What exactly makes someone a TERF?

[PoetPhilosopher]

Can you clarify a bit on which ships and sailed, and what science is settled, and who has already transitioned?

From my perspective these questions are still all unsettled?

I see a lot of it as already settled. There are still questions and revisions to make, but this "trans movement" and the topic of increasing popularity of it is nothing new. If anything, the trans movement will still exist, but die down in popularity if you let it, and pretty soon, we will be debating even more "progressive" issues, like the rights of robots or some-such, before we know it.

Basically, this discussion and debate about trans issues is "old news". Terminology, public groups, etc have already been fleshed out. It's Republicans that are making this rather old news popular because they decided they wanted to make this old news a "political wedge issue" to try to win in 2024, despite a lot of this "trans stuff" being a few years old and having taken place a few years ago. Then whenever a Republican here makes a thread about it, a Democrat tends to create a thread in rebuttal. Rinse and repeat. Though I'm not for sure this is true universally, I'm actually seeing the trans movement dieing down online, with people, both cis and trans, going on with their lives.

So while people may continue to transition, I actually think it's the people who are against it, not the people who are for it, that are making this a hot topic now. Without that, this probably wouldn't even be a hot topic any more. It hasn't been a hot topic for 3-4 years (in my opinion). A lot of terminology, things that have happened, etc, happened 2-4 years ago.

 

[Callisto]

Upon thinking about it more, I agree that there might be better ways for some, not all, to respond to some of these trans discussions and debates than they already are. Honestly, I find it a complicated thing to debate and discuss myself, because I see the "ship as already sailed" when it comes to these issues. Even if we debate and come up with great solutions that are seen as marvelous in the eyes of both sides, it's like things have mostly already ran their course. People have already transitioned. And the science has already been determined. Even if we all agree on everything on RF, then there'd still be convincing the general public of something, and it'd be hard to implement great alternative ways when trans people have already followed a mode of care, transitioned, etc.

As long as something pertains to lives in the real world, it's rarely a done deal. One would have thought the ship had sailed in terms of various rights or gay marriage seeing they'd been in effect x-number of decades, and yet we see that's not the case after all, they are still under threat.

The science hasn't been determined at all, evidenced by what constitutes care and when changing mainly in Europe, which was ahead of the US in addressing trans care. These changes will inevitably occur in the US as well. Only then will the bulk of the radical rhetoric from both the left and right begin to ebb.

 

[SomeRandom]

Everything up until this point - the historical time line - seems ok to me. I might have a few quibbles, but for this discussion, I think we're close enough.

I mean, fair enough.

The short answer is, that's not the critic's job. But let me expand on that:

In the last month or two I've used RF as a sort of laboratory. To be clear, despite what my opponents here have claimed, my intention has been to be honest and sincere in my criticisms and in dealing with the apologists for trans activism. By no means am I claiming to have been anywhere near perfect. With that said, I've come to a couple of conclusions about the debates and discussions concerning trans people:

I mean, yeah, I think I largely agree with you here. A critic can only respond to the information that is given. That these arguments are indeed part of public discourse is not your fault and that you react to them is, imo, only fair. One can only react to what is given to them, after all.

I might be more lenient, only because I think my initial reaction is to take the more extreme arguments with a grain of salt. That could be because of my learned response to online culture in general though.

1 - Almost all of the apologists (perhaps except you?), conflate trans people with trans activists. They see criticism of trans activists as being transphobic or some such. This conflation is quite common, it's illogical, and in the end I believe it hurts trans people.

I actually agree with you here. There is an unfortunate tendency to do this with all minority groups. It supposes that they are a monolith, which I think largely renders individuals in said groups without their own agency. Maybe this is just the preferred shortcut or perhaps this is due to the rather fervent nature of the “in the heat of the moment” arguments that are more political than anything else. Or maybe it’s just humans being humans and seeking out their own little “tribes” instinctively
Whatever the reason, it ironically ignores the various sometimes even conflicting voices in the discussed minority . Even shaming individuals in insert minority group here who “go against the narrative” as it were.
And like you said, it makes people conflate criticism of arguments with criticism of the minority.

2 - Apologists overwhelmingly have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to any criticism of trans activism. I have been slurred and bullied on this forum countless times in the last few months. In general, it seems to me that - on any topic - when the apologist devolves into slurs and bullying, it's an indication that they have weak arguments.

Again I have to agree. Though this happens on all sides, “reactionaries” tend to well react instead of looking through the arguments presented.

I will admit that I am perhaps far more forgiving of a minority group for doing this. Simply because the arguments tend to be for their rights as humans in society and well honestly the arguments against them don’t exactly have the best track records, you know? Lol

3 - There is a sort of (I suspect unintentional), jiu-jitsu happening in these discussions. The apologists are attempting to hide the fact that THEY are the ones making extraordinary claims, and so they try to shift the burden of proof to the critics. But this is NOT how science works, it's not how debate works, it's not how useful conversation works. E.g., if you're apologizing for the claim "a trans woman is a woman", YOU are defending an extraordinary claim. You are on the hook to provide extraordinarily good arguments and evidence. If there are ANY flaws in your argument, your claim is invalid. So, for example, we see apologists pointing out that biological classification systems are not 100% perfect. That in fact there are rare cases in which individuals can be exceptions to classification systems. So what? No laws are perfect. Society does its best to create laws and policies that work most of the time for most of the people. Finding exceptions seldom means policies and laws are upended. It might mean that they get tweaked a bit.

This may be more of a rhetorical/argument strategy. I suspect it started more as a way to introduce the concept of having biological “outliers” to, for lack of a better term, prove that the concepts are not neat little black and white packages. I’m sure in actual scientific discussion the usages will differ, depending on the context.

You are treating the arguments like they are in the surroundings of academia, more specifically science. But these arguments are usually used more in the field of debates and well, there are certainly different rules there
Just look at the creationist debates of the 2000s. The biologists had all the science on their side but they had to learn the etiquette of debate specifically in order to effectively combat their creationist counterpart.

I know you want to approach this like a science and I get that. But society, people, arguments like this? It sort of extends a bit beyond that scope, for better or worse.

So in general, it's not the critic's job to provide better solutions. When a scientist proposes a new idea, the role of the critic is to poke holes in the idea. That's all. The critic is not on the hook to come up with a better idea.

With that said, over the last couple of months I've made some suggestions as to better approaches, and not surprisingly I've been met with crickets. No response.

I mean, I suppose that is true. Greater society and science, well, they aren’t always the best of friends. Let’s put it that way lol

And people tend to put up walls. I see it all the time, especially on topics such as say politics. People find some general agreement on various things then as soon as they learn proposals to fix these issues are actually proposed by Le gasp them, suddenly that common ground turns to quicksand. Le sigh

But I'd like to reiterate that I'm finding this conversation quite refreshing. You're helping to restore my faith in humanity, thank you.

I’d like to offer my sincere condolences, if I of all people ended up being your beacon of light in these times lol

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

As long as something pertains to lives in the real world, it's rarely a done deal. One would have thought the ship had sailed in terms of various rights or gay marriage seeing they'd been in effect x-number of decades, and yet we see that's not the case after all, they are still under threat.

Which is sad. Because by now, gay marriage should be a done deal. And it actually is a done deal, really. You can't argue about something for 10+ years, it becomes exhausting. At some point, people stop arguing and putting much emphasis, and look to the leaders to decide. But, good luck with that in a partisan, back-and-forth system.

The science hasn't been determined at all, evidenced by what constitutes care and when changing mainly in Europe, which was ahead of the US in addressing trans care. These changes will inevitably occur in the US as well. Only then will the bulk of the radical rhetoric from both the left and right begin to ebb.

It's hard to say when things will ebb. Could be after the 2024 election. Or like gay marriage, it could get stuck in a legislative loop but where no one much makes a deal about it anymore (except when their rights are directly violated).

 

[SomeRandom]

For decades now feminists have been fighting for, and gaining, women's rights. Hooray!! I think a lot of younger women never experienced things that - for example - my wife went through in her career.

I think casting these things as "the new normal" minimizes their danger. Hard fought rights are being eroded. Referring to women as "womb owners" (for example), is a step backwards for women's rights. It dehumanizes women to use such terms. It's a step towards Handmaid's Tale sort of situations, argh!!!

So you have your personal opinions, and as a husband and father, I have mine. I have experienced loved ones suffering various forms of abuse at the hands of misogynists and I do not want women's rights to go backwards.

Well I certainly agree with you here.

This seems like a common sense constraint: We want to find ways to support trans people, but we should constrain ourselves so that the solutions we consider do NOT impinge on the rights of women.

Speaking as a woman and ardent feminist, it might actually point to the recent history of feminism.
Remember how I said TERF is more associated with Second Wave?
Yeah this caused a great schism in the movement at the time.
The Third Wavers were all about broadening the scope of not just discussion of women’s rights but what it actually meant to be a woman. Not just going against the patriarchy and all that. But including voices of those outside of the “norm.” Trans, intersex, even medical issues (related to feeling like less than a woman, for example mastectomy due to cancer or perhaps being born without a uterus) were being championed.
This new discussion lead the way for growing discomfort.
And I’ve witnessed this myself. Old school feminists seemingly felt betrayed, the younger generation felt that they didn’t need the “boomers” anymore, as they were holding back progress.

Inevitably this spilled into arguments. As you’ve no doubt seen, with some women being quite uncomfortable with trans inclusive terminology. Likely due to the “bad blood” left over from the schism. Sadly it puts us against each other, seemingly.
I, in my naive drunken optimistic state, don’t think it has to be this way. Trans inclusive language doesn’t necessarily demean women. It’s just being a bit more specific and to be fair English is oddly specific as a language.
It can certainly be awkward in everyday speech. But I’m Aussie, it’s hard enough getting other English speakers to understand me

Up until recently, I would agree that trans women - you'd think - would want to appear to be women. But recently that's been changing. So the question becomes, how to accommodate male-looking trans women without endangering women. First off, I'd say that if a male-looking trans women uses a public women's restroom they are being quite selfish and even narcissistic. They are putting all women at risk so... what? they can prove a point?

So I'm not suggesting "forcing" anything. I'm suggesting the application of common sense and that we ALL look out for each other.

I think what you’re witnessing is actually the bleed over of Non Binary and Trans individualism. Like I said, there is overlap. This is where things can get….tricky?
And I’m sure there are trans activists who may do this as a form of protest. People aren’t always the best lol
But I don’t know if it’s necessarily fair to assume that of every masculine presenting trans woman. Maybe they couldn’t get all the treatment in that particular time you saw them? Maybe they just came from a hearty rave? Maybe they just got out on bail after a girls night out?
(I’ve likely seen worse waking up at my girlfriends place on the weekend lol)
Or maybe they are in fact non binary. (Identify as such.)

I agree that we should be looking out for each other. I think we should also remember to have a little empathy in there as well. You know? Everyone has a rough looking day? That includes Trans individuals.

We're talking about public policy here. I'm happy for you that you're chill, but I have quite recently spoken with women who are not chill on this topic. Their concerns seem realistic. So now what?

I'm strongly utilitarian leaning. I do not think we should make a tiny percentage of people a little more comfortable at the expensive of making a large group of people less safe.

Well putting on my realism cap for a second, yeah I can see where you’re coming from.
Baby steps.

But remember this, racially integrated bathrooms once made quite a racket in society. Is it fair to simply appease those individuals to disadvantage the minority?

All our advancements in society caused discomfort. Like on a massive scale, which diminished over time. There needs to be a balance.
Now I’m not great at politics or political solutions, I’m a lofty airy artsy type when it comes to filthy leftists, I’m afraid.
I’m just saying, there probably is a compromise here somewhere (for now and then we will extend it further. Muahahah!!)

But remember the context of this thread, it's about TERFs. So who are the people slinging around this term? Misogynists? I guess that's possible, but it seems unlikely and very false flag / conspiracy theory-ish, no?

Whilst I’d normally agree. Truth is often stranger than fiction. Especially in online spaces.

I’m sure you could do a very in depth study of the reaction against Rowling and come up with some overall causes. I’m just saying it’s probably not going to conclude what you think it’s going to conclude. The answer is probably more pathetic in the long run than either of us would like lol

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Again I have to agree. Though this happens on all sides, “reactionaries” tend to well react instead of looking through the arguments presented.

I will admit that I am perhaps far more forgiving of a minority group for doing this. Simply because the arguments tend to be for their rights as humans in society and well honestly the arguments against them don’t exactly have the best track records, you know? Lol

Although I have experience with taking hormones, identifying as trans, etc, I may sometimes come off as terse rather than inviting of open conversation, myself. The reason why is actually a bit complicated. I'm not much of a people person, and I actually saw my social abilities and possibly even my Emotional Intelligence improve a bit while on estrogen, but now that I'm off of it, it's kind of like coming crashing down, I've "lost" some of that ability again, and it's even harder to communicate with people when you're not only not a super people friendly person, but coming to grasp with life back without estrogen dominance.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

To further elaborate on some of my points:

There was a period when a lot of young people, and adults, were deciding whether to transition. And before it got much push-back. Some people followed the model of care at the time, and transitioned. Others learned about the experience from talking to these trans people or others, as well.

At the time, society seemed fine with it to the extent that almost everyone who knew, didn't work to create a great political pushback.

To give people the idea that society is okay with them, then pull that rug out from under them and start changing things now, might be worse than not changing things at all.

To use an analogy, but one that doesn't do justice, it would be like if you owed 30k dollars, and were told you were forgiven on the loan and that everything is okay, so you went on with your life. Then one day, a bunch of payments are withdrawn from your bank account, and you are told "Sorry, we changed our policies. We are no longer okay with the forgiveness plan."

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Also, my opinion is that on a given subject, even controversial - debate should happen for 2 or 3 months or so, then close.

It's when debate happens multiple years, gets quiet, people bring it up like it's new 5, 10 years later, and it's never settled...... it's just bad practice.

I have noticed where some others on this forum have treated debate as pretty much closed and established, such as on Creationism vs. Evolution, and at this point in time, I'm actually seeing it as good practice to do so.

I'm not saying we can't still discuss it, but there comes a point where there's just not the same energy or importance, and it becomes a little bit silly. So responses become a little dismissive.

There was a point in time where I was more open-minded to the trans debate, but that was in 2020 when I was creating threads on it. I can post the threads if you don't believe me, they're probably in the Sexuality board or such.

So that's part of my argument: Debates when you factor things in in a real world sense, and not just a philosophical one, should eventually have a close to be practical. Philosophical arguments are sometimes different, but I still support the idea of consensuses on them.

 

[Ella S.]

What I see is that trans activists use the term TERF to silence any criticism of their activism. And I think it's important to remember that supporting trans people is not the same as supporting trans activist agendas.

It's difficult for me to imagine someone who genuinely supports trans people but does not support at least some trans activist agendas.

Then again, I've met trans folk who are transphobic towards other trans people for not being dysphoric enough or for being nonbinary. I'm sure they would consider themselves to be supportive of trans people, even though their definition of who "counts" as transgender is thoroughly prejudicial and at odds with the scientific understanding of gender.

I would not consider them to be supportive of trans people. I would consider them to be transphobes, even in spite of the fact that they themselves are transgender, and I don't think that's a ridiculous assertion to make.

I think we should be careful when we say that supporting trans people is not the same as supporting trans activist agendas, because the vast majority of "trans activist agendas" are done to support trans people and, you know, if you have a problem with them then that probably is coming from a place of prejudice.

I get that it sucks to be called out for one's transphobia, but, I mean, if you actually care about trans people then you would be thankful to have your harmful biases and preconceptions pointed out to you so that you can correct them. You wouldn't double down by claiming to support them while attacking the people who actually support them.

And that's not necessarily aimed at you directly

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Also, my opinion is that on a given subject, even controversial - debate should happen for 2 or 3 months or so, then close.

It's when debate happens multiple years, gets quiet, people bring it up like it's new 5, 10 years later, and it's never settled...... it's just bad practice.

I have noticed where some others on this forum have treated debate as pretty much closed and established, such as on Creationism vs. Evolution, and at this point in time, I'm actually seeing it as good practice to do so.

I'm not saying we can't still discuss it, but there comes a point where there's just not the same energy or importance, and it becomes a little bit silly. So responses become a little dismissive.

There was a point in time where I was more open-minded to the trans debate, but that was in 2020 when I was creating threads on it. I can post the threads if you don't believe me, they're probably in the Sexuality board or such.

So that's part of my argument: Debates when you factor things in in a real world sense, and not just a philosophical one, should eventually have a close to be practical. Philosophical arguments are sometimes different, but I still support the idea of consensuses on them.

I also wanted to elaborate that I'm not talking in a "thread" sense at all (quite the contrary, actually), I'm talking more like this to provide an example:

Roe vs. Wade. At some point, you have to call it a done deal. It's radical to open the debate back up many years later, say it's different, then think you've won the debate or can provide a better alternative.

 

[icehorse]

This may be more of a rhetorical/argument strategy. I suspect it started more as a way to introduce the concept of having biological “outliers” to, for lack of a better term, prove that the concepts are not neat little black and white packages. I’m sure in actual scientific discussion the usages will differ, depending on the context.

You are treating the arguments like they are in the surroundings of academia, more specifically science. But these arguments are usually used more in the field of debates and well, there are certainly different rules there
Just look at the creationist debates of the 2000s. The biologists had all the science on their side but they had to learn the etiquette of debate specifically in order to effectively combat their creationist counterpart.

I know you want to approach this like a science and I get that. But society, people, arguments like this? It sort of extends a bit beyond that scope, for better or worse.

Perhaps we're discussing different contexts here? The context I'm describing has to do with interactions occurring on RF in debate forums. In my 9+ years here my experience is that it's common to use fairly formal debating rules. And indeed the forum's rule support that as well. E.g. debate the ideas, don't attack individuals. And we see in almost all debates here that people naturally fall into the roles of apologists or critics. I know that depending on the topic, I have assumed both roles over time.

I’d like to offer my sincere condolences, if I of all people ended up being your beacon of light in these times lol

 

[SomeRandom]

Although I have experience with taking hormones, identifying as trans, etc, I may sometimes come off as terse rather than inviting of open conversation, myself. The reason why is actually a bit complicated. I'm not much of a people person, and I actually saw my social abilities and possibly even my Emotional Intelligence improve a bit while on estrogen, but now that I'm off of it, it's kind of like coming crashing down, I've "lost" some of that ability again, and it's even harder to communicate with people when you're not only not a super people friendly person, but coming to grasp with life back without estrogen dominance.

Interesting.

I mean I’m not exactly a people person myself. I think I’m terse, but that could just be Aussie humour lol

 

[SomeRandom]

Perhaps we're discussing different contexts here? The context I'm describing has to do with interactions occurring on RF in debate forums. In my 9+ years here my experience is that it's common to use fairly formal debating rules. And indeed the forum's rule support that as well. E.g. debate the ideas, don't attack individuals. And we see in almost all debates here that people naturally fall into the roles of apologists or critics. I know that depending on the topic, I have assumed both roles over time.

Hmm we likely are.
Whilst I did include RF, I was talking in a more “general sense” I guess.
More so in a “real world” kind of setting, rather than simply on RF
Though I suppose I may have unthinkingly included other forums I’ve been on lol

 

[icehorse]

I see a lot of it as already settled. There are still questions and revisions to make, but this "trans movement" and the topic of increasing popularity of it is nothing new. If anything, the trans movement will still exist, but die down in popularity if you let it, and pretty soon, we will be debating even more "progressive" issues, like the rights of robots or some-such, before we know it.

When I ask about why we're seeing such a spike in people identifying as trans, the summary response seems to boil down to:

- trans people have always existed
- it's now safer to come out at trans

Is that a fair summary?

I wonder if you think there are other significant factors contributing to this spike?

So while people may continue to transition, I actually think it's the people who are against it, not the people who are for it, that are making this a hot topic now. Without that, this probably wouldn't even be a hot topic any more. It hasn't been a hot topic for 3-4 years (in my opinion). A lot of terminology, things that have happened, etc, happened 2-4 years ago.

I would agree that the terminology is not brand new. But I also think that it's a big, complex world out there and not all the news gets evenly distributed to everyone. So I think there is a sort of "filtering down" process that happens in general, and that that's happening here.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

- it's now safer to come out at trans

It isn't, I feel. But I might cover more on that later.

I would agree that the terminology is not brand new. But I also think that it's a big, complex world out there and not all the news gets evenly distributed to everyone. So I think there is a sort of "filtering down" process that happens in general, and that that's happening here.

That's fair.

 

[icehorse]

Trans inclusive language doesn’t necessarily demean women.

I would agree that there is no need for the language to demean women. The problem is that it often does

Call me whatever you want to call me, but if the women in my life who I love are referred to as "womb owners", I take that as derogatory, dehumanizing, demeaning, and slipping into Handmaid's Tale territory.

As I've mentioned before, I believe that the ecological psychology perspective is gaining a lot of support, and that it's proving to be a way to learn things about the world that normal, linear approaches have failed to crack.

From this perspective, I believe (as I've said to others in these discussions), that sentient creatures are a unified mind/body system. I believe that once we see beings this way, we'll make astounding progress in understanding and supporting all sentient creatures.

So when a term like "womb owner" is used, it tacitly tries to separate the mind from the body. I think this artificial separation underlies a LOT of the language and ideas around trans people. There is this assumption that the mind is separate / independent from the body, and that the mind will feel better when the body is altered. From a current neurobiology perspective, it's getting harder and harder to know how to separate the brain / mind from the body. We're understanding that the nerves and neurons that exist throughout our bodies are more complex and capable than we ever knew.

In light of this understanding, terms like "womb owner" are not only derogatory and such, they also fly in the face of science. We CANNOT really separate a brain from a body - they are an interconnected, synergistic, holistic system.

So what's wrong with saying that there are women and trans-women?

But I don’t know if it’s necessarily fair to assume that of every masculine presenting trans woman. Maybe they couldn’t get all the treatment in that particular time you saw them? Maybe they just came from a hearty rave? Maybe they just got out on bail after a girls night out?
(I’ve likely seen worse waking up at my girlfriends place on the weekend lol)
Or maybe they are in fact non binary. (Identify as such.)

What I'm seeing is trendy, hip-looking, young trans-women sporting full, thick, look-a-long-time-to-grow beards.

But remember this, racially integrated bathrooms once made quite a racket in society. Is it fair to simply appease those individuals to disadvantage the minority?

All our advancements in society caused discomfort. Like on a massive scale, which diminished over time. There needs to be a balance.
Now I’m not great at politics or political solutions, I’m a lofty airy artsy type when it comes to filthy leftists, I’m afraid.
I’m just saying, there probably is a compromise here somewhere (for now and then we will extend it further. Muahahah!!)

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison. Racial bigotry wasn't supported by simple physics. But in general a trans women who went thru puberty as a male will be physically much larger and stronger than most women. So this gets back to the safety issue. Once again, for those just joining, I'm NOT saying trans women are any more violent. What I'm saying is that all women understand that there is always a concern that they will be physically assaulted / raped by a larger, stronger man. So if we NORMALIZE the idea that men can enter women's restrooms without raising alarms, it's only common sense that violent men will take advantage of that.

This is nothing like racial bigotry.

I’m sure you could do a very in depth study of the reaction against Rowling and come up with some overall causes. I’m just saying it’s probably not going to conclude what you think it’s going to conclude. The answer is probably more pathetic in the long run than either of us would like lol

Probably sad, but true.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What I'm seeing is trendy, hip-looking, young trans-women sporting full, thick, look-a-long-time-to-grow beards.

They really shouldn't be calling themselves trans then, even if they "may" be allowed to. It sounds more non-binary.

 

[icehorse]

There was a point in time where I was more open-minded to the trans debate, but that was in 2020 when I was creating threads on it. I can post the threads if you don't believe me, they're probably in the Sexuality board or such.

So that's part of my argument: Debates when you factor things in in a real world sense, and not just a philosophical one, should eventually have a close to be practical. Philosophical arguments are sometimes different, but I still support the idea of consensuses on them.

I can accept all of that. But I would argue that the situation has not remained static.

We know that in general science has been experiencing a replication crisis. Many things that were considered "settled" are being "unsettled" upon closer review of the original studies. This closer review process is happening around the standard of care (SOC), for trans youth, and some European countries with superior healthcare systems are now rethinking and revising their SOC policies.

It's difficult for me to imagine someone who genuinely supports trans people but does not support at least some trans activist agendas.

Agreed, but the key word here is SOME. I think some points on the agenda are fine, I disagree with others. Famously, I would say that that's exactly where JKR stands, and she was publicly pilloried for having the audacity to question any of the agenda.

I get that it sucks to be called out for one's transphobia, but, I mean, if you actually care about trans people then you would be thankful to have your harmful biases and preconceptions pointed out to you so that you can correct them. You wouldn't double down by claiming to support them while attacking the people who actually support them.

In my recent personal experiences, such thoughtful communications seldom happen. Instead, even mild criticism is met with accusations of "transphobia" or "ignorance" or "bigotry" or "hate". Until my current conversation with @SomeRandom , I don't recall EVER being steelmanned in these debates, although I have frequently attempted to sincerely steelman my opponents.

So for sure, if a person has anti-trans biases, it's a kindness to be shown them. But your arguments must be rock solid, and I've seen very little of that.

Roe vs. Wade. At some point, you have to call it a done deal. It's radical to open the debate back up many years later, say it's different, then think you've won the debate or can provide a better alternative.

I'm confused here? Roe vs. Wade was just very recently overturned, correct?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I can accept all of that. But I would argue that the situation has not remained static.

We know that in general science has been experiencing a replication crisis. Many things that were considered "settled" are being "unsettled" upon closer review of the original studies. This closer review process is happening around the standard of care (SOC), for trans youth, and some European countries with superior healthcare systems are now rethinking and revising their SOC policies.

I admit that I'm softening to that notion. But I remain skeptical because there exists a political climate now that is eager to overturn everything, and quickly.

I'm confused here? Roe vs. Wade was just very recently overturned, correct?

It was a "settled issue" for years, in my view - then a Republican Supreme Court changed it.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm actually now opening up to the idea that there "may" be some things wrong with the trans "movement" as acceptance and existence seems to rely a lot on left-wing politics taking course. If things could be done over again, it would be better to try to negotiate terms from a Centrist perspective, and either we would end up with less problems, or when problems arose, they could be tackled more easily.

That's not to say there are no conservative trans people, though.