The costs of trans visibility

I agree something important is missing. Look at the last line in the story:

What do they mean by “the child was lying”. Because the way the story is laid out by the Daily Mail it sounds like they just took this kid because they wanted to force him to be trans. But an attempted suicide plus possibly some abuse allegations from the kid seems like the more likely reason, and the gender transition just happened to coincide with removal from a possibly abusive home.

Also the headline claims this person to be autistic, but if you read the article, they underwent two autism tests that did not result in a diagnosis.

And let’s not forget they are 19 now and could return to their parents if they wanted to. The fact they didn’t speaks volumes.

Wrt the trans issue the claims are clear, no previous mentioning of the issue AT ALL before the hospitalization (if i understand correctly), use of masculine pronouns even when trying to convince his friends and so on, elements are there.

Parents claim the boy is autistic and so easily impressionable in making weird claims when under the full supervision of strangers. Not an absurd claim on it's face.

Question is why did the parents lose custody, how exactly, which reasons. If they can lose custody exclusively because they disagree on "affirming" their minor child that would be horrific (and it happens sometimes in other countries, but i didn't know it could happen in the USA). But that's only implied not clarified.

Is there a better version of the story? As per the daily fail’s usual standards, the prose is confused which causes the story to be hard to follow. Did the text about being “LGBT” come before or after the suicide attempt?

I didn't find one in the answers to the tweet so i suppose no

Thank you.

On principle I don’t think we should be removing children from their homes solely on the basis that their parents don’t support their transition, but I do think it can be a factor to consider if there is underlying physical abuse or neglect.

I also think there’s a difference between stopping a 12 year old from transitioning and stopping a 16 year old from transitioning. I’m not sure if it should be enough to let them transition at that age despite parental objections, but it’s one of those things where it definitely can happen anyway if they are determined enough.

you either die a hero, or eventually post something half the thread is going to jump on you and call you a hateful bigoted transphobe

welcome to the club fellow evil bigoted transphobe (and yes people who said that exact thing above have been labeled as such itt because of that stance as we've already discussed that)

so check raise do you agree or oppose state laws that force schools to tell parents if their minor child is expressing any will to identify with the opposite sex (or the other made up identities like non binary and so on)?

what would you think of a state that FORBIDS schools to force that to teachers and staff?

Yeah this is the slippery slope we should be avoiding at all cost.

I think that in general I don’t think it’s ideal to allow transition for minors without their parents knowing. But I also don’t know if it’s right to force the teachers to either tell or not tell.

My gut says that we should be telling parents if their kids want to socially transition, but I’m worried about making it a hard and fast rule because there are crazy parents out there that will abuse their kids for coming out as any part of LGBT, let alone trans.

I’m also not sure I consider a middle or elementary school kid transitioning to be the same as a high schooler transitioning, and am open to having different rules for different ages.

I probably represent the furthest left position on trans issues that any reasonable person can take (100% unbiased gigachad omegabased only rational person on the planet pilled).

You might also enjoy my take on trans sports issues (anyone who went through male puberty probably shouldn’t be competing past the high school level in most women’s sports).

RIP, welcome to the club fellow transphobic bigot

I’m a democrat, pro-trans, with reasonable takes. I’m guessing if it didn’t become some insane wedge issue this would be most people.

by rickroll P

not even jordan could revive it

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_Pt0qu5No...

would it shock you to learn i view myself that way as well?

I mean based on some of your comments it would surprise me if you’re pro-trans, but it wouldn’t shock me that as long as you’re not a single issue trans voter you might overlook trans issues and still be a Democrat.

But I mean it’s conceivable that based on only certain issues coming up in your discussions that it might seem like you only ever criticize trans people but you are supportive in other ways, I guess.

Pro trans, criticize trans people, if someone is against what activists say?

What's this language?

I don’t follow

That being against biological men participating in women sports isn't "anti trans" nor is opposing "trans care" in minors, opposing laws that force people to use made up pronouns isn't anti trans and so on.

And it isn't pro trans to support those laws.

The request of trans activists don't represent trans people in any way or form.

There are trans people who oppose puberty blockers and so on and on.

It's an obscene , bad faith framing to claims that opposing specific policies is being "anti trans", same as if you want the military to quell BLM riots you aren't anti black and so on.

The left narrative is that you against x, if a group of radicals start claiming they are pro x and you oppose anything that group wants.

It's a disgusting narrative that I fully oppose.

Unless you ask for specific legal discriminations of trans people, you aren't anti trans.

Integrating trans people into common life is pro-trans. Trying to find special carve outs in the law to demean or dehumanize them is the antithesis of being pro-trans.

We probably have fundamental disagreements on freedom of association though.

Besides I think regardless of any of what you just mentioned, you specifically talk about trans procedures makes it clear you at least have some disgust about what they do to transform their bodies, unless I am misinterpreting. That’s why I said elsewhere in this thread we have to start with fundamental principles first before I see if we are saying the same things in our applied ethic.

I might be saying trans women shouldn’t compete in women’s sports because I think they have a competitive advantage having gone through male puberty. You might be saying it because you think they should categorically never be treated as women for any reason, they should always be treated as men and referred to as such. Those are wildly different reasons for carrying the same position.

That’s why it’s not necessarily going to be useful for you to bring up the most extreme stuff in every conversation on this issue, because even when we whittle the contention down to the most passing, most ethically transitioned trans person, that went trans after 18 and only uses unisex or male restrooms and changing rooms, never competed in a woman’s sport or took any DEI trans hire, the “concerns” will still be there. The mocking, harassment, and dehumanization will still be there. That’s what I object to strongly from the anti-trans crowd and think they are delusional to say it’s the extreme left activists that are the only problem. They make themselves much worse than the alternative with their cruel attacks and harassment.

I’m not saying that to be inflammatory, I truly believe that people like Crowder and Matt Walsh have made people want to support more left wing positions due to how poorly they represent their supposedly principled concerns. To me their real motivation is to turn it into a wedge issue to fuel a culture war, raising to prominence what is a small portion of the population.

But yes, it is never a bad time to step back and make sure we are evaluating what makes sense and what is good public policy.

Explain what do you mean with "special carve outs in the law to demean or dehumanize them".

Trans people can go to public bathrooms , locker rooms, prison and play sport in all western country.

It's not being anti-trans to treat them as their biological sex though. A man who lives as a woman isn't banned from competitive sports anywhere in the west, he just has to play with men.

They are already integrated, there is no activity which is banned for them, after the only one i can think of got removed (joining the military).

There is no dehumanization or demeaning in the denial of affirming that gender identity trumps biological sex. T

hinking biological sex trumps gender identity for all considerations about sex-based segregation isn't anti-trans, it's just pro-biology. The reason we segregate on the basis of sex for several things is based on biology, so gender identity can change, and it never matters in the slightest for the purpose of sex segregation.

Some form of body modification might change things though, for example i am personally ok with men who had bottom surgery being put in women prison, because the "can get other inmates pregnant, often without their consent" problem (which is the main reason we segregate prisons on the basis of sex) doesn't exist anymore.

//

I can have disgust with people putting pineapple on pizza , this doesn't mean i want laws to forbid them to do so, or that i am "anti pineapple".

I am anti pineapple only if i ask to use the power of the state to punish people who put pineapple on pizza. It's not like you either chant "pineapple on pizza is the best thing ever", or you are "anti-pine" ok?

I don't like mutilation of healthy organs in general , which doesn't mean i am "anti trans" (also because many trans people never do bottom surgery). I also dislike heavy cosmetic surgery in general, for non trans people as well, for aestethical reasons. I find it deeply disturbing to watch at many times. Still a matter of personal freedom for me, for adults (but i don't want taxpayers to pay anything).

I also deeply dislike crossdressing for aesthetical reasons as well, again that doesn't mean i am in favour of laws that ban crossdressing.

I mean the left approach that goes with "if you dislike something you are anti it" is literally insane. You can dislike some asian food without being a racist, for normal people.

Then there is the general idea of "can the state force morality upon citizens and residents" and my answer is unequivocally no for all morals, except those regarding security of the state (which is one of the few reasons why the state exists in the first place).

So if people in their private lives "mock harass and dehumanize" , so be it. It's never a matter for the state, or it shouldn't be at all. Pushing inclusion as state moral doctrine is wrong, as it is to push ANY state moral doctrine in general, except for state security reasons.

And then there is the question of benefits for women, in general: if we ever want to give women any advantange whatsover in any avenue of life, THEN being legally considerd a woman simply can't be based uniquely on self identification.

That's very basic logic, you can't have a special class with benefits which anyone can join at any time no question asked.

So yes the state should never treat trans people as their self-identified gender identity would imply for any legal consideration . It can be possible to have objective evaluations that allow a person to become legally a woman for legal considerations, but it can never be sufficient to base it on self identification.

The spanish law that allows for that is simply absurd, an horrific leftist disaster, that already diminishes women rights at the present time.

And this is not being "anti trans", a person can be trans freely, but there is absolutely no right to be recognized by the state or third parties as what you feel you are, in general, and trans people don't deserve any special treatment.

he's saying that you can like music and be a huge advocate of music but still think limp bizkit is a terrible band - they are not mutually exclusive

i easily have more friends and positive social interactions with trans individuals than most of the thread who call me a transphobe, twice at bars i came to the physical defense of one

i just don't think children should be transitioning, that bad actors will and have exploited locker rooms/prisons/etc, and that they should not be competing in women's sports

none of those are very controversial at all imo, but there are plenty in this thread who think of me as a terrible person because of that because they've lost all grip on reality and are in a cult

Do you think the trans identity is a net positive, negative, or neutral when considering the trans identifying individuals, their families, and society in general?

This is an open question to everyone participating in this thread.

should airlines be legally mandated to rebuild planes to accomodate elephants, if people start using them as Emotional Supporting Animals ?