Do trans-activists allow for trans-moderates?

[icehorse]

We are not in the USA. We are in general debate. Keep the USA of this as the only relevant place on earth, since we are not in that sub-forum.

As for gender and sex, what are they to you?
As for violence, then yes a transgender person could in Denmark be a victim of psychological violence and one or more persons could be sentenced for that.
As for you, no, you are not that dangerous for this thread.

As for the USA, you are correct - to a point. In many ways the USA is seen as a bastion of free speech.

Gender is tough to define, but I think I can accept that gender roles are defined by society.

Sex is biology, male and female, with rare exceptions.

 

[icehorse]

I asked questions beginning with post #2.
No answers.
At this point, it appears you're not involved in the discussion.
OK.

i believe I clarified my position on hormones and surgeries elsewhere in this thread. Sometimes several posters will ask the same question.

Any other ambiguities you found?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As for the USA, you are correct - to a point. In many ways the USA is seen as a bastion of free speech.

Gender is tough to define, but I think I can accept that gender roles are defined by society.

Sex is biology, male and female, with rare exceptions.

Yeah, for the bold one that is a social construct and indeed post-truth as you use it.
As for the brain understanding of its own sex and gender, studies seem to indicate that a brain in effect be a different sex than the rest of the body.

 

[Revoltingest]

i believe I clarified my position on hormones and surgeries elsewhere in this thread. Sometimes several posters will ask the same question.

Any other ambiguities you found?

After the failure to answer, & the hostility
of the "sea lioning" accusation, I hereby
deme you unworthy of further attempts
to engage on this subject.

 

[Callisto]

Pretty sure slurs (for example) fall under hate speech, legally speaking, in most countries today. Which means they usually fall under the legal category of violence by default.

Words are seen as quite powerful to many a legal system today. And indeed can fall under violence in specific instances

I’m not suggesting that pronouns are necessarily the same thing, obviously. But based on the experiences I’ve heard, using the right pronoun for someone can have a profoundly beneficial effect for them. So the opposite should be true if someone deliberately uses the wrong one, surely.

Hate speech isn't inherently legally categorized as violence. It can be criminalized if the particular instance is used to incite violence. Using slurs in itself is hateful but not violent, so not criminal and is protected by the First Amendment. A slur-laden diatribe that is filled with threats or calls for harmful actions against others, can be criminalized under hate crime laws ("true threats"). It's not the slurs that are criminal but the threats or call to action.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hate speech isn't inherently legally categorized as violence. It can be criminalized if the particular instance is used to incite violence. Using slurs in itself is hateful but not violent, so not criminal and is protected by the First Amendment. A slur-laden diatribe that is filled with threats or calls for harmful actions against others, can be criminalized under hate crime laws ("true threats"). It's not the slurs that are criminal but the threats or call to action.

Maybe in the US. Other places, well it depends.
I think German law is rather strict about hate speech, if I remember correctly. Or was, at least

But I see your point

 

[Debater Slayer]

In many ways the USA is seen as a bastion of free speech.

Often by people who either have little knowledge of other parts of the world or hold on to American exceptionalist ideas and overlook that many other places in the world are rated higher than the US on multiple freedom indices.

Edit: On reconsidering your post, I see my response would only apply if you had said, "the bastion of free speech," not "a bastion" thereof. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pretty sure slurs (for example) fall under hate speech, legally speaking, in most countries today. Which means they usually fall under the legal category of violence by default.

Words are seen as quite powerful to many a legal system today. And indeed can fall under violence in specific instances

I’m not suggesting that pronouns are necessarily the same thing, obviously. But based on the experiences I’ve heard, using the right pronoun for someone can have a profoundly beneficial effect for them. So the opposite should be true if someone deliberately uses the wrong one, surely.

There is no way in hell that I'd call this person
(Kim Petras) "he" or "him". Starting life male
shouldn't require lifelong pronouns that cause
confusion, offense, & legal troubles.
Let's all be useful, not dysfunctionally doctrinaire.

 

[icehorse]

Most of what you wrote doesn't describe a "moderate"; it describes an ideologically charged position that denies medical consensus and expertise in favor of ideology and personal preferences.

Hmmm. What did I say specifically that denies medical consensus? I'm aware that "some" practitioners would disagree with me, but "medical consensus" seems inaccurate.

See above. Also, if we take the above statement as a general rule, then parents and society shouldn't tell children and adolescents to identify as cisgendered either, yet that frequently happens. Should we also reject that?

As I said elsewhere on this thread, I think kids ought to be able to explore and talk about these topics, and that parents and other authority figures should not tell kids what to think or how to feel. But topics like sexual orientation and gender expression and such are extremely complex. Couple that with the fact that kids are going through confusing hormonal changes and confusing peer pressure, and I do not think any irreversible measures should be suggested or approved for people under 21 (or thereabouts). So, no hormones, no surgeries.

I have never seen any relevant medical or scientific authority claim that "sex is a social construct"; only that gender is

I've heard this claim from trans-activists. And doesn't it relate to your other question "what is a woman?" ?

 

[icehorse]

I think @Revoltingest has a point, here. A lot of what you posted in the OP seems to be based on the fearmongering of the anti-trans faction regarding dangers that are in reality non-existent. This idea that children are being pushed or coerced to undergo chemical or physical proceedures, or even just gender swaps based on clothing and hair and so on.

Anything can have a potential for abuse when children are concerned but I fail to see any actual motive or evidence for any of this kind of supposed threat. EXCEPT for the make-believe motive of the loony-toons on the right that think all gays and trans and liberals and Biden and Hillary are part of a secret cabal of satanic criminals intent on perverting their children so they'll end up burning in hell.

I would crudely summarize my stance as: trans-empathetic but largely anti-trans-activist. CRUDELY!

The crucial point is to separate ideas and feelings about trans people from ideas and feelings about the ideas of trans-activists.

It is common for dogmatists of all stripes to try to conflate bigotry with criticism of ideas.

 

[icehorse]

Often by people who either have little knowledge of other parts of the world or hold on to American exceptionalist ideas and overlook that many other places in the world are rated higher than the US on multiple freedom indices.

I'm not defending American exceptionalism and I agree the US is failing on many facets of freedom. OTOH, I'd say that the Bill of Rights was a big step forward for the whole world, no?

 

[Revoltingest]

Often by people who either have little knowledge of other parts of the world or hold on to American exceptionalist ideas and overlook that many other places in the world are rated higher than the US on multiple freedom indices.

That is very mischievous language you've employed there, fella.
It seems to attack a claim that USA is the singular bastion of
free speech. But the claim was....

In many ways the USA is seen as a bastion of free speech.

....which speaks of perspectives that it merely is such.
And then your post seems to imply by association that
one is a deluded exceptionalist if one believes that.
The poster's claim has more validity than its weak statement.
Indeed, it could've been more strongly stated that USA
"is a bastion of free speech". Some other countries are also.

Freedom of speech: which country has the most?

Pew Research Center polled 38 countries around the world to find out where people are most supportive of freedom of expression.

www.weforum.org

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think I've answered many of your questions in other posts?

I haven't seen any convincing answers so far; only personal opinions on strictly medical questions.

As for "anti-trans" legislation. What exactly is being legislated? I do not consider myself anti-trans, or transphobic, but I disagree with some of the more radical, post-truth claims that trans-activists are making.

Categorical bans on gender-affirming care for minors—which medical professionals sometimes deem necessary or even life-saving, as I mentioned earlier—are being legislated in many states:

At least 18 states -- Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah -- have passed laws or policies that restrict gender-affirming care for people under the age of legal majority, which is the threshold for legal adulthood.

Map: Where gender-affirming care is being targeted in the US

States across the country are considering bans on transgender health care for youth and young adults.

abcnews.go.com

These are not medically based laws; they're driven by ideology and politicians' agendas.

Hmmm. What did I say specifically that denies medical consensus? I'm aware that "some" practitioners would disagree with me, but "medical consensus" seems inaccurate.

You can easily access the position of any reputable medical organization as we speak. Look up the positions of the APA, WHO, Mayo Clinic, and many other medical authorities on this subject and let me know if you find a single one that agrees with what you have said here, especially the argument that gender-affirming care should be banned for minors.

As I said elsewhere on this thread, I think kids ought to be able to explore and talk about these topics, and that parents and other authority figures should not tell kids what to think or how to feel. But topics like sexual orientation and gender expression and such are extremely complex. Couple that with the fact that kids are going through confusing hormonal changes and confusing peer pressure, and I do not think any irreversible measures should be suggested or approved for people under 21 (or thereabouts). So, no hormones, no surgeries.

How did you come up with the threshold of being 21 or older? This is a clear example of the anti-scientific nature of these opinions that I referred to earlier. Which medical organization says that hormones and surgery should be categorically banned for people under 21? Because the only thing I have read from qualified experts so far is that doing so could drastically affect the mental health of many trans people and lead to an increase in mental issues and even suicide. I've also cited a professional position saying that surgery is rarely recommended for minors to begin with.

And again, the example of other surgeries seems to me a relevant point: should irreversible, complicated bone surgeries and the numerous other irreversible but sometimes necessary medical procedures be banned for minors? How or why is this any different?

I've heard this claim from trans-activists. And doesn't it relate to your other question "what is a woman?" ?

I've also heard all kinds of erroneous claims from anti-trans activists, but I haven't cited them here because I don't think they're relevant to the strictly medical questions you're raising in this thread. Activists, whether for or against trans rights, don't get to determine what the medically sound positions are, and they don't override the opinions of qualified experts and medical organizations.

As for that question, I'm still interested to know your answer: how do you define "woman"?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not defending American exceptionalism and I agree the US is failing on many facets of freedom. OTOH, I'd say that the Bill of Rights was a big step forward for the whole world, no?

I don't know about the whole world; it was a big step forward for the US, although it does have a lot of flaws (in my opinion) and shouldn't be copied in other countries without significant modifications, if at all.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That is very mischievous language you've employed there, fella.
It seems to attack a claim that USA is the singular bastion of
free speech. But the claim was....

....which speaks of perspectives that it merely is such.

You'll find that many people disagree that allowing hate speech (e.g., public advocacy of Nazism) makes a country a "bastion of free speech"—probably more disagreement than agreement, if we're talking about a global level.

But if you believe that it is a bastion of free speech, that's your prerogative.

And then your post seems to imply by association that
one is a deluded exceptionalist if one believes that.

I think a lot of people who believe that subscribe to American exceptionalist ideas, even if they may not intend those ideas to be so. ("Deluded" is a word you added and I didn't use, so I'm going to skip it because it's an inaccurate portrayal of what I said.)

The poster's claim is more than valid in its weak statement.
Indeed, it could've been more strongly stated that USA
"is a bastion of free speech". Some other countries are also.

Freedom of speech: which country has the most?

Pew Research Center polled 38 countries around the world to find out where people are most supportive of freedom of expression.

www.weforum.org

It could also be argued that the US is a bastion of protected white supremacist expressions among the developed world at this point. A lot of rhetoric that would be illegal in other countries is legal and allowed to influence politics in the US, and the results aren't exactly great so far.

 

[Callisto]

There is no way in hell that I'd call this person
(Kim Petras) "he" or "him". Starting life male
shouldn't require lifelong pronouns that cause
confusion, offense, & legal troubles.
Let's all be useful, not dysfunctionally doctrinaire.

The issue with pronouns stems from the current trans ideology that now declares that anyone can be trans by simply stating so, that dysphoria is not required nor is any level of medical treatment. This is vastly different from what has been true of transgender people. Individuals who had transitioned in the past usually lived what's called a "stealth" life, i.e., they present as the gender they identify with and don't let the world know they're transgender. Because they want to live a "normal" life, i.e. don't want to draw attention to themselves as being trans.

So yes, whether people realize it or not, they have likely encountered or even know a trans person(s). They likely have passed a person in a bathroom and not realized it. And in all instances, they also would have used the pronouns the transperson would prefer if they were asked. That's because their outward appearance matches the pronouns, which is how society operates.

A friend medically transitioned within the past few years, FTM. At the start of the transition, his appearance was still obviously very female. At that stage, he didn't expect society to see him as "him", much less address him as such. He didn't create a scene when a waiter or cashier etc. called him "Miss" or whatever because he still looked female and it wasn't anyone's business that he's transgender. He does look male now and others address him as such. That's vastly different from someone who still obviously presents as their biological sex but throws a hissy fit because some sales clerk "misgendered" them. If it's still blatantly obvious you're a biological male or female then people are going to address you accordingly.

 

[Revoltingest]

You'll find that many people disagree that allowing hate speech (e.g., public advocacy of Nazism) makes a country a "bastion of free speech"—probably more disagreement than agreement, if we're talking about a global level.

Are you arguing that making hate speech illegal,
& prosecuting people for it enhances free speech?
If so, finding "many people who agree doesn't make it true.
Nay, it makes them of the "authoritarianism macht liberty"
variety of double plus good duckspeakers.

But if you believe that it is a bastion of free speech, that's your prerogative.

Well, thank you for giving me permission to believe that.

I think a lot of people who believe that subscribe to American exceptionalist ideas, even if they may not intend those ideas to be so. ("Deluded" is a word you added and I didn't use, so I'm going to skip it because it's an inaccurate portrayal of what I said.)

I use that word to show what I inferred from your
artful apparent between-the-lines implication.
I'd prefer that you make clear declarative statements,
rather than these general allusions, all primed for
plausible deniability. It seems weak...as though
you're hesitant to say what you really mean.
And so you leave us all guessing.

It could also be argued that the US is a bastion of protected white supremacist expressions among the developed world at this point.

Ugly political & social speech is indeed protected.
You seem to really loathe that. I I prefer it.
**** a government with that level of authority over us.
We don't want a Joseph Mccarthy approach to hate speech.
**** McCarthy.
And **** my being so often compelled to post **** this or **** that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Are you arguing that making hate speech illegal,
& prosecuting people for it enhances free speech?

There's some evidence that it enhances the political climate and overall quality of public discourse in multiple countries.

I see free speech as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Therefore, I believe some limitations on it are necessary (e.g., banning hate speech, which sometimes also overlaps with incitement against certain groups).

If so, finding "many people who agree doesn't make it true.
Nay, it makes them of the "authoritarianism macht liberty"
variety of double plus good duckspeakers.

Conversely, finding many people who disagree doesn't make it incorrect either. It's a value judgment. I personally value the outcomes of limiting hate speech over the outcomes of not doing so.

I use that word to show what I inferred from your
artful apparent between-the-lines implication.
I'd prefer that you make clear declarative statements,
rather than these general allusions, all primed for
plausible deniability. It seems weak...as though
you're hesitant to say what you really mean.
And so you leave us all guessing.

I can't anticipate every possible inference, especially when some of them are quite unexpected and uncommon. I tend to prefer expressing myself in a precise manner and then letting people know that they can ask if they're unsure about the intention or meaning of something I said.

This approach has worked well in most discussions I've been in... but you and I seem to run into communication issues quite a bit.

Ugly political & social speech is indeed protected.
You seem to really loathe that. I I prefer it.
**** a government with that level of authority over us.
We don't want a Joseph Mccarthy approach to hate speech.
**** McCarthy.
And **** my being so often compelled to post **** this or **** that.

Nothing to add here. We just have different preferences in this regard.

 

[JDMS]

The issue with pronouns stems from the current trans ideology that now declares that anyone can be trans by simply stating so, that dysphoria is not required nor is any level of medical treatment. This is vastly different from what has been true of transgender people. Individuals who had transitioned in the past usually lived what's called a "stealth" life, i.e., they present as the gender they identify with and don't let the world know they're transgender. Because they want to live a "normal" life, i.e. don't want to draw attention to themselves as being trans.

So yes, whether people realize it or not, they have likely encountered or even know a trans person(s). They likely have passed a person in a bathroom and not realized it. And in all instances, they also would have used the pronouns the transperson would prefer if they were asked. That's because their outward appearance matches the pronouns, which is how society operates.

A friend medically transitioned within the past few years, FTM. At the start of the transition, his appearance was still obviously very female. At that stage, he didn't expect society to see him as "him", much less address him as such. He didn't create a scene when a waiter or cashier etc. called him "Miss" or whatever because he still looked female and it wasn't anyone's business that he's transgender. He does look male now and others address him as such. That's vastly different from someone who still obviously presents as their biological sex but throws a hissy fit because some sales clerk "misgendered" them. If it's still blatantly obvious you're a biological male or female then people are going to address you accordingly.

The majority of trans people don't throw hissy fits when they are misgendered by strangers who don't know better. Most of us, like you said, just want to live life and so obviously we aren't going to start fights over something like that. Now if a family member or friend consistently argues about it and refuses to respect a person's pronouns, that's another story. And I think that's what most trans people mean when they say they want people to respect their pronouns of choice.

 

[icehorse]

I haven't seen any convincing answers so far; only personal opinions on strictly medical questions.

Any specifics?

Categorical bans on gender-affirming care for minors—which medical professionals sometimes deem necessary or even life-saving, as I mentioned earlier—are being legislated in many states:

The devil is in the details. "Gender affirming care for minors" is very vague, correct? Are they banning counseling or are they banning surgeries - those are two very different things.

How did you come up with the threshold of being 21 or older? This is a clear example of the anti-scientific nature of these opinions that I referred to earlier. Which medical organization says that hormones and surgery should be categorically banned for people under 21? Because the only thing I have read from qualified experts so far is that doing so could drastically affect the mental health of many trans people and lead to an increase in mental issues and even suicide. I've also cited a professional position saying that surgery is rarely recommended for minors to begin with.

Well I did say "or thereabouts". Let's zoom out. As a society, we've made many such decisions about age thresholds. As I said earlier, driving, drinking. voting, emancipation, and on and on. Setting such thresholds is hardly a new or radical idea.

And again, the example of other surgeries seems to me a relevant point: should irreversible, complicated bone surgeries and the numerous other irreversible but sometimes necessary medical procedures be banned for minors? How or why is this any different?

How do you classify "trans"? Is it a disorder? Is it a mental disorder? Is a person separate from their body?

Is it incorrect to say that trans people feel they're in the wrong body?