The costs of trans visibility

I don’t think this dichotomy is true. If you adopt, those same “instincts” kick in. As in evolutionary pressures have made humans social maternal creatures capable of genuine love of kids that aren’t biologically there’s as well. So the idea of one being morally neutral and the other morally commendable seems silly.

autism thing was a random example of parents seeking out and embracing labels so their children are even more special

the real argument was that if you can condition your child to believe there's an invisible man in the sky who will never intervene in your life but you still need to dedicate your life around him because bad and unstated things may happen at a later date then you can condition them to believe in anything and was questioning whether or not some of the 3% of college students who identify as non-binary but are otherwise normal hetero individuals do so because they were raised to believe that

i'm talking about how the amount of people choosing non-traditional pronouns greatly exceeds the amount of people who are trans - how you get a lot of young people who are otherwise normal heteros but still identify as non-binary or gender fluid - i think a lot of that is just pure nurture because it's not even about gender dysphoria

i think bachelor in paradise is an elite television show, we all have masculine and feminine sides to each other, but me enjoying that show doesn't mean i'm suddenly gender fluid or non-binary

You don't think adoption is commendable? Sure, maybe those instincts kick in later, especially if the adoptee is a baby, but prior to that the choice had to be made to care for a child without any reason for the connection or a legal mandate to do so.

I think the trend towards identifying as non-binary is too recent to have been affected much by upbringing.
I believe it is definitely partially environmental, not based on parental influence, but on the influence of one's peers and the general culture.

I think it's great that uke and some other parents attempt to raise their children in a gender neutral way.

The world almost certainly be a better place if children were allowed to follow whatever path they would enjoy without worrying if it is a nontraditional one for their biological sex.

I also think it would lead to fewer people being trans, not more, because I'm sure that growing up believing your interests are not "right" for your sex is a good part of why people decide they would like to change it.

This is from the perspective a cishet male who has always shared more interests with females and has always preferred their company as an adult.

Not really? My wife and I can’t have kids naturally. So we did IVF which wasn’t guaranteed to work. If that didn’t work we would have adopted. I don’t think I would have been particularly deserving of commendation if the IVF hadn’t worked, we want kids for our own “selfish” or biological or whatever reasons cause human to want kids, and I presume that biology would have made us love the adopted kids as much as we love our ivf kids.

They still grow up in a gendered society, but there are lots of little and subtle things beyond pink vs blue you can do to even from young ages (example focusing on your sons accomplishments versus daughters appearances) that impact over time. I’m not militant on this, my daughter wears pink dresses and bows and has long hair. But I DO try to not frame activities and interests as those for boys and those for girls.

I don't think I'm owed a response, but it is a bit odd that you complain about the responses you got when I gave you two that used my experience in education, and you had nothing to say in reply.

This has nothing to do with my post, and I'm not especially interested in some weird nurture vs nature debate that is very reminiscent of decades ago when people were doing the same thing around homosexuality.

you were polite and measured, i had no beef with your response

it's just you responded with purely anecdotal and without much detail so i didn't really have any manner to respond

i don't know enough about canada nor where you are in canada/canadian education etc but if you're not from a wealthy region that alone would explain a lack of seeing autism testing hysteria - i think when you're in a position to spend the money to take your child to various experts and clinics and not be financially impacted that's going to ramp up the rate of casual testing significantly - hence why california where median household income is going to be almost double that of a flyover state, has significantly higher testing frequencies than elsewhere

i also suspect that canada being more regulated for healthcare that perhaps the wealthy elite don't have the wide range of options freely available as they do in the usa where healthcare tends to gravitate towards market demand rather than medical necessity (ie the top surgeons often go into plastic surgery because that's where the money & regular work hours are)

Thx. Explain cause it seems like ur guarding this thread an asserting your own truths:

Is that your definition of trans in this regard? I may have lost the context, if this wasn't what I was supposed to respond to link/quote it please.

a la france has basically no autism compared to the usa but a much more accessible and socialized healthcare - i don't know enough france specifically but i would imagine their rates of autism has more to do with different healthcare systems more than different children and perhaps canada is more like france in this manner

there's also a very good chance diagnoses are so much harder for you guys because of your funny accents

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-...

https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/ave...

I doubt anyone will find any correlation between higher income states and the number of autism cases as is being suggested by bumper sticker guy but I think what he really means is the parents in liberal yuppy States want to have kids with autism.

According to them, it's self identification everytime except if you self identify in a way they dislike then it isn't anymore.

They make it up along the road basically.

Like if Trump wins in 2024 and he self identify as a woman for a day just for the lols they won't accept Trump being the first woman president in American history.

Because it's always about self identification except when it isn't. And you need a gender studies PhD or you can't comment on that. It's science you know

According to mainstream media Meloni managed to cancel any reference to "gender identity" and abortion rights from the G7 official common statement.

Macron is very angry about this (or so they write).

I think it's horrifying they even try to push cultural non economic stuff in G7 statements at all so good job Meloni once again, another win for normal people against the radical left agenda

Which should be expected - there's no reason this would be exclusive to transgender people.

Is this a thing, and how would you know? For example, if someone were bisexual but landed on a lifelong relationship with someone of the opposite sex, wouldn't they wrongly appear to you to be in this category?

Fair enough.

My city has the whole range, and you definitely see it in the wealthier areas where people can pay for testing and have the time and resources to advocate strongly for their kids.

But doing so purely motivated with wanting to show their kids are special seems wild to me. As you say, this is all anecdotal so I can't prove you wrong, but I'd expect the vast, vast majority is to get supports for their children. That said, the two things aren't that distantly related, as being unique can mean more supports, and more supports happen because they are unique.

The thing is, this line of argument isn't as outrageous as it might appear, because once you already have a kid and they are who they are, getting them a label doesn't change that and so wishing they had one changes nothing for them other than how they're treated by the system. That's different than your very initial claim that seemed to be parents wishing they would have an autistic child before they had kids at all, or before they were old enough for one to notice learning challenges. Perhaps I misunderstood that, though.

To some extent I suspect this is true.

Take off, eh! But on a semi-serious note, I think these "aboot" Canadians all live in the east - no one I know does that weird ****.

This explained how non-binary people fit in. What I explained earlier was that only an individual can determine their own gender status. Not their parents, not a parade official, not us.

It is very simple. Some people who are non-binary consider themselves transgender. Others do not.

I’m not quite sure why you keep going on about this whole “guarding” thing. Weird expression. As with any other poster, if someone says something I think is wrong I will say so, as presumably so does the anti-trans crowd ITT.

There is no anti trans crowd ITT. I never read anti trans stuff.

There are a lot of ppl who don't want men in women sports, don't want minors to get mutilated, and sime that don't want people to change sex in a whim with taxpayer money.

But no one here is asking to criminalize people who feel they are of the other sex.

I see. So what is the definition of transgender then. Because it seem to me in this thread we are using the 'Uke definition' which changes depending on how people feel.

Thats not how words work right?

In other words, am I transgender because I say I am? Thats not really a definition is it?

thats not true tho. Why are you saying its true?

A parent can certainly say "my child is gender x". And introduce to people the child with the gender the adults chose.

The adults can also choose 'non-binary' right? And introduce the child as 'they'.

Can the adult also decide their non-binary child is trans?

Thats right, and if there was real moderation it would be ABSOLUTELY off limits to call people anti-trans in this thread.

Please don't ask questions then accuse people of lying when they give you the answer.

Yes, a parent could introduce their child as non-binary. No that would not make the child non-binary.

This is really pretty simple. I would have thought someone as smart as you would have understood after it had been explained to you three times or more and every other poster in the thread agrees with it.

it's very much a thing - i run into it a lot, we spoke about this previously where i mentioned you too would find plenty of normal hetero women who use non traditional pronouns if you installed a dating app and filtered to only see women under 30

sounds like france then 😀

i think everyone wants their children to be special, some just take it to a greater extreme than others the existence of the bumper stickers and magazines - it's normal, some parents put "my kid is an honor student" others have proud marine parent, some choose autism

i think you guys are hung up on how i phrased it and felt like i already phrased it, nobody wishes their child has autism

it's more a matter of making lemonade with lemons - given the prospect of having a kid with problems, which they all have, many would rather have an excuse for such problems - it's not parenting, it's not a stupid child, it's autism - that's why the kid isn't at the top of his class

we're always going to have children who struggle in certain subjects or may be a little slow in development at times where it's not a disability nor a problem, they just occupy that portion of the bell curve and it's not autism that is at fault

there is no medication, treatment, etc to cure autism - the sole purpose of diagnosis is simply to better understand their issue in hopes of responding to the child better and if they are not facing any disabilities from autism then it serves no purpose

however, as i showed earlier, majority of kids diagnosed with autism have no disabilities whatsoever and thus it's a vanity diagnosis

first result - not mayo clinic, it's a privately owned and for profit therapy group

click the link
https://www.abtaba.com/blog/getting-an-a...

just look at how they phrase it "when deciding whether or not to pursue an autism diagnosis" it's not about helping the child and finding out what is best for the child it's about obtaining a diagnosis

later on they use the same charged language and again, make it out not about helping the child but rather "you should consider the financial considerations"

for many upper class americans, an autism diagnosis is used not for the child's benefit, but for the parent's vanity

why have a B student child when you can be courageous parents of an autistic child who thrives despite their condition with a B average?

again, we're talking extreme outliers here, not the normal standard - but vanity diagnoses are most certainly a thing and the proof is that the most signifcant factor in the frequency of autism found from region to region in the united states is the educational level and financial status of the parents

a group of economists find that the prius sells much better in california than the rest of the country whereas ev cars which look like normal cars sell at same rate in california as the rest of the country - they see that and can see a clear and obvious preference to virtue signal in areas like california - now make it less of an emotional issue of a child and car and you couldn't possibly argue against this premise

gross, will be sure to stick to the prairie and mountains then if i ever venture up yonder - do you have poutine or is that only found in the east?