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?
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.
0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3MzPeomqs
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCH-bUFR3WM