|
OwlFancier posted:That sounds like a very wishy washy way of saying "No you're wrong you are [x] gender now shut up." I don't think it sounds like that at all. I think it's "How do you feel today? OK." and then keep on trucking, and waiting to see. This feels like a bizarro world version of reading Freerepublic comments about the most innocuous Obama White House events which portrayed Michelle Obama as force-feeding kids kale juice or whatever. it's comically bad faith, which you should be able to recognize in yourself as easily as you could with somebody whose politics you really do not agree with. I mean, are you in the "desistance studies are made up " camp or what? What do you make of those claims?
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
If someone stops identifying as their previous gender as they age, then, thanks to the miracle of puberty deferral, they can, oh I don't know, stop presenting as such and stop taking their meds. On the other hand, reversing the effects of puberty is far harder. That someone might change their identified gender is completely irrelevant to the issue because the treatment specifically exists to make that not a problem. It's not treating it that makes that a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
ah cool, we're cycling from "what to the objective scientists say" do "do you even science bro" to "my anecdotal evidence is valid" to "you shouldn't reject me just because we disagree" in record time
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah it's almost like this dude isn't arguing in good faith and is using "logic! reason!" as a bludgeon Hey now, no need to be like that. He's just a simple muffin wearing a monocle, just trying to follow the science wherever it might lead. Maybe the science will lead to reeducation camps for transgender teens, maybe it will lead to candy. Who can say?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:Think of it like climate change. There are not two sides. There's one side, the correct side, and the idiots who believe the opposite even though it's demonstrably false. In this case the correct side is treating potentially trans kids with gender affirming methods. Giving them puberty blockers, letting them act/dress as their identified gender. If they're not trans it does no harm and they can go back to identifying as their assigned gender, if they are trans then you just made their lives a billion times better than if they were forced to go through the wrong puberty and identify as a gender that they are not. I don't think it's like climate change denial--it's more like climate science, where different people have competing theories within the practice of climate science. What you're proposing is that a clinic full of people who worked with trans folks every day, who would help provide transition services, were secretly trying to prevent actually-trans people from being able to transition. My interpretation is "they just see it differently". They argued that de-transitioning mattered more than the folks who were gender confirming people did. Do you not think that can be an honest disagreement, rather than one borne out of the kind of hatred people are ascribing to them by using the term TERF to describe them? TERFs are real, and in my experience, they don't look like what's being described here. Do you think all scientists agree all the time within a discipline? Obviously not. Transphobes, people who call trans women "men" or deadname them would be climate deniers in this metaphor. Do you think that's who the people described in the article, and the person who wrote it, are? I don't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
*picks up red phone handset on desk* "hello, science hotline? yeah, i'm arguing with a bunch of jerks on the internet who've never heard of you before, and i was wondering..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
I don't require intent to label someone an obstacle to be overidden.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ah cool, we're cycling from "what to the objective scientists say" do "do you even science bro" to "my anecdotal evidence is valid" to "you shouldn't reject me just because we disagree" in record time Nah, but okay. My take is this: -Maybe the folks at the GIC were wrong in their science, but that's not settled. -They probably weren't transphobes, because Jesus Christ people look at the loving context of all the work they did. Do you think everytime a child turned out to be genuinely dysphoric and it persisted and they helped the child transition they went home to light a black candle and weep? -I know someone close to me who experienced dysphoria, but has seem to desist. Maybe as they get older they will experience it again, but as of now, they seem to be identifying as cisgender again. -I know other adult trans people, have worked with them, taken classes from and with them, gone out for drinks with them, and I don't wish they weren't trans, I'm happy they've found a peaceful way to live. -People can be rabid assholes about anything, anyfuckingthing, and we're seeing it here. The internet did really break all our brains and turn us into people who knife strangers for their takes because we're so powerless to affect anything in the real world in any way that provides us the same kind of thrill that this does. selec fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:science, but that's not settled. Except the science is settled. So you're wrong. The science is "puberty blockers do nothing to harm a person" thus prescribing them as a precautionary measure is the factually correct course of action. Literally the only reason you wouldn't prescribe them is if your stance was "people should be as god made them when they made them" or some similar "they're not actually trans" bullshit. If, after therapy and consideration, they settle on cisgenderedness, then simply taking the puberty blockers did nothing to harm them, and can discontinue that treatment and proceed unhindered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:-I know other adult trans people, have worked with them, taken classes from and with them, gone out for drinks with them, and I don't wish they weren't trans, I'm happy they've found a peaceful way to live. i, too, know people. as a go-outsider and chronic socializer, i have met folks, and let me tell you this based on my deep well of experience - people are different. thank you
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:I don't think it's like climate change denial--it's more like climate science, where different people have competing theories within the practice of climate science. No, I specifically likened into to climate change denial because it is exactly like that. Not treating kids who may be transgender is not a theory, it's a farce, and provably harmful. quote:What you're proposing is that a clinic full of people who worked with trans folks every day, who would help provide transition services, were secretly trying to prevent actually-trans people from being able to transition. No, mostly just Kenneth Zucker. He may have been knowledgeable once but if he was the science left him behind long ago. quote:My interpretation is "they just see it differently". "Differently" here meaning wrongly. quote:They argued that de-transitioning mattered more than the folks who were gender confirming people did. We're talking about kids so this is irrelevant. Treating trans kids does not involve them medically transitioning in the majority of cases. It only involves taking puberty blockers and being treated as their identified gender, both of which are easily and immediately reversible. Even if we were to bring in adult trans people, detransitioning is not worth bringing up in the context of "should this person transition" because detransition is nearly non-existant, and in the slim number of cases is due to how the person is treated by others, not them not being trans. quote:Do you not think that can be an honest disagreement, rather than one borne out of the kind of hatred people are ascribing to them by using the term TERF to describe them? TERFs are real, and in my experience, they don't look like what's being described here. A TERF is not a thing any more than a racist or any type of bigot it. Someone is a TERF (or, really, a transphobe, but TERF seems to be subsumed that in common parlance as of late) if they espouse transphobic views. Not treating trans kids is harmful, and therefore transphobic. So if you write an article supporting that, you're transphobic. quote:Do you think all scientists agree all the time within a discipline? Obviously not. Again, the consensus among most experts is that treating trans kids as I described above is the correct method. Anyone who claims otherwise is a radical outlier not supported by the most recent/relevant data, regardless of how much "experience" they have in the field. quote:Transphobes, people who call trans women "men" or deadname them would be climate deniers in this metaphor. Do you think that's who the people described in the article, and the person who wrote it, are? I don't. Everyone you described in this sentence, including yourself, are being transphobic, yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Except the science is settled. So you're wrong. The science is "puberty blockers do nothing to harm a person" thus prescribing them as a precautionary measure is the factually correct course of action. Literally the only reason you wouldn't prescribe them is if your stance was "people should be as god made them when they made them" or some similar "they're not actually trans" bullshit. If, after therapy and consideration, they settle on cisgenderedness, then simply taking the puberty blockers did nothing to harm them, and can discontinue that treatment and proceed unhindered. If it's settled, then why are scientists debating it? Were all the scientists quoted in the article on the same page, to you? Because to me, they weren't. The issue of contention, however, is not about puberty blockers, as I read it. These aren't cranks from outside the system, as I understand it, this is scientists going back and forth on if de-transitioning is important or meaningful to a child, if desistance matters, and how best to navigate these things to provide the least-stressful/most-content experience for a child. Again, I don't think the GIC was disagreeing with you about puberty blockers, from the article: quote:In 2016, there’s fairly solid agreement about the proper course of treatment for otherwise healthy, stable young people who have persistent gender dysphoria, and who are either approaching puberty or older than that: You help them transition to their true gender. The process is different from person to person, but for an 11-year-old, it might include a round of puberty-blocking hormones to prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics and buy time to figure out the best course of transition, followed by the administration of male or female hormones, and, later on, possibly sex-reassignment surgery or surgeries. How to best serve kids who are not ready for puberty blocking therapy seems to be the crux of the dispute, am I wrong there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Lack of ill intent in obstructing important work, gets you lack of malice in response, it doesn't get you listened to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
I don't think Singal is an actual TERF, but I do think he swallowed a line from actual TERFs or other assholes about how THE TRANSES are out there to turn your kids into them and if a kid ever expresses feelings of transness the correct option is to do nothing because that's probably just THE TRANSES trying to convert them. It's the same strategy as the bathroom bills and historical anti-gay propaganda. If you can't figure out how to attack someone who isn't hurting anyone, frame it as protecting children. Then useful idiots will fall over themselves to fight for your bigoted cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:How to best serve kids who are not ready for puberty blocking therapy seems to be the crux of the dispute, am I wrong there? The same way you would treat someone who is on puberty blocking therapy because the only difference is that one needs drugs to stay prebubescent...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The same way you would treat someone who is on puberty blocking therapy because the only difference is that one needs drugs to stay prebubescent... Right, but that seems to be the crux of the disagreement. How you treat them prior to puberty--wait and see, or social transition. Wait and See argument seems to be "desistance is real, and in fact prevalent for cases of childhood dysphoria," and that social de-transitioning after desistance is something that needs to be considered, and weighs heavier in their consideration than it does on the Social Transition side of the argument. Social transition argument seems to be "desistance does not matter as much as the Wait and See folks say it does, and a kid who presents as (just an example) male, then female, then male again won't suffer social or psychological consequences that outweigh kids who are not socially transitioned sooner than later." I'm trying to make a good faith presentation of these arguments, so if you think I'm misinterpreting, please help me get better clarity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
What long term effects do you think a kid is going to experience as a result of changing their presented gender before the onset of puberty, other than possible a much needed appreciation for the fluidity of gender presentation making them a better person later in life? As opposed to letting their condition go untreated, something we know leads to a magical rainbow of horrible effects up to and including death. Of any possible negative effects, how many do you suppose are as a result of deficiencies in their peers rather than them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What long term effects do you think a kid is going to experience as a result of changing their presented gender before the onset of puberty, other than possible a much needed appreciation for the fluidity of gender presentation making them a better person later in life? As opposed to letting their condition go untreated, something we know leads to a magical rainbow of horrible effects up to and including death. That depends on a lot of factors: Socially, I think it could have huge impacts. Granted, much less in this somewhat-more enlightened era, but that's also dependent on where you're at. A kid in rural Montana experiencing this will have a much different social experience than a kid in a more pluralistic, diverse city with a greater prevalance of messages that teach tolerance and acceptance pointed at them. Much of the defect is definitely going to be among their peers, but as someone who grew up as a child very averse to asking for help, or worse, to have to ask for MORE help afterwards, the decision to de-transition would probably be tough had I been through that. I think overall we're better off as a society by giving kids the space to explore these things, and to also allow for the voice of science to let us know what the larger picture looks like and what their best estimate of how it's working on an individual and societal level, and I don't think that's too far from what the GIC was doing. The article mentioned that, for instance, new patients who were children that had already socially transitioned weren't "dialed back" into their birth gender, and were not treated the same because they didn't have the same needs, which seems to be to be a pretty good piece of evidence that for whatever else you can say about the people there, they were trying to put the needs of individual children first. Otherwise, wouldn't they, in their TERFy way, worked to de-transition socially transitioned children? Why let them persist in a behavior if they're so insidiously opposed to it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
I should also point out that labelling it wait and see is extremely disingenuous, your choices are between socializing them as your preferred gender for them, and their preferred gender. You are going to be doing one or the other, not adjusting your course is not a neutral action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Genocyber posted:A TERF is not a thing any more than a racist or any type of bigot it. Someone is a TERF (or, really, a transphobe, but TERF seems to be subsumed that in common parlance as of late) if they espouse transphobic views. Not treating trans kids is harmful, and therefore transphobic. So if you write an article supporting that, you're transphobic. And from a big picture level, they're probably right, abolishing patriarchy and misogyny is good, and gender probably is a social construct. But from a pragmatic level, so what? Money is a social construct too, but if you stand there saying "money doesn't, like, have any intrinsic value" to someone who is suffering because they can't afford food and heating, you're not saying anything profound or interesting, you're being an rear end in a top hat. Much like the brocialists they despise who keep saying "race and gender issues won't exist when we have full communism", they seem to be very short on answers of what to do for people who are suffering from gender dysphoria right now. Also, yeah, most of them are probably just transphobes looking for philosophical cover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I should also point out that labelling it wait and see is extremely disingenuous, your choices are between socializing them as your preferred gender for them, and their preferred gender. You are going to be doing one or the other, not adjusting your course is not a neutral action. Yes, I agree, it's not the best way to describe it--more like "wait and see if it persists, or if dysphoria desists." I think a lot of boils down to "Do kids 100% understand this for themselves, do they understand the distinction between gender and gender expression, and do adults have any duty to temper what the children they love and take care of want out of life?" I'm willing to say I dunno where the exact place the ball should land is, but what's described in this article and the arguments around it have had no positive effect in generating light, but plenty of heat. I think a major part of it is the insistent refusal that any of the people you disagree with could be acting in good faith. I think this is the fault of undiagnosed internet disease that has basically swept the globe in a pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
The person with the condition has far more chance of understanding it than an outside observer. And parents have no right whatosever to overrule their children in this instance. I have no patience whatsoever for people who persist in this farcical belief of parental ownership. Whether or not someone is acting in good faith has limited bearing on whether they are achieving desirable results. I grow tired of repeating it but racist, sexist, transphobe, homophobe, these are not identities, these are descriptors of people's actions. Someone can act in good faith and remain a hostile force. Whether they think they are or not is completely irrelevant. Good faith buys you a veneer of politeness, but not an iota of compromise. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:TERFs are slightly different, because they specifically use the construct of radical feminism to say that gender is just a social construct, and therefore the solution is not to help people transition, but to abolish patriarchy, misogyny, gender, and gender roles. Yeah. We already have a word for people who espouse transphobic views. It's transphobe. TERFs are a specific subset of transphobe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The person with the condition has far more chance of understanding it than an outside observer. And parents have no right whatosever to overrule their children in this instance. I have no patience whatsoever for people who persist in this farcical belief of parental ownership. I don't think I'm advocating parental ownership, but parental stewardship. You don't own your childs gender or sexual identity, but you better be drat sure you're the one who owns explaining it to them, because they're going to ideally trust you and depend on you to do that. I think good faith has enormous bearing on results, because it allows people to cooperate on a shared outcome they desire ("people of all genders, identities and expressions feel comfortable in this world and grow into happy, fulfilled adults") while debating what the best way to go about that is. Good faith is one of the central basis for humans being able to live together in cooperative communities. It's one thing to say, in good faith, "I believe trans people are just mentally ill and need treatment to conform with their birth sex." That's not somebody I'd expect trans advocates or scientists to pay a lick of attention to. My problem is the insinuation that folks like Singal or the people at the GIC clinic don't want the best outcomes for the people they treat, which is loving stupid and childish. They may have different ideas of what "best outcomes" look like, but you'll never discover those differences if you lead with the knife out, which is what these discussions on the internet tend to default to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:That depends on a lot of factors: Socially, I think it could have huge impacts. Granted, much less in this somewhat-more enlightened era, but that's also dependent on where you're at. A kid in rural Montana experiencing this will have a much different social experience than a kid in a more pluralistic, diverse city with a greater prevalance of messages that teach tolerance and acceptance pointed at them. "The voice of science" has already spoke in favor of treating potentially trans kids as their identified gender. Because, again, any of these changes can be easily reversed if the kid ends up ultimately identifying as cis. Affirming treatment is focused on listening to what the child is saying and going from there, Zucker's bullshit is acting like they're automatically going to be cis and making whatever they want, such as puberty blockers, as difficult to obtain as possible. Guavanaut posted:TERFs are slightly different, because they specifically use the construct of radical feminism to say that gender is just a social construct, and therefore the solution is not to help people transition, but to abolish patriarchy, misogyny, gender, and gender roles. I'm aware. I was just pointing out that people seem to be using TERF to describe anyone being transphobic even though the initial definition of the term is distinct from that, as you describe. ClancyEverafter posted:Yes, I agree, it's not the best way to describe it--more like "wait and see if it persists, or if dysphoria desists." No, kids do not 100% understand what's going on with their gender identity/expression/etc. but they know a hell of a lot more about it than anyone else. That's why the consensus is to actually listen to trans kids and allow them to explore their gender identity and/or expression as appropriate, as opposed to assuming that they are their assigned gender. I do not give a poo poo if you or anyone professes to be acting in good faith or not. Because the side that you're arguing for is demonstrably harmful to trans kids (that is why Zucker was fired), and that makes you kind of awful regardless. ClancyEverafter posted:My problem is the insinuation that folks like Singal or the people at the GIC clinic don't want the best outcomes for the people they treat, which is loving stupid and childish. They may have different ideas of what "best outcomes" look like, but you'll never discover those differences if you lead with the knife out, which is what these discussions on the internet tend to default to. No one thinks they're being evil. That's why poo poo like "acting in good faith" and "meaning well" is pointless because everything thinks they're doing that. What's important are actual results. And as studies have shown, Zucker's method of treatment is actively harmful to trans kids and a bad thing to do. Genocyber fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Good faith is one of the central basis for humans being able to live together in cooperative communities. It's one thing to say, in good faith, "I believe trans people are just mentally ill and need treatment to conform with their birth sex." That's not somebody I'd expect trans advocates or scientists to pay a lick of attention to. My problem is the insinuation that folks like Singal or the people at the GIC clinic don't want the best outcomes for the people they treat, which is loving stupid and childish. They may have different ideas of what "best outcomes" look like, but you'll never discover those differences if you lead with the knife out, which is what these discussions on the internet tend to default to. Once more, you can use this wishy washy language to describe any loving thing you like and it doesn't make it any more acceptable. Gay conversion clinics have different ideas about what "best outcomes" look like and they're loving wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Desistance is, by and large, bullshit, and arguments such as those presented by Singal hand-wringing about it are also bullshit. The high figures that are still cited (i.e. "80%) lump together children who are merely gender non-conforming (e.g. A tomboyish girl who still identifies as female) with those who do actually identify as the opposite gender. Also, in two of the big desistance studies, who interviewed participants in childhood and adolescence, 45% and 63% of participants did not return for the follow-up interview, so the researchers just assumed that they all had desisted and included them in the results anyway. Also these studies tend to have very low sample sizes and they're generalizability is not great, even if their methodologies weren't poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:I don't think I'm advocating parental ownership, but parental stewardship. You don't own your childs gender or sexual identity, but you better be drat sure you're the one who owns explaining it to them, because they're going to ideally trust you and depend on you to do that. How would sexual preference fit into this framework? If your child comes out to you as gay, is the correct thing to do to send him to a facility of well-meaning scientists to determine if they're really gay? Do you refuse to let him date another boy before the Gay Test comes back in, out of concern for the social impacts? After all, he's just a kid, you can't expect him to fully grasp the intricacies of sexual preferences that young.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Once more, you can use this wishy washy language to describe any loving thing you like and it doesn't make it any more acceptable. Gay conversion clinics have different ideas about what "best outcomes" look like and they're loving wrong. Yeah but you can ask the conversion clinics what they're doing and they'll tell you, all you have to do is listen. It's wild how you think this was basically a Mike Pence-approved shock treatment camp operating out of a Canadian hospital system. I think I'm done discussing this, because we're not seeing a lot of progress, and statements like this: ""The voice of science" has already spoke in favor of treating potentially trans kids as their identified gender." dismiss the obvious differences that existed and still exist among scientists--after all, were all the other clinics they mentioned in the article using the same basic system shut down too? Were all of those scientists run off as well? Did they just stop using the practices described in the article? Obviously not. But we can't discuss if we can't even agree on a baseline of "what is happening right now in the reality we all inhabit" then what's the point of discussion. And folks are not operating off the same set of facts, and do not seem interested in agreeing on what those facts might be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
aware of dog posted:Desistance is, by and large, bullshit, and arguments such as those presented by Singal hand-wringing about it are also bullshit. The high figures that are still cited (i.e. "80%) lump together children who are merely gender non-conforming (e.g. A tomboyish girl who still identifies as female) with those who do actually identify as the opposite gender. Also, in two of the big desistance studies, who interviewed participants in childhood and adolescence, 45% and 63% of participants did not return for the follow-up interview, so the researchers just assumed that they all had desisted and included them in the results anyway. Also these studies tend to have very low sample sizes and they're generalizability is not great, even if their methodologies weren't poo poo. Alright, post some links and we've got something to work with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:How would sexual preference fit into this framework? If your child comes out to you as gay, is the correct thing to do to send him to a facility of well-meaning scientists to determine if they're really gay? Do you refuse to let him date another boy before the Gay Test comes back in, out of concern for the social impacts? After all, he's just a kid, you can't expect him to fully grasp the intricacies of sexual preferences that young. No, it's not really the same, because you can be gay and happy without any necessary medical treatment. Also, same-sex sexual experiences are, if I'm remembering correctly, more common than not. More straight dudes have touched a strange penis than haven't, and society is okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Yeah but you can ask the conversion clinics what they're doing and they'll tell you, all you have to do is listen. And your failing is that you seem to think that people do bad things while cackling maniacally and rubbing their hands together and worshipping the chaos gods. People do bad things for reasons they believe to be good, people do bad things in places full of good people doing good things. It does not make a blind bit of difference. ClancyEverafter posted:No, it's not really the same, because you can be gay and happy without any necessary medical treatment. Also, same-sex sexual experiences are, if I'm remembering correctly, more common than not. You're going to have to try very hard to explain why this isn't you just saying that being gay is inherently normal whereas being trans isn't... Because society sure as loving hell isn't OK with it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Yeah but you can ask the conversion clinics what they're doing and they'll tell you, all you have to do is listen. What other clinics? Where?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:More straight dudes have touched a strange penis than haven't, and society is okay with that. I appreciate you writing this literally three minutes after you mention the current Vice President of the United States and his penchant for gay conversion camps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And your failing is that you seem to think that people do bad things while cackling maniacally and rubbing their hands together and worshipping the chaos gods. I don't think people do bad things while cackling maniacally, I do think that if you realize somebody's doing something you don't agree with, calling them names and lying about their work isn't the best route to convince them you're right. I understand why people do it, but they need to understand how that appears from the side of the folks who are, to the best of their abilities, trying to help the communities they work with in the most empathetic way possible. That's what good faith is for. I understand that this is the internet, and I'm basically being a huge loving shitdick dad by even proposing as much, but I'm doing me. Being gay and being trans are both normally occurring things. It's just that being trans, often, requires transitioning to get to a place of feeling whole in ones self, whereas gay people don't get "the gay surgery" or whatever. Again, if you read that in good faith, that much would've been obvious to you. edit: I say "society is okay with it" because we know it happens, it's an obvious, uncontroversial fact among sex researchers, and there's never really a "boys playing doctor" sex panic in the way that we have traditional sex panics. edit2: Mike Pence is considered a weirdo for his ideas about sex by most normal people, if you describe his views to them, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
I don't think Singal is arguing in bad faith, either. I can understand people being worried about trans kids and I think it's easy to buy that "kids don't really know what they're doing" and buy into some dodgy science and some juked stats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
jackofarcades posted:I don't think Singal is arguing in bad faith, either. I can understand people being worried about trans kids and I think it's easy to buy that "kids don't really know what they're doing" and buy into some dodgy science and some juked stats. Right, and that would just make him a bad researcher or journalist, or at least, one that could be better, rather than TERF, which is 99% of the criticism about him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Right, and that would just make him a bad researcher or journalist, or at least, one that could be better, rather than TERF, which is 99% of the criticism about him. You are persisting in this belief that transphobe is an identity rather than a descriptor... It does not matter one jot what he thinks he is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You are persisting in this belief that transphobe is an identity rather than a descriptor... No, I'm persisting in the belief that I think you need a higher standard for calling someone transphobic for writing about stuff even the scientists who study it don't 100% agree on. You do you, but just know it's not convincing to a lot of people, but you probably know that. I am familiar with the dichotomy of "you're a racist" vs. "you got something racist stuck in your teeth," but I think neither of those models apply here. Obviously your mileage is varying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
And also in the belief that if you put more words around a sentiment it makes it a different sentiment...
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:55
|
|