:**

**Intensity and frequency are separate questions.** The scientific consensus
has consistently focused more on *intensity* than *frequency* — specifically
that warming oceans fuel stronger storms. Multiple studies find the proportion
of storms reaching Category 4-5 has increased globally. The IPCC AR6 assessed
this with medium confidence.

**The cited period is a snapshot.** The 2006-2012 low ACE period reflects
natural variability — ENSO cycles, Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and
other factors drive decade-scale fluctuations. The 2017 Atlantic season
(Harvey, Irma, Maria) and the record 2020 season followed shortly after.

**Rapid intensification is a growing concern.** Warmer ocean surface
temperatures are linked to storms intensifying faster and more unpredictably —
a documented trend with significant implications regardless of total storm
counts.

**The honest takeaway:** "More frequent hurricanes" was an overstatement — the
science focuses on intensity, not frequency, and the IPCC itself reflects that
nuance. But citing a short-term ACE dip to dismiss the intensity-warming
connection misrepresents where the actual scientific concern lies.

> Alarmist Claim #10: Global warming is leading to an increased number of
> droughts.
> FACT: IPCC Fifth Assessment report, previous “conclusions regarding
> global increasing trend in drought since
> the 1970s were probably overstated.”

Another case, like the tornado claim, that deserves genuine acknowledgment —
with important context.

**What's correct:** The IPCC AR5 quote is real and accurately cited. The Fifth
Assessment Report did walk back the stronger drought claims made in AR4
(2007), specifically noting that the Palmer Drought Severity Index used in
earlier analyses was methodologically problematic. This is a legitimate
instance of science self-correcting — which is how science is supposed to
work, but which does create valid criticism when earlier claims were stated
too confidently.

Credit where due: this is a real revision worth knowing.

---

**The important context:**

**"Global trend overstated" ≠ "no regional drought signal."** The AR5 revision
applied to the *global aggregated trend*, not to regional patterns. The same
report maintained concern about drought intensification in specific regions —
Mediterranean, southern Africa, southwestern North America, parts of South
America.

**The AR6 (2021) strengthened some findings.** Subsequent research using
improved methodologies found with greater confidence that human-caused warming
has contributed to agricultural and ecological drought in several regions. The
science didn't stop at AR5.

**Mechanism remains sound.** Warmer temperatures increase evaporation and
evapotranspiration — drying soils even without reduced precipitation. This
physics hasn't changed.

**"Overstated" is not "wrong direction."** The revision was about magnitude
and confidence levels, not about reversing the sign of the relationship.

**The honest takeaway:** The global drought trend claim was genuinely
overstated and the IPCC corrected it — that's legitimate. But the regional
drought concerns and underlying mechanisms remain scientifically supported,
and AR6 has since reinforced those more carefully than AR4 did.

> Alarmist Claim #11: Global warming is causing sea levels to rise at a
> rapid pace.
> FACT: Journal of Geophysical Research found “there has been no
> statistically significant acceleration in sea level
> rise over the past 100 plus years.”

**Claim #11: Sea Level Rise Acceleration**

**What's partially valid:** Some tide gauge analyses covering long periods
found acceleration difficult to detect statistically — natural variability,
land subsidence, and regional differences complicate the record. The paper
cited likely reflects real methodological challenges in the historical tide
gauge data.

**Where it breaks down:**

Satellite altimetry since 1993 tells a much cleaner story. Current sea level
rise rates of roughly 3.6-4mm/year are approximately double the 20th century
average — and the rate itself is accelerating. The IPCC AR6 assessed this with
high confidence.

Averaging over 100+ years can actually *hide* recent acceleration by diluting
it with slower earlier periods. The statistical test the paper applies is
real; the conclusion it's used to support is not.

Ice sheet contribution — particularly Greenland and West Antarctica — has
grown measurably and is expected to drive future acceleration. The mechanism
is well-understood.

**Honest takeaway:** Long-term tide gauge records are genuinely noisy.
Satellite data showing recent acceleration is not.


> Alarmist Claim #12: 97% of scientists agree global warming is manmade.
> FACT: WSJ found the 97% consensus to be predicated on “a handful of
> surveys and abstract-counting exercises
> that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

**Claim #12: The 97% Consensus**

**What has legitimate basis:** The specific Cook et al. (2013) methodology
drew real scholarly criticism — some scientists disputed how their papers were
categorized, and abstract-counting has known limitations. These are fair
methodological objections.

**Where it overreaches:**

The 97% figure wasn't built on one study — it's been reproduced across
multiple independent methodologies: Oreskes (2004), Doran & Zimmerman (2009),
Cook et al. (2013), Verheggen et al. (2014), Carlton et al. (2015). Differing
methods, similar results.

The WSJ published an *op-ed*, not a peer-reviewed study. Applying the sourcing
standards used elsewhere in this series, that's a significant limitation.

Every major scientific institution on Earth — NASA, NOAA, AMS, NAS, Royal
Society, and equivalents in virtually every country — endorses the consensus
independently of the surveys.

The actual volume of contrarian peer-reviewed literature remains tiny,
regardless of how you count abstracts.

**Honest takeaway:** The 97% figure's specific derivation is legitimately
debatable. The existence of overwhelming expert consensus is not.



-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

Back to alt.global-warming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-22 16:29 -0600
  Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 22:42 +0000
    Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 09:14 -0600
      Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 10:32 -0600
        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:37 +0000
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 10:47 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:55 +0000
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:28 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:53 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 14:08 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 01:05 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Dietrich Von GassenHousen <Dietrich@ZyklonB.org> - 2026-05-24 01:58 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-24 11:13 -0600
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-24 17:51 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-24 13:13 -0600
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy phoenix <j63840576@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 11:00 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 18:14 +0000
                Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:32 -0600
              Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:31 -0600
        Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 10:41 -0600
          Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy Brock McNuggets <Brock.McNuggets@gmail.com> - 2026-05-23 16:54 +0000
            Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy zendejo <zd@no.here> - 2026-05-23 12:27 -0600

csiph-web