'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.
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.