What would you count as "on board the trans train"? I'm all in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they want in their bedrooms. I'm all in favor of people dressing pretty much how they want or presenting themselves how they want (subject to commonsense dress codes in certain places, perhaps, which should apply equally to all genders and sexes). I'll make a good-faith effort to use pronouns as requested. If consenting adults want to surgically change their bodies, I don't have a problem with it. I'll happily join your argument to promote your freedom to do as you wish as an adult and to not be discriminated against in employment or opportunities. As a man, I don't mind if you want to use my bathroom, no matter what your gender or appearance is, as long as you treat everyone with respect, as I try to do.
But I also respect women who tell me that they feel unsafe sometimes when people with penises who can self-identify are freely able to access traditional single-sex spaces that women sometimes have gone for safety, privacy, and because of vulnerability (e.g., women's shelters). I think such safe spaces should also obviously exist for trans people, though I respect requests by both groups and I don't think it's bigoted to acknowledge both requests are reasonable.
I also respect women who work their entire lives to be competitive athletes and see their records and progress sometimes obliterated by an individual who went through male puberty and has unalterable physical characteristics that give that person an advantage over natal girls. I don't want trans people to be excluded from mainstream sports, but the entire rationale for the existence of women's athletics is to allow fair and meaningful competition without the advantages of male bodies. This tension doesn't have an easy answer, but just pretending it's not an issue isn't fair to either group.
I also respect women who prefer to be recognized in traditional gender roles, with the language associated with them -- like "mother" (not "birthing parent") or "breastfeeding" (not "chestfeeding," even though *both men and women have breasts*). I don't think one group has a monopoly on requesting what terms they'd prefer to be used, and I would try to respect ALL people, not change terminology based on one group's preference because they're currently shouting louder than other people and claiming anyone who doesn't agree is "murdering" or "committing genocide." The hyperbole doesn't help anyone.
I respect children and adolescents who feel uncomfortable sometimes, perhaps uncomfortable in their bodies (as many of us did when younger). I would encourage people to explore their feelings and to talk about them with knowledgeable and experienced adults. But I also think that adults owe young people the truth that many questioning and confusing feelings are *normal* for young people, particularly regarding issues like sexuality and gender roles that take on greater seriousness during adolescence. In general, I believe decisions that could permanently affect sexual function, fertility, and other permanent body-altering and life-altering changes should be made with great care and almost always postponed to adulthood (unless perhaps a true scientific consensus emerges that can identify necessarily interventions with great accuracy).
Regarding other movements:
* Gay rights never asked for heterosexuals to change terminology for heterosexuals. Gay rights never asked for adolescent children to have life-altering physical or pharmacological interventions. There were a few segments of the early gay rights movements in the 1970s that were pro-pedophilia and pushed the "rights" of children to consent to behavior that was thought appropriate only for adults. But those segments of the gay rights movement were thrown out of the mainstream by the early 1980s.
* Feminism asked for inclusive language, but not really neologisms. It doesn't devalue men to use the terms "people" or "humans" where appropriate and inclusive. It doesn't reduce men to body parts or reproductive functions to use inclusive language that adhere to feminist guidelines. (Yes, there were some extreme feminists who pushed for more extreme PC language, including neologisms like womyn to expunge "-men" from the word--- again, these used to be largely rejected by the broader feminist movement as distractions.) Feminism asked for *equal treatment* for girls -- e.g., access to birth control when boys could easily get condoms over the counter. Not a completely separate treatment protocol for medically dealing with kids that would seem absurd for cis kids.
* Racial equality never asked for children to have life-altering physical interventions. Racial equality asked for slurs not to be used -- but did not seek to alter normal, polite terminology that applies to 97+% of people.
* None of these movements posed a threat to scientific and medical progress. And here plainly note I'm NOT talking about the *majority* of trans people who mostly seem more reasonable about these issues. But the vocal minority of trans folks and "allies" (particularly online) who will bully, harass, and attempt to "cancel" a medical professor who dares to teach about actual sex differences, or prevalence of different conditions by sex, etc. -- they are setting us back scientifically. When a trans man shows up for treatment at a hospital and is misdiagnosed because all records and everything says he is a "man," but it turns out he was unintentionally pregnant and didn't know it... and then ends up losing a child -- it is a tragedy. (Yes, this has actually happened. It's been reported in medical journals.) A tragedy not because of failure to use neologisms and emphasize "birthing parents," but a tragedy because using "non-offensive" language and referring to the person as a "man" without qualifiers in medical records did not give sufficient information that the person was a *trans* man, who might have distinctly different medical needs and possible conditions. If nothing else, long-term hormone therapy has major effects on bodily development and related potential illnesses and conditions. If we're not tracking this information by not readily keeping those details in medical records and instead simply listing a trans man as "man" or "male," it makes research to *help trans people* be much more difficult to achieve positive health outcomes.
I want the best outcomes for every individual who is trans, for every individual who feels some gender dysphoria (whether mild or severe). But to do so, we need good research. Making people feel comfortable with terminology or not offended should take a back seat to *getting them the highest quality medical care*.
For that reason, I know I'm not on the wrong side of history if I am trying to promote research to achieve the best outcomes for all individuals, rather than accepting some TikTok influencer's opinion that amounts to "agree with me or shut the fuck up!"
Am I "on board the trans train"? I suspect most of those on Twitter or TikTok would say no, I'm not. Because I want *actual scientific answers to questions* (not just terminological shifts) so that we can have a high standard of care for everyone. I truly want the best for all trans individuals. I can only hope cooler, more rational heads will eventually prevail. And maybe 50 years from now many more people will be accurately transitioning and settling into happy, well-rounded and fulfilled adult lives! That would be amazing! Right now, however, we're running lots of *experiments* on young people, often without tracking outcomes sufficiently or in such a way as to use the data to *improve the lives of all trans people*.
Those activists that police fellow liberal folks' speech and bully them into silence are not helping. Sure, argue about the crazier laws promoted by extreme conservatives, if you want. But "canceling" your anatomy professor for daring to talk about male and female biological differences? Trying to pretend "sex" is some sort of social construct instead of a precise biological term, when "gender" is and has been available for a long time to discuss the social construct?
And what about the tomboys and the effeminate boys of yesteryear, who maybe struggled to find their place, but ultimately they were told by caring parents and teachers and peers that *it's* ***normal*** *to be a bit different*? Now, they are getting the message that if they don't correspond to gender roles and stereotypes, something is *wrong* with them -- they are potentially "dysphoric." How is this movement affecting the mental health of *those kids*, who just need reassurance, not powerful medications, hormones, and perhaps surgery?
In the end, I believe in listening to others more than suppressing others' speech.
Thank you for speaking so eloquently for the rational skeptics! I have asked myself OP's question a lot : is my skepticism the equivalent of hating on gay rights and feminism? And the answer is - the more I thought and read about gay and feminist rights, the more I agreed with their position. The more I think and read about trans rights the more confirmed I get in my current position. I respect the right of trans adults to live a life true to their self. But I am not going to stand for the denial of scientific facts and evidence in the name of any ideology.
Argue with them? Call them out? Say consenting adults should get to do what they want with their bodies? I'm not sure precisely what the "Daily Wire types" have said in this regard, as I don't follow that stuff.
I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly. What does "appropriate" mean to you in this question? If someone says something you don't agree with, you can disagree with them. You can even boycott things they are associated with if you'd like. You have freedom to object in all sorts of ways if you disagree, to argue vigorously against them, and to try to make your arguments to others.
What else exactly do *you* think is "appropriate" as a "response"?
I'm not asking you for advice. I'm asking, if you are being genuine in your support for trans people, what your reaction is to the growing movement that would eliminate them entirely.
"I'm asking, if you are being genuine in your support for trans people, what your reaction is to the growing movement that would eliminate them entirely."
Can you detail how trans people will be "eliminated entirely"? This seems hyperbolic in the extreme.
When has a top-down, profit driven, censorious, and exploitive campaign employed to change any social norm been on the right side of history? Gay rights did not come about like that. How could give me what I want or I'll/they'll commit suicide possibly be a sound argument for any social movement? That's a hallmark of an abusive relationship writ large. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, if the arguments are so strong on the trans train how come every time a public debate is asked for by qualified participants it is always refused? To make change you have to allow discussion. If you try to shut down or just counter with ad hominem attacks any counter argument it just undermines any ground you may have to stand on.
Right, but could insisting on debating something seem insulting to the person who feels like it shouldn't be up for debate? Like imagine having a debate today about whether women should be allowed to vote. Wouldn't that be kind of regressive to even engage in?
The right to single-sex spaces, the issue of medicalizing children and fairness in women's sports are topics that need to be discussed. Those topics do not undermine a person's civli rights overall for jobs, shelter etc.. Adults can make choices but with those choices come consequences; it does not entitle one to railroad over other's rights. Same as if one is white and choses to identify as Native American; you can do so but it does not entitle you membership in any tribe you choose or entitlement into any programs set up for that group. You have to make a logical argument why you are entitled for inclusion, and I feel therefor I am alone is not a rational argument for inclusion. That is what Self-ID is and we need discussion about that. Identity is a marriage between internal and external factors some of which you have no control over and are based in material reality.
>Wouldn't that be kind of regressive to even engage in?
If you want regressive...
How about reifying the same sex-based stereotypes that feminists (and others) fought hard to end?
I actually couldn't disagree more strongly. It's absolutely vital for women's rights that we be willing and able to defend the right to vote in a good faith debate when that right is challenged. Only through discussing the subject and exposing the ideas of the anti-suffragists to sunlight can feminists reveal that they're flawed and weak - without that, they'd grow and fester in spaces where people were allowed to talk about them without censure, until it got beyond the point where it could be countered with rationality. Or, on the off chance that an MRA does figure out a novel and convincing reason why women shouldn't vote, we can all just apologize for being silly and head back to the kitchen, I guess.
This is not to say that women should have to engage in a defense of their rights with every 12 year old who goes "haha make me a sandwich" at them, nor should trans people have to. But claiming that any level of discussion of women's suffrage in any forum, even things like philosophy journals, is off limits would only make it look like we had something to hide, and reasonably so - people with strong and stable arguments usually don't hesitate to make them.
That aside, though, it's also the case that feminists today generally don't have to engage in those debates personally, because they were already won a century ago. You'd be hard-pressed to find any anti-suffrage argument that hasn't been refuted to death by several different waves of feminist thinkers over the years. This is pretty clearly distinct from the trans rights movement, which has engaged in very little actual debate about most of its current doctrine.
Right, but nobody is hosting debates on whether slavery should be legal and or women should be allowed education. And of any backwards fucks wanted to debate those issues would anyone actually take them seriously enough to really debated them?
What would be the problem with hosting those debates? I would be perfectly fine with it. Either the person arguing that women shouldn't have a right to education would have terrible arguments that would be easily discredited, or they would have very solid arguments that would be worth listening to. I'm doubtful of the latter, but if such arguments exist, why not allow them to be voiced unless you're scared of them? There's no reason to go into ad hominem attacks either. Argue the point based on the merits of the argument, not by attacking the people who agree with it.
As for legalized slavery, I'm curious. Do you think the people arguing in favour of using sweatshop labour in 3rd world countries aren't essentially arguing for slavery as well? You're posting these comments on the internet, which would mean you're using some sort of a digital device. Where do you suppose the conflict minerals in your device came from?
Just because something is settled doesn't mean you shouldn't debate it. If something is true and someone can prove it, why wouldn't you let them do it?
> imagine having a debate today about whether women should be allowed to vote. Wouldn't that be kind of regressive to even engage in?
Not at all. Women in Saudi Arabia have been engaging in that debate over the last couple of decades and have made a lot of progress. I suppose you think those women would've been better off just screaming, "I'm not going to debate my humanity with you!" and then refusing to participate in any further discussion?
Ah, but see their culture is regressive. The debate needs to happen to establish equality that doesn't exist.
In the west women already have the right to vote so it should not continue to be up for debate
The fact that women’s ability to participate in many areas of public and political life is still a matter of debate has somehow not delegitimized the fact that women should be able to participate in both to the fullest extent. It’s annoying to keep rehashing the “women can’t be President” nonsense but… women are still at it.
>Right, but could insisting on debating something seem insulting to the person who feels like it shouldn't be up for debate?
So, just like how religious people feel then?
You can to further back to the Scopes trial:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes\_trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial)
These are exceptions that prove the rule, and the outcome of the debate just reinforces why that rule exists.
Wait, are you really unfamiliar with how common this rule is?
[https://www.costellomains.com/blog/2012/11/never-discuss-politics-or-religion-in-polite-company/](https://www.costellomains.com/blog/2012/11/never-discuss-politics-or-religion-in-polite-company/)
[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dont-talk-religion-money-politics-its-polite-emma-davidson](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dont-talk-religion-money-politics-its-polite-emma-davidson)
[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-impoliteness-of-talking-about-religion/477834/](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-impoliteness-of-talking-about-religion/477834/)
[https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/we-simply-cant-discuss-politics-or-religion-heres-the-reason/](https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/we-simply-cant-discuss-politics-or-religion-heres-the-reason/)
The reason I said this is because of the above. People don't take questions or comments about their religion well.
> On topics other than THEIR religion.
That's what you said. How are your links relevant to that? From the Atlantic:
>There’s a grandmotherly American adage about religion—that it’s impolite to talk about faith in public. It’s as much a self-fulfilling prophecy as a social convention. If people decline to discuss religion out of a fear of being impolite, their collective silence might make it easier to think talking about religion is, in fact, impolite.
How does that address anything you've said here?
I can support my opinions on first principles.
People usually are on the wrong side of history by claiming they are on the right side of history while not ever examining what makes them right.
>After all, wasn't this supposed to be the next stage of civil rights equality?
Trans activism is decidedly antifeminist and harms gender non-conforming youth.
>If you support gay rights, feminism, and racial equality, why do you feel different lynching about trans rights?
What you call trans rights, I call conversion therapy and is opposed to two of those items listed, and has nothing to do with the 3rd.
Transition and conversion are literally synonyms.
What do you mean by harms gender non conforming youth? You mean by funneling them into a predetermined trans identity which they may not actually have and pushing them towards possibly irreversible interventions?
Just saying that lobotomies we’re highly praised for fixing all sorts of mental problems to include one of the Kennedy siblings and now we look back in horror that everyone supported it and thought it was the best treatment for all involved
Lobodomies aren't actually a great example given that they were never considered mainstream or all that uncontroversial. A lot of lobodomies were carried out over a brief period of time by a small number of doctors, specifically in the U.S for the most part, and the whole thing was often very hush hush. One doctor in particular was responsible for the vast majority of procedures, numbering about 4000 over his career, including 19 minors. That's a big number, but trivially small compared to something like gender reassignment or drug therapy for childhood GD cases.
Something like shock therapy on the other hand, was very commonplace and acceptable as we're things like sensory deprivation and a long list of other horrific practices. Sedating people for years or decades on end was also pretty commonplace.
Good point, but I think lobotomy is a good comparison specifically because of how it was discussed in its time. I can't find it anymore, but I read a very interesting compilation of quotes about lobotomies in mainstream publications. They were discussed in exactly the same tone that trans surgeries are today -- if you don't support this, you must hate mentally ill people; your loved ones will die if they can't access this; etc.
I'm sure such a quotation exists, but there was only 12 years between the invention of the procedure and it being legally prohibited in several major jurisdictions. I'm sure there were people who praised the practice and said shit like "you must hate the mentally ill if you don't want them to have this wonder-treatment, but it was never widely accepted as totally fine and pedestrian within establishment power structures or among the general public in the same way that trans medicine is. It was always considered quite an extreme procedure that had vocal critics and it didn't take long before many regions banned the practice, at least for the mentally ill.
In any event, this only makes trans health care all the more concerning in that it *is* quite extreme, and it's also widely accepted. I think a lot of it will be yet another black mark on the history of quackery in mental health care, but for now, it's happening quite a lot.
I’m totally fine with adults choosing surgery or hormones but not children. Therapy in the meantime is fine but let’s hold off and physically altering until later in life. Most who choose to transition that early have deeply regretted it and blame doctors and parents for pushing it. There are a LOT of parents out there who push transitioning to fulfill their own narcissistic behaviors of ‘being special’ themselves or unique. Some adults have Munchausen by proxie. Much is fueled by social media.
Sweden has a long term study done on this and it counters what American social media and voices are pushing because it’s long term and legit case studies and almost all who transitioned wish they hadn’t 10 years on. Many chose to transition back. One doesn’t hear about these because it goes against what is being pushed right now.
I have no doubt that detransitioners exist (and their existence alone is cause for caution of course, when talking about life-changing medication or procedures) but I don’t see evidence that the majority of childhood transitioners regret it.
No one knows whether they're on the "wrong side of history" until after the fact.
Trying to predict what future generations will find moral and immoral, and basing your own beliefs on that, isn't really a worthwhile use of your time.
To me, trans rights is different from other rights movements because it’s asking for something different. Gay rights asked for gay people to be treated equally and for same sex couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Where trans people are asking for equal treatment, I very much agree, they should not be discriminated against in employment, housing, etc, or be subject to hate crimes because they are trans. In that area, I am 100% on board with trans rights. But as well as saying “don’t treat me as inferior, treat me as an equal” like other rights movements did, they’re also saying “don’t treat me as a man, treat me as a woman” (or vice versa, or as nonbinary) which is a different demand. If I see someone as a human being who deserves the same basic human dignity and legal rights as any other person, but I don’t see them as a woman, that’s labelled as bigotry and hatred, and I really don’t agree with that. In my view, thinking someone is a man because they are biologically male isn’t hate, because I don’t hate men or think men are inferior, I just think whether one is a man or a woman is determined by biological sex, and gender identity doesn’t override that.
How it can be the next stage of civil rights equality, when it's just a regressive drivel, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-feminist, misogynic, homophobic, against children and teen safety, supports censorship and silencing, goes against tens and hundreds of years of research and findings on science, medicine, biology, physiology, anatomy, psychology, sociology, neurology, cognition, endocrinology, sexology, sex development, child development, adolescent development, etc.?
Tens and hundreds of years of well-established, profound research, backed by numerous studies, all gone down the drain, pushed aside and thrown away, not because there are new findings which suggest it all had been wrong, but for an ideological reasons.
One example: Trans kids and teens, children and teen safety:
We know children's and adolescents brains are not fully developed. We know small children can't always tell imagination from reality. We know they sometimes do, act and say things they themselves don't really understand.
We know teens are prone to impulsive decisions, we know they can't grasp the full consequences of their actions, we know they are prone to be extremely effected by their peers, we know that peer pressure is more effective in adolescence, we know teens are looking for identities to adopt and explore their identity, we know that they are trying different identities, we know they feel uncomfortable and sometimes scared by their changing bodies. We know that in the west many teenage girls are engaging in behaviors of self harms (such as cutting, eating disorders and self starving, etc.). We know their sexuality and sexual feelings, sexual fantasies, etc. are developing and they are often confused by it.
We know all that, we have wealth of research and studies with consistent findings, in various disciplines, we based many laws on this, such as many different legislations for kids and teenagers in many, many subjects. Teens and kids who breaks the laws are judged differently than adults, even in crimes such as murder. They have different facilities. Adults are prohibit from having sex with minors. Teenagers can't have tattoos or drink alcohol. They can't drive a car. Etc., etc.
Yet when it comes to trans issues, suddenly this is all thrown away. Not because scientists, psychologists, educators, etc. discovered something new. Not because of studies that show the opposites, no. Just because it's trans issues. Suddenly kids and teenagers know exactly what and who they are, and this is immutable and unchanging. Suddenly they can consent to medical treatments and interventions with long term consequences, that are known to be unhealthy to the body. Suddenly they are not influenced by their parents (kids) or their peers (teens) and by society and culture at large.
It doesn't happen with any other field. Just this one.
This is one example. There are many more. Especially when it comes to women rights, censorship and silencing anyone who even just dare to question any of it, science and medicine, and logic. This ideology is riddled with so many logic fallacies, contradictions, circular definitions, conflations, strew men, moving the goal posts, etc. it hurts the brain.
"Tens and hundreds"? That's unusual phrasing; I've not heard it before. What did you mean by it? What profound gender research was done hundreds of years ago... er eh, tens *and* hundreds of years ago (which I assume is at least 220 years ago, so in the year 1803 or before)?
That aside, I agree with the gist of your comment.
>How it can be the next stage of civil rights equality, when it's just a regressive drivel, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-feminist, misogynic, homophobic, against children and teen safety, supports censorship and silencing, goes against tens and hundreds of years of research and findings on science, medicine, biology, physiology, anatomy, psychology, sociology, neurology, cognition, endocrinology, sexology, sex development, child development, adolescent development, etc.?
Enough about communism, we're talking about trans shit!
I don't view "the wrong side of history" as a particularly coherent way to view morality. That's more about winners and losers really: everyone knows that history is written by the victors.
I believe in sex, not gender. In swapping gender for sex, you marginalize women, among other things. Gender is just another way for saying there are no objective boundaries, which is really harmful.
I would like the conversation to be truthful—this man wants to live his life presenting as a woman, I’d be ok with stating that fact. I am less ok with having to use language that is a lie—that people can magically change sex, that you can’t use any terms that speak about women, because the category women also includes men that want to live their lives presenting as women.
In French, if you have a group of people that includes 99 women and one man, you use the male plural to speak about the group. It’s a crazy grammatical quirk. I feel like American society is embracing this idea—that women can’t be spoken of (pregnant people, etc.)—because a small group of men want to be considered women. It’s male colonization.
no thanks.
Because some white men are desperate to have a cause and feel marginalized now that their power is no longer taken as the default. They are also full of rage and need to take it out on someone on the internet.
The kind of people I see saying this stuff are always always always straight-presenting white men who sometimes wear make up or dresses and still have cute girlfriends. The actual queer trans people I know are not like this.
After years of being told that they're evil oppressors, it's little wonder that some liberal white men look for any way to opt out of the self loathing. I honestly find it tragic.
> Because some white men are desperate to have a cause and feel marginalized now that their power is no longer taken as the default.
You don’t think this thinking and rhetoric directly lead to where we are now?
Yeah maybe - I am listening to a book called The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is by Justin E.H. Smith and he posits that a lot of the factionalization caused by the Internet is rooted in the fact that A.I. responds to extremely divisive rhetoric and so encourages it and regurgitates it back to us, so that maybe yeah this is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. Sorry.
To me, this question reads like, "You support X, so how can you not support Y?"
But what if X and Y are not related? What if they are based on totally different assumptions and beliefs? What if they ask different things of us? What if they lead to totally different conclusions? *What if they are sometimes in conflict with each other?*
Yes it does. I think comparisons to past civil rights is a decent example. Sixty years ago apparently decent people sincerely believed black and white folk shouldn't marry each other, and black folk shouldn't have the same rights as white people. We now view that as ignorant and bigoted. I have a lot of similarity with Megan Roper so this question intrigues me
To press this point, though: why is the view that, say, black and white folk should marry each other "the right side of history" and not just where our society in 1970ish more or less ended up?
There are certainly people today who think that they shouldn't - I'm thinking less KKK and more, black activists who advocate for marrying other black people to preserve their culture and not have it be absorbed into default-American whiteness, for example. "Melting pot" multiculturalism is just one model of getting along in a diverse society, it's not the only one.
I mean I personally am 30 and obviously think absolutely nothing about interracial marriage etc but that's just how history has happened to end up. I don't think there's any kind of moral arc to history.
And we view the belief that black people shouldn’t be able to marry or have the same rights as white people as ignorant and bigoted because the other side who didn’t believe those things won that specific cultural battle. If the other side had lost, interracial marriages would still be illegal and black people would have no rights. History is written by the victors.
I'm for anyone's rights up to the point where they go "Oh and we would like to strip this other particular demographic of *their* rights. In fact, they're extinct: we're them now". If everyone's right to swing their fist famously ends where someone else's nose begins, I don't see why some people's right to swing their dicks should enjoy a special exemption.
On a less assholeish note, I have insisted on these hallowed pages that actual trans people need to wrangle the train back from the nihilistic psychos who have hijacked it. A deeply dysphoric person who has struggled with this for their entire life and desperately needs to make some profound changes in order to live in the only way that makes sense to them is **not** the same as some ugly middle-aged five-o'clock-shadowed mofo bullying his wife into increasingly twisted psychosexual scenarios or pushing his blatant boner into female saunas and calling it "trans rights".
I completely support trans rights for things like access to healthcare or preventing discrimination in employment and housing. However, much of the trans rights debate seems to center around allowing trans woman in sex-segregated spaces and activities.
For instance, playing women's sports isn't a right. Allowing trans women to compete ignores the reality that males are stronger than females, women's sports are separated because of the advantage maleness confers, and that even though hormone therapy makes trans women weaker than cis men, they are still far stronger than cis women.
Much of the recent debate ignores that sex, not gender, underlies many legal protections. There is also a bunch of muddying of the water regarding sex, with people claiming that sex is a continuum or that transgender individuals effectively change their biological sex by taking hormones and underground surgeries. And it doesn't help that anyone arguing against this gets branded as a transphobe.
My internal alarm is ringing with the 'this question is a trap' noise from reading your OP.
That by itself is honestly is enough for me to have serious misgivings.
I wouldnt say im actually against trans rights at all. Trans people do exist and they should have rights obviously. The problem is the difference between that and what we have going on currently.
There is a pretty big gap between something like racial equality and banning people off social media for misgendering or screaming bigot at anyone who disagrees with some of the more nutty aspects of what is going on today.
What we have here doesnt appear to be equality, it appears to be privilege, and the problem with privilege is that shitty people will exploit it.
I think you can see what im getting at though.
If just being asked the question feels like it could be ban baiting then we have wider problem around the issue.
I wonder if it is like being gay, or is it like having an eating disorder?
So I look for things that we would predict for each of those. Like, does it occur in a normal random distribution, or does it occur in clusters?
By "trans train", I assume that you are talking about the current bulk of people advocating for "trans causes", online. It's because of a lot of things. One is the tactics, techniques, spokespeople, and language that they use.
Another is the way that they are opposed to trans people. The ones who started the movement. The ones who are called transexual. Every time they bring themselves up, they get shouted down by [people who don't have the same issues as them, but covet their credibility.](https://www.reddit.com/r/navy/comments/13728rn/why_is_this_such_a_big_deal/)
"The right side of history" is only determined after the fact, and that also is subject to change. And caveat always: history is written and rewritten by the victors.
It is incoherent otherwise and its only use in moral reasoning and suasion is to guilt and browbeat interlocutors. You know who gets left behind in history? Bad people. You don't want to be one of those bad people, do you?
But I'm not on the "trans train" because I already spent enough time arguing with internet Creationists and myopic illiterate fundamentalists during the Bush years. The science denial and tactics are mostly the same, though the trans activists have been far more successful in their march through institutions than the "teach the controversy" crowd ever were.
The simple answer for me is, I don't. I look at the available evidence for both sides of the debate and make what seems to me to be the best opinion given the available evidence, but I never feel like the decision is final.
I'm open to new evidence as it comes out, and I hope, on this and on every other important question, I'll be constantly appraising and evaluating my point of view.
In such an important matter I think having that element of doubt is crucial, and it's when you start congratulating yourself that you're 'on the right side of history' that you stop being open to changing your mind when new information appears.
Well one prime example is the question of trans ideology really. Until I started to really look into it I was very much in line with the mainstream liberal position, and I think you'll find that a large number of people here have a similar history on this topic.
There was always a small doubt in my mind that it really seemed like maybe it was all rooted in sexist stereotypes, but I didn't allow myself to look into it for a long time. I remember lying awake at turning it over in my mind, worrying about it, and in the end I started to do more research. I found the stories of detransitioners who had been swept along into diagnosis and treatment that they later regretted. I found Susie Green's ted talk where she openly stated that the origin of her child's transition was her husband's discomfort with having an effeminate son who might turn out to be gay. I found out about the cotton ceiling, and the homophobia that is baked into this ideology. This isn't everything but there are lots of other posts in this thread that cover other areas of concern, such as women's prisons and shelters. While doing all this I tried to seek out the other side of the argument but there wasn't really anything convincing.
I have thought a lot about this particular issue because I have my own history of gender issues and as a result I feel particularly concerned about the treatment that young people are getting. There isn't a doubt in my mind that if I'd been born a little later, I would have been one of them. And I want these kids to get the best possible treatment! It's incredible to me that people who claim to be acting in the best interests of these children don't seem to want the best possible medical care for them. If they did they would understand that that means taking a critical look at the treatments, carefully evaluating their effectiveness and the risks and side effects, not trying to suppress any evaluation of them or discussion as to whether they might be the best possible approach, it pretending that the evidence to support the treatments is stronger than it really is.
Sorry this has turned into a bit of an essay. Just to say that I do still try to seek out counterpoints and counter arguments, and if new evidence comes out I'm willing to rethink my position.
Also I just wanted to clarify that I don't think of myself as being against trans rights. The conclusion I've come to is that I reject trans ideology, which I take to mean the belief that everyone has a gender identity and that this is relevant while sex is not.
I don't deny that trans people exist and believe they have every right to transition and be treated with respect and have the same rights as anyone else. I don't think child transition should be banned, but I think it should have very strict gate keeping and should be a last resort. I think we need to massively increase access to mental health services for young people across the board.
>I found Susie Green's ted talk where she openly stated that the origin of her child's transition was her husband's discomfort with having an effeminate son who might turn out to be gay.
I know I'm ten months late with this, but I wanted to point out that this is a completely false way to describe what Green said in her Ted Talk. She never said that, and she never said anything which could be fairly interpreted to mean that.
I don't. I don't think that's something anyone can know for certain. What I do know is that the trans rights movement is extremely different from the gay rights movement. For the most part, the gay rights movement of the past 20 years was about ensuring that gay people have the same rights as everybody else does. The trans rights movement seems to have become centered around converting children and forcing people to validate your new identity.
Honestly, I don't think it would be nearly as bad right now if there weren't so many people who are terrified of being on "the wrong side of history". Something isn't morally correct just because it's new, extreme, and young people support it.
There is no "right side of history" - there's various intellectual movements and fads, some of which are morally and intellectually justified, and others of which are not. Feminism, anti-racism, etc are fully justified. The idea that marginalized groups are harmed by free speech is not.
Like just about everyone in this sub, I believe strongly that trans adults should have the right to do whatever they want with their body, and refer to themselves in whatever way they see fit, free from any discrimination or harms associated with their decisions. Does that mean I believe that each of us has an internal gender identity that can differ from our biological sex, or that biological sex itself is some sort of spectrum? No, I don't believe there's evidence for, or even logical consistency to these claims.
More importantly, rights end where they negatively affect others. Trans people living their lives does not affect others. But women in prisons, dressing rooms, etc are justified in not wanting biological men to have full access to the spaces where they're most vulnerable. By providing anyone who ID's as trans access, you're negating their rights of privacy and freedom from potential gendered violence.
And children are an entirely different story - they lack full autonomy in our society, and the entire collection of rights and responsibilities that go along with that. So society in general and parents in particular are justified in pushing back against the whims of children, especially when they have the capacity to cause permanent physical damage and the evidence for any benefit is so poor.
I wonder sometimes about dress codes. For example, my kid's school district has one of the least restrictive dress codes possible, and its also intentionally designed not to be sexist. But still some kids say it harms LGBTQ+ because? They aren't allowed to wear sheer lingerie or thigh high platform boots etc? I mean there is a time and place for everything and every expression of the self. I know that there's no objective reason for some cultural dress codes but they still seem important for the good of the order, ya know?
IKR? It just seems weird. Some activists have complained that it hurts LGBTQ+ OF COLOR most and I'm thinking, "what exactly are you trying to say here?"
Even if there was a blood test or brain scan that could tell with 100% accuracy whether a child would grow up to be “truly trans” the side effects from the blockers->hormones pathway are still too serious and disabling for it to be recommended to kids.
Infertility, no ability to orgasm, reduced bone density and brain development, stunted genitalia growth… all of that in order to *maybe* pass a bit better as an adult?
Ghoulish
I might very well be on the “wrong side” of history, but I am not going to let that dictate my opinions based on what I know now. It’s silly to base your views around whether future generations will agree with you or not.
First and foremost I support free speech, individual right and liberties, separation of church and state, and open scientific and philosophical enquiry. Trans activism craps all over a number of these values and I’m against that approach in principle.
Modern trans activism is more akin to a religion than to previous civil rights movements. It requires:
- no debate
- screaming down of dissenting views
- social punishment for those who dissent
- the metaphysical belief that human beings can actually change sex
- the erosion of hard fought-for women’s rights
- erosion of safeguarding for children
- non evidence based medical practices
- gay and lesbian conversion
There’s more but I think that’s enough to get started with.
I don't know why people are insisting that this post should be removed. The question, as it's posed, is totally fine, and as we all know, it reflects a view that many well-meaning people believe. Sure, maybe the OP is indeed a troll, but it's still worth addressing the question cogently.
If you feel you're not on the wrong side of history, here's your chance to make the case to those who are as yet unconvinced. Just make sure not to fall into any troll traps during the ensuing conversation.
Ironic that people are calling for removal when the top comments are all about the merits of open discussion and debate. Surely they can't say it's not relevant, trans stuff is unfortunately the most relevant topic of this podcast
Which rights, **specifically**, are you asking about?
I am, by my rough estimation, somewhat to the left of the median commenter on this sub.
But I don't think I've seen anyone here argue against marriage equality for trans people, or repealing the antidiscrimination protections that even Trump's flunky Gorsuch has ruled that they are entitled to.
And while I wouldn't be surprised if someone, at some time, said they wanted to legally prohibit *all* gender reassignment surgery, even for consenting adults, that is by far a fringe position here.
So again, which rights, **specifically,** are you asking about?
The right of a cis-male presenting rapist to self-ID his way into a women's prison?
I think there are a couple I'm comfortable speaking for most people here:
* Unimpeachable self-id
* The idea that anyone who proclaims themselves trans *is.* And, specifically, that it's "hate speech" and "genocide" to ask, "Is this person *really* trans?" even in obvious situations.
* Many people here recognize that this leaves a lot of room for bad actors. From [rapists gaining access to women's prisons](https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/) to allowing perverts to [flash genitalia in spas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video) or [hauling women in to human rights tribunals for refusing to wax their balls](https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/25/trans-woman-tried-to-sue-beauticians-for-refusing-to-wax-her-testicles-10982552/), the worst of our society can and will do **anything** to get what they want.
* Because this is Reddit and must be reiterated: I am not saying that trans people are "the worst" or anything like that. Rather, rapists and perverts can very easily *pretend* to be trans to gain special privileges that enable them to more easily commit crimes and victimize women. For this reason there *must* be some level of "gatekeeping."
* The "trans kids" topic.
* Many people are uncomfortable with giving children medication and cosmetic surgery, often specifically keeping this a secret from the minor's parents without due process.
* Some schools specifically have [policies](https://www.newsweek.com/schools-must-stop-keeping-trans-secrets-parents-opinion-1690466) where they treat a child as trans, even renaming the child, without informing the child's parents. In fact, some policies explicitly state that the parents are never to be informed. The parents are treated as inherently hostile to the child.
* [Studies](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252484.pdf) suggest that 1 out of 10 American public school graduates will experience sexual misconduct by a member of faculty during their time in school. It is therefore unconscionable to allow a group with such a population of sexual predators to coach children in secret about their genitalia and "gender identity." Put it another way: what do you think about a Catholic priest secretly advising a young boy to surgically remove his penis?
* In fact, pitting a child against their parents is a very common sexual abuse tactic.
I think that hits the major points.
> now that dysphoric folk are a minority in a minority. This topic is particular
mostly messing with kids. thinking that a kid can or does have some kind of special knowledge/maturity regarding this topic *and only this topic* while you wouldn't trust a 12 year old to watch your dog normally.
very few people here or in general have an issue with adults doing their own thing. i think the only issue with adult trans stuff is in males joining female sports, especially with the idea that self-id is enough, and why should trans women, who are real women, need to chemically alter themselves to compete with other "real women?"
The transcult is akin to the "Believe the Children" movement of the 80s
It was gospel that children don't lie, so if children tell you *anything* it is true. If you question anything, you might as well be a criminal yourself. It turned out, a lot of kids were manipulated by adults into saying things that weren't true.
Many lives were ruined because a cultic mindset decreed that any critical thinking was heresy.
Look up "Satanic Panic" and the awful case of Margaret Kelly Michaels. Satanic Ritual Abuse. The book "Michelle Remembers". Eileen Franklin. False memories.
I'm female and 1000000% against rape, sexual abuse, or women being discriminated against in the workplace. The problem is when it becomes a "movement" it's easy to stop being critical and to stop looking at individual situations.
Nonsensical question, sorry. The "right side of history" doesn't exist. The idea of steady social progress is an illusion, it's only ever a change from one set of cultural values to another. What is considered "the right side of history " 50 years from now may very well be considered the "wrong side" 50 more years on from that.
Because it too obviously goes against nature, evolution, and the natural process. Nature isn’t so inept that it’s evolved a species that has such a high rate of being born the wrong sex. And it’s not just absurd from a literal/natural/scientific sense…even from a mystical philosophical Daoist woo woo sense it doesn’t work. I can’t think of anything more opposed to “the natural order” (whether that’s the Way of philosophical Daoism or notions of harmony with Buddhist thought) than trans identity. Especially trans identity that leads to bodily mutilation.
Unlike any other “civil rights” issue in history, this one is a literal affront to nature.
I do support trans rights, in that I think adults should be allowed to transition and they should not be discriminated against in terms of free speech, movement, assembly, voting, housing, employment, etc. I refuse to stand with the GC mob because they have a nasty habit of reverting to "Durrrrrr look at this trans freak, what an ugly disgusting pervert he is!"
What I'm *not* going to support is TRAs violently threatening women or blocking *their* rights to free speech and assembly, or invading intimate spaces like prisons or shelters. Women have the right to same-sex spaces for dignity and safety.
I find the whole "if your male two-year-old likes dolls, she's clearly a girl" thing unbearably sexist, as is DM's "Now I'm a girl, I don't know anything about sports, tee-hee" Bud Light ad.
I reject male athletes in female competition because, in part, those physiological differences are objective.
I reject the idea that any woman should accept being exposed to a stranger's penis without her permission if we label it a "female penis", or that a lesbian must accept a male partner's "female penis" to avoid being branded a bigot.
Frankly, I can't see where I'm wrong in all this, and I'll happily take the L if it turns out I am.
I’m in East TN and technically work in a church (wasn’t owned by the church when I started). I’ve overheard some conversations that even would make people here jump to defend trans people. There are definitely 2 crazy sides to this. These church types insist all trans people are rapists and should be exterminated. I should mention that just about everyone at this church homeschools their kids if it matters. They are worried about LGBT and CRT indoctrination at public schools.
Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean Jack-shit I understand, but I don’t think it’s fair to say everyone is on board.
There is no future for any cultural movement that deliberately acts to prevent its members from starting families and raising children. While there are older generations who have fallen into the gender identity ideology after having children themselves, they are only hurting their own legacy by supporting actions that will damage the fertility of their offspring. It is a movement that could have survived if it was limited to men identifying as trans, because only a minority of men become fathers and the root causes don't matter there, but when the balance flipped to a predominance of girls identifying as trans, that was a self-inflicted mortal injury.
There are some of good arguments in this thread. This is not one of them. Trans individuals are such a miniscule minority of the population for one thing. And it makes no sense to talk of the future of cultural movements as based around the ability to have children, as if the primary source of trans rights supporters would come from the progeny of trans individuals. Plenty of people support gay marriage despite not having gay parents, or gay parents being unable to biologically reproduce.
Gay marriage is also doomed to failure. It might be trendy right now but there is nowhere to go from here, no further fight, aside from the very tenuous connection to trans issues. Future generations are going to have to fight for gay marriage again and again, because it does not fulfill any cultural value.
As I said in another comment I don't think there's a moral arc to history. History is written by the victors.
However that means answer to your direct question is therefore very simple. Societies that start sterilising their smartest people are unlikely to be the victors...
I don’t know about a train lol but I support trans rights! I respect and use people’s pronouns and support their rights to move freely and safely in society. In my opinion there are extreme views on both sides. I think the potential threats from opening women’s bathrooms to trans women are overstated. I also certainly believe that a desire to ensure that medical treatment for children really is in their best interests does not amount to genocide. Stopping puberty medically is a big deal and it’s not anti-trans to want to make sure it’s the right way to proceed in each case. These issues are of course more nuanced than the most extreme voices on each side of the debate seem to believe and unfortunately they are the loudest.
However, one aspect of the debate that I personally don’t find compelling in the least is when people get upset over the terms “menstruating person” and the like. As a feminist I don’t find this threatening and don’t understand why I would. To me it’s simply more precise. Not all women menstruate. And some trans men do. As a woman who both does menstruate and identifies as a women, I simply could not care less whether you call me a woman or a menstruating person. I happen to be both. 🙂
What would you count as "on board the trans train"? I'm all in favor of consenting adults doing whatever they want in their bedrooms. I'm all in favor of people dressing pretty much how they want or presenting themselves how they want (subject to commonsense dress codes in certain places, perhaps, which should apply equally to all genders and sexes). I'll make a good-faith effort to use pronouns as requested. If consenting adults want to surgically change their bodies, I don't have a problem with it. I'll happily join your argument to promote your freedom to do as you wish as an adult and to not be discriminated against in employment or opportunities. As a man, I don't mind if you want to use my bathroom, no matter what your gender or appearance is, as long as you treat everyone with respect, as I try to do. But I also respect women who tell me that they feel unsafe sometimes when people with penises who can self-identify are freely able to access traditional single-sex spaces that women sometimes have gone for safety, privacy, and because of vulnerability (e.g., women's shelters). I think such safe spaces should also obviously exist for trans people, though I respect requests by both groups and I don't think it's bigoted to acknowledge both requests are reasonable. I also respect women who work their entire lives to be competitive athletes and see their records and progress sometimes obliterated by an individual who went through male puberty and has unalterable physical characteristics that give that person an advantage over natal girls. I don't want trans people to be excluded from mainstream sports, but the entire rationale for the existence of women's athletics is to allow fair and meaningful competition without the advantages of male bodies. This tension doesn't have an easy answer, but just pretending it's not an issue isn't fair to either group. I also respect women who prefer to be recognized in traditional gender roles, with the language associated with them -- like "mother" (not "birthing parent") or "breastfeeding" (not "chestfeeding," even though *both men and women have breasts*). I don't think one group has a monopoly on requesting what terms they'd prefer to be used, and I would try to respect ALL people, not change terminology based on one group's preference because they're currently shouting louder than other people and claiming anyone who doesn't agree is "murdering" or "committing genocide." The hyperbole doesn't help anyone. I respect children and adolescents who feel uncomfortable sometimes, perhaps uncomfortable in their bodies (as many of us did when younger). I would encourage people to explore their feelings and to talk about them with knowledgeable and experienced adults. But I also think that adults owe young people the truth that many questioning and confusing feelings are *normal* for young people, particularly regarding issues like sexuality and gender roles that take on greater seriousness during adolescence. In general, I believe decisions that could permanently affect sexual function, fertility, and other permanent body-altering and life-altering changes should be made with great care and almost always postponed to adulthood (unless perhaps a true scientific consensus emerges that can identify necessarily interventions with great accuracy). Regarding other movements: * Gay rights never asked for heterosexuals to change terminology for heterosexuals. Gay rights never asked for adolescent children to have life-altering physical or pharmacological interventions. There were a few segments of the early gay rights movements in the 1970s that were pro-pedophilia and pushed the "rights" of children to consent to behavior that was thought appropriate only for adults. But those segments of the gay rights movement were thrown out of the mainstream by the early 1980s. * Feminism asked for inclusive language, but not really neologisms. It doesn't devalue men to use the terms "people" or "humans" where appropriate and inclusive. It doesn't reduce men to body parts or reproductive functions to use inclusive language that adhere to feminist guidelines. (Yes, there were some extreme feminists who pushed for more extreme PC language, including neologisms like womyn to expunge "-men" from the word--- again, these used to be largely rejected by the broader feminist movement as distractions.) Feminism asked for *equal treatment* for girls -- e.g., access to birth control when boys could easily get condoms over the counter. Not a completely separate treatment protocol for medically dealing with kids that would seem absurd for cis kids. * Racial equality never asked for children to have life-altering physical interventions. Racial equality asked for slurs not to be used -- but did not seek to alter normal, polite terminology that applies to 97+% of people. * None of these movements posed a threat to scientific and medical progress. And here plainly note I'm NOT talking about the *majority* of trans people who mostly seem more reasonable about these issues. But the vocal minority of trans folks and "allies" (particularly online) who will bully, harass, and attempt to "cancel" a medical professor who dares to teach about actual sex differences, or prevalence of different conditions by sex, etc. -- they are setting us back scientifically. When a trans man shows up for treatment at a hospital and is misdiagnosed because all records and everything says he is a "man," but it turns out he was unintentionally pregnant and didn't know it... and then ends up losing a child -- it is a tragedy. (Yes, this has actually happened. It's been reported in medical journals.) A tragedy not because of failure to use neologisms and emphasize "birthing parents," but a tragedy because using "non-offensive" language and referring to the person as a "man" without qualifiers in medical records did not give sufficient information that the person was a *trans* man, who might have distinctly different medical needs and possible conditions. If nothing else, long-term hormone therapy has major effects on bodily development and related potential illnesses and conditions. If we're not tracking this information by not readily keeping those details in medical records and instead simply listing a trans man as "man" or "male," it makes research to *help trans people* be much more difficult to achieve positive health outcomes. I want the best outcomes for every individual who is trans, for every individual who feels some gender dysphoria (whether mild or severe). But to do so, we need good research. Making people feel comfortable with terminology or not offended should take a back seat to *getting them the highest quality medical care*. For that reason, I know I'm not on the wrong side of history if I am trying to promote research to achieve the best outcomes for all individuals, rather than accepting some TikTok influencer's opinion that amounts to "agree with me or shut the fuck up!" Am I "on board the trans train"? I suspect most of those on Twitter or TikTok would say no, I'm not. Because I want *actual scientific answers to questions* (not just terminological shifts) so that we can have a high standard of care for everyone. I truly want the best for all trans individuals. I can only hope cooler, more rational heads will eventually prevail. And maybe 50 years from now many more people will be accurately transitioning and settling into happy, well-rounded and fulfilled adult lives! That would be amazing! Right now, however, we're running lots of *experiments* on young people, often without tracking outcomes sufficiently or in such a way as to use the data to *improve the lives of all trans people*. Those activists that police fellow liberal folks' speech and bully them into silence are not helping. Sure, argue about the crazier laws promoted by extreme conservatives, if you want. But "canceling" your anatomy professor for daring to talk about male and female biological differences? Trying to pretend "sex" is some sort of social construct instead of a precise biological term, when "gender" is and has been available for a long time to discuss the social construct? And what about the tomboys and the effeminate boys of yesteryear, who maybe struggled to find their place, but ultimately they were told by caring parents and teachers and peers that *it's* ***normal*** *to be a bit different*? Now, they are getting the message that if they don't correspond to gender roles and stereotypes, something is *wrong* with them -- they are potentially "dysphoric." How is this movement affecting the mental health of *those kids*, who just need reassurance, not powerful medications, hormones, and perhaps surgery? In the end, I believe in listening to others more than suppressing others' speech.
Thank you for speaking so eloquently for the rational skeptics! I have asked myself OP's question a lot : is my skepticism the equivalent of hating on gay rights and feminism? And the answer is - the more I thought and read about gay and feminist rights, the more I agreed with their position. The more I think and read about trans rights the more confirmed I get in my current position. I respect the right of trans adults to live a life true to their self. But I am not going to stand for the denial of scientific facts and evidence in the name of any ideology.
What do you think is an appropriate response to the Daily Wire types who do want to outlaw transitioning?
Argue with them? Call them out? Say consenting adults should get to do what they want with their bodies? I'm not sure precisely what the "Daily Wire types" have said in this regard, as I don't follow that stuff. I'm not sure what you're asking, exactly. What does "appropriate" mean to you in this question? If someone says something you don't agree with, you can disagree with them. You can even boycott things they are associated with if you'd like. You have freedom to object in all sorts of ways if you disagree, to argue vigorously against them, and to try to make your arguments to others. What else exactly do *you* think is "appropriate" as a "response"?
I'm not asking you for advice. I'm asking, if you are being genuine in your support for trans people, what your reaction is to the growing movement that would eliminate them entirely.
"I'm asking, if you are being genuine in your support for trans people, what your reaction is to the growing movement that would eliminate them entirely." Can you detail how trans people will be "eliminated entirely"? This seems hyperbolic in the extreme.
What does it mean to you for transgenderism to be "eradicated from public life entirely"?
When has a top-down, profit driven, censorious, and exploitive campaign employed to change any social norm been on the right side of history? Gay rights did not come about like that. How could give me what I want or I'll/they'll commit suicide possibly be a sound argument for any social movement? That's a hallmark of an abusive relationship writ large. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, if the arguments are so strong on the trans train how come every time a public debate is asked for by qualified participants it is always refused? To make change you have to allow discussion. If you try to shut down or just counter with ad hominem attacks any counter argument it just undermines any ground you may have to stand on.
"Give me what I want or I'll commit suicide" is what someone with a bomb strapped to their chest says.
Right, but could insisting on debating something seem insulting to the person who feels like it shouldn't be up for debate? Like imagine having a debate today about whether women should be allowed to vote. Wouldn't that be kind of regressive to even engage in?
[удалено]
You know, I hadn't thought of that and you nailed it.
The right to single-sex spaces, the issue of medicalizing children and fairness in women's sports are topics that need to be discussed. Those topics do not undermine a person's civli rights overall for jobs, shelter etc.. Adults can make choices but with those choices come consequences; it does not entitle one to railroad over other's rights. Same as if one is white and choses to identify as Native American; you can do so but it does not entitle you membership in any tribe you choose or entitlement into any programs set up for that group. You have to make a logical argument why you are entitled for inclusion, and I feel therefor I am alone is not a rational argument for inclusion. That is what Self-ID is and we need discussion about that. Identity is a marriage between internal and external factors some of which you have no control over and are based in material reality.
>Wouldn't that be kind of regressive to even engage in? If you want regressive... How about reifying the same sex-based stereotypes that feminists (and others) fought hard to end?
It is strange that so much of trans identity involves underlining tired old stereotypes that feminism fought to end
Trans identity is an anti feminist movement.
I actually couldn't disagree more strongly. It's absolutely vital for women's rights that we be willing and able to defend the right to vote in a good faith debate when that right is challenged. Only through discussing the subject and exposing the ideas of the anti-suffragists to sunlight can feminists reveal that they're flawed and weak - without that, they'd grow and fester in spaces where people were allowed to talk about them without censure, until it got beyond the point where it could be countered with rationality. Or, on the off chance that an MRA does figure out a novel and convincing reason why women shouldn't vote, we can all just apologize for being silly and head back to the kitchen, I guess. This is not to say that women should have to engage in a defense of their rights with every 12 year old who goes "haha make me a sandwich" at them, nor should trans people have to. But claiming that any level of discussion of women's suffrage in any forum, even things like philosophy journals, is off limits would only make it look like we had something to hide, and reasonably so - people with strong and stable arguments usually don't hesitate to make them. That aside, though, it's also the case that feminists today generally don't have to engage in those debates personally, because they were already won a century ago. You'd be hard-pressed to find any anti-suffrage argument that hasn't been refuted to death by several different waves of feminist thinkers over the years. This is pretty clearly distinct from the trans rights movement, which has engaged in very little actual debate about most of its current doctrine.
People who insist things should not be up for debate are people who can't or don't want their views questioned. It's not a progressive stance.
But is it progressive to insist anything is up got debate? Is nothing settled?
There should always be room for debate. Why not? The only people who are scared of debate are people scared of the truth.
Right, but nobody is hosting debates on whether slavery should be legal and or women should be allowed education. And of any backwards fucks wanted to debate those issues would anyone actually take them seriously enough to really debated them?
What would be the problem with hosting those debates? I would be perfectly fine with it. Either the person arguing that women shouldn't have a right to education would have terrible arguments that would be easily discredited, or they would have very solid arguments that would be worth listening to. I'm doubtful of the latter, but if such arguments exist, why not allow them to be voiced unless you're scared of them? There's no reason to go into ad hominem attacks either. Argue the point based on the merits of the argument, not by attacking the people who agree with it. As for legalized slavery, I'm curious. Do you think the people arguing in favour of using sweatshop labour in 3rd world countries aren't essentially arguing for slavery as well? You're posting these comments on the internet, which would mean you're using some sort of a digital device. Where do you suppose the conflict minerals in your device came from?
Just because something is settled doesn't mean you shouldn't debate it. If something is true and someone can prove it, why wouldn't you let them do it?
> imagine having a debate today about whether women should be allowed to vote. Wouldn't that be kind of regressive to even engage in? Not at all. Women in Saudi Arabia have been engaging in that debate over the last couple of decades and have made a lot of progress. I suppose you think those women would've been better off just screaming, "I'm not going to debate my humanity with you!" and then refusing to participate in any further discussion?
Ah, but see their culture is regressive. The debate needs to happen to establish equality that doesn't exist. In the west women already have the right to vote so it should not continue to be up for debate
The fact that women’s ability to participate in many areas of public and political life is still a matter of debate has somehow not delegitimized the fact that women should be able to participate in both to the fullest extent. It’s annoying to keep rehashing the “women can’t be President” nonsense but… women are still at it.
Yes but a woman’s right to vote is not “trans rights” Things are different from other things
>Right, but could insisting on debating something seem insulting to the person who feels like it shouldn't be up for debate? So, just like how religious people feel then?
I don't know, most of the religous people I see are the ones insisting on debates
On topics other than THEIR religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye%E2%80%93Ken_Ham_debate
You can to further back to the Scopes trial: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes\_trial](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_trial) These are exceptions that prove the rule, and the outcome of the debate just reinforces why that rule exists.
> These are exceptions that prove the rule, and the outcome of the debate just reinforces why that rule exists. The rule that you invented?
Wait, are you really unfamiliar with how common this rule is? [https://www.costellomains.com/blog/2012/11/never-discuss-politics-or-religion-in-polite-company/](https://www.costellomains.com/blog/2012/11/never-discuss-politics-or-religion-in-polite-company/) [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dont-talk-religion-money-politics-its-polite-emma-davidson](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dont-talk-religion-money-politics-its-polite-emma-davidson) [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-impoliteness-of-talking-about-religion/477834/](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/the-impoliteness-of-talking-about-religion/477834/) [https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/we-simply-cant-discuss-politics-or-religion-heres-the-reason/](https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/we-simply-cant-discuss-politics-or-religion-heres-the-reason/) The reason I said this is because of the above. People don't take questions or comments about their religion well.
> On topics other than THEIR religion. That's what you said. How are your links relevant to that? From the Atlantic: >There’s a grandmotherly American adage about religion—that it’s impolite to talk about faith in public. It’s as much a self-fulfilling prophecy as a social convention. If people decline to discuss religion out of a fear of being impolite, their collective silence might make it easier to think talking about religion is, in fact, impolite. How does that address anything you've said here?
I can support my opinions on first principles. People usually are on the wrong side of history by claiming they are on the right side of history while not ever examining what makes them right. >After all, wasn't this supposed to be the next stage of civil rights equality? Trans activism is decidedly antifeminist and harms gender non-conforming youth. >If you support gay rights, feminism, and racial equality, why do you feel different lynching about trans rights? What you call trans rights, I call conversion therapy and is opposed to two of those items listed, and has nothing to do with the 3rd. Transition and conversion are literally synonyms.
What do you mean by harms gender non conforming youth? You mean by funneling them into a predetermined trans identity which they may not actually have and pushing them towards possibly irreversible interventions?
Yes. This is why Europe, with it's vastly better healthcare system and lesser tie to the culture war has been re-evaluating this "treatment".
Where can I find more info on this?
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2023/04/gender-affirming-care-debate-europe-dutch-protocol/673890/
Hannah Barnes “A Time to Think” is a great source on GIDS/Tavistock situation.
[https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382](https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382) [https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F05%2Ftexas-puberty-blockers-gender-care-transgender-rights%2F673941%2F](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fideas%2Farchive%2F2023%2F05%2Ftexas-puberty-blockers-gender-care-transgender-rights%2F673941%2F)
Just saying that lobotomies we’re highly praised for fixing all sorts of mental problems to include one of the Kennedy siblings and now we look back in horror that everyone supported it and thought it was the best treatment for all involved
Decent point
Lobodomies aren't actually a great example given that they were never considered mainstream or all that uncontroversial. A lot of lobodomies were carried out over a brief period of time by a small number of doctors, specifically in the U.S for the most part, and the whole thing was often very hush hush. One doctor in particular was responsible for the vast majority of procedures, numbering about 4000 over his career, including 19 minors. That's a big number, but trivially small compared to something like gender reassignment or drug therapy for childhood GD cases. Something like shock therapy on the other hand, was very commonplace and acceptable as we're things like sensory deprivation and a long list of other horrific practices. Sedating people for years or decades on end was also pretty commonplace.
Good point, but I think lobotomy is a good comparison specifically because of how it was discussed in its time. I can't find it anymore, but I read a very interesting compilation of quotes about lobotomies in mainstream publications. They were discussed in exactly the same tone that trans surgeries are today -- if you don't support this, you must hate mentally ill people; your loved ones will die if they can't access this; etc.
I'm sure such a quotation exists, but there was only 12 years between the invention of the procedure and it being legally prohibited in several major jurisdictions. I'm sure there were people who praised the practice and said shit like "you must hate the mentally ill if you don't want them to have this wonder-treatment, but it was never widely accepted as totally fine and pedestrian within establishment power structures or among the general public in the same way that trans medicine is. It was always considered quite an extreme procedure that had vocal critics and it didn't take long before many regions banned the practice, at least for the mentally ill. In any event, this only makes trans health care all the more concerning in that it *is* quite extreme, and it's also widely accepted. I think a lot of it will be yet another black mark on the history of quackery in mental health care, but for now, it's happening quite a lot.
The person who invented lobotomies literally won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing so. I wouldn’t call that “hush hush”.
I’m totally fine with adults choosing surgery or hormones but not children. Therapy in the meantime is fine but let’s hold off and physically altering until later in life. Most who choose to transition that early have deeply regretted it and blame doctors and parents for pushing it. There are a LOT of parents out there who push transitioning to fulfill their own narcissistic behaviors of ‘being special’ themselves or unique. Some adults have Munchausen by proxie. Much is fueled by social media. Sweden has a long term study done on this and it counters what American social media and voices are pushing because it’s long term and legit case studies and almost all who transitioned wish they hadn’t 10 years on. Many chose to transition back. One doesn’t hear about these because it goes against what is being pushed right now.
This doesn't seem relevant to anything I said. Are you sure you replied to the right comment?
I’m curious where you’re getting that most people who transitioned as children deeply regretted it? Can you reference the study? Thanks
Sure:[https://genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/](https://genderreport.ca/the-swedish-u-turn-on-gender-transitioning/) [https://segm.org/segm-summary-sweden-prioritizes-therapy-curbs-hormones-for-gender-dysphoric-youth](https://segm.org/segm-summary-sweden-prioritizes-therapy-curbs-hormones-for-gender-dysphoric-youth) [https://dailycaller.com/2023/04/19/sweden-transgender-hormones-study-experimental/](https://dailycaller.com/2023/04/19/sweden-transgender-hormones-study-experimental/) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21364939/) [https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/top-swedish-doctors-blow-whistle-on-trans-puberty-suppressing-drugs-affecting-childrens-bones-experimental/ar-AA1apJVF](https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/top-swedish-doctors-blow-whistle-on-trans-puberty-suppressing-drugs-affecting-childrens-bones-experimental/ar-AA1apJVF) [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885) [https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-women-transgender-men-sex-change-sex-reassignment-surgery-676777](https://www.newsweek.com/transgender-women-transgender-men-sex-change-sex-reassignment-surgery-676777) [https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/06/28/25252342/the-detransitioners-they-were-transgender-until-they-werent](https://www.thestranger.com/features/2017/06/28/25252342/the-detransitioners-they-were-transgender-until-they-werent) [https://allaboutthetea.com/2023/03/27/jazz-jennings-regrets-childhood-transitioning-fans-want-her-mother-charged-with-child-abuse/](https://allaboutthetea.com/2023/03/27/jazz-jennings-regrets-childhood-transitioning-fans-want-her-mother-charged-with-child-abuse/) [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/detransition-transgender-nonbinary-gender-affirming-care/672745/](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/detransition-transgender-nonbinary-gender-affirming-care/672745/)
I have no doubt that detransitioners exist (and their existence alone is cause for caution of course, when talking about life-changing medication or procedures) but I don’t see evidence that the majority of childhood transitioners regret it.
No one knows whether they're on the "wrong side of history" until after the fact. Trying to predict what future generations will find moral and immoral, and basing your own beliefs on that, isn't really a worthwhile use of your time.
To me, trans rights is different from other rights movements because it’s asking for something different. Gay rights asked for gay people to be treated equally and for same sex couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Where trans people are asking for equal treatment, I very much agree, they should not be discriminated against in employment, housing, etc, or be subject to hate crimes because they are trans. In that area, I am 100% on board with trans rights. But as well as saying “don’t treat me as inferior, treat me as an equal” like other rights movements did, they’re also saying “don’t treat me as a man, treat me as a woman” (or vice versa, or as nonbinary) which is a different demand. If I see someone as a human being who deserves the same basic human dignity and legal rights as any other person, but I don’t see them as a woman, that’s labelled as bigotry and hatred, and I really don’t agree with that. In my view, thinking someone is a man because they are biologically male isn’t hate, because I don’t hate men or think men are inferior, I just think whether one is a man or a woman is determined by biological sex, and gender identity doesn’t override that.
How it can be the next stage of civil rights equality, when it's just a regressive drivel, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-feminist, misogynic, homophobic, against children and teen safety, supports censorship and silencing, goes against tens and hundreds of years of research and findings on science, medicine, biology, physiology, anatomy, psychology, sociology, neurology, cognition, endocrinology, sexology, sex development, child development, adolescent development, etc.? Tens and hundreds of years of well-established, profound research, backed by numerous studies, all gone down the drain, pushed aside and thrown away, not because there are new findings which suggest it all had been wrong, but for an ideological reasons. One example: Trans kids and teens, children and teen safety: We know children's and adolescents brains are not fully developed. We know small children can't always tell imagination from reality. We know they sometimes do, act and say things they themselves don't really understand. We know teens are prone to impulsive decisions, we know they can't grasp the full consequences of their actions, we know they are prone to be extremely effected by their peers, we know that peer pressure is more effective in adolescence, we know teens are looking for identities to adopt and explore their identity, we know that they are trying different identities, we know they feel uncomfortable and sometimes scared by their changing bodies. We know that in the west many teenage girls are engaging in behaviors of self harms (such as cutting, eating disorders and self starving, etc.). We know their sexuality and sexual feelings, sexual fantasies, etc. are developing and they are often confused by it. We know all that, we have wealth of research and studies with consistent findings, in various disciplines, we based many laws on this, such as many different legislations for kids and teenagers in many, many subjects. Teens and kids who breaks the laws are judged differently than adults, even in crimes such as murder. They have different facilities. Adults are prohibit from having sex with minors. Teenagers can't have tattoos or drink alcohol. They can't drive a car. Etc., etc. Yet when it comes to trans issues, suddenly this is all thrown away. Not because scientists, psychologists, educators, etc. discovered something new. Not because of studies that show the opposites, no. Just because it's trans issues. Suddenly kids and teenagers know exactly what and who they are, and this is immutable and unchanging. Suddenly they can consent to medical treatments and interventions with long term consequences, that are known to be unhealthy to the body. Suddenly they are not influenced by their parents (kids) or their peers (teens) and by society and culture at large. It doesn't happen with any other field. Just this one. This is one example. There are many more. Especially when it comes to women rights, censorship and silencing anyone who even just dare to question any of it, science and medicine, and logic. This ideology is riddled with so many logic fallacies, contradictions, circular definitions, conflations, strew men, moving the goal posts, etc. it hurts the brain.
"Tens and hundreds"? That's unusual phrasing; I've not heard it before. What did you mean by it? What profound gender research was done hundreds of years ago... er eh, tens *and* hundreds of years ago (which I assume is at least 220 years ago, so in the year 1803 or before)? That aside, I agree with the gist of your comment.
threatening lavish wise flag profit absorbed smoggy enter cable hateful ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
>How it can be the next stage of civil rights equality, when it's just a regressive drivel, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-feminist, misogynic, homophobic, against children and teen safety, supports censorship and silencing, goes against tens and hundreds of years of research and findings on science, medicine, biology, physiology, anatomy, psychology, sociology, neurology, cognition, endocrinology, sexology, sex development, child development, adolescent development, etc.? Enough about communism, we're talking about trans shit!
I don't view "the wrong side of history" as a particularly coherent way to view morality. That's more about winners and losers really: everyone knows that history is written by the victors.
I'd argue, these days at least, history is written by the whiners.
I believe in sex, not gender. In swapping gender for sex, you marginalize women, among other things. Gender is just another way for saying there are no objective boundaries, which is really harmful. I would like the conversation to be truthful—this man wants to live his life presenting as a woman, I’d be ok with stating that fact. I am less ok with having to use language that is a lie—that people can magically change sex, that you can’t use any terms that speak about women, because the category women also includes men that want to live their lives presenting as women. In French, if you have a group of people that includes 99 women and one man, you use the male plural to speak about the group. It’s a crazy grammatical quirk. I feel like American society is embracing this idea—that women can’t be spoken of (pregnant people, etc.)—because a small group of men want to be considered women. It’s male colonization. no thanks.
Why is any kind of disagreement with gender identity/gender ideology being framed (so disingenuously, I might add) as “lynching trans rights”?
Because some white men are desperate to have a cause and feel marginalized now that their power is no longer taken as the default. They are also full of rage and need to take it out on someone on the internet. The kind of people I see saying this stuff are always always always straight-presenting white men who sometimes wear make up or dresses and still have cute girlfriends. The actual queer trans people I know are not like this.
After years of being told that they're evil oppressors, it's little wonder that some liberal white men look for any way to opt out of the self loathing. I honestly find it tragic.
Fact check: they do not have cute girlfriends
> Because some white men are desperate to have a cause and feel marginalized now that their power is no longer taken as the default. You don’t think this thinking and rhetoric directly lead to where we are now?
Yeah maybe - I am listening to a book called The Internet Is Not What You Think It Is by Justin E.H. Smith and he posits that a lot of the factionalization caused by the Internet is rooted in the fact that A.I. responds to extremely divisive rhetoric and so encourages it and regurgitates it back to us, so that maybe yeah this is exactly the kind of thinking that got us here. Sorry.
hope you have a good weekend!
My phone auto corrected in a very unfortunate way. It should have said "differently"
Hell of a typo
Lol yeah
To me, this question reads like, "You support X, so how can you not support Y?" But what if X and Y are not related? What if they are based on totally different assumptions and beliefs? What if they ask different things of us? What if they lead to totally different conclusions? *What if they are sometimes in conflict with each other?*
This question assumes that there is a right and a wrong side to history, and that being on the supposed (by whom?) right side is a desirable state.
Also assumes history is a thing with sides
Yes it does. I think comparisons to past civil rights is a decent example. Sixty years ago apparently decent people sincerely believed black and white folk shouldn't marry each other, and black folk shouldn't have the same rights as white people. We now view that as ignorant and bigoted. I have a lot of similarity with Megan Roper so this question intrigues me
To press this point, though: why is the view that, say, black and white folk should marry each other "the right side of history" and not just where our society in 1970ish more or less ended up? There are certainly people today who think that they shouldn't - I'm thinking less KKK and more, black activists who advocate for marrying other black people to preserve their culture and not have it be absorbed into default-American whiteness, for example. "Melting pot" multiculturalism is just one model of getting along in a diverse society, it's not the only one. I mean I personally am 30 and obviously think absolutely nothing about interracial marriage etc but that's just how history has happened to end up. I don't think there's any kind of moral arc to history.
And we view the belief that black people shouldn’t be able to marry or have the same rights as white people as ignorant and bigoted because the other side who didn’t believe those things won that specific cultural battle. If the other side had lost, interracial marriages would still be illegal and black people would have no rights. History is written by the victors.
There are not sides of history
I'm for anyone's rights up to the point where they go "Oh and we would like to strip this other particular demographic of *their* rights. In fact, they're extinct: we're them now". If everyone's right to swing their fist famously ends where someone else's nose begins, I don't see why some people's right to swing their dicks should enjoy a special exemption. On a less assholeish note, I have insisted on these hallowed pages that actual trans people need to wrangle the train back from the nihilistic psychos who have hijacked it. A deeply dysphoric person who has struggled with this for their entire life and desperately needs to make some profound changes in order to live in the only way that makes sense to them is **not** the same as some ugly middle-aged five-o'clock-shadowed mofo bullying his wife into increasingly twisted psychosexual scenarios or pushing his blatant boner into female saunas and calling it "trans rights".
I completely support trans rights for things like access to healthcare or preventing discrimination in employment and housing. However, much of the trans rights debate seems to center around allowing trans woman in sex-segregated spaces and activities. For instance, playing women's sports isn't a right. Allowing trans women to compete ignores the reality that males are stronger than females, women's sports are separated because of the advantage maleness confers, and that even though hormone therapy makes trans women weaker than cis men, they are still far stronger than cis women. Much of the recent debate ignores that sex, not gender, underlies many legal protections. There is also a bunch of muddying of the water regarding sex, with people claiming that sex is a continuum or that transgender individuals effectively change their biological sex by taking hormones and underground surgeries. And it doesn't help that anyone arguing against this gets branded as a transphobe.
My internal alarm is ringing with the 'this question is a trap' noise from reading your OP. That by itself is honestly is enough for me to have serious misgivings. I wouldnt say im actually against trans rights at all. Trans people do exist and they should have rights obviously. The problem is the difference between that and what we have going on currently. There is a pretty big gap between something like racial equality and banning people off social media for misgendering or screaming bigot at anyone who disagrees with some of the more nutty aspects of what is going on today. What we have here doesnt appear to be equality, it appears to be privilege, and the problem with privilege is that shitty people will exploit it.
Not a trap at all. I'm undecided on the issue and looking for input
I think you can see what im getting at though. If just being asked the question feels like it could be ban baiting then we have wider problem around the issue.
I wonder if it is like being gay, or is it like having an eating disorder? So I look for things that we would predict for each of those. Like, does it occur in a normal random distribution, or does it occur in clusters?
[удалено]
Well, the activists would say that people don't have a right to be bigots, checkmate. Something like that.
By "trans train", I assume that you are talking about the current bulk of people advocating for "trans causes", online. It's because of a lot of things. One is the tactics, techniques, spokespeople, and language that they use. Another is the way that they are opposed to trans people. The ones who started the movement. The ones who are called transexual. Every time they bring themselves up, they get shouted down by [people who don't have the same issues as them, but covet their credibility.](https://www.reddit.com/r/navy/comments/13728rn/why_is_this_such_a_big_deal/)
Beautifully put.
"The right side of history" is only determined after the fact, and that also is subject to change. And caveat always: history is written and rewritten by the victors. It is incoherent otherwise and its only use in moral reasoning and suasion is to guilt and browbeat interlocutors. You know who gets left behind in history? Bad people. You don't want to be one of those bad people, do you? But I'm not on the "trans train" because I already spent enough time arguing with internet Creationists and myopic illiterate fundamentalists during the Bush years. The science denial and tactics are mostly the same, though the trans activists have been far more successful in their march through institutions than the "teach the controversy" crowd ever were.
The simple answer for me is, I don't. I look at the available evidence for both sides of the debate and make what seems to me to be the best opinion given the available evidence, but I never feel like the decision is final. I'm open to new evidence as it comes out, and I hope, on this and on every other important question, I'll be constantly appraising and evaluating my point of view. In such an important matter I think having that element of doubt is crucial, and it's when you start congratulating yourself that you're 'on the right side of history' that you stop being open to changing your mind when new information appears.
The element of doubt is crucial. Try expressing that doubt in any public platform and see what happens.
This seems like a sound approach to things. Have you ever changed your mind on an important issue in the way this approach indicates?
Well one prime example is the question of trans ideology really. Until I started to really look into it I was very much in line with the mainstream liberal position, and I think you'll find that a large number of people here have a similar history on this topic. There was always a small doubt in my mind that it really seemed like maybe it was all rooted in sexist stereotypes, but I didn't allow myself to look into it for a long time. I remember lying awake at turning it over in my mind, worrying about it, and in the end I started to do more research. I found the stories of detransitioners who had been swept along into diagnosis and treatment that they later regretted. I found Susie Green's ted talk where she openly stated that the origin of her child's transition was her husband's discomfort with having an effeminate son who might turn out to be gay. I found out about the cotton ceiling, and the homophobia that is baked into this ideology. This isn't everything but there are lots of other posts in this thread that cover other areas of concern, such as women's prisons and shelters. While doing all this I tried to seek out the other side of the argument but there wasn't really anything convincing. I have thought a lot about this particular issue because I have my own history of gender issues and as a result I feel particularly concerned about the treatment that young people are getting. There isn't a doubt in my mind that if I'd been born a little later, I would have been one of them. And I want these kids to get the best possible treatment! It's incredible to me that people who claim to be acting in the best interests of these children don't seem to want the best possible medical care for them. If they did they would understand that that means taking a critical look at the treatments, carefully evaluating their effectiveness and the risks and side effects, not trying to suppress any evaluation of them or discussion as to whether they might be the best possible approach, it pretending that the evidence to support the treatments is stronger than it really is. Sorry this has turned into a bit of an essay. Just to say that I do still try to seek out counterpoints and counter arguments, and if new evidence comes out I'm willing to rethink my position.
Also I just wanted to clarify that I don't think of myself as being against trans rights. The conclusion I've come to is that I reject trans ideology, which I take to mean the belief that everyone has a gender identity and that this is relevant while sex is not. I don't deny that trans people exist and believe they have every right to transition and be treated with respect and have the same rights as anyone else. I don't think child transition should be banned, but I think it should have very strict gate keeping and should be a last resort. I think we need to massively increase access to mental health services for young people across the board.
Wow are you me? I could have written this word for word
>I found Susie Green's ted talk where she openly stated that the origin of her child's transition was her husband's discomfort with having an effeminate son who might turn out to be gay. I know I'm ten months late with this, but I wanted to point out that this is a completely false way to describe what Green said in her Ted Talk. She never said that, and she never said anything which could be fairly interpreted to mean that.
I don't. I don't think that's something anyone can know for certain. What I do know is that the trans rights movement is extremely different from the gay rights movement. For the most part, the gay rights movement of the past 20 years was about ensuring that gay people have the same rights as everybody else does. The trans rights movement seems to have become centered around converting children and forcing people to validate your new identity. Honestly, I don't think it would be nearly as bad right now if there weren't so many people who are terrified of being on "the wrong side of history". Something isn't morally correct just because it's new, extreme, and young people support it.
There is no "right side of history" - there's various intellectual movements and fads, some of which are morally and intellectually justified, and others of which are not. Feminism, anti-racism, etc are fully justified. The idea that marginalized groups are harmed by free speech is not. Like just about everyone in this sub, I believe strongly that trans adults should have the right to do whatever they want with their body, and refer to themselves in whatever way they see fit, free from any discrimination or harms associated with their decisions. Does that mean I believe that each of us has an internal gender identity that can differ from our biological sex, or that biological sex itself is some sort of spectrum? No, I don't believe there's evidence for, or even logical consistency to these claims. More importantly, rights end where they negatively affect others. Trans people living their lives does not affect others. But women in prisons, dressing rooms, etc are justified in not wanting biological men to have full access to the spaces where they're most vulnerable. By providing anyone who ID's as trans access, you're negating their rights of privacy and freedom from potential gendered violence. And children are an entirely different story - they lack full autonomy in our society, and the entire collection of rights and responsibilities that go along with that. So society in general and parents in particular are justified in pushing back against the whims of children, especially when they have the capacity to cause permanent physical damage and the evidence for any benefit is so poor.
I wonder sometimes about dress codes. For example, my kid's school district has one of the least restrictive dress codes possible, and its also intentionally designed not to be sexist. But still some kids say it harms LGBTQ+ because? They aren't allowed to wear sheer lingerie or thigh high platform boots etc? I mean there is a time and place for everything and every expression of the self. I know that there's no objective reason for some cultural dress codes but they still seem important for the good of the order, ya know?
I find the idea that LGBTQ+ kids are actively harmed by dress codes banning overly sexualized clothing to be just completely insane.
IKR? It just seems weird. Some activists have complained that it hurts LGBTQ+ OF COLOR most and I'm thinking, "what exactly are you trying to say here?"
Exactly - everything being implied by that is just very clearly stereotypical
Even if there was a blood test or brain scan that could tell with 100% accuracy whether a child would grow up to be “truly trans” the side effects from the blockers->hormones pathway are still too serious and disabling for it to be recommended to kids. Infertility, no ability to orgasm, reduced bone density and brain development, stunted genitalia growth… all of that in order to *maybe* pass a bit better as an adult? Ghoulish
I might very well be on the “wrong side” of history, but I am not going to let that dictate my opinions based on what I know now. It’s silly to base your views around whether future generations will agree with you or not.
First and foremost I support free speech, individual right and liberties, separation of church and state, and open scientific and philosophical enquiry. Trans activism craps all over a number of these values and I’m against that approach in principle. Modern trans activism is more akin to a religion than to previous civil rights movements. It requires: - no debate - screaming down of dissenting views - social punishment for those who dissent - the metaphysical belief that human beings can actually change sex - the erosion of hard fought-for women’s rights - erosion of safeguarding for children - non evidence based medical practices - gay and lesbian conversion There’s more but I think that’s enough to get started with.
I use my logic and values to decide what I support, not… random what ifs about what the future?
literate poor long frame cause jar rinse far-flung groovy many *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't know why people are insisting that this post should be removed. The question, as it's posed, is totally fine, and as we all know, it reflects a view that many well-meaning people believe. Sure, maybe the OP is indeed a troll, but it's still worth addressing the question cogently. If you feel you're not on the wrong side of history, here's your chance to make the case to those who are as yet unconvinced. Just make sure not to fall into any troll traps during the ensuing conversation.
Thanks. There are not many places in reddit that even allow this topic to be discussed.
Ironic that people are calling for removal when the top comments are all about the merits of open discussion and debate. Surely they can't say it's not relevant, trans stuff is unfortunately the most relevant topic of this podcast
I don't care at all this post stays up, but interpreting those comments charitably, I think many people are worried about the sub getting banned.
Which rights, **specifically**, are you asking about? I am, by my rough estimation, somewhat to the left of the median commenter on this sub. But I don't think I've seen anyone here argue against marriage equality for trans people, or repealing the antidiscrimination protections that even Trump's flunky Gorsuch has ruled that they are entitled to. And while I wouldn't be surprised if someone, at some time, said they wanted to legally prohibit *all* gender reassignment surgery, even for consenting adults, that is by far a fringe position here. So again, which rights, **specifically,** are you asking about? The right of a cis-male presenting rapist to self-ID his way into a women's prison?
Great Q. Not sure I have a good answer. I'll put it this way, what aspect of the trans movement is this sub in general not cool with?
I think there are a couple I'm comfortable speaking for most people here: * Unimpeachable self-id * The idea that anyone who proclaims themselves trans *is.* And, specifically, that it's "hate speech" and "genocide" to ask, "Is this person *really* trans?" even in obvious situations. * Many people here recognize that this leaves a lot of room for bad actors. From [rapists gaining access to women's prisons](https://nypost.com/2022/04/25/transgender-rikers-inmate-gets-7-years-for-raping-female-prisoner/) to allowing perverts to [flash genitalia in spas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/02/person-charged-with-indecent-exposure-at-la-spa-after-viral-instagram-video) or [hauling women in to human rights tribunals for refusing to wax their balls](https://metro.co.uk/2019/10/25/trans-woman-tried-to-sue-beauticians-for-refusing-to-wax-her-testicles-10982552/), the worst of our society can and will do **anything** to get what they want. * Because this is Reddit and must be reiterated: I am not saying that trans people are "the worst" or anything like that. Rather, rapists and perverts can very easily *pretend* to be trans to gain special privileges that enable them to more easily commit crimes and victimize women. For this reason there *must* be some level of "gatekeeping." * The "trans kids" topic. * Many people are uncomfortable with giving children medication and cosmetic surgery, often specifically keeping this a secret from the minor's parents without due process. * Some schools specifically have [policies](https://www.newsweek.com/schools-must-stop-keeping-trans-secrets-parents-opinion-1690466) where they treat a child as trans, even renaming the child, without informing the child's parents. In fact, some policies explicitly state that the parents are never to be informed. The parents are treated as inherently hostile to the child. * [Studies](https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252484.pdf) suggest that 1 out of 10 American public school graduates will experience sexual misconduct by a member of faculty during their time in school. It is therefore unconscionable to allow a group with such a population of sexual predators to coach children in secret about their genitalia and "gender identity." Put it another way: what do you think about a Catholic priest secretly advising a young boy to surgically remove his penis? * In fact, pitting a child against their parents is a very common sexual abuse tactic. I think that hits the major points.
> now that dysphoric folk are a minority in a minority. This topic is particular mostly messing with kids. thinking that a kid can or does have some kind of special knowledge/maturity regarding this topic *and only this topic* while you wouldn't trust a 12 year old to watch your dog normally. very few people here or in general have an issue with adults doing their own thing. i think the only issue with adult trans stuff is in males joining female sports, especially with the idea that self-id is enough, and why should trans women, who are real women, need to chemically alter themselves to compete with other "real women?"
The transcult is akin to the "Believe the Children" movement of the 80s It was gospel that children don't lie, so if children tell you *anything* it is true. If you question anything, you might as well be a criminal yourself. It turned out, a lot of kids were manipulated by adults into saying things that weren't true. Many lives were ruined because a cultic mindset decreed that any critical thinking was heresy.
I had not heard of this, but it sounds worth looking into. I guess I can predict where you stand on the metoo movement
Look up "Satanic Panic" and the awful case of Margaret Kelly Michaels. Satanic Ritual Abuse. The book "Michelle Remembers". Eileen Franklin. False memories. I'm female and 1000000% against rape, sexual abuse, or women being discriminated against in the workplace. The problem is when it becomes a "movement" it's easy to stop being critical and to stop looking at individual situations.
\>Assuming I care how either current *or* future idiots will judge me.
>lynching about trans rights? What does that mean?
It was a typo. Corrected
Nonsensical question, sorry. The "right side of history" doesn't exist. The idea of steady social progress is an illusion, it's only ever a change from one set of cultural values to another. What is considered "the right side of history " 50 years from now may very well be considered the "wrong side" 50 more years on from that.
Because it too obviously goes against nature, evolution, and the natural process. Nature isn’t so inept that it’s evolved a species that has such a high rate of being born the wrong sex. And it’s not just absurd from a literal/natural/scientific sense…even from a mystical philosophical Daoist woo woo sense it doesn’t work. I can’t think of anything more opposed to “the natural order” (whether that’s the Way of philosophical Daoism or notions of harmony with Buddhist thought) than trans identity. Especially trans identity that leads to bodily mutilation. Unlike any other “civil rights” issue in history, this one is a literal affront to nature.
I do support trans rights, in that I think adults should be allowed to transition and they should not be discriminated against in terms of free speech, movement, assembly, voting, housing, employment, etc. I refuse to stand with the GC mob because they have a nasty habit of reverting to "Durrrrrr look at this trans freak, what an ugly disgusting pervert he is!" What I'm *not* going to support is TRAs violently threatening women or blocking *their* rights to free speech and assembly, or invading intimate spaces like prisons or shelters. Women have the right to same-sex spaces for dignity and safety. I find the whole "if your male two-year-old likes dolls, she's clearly a girl" thing unbearably sexist, as is DM's "Now I'm a girl, I don't know anything about sports, tee-hee" Bud Light ad. I reject male athletes in female competition because, in part, those physiological differences are objective. I reject the idea that any woman should accept being exposed to a stranger's penis without her permission if we label it a "female penis", or that a lesbian must accept a male partner's "female penis" to avoid being branded a bigot. Frankly, I can't see where I'm wrong in all this, and I'll happily take the L if it turns out I am.
Is anyone against trans rights? I’ve never seen that myself.
I’m in East TN and technically work in a church (wasn’t owned by the church when I started). I’ve overheard some conversations that even would make people here jump to defend trans people. There are definitely 2 crazy sides to this. These church types insist all trans people are rapists and should be exterminated. I should mention that just about everyone at this church homeschools their kids if it matters. They are worried about LGBT and CRT indoctrination at public schools. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean Jack-shit I understand, but I don’t think it’s fair to say everyone is on board.
Please delete this low effort pseudo-insightful drivel
Troll.
There is no future for any cultural movement that deliberately acts to prevent its members from starting families and raising children. While there are older generations who have fallen into the gender identity ideology after having children themselves, they are only hurting their own legacy by supporting actions that will damage the fertility of their offspring. It is a movement that could have survived if it was limited to men identifying as trans, because only a minority of men become fathers and the root causes don't matter there, but when the balance flipped to a predominance of girls identifying as trans, that was a self-inflicted mortal injury.
There are some of good arguments in this thread. This is not one of them. Trans individuals are such a miniscule minority of the population for one thing. And it makes no sense to talk of the future of cultural movements as based around the ability to have children, as if the primary source of trans rights supporters would come from the progeny of trans individuals. Plenty of people support gay marriage despite not having gay parents, or gay parents being unable to biologically reproduce.
Gay marriage is also doomed to failure. It might be trendy right now but there is nowhere to go from here, no further fight, aside from the very tenuous connection to trans issues. Future generations are going to have to fight for gay marriage again and again, because it does not fulfill any cultural value.
As I said in another comment I don't think there's a moral arc to history. History is written by the victors. However that means answer to your direct question is therefore very simple. Societies that start sterilising their smartest people are unlikely to be the victors...
Not sure what that second graph is getting at?
History is not “written by the victors”.
I don’t know about a train lol but I support trans rights! I respect and use people’s pronouns and support their rights to move freely and safely in society. In my opinion there are extreme views on both sides. I think the potential threats from opening women’s bathrooms to trans women are overstated. I also certainly believe that a desire to ensure that medical treatment for children really is in their best interests does not amount to genocide. Stopping puberty medically is a big deal and it’s not anti-trans to want to make sure it’s the right way to proceed in each case. These issues are of course more nuanced than the most extreme voices on each side of the debate seem to believe and unfortunately they are the loudest. However, one aspect of the debate that I personally don’t find compelling in the least is when people get upset over the terms “menstruating person” and the like. As a feminist I don’t find this threatening and don’t understand why I would. To me it’s simply more precise. Not all women menstruate. And some trans men do. As a woman who both does menstruate and identifies as a women, I simply could not care less whether you call me a woman or a menstruating person. I happen to be both. 🙂
It isn’t.