The costs of trans visibility

yeah the evidence is pretty clear

victims of pedophiles are significantly more likely to become pedophiles themselves - that can't be ignored

It seems you don't understand how freedom works. See, you are free to be racist, homophobic, and fascist. You just aren't free from the consequences. Every time I see "freedom" used its a right wing dog whistle for "we want to treat these people as lesser humans and face no consequences" and that isn't freedom, that is fascism.

In a free society you get punched back

uh? i should be free from any state consequence yes, that's what freedom is.

In a free society you can tell people i am anti-lbgt123+ and convince them not to buy my services. You can refuse to sell me stuff i need, and so on.

The state can't do me anything though, if freedom is preserved.

This is about mandatory legal training to be able to operate in that state in that sector. That's the state using it's monopoly of violence to force an ideology. That's authoritarian and opposite to freedom.

You would see it immediatly if the GOP mandated training in rightwing ideology to allow people to keep their licenses.

Do you actually think people have been saying that sexual orientation is 100% genetically determined? You can go read the Wikipedia article if you want a place to start, but there are clearly numerous factors at play. No one serious has disputed this for at least the past decade.

Does the term objective mean something different in Italian than in English? I read your whole article and didn't see a single thing that doctors did to determine if someone were gay other than their declaration. I didn't see a single objective measure of anything being used. Show what I missed, or stop making things up.

from outside, not purely subjective.

agreeable by third parties through observation.

doesn't mean perfect or "true".

they did look at mannerism, medical certificates and so on

yes I did otherwise "gayfication" and it's opposite can happen (doesn't matter how often).

you can say I should have said "genetics+ what happens in the womb" yes, that would be more precise.

in any way completely unmodifiable once in place and never determined by the individual.

are you claiming someone can become (become, not "discover to be what he always was) homosexual at 9 or 13 or 21, or heterosexual if previously homosexual???

i mean gangsta I am kinda puzzled at your reluctance to acknowledge that they tried to ascertain homosexuality outside of the words of the individual, especially because this still happens right now in western countries with asylum claims from countries that heavily discriminate against homosexuals.

it's not like you just believe the asylum seeker.

in many such cases proving you are actually LGBT can mean getting asylum vs being refused. there are actual guides

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/...

So by "objective" you really mean "subjective".

What I objected to is your claim that there's some objective medical evaluation process to determine one's sexual orientation, and you still haven't posted anything to the contrary.

These guidelines you posted about asylum seekers apply to trans people as much as to gay people. So, getting back to the original point, there's no reason for me to think that a bunch of cis men are going to claim to be trans just to avoid the draft. They will not just be accepted at their word, not because we don't believe that gender identity is determined by one's self-identification, but because we know people lie. The consequences of getting caught lying are quite high, and that will keep most people from even trying.

I don't know who you think has been saying that, but it's definitely not true, and I've never heard any scientists say that.

As I posted just a day or two ago, there have been many studies showing that boys with older brothers are more likely to be gay than those without. This cannot be genetic. Though not proven, the working theory is that it's due to the uterine environment being affected by the mother's immune system in the previous pregnancies.

Oops, I now see you have acknowledge in utero causes of homosexuality. But there are also almost certainly post-birth environmental influences as well, as I just pointed out regarding trans people. This does not imply that sexuality or gender identity is chosen (it doesn't support that one way or the other).

And it is likely that conversion theory works sometimes, though it may be very rare. Even if it worked nearly all the time, that wouldn't really relevant as to whether or not CT is a good idea. CT is a bad idea because it's traumatic and unnecessary. Plenty of natural left-handed people used to be trained very harshly to do things with their right hands. It often (usually?) worked, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea; all that work and trauma was unnecessary because there is nothing inherently wrong with being left-handed.

When you say, “it’s not the verbal declaration that makes you a gender,” what do you mean by “you”? What is the fundamental identity of the “you” which identifies?

Is “human” a real identity or not? Is “self” a real identity or not?

The equivalent analogy would be if established right-handers, who feel marginalized by their handwriting, started claiming trans-handedness because they now strongly identify as left-handed. Then, this trend starts to become so prevalent that it becomes a political identity and movement.

The appropriate response to this would be to say, “Perhaps you are placing too much of your identity on handedness and expression of your handwriting,” and then to affirm a more fundamental identity for these trans-handers.

Of course you didn't answer the question. And of course I need to mine a 300 page thread to find your historic answer that doesn't exist. Obviously

Some interesting research. Not surprising but interesting

The growing lgbt community what?

Yeah it is interesting that you think you are being clever by implying that transgender people have a mental disorder. The research has nothing to do with this thread.

As for the 2nd tweet, shes referencing a NYT article that said "being online is important for LGBTQ mental health". Says who? What research says being online is healthy? As far as I know all research points to social media having extreme negative impacts on mental health. So its already starting off dubious, but the whole premise is what I was talking about earlier; just because LGBTQ people have "Pride Month" doesn't magically make their lives perfect. They might be more accepted but they clearly aren't completely accepted. You yourself are part of a large group that completely dismisses them as having a mental disorder and hold them in disdain.

1. This is one of many different pieces of research from a variety of experts in related fields show strong evidence of the current trans movement being fueled by social contagion. I have already posted a completely different expert explaining the theory

2. I have already asked (you specifically) multiple times for an explanation as to what are the key differences between diagnosing or identifying trans and anorexia.

3. "social contagion among adolescents… [T]he effect was particularly strong for depression, anxiety, and eating disorders." What is a key way to measure depression? Would suicide and attempted suicide rates be important? How's that looking?

tweet 2

Why did depression increase among LGBT young adults even more than among straight & cis young adults? From 2014-2021, acceptance grew and rights were gained; the "backlash" bills didn't start until 2022.

Golly gee how could this possibly relate to tweet 1 at all? Does it not make a reasonable case worth strongly considering that people with pre existing conditions and issues are joining this community in hopes it relieves their symptoms? Why as they gain far more acceptance are things not getting even a little bit better for them?

i assumed it was due to the shortage in poppers

No, study 1 doesn’t present any evidence of trans being driven by social contagion. That’s literally you just calling transgender a mental disorder as a non-sequitur. The 2nd tweet doesn’t make a case for trans people just being normal people with unrelated mental disorders either. It’s, again, you making up a reason to call transgender a mental disorder.

It’s kind of exhausting

Once you age out of childhood, societal acceptance becomes a false replacement for the truth of self acceptance.

Self acceptance requires that you (conscious self) accept the parts of self that you (social self) have discarded as monstrous and bad. In this way, true self acceptance is anti-social. Therefore, the social self sabotages it constantly.

These so-called progressive movements, such as the trans movement, are driven by the social self with the primary purpose of stalling the actual progress that can only happen inwardly.

The algo started spitting trans videos at me. I watched a bunch and thought some people might find some of them interesting.

Judith Butler has been a "star" academic since at least the 90s. She pioneered gender theory and is a proponent of critical theory.

Short

Long

Kathleen Stock is an analytic philosopher who is critical of the trans movement and felt compelled to leave academia as a result of the response to that. I never heard of her pre-algo. But she's obviously well known and makes her case very well.

Short

Long

Robert Sapolsky is some kind of brain professor at Stanford. I already knew him from popular books and his free course on youtube. I interpret his overall message as trans friendly, but he mostly sticks to claims about what is happening in the brain.

Short

Long (the last 25% is about other stuff like free will)

Others will react differently. The Butler videos exemplify very well to me why I do not like critical theory or gender theory in that mold, though I think she raises some interesting ideas. There is very little fact or argumentation, and in the long video, the friendly interviewer had to insert a correction because she made a false claim about one of her opponents. If others see it that way, I just want to say I didn't scrounge around looking for videos where this side looks bad. I watched it because Butler is the big name in the field and I wanted to see what she says, and that's why I'm posting it.

Stock was impressive to me, especially when facing more critical questioning in the long video. It's wild to hear all the students protesting anybody being allowed to hear a liberal, feminist, credentialed academic whose views seem pretty moderate.

Sapolsky is a gifted communicator. In the long vid he does really well on how some aspects of science are more subjective, like whether we consider something a disorder. I found his discussion on sex differences fascinating. It seems hard to dispute that transness is a "real" phenomenon.

Stock Is deeply hated by radical leftists EXACTLY because she is a moderate leftist.

She is the kind of person that can dismantle the grip to power of radical trans activists by convincing people in their alliance they are wrong.

That's structural in the radical left for every topic, they assault center-leftists much more than they assault really rightwing people.

Stock also got quoted by Rowling many times , and that's anathema.

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/235577...

Anyway that trans activism is in direct opposition to women rights is basically uncontroversial at this point (IE : most people get it).

You cannot sustain pro-women policies when being a woman is a completely subjective call.

Bold is provenly false for many (most) trans, given many of them never get bottom surgery (as a choice, not because of lack of access) and live happily with their biological genitals .

And trans activists say that repeatedly especially when they oppose bottom-surgery-requirements for legal sex changes , claiming wanting to change genitals isn't absolutely a necessary part of what being trans is.

And btw, how can genitals match or not an identity, an identity doesn't have genitals. Women according to gender theory can have a dick. So the women label has no genital specification. You can't claim it doesn't match genitals, as it can literally exist with dicks and vaginas.

The decision to go through surgery or not involves a lot more than just acknowledging the mismatch, so you're just making things up again.

You are now finally learning the differences and the interplay between sex and gender.

I know in the tiniest details the gender theory i criticize constantly. I am not acknowledging any of it as true. Same as learning the cosmology of ancient egpytians doesn't make it true.

In the completly made up labelling of gender theory, genitals DO NOT MATCH IDENTITY , because identity is unrelated to genitals.

So you can't write that "their genitals don't match the identity of their brain", that's nonsense IN GENDER THEORY, ie in the totally made up, disastrous, incredibly toxic worldview you otherwise expose and live by.

If women can have dicks, then dicks aren't a mismatch for women identity. Is it easier written in this form?

If a mismatch can exist THEN women can't have dicks.

Which is what we claim: you don't become a woman even if you feel you are, if you have a dick. You FEEL (gender) you have many things inside you that would make you a woman BUT your body is a man body so there is a mismatch.

Using mismatch of genitals is denying gender theory is true. It's denying "trans women are women", like we do. Trans women can only be women if genitals never matter so a mismatch can never exist.

It's not denying trans-ness, which is the MISMATCH between biological sex and gender feeling (identity), constant through life after puberty.