|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On May 01 2025 21:01 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 19:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 01 2025 19:34 WombaT wrote:On May 01 2025 18:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 01 2025 18:25 BlackJack wrote:On May 01 2025 18:03 baldgye wrote:On May 01 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Numbers of thing X rise sharply when thing X is recognised as existing by society. More news at 11.
There are not more transgender people, the numbers are most likely still the same as they were 50 years ago. They are just able to express their feelings now. I wish more people where aware of this haha... my god, how many times do you read history or historical fiction and you have all these people who are described as 'sickly' because they had some sort of medical problem, but no one knew what it was and so all of these illnesses and conditions where just lumped together... and now we're able to identify them the argument is LOOK HOW THIS IS NOW A NEW MODERN PROBLEM! You think transgenderism is some newly discovered medical problem? It's also possible for things to increase precipitously. Many pediatric groups have been sounding the alarm over the mental health crisis among children. Rates of depression and anxiety are rising. You wouldn't say that children have always been just as depressed and anxious and now we're just able to identify it, otherwise we wouldn't have a crisis, would we? I think its much more interesting to look at rates of autism diagnosis. Autism and transgenderism are definitely linked. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Trans people are 3-6 times more likely to be autistic than the general population. https://autism.org/gender-discomfort-and-autism/the rate of autism in transgender individuals is between 6 – 26% compared to a 1.85% prevalence in the general population I don't know what conclusions you can draw from this, other than autistic people are more likely to have some kind of body dysphoria (I know I am both autistic and dysphoric to the point I don't have sex because the body discomfort is way too much). Which goes to show exactly who it is the right wing are picking on I suppose. Probably the most vulnerable people around. It also means Elon Musk should look closer to home when assigning blame for his daughters transgenderism. Maybe its his genes - and his habit of snorting class A drugs - not the 'woke mind virus'. My personal theory is that, to varying degrees people with autism struggle with ambiguity, and gender expression is more ambiguous an area than some give credit for. Where a neurotypical person may be say, a ‘tomboy’ (I haven’t heard that term in forever), but feel very feminine in their identity, some on the spectrum may struggle more to reconcile the two. It’s a crude generalisation and I wouldn’t say it’s the reason by any means, but I think it probably is at least a factor. Based from my experiences of people I know, plus what I know about the pathology of both I think its really easy to 'diagnose' trans issues as a problem, when for the people who are actually transitioning, they are mostly a godsend. I'd like to see more studies into people who de-transition. Not much likelihood of that with Trump's lot in power though, I think those kinds of studies will die off. Google tells me that less than 1% of people who transition regret it afterwards. Compared to one poll about plastic surgery, which found that 65% of people regretted their surgery, I think we should all be able to agree that medical treatment for transitioning is incredibly successful and doesn't actually cause the harm that people are pretending it causes. Obviously that's in lieu of lots of long term studies and data. When it comes to 'line goes up' data about the number of transgender people, well that is a neutral set of data, and often goes along with the assumption that somehow that is harmful, when any angle I look at it from seems to suggests that the line going up is a fantastic thing and is genuinely helping alot of people. If I framed it in such a manner, was not my intent. If there’s a link, and why there’s a link between being autistic and trans it’s just summat that ‘is’ for me. For example, bipolar folk tend to have substance abuse issues too, it’s not the nature of that particular beast. But to understand is to at least have a better shot at tackling it. I’d agree that the more rigorous studies the better. I think we’re too accustomed to instant answers on everything these days, sometimes we just don’t conclusively know every facet of something because sufficiently rigorous study and data just isn’t there. (See - Covid) So you quite often see a battle of ‘throw the first study that agrees with me’ and that back-and-forth. Including all of that lovely concern trolling that’s totally earnest! In actual UK-specific policy news: FA Bars Transgender Women from Women’s Football - BBCShow nested quote +What was the FA's previous policy?
Under amended rules announced on 11 April, the FA said transgender women could continue to participate in women's football provided they met certain criteria.
They would have to prove via medical records that their testosterone levels had been below prescribed levels for at least the past 12 months, and provide a record of hormone therapy and an annual review of treatment.
A new formal process, which would involve a "match observation" by an FA official, would give the FA "ultimate discretion" on a case-by-case basis.
How many players will be barred?
Last month the FA said 20 transgender women were registered among millions of amateur players.
There are no registered transgender women in the professional game across the Home Nations.
Last week anti-discrimination group Kick it Out said the Supreme Court ruling would have "far-reaching consequences" and called for "everyone in football community to treat one another with respect and compassion" To me that previous policy seemed a reasonable halfway house, but is not compatible with the Supreme Court ruling, so unfortunately had to go. For non-UK folks, it’s quite difficult to describe quite the scale of UK grass-roots football. Take a dander on a Sat or especially Sunday and you’ll run into an organised game for a league, with a qualified ref and with a smattering of spectators. It’s something I think we do pretty well as a nation actually, and most know I’m not especially jingoistic to put it mildly :p You’ve got 20 trans women playing with women in the entirety of the English grass roots game, of by far England’s most popular sport and none at any elite level? And this is a big huge problem? I think it’s a good example of how problematic this ruling is, because it precludes sensible compromises that try to make things fair for everyone. Of the trans folk I know, they’re all dainty wee things. The one exception who I think would give me a run for my money in an aerial dual or w/e hasn’t fully medically transitioned. Previously the latter wouldn’t have been eligible to play women’s football anyway, and now all those dainty wee lasses have to play with blokes, or not at all. That doesn’t sit right with me at all.
I'm fairly sure the FA has looked at the SC ruling and thought to themselves "We have a window here to change the rules and completely avoid responsibility for our decision"
I don't think they are anti-trans, they probably just wanted to be able to finally make a decision they can blame on someone else.
It shows why these legal decisions are far more wide ranging than people first assume.
The numbers you refer to are absolutely crazy though.
Imagine how much time and effort has been spent talking about trans people in sport, for a 20/millions ratio.
|
Northern Ireland25367 Posts
On May 01 2025 20:53 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 18:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 01 2025 18:25 BlackJack wrote:On May 01 2025 18:03 baldgye wrote:On May 01 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Numbers of thing X rise sharply when thing X is recognised as existing by society. More news at 11.
There are not more transgender people, the numbers are most likely still the same as they were 50 years ago. They are just able to express their feelings now. I wish more people where aware of this haha... my god, how many times do you read history or historical fiction and you have all these people who are described as 'sickly' because they had some sort of medical problem, but no one knew what it was and so all of these illnesses and conditions where just lumped together... and now we're able to identify them the argument is LOOK HOW THIS IS NOW A NEW MODERN PROBLEM! You think transgenderism is some newly discovered medical problem? It's also possible for things to increase precipitously. Many pediatric groups have been sounding the alarm over the mental health crisis among children. Rates of depression and anxiety are rising. You wouldn't say that children have always been just as depressed and anxious and now we're just able to identify it, otherwise we wouldn't have a crisis, would we? I think its much more interesting to look at rates of autism diagnosis. Autism and transgenderism are definitely linked. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Trans people are 3-6 times more likely to be autistic than the general population. https://autism.org/gender-discomfort-and-autism/the rate of autism in transgender individuals is between 6 – 26% compared to a 1.85% prevalence in the general population I don't know what conclusions you can draw from this, other than autistic people are more likely to have some kind of body dysphoria (I know I am both autistic and dysphoric to the point I don't have sex because the body discomfort is way too much). Which goes to show exactly who it is the right wing are picking on I suppose. Probably the most vulnerable people around. It also means Elon Musk should look closer to home when assigning blame for his daughters transgenderism. Maybe its his genes - and his habit of snorting class A drugs - not the 'woke mind virus'. Have you watched the video that Neb posted yet? If not I think you would find it interesting, he talks about why he thinks the link between autism and trans is not as clear. The video will do a better job but he says that Autistic people have very rigid thinking and gender roles. This was not a good explanation at all compared to his. I would be very interested though in your rebuttal to his if you did not agree.
Interesting, I have not watched but that sounds extremely similar to what I was saying a bit up the page. Albeit I’m sure theirs is a bit more rigorously grounded than mine that comes from me intuition
|
Northern Ireland25367 Posts
On May 01 2025 21:40 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 21:01 WombaT wrote:On May 01 2025 19:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 01 2025 19:34 WombaT wrote:On May 01 2025 18:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 01 2025 18:25 BlackJack wrote:On May 01 2025 18:03 baldgye wrote:On May 01 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Numbers of thing X rise sharply when thing X is recognised as existing by society. More news at 11.
There are not more transgender people, the numbers are most likely still the same as they were 50 years ago. They are just able to express their feelings now. I wish more people where aware of this haha... my god, how many times do you read history or historical fiction and you have all these people who are described as 'sickly' because they had some sort of medical problem, but no one knew what it was and so all of these illnesses and conditions where just lumped together... and now we're able to identify them the argument is LOOK HOW THIS IS NOW A NEW MODERN PROBLEM! You think transgenderism is some newly discovered medical problem? It's also possible for things to increase precipitously. Many pediatric groups have been sounding the alarm over the mental health crisis among children. Rates of depression and anxiety are rising. You wouldn't say that children have always been just as depressed and anxious and now we're just able to identify it, otherwise we wouldn't have a crisis, would we? I think its much more interesting to look at rates of autism diagnosis. Autism and transgenderism are definitely linked. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Trans people are 3-6 times more likely to be autistic than the general population. https://autism.org/gender-discomfort-and-autism/the rate of autism in transgender individuals is between 6 – 26% compared to a 1.85% prevalence in the general population I don't know what conclusions you can draw from this, other than autistic people are more likely to have some kind of body dysphoria (I know I am both autistic and dysphoric to the point I don't have sex because the body discomfort is way too much). Which goes to show exactly who it is the right wing are picking on I suppose. Probably the most vulnerable people around. It also means Elon Musk should look closer to home when assigning blame for his daughters transgenderism. Maybe its his genes - and his habit of snorting class A drugs - not the 'woke mind virus'. My personal theory is that, to varying degrees people with autism struggle with ambiguity, and gender expression is more ambiguous an area than some give credit for. Where a neurotypical person may be say, a ‘tomboy’ (I haven’t heard that term in forever), but feel very feminine in their identity, some on the spectrum may struggle more to reconcile the two. It’s a crude generalisation and I wouldn’t say it’s the reason by any means, but I think it probably is at least a factor. Based from my experiences of people I know, plus what I know about the pathology of both I think its really easy to 'diagnose' trans issues as a problem, when for the people who are actually transitioning, they are mostly a godsend. I'd like to see more studies into people who de-transition. Not much likelihood of that with Trump's lot in power though, I think those kinds of studies will die off. Google tells me that less than 1% of people who transition regret it afterwards. Compared to one poll about plastic surgery, which found that 65% of people regretted their surgery, I think we should all be able to agree that medical treatment for transitioning is incredibly successful and doesn't actually cause the harm that people are pretending it causes. Obviously that's in lieu of lots of long term studies and data. When it comes to 'line goes up' data about the number of transgender people, well that is a neutral set of data, and often goes along with the assumption that somehow that is harmful, when any angle I look at it from seems to suggests that the line going up is a fantastic thing and is genuinely helping alot of people. If I framed it in such a manner, was not my intent. If there’s a link, and why there’s a link between being autistic and trans it’s just summat that ‘is’ for me. For example, bipolar folk tend to have substance abuse issues too, it’s not the nature of that particular beast. But to understand is to at least have a better shot at tackling it. I’d agree that the more rigorous studies the better. I think we’re too accustomed to instant answers on everything these days, sometimes we just don’t conclusively know every facet of something because sufficiently rigorous study and data just isn’t there. (See - Covid) So you quite often see a battle of ‘throw the first study that agrees with me’ and that back-and-forth. Including all of that lovely concern trolling that’s totally earnest! In actual UK-specific policy news: FA Bars Transgender Women from Women’s Football - BBCWhat was the FA's previous policy?
Under amended rules announced on 11 April, the FA said transgender women could continue to participate in women's football provided they met certain criteria.
They would have to prove via medical records that their testosterone levels had been below prescribed levels for at least the past 12 months, and provide a record of hormone therapy and an annual review of treatment.
A new formal process, which would involve a "match observation" by an FA official, would give the FA "ultimate discretion" on a case-by-case basis.
How many players will be barred?
Last month the FA said 20 transgender women were registered among millions of amateur players.
There are no registered transgender women in the professional game across the Home Nations.
Last week anti-discrimination group Kick it Out said the Supreme Court ruling would have "far-reaching consequences" and called for "everyone in football community to treat one another with respect and compassion" To me that previous policy seemed a reasonable halfway house, but is not compatible with the Supreme Court ruling, so unfortunately had to go. For non-UK folks, it’s quite difficult to describe quite the scale of UK grass-roots football. Take a dander on a Sat or especially Sunday and you’ll run into an organised game for a league, with a qualified ref and with a smattering of spectators. It’s something I think we do pretty well as a nation actually, and most know I’m not especially jingoistic to put it mildly :p You’ve got 20 trans women playing with women in the entirety of the English grass roots game, of by far England’s most popular sport and none at any elite level? And this is a big huge problem? I think it’s a good example of how problematic this ruling is, because it precludes sensible compromises that try to make things fair for everyone. Of the trans folk I know, they’re all dainty wee things. The one exception who I think would give me a run for my money in an aerial dual or w/e hasn’t fully medically transitioned. Previously the latter wouldn’t have been eligible to play women’s football anyway, and now all those dainty wee lasses have to play with blokes, or not at all. That doesn’t sit right with me at all. I'm fairly sure the FA has looked at the SC ruling and thought to themselves "We have a window here to change the rules and completely avoid responsibility for our decision" I don't think they are anti-trans, they probably just wanted to be able to finally make a decision they can blame on someone else. It shows why these legal decisions are far more wide ranging than people first assume. The numbers you refer to are absolutely crazy though. Imagine how much time and effort has been spent talking about trans people in sport, for a 20/millions ratio.
Perhaps, I’m sure there’s some element for which that is the case.
On the flip side, I’m not sure how they can really rule any other way given this ruling. The first person who sues them
Which is my whole problem with the Supreme Court’s judgement on this, there’s basically zero wriggle room to find reasonable accommodations that, as close as is possible work for everyone.
The only way around it as far as I can see is perhaps in competitive activities that are segregated for cultural/convention reasons versus genuine physiological ones, just doing away with separation entirely. An eSports, chess, perhaps something like darts.
Yeah I must say those numbers surprised me. I by no means was expecting trans participation to be huge in women’s football, but slightly higher than 20.
But then, the ‘debate’ as it were has never really been predicated on prevalence or proportionality, so perhaps that shouldn’t have surprised me.
|
On May 01 2025 19:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 18:25 BlackJack wrote:On May 01 2025 18:03 baldgye wrote:On May 01 2025 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:
Numbers of thing X rise sharply when thing X is recognised as existing by society. More news at 11.
There are not more transgender people, the numbers are most likely still the same as they were 50 years ago. They are just able to express their feelings now. I wish more people where aware of this haha... my god, how many times do you read history or historical fiction and you have all these people who are described as 'sickly' because they had some sort of medical problem, but no one knew what it was and so all of these illnesses and conditions where just lumped together... and now we're able to identify them the argument is LOOK HOW THIS IS NOW A NEW MODERN PROBLEM! You think transgenderism is some newly discovered medical problem? It's also possible for things to increase precipitously. Many pediatric groups have been sounding the alarm over the mental health crisis among children. Rates of depression and anxiety are rising. You wouldn't say that children have always been just as depressed and anxious and now we're just able to identify it, otherwise we wouldn't have a crisis, would we? In what world are these things related other then 'line goes up'? You come here shouting 'amagad look at how sharp this lines goes up" because you ran out of other arguments for hating on trans. We gave a simple but obvious reason to explain why the line could be going up and now you want to whatabout to depression to do what exactly? it dos nothing to disprove the reasoning why the line on transgenderism might be going up. Different things can have different causes. Its bullshit and just misdirection because your latest trans hate argument got defeated by simple common sense.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect
Being trans is also not related to being left-handed. But if I can grasp the point that's made with the left-handed analogy without screaming "that's two totally different things!" then you should be able to do the same with a different analogy. Depression/anxiety have even more in common with gender dysphoria since they are both psychologically distressing thoughts, whereas left-handedness isn't.
|
On May 01 2025 20:44 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 18:58 BlackJack wrote:
I agree autism is the more interesting comparison but it’s also another one where you could say the base rate of autism is the same as it was 50 years ago and we are just better at diagnosing it. More likely it would derail the thread into some kind of RFK jr shitshow. Depression and anxiety it’s a lot harder to use that argument. Although thinking back I should have chosen teen suicide because I doubt anyone could make the argument that the rate is going up because we are better at diagnosing suicide. What’s astounding to me is the level of confidence that people have to know which thing is rising because we’re better at talking about it and which thing is rising just because it’s rising. Let's say it's rising just because it's rising. Would it be a terrible thing if more people were experimenting with their gender in a society that doesn't try to stomp on people that do that?
You can look at the alarmingly high rates of depression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation among transgender children to conclude it wouldn't be a good thing if it were rising just because it's rising. I suppose what you're getting at here is that if trans hate didn't exist then the rates of these things would be no higher than with cis people. That seems like a pipe dream and it's not just "because conservatives." There's 10,000 other things that people can hate about their bodies and are self-conscious about that's not specific to gender identity. People having distressing thoughts over their appearance is not a uniquely trans problem. Society in general is quite shallow. If we could get to a place where nobody was judged for their appearance then we probably wouldn't need cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery in the first place.
|
Northern Ireland25367 Posts
Dysphoria doesn’t seem to be especially environmentally driven, outside I suppose of more meta genderisation perhaps.
While there frequently is no such magic wand, or at least one that’s practical, plenty of folks with depression or anxiety will be fine if you generate an environment that doesn’t trigger those things.
Whereas I imagine you could grab a dysphoric person, stick them on an idyllic desert island with supplies and they’re still probably going to experience dysphoria
|
On May 02 2025 02:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 20:44 Dan HH wrote:On May 01 2025 18:58 BlackJack wrote:
I agree autism is the more interesting comparison but it’s also another one where you could say the base rate of autism is the same as it was 50 years ago and we are just better at diagnosing it. More likely it would derail the thread into some kind of RFK jr shitshow. Depression and anxiety it’s a lot harder to use that argument. Although thinking back I should have chosen teen suicide because I doubt anyone could make the argument that the rate is going up because we are better at diagnosing suicide. What’s astounding to me is the level of confidence that people have to know which thing is rising because we’re better at talking about it and which thing is rising just because it’s rising. Let's say it's rising just because it's rising. Would it be a terrible thing if more people were experimenting with their gender in a society that doesn't try to stomp on people that do that? You can look at the alarmingly high rates of depression, hopelessness, and suicidal ideation among transgender children to conclude it wouldn't be a good thing if it were rising just because it's rising. I suppose what you're getting at here is that if trans hate didn't exist then the rates of these things would be no higher than with cis people. That seems like a pipe dream and it's not just "because conservatives." There's 10,000 other things that people can hate about their bodies and are self-conscious about that's not specific to gender identity. People having distressing thoughts over their appearance is not a uniquely trans problem. Society in general is quite shallow. If we could get to a place where nobody was judged for their appearance then we probably wouldn't need cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery in the first place.
Do you think denying these people the therapy they need will decrease the rates of depression, hopelessness and suicidal ideation among that group of people?
|
On May 02 2025 03:08 WombaT wrote:
Dysphoria doesn’t seem to be especially environmentally driven, outside I suppose of more meta genderisation perhaps.
While there frequently is no such magic wand, or at least one that’s practical, plenty of folks with depression or anxiety will be fine if you generate an environment that doesn’t trigger those things.
Whereas I imagine you could grab a dysphoric person, stick them on an idyllic desert island with supplies and they’re still probably going to experience dysphoria
I suspect so as well. I think even without societal stigmas the mental health of trans people would still be worse off than the mental health of cis people which is why it would be a bad thing if "it was rising just because it's rising."
@Jock I can't think of any group that would be better off by denying them something that they need
|
Norway28670 Posts
On May 01 2025 18:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2025 04:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:
There are kids that might wonder whether they're trans. Maybe they eventually end up identifying as trans - and maybe they don't. If they end up going with no, then I think their puberty being delayed was probably negative. I mean, not necessarily. Maybe the person needed that time to be sure they get it right. Maybe if they hadn't taken the time, they would question for the rest of their life if they could have gotten a better outcome by doing it, and that would affect their mental health negatively. Either way, as BJ pointed out almost every patient who gets on puberty blockers goes on to hormone therapy afterwards, which shows that clearly doctors are not very liberal in who they prescribe puberty blockers to. This indicates to me that the more likely problem in this equation is that there are people who would benefit from blockers and aren't getting them, rather than that there are people who don't benefit from blockers and are getting them. In other words, if the thought is that there is a legitimacy to the idea of "let's be a bit careful with puberty blockers", clearly they're already doing this.
I'm inclined to agree! Honestly thought the number that followed through with hormone therapy after would be lower than 98%.
|
Northern Ireland25367 Posts
On May 02 2025 03:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 03:08 WombaT wrote:
Dysphoria doesn’t seem to be especially environmentally driven, outside I suppose of more meta genderisation perhaps.
While there frequently is no such magic wand, or at least one that’s practical, plenty of folks with depression or anxiety will be fine if you generate an environment that doesn’t trigger those things.
Whereas I imagine you could grab a dysphoric person, stick them on an idyllic desert island with supplies and they’re still probably going to experience dysphoria I suspect so as well. I think even without societal stigmas the mental health of trans people would still be worse off than the mental health of cis people which is why it would be a bad thing if "it was rising just because it's rising." @Jock I can't think of any group that would be better off by denying them something that they need
So what are you arguing then?
You don’t appear to agree with the contagion idea being bunk. You seem to agree with the concept of best medical practice and going with that.
What is the point of your interjections?
It just seems useless, indeed counter-productive devil’s advocacy for the sake of it to me
Yeah I get it can be a fun intellectual exercise, but ultimately these are people and their personal outcomes we’re dealing with here.
At least anti-trans activists believe their shtick, what’s your excuse for being a consistent dick?
|
It's not that strange that the number of people identifying as trans rise sharply when it becomes more accepted.
What isn't talked about in this thread is that the increase doesn't seem to be uniform across age groups or gender.
It's exploded since 2015 so it's been a while now.
13-17 years (female) is a much larger group. There could be many reasons for 18+ not seeing a comparable increase (and even less in the older population).
But if there was an event in the lower age group that caused them to feel body dismorphism in general (ie, a high risk that kids going through puberty are not comfortable with themselves) then it's possible that some of them consider that they aren't comfortable with their new body because it's the wrong gender.
A possibility most wouldn't even consider pre 2010 but it's likely common today. As scientists point out the gap between age groups could be a transient gender dismorphism that ends when they start coming out of puberty and are more comfortable with their bodies and their new identity.
Thus the recommendation to do more studies on this and especially predictors for when it's not transient before you put all these kids on puberty blockers.
Which we have little evidence on but already know can cause loss of bone density (that kids don't care about but watch what happens to QALY if you get your complex hip fracture at 65 instead of 85) and sterility. One doctor didn't think that was a problem because they offer to freeze sperm and eggs before treatment. Obviously not that well versed in how difficult IVF is and how expensive it can be if your first free tries won't take...
Also the single dutch study is doing some heavy lifting as it seems to be the corner stone for treatment everywhere. Could be good to double check that it's correct. 98% is a weirdly high number even if kids in the 90s seeking treatment were probably very sure what they wanted.
There does not seem to be consensus from the 6 centers in Sweden using the dutch model with at least one halting their treatments.
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole.
|
On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole.
? But that didn't happen. Nobody told you that. Doing more research is obviously fine and everyone agrees. For some reason you have decided that this position means you should post in this thread in opposition to what I'm saying, when the people I'm in opposition with in this debate are there to ban trans healthcare for adolescents (and ultimately for adults as well of course, if they're not going there already), a policy that would lead to, on top of all the other negative impacts, less research being done.
|
On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not that strange that the number of people identifying as trans rise sharply when it becomes more accepted.
What isn't talked about in this thread is that the increase doesn't seem to be uniform across age groups or gender.
It's exploded since 2015 so it's been a while now.
13-17 years (female) is a much larger group. There could be many reasons for 18+ not seeing a comparable increase (and even less in the older population).
But if there was an event in the lower age group that caused them to feel body dismorphism in general (ie, a high risk that kids going through puberty are not comfortable with themselves) then it's possible that some of them consider that they aren't comfortable with their new body because it's the wrong gender.
A possibility most wouldn't even consider pre 2010 but it's likely common today. As scientists point out the gap between age groups could be a transient gender dismorphism that ends when they start coming out of puberty and are more comfortable with their bodies and their new identity.
Thus the recommendation to do more studies on this and especially predictors for when it's not transient before you put all these kids on puberty blockers.
Which we have little evidence on but already know can cause loss of bone density (that kids don't care about but watch what happens to QALY if you get your complex hip fracture at 65 instead of 85) and sterility. One doctor didn't think that was a problem because they offer to freeze sperm and eggs before treatment. Obviously not that well versed in how difficult IVF is and how expensive it can be if your first free tries won't take...
Also the single dutch study is doing some heavy lifting as it seems to be the corner stone for treatment everywhere. Could be good to double check that it's correct. 98% is a weirdly high number even if kids in the 90s seeking treatment were probably very sure what they wanted.
There does not seem to be consensus from the 6 centers in Sweden using the dutch model with at least one halting their treatments.
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole.
You would never, ever say to a patient "I'm not going to prescribe you these puberty blockers because it may have long term effects on your bone density"
You would say "Here, take these calcium supplements with your puberty blockers, to counter any side effects"
|
On May 02 2025 08:47 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 03:40 BlackJack wrote:On May 02 2025 03:08 WombaT wrote:
Dysphoria doesn’t seem to be especially environmentally driven, outside I suppose of more meta genderisation perhaps.
While there frequently is no such magic wand, or at least one that’s practical, plenty of folks with depression or anxiety will be fine if you generate an environment that doesn’t trigger those things.
Whereas I imagine you could grab a dysphoric person, stick them on an idyllic desert island with supplies and they’re still probably going to experience dysphoria I suspect so as well. I think even without societal stigmas the mental health of trans people would still be worse off than the mental health of cis people which is why it would be a bad thing if "it was rising just because it's rising." @Jock I can't think of any group that would be better off by denying them something that they need So what are you arguing then? You don’t appear to agree with the contagion idea being bunk. You seem to agree with the concept of best medical practice and going with that. What is the point of your interjections? It just seems useless, indeed counter-productive devil’s advocacy for the sake of it to me Yeah I get it can be a fun intellectual exercise, but ultimately these are people and their personal outcomes we’re dealing with here. At least anti-trans activists believe their shtick, what’s your excuse for being a consistent dick?
My stance would closely align with the Swedish health board.
It's obvious there is some social contagion aspect to the explosion in adolescent transgenderism. When you have anecdotes of girl friend groups in high school where multiple friends come out as trans in quick succession you'd have to be naive to believe otherwise. The left-handed theory begs more questions than it answers. For example why is the explosion not happening in other age groups? Why is it more common in young girls when transgenderism has been historically more common in men? If the rate is increasing due to less repression of trans people then how is America which is ground zero for MAGA trans hate not stymied in transgender rates compared to the rest of the world?
Thanks to social media there's been a huge increase of young people self-diagnosing themselves, ruminating with other like-minded individuals on social media, and doctor shopping until they get what they want. I don't think this is a transgender issue. I think it affects a large range of medical diagnoses.
I think this woman makes compelling arguments in this video from 15:30 to 23:30
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 02 2025 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. ? But that didn't happen. Nobody told you that. Doing more research is obviously fine and everyone agrees. For some reason you have decided that this position means you should post in this thread in opposition to what I'm saying, when the people I'm in opposition with in this debate are there to ban trans healthcare for adolescents (and ultimately for adults as well of course, if they're not going there already), a policy that would lead to, on top of all the other negative impacts, less research being done.
I think the problem is all the "noise", your position and Cuddly's are actually in alignment. Just the information going out to the masses is that there is all these kids who are being placed on the puberty blockers as stage one, rather than as like stage 4 which is the reality. The amount that continue is one of the pieces of data that helped me realize it is not being over prescribed. Also hearing from the expert in your video, him being so thoughtful and also American, because my assumption would have been there was states where it was impossible to get and some where it was handed it out like candy from my media intake.
I'm also sure Cuddly feels attacked because people (not you) are attacking his rather reasonable take rather than pointing to new information. As you point out, their is not a big difference.
On May 02 2025 16:48 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not that strange that the number of people identifying as trans rise sharply when it becomes more accepted.
What isn't talked about in this thread is that the increase doesn't seem to be uniform across age groups or gender.
It's exploded since 2015 so it's been a while now.
13-17 years (female) is a much larger group. There could be many reasons for 18+ not seeing a comparable increase (and even less in the older population).
But if there was an event in the lower age group that caused them to feel body dismorphism in general (ie, a high risk that kids going through puberty are not comfortable with themselves) then it's possible that some of them consider that they aren't comfortable with their new body because it's the wrong gender.
A possibility most wouldn't even consider pre 2010 but it's likely common today. As scientists point out the gap between age groups could be a transient gender dismorphism that ends when they start coming out of puberty and are more comfortable with their bodies and their new identity.
Thus the recommendation to do more studies on this and especially predictors for when it's not transient before you put all these kids on puberty blockers.
Which we have little evidence on but already know can cause loss of bone density (that kids don't care about but watch what happens to QALY if you get your complex hip fracture at 65 instead of 85) and sterility. One doctor didn't think that was a problem because they offer to freeze sperm and eggs before treatment. Obviously not that well versed in how difficult IVF is and how expensive it can be if your first free tries won't take...
Also the single dutch study is doing some heavy lifting as it seems to be the corner stone for treatment everywhere. Could be good to double check that it's correct. 98% is a weirdly high number even if kids in the 90s seeking treatment were probably very sure what they wanted.
There does not seem to be consensus from the 6 centers in Sweden using the dutch model with at least one halting their treatments.
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. You would never, ever say to a patient "I'm not going to prescribe you these puberty blockers because it may have long term effects on your bone density" You would say "Here, take these calcium supplements with your puberty blockers, to counter any side effects"
I don't think it is that easy or the practitioners would be doing it. I think you need the hormones to build the density. They were talking about how sometimes if someone is 17 and heading off to college they will do the surgery before 18, with parental and kid approval, because of the bone density issue, but more so because waiting a few months so they have to have surgery and recovery during the school year is just not practical.
I do not think the bone density is some big road block because it seems like at some point they are going to get the hormones and it will mostly catch up. Now long term, like 40 years from now what the consequences, who knows, but that is true of just about everything.
|
On May 02 2025 22:56 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. ? But that didn't happen. Nobody told you that. Doing more research is obviously fine and everyone agrees. For some reason you have decided that this position means you should post in this thread in opposition to what I'm saying, when the people I'm in opposition with in this debate are there to ban trans healthcare for adolescents (and ultimately for adults as well of course, if they're not going there already), a policy that would lead to, on top of all the other negative impacts, less research being done. I think the problem is all the "noise", your position and Cuddly's are actually in alignment. Just the information going out to the masses is that there is all these kids who are being placed on the puberty blockers as stage one, rather than as like stage 4 which is the reality. The amount that continue is one of the pieces of data that helped me realize it is not being over prescribed. Also hearing from the expert in your video, him being so thoughtful and also American, because my assumption would have been there was states where it was impossible to get and some where it was handed it out like candy from my media intake. I'm also sure Cuddly feels attacked because people (not you) are attacking his rather reasonable take rather than pointing to new information. As you point out, their is not a big difference. Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 16:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not that strange that the number of people identifying as trans rise sharply when it becomes more accepted.
What isn't talked about in this thread is that the increase doesn't seem to be uniform across age groups or gender.
It's exploded since 2015 so it's been a while now.
13-17 years (female) is a much larger group. There could be many reasons for 18+ not seeing a comparable increase (and even less in the older population).
But if there was an event in the lower age group that caused them to feel body dismorphism in general (ie, a high risk that kids going through puberty are not comfortable with themselves) then it's possible that some of them consider that they aren't comfortable with their new body because it's the wrong gender.
A possibility most wouldn't even consider pre 2010 but it's likely common today. As scientists point out the gap between age groups could be a transient gender dismorphism that ends when they start coming out of puberty and are more comfortable with their bodies and their new identity.
Thus the recommendation to do more studies on this and especially predictors for when it's not transient before you put all these kids on puberty blockers.
Which we have little evidence on but already know can cause loss of bone density (that kids don't care about but watch what happens to QALY if you get your complex hip fracture at 65 instead of 85) and sterility. One doctor didn't think that was a problem because they offer to freeze sperm and eggs before treatment. Obviously not that well versed in how difficult IVF is and how expensive it can be if your first free tries won't take...
Also the single dutch study is doing some heavy lifting as it seems to be the corner stone for treatment everywhere. Could be good to double check that it's correct. 98% is a weirdly high number even if kids in the 90s seeking treatment were probably very sure what they wanted.
There does not seem to be consensus from the 6 centers in Sweden using the dutch model with at least one halting their treatments.
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. You would never, ever say to a patient "I'm not going to prescribe you these puberty blockers because it may have long term effects on your bone density" You would say "Here, take these calcium supplements with your puberty blockers, to counter any side effects" I don't think it is that easy or the practitioners would be doing it. I think you need the hormones to build the density. They were talking about how sometimes if someone is 17 and heading off to college they will do the surgery before 18, with parental and kid approval, because of the bone density issue, but more so because waiting a few months so they have to have surgery and recovery during the school year is just not practical. I do not think the bone density is some big road block because it seems like at some point they are going to get the hormones and it will mostly catch up. Now long term, like 40 years from now what the consequences, who knows, but that is true of just about everything.
Practitioners are doing it.
Its standard practice to prescribe calcium for bone density with puberty blockers.
That's the point i'm making. Doctors don't refuse to give you the treatment you need in case you suffer side effects. They prescribe the treatment, monitor the side effects and then manage them as required.
Can you imagine a doctor refusing to give someone chemo for their cancer because the side effects are nasty? No, they monitor the side effects and if they are too much for a patient then they give the patient a choice.
My overall point here is, people are treating this as though people with gender dysphoria don't actually need any treatment for it, they just need to 'man up' or some shit. Medically, if these people didn't need hormone therapy, they wouldn't be prescribed it.
|
On May 02 2025 22:56 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. ? But that didn't happen. Nobody told you that. Doing more research is obviously fine and everyone agrees. For some reason you have decided that this position means you should post in this thread in opposition to what I'm saying, when the people I'm in opposition with in this debate are there to ban trans healthcare for adolescents (and ultimately for adults as well of course, if they're not going there already), a policy that would lead to, on top of all the other negative impacts, less research being done. I think the problem is all the "noise", your position and Cuddly's are actually in alignment. Just the information going out to the masses is that there is all these kids who are being placed on the puberty blockers as stage one, rather than as like stage 4 which is the reality. The amount that continue is one of the pieces of data that helped me realize it is not being over prescribed. Also hearing from the expert in your video, him being so thoughtful and also American, because my assumption would have been there was states where it was impossible to get and some where it was handed it out like candy from my media intake.
That makes sense to me yeah. There might also be some difference in what more research means in actuality. To Jack Turban or to me, "more research" is going to lead to better data, maybe some tweaks, but largely a continuation of what they're doing because there's a level of confidence there (because it's his job, and for me because I've interacted a decent amount with trans people and they're unanimously very clear on whether the treatment is beneficial to them, it is, so that's enough evidence for me). Maybe that level of confidence isn't there for Cuddly and it's more of a neutral "more research" that could lead anywhere, or maybe it's even a confidence on the other side, "more research will probably show that the treatment is bad". Which may be why it feels like we're saying different things, even though we aren't really.
|
Northern Ireland25367 Posts
On May 02 2025 16:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 08:47 WombaT wrote:On May 02 2025 03:40 BlackJack wrote:On May 02 2025 03:08 WombaT wrote:
Dysphoria doesn’t seem to be especially environmentally driven, outside I suppose of more meta genderisation perhaps.
While there frequently is no such magic wand, or at least one that’s practical, plenty of folks with depression or anxiety will be fine if you generate an environment that doesn’t trigger those things.
Whereas I imagine you could grab a dysphoric person, stick them on an idyllic desert island with supplies and they’re still probably going to experience dysphoria I suspect so as well. I think even without societal stigmas the mental health of trans people would still be worse off than the mental health of cis people which is why it would be a bad thing if "it was rising just because it's rising." @Jock I can't think of any group that would be better off by denying them something that they need So what are you arguing then? You don’t appear to agree with the contagion idea being bunk. You seem to agree with the concept of best medical practice and going with that. What is the point of your interjections? It just seems useless, indeed counter-productive devil’s advocacy for the sake of it to me Yeah I get it can be a fun intellectual exercise, but ultimately these are people and their personal outcomes we’re dealing with here. At least anti-trans activists believe their shtick, what’s your excuse for being a consistent dick? My stance would closely align with the Swedish health board. It's obvious there is some social contagion aspect to the explosion in adolescent transgenderism. When you have anecdotes of girl friend groups in high school where multiple friends come out as trans in quick succession you'd have to be naive to believe otherwise. The left-handed theory begs more questions than it answers. For example why is the explosion not happening in other age groups? Why is it more common in young girls when transgenderism has been historically more common in men? If the rate is increasing due to less repression of trans people then how is America which is ground zero for MAGA trans hate not stymied in transgender rates compared to the rest of the world? Thanks to social media there's been a huge increase of young people self-diagnosing themselves, ruminating with other like-minded individuals on social media, and doctor shopping until they get what they want. I don't think this is a transgender issue. I think it affects a large range of medical diagnoses.I think this woman makes compelling arguments in this video from 15:30 to 23:30 + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/eUFaIjVzq2g?t=929
Right, apologies for the hostility wasn’t called for. Sincerely my bad there
I think this is certainly a problem, that Barnum Effect has a lot to answer. While not uniquely an American phenomenon, I think both the cultural and systemic prevalence of ‘take this pill it will fix you’ does present bigger challenges here than perhaps elsewhere too.
On the flip side for me it’s not really a question of efficacy and applicability of treatments, but in diagnosis being accurate and rigorous.
I think it’s a fully valid concern, equally we don’t really collectively assess medical practice through the lens of ‘what if we’re treating people who don’t have the condition?’ One tends to begin with the assumption that people with condition x are getting treatment for it because they have condition x.
Something like a hypothetical moratorium on say, puberty blockers on the basis that ultimately non-trans people undergo that method would be quite atypical.
This isn’t to downplay social contagion either, but for me you make assessment and diagnosis more rigorous, rather than altering current understanding of best practice around misdiagnosis. As per your point, I think given the rather stratified nature of much of society and media, a country can be simultaneously more oppressive, and more open to something like trans folk. You can have more vociferous anti-trans voices, while folks who may have been somewhat on the fence prior are more decidedly pro.
So I think you can see both co-existing.
|
On May 02 2025 22:58 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 22:56 Billyboy wrote:On May 02 2025 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. ? But that didn't happen. Nobody told you that. Doing more research is obviously fine and everyone agrees. For some reason you have decided that this position means you should post in this thread in opposition to what I'm saying, when the people I'm in opposition with in this debate are there to ban trans healthcare for adolescents (and ultimately for adults as well of course, if they're not going there already), a policy that would lead to, on top of all the other negative impacts, less research being done. I think the problem is all the "noise", your position and Cuddly's are actually in alignment. Just the information going out to the masses is that there is all these kids who are being placed on the puberty blockers as stage one, rather than as like stage 4 which is the reality. The amount that continue is one of the pieces of data that helped me realize it is not being over prescribed. Also hearing from the expert in your video, him being so thoughtful and also American, because my assumption would have been there was states where it was impossible to get and some where it was handed it out like candy from my media intake. I'm also sure Cuddly feels attacked because people (not you) are attacking his rather reasonable take rather than pointing to new information. As you point out, their is not a big difference. On May 02 2025 16:48 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
It's not that strange that the number of people identifying as trans rise sharply when it becomes more accepted.
What isn't talked about in this thread is that the increase doesn't seem to be uniform across age groups or gender.
It's exploded since 2015 so it's been a while now.
13-17 years (female) is a much larger group. There could be many reasons for 18+ not seeing a comparable increase (and even less in the older population).
But if there was an event in the lower age group that caused them to feel body dismorphism in general (ie, a high risk that kids going through puberty are not comfortable with themselves) then it's possible that some of them consider that they aren't comfortable with their new body because it's the wrong gender.
A possibility most wouldn't even consider pre 2010 but it's likely common today. As scientists point out the gap between age groups could be a transient gender dismorphism that ends when they start coming out of puberty and are more comfortable with their bodies and their new identity.
Thus the recommendation to do more studies on this and especially predictors for when it's not transient before you put all these kids on puberty blockers.
Which we have little evidence on but already know can cause loss of bone density (that kids don't care about but watch what happens to QALY if you get your complex hip fracture at 65 instead of 85) and sterility. One doctor didn't think that was a problem because they offer to freeze sperm and eggs before treatment. Obviously not that well versed in how difficult IVF is and how expensive it can be if your first free tries won't take...
Also the single dutch study is doing some heavy lifting as it seems to be the corner stone for treatment everywhere. Could be good to double check that it's correct. 98% is a weirdly high number even if kids in the 90s seeking treatment were probably very sure what they wanted.
There does not seem to be consensus from the 6 centers in Sweden using the dutch model with at least one halting their treatments.
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. You would never, ever say to a patient "I'm not going to prescribe you these puberty blockers because it may have long term effects on your bone density" You would say "Here, take these calcium supplements with your puberty blockers, to counter any side effects" I don't think it is that easy or the practitioners would be doing it. I think you need the hormones to build the density. They were talking about how sometimes if someone is 17 and heading off to college they will do the surgery before 18, with parental and kid approval, because of the bone density issue, but more so because waiting a few months so they have to have surgery and recovery during the school year is just not practical. I do not think the bone density is some big road block because it seems like at some point they are going to get the hormones and it will mostly catch up. Now long term, like 40 years from now what the consequences, who knows, but that is true of just about everything. Practitioners are doing it. Its standard practice to prescribe calcium for bone density with puberty blockers. That's the point i'm making. Doctors don't refuse to give you the treatment you need in case you suffer side effects. They prescribe the treatment, monitor the side effects and then manage them as required. Can you imagine a doctor refusing to give someone chemo for their cancer because the side effects are nasty? No, they monitor the side effects and if they are too much for a patient then they give the patient a choice. My overall point here is, people are treating this as though people with gender dysphoria don't actually need any treatment for it, they just need to 'man up' or some shit. Medically, if these people didn't need hormone therapy, they wouldn't be prescribed it.
Totally agree with your overall point.
On May 02 2025 23:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2025 22:56 Billyboy wrote:On May 02 2025 15:42 Nebuchad wrote:On May 02 2025 14:39 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
But if you think that maybe we should be careful, listen to the science and do the studies they suggest before starting to mass medicate kids apparantly you are an asshole. ? But that didn't happen. Nobody told you that. Doing more research is obviously fine and everyone agrees. For some reason you have decided that this position means you should post in this thread in opposition to what I'm saying, when the people I'm in opposition with in this debate are there to ban trans healthcare for adolescents (and ultimately for adults as well of course, if they're not going there already), a policy that would lead to, on top of all the other negative impacts, less research being done. I think the problem is all the "noise", your position and Cuddly's are actually in alignment. Just the information going out to the masses is that there is all these kids who are being placed on the puberty blockers as stage one, rather than as like stage 4 which is the reality. The amount that continue is one of the pieces of data that helped me realize it is not being over prescribed. Also hearing from the expert in your video, him being so thoughtful and also American, because my assumption would have been there was states where it was impossible to get and some where it was handed it out like candy from my media intake. That makes sense to me yeah. There might also be some difference in what more research means in actuality. To Jack Turban or to me, "more research" is going to lead to better data, maybe some tweaks, but largely a continuation of what they're doing because there's a level of confidence there (because it's his job, and for me because I've interacted a decent amount with trans people and they're unanimously very clear on whether the treatment is beneficial to them, it is, so that's enough evidence for me). Maybe that level of confidence isn't there for Cuddly and it's more of a neutral "more research" that could lead anywhere, or maybe it's even a confidence on the other side, "more research will probably show that the treatment is bad". Which may be why it feels like we're saying different things, even though we aren't really.
I could see that. I think a lot of issues around Trans issues is that there is so much ignorance along with misinformation. Like I'm trying to figure it out and there is so much I don't know, and I don't know personally and Trans people I can talk to. With gays and lesbians, I grew up with them (came out later in life) , had out friends in university and still do. I mostly "get it". With Trans I don't "get" most of it. I've only seen like 4 trans people (that I knew were Trans) in person in my town and the bigger city. Both times it was couples who were two trans women. Even how gender identity and sexual orientation work together I really don't yet grasp, other than that a trans person can basically have any sexual orientation, but is one more common by a lot or little? I really have no idea. In fact, when I was growing up it seemed like there was only straight, gay or bi, now there is all sorts. When ever I'm trying to get more up to date I feel like I'm drinking from a firehose and drowning.
In my opinion I'm putting in lots of effort and I still can't get it so I can only imagine what it is like for people who don't. But I do think as people like me know more and get more comfortable, we can talk to people who know less and make them more comfortable. Some reluctance about this issue is just that the unknown is scary. Now lots of it is hate and I'm not discounting or hand waving that. Just that I don't think assuming everyone who is scared, unsure, whatever is full of hate is true.
This was some verbal diarrhea so my apologies for that and this is not directed at Cuddly or you, just general thoughts I'm trying to parse through.
|
United States42695 Posts
Sex is what you have going on between your legs. Sexuality is who you bang. Gender is which of the various sets of gender constructs you feel most comfortable with.
Let's give a very simple set of binary examples.
You can have
1. A dick / no dick
2. Bang men / bang not men
3. Has long hair / has short hair
We might commonly see the combo "no dick, bangs men, has long hair". Let's call that straight cis female (in this super basic example I'm reducing the entire expression of gender down to hair length).
But picking an answer on any of those 3 doesn't require you pick a specific answer on the other two. You can just as easily have "no dick, bangs not men, has long hair". That's gay cis female.
Or "no dick, bangs men, has short hair". That's gay trans man.
Start with 3 to determine male or female gender identity. Then if the genitals match the gender identity you assign cis or trans. Then if the person they're banging has the same gender identity you assign gay or straight.
The collection of ideas that collectively form gender expression are super arbitrary. Wearing makeup is typically a female thing, excluding JD Vance, but it doesn't have to be. High heels used to be male. Long hair is considered feminine but there's no justification for that. Some jobs such as teacher or nurse are pointlessly gendered and the gender associated with them has switched a bunch of times over the years. Cooking is feminine unless you're a chef in which case it's masculine.
It's all basically made up but it still has power. The moulds may be arbitrary but it's still painful if you're trying to force yourself to fit one that just isn't right for you.
Trans men aren't claiming that they have dicks, they're identifying that the masculine mould is a better fit for them. With that in mind transitioning is something we’re collectively imposing on the trans community. It wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have so many dumb rules about who was allowed to like what. If someone born with a dick likes dresses, feeling pretty, makeup, being a homemaker, looking after kids, eating salads, watching rom coms etc. then we won’t acknowledge that unless they chop their dick off. And that’s crazy. But we won’t socially legitimize their chosen gender identity unless their physical characteristics match our expectations. They don’t want to chop their dicks off, they want to wear dresses, but we won’t let them unless they chop their dicks off because we have a weird idea about who wears dresses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
