The costs of trans visibility

No, it's not simple at all - it makes no sense to me. Pride parades aren't only attended by people in the LGBTQ+ community, and not all of those directly participating are either. Why would watching the parade confer some status on the infant?

No, of course not. Even if it was a "trans parade".

Lmao rickroll, this is one of the most hilarious backpedals you've done in recent memory. Sure, parents/teachers/doctors might indeed be doing more testing for autism - that sounds like a good thing - but this is far cry from "secretly hoping" they have an autism diagonsis.

Yikes that is embarrassing.

I've also never met a parent who has done this. I think you are conflating something that does happen commonly - parents like myself not impose really stringent social norms - and then transmuting that in your mind to whatever anti-trans sources generate these hypotheticals of yours and pretending those are representative.

I put these questions backwards cause this might affect the 2nd.

If the parents assert their child is non-binary from the start, I think a lot of people that attend pride parades refer to that as trans. If I'm wrong thats part of why I am here to hear others.

Thats why we have the concept of the set of those that are part of {LGBTQ....}

The parade is an example where the parents are forced to choose in a social sense right. Of course you can observe or participate without being in the set. I'm asking if the infant is in the set.

You are saying they aren't T.

T is in the set.

Is the infant in the set, whos parents decide its gender hasn't been set yet.

[quote=uke_master]Evaluate the grammar in the following sentence on a scale of 1 to 10 and point out (if they exist) any grammatical challenges: "You don't wanna fight about who has far superior language skills or take my work and ask the LLM if I understand language better than you anymore?"[/quote]
[quote=ChatGPT]I would rate the grammar in the sentence as a 5/10. The sentence has a few issues that make it difficult to understand. Here are the grammatical challenges:

Contraction and Informality: The use of "wanna" is informal and not typically appropriate in formal writing. The full phrase "want to" would be more suitable.

Parallel Structure: The sentence lacks parallelism. The phrases "fight about who has far superior language skills" and "take my work and ask the LLM if I understand language better than you" should be structured similarly.

Ambiguity and Clarity: The sentence is somewhat ambiguous and unclear in its intent. It's not immediately obvious what the main subject and actions are supposed to be.

Punctuation: The sentence is a run-on. It would benefit from being split into two separate sentences or clarified with proper punctuation.

A revised version might look like this:

"You don't want to fight about who has superior language skills anymore, nor do you want to take my work and ask the LLM if I understand language better than you."

Here are the main corrections:

"wanna" changed to "want to"
Introduced parallel structure with "nor do you want to"
Removed ambiguity and clarified the intent with better punctuation.[/quote]hmmm

I can tell you that the number of kids with different learning designations is increasing every year. Is that because the number of them is increasing, we are getting better (or maybe worse) at diagnoses, a higher % of kids who need assessments are getting them, or because parents are more motivated to have their kids tested? I couldn't say. But from what I know of the parenting community (and I spent ~15 years as a leader in Parent Advisory Councils), parents who are seeking to have their kids diagnosed are doing so because they want to make sure their kids are getting the supports they believe they require. I'm not going to say it's never happened anywhere, but I've never met a parent who has a child that is coping well in all aspects but hopes they will be diagnosed as autistic so they will be viewed as "special". If such people exist, I'd say they are a tiny minority.

I'm starting to think that you and I have a very different understanding of what being transgender means.

This cannot be determined, because your supposition is flawed. Parents do not determine the gender of a child. One can only determine that for oneself.

You are indeed wrong. You are wrong that non-binary implies trans, that is simply incorrect. Secondly, normal people can tell the difference between a parent raising an infant without explicit gender cues and that infant "being trans".

Is this something that you have actually experienced in real life or are you just making up hypotheticals?

If he thinks parents can determine transgender status, that is certainly not the standard definition.

But it also shows that he knew it made no sense to ask the forum. If the parents did determine the infant's gender status, none of us could possibly know the answer to the theoretical in the first post of this discussion.

Please! He has already stated that this is unimportant!

I'm currently reading a book written by the patent of an autistic child. She says that the vast majority of similar parents she meets were horrified by learning their child was autistic.

I think the extra testing is a function of worrying about a child being autistic, not of hoping for it.

Obviously.

You never saw those families with 2, or more, trans kids? Those statistical impossibilities, if you believe being trans as a kid has no relationship with upbringing? And 100% of them are radical leftists?

So parents are NOT raising children non-binary (we need to stop asking about personal experiences in this regard).

Non-binary doesn't mean trans (I don't mean to assert it does I mean to ask).

Parents don't establish the gender of their child the child does?

And none of this puts the child into the set of {LGTBQ...}

Thats good because I think it would be child abuse otherwise.

So being at a parade is just like anyone else being at the parade that also isn't in the set {LGTBQ...}

You asked it the same fallacious ad hominem question that chillrob did. Which is your job here. To spin truth and posts. I expect you to continue to spin my posts with more quotes.

I agree that it has some connection with upbringing, but it certainly has a genetic component as well, and it's not possible to distinguish the two by looking at individual genetically related families. It's certainly not a statistical impossibility.

It could even be hormonal. There have been studies for many years showing that men with older brothers are more likely to be gay, most likely due to the immune response of mothers to being pregnant with boys.
It has recently been shown to possibly be true with girls with older brothers as well.

Since being transgender was rarely seen as a viable option, I'm sure that many of those boys who became gay would have identified as trans in today's social environment.

So what? A cursory glance looks like it is a great resource for parents of autistic kids. How do you get from SEO ranking to your insane "secretly hoping" claim?

Some non-binary people consider themselves to be trans, others do not.

Jbouton, did you see that I gave you a definitive answer to your question?

If you believe that was not a definitive answer, please explain why.

Yeah, I don't know why he thinks an increase in testing and diagnosis of autism means that anyone hopes for their child to be autistic. That certainly does not follow logically. For this to even be worthy of discussion some other evidence is necessary.

before their child was normal facing normal problems, now they are special and their parenthood is extra meaningful as a result, they went from parent to hero with the diagnosis

Rickroll's source materials: bumper stickers and cartoons.

Not at all surprised.

Seems reasonable actually for this type of work.

post a bunch of links to data, even screenshot parts to make it easy to follow along, obvioulsy ignored and all attention put on the posts where i'm joking around to illustrate the point

standard