Anti-trans bigots: "Puberty blockers are child abuse"

Post Reply New Topic

What resources?

Me too.
It never shuld be an easy decision - it's interfering with natural course of development not without risks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty_blocker

If it was about my child, I would probably try different, non-invasive roads first. My culture (at least the subculture I'm living in) has a lot of gender neutral space and all children are encouraged to explore it. When I think of it, the only differences between how I dress and how my husband dresses are: I wear a bra (my boobs are too big for running without a bra) and he sports a beard. We both wear comfortable underwear, sports shoes, trekking pants or jeans, a tee, a sweater or checked shirt, glasses, long hair, no makeup. We are both interested in science and technology, music, arts, philosophy and some outdoor sports. Sex - the roles we take in reproduction - is irrelevant to most of our expression.
I wonder if in such a society a transgender child is even possible. I've never encountered any, despite knowing several tomboys and some girly boys - they operate comfortably enough in this genderless space.

So you are a gender abolitionist? It means that gender should not be a thing.

Might be great if gender is not such a big thing in your culture with fewer signifiers. But I suspect that you might be speaking too much from a position of privilege, and you might not realize what the experience of transgender people. For them it is not about hating to wear certain type of clothes, or wanting to wear certain clothes, it is about knowing in your head that you are a gender that does not match what you were assigned. It is not being genderless, although it can be along with being both genders. It would be like if you were suddenly in the body of your husband, everyone treated you like a man, and I guess apparently say you can make do with genderless spaces, rather than claiming any womanhood.

You are right about roles taken in reproduction being irrelevant in expression, so for that reason you should be supportive of people who choose to express themselves in a way that others think contradicts their reproductive ability. If trans people do focus on expression that seems so strong presentation of a gender, perhaps you should understand that it is the only way they feel like they can be treated like what they know they are.

I guess with a body of my husband I would get enough testosterone to be a man - to think and feel like one. Just like with my body I have enough oxitocin to be a woman.
Yes, I sometimes wondered what kind of man I would be if I were a man. I wouldn't change much. Probably be taller. Would like to get married. I even know what kind of women I would be attracted to.

I'm not sure if I'm a "gender abolitionist". I think drift towards more gender neutral culture is a natural adaptation to low demand for heavy physical labor and limited demand for babies - both results of technological progress. In modern world, most of possible contributions to the society are sex neutral so they should also be gender neutral. And I do keep in my mind a possibility that transpeople may be largely a cultural phenomenon stemming from the culture adapting too slowly (or even resisting to adapt) to the changing situation.

One more thing may also be important: My culture is significantly less sexualized than e.g. US culture. It may make gender neutrality easier here.

I always post the name of the article and the source of the article.I was just surprised you would support such a conservative viewpoint.

And yet there are people who have a different experience where it is not the case, where they don't feel comfortable from the changes that would come naturally.

Not going to say your experience is wrong, because what you wrote is not actually too different from what I have felt. Actually have felt quite a lot about what kind of woman I would be like, and all this talk of gender actually put it for me personally thinking that gender dysphoria would not make sense, that I think that I might actually just adapt if my sex changed. And going down that line of thinking has led to where I currently identify as non-binary, because I don't think everyone feels the same way. I have seen enough of people needing to act as a certain gender, birth or trans, so I need to accept that their experiences are different from myself, while also finding where I am comfortable.

I am not saying that you are, but some acceptance that the experiences of others can differ.

Okay, so a concept that you would still be yourself if you were the other gender makes you nonbinary?

I indeed have the problem with the trans and cis narration. I just don't fit it. I'm female, that's my sex, my shape, my organs, my hormone balance. It's me. So I'm not trans. I use the pronouns of my bio sex and I use the ladies' rooms. But I also do not feel cis: my feminity does not define much of me. It defines me as a mother - it's something probably impossible to describe to someone who hasn't experienced it. Deep, bodily experience. But outside of it, I won't make my choices based on what is "for girls" or "for boys". I can have several "masculine" traits and they don't make me any less of a mother.
I feel female, gender-shrug. Maybe that's the way my culture handles the nonbinary?

Ahh, yes ... sooner or later, an SJW who cannot refute the facts will resort to culturalist and racist attacks against the person(s) who present the facts.

But they are not attacks if an SJW uses them, right?

Wrong.

I characterize everyone who attacks anyone else for presenting factual information as repressive propagandists, nothing more.

"Presentation" is not "support". Just because you present (wear) clothing that was made in Chinese sweat shops, that does not mean you support slavery, right?

Thats a good clarification,I know to little about trans culture to have an opinion on it and I am not against that article but was just surprised to see you support such a conservative viewpoint.But you clarified yourself very well,thank you.

Then I had better not post an article I found about Hitler wanting to become a woman; that would really set things off.

That is rich, when your "factual information" were literally propaganda released by a right wing think tank that pretends that it is a well accepted body. With a history of pushing things like conversion therapy.

I am not attacking you for "presenting factual information", I attacked your sources as the sort of group that manipulates its work to do things like protest against same sex couples being able to adopt. It would be like grabbing NRA run research to say that guns make people safer, or a study by the Coke corporation that says a Coke is part of a balanced diet. It is like following Autism Speaks for research on autism, or even anti-vaxers, sure you might find some experts of sorts in there, but they are all there to support their narrative only.

I refute your claim that saying biological sex is relevant to human reproduction, that is not the case. You don't seem to understand how that is different from saying that gender is the same thing as sex and neither can change. I have said this several times but you seem to still think those advocating for trans people are calling everyone who believes simple things about sex, like the ability to reproduce, are bigots. I am not unreasonable, I am up for any other information you want to put forward, just do better than the American College of Pediatricians.

Look, here is a page on them by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-college-pediatricians

But you didn't simply "present" the information. You also argued it's validity, as well as the credibility of the source. When people disagreed with it, you defended it, and attacked them. That's more than just a messenger. That's an advocate. You're not just wearing the shirt. You're selling it, too.

So? Is this supposed to be one of those "Echo Chambers" where everyone agrees with everyone else and no dissenting opinions are tolerated or even permitted?

Is this the kind of 'discussion' you want?

Well no, you're allowed to agree with conservative think tanks and fake science if you want to. Just, don't take it personally when people call it what it is.



Yes, you can take that position, but if you bring bigoted fake science into a scientific discussion it's going to get shot down pretty quickly because it adds nothing of value to the conversation and most people instinctively realize that. It's not an echo chamber, it's just people recognizing an obvious con when they see one.