The costs of trans visibility

OK, I don't think it's worked at all and I'm pretty sure that's what the evidence says.

I'm not convinced that trans women in male spaces or trans men in female spaces is a real issue. At least I've never heard anyone complain about it. If someone did have a problem with it, I would listen to what they had to say and try to take their view into account.

I have heard women express concern about trans men (and/or men claiming trans identity) in female spaces, and I am a father of a young daughter and I personally have concerns about this issue.

As I said before, your "position" is just a cop out. The whole reason why people debate things is because there are tradeoffs on either side. I have acknowledged the trade off and I believe women's safety should be prioritized over trans women's convenience.

Your solution has trade offs too. If you open up female spaces to males who claim trans identity, how are you going to solve the problem of abusers claiming trans identity to access female spaces for sexual gratification?

Jack, your post was hard to follow because you were just mixing and matching definitions, or maybe just had it entirely backwards all along.

If you replace the word "trans" with "fake" in your head as you're writing, then you'll be correct in your descriptions of the people involved and everyone else can follow along.

Edit: For the modzis, I'm not making any declarations here. I'm just pointing out the easiest trick to remember how to correctly label people.

I don't think the amount of abusers will be significant enough to call it a problem. We have some actual real world data on this and it hasn't resulted in a spike of sexual harassments or assaults

We could always build trans bathrooms and changing rooms. Maybe segregate the water fountains by cis and trans and force Trans people to ride the back of the bus.

One of these things is not like the other.

Okay, fair enough, that's your position. For me, if there's even one abuser, that's too many, and sufficient reason to not open the door at all.

No need for the hyperbole (however I would note that in certain regions, public transit is segregated by sex because of the prevalence of harassment).

I know, I don't like the whole terminology of trans woman/ trans man, it confuses the issues at hand, however I am trying not to be disrespectful and there isn't a convenient alternative terminology.

To be sure, trans women are not women, they are men who choose to live as women. As a matter of common decency, it's fine to treat them as women in certain contexts, but this doesn't and shouldn't extend to all possible domains of life.

what's the position of the people in favour of letting a trans woman use the woman bathroom, about jails?

if the bathroom issue is to be solved based upon a belief that trans women are women, then surely you are all in favour of jailing trans women with women, based of course purely upon subjective identity declaration by the jailed person? if not why not?

can't wait until bobo learns about closeted gays

FYP.

oh indeed, i very much misread that exchange, apologies bobo

we need sklanksy's input, he's firmly on the "gay people are gay because they can't get a woman" so need his perspective on this

No worries, I thought I was missing something for a moment there. 😀

If it hasn't worked at all, the percentage of people raised by conservative Christian families who identify as gay should be the same as those raised by liberal unreligious families.

I didn't say anything about telling their parents they're gay, I said identifying as gay. Identification as gay is in one's brain and not bad on who they tell about it.

I also didn't say anything about conversion therapy. That probably does work in a few cases, but is horrifying in all of them.

I believe people brought up in CC families are less likely to identify as gay, period. I didn't say that was a good thing either.

And yes, I did come to my own determination about it, as I suppose you did. Unless you have statistics on it, in which case I would (honestly) love to find out I was wrong about this. I believe religion poisons nearly everything and is especially oppressive to children, but it would be great if it's not doing so in this particular area.

I will look to see if I can find any studies on this, but honestly I have a very hard time believing you guys wouldn't expect the same thing to be true. That would mean that homosexuality is 100% genetic and not influenced at all by environment.

OK, let me reset. First of all, I can see I've mistaken your use of "identify". You're talking about how they identify personally, whereas I thought you meant identifying themselves as gay to other people - IE "coming out". And the same for what you had in mind for the reason they would be less likely to identify as gay. In my defense, your theory is a little unique IMO, but nevertheless you have my apologies for assuming/suggesting that conversion therapy was where you were going with this.

But that still leaves me very puzzled. My understanding is that there is no clear answer at this time as to precisely what determines sexual orientation. That being the case, what makes you think that there would be any relationship between a person's religion (something they choose) and their child's sexual orientation (something they don't choose), and further to that, what makes you believe you can predict it? I won't make any assumptions this time. 😀

Correct, I meant by "identify" as gay, one acknowledges to oneself that one is primarily attracted to members of the same sex. Someone's comfort in letting others be aware of that could certainly make an accurate study more difficult to be done, but probably anonymous surveys could remove much of that problem.

There is not a clear answer as to what determines sexual orientation, but my understanding is that it definitely has both biological and environmental determinants.
Assuming that environment has some impact on sexual orientation, it seems extremely likely to me that someone who grew up with a non-religious family who treated homosexuals with the same respect as everyone else and considered it to be a completely acceptable thing would be more likely to become gay than someone brought up in a conservative Christian family where homosexuals were scorned for being sinful and treated as someone to stay away from.

I also think, for example, enjoyment of gambling would be determined by a mixture of biology and environment. Someone brought up in a conservative Christian family which considered gambling to be a sin would be less likely to become a gambler than someone who grew up in a household where gambling was considered a harmless activity. There definitely seem to be proportionally more Asians in casinos/poker rooms than would be found in the general population, and I have always been told (including by many Asian poker players) that this is because gambling is not generally considered disrespectable by most Asian cultures.

I haven't yet been able to find any studies about the chances of children from families with different religious practices being gay, but I will look a bit more before giving up.

I think being raised by such a family would make it more likely for someone to repress one's homosexuality, knowingly or not. I find it hard to believe any amount of scorning will truly change their sexual orientation. However, I'm pretty sure neither of us will be able to "prove" our belief on this, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Here's an article by a trans person in The Advocate welcoming the influx of trans people without dysphoria, including people who declare themselves to be trans for political reasons.

https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2019...

Here is a similar article, saying "gender affirming care" should be applied to such people.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/03/11/givi...

All I did was google something like "do you need dysphoria to be transgender" and I found many to choose from.

Are they all covert right wingers?

There's a strong correlation between GD and autism, especially in girls. That's kind of weird.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...

One explanation would be that girls who are autistic notice they have "male" thinking. Lower emotional IQ, etc. Autistic boys would not have this experience But is this really GD, or is it just autism?

No, I don't. However, I believe I've seen transwomen, transpeople etc. written that way. I didn't think about it much as I was writing. Gramerly says "blackpeople" is wrong but does not say so for "transpeople."

As Rick pointed out, this exemplifies what I'm talking about. This idea that everyone must always walk on egg shells when dealing with you really shouldn't have any link to gender dysphoria. And I don't think it does. It is linked to other emotional/personality issues, and people with those issues seem drawn to political perspectives that have ideas like "intent doesn't matter."

Other examples: being deeply upset and offended when someone misgenders you, innocently. I was a skinny young man with long hair and this actually happened to me relatively often. It's a little embarrassing, but NBD. To be deeply upset or offended over an innocent and natural mistake, and accuse the mistake maker of malice, is a sign of some kind of moral or mental health problem.

Some say we should eliminate gendered pronouns so that we can avoid this catastrophic event from ever occurring at all. In other words, make the English language more confusing and less precise to prevent a handful of people from occasionally feeling uncomfortable.

Here's another example. People are now afraid to say things like this,

https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/14... Edit... IDK why it's not embedding. But it's Bernie saying "As the Supreme Court today hears a case on Roe v. Wade, let me be very clear. It is a woman who has the right to control her own body, not the government. If men were the ones giving birth, I doubt that this would be in question."

Because they will be swarmed by people insisting that men have abortions so this is transphobic, as Bernie was here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/comme...

At the time of the tweet, I looked it up. We don't have stats, but the number of people who identified as men and had abortions in Australia in a year was something like 8. So we're talking about an issue that affects many millions of American women, and dozens who identify as men. And I'm sure a decent % of those people who identify as men are mentally sound enough to be fine with abortion being framed as a women's issue. Yet we must always walk on eggshells, with this breed of politard at the forefront of our minds at all times.

There is no need for people with GD to hitch their wagons to this crazy stuff, any more than Christians should hitch their wagons to crazy Christian Identity stuff and panic over the war on Christmas.

I was referring to the first sentence, where you misrepresented my position on transgender issues. As for the bill, maybe you can find a better use of your time finding someone to argue with about that on another forum - don't think it would be fair of me to respond when you aren't able to any longer.

lolololol now they are turning on bernie, jfc

Three year old twitter humor, ahhhh the good ol’ days.

Some of those replies were humour by people deriding gender identity ideology, but he got scorned by actual trans activists back then

Do the helicopter joke next!