Republicans. I don't like the new subtle false equivalence. They are traitors.
these two worldviews differ very significantly and are in a very deep conflict, and by definition the euro-postmodern view is a lot more comfortable in bureaucracy and the currently much bigger (Federal-) State, is much better at it, and effectively controls it at all levels
this renders Republicans into a reactionary party
Democrats look a lot like the old Whig party which existed both sides of the Atlantic but was out of step with the prevailing culture; they also look a lot more like a modern British mainstream party than any major US party has looked before, which IMO it's not a good thing, but European politicians love it
And yet some people seem to mind these laws. But why would they, if it never happens?
It's insane, as you very well put it. They can't get a tattoo, too permanent, but they can get their tits chopped off. Makes total sense, yeah.
You keep trying to move the goalposts, because it's makes for more shock value to talk about operations. But the reality is that operations are a last resort, and one often brought forward due to immense mental harm for patients for whom blockers have not been an option. They are examples of the entirely predictable of the kind of brutally inhumane policy you've been arguing for by opposing blockers.
Think banning them will work? Trans people have been dying from illegal and unregulated surgeries for decades because it's for many been preferable to staying how they are.
Denying desperate people treatment is evil.
Time marches on in the human body, whether we like it or not. Now, show me a "perma-kitten," a cat developmentally frozen in full kittenhood, behaviorally and all (something I think would be immensely popular with some crowds) and then undo it, only then will you be close to this pause button which puberty blockers cannot well emulate.
Plus, on top of the medical risks, starting on puberty blockers will make confused kids who didn't need them more likely to get surgeries later. That's bad, and yes, it's a trade off between not unnecessarily medicalizing confused kids and "helping" "real dysphoria" cases earlier. And I'm telling you very clearly that the answer depends on how many there are of those, but you don't want to engage with the question. Because there just aren't that many "real dysphoria" cases.
And let me preempt your next bad argument: No, a doctor can't tell them apart. That's where we are now, and they get a "dysphoria stamp" after a visit. The incentives are not aligned, they just want the money.
The goal posts have always been firmly on "Don't mess with children". I've told you many times, nobody cares what adults do, sex change surgeries have been around for a long time and nobody cares. Nobody wants to ban them on adults.
But don't mess with kids.
So if you actually believe what you write, then you should be in favour of puberty blockers as an option when medically indicated.
Did you read it another way by accident?
And to answer your question, no, I believe that such matters should largely be decided between doctor and patient. I do not think that highly polarized politics should be driving medical decisions, and that medical ethics boards are much better suited to make policies in situations like this.
"And" is a conjunctive word. It does not mean "the same as" or "a type of." We both know that.
Have you heard about Tavistock, for example?
Trans people often don't even receive hormones until they're 16, I don't know how this idea that they're receiving surgery on a whim makes any sense to anyone.
The blockers are also said to prevent the kids from adapting to their biological gender, leading onto a path to surgery.
I am amazed how willing to lie people are in this forum.
> The blockers are also said to prevent the kids from adapting to their biological gender, leading onto a path to surgery.
Ah, "it is said".
> I am amazed how willing to lie people are in this forum.
Maybe drop the unfounded accusations when you're the one attacking someone for a claim they've not made.
Most people who believe they are trans actually grow out of it. Puberty blockers (and also testosterone) have severe side effects (or main effects). Therefore more harm is done by overprescribing them.
There is not even scientific evidence yet that trans people actually exist (as in somebody born in the wrong body somehow).
"Ah it is said" - yeah in the same way that "it is said" that withholding puberty blockers causes harm and whatever else you claim.
That’s literally satanic by the way. Not just in an abstract overcoming-the-image-of-god kind of way. No, explicitly theory and praxis. As is the (ritual) abuse of children (and a number of other deliberately disturbing acts). But thank Pale Blue Dot, in a post-Epstein world we don’t have to worry about such things anymore!
Citation needed. They're _designed_ to permanently turn people into bad simulacra of the other sex?
> That’s literally satanic by the way.
What? Even if that were true, who cares? Your particular religious beliefs are irrelevant.
Imagine thinking you can mess with processes as complicated as human development without permanent negative consequences. Stop parroting the propaganda which we are all perfectly familiar with and educate yourself. There is already plenty of testimony by “detrans” boys and girls who deeply regret what’s been done to them by people around them, activists, and industry.
You're at least the second person to say "do your research" rather than offer up some evidence. In my experience, that's the mark of a conspiracy theorist.
But I could easily be wrong. Have you got any papers on puberty blockers that support your position?
> Yeah, it’s shockingly immoral to not give children drugs that have existed for something like 0.01% of human existence.
Appeal to nature fallacy?
Last year, at 25, she suffered a seizure that resulted in a cracked vertebra.
“It was the most intense pain I felt in my entire life,” Ward said.
Then came another diagnosis: osteoporosis.
---
Appeal to nature fallacy?
Back when we had shared classical and religious education people would be familiar with the ancient notions of hybris, pride, and playing God. Today, here, that’s like talking to fish about water. Not that the fish don’t get thrown out of the water, happens all the time, but memories are so awfully short and the incentives to look away and forget are so strong.
You're at least the second person to say "do your research" rather than offer up some evidence.
Educate yourself is a standard phrase of the woke you should be familiar with but I guess we’re just going to pretend 2020 didn’t happen.
In my experience, that's the mark of a conspiracy theorist.
They cleaned up the Epstein operation in broad daylight and people still say stuff like this. In my experience, that's the mark of a mark.
What is the argument here? Drugs haven't existed for long, so it's okay to prevent people from using them? I'm sure we can all agree it would be shockingly immoral to steal cancer drugs from a patient, even if it is natural development.
It is exactly because some regret more invasive changes that puberty blockers are essential when medically indicated to allow decisions to be deferred until patients are more mature. The only one wanting "adult perverts on the internet" to decide medic issues for these kids are those arguing to deny patients medically indicated treatment.
In 2006, some researchers in the Netherlands tested an experimental treatment that would stop the development of sexed characteristics at puberty. A single study of 55 of these patients is the entire basis for the practice of what has come to be known as “gender affirming care.”
more invasive changes
The puberty blockers and hormones are a funnel not an alternative, but you know that already.
Medically indicated
Funny, because historically the big theme of “conversions” was convincing your doctor that you need them, and shopping doctors if they did not cooperate. And these days, it’s all about affirmation, treatment is typically begun almost immediately, few questions asked, backtracking discouraged. But that, too, you know already.
These are the perverts, the organized crime family you’re doing propaganda for. Hope it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy:
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire...
Here’s a celebrated trailblazer of all this. Satanist, ritual child abuser too. Pervert doesn’t even begin to describe it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_P-Orridge
At 20, Ward says she felt like her health was failing. She had muscle weakness so severe that she could barely lift her arms to wash her hair. Debilitating pain coursed through her body. Doctors puzzled over her blood disorder. She’s been hospitalized after feeling suicidal and depressed. Etc.
This stuff is as “safe” as abortion is “rare”.
Your comment also says a lot about you.
I don't feel ashamed for worrying about the unwarranted mutilation of children.
What is your excuse?
You have to turn your back on the trans children who grew into adults and pretend they don't exist to spin this lie where transition is a verb you apply to other people rather than a choice that someone makes for themselves.
Your claim that it all only happens because of these kids agencies is unsubstantiated.
How do you explain the doubling of numbers of kids who say they are trans?
And you claim nobody ever regrets transitioning, which is a lie.
Moral of the story is, people aren't lying just because you refuse to read the words written literally on the screen.
Not going to walk back that accusation that I'm a liar, now you know that you were talking about something else?
One would think this position would crumble under the overwhelming evidence but somehow it gets brought up again and again, baffling.
No children (prepubescent) are given surgeries, a tiny minority of 16 year olds are able to receive top surgeries but the vast majority can't even get hormones until late teens.
And this is supposed to be an argument for "it never happens"? You don't see a problem with confused girls who are still coming to terms with their bodies having medically unnecessary surgery to have healthy organs removed? And yes, some of them are regretting that when they grow up. Some of them are even willing to speak up. But I'm sure you will not listen.
If not, can you clearly differentiate between these cases?
But I somehow get the feeling that's not a good thing for everyone.
> And yes, some of them are regretting that when they grow up. Some of them are even willing to speak up. But I'm sure you will not listen.
You do realize this is literally the spotlight fallacy. 99% have no regrets, 1% do, you would like to focus entirely on the 1% to the point of obsession.
How about listening to the 99% who don't have regrets? Why are you so eager to ignore the majority of the people this actually concerns, instead patronisingly deciding you know what's best?
I've seen a parent shun their 3-year old for playing dress-up -- "I can't love you if you do this". That's pushing gender ideology. My kid's grandparents started asking him if he has a "girlfriend" at around 4. That's pushing a sexual ideology.
You don't need to be religious to buy into dogmatic misinformation campaigns, no.
Actually, we call it "instinct". You know, how animals know to have sex with each other and make babies.
It's hilarious anyone can refer to it as ideological with a straight face. It's disingenuous.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11377391/Age-just...
2. You're kinda proving my point; the Daily Mail is one of the sensationalist tabloids that were flogging the Satanic Panic bullshit back in the day.
Show me the lies in the article instead of attacking the publisher. Bad faith argument.
Why bother loving your kid for who they are when you can just ask the docker to slice them up before they can consent? Or deny them access to Healthcare based on your own feelings because you really like your kids genitals...
/s
Or push "gender affirming care" on your kids based on your own feelings because you really don't like your kid's genitals...
Grooming is absolutely a thing. It is well recognized that kids are not capable of making many kinds of decisions. Most people also don't end up doing what they imagined as a kid.
How about we support kids for being what they are and teach them to do the same without making permanent changes to their bodies (which includes hormone blockers) before they even had a chance to grow into the bodies they have. And yes, the same should go for traditional but unnecessary surgeries - bringing that up is not some kind of gotcha.
How about we dismantle unneccessary gender roles and stereotypes instead of encouraging people to get surgery because they don't like what society expects of their gender.
It just doesn't seem to be about facts at all.
The apparent fact that the people who are pushing for personhood of embryos and rage against people reading a book in drag seem perfectly fine with male genital mutilation really highlights that this isn't about the welfare of the children at all.
As the father of a young son: damn, people are stupid.
(Advertising works on me, too).
Children _can_ receive puberty blockers, which _by definition_ are 100% completely reversible. The process to start treatment is universally difficult and involves multiple years of therapy and concurrence of multiple medical providers over time.
Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/10/ron-desant...
As to the real risks, time and again it has been shown that the comparative risks of a) receiving puberty blockers vs b) growing up a gender you do not feel you are, strongly points to puberty blockers being a significant net benefit. Those taking puberty blockers rarely regret it; whereas those growing up a gender they do not identify with mostly regret it are are significantly more prone to abuse, mental health issues and suicide.
The issue here is manipulation of children. If children were fed tons of harmful pain blockers, there would be a "panic", too.
It's because acetaminophen is extremely hepatotoxic at levels not very far above the recommended dosages.
> Hepatic injury and subsequent hepatic failure due to both intentional and non-intentional overdose of acetaminophen (APAP) has affected patients for decades, and [...] remains a global issue; in the United States, in particular, it accounts for more than 50% of overdose-related acute liver failure and approximately 20% of the liver transplant cases.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4913076/
I would assert that acetaminophen is far more likely to be dangerous to far more children than puberty blockers and yet I don't see any moral panic over children's Tylenol.
https://chiro.org/pediatrics/ABSTRACTS/Acetaminophen.shtml
Is that enough?
Maybe this story had some details. https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids
In the UK they had to close a gender clinic (Tavistock) when all the misconduct became public.
And Tavistock was not doing surgeries.
Many of those kids who are given hormones will end up getting surgery, as blocking hormones is also said to block the process of people settling in their "gender".
And of course a lot of the kids given hormones will end up getting surgery, because their dysphoria is highly unlikely to resolve itself with or without hormones and for those whose dysphoria does not resolve surgery will be the best option for many - hence the very low regret rates.
And hence the drive to get puberty blockers to delay the need to decide on either.
You're buying into a hysteria founded on ignoring the actual and immoral harm being inflicted on trans youth by those seeking to deny them care in order to try to pretend they mostly don't exist. It's at best deeply misguided, at worst deeply bigoted.
Since most people end up not actually being trans, more people are now hurt by pushing transitioning as the solution for everything.
And you absolutely can not deny that it is being pushed.
It is not being pushed.
I'm on my phone so I can't back that up, but we've already established in this thread that is sufficient grounds to be believed.
Not sure how you manage to live in so much denial, but if you can truly pull it off, congratulations! May it work out well for you!
Unclear how many of the kids who receive hormones end up getting surgery.
And yet you're arguing for denying them the option that'd reduce the demand for these surgeries.
And you don't know how many are pushed into surgeries later by the hormone blockers, which already have irreversible effects themselves.
And numbers also haven't tripled in a few years just because society is more accepting or whatever (while we supposedly have a moral panic against it, too).
This is such an absurd statement. You don't "define" how the body works.
No, girls as young as 12 years old are getting 'gender affirming' double mastectomy, because they say they want to be boys. This has been published in the medical literature.
14 isn't a child anymore? Your left-leaning political fact checking source sucks. Here's some reading for you. Do some real research.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11377391/Age-just...
But for some reason, in 2023, people (mainly Americans) think it’s something new and they demand to be angry about it.
I had to remind them that we used to have scores of trannies attending these events in the past and and no one cared. But now, after the latest round of propaganda, we, as a society, fear them again.
'Tranny' being derogatory isn't really new-speak. The only recent shift I know of is that men who dress up like (feminine) women tend to prefer 'cross-dresser' over 'transvestite' nowadays. The problem with 'tranny' in this context is also that it now mostly refers to transgender people (in a derogatory way) rather than cross-dressers.
Since we're giving each other life advices, I suggest one spoon of not jumping to conclusions. You're not exactly showing much respect for me here.
Some of the best small time events 20 years ago were held in a popular gay. No one cared. No one.
Now it's 2023 and extremists on both ends are accusing you of either showing too much respect to the "weirdos", or not using the most up to date and precise language to describe things that are murky to begin with.
Someday you’ll forget this was ever a thing and pretend you never bought into it. It’s what everyone does during every invented outrage. You’ve been told to be angry about some fringe thing and believed it. 10 years from now there’ll be another big thing to be angry about.
You’re not angry “for the children.” Please drop the act.
The difference with the others is that you can stop liking dumb edgy stuff when you grow up, but you can't grow new tits.
As for the financial agenda... yeah, exactly. Just follow the money. What did you find?
Because it’s an invented political scapegoat, just like countless others. Trans people were out and about 10 years ago and nobody gave a shit. I’m from a small town in Appalachia and my grandma had a trans friend that was out and open 30 years ago. They stopped by when I was a kid and we treated her as a normal human. Nobody gave a shit.
Social media told you to be angry about people that’ve been around forever. You chose to only pay attention recently and get angry.
Right wing organizations are making huge buckets of cash from donations and “anti-woke” brand campaigns targeting trans people, getting gullible people to think being trans is some new trend and they need to fight back. Normal people have known trans people for several decades and we are absolutely bewildered that people like you are suddenly outraged about people we’ve known all our lives. Same with how 15 years ago ”the gays” were going to destroy the world.
Again, no. It's only when they started telling children it was a good idea to sterilize themselves. Just don't do irreversible damage to children, it's that easy. Find other shibboleths to identify good communists that don't involve chopping bits off kids.
- "Communists" is shorthand for "envious losers who'd rather destroy society than improve themselves". "Elite overproduction" is what you want to google. I just think "communist" has a more, idk, "classic" ring to it.
Now, you can argue whether we have an "envious loser" problem or not, and how big their influence is, and if it's too late to do anything at all, or all is lost already.
Or you can pull out the dictionary.
If you believe your own arguments, presumably you support them.
Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed, and appears to just seek to justify the extensive harm your immoral stance would result in.
And if you had to bet money, if I told you some kid started on puberty blockers, what would be the odds they later got surgery or further irreversible damage done? Higher or lower than if they didn't start on puberty blockers, as they did 10 years ago?
If I'm right and social contagion is much more prevalent than "real dysphoria", that is a very relevant point, and makes fighting against the contagion the right thing to do, not dishing out puberty blockers like candy.
Now, you can tell me that you believe there is little social contagion and we'll have to agree to disagree, but don't try to twist your way into roiding kids up, it doesn't make sense. And you know it.
Their risk is miniscule compared to the risk of untreated gender dysphoria.
> And if you had to bet money, if I told you some kid started on puberty blockers, what would be the odds they later got surgery or further irreversible damage done? Higher or lower than if they didn't start on puberty blockers, as they did 10 years ago?
Irrelevant, as if they later get surgery it is because they, once they are mature enough to decide, determine that it is the best outcome for them. If that number is higher than 10 years ago it is likely to be because the chance of an outcome that will actually help them will be drastically improved when they've not been forced to endure the massive harm of going through puberty with dysphoria.
Your reasoning is still invalid.
> If I'm right and social contagion is much more prevalent than "real dysphoria", that is a very relevant point, and makes fighting against the contagion the right thing to do, not dishing out puberty blockers like candy.
If social contagion is much more prevalent than "real dysphoria" that would justify trying to fix that, but it would still not justify doing massive harm to those suffering from that dysphoria whether or not caused by social contagion.
Irrespective of the source of the dysphoria, it exists, and it correlates to immense harm when untreated, and so arguing for withholding treatment is deeply immoral.
That you're suggesting this is out of some desire to "roid kids up" is just vile.
No! What you have here is a bunch of confused girls that will do whatever tiktok influencers tell them to do. Do nothing and it'll pass in 99.99% of the cases. Start blocking puberties and you end up with a lot of unnecessary surgeries and sterile people who will suffer the rest of their lives.
How many people temporally confused by social contagion are you willing to sacrifice for each "real case" that you catch earlier? Where's your line? Ten, a hundred? A thousand? All of them?
You don't want to engage with the question, I get it, but it's the whole point here.
> Irrelevant, as if they later get surgery it is because they, once they are mature enough to decide, determine that it is the best outcome for them
Yeah, because the sunk cost fallacy develops only after puberty, or what? No. As you very well know, once they start on that road the identity kicks in and it's "who they are now". Which is exactly what you want, a normal person comes in, an activist for life comes out. Who cares about the actual person, right?
The evidence does not support this claim. You're flat out making shit up to argue for denying treatment to people who untreated are at great risk of harm. However, it is right that it resolves for many. This is why puberty blockers are important as a means to minimise harm by reducing the risk either way by failing to accurately asses for whom it will resolve without transitioning.
What you're arguing for is an approach that maximises harm to one of the groups. It is then rather vile when you make this statement:
> How many people temporally confused by social contagion are you willing to sacrifice for each "real case" that you catch earlier? Where's your line? Ten, a hundred? A thousand? All of them?
You've set up a strawman, but you're the one who is willing to sacrifice - in your view 0.01%, but in reality far more - the wellbeing of those for whom it won't pass by arguing against harm reducing treatment.
What we know is that transitioning carries a lower risk of regret than almost all other kinds of cosmetic surgery, which is clear evidence that those who do go ahead with it have gone through a much more rigorous process before going ahead than the cosmetic surgeries pretty much nobody are arguing people shouldn't be able to consent to.
> Yeah, because the sunk cost fallacy develops only after puberty, or what? No. As you very well know, once they start on that road the identity kicks in and it's "who they are now".
Nothing to do with sunk cost, and that you bring it up suggests you're too ignorant to understand the issues.
No, we don't know that, because there's absolutely no evidence to support that. What we actually know is that for a significant number of people, dysphoria does resolve. Hence deferring irreversible changes is important.
At the same time, how very dare you want to tell people who by then are adults what is best for them? This kind of authoritarian, oppressive desire to force your view of what is best for other people on them, despite their wishes is a trait usually found in ideologies like fascism or nazism (fittingly, given the nazis destroyed the first institute focusing on helping trans people)
> Which is exactly what you want, a normal person comes in, an activist for life comes out. Who cares about the actual person, right?
It's exactly because I care about the person I don't want them oppressed by authoritarian people like you who want to strip them of agency over their own life.
It's not the same. Nobody cares what adults do. They do have agency over their own life and I defend their freedom to fuck themselves up in the most creative way they can think up.
But don't go after children. There is a reason they can't legally consent to many things. It's too easy to manipulate children to make really bad decisions they later regret, so at least lets not make irreversible damage.
Sorry, but no. I'm torn between hoping you'll understand once you have children of your own, or hoping you never, ever go anywhere near any child.
I do have children, and that is exactly why your willingness to let children be subjected to immense harm makes me as angry as it does. Your authoritarian, oppressive desire to deprive children of medical treatment is flat out evil to me.
What? They've been trying to ban trans people from bathroom via legislation since before 2014 and have been screaming about pronouns for nearly the same amount of time.
Nobody had or has any problem with what consenting adults do.
And your claim of a hysteria of kids being told to transition closely mirrors the claim of kids being pressured into satanic rituals and similar. It's similarly fear driven and bigoted.
Who is "they"?
There is still no good surgery available. It is a crime to pretend the surgeries work.
The lack of good surgery options does not mean they don't help. If anything the fact that regret rates for transition is well below the regret rates for other cosmetic surgery should be a strong indication that if you actually care about patient wellbeing, it's the other kinds of cosmetic surgery you ought to be focusing on.
What analogy do you see to the satanic cult thing? Children were told they had been abused, and many caregivers were being sentenced. Who is being told what in the trans hype? Children are falsely being told they are not trans? Then they falsely believe they are not trans and accuse their doctors? Or how does the analogy work?
1% regret: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33968550/
Meanwhile, finding actual studies of regret of cosmetic surgery is much harder, because nobody cares or want to stop people from getting boob jobs unless they're trans. So we're stuck with poor quality surveys like this one [1] claiming 65% regret, this one done for a group with a profit motive [2] claiming 65% regret.
For reconstruction after breast cancer, it's not "so bad", with this actual study [3] finding "only" ca 20% moderate to strong regret for even reconstruction, and another ~28% expressing mild regret.
Even for non-cosmetic surgery, such as e.g. hip replacements etc., it's hard to find regret rates as low as for sex reassignment.
Should we ban all of these other treatments too?
[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2640543/Two-third...
[2] https://www.medicalaccidentgroup.co.uk/news/do-you-regret-ha....
[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233371110_Regret_as...
The second claims to have looked into several studies, which might include ones like the first one. Would be nice to have an actually useful direct study, especially for young people.
As for cosmetic surgery, you brought that up. I don't think it is as worrying, as many of them are reversible, and they don't sterilize the recipients. Somebody regretting to get a nose job is hardly in the same category as someone regretting they cut off their penis.
Between the trans and the alt-right, which do you think is responsible for more harm?
Alt-rights are indoctrinating our children and eating away at society. They push their agenda into our schools and courtrooms. It's not <insert nationality here>
Or maybe people feel like they're just having abstract, hypothetical intellectual discussions. But when I read these threads, it just feels like signal after signal that I no longer fit in or have a place here.
I have considered emailing the admins to state my concerns, or creating an account here to add another voice to threads when things start heading in that direction - but ultimately it seems futile as transphobia seems to have ramped up everywhere recently. It's scary.
Of all the wonderful trans people I know in the real world, very few are getting the medical assistance they need. Those people are fortunate enough to pay for private care, and even then the level of care they are getting is barely acceptable. My other trans friends are approaching their 30s and still on waiting lists.
Many things presented as fact in this do not line up with my experiences of trans issues and the wider LGBTQ community. In my opinion many users on HN are truly insightful about tech and programming, but utterly heartless when it comes to social issues.
If you have concerns that are not resolved by people getting flagged (may take a while for them to reach critical mass of flags) or banned, do e-mail the admins. I'm sure they'll at least listen.
I live in the SF Bay area and only once overheard a sarcastic comment directed at my mask wearing. But every time I go out shopping in public and see people without masks I feel it. And that's completely discounting all of the articles I've read that favored removing masks and distancing, even from left-wing writers. The few people who are still mask-positive, or at least talk the talk, are nice, but seem less salient before the mask-negative people.
People don't give a shit, even though they know that behaving as normal means that literally hundreds of thousands of people will die each year from disease.
As a person who is not trans, but does have OCD, it's annoying how big a deal the powers that be make being "trans accepting". When at best they just say "tolerate those who continue to wear masks, but don't bother social distancing from them, or wearing your own mask". I think this annoyance (in people who see their own issues not cared about the same) sparks a backlash not necessarily against trans, but against the very large, disproportionately noticeable, social push for not just trans-tolerance, but trans-inclusion.
The main issue with "Trans" is that it covers way too many things these days. Everything from what used to be transvestitism to full-on post-op and hormone transsexualism, and including brand new things such as pronouns. And actions ranging from trans people who still otherwise behave entirely like their birth sex socially, to those who stealth everywhere they can in every way they can, to those who flaunt their transness in various ways. And that's without factoring in the third parties who support transness, and the various kinds of actions they take (such as militantly policing pronouns, or encouraging people to consider whether they're trans without letting the topic arise naturally - which is a definite problem for some people who are on the OCD spectrum [Trans-OCD] as well as people who are suggestible).
And it includes other people who are even more socially deviant (pedophilia, extreme body modification), trying to hitch their wagon to the trans issue, as trans hitched itself to LGB, which brings in the slippery slope arguments.
Basically there's a ton of stuff going on with respect to trans. Various people can be okay with almost all of it, but not with some of it. These people can say what they have a problem with and it can be perceived as blanket anti-trans or "transphobia", when it's not. Or those people can actually become blanket anti-trans because of the one thing they originally had a problem with.
P.S. I found your comment while going back through my thread list and felt the desire to respond.
The moral panic is trying to make books about transgender and gay banned. It is about closing libraries when they refuse to comply.
There are also no book bannings. There are books considered to be inappropriate to children. You can still buy those books.
Untrue. We’ve been using them for more than 30 years for kids who start puberty at a super young age (it’s called precocious puberty). And as best as science can tell, those kids are healthy when they grow up
Well, it does exist. You are incredibly naive. There is also a long history of misguided medical interventions.
Some of them even condemned by your crowd, like attempts to cure homosexuality.
Of course there are doctors who are critical of the yrans hype.
And people calmly cutting off children's (teenager's) sexual organs or sterilizing them, denying them ever having an orgasm are probably evil psychopaths who belong in prison.
Can you explain to me why children need to see drag shows, which are about sexual attraction, and why they need porn in the classroom?
Drag shows aren't necessarily about sexual attraction and most the definitely not moral panicking laws in question makes being a "male impersonator" or "female impersonator" in the presence of children (or in some cases within quarter of a mile of them!) a felony rather than the actual content, which would be a shame for the pantomimes I used to attend as a kid. And strangely, there wasn't much porn in classrooms before the definitely-not-moral-panicking parent vetting organizations started picking titles like Anne Frank's Diary as "sexually explicit"
But I have seen videos of such drag shows with kids, and examples of the debated books.
So stop bullshitting me. It is absolutely about sexualization and pornographic content. That other examples may exist is besides the point. Specific laws may be badly written, but the intent is certainly not to make Ms Doubtfire illegal.
And even Anne Frank may not be appropriate for children of all ages. Afaik it does contain passages about sex.
There's no moral panic here, actually it's entirely normal to make it a criminal offence to have Anne Frank's diary in a classroom if a parent complains!
"...a negative association found many years after treatment is compatible with three scenarios: puberty blockers reduced suicidal ideation; puberty blockers had no effect on suicidal ideation; puberty blockers increased suicidal ideation, albeit not enough to counteract the initial negative effect of psychological problems on eligibility. Turban et al. (2020, p. 7) acknowledged that “the study’s cross-sectional design…does not allow for determination of causation.”"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01743-6
What makes Biggs a "known transphobe"? Sounds like mere ad hominem.
Peer review doesn't automatically mean much.
Even I can immediately spot a flaw in the study: they made a survey with self-selected respondents, and asked about suicidal ideation. That way, they missed people who already committed suicide, or who may be too depressed to respond.
Can you give any actual arguments against Biggs criticism?
My comments being flagged is merely a good indicator for what the real mass hysteria is. Ironic, given that "they ban books" is one of the most prominent arguments by the trans ideology crowd.
Your comments are being flagged because you're contributing to hysteria and bigotry. This will be my last response to your bigotry.
Yes, about forcing other people to use various imaginary pronouns and chancelling those who don't go along. Naturally there is pushback to this moral panic.
> puberty blockers
Which are not irreversible so shouln't be given to children on a whim.
> mental health counselling
When it doesn't even include the possibility of questioning peoples thoughs about themselves then it is not mental health counselling.
> make books about transgender and gay banned
No books about transgender and gay have been banned in western countries in recent years. No libraries have been closed for carrying such books.
On the other hand, many books, movies and games have had transgender ideology forced into them. Some have even been edited posthumously to not be "offensive" the ideology. It is pretty clear who is trying to do the censoring here.
And yes, there are a few paragraphs about transgender fear in horror.