If your dad has acetylene torches around and your mom has axes around the house you’re going to play with them.

It does not mean or imply or predict that you want to burn the house down or you want to become a butcher or axe murderer. You’re not exploring being a pyromaniac or a murderer. You’re just playing, that’s it.

Same with high heels, smoking pipes, hunting rifles or lipstick. Kids don’t know their meaning yet (context of usage).

While true, to be fair GP was responding to this:

>>> "For the last several decades society put massive pressure on kids to conform to *heteronormativity*. With these pressures lessening more and more people are feeling empowered to explore their *sexuality*." [emphasis mine]

To muddy the distinction further, there is a small minority of men whose sexual kink is to be perceived as women. These seem to be the people who are making the most trouble for trans women who just want to quietly go about living as women without fuss.

Heteronormativity conflates gender and sexuality; I'd guess (while acknowledging I don't know the content of anyone else's mind) that is what is responsible for their confusion, because they have been raised in a heteronormative society, the distinction doesn't exist in their mind.

While a true statement it's also a non-sequitur. Anglosphere society is roiled with social turmoil about trans-gender identity. One faction would like society to recognize that some people's gender does not fit their sex, and to normalize accommodating these people's gender expression without intrusive and oppressive questioning. Another faction, perhaps motivated by genuine concern, or perhaps by simple hatred of difference and change, throw a spanner into the works by asking hard questions about bathrooms and prisons and athletics and such. If the only people interested in entering women's bathrooms and prisons were genuinely only women who happened to be born in a male body, then everything would be clear and unmuddied. However, the existence of some fraction of men who would happily identify as women in order to gain easier sexual access to women does complicate the simple distinction. Is a trans woman lesbian with a penis really trans, or a predatory man with a kink? Ignoring or dismissing the muddy implications of the question will not make the second faction go away.

I didn't say predatory trans people. I said predatory men. Have you met men? Some men will put on a dress, call themselves trans, and fondle themselves in a women's locker room.

Again, pretending this is about trans people is disingenuous. This is about (some) men.

And, again, whether you genuinely dismiss the concern because you genuinely disbelieve that any man ever would take advantage of the situation, the faction that bring it up do genuinely believe that some men will take advantage of it. This faction will not go away. So, probably best to at least acknowledge their concerns so that trans people can get on with the business of doing their business.

The narrative you have presented is frequently weaponized, specifically by the adherents to the ideology of Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminism, to argue that trans women are "men in dresses" who's real goal is to infiltrate women's spaces in order to assault them (or, in the example you gave, violate their privacy and dignity). In practice this a widespread phenomenon. TERF activists use this narrative to attempt to enact legislation barring trans people from the bathroom of their gender - forcing trans women into men's bathrooms, and I'm sure that, as someone concerned about problematic men and bathrooms, that won't sound like a good prospect to you. I take you at your word this was context you weren't aware of; now that I've brought it to your attention, I hope you'll consider it and see if it alters your thinking.

Indeed. This is both true, and a non-sequitur. Bad-faith arguers exist. Let us acknowledge the fact that some people will reprehensibly refer to every trans woman as a "man in a dress". Let's assume the best about each other.

If you're trying to say that everyone is a TERF who points out that some men (again, not trans women) will take advantage, or that only bad people point this out, then you're not addressing the concern, but dismissing it. Addressing and empathizing with the actual concern will get trans people into their preferred bathrooms and keep bad men out.

Anyway, you and I won't litigate this here, so if you have more to add, know that I'll read whatever you have to say but might not reply. Be well.

You're right, I should have done better there. To me, until this comment where you described this as "reprehensible", it sounded like you were employing "just asking questions" rhetoric, because you were asking all the same questions as TERFs, and to me it appeared you were only holding back the transphobic conclusions. However, that I should have done a better job assuming good faith on your part, and I apologize.

> This is both true, and a non-sequitur.

It isn't a non-sequitur though, I'm explaining to you what my issue is. If you were aware of the context around this narrative the whole time, you could addressed it instead of implying I was being disingenuous; the best-faith interpretation I could see was that you didn't understand my objection, so I added more detail. I would like to engage with you presuming the best, but can you see how saying I'm being disingenuous and that my points are non-sequitur (when it seems like you do understand what TERFs are, what bathroom bills are, and what it was I was getting at and how it relates to our discussion) made that difficult for me?

> Addressing and empathizing with the actual concern will get trans people into their preferred bathrooms and keep bad men out.

Happy to listen to what you may propose, but I don't have any thoughts. But I understand if you are done with this conversation, I myself need to log off for a few hours to attend to things, and of course you don't owe me any of your time.

All the best to you, as well.

Most people are like me: sincerely caring, well-disposed to trans people, understand that trans rights are human rights, bear absolutely zero ill-will and will happily use preferred pronouns. Would be terribly frightened for a trans-woman to be placed in a man's prison, for instance. And, nevertheless, would simply like straight-forward policy proposals to answer those specific concerns.

So far, the only policy proposals that address those concerns have been from conservatives, which are not ideal to say the least, either. From liberals, sadly, have come answers along the lines of "Asking questions like that is TERF territory. You don't want to be a TERF, do you?" Which is clearly not an answer, and concedes the entire policy platform to conservatives.

I mean, it could be that the liberal response is, essentially "Times are changing and the exceedingly minuscule chance of creepy men in womens' locker rooms and women's prisons is a small price to pay for human rights" but that's unconvincing, to be honest. Creepy men who have a right to be in womens' locker rooms and prisons will become a problem unless it's actually addressed in advance. That's nothing to do with trans women. It is, unfortunately, a problem with men.

But no, I don't have answers, here. Before, it seemed to be "Be discreet and make good-faith efforts to pass as your preferred gender and people will generally leave you alone." The "passing" part is not ideal, but at least serves as some kind of costly social signal that this person is really trying to blend in and not make waves. Without that, not sure.

There are millions of trans people in the world but presumably few rapists in dresses. The spurious focus on pointless concerns suggests we ought to harm the dignity of millions for a fictional advantage.

What do you propose to do about a creepy man who hears that all he has to do is self-identify as a woman and now has a right to expose his penis to women? This is not a trans woman, but a man who just will not leave his penis alone in a women's locker room. Women avert their eyes, but he shakes it around, puts tassels on it, gets excited by the turmoil. "This is not a thing that will ever happen" is an answer, sure, but when it does happen, your conservative opposition will use the exceedingly rare incident to exclude trans women from locker rooms. So, what is a better answer that actually addresses the concern?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-...

Same with me, but let me ask you a question. Were you the sort of kid that actually listens to their parents? Because i didn't, and most of my peers didn't, either.

Now, the reaction of my friends when they came over and looked at me funny when I tried to show them my awesome Princess Gwenevere and the Jewel Riders doll (it had wings and could fly if you pulled a ripcord! That's objectively cool. Also, dangerous, especially to taller adults in the area.), that was painful.

For people with that attitude, yes.

I wouldn't see trying on lipstick or playing with Barbie dolls as "exploring a gender identity" as neither of those are exclusive to one gender, even in a heteronormative world.

I think these things were much more gendered at the time, as well. It is crazy for me to look back and remember how there was a time when I hadn't made up my mind about whether gay marriage was okay or not. Things have changed a lot over the past 20 years or so.

Right, you did that as a playful experiment. Would you want some trans-activist to tell you that, because you once experimented with this stuff as a kid, your actual gender identity is not the one you were assigned at birth and you should undergo surgical reassignment? Can you see why quite a few people might find this kind of thing a bit of an abomination?

1. This is not a good faith representation of what trans people are arguing for; no one is saying that playing with dolls makes you trans.

2. Trans healthcare for kids does not involve surgery. Surgeries are not performed for people under the age of 18. Trans healthcare for kids largely involves letting them choose what clothes they wear, pronouns they use, perhaps changing their name. The most that might happen is that they take puberty blockers, a reversible and safe treatment.

3. I can see why people would be upset by your straw man, were it the reality, but trans people are not an abomination, and directing dehumanizing language towards a group of people who are frequently targeted for violence is profoundly not okay. And your straw man is just that.

That's a rather extreme claim, don't you think? There's been a significant shift in recent years from "gender fluid" behavior being considered a matter of expression, to it being regarded as an almost mandatory matter of identity - either as a sign of identifying with the opposite gender, or as being "non binary".

> Trans healthcare for kids does not involve surgery.

The heavy medicalization of "trans healthcare" creates a rigid path from "affirmation" of the supposedly expressed gender, to puberty blockers/hormones, to surgical reassignment. There are significant social drawbacks for those who choose to stray, since 'community' support is conditional on picking the "right" choices at any given step.

> can see why people would be upset by your straw man, were it the reality, but trans people are not an abomination

The latter is not something I ever said, of course. You might be pattern-matching my comment with things that are just not there. I agree that most trans people just want to live their lives and not be at risk for violence, but this much is obvious. In general, the most extreme "activism" on either side gets a lot of visibility while being unrepresentative of what real people think.

Who exactly is arguing that it is mandatory to be gender fluid? I've never heard such a thing.

What I do hear trans people arguing for is that they have a right to exist, that they are under threat of violence, and that the require awareness of their condition and protection under the law as a matter of survival.

> The heavy medicalization of "trans healthcare" creates a rigid path from "affirmation" of the supposedly expressed gender, to puberty blockers/hormones, to surgical reassignment. There are significant social drawbacks for those who choose to stray, since 'community' support is conditional on picking the "right" choices at any given step.

You're just kinda putting quotes on things to make them sound scary. Do you object to surgery, or surgery being performed on children? If teenagers go on puberty blockers, and they decide they don't want to pursue surgery when they become adults - no worries, no surgery was performed. If they become adults, having considered the decision for a long time at this point - by what you were saying before now, that would seem to be okay; you were saying it was an unacceptable to impose a surgery on children, are you now saying that this isn't a choice you're ever okay with? I'm starting to get the feeling maybe you just feel trans people are unacceptable in general and that, whatever they did, you would disapprove of it.

I'm not deeply involved with the LGBTQ community, but I'm confident none of the people I know would bully someone who decided against transitioning. And none of the LGBTQ communities I've ever intersected with have been stingy or withholding of their support; they're happy to discuss my feelings about gender with me, for example, though I'm a straight man with a "by the book" gender presentation (and I have my frustrations with my gender and the expectations that come with it all the same, which I'm sure many men can relate to).

I'm sure there are toxic personalities within these communities, but it is certainly not the norm or generally tolerated, as bullying exists in virtually all communities but generally is not tolerated.

This applies to kids the most (they of course aren't at risk for surgery, but the usual notion of a fixed "gender identity" is also least sensibly applied to them), but people in young adulthood should also be a bit concerned. Research seems to show that, by and large, those who transition in middle-age are the happiest post-transition. I'm not sure how that squares with your feeling that someone with my views might just find "trans people unacceptable in general"; my concerns are derived from real-world practicality.

Unfortunately that is not true.

There are surgeons who perform 'gender affirming' double mastectomies on girls as young as 13. This is documented in the medical literature.

The former CEO of Mermaids, a UK-based charity for children who identify as transgender, had her child castrated and given a penile inversion at the age of 16, by a surgeon who specializes in constructing 'neovaginas'.