Not quite - they believe gender is a social construct, to the point that it literally doesn’t exist, and the material reality of your biological sex is all there is. Historically, sociology followed biology, and sexual dimorphism is therefore the root of inequality between the sexes (particularly the fact that only females bear children). It’s a compelling argument, particularly to a Marxist.
People can dress how they want though, none of my business.
They generally refer to themselves as “gender-critical feminists”.
The first part “trans-exclusionary” is pretty self-explanatory. “Radical” meaning they believe the whole system needs an overhaul, and mostly comes from the branch of feminism that TERFs/gender-criticals grew out of.
banning puberty blockers for trans kids but allowing cis kids (who have been using them for like four decades without harm) on the start of pride is pretty absurd.
it also shows that it’s not actually about protecting kids but about impose section 28.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only reason I know of for cis kids to use puberty blockers is as a measure against the condition precocious puberty, which basically means the body is going into puberty too soon.
If that’s correct, then this isn’t really a good argument, because using drugs to delay premature puberty until its ‘normal time’ is very different from delaying ‘normal time’ puberty to a future ‘late time’–the latter moves the body into an abnormal state, while the former movies out out of one.
Isn’t that kind of like arguing that because we’ve been using blood thinners successfully for a long time (leaving out that it’s used primarily on people who are prone to blood clots to treat that condition), that there’s definitely no harm in prescribing blood thinners to people with regular blood?
for cis kids they would take them to delay puberty until a time in the future at which point they come off the blockers and everything works fine, which defeats the main terf talking point of “irreversible changes” or being dangerous to children.
the only difference is that trans children would take them only until they can start taking hormones.
Oh, don’t worry; they definitely want to ban them for cis kids too (or at least girls). The one thing Conservatives the world over have in common is they like their women young.
Unless someone is against trans people existing, is there any merit to doing this? Why make a person go through puberty twice just because they’re “too young” to decide?
Edit: I think I’ve misread this comment chain, but putting my comment back now
These drugs have been used on cis children for non trans related conditions (such as precocious puberty in young children and some hormone-sensitive cancers in adults) for a long time and their effects are well known and fully reversible.
The use of puberty blockers in transgender youth is supported by twelve major medical associations, including the AMA. The people who take them are always, by established protocol, made aware of their major and side effects in relation to their own goals and self perceptions with regard to gender.
On the basis of the forgoing, trans healthcare is considered life saving by a vast consensus of medical professionals.
Now let’s hear your side of this totally good faith discussion you’ve been talking about.
I agree with the previous poster. Medical evidence from a country with for-profit healthcare should be discounted until proven by non-money-motivated experts
Greed can’t be trusted, and these are children we’re talking about
All American medical science is inadmissible in your view? Ironically I was responding to someone else that was lamenting how people weren’t engaging with the evidence in good faith. But hey, who needs to think critically when you can just twist it into a capitalism bad argument. With bathwater like that, who needs babies?
Yeah, I am all for criticizing capitalism but ffs that’s not the problem here. It is not as if the US is the only place that puberty blockers are used. Other industrialized countries with universal healthcare do as well. The issue is transphobia, clear and simple.
Doctors in Spain, France, Netherlands, Poland, Norway and Denmark also prescribe hormone blockers to minors, just to say a few. Is that non-profit enough for you?
Yeah, again, I’m not trying to argue either way. I’m just saying you can’t pretend to not understand why people are apprehensive, regardless of right or wrong. And it’s not like the medical industry has never gotten anything wrong and we find out it’s been hurting or killing people for decades.
I can’t understand why people can’t just mind their own business. Let me rise my children according to what science says, not what your feelings say. What parents want is to keep their children safe, and puberty blockers helps these children avoid hardships later in life.
You can’t understand why people care about others? I guess we don’t need child protective services. Just let people raise children however they want! No parent has ever abused children before! Mind your own business!
No one has ever used “science” to justify crimes, right? Because as we all know, science has no room for debate and all scientists agree with each other.
I don’t understand why you’re replying to me with this, it’s not relevant to what I was saying. I actually agree with you but you’re sabotaging your own argument with shit logic.
You’re missing the fact that you could easily replace “science” in their comment with “Facebook”, because those are the “scientists” they’re referring to
Yes, I can. But this law is the opposite of caring about others. You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.
Then we’ve answered your question about why people “can’t just mind their own business”.
You’re just able to twist anything and disguise it as empathy “for the children” and couldn’t care the least what the children actually want.
If you’re just going to assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so on the basis that they’re just a giant piece of shit out to hurt people for no reason, then there is no discussion to be had, and no progress to be made.
Maybe open your mind to the possibility that that’s not true, and that people simply have legitimate concerns for children, much like yourself, even if they are misplaced. If you want to actually improve the situation you’ll try to empathize and educate them rather than instantly lambast them and treat them like human garbage.
The difference is that a blanket ban, even a temporary one “just in case”, is actively hurting children. In the UK, trans teenagers need several years of counseling and doctor visits and jumping through hoops before they can actively start transitioning. These drugs help at least halting puberty, otherwise total transition is much harder or impossible. I don’t think these drugs should be easily accessible, but right now it’s already so hard to get, that kids are getting them from the dark web in secret!
Sure, there are bad parents, and abusive parents. But you can’t justify saving children by hurting other children. I’m not “assuming” anything. Defending this ban is literally hurting children.
Again, you are still trying to argue about why the OP topic is bad. I know. I agree. That is not the conversation I am trying to have.
But you can’t justify saving children by hurting other children…Defending this ban is literally hurting children.
Other people disagree with you. That is the whole point. They would say the exact same thing about you. That doesn’t make them bad people, it just makes them misinformed.
It’s possible to have a reasoned discussion without “tolerating” the position.
I’m not saying that there aren’t regular, reasonable people who have genuine concern based in the wellbeing of kids who feel uncomfortable about gender affirming care
Then I don’t understand why you’re arguing with me. That’s all I’m saying.
But I have to say that I feel like your position, that we should engage in good faith with people purporting extreme hateful ideology, is extremely harmful
It’s only “hateful” if you assume their view can be solely attributed to malice, which you’ve already admitted is not necessarily the case.
And judging them and lobbing insults is super helpful?
but tone policing people is really unacceptable imo
LOL “tone policing”? What does that even mean? I don’t even know what your, or anyone else’s tone is.
Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Oh good, MLK was a conspiracy to keep the black man down. And I suppose we never landed on the moon either? Otherwise everyone would know the Earth was flat 🤣
If they actually cared, they would take the time to understand the actual situation and realize that puberty blockers aren’t experimental or dangerous.
Being apprehensive about something you don’t understand is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves with their doctor because of the apprehension is not acceptable (or it shouldn’t be at least).
Every medical procedure has consequences, as does the forgoing of such procedure. The decision should be left for each individual to decide for themselves, not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
Taking away people’s choice to make an informed decision for themselves
These are children we’re talking about. We don’t allow them to make decisions for themselves, informed or otherwise, for lots of things. Parents often cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for their children either.
not a government making medical decisions for all people while being ignorant of their situation.
We also don’t let doctors make many medical decisions. The medical industry is incredibly-highly regulated, regardless of what region we’re talking about. Doctors and hospitals care about money more than anything, like most humans. They will do whatever you want for the right price.
The government makes rules to protect its’ citizens from harm. You can argue that they made the wrong decision, but to argue that they shouldn’t be allowed to make any decisions is nothing short of anarchy.
As an anarchist, yeah that’d pretty much be anarchy.
We couldn’t have people make decisions for themselves I guess! We have to make sure those rich elites in control of the government are there to protect us from our total stupidity. /s
Of course there need to be regulations. The procedure needs to be tested to be safe on humans (which it has, to a higher degree than many other medicines), and the parents/guardians would need to reach a decision with their child and with a licensed medical professional.
Government officials aren’t licensed medical professionals. They shouldn’t be making that decision. They should lay out the groundwork for licensing and medical testing and leave the actual results and decisions to the professionals and the patients.
they’re not taken out because people have bad decision making ability but because they’re left with no other choices.
Bruh have you forgotten about the global recession of 2006? There were people that had 4 and 5 houses.
You’ve never heard of the auto loan scams?
Never heard of the mobile home scams?
None of those situations are improved by people taking out loans they know they can’t afford.
Quoting the dictionary isn’t how you learn about things!
So…how am I supposed to learn, exactly? You’re going to tell me? Wikipedia says something similar. If there’s another definition, that’s not the one I was referring to. But you knew that, didn’t you?
Have they considered renaming the movement? It’s a bit like “believe all women” or “anti-work”. You’re shooting yourself in the foot by using words with concrete definitions that don’t mean what you’re trying to convey.
I mean when everyone else has a common understanding of the term, and you’re the only one with the “correct” understanding, doesn’t it make more sense that maybe you are the one with the misunderstanding?
Generally anarchists want regulations to protect people from being preyed upon. It doesn’t want people telling them how to live their lives. People should have the liberty to choose how to live for themselves, as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others. No one should have the power to control another person’s life. We need to have regulations that protect people and to keep things ordered, but we don’t need anybody ruling over others.
Some definitions, sure. Not all of them. Not lawlessness and chaos, which is how it’s normally portrayed in the media. Ordered liberty without hierarchy is what it is.
The Wikipedia page seems to be generally correct. It’s a pretty broad political spectrum though with a reasonably long history. Some anarchists disagree with each other (as people in any group do) so there isn’t a perfect definition. The synopsis of the wiki is probably as good as you’ll get without reading the literature. Proudhon is probably the most famous anarchist, if you want to read up on his works.
Your average person may feel apprehensive about puberty blockers and hormone treatment because conservative/right wing news propaganda has been lying to people and misinforming them for over a decade on this issue. Your average person may not know better because misinformation is rampant.
But the people in positions of power, such as Victoria Mary Atkins? It’s part of their job to be properly informed, and she is, and she doesn’t care. She still had the gall to cite the Dr. Cass review when pushing through this harmful rule that’s going to irreparably harm trans children.
Dr. Hilary Cass knows better too. The people in power on the right love that review because it gives an appearance of legitimacy to their cruelty against trans people, and lawmakers and judges know they can use it to push though their anti-trans agendas.
I mean there’s having a discussion and then there’s just dishonest refusal to even acknowledge an opposing view.
Lol what does “having a discussion” look like to you? Maybe asking questions like “Why…?”, literally presenting an opportunity for someone to answer the question? Because maybe you need to re-read my initial comment.
You can’t fathom a reason people might be concerned about children being given non-medicinal drugs that block puberty?
Puberty blockers are being offered in a medical context, generally after extensive work with the patient. These aren’t hormones being bought over the dark web and taken (or administered) in secret.
There’s also a difference between being “concerned” (which the Doctors ARE…hence why these aren’t over-the-counter substances), and wanting it made illegal.
Because you cant just block puberty for a few years and expect it to jump start perfectly after that. Theres little to no long term studies on the effects of puberty blockers. Potentially, puberty blockers can cause sterilization and weaken your bones.
Minors cant get tattoo, why let them make this sort of decision?
You. Don’t get therapy before getting a tattoo. You do get therapy and medical counceling before starting any sort of treatment like this. Your comparison is ridiculous.
Puberty also has significant consequences. The fact that your body is going to go through it without intervention doesn’t change that there are consequences to consider.
Puberty blockers have been used for decades, mostly for non-trans patients. I’m sure the effects are fairly well understood, as far as any medical procedure can be understood.
My dad got a knee replaced not too long ago. He was told about the potential consequences and everything it may involve. He spoke with his doctor about what it’d entail many times. He made the decision to go ahead with it. He ended up regretting it and generally having more issues than it solved.
Does that mean people shouldn’t be allowed to get knee replacement surgery? Of course not. You talk it through with your doctors (and parent/guardian in this case) and make an informed medical decision. The government shouldn’t be making medical decisions for people, especially for things they don’t fully understand themselves. People should be allowed to make their own medical decisions.
Yes, I do. The side effects include everything puberty does, it affects your height, your bone density, brain development, energy levels, heart problems, the list goes on and on.
They need therapy, and puberty blockers have to be done as puberty starts, and that deadline causes steps to be skipped, things rushed, corners skipped, and once its done, its done. You cant undo it.
Imo, the therapy phase shouldnt stop until they are 18.
They need therapy, and puberty blockers have to be done as puberty starts, and that deadline causes steps to be skipped, things rushed, corners skipped, and once its done, its done. You cant undo it.
Hold on. Puberty is the thing that is forcing things to be done in haste. Puberty blockers give people time to figure things out. That’s the point of it. It gives time to think. Puberty has significant consequences and side effects. Delaying that the effects are just that it’s delayed. It’s preventing the effects. Some people go through puberty later than others. Puberty blockers are largely just a mechanism we have to control when that happens. You can’t undo going through puberty, but you can largely undo the effects of puberty blockers.
First of all, puberty blockers require no surgery.
The benefit of the medical intervention should compare costs and benefits. Even for children we do many medical treatments that can’t be undone because the benefits seem to outweigh the possible negatives that come with it. For example, fixing a cleft lip has some pretty large consequences, particularly socially, and can’t be undone.
We also allow some things that have essentially no positive and don’t have the child’s consent, such as circumcision.
Medical decisions should be made by the patient, their doctor, and their parent and/or guardian if that applies. It should not be made by you. You can’t weigh the costs and benefits for them since you have no idea on every person’s circumstances. If they think the outcome will be better with the treatment then it should be their decision.
Removing choice is not something anyone should be in favor of doing. You would not find it acceptable for other people to tell you you can’t do things you’d like to do, so leave others to make their own decisions. Assuming that you know what’s best for them is controlling and demeaning. They’re far more capable in making that choice for themselves than you are.
Trans people have been chosen as the current boogeyman of the UK for them to expiate for their own failings as a country, and for the consecutive disasters provoked by the Tories. It’s a sleight of hand that allows them to distract the public with a fear without basis on reality in order to avoid taking responsibility of their own failures.
Where I live, immigrants are the new boogeymen too. But the Conservatives have a big market in immigrants too, so when “other immigrants, not YOU immigrants” doesn’t work, I guess that’s what trans people are for! Lol
As you step off the train you are met with the void. As the last glimpse of the train disappears you realized you are doomed to wander the void forever.
(I honestly don’t really know were this comment is going. It just sounded funny in my head.)
Add comment