The costs of trans visibility

If better societies aren't possible then we're all ****ed.

They only got better because we protected womens rights.

I think males are more prone to sexual paraphilias (e.g. AGPs) whereas females are more prone to social contagion plus are more sexually fluid (i.e. more often bi)-- so it ought to be a wash.

Washoe- there are several of your statements I find unusual. But just a quickie question-- what are womens parking spaces and where are they located? Is that a Germany thing? I had never heard of them before your post and have never seen any in the US.

Thanks.

sure whatever, how do you deal with the worst people in society (criminals) in jail, you let men who self identify as women subjectively in women prison? so you basically give a free choice of which prison a man can choose? keep in mind for some "strange" reason women who identify as men don't ask to get into men prison with the same frequency, i wonder why?

ye it's actually a german thing

Women's parking spaces were originally introduced in 1990 in Germany to improve women's safety and reduce the risk of sexual assault. This was formulated because women felt at risk in parking garages which were often dark and deserted. After Germany, places like South Korea and China also adopted this policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_....

not among the young afaik, among the under18 it's the opposite (quite more girl -to-boy than viceversa)

Adolescents assigned female at birth account for a significant majority of minors receiving gender-affirming care, including top surgery, fueling debate about the influence of peer groups and social media.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/spe...

This is a very strong hint that allow us to believe a significant portion of them is actually not trans, because of the well known in literature malleability to social pressure of girl minds

Keep in mind that since social media exists, the pressure on girls has increased in huge ways (as measured by studies on the topic everywhere in the west, with suicide ideation increase more in girls than in boys even if starting from lower amounts, and with absolute majorities of girls feeling under immense pressure to be "perfect" in many polls), and being ever harder for them to feel adequate in their female role (because the standard keeps rising beyond anything a normal person can ever reach, and it's salience is constant 24/7 thanks to social media), might cause a small number (in absolute terms) to see trans-identification as an escape route out of what would otherwise be an impossible situation for them.

Oh, I did not consider this for some reason.
What you see there are: UK, Germany, South Korea and China.

These "female only" parking spots are near the entrances and lifts of:
malls, parking garages, grocery shopping supermarkets, any parking space pretty much thats public, bigger than 10 or whatnot.
They range from something like 3 - 30? depending on the location.
If you go shopping with a car you get them at any bigger location.

If someone who is born male experiences this mismatch, in your view is it because the female identity is more inherent to the self / soul than the male identity or is it because circumstances have led the self to identify more with the female identity? Activists who claim it’s the former by using phrases like “actually trans” are driving this moral panic toward the more aggressive forms of treatment.

The idea being pushed is that the self is being severely oppressed because it’s ‘actual’ core identity (gender) is unable to be actualized. This is why it’s essential to confront this fundamental question of whether or not each self / soul has an inherent, core identity of one gender and not the other.

If, as a society, we can reject this propaganda and cease using phrases like “actually trans”, then we can calm this panic fueling gender affirmation and instead focus on the more meaningful path of self affirmation.

I propose non-trans people stop speculating about which of those is the case and ask trans people for their opinions.

We had the same things written about gay people 30 years ago. Now hardly anyone says people are gay due to their environment.

Just the frogs

LOL.

Perhaps you do, but unfortunately there are some on the right who most certainly do not, and even more unfortunately, some of them are legislators who use this excuse to target transgender people with the unneeded hammer of overreaching legislation to solve what they are portraying as a problem that could easily enough be figured out by experts in the field. Sure, there are some on the left who have done harm with extreme messaging, but that doesn't make it correct to respond in the way that politicians on the right have.

Sadly, there are those who most certainly have capitalized on the current "controversy" to try to take us backwards in this regard. I've seen it first hand, even in a fairly progressive city like Vancouver.

I'm not sure what thus is supposed to mean. The acronym has evolved over the decades, of course. LGBT was commonly used starting back in the late 80s, so I have no idea why you suggest this.

I think he means semantically. LGB has to do with sexuality and T gender-- and we are told those are two different things.

it’s so weird. Somehow the anti-trans folks completely accept gay people (mostly) while repeating the same arguments homophobes of decades past used to say about gay people. Here it is the trans people that aren’t really trans they are actually gay people but the evil teachers etc are conditioning them to be trans. It’s like guys we already had this moral panics. Your side already lost. You agree they lost. Why are you trying again?

One is sexuality and the other is "gender"-- like I just said-- two completely different things. Not weird at all.

Let’s be clear about the primary issue. The main problem that society needs to figure out regarding this topic is suicidal ideation + identity crisis in minors. Correct?

This is completely different than laws about marriage between adults. Like, not even close to the same issue. Failure to distinguish the two is a bright red flag.

No it's how to avoid sterilizing minors, and the answer is easy, just ban all drug based trans care to minors.

For the rest, question is :"should we affirm adult identity or not legally", for me the answer is obvious and it's absolutely not.

Why? Because subjectivity should never be the basis of any application of laws and rules.

Being gay in the past as a minor DID NOT QUALIFY FOR MEDICAL STERILIZATION, so no it's not the same.

Self identifying homosexual minors weren't prescribed drugs with permanent effects at 13.

Identifying as an homosexual didn't change your "face to the world" with regard to sports, prison and so on.

Nor it required other people to change the way they address you.

So no, there is no comparison and no parallel at all

Some radical self identified Marxists using something isn't "Commonly used since the 80s " ffs.

What it means is that trans activism is directly inimical to homosexual rights. It means homosexuals lose politically when trans issues are mixed with homosexual issues.

It means trans has nothing to do at all with homosexuality. The only thing in common is some activists who won the battle for homosexuality would have been without ta job so they totally invented this new category which purportedly deserved the same rights, even if there is no parallel and nothing in common.

This.

I mean, we've reached a point ITT where we've got at least one poster concerned that teenagers are getting surgery based on nothing more than a whim because their friends are doing it - it's like we're back in the 70s or 80s again. We have another who thinks that activists invented the "T" in LGBTQ+ so they'd have a job.

It's why I post a lot less in the thread now. Basically it's just a lot of arguing with a handful of posters who are utterly convinced that being transgender is a delusion, or is just men dressing up as women, or whatever else minimizes their existence, for most or all transgender people. And their minds will never be changed, at least not by arguments in here. I'm just tiring of giving them another person to argue with.

"female identity", "male identity", "core identity," "self", "soul" and so on are all culturally created categories. At the end of the day what matters is whether people are suffering or not, and what can be done to alleviate their suffering.

There are people who experience gender dysphoria and are indeed suffering, I just have serious doubts about whether the use of cross-sex hormones or radical surgeries is the best way to help them long-term (particularly talking about young people whose dysphoria could be a result of traumatic experiences and/or influenced by social contagion).

How many gay people aged 40+ do you think would say that they wish society had been more accepting of homosexuality when they were younger? I'm guessing a significant majority.

How many people do you know who say they wish they had been sterilized or had a mastectomy when they were younger? I'm guessing none.

That's the difference between the gay rights issue and the trans issue.

A recent study showed over 40% of those who undertook gender affirming treatment still suffered from suicidal ideation based on self report. Consider that number in light of the possibility that even more are in a state of denial due to the strong desire of wanting the treatment to be successful. None of this is surprising if you know the patterns of the mind.

Bottom line, affirming a gender identity is not the solution to this problem. Escalating and doubling down through serious medical procedures on minors is a tragedy.

Maybe if you were whipping off less than 50 posts/day in this forum, you'd be able to read through the posts you reply to more carefully. I said "at least one poster", and "on a whim" refers to the surgery - "getting surgery based on nothing more than a whim". That seems to be the implication I've seen from some - if you disagree, that's great!

On a side note, I've always been amused by laws banning "puberty blockers for minors". I guess they think that sounds better than "banning puberty blockers".

Seems like a position pretty lacking in nuance that I doubt many people hold.

Why would I "go ahead thinking" something I've never suggested or implied?

Yeah, I don't think that's true, actually.

That you think this is a good summary of the issues at hand says a lot.