Quote sadly has not held up will in the last couple decades. We are now led by a louder more extreme minority that aggressively police’s discussion points.
For example I am mostly liberal and was a fan of Bernie Sanders. However in my personal case I don’t believe transgender and gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on still developing minors.
The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater .. etc. Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced through bullying and harassment.
No room or in there is not even any desire for real discussion … it is just accept these things as “truth” or be labeled some form of hater.
It wasn’t so long ago that real discussion still happened on platforms like reddit and others …now it is curated to the point of nonsense.
I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you believe there any possible opinion is legitimate, and that there is nothing that someone could believe in that should get them labeled a hater and socially ostracized? Should we feel a need to become friends with klansmen to prove that we are open minded?
And if not, then how do you draw the line? If there are people who find your own opinion abhorrent or othering or whatever and wish not to associate or discuss with you, by what authority are they wrong? Do you personally feel the need to debate every opinion you hear? How many times should you defend your own opinion before it becoming acceptable not to want to discuss it again?
And just to engage a little bit with your particular opinion, I for one am immediately suspicious of any argument that says "non-sexual non-violent behavior X is acceptable, but not around children". Of course, I am open to the idea that in principle you may have some compelling arguments that I haven't heard before. However, I don't think it's very likely, so my prior would be that you are indeed not very trans friendly. If I were trans, I would be quite inclined to avoid you because of that, and very disinclined to debate this particular point with you in any setting where a more hostile discussion might reflect poorly on me (say, in the workplace). I don't think this reasoning is overly emotional or thought-ending. It's a rational way to respond to speech that may become confrontational.
Identity formation is an complex and fascinating subject in human development. As an educator and father of three can also chime in with my own personal experience.
I believe that many (if not most) people do not have a fully formed identity around gender or around sexuality by the age of 15-16.
So asking questions to this group on whether they identity as this or that may actually cause some psychological harm because they are still in the process of forming an identity on multiple fronts.
Imagine being a 15 year young women just out of middle school. You are extremely uncomfortable with you’re body, appearance and just now discovering things of a sexual nature. This period is difficult for many regardless of sexual orientation or gender.
Now imagine going into your freshman english class and the first question asked by your teacher is introduce yourself and your preferred pronoun. This may seem progressive and tolerant but consider it may also be harmful to minors at this stage of development.
Now as an adult if you feel you may have gender dysmorphia and start to identify as a deferent gender than birth .. by all means. In this case I am fully supportive and want people to feel comfortable and find happiness, I also believe we live in a mostly free society so as an adult this is absolutely within your rights.
If you read this far I thank you and am fine is you disagree. Just my thought is my perspective (and many others) as a father of three girls and educator for 20 years should allow for some nuisance in discussion.
My issue is not wether you and I agree on this topic as I assume you have your own valid perspective and experience .. my issue is that this topic is put off limits in many cases and it’s an all or nothing acceptance on supporting trans rights and what that entails.
Trans teenagers that want to transition are going to need puberty blockers, so obviously you can’t postpone any conversation around trans identity issues until adulthood.
Your perspective strikes me as a modern version of the old “concern” that talking to teenagers about homosexuality turns straight kids gay. By now we hopefully all understand how that’s just bigotry, and your argument is basically the same. You make some vague allusions to confused teenage girls being vulnerable to gay^H^H^H trans propaganda based on purely hypothetical worries. Gut feeling all the way down.
Note also that your concern is that a straight teenage girl gets mindwarped by the evil trans lobby and not the symmetrical scenario of a hypothetical teenager daughter that is trans but feels unable to come out of the closet because she doesn’t trust the adults in her life to respond reasonably.
Maybe ask yourself if you would be disappointed if one of your kids turns out trans and then ask yourself why.
Middle-aged men choose to transition to become transwomen, and they all went through puberty. Some even fathered kids.
So there's no reason for trans-identifying teenagers to have their own puberties blocked, before they can even make properly informed decisions about choosing lifelong sterility and lack of sexual function.
Like the older trans, they can wait a few years to adulthood or even later, and then decide what they want to do. This is the safer and more sensible option, and the one most compatible with "do no harm".
You are wrong. Puberty blockers do not cause infertility or lack of sexual function. Your statements are incorrect and incongruent with established medical knowledge and advice. Also, trans is an adjective, not a plural noun.
Over 96% of children who present with gender dysphoria and are given puberty blockers then go on to take cross-sex hormones. This treatment pathway does indeed cause infertility and lack of sexual function.
There's no good reason why these children can't experience their normal, untarnished puberty, and defer the decision to medically trans themselves to later on, in adulthood, when they are older and wiser.
Puberty blockers and hormones are different things, that's why they have different names. Puberty blockers do not cause infertility or a lack of sexual function. So 96% of children go on to become adults that choose to take hormones because they made the right decision going on puberty blockers. There is a good reason why children should have access to puberty blockers, and to not suffer through a puberty that isn't in line with their gender; it's so they don't kill themselves.
Another is to consider that while over 96% of children given puberty blockers proceed to cross-sex hormones, those treated with watchful waiting desist in around 85% of cases.
This suggests that puberty blockers are much more likely to cement gender dysphoria, rather than treat it.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that not being prescribed puberty blockers causes gender dysphoric children to kill themselves.
"There is a significant inverse association between treatment with pubertal suppression during adolescence and lifetime suicidal ideation among transgender adults who ever wanted this treatment. These results align with past literature, suggesting that pubertal suppression for transgender adolescents who want this treatment is associated with favorable mental health outcomes."
> Middle-aged men choose to transition to become transwomen, and they all went through puberty. Some even fathered kids.
> So there's no reason for trans-identifying teenagers to have their own puberties blocked [...]
If this is really your whole thought process, I'd implore you to read up on why transitioning is beneficial for transgender youth. Do you know what would happen if we were to implement your idea? We'd have a lot more suicides in transgender youth, because going through the "wrong" puberty is hard, and leaves a lot of mental anguish. Instead of relying on simple thought patterns, could we please do actual research into these complicated topics and try to find what works best for those afflicted, not what feels right to us in the moment? Thank you.
It is in their best interest because puberty blockers are harmless and this gives the child more time to figure out what they want. If they want to go ahead with transitioning they can take the appropriate hormones when they're ready. If they change their mind and don't want to transition anymore no harm is done. Maybe you were under the impression that puberty blockers have permanent effects?
Puberty blockers just give children extra time to figure out what they want, and it sounds like you agree that's a good thing.
> my issue is that this topic is put off limits in many cases and it’s an all or nothing acceptance on supporting trans rights and what that entails.
I understand your concern, and I think your perspective is actually non-discriminatory.
But I'm still curious how you think the line should be drawn. If I said I think race mixing is a bad idea (to be very clear, I absolutely don't hold this opinion), do you think it would be fair for people to avoid discussing with me?
Where it gets complicated is dealing with dog whistles. Because you’re not actually expressing an opinion that liberals disagree with. No one wants a kid who expresses some gender nonconformity to be pressured into identifying as trans or transitioning. The liberal position is and always has been such things should be made available to everyone with appropriate medical and psychiatric supervision.
But in our shirty new world online discourse the game is now to say something that is obviously true “kids shouldn’t be forced to transition” but then actually mean something else “kids shouldn’t be allowed to transition” and then introduce legislation to that effect. So if you go on the internet and say these kinds of things that no one really disagrees with like it’s a hot take then people pick up pretty fast what you mean. The people caught it the crossfire are unfortunately those folks who actually hold the literal opinion that got appropriated because bigots realized it they could use it as a whistle.
The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that covers interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is likely to sterilize them for life if the treatment persists, and surgical destruction of breasts, and in some cases, genitals.
I think most people, understanding the reality of this in stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning.
> The term "transition" as used here is a euphemism that covers interfering with a child's puberty in a way that is likely to sterilize them for life if the treatment persists, and surgical destruction of breasts, and in some cases, genitals.
> I think most people, understanding the reality of this in stark terms, would be dead against children transitioning.
The only reason why this hasn't been outright banned for minors yet is because older voters don't know what's happening.
It's funny, I see a NYT article that literally just repeats these things out loud so that everyone can see what's happening, and then they get attacked for just describing what's happening
What's being done right now is so damning, no criticism is necessary. Only visibility. The people who want to hide facts from the public can only do this for so long
> but then actually mean something else “kids shouldn’t be allowed to transition” and then introduce legislation to that effect.
Minors aren't capable of consent. The treatments have permanent side effects and lead to sterilization. One of the drugs used to aid in "transitioning" is lupron, which is also used to sterilize sex offenders
The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is because the general population doesn't see what's happening. Criticism or "explanations" aren't necessary, all that's needed is visibility so that everyone can see what's being done and vote accordingly
Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in all others.
> The treatments have permanent side effects
Yes, that's the point.
> lead to sterilization. One of the drugs used to aid in "transitioning" is lupron, which is also used to sterilize sex offenders
This is pure bad faith fear mongering. It doesn't matter what else the drugs could do. Titanium is used in missiles, chemotherapy drugs can be used for euthenasia. None of those are what we're talking about, so talk about what we're talking about not some other unrelated thing.
> The only reason why any of this is allowed to happen is because the general population doesn't see what's happening.
There's no "general population" this is being slyly pushed on. People are making decisions within their families. Each individual is making choices with medical consideration and the guidance and, if a minor, ultimately the permission of their families and doctors.
"Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are allowed to choose for themselves.
---
And additionally, and very seriously, wake the fuck up and pay attention. The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the spear of fascism in north america. You had a clean chance to see that and change course last year when Putin explicitly used anti-LGBT reasoning as part of his justification for the invasion of ukraine! Look at what Orban is up to, what comes along with this rhetoric. Look at what you are being used to accomplish.
> "Allowed" is a telling choice of words though! You're advocating for a state-enforced limit on what people are allowed to choose for themselves.
To children. What people are allowed to do to children
> Which is why the permission of their parents acts as a limit on what they're able to agree to, in this case as in all others.
If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized", should that be the only criterion necessary? You said "all" here, so you think that the case I provided is also covered?
> The anti-trans moral panic is the tip of the spear of fascism in north america
> If a parent comes forward and says "I consent to my child getting sterilized"
Is that happening? We're not trying to formulate a generalizable moral framework here, we're responding to a concrete set of conditions experienced by actual living people.
We're inserting ourself into a specialized medical practice, against the wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them. Why are we doing that? Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families?
> Would you describe Sweden as a fascist country?
Yeah kinda actually. Unlike most people with internet opinions of scandinavia I have actually lived there with a non-white spouse and they are racist as fuck. I wasn't surprised at all to hear they decided to euthanize old folks during covid and I wouldn't be surprised if they take a hard right swerve in the next decade either.
> wishes of both its practitioners and the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them.
Not "people", "children", and we frequently disregard the wishes of children when it comes to their health and wellbeing regardless of how they feel about it.
We (adults) do this because society has already collectively decided that children are not mature enough to make the best decisions regarding their health and wellbeing.
When we decide that the children's (in this case pre-pubescent children), consent is irrelevant to them going to school, or having sex, or taking nude selfies, or getting a boob-job because they are not mature enough to provide meaningful consent, then you can be pretty fucking sure that we, collectively, as a society, aren't going to suddenly decide that pre-pubescent children are making an informed decision about things like chemical and/or literal castration.
Seriously, you really think that a group that is considered too undeveloped to consent to a boob-job is still developed enough to consent to sterilisation?
It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice?
And we allow minors to participate in all kinds of potentially harmful or regrettable things, with parental consent. Working as actors, playing sports that risk brain injury, using firearms, and yes, getting cosmetic surgery.
This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do. Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things?
The people cultivating this moral panic have admitted that it is a step on the way to a complete ban on trans healthcare and a crackdown on the existence of trans people. First make it impossible for minors, then under 25, then everyone.
Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason.
> It's funny that you mention that because cosmetic surgery like breast enhancement and reduction are performed on minors an order of magnitude more often than anything having to do with gender presentation. I assume you spend a proportionate amount of time and energy fighting that practice?
You say "minors" when I clarified "children" to mean "prepubescent children".
There is no way that pre-pubescent children are getting boob-jobs at the rate you claim they are.
Because we aren't talking about minor children in general. We're talking about prepubescent children.
And we frequently (like in all the examples I gave) ensure that, even with parental consent, they can't do certain things. Like sex.
> This isn't a new category of thing we're allowing minors to do.
Yes, it is. Irreversible changes purely based on the feelings of the prepubescent child and nothing else aren't allowed, your strawman notwithstanding.
> Why suddenly the strict consideration by outsiders who never cared about any of those other things?
Sorry, outsiders? Lot's of people cared about prepubescent children enough to enforce that those children go to school, that they are not allowed to have sex no matter how much their parent claims "But they asked for it!!! They feel ready for it!!!"
Seriously, we ignore the wishes of prepubescent children all the time, because they are not in a position to provide informed consent.
> Again you cannot just ignore that context and pretend that, ah, well, nevertheless, I just really think this one thing is important for this specific reason.
No. That's what you are doing. This is your single issue. I'm just pointing out that, collectively, society has already agreed that prepubescent children cannot make their own health decisions.
You are here whining that you should be able to petition prepubescent children so that they can give consent. In reality, they have no ability to give consent because we (society) took it away from them.
My "single issue" is not having a far-right coalition use a protect-the-children anti-trans moral panic affecting at most a few thousand people to mobilize a fascist takeover of my country.
In five years it has gone from "we just really care about female youth sports ok?" to "protect the children" and now already we are starting to see the first restrictions on adult trans healthcare and bans on queer public life.
If you were ignorant of that you'd be a fool, but I don't think you are which makes your support of it much more sinister.
And the wild thing is you don't even need to go through all this trouble! You could just say trans people squick you out and you'd prefer they not exist. There would be no consequences, it's now a mainstream position thanks to credulous supporters of these policies.
So if I oppose irreversible changes to prepubescent children, then I'm anti-trans? Someone should've told me when I spoke out against both male and female circumcision.
/s
I'm focusing on prepubescent children and you are going on about unrelated stuff.
For the last time, a prepubescent child is unable to give consent to castration, sterilisation and other irreversible changes.
The trouble is, your argument that the people who are against sterilisation of 9 year olds are transphobic is simply nonsense, and you're too emotionally connected to trans-as-a-political stance to see the human issues involved.
In a remarkable fit of irony, you're displaying cold indifference to humans, all the while yelling that they must take your feelings seriously.
I'm trying to get y'all to see that this isn't an isolated thing. The anti-trans moral panic you've gleefully taken up is part of a broader far right movement to crack down on queer and minority people in public life.
Because our wishes conflict with their economic motives
> the people receiving the treatment, who say it helps them
Again, children who aren't able to consent
> Why are you so invested with what choices people make for themselves, again, with the consideration of their doctors and families?
The same reason why I think the distribution of opiates should be tightly regulated. Because I see something that's inherently wrong, and I see corporations benefitting from it
"After careful application of my Logic, I have decided that I support precisely these two restrictive policies that also, separately and completely coincidentally of course, harm some of the most marginalized and vulnerable members of society."
Like, this is just not credible sorry. There is a neofascist moral panic being used to justify crackdowns and violence against this group right now. That's where we are and that's where your justification of support needs to start from.
They absolutelly should not.
Nobody is fit for conrracting while underage.
I would go as far and invoke my own freedom of speech and say kids should not be allowed to be targeted by any dog whistling or promot material period
Wonder how tolerant these folks would be with my view.
You can't say something bigoted and then try to add a disclaimer and somehow make it magically not big bigoted. Leave pediatric medicine up to the pediatric doctors.
I have a niece who is transitioning and it's attitudes like this that endanger her wellbeing.
This one touches a nerve because of how frustrating it is that the internet learned a new big word and it spread like wildfire among people who have an axe to grind against trans folks.
Sorry for the 50 minute video but there’s basically nothing I can write that will explain and deconstruct this better than an actual trans woman.
Oh I thought the answer to the last question was a very obvious yes - there’s a clear political trend called ‘self id’ where autogynophiles may deem themselves to be women and are admitted into women’s spaces, and self id is advocated by gender theorists as being exclusively for the benefit of transgender people.
I didn't mean "Is autogynephilia a fetish that people are confusing for transgenderism? (in some cases where bad faith actors will lie, or self-delude, to identify as women to gain access to women's spaces, making broad inclusivity dangerous and difficult)
I meant ""Is autogynephilia a fetish that (only affects transgender) people are confusing for transgenderism (in all cases)?"
Keep in mind, 90% of the time when someone is talking about autogynephilia, they are casting doubt on the very existence/reality of trans people - deeming them fetishists and fraud by default.
I don't really think you can brand it propaganda. The source is credible and well sourced - you can Google Natalie Wynn/Contrapoints.
It's also a complex topic that has many facets.
However the summary would be that male and female arousal in western society is quite different. Male sexuality is based on perceiving outward - seeing visual stimulus of someone being attractive, and getting turned on.
Female sexuality is based on perceiving inward - making oneself attractive, and being turned on by the reaction that it receives from the partner.
As a result, cis hereto women report feelings that in trans women get called autogynophelia when planning or expecting to meet with a sexual partner, or during sexual encounters.
> Female sexuality is based on perceiving inward - making oneself attractive, and being turned on by the reaction that it receives from the partner.
> As a result, cis hereto women report feelings that in trans women get called autogynophelia when planning or expecting to meet with a sexual partner, or during sexual encounters.
Women feel that they’re sexy women so men can feel they’re sexy women. This is not a compelling argument.
Not to mention, a few cherry picked oddball psychologists does not a consensus make. There are civil engineers that will say 9/11 was a thermite inside job and physicians that say crystals have healing powers. That doesn't mean they are right or even represent the scientific community's broad consensus.
I also suspect most of the people spreading transphobic messages have never had a close openly trans friend, partner, or family member.
> I also suspect most of the people spreading transphobic messages have never had a close openly trans friend, partner, or family member.
Many gender-critical women are those who have experienced the trans phenomenon via a man in their life deciding that he is now a woman, and observing first hand the misogyny in his expression of what he thinks makes him a woman. The accounts of transwidows (women whose husbands transitioned) are particularly depressing and painful to read, as their marriage breaks down while he transforms himself into an offensive caricature of womanhood.
I really feel for those women, having a partner transition is hard on any relationship. The person you fall in love with is your own perception of who the other person is and all that gets shattered in an instant because of a burden they’ve carrying for their whole lives finally becomes too heavy to bear and it changes their relationship forever. Some people are able to make it through that, others aren’t, and it’s okay either way. But when the relationship ends right after they start transitioning they don’t see their partner work through all their feelings, traumas, and see the other side.
You’re right, that lots of trans women lean into the stereotypes of womanhood right after they come out. And that’s because they’re going through all the awkward cringy phases that teenagers go through. Turns out those phases are more to do with the process of self-discovery than it does age. Because lord knows when I was 15 I wore skirts too short, way too much makeup, and was past the girly phase and already on the “reject pink” phase. They’re learning how to be women just like we all did. It is a source of endless fun teasing one of the women I volunteer with who’s currently going through an emo phase. So maybe it’s cringy but I choose to see the good in that someone is able to be so sincere and authentic and I would feel bad ruining her innocent fun. And just like all other women they figure themselves out and mellow.
Forbidden because gender theorists aggressively attack anyone that suggests autogynophiles exist as a way to push the ‘self id’ laws that allow arbitrary men to enter women’s spaces.
Nobody is posting transphobic messages. We don’t want people to irreparably harm their bodies because we care about them, unlike others.
You have to be 18 for GRS or 16 if you have very very long standing documented history of debilitating dysphoria. It is the same for top surgery and any other cosmetic procedures. HRT isn’t until puberty.
Kids transitioning is name, pronouns, clothes, and where they stand in boy girl boy girl lines at school.
I swear ever time I talk to people about these issues at events or whatever people will go on long rants and end with me being like yep, not only go I agree but that’s how it currently works.
Like the accommodation that trans kids/teens want with locker rooms is single person stalls so they don’t have to change in front of their classmates or awkwardly maneuver around a toilet but the rhetoric you see is completely opposite of that.
Genuinely, I am sorry and what or whoever made you feel like you were bigoted or transphobic for basically agreeing with WPATH standards.
The word "encouraged" is doing a lot of work here, in the same dogwhistle sense as the thread above.
ALLOWING a teenager desperate to bind her breasts, is not encouragement.
ACCEPTING a teenager and letting them know that this is OK - if they want it - in spite of what peers might think, is not encouragement.
This is like "Pride" all over again. "If you're born gay, and are proud of it, i should be able to say I'm proud of being straight, what's the difference?". No, we're saying "we're proud of being gay" as a response to you saying "you should be ASHAMED of being gay".
"Encouraged to transition" in almost all cases means "given the support, and resources to do so". But you are making it sound like someone is coming up to vulnerable girls and convincing them that they're trans and talking them into breast binding.
If you had said "We should not allow teenagers to (go through major body-altering procedures without significant counselling, deep psychological evaluation, and allowing them to make other life changes such as changing schools first)", we could have a reasonable discussion about harm reduction and trade-offs of being wrong, or statistics of transition regret.
But if you insist on using intentional language like categorizing all breast binding as "self-harm", then you're not really interested in having a debate are you? You've already decided what you believe, and you're going to pick the most incendiary "Won't anyone think of the children" language that only a monster would disagree with.
But that was already obvious by your casual dismissal of the term dogwhistle, which shows you have no interest in discussing reality if you think it's a concept irrelevant to this context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)
I think ultimately this is where we’re gonna have to agree to disagree because to
me, someone who works with trans people all the time, this is a gross mischaracterization of what it means to be trans. Manliness or womanliness has nothing to do with it, I know trans women who are super butch and do metalwork and know trans men who are femboys. The “wrongness” trans people feel their whole lives and the distress it causes (dysphoria) runs through to the very core. The most commonly reported age where trans people “know” is 5-6 well before they have any idea about what being a boy or girl even means.
Differentiating between “boy who is gnc” and “trans girl” is why every part of this process has multiple safeguards. And the reason why this matters and why the trans community doesn’t just say “whatever just make them wait until 18” is because going on HRT in early adolescence means they will grow up virtually indistinguishable from a cis person and get to live a much happier and safer life. What $10 pills can do at 14 costs $50-$75k or is just impossible later.
There is no way to create a vagina, which self cleans.
Claiming your opponents get their information is like people claiming you get your information from Tumblr. Which... well, 'neovaginas' - maybe you do.
> The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater
Yes, some beliefs are inherently bigoted and hateful. The people holding those beliefs often don't see it that way. Slaveowners often thought they were doing the right thing for black people. I see no reason why presenting your beliefs about trans people in a kind way should make your beliefs land any softer. I see no reason to discuss these beliefs with you, as they bring nothing new to the table that has not been discussed before.
> Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced through bullying and harassment.
I don't agree, so let's test my hypothesis right here!
I come armed only with a single, short article about trans desistance that was aimed a general audience, let's have a short but real discussion. Before that I was tabula rasa.
IIRC the researcher Thomas Steensma quoted in the piece produced both of these results in the same set of published papers:
1. There is a high likelihood that some number of patients in his clinic will no longer identify as trans when they are older
2. There is a set of predictors which can be used to help identify minors in his clinic who will persist as trans when they are older
Reading between the lines, it also appears this is one of the more conservative researchers-- i.e., his clinic waits to socially transition kids longer than other clinics do.
Even so, what I read is that a) the guidelines for diagnosing gender dysphoria have become more stringent/accurate over the past few decades, and b) more research will reveal more predictors for persistence.
Given that, your position at the very least is under-specified. You could be saying that you favor waiting to do social transitioning per this clinician's guidelines. Or, you could be arguing that you want the predictors and indicators fleshed out more before you'd be comfortable with the kinds of treatments these clinics provide. Or, you could mean that you reject (out of hand or otherwise) the research on these predictors and/or the accompanying body of research.
All of those positions invite differing qualities of argumentation. And again, I've only read a single article here, so you may very well be privy to knowledge that would sway me in a different direction. But unless that single article was complete bunk, it appears that both the diagnosis of and treatment for gender dysphoria has improved over the past few decades, and that at least a part of the treatment is social transition where the costs and benefits of those who persist and desist need to be weighed.
With my incredibly small amount of knowledge in this area, zero of this particular treatment option for everyone who is a minor certainly seems excessive. If that is indeed your position, then what is the evidence for it and why aren't experts in the field taking that evidence into account?
In any case, I believe I have fulfilled the requirements for at least a single anecdatum that shows lack of bullying/harassment for your stated position.
I'm from Switzerland so I may get "gender" wrong but yeah that is the progressive take here since the 2000s or so. That just means that you shouldn't force gender stereotypes on children. Let boys play with Barbies and wear pink if the like it and stuff like that. But nobody thought about their gender because of this, they are still boys. Nowadays, at least from what I read online, it feels like your gender depends on these sterotypes and if you don't conform to them you're trans.
Those don't even need to be gender stereotypes. There is nothing (or there SHOULDN'T be) masculine about liking Trucks or Barbies.
But there are things that at least today still fairly strongly tied to gender Expression. Wearing skirts. Painting nails. There used to be more such things! Wearing pants. Having a labour-based job. Feminism enabled women to pick and choose aspects of things gendered masculine and incorporate them as needed. The reverse hasn't caught up - mostly because of misogyny, honestly. It's reasonable that "Women want to be more like men". It's demeaning when men want to be more like women.
But this is all still gender expression, not identity.
Where does expression end and identity begins? The answer is actually very difficult to establish. This line is constantly shifting, but it takes decades.
Is it possible that if we completely removed all social stigma on any kind of "gendered" expression, and allowed everyone to behave exactly how they want, would there be any gender binary remaining except biological? Would the majority of people end up some sort of "non-binary" and there would be no more reason to "transition"?
It's possible.
But that will take decades, and meanwhile there are people today, in today's society, who are suffering.
And this is just me taking a very shallow look at the problem that is sympathetic to people who say things like "This transition thing doesn't make ay sense, just act how you act, you don't need hormones or surgery for that".
There is another layer which is dysphoria, and then we get into a question of innate gender identity. I suspect a part of it remains.
The only way we find out the reality of what humans are like, and how they belong in our society, is by being accepting, and welcoming, and believing those that are trying to tell us what they want and need.
Unfortunately, to a lot of people, someone being "accepting" of an idea they disagree with, sounds like "encouragement" of the idea. So now you have all these stories of teachers grooming children to believe they're trans. And it's just b.s.
The only real concern is with children who transition early - it's unclear to what extent they can consent, and just how much counseling can affect their decision beyond what they genuinely feel (bearing in mind past examples, such as therapists implanting false memories of abuse in children during the Satanic Panic). Pushing someone into puberty blockers etc when they don't actually have gender dysphoria is also causing significant suffering for them later in life. Safeguards shouldn't preclude those who need therapy and surgery from having access to it, but we don't need more of this kind of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHS_Gender_Identity_Developmen...
Well, I sometimes wish I was born an eagle because I like travelling, flying and chasing the sun.
I am not going to try to have a surgery to make it happen.
There is nobody with no gender, there are rarities with natural double gender features, but strictly speaking, nature assigns a gender during early pregnancy.
All the ideas about gender changes occur to people later on and based on personal feelings/factors. The mind is something that develops by education and experience, not genetic urges as far I am aware.
If schools and parents would educate kids saying theres no such thing like gender and you get to choose and society lets the promoters of such go rampant, I imagine this would not lead to a net positive outcome.
Well, fair enough, that concept has never been discussed during my education(that ended 20 years ago), so I am not in the loop except from what I have seen online about it.
It seems it got a bit traction in the US, in Europe is relatively unheard of as of yet.
> However in my personal case I don’t believe transgender and gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on still developing minors.
I don't think those things should be pressed on developing minors either. But I see people of all stripes dressing their boys in pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink for girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with "boy things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be forcing these norms on children of this age.
But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we should not tolerate transgender expression in children. Which, I submit, violates the rights of that child to express themselves.
And, by the way, freedom of speech includes the freedom to respond to deplorable speech with criticism and even shunning. If somebody thinks that you're a bigot or a hater, will you defend their rights to say so?
I do not know if you habe children, but this is for good reason.
Children are brutal when it comes to peer pressure and such.
They do not engage in white lies, they say it as they think it is.
If you send your boy in a pink mini dress to school, you will not be doing him a favour.
There should be some rules on how humans present themselves when in public and in groups.
I mean, if society would be such that ypu could walk down the city center naked with all reproductional organs exposed with nothing but a kkk t shirt, this simply would not find acceptance.
In summary, kids minds and kid environments like school are fertile grounds for bullying under peer pressure etc.
It is good if a school promotes freedom of expression and tolerance, but some very vocal minority groups want everything yesterday and are pushing it down everyones throats.
Having had a close family member losing 5 years of his life and his savings to a fortuneteller crook has made me realize that people with too much of an open mind, in a crisis situation, will believe the most ridiculous coping strategies told to them by others.
Kids are often insecure and easy to influence, I think they should be kept away from people promoting irreversible things like gender changes.
Cigarettes , gambling and alcohol are forbidden to be promoted to minors, so should be this.
But how do we know what the "right" ways to present yourself are? It used to be that if you were a white kid in the US and you played with black kids, other white kids would treat you badly. I presume we all agree that this is not good behavior, and not good for society. But can you clearly delineate between this, and between kids bullying other kids because they are wearing the wrong colors?
I understand that we have to realistically look at the effects these changes have on individuals. But I don't think that we have reached any kind of "optimal social rules". Deciding to stop right here and now seems arbitrary, and I'm reasonably certain that there have always been people making this exact argument for any kind of change.
> But I see people of all stripes dressing their boys in pants and their girls in skirts; blue for boys, pink for girls; encouraging boys to hang with boys and play with "boy things" and girls to hang with girls and play with "girl things" and romanticizing cross-gender interactions between children as young as a day old. I don't think we should be forcing these norms on children of this age.
I don't think we should be either. But asides from the well known differences in brain size and white / grey matter ratios which I'm sure you're already with, I encourage you to visit your local Lesbian Mother's Group where I am sure you will find many parents who absolutely believe in year-0 of sex differences and who, based on my sister's experiences, are often very surprised about how boys and girls act.
> But I suspect that what you're actually saying is that we should not tolerate transgender expression in children.
There is no reason to say this. Many people against gender theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.
> > Many people against gender theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.
> What do you mean by "healthy adults"?
By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.
Edit reply due to rate limit: yes I edited because I realised I’d already written this in the comment you were replying to, you just hadn’t bothered to read the comment before replying. I wanted to highlight how foolish you were. I hope you understand now.
And yes mutilating one’s body is harming it, I have no qualms in telling you this in a very direct non-quiet fashion. Stop encouraging people to wreck their bodies.
> Comfortable as the sex they were born with, acting however they like, without harming their bodies.
> I would have thought that was clear but if you were asking genuinely there’s your answer.
Yeah. It was clear to me that you were using "healthy" to assert that transgender people who transition are "unhealthy." That surgery is "harm." Your later edit
> > > Many people against gender theory are former 'tomboys' that are healthy adults, don't conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.
> By healthy adults I mean they don't feel any need to conform to gender stereotypes, and are glad that breast binding, hormones and cosmetic surgery weren't foisted on them as children.
shows that you understand your initial statement to be a dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not to say the quiet part loud.
The topic here is about principles and rights of free speech. You've swerved into a debate about the legitimacy of transgender existence. I'm not here for that debate; you can keep yammering if you like.
> shows that you understand your initial statement to be a dog whistle, and that upon reflection, you decided not to say the quiet part loud.
You seem to be making some very strong assumptions about intent [E] and have been since your first response in this thread. As an outside observer, those assumptions don't seem supported by the conversation up to this point.
Instead of assuming this person is strongly biased and bigoted, perhaps can you instead assume they simply did not make the point they were trying to make as clearly as they would have liked, and thus revised their statement accordingly?
Something something positive intent and the like. Assuming negative intent when there's very little signal to support that assumption speaks more to your own prejudices and biases than anything else.
> Something something positive intent and the like
Trust, but verify. It's one thing to recognize a dog whistle and flip out. It's quite another thing to hear a dog whistle, ask for elaboration, and nope out when negative intent is revealed.
The 'talking points' thing is a non argument. For the record, my sister - the same one from the Lesbian Mother's Group - counsels at-risk adolescents and I live near the Tavistock center which was shut down by the UK government after one of their doctors blew the whistle on 'gender affirming' care.
Yes I edited because I realised I’d already written this in the comment you were replying to, you just hadn’t bothered to read the comment before replying. I wanted to highlight how foolish you were. I hope you understand now.
And yes mutilating one’s body is harming it, I have no qualms in telling you this in a very direct non-quiet fashion. Stop encouraging people to wreck their bodies.
As your comment-sibling suggests, it's good to at least try to assume good faith. Perhaps I wanted to give just a bit more rope for the commenter to hang theirself with. This is, perhaps, a counterintuitive argument for free speech: if you don't let them make asses of themselves in public, nobody will believe that they're doing it in private.
The ad-hominem response is little more than confirmation that I hold the higher ground.
I’m sorry what ad-hominem response? You labelled me a bigot for pointing out that gender theory harms children, which I guess you think isn’t ad hominem?
I told you to stop harming children and you think that is ad hominem and proves you have the moral high ground?
Kim Petras was abused as a 12 year old boy. You're welcome to your own newspeak but the rest of us don't have to revise history because you want us to.
I agree with you, same for religion imposed on kids, it plain brainwashing.
Religion has a few good things like the ten commandments at least, though.
Pushing gender identity on teenagers who do not even know how to urinate in a straight line and had no sexual intercourse yet is just plain wrong, always will be.The teens do not come up with these things themselves usually its often an external influence by highly irresponsible people pushing theit agenda.
To me this is more controversial than the abortion issue.
And thats right, I will openly oppose anyone who claims otherwise and I will certainly not die on any hill defending that.
I can agree to disagree and that is that.
All these who did the gender changes recently appear to be still unhappy and frustrated. Show me the success stories.
This is nothing new by the way, there have been a number of thai boys for example undergoing hormone therapy and gender change more than 25 years ago, they often would work in prostitution. The difference is, they perhaps liked the idea and did it for sexualbor monetary reasons and came up with the idea independently, not via social media.
For example I am mostly liberal and was a fan of Bernie Sanders. However in my personal case I don’t believe transgender and gender identity roles are something that should be pressed on still developing minors.
The problem here is you may agree or not agree but the point I am making is just my view on this equals bigot / hater .. etc. Any deviation from a strict all or nothing approach is silenced through bullying and harassment.
No room or in there is not even any desire for real discussion … it is just accept these things as “truth” or be labeled some form of hater.
It wasn’t so long ago that real discussion still happened on platforms like reddit and others …now it is curated to the point of nonsense.