3 ms·

I can’t help but roll my eyes at mindless euphemisms like “attacking trans people.” There are very serious issues involving trans people with no easy answers.

I can’t help but roll my eyes at mindless euphemisms like “attacking trans people.” There are very serious issues involving trans people with no easy answers. Like allowing minors access to irreversible treatments. Like women’s sports. Like the safety of women only spaces. I bring this up because on so many questions like these, the progressive reaction is to shut down any discussion and isolate themselves from exposure to any ideas different from their own. It doesn’t work. And it doesn’t help anyone. And maybe this has something to do with why Facebook is migrating to a “Community Notes” model.

eynsham 2y ago
Is it not possible that ‘attacking trans people’ is both (sometimes) a euphemism for criticism of maximalist positions and (at other times) a perfectly normal term that designates approximately what ‘attacking x’ generally means? There is such a thing as an unsubstantive and utterly unpleasant insult explicitly motivated by the fact that its target is trans. Many trans people say that there are many such, and one does not need to believe everything that trans people say (surely with the result of inconsistency!) to think that the evidence they present is not wholly concocted. Others may misidentify respectable, good, or correct arguments as ‘attacks’ in narrower senses, but that no more makes the underlying categories meaningless than the misapplication of such descriptions as ‘true’, ‘valid’, ‘scientifically established’, or ‘by definition’. I have no general pithy answer to what one should do about the sorts of attack I have described, but I venture that it is reasonable to talk or attempt to do something about them. What term would you prefer?
- jimbokun 2y ago
  It’s possible theoretically. In practice people complaining about attacks on trans people almost always want to shut down discussion about related topics all together.
  - irisgrunn 2y ago
    Yes because it has no real life consequences like https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01979-5.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01979-5.epdf or https://goodlawproject.org/rise-of-deaths-young-trans-people/ https://goodlawproject.org/rise-of-deaths-young-trans-people...
  - eynsham 2y ago
    I think that it would help if you were to suggest a term people who don’t want to ‘shut down discussion about related topics all together’ should use. Otherwise, the effect (although perhaps not the intention) of deprecating the term ‘attacks on trans people’ is that the sort of discussion you admit is possible theoretically will be impossible for want of a suitable term to designate the sorts of attacks it concerns.
bsder 2y ago
[flagged]
- Dig1t 2y ago
  Calling a legitimate argument a "dog whistle" is a classic tactic OP is talking about which is used to shut down discussion. Just debate the merit of what he's saying rather than try to label him as an enemy. Breast reduction for children IS in fact irreversible. It causes huge scars and trying to get breast augmentation later is not actually restoring their body to its natural state. It is definitely something that is controversial. Also putting children on hormones is within scope of this conversation and DOES happen. There are lots of people who detransition and regret their decision. Children who have been sterilized for life and have permanent scars. It's completely valid to have discussions about whether kids should be able to make these decisions (they shouldn't).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - bsder 2y ago
    You are repeating the talking point without including the number: The number of those kinds of surgeries people claim to be "oh so concerned" about is in the low double digits--generally low single digits--normally zero in a year. When you get to some medical procedure that incredibly rare, the medical indications are generally really, really unique and should be left to doctors. (breast implants in girls are simply not done until 18+ unless cancer is involved, for example). Despite what people seem to think, doctors don't just do this stuff randomly (at least in the US). They can and will lose their license for doing this kind of thing unless they follow established guidelines. And all those guidelines dictate that this kind of stuff is simply not done until after 18 unless there are incredibly extenuating medical circumstances. > Breast reduction for children IS in fact irreversible. It causes huge scars and trying to get breast augmentation later is not actually restoring their body to its natural state. I have yet to meet a girl or woman who had breast reduction and regretted it. See: Soleil Moon Frye, for example. She had genuine health issues. And, even still, she had to fight with her doctors to get it done at 16 rather than wait until 18. > Children who have been sterilized for life and have permanent scars. Cite examples. I suspect vastly more children have been sterilized for life from circumcision complications than from any other gender surgery.
irisgrunn 2y ago
[flagged]
- jimbokun 2y ago
  The reversibility of puberty blockers is highly disputed. Whether and under what circumstances trans women have no advantage over cos women is a highly complex question. We already have men who freely admitted to claiming to be trans solely for the purpose of accessing women’s locker rooms.
  - irisgrunn 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - amyames 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - irisgrunn 2y ago
        Why wouldn't puberty blockers be reversible? What's dubious about that peer reviewed study ? Who's talking about males? Trans woman on HRT are not male, all biological processes in their bodies change because off the hormones
        dinkumthinkum 2y ago
        Where is your actual evidence puberty blockers are reversible? They are male. Their reproductive systems are organized around creating sperm not eggs. HRT does not change a male into a female. There are myriad aspects of biology that still makes them male and confers all such advantages in athletics. This is just reality.
        2y ago
sanktanglia 2y ago
I can't help but roll my eyes at "serious issues" you know in most states these anti trans laws were passes targeting handfuls of children in each state, sometimes a single child. But oh yes that's a serious issue for sure right now

eynsham 2y ago

Is it not possible that ‘attacking trans people’ is both (sometimes) a euphemism for criticism of maximalist positions and (at other times) a perfectly normal term that designates approximately what ‘attacking x’ generally means? There is such a thing as an unsubstantive and utterly unpleasant insult explicitly motivated by the fact that its target is trans. Many trans people say that there are many such, and one does not need to believe everything that trans people say (surely with the result of inconsistency!) to think that the evidence they present is not wholly concocted. Others may misidentify respectable, good, or correct arguments as ‘attacks’ in narrower senses, but that no more makes the underlying categories meaningless than the misapplication of such descriptions as ‘true’, ‘valid’, ‘scientifically established’, or ‘by definition’. I have no general pithy answer to what one should do about the sorts of attack I have described, but I venture that it is reasonable to talk or attempt to do something about them. What term would you prefer?

jimbokun 2y ago
It’s possible theoretically. In practice people complaining about attacks on trans people almost always want to shut down discussion about related topics all together.
- irisgrunn 2y ago
  Yes because it has no real life consequences like https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01979-5.epdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01979-5.epdf or https://goodlawproject.org/rise-of-deaths-young-trans-people/ https://goodlawproject.org/rise-of-deaths-young-trans-people...
- eynsham 2y ago
  I think that it would help if you were to suggest a term people who don’t want to ‘shut down discussion about related topics all together’ should use. Otherwise, the effect (although perhaps not the intention) of deprecating the term ‘attacks on trans people’ is that the sort of discussion you admit is possible theoretically will be impossible for want of a suitable term to designate the sorts of attacks it concerns.

bsder 2y ago

[flagged]

Dig1t 2y ago
Calling a legitimate argument a "dog whistle" is a classic tactic OP is talking about which is used to shut down discussion. Just debate the merit of what he's saying rather than try to label him as an enemy. Breast reduction for children IS in fact irreversible. It causes huge scars and trying to get breast augmentation later is not actually restoring their body to its natural state. It is definitely something that is controversial. Also putting children on hormones is within scope of this conversation and DOES happen. There are lots of people who detransition and regret their decision. Children who have been sterilized for life and have permanent scars. It's completely valid to have discussions about whether kids should be able to make these decisions (they shouldn't).
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bsder 2y ago
  You are repeating the talking point without including the number: The number of those kinds of surgeries people claim to be "oh so concerned" about is in the low double digits--generally low single digits--normally zero in a year. When you get to some medical procedure that incredibly rare, the medical indications are generally really, really unique and should be left to doctors. (breast implants in girls are simply not done until 18+ unless cancer is involved, for example). Despite what people seem to think, doctors don't just do this stuff randomly (at least in the US). They can and will lose their license for doing this kind of thing unless they follow established guidelines. And all those guidelines dictate that this kind of stuff is simply not done until after 18 unless there are incredibly extenuating medical circumstances. > Breast reduction for children IS in fact irreversible. It causes huge scars and trying to get breast augmentation later is not actually restoring their body to its natural state. I have yet to meet a girl or woman who had breast reduction and regretted it. See: Soleil Moon Frye, for example. She had genuine health issues. And, even still, she had to fight with her doctors to get it done at 16 rather than wait until 18. > Children who have been sterilized for life and have permanent scars. Cite examples. I suspect vastly more children have been sterilized for life from circumcision complications than from any other gender surgery.

irisgrunn 2y ago

[flagged]

jimbokun 2y ago
The reversibility of puberty blockers is highly disputed. Whether and under what circumstances trans women have no advantage over cos women is a highly complex question. We already have men who freely admitted to claiming to be trans solely for the purpose of accessing women’s locker rooms.
- irisgrunn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - amyames 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - irisgrunn 2y ago
      Why wouldn't puberty blockers be reversible? What's dubious about that peer reviewed study ? Who's talking about males? Trans woman on HRT are not male, all biological processes in their bodies change because off the hormones
      - dinkumthinkum 2y ago
        Where is your actual evidence puberty blockers are reversible? They are male. Their reproductive systems are organized around creating sperm not eggs. HRT does not change a male into a female. There are myriad aspects of biology that still makes them male and confers all such advantages in athletics. This is just reality.
      - 2y ago

sanktanglia 2y ago

I can't help but roll my eyes at "serious issues" you know in most states these anti trans laws were passes targeting handfuls of children in each state, sometimes a single child. But oh yes that's a serious issue for sure right now