3 ms·

We are off topic but I'd like to answer your question. It's increasingly become an issue in the public space because local governments are increasingly getting

We are off topic but I'd like to answer your question. It's increasingly become an issue in the public space because local governments are increasingly getting involved with this issue. Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children.

tptacek 7y ago
This is about as charitable an interpretation as the one suggesting marriage equality would be a harbinger of bestiality. You can always connect some set of dots from a policy you don't like to some lurid, horrible outcome; there's a well-known rhetorical fallacy that captures this directly.
- crisdux 7y ago
  Your comment is a good example of the critique at the top of this thread. You start with the worst possible interpretation of my comment, use a metaphor about bestiality and immediately dismiss my comment as a fallacy.
  - tptacek 7y ago
    I understand why you'd read it that way and I'm sorry if I worded it carelessly, but I didn't make the "bestiality" thing up and wasn't implying that you were making that comparison. Those really were dots that people, including senior policymakers, connected. Something you might want to read up on is "the parade of horribles", which is what you're essentially invoking when you suggest that any government protection for trans people is a slippery slope to "unproven and ill-advised treatment for children". I think you'll find that the mainstream public policy about trans people is whether they should have access to facilities or recourse to anti-discrimination laws when they're fired from jobs. You'll have to address those policy debates on the merits, without appeals to some hypothetical future horror.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Except that the horrible in question - giving puberty blockers and other transgender treatments to children - is already happening, and I think I remember a case in Canada where that was done despite the wishes of the parents.
      - tptacek 7y ago
        All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. The whole point of them is to buy time for patients to more carefully consider their path going forward. They're practically the opposite of "unproven and ill-advised". I'm not seeing the "horrible" here. But more to the point: the public policy debate about trans people is about whether they can use the bathroom or be fired from jobs.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        > All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. If that's true, then that's fine! But I was under the impression that there were still significant concerns about the long term safety of those drugs. (And other allegations besides safety - I've heard that many/most people who identify as the opposite gender prior to puberty begin to identify as their birth gender following puberty, but I don't have a source there) And it sure seems to me like the debate is about more than just bathrooms. "Can there be legal repercussions for misgendering someone", for instance.
        tptacek 7y ago
        So, let's acknowledge that we're just random people on a message board discussing a complicated topic neither of us are authoritative about, and that we're both going to do the standard message board thing of quickly Googling for resources that connect to our arguments. With that said: the resources I found strongly suggest that puberty blockers are, especially for patients with strong dysphoria (which is dangerous in its own right!) safe and present no meaningful long-term consequences. The more powerful argument here would be that the people who do have the most authority in this subject --- medical professionals --- appear to have achieved a consensus on this topic, and that most of the push-back on it seems to be from laypeople second-guessing them. If those laypeople themselves can generate powerful arguments, more power to them, but I don't see what they are. So far, I'm inclined to trust the doctors. Outside of the Jordan Peterverse, I don't see "legal consequences for misgendering people" as a live issue, but I'll say right now that I'm only familiar with and interested in the debate in the US, where the story we're commenting on takes place, and which is the most important venue for the "snowflakes and safe spaces" debate.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    Your argument begins with the least charitable interpretation of people who support said surgery so I'm not sure how you can claim the high ground here. > Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children. This is the exact same argument that was used in the past against gay marriage. There is no scientific basis behind this argument, just an appeal to fear and irrationality.
hellomyguys 7y ago
Right, but the flipside of that is people are using similar arguments they used against black civil rights like the horrors of integration and the dangers of mixed race marriages against LGBTQ+ community. At one point a majority of the country agreed with those opinions and that the government was overstepping its boundaries to further a harmful ideology.

tptacek 7y ago

This is about as charitable an interpretation as the one suggesting marriage equality would be a harbinger of bestiality. You can always connect some set of dots from a policy you don't like to some lurid, horrible outcome; there's a well-known rhetorical fallacy that captures this directly.

crisdux 7y ago
Your comment is a good example of the critique at the top of this thread. You start with the worst possible interpretation of my comment, use a metaphor about bestiality and immediately dismiss my comment as a fallacy.
- tptacek 7y ago
  I understand why you'd read it that way and I'm sorry if I worded it carelessly, but I didn't make the "bestiality" thing up and wasn't implying that you were making that comparison. Those really were dots that people, including senior policymakers, connected. Something you might want to read up on is "the parade of horribles", which is what you're essentially invoking when you suggest that any government protection for trans people is a slippery slope to "unproven and ill-advised treatment for children". I think you'll find that the mainstream public policy about trans people is whether they should have access to facilities or recourse to anti-discrimination laws when they're fired from jobs. You'll have to address those policy debates on the merits, without appeals to some hypothetical future horror.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Except that the horrible in question - giving puberty blockers and other transgender treatments to children - is already happening, and I think I remember a case in Canada where that was done despite the wishes of the parents.
    - tptacek 7y ago
      All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. The whole point of them is to buy time for patients to more carefully consider their path going forward. They're practically the opposite of "unproven and ill-advised". I'm not seeing the "horrible" here. But more to the point: the public policy debate about trans people is about whether they can use the bathroom or be fired from jobs.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > All a puberty blocker does is delay the onset of puberty. They're part of the medical standard of care, and have no permanent effects that require reversal; their effects end as soon as they're taken. If that's true, then that's fine! But I was under the impression that there were still significant concerns about the long term safety of those drugs. (And other allegations besides safety - I've heard that many/most people who identify as the opposite gender prior to puberty begin to identify as their birth gender following puberty, but I don't have a source there) And it sure seems to me like the debate is about more than just bathrooms. "Can there be legal repercussions for misgendering someone", for instance.
        tptacek 7y ago
        So, let's acknowledge that we're just random people on a message board discussing a complicated topic neither of us are authoritative about, and that we're both going to do the standard message board thing of quickly Googling for resources that connect to our arguments. With that said: the resources I found strongly suggest that puberty blockers are, especially for patients with strong dysphoria (which is dangerous in its own right!) safe and present no meaningful long-term consequences. The more powerful argument here would be that the people who do have the most authority in this subject --- medical professionals --- appear to have achieved a consensus on this topic, and that most of the push-back on it seems to be from laypeople second-guessing them. If those laypeople themselves can generate powerful arguments, more power to them, but I don't see what they are. So far, I'm inclined to trust the doctors. Outside of the Jordan Peterverse, I don't see "legal consequences for misgendering people" as a live issue, but I'll say right now that I'm only familiar with and interested in the debate in the US, where the story we're commenting on takes place, and which is the most important venue for the "snowflakes and safe spaces" debate.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  Your argument begins with the least charitable interpretation of people who support said surgery so I'm not sure how you can claim the high ground here. > Dissidents may believe that governmental power is being misused to further a harmful ideology and to push unproven and ill-advised treatments on children. This is the exact same argument that was used in the past against gay marriage. There is no scientific basis behind this argument, just an appeal to fear and irrationality.

hellomyguys 7y ago

Right, but the flipside of that is people are using similar arguments they used against black civil rights like the horrors of integration and the dangers of mixed race marriages against LGBTQ+ community. At one point a majority of the country agreed with those opinions and that the government was overstepping its boundaries to further a harmful ideology.