@Conservautism's banner p

Conservautism

Doubly Afraid of Change

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 October 23 18:45:23 UTC

I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.

Verified Email

				

User ID: 1719

Conservautism

Doubly Afraid of Change

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 October 23 18:45:23 UTC

					

I am actively attempting to deradicalize myself. I dislike puritanism and intolerance. DM me if you want my Discord, Twitter, Reddit, etc.


					

User ID: 1719

Verified Email

A long time ago, we used to award internets for posts such as these. I don't know if I'm still qualified to issue an internet, but if I am, then you have won an internet, good sir.

First, HRT is done under the supervision of a medical professional. Medical professionals are gatekeepers for a lot of high-risk things. An MD can prescribe a 14 year old addictive opiate painkillers if they think it's medically appropriate, for example. In that sense, I don't see HRT as "special" compared to other medications that might be prescribed to a teenager by a doctor. Even if we're purely concerned with mental health questions, there are a lot of powerful psychiatric medications that can be prescribed to a minor, and I don't know that they're any less serious consequentially than HRT.

You make a very good point. To this, I counter: if a medical professional and both parents approve of a minor's marriage to an adult, shouldn't that be allowed, just as it's allowed for a minor to take opposite-sex hormones under those circumstances?

(This is not an example of the slippery slope fallacy, because I am attempting to apply meta-level reasoning across the board. The reason for the "groomer" discourse is that conservatives generally see these things as equivalent, while leftists don't.)

I'd like you guys to refrain from responding to this message (the one you are reading right now) unless you either are someone who holds the beliefs I am trying to engage with, or you can steelman how someone who holds those beliefs would respond to what I'm saying. Expressions of agreement are useless to me here. Thank you. (I have tried to get this discussion going on Twitter, but as one would expect, it hasn't worked.)

clears throat

So you, hypothetical person, believe that if a trans child has been on puberty blockers for the maximum of two years, then they should be allowed to switch over to HRT, even if they haven't reached the age of consent. So, for example, if a child starts blockers at age 12, then they should be able to switch over at age 14, even though the age of consent is no lower than 16 anywhere in the United States.

Why should the age of consent for HRT, the "real deal" of transitioning, be lower than the age of consent for sex? If you say that HRT is less harmful for children than sex with an adult, you need to be able to substantiate your claim.

From my perspective, I have to constantly buy from people who are equivalent to the sellers in this story, with the notable exception of Hitler. To my knowledge, I've never given money to anyone who has orchestrated genocide, but I have given money to people who support Antifa, buy "supplies" for Antifa, and who have bailed Antifa out of prison.

From my perspective, people who even ask the question of "should I give money to this person" are operating from a place of privilege. JK Rowling may have lobbied for laws that you oppose, but I doubt she's in any way connected with violent crime, or "extrajudicial vigilantism against groomers".

I watched The Wizard of Oz in its entirety for the first time recently, and the main body of the film being a dream sequence totally breaks it.

So the moral is that rather than running away to a fantasy world where your dog, your only friend in the world, will be by your side for everything that happens, and where you'll also make new friends, you should instead stay home, where your only friend is your dog and the local government has ordered that your dog be euthanized.

Look, the stuff about how Dorothy's friends were already smart/caring/brave and were just beset by a lack of confidence was really good. I loved that! But it's not a real moral, because those friends weren't real. Dorothy's subconscious made them up. The point of that stuff is how it informs the real world part of the story. And it doesn't, really.

And yeah, I know that the dream stuff wasn't in the book, but I think it was added to the movie during the initial screenwriting phase, not as reshoots. So it should've felt more connected.

I don't know whether to believe Vivek or the DeSantis stand about the anti-anti-Semitism bill. I trust you guys. Anyone wanna take a crack at it?

That makes sense, but it's also infuriating, because as far as I'm concerned, it means nothing, but I'm supposed to be able to tell what it means.

I support all trans rights except the right to receive hormones prior to the age of consent, and I hate their language policing and intolerance of comedy that pokes fun of them (which is a problem with leftists in general, but especially trans people as of late). Does that mean I should say I support trans rights, or that I want to protect trans kids? I don't know! From what you're saying, it sounds like, in doing so, I'd be performing a shibboleth for the wrong clique. This concept really does remind me of how high school is depicted in movies and TV.

My K-12 education didn't have cliques. It had friend groups, but nothing like the hierarchies and allegiance tests you'd see in Glee, Heathers, Mean Girls, High School Musical, etc. But my adult life has been full of them. I wonder why my school life didn't have them. Did they go dormant for a couple decades after the 90's before resurfacing? Were Hollywood writers projecting adult experiences onto teenagers all along? Were they always there, but I just didn't notice because nobody cared about politics until I finished high school?

A groomer is someone who subtly leads children or similarly vulnerable to make decisions that they otherwise wouldn't make. In recent years, its connotation with sex has overshadowed all other meanings. The people accusing trans activists of being groomers weren't, to my knowledge, accusing them of sexual grooming when the meme took off, but it's devolved into that because dumb social conservatives are conflating this very real problem with the gay agenda they tried to warn about a decade ago.

America First means putting the needs of one's nation above the other needs of other nations, and American citizens over the needs of foreigners.

"These laws are seen as the government condoning that bullying"

Wait, really? You mean by the bullies (who I assume will use any justification they can to do bullying), or by adults?

It'd be weird if Gwen Stacy was someone who followed orders blindly and this was portrayed as a good thing, because in the previous movie, we saw Uncle Aaron turn into a monster because he did whatever his boss said.

This makes me angry because it's so vague and cannot be inferred, but my pattern recognition tells me this is a problem I have because I'm autistic, and that neurotypicals either find context clues or don't care. Probably the latter.

There's a "protect trans kids" poster on Gwen Stacy's bedroom wall in Across the Spider-Verse. This is the second time I've seen this exact phrase, after Don Cheadle wore it on his shirt when appearing on Saturday Night Live.

Okay, my curiosity is piqued. What does this phrase mean?

I assume this message is in reference to a specific threat that exclusively, or at least disproportionately, impacts trans children. Specifically, my assumption is that it relates to bathroom bills and/or gender affirming care, but I have a close friend who insists that it refers to hate crimes, and he says that I'm "living in a bubble" if I don't think it refers to hate crimes. But I really haven't heard anything about a hate crime surge against transgender children, real or exaggerated. I heard plenty about the supposed hate crime surge against Asians three years ago, so if there was a similar narrative going on with trans kids, I figure I'd hear about that too.

Which isn't to say that I never hear people complain about hate crimes against trans people! But when I do, the discussion is about transgender people of all ages, not specifically children. The only activist movement I hear about that specifically relates to trans children is their supposed right to medically transition, but my friend says I'm being uncharitable if I assume that that's what is being referred to.

I'd appreciate it if you guys help clear this up for me.

Edit: When I told him about this post, my friend clarified that he thinks the ignorance is that I think it implies exclusively to these issues and not to violence.

There's a psychological phenomenon where people overestimate the presence of their outgroup once their space is diversified. For example, when women are integrated into an all-male workplace, the men who were there before might feel that women now make up more than half of the workplace, when they only make up, like, 30%. Or when a social media platform stops banning far-right speech, its userbase might feel that the far-right has taken over the network, when they've merely gone from 2% of posts to 10% of posts. Is there a term for the cognitive bias that I'm describing?

Thank you. I'm mostly able to follow this, but there's one thing I'm still unsure of. Under v8, puberty blockers can start at Tanner Stage 2 (so around age 12), but does hormone therapy still start around 16?

I realized that I don't know WHAT the gatekeeping is like for gender transitions for children, or even for adults. (Though I care more about with children.) Ideally, there'd be brain scans taken and default hormone levels taken, but I've never even heard of the former being done.

Does anyone have any reading material on this, preferably without an obvious bias?

Yet he hasn't committed suicide to avoid the basilisk.

You should start one, but only staff it with people who are anti-woke, just to be safe.

Does Eliezer Yudkowsky, or any other prominent AI writer for that matter, think an And I Must Scream scenario of eternal torment is possible?

God, you're speaking my language. I hate this meme too. I could interpret it charitably by saying they're talking about intersex people, and not about people who choose to identify as they/them, but I've been around the block enough to know that that's what they're talking about.

I don't even have a freaking problem with trans people! I just want to live and let live! Transition as much as you want, this is America, etc. But the activists keep making things so difficult.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Because it's one of my highest moral values, and the only thing that makes me more upset than the lack of fairness is the refusal of most people to acknowledge the lack of fairness. I'm too autistic to handle a society built on lies. I'm glad I'm not in China, where I'd get myself sentenced to death for trying to change my legal name to "Tiana Man Square", but this is still far from ideal.

You misunderstand. I don't think evolution is wrong. I know it's true. I'm saying that its truth value may be incidental to its acceptance. It seems probable that if the acceptance of evolution were, somehow, going to hurt the left instead of the right, it never would have become accepted.

The early 21st century stuff is what I lived through, and I took it seriously when I was happening because I was in the fifth grade and thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the greatest comic invention ever. I wasn't even thinking about the Scopes trial as I wrote my post. I should've expanded my frame of reference while writing.

Still, my point stands. There were efforts to get intelligent design taught in schools in the 00's, which were defeated by the left, because they.. cared about the truth? Or because they cared about stomping on the right?

(cue Idubbz speech about Sam Hyde and post-irony)

You seem to think that HBD is silly, but also that the claim that differences in outcome between groups are primarily caused by oppression is silly. And that's fine! My point is that the strong preference in polite society for one over the other is hard to reconcile with evolution being similarly preferred over intelligent design unless one takes the Schmittpill.

("Preferred" is putting it mildly, since we're talking bans and blacklisting, but I'm too tired to think of a better word.)