The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
It’s actually false to say that puberty blockers have been banned in england. Puberty blockers are not banned. Rather, it bans their prescription at gender clinics to transgender children. The NHS still currently allows puberty blockers for cisgender children, the original use case being to delay precocious puberty.
A more accurate and honest headline would be “Conservative activists ban medicine for children because they think they are th
ye the article clarified that, the title is wrong.
NHS also allows trials for gender dysphoria.
the ban was made by actual experts, you might claim conservative activists convinced actually experts, it's still experts who made the call.
and you can't claim anymore scientific and expert consensus agrees with you in the UK.
so which experts are we supposed to listen to, and what do we do when different experts of the same topic violently disagree with core issues?
can we admit the reliance on experts is unwarranted and can't be a justification for any choice, everytime there isn't an overwhelming consensus among them, for any topic?
or you want to keep playing the game that "science" agrees with you even when it objectively doesn't?
Elite Chicago prep school dean brags about kids handling sex toys in class
https://nypost.com/2022/12/09/chicago-pr...
This dude is the dean of students! and hes wearing nail polish!!
and hes passing around buttplugs to students!!
What kind of role model is this supposed to be?
Why is he not in Jail?? Who the f makes these calls??
Well the reason we allow anyone to just go to the store and buy condoms is because that policy leads to better health outcomes for everybody. There are conservatives that don’t like that because it promotes the idea of casual sex according to them. But irregardless of what your views are about just letting teens go to the store and buy condoms, the fact is that the greater availability of condoms decreases stds, promotes sexual health, and decreases unwanted pregnancies. For similar but different reasons in 49 out of 50 states you can just walk into a pharmacy and buy a vibrator. The one exception is alabama, where vibrators are illegal, unless you get a prescription from a doctor.
Seriously, why should anyone care if an adult (or anyone) wears nail polish of any color.
There are conservatives that don’t like that because it promotes the idea of casual sex according to them.
Are there any studies that back this up? My impression is very few people think that way. It's mainly politicians pandering to some idiots in their base. I know you phrased this in a way that technically doesn't include all or even many conservatives, but the impression it leaves is you mean most.
I deleted the post by 5th street about going back in time irt gender dysphoria classification. It's not OK to post a "disclaimer" stating that not all transgender people are mentally ill, but lets do a thought experiment to a time when they were. And to clarify something: there is no issue with debating whether minors should be able to receive gender affirming treatments, who should make those decisions, etc. Same with sports participation,
1) A degree of respect given that you owned the action and explained yourself.
2) So the transgender speech policy now includes forbidding any mention of how it was considered a mental illness a few years ago?
Just want to be clear.
Are there any studies that back this up? My impression is very few people think that way. It's mainly politicians pandering to some idiots in their base. I know you phrased this in a way that technically doesn't include all or even many conservatives, but the impression it leaves is you mean most.
I did not mean to imply most.Similarly, many conservatives in America are against other forms of birth control, and the exact percentages vary based on context. I think the condemnation of condoms would obviously be much more common with conservatives if it was a female rather than male birth control option.
"why should anyone care about the aesthetics of consumer facing employees"
A recent poll in Canada shows how out of touch folks like Uke are on Trans Gender policies . I can only imagine what they would say on that disgusting book
It finds most Canadians would be “uncomfortable” versus “comfortable” with a school not notifying parents if their child wants to change their name or pronoun — by a margin of 64% to 33%.
The findings were similar on the issue of children receiving hormone therapy for the purpose of changing gender (62% vs 34%) and transgender people participating in organized sport with those of their current gender identity (57% vs 37%).
It's a good job no one said this then.
A more accurate and honest headline would be “Conservative activists ban medicine for children because they think they are the wrong type of children”.
The NHS being a proxy for conservative activism is a contender for the dumbest post itt. Many conservatives in the UK would love to get rid of the NHS, and the feeing is mutual.
Well the reason we allow anyone to just go to the store and buy condoms is because that policy leads to better health outcomes for everybody. There are conservatives that don’t like that because it promotes the idea of casual sex according to them. But irregardless of what your views are about just letting teens go to the store and buy condoms, the fact is that the greater availability of condoms decreases stds, promotes sexual health, and
No the reason is freedom lol jfc. Like we allow to buy coke even if it's bad for health.
Then yes condom are also "good" in various context or can be framed as such. But that's not the reason why we "allow" their sale jfc.
The state doesn't "allow", everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited
A recent poll in Canada shows how out of touch folks like Uke are on Trans Gender policies .
Buddy, it is "transgender". One word. Please learn the basics terms.
But you are right that I am in the minority and expect to be in the minority. Trans people, as an oppressed minority in a fairly transphobic society that doesn't understand or accept them aren't going to be winning popularity contests, as has been the case for many minorities in the past. You don't win points by noting I hold minority views here!
Buddy, it is "transgender". One word. Please learn the basics terms.
But you are right that I am in the minority and expect to be in the minority. Trans people, as an oppressed minority in a fairly transphobic society that doesn't understand or accept them aren't going to be winning popularity contests, as has been the case for many minorities in the past. You don't win points by noting I hold minority views here!
When it's the minority about scientists and experts as well and you claim instead science confirms your claims...
Well the reason we allow anyone to just go to the store and buy condoms is because that policy leads to better health outcomes for everybody. There are conservatives that don’t like that because it promotes the idea of casual sex according to them. But irregardless of what your views are about just letting teens go to the store and buy condoms, the fact is that the greater availability of condoms decreases stds, promotes sexual health, and
I've been to a lot of pharmacies in many states, and I've never seen a vibrator in a pharmacy before.
I'm sure they would be legal to sell there, but either they aren't sold out they are hidden behind a counter.
There are specialized shops in most cities where things like that can be bought, or they can be ordered online.
I've been to a lot of pharmacies in many states, and I've never seen a vibrator in a pharmacy before.
I'm sure they would be legal to sell there, but either they aren't sold out they are hidden behind a counter.
There are specialized shops in most cities where things like that can be bought, or they can be ordered online.
https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/vibrat... they sell them normally in stores
https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/vibrat... they sell them normally in stores
This says the first 4 items can be ordered for pickup in a store. The rest say they are available to be ordered for home delivery, which is what I said.
I always buy my vibrators used off eBay.
1) A degree of respect given that you owned the action and explained yourself.
2) So the transgender speech policy now includes forbidding any mention of how it was considered a mental illness a few years ago?
Just want to be clear.
It's not that you simply mentioned that there was a time in the past when transgender was classified as a mental illness per se. Though claiming it was 5 years ago rather than 11 was deceptive. Posters refer to the fact that homosexuality was also considered a mental illness in the past.
But your "thought experiment" of going back in time was used as an obvious work around to the policy by using it as a construct to discuss the issue anyway. In particular you referred to transgender people having a " compromised mental state". But then you used that same term after you changed back to present time.
Youve made your personal beliefs on this topic well known. And you are welcome to them of course. But please dont continue to try to work them into the discussions here and end up violating our policy again. Because of your past violations and bans you would be facing a very substantial ban next. I hope you will just accept that under forum rules that discussions on that point are not allowed and if you must discuss that you need to do it on another site.
Thanks
I think we established before that the WHO classified it as a mental illness as of 2018, so six years ago not five.
