The costs of trans visibility

If one of your rationales for being pro-choice is: some women can barely take care of themselves, so how can they take care of a child?, that could also be applied to toddlers. It's not a very convincing argument. As far as refusing to help with food, clothes and housing goes, liberals, conservatives and others have different ideas of what kind of economic and social policies are in our best interest. Just because you disagree with conservatives, doesn't mean they come from a cold, uncaring place (or are wrong). Even if some politicians are cold and uncaring, that doesn't change the moral beliefs of the pro-life public. Pro-life groups are very proactive when it comes to helping mothers with resources like medical care, adoption, housing, clothes, etc.

I almost forgot that we were in the "trans visibility" thread. I don't know if mods can transfer our comments over to the abortion thread. I'll get off the topic here so this thread can go back to being about its original topic.

I agree this is off topic but I just want to say that leaning on the "morals" of pro life then saying that feeding, clothing, and housing a child is "economic and social policy" is exactly what the **** im talking about

Besides charities, how else are those issues dealt with en masse?

I'm going to take this over to the abortion thread myself. You'll find a response there.

Curious to see if people think this is:

dishonest

rare

ok

common

or a trend

Way more common among girls, I would say women need more controls because their rate of transition was historically lower than natal males and now it’s much higher. Natal females seem more prone to social contagion generally.

This is a really unhinged thing to say. Can you maybe go back and try your point again without whatever the **** this is?

Lol what I mean is very obvious in context. Do you think that men and women have the exact same psychological needs/treatments?

another example of a medical control would be like if a patient comes into a hospital, presenting with no symptoms and asked for pain medication, obviously you would be more careful and giving them the medication than someone
who just had surgery.

I think saying "women need more controls" - especially right after a conversation about abortion - is just a shockingly bad way to make whatever point you are trying to make. I'd rephrase and try again.

how dare you assume their gender

Teenage girls are extremely prone to social contagion, hence the eating-disorder epidemic back in the day (when that was the thing) and now the recent explosion in claimed gender dysphoria, which was previously almost exclusive to pre-pubertal boys, and not very many of them at that. Like the eating-disorder thing (where if you starved yourself you could stop your periods and hold back the development of secondary sex characteristics), the GD thing is in part an expression of some girls' anxiety about becoming women, though, given the high proportion of supposed GD girls who are autistic, or in-care, or both, it may reflect the fashionable prejudices of the social workers and clinicians who have been dealing with those girls' cases. Indeed this is one of the scandals that the Cass Review drew attention to. Jumping from there to the idea that 'women need more controls', when we already have reason to suspect that the control of vulnerable minors by ideologically motivated adults is what caused the apparent explosion in GD presentation, may be a leap in the wrong direction.

I come from the business world. Controls just means what steps you put in place to mitigate risk.

You should have learnt by now that in 2024, if you think about reality pragmatically you are a right wing extremist

Rick, please stop with the personal attacks or you’ll have to spend some time in the corner. Thanks, friend 😀

when will you ask uke to stop with the personal attacks?

i'm merely commenting on his behavior, which anyone who cares to refute is welcome to do so, also very surprised you deleted that article on smarm

Do the helicopter joke next!

did you read it at meatspin?

Idk what that is but I'm pretty sure Trolley brought it up just like now and I googled about it.

meatspin has a ton of great helicopter content, check it out

I agree and it's nice to see you didn't get banned for this. Most important political arguments are "offensive" some how some way to some one. Otherwise the subject is far less likely to be contentious. It's hard to grasp how significant this impact is after ages of deeply ideologically biased moderation in the same direction

Anyways to me that video basically summarizes the ideological capture. It results in young vulnerable and impressionable people falling in to a very consequential trend. That trend leads to viscous medical malpractice

This is why the topic is so interesting, fascinating and frustrating. It captures so many human flaws such as dogma coming from people that are supposed to be experts such as the medical field. The capture, cowardice., absurdity, and malpractice is staggering

I’m very much concerned with trans people getting the healthcare they need which is why when I see people saying they are trans at much higher rates than in the past, with less desire for medical transition, and less barriers to entry from doctors because they are operating on faulty assumptions, I’m concerned about that.

I will say that I’m not advocating for the more specific term “rapid onset gender dysphoria”, I’m just talking about the possible reason why we seem to see more girls transitioning as a rate than at any time in the past while the rate of natal male transition seems relatively stable.

Why would “less desire for medical transition” be problematic? Medical transition is the thing that has sometimes long term health effects, and generally for younger people I’d think it is better if they only socially transition and make sure that really represents them first.

It’s fine, yes, but then it’s going to require extra scrutiny because now the proportion of people who identify as trans but aren’t dysphoric about certain parts of their body is way up. In those cases the hitherto standard treatments are going to become more and more gatekept rightfully so in order to prevent people from actually suddenly having gender dysphoria over receiving what was supposed to be treatment.

A certain amount of detrans people will always be acceptable, but if it becomes a huge problem, especially in youth transition, then we will have to start reconsidering such transition and make it much harder.

That’s why I think we should encourage people NOT to identify as trans and just let them do whatever they want in their natal bodies. Then if they present with massive dysphoria over a long period of time that’s when we should start with the treatment.

Even that becomes problematic because we just don’t have a really good way of identifying “true trans” people, but at the very least it will prevent a lot of people from making these mistakes as we all recognize it’s a very serious thing.

How is any amount of detrans people acceptable? It means they were never actually sick about that and got treated with permanent body modifications without reason, how is that ever acceptable?

It should be absolutely imperative to avoid that at all costs before any other considerations.

First do no harm