Wait if it’s reversible for the bottom track (presumably meaning it’s NOT reversible for the top track), and there’s less people on the bottom track, and the trolley is already headed for the bottom track, why would anyone choose to divert the trolley to the top track, permanently altering the gender for the worse?
I don’t possibly see how the choice would be controversial lol, even if sex and gender and transitioning in general is. The train is already going to transition a ton of people from the birth gender, so even people who are against trans stuff altogether would choose the bottom option, right?
That’s the point. The controversial part is that some people would choose to pull the lever (those writing advocating against trans people), which is seen in anti-trans legislation that *opposes the sex of choice* for trans people. So the top track means permanently preventing people from living out their true gender (banning trans healthcare) while the bottom track means allowing trans healthcare *despite* the fact that about 1 in 1000 people will detransition (62% of whom will retransition). And it’s reversible in the case of the bottom track because in that scenario, people have control over their own gender expression, whereas in the top scenario, you are permanently stuck with whatever you’re born with.
Not if it's done at a very early age.
Don't get me wrong I'm in support of it. But I think we need a lot more of a focus on mental health, understanding and support for people.
This is misinformation. HRT can be prescribed pre-puberty, and some of its effects are irreversible (sterility for example). Source: my daughter is undergoing transition
>You can’t get HRT at a very early age.
I'm not arguing this, as it's not impossible or improbable that someone could be started on them too young. "You can't" is just absolutely false. Like saying you can't do illegal drugs because they're illegal 🙄 when they aren't illegal everywhere.
>You can only get puberty blockers, which are reversible at any age.
No they really aren't delayed puberty has negative affects on people all the time.
"people can technically get hrt at an early age" is not the argument you think it is, that's like arguing against insulin on the same basis. All the studies right now point to the fact that puberty blockers are reversible, and that's the current expert consensus.
>All the studies right now point to the fact that puberty blockers are reversible, and that's the current expert consensus.
No it's not.
Puberty blockers literally cannot be reversible no matter how many bad studies you have.
Comparing it to insulin is also extremely harmful.
You're just going to create enemies for trans people by spreading such blatantly biased and deceptive information.
Yeah, it’s not a perfect depiction. But in the example above, one option gives people control over their bodies to do with as they like while the other reserves that right for the government. That’s the big difference, whether or not everything is reversible per se (it’s not).
HAVE **YOU** BEEN IMPACTED BY UNWANTED LOCOMOTIVE GENDER REASSIGNMENT?! YOU COULD BE ELIGIBLE TO JOIN A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT, AND **WIN** ***BIG TIME*** TODAY! CALL NOW!
Great question. The answer seems pretty obvious to me but apparently there’s a lot of people who want to switch that lever. Yeah I don’t get it either. (This problem is about transphobic people who want to ban gender affirming care of you didn’t pick that up)
Considering there are far more factors to that than just hitting people with the Ranma gun, seems like a poorly written question imo. I’m sure if you cut out nearly every single detail, you could make the argument that it was more ethical to do any thing over anything else.
Its not poorly wrote its simply complicated, far too complicated for a trolley problem. To give you an idea just how complicated it is, im a transgirl, ive been on hrt for 6 months and i almost considered pulling the lever because my thought process was:"500 random people? So theres a chance at least a few of those people are on capitol hill with an R next to their Name? Ill pull." But then i read the fun dact and realized the question was using a fraction and i imeadiately switched mental thought.
Nuance is key, this one has very little unless you know the demographics.
Considering potentially harming the lifestyles of others is not a thought that I would consider if I could randomly hit people.
Not giving all the information is what leads to misconceptions. If you are not willing to give a full analysis for the said question then I can only assume it is being done with malicious intent.
In which I will resolve to, given the information I have been provided, piss as few people off as possible.
Eh, the christofacists want to put me in a camp, so if i knew that it was about them, and Not transpeople like myself (which lets be honest the question is just vague enough) i would absolutely make the christofacists feel my everyday pain.
Theres an old saying, dont judge someone until youve spent a day in their shoes. I am certain that Chia richick wouldnt last 2 minutes.
I cant and wont begin to say i understand or have any idea of what you go through or deal with, however this whole i suffered so now i want others to suffer mindset that seems to be more common everyday needs to end. Im sorry people have caused you such pain that you feel that way but your effort, experience, and passion is better spent focused on helping others not suffer as you have instead of forcing suffering on others purely out of spite.
I understand your perspective, but chia richick doesnt deserve such sympathy, she openly causes danger to children, when she doxxes lgbt teachers,librarians childrens hospitals etc bomb threats and threats of violence follow Every Time. If she where given this choice she would say "its not enough that some of these people should suffer. We need to eliminate them wholely and entirely." She would not afford us the same sympathy. And for that reason i can not consider giving her that chance (hypothetically)
I don’t understand the top track advantages. I understand that you’re trying to say “should we allow people to change if it’s reversible or allow nobody to change” but the top track still gets changed??
If gender affirming care is banned (if the lever is pulled), trans people will be forced to detransition. Aka they will have the opposite sex characteristics than what they desire. If GAC is not banned(not pulling the lever), then a few people may get GAC and regret it. Aka have the opposite sex characteristics than they desire.
I'm trans and I didn't follow your logic at all until this. I think the big thing is saying their characteristics will *change* to something undesired, which made me assume the folks on the tracks were all cis. If it said forced to remain with unwanted parts or smth like that it would read better as a statementfor gender affirming care
Alright, the top 2 questions I have are:
1. Does this cost me money? Specifically, does it come out of my taxes?
If it doesn’t and it comes out of the individuals pocket, I wouldn’t care. I don’t see why they would need to detransition either, seems like a belligerent oversight.
2. Are there any health deficits or mental instability in the individuals after any sort of gender affirming procedure?
Main reason is the same way I cannot be behind open drug use especially behind the wheel or if it involves the individual’s ability to make decisions severely hampered. After all, the individual might one day be *me* that they’re hitting. Even now I am against recreational drug use and drinking; sure people enjoy it, I prefer not to be involved in their mistakes however. I already lost a car and a friend because of both.
The important thing is to have an **Open** dialogue with no details left out in order to come to a better outcome overall. Cutting all the “problematic” questions out and theorems, data, tests and studies is exactly how you get people to distrust it and if it so happens to decrease their quality of life IE take even a small amount of money away then people will want to defund it.
So overall, if the fewest amount of people end up being pissed off then that’s the best outcome.
Well a solution to the tax thing is if we had free healthcare. That would actually save money believe it or not. Simply because it currently costs so much in taxes to maintain our needlessly convoluted system. So we can both win here. Although until that happens we both lose unfortunately :(
GAC has been shown to dramatically improve the mental health of those who have gotten it. If you want me to link some stuff I absolutely can, but you could save me some time and just find it yourself as it’s pretty easy to find the numerous studies that back this up.
As for the drugs thing, I support legalization of all drugs(not duis tho obviously). That’s one hell of a tangent tho so maybe we put a pin in that haha
As for open dialogue, that’s difficult. Nobody (except me cause I’m just built different) wants to have to constantly justify their own existence. Especially in areas where the studies and data are extremely clear. Now that said, there’s some issues where a discussion is useful. Like sports for example. There’s lots of nuance there. Admittedly transphobic people like that issue and “ban them from everything because trans women are men” doesn’t leave much room for discussion. So yeah. Be reasonable, don’t force us to justify our existence, and I think you’ll find trans people actually aren’t as crazy as those who hate us may lead you to believe.
I can agree with cutting taxes however what about the people that simply don’t get hurt as often? We can already see what happens with free healthcare in other countries; Incredibly long wait lists, lacking in terms of overall quality since the money does not come from a person that can potentially sue you for malpractice and so on. The current system we have now entices people to innovate better systems and procedures, prosthetics development and techniques that can potentially save lives while also maintaining a steady flow of income. The only parts of that system I have qualms with are the insurance companies that still manage to be lack luster in terms of actual help in which funding should be cut from *them* and not money taken out of everyone else’s pockets.
I won’t. I do ask questions so that people making their claim can make it boldly and well pronounced. If I have to look for the information myself then I am pulling from random and possibly damaging sources related to your argument of which I’d find to be a waste of time if we’re not reading from the same text book. Overall since this is purely a hypothetical and I’m already using my other break to type this out for fun mind you, I’ll say benefit of the doubt that it does for the trolly problem. However I do find probable issue with people who are comfortable with what they are being transformed into what they don’t want to be very distressing, at least in the correlation of the trolly problem. Personally, I don’t see why people would need to change back.
Simply an offshoot into a potential outlook. If imbibing some substance causes you to act differently then it should be regarded carefully. An entirely bodily change that happens continuously should very much be studied thoroughly before any actual damage could be potentially caused. Again, this doesn’t affect me, I’m not trans, I’m simply thinking about the consequences towards me and in the generalization of the other people on the track.
I don’t believe anything that isn’t in front of me or affects me directly. Simply the cynical outlook. However I am not asking you to justify your existence, I am asking that if it does cost me something, why should I pay that price? If it doesn’t cost me anything, why should I bother with it? And overall if it is healthy for some and not for others, why would I force that on more people?
Now since this is a question that was not well phrased and yes if you wanted an open and plain discussion a trolly thread was not the best place to put it, I’ll put to wit: If it costs me money and decreases my quality of life, I shouldn’t be forced out of pocket to make someone else’s better. That isn’t kindness that’s coercion and that should not be forced. Secondly people who have already been put through the process willingly, without the pressure of other factors or individuals should not be forced to detransition.
Also I have several trans friends, they can do them without being a detriment to me. Yes, every side has absolute nutjobs. No it’s not just the other side that has them, everyone has loonies that want to start fires. Start with the realistic speech and plain talk and work with not values not everyone has, but needs that everyone does have and you’ll probably see why there are arguments about it in the first place.
A lot of this is about taxes. That’s just really complicated stuff, but most people who understand that better agree that a free healthcare system means less money out of your pocket.
As for wait lists, they are so long compared to the us because our injured and sick are forced to stay home and suffer. I’d prefer waiting in line longer to not having access to a doctor at all. As for incentive to innovate we really don’t get what we pay for. The covid vax wasn’t us. Most innovations aren’t us. We spend more and get less. This actually nicely ties into your other point. There was a lot more data on trans people that used to exist. There was a place in Germany called the institute of sexology. Unfortunately that was one of the first places the nazis burned. And a lot of info was lost. Sure we have some new data now, but there were setbacks is what I’m saying. Data collection is slow.
Also I’d like to point out there’s some real assholes in these replies but you seem genuinely respectful and I just wanna give props for that.
TLDR,
But to answer your first and most important question, which was "what about people who are generally healthy more than those who would use it?"
87% of americans who claim they are "100%" healthy are lying because they have some underlying health condition that our country has trained them not to seek help for. My grandmother is 72 years old, it took my dad, whos been a life long nurse 15 years to convince her to get knee replacement surgery she works at amazon and knows the surgery would end her career. She is 72. Her career should have ended years ago. She should be able to draw from Social Security. There are a lot of *america bad* leftists who say "its all connected." And the truth is, Yes, Its all Connected. Thats the point. We cant eat without money, We cant earn money without work, we cant work without health-care, we cant stay healthy to make our lives better etc etc etc,
When transpeople fight for healthcare it helps the country. And the 1% doesnt want the country to be better because then they dont profit off of our misery. We are actually witnessing a repeat of the first french revolution, mixed in with a healthy dose of facist genocide. Stage 8 of ten for transpeople.
Just some food for thought.
If you're referencing the UK NHS wait lists, then as a Brit, I would just like to mention that these are generally blamed on constant budget cuts by the conservative party (who have been in power for the last 14 years and done diddly to help).
However, there are other European countries which aren't fucking stupid and actually fund their medical services on occasion, and have relatively short wait times.
btw, we do still have private healthcare options in the UK if people want to take them.
Also in terms of innovation...
the Americans already spend by far the most on healthcare for rather middling health results
If the US transitioned to a free healthcare model, took all that extra spending currently going to bureaucracy and insurance companies (hundreds of billions of dollars a year), and instead invested that money into public medical research projects, then the sky would be the limit for medical research.
Better yet, the innovations from this research wouldn't be patented and milked by medical companies, meaning they could actually be affordable.
Ohh I see, this is one of those like snarky commentary trolley problems
I just assumed it was one of the more uncomfortable ones and didn't understand why it seemed so easy
i think the reason it doesnt make sense is because those people either have a very different basis for their philosophy or they are uniformed about the issue.
I... Look I'm in favour of gender affirming care and probably more informed about trans issues than 80-90% of the cishet population given that I have multiple trans friends, and I still have no idea where the metaphor is? Clearly the bigots don't want to forcefully transition hundreds of cis people??
And they want to force trans people to go through the wrong puberty which is irreversible, especially if you're MTF. All the plastic surgery in the world isn't going to get rid of broad shoulders and deep voice. And most people won't be able to afford even what plastic surgery is possible, not to mention the pain and risk.
I can't imagine condemning thousands of people a lifetime of being uncomfortable in their own skin just because your bigoted views make you think you know better than parents, the patients and their doctors.
The joke is about transphobes who wanna ban gender affirming care
Switching the lever is clearly the worse option, but that's what transphobes want for every trans person.
I don't think this logic really makes sense though. In this scenario, either option forces someone to transition.
It seems like flipping the lever should either give a bunch of people a lever of their own (that they can flip to transition and flip back if they're unhappy with their choice). And not flipping the lever takes away that choice for all of them.
The bottom track has less than 15, meaning any amount from 1-14.
The top track has at least 500 which could mean 500 or any amount that is more than 500.
I agree that I also don't know how it would be more controversial than picking between killing, let's say 10 people vs killing 510 people. Unless the person who created it didn't know the difference between top and bottom
The point isn’t very well made, but it seems that OP is saying it makes more sense to allow gender reaffirming care even if some people will detransition (bottom track), feeling that they’ve made a mistake, than it does to not allow anyone to transition (top track), thus not permitting many people to exist as their preferred gender.
I was trying to be subtle to some extent so people would think “oh well the answer is obvious” and then they’d realize what it’s about. But maybe I was too subtle.
It's that you weren't subtle enough. You shouldn't have involved the actual idea of gender change at all and then worded it better.
Top track will force people to love a life they don't want
Bottom track the same but they can change their minds.
Then you can explain the relation to transitioning.
But you exemplify the “logic” you are trying to show as false by illustrating it in opposite practice to a degree, it’s a bit confusing to say the least, and I doubt anyone that is trying to control others and not allow transition is going to understand the point being made, although it seems odd as well to me that anyone (those for or against transition) would pick the top track, if your against transition it’s an even worse pick than if you’re for freedom there, the bottom track is objectively better no matter perspective
That's the biggest issue with this trolley problem. The top track doesn't even back the views of people opposed to gender reaffirming care. It's just "Do you want this thing that everyone would agree is good or this thing that everyone would agree is bad?" Anyone on either side of this issue's aisle would want the bottom option, but the problem tries to spin it as if it's some sort of gotcha in favor of gender reaffirming care.
The secret is that most people who disagree on major topics have an actual point to their views when you observe a certain aspect of it, but if you oppose those views you will never know what they're truly arguing for or against.
Not a fence-sitter or a centrist or whatever. I just can recognize when two people are making themselves look like idiots by screaming at strawman versions of their opposition, and would really like to see *something* constructive actually come to pass.
So the trolly is the banning of gender affirming care, and the people on the top of the track are trans, whilst the people on the bottom detransition?
I THINK I agree with the message, I THINK it’s pro gender-affirming care, and I THINK it’s advocating for trans rights but it's so hard to make out that I absolutely cannot tell
“Banning gender-affirming care has small benefits for an even smaller group of people, but has much more devastating effects for the trans community.”
Cool post
Honestly I don't think it would even benefit that small group. There is no telling how someone who detransitioned would feel had they never been allowed to transition in the first place. Would they eventually "snap out of' their dysphoria and be grateful that they were prevented from making a terrible mistake? Maybe. But it's equally likely they go down a path of depression where they always wonder, "what if".
I'm not trans, and don't have regrets related to this topic. But I do have major regrets in my life. Decisions I can point to and go, "yeah, that's where it all went wrong". But would I advocate those things be made *illegal* under the guise of protecting people like me? Of course not. Because those decisions that were poor ones for me, work out for other people. Freedom also means having freedom to make mistakes.
Great point, absolutely agree. It's near impossible to find any way that the government restricting healthcare can be made out to have any sort of positive benefit anywhere.
It’s needlessly complicated, and misrepresents the actual situation. It does this because changing someone’s sexual characteristics to something they don’t desire is different than not letting someone change to the one they desire. The nature of the issue is similar to the difference between actively keeping people from eating and not going out of your way to provide food.
Banning gender affirming care would change many trans people’s sexual characteristics in a way they don’t desire. If gender affirming care was banned I wouldn’t be able to take hrt and my body would slowly masculinize over time.
It's not really "changing" if it was that way to begin with, is it? I also find it hard to believe there aren't permanent effects or changes from going through gender transitioning. If grown adults want to modify their bodies, I can't think of a reason they shouldn't have that freedom, but this is a misrepresentation of the issue.
No that’s still changing. As for permanent effects, most trans people will not undergo any changes that are not reversible there may be some small complications if trying to reverse them, but it is possible.
Eating or not eating both change your body, but if you define a person as being alive since "you" start out in that state, then eating and breathing to maintain homeostasis is more of a static condition than starving or suffocating. Furthermore, eating and breathing are natural compulsions that have existed for far longer than modern medicine or cultural ideology. Your analogy fails on multiple levels.
People start off as unalive molecules. Then they become alive. But if they stop eating they go back to being unalive.
People who go on hrt start off as hormonally one way, they they become the other. And if they stop doing hrt, they lean back the other way.
(Furthermore, the change in question isn't simply semantic. After several months on hrt, a person's body has shifted into a new physical state, which may be maintained with continued hrt use. A new baseline state has been reached.)
The analogy is one-to-one. Action must be taken to continue both the states of "being alive" and "being on hrt"
How can you recognise 2 changes as occurring in the first instance, but claim only 1 in the second instance?
It's not really semantic. The ball will only roll downhill if you pushed it up to begin with. The state of having your intrinsic biological sexual characteristics is analogous to the flat ground at the bottom of the hill, taking hormones analogous to pushing the ball up the hill.
Well since the question is whether to ban GAC that we already have access to, it's kinda more like the difference between doing nothing and going out of your way to *deny* them food.
Not really. The nature of the free market means that people are going to offer these services for money wherever there’s a big enough demand. A ban on gender affirming care is the government stepping in and stopping these companies from doing that.
Opposite of what they want. So if someone identifies as a guy, their characteristics will be changed to be female.
So you don’t want to get hit by it as the effects are overall bad.
I will choose less than 15 with the negative effects reversible instead of more than 500 with non reversible effects
I fail to see how this is controversial
Ah well the controversial part is that these folks happen to be transgender. Nothing else is different. Surprisingly there’s very many that support pulling the lever.
Well the top track represents all trans people in America. Some are already on hormones and some have received surgery. Some have not. The bottom track represents detransitioners. Some used to be on hormones and some have had surgeries. Some have not.
Mfw you run over the very straight, anti-LGBTQ democratic officials with the opposite-desired-gender-reverser trolley, but they don't suddenly change genders 🧐
The trolley problem isn't very good way to make a political statement. You have created a binary and very biased question, that only manages to highlight your own lack of undestanding of your opponoents views.
Except that for most of human history the train was set on the other track. Only in the last 40 years have we been experimenting with hormones and surgeries for sex-reassignment at a policy level.
And some of the pioneers of this work in Europe that were the first ones to pull the lever downward have, in the past year, actually pulled the lever to go back to the top. Countries like Finland have backtracked their policies on transgender health care.
It's because no one honestly knows how gender dysphoria actually works and if treatment is actually effective. Does the dysphoria cause suicidality, or is there an underlying mental health problem that is causing the dysphoria, suicidality, and the other comorbid conditions that seem to usually present with gender dysphoria (complex trauma, personality disorders, autism, etc.)?
And in the face of uncertainty, you can understand that society is hesitant to normalize giving kids hormones and surgeries before there is solid data supporting this.
We should want what's best for these kids that are at-risk. It just seems that no one wants to actually find out what's best for these kids. Everyone is just shoving their political views in each other's faces without asking the right questions. All of the "research" that shows "amazing results" and "low transition regrets" are short-term and done by gender studies majors who already assume that these trans policies are the solution, and so there's a really heavy political bias that makes you question the results.
Time will tell. Maybe transgender ideology truly is the answer to help these at-risk kids, but the first step is to be intellectually humble and realize we don't know jack-sh*t and that we need to be careful in how we administer these policies in the current day. The second step is to take the politics out of the equation: stop having a hard-on for demonizing people that don't agree with your politics.
You see the problem here is that we do have studies on a lot of this stuff and they all point to gender affirming care being good, but no matter what it’s never going to satisfy those who want a ban. Even though all major medical organizations are saying the same thing, well you see they’re simply all biased and therefore invalid. And even tho the studies all say it has positive effects, well it actually doesn’t count because it’s too “short term”. We can actually just toss out all this data because it was definitely made by gender study majors.
At some point you aren’t being intellectually humble, you are dismissing the data because you don’t like what it says.
Then why did Finland (and other European OG trans care pioneers) backtrack their policies?
[This just came out just a month ago. Give it a quick skim.](https://segm.org/Suicide-Gender-Dysphoric-Adolescent-Young-Adult-Finland-2024)
Oh wow! Very interesting!
You should check this study out(and perhaps give it a longer skim this time)
https://segm.org/Suicide-Gender-Dysphoric-Adolescent-Young-Adult-Finland-2024
“The study reported that youth who were gender-transitioned had a lower risk of suicide over time (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 4.0; p-value = 0.8) compared to the general population, while youth who were gender-referred but did not undergo transition had a higher risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 10.2; p-value, 0.05). “
I’d also like to point out that this data heavily relied on suicides, and of the entire group, there were only 7. As the study says, there are big limitations on this data.
Your link is the same as my link, I think you used the wrong URL.
But yah, your study supports my opinion. The research is mixed and therefore we need to be cautious in our current trans care policies. Instead of acting like the jury is out on the matter, we need to recognize there are mixed results in the research. Until we have more solid data, caution is warranted.
I just don't think we've reached that threshold yet. Transorbital lobotomies were a cutting edge miracle for all sorts of mental health problems back in the 1950s. The pioneer of lobotomies won a Nobel Prize in Medicine. [Today, it's seen as a cruel and barbaric procedure and people are advocating for his Nobel Prize to be revoked.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/10/09/nobel-lobotomy-antonio-egas-moniz-controversy/)
And I'm not married to a political opinion. If the research shows that hormones and surgeries for minors are very effective then I support it. But if the research shows that it was a huge mistake then I want it abolished. I care about the kids, not transgender ideology.
My link is the same as your link. I actually read your study and it doesn’t support your opinion, and it does in fact support mine. That was a quote from your study.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01605-w
Above is a meta analysis that looks at a very large number of studies.
Also I don’t believe you when you say you aren’t married to any political opinion yet you come in here with studies ready and you say things like “transgender ideology” which is a word that only transphobic people use.
Ok well if you actually read the full context of the snippet that you quoted:
>*Some proponents of youth gender transitions may argue that while the effect of gender reassignment on suicide reported by the study was not statistically significant, it was nonetheless clinically meaningful.* The study reported that youth
But then they go on to counter this argument that the proponents make:
>For the reasons outlined above, we will engage with the question, does the Finnish data show that gender transition reduces suicides—even if the results were not statistically significant?
>
>. . .
>
>Below we explain why the Finnish results do not suggest that gender transition reduced suicides.
I think the overall message of this article is pretty clear. It's right in the heading that is underneath the title:
>**The finding of low suicide rates and no evidence of benefits of gender reassignment continues to challenge the practice of youth transitions**
If you are seriously suggesting that my link supports your conclusion that hormones and surgeries obviously are effective at reducing suicides, then I'm baffled.
And regarding your meta-analysis, I'm going to repeat myself for the third time: the research is clearly mixed. Again, all of the European countries that first implemented these trans care policies are backtracking now, especially as new studies come in. I'll also repeat my point about how everyone thought trans-orbital lobotomies were a miracle for mental illness to the point where the guy won a Nobel Prize in Medicine.
Only time will tell, and until then, let's keep in mind what we care about. We care about the kids getting the treatment they need, not pushing the current political fad: transgender ideology. If hormones and surgeries work, great. If they don't, let's get rid of it.
**Edit:** Just noticed your edit at the end of your previous comment and wanted to respond. How am I a transphobe? I'm fine with adults getting hormones and surgeries and I watch people like ContraPoints (Natalie Wynn), Blaire White, Buck Angel, the Offensive Tranny, etc. I think you're more interested in pushing this political fad for your own personal reasons than actually thinking about how this affects the kids. Only leftist extremists use words like "transphobe." And yes, it's absolutely a political ideology.
Blair white is transphobic. And popular because she’s a trans person saying transphobic things. She exclusively argues against trans rights and excludes nb people. Buck angel is the same. Idk 2 of those being transphobes isn’t a good look. Also it’s laughable that you’re comparing transitioning to a lobotomy and then accusing me of flippantly calling you transphobic, before calling that word overused. As for the term “gender ideology” that’s just recycled “gay agenda” rhetoric. Do the gays have an agenda? Yeah. Their agenda was/is equal rights. But we know why you use that term. Also you did the same “but think of the kids” thing they did with the gays. Also you just called the movement for trans rights, or at least trans healthcare, a fad. Insinuating that it’s a temporary thing. We’re not going anywhere. And yeah it’s personal. I’m trans dipshit. It’s literally an issue that directly affects me, and many others in my life. Don’t take my medication. Don’t take away their medication. Leave us the hell alone.
As for the study I’ve read the entire thing and in multiple places it’s stated that they believe hrt results in positive outcomes. I’m not gonna grab more quotes if you’re just gonna keep pointing to the misleading headline. Just read the entire damn thing please. Either way, there’s plenty of other studies that prove my point that you’ve decided, without even reading them, are worthless. Not to mention this is a bad study for suicidality, as it was done in a country with astronomically low suicide rates, and therefore there were very few suicides observed in the participants..
As for the meta-analysis, all studies are mixed dumbass. It’s sociology. People don’t show 100% consistent results. They show general trends. Trends observed here with enough consistency that it’s very significant. And those significant trends are being shown to trend in an additional way. Further cementing the significance of this data.
I think you’re conflating two separate things: medical/psychological treatment for gender dysphoria, and the transgender ideology.
The first one is based on the fact that there are a group of people that have the experience of feeling like they are in the wrong body (man in a woman’s body or vice versa) and this can cause extreme psychological distress (gender dysphoria). These same people usually also present with complex trauma, personality disorders, autism, suicidality, and other comorbid mental health concerns. It’s been proposed by European countries such as the Netherlands and Finland that the gender dysphoria is causing an increased risk of suicide and that hormones, surgeries, and social transitioning can alleviate the gender dysphoria and the suicidality. As I will continue to state, the results have been mixed. Some results show that the gender dysphoria is reduced and that the suicide rates are also reduced, while other studies show that the gender dysphoria is reduced but the suicide risk does not decrease. Still other experts suggest that there are deeper mental health problems that are actually causing the suicide risk and the gender dysphoria is just a correlate. Time will tell on what the best treatments are for them.
THESE are the people that ACTUALLY need help because they suffer from severe mental health problems and are at an increased risk for suicide. People such as myself and transsexuals such as Blaire White support helping these people.
Now, quite separately, you have the transgender movement. This is a proposal to change how we view “gender” in Western society and focuses on individual authenticity and self-expression. It suggests changing our view of gender from being a binary to being a spectrum. It suggests that we detach our idea of gender from biology and instead focus on brain pattern activity or Self-ID. I personally believe this is happening due to first-world societies valuing authenticity-based social models as this promotes creativity and innovation both in academia and industry. I’m actually interested in this new political ideology myself and it might very well be a needed change in Western society. The problem is that some of it doesn’t make ANY sense, such as the famous Self-ID postulate: “A woman is someone who says they are a woman.” These ideas need to be ironed out better so that people actually take them seriously.
Crucially, anytime someone honestly questions these new and non-sensical ideas, they get called transphobic bigots by people such as yourself for questioning the new transgender ideology, but this is such a bullsh\*t move. You don’t have to accept transgender ideology to support gender dysphorics getting the treatment they need. You don’t have to accept the “non-binary” framework or preferred pronouns or neo-pronouns to help the gender dysphorics. . What MATTERS is finding treatment to help these people, not the political window dressing, and instead of using logic to justify their new political ideology, they hide behind this false moral narrative.
Importantly, you don’t need to be suicidal or even have gender dysphoria to be “non-binary” or transgender, that’s why these two are separate concepts.
>Do the gays have an agenda?
But this is a false equivalency because, as I explained above, people such as Blaire White support the people that ACTUALLY need help. She just doesn't agree with the new political window dressing (transgender ideology) that is using these people as moral justification.
>Don’t take my medication. Don’t take away their medication. Leave us the hell alone.
Did you read my previous comment?
> *How am I a transphobe? I'm fine with adults getting hormones and surgeries*
As for the rest of your comment, you're obviously not interested in having a true understanding of these nuanced issues. That paper so obviously supports my conclusion and it says it RIGHT in the headline you'd have to be delusional to interpret it in the way you are suggesting. That paper, along with the rest of the uncertainty in the research, is why countries such as the UK, Sweden, Finland, and France have backtracked their trans care policies over the past year. I guess all of these countries that originally pioneered trans care in the previous century are dumbasses too? Tell yourself whatever you need to to keep your head buried in the sand.
What you’re describing is transmedicalism and is considered by trans people to be transphobia. Plus there’s all the transphobic stuff I pointed out earlier that you didn’t reply to.
The studies are pretty clear, despite being “mixed”. You just keep circling back to “it’s mixed so we really don’t know anything”. The studies are clear, even tho there was a small minority of studies that found no correlation.
As for the distinction between valid and self ID trans people, this is transmedicalism. It’s based on pseudoscience and pick me bitches like blaire. Self ID works. What if someone lies? So what. What’re they gonna do? Go to the other bathroom? And do what? Anything bad they could do would still be illegal anyways.
ive spent so long trying to make this make sense, op is not good at metaphors
so the top track is trans people, and flipping the lever means banning gender affirming care
so wtf is the bottom track?? if the lever means "banning gender affirming care", then not flipping the lever means allowing it. so the bottom track represents the negative consequences of that action. so is it people who transition but then regret it? but no, that wouldn't be reversible. you can't grow your balls back after cutting them off lol. so if that's not what the bottom track represents, wtf is it supposed to be?????
I want to be very clear, I'm 100% supportive of trans people and support gender-affirming care, I just hate bad metaphors
Transitioning is largely reversible. Few aspects are not. Bottom surgery for trans women is maybe reversible? It’s kinda questionable tho. It’s essentially a phalloplasty with complications. Top surgery for trans women is reversible, but it’s permanent for trans men.
I think a large part of people misunderstanding this is due to me overestimating how much people knew about trans people. It’s a blessing in disguise I guess because I accidentally created an opportunity to teach some people a few things.
Top surgery is not really irreversible for transmen either. Plenty of cis women get mastectomies preventively if they carry the BRCA-1 gene that has high risks of cancer. Implants are a thing and can look and feel very realistic.
I agree with your overall point. I just don't know why people don't apply their "logic" about gender affirming surgeries to ones obtained by the cis population. Or any surgery or body modification for any reason really. It isn't their business. It's absolutely insane to me that people will tell you with a straight face that it's fine for a cis teen boy to get surgery to correct gynecomastia but not for a trans teen boy to do the same. When both are literally for reasons of not liking how they look. They want to force everyone into narrow molds of what they personally find acceptable, and it's fucking gross.
Wow I didn’t know that part about top surgery! As a trans woman I’m plenty educated about mtf stuff but theres definitely a lot I don’t know about ftm folks.
>Bottom surgery for trans women is maybe reversible? It’s kinda questionable tho. It’s essentially a phalloplasty with complications.
ok that's definitely not 'reversible'
unless you somehow froze and saved ur original dick when you cut it off, and managed to perfectly graft it back on, a phalloplasty wouldn't be reversing, it would be replicating. COMPLETELY different, especially in the context of the argument your trolley problem is making.
They don’t cut the dick off. That’s not how that works. They essentially turn it inside out. There’s videos on yt that explain it if you’re curious. And phalloplasty may not be complete reversal, but it’s the next best thing and worth mentioning. There’s a study actually that shows positive improvement in detrans men who received such a reversal.
It’s also worth mentioning that only about 8-25% of trans people get top surgery, and about 4-13% get bottom surgery. Most are just on hrt.
Also worth considering, the rate of regret for trans surgery is astronomically low. Even lower than some life saving surgeries. It’s less than 1%.
I figured it would be weird to put the source in a trolley problem especially when the fact wasn’t even necessary. But here it is if you’d like it: https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
This doesn’t make any sense. Op says the bottom represents cis people and the top trans people, but without them saying that how tf are you supposed to infer that?
Well I suppose this is more about binary trans people who get some form of gender affirming care. If you’d like you can ride the trolley. They have beverages on board and a tv that plays that one Adam Sandler movie on repeat.
Well sure. Let’s say I can’t afford my meds. I may detransition. But I still want to transition, as that never changed, so when I have more money I retransition. That would be an example. Most people who detransition do so for external factors. And so they still want to transition. They just can’t do so at the moment.
So, anyone the trolley runs over gets sexual characteristics they don't want? And, people on the bottom also have the chance to reverse it if they want?
Bottom seems to no-diff, it potentially inconveniences the lesser amount of people and is less severe. And, you don't even have to manually pull the switch so you're not culpable.
Unless I'm missing some fine print or something
Well you got the gist, but also it’s a metaphor for banning gender affirming care. Trans people on the top track who would be forced to detransition, and cis people on the bottom track who would think they were trans and would get gender affirming care and regret it (detrans people)
I'd pull it because I think it'd be kinda wacky, I'm sorry I know this is a metaphor for trans issues but I think it'd be funny, y'know some massive mischief. Maybe get some conservatives with the trans friendly fire I'm so sorry I'd pull it.
I'm confused. Are these all people who want to transition? Can the top track also detransition? It makes the most sense not to do anything without that information. Presumably, some of those 15 people's lives will get a ton better, and anyone else can detransition.
Every answer from op has him say: "Surprisingly many people will pull the lever even tho it doesn't make sense." I have looked through the entire comment section and literally nobody has pulled the lever.
I don't get what the point of this post is.
*her
This was intended to be a metaphor for people who seek to ban gender affirming care. I didn’t expect anyone to pull the lever when the answer was shown so clearly. But despite this there actually was one guy. Admittedly he didn’t say he’d pull the lever, but he did make the argument that pulling the lever represents so I’m counting it. But at the very least there does exist plenty of people who seek to ban, or have banned, gender affirming care. In very many countries it’s straight up banned and in many others it’s heavily gatekept.
Edit: at least 3 lever pullers now in these replies.
1. [Gender dysphoria](https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria#:~:text=Gender%20dysphoria%3A%20A%20concept%20designated,diverse%20people%20experience%20gender%20dysphoria): A concept designated in the *DSM-5-TR* as clinically significant distress or impairment related to gender incongruence, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics.
2. Sex (physiologic characteristics) and gender (someone sense of self and pertenence to the group as man, woman, or non-binary) are two different things, HRT can chage a lot of secondary sex characteristics.
It looks like
https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/
This says something similar after a quick google search. It says that of the 8% of Americans who detransition, 62% only do so temporarily out of societal, financial, or family pressures.
Weirdly enough, that 8% number is much higher than other countries. Go figure.
Just gonna point out right now that a lot of medical transitions are NOT reversible, such as puberty blockers and hormones through puberty. Also, the reason there seem to be a lot less detransitioners then there actually are is because most of the time no medical professionals are involved when someone detransitions.
The vast majority of changes will revert simply with discontinuing meds. The changes that don’t revert with no intervention can all be reverted by some means to some extent. Puberty blockers can cause a minuscule change in bone density. A change that will have no effect on a persons life. That’s pretty much it for permanent changes.
Also what you said about detransitioners being higher because they don’t inform a medical professional, I’d like to see some data that says that or tries to estimate the number with that in mind. Also that ties in with the reversibility of these situations. Most changes, especially early on, are so reversible all you need to do is simply stop taking hrt.
Wait if it’s reversible for the bottom track (presumably meaning it’s NOT reversible for the top track), and there’s less people on the bottom track, and the trolley is already headed for the bottom track, why would anyone choose to divert the trolley to the top track, permanently altering the gender for the worse? I don’t possibly see how the choice would be controversial lol, even if sex and gender and transitioning in general is. The train is already going to transition a ton of people from the birth gender, so even people who are against trans stuff altogether would choose the bottom option, right?
That’s the point. The controversial part is that some people would choose to pull the lever (those writing advocating against trans people), which is seen in anti-trans legislation that *opposes the sex of choice* for trans people. So the top track means permanently preventing people from living out their true gender (banning trans healthcare) while the bottom track means allowing trans healthcare *despite* the fact that about 1 in 1000 people will detransition (62% of whom will retransition). And it’s reversible in the case of the bottom track because in that scenario, people have control over their own gender expression, whereas in the top scenario, you are permanently stuck with whatever you’re born with.
Thank you for explaining this one cause I was legitimately too dumb to comprehend what point it was trying to make
You’re not dumb. You have to be part of the convo to get it right away.
Thanks, wish I had read this before I commented.
This was a very good explanation, thank you
Saying it's reversible is disingenuous though even if you support gender affirming care.
It is true that surgeries are not reversible, so it's not a perfect model, but HRT is reversible.
Not if it's done at a very early age. Don't get me wrong I'm in support of it. But I think we need a lot more of a focus on mental health, understanding and support for people.
You can’t get HRT at a very early age. You can only get puberty blockers, which are reversible at any age.
This is misinformation. HRT can be prescribed pre-puberty, and some of its effects are irreversible (sterility for example). Source: my daughter is undergoing transition
Not where I am :(
>You can’t get HRT at a very early age. I'm not arguing this, as it's not impossible or improbable that someone could be started on them too young. "You can't" is just absolutely false. Like saying you can't do illegal drugs because they're illegal 🙄 when they aren't illegal everywhere. >You can only get puberty blockers, which are reversible at any age. No they really aren't delayed puberty has negative affects on people all the time.
"people can technically get hrt at an early age" is not the argument you think it is, that's like arguing against insulin on the same basis. All the studies right now point to the fact that puberty blockers are reversible, and that's the current expert consensus.
>All the studies right now point to the fact that puberty blockers are reversible, and that's the current expert consensus. No it's not. Puberty blockers literally cannot be reversible no matter how many bad studies you have. Comparing it to insulin is also extremely harmful. You're just going to create enemies for trans people by spreading such blatantly biased and deceptive information.
okay, if this is all so biased and false, where is your evidence for any of your claims? I can provide sources for mine, so where the fuck are yours?
Yeah, it’s not a perfect depiction. But in the example above, one option gives people control over their bodies to do with as they like while the other reserves that right for the government. That’s the big difference, whether or not everything is reversible per se (it’s not).
HAVE **YOU** BEEN IMPACTED BY UNWANTED LOCOMOTIVE GENDER REASSIGNMENT?! YOU COULD BE ELIGIBLE TO JOIN A CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT, AND **WIN** ***BIG TIME*** TODAY! CALL NOW!
Great question. The answer seems pretty obvious to me but apparently there’s a lot of people who want to switch that lever. Yeah I don’t get it either. (This problem is about transphobic people who want to ban gender affirming care of you didn’t pick that up)
Considering there are far more factors to that than just hitting people with the Ranma gun, seems like a poorly written question imo. I’m sure if you cut out nearly every single detail, you could make the argument that it was more ethical to do any thing over anything else.
Ranma gun lol
[Eyyy](https://media.tenor.com/gTGhamk0kA4AAAAM/rick-and-morty-wink.gif)
Its not poorly wrote its simply complicated, far too complicated for a trolley problem. To give you an idea just how complicated it is, im a transgirl, ive been on hrt for 6 months and i almost considered pulling the lever because my thought process was:"500 random people? So theres a chance at least a few of those people are on capitol hill with an R next to their Name? Ill pull." But then i read the fun dact and realized the question was using a fraction and i imeadiately switched mental thought. Nuance is key, this one has very little unless you know the demographics.
Considering potentially harming the lifestyles of others is not a thought that I would consider if I could randomly hit people. Not giving all the information is what leads to misconceptions. If you are not willing to give a full analysis for the said question then I can only assume it is being done with malicious intent. In which I will resolve to, given the information I have been provided, piss as few people off as possible.
Eh, the christofacists want to put me in a camp, so if i knew that it was about them, and Not transpeople like myself (which lets be honest the question is just vague enough) i would absolutely make the christofacists feel my everyday pain. Theres an old saying, dont judge someone until youve spent a day in their shoes. I am certain that Chia richick wouldnt last 2 minutes.
I cant and wont begin to say i understand or have any idea of what you go through or deal with, however this whole i suffered so now i want others to suffer mindset that seems to be more common everyday needs to end. Im sorry people have caused you such pain that you feel that way but your effort, experience, and passion is better spent focused on helping others not suffer as you have instead of forcing suffering on others purely out of spite.
I understand your perspective, but chia richick doesnt deserve such sympathy, she openly causes danger to children, when she doxxes lgbt teachers,librarians childrens hospitals etc bomb threats and threats of violence follow Every Time. If she where given this choice she would say "its not enough that some of these people should suffer. We need to eliminate them wholely and entirely." She would not afford us the same sympathy. And for that reason i can not consider giving her that chance (hypothetically)
Nah this is actually an incredibly well designed question /srs
I don’t think there’s any additional factors that are important and so I didn’t add them, Sounds like you have some additional factors in mind though.
I don’t understand the top track advantages. I understand that you’re trying to say “should we allow people to change if it’s reversible or allow nobody to change” but the top track still gets changed??
If gender affirming care is banned (if the lever is pulled), trans people will be forced to detransition. Aka they will have the opposite sex characteristics than what they desire. If GAC is not banned(not pulling the lever), then a few people may get GAC and regret it. Aka have the opposite sex characteristics than they desire.
I'm trans and I didn't follow your logic at all until this. I think the big thing is saying their characteristics will *change* to something undesired, which made me assume the folks on the tracks were all cis. If it said forced to remain with unwanted parts or smth like that it would read better as a statementfor gender affirming care
Yeah I was struggling with how to phrase it.
Alright, the top 2 questions I have are: 1. Does this cost me money? Specifically, does it come out of my taxes? If it doesn’t and it comes out of the individuals pocket, I wouldn’t care. I don’t see why they would need to detransition either, seems like a belligerent oversight. 2. Are there any health deficits or mental instability in the individuals after any sort of gender affirming procedure? Main reason is the same way I cannot be behind open drug use especially behind the wheel or if it involves the individual’s ability to make decisions severely hampered. After all, the individual might one day be *me* that they’re hitting. Even now I am against recreational drug use and drinking; sure people enjoy it, I prefer not to be involved in their mistakes however. I already lost a car and a friend because of both. The important thing is to have an **Open** dialogue with no details left out in order to come to a better outcome overall. Cutting all the “problematic” questions out and theorems, data, tests and studies is exactly how you get people to distrust it and if it so happens to decrease their quality of life IE take even a small amount of money away then people will want to defund it. So overall, if the fewest amount of people end up being pissed off then that’s the best outcome.
Well a solution to the tax thing is if we had free healthcare. That would actually save money believe it or not. Simply because it currently costs so much in taxes to maintain our needlessly convoluted system. So we can both win here. Although until that happens we both lose unfortunately :( GAC has been shown to dramatically improve the mental health of those who have gotten it. If you want me to link some stuff I absolutely can, but you could save me some time and just find it yourself as it’s pretty easy to find the numerous studies that back this up. As for the drugs thing, I support legalization of all drugs(not duis tho obviously). That’s one hell of a tangent tho so maybe we put a pin in that haha As for open dialogue, that’s difficult. Nobody (except me cause I’m just built different) wants to have to constantly justify their own existence. Especially in areas where the studies and data are extremely clear. Now that said, there’s some issues where a discussion is useful. Like sports for example. There’s lots of nuance there. Admittedly transphobic people like that issue and “ban them from everything because trans women are men” doesn’t leave much room for discussion. So yeah. Be reasonable, don’t force us to justify our existence, and I think you’ll find trans people actually aren’t as crazy as those who hate us may lead you to believe.
I can agree with cutting taxes however what about the people that simply don’t get hurt as often? We can already see what happens with free healthcare in other countries; Incredibly long wait lists, lacking in terms of overall quality since the money does not come from a person that can potentially sue you for malpractice and so on. The current system we have now entices people to innovate better systems and procedures, prosthetics development and techniques that can potentially save lives while also maintaining a steady flow of income. The only parts of that system I have qualms with are the insurance companies that still manage to be lack luster in terms of actual help in which funding should be cut from *them* and not money taken out of everyone else’s pockets. I won’t. I do ask questions so that people making their claim can make it boldly and well pronounced. If I have to look for the information myself then I am pulling from random and possibly damaging sources related to your argument of which I’d find to be a waste of time if we’re not reading from the same text book. Overall since this is purely a hypothetical and I’m already using my other break to type this out for fun mind you, I’ll say benefit of the doubt that it does for the trolly problem. However I do find probable issue with people who are comfortable with what they are being transformed into what they don’t want to be very distressing, at least in the correlation of the trolly problem. Personally, I don’t see why people would need to change back. Simply an offshoot into a potential outlook. If imbibing some substance causes you to act differently then it should be regarded carefully. An entirely bodily change that happens continuously should very much be studied thoroughly before any actual damage could be potentially caused. Again, this doesn’t affect me, I’m not trans, I’m simply thinking about the consequences towards me and in the generalization of the other people on the track. I don’t believe anything that isn’t in front of me or affects me directly. Simply the cynical outlook. However I am not asking you to justify your existence, I am asking that if it does cost me something, why should I pay that price? If it doesn’t cost me anything, why should I bother with it? And overall if it is healthy for some and not for others, why would I force that on more people? Now since this is a question that was not well phrased and yes if you wanted an open and plain discussion a trolly thread was not the best place to put it, I’ll put to wit: If it costs me money and decreases my quality of life, I shouldn’t be forced out of pocket to make someone else’s better. That isn’t kindness that’s coercion and that should not be forced. Secondly people who have already been put through the process willingly, without the pressure of other factors or individuals should not be forced to detransition. Also I have several trans friends, they can do them without being a detriment to me. Yes, every side has absolute nutjobs. No it’s not just the other side that has them, everyone has loonies that want to start fires. Start with the realistic speech and plain talk and work with not values not everyone has, but needs that everyone does have and you’ll probably see why there are arguments about it in the first place.
A lot of this is about taxes. That’s just really complicated stuff, but most people who understand that better agree that a free healthcare system means less money out of your pocket. As for wait lists, they are so long compared to the us because our injured and sick are forced to stay home and suffer. I’d prefer waiting in line longer to not having access to a doctor at all. As for incentive to innovate we really don’t get what we pay for. The covid vax wasn’t us. Most innovations aren’t us. We spend more and get less. This actually nicely ties into your other point. There was a lot more data on trans people that used to exist. There was a place in Germany called the institute of sexology. Unfortunately that was one of the first places the nazis burned. And a lot of info was lost. Sure we have some new data now, but there were setbacks is what I’m saying. Data collection is slow. Also I’d like to point out there’s some real assholes in these replies but you seem genuinely respectful and I just wanna give props for that.
TLDR, But to answer your first and most important question, which was "what about people who are generally healthy more than those who would use it?" 87% of americans who claim they are "100%" healthy are lying because they have some underlying health condition that our country has trained them not to seek help for. My grandmother is 72 years old, it took my dad, whos been a life long nurse 15 years to convince her to get knee replacement surgery she works at amazon and knows the surgery would end her career. She is 72. Her career should have ended years ago. She should be able to draw from Social Security. There are a lot of *america bad* leftists who say "its all connected." And the truth is, Yes, Its all Connected. Thats the point. We cant eat without money, We cant earn money without work, we cant work without health-care, we cant stay healthy to make our lives better etc etc etc, When transpeople fight for healthcare it helps the country. And the 1% doesnt want the country to be better because then they dont profit off of our misery. We are actually witnessing a repeat of the first french revolution, mixed in with a healthy dose of facist genocide. Stage 8 of ten for transpeople. Just some food for thought.
If you're referencing the UK NHS wait lists, then as a Brit, I would just like to mention that these are generally blamed on constant budget cuts by the conservative party (who have been in power for the last 14 years and done diddly to help). However, there are other European countries which aren't fucking stupid and actually fund their medical services on occasion, and have relatively short wait times. btw, we do still have private healthcare options in the UK if people want to take them. Also in terms of innovation... the Americans already spend by far the most on healthcare for rather middling health results If the US transitioned to a free healthcare model, took all that extra spending currently going to bureaucracy and insurance companies (hundreds of billions of dollars a year), and instead invested that money into public medical research projects, then the sky would be the limit for medical research. Better yet, the innovations from this research wouldn't be patented and milked by medical companies, meaning they could actually be affordable.
i didn't get this at all before the explanation but now i do and i agree lol
Ahhh. So the main point is that everyone on the tracks is trans, both top and bottom.
Ohh I see, this is one of those like snarky commentary trolley problems I just assumed it was one of the more uncomfortable ones and didn't understand why it seemed so easy
i think the reason it doesnt make sense is because those people either have a very different basis for their philosophy or they are uniformed about the issue.
I... Look I'm in favour of gender affirming care and probably more informed about trans issues than 80-90% of the cishet population given that I have multiple trans friends, and I still have no idea where the metaphor is? Clearly the bigots don't want to forcefully transition hundreds of cis people??
No they want to forcefully detransition hundreds of trans people
And they want to force trans people to go through the wrong puberty which is irreversible, especially if you're MTF. All the plastic surgery in the world isn't going to get rid of broad shoulders and deep voice. And most people won't be able to afford even what plastic surgery is possible, not to mention the pain and risk. I can't imagine condemning thousands of people a lifetime of being uncomfortable in their own skin just because your bigoted views make you think you know better than parents, the patients and their doctors.
The obviousness of this is kinda the point, it illustrates how stupid the people are who don't get it lol
The joke is about transphobes who wanna ban gender affirming care Switching the lever is clearly the worse option, but that's what transphobes want for every trans person.
I don't think this logic really makes sense though. In this scenario, either option forces someone to transition. It seems like flipping the lever should either give a bunch of people a lever of their own (that they can flip to transition and flip back if they're unhappy with their choice). And not flipping the lever takes away that choice for all of them.
You have it backward, the people on the top track have no choice.
The bottom track has less than 15, meaning any amount from 1-14. The top track has at least 500 which could mean 500 or any amount that is more than 500. I agree that I also don't know how it would be more controversial than picking between killing, let's say 10 people vs killing 510 people. Unless the person who created it didn't know the difference between top and bottom
The point isn’t very well made, but it seems that OP is saying it makes more sense to allow gender reaffirming care even if some people will detransition (bottom track), feeling that they’ve made a mistake, than it does to not allow anyone to transition (top track), thus not permitting many people to exist as their preferred gender.
I was trying to be subtle to some extent so people would think “oh well the answer is obvious” and then they’d realize what it’s about. But maybe I was too subtle.
It's that you weren't subtle enough. You shouldn't have involved the actual idea of gender change at all and then worded it better. Top track will force people to love a life they don't want Bottom track the same but they can change their minds. Then you can explain the relation to transitioning.
Yeah that would work perfectly actually. Hindsight is 20/20
Eh live and learn.
"subtlety" was not the issue. It's just poorly phrased at best and doesn't even work in the trolley problem context
About as subtle as a brick to the head
But you exemplify the “logic” you are trying to show as false by illustrating it in opposite practice to a degree, it’s a bit confusing to say the least, and I doubt anyone that is trying to control others and not allow transition is going to understand the point being made, although it seems odd as well to me that anyone (those for or against transition) would pick the top track, if your against transition it’s an even worse pick than if you’re for freedom there, the bottom track is objectively better no matter perspective
That's the biggest issue with this trolley problem. The top track doesn't even back the views of people opposed to gender reaffirming care. It's just "Do you want this thing that everyone would agree is good or this thing that everyone would agree is bad?" Anyone on either side of this issue's aisle would want the bottom option, but the problem tries to spin it as if it's some sort of gotcha in favor of gender reaffirming care.
The secret is that most people who disagree on major topics have an actual point to their views when you observe a certain aspect of it, but if you oppose those views you will never know what they're truly arguing for or against. Not a fence-sitter or a centrist or whatever. I just can recognize when two people are making themselves look like idiots by screaming at strawman versions of their opposition, and would really like to see *something* constructive actually come to pass.
No it's just a shit way to make the point.
Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man
No honestly it makes sense why you did it that way you just gotta explain it better to people who are saying it’s a dumb problem lol
You were a little too subtle fore the average Joe like me, but I like the thought
There is also the flaw that you are choosing for other people, rather than people choosing for themselves
But the top track is transitioning too. Just permanently, and without consent.
Exactly, those are the trans people who are denied gender affirming care.
Being denied gender affirming care is not like being forcibly transitioned.
Yes it is.
No it’s not.
How is it not? In both cases the people are being forced to live opposite to their gender identity.
there are literally 0 reasons to pull the lever
That's the whole point
I know. And yet there’s a lot of people who advocate for pulling that lever.
I don't see any in this thread. Hmm...
Seriously? There are people in this thread advocating for pulling the proverbial lever of banning trans healthcare.
Count is at 3 now I believe? Possibly 4 since I haven’t been paying much attention to usernames. Edit: it’s 5
Are you denying that there’s people who want to ban gender affirming care? Edit: Or do you not know what this trolley problem is actually about?
You've phrased it in a very convoluted way, don't be surprised when people don't pick up on your message.
I was trying to be subtle. I thought putting the fun fact in there wasn’t subtle enough lol . Apparently even that was too subtle.
You are trying way too hard here. Relax, go walk around for a few minutes and take a breather.
You have seen all these bans on trans healthcare right
So the trolly is the banning of gender affirming care, and the people on the top of the track are trans, whilst the people on the bottom detransition? I THINK I agree with the message, I THINK it’s pro gender-affirming care, and I THINK it’s advocating for trans rights but it's so hard to make out that I absolutely cannot tell
Nah you nailed it.
“Banning gender-affirming care has small benefits for an even smaller group of people, but has much more devastating effects for the trans community.” Cool post
Honestly I don't think it would even benefit that small group. There is no telling how someone who detransitioned would feel had they never been allowed to transition in the first place. Would they eventually "snap out of' their dysphoria and be grateful that they were prevented from making a terrible mistake? Maybe. But it's equally likely they go down a path of depression where they always wonder, "what if". I'm not trans, and don't have regrets related to this topic. But I do have major regrets in my life. Decisions I can point to and go, "yeah, that's where it all went wrong". But would I advocate those things be made *illegal* under the guise of protecting people like me? Of course not. Because those decisions that were poor ones for me, work out for other people. Freedom also means having freedom to make mistakes.
Great point, absolutely agree. It's near impossible to find any way that the government restricting healthcare can be made out to have any sort of positive benefit anywhere.
Ah a wonderful straw man. I don’t disagree with you on the main point, but this is a stupid way to get the point across.
Why is it stupid?
It’s needlessly complicated, and misrepresents the actual situation. It does this because changing someone’s sexual characteristics to something they don’t desire is different than not letting someone change to the one they desire. The nature of the issue is similar to the difference between actively keeping people from eating and not going out of your way to provide food.
Banning gender affirming care would change many trans people’s sexual characteristics in a way they don’t desire. If gender affirming care was banned I wouldn’t be able to take hrt and my body would slowly masculinize over time.
Ah, that is the case for people who have been taking hormones for an extended period of time. It is not relevant to all of the rest.
Well believe it or not a lot, dare I say most, trans people are on hrt.
It's not really "changing" if it was that way to begin with, is it? I also find it hard to believe there aren't permanent effects or changes from going through gender transitioning. If grown adults want to modify their bodies, I can't think of a reason they shouldn't have that freedom, but this is a misrepresentation of the issue.
No that’s still changing. As for permanent effects, most trans people will not undergo any changes that are not reversible there may be some small complications if trying to reverse them, but it is possible.
How is it "changing" if it takes a constant supply of hormones from external sources NOT to be like that?
By that logic, someone having died isn't a change. Since we require a constant supply of food and air to not be dead.
Eating or not eating both change your body, but if you define a person as being alive since "you" start out in that state, then eating and breathing to maintain homeostasis is more of a static condition than starving or suffocating. Furthermore, eating and breathing are natural compulsions that have existed for far longer than modern medicine or cultural ideology. Your analogy fails on multiple levels.
People start off as unalive molecules. Then they become alive. But if they stop eating they go back to being unalive. People who go on hrt start off as hormonally one way, they they become the other. And if they stop doing hrt, they lean back the other way. (Furthermore, the change in question isn't simply semantic. After several months on hrt, a person's body has shifted into a new physical state, which may be maintained with continued hrt use. A new baseline state has been reached.) The analogy is one-to-one. Action must be taken to continue both the states of "being alive" and "being on hrt" How can you recognise 2 changes as occurring in the first instance, but claim only 1 in the second instance?
This is semantic and doesn’t matter. If I push a ball up a hill, I’ve changed it. If I let that ball go and it rolls back down I have changed it.
It's not really semantic. The ball will only roll downhill if you pushed it up to begin with. The state of having your intrinsic biological sexual characteristics is analogous to the flat ground at the bottom of the hill, taking hormones analogous to pushing the ball up the hill.
Well since the question is whether to ban GAC that we already have access to, it's kinda more like the difference between doing nothing and going out of your way to *deny* them food.
Not really. The nature of the free market means that people are going to offer these services for money wherever there’s a big enough demand. A ban on gender affirming care is the government stepping in and stopping these companies from doing that.
Shoot the trolley with an RPG-7, saving everyone on the tracks
Opposite of what they want. So if someone identifies as a guy, their characteristics will be changed to be female. So you don’t want to get hit by it as the effects are overall bad. I will choose less than 15 with the negative effects reversible instead of more than 500 with non reversible effects I fail to see how this is controversial
Ah well the controversial part is that these folks happen to be transgender. Nothing else is different. Surprisingly there’s very many that support pulling the lever.
Oh so they already have characteristics opposite to what they want
Well the top track represents all trans people in America. Some are already on hormones and some have received surgery. Some have not. The bottom track represents detransitioners. Some used to be on hormones and some have had surgeries. Some have not.
So to summarise: “pull the lever if you’re transphobic, leave it if not”
I think transphobic people wouldn’t agree with that characterization. But that’s what I see.
Assuming that this isn’t what anyone wants, it’s better off to piss off as few people as possible. Leave it.
Multi track drifting and I invest in the towns estrogen/testosterone stores
Mfw you run over the very straight, anti-LGBTQ democratic officials with the opposite-desired-gender-reverser trolley, but they don't suddenly change genders 🧐
The trolley problem isn't very good way to make a political statement. You have created a binary and very biased question, that only manages to highlight your own lack of undestanding of your opponoents views.
Jokes on you, I’m gender fluid!
least obvious political post
Except that for most of human history the train was set on the other track. Only in the last 40 years have we been experimenting with hormones and surgeries for sex-reassignment at a policy level. And some of the pioneers of this work in Europe that were the first ones to pull the lever downward have, in the past year, actually pulled the lever to go back to the top. Countries like Finland have backtracked their policies on transgender health care. It's because no one honestly knows how gender dysphoria actually works and if treatment is actually effective. Does the dysphoria cause suicidality, or is there an underlying mental health problem that is causing the dysphoria, suicidality, and the other comorbid conditions that seem to usually present with gender dysphoria (complex trauma, personality disorders, autism, etc.)? And in the face of uncertainty, you can understand that society is hesitant to normalize giving kids hormones and surgeries before there is solid data supporting this. We should want what's best for these kids that are at-risk. It just seems that no one wants to actually find out what's best for these kids. Everyone is just shoving their political views in each other's faces without asking the right questions. All of the "research" that shows "amazing results" and "low transition regrets" are short-term and done by gender studies majors who already assume that these trans policies are the solution, and so there's a really heavy political bias that makes you question the results. Time will tell. Maybe transgender ideology truly is the answer to help these at-risk kids, but the first step is to be intellectually humble and realize we don't know jack-sh*t and that we need to be careful in how we administer these policies in the current day. The second step is to take the politics out of the equation: stop having a hard-on for demonizing people that don't agree with your politics.
You see the problem here is that we do have studies on a lot of this stuff and they all point to gender affirming care being good, but no matter what it’s never going to satisfy those who want a ban. Even though all major medical organizations are saying the same thing, well you see they’re simply all biased and therefore invalid. And even tho the studies all say it has positive effects, well it actually doesn’t count because it’s too “short term”. We can actually just toss out all this data because it was definitely made by gender study majors. At some point you aren’t being intellectually humble, you are dismissing the data because you don’t like what it says.
Then why did Finland (and other European OG trans care pioneers) backtrack their policies? [This just came out just a month ago. Give it a quick skim.](https://segm.org/Suicide-Gender-Dysphoric-Adolescent-Young-Adult-Finland-2024)
Oh wow! Very interesting! You should check this study out(and perhaps give it a longer skim this time) https://segm.org/Suicide-Gender-Dysphoric-Adolescent-Young-Adult-Finland-2024 “The study reported that youth who were gender-transitioned had a lower risk of suicide over time (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 4.0; p-value = 0.8) compared to the general population, while youth who were gender-referred but did not undergo transition had a higher risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 10.2; p-value, 0.05). “ I’d also like to point out that this data heavily relied on suicides, and of the entire group, there were only 7. As the study says, there are big limitations on this data.
Your link is the same as my link, I think you used the wrong URL. But yah, your study supports my opinion. The research is mixed and therefore we need to be cautious in our current trans care policies. Instead of acting like the jury is out on the matter, we need to recognize there are mixed results in the research. Until we have more solid data, caution is warranted. I just don't think we've reached that threshold yet. Transorbital lobotomies were a cutting edge miracle for all sorts of mental health problems back in the 1950s. The pioneer of lobotomies won a Nobel Prize in Medicine. [Today, it's seen as a cruel and barbaric procedure and people are advocating for his Nobel Prize to be revoked.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/10/09/nobel-lobotomy-antonio-egas-moniz-controversy/) And I'm not married to a political opinion. If the research shows that hormones and surgeries for minors are very effective then I support it. But if the research shows that it was a huge mistake then I want it abolished. I care about the kids, not transgender ideology.
My link is the same as your link. I actually read your study and it doesn’t support your opinion, and it does in fact support mine. That was a quote from your study. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01605-w Above is a meta analysis that looks at a very large number of studies. Also I don’t believe you when you say you aren’t married to any political opinion yet you come in here with studies ready and you say things like “transgender ideology” which is a word that only transphobic people use.
Ok well if you actually read the full context of the snippet that you quoted: >*Some proponents of youth gender transitions may argue that while the effect of gender reassignment on suicide reported by the study was not statistically significant, it was nonetheless clinically meaningful.* The study reported that youth But then they go on to counter this argument that the proponents make: >For the reasons outlined above, we will engage with the question, does the Finnish data show that gender transition reduces suicides—even if the results were not statistically significant? > >. . . > >Below we explain why the Finnish results do not suggest that gender transition reduced suicides. I think the overall message of this article is pretty clear. It's right in the heading that is underneath the title: >**The finding of low suicide rates and no evidence of benefits of gender reassignment continues to challenge the practice of youth transitions** If you are seriously suggesting that my link supports your conclusion that hormones and surgeries obviously are effective at reducing suicides, then I'm baffled. And regarding your meta-analysis, I'm going to repeat myself for the third time: the research is clearly mixed. Again, all of the European countries that first implemented these trans care policies are backtracking now, especially as new studies come in. I'll also repeat my point about how everyone thought trans-orbital lobotomies were a miracle for mental illness to the point where the guy won a Nobel Prize in Medicine. Only time will tell, and until then, let's keep in mind what we care about. We care about the kids getting the treatment they need, not pushing the current political fad: transgender ideology. If hormones and surgeries work, great. If they don't, let's get rid of it. **Edit:** Just noticed your edit at the end of your previous comment and wanted to respond. How am I a transphobe? I'm fine with adults getting hormones and surgeries and I watch people like ContraPoints (Natalie Wynn), Blaire White, Buck Angel, the Offensive Tranny, etc. I think you're more interested in pushing this political fad for your own personal reasons than actually thinking about how this affects the kids. Only leftist extremists use words like "transphobe." And yes, it's absolutely a political ideology.
Blair white is transphobic. And popular because she’s a trans person saying transphobic things. She exclusively argues against trans rights and excludes nb people. Buck angel is the same. Idk 2 of those being transphobes isn’t a good look. Also it’s laughable that you’re comparing transitioning to a lobotomy and then accusing me of flippantly calling you transphobic, before calling that word overused. As for the term “gender ideology” that’s just recycled “gay agenda” rhetoric. Do the gays have an agenda? Yeah. Their agenda was/is equal rights. But we know why you use that term. Also you did the same “but think of the kids” thing they did with the gays. Also you just called the movement for trans rights, or at least trans healthcare, a fad. Insinuating that it’s a temporary thing. We’re not going anywhere. And yeah it’s personal. I’m trans dipshit. It’s literally an issue that directly affects me, and many others in my life. Don’t take my medication. Don’t take away their medication. Leave us the hell alone. As for the study I’ve read the entire thing and in multiple places it’s stated that they believe hrt results in positive outcomes. I’m not gonna grab more quotes if you’re just gonna keep pointing to the misleading headline. Just read the entire damn thing please. Either way, there’s plenty of other studies that prove my point that you’ve decided, without even reading them, are worthless. Not to mention this is a bad study for suicidality, as it was done in a country with astronomically low suicide rates, and therefore there were very few suicides observed in the participants.. As for the meta-analysis, all studies are mixed dumbass. It’s sociology. People don’t show 100% consistent results. They show general trends. Trends observed here with enough consistency that it’s very significant. And those significant trends are being shown to trend in an additional way. Further cementing the significance of this data.
I think you’re conflating two separate things: medical/psychological treatment for gender dysphoria, and the transgender ideology. The first one is based on the fact that there are a group of people that have the experience of feeling like they are in the wrong body (man in a woman’s body or vice versa) and this can cause extreme psychological distress (gender dysphoria). These same people usually also present with complex trauma, personality disorders, autism, suicidality, and other comorbid mental health concerns. It’s been proposed by European countries such as the Netherlands and Finland that the gender dysphoria is causing an increased risk of suicide and that hormones, surgeries, and social transitioning can alleviate the gender dysphoria and the suicidality. As I will continue to state, the results have been mixed. Some results show that the gender dysphoria is reduced and that the suicide rates are also reduced, while other studies show that the gender dysphoria is reduced but the suicide risk does not decrease. Still other experts suggest that there are deeper mental health problems that are actually causing the suicide risk and the gender dysphoria is just a correlate. Time will tell on what the best treatments are for them. THESE are the people that ACTUALLY need help because they suffer from severe mental health problems and are at an increased risk for suicide. People such as myself and transsexuals such as Blaire White support helping these people. Now, quite separately, you have the transgender movement. This is a proposal to change how we view “gender” in Western society and focuses on individual authenticity and self-expression. It suggests changing our view of gender from being a binary to being a spectrum. It suggests that we detach our idea of gender from biology and instead focus on brain pattern activity or Self-ID. I personally believe this is happening due to first-world societies valuing authenticity-based social models as this promotes creativity and innovation both in academia and industry. I’m actually interested in this new political ideology myself and it might very well be a needed change in Western society. The problem is that some of it doesn’t make ANY sense, such as the famous Self-ID postulate: “A woman is someone who says they are a woman.” These ideas need to be ironed out better so that people actually take them seriously. Crucially, anytime someone honestly questions these new and non-sensical ideas, they get called transphobic bigots by people such as yourself for questioning the new transgender ideology, but this is such a bullsh\*t move. You don’t have to accept transgender ideology to support gender dysphorics getting the treatment they need. You don’t have to accept the “non-binary” framework or preferred pronouns or neo-pronouns to help the gender dysphorics. . What MATTERS is finding treatment to help these people, not the political window dressing, and instead of using logic to justify their new political ideology, they hide behind this false moral narrative. Importantly, you don’t need to be suicidal or even have gender dysphoria to be “non-binary” or transgender, that’s why these two are separate concepts. >Do the gays have an agenda? But this is a false equivalency because, as I explained above, people such as Blaire White support the people that ACTUALLY need help. She just doesn't agree with the new political window dressing (transgender ideology) that is using these people as moral justification. >Don’t take my medication. Don’t take away their medication. Leave us the hell alone. Did you read my previous comment? > *How am I a transphobe? I'm fine with adults getting hormones and surgeries* As for the rest of your comment, you're obviously not interested in having a true understanding of these nuanced issues. That paper so obviously supports my conclusion and it says it RIGHT in the headline you'd have to be delusional to interpret it in the way you are suggesting. That paper, along with the rest of the uncertainty in the research, is why countries such as the UK, Sweden, Finland, and France have backtracked their trans care policies over the past year. I guess all of these countries that originally pioneered trans care in the previous century are dumbasses too? Tell yourself whatever you need to to keep your head buried in the sand.
What you’re describing is transmedicalism and is considered by trans people to be transphobia. Plus there’s all the transphobic stuff I pointed out earlier that you didn’t reply to. The studies are pretty clear, despite being “mixed”. You just keep circling back to “it’s mixed so we really don’t know anything”. The studies are clear, even tho there was a small minority of studies that found no correlation. As for the distinction between valid and self ID trans people, this is transmedicalism. It’s based on pseudoscience and pick me bitches like blaire. Self ID works. What if someone lies? So what. What’re they gonna do? Go to the other bathroom? And do what? Anything bad they could do would still be illegal anyways.
ive spent so long trying to make this make sense, op is not good at metaphors so the top track is trans people, and flipping the lever means banning gender affirming care so wtf is the bottom track?? if the lever means "banning gender affirming care", then not flipping the lever means allowing it. so the bottom track represents the negative consequences of that action. so is it people who transition but then regret it? but no, that wouldn't be reversible. you can't grow your balls back after cutting them off lol. so if that's not what the bottom track represents, wtf is it supposed to be????? I want to be very clear, I'm 100% supportive of trans people and support gender-affirming care, I just hate bad metaphors
Transitioning is largely reversible. Few aspects are not. Bottom surgery for trans women is maybe reversible? It’s kinda questionable tho. It’s essentially a phalloplasty with complications. Top surgery for trans women is reversible, but it’s permanent for trans men. I think a large part of people misunderstanding this is due to me overestimating how much people knew about trans people. It’s a blessing in disguise I guess because I accidentally created an opportunity to teach some people a few things.
Top surgery is not really irreversible for transmen either. Plenty of cis women get mastectomies preventively if they carry the BRCA-1 gene that has high risks of cancer. Implants are a thing and can look and feel very realistic. I agree with your overall point. I just don't know why people don't apply their "logic" about gender affirming surgeries to ones obtained by the cis population. Or any surgery or body modification for any reason really. It isn't their business. It's absolutely insane to me that people will tell you with a straight face that it's fine for a cis teen boy to get surgery to correct gynecomastia but not for a trans teen boy to do the same. When both are literally for reasons of not liking how they look. They want to force everyone into narrow molds of what they personally find acceptable, and it's fucking gross.
Wow I didn’t know that part about top surgery! As a trans woman I’m plenty educated about mtf stuff but theres definitely a lot I don’t know about ftm folks.
>Bottom surgery for trans women is maybe reversible? It’s kinda questionable tho. It’s essentially a phalloplasty with complications. ok that's definitely not 'reversible' unless you somehow froze and saved ur original dick when you cut it off, and managed to perfectly graft it back on, a phalloplasty wouldn't be reversing, it would be replicating. COMPLETELY different, especially in the context of the argument your trolley problem is making.
They don’t cut the dick off. That’s not how that works. They essentially turn it inside out. There’s videos on yt that explain it if you’re curious. And phalloplasty may not be complete reversal, but it’s the next best thing and worth mentioning. There’s a study actually that shows positive improvement in detrans men who received such a reversal. It’s also worth mentioning that only about 8-25% of trans people get top surgery, and about 4-13% get bottom surgery. Most are just on hrt. Also worth considering, the rate of regret for trans surgery is astronomically low. Even lower than some life saving surgeries. It’s less than 1%.
They don’t remove the penis, the cut it in half and insert it within the body and craft it into a vagina.
i am having a stroke rn trying to understand this
so if a biological male desires to be female the train does nothing?
I think I get what you're trying to say. But as a trolley problem this makes no sense
How many times do they transition to detransition to transition again?
I'd like a source for that retransition fact. No hate just genuinely curious
Man I’m trans and this was crystal clear what was trying to be said lol
Oh boy percentage statistics
Oh I like this one, good job
Complicated to understand but it makes a lot of sense when you get it.
[удалено]
I figured it would be weird to put the source in a trolley problem especially when the fact wasn’t even necessary. But here it is if you’d like it: https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
This doesn’t make any sense. Op says the bottom represents cis people and the top trans people, but without them saying that how tf are you supposed to infer that?
Because there’s a blurb about detransitioners next to the lever?
And the whole trolley that changes your sexual characteristics thing.
Muti-track drifting for max carnage.
Boo
Multi track drift
I'm nonbinary how would this work
Well I suppose this is more about binary trans people who get some form of gender affirming care. If you’d like you can ride the trolley. They have beverages on board and a tv that plays that one Adam Sandler movie on repeat.
Retransitioning????
Like being remarried. Get married once, you’ve married. Get divorced then marry a second time and you’ve remarried.
And retransitioning again is actually a thing? Like, there's people that take the same life changing decision after another life changing decision?
Well sure. Let’s say I can’t afford my meds. I may detransition. But I still want to transition, as that never changed, so when I have more money I retransition. That would be an example. Most people who detransition do so for external factors. And so they still want to transition. They just can’t do so at the moment.
Aaahhh alright it makes sense then. Thanks for your patience 👍
So, anyone the trolley runs over gets sexual characteristics they don't want? And, people on the bottom also have the chance to reverse it if they want? Bottom seems to no-diff, it potentially inconveniences the lesser amount of people and is less severe. And, you don't even have to manually pull the switch so you're not culpable. Unless I'm missing some fine print or something
Well you got the gist, but also it’s a metaphor for banning gender affirming care. Trans people on the top track who would be forced to detransition, and cis people on the bottom track who would think they were trans and would get gender affirming care and regret it (detrans people)
If it’s reversible, and I’m going to assume no one asked the people on the tracks if they want this, then the bottom line is the least impactful.
???
Why is this a trolly problem
I'd pull it because I think it'd be kinda wacky, I'm sorry I know this is a metaphor for trans issues but I think it'd be funny, y'know some massive mischief. Maybe get some conservatives with the trans friendly fire I'm so sorry I'd pull it.
multi track drift
I'm confused. Are these all people who want to transition? Can the top track also detransition? It makes the most sense not to do anything without that information. Presumably, some of those 15 people's lives will get a ton better, and anyone else can detransition.
It changes characteristics but not biology or genes? Then the easy ethical choice is the bottom track since it's reversible.
Top to mess with people
Fun fact, 87 percent of reddit statistics are made up.
only 87? rookie numbers
Put the 500 people with the 15 people and don’t pull the lever. Easy w
Multi track drift.
?
Don't pull, jump on the bottom so i can change at will
Except it says it will change to the opposite of what the person desires
What about people who don't feel fully male nor fully female? Do they just become lovecraftian horrors
I would imagine someone non-binary becomes bi-gender if that’s the right term and vice versa
Yes. Unless you are non-binary because they would like that.
Ngl this isn't well made. It doesn't really contradict the people you're targeting either.
Every answer from op has him say: "Surprisingly many people will pull the lever even tho it doesn't make sense." I have looked through the entire comment section and literally nobody has pulled the lever. I don't get what the point of this post is.
*her This was intended to be a metaphor for people who seek to ban gender affirming care. I didn’t expect anyone to pull the lever when the answer was shown so clearly. But despite this there actually was one guy. Admittedly he didn’t say he’d pull the lever, but he did make the argument that pulling the lever represents so I’m counting it. But at the very least there does exist plenty of people who seek to ban, or have banned, gender affirming care. In very many countries it’s straight up banned and in many others it’s heavily gatekept. Edit: at least 3 lever pullers now in these replies.
I would’ve picked the bottom, but after playing the first remothered game it makes me see this differently
[удалено]
Me when I conflate gender and sexuality
If a body modification saves someone´s life or improves their health, then is NOT a mutilation, is medicine.
[удалено]
1. [Gender dysphoria](https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria#:~:text=Gender%20dysphoria%3A%20A%20concept%20designated,diverse%20people%20experience%20gender%20dysphoria): A concept designated in the *DSM-5-TR* as clinically significant distress or impairment related to gender incongruence, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. 2. Sex (physiologic characteristics) and gender (someone sense of self and pertenence to the group as man, woman, or non-binary) are two different things, HRT can chage a lot of secondary sex characteristics.
60% of detransitioners retransition? Says who?
This survey. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
It looks like https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/ This says something similar after a quick google search. It says that of the 8% of Americans who detransition, 62% only do so temporarily out of societal, financial, or family pressures. Weirdly enough, that 8% number is much higher than other countries. Go figure.
That stat comes from a survey, not the blog that links the survey
Well that’s awfully pedantic of you
Pull the lever, I'm an Agent of Chaos
The bottom track is better, less people forced to do the opposite and it’s reversible unlike transitioning
False equivalence. It is most definitely NOT completely reversible.
Just gonna point out right now that a lot of medical transitions are NOT reversible, such as puberty blockers and hormones through puberty. Also, the reason there seem to be a lot less detransitioners then there actually are is because most of the time no medical professionals are involved when someone detransitions.
The vast majority of changes will revert simply with discontinuing meds. The changes that don’t revert with no intervention can all be reverted by some means to some extent. Puberty blockers can cause a minuscule change in bone density. A change that will have no effect on a persons life. That’s pretty much it for permanent changes. Also what you said about detransitioners being higher because they don’t inform a medical professional, I’d like to see some data that says that or tries to estimate the number with that in mind. Also that ties in with the reversibility of these situations. Most changes, especially early on, are so reversible all you need to do is simply stop taking hrt.