5 ms·

<deleted>

pstuart 4y ago
Your journey is is literally the epitome of self-governance, and yet the party that ostensibly advocates for more self-governance seems to fear you and others on that journey as the top threat to society today. The only way that makes sense is when viewed with a cynical eye: people are spooked by "not normal", and spooked people are more easily manipulated. It's disgusting on so many levels.
- poszlem 4y ago
  You can both say that people should be able to self-govern themselves and at the same time have a cut-off age before which they should not. The trans debate would be much less heated if it did not involve other people's children.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    I have to imagine it's got to be painful and challenging as a parent to go through that. Obviously this is not to be done lightly but it seems like it's ultimately the business of the child, their doctor, and their parents. > The trans debate would be much less heated if it did not involve other people's children. Oh really? What about bathrooms? I hear that trans people love to go to bathrooms and molest children.
    - poszlem 4y ago
      I can assure you that any discussion that involves other people's children is on another level of heat when compared to even the most heated debate about bathrooms.
    - bbbbbp 4y ago
      Are you referring to incidents like this: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4002789/morrisons-sex-attack-girl-fife-transgender-katie-dolatowski https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4002789/morrisons-sex-...? If so, these are rare, and aren't the main reason why most people want to keep certain spaces as sex-segregated.
      - 0ct4via 4y ago
        Ignoring that the Sun is tabloid trash, nobody raises as many complaints when men sexually assault women or children, nor do they make the same complaints about the "risks" or "predators" when it comes to trans men -- this is specifically a boogeyman rhetoric designed to denigrate trans women. If you're reading this, you've probably been in a bathroom with a trans person, or someone you know has, and they've been absolutely fine. Trans people by and large want to get in, pee, and get out, same as everyone else -- but perhaps moreso, given the risk of transphobic rhetoric and abuse if they were to be "clocked" (identified) as a trans person. The primary abusers of women and children are men, followed by (cis) women. Trans women make up an exceedingly small portion of that particular criminal element, but they're vilified and used as boogeymen so much more, to attempt to deny trans women's existence under "think of the children" handwaving.
        bbbbbp 4y ago
        [dead]
        0ct4via 4y ago
        * trans-exclusionary feminists, you mean. Plenty feminists are intersectional, TERFs are in the minority (and before someone claims it's a slur, a cis woman feminist came up with the term, to refer to the trans-exclusionary minority). Trans is a descriptor, so "trans woman" is the appropriate usage, nor "transwoman" -- and those feminists aren't taking umbrage with non-binary trans people, or trans men -- only trans women... Hmm. That aside, the link you provided is disingenuous -- the author may be trans, but they conflate sex and gender, and have often been transphobic, as have the CCJS themselves. You don't seem to be engaging in good faith -- ignoring the "whataboutism" and ignorant terminology, you're also conflating sex with gender, and deciding that a minority justify excluding the vast majority. Are you next going to say that only women who can bleed and bear children are women? -- because plenty of cis women can't, and that's the kind of exclusionary rhetoric that's used next.
        bbbbbp 4y ago
poszlem 4y ago
This is a very disingenuous take. "If You Disagree With Me, You Want People To Die" is also not the best way to signal your openness to an honest debate. > The truth is, hormone therapy saves lives. Some of those lives will be teenage lives. The truth is - the current research about that is lacking, we know that there are serious (and good faith) arguments against claiming that puberty blockers are reversible, and we know that many clinics simply don't collect data about people post transition or distort whatever data they do collect: "For those late to this: In April I published a very long post laying out the severe flaws in a study about puberty blockers and hormones University of Washington researchers published in JAMA Network Open, and how they exaggerated the results when describing them to the media and to UW’s own PR apparatus. The very short version is that the study has so many flaws that it does not provide us with any evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that kids who went on gender-affirming medicine (GAM) experienced beneficial outcomes relative to the kids who did not. In fact, any genuine comparison between the GAM and no-GAM kids 12 months out is impossible, because 80% of the kids who didn’t go on GAM had dropped out of study by the final wave of data collection, leaving just six remaining. That is far too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. (The paper gave no explanation as to why some kids went on GAM and others didn’t, making it impossible to know whether this was an otherwise apples-to-apples comparison, so even in the absence of this attrition issue, the results would have been difficult to interpret.)" https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-university-of-washington-is-putting https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-university-of-washing... https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-swedish-investigative-journalist-dd6 https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-swedish-investigative-j... One thing that sticks in my mind about this issue is the implicit blackmail. "Your kid will kill themselves if you don't do X!" is a jarring and terrifying framework for any parent to deal with, but I'm not aware of it existing anywhere in healthcare except in trans issues. Consider for example if my teenager told me they'd kill themselves if they're not allowed to watch TV. MAYBE unlimited TV is the only way to ensure they don't carry out their threat, but if so this only reveals a deeply dysfunctional mindset that should be further investigated. This inquiry seems to be completely missing from the trans discourse as far as I can tell. I find it genuinely alarming how little curiosity there is from the trans-affirming side as to what exactly causes someone to be feel dysphoria. The inquiry almost doesn't seem to matter, with the prognosis basically taking the form of "don't worry about why, just make sure they get cutting-edge plastic surgery and experimental hormonal treatments or else they'll kill themselves." The current state of "gender affirming care" seems like a band-aid solution that papers over a much deeper problem, and I don't understand how we are helping trans people by turning a blind eye to the root cause of their suffering.

Your journey is is literally the epitome of self-governance, and yet the party that ostensibly advocates for more self-governance seems to fear you and others on that journey as the top threat to society today. The only way that makes sense is when viewed with a cynical eye: people are spooked by "not normal", and spooked people are more easily manipulated. It's disgusting on so many levels.

poszlem 4y ago
You can both say that people should be able to self-govern themselves and at the same time have a cut-off age before which they should not. The trans debate would be much less heated if it did not involve other people's children.
- pstuart 4y ago
  I have to imagine it's got to be painful and challenging as a parent to go through that. Obviously this is not to be done lightly but it seems like it's ultimately the business of the child, their doctor, and their parents. > The trans debate would be much less heated if it did not involve other people's children. Oh really? What about bathrooms? I hear that trans people love to go to bathrooms and molest children.
  - poszlem 4y ago
    I can assure you that any discussion that involves other people's children is on another level of heat when compared to even the most heated debate about bathrooms.
  - bbbbbp 4y ago
    Are you referring to incidents like this: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4002789/morrisons-sex-attack-girl-fife-transgender-katie-dolatowski https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4002789/morrisons-sex-...? If so, these are rare, and aren't the main reason why most people want to keep certain spaces as sex-segregated.
    - 0ct4via 4y ago
      Ignoring that the Sun is tabloid trash, nobody raises as many complaints when men sexually assault women or children, nor do they make the same complaints about the "risks" or "predators" when it comes to trans men -- this is specifically a boogeyman rhetoric designed to denigrate trans women. If you're reading this, you've probably been in a bathroom with a trans person, or someone you know has, and they've been absolutely fine. Trans people by and large want to get in, pee, and get out, same as everyone else -- but perhaps moreso, given the risk of transphobic rhetoric and abuse if they were to be "clocked" (identified) as a trans person. The primary abusers of women and children are men, followed by (cis) women. Trans women make up an exceedingly small portion of that particular criminal element, but they're vilified and used as boogeymen so much more, to attempt to deny trans women's existence under "think of the children" handwaving.
      - bbbbbp 4y ago
        [dead]
        0ct4via 4y ago
        * trans-exclusionary feminists, you mean. Plenty feminists are intersectional, TERFs are in the minority (and before someone claims it's a slur, a cis woman feminist came up with the term, to refer to the trans-exclusionary minority). Trans is a descriptor, so "trans woman" is the appropriate usage, nor "transwoman" -- and those feminists aren't taking umbrage with non-binary trans people, or trans men -- only trans women... Hmm. That aside, the link you provided is disingenuous -- the author may be trans, but they conflate sex and gender, and have often been transphobic, as have the CCJS themselves. You don't seem to be engaging in good faith -- ignoring the "whataboutism" and ignorant terminology, you're also conflating sex with gender, and deciding that a minority justify excluding the vast majority. Are you next going to say that only women who can bleed and bear children are women? -- because plenty of cis women can't, and that's the kind of exclusionary rhetoric that's used next.
        bbbbbp 4y ago

poszlem 4y ago

This is a very disingenuous take. "If You Disagree With Me, You Want People To Die" is also not the best way to signal your openness to an honest debate. > The truth is, hormone therapy saves lives. Some of those lives will be teenage lives. The truth is - the current research about that is lacking, we know that there are serious (and good faith) arguments against claiming that puberty blockers are reversible, and we know that many clinics simply don't collect data about people post transition or distort whatever data they do collect: "For those late to this: In April I published a very long post laying out the severe flaws in a study about puberty blockers and hormones University of Washington researchers published in JAMA Network Open, and how they exaggerated the results when describing them to the media and to UW’s own PR apparatus. The very short version is that the study has so many flaws that it does not provide us with any evidence whatsoever supporting the idea that kids who went on gender-affirming medicine (GAM) experienced beneficial outcomes relative to the kids who did not. In fact, any genuine comparison between the GAM and no-GAM kids 12 months out is impossible, because 80% of the kids who didn’t go on GAM had dropped out of study by the final wave of data collection, leaving just six remaining. That is far too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. (The paper gave no explanation as to why some kids went on GAM and others didn’t, making it impossible to know whether this was an otherwise apples-to-apples comparison, so even in the absence of this attrition issue, the results would have been difficult to interpret.)" https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-university-of-washington-is-putting https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-university-of-washing... https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-swedish-investigative-journalist-dd6 https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/a-swedish-investigative-j... One thing that sticks in my mind about this issue is the implicit blackmail. "Your kid will kill themselves if you don't do X!" is a jarring and terrifying framework for any parent to deal with, but I'm not aware of it existing anywhere in healthcare except in trans issues. Consider for example if my teenager told me they'd kill themselves if they're not allowed to watch TV. MAYBE unlimited TV is the only way to ensure they don't carry out their threat, but if so this only reveals a deeply dysfunctional mindset that should be further investigated. This inquiry seems to be completely missing from the trans discourse as far as I can tell. I find it genuinely alarming how little curiosity there is from the trans-affirming side as to what exactly causes someone to be feel dysphoria. The inquiry almost doesn't seem to matter, with the prognosis basically taking the form of "don't worry about why, just make sure they get cutting-edge plastic surgery and experimental hormonal treatments or else they'll kill themselves." The current state of "gender affirming care" seems like a band-aid solution that papers over a much deeper problem, and I don't understand how we are helping trans people by turning a blind eye to the root cause of their suffering.