7 ms·

> Please do not repeat this right-wing talking point. Please do not make this a partisan issue. Some of us have been following the sexually regressive trend of

> Please do not repeat this right-wing talking point. Please do not make this a partisan issue. Some of us have been following the sexually regressive trend of calling our children's bodies defective and broken because they don't match the viewers' sexual stereotypes for quite a while now, and there was pretty widespread consensus across political and religious ideologies that our kids didn't need surgery to be okay. > It is a moral panic, and it causes real harm to kids who need genuine mental health support who are instead being dismissed as being part of a trend. That's circular. They need help because they're caught in a trend which ignores the actual issues in their lives (bullying, divorce, academics, etc) and provides a one-size-fits-all solution of body modification. > All rises in incidents of transgenderism are easily explained by a more tolerant society accepting it. The same appeared when we stopped pathologizing left-handedness - all the kids didn't suddenly become left-handed, but the ones that were felt comfortable no longer hiding it. This sounds compelling but is not accurate. Left-handedness is a testable "condition" whereas transgender is some adults' interpretation of how people and their genitals should look based on how they act, especially with regard to things the observer thinks of as sexualized, such as who plays with dolls. Society was getting more tolerant, back in the 00s you'd never have a teacher scold a child for using wrong-sex toys because we'd largely gotten rid of the concept. Now it's back and we're telling children their actions and desires are wrong, BUT we've got a surgical solution! Fifteen years ago a boy could have worn a dress to elementary and wouldn't have socially risked anything worse than if they wore the wrong brand. Now they risk their teachers "helping" them make huge life decisions they can't even comprehend, and telling them to keep the discussions secret from their parents. That's a lot less accepting than it used to be. > with some exceptions that get consistently magnified by those with an agenda, it is not something you can just do on a whim, and generally requires a lot of counselling and a lot of effort to pursue hormonal or surgical changes. This isn't true, the fast track (affirmative care) is the only one allowed in most schools and clinics and by WPATH guidelines. Very rarely do teachers, counsellors, therapists, or health care providers pause to help children with preexisting issues before literally telling them that they're born incorrectly and offering solutions - even if those solutions (drugs and surgery) aren't always immediate. > There are incidents of detransitioning and those that regret it. Those rates are lower than those that regret knee replacements. This is not correct. There are no proper studies that follow medical transitioners long enough to usefully make that claim. The studies that exist have egregious failures such as not accounting for dropouts or controlling for comorbidities. And knee surgery is widely known to be almost ineffective for many people, making it an exceptionally misleading comparison.

beckon69 4y ago
I appreciated this thoughtful response (rebuttal) to OP. I agree with your concept of "back in the 00s you'd never have a teacher scold a child for using wrong-sex clothes/toys because we'd largely gotten rid of the concept". This dovetails into one of the paradox's of the trans-adjacent ideology that I haven't been able to square in my own head, which is that transitioning genders is predicated on strong gender norms existing in a society. In other words, it seems less accepting to be a male and exhibit feminine traits (and by the way, we are in fact acknowledging traditional societal ideas of gender roles now, rather than moving beyond them).
- zozbot234 4y ago
  Even weirder is how those who don't acknowledge traditional societal ideas of gender roles are being directed to adopt an identity of their own: "non-binary" or "genderfluid". So the strong gender norms have now become a thoroughly self-reinforcing cycle: even if you disagree with them, you're just treated and reassigned in accordance with these same norms.
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    There is a lot of debate and disagreement between those that are Transgender and those that are NonBinary. NB people will absolutely agree that rigorous gender norms are harmful, and Trans people are likely embracing and perpetuating an unnecessary binary. Meanwhile, Trans people will claim that the binary is real to them. Both are likely valid to some degree. There are multiple axis to this conversation.
    - zozbot234 4y ago
      Someday people will learn about the difference between "bimodal" and "binary", and the critical importance of liminal spaces in real-world "binary" phenomena of all kinds.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  I'm OP, and I did not appreciate this rebuttal, and consider it alarmist and terrible. I responded here if you want to take a look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891710 To your point, though, there is an explanation there too. The word is complex and full of many intersecting axis of considerations. For example - it can be logically consistent to be both pro renewable energy investment of all kinds, but also be wary of nuclear power, and the long-term consequences to our world if we expand investment into it. It's not a simple solution. Turning off nuclear power plants to burn coal or gas is clearly terrible. Not investing in solar/wind/etc because nuclear plants seem better in teh short term is also not great. Likewise, the reality is that our society DOES contain strong gender norms. You might think we don't because women make up >50% of colleges, are in the professional world, and might believe other concepts like the wage gap are exaggerated. And those can be all true. But our world is definitely still deeply GENDERED. There are people who believe it shouldn't be, and are working to buck those trends (and those people, generally, receive equally as much backlash as those transgender). There are people who are working on "dismantling the patriarchy" and associated systems of capitalist economic systems, and other things that may or may not be reasonable, may or may not be possible, and may or may not make things worse. But the point is that some of those people are transgender. And some are not. It's an independent axis. Transgender people - by and large - like most people - aren't looking to tear down the binary gender norms in our society - they're just seeking to exist in society as the other gender. Now, if you claim that a society should be more tolerant of being male and exhibiting feminine traits (and vice versa), I would agree with you. If you claimed that IF our society became that, there would likely be fewer transgender people, I would also theorize that is true. And if you believe that is a virtuous thing to pursue, let's both do so. But it's not a process that we can achieve overnight, and requires the support and progress of many others. Things have been progressing, but very slowly. Meanwhile, we have people who are suffering today, and who we have statistical evidence that there is a solution for what ails them. Why deny them this?

beckon69 4y ago

I appreciated this thoughtful response (rebuttal) to OP. I agree with your concept of "back in the 00s you'd never have a teacher scold a child for using wrong-sex clothes/toys because we'd largely gotten rid of the concept". This dovetails into one of the paradox's of the trans-adjacent ideology that I haven't been able to square in my own head, which is that transitioning genders is predicated on strong gender norms existing in a society. In other words, it seems less accepting to be a male and exhibit feminine traits (and by the way, we are in fact acknowledging traditional societal ideas of gender roles now, rather than moving beyond them).

zozbot234 4y ago
Even weirder is how those who don't acknowledge traditional societal ideas of gender roles are being directed to adopt an identity of their own: "non-binary" or "genderfluid". So the strong gender norms have now become a thoroughly self-reinforcing cycle: even if you disagree with them, you're just treated and reassigned in accordance with these same norms.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  There is a lot of debate and disagreement between those that are Transgender and those that are NonBinary. NB people will absolutely agree that rigorous gender norms are harmful, and Trans people are likely embracing and perpetuating an unnecessary binary. Meanwhile, Trans people will claim that the binary is real to them. Both are likely valid to some degree. There are multiple axis to this conversation.
  - zozbot234 4y ago
    Someday people will learn about the difference between "bimodal" and "binary", and the critical importance of liminal spaces in real-world "binary" phenomena of all kinds.
deanCommie 4y ago
I'm OP, and I did not appreciate this rebuttal, and consider it alarmist and terrible. I responded here if you want to take a look: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891710 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33891710 To your point, though, there is an explanation there too. The word is complex and full of many intersecting axis of considerations. For example - it can be logically consistent to be both pro renewable energy investment of all kinds, but also be wary of nuclear power, and the long-term consequences to our world if we expand investment into it. It's not a simple solution. Turning off nuclear power plants to burn coal or gas is clearly terrible. Not investing in solar/wind/etc because nuclear plants seem better in teh short term is also not great. Likewise, the reality is that our society DOES contain strong gender norms. You might think we don't because women make up >50% of colleges, are in the professional world, and might believe other concepts like the wage gap are exaggerated. And those can be all true. But our world is definitely still deeply GENDERED. There are people who believe it shouldn't be, and are working to buck those trends (and those people, generally, receive equally as much backlash as those transgender). There are people who are working on "dismantling the patriarchy" and associated systems of capitalist economic systems, and other things that may or may not be reasonable, may or may not be possible, and may or may not make things worse. But the point is that some of those people are transgender. And some are not. It's an independent axis. Transgender people - by and large - like most people - aren't looking to tear down the binary gender norms in our society - they're just seeking to exist in society as the other gender. Now, if you claim that a society should be more tolerant of being male and exhibiting feminine traits (and vice versa), I would agree with you. If you claimed that IF our society became that, there would likely be fewer transgender people, I would also theorize that is true. And if you believe that is a virtuous thing to pursue, let's both do so. But it's not a process that we can achieve overnight, and requires the support and progress of many others. Things have been progressing, but very slowly. Meanwhile, we have people who are suffering today, and who we have statistical evidence that there is a solution for what ails them. Why deny them this?