Transphobia

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This sentiment is exactly what conservatives say as well, "it's their fault there's no discourse".

I gave you the argument, when and how forbearance died and why the matter isn't symmetric and why "both-sidesism" doesn't apply. If you care to try to rebut it, I'll consider your counterargument. If your response is simply to repeat your false equivalence claim, I have nothing more to add.

Gingrich is a bloated moron

No argument. Did you want to respond to the argument that cooperation between Republicans and Democrats died with his doctrine?

Humans not inventing glasses until the 17th century doesn't mean they didn't have poor eyesight during the centuries prior to that nor attempted to fashion a way to handle it. Contraception comes under health care and other species self-medicate. We just have, due to evolution, larger brains and opposable thumbs to do more than most species.

Is this an attempt to rebut the assertion that things like glasses and contraceptives is man transcending natural selection?

That is your opinion, which is an empty claim; unless you can somehow provide proof that it is transphobia.

I don't need to prove my claim. To whom do you think I would need to do that? People that already agree? Those that don't?

I've already given you my view on the futility of talking with such people. Let others continue to try to appeal to their sense of fairness and see if they can enlighten them on what kindness and tolerance mean if they think that's not a waste of time. You saw my opinions regarding the futility of the Democrats trying to appeal to the Republican sense of forbearance and fellow-Americanism. Eventually, one needs to realize that that is futile and readjust one's understanding of who and what one is dealing with and what the proper reaction to that should be.

Face it! I know better than you know what is going on inside of my head.

I don't expect bigots to see themselves that way. You took a position and you want it accepted as fair and reasoned, not bigoted. But it's not. At least I doubt that you'll convince anybody otherwise.

Some white former Marine just choked a black man to death on a subway platform in "self-defense." Now, he's going to try to argue like you do that no bigotry or malice was involved in his decision to take the man down and choke him until he stopped moving - that it was reasonable force, as if he might also have had to strangle to death a white woman or anybody else who spoke erratically. He very likely won't be believed. Personally, I don't care if his intention was malicious or not. And racism may not come up in the trial, just reckless disregard for life. But we know why. We know that he would not have treated his brother behaving like that the same way.

Maybe you dislike loss of input into these discussions and not being listened to or believed. That would be understandable. But like DeSantis and his mouse wars, you've aligned yourself with "antiwokism" in a loveless culture war. That defines you to the humanist, who understands and rejects your motivation. All of this makes you uncomfortable, and you don't care who you offend expressing that discomfort. I try to make such people's lives easier. And your arguemnts that your motives are dispassionate reason aren't believed.

 

[Callisto]

Saying that "both sides are equally guilty of being dogmatic and self-righteous" seems to me demonstrably inaccurate considering the discrepancy between the legislative actions of each major political party. On the part of liberals, there is no push to outlaw an entire group's right to marriage, no push to reverse basic protections for medical procedures (like the push that led to abortion bans and now the potential contraceptive bans at which Clarence Thomas hinted), and no push to ban an entire group's access to medical care (e.g., gender-affirming care) that is sometimes life-saving for them.

I see major faults within both parties and don't align with the Demcoratic Party's neoliberalism and historically hawkish foreign policy, but currently, I don't see both parties' domestic policies as equally dogmatic either. The GOP have been pushing a lot harder in that direction, and the theocratic disposition they have adopted in the last several years is quite salient in a lot of their decisions.

It's not inaccurate at all. The amount of self-centeredness and vitriol a group emits doesn't depend on the size of the group. And considering how there is a push for pro-trans laws too, along with demands for changes in language, the impact on biological women's issues, the "canceling" of any and all persons who don't agree 150% with the narrative as "phobic", and the passing of rules within schools/businesses/sports to favor trans persons, plus the number of celebrities championing trans causes, the trans community is not exactly defenseless.

While I agree there is bigotry from the right, to be fair, some (not all, not most, some) of it is not entirely without having been provoked. Unfortunately, the response can be excessive due to what they deem to be excessive threats, like the medicalizing and sterilization of children. And, agreed, I do think that's a snowball waiting to become an avalanche that will barrel over adult trans persons, with the gay community taking on collateral damage as well.

 

[Callisto]

I gave you the argument, when and how forbearance died and why the matter isn't symmetric and why "both-sidesism" doesn't apply. If you care to try to rebut it, I'll consider your counterargument. If your response is simply to repeat your false equivalence claim, I have nothing more to add.

I wasn't aware you took it upon yourself to dictate what the conditions of discussion will be. Frankly, I don't give a toss.

It's not a false equivalence, you simply didn't care for the response. See mine above. Apparently, you don't have more to add, and that's ok. So I guess we're in agreement on that point.

No argument. Did you want to respond to the argument that cooperation between Republicans and Democrats died with his doctrine?

I'll point out what should be obvious that Gingrich and his doctrine is irrelevant to the conversation. The trans community is not the Democratic Party nor a political party unto itself. It's a special interest with diverse members who belong to both Democratic and Republican (and Independent, and Green) parties. If you want to discuss forbearance between the two main political parties, that would be better served in the North American Politics section.

Is this an attempt to rebut the assertion that things like glasses and contraceptives is man transcending natural selection?

Also irrelevant. But yes. Unless you're implying, like the old military joke, that (S9) glasses impact reproduction.

 

[icehorse]

I agree with the last sentence, but disagree with the first sentence, but I can stipulate to that. If so, so what? There's no rational discourse going on here, and no need to be concerned about feelings when talking about or to bigots who deny their bigotry. Why? To me, they're not part of "us" anymore. They're "them," like Putin and the Taliban. I feel no connection to American conservatives further right than the 5-10% most moderate, with whom I share many values. Fellow Americans? No. Just other people who happened to have been born there, not fellow anythings for me any longer, and haven't been for years now. I don't like them, I don't care what they want or think, and I don't care if I offend them. They offend me. We have too little in common, and they have openly hated liberals since Gingrich went after Bill Clinton.

Forbearance is an interesting term. It refers to seeing the other as legitimate and treating them with some deference, as if they matter even if they are the opposition - what was once called the loyal opposition. We compete, but have common interests and goals. That describes the two parties around mid -20th century, the way it also describes two teams engaged in a friendly sporting event. They limit themselves to safe and fair play, not deliberately trying to break legs, for example. And with that degree of mutual respect and cooperation, they accomplished great things, both politically and in sports leagues, because they share many values and see one another as having a legitimate role in the process.

But that's gone for good now, beginning with Gingrich, who, when asked why the House impeached Clinton rather than just sanctioning him, answered, "Because we can." People should have listened to that, because he meant it, and not just for a day or a week, but the left kept fecklessly thinking that the Republicans were fellow Americans and the old ways should continue to be the present ways. Only now is the left coming to see the Republican party as actively anti-American, enemies of ordinary citizens, enemies of democracy, enemies of the rule of law, enemies of tolerance and egalitarianism, and enemies of church-state separation, and enemies of liberals and liberalism.

Now, what were you saying about attempting rational discourse? I see the Republican party as an American disease, and I have virtually nothing in common with people who vote for them. Like I said, I don't care what they think or want, just how to defeat marginalize them and their party.

This is as close to rational discourse as I want to have with the right, and its purpose is not to come together, but to make an argument that will resonate with others like me if any who haven't fully recognized these things yet explicitly, but find themselves saying, "He's not wrong. What do I actually have in common with such people? These people mean me and cherished values harm."

Very well put !

I think it's important to try to understand what makes these far right conservative enemies of ours tick. I'm not even sure what to call them at this point?

One thing I notice is that they operate as if our society is capable of withstanding limitless amounts of their f#ckery. They seem to lack any sort of ability to accurately predict the most likely outcomes of their agendas. I don't think we should underestimate their intelligence, but they do seem to have a few deadly gaps in their cognitive abilities.

I think by any sane metrics, their belief systems are diseased, but how did they get this way? I guess the power of propaganda?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It's not inaccurate at all. The amount of self-centeredness and vitriol a group emits doesn't depend on the size of the group.

I'm talking about the GOP and the Democratic Party, so size isn't a factor here.

And considering how there is a push for pro-trans laws too, along with demands for changes in language, the impact on biological women's issues, the "canceling" of any and all persons who don't agree 150% with the narrative as "phobic", and the passing of rules within schools/businesses/sports to favor trans persons, plus the number of celebrities championing trans causes, the trans community is not exactly defenseless.

There are laws protecting various groups from discrimination on multiple grounds, including religion, skin color, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Similar protections for trans people wouldn't be new or groundbreaking.

And a lot of anti-trans public figures are still able to express their opinions very freely. For any discussion of "canceling" to have practical utility in informing a position or policy, it needs to be more focused in scope. Merely stating that this happens to "any and all persons who don't agree 150% with the narrative" doesn't suffice to delineate any problems or when, where, and how they happen. It doesn't even specify what said narrative is.

While I agree there is bigotry from the right, to be fair, some (not all, not most, some) of it is not entirely without having been provoked. Unfortunately, the response can be excessive due to what they deem to be excessive threats, like the medicalizing and sterilization of children. And, agreed, I do think that's a snowball waiting to become an avalanche that will barrel over adult trans persons, with the gay community taking on collateral damage as well.

What is the "medicalizing" of children? Sometimes children need major, irreversible procedures, and this is far from exclusive to gender-affirming care. Sometimes children need major bone surgeries, and those can be life-threatening in some situations. Sometimes they need psychiatric medications (e.g., antipsychotics) that have heavy side-effect profiles. Should all of these treatments be banned because they can or do have irreversible side effects?

There's a lot of evidence from multiple reputable medical and scientific institutions that gender-affirming care, which can include both psychotherapy and surgery or hormone therapy, provides substantial and sometimes life-saving health benefits to some children:

New research published in JAMA Network Open shows that gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers have a beneficial impact on depression and suicide risk in transgender and nonbinary youth.

The study followed 104 transgender and nonbinary youth, ages 13 to 20, over the span of twelve months as they received care at the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic. Those who received gender-affirming hormones or puberty blockers had 60% lower odds of depression and 73% lower odds of self-harm or suicidal thoughts.

Gender-affirming care can improve mental health outcomes in transgender youth

New research published in JAMA Network Open shows that gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers have a beneficial impact on depression and suicide risk in transgender and nonbinary youth....

epi.washington.edu

Furthermore, a considerable part of gender-affirming care for minors is both reversible and non-surgical:

It is well documented that TGNB adolescents and young adults experience anxiety and depression, as well as suicidal ideation, at a much higher rate than their cisgender peers. According to The Trevor Project’s 2020 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health, 54 percent of young people who identified as transgender or nonbinary reported having seriously considered suicide in the last year, and 29 percent have made an attempt to end their lives. In contrast, numerous research studies have found that gender-affirming care leads to improved mental health among TGNB youth.

Social interventions, which are considered reversible (meaning that if gender identity shifts in the future, these decisions can be adapted), are often attempted in a stepwise manner. For example, children may first begin to use a new name or pronouns in the home, and if this feels positive, they may start to do so in other environments, such as school. Social transition may also involve use of different clothing or engagement in new activities, such as transferring to a new a camp or sports league, that are more congruent with the child’s gender. Social interventions have been found to lower the rates of depression and anxiety(link is external and opens in a new window) in TGNB children.

Pubertal suppression, also considered fully reversible, allows for a “pause” on puberty and for further development of gender identity. Delaying puberty to promote physical development that is consistent with a child’s gender identity is associated with better mental health outcomes, improved functioning, and life satisfaction. Gender-affirming hormone therapy, which involves the use of feminizing or masculinizing hormones to allow the body to develop physical changes that align with a person’s gender identity, also significantly decreases gender dysphoria(link is external and opens in a new window).

The article explicitly points out that genital surgery, for example, should typically be reserved for adults, and that surgery for minors should also require a few conditions to be met before doctors perform it:

Although less frequent than other forms of gendering-affirming care, medical procedures, such as chest surgery, may be performed on older adolescents who have shown a consistent and persistent gender identity, are stable with respect to their mental health, and have parental support. These decisions are made by a multidisciplinary team of medical experts in conjunction with the adolescent and their parents. In particular, according to a recent study in JAMA Pediatrics, transmasculine adolescents who have undergone chest surgery report significant relief in dysphoria and very rare regret. Genital surgery is typically not performed until an individual is 18 years or older.

Gender-affirming Care Saves Lives

Growing legislative attempts to limit, ban, or criminalize access to this critical model of medical care endangers the health and well-being of transgender and nonbinary youth.

www.columbiapsychiatry.org

I have seen some people talk about gender-affirming care for minors as if it were a foregone conclusion that it should be banned, which is a position that directly contradicts the recommendation of most reputable medical organizations. That position is, in my opinion, sometimes based on ideology and politics rather than science or the medical effects of a ban versus a lack thereof. At best, it is sometimes based on insufficient consideration of the available evidence. At worst, it is starkly and conspicuously political rather than scientific.

I agree that these kinds of irreversible, significant medical procedures should never be taken lightly, and I also believe that—as with any other irreversible and major medical procedure or treatment—there should be thorough examination by professionals and detailed discussion between the parents and doctors before a final decision is made. In my opinion, three things should be established when it comes to any major medical procedure:

• That it is absolutely necessary and that no alternative treatment exists.
• That the patient (and/or their legal guardians) are aware of the expected risks and benefits of the treatment.
• That a sufficient amount of professional examination, input, and diagnosis has established both of the above.

I also don't believe that all cis women who have some concerns about the status of women's spaces, sports, etc., are anti-trans or hateful. There are a lot of valid concerns that need to be discussed, and since this is a relatively nascent area of public discourse, there are going to be a lot of issues and details to iron out.

That said, I also believe that banning gender-affirming care is harmful, based in ideology rather than science, and arbitrarily focused on one kind of medical procedure as if it were the only treatment with irreversible or major side effects. Such medical decisions should be made by qualified professionals along with patients and/or the families of the latter, not by politicians and ideologically slanted laws.

 

[Kfox]

Saying that "both sides are equally guilty of being dogmatic and self-righteous" seems to me demonstrably inaccurate considering the discrepancy between the legislative actions of each major political party. On the part of liberals, there is no push to outlaw an entire group's right to marriage,

How about if the group in question were a bunch of men who wanted to marry their pre-teen daughters? I will bet liberals would be against that.

no push to reverse basic protections for medical procedures (like the push that led to abortion bans and now the potential contraceptive bans at which Clarence Thomas hinted), and no push to ban an entire group's access to medical care (e.g., gender-affirming care) that is sometimes life-saving for them.

How about if the medical care were a bunch of children who wanted to have their eyes or limbs removed because handicap is fashionable and they threaten suicide if they don’t get such care? I will bet liberals would be against that.

I think you are missing the point. The way I see it, it is a push/pull dichotomy the left and right are involved in, the left wants to push the boundaries of what should be acceptable, and the right is trying to pull back on what they find unacceptable and they are both dogmatic and self righteous about why they are right and the other is wrong. There are lots of potential issues the left would object to as well, if there were a political view supporting the above mentioned ideas, the left would be the party of attempting to pull back on what they find unacceptable, and this new party would be the party of trying to push the boundaries of what should be acceptable; and they would both be dogmatic and self righteous about why they are right and the other is wrong.

 

[Kfox]

I don't need to prove my claim. To whom do you think I would need to do that? People that already agree? Those that don't?

My point is; what constitutes bigotry is completely subjective. The pedophile that wants to have sex with children will call you a bigot for finding his desires appalling.

I don't expect bigots to see themselves that way. You took a position and you want it accepted as fair and reasoned, not bigoted. But it's not. At least I doubt that you'll convince anybody otherwise.

My response was not about how I see myself, my response was about you claiming to know my motivation for doing and believing things.

 

[Debater Slayer]

How about if the group in question were a bunch of men who wanted to marry their pre-teen daughters? I will bet liberals would be against that.

I don't know how this is relevant to what I said. Same-sex marriage is between consenting adults, so the comparison makes no sense.

How about if the medical care were a bunch of children who wanted to have their eyes or limbs removed because handicap is fashionable and they threaten suicide if they don’t get such care? I will bet liberals would be against that.

This is another misplaced comparison because gender dysphoria is well-researched and established as a medical issue that needs treatment; whether or not it's "fashionable" doesn't change the reality that the condition itself exists. Higher suicide rates exist among trans people because of social and medical challenges—including hurdles against getting proper professional care—not because they're "threatening" anyone.

I think you are missing the point. The way I see it, it is a push/pull dichotomy the left and right are involved in, the left wants to push the boundaries of what should be acceptable, and the right is trying to pull back on what they find unacceptable and they are both dogmatic and self righteous about why they are right and the other is wrong. There are lots of potential issues the left would object to as well, if there were a political view supporting the above mentioned ideas, the left would be the party of attempting to pull back on what they find unacceptable, and this new party would be the party of trying to push the boundaries of what should be acceptable; and they would both be dogmatic and self righteous about why they are right and the other is wrong.

I'm more interested in what is currently happening than any hypotheticals or remote scenarios, and what is currently happening is that the GOP are curtailing or trying to curtail more rights than Democrats are.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have never heard a person called "woke" for having a specific point of view, I've heard lots of people called transphobic, homophobic, islamphobic, xenophobic, and countless other phobics for having a specific point of view.

I tend to view "woke" aa forcefully pushing a view or agenda well past reasonable means.

 

[Kfox]

I don't know how this is relevant to what I said. Same-sex marriage is between consenting adults, so the comparison makes no sense.

The age of consent in most states is 16. So if a group of fathers wanted to marry their 16 year old daughters, do you think the liberals would be okay with it? And how difficult would it be to lower that age of consent to pre-teen? Would they be okay with that?

This is another misplaced comparison because gender dysphoria is well-researched and established as a medical issue that needs treatment; whether or not it's "fashionable" doesn't change the reality that the condition itself exists. Higher suicide rates exist among trans people because of social and medical challenges—including hurdles against getting proper professional care—not because they're "threatening" anyone.

So if a condition began to exist whereas people wanted to handicap themselves, and a higher suicide rate was associated with this condition due to social and medical challenges, do you think liberals would go along with it?

I'm more interested in what is currently happening than any hypotheticals or remote scenarios, and what is currently happening is that the GOP are curtailing or trying to curtail more rights than Democrats are.

I’m more interested in addressing the question at hand, and right now, the GOP and the Democrats are both involved in a push/pull dichotomy concerning what is acceptable vs unacceptable, with both sides being dogmatic, and self-righteous about their positions.

 

[Kfox]

I tend to view "woke" aa forcefully pushing a view or agenda well past reasonable means.

Yeah; but you usually won't find 2 people in an argument, and it ends by one person calling the other; woke.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Saying that "both sides are equally guilty of being dogmatic and self-righteous" seems to me demonstrably inaccurate considering the discrepancy between the legislative actions of each major political party. On the part of liberals, there is no push to outlaw an entire group's right to marriage, no push to reverse basic protections for medical procedures (like the push that led to abortion bans and now the potential contraceptive bans at which Clarence Thomas hinted), and no push to ban an entire group's access to medical care (e.g., gender-affirming care) that is sometimes life-saving for them.

I see major faults within both parties and don't align with the Demcoratic Party's neoliberalism and historically hawkish foreign policy, but currently, I don't see both parties' domestic policies as equally dogmatic either. The GOP have been pushing a lot harder in that direction, and the theocratic disposition they have adopted in the last several years is quite salient in a lot of their decisions.

Yup. That "both parties" ship sailed a long time ago. Domestically, you forgot to include a flood of guns and book bans and Global Warming denial amd wanting religious mythos taught as science fact. Amd how the Republicans claim to champion Jesus despite the fact they hate amd demonize the poor.
Yup. There just is no rightly blaming both parties. They may both love bombs and corporate overlords, but only one of them has moved to ban Anne Frank's Diary and gets defensive and takes it personally when slavery and institutional racism are brought up.

 

[Kfox]

Yup. That "both parties" ship sailed a long time ago. Domestically, you forgot to include a flood of guns and book bans and Global Warming denial amd wanting religious mythos taught as science fact. Amd how the Republicans claim to champion Jesus despite the fact they hate amd demonize the poor.
Yup. There just is no rightly blaming both parties. They may both love bombs and corporate overlords, but only one of them has moved to ban Anne Frank's Diary and gets defensive and takes it personally when slavery and institutional racism are brought up.

The idea of banning "the diary of Ann Frank", or to teach about the realities of racism and past slavery is not a part of either party's agenda.

 

[The Hammer]

The idea of banning "the diary of Ann Frank", or to teach about the realities of racism and past slavery is not a part of either party's agenda.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The idea of banning "the diary of Ann Frank", or to teach about the realities of racism and past slavery is not a part of either party's agenda.

The Republicans are trying to prevent it being taught and prevent them from accessing it in libraries.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I wasn't aware you took it upon yourself to dictate what the conditions of discussion will be.

We all do. The terms have to be mutually agreeable. If you want to persuade a critical thinker, you'll need a persuasive (sound) argument. If you choose to not address a plausible rebuttal, that part of the debate has been resolved until you or somebody else does. Those are my rules, yes, but not just mine.

It's not a false equivalence, you simply didn't care for the response.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. It could be both. If you'd like to say more than that you disagree, such as why you think I'm wrong, you'll need to address that.

I'll point out what should be obvious that Gingrich and his doctrine is irrelevant to the conversation.

Obviously, I disagree, but of the two of us, only one wants to give his reasons. I asked, "Did you want to respond to the argument that cooperation between Republicans and Democrats died with his doctrine?" So that's a no then?

My point is; what constitutes bigotry is completely subjective.

Disagree. If it's irrational and is harmful to every member of a law-abiding group, it's bigotry.

The pedophile that wants to have sex with children will call you a bigot for finding his desires appalling.

Pedophiles harm people. Expressing a negative opinion about that behavior is not irrational or bigotry. Transphobia is bigotry. It's irrational to oppress such people and harmful to them.

 

[Callisto]

I'm talking about the GOP and the Democratic Party, so size isn't a factor here.

Ah, I thought you were speaking of GOP vs. the trans community.

There are laws protecting various groups from discrimination on multiple grounds, including religion, skin color, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Similar protections for trans people wouldn't be new or groundbreaking.

True, but your statement seemed to imply that only anti-trans laws were being proposed.

And a lot of anti-trans public figures are still able to express their opinions very freely. For any discussion of "canceling" to have practical utility in informing a position or policy, it needs to be more focused in scope. Merely stating that this happens to "any and all persons who don't agree 150% with the narrative" doesn't suffice to delineate any problems or when, where, and how they happen. It doesn't even specify what said narrative is.

C'mon, we both know what the narrative is. And pro-trans public figures are equally free to express their opinions. I think we both know exactly what's referred to due to the various public instances of labeling individuals "TERFs" and "transphobes" for stating opinions that trans activists disagree with, even when the speaker is in agreement on other points. Dave Chapelle is called "transphobic" for telling a story about a trans friend; JK Rowling is called a "TERF" because she said transwomen and biological women are not the same; Riley Gaines was physically assaulted and held hostage by trans activists during a speech in which she voiced her opinion on protecting women's sports. Even Renee Richards and Martina Navratilova are called "TERFs" for daring to say trans persons shouldn't compete (on the basis of gender) in sex-segregated sports. Similar discussions (hopefully sans the violence) occur on private levels between friends and family (and, obviously, among strangers on forums).

What is the "medicalizing" of children? Sometimes children need major, irreversible procedures, and this is far from exclusive to gender-affirming care. Sometimes children need major bone surgeries, and those can be life-threatening in some situations. Sometimes they need psychiatric medications (e.g., antipsychotics) that have heavy side-effect profiles. Should all of these treatments be banned because they can or do have irreversible side effects?

Gender-affirming care is not the same as removing a cancerous body part so the child will have a chance to survive. And I think we both know a child being prescribed psychiatric medications in order to prevent seizures or to be better able to handle sensory input is not the same as puberty blockers. The former aid in their natural development, and the latter is expressly given to inhibit natural development.

There's a lot of evidence from multiple reputable medical and scientific institutions that gender-affirming care, which can include both psychotherapy and surgery or hormone therapy, provides substantial and sometimes life-saving health benefits to some children:

This I disagree with in regards to surgery and hormones. It's evident that a great deal of profiteering is going on within the medical and psychiatric communities by fast-tracking people without the extensive safeguards that existed even 15-20 years ago. Evidenced by the growing number of detransitioners.

Every human being needs to go through natal puberty. That is a fact. Key physical and mental development essential to healthy adulthood occurs during this time. It's detrimental to not go through puberty, already evidenced by ailments unrelated to being trans that halt puberty and seeing what is their negative impact. E.g., Trans youths develop symptoms similar to youths afflicted with Kallman Syndrome. Puberty is essential to all humans, regardless of how they identify. The most notable development is the maturation of the brain (it's literally reshaped) and the person becoming capable of reproduction; puberty blockers hinder growth and are the sterilization of children. It also creates excessive issues, later on, should they seek surgery. A very public example of that is Jazz Jennings.

Gender-affirming care can improve mental health outcomes in transgender youth

New research published in JAMA Network Open shows that gender-affirming hormones and puberty blockers have a beneficial impact on depression and suicide risk in transgender and nonbinary youth....

epi.washington.edu

Furthermore, a considerable part of gender-affirming care for minors is both reversible and non-surgical:

IMO, social transitioning is a reasonable, reversible option for children. Halting puberty is not for the reasons noted above and isn't reversible. The medical community is not infallible, much less always truthful, and it has often been entirely wrong about medicating children and adults for the sake of profit. We've seen it many times over: from the thousands of pregnant women in the 1950s-60s given "perfectly safe" Thalidomide until the medical community could not ignore the number of horrific birth defects traceable back to this drug; to every other child being diagnosed as having ADHD placed on Ritalin, Adderall, et. al. Excessive medicating until the CDC looked in and found toddlers (under the age of 3) being prescribed and studies indicated these drugs change the brain yet millions of children have been (and still are) medicated; and on to the current opioid crisis, Destroying Lives Since The 1990s.

People being more open about possibly being trans is not the sole reason for the exponential increase in trans cases. Fueling the rise is the medical community and pharmaceutical companies turning physically healthy people into life-long patients, the earlier the better. When bottom surgeries run as much as $25K, another $10K for mastectomies, another $10K for hysterectomies... not to mention when a patient may require multiple corrective surgeries... and then, of course, on medication for the rest of their lives... sorry, but humanitarianism is not the #1 motivating force here.

The reality is people are currently medically transitioning in record numbers compared to before and are very much being used as guinea pigs. Sure, there are people who have transitioned in years past but it's a paltry number and not enough data to confirm all of this is "perfectly safe" and what's best for all individuals.

I have seen some people talk about gender-affirming care for minors as if it were a foregone conclusion that it should be banned, which is a position that directly contradicts the recommendation of most reputable medical organizations. That position is, in my opinion, sometimes based on ideology and politics rather than science or the medical effects of a ban versus a lack thereof. At best, it is sometimes based on insufficient consideration of the available evidence. At worst, it is starkly and conspicuously political rather than scientific.

IMO, I think social transitioning for children can be highly therapeutic and should be accompanied by therapy. Though, I don't agree with "gender-affirming therapy". The purpose of therapy (for anyone) is to help the person work through things, not simply say, "Yep, you're X, here you go (write Rx)." There are too many health issues that have similar traits and children especially go through a multitude of confusion and anxiety during their stages of development.

I agree that these kinds of irreversible, significant medical procedures should never be taken lightly, and I also believe that—as with any other irreversible and major medical procedure or treatment—there should be thorough examination by professionals and detailed discussion between the parents and doctors before a final decision is made. In my opinion, three things should be established when it comes to any major medical procedure:

• That it is absolutely necessary and that no alternative treatment exists.
• That both the patient (and/or their legal guardians) are aware of the expected risks and benefits of the treatment.
• That a sufficient amount of professional examination, input, and diagnosis has established both of the above.

I also don't believe that all cis women who have some concerns about the status of women's spaces, sports, etc., are anti-trans or hateful. There are a lot of valid concerns that need to be discussed, and since this is a relatively nascent area of public discourse, there are going to be a lot of issues and details to iron out.

That said, I also believe that banning gender-affirming care is harmful, based in ideology rather than science, and arbitrarily focused on one kind of medical procedure as if it were the only treatment with irreversible or major side effects. Such medical decisions should be made by qualified professionals along with patients and/or the families of the latter, not by politicians and ideologically slanted laws.

I agree with much of this. I wouldn't say to simply ban gender-affirming care, but it does need to amount to far more than allowing the patient's self-diagnosis to be the standing conclusion. The friends I have who transitioned 20 and 30 years ago had to go through far more evaluation; 2 or more years of therapy and were required to live as their gender identity for at least a year before any doctor confirmed their dysphoria and began any medications or surgery.

 

[Callisto]

We all do. The terms have to be mutually agreeable. If you want to persuade a critical thinker, you'll need a persuasive (sound) argument. If you choose to not address a plausible rebuttal, that part of the debate has been resolved until you or somebody else does. Those are my rules, yes, but not just mine.

Try being a little less pompous, you'll get further. "If you want to persuade a critical thinker," Please. I gave a plausible rebuttal. If you fail to comprehend it or simply choose to not accept it, that's on you not me. Period.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. It could be both. If you'd like to say more than that you disagree, such as why you think I'm wrong, you'll need to address that.

Obviously, I disagree, but of the two of us, only one wants to give his reasons. I asked, "Did you want to respond to the argument that cooperation between Republicans and Democrats died with his doctrine?" So that's a no then?

I gave you my answer and even offered a suggestion. As a critical thinker, that should be obvious.

Disagree. If it's irrational and is harmful to every member of a law-abiding group, it's bigotry.

Irrational according to who?

Pedophiles harm people. Expressing a negative opinion about that behavior is not irrational or bigotry. Transphobia is bigotry. It's irrational to oppress such people and harmful to them.

And not everything labeled as transphobic is transphobic.

 

[Augustus]

I think by any sane metrics, their belief systems are diseased, but how did they get this way? I guess the power of propaganda?

Years of "You believe what you do because you are a bad person/stupid/fooled by the media" type arguments have probably played more of a role than 'propaganda'.

It's nice to have a scapegoat, but "propaganda" doesn't work unless it capitalises on existing problems and tensions and group psychology, and the blame for the problems and culture wars are far from one-sided going back decades.

The US also has a political system almost handmade to exacerbate political tribalism.

 

[icehorse]

Years of "You believe what you do because you are a bad person/stupid/fooled by the media" type arguments have probably played more of a role than 'propaganda'.

Isn't the first half of your sentence just another way of saying "propaganda" ?

It's nice to have a scapegoat, but "propaganda" doesn't work unless it capitalises on existing problems and tensions and group psychology, and the blame for the problems and culture wars are far from one-sided going back decades.

I'd say propaganda checks all of those boxes and it's used by all sides of the culture wars.

The point is that it would seem that extremists ON ALL SIDES, have concluded that values like "truth" and "trust" are optional for societies to function.