I feel like HN has a healthy skepticism about IoT at least. We seem to generally agree that fewer devices should have internet access.
This happens automatically with age. The HN crowd is older now. Just look at the skepticism around AR and VR. The problem is there’s no actual exploration and experimentation paired with the skepticism.
Job of the old: remind the young that there's little new under the sun, and a cost to everything.
The end result is “get off my lawn” and “new things annoy me”
Here is an essay that essentially address this: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Is easy to brag about how you don't need technology when somewhere a team of extremely sophisticated machines are deployed pointing towards the sky to save the day in case that you would be bombed. An entirely independent Amish nation would be probably eaten by their neighbors or by the market in months.
And their life style proven to be very fragile acting against things like Covid. They suffer also still from occasional outbreaks of Measles and Polio that were eliminated in the rest of US by the use of vaccines. Living in a different century can seem idyllic, but has the price of dying younger.
Well I read Lucky Luke as a kid and guess who ended up saving the settlers every single time? The cavalry. Sent by the Feds in Washington.
There is indead still nothing, that beats flash in this regard.
And flash games were somewhat popular with users as well.
Most of them, yes. Because they were "programmed" by people not good in programming or UX design. But flash enabled even newbs to build awesome stuff - and it had powertools for the pros. The workflow I had back then, I never found again in any other tool. So it has nothing to do with not wanting to learn something new - there still isn't something alike. And that is quite sad, despite the flaws of the flash player and adobe.
(oh. and flash was for free for students and also easy to pirate)
I am fairly sure most of us can agree with: Not yet.
— Agent Smith, The Matrix, 1999
It depends on the definition of "better". The Amish idea of better is serving God, avoiding or repenting sin, and thus attaining salvation.
Most people's idea of good life is pretty different, given the basic axioms it's built upon.
This is why attempts to build a life by imitating various highly admirable spiritual movements mostly fail. To reap the benefits of the lofty ideas and commendable ways of life one needs to consciously* adopt most of the spiritual teachings which have lead to the development of these ideas and ways of life. You either convert to them, or admit that it's too hard to follow the way.
* Amish only accept adult, conscious baptism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Playground_(2002_film)
And also, sadly, many Amish flee physical and sexual abuse: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Amish+abuse&ia=web
Trying to shun technology is the ultimate form of becoming a purist hipster.
Add magical thinking, now it's merely unreasonableness grounded in superstition.
Also:
- Believe they're better than others and everyone else is "bad" for not believing as they do
- Endorse the abdication of personal responsibility
- Reject science
- Justify any cruelty, suffering, or subjugation on the basis of a manufactured mythology, including forcing a raped child to give birth rather than have an abortion "because grey bearded dude in the sky and a magical book say so"
- Coerce people to surrender their autonomy and control them
- Various forms of what is essentially human trafficking
Let me recount:
- Al-Qaeda
- ISIS
- Branch Davidians
- Moonies
- Scientology
- Heaven's Gate
- NXIVM
- The Peoples Temple Agricultural Project (Jonestown)
- Rajneeshpuram
- Seventh-day Adventists (most people have no idea how brutal they were)
- Catholicism for thousands of years, how many 100's of millions were slaughtered in the Old World and the New. (Albigensian Crusade anyone?)
- Islam and Catholicism are close in terms of attributable deaths (piles of heads after raiding sultan armies, Armenian Genocide)
- LDS
- FLDS
The exceptional few least likely to murder, rape, or exploit anyone:
- Sikh
- Jainism
- Episcopal
^- Benign as they may seem, it's still a weakness by surrendering critical thinking over to fantasy.
Also putting Islam, Catholicism, and LDS in the same list as the others would be like me putting similarly more mainstream Orthodox Jews in that list, just because of some cases of organ trafficking[0] or a "child rape assembly line"[1] in a few churches, or circumcision (which is viewed as genital mutilation in most of the world). And the careful adoption of technology (which I admire for the same reason as Amish). So not really appropriate to cluster more mainstream with the marginal cults side-by-side like that because it's disproportionate.
According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher behind the 2004 US Department of Education study[2] (if you can find a newer one, I'd like to see it), educators likely do 10-100x the abuse as priests. She's appeared on Oprah and NPR.
[0][https://www.smh.com.au/world/organ-trafficking-rabbis-arrest...
[1]https://www.vice.com/en/article/qbe8bp/the-child-rape-assemb...
[2]https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/...
In Ireland the church even operated mass graves for the children they neglected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_c...
First, one can look to the mid-Atlantic Quakers, whose own book of daily guidance is titled "Faith & Practice", which stresses the distinction between how one might behave in the world and what one believes about spiritual and religious matters. For (that branch of the) Quakers, you can live a "good life" without necessarily subscribing to any of their spiritual/religious beliefs.
Secondly, most people's idea of their good life is woefully lacking in self-reflection and self-knowledge. What really makes people happy? Civilizations and cultures across time and space all stress that what really makes people happy rarely involves material well being (although obviously a certain level is required to avoid that being the dominant shaper of the experience of life). Yes, we can admit that various gadgets and access to services brings us some level of joy in life, but that doesn't really negate the fundamental truth that what makes us happy tends to be purpose, not products, tends to be who we have in life, not what we have.
Well, the texts that survive those cultures stress that. But historically reading and writing were highly controlled political activities. So you should probably consider the political motivation behind those texts. The good life for a peasant farmer in the dark ages would almost certainly involve the accumulation of modest surpluses to be traded for quality of life enhancing material goods. But you can bet your cart horse on the fact that the texts which were being produced by the state - and delivered to the farmer in mandatory weekly Mass - strongly encouraged the redirection of that surplus to the state in the form of tithe or similar in exchange for ‘spiritual access’.
It's easy to see that the interests of the state (which for Christendom was often coterminal and indistinguishable with the church) would want people to accept their lot, and be accepting of whatever inequities existed at that time and place. But I think you do human philosophy a disservice to suggest that people are incapable of thinking outside of that particular sort of box.
Even with Buddhism, the tradition most easily accused of encouraging people to just accept the way things are, it's actual practitioners and believers have fairly sophisticated explanations of why that's not actually their position at all.
What self actualisation can one get from that?
Quakers succeeded enough in certain ways that their values became mainstream, and they didn't differentiate enough from the surrounding culture to remain separate from it or powerful within it. Our liberal culture owes a lot to the quakers, I have incredible respect for their foundational beliefs, I used to be one, but they don't have much to offer us now.
Also, I'd slightly dispute the "indistinguishable from the evangelical mainstream of wherever they live". There are branches of the Quaker tree that are evangelical, but for the one found in (at least) the mid-Atlantic and Pacific NW, evangelical Christianity is about the last thing I'd compare them to. Protestant mainline, sure.
But anyway if you are going to do this, I don't think you should do it with religions that still do have living practitioners however few. If you value what the quakers are doing go be a quaker, see what the experience has to offer. Or at least wait until its carcass is cold before you harvest its carrion. Trying to extract value from a spiritual tradition you're not willing to live is ghoulish.
I don't understand this sentiment at all. Identifying positive aspects in existing religions is perfectly fine (I'd even argue there is some amount of virtue to it). How is it possibly ghoulish to see good in other cultures/religions and bring that into your practice? One example that comes to mind are religions where consumption of meat is eschewed. If you find that the rationale that Jainism provides for a vegan lifestyle resonates with you, why can't you incorporate that into your life for those reasons?
Again though, and I think this is enough information to understand my position, I simply reject the notion that you can build anything worthwhile by picking and choosing bits you like from the collection of religions spread before you.
They are traditions whose fullness is only experienced as part of a community of other practitioners. By trying to extract an appealing bit and apply it to your own life outside of that context and separated from that practice, you're doing an entirely different thing and imo not what you think you're doing. I simply don't think this practice is worthwhile, valuable, or worthy of respect.
If you don't want to eat meat then don't eat meat. If a jain convinces you not to then that's as good a way to find out as any other. Does that begin to convince you that we are all part of an eternal cycle made up of different substances? Maybe you should convert to jainism!
I don't want to assume anything about you and I'm not really. But I often see this amalgamated spirituality concept coming from non-religious people. The idea that you can take the parts you like from anywhere, leaving the parts you disagree with. I simply don't think you can come out of this with anything meaningful, and in fact I think it's a trap. You'll think you've found wisdom when all you're doing is laundering your beliefs & preferences through the hard-won ancient traditions of the world.
There is courage necessary to commit to a path without possibly being able to understand it or even begin to know where it will lead. When you build your own religion you trade that in for mistaken confidence, and the feeling that you know what all the parts do and why they're there. You're not supposed to know why they're there! You're supposed to just live it.
It is certainly true that feeding at the buffet of world religions isn't the same as being a committed member of a particular religious community. But that doesn't mean that you don't get some value from it, and potentially different value than that found by the more committed members.
I personally take great inspiration from Hesse's Siddhartha, the titular character of which explores a variety of spiritual and religious traditions, finds them all lacking and ends up being most inpired by a river ferry man. But that doesn't mean that the character gained nothing from his experiences with Buddhism, Jainism, ascetism and more.
It is not picking through or over the bones of Quakerism to grapple with and/or be inspired by this idea.
As for Stoicism, I am not sure that it is required to do anything other than, maybe, bring greater peace and understanding into the lives of those considering its values.
no no no no no. some progressive protestant faiths perhaps, but the central tenet of most Christian and most Protestants faiths is faith, salvation comes through accepting Jesus Christ as your savior and repenting sin, for which you will be forgiven. It is a topic of debate among theologians as to what that says about works/acts but they don't generally depart from the idea that starting now you get a clean a slate, or as clean as anyone can.
To the outsider, though, they both come off as quirky, religious, and inordinately devout.
> Child Sexual Abuse in the Amish Community: A Hidden Epidemic
Turns out, a closed-off, hierarchical community isn't something to emulate.
Doesn't help that a lot of them only get an eighth grade education:
https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/2012/03/professor-william-fi...
> The Amish community’s adherence to a lifestyle more typical of the 19th century, which includes driving horse-drawn buggies and living in homes with no electricity, is driven by religious beliefs. But the Amish’s adherence to educating their children in one-room schoolhouses, and then only through the eighth grade, is largely the result of a 1972 Supreme Court decision, Yoder v. Wisconsin. This 40-year-old ruling has “frozen them in place” and threatens the younger generation’s ability to earn a living in an increasingly complex society, argues Professor of Economics William A. Fischel in a recent paper.
https://www.amishheritage.org/services/education/
> In 1972, the United States Supreme Court decided in Wisconsin v. Yoder that Amish children do not have the right to any future other than one inside the Amish Church.
https://lancasteronline.com/features/former-amish-want-to-ov...
So it seems their "thorough consideration of technology" is in the context of a culture that's not going to change because it would threaten the established hierarchy. That's the threat, here: Something like this might start out well-intentioned, but once the institution is in place, well, any excuse will serve a tyrant, eh? Any excuse will serve the organization.
Very true. There is a quote, often misattributed, about how power corrupts. To lazy to google it, sorry.
> Doesn't help that a lot of them only get an eighth grade education:
That is 5 years more than some ultraorthodox jews get, check out link [1] here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35336142
Proof that happy religious communities are all different, but ugly, controlling, abusive groups share many of the same characteristics.
The Church/elders always go for information control.
So I think it’s unfair to dismiss them because they have sexual abuse in their communities and have values other than education. They don’t want to change much but it’s not a conspiracy to maintain the hierarchy. It’s to maintain their way of life that they’ve found creates meaningful, stable, happy lives with authentic connections to each other. We lack this as a society so much that we have multi-billion dollar industries trying to bottle it up and sell it to our desperate people.
They don’t do everything right but they get a lot right.
It's fair to dismiss them because they have an institutional habit of covering it up.
> and have values other than education.
This is wrong. Not educating someone keeps them under your control. That's abusive.
Well, they take care of it themselves and don't get the legal system involved. They have their own ways of dealing with it. They don't support it and it's not like they're actively facilitating it. You may agree or disagree with this but there are many different communities in the USA that prefer to act this way.
> This is wrong. Not educating someone keeps them under your control. That's abusive.
They get enough education. I'd wager most of them are better educated than the majority of public school attendees, most which graduate with a < 8th grade level of reading and match ability. I think we should look at our own broken system more before criticizing them and holding them to a different standard.
They allow it to run rampant. That's explicitly called out in the article I linked to.
> They get enough education.
They don't. Again, that's explicitly called out in the articles I linked to.
At this point I can only conclude you're posting in bad faith.
But with educated elites, denigrating religious communities because of some bad apples is OK, but pointing to a travesty perpetrated by a political in-group is not-OK.
I think the Amish are fine people, as are Orthodox Jews and traditional Catholics. I don’t think you can paint all of them poorly because of a few bad experiences. Otherwise we should likely see all gender “therapists” as dangerous as well.
You're worked up about the current manufactured bogeyman of the present. This too shall pass.
https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/122svtv/i_so_over_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/comments/11ldt9r/i_was_tran...
The major difference between these cases is that the regret rate for transitioning is way, way lower than almost all other medical interventions. This is because we have a long process before anything permanent is done. If you wish to pay so much attention to de-transitioners, will you also look at the data and pay attention to the many, many more people who regret other medical interventions?
Should we ban knee and hip replacements?
> The pooled prevalence of regret among the TGNB population after GAS was 1% (95% Confidence interval [CI] <1%–2%; I2 = 75.1%) (Fig. (Fig.2).2). The prevalence for transmasculine surgeries was <1% (CI <1%–<1%, I2 = 28.8%), and for transfemenine surgeries, it was 1% (CI <1%–2%, I2 = 75.5%) (Fig. (Fig.3).3). The prevalence of regret after vaginoplasty was of 2% (CI <1%–4%, I2 = 41.5%) and that after mastectomy was <1% (CI <1–<1%, I2 = 21.8%) (Fig. (Fig.44).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
As a comparison, this study (which is not a meta-analysis, I couldn't quickly find one of those) for knee replacement surgery regret after one year had around 18%:
> Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and effective procedure that is expected to be performed in increasing numbers in the future [1, 2]. Previous studies have shown 6–30% of patients are dissatisfied after the surgery, both in the presence and in the absence of postoperative complications [3–12]. In Sweden, about 8% of patients without documented complications are non-satisfied [13–15].
> Of the 348 patients who responded to a letter asking if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their surgery, 61 (18%) reported discontent.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6961288/
The latter number is of course a lot less reliable, but you'll find something similar - definitely above 1% - for most interventions.
no. the "DeTrAnSiTiNinG" narrative is a bogeyman narrative to narrowly get above the 50% needed in first past the post votes, with fake "concern" about "parental rights" which are purportedly "taken from concerned Christian parents". That subreddit is an artificial cesspool to feed that narrative in a context which is much less restrictive in its policies than HN. the trans communities in the US are in panicking paralysis for becoming the scapegoat.
the reality is that treatment of gender dysphoria according to current standards of care is nothing less than a blessing for those few adolescents who happen to fall into that narrow diagnostic corridor. And they get _no_ surgeries if treated in a responsible setting. they get puberty blockers. the adolescent is reviewed and accompanied in the whole family situation to assess for potential psychopathologies (emotional abuse, munchausen by proxy, in simple terms: is this real or are the parents nuts) and _only then_ and after a long period of confidence building the adolescent grows into making permanent decisions about their life, as a then young adult.
those adolescents who are lucky enough to receive such treatment at an early age have the chance to transition into a new life in their identified-with gender as completely inconspicuous well integrated happy adults.
for gender dysphoric youths it's the best thing since sliced bread.
What you describe is how it should be. Unfortunately, that's not how it is[0].
But this is very uncomfortable[1], so we look the other way.
You have chosen to look the other way. Please refrain from commenting on something you've only skimmed.
You'll prevent this situation, where you state something is presented and yet the opposite is.
It just happened to be Stormfront, but could just have well been Daily mail, or El Reg?
Rather, what they claim they personally got told before transitioning (very little), what their families were told (unsubstantiated lies about suicide as the alternative to transitioning), as well as how easy and frictionless the formalities of the process were.
it is interesting in terms of the amount of press they receive in conservative news feeds.
> Rather, what they claim they personally got told before transitioning (very little), what their families were told (unsubstantiated lies about suicide as the alternative to transitioning), as well as how easy and frictionless the formalities of the process were.
While these examples pose interesting and relevant questions about the seriousness of transitioning I feel like they're often used as a wedge to justify animosity toward the very few, through the bad examples of the very, very few.
When provided without the context of the numbers or any sort of balanced approach it becomes yet another set of misleading angles which have troubling parallels to social outcasts of the past.
Why is the number of de-transitioners relevant?
If they're too much of a minority to care about, then why is the same not true of the trans community? If, justifiably, you should still care about minorities, then you should care about minorities of minorities too.
de-transitioners aren't the counterpoint to transitioning; they are the counterpoint to dogmatic promotion of transitioning over any caution (or treating any caution as a anti-trans dog-whistle/derailment etc).
The reason this gets a lot of conservative press is that trans is the new weaponized community, so conservatives get accused of transphobia a lot - defensively pointing out hypocrisy in this behavior is all part of the game, but both sides are playing it.
> I feel like they're often used as a wedge to justify animosity toward the very few, through the bad examples of the very, very few
But the "wedge" has its basis in the modus of "the very few", or at least its dogmatic members/allies, otherwise the animosity couldn't take hold. You'll have to explain to me what makes a given de-tranition a "bad examples" versus an inconvenient truth.
Because its often used as a wedge to pour doubt over the process of transitioning entirely which for many transitioners is an effective process.
> then you should care about minorities of minorities too.
Right. We care about people, we care about all of them, so why is it that conservative media over-represents de-transitioners and under-represents people satisfied with their transition? One fits a narrative, the other doesn't, go figure.
> The reason this gets a lot of conservative press is that trans is the new weaponized community, so conservatives get accused of transphobia a lot
conservatives by the very definition of their traditional views of society are often rather transphobic though. I appreciate that its an even harder pill to swallow than homosexuality for traditionalists but you can't pretend that there isn't significant resistance. I appreciate that some trans activists can be rather aggressive online (although that can be said about a lot of twitter regardless), but the suffragette movement also teaches us that simply asking the patriarchy nicely to accept change doesn't necessarily yield results.
This is the crux of the argument, and why there needs to be some "doubt" in the process. The problem isn't that there are a few aggressive activists, but that aggressive activists are leading the movement, setting the agenda.
The notion of the suffragettes not "simply asking the .. nicely to accept change" can equally said of any terrorist group willing to commit to violence etc to "yield results". I can't see how that relates to suppression of de-transition stories.
I think that's much harder to prove. Also its not like these aggressive activists are in a vacuum. The anti-trans lobby (which is conservative in nature) are AS if not more aggressive, especially given their interests in scaling back trans-rights. In many cases they are seeking to remove the equality and liberty of the trans community where in previous decades they've been entirely ignorant of it. The result is an increasing popularity in bigoted trans tropes where MTFs get accused of being perverts and FTMs are patronised and treated like lost lambs.
> I can't see how that relates to suppression of de-transition stories.
I never said we should suppress de-transition stories but rather present them in the context of the numbers. Conservative news feeds tends to present them in isolation without the context of success stories (which are much greater in number) because they feed into the anti-trans narrative and demonstrate the axe of patriarchy that conservative news feeds have a vested interest in grinding.
Can you describe what these are? stuff that flew under the radar before aren't defacto rights.
> present them in isolation without the context of success stories
the question is was the also lack of caution in the case of success, it just happened to turn out when. The criticism here is rolling the dice in the first place, not the probability of success.
Sure, but a principal component of my complaint is that they're being dishonest about the odds by focusing on the 1 in 1000/10000/100000 case and giving limited airtime to the 999/9999/999999.
I agree that both stories need exposure but lets remind ourselves of who the target audience often is. A child wishing to transition and a parent seeking to reject it. Right now I would argue that conservative sources have a strong parental bias in this generational battle. However I share concerns that people might move through it too quickly, this is why ethical transitions tend to have a relatively high bar (e.g. live as your gender for at least a year prior to any transition). This is why a hot topic right now is access to puberty blockers which is a compromise solution to allow adolescents to postpone puberty (but not transition) until they have a clearer understanding of who they are.
> Can you describe what these are? stuff that flew under the radar before aren't defacto rights.
I feel like we only have to look at somewhere like Florida to see the start of discrimination with issues such as access to healthcare (e.g. Medicaid) for transitioning or freedom of expression, in the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act [1] (colloquially known as the "don't say gay" bill). Note how it means that children who have gay or trans parents will be prevented from being able to talk about their home lives and thus; express themselves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Edu...
Can you demonstrate this is the case - does showcasing a minority case imply that case is common?
> A child wishing to transition and a parent seeking to reject
It doesn't matter what either parent or child thinks. In other context we are quite happy to say a child cannot consent to important things, even with parental consent. This is entirely about the medical gatekeepers.
> hot topic right now is access to puberty blockers
.. and the new thing is to suggest that there is zero risk with chemically postponing puberty - which mirrors the notion that there is zero risk of regret with transitioning, i.e. total suppression of caution/dissent.
It's all misinformation using some boogeyman as justification: "don't worry about X - that's just a lie spread by transphobes/conservatives/republicans etc". But there can be truth in the panic.
>> Can you describe what these are?
> access to healthcare (e.g. Medicaid) for transitioning
I'm not sure there was a standing precedent for this - there are other forms of healthcare also excluded/discriminated against.
> freedom of expression, in the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act
I don't think that is a FoE issue; there is no such right for anyone to interject into general education, plus there are plenty of topics excluded from education. gay/trans parents can talk to their own children as much as they want - what you are suggesting is they should have free and clear access to other peoples children without any oversight from their parents? Does that mean anti-trans/gay parents get to air their own views in from of their children too?
I pointed a finger at another group I believe is doing great harm. I’d prefer we leave the Amish alone considering for most on HN the Amish may as well be aliens. There are other groups with serious problems closer to home.
Take the DEI deans' refusal to participate in the debate on DEI at MIT.
> There is a sense that this is an issue that is kind of above being debated
That is basically the definition of 'sacred.'
https://www.thecollegefix.com/a-debate-on-dei-will-be-held-a...
I'm never going to agree with you about that. But had you phrased it is "a decline in obvious purpose and a loss of a sense of community (which may once have had religion at its center)", we could maybe find some common ground.
Here's a paper on "gender-affirming" mastectomies from researchers in the US. The cohort studied includes girls as young as 12 years old at the time of surgery: https://journals.lww.com/annalsplasticsurgery/Abstract/2022/...
Also here's a piece from Reuters about rates of "gender-affirming treatment" in children, taken from health insurance data - the section for "top surgery" includes girls as young as 13: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran...
that's not the recommended treatment.
hormone blockers are.
the right wing debate is however to criminalize the recommended treatment.
and you do that in a context which uses this strawman to "justify" hindering and prohibiting well established treatment for severe and medically diagnosed adolescent gender dysphoria, specifically puberty blockers and after a sufficient period of time also cross gender hormones.
and adolescents can consent to that, yes.
why do you argue against this medical best practice like you do?
See https://web.archive.org/web/20220919141138/https://www.tandf... for the detail of their correction notice.
the wpath soc is a very accessible document with a very nuanced and careful approach to treatment of adolescents and children, it explicitly deals with the potential fragility of such decisions - and the cases which are very stable early on and benefit from early access, and how to discern them.
they didn't take out the brains or caution. they just took out the inflexible and useless rigid age barriers.
its really worth a read, chapter 6 is the one relevant here
See this video of the conference where this was revealed: https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1571999221401948161
These people are harming young children who can't meaningfully consent to such irreversible treatments. And then hiding behind these guidelines so they don't get sued. It's sickening.
religious worldviews drive a legislation to "eradicate transgenders".
the wpath requests a multimodal treatment team to support medical interventions with lasting effects, and the consent of caretakers / parents (unless it's harmful to the dependent adolescent) and age appropriate consent and no measures they are unfit to consent to.
all protection that's needed is in place.
what your attitude is doing is it's forcing gender dysphoric youths to go through the irreversible body changes induced by their puberty.
why? how does getting a beritone voice and a quarterback frame help a trans girl?
how do breasts and a small feminine silhouette help a trans man?
The "trans child" is a medically and politically constructed entity, that has arisen from the rhetoric of activists. Children cannot meaningfully consent to these "gender affirming" medical interventions that will scar them for life, make them infertile and lose sexual function, and have an impact far beyond anything they can comprehend.
I personally know trans people, living happy lives 20+ years into their transition, and all of them knew early on, and all of them had benefitted from and wished for much earlier access to gender affirming healthcare and back in the days early access simply did not exist, because of the FUD and pseudo protective position you propagate.
my thoughts and prayers go out to you.
I'm sorry if this violates HN protocols. But this is an outright lie and needs to be treated as one.
Please see my other comment with links to evidence of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35348789
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Which educated elites? Was there a survey? Did you talk to some? What did they say when pushed on this?
I am concerned that you have formed a view of a fictional person that is an amalgam of newspaper headlines and think pieces that were designed for clicks.
Yeah the people who help enable the largest child abuse ring in history are not 'fine' people. They literally support an organization that IS PROVEN to SYSTEMATICALLY protect sexual predictors and have done so for 100s of years.
You're right. It's horrible what public school teachers are allowed to get away with...wait, that's not who you were talking about? Better check your numbers again.
You don't say...
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2017/03/22...
https://www.sfreporter.com/news/coverstories/2018/01/03/pass...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-10-19-me-6252-s...
See there's a certain group that just loves to harp on about the catholics (and yes they certainly should be ashamed and given every legal penalty for what they did) but want to give other groups a pass. They like to pretend that this sort of coverup isn't a systematic issue whenever you get a large group. And they like to ignore all the cases where female teachers have "relationships" with their students....
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-teacher-accused-sexual-re...
https://nypost.com/2023/03/25/nyc-teacher-accused-of-sex-wit...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10984483/Female-tea...
Shall I go on? There are easily hundreds of unique cases that I could link. Somehow though I suspect that you will fall into the usual pattern of dismising these all as being from "bad" sources or say that it's just not the same...somehow.
Yes, catholic church is waaay worst then school system in this regard. And largely for systematic reasons - the expectation of obeisance and expectation that one should protect the institution make them more suspectible to abuse.
The catholic cover ups were not just outliers. They were result of lack of transparency and of impossibility to challenge superiors.
Moreover mandatory reporting within school syatem is an actual law. This alone makes the two system different.
Hmm...
https://mercatornet.com/a-horrifying-report-on-sexual-abuse-...
https://www.wect.com/2020/08/10/part-one-cover-up-culture-we...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-...
https://letsspeakup.com/cover-up-practices-of-school-officia...
https://www.mvskokemedia.com/the-cover-ups-continue-at-morri...
https://www.city-journal.org/abuse-in-schools-no-conspiracy-...
Not systematic? Not the norm?
I'm just punching words into google and pulling up results. I could go on and on with this. Funny how you want to just brush this off.
https://www.news9.com/story/6119d3000078b30be8872b0d/-12-gir...
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-01-05/lausd-an...
https://www.ocpathink.org/post/child-abuse-cover-up-alleged-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/08/nyregion/babylon-high-sch...
I wonder why there is so much vehemence about one and not the other? I'll say it softly. Could it be because one is religious and the other is secular? I wonder why the public schools get a pass when they've been doing the exact same things?
The "large" part is arguably the attention given to them by conservative news organisations who are dying to put them on air, as their existence justifies their existing views without every having to pay attention to the numbers.
Probably just as much as the unjustifiably large attention given to trans topics by leftist news.
The debate is being deliberately poisoned by promoting a few detransitioners to use against people who are actually happy having transitioned.
This has nothing to do what trans activists done or not done. This was about conservatives needing an ennemy and feeling disgust over trans people existing.
the misrepresentation is part of Mr. Trump's talking point to "eradicate transgenderism" and it's dividing families from gender dysphoric family members and driving individuals into suicide.
stop spreading it. https://www.wpath.org/soc8
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
What do you mean by "they?" Amish people in general? Or some specific people or group (that you have not identified)?
Consider how you'd feel about saying "they" to refer to some individual transgression by other groups.