Transgender Thread.

[Danoff]

@Danoff "But if a child needs something in order to survive - because of an established likelihood of suicide - I don't see how anyone could oppose gender affirmation surgery to save the life of a child. "

Of all the ridiculous things and things I've said included. THis statement of yours still stands out as the most ridiculous of them all. There's probably a reason that is. And common sense is truly not common any more. This Woke nonsense persists. Time to throw out all the old ways in favor of the "new and improved"... it's always worked perfectly....nothing bad has ever come from the new and improved. Everyone's way happier now than 30 years ago (1993) ....all thanks to the new and improved! Don't like it? too bad. We're here to stay!


Example: Girl doesn't like her body, because she was bullied to feel ugly in school? And those thoughts persist so she wants surgery or she'll die? Don't do anything about it (the thoughts), instead just get some doctors or whatever to affirm her, tell her yes, make her pay thousands upon thousands of dollars to remove her genitals or breasts. Yeah that'll do it. Physical fixes for a mental problem.

You ignored the premise of this statement, which is that the child needs it in order to survive. You called the statement dumb and then went on to explain that the child doesn't need it in order to survive, which... that's literally the opposite of the premise. You can't attack the conclusion by denying a conditional premise. Your best response, if you want to argue this for some reason, is that it is irrelevant because it never happens. But to say that this is somehow ridiculous because you deny the premise is to literally, intentionally, not follow the statement.

Whether or not a child needs gender affirmation surgery (or other care, which you seem to be in favor of unless it affirms gender for some reason), is demonstrable. There are many ways that it can be demonstrated, from a history of self-harm, to statistical outcomes. If the best care option to prevent suicide is surgery, I have no idea why you would oppose that. Note again the "if", it is a conclusion predicated on an assumption, and you must interpret the conclusion in light of the assumption to follow the statement. I think it's especially important to use statements like "if" when talking about this because every case will be different, because people and their needs are different.

You can't just assert that suicide isn't a risk for people with gender dysphoria, it is demonstrably so. And you can't just assert that gender affirming care (or more specifically, surgery) isn't a viable treatment for that suicide risk without bringing in some data to back that up. Note that I stopped short of claiming that it is a viable treatment for that risk, because I don't want the personal responsibility for bringing that data to back up my claim. But you trampled right into that responsibility, so if you want to claim that this is not viable treatment, you need data on your side.

I have little hope of seeing that data since you won't even answer the most basic question about the meaning of a single word you've used. A word that is notoriously nebulous, and is something of a calling card for a lack of consideration.

Edit: And just by the way, you're using "snowflake" in very much the same way. There's only one person I see melting in the heat here.

 

[Uncreative]

Yeah, they just weren't as popular as it is now. That's part of what made those years (90s) better, none of this crap went viral. Nowadays any little thing goes viral. For what. Turn off the telly and life is better. Back then the telly was a lot more how can I say "honest" or "based" without sounding too smug

Trans people exist in the real world too, and queer people have been in TV for a while (A Very Natural Thing, Longtime Companion, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Paris is Burning, and a whole lot more)

They were only out of the public eye if that part of the public is being ignorant, as if the Stonewall riots and AIDs crisis weren't nationwide news.

 

[Famine]

Who knew that trans people open themselves up to so much abuse because transitioning is actually popular and they're just trying to be cool? Amazing.

Anyway, speaking of tedious attention-whoring, Melissa Poulton:

Now... it's not up to me to decide the veracity of Poulton's transition or otherwise, but it strikes me that this individual is exactly the stereotype that the anti-trans and particularly the "TERF" side complains about, and serves only to feed their fears/arguments/beliefs. Everything below is as objective as I can make it.


Melissa Poulton is the Green Party PPC for Bromsgrove. Poulton hit the news recently because Conservative MP and deputy chair for women Rachel Maclean referred to them as "a man who wears a wig and calls himself a 'proud lesbian'.". Which, while harsh, I'm sure many will nod in agreement with - Poulton does indeed wear a wig (a selection of them) and does indeed refer to themselves as a "proud lesbian", but also claims to have started transitioning earlier this year and has a driver's licence in that name issued in January.

Now... we enter some sticky ground and it's difficult to cover without overtly deadnaming.

Poulton was previously "Matthew Viner" and also ran for office - as a Conservative candidate for the council at Wyre Forest. This is a relatively safe Conservative council, but Viner came last in their ward in 2019:

The Viner identity is... problematic at best. It turns out that his public social media accounts (Pinterest has been noted) in his own name are replete with engagement (likes and shares) with "sissy" content - particularly "sissification" and "forced feminisation" content, which is basically a fetish about men being forced to dress as young girls for sexual purposes. It's suuuuuuuper difficult to illustrate this in an AUP-abiding manner, but you can pretty much imagine that it's men getting off to other men dressed like school cheerleaders (and I'm sure deeper and even more disturbing variants of that). Viner also shared paedophilic jokes such as the one about why it's great having sex with 28-year olds (there's 20 of them!) and so on.

Ultimately we can establish that Viner was a man whose computer's contents should be scrutinised by trained individuals in the interests of a prosecution and no-one else under any circumstances. And not someone who should be a safeguarding lead for SEND children (yet is)...

Some wags have gone a little further and discovered that Viner was, but is no longer, married and has more than one now-adult child with their former wife. They've also uncovered the fact that the Poulton identity not only dresses in the same manner as the Viner ex-wife (providing images, but with her identity blurred), but that the Viner ex-wife's maiden name (which she now uses again) was... Poulton.

Even ignoring the fetishism above (which is made all the more concerning by this), the fact that Melissa Poulton appears to be an identity constructed around that of his ex-wife is... psychologically bewildering. It borders on stalking (and not the right side of the border): literally taking his ex-wife's name and outward appearance after they have split up as if to keep hold of it... I wonder what those children think.

This rather unkind comparison image (labelled as 2022 -> 2023) is also doing the rounds:

The comments are pretty close to what you'd expect, but the gist is that Viner is the kind of guy women would cross the street to avoid being near, but they're forced to share women-only spaces (the toilets and changing rooms of frequent reference) with Poulton despite being the same person.


Now, the Daily Mail and the Guardian have reacted to this whole thing largely along their traditional lines so I'll repeat my opening comment: it's not up to me to decide the veracity of Poulton's transition or otherwise, but it strikes me that this individual is exactly the stereotype that the anti-trans and particularly the "TERF" side complains about, and serves only to feed their fears/arguments/beliefs.

That being that they appear to come across as a mediocre, sexual deviant man who is attempting to take advantage of quotas for female representation via a lip-service transition* (which plays into their fetish). If so, this would be directly harmful to not only biological women who miss out through quotas being filled but also other trans-women through the mere appearance of being that stereotype that transphobes like to think is the norm (but, of course, isn't).


I'd be particularly interested to hear what trans-women (or those identifying as trans-women and are yet to transition), because this whole situation looks like it's just making everything worse for them.

*Which, of course, may be genuine as I stated.

 

[Uncreative]

Who knew that trans people open themselves up to so much abuse because transitioning is actually popular and they're just trying to be cool? Amazing.

Anyway, speaking of tedious attention-whoring, Melissa Poulton:

View attachment 1311963​

Now... it's not up to me to decide the veracity of Poulton's transition or otherwise, but it strikes me that this individual is exactly the stereotype that the anti-trans and particularly the "TERF" side complains about, and serves only to feed their fears/arguments/beliefs. Everything below is as objective as I can make it.


Melissa Poulton is the Green Party PPC for Bromsgrove. Poulton hit the news recently because Conservative MP and deputy chair for women Rachel Maclean referred to them as "a man who wears a wig and calls himself a 'proud lesbian'.". Which, while harsh, I'm sure many will nod in agreement with - Poulton does indeed wear a wig (a selection of them) and does indeed refer to themselves as a "proud lesbian", but also claims to have started transitioning earlier this year and has a driver's licence in that name issued in January.

Now... we enter some sticky ground and it's difficult to cover without overtly deadnaming.

Poulton was previously "Matthew Viner" and also ran for office - as a Conservative candidate for the council at Wyre Forest. This is a relatively safe Conservative council, but Viner came last in their ward in 2019:

View attachment 1311968



View attachment 1311970​

The Viner identity is... problematic at best. It turns out that his public social media accounts (Pinterest has been noted) in his own name are replete with engagement (likes and shares) with "sissy" content - particularly "sissification" and "forced feminisation" content, which is basically a fetish about men being forced to dress as young girls for sexual purposes. It's suuuuuuuper difficult to illustrate this in an AUP-abiding manner, but you can pretty much imagine that it's men getting off to other men dressed like school cheerleaders (and I'm sure deeper and even more disturbing variants of that). Viner also shared paedophilic jokes such as the one about why it's great having sex with 28-year olds (there's 20 of them!) and so on.

Ultimately we can establish that Viner was a man whose computer's contents should be scrutinised by trained individuals in the interests of a prosecution and no-one else under any circumstances. And not someone who should be a safeguarding lead for SEND children (yet is)...

Some wags have gone a little further and discovered that Viner was, but is no longer, married and has more than one now-adult child with their former wife. They've also uncovered the fact that the Poulton identity not only dresses in the same manner as the Viner ex-wife (providing images, but with her identity blurred), but that the Viner ex-wife's maiden name (which she now uses again) was... Poulton.

Even ignoring the fetishism above (which is made all the more concerning by this), the fact that Melissa Poulton appears to be an identity constructed around that of his ex-wife is... psychologically bewildering. It borders on stalking (and not the right side of the border): literally taking his ex-wife's name and outward appearance after they have split up as if to keep hold of it... I wonder what those children think.

This rather unkind comparison image (labelled as 2022 -> 2023) is also doing the rounds:

View attachment 1311973​

The comments are pretty close to what you'd expect, but the gist is that Viner is the kind of guy women would cross the street to avoid being near, but they're forced to share women-only spaces (the toilets and changing rooms of frequent reference) with Poulton despite being the same person.


Now, the Daily Mail and the Guardian have reacted to this whole thing largely along their traditional lines so I'll repeat my opening comment: it's not up to me to decide the veracity of Poulton's transition or otherwise, but it strikes me that this individual is exactly the stereotype that the anti-trans and particularly the "TERF" side complains about, and serves only to feed their fears/arguments/beliefs.

That being that they appear to come across as a mediocre, sexual deviant man who is attempting to take advantage of quotas for female representation via a lip-service transition* (which plays into their fetish). If so, this would be directly harmful to not only biological women who miss out through quotas being filled but also other trans-women through the mere appearance of being that stereotype that transphobes like to think is the norm (but, of course, isn't).


I'd be particularly interested to hear what trans-women (or those identifying as trans-women and are yet to transition), because this whole situation looks like it's just making everything worse for them.

*Which, of course, may be genuine as I stated.

Non-binary trans woman here, I'm not very familiar with Poulton. Imo if she sincerely identifies as a woman then she is, but there's always that chance that yes, she may be trying to play into conservative anti-trans stereotypes, in order to give that crowd "ammo" so to speak. As for the interest in forcefem content, I've met both cis and trans people who have a thing for that and who don't, imo it's just kind of weird, but there's technically not anything wrong with it (if it's not age play stuff), like the choice of their name change. The CP stuff is inexcusable though.

Overall bad vibes I guess, idk what else to say.

 

[TexRex]

there's technically not anything wrong with it (if it's not age play stuff)

If involved parties consent, which is to say that they are both not being coerced and have reached age of majority so that their consent is recognized by law, why is there anything wrong with age play stuff?

 

[wheelhp]

You ignored the premise of this statement, which is that the child needs it in order to survive. You called the statement dumb and then went on to explain that the child doesn't need it in order to survive, which... that's literally the opposite of the premise. You can't attack the conclusion by denying a conditional premise. Your best response, if you want to argue this for some reason, is that it is irrelevant because it never happens. But to say that this is somehow ridiculous because you deny the premise is to literally, intentionally, not follow the statement.

Whether or not a child needs gender affirmation surgery (or other care, which you seem to be in favor of unless it affirms gender for some reason), is demonstrable. There are many ways that it can be demonstrated, from a history of self-harm, to statistical outcomes. If the best care option to prevent suicide is surgery, I have no idea why you would oppose that. Note again the "if", it is a conclusion predicated on an assumption, and you must interpret the conclusion in light of the assumption to follow the statement. I think it's especially important to use statements like "if" when talking about this because every case will be different, because people and their needs are different.

You can't just assert that suicide isn't a risk for people with gender dysphoria, it is demonstrably so. And you can't just assert that gender affirming care (or more specifically, surgery) isn't a viable treatment for that suicide risk without bringing in some data to back that up. Note that I stopped short of claiming that it is a viable treatment for that risk, because I don't want the personal responsibility for bringing that data to back up my claim. But you trampled right into that responsibility, so if you want to claim that this is not viable treatment, you need data on your side.

I have little hope of seeing that data since you won't even answer the most basic question about the meaning of a single word you've used. A word that is notoriously nebulous, and is something of a calling card for a lack of consideration.

Edit: And just by the way, you're using "snowflake" in very much the same way. There's only one person I see melting in the heat here.

Kids have always needed things, their parents have refused to give them these things for DECADES. For whatever reason. Parents could not be arsed, parents don't have the money, don't like the decisions, think the kid is dumb. Whatever. Most of them turned out just fine. Why must you ignore this simple fact? You turned out just fine, your parents didn't give you everything at your beck and call. Who does that. Why must you ignore this?

Give all entitled people what they want? Give all kids what they want? That line of thinking NEVER works out. You just make spoiled brats. Like those rich kids who waste away their millions in inheritance for the sake of it, then end up homeless of their own accord. They exist.

Suicide is possible. What's also possible is other treatments working. Yet your insistence on giving everyone GAC when they beg and please for it, just tells that you don't care about them trying other treatments first. Other treatments that are less "permanent" as surgery is one reason to hold off. Some who get knee surgery also regret getting knee surgery. What's that? Money down the drain for a worse result? Must I remind you of this?

The other reason to avoid GAC, is like bodybuilders and athletes have known for donkeys years, steroid use is linked with heart disease and early death. All it boils down to me is we don't know the long term data on GAC, that's reason enough to take other treatment plans instead. Rather than using your kid as a guinea pig for science.

Speaking of ignorance. You did ignore my point about vasectomies being much more regulated than this relatively new, trendy thing.

 

[TB]

Yet your insistence on giving everyone GAC when they beg and please for it, just tells that you don't care about them trying other treatments first.

What makes you think that they haven't tried other things first?

vasectomies being much more regulated than this relatively new, trendy thing.

Sure, they gave me the not reversible talk but other than that, there was no "regulation ". I have no idea where you're getting that from.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I have two questions:

Is being trans a fad?

Is gender re-assignment surgery mutilation?

Legendary comic Barry Humphries thought so. Mum and dad say that's an opinion and not a gross untruth, so he shouldn't have been "cancelled" by having his name taken off a prestigious award. Are they right or wrong? Asking for a friend.

 

[TexRex]

Mum and dad say that's an opinion and not a gross untruth, so he shouldn't have been "cancelled" by having his name taken off a prestigious award.

Awards--prestigious or otherwise--are bestowed and recognized by and at the sole discretion of private parties that get to freely associate. Certainly some are given to bitch about this even as they approve of others exercising that very right. If you viewed that as a double standard, you'd be correct.

 

[McLaren]

A fad? No. I would defer to @Uncreative who has much better insight on this topic, but my general assumption is, like being gay, it's something that's been around for a long time. It's only in recent times, a spotlight has been brought over it, for better or worse.

Mutilation? Not the word I'd use. I mean, does someone who decides to have their nose, lips, boobs, etc. etc. completely changed seen as "mutilation"? It's not like there aren't transgender folks out there who look absolutely stunning in comparison to people who had botched cosmetic surgery.

 

[TexRex]

Among those targeted by the Nazis were transgender individuals and care facilities. It's not exactly new.

Transgender people in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Institut für Sexualwissenschaft - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Uncreative]

Is being trans a fad?

Not really, a lot of transphobic people cite how there seems to be much more trans folks out in the open now, but one way to look at it is in a similar way to the history-of-lefthandedness graphic you've most likely seen if you are involved with trans discussion. For a period of time, if you were left handed it would be a common occurrence for grade school teachers to do things like hit your hand with a ruler until you started regularly writing with your right hand. Once practices like these stopped, the amount of people saying they were left handed increased by a ton, not because it was a fad or anything, but because it was now more viable for some people to be able to grow up writing or playing sports with their actual dominant hand. This is similar to how it is more socially acceptable to be transgender now, whereas there was much more stigma surrounding queer identities in the 80s and 90s.

Tl:dr More people are identifying as trans now because it is more socially acceptable, so less people are trying to suppress their feelings of gender dysphoria.

Is gender re-assignment surgery mutilation?

Most of the times I've seen people refer to surgeries as 'mutilation' it's been to fear monger. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines mutilate as "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect" While technically this would make the statement 'SRS and top surgery is mutilation' correct, you could also say that many other surgeries that are not harmful, but people want or need are mutilation, like removal of accessory spleens or a healthy living person getting a kidney removed to donate.

Short answer is technically yes, but describing it as mutilation implies an intent to harm, which is not there. SRS (bottom surgery) and mastectomies and other forms of top surgery are very safe and have now regret rates compared to other surgeries.

 

[Exorcet]

Is gender re-assignment surgery mutilation?

Just by the fact that one can live a normal, healthy life after the fact, I'd say no. Technology has advanced to the point where we can alter our bodies. This is a good thing.

 

[TexRex]

Feels weird reacting with a Christmas tree but I expect it will revert to "Hot" when the holiday season's through.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I have two questions:

Is being trans a fad?

There is an upcoming report in the UK that will (as part of an overall review) investigate why there's been an "explosion" in referrals for people questioning their gender identity, particularly those assigned female at birth.

Is gender re-assignment surgery mutilation?

I wouldn't call it that.

FGM is an example of mutilation.

 

[Joey D]

Is being trans a fad?

It's probably more popular right now to say you're trans if you're the type of person who says you have XYZ condition just to get attention even though you've never had a diagnosis, but I'm not sure I'd label it a fad. Conditions like ADHD, OCD, depression, and anxiety are all similar to this too. Yes, there are people who have these conditions, but there are also people who say they have them because they want the attention.

It's unfortunate too since these people detract from those who actually have the condition to begin with.

 

[wheelhp]

fad. : a practice or interest followed for a time with exaggerated zeal : craze.

Fits like a glove

 

[McLaren]

Apparently, so does bigotry.

 

[Roo]

Apparently, so does bigotry.

Alas not... there appears to be no time limit on bigotry.

 

[Danoff]

Kids have always needed things, their parents have refused to give them these things for DECADES. For whatever reason. Parents could not be arsed, parents don't have the money, don't like the decisions, think the kid is dumb. Whatever. Most of them turned out just fine. Why must you ignore this simple fact? You turned out just fine, your parents didn't give you everything at your beck and call. Who does that. Why must you ignore this?

Give all entitled people what they want? Give all kids what they want? That line of thinking NEVER works out. You just make spoiled brats. Like those rich kids who waste away their millions in inheritance for the sake of it, then end up homeless of their own accord. They exist.

Some of them committed suicide. You're telling me I turned out fine, but I didn't have gender dysphoria or any condition that led me to seriously consider suicide. Gender dysphoria can be such a condition. If I did, I'd like for my parents to have been required to help rather than just ignoring the situation and saying "you'll turn out fine like everyone else who lives to adulthood" - which they do not.

You make a lot of assumptions in this little rant. One, that I turned out fine. You have no idea whether I turned out fine. Two, that my parents didn't give me everything. Three, that I turned out fine BECAUSE my parents didn't give me everything (unsupported conclusions built on unsubstantiated assumptions). Four, that "most of them" turn out fine. Whatever that means.

And all of these rather absurd assumptions are in support of the rather odd conclusion that kids with gender dysphoria will be "spoiled" if they have any kind of GAC or gender affirmation surgery. That's a ridiculous conclusion to attempt to draw, but it's made even more ridiculous by the assumptions that you make that you think are somehow helping support that conclusion. Somehow you compared a child who is suicidal receiving some kind of affirmation of a gender to rich kids that waste their inheritance. Kinda mind boggling. Also I think you don't understand the damage that has been done to those "rich kids".

The specific mistake, well, one specific mistake you're making here is survivor bias. You're pointing to the people who survived to be "fine" and saying that it means that we don't need to take a step in hopes of reducing some teen suicide cases. I'm not a teen suicide case, by definition. How I turned out doesn't have anything to do with that.

Suicide is possible. What's also possible is other treatments working. Yet your insistence on giving everyone GAC when they beg and please for it, just tells that you don't care about them trying other treatments first. Other treatments that are less "permanent" as surgery is one reason to hold off. Some who get knee surgery also regret getting knee surgery. What's that? Money down the drain for a worse result? Must I remind you of this?

It's really not about begging and more about a medical course of treatment for a specific condition. As was mentioned earlier, what makes you think other things have not been tried? GAC is not "permanent". It includes things like talking. You say GAC, and then you make arguments specifically aimed at gender affirmation SURGERY which is not the same thing (at least to the best of my understanding). This whole argument is a red herring, because you're advocating for a ban on GAC for kids. You didn't say anything about trying other treatments first. If other treatments are tried and fail, a ban still prevents the treatments we're talking about.

That's why you feel the need to remind me of this, because it is not pertinent to the discussion. When we're talking about bans, no amount of "other stuff first" matters. Ultimately you can't do the treatment.

The other reason to avoid GAC, is like bodybuilders and athletes have known for donkeys years, steroid use is linked with heart disease and early death. All it boils down to me is we don't know the long term data on GAC, that's reason enough to take other treatment plans instead. Rather than using your kid as a guinea pig for science.

Again, GAC includes things like talking. I think we know the long term data on talking. But if you asked me whether it's ok to use steroids and risk heart disease or early death to help a teen who is at major risk of suicide. I'm 100% for that. And I have no idea why you would not be. Long term effects? We're talking about saving someone's life.

It's particularly odd to hear someone talk about refusing treatment to save someone's life because of what might happen to their life 10 years from now. You know what happens to their life 10 years from now if they commit suicide?

Again I must bring you back to the premise. I have no idea why you would be opposed to gender affirming care to save the life of a child who is suicidal.

Speaking of ignorance. You did ignore my point about vasectomies being much more regulated than this relatively new, trendy thing.

I don't remember you making a "regulation" argument about vasectomies. But I'll need to see some evidence for this claim because it's difficult to believe. Partly because I don't think you understand how much "regulation" goes into gender affirmation surgery, especially for children, but even for adults. And I assume by "regulation" you just mean talking about the effects of the treatment, because I'm not familiar with vasectomy bans. Men seem to be much less interested in forcing people to have children when it's men they're talking about.

 

[wheelhp]

Some of them committed suicide. You're telling me I turned out fine, but I didn't have gender dysphoria or any condition that led me to seriously consider suicide. Gender dysphoria can be such a condition. If I did, I'd like for my parents to have been required to help rather than just ignoring the situation and saying "you'll turn out fine like everyone else who lives to adulthood" - which they do not.

You make a lot of assumptions in this little rant. One, that I turned out fine. You have no idea whether I turned out fine. Two, that my parents didn't give me everything. Three, that I turned out fine BECAUSE my parents didn't give me everything (unsupported conclusions built on unsubstantiated assumptions). Four, that "most of them" turn out fine. Whatever that means.

And all of these rather absurd assumptions are in support of the rather odd conclusion that kids with gender dysphoria will be "spoiled" if they have any kind of GAC or gender affirmation surgery. That's a ridiculous conclusion to attempt to draw, but it's made even more ridiculous by the assumptions that you make that you think are somehow helping support that conclusion. Somehow you compared a child who is suicidal receiving some kind of affirmation of a gender to rich kids that waste their inheritance. Kinda mind boggling. Also I think you don't understand the damage that has been done to those "rich kids".

I'm willing to bet many who get the GAC treatment don't just stop at "talking" they go full tilt, knee-deep into surgery, whenever that happens is not relevant. Foot in the door technique. Once someone has been exposed to an appealing idea, it's difficult to erase from the subconscious. You can argue ideas are irrelevant, you'd be wrong. Pen is mightier than the sword. WW2 veterans will not wake up one day and stop thinking about their dead friends.

The specific mistake, well, one specific mistake you're making here is survivor bias. You're pointing to the people who survived to be "fine" and saying that it means that we don't need to take a step in hopes of reducing some teen suicide cases. I'm not a teen suicide case, by definition. How I turned out doesn't have anything to do with that.

So we just believe everyone who didn't get to transition is dead. got it. That'll make the parents happy to know. Good little guilt trip there. But Where are the people that didn't transition and didn't regret it. I'd love to know if those people even exist at this point in the debate. Oh right, they're happily married with 5 kids. What a story, lots of faffing about! Genetics sorts it out between those who are in it for the fad and those who no longer care about it. Straight humans being the genetic ideal does not change whatsoever.

If Karen at walmart wants to transition, then de-transition. Who cares? Nobody should. But people do. What has karen accomplished in the process? Irreversibly Wrecking her body and losing her bank balance in one clean swoop. Do we still care about Karen then? No we point and laugh like basic baboons.

It's really not about begging and more about a medical course of treatment for a specific condition. As was mentioned earlier, what makes you think other things have not been tried? GAC is not "permanent". It includes things like talking. You say GAC, and then you make arguments specifically aimed at gender affirmation SURGERY which is not the same thing (at least to the best of my understanding). This whole argument is a red herring, because you're advocating for a ban on GAC for kids. You didn't say anything about trying other treatments first. If other treatments are tried and fail, a ban still prevents the treatments we're talking about.

That's why you feel the need to remind me of this, because it is not pertinent to the discussion. When we're talking about bans, no amount of "other stuff first" matters. Ultimately you can't do the treatment.




Again, GAC includes things like talking. I think we know the long term data on talking. But if you asked me whether it's ok to use steroids and risk heart disease or early death to help a teen who is at major risk of suicide. I'm 100% for that. And I have no idea why you would not be. Long term effects? We're talking about saving someone's life.

This is odd. I'll agree what you're recommending is odd. You'd risk giving someone enough steroids to kill them by the time they're 35 years old because "it's what they wanted"/ Whereas locking that person up for a few years in the psych ward, if necessary is all the rehabilitation they'd require. Come out after a few years, get on a normal treatment plan and live to their 70s. 35 vs 70. Go figure. You know very little about long term damage of steroid use.

I don't remember you making a "regulation" argument about vasectomies. But I'll need to see some evidence for this claim because it's difficult to believe. Partly because I don't think you understand how much "regulation" goes into gender affirmation surgery, especially for children, but even for adults. And I assume by "regulation" you just mean talking about the effects of the treatment, because I'm not familiar with vasectomy bans. Men seem to be much less interested in forcing people to have children when it's men they're talking about.

Don't have to dig far in search of the ex-gay and detransition movement... As usual science has failed to prove due to lack of monetary incentives , i.e. nobody will fund this. but people know by word of mouth. What really goes on is known by word of mouth. Not science. Sure it is risky to only rely on anecdotes and word of mouth regarding this topic. But it's powerful when nothing else is measured or yet to be measured. Science being born of philosophy doesn't negate the fact it's only a tool to find a direction. Sure a useful tool, the best we have but when it relies on money, and that money isn't there. Then science is no longer of use to people in that field. People will make their own decisions and inform themselves with or without science. Scientists ,Ex-scientists do not have to adhere to the scientific method in their personal life. Nobody has to and nobody does. That's the human condition. Imperfections and faults.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm willing to bet

You can guess or you can use statistics.

many who get the GAC treatment don't just stop at "talking" they go full tilt, knee-deep into surgery,

And if the surgery is what they need that is the point. Stopping at talking isn't the goal, it's just a possible outcome. The goal is to help people.

So we just believe everyone who didn't get to transition is dead. got it.

That makes little sense given you were replying to someone who did not transition.

But Where are the people that didn't transition and didn't regret it.

Out in the world probably, but that doesn't really matter in this discussion. Just like finding someone who did not gain effective protection from a vaccine doesn't negate that vaccines work in the overwhelming number of cases.

Straight humans being the genetic ideal does not change whatsoever.

Care to explain what makes being straight ideal?

If Karen at walmart wants to transition, then de-transition. Who cares? Nobody should. But people do. What has karen accomplished in the process? Irreversibly Wrecking her body and losing her bank balance in one clean swoop. Do we still care about Karen then? No we point and laugh like basic baboons.

This is a mess. There is plenty of reason to care. This is the reason why GAC =! surgery, there are provisions in place to prevent people from making mistakes.

You also have no idea what the effect on one's bank account is when neither cost not the balance before the fact are specified.

About laughing, the only person you can speak for is yourself.

This is odd. I'll agree what you're recommending is odd. You'd risk giving someone enough steroids to kill them by the time they're 35 years old because "it's what they wanted"/ Whereas locking that person up for a few years in the psych ward, if necessary is all the rehabilitation they'd require. Come out after a few years, get on a normal treatment plan and live to their 70s. 35 vs 70. Go figure. You know very little about long term damage of steroid use.

Age isn't a life score. Some research has indicated that calorie restriction may increase longevity. So are you going to start advocating that people eat the minimum to survive to live longer?

Don't have to dig far in search of the ex-gay and detransition movement...

The internet makes a lot of things easy to find, including transition success stories.

As usual science has failed to prove due to lack of monetary incentives , i.e. nobody will fund this. but people know by word of mouth. What really goes on is known by word of mouth. Not science. Sure it is risky to only rely on anecdotes and word of mouth regarding this topic. But it's powerful when nothing else is measured or yet to be measured. Science being born of philosophy doesn't negate the fact it's only a tool to find a direction. Sure a useful tool, the best we have but when it relies on money, and that money isn't there. Then science is no longer of use to people.

So in short money rules the world and the one wildly profitable and corrupt (correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently it's important enough for you to connect so strongly with money) thing above all else is GAC, which far less than 10% of the population seek? It doesn't seem to add up.

 

[wheelhp]

So in short money rules the world and the one wildly profitable and corrupt (correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently it's important enough for you to connect so strongly with money) thing above all else is GAC, which far less than 10% of the population seek? It doesn't seem to add up.

Unironically, Money does in fact rule the modern world. Do you honestly think people go to work 5 days a week, 52 weeks of the year, every year, because they like it? Nobody likes work, nobody likes the corporate culture nor the rat race. This is why books like the 4 hour work week have gained traction.

 

[Exorcet]

OK but that probably belongs in another thread, you didn't even mention the subject of this one in that post.

 

[wheelhp]

OK but that probably belongs in another thread, you didn't even mention the subject of this one in that post.

Looks like you were deliberately playing devils advocate for the sake of it. You could've tried to dismantle my pieces more interestingly. So I didn't find much to reply to that wouldn't border on unnessecary semantics. Others faff about , I can't be bothered to reply to something uninteresting

But I will stand by my statements. 35 year old person vsersus living to 70. You'd rather live to 35 and cram as many steroids into your body as physically possible? Sounds like a bad time and a good time, though a short time. Sad to see so many young people go down the junkie druggie lifestyle. I just don't get it

 

[Uncreative]

I'm willing to bet many who get the GAC treatment don't just stop at "talking" they go full tilt, knee-deep into surgery, whenever that happens is not relevant. Foot in the door technique. Once someone has been exposed to an appealing idea, it's difficult to erase from the subconscious.

This "where does it end?!" speculating is pointless. It ends when the person feels they've achieved the transition they want. If somebody wants to go on HRT, but not get SRS, FFS, a mastectomy or implants, they will get HRT, but not surgery. This is like panicking about how if someone gets one ear pierced they'll immediately get addicted and get a septum ring and snake bites (an apt comparison considering all of these are body mods that aren't dangerous, and don't affect anyone but the person receiving them)

So we just believe everyone who didn't get to transition is dead. got it. That'll make the parents happy to know. Good little guilt trip there. But Where are the people that didn't transition and didn't regret it. I'd love to know if those people even exist at this point in the debate. Oh right, they're happily married with 5 kids. What a story, lots of faffing about!

Not everyone who's trans decides to medically transition. Big whoop.

Genetics sorts it out between those who are in it for the fad and those who no longer care about it. Straight humans being the genetic ideal does not change whatsoever.

I know some LGBTQ people call straight people "breeders" as a joke, but maybe it's not a joke anymore, you guys are putting a weird amount of stock into basing your self worth of having kids.

Saying that genetics will 'sort it out' is pretty much the definition of eugenics.

If Karen at walmart wants to transition, then de-transition. Who cares? Nobody should. But people do. What has karen accomplished in the process? Irreversibly Wrecking her body and losing her bank balance in one clean swoop. Do we still care about Karen then? No we point and laugh like basic baboons.

Only "wrecked her body" if she gets bottom surgery, which isn't "wrecking" anything. Your argument that someone being infertile ruins their lives is forgetting that adoption and surrogates exist. "we point and laugh" so the mask is off, empathy is just out the door?

This is odd. I'll agree what you're recommending is odd. You'd risk giving someone enough steroids to kill them by the time they're 35 years old because "it's what they wanted"/ Whereas locking that person up for a few years in the psych ward, if necessary is all the rehabilitation they'd require. Come out after a few years, get on a normal treatment plan and live to their 70s. 35 vs 70. Go figure. You know very little about long term damage of steroid use.

Google informed consent. Somebody taking HRT has been informed of possible side affects, and has decided they are willing to risk them. HRT doses are prescribed by doctors who know what they're doing, they will not put you on an unsafe dose, do you know how often trans people on HRT get blood tests and stuff to ensure that their body has safe and regular amounts of certain hormones?

Don't have to dig far in search of the ex-gay and detransition movement...

Don't have to dig far to find gay and trans people living their best lives, and people who believed they were trans or gay living their best lives. Most people who detransition or no longer identify as not straight still support the LGBTQ+ community, and have determined that they are straight or cis.

As usual science has failed to prove due to lack of monetary incentives , i.e. nobody will fund this. but people know by word of mouth. What really goes on is known by word of mouth. Not science.

I've heard through word of mouth that the majority of trans people who decide to transition, socially or otherwise believe that it was the best thing for them.

Sure it is risky to only rely on anecdotes and word of mouth regarding this topic. But it's powerful when nothing else is measured or yet to be measured.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/

https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(09)60397-X/fulltext

Except for the many studies and examples of people getting GAC, being trans, and being completely satisfied.

 

[Uncreative]

But I will stand by my statements. 35 year old person vsersus living to 70. You'd rather live to 35 and cram as many steroids into your body as physically possible? Sounds like a bad time and a good time, though a short time. Sad to see so many young people go down the junkie druggie lifestyle. I just don't get it

I'd rather be happy at 35 than unhappy at 70. Again, being on a prescription medicine that helps you ≠ being an addict

 

[wheelhp]

I know some LGBTQ people call straight people "breeders" as a joke, but maybe it's not a joke anymore, you guys are putting a weird amount of stock into basing your self worth of having kids.

Saying that genetics will 'sort it out' is pretty much the definition of eugenics.

It is literal. Genetics is all there is. You're nothing but the design of your DNA. That's all aging is too, the irreversible damage to your DNA over time resulting in the wrinkles on your forehead and skin

Only "wrecked her body" if she gets bottom surgery, which isn't "wrecking" anything. Your argument that someone being infertile ruins their lives is forgetting that adoption and surrogates exist. "we point and laugh" so the mask is off, empathy is just out the door?

Society is not empathetic like a mother is.

Google informed consent. Somebody taking HRT has been informed of possible side affects, and has decided they are willing to risk them. HRT doses are prescribed by doctors who know what they're doing, they will not put you on an unsafe dose, do you know how often trans people on HRT get blood tests and stuff to ensure that their body has safe and regular amounts of certain hormones?

Don't have to dig far to find gay and trans people living their best lives, and people who believed they were trans or gay living their best lives. Most people who detransition or no longer identify as not straight still support the LGBTQ+ community, and have determined that they are straight or cis.

Fair enough if you think so, I can also link to people that support the counter

I've heard through word of mouth that the majority of trans people who decide to transition, socially or otherwise believe that it was the best thing for them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/

https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(09)60397-X/fulltext

Except for the many studies and examples of people getting GAC, being trans, and being completely satisfied.

Time reveals all. Ask many of those same people again in 30 years, or don't bother. Let's see their "re-evaluation" of the money gone down the drain then, especially. Potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many vacations worth to Bali or any other popular yet cheap tourist destination. That they wouldn't be able to make use of in their poor retirement plans

I'd rather be happy at 35 than unhappy at 70. Again, being on a prescription medicine that helps you ≠ being an addict

That's not the same question. Would you rather be DEAD at 35? Or DEAD at 70. Try to Answer that correctly, this time.

 

[Exorcet]

But I will stand by my statements.

Then support them. I countered what you said with my reply, so you can address that or retract what you said. You're free to also ignore things selectively of course, but then why even participate at that point.

35 year old person vsersus living to 70. You'd rather live to 35 and cram as many steroids into your body as physically possible?

I already addressed this. Age is not a life score. Living longer does not mean you've had a better life. Living to 35 and able to achieve my goals is preferable to living to 70 and not in my case. Everyone else has their own answer.

Sounds like a bad time and a good time, though a short time. Sad to see so many young people go down the junkie druggie lifestyle. I just don't get it

This is off topic again, there is still a lot you've left unaddressed with GAC.

 

[Uncreative]

It is literal. Genetics is all there is. You're nothing but the design of your DNA. That's all aging is too, the irreversible damage to your DNA over time resulting in the wrinkles on your forehead and skin

So close!! That's from collagen deficiency 💕

Time reveals all. Ask many of those same people again in 30 years, or don't bother. Let's see their "re-evaluation" of the money gone down the drain then, especially. Potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many vacations worth to Bali or any other popular yet cheap tourist destination.

You guys say "erm let's see if you're happy in X years >" and then when we're happy in X years you ignore it. "hundreds of thousands of dollars" not even close, and even if it's a lot of money, maybe 99% is coming from insurance.

That's not the same question. Would you rather be DEAD at 35? Or Dead at 70. Try to Answer that correctly, this time.

I'd rather be happy at 34 and dead at 35 than not happy at 69 and dead at 70.