site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   7607 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 22, 2026

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I slightly object to Armie Hammer as being described as someone who got cancelled for being "MeToo'd". If I remember right a bunch of texts got leaked where he talked about wanting to eat a girl, not just cunnilingus, but cannibalism.

I'd say he had a very weird kink, and it got aired to everyone. His former roles were perfect looking bland white guys, and that leak ruined that type of role for him.

His family is also apparently very weird, and so some of that got aired out during this as well.

Free speech is a pressure valve. The more open the speech the faster that pressure dissipates.

Too many leaders in the West seem to want to emulate China, Russia, and the middle eastern censorship regimes without copying the most important aspect of those systems: they kill or imprison the dissenters for life. When you silence someone they don't go away. They are still there, but now even more angry that they have been silenced, and more certain that they are right. Do this to enough people and those people can build a coalition together purely on the energy of "we hate you". I think this is what helped Trump win both times.

Its silly to ban a mediocre movie by a terrible director starring a celebrity with a cannibalism fetish. The aspects of the movie itself are enough to tank to it as a piece of effective propaganda. The only thing it has going for it is the censorship.

the top level is filtered.

And another culture (and shooting) war event happening right now, event of more importance than the pathetic one in Montreal.

After a year (lightning speed for justice) events that happened during protest at ICE detention center in July 4, 2025 were resolved.

In rather unexpected way, by maximum possible prison sentences.

Benjamin Song, who fired the gun at the police officer, was sentenced to 100 years in prison. Song was convicted of attempted murder of an officer of the United States, as well as firearm and explosives charges. He was also convicted of riot, providing material support to terrorists. He faced anywhere from 20 years to life in prison.

Zachary Evetts, Autumn Hill, Savanna Batten, Elizabeth Soto and Meagan Morris were sentenced to 50 years in prison. Maricela Rueda, another demonstrator, was sentenced to 70 years in prison. All six were convicted of riot, providing material support to terrorist, and explosive charges. Rueda was also convicted of corruptly concealing a document or record.

Ineffectiveness of your resistance is no longer an mitigating circumstance, and using Signal is highly aggravating one.

The judge openly said that the sentences are meant to "send a message".

As expected, Xitter celebrates while Bluesky mourns. We will see if this is one time occurance, or Trump's promise to crack down on Antifa was meant seriously.

Benjamin Song, who fired the gun at the police officer,

Somehow, it went from shooting the officer in the neck (in official documents) to hitting the officer in the shoulder (earlier in the article) to firing a gun at the police officer (here). Give it a few more paragraphs, and maybe we'll learn that Song never touched a gun at all, he was totally somewhere else with good friends that will vouch for his whereabouts.

And the Guardian is supposed to be a barely-left-wing news organization. I shudder to think what actual partisans are reporting.

It sounds kinda like some of the sentences may be excessive, but I can't tell because the leftist orgs which say so keep referring to it as a "protest".

e.g. The defendants, who were protesting the Prairieland immigration detention center in Alvarado, Texas

When they refuse to acknowledge this wasn't just a protest, I suspect if they're lying when they claim a defendant was sentenced to 30 years for nothing more than moving a box of "antifascist zines".

A guy, as part of the conspiracy, shot at federal agents. That any still have their lives ahead of them in any respect shows the leniency baked into the system.

At the very least thé sentence lengths seem accurate.

I’m reminded of the government crackdowns on anti-nuclear(weapons) protestors. Most of these people had aggravating circumstances just a bit worse than their confreres are willing to admit, but they still got the book thrown at them.

The court documents are split between three different pages due to glitchiness in RECAP: 1 2 3

There's no sentencing transcript yet, of course.

Reference is made to a pre-sentence report (laying out the prosecutor's rationale for requesting long prison sentences), but I can't find it.

I was going to write a post about ripples in the pond of social sciences but plans are on hold due to a happening. Shooter kills one civilian and cop in Montreal outside a Hilton.

Officers were responding to a report at 11:35 a.m. of shots fired and a gun protruding from an upper-floor window at a hotel in the Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood when they encountered a gunman on the ground and exchanged fire, Montreal Police Chief Fady Dagher said at a news conference. Dagher said the shootout took place outside a Hilton. The video indicated that the location is the Hilton Garden Inn Montreal Midtown.

Robots Sources say that "the headquarters of Aylo (the parent company of Pornhub) is located in the Côte-des-Neiges neighborhood of Montreal, Quebec." That might place this shooter in the neighborhood of Aylo's headquarters to target Pornhub, which fits with the general anti-degeneracy notions in a 104 page manifesto that surfaced. It has been so long since we've gotten a proper manifesto, and this is a proper manifesto (PDF). Broadly, we are reading the thoughts of a man who wants to represent, organize, and better the lives of "dispossessed" men-- with many topics familiar to this forum about men and women in Western world touched upon in the first half. Moral decay, Chad-Stacy hypergamy, and unfair, undesirable, or dysfunctional dating/mating norms. He wants to do this by replacing the capitalist "neoliberal hypergamy state" with communism, won and run by those formerly dispossessed, which would not be quite as common here. Some highlights I saw while reading.

To fix modern gender relations and society he wants to place theories of class consciousness to one side (by no means out of the way) while introducing a new biological consciousness so that dispossessed men can organize and act upon. Put those men to work in a revolution.

So, it may be said that the insurgency process of the dispossessed class exists in two main stages. The first of them is the spreading of biological conciousness to the dispossessed on a massive scale. This must be done because, as we know, the vanguard cannot form effectively until the conciousness of the dispossessed reaches critical mass.

The second stage is the seizure of positions of power by the revolutionary vanguard, and the subsequent usage of their newfound power to carry out the liquidation of the hypergamy state. The revolutionary vanguard should operate in a clandestine manner throughout this process however, not presenting their core doctrine as being the elimination of systemic hypergamy. Instead, they should take on the visible forms of a variety of political movements (e.g. conservative socialism, Duginism, communism, Islamic theocracy) in accordance with the social conditions of their respective areas, while keeping their main intentions either hidden or ostensibly marginal.

It'd be difficult to organize the incel vanguard on a good day, it's hard enough to get men to queue up on video games. To do so covertly, under the auspices of established political movements, seems extra difficult. Our author partly recognizes this, so he offers a stage one insurgent phase. First, pay more attention to women who lie about dating preferences and ruminate on it. Second, self-improvement ("body purification") but no weight lifting, because it takes too much time, is a bourgeois scam, and sports are suspect as well. No distraction from the revolution. After self-improvement there are a few paragraphs reminding future revolutionaries to avoid rap music:

I will say that there is one form of music in particular which is and always shall be absolutely unacceptable for any self-respecting insurrectionary of our cause to listen to. This is so-called ‘rap’ music, which is unfortunately the most popular music in the west at the time of this writing.

Finally, become an insurgent, which means killing certain people identified later in the document. In short, he thinks the insurgents should kill pretty much everyone in a position of power or wealth including influencers of all stripes. That makes sense, reforming society and all. He also thinks all the drug dealers, gangsters, and so on should be liquidated. The author features many inspirational quotes by Bolsheviks, as well as other rabble-rousers such as Ulrike Meinhof and Robespierre. Following the insurgency comes the revolution.

The essential political conditions of a society in which capitalism/liberalism, and thereby, hypergamy itself, are not part of the established order of things, have mostly already been laid out by Marx, Engels, and others in works such as The Communist Manifesto. In my view, the most important of these basic conditions are:

The full abolition of private property,91 without compensation, and the subsequent nationalization of this property.

  • Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, with the establishment of a central bank and a planned economy.
  • The establishment of state control over the means of transport and communication

No mention of government issued gf's. I believe the hope it won't be necessary, though I don't think the author would be opposed.

To make monogamy prevalent again, one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income. One of the ways that this can be done 91 Private property as in bourgeois private property, and not personal property. 95 gradually, without using too much force, is to simply quietly start introducing robots into female workplaces, as robots will easily be able to perform the sedentary and easy jobs that females overwhelmingly prefer.

Without an income of her own, and without unlimited access to an unlimited number of potential mates, the female will simply need marriage in order to live, just as she once did; and thus she will engage in monogamy willingly. With the new order having introduced robots to replace the vast majority of female workers, the remainder of female workers may then be removed from their workplaces through some legislation that can be quietly passed and enforced on ostensibly mundane pretences, and this will serve to make the male-dominated fields free of what few females are in them or should wish to enter them.

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we? This is boring social engineering in the context of the manifesto which drifts into more fantastical theory, like the cyborg-augmented "extraordinary branch" of the new state to "augment both the bodies and minds" as a kind of Stasi/special forces mixture. Did he forget to mention total war or eternal struggle? No, of course not.

Now, regarding the question of internationalism, it should be said that wherever capitalism survives, the hypergamy state survives, and wherever the hypergamy state survives, it can spread. Therefore we must not allow any liberal or capitalistic enclave, no matter how small, to remain in existence after we take power.

I rate the manifesto 6/10 with significant points given for effort in the context of modern manifestos. Points deducted for my personal revulsion to revolutionary Bolshevism, communism, tangents, and reddit posts. He shares a vision that I don't share with solutions I consider disastrous and/or unrealistic, so I could be unfair. Also, a neoliberal hypergamy state theory is not anywhere as novel or cool as the anarcho-primitivism based vision of Ted K. As an expression of deep frustrations in an atomized world I can understand, though I really think he should have made some money, bought some land, worked it, and entered the BAP-sphere with a Substack via Starlink.

EDIT: "I will go over this methodology briefly here, but for a more complete look at it, see my work The Smile of the Dispossessed; or, Further Instruction on the Implementation of Terror." All I can find by the first title is gay genre fiction, and I get no hits on the latter by a Seth Hatfield or anyone else. AI assisted hallucinations?

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we?

I'm not sure there have been full-blown revolutionary communists here since the site move. I'm a socialist, but obviously I'm not missing (never been to Canada, actually).

So far as I can tell, the shooter himself managed to kill a male cop (Algerian immigrant named muhammed), then the female cop shot and killed some random guy (a rabbi working at pornhub?) and ran away from the shooter?

I think this is a pretty clear signal that women are not supposed to be performing martial roles like being police officers. That's a male thing. Being cool under fire is tough. Men went through thousands of years of brutal selection for martial prowess, bravery and tactical intuition. Boxing, fencing, wrestling, warfighting, streetfighting, wargames... these are all male things, male pursuits and should really be left to men. When there's some story about 'heroic civilian beats terrorist stabber/shooter' it's almost always a man, they are more likely to have that dog in them. Along with the terrorism, shooting and killing too of course. Division of labour, women have their own roles of great importance.

I believe that the heroic quality manifests in different times of their lives. A not insignificant number of women will go down to the knife for their children, even if they are personally the mildest and gentlest of creatures. Valor under fire is something that can only be partially trained, which is why the standards for soldiery and police work should be higher than the general population, and not lowered because of considerations to the representation of the sexes. You either have it or you don't.

I second this. The "mama bear" phenomenon is absolutely real, but I'm not sure if the average woman is quite as willing to put herself in harm's way for the benefit of a complete stranger as the average man is. And that's as it should be: men are stronger and faster than women, eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap.

I don't think this single data point is evidence for much of anything.

However, almost every single vid I've seen of a cop panicking and shooting somebody inappropriately has been a woman. Including stuff like the one where she meant to grab her taser but got flustered and pulled her gun and shot him instead. And that would seem to support your point.

but no weight lifting, because it takes too much time, is a bourgeois scam, and sports are suspect as well.

He's doing the meme. "While you wasted your days in the gym in pursuit of vanity, I cultivated inner strength."

With the new order having introduced robots to replace the vast majority of female workers

Luxury straight patriarchal communism. Looking forward to the political compass memes.

I have shot an SKS a bit. Soft recoil, not heavy or awkward. That's a real WW2 semi auto carbine and it is amazing that this and the Congressional Republican baseball team shooting were not mass slaughters. I've been there fumbling with the stripper clip of rounds, but that's why you practice. These goobers don't and can't get the rifle to work. People who are suicide attacking their enemies but can't be bothered to practice a bit before hand. Perhaps range time is also a "bourgeois scam".

I've always felt like communist and incel logic were essentially the same, so it's interesting to me that it has taken this long for someone to combine them.

Houellebecq was writing about this thirty years ago. The sexual revolution has indeed always drawn sexless men into the extension of the domain of struggle.

Robin Hanson noticed it ages ago:

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/two-types-of-envyhtml

https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/comparing-income-sex-redistributionhtml

This got him labelled the "incel professor" who wanted to enslave women in the mass media, even though he very obviously opposes any kind of coercive redistribution.

Not to be flippant about what is a very sad event, but he really did want State-Issued Girlfriends? I mean, "do away with hypergamy (which I presume he means female hypergamy, and not men wanting to marry high-value women), disseminate biological consciousness to the dispossessed, strip women of any avenues except 'marriage without your choice is the only thing between you and starvation, enjoy being treated as the serf in the domestic sphere!'" all sounds like it would fit neatly beside seizing the means of production etc.

State bureaus to ensure women don't lie about their dating preferences, keep records of single men and women, and start matching them up so no man has to go without sex on demand and the woman can starve (or more likely turn to prostitution) if she doesn't want to marry the guy picked out of the list of "so Bob here is thirty-eight and never had a long-term relationship, it's time".

"Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before."

Could have been lifted from several past discussion threads: prevent women going into higher education, prevent women having jobs outside the home, make women economically dependent on men again, take mate choice out of the woman's hands and give it to her family, and there will never again be any man without a wife to cook for him, clean for him, and fulfil his sexual needs (her sexual needs? don't be stupid, her role is to do what he likes, sex is not about mutuality).

There is still the problem of domestic violence, does the manifesto address this or is the presumption that once every man knows he is guaranteed a woman of his own as chattel, there will no longer be any impetus to beat and abuse their partners? Wouldn't that be nice if true, but violent men don't need an excuse to be violent.

I would agree that his logic leads there, but he literally didn’t say government issued girlfriends. I suspect this is standard utopian logic.

Not directly, that's just a meme. I don't see why he would have been opposed to state issued girlfriends. If his ideal totalitarian government replaces all the women in the workforce with robots to encourage monogamy it's not much of a step for the state to coerce any slow to pair with guns or assignments.

Without an income of her own, and without unlimited access to an unlimited number of potential mates, the female will simply need marriage in order to live, just as she once did; and thus she will engage in monogamy willingly.

"Willingly" is doing a hell of a lot of work there. "I couldn't get a woman of my own until it was literally starvation or marry me" is not a recipe for good marriages, and all the old jokes about adultery and cuckoldry will get a new lease of life. If Sally can't stand Bob but likes Bill, unless Bob is keeping Sally locked up in the women's quarters then she'll find some way to meet Bill and have fun with him.

Swap in "men" for "women" in his manifesto there and see how that bites you. "Ugly, old, mentally ill or simply marrying this person is marrying down women can now have that husband they've always wanted, once men have no option but to marry and then will willingly take the ugly stepsister to bride". Yeah, do you think that works?

нет! Comrade Sally wouldn't dare offend the People's Revolution with counter-revolutionary acts of adultery against a fine worker like you, Comrade Bob. I don't believe it, a treasonous crime in service of the imperialist dogs. It would spit on the glory of the Party. As a precautionary measure, we shall re-educate her in Montana-lag for a period of no less than 5 years to confirm her commitment to the workers of the world. In the mean time you may take your pick of the comfort stock, Comrade Bob.

"I couldn't get a woman of my own until it was literally starvation or marry me" is not a recipe for good marriages

I suppose AI could arrange marriages based on some measure of physical attractiveness and compatibility. Still, it's hard to see how many would win with super egalitarian pairing.

Welp, the incel hysterics can go to sleep satiated. He's a more competent wordcel than Elliot Rodger, as in he reasoned himself into his conclusions (and the shooting) with less vitriol and more verbiosity to fit neatly into the motte. We had a meta-level thread on the reporting variations depending on the perpetrator. Essentially, when the perpetrator is revealed to be an incel (ideological) or any type of right-wing-adjacent, we must treat their alleged behaviours as deterministic, self-evident and an ideologically settled case. But when you prune the actual numbers, even Ross Kemp is confounded.

I will say that there is one form of music in particular which is and always shall be absolutely unacceptable for any self-respecting insurrectionary of our cause to listen to. This is so-called ‘rap’ music, which is unfortunately the most popular music in the west at the time of this writing.

I don't know the context of this, not having read the manifesto myself, but since rap is considered a marker for celebrating black culture, could he be a fellow chud following all those KiA threads?

one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income

Definitely within the motte overton window, and I've seen the "redistribute the pussy" flavour of communism takes elsewhere too.

But capital reigns supreme. Capital is extremely conservative about predictability, any whiff of insurgency will be squashed immediately because capital cannot accumulate where chaos is ambient.

I don't know the context of this, not having read the manifesto myself, but since rap is considered a marker for celebrating black culture, could he be a fellow chud following all those KiA threads?

He didn't mention race beyond a reference to racial issues as a tool of the ruling class.

"Rap is literally the cultural quintessence of the hypergamy state, congealed into a musical form. It is vile, repulsive, foul, and hideous in every way. What does it preach? The worship of wealth and sensory pleasures. The flaunting of jewelry and clothes, insufferable bragging, and the pathetic ridicule of the weak, et cetera. How any of the dispossessed can listen to one second of that filth without instantly bristling with outrage and disgust, I have no idea. And yet, so many of them adore it, and find some kind of perverse enjoyment in listening to wealthy favoured males boast in rhyme about how many girls they have sodomized."

"But of course, all this is to say nothing of the stark fact that rap – in addition to being laughably worthless and disgusting – is also incredibly boring and dated now. It isn’t cutting edge, it isn’t fresh, and it isn’t revolutionary. This isn’t 1991 anymore, and rap has become a tired, corpulent, rotting old genre. It’s not even too much of an exaggeration to say that everyone and their mother now listens to it. One cannot step outside for more than five seconds without hearing someone blasting it from their car, and they literally play it at family diners now. All in all it simply isn’t the new and mysterious phenomenon that it once was, and it’s time for it to die forever."

"After we take power, the despicable ‘musicians’ and other people behind the propagation of rap should be some of the first ones that we liquidate, should any of them still be living by that point."

He felt very strongly about it to leave it in despite it being a personal tangent. I could understand why it irked him if rap was popular in his circles, though popular music in general is filled with similar messages if to lesser degrees.

Me? I'm not against rap. I'm not against rappers. But I am against those thugs.

What does it preach? The worship of wealth and **sensory pleasures The flaunting of jewelry and clothes, insufferable bragging, and **the pathetic ridicule of the weak.

"I hate sexual hedonism and violent alphas punching down on the weak. This is why I'm going to start an armed anti-feminist revolution to guarantee every man's right to fuck, and if the hoes don't like it, tough."

I think what irks him about rap is "inferior* males boasting of all the women they got" while he, a Nice Guy, can't even catch a cold.

*Does not have to be about race! It's about "these guys are low-class, trashy, thugs and criminals who undeservedly are getting lots of money and lots of pussy".

Welp, the incel hysterics can go to sleep satiated.

The "please let the shooter be white cis" crowd must be breathing a sigh of relief.

one of the main factors will be to get the female out of the workplace, and to generally stop her from having her own income

You can force a woman to marry you under this regime. You can't make her like you, and I think even the dispossessed men will be frustrated when the woman saddled with them clearly doesn't want to even be in his vicinity and only by force tolerates him around her.

Now, it could sort of work if there were dating bureaus where people did get realistic assessment of "no, you are not going to get Chad/no, you are not going to get the hot anime waifu, this is your level in potential mates" and people have a choice as to whether they hit it off with the assigned date. But if you are relying on force and coercion, you won't get "she really loves and values me for myself" if that's what you're after.

You can get workable relationships that develop into mutual affection and respect over time out of that system, at worst "well I have to get married, might as well be this guy". But I think if you want to think of yourself as "dispossessed", you won't settle for that. You want the hot, desirable girl lusted after by others but she is head-over-heads in love with you and thinks the sun shines out of your backside, not the relationship that's "we're mutual helpmeets in an up-and-down world, let's make the best of things, yes my hair will go gray and I'll get thicker round the middle after having a couple of kids over the decades, you'll go bald and need glasses and forget where you put things, we'll soldier on together".

I don’t think this really defensible after you look at civilized society say 100 years ago. Most people say 90% sorted themselves, changed their minds about what they can expect from the partner that they can get, settled, and learned to love their partner, let’s say varying definitions of love, and they had long relationships, made children, built a family, etc.

To me it seems like what you’re describing are these idealized fantasies that people have before they try to find long term relationships and sort of reset their expectations and self-perception for what they can actually get.

Yeah I mean I know enough relatives who grew up in effectively these conditions (My dad's in his 80s now, has a large number of female siblings most of whom married before 20 to get out of the house/after getting pregnant) and I don't think the average quality of match is some massive departure from what the same women would be doing circa 2025. It's all pulling from the same fundamental social networks for the most part, and 'I'm going to select for somebody who is a somewhat stable wage-earner' as a motivation produces different results to 'I'm going to select for whoever gives me the strongest emotional pull'.

I also feel similar about arranged marriage as a whole. I'm not supporting knifepoint 12 year olds marrying 80 year olds, but I've got Indian friends and that 'strong introduction to somebody of about the same SES as you' pathway seems to work pretty fine on the aggregate? Maybe I have insufficient faith in the ability of people trying to self-source 'love matches'

Well, were we have a winner of "most ineffective terrorist of the week". This event pushed the total tally of "incel" terror attacks worlwide in the last decade to about dozen.

Overall, incels have long way to go to be true menace.

Because most mass shooters are low agency, low competence (Exceptions: Tarrant, Paddock, Breivik). High agency competent people have greater tradeoffs, beware if that changes.

And since there is no trace of "high agency competent people" in incel movement, incel revolution is, so far, cancelled.

Periodically, we see an incel leader who seems to develop a sense of agency from his assumed role, and shortly after finds a girlfriend.

I read (glanced over and noted the arguments) the manifesto, and it leaves me with an awkward feeling.

Basically the guy is pretty much correct on the pure factual level about everything he's seeing.

Its clear to me that he has directly experienced the modern, toxic dating pool/culture, and was probably caught between the impulse to adapt to it as it exists, or to lash out against it as an unfair, unsustainable, unhealthy artifact of modern culture.

The fact that he analyzed it with lefty-coded language is interesting but doesn't add much insight.

I find his ultimate methods abhorrent, unjustifiable and ineffectual.

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome. Solving the problems he identifies requires coordinated efforts.

So I'll keep my points brief:

I've pointed out how Male Grievances are almost never given any legitimate airing in mainstream publications. Indeed, it is exceedingly rare for a male writer to get to publish a piece on gender issues at all!

As you noted, Men are not allowed to organize around their own interests as a gender.

No politician ever voices male grievances as part of a policy platform.

So as this guy found, if you have not built up a large following a la Clavicular, your concerns will never get heard, your voice will never raise above the din of social media. You functionally do not exist.

And the one mainstream figure who was willing to voice these concerns was Charlie Kirk, and he got murdered by a lefty.

Oh, and add on that Lone wolf shooters like Luigi Mangione can garner significant female attention.

A lot of guys will connect the dots thusly:

"I have no real hope of getting a wife and happy family in my lifetime. I have no political representation. Nobody will listen to me if I speak out myself. No publications will ever stump for my concerns. I can't organize with other males to advocate for my interests, and if I DO become famous and popular whilst speaking out, I can just be killed in cold blood. However, if I do enough damage and spill enough blood, suddenly I have people paying attention to me... and if I survive I might see increased female attention to boot. Worth a shot."

Something something burning down village to feel warmth.

So my ongoing concern is that we're going to see a serious uptick in young male crashouts that involve (attempts at) mass killings or destruction, many of which won't be as thoughtfully targeted as this one.

Quoth me:

What do you think happens if a generation where an actual majority of the men don't even believe in gender equality achieves political power?

Implement some solutions now to correct course, or I'm genuinely afraid for how the Zoomers will end up addressing this problem that, from their perspective, stole their future.

This guy was a 25. A Zoomer. The concerns he puts forth in that manifesto are WIDELY HELD amongst Zoomer males.

And these Zoomers are NOT BEING OFFERED A BETTER PATH FORWARD in the status quo.

Solve for Y chromosome.

This had zero effectiveness in moving the needle on any cause he was pushing; he could have just as effectively taken a dump and made an MRA sculpture out of it.

On the systemic level, I'm sympathetic to your concerns. But they are pointed at something universal and timeless; fair or unfair as they are, they aren't changing now, tomorrow, or a thousand years in the future. The male sex will never be considered a victim sex or a sex worthy of public consideration. That's simply descriptive, not prescriptive.

That doesn't mean policy can't improve things for men, but it can't be on that basis. Get rid of credentialism; don't flood domestic markets with relative low wage competition; end the fad of preferential hiring of women for entry level positions. You can make arguments for those without asking people treat men as a victim sex; do that instead.

On the personal, non-systemic level, he will ironically probably receive orders of magnitude more romantic attention from a certain (unstable, disturbed) minority of women now, though he won't be able to take advantage of it.

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome.

Spend 10% of what US college degree costs to go live in the Philippines for a year or two and marry a Filipina hottie? He should have definitely at least tried that first.

As you noted, Men are not allowed to organize around their own interests as a gender.

The example to prove the rule: https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2068603499516989781

Rupert Lowe's candidate pulled <10% of the vote in Makersfield and I think Restore has similar numbers nationally. The only time I've seen a political candidate explicitly flag men's issues like this and it's the "call me racist, I do not care; they all have to go back" one.

And the one mainstream figure who was willing to voice these concerns was Charlie Kirk, and he got murdered by a lefty.

Has the "death of the author" already kicked off merely a year+ later? Kirk was not killed for being an MRA he was killed for being a trad conservative influencer and particularly for being anti-lgbtq+. Any man that looks at this as "I can't become famous and speak out about men's dating woes or I'll be killed" is delusional. Your histrionics about this are actively a detriment to people taking men's problems as a class serious. There are a whole host of old MRA folks still around and kicking: Peterson, Farrell, Elam, Straughan, Pizzey, Hoff Sommers, etc. Nobody is killing MRAs for advocating for men.

Whilst I'd agree with the sentiment that Charlie Kirk's anti-trans stuff was most likely the thing that motivated his assassination, the polarization around him and him being treated like the antichrist by people on the left side of the Aisle was more a gestalt of his entire collection of opinions IMO

Its clear to me that he has directly experienced the modern, toxic dating pool/culture, and was probably caught between the impulse to adapt to it as it exists, or to lash out against it as an unfair, unsustainable, unhealthy artifact of modern culture.

Yeah, but he was only 25 (if the reports I'm reading are correct) and a guy whose first impulse when faced with problems is "grab guns, plan out mass shooting" is not - and I may be wrong here - the most stable kind of boyfriend you would prefer. What happens if the pair of you have a serious argument, a really bad blow-up, when in a relationship? It can be fixed, or he decides you need to be shot?

I wouldn't imply this guy was bound for a happy ending, or that ANY woman was going to be a good fit for him.

But on the margins, the fewer stable relationships formed, the more you got guys who might have otherwise been able to get some kind of fulfillment from a family who are instead left out in the cold, and MIGHT be pushed into this sort of action. And to the extent guys like this can't even harbor a HOPE of getting a relationship, more of them might decide to not even try, and then the question is what they do with their lives.

They're not bought in to the future of their society, so where should they direct their efforts?

The social technology for lifelong celibacy has fallen from favor.

What happens if the pair of you have a serious argument, a really bad blow-up, when in a relationship? It can be fixed, or he decides you need to be shot?

Also, since when did women, in general, actually prefer 'stable' boyfriends? Recall my point about Luigi getting fangirls. Although being conventionally attractive helps.

Part of this guy's whole argument is that women are selecting for traits like aggression, short temper, capacity for violence.

The social technology for lifelong celibacy has fallen from favor.

It has but they should take another look: https://carmelitegothic.com/

The fifth clip is monk cowboys... https://www.carmelitemonks.org/index.php

I think the women who fangirl over murderers are literally insane. Especially when it's a guy who killed his last wife/girlfriend. Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

But historically there have been lots of guys who never got married, and lots of 'old maids', even in the days before women were allowed work or be independent of a man. There have always been losers in the reproduction stakes.

I think the women who fangirl over murderers are literally insane.

People draw wild, overgeneralized inferences from this. Supposing 1% of women are sufficiently deranged to get turned on by and reach out to serial killers. In the modern media ecosystem, that serial killer would receive millions of contacts indicating interest. Usually, it's more like hundreds (and, notably, only for the particularly handsome; I'd be curious about the more typical serial killer numbers). A cute female serial killer would probably receive thousands.

A vanishing minority of both sexes think like that.

Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

Having someone willing to kill for you is sometimes fairly useful, particularly if you are bad at killing people. It was considerably more useful in the EEA, as @IGI-111 notes.

Why on earth would you think this is a good idea?

Your children inherit the drive and ability for violence which makes them more fit in a setting where this is rewarded, which was most of human prehistory. Evolution barely cares about the fact that you might get killed by the violent partner you picked so long as you can survive long enough to have children that survive you both.

If people couldn't turn off their rational self interest in the service of genetic fitness, humanity would have gone extinct long ago. You can call people who act on their instincts insane, antisocial, what have you, that doesn't change the existence of the instincts.

But unfortunately I can't readily point towards a more effective strategy that he could implement on his lonesome.

You don't solve societal problems on your lonesome. You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.

Neither is easy, obviously. If you are of a sufficiently analytical mind, you can't just turn that off on command and genuinely believe that everything is fine. But the other option is a degree of enlightenment that is likely only attainable by the few.

Much more likely then that you just kinda suffer from a lack of romance, sex, and community for the rest of your days.

That said, I think most of this pain will be directed inwards. It is very hard to do stuff in the real world when your need for community is unmet. You just don't have the energy. Much easier to rage on the internet. If anything this will probably just lead to more self harm amongst men, which I doubt society will care much about.

You adapt to them. In the modern dating landscape, you either lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all, or you reach a mindset where you are okay with staying a virgin for a long time, potentially forever.

The third option is you lash out at the system itself. For a lone wolf this won't be particularly impactful.

I mean, Clavicular is maybe the ur-example of "lean into the hypergamy and superficiality of it all," he's only twenty years old and is clearly depressed at the life he's now 'stuck' in (by his own doing, naturally). This won't hold over the long term.

Where do we go from here?

MY personal belief is that once we start to lose the Boomers, the primary bulwark against political changes in this country, a LOT of political options that were previously stymied will come on the table.

We might be able to limit how extreme those options end up being.

I don't see why women would want the status quo to change though. They benefit in the short term, and the long term damage is hard to anticipate. Especially so when anyone trying to educate about the downsides is shouted down as "attempting to control women's bodies". In a democracy, we do need the consent of both genders for a norm change to work.

It is also not entirely clear to me that there is a better system to swap to. The old one led to what we have now after all, and it seems fairly undeniable that a lot of people used to end up in bad marriages with people who didn't care much about them regardless.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Females attending college en masse seems like the nexus of many issues.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

That's where they incur significant amounts of debt.

That's where they rack up a body count.

That's where they acquire inflated standards in mate choice.

It burns 4+ years of fertility.

In short, they become far less appealing as partners in most cases, on the back end.

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

I could write a manifesto on that topic, but I wouldn't want to shoot anybody to get it attention.

That's where they get turned into lefties.

Probably not (see The Case Against Education). They were already lefties to begin with. Alexa, play the George Orwell quote.

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

My thesis is that they're just way more susceptible to virtually any ideological brainwashing, just as the Orwell quote implies.

And college is completely captured by lefties at every level, so, that's where the brainwashing pushes them.

College is in my view a large part of the problem. Social Media and Tiktok is another. Arguably that's the mechanism through which they police each others' behavior once they're out of college.

College is in my view a large part of the problem.

It's a nice thesis. It has the disadvantage of conflicting with empirical evidence, though.

More comments

That's where they rack up a body count.

Then the answer is simple: men should now assume the responsibility that was traditionally put upon women, to curb the sensual appetites of the male (or rather, in this case, female). You should have self-respect and discipline, and gently but firmly decline to have anything to do with hanky-panky outside marriage!

After all, women can't "rack up a body count" without guys willing to be those bodies, now can they?

CORRECT.

My modest proposal there is death penalty for such men.

But people find that goes too far, so I would suggest we simply castrate them, as a compromise.

I've already munched on that bullet.

So it stands to reason that making it harder for women (and people in general) to secure student loans would reduce their attendance rates and would organically, downstream of that, lead to more relationships, marriage, and children.

That's simply not going to fly, for as long as people believe in blank statism. Unfortunately, the belief in blank statism has been self-reinforcing, due to policies under its belief leading to less competent people getting elevated to positions of status and power, leading to less rigor and more nonsense being taught as true, leading to more people believing in blank statism. Unfortunately, the beatings will continue until morale improves, or until enough of society is destroyed enough such that no one has the energy to carry out any more beatings than necessary to fend off starvation for one more day. I have no idea how to escape this cycle outside of maybe pinning my hopes on AI actually enabling fully automated luxury Communism, but that's a long shot.

This is why I've said that if I were to become emperor of Earth, one of my first decrees would be to outlaw all demographic-based statistical analysis, under penalty of summary execution, with all civilians being deputized to carry out this punishment. It probably wouldn't be enough to fix it either, but it seems like less of a long shot than AI saving us.

My ongoing modest proposal is RETVRNing to 1993.

Should be return to to 1978 as in 1979 women reach gender parity in attending college. I'm not sure people get how long we've had an egalitarian society, but we are coming up on 50 years. So unless your theory can account for the 14 years prior to 1993 as being ok, you should probably adjust it.

My suspicion is that the rise of 'useless' genders studies degrees and major overproduction of women with degrees took off in the 90's, hence why we didn't really get a swarm of SJWs until the 2010s.

Colleges were hives of leftist thought long before then, but that was counterbalanced by there being ample alternative routes for one's career before that point.

Also, look at the stats on women getting Masters and Doctorate degrees to see where the problem became SERIOUS.

A far wiser man than either of us once noted that the principled application of left-wing equality and classism rhetoric results in sexual justice for incels.

A not insubstantial reason for the rightward shift of young men is that they notice that the left applies Marxist logic to every problem except the one problem that they are bothered by most of all.

"A far wiser man than either of us once noted that the principled application of left-wing equality and classism rhetoric results in sexual justice for incels."

Well, left winger would answer that sex is not necessity like food and shelter, and historically aware person would answer that lack of sex is not revolutionary force, that all historically documented revolts and revolutions were triggered by shortage of food, not sex.

Ahem:

“You can’t compare this to, like, poor people who complain about being poor. Food and stuff are basic biological human needs! Sex isn’t essential for life! It’s an extra, like having a yacht, or a pet tiger!”

I know that feminists are not always the biggest fans of evolutionary psychology. But I feel like it takes a special level of unfamiliarity with the discipline to ask “Sure, evolution gave us an innate desire for material goods, but why would it give us an deep innate desire for pair-bonding and reproduction??!”

And they'd be so wrong it's actually kind of embarassing.

Unmarried men surplus is probably one of the most well established predictors of political instability, it's just not as strong as famine, and it tends to coincide through banditry.

"Partheniae"

Mostly mythical event "at least three distinct traditions", and not rebellion - sending excess populaiton overseas to found new city was SOP at the time. None of the traditions say that Partheniae wanted to get laid, but to get land of their own.

"Sabine women"

Pure mythical event.

"Nian Rebellion"

From your own source:

"Their slogan was "'kill the rich and aid the poor.". Not: "Let's get laid!"

"Crusades"

Economic motive for crusades is completely discredited by modern scholarship - crusading was never profitable, emarking on crusade ruined both ordinary nobles and great kings, but they persevered for centuries, as if they really believed in Holy Land. And sex motive was never ever proposed by anyone.

If lack of sex is common motive for revolutions and urprisings, you would be able to cite numerous examples from well documented history, where well fed and comfortable people go set the world aflame just because they can't get laid.

I did not bring up the crusades and as you point out they are not relevant, so I don't see why you have to reflexively bring up Riley-Smith. The existence of the juvenis as a class generated by primogeniture, which is Duby's central relevant claim here is far less controversial.

And if that is criticized it's under the auspices of primogeniture not being as universal as he assumed, not because it can't mechanically generate the social class he names and its set of incentives.

As to the Nian Rebellion, I'm just going to straight up link the article that makes the relevant claim https://kar.kent.ac.uk/11430/1/surplus_men_IS_article.pdf I think it's a bit silly to deny that the Guang gun existed as a class because you want to believe bandit slogans literally.

Moreover, these are but the most famous examples, you can draw from an almost endless well here, James Barrett or Ben Raffield have made this same argument for the Viking invasions among others: https://profmarkcollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Raffield-et-al-2017-EHB.pdf

The claim that a surplus of unmarried men generates social instability because it creates incentives for defection and banditry is supported by a lot of cross discipline scholarship. I could also have mentionned the work of Laura Betzig which goes over a similar argument on 104 societies, surely that's numerous examples enough: https://www.academia.edu/48337408/Despotism_and_Differential_Reproduction_A_Darwinian_View_of_History

Now it's not airtight and beyond question, what is in social sciences, but the idea that this widely shared and not fringe at all thesis is something that an "historically aware" person could dismiss it out of hand is ridiculous.

Indeed thé crusaders bragged about being unusually non-rapey by the (low)standards of armies at the time. We can probably take this with a grain of salt, but it does indicate sex wasn’t the motive(armies which are motivated by sex slaves tend to brag about how many and how beautiful their captured women are).

Just because you don’t believe in medieval Catholicism doesn’t mean they didn’t.

A not insubstantial reason for the rightward shift of young men is that they notice that the left applies Marxist logic to every problem except the one problem that they are bothered by most of all.

No joke, this is one core reason Marxist movements will always fail, since sexual reproduction is a massive bottleneck, and yet by all lefty logic every person should be 'entitled' to reproduce, yet women are biologically wired to jealously guard their own reproduction, so 'distribution' of sexual contact, let alone actual reproduction, will ALWAYS turn hierarchical, unequal, and skewed towards the 'attractive' males, whilst attractiveness itself is never equally distributed.

Capitalism is unique in that it solves this in a way that enables a man not endowed with reproductive value at birth to channel his energies away from zero-sum conflict toward things (productive economic value) that benefit both himself and society.

I wouldn't say that's unique to capitalism, you are describing most functional social orders throughout history, hell probably the very concept of civilization as a whole.

"one core reason Marxist movements will always fail"

Strange that failure of IRL Marxism (after brilliant success after success that culminated in Marxist governments controlling one third of human race) had nothing to do with this "core reason".

No one opponent of Marxism, whether outside or inside Marxist states, ever cited lack of sex as reason why Marxism is wrong.

Yes, Marxism has multiple "core" reasons for failure; it's probably reasonable at a certain point to just call them reasons.

Still: can you imagine any factors that muddy the link between "X is a reason that Marxism fails" and "X is reported as a reason that Marxism fails"?

For example: can you imagine a social incentive against saying "I oppose X because it leads to me having less sex?"

I don't think the lack of explicitly reporting a particular reason is good evidence the the reason wasn't important.

But people being "entitled to reproduce" was never an actual issue in Marxist societies?

Its not lack of sex, its the basic impossibility of economic calculation when society reaches a certain level of complexity.

The problem is, the distribution of sex is intractable at EVERY level above, maybe, the village, without some distributed coordination method.

Go look at various attempts at forming small scale communes and see how many of those failed because one guy started hogging all the women despite the representation that it was all about free love and equality. Okay, its also because all the labor ultimately fell on the men, or a small subset of them, they can't even get the distribution of LABOR right in these cases.

Ironically, you're thinking too big. Not every "Marxist movement" is the Soviet Union.

Oh, and just a note guess what China has to start cracking down on in the name of Marxism.

Because even under Marxism with Chinese characteristics, you can't make women WANT to settle for just any dude.

Because even under Marxism with Chinese characteristics, you can't make women WANT to settle for just any dude.

This issue is even more present in hyper-capitalist Korea and Japan it doesn't have anything to do with Marxism. It has to do with Asian family social structures being traditional while the economic structure has become more egalitarian along with small family size. Women don't want to get married because they are expected to work, take care of the house hold, take care of the children, take care of her husbands parents and take care of her parents. It's gotten to where Asian families are attempting to unload the entire social burden of an extended family onto one 28 year old woman it's not sustainable and is a big part of the collapse of birthrates and marriage in these societies.

China under Mao didn't have these problems. Many other more horrific ones but not these ones.

Videos:

A combined angle synchronized of three videos: https://x.com/The_Tradesman1/status/2069354541657804927

Closer distance, clearest view of female cop probably shooting the civilian (reported a Rabbi?): https://x.com/Breaking911/status/2069136830054727705

Longer distance: https://x.com/Breaking911/status/2069111728852414927

Video backups:

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2069354457117388802/vid/avc1/1280x720/5HMLCJhzDVe_P9pw.mp4

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2069136759535837184/vid/avc1/356x640/5a2XMFxz2oj710_8.mp4

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/2069111662708195328/vid/avc1/528x944/7WQTnZ_PspNQhDlz.mp4

Manifesto backup:

https://files.catbox.moe/he2mxy.pdf

Or you can just use the Kiwi Farms thread. (I think people have mentioned previously that Catbox blocks access from many locations. It also has an explicit rule against uploading "heavy gore".)

With modern technology, one would think that it would be possible to put women in frontline combat roles. Yet empirically, this doesn’t happen. Watching videos of the shooting, it hit me that there must be some psychological “it” factor for tactical situations that women don’t reliably have.

I think most men lack it as well but those that don't just tear it apart. I think it was Generation Kill where I learned that a tactic when ambushed is to leave the vehicles and "assault through" the ambush. 1st Recon had zero KIA.

You can beat it into men, and if in the process you destroy a few you can't beat it into, nobody cares. That's what military training is about.

A Communist incel angry about free internet porn going spree shooting, leading to a Canadian woman cop killing a Jewish figure hits so many culture war points that it basically proves the simulation hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt.

He also picked what some are saying to be the neigborhood of pornhub's parent company. Some are even saying the jewish man who was shot worked at pornhub. (unverified)

That's a very painful watch. It's not so absolutely clear that I want to stake a wager on it, but there's... very few alternative explanations I can come up with. Doubly so in Canada; it's not like the cop could argue that she though it was a CCWer gone mad.

((Extremely dark humor: given the allegations that the shooter was incel- or incel-adjacent, it looks like even going on a spree shooting wouldn't make a woman hit him.))

The Hilton in question is literally across the street from Aylo (Pornhub) headquarters. Aylo is listed on Google maps, it's easy to verify. It would be an insane coincidence if that was not his target.

My guess is that this incident will get pushed out of the news cycle pretty quickly. Only one civilian was killed, and based on video taken of the incident, many online suspect that the female police officer accidentally shot and killed him. There is video of the civilian fleeing towards her position, the police officer appearing to be startled, pointing her firearm towards him, and then the man falls to the ground. Police refuse to confirm or deny this.

Fucking hell, man.

Relevant life advice from Sam Hyde:

"If you ever catch the eye of a female cop: I hope you wore your bulletproof vest. I hope you have your vest on, man. I am praying for you, unironically. Because that gun on her waist at some point is going to accidentally go off. She's going to draw it out thinking it's a taser, she's going to have her finger on the trigger before she's ready to fire. Something you did made her feel threatened. You're taller than her, she feels threatened for her life. The only recouse she has physically is to shoot you."

My guess is that she passed through the police academy with lowered physical standards compared to her male counterparts. Fundamental negligence in governance.

There is video of the civilian fleeing towards her position, the police officer appearing to be startled, pointing her firearm towards him, and then the man falls to the ground. Police refuse to confirm or deny this.

Local media claimed it, claiming sources close to the investigation confirmed it.

C’est à ce moment qu’un passant, Michael Mizrahi, un commerçant de 68 ans, se retrouve dans la ligne de tir alors qu’il va s’acheter une boisson tout près de sa boutique de vêtements sur le chemin Devonshire. Sur la même vidéo, on voit l’homme surgir derrière la policière, arrivant du côté d’où tire le suspect. Dans le chaos, l’agente abat le sexagénaire. Son décès sera confirmé au début de l’après-midi. Des sources proches de l’enquête nous ont confirmé que c’est bien la patrouilleuse qui a tiré.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/2026-06-23/fusillade-dans-cote-des-neiges/le-tireur-a-montreal-pour-viser-pornhub.php

Broke: High status men are the real danger to society because they're too right-wing.

Woke: Incels are the real danger to society because they're too right-wing.

Bespoke: Incels are the real danger to society because they're too left-wing.

Someone has probably made this argument on The Motte before. We aren't missing any communists from roll call, are we?

People making this general argument on the motte are rightwing traddies or dissident righties. Another piece of evidence for horseshoe theory. Are there even outed Marxists on the Motte at this point? Our ideological diversity leans pretty right, such that people that are left of the motte average are more likely to be centrists, and a few dissident progressives. I'm not sure I remember any outspoken old-school Marxists in the last 3 years.

To be fair, to notice the modern society's atomization and hypergami ills you already need to be not in the middle of the overton window politically. Normies are too busy watching the footy/superbowl/whatever they call hokey to care about this stuff.

I think this demographic makeup dates back to the SSC days. Even in 2019, Scott noted that he attracted readers across the political spectrum, with the exception of Marxists.

He banned the pre-eminent Marxist of his time, Marxbro.

Freddie de Boer being a major exception. He's worth like 50 readers alone.

Let's take a pause from the gender politics and think about the Canadian language politics. If Seth Hatfield is the perp's real name, then this is an Anglo-Canadian incel who wrote a manifesto in English (based on a quick skim of the citations, I don't think the author is familiar with Francophone culture) and travelled to Quebec to commit incel terrorism.

Will the Quebec elite be able to even pretend to be hurting while they smugly crow about how this proves the moral superiority of French-Canadian culture?

They will be too busy trying to get the SKS added to the list of banned rifles -- although watching him fumble with the stripper clip to reload makes me think that The System Is Working, maybe?

Clearly the SKS is only about as dangerous to the general public as the average cop.

Will the Quebec elite be able to even pretend to be hurting while they smugly crow about how this proves the moral superiority of French-Canadian culture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_L%C3%A9pine

I was going to disagree, but Marc Lepine seems further outside normal French Canadian culture than I remembered, with an Algerian father and growing up for a few years in the Caribbean.

Even discounting that one, I don't think we in Quebec can really give anyone lessons, not even americans, when it comes to grisly random shootings/murders per capita.

I mean, QC can certainly give Americans a lesson on how best to throw your weight around and fuck up the rest of the country using that as an excuse. It's why it's politically important for the guy to be from AB, too.

Of course, those consequences also directly led to Tumblr Ridge, so...

It was reported early on that he's albertan.

Will the Quebec elite be able to even pretend to be hurting while they smugly crow about how this proves the moral superiority of French-Canadian culture?

No one here in the media care to do so, the "incels are an omnipresent danger" is a more important narrative for our elites than any grandstanding about our obvious and unquestionably superior culture ;)

We're just RETVRNING to tradition when 17 women reproduced for every man. Ignore the rest of the schizobabble about how everyone gets laid under communism or whatever.

Possible explanations:

(1) It's the patriarchy, my friend. Older males hogged all the nubile women for themselves, and they preferred to hand over their marriageable daughters to men of similar status to themselves. Dowries and bride prices meant that only the successful families could afford to have their daughters married off, and this left a lot of young men stranded since they didn't have resources to marry.

That's slightly tongue-in-cheek, but Irish history pre- and post-Famine show huge changes in marriage; before that, marriages happened young because you could always further sub-divide that plot of land, give some to a son, he grew potatoes - the wonder crop - on it and that fed a family. Post-Famine, marriages took place at older ages, inheriting land and property became concentrated around the eldest son, the eldest daughter might get married or be consigned to the role of care-taker for the aging parents in the family home. Wars and famines do make huge cultural changes.

(2) It's the patriarchy, two: polygamy, where men married more than one bride (e.g. sisters married off to one man, cousins marrying cousins, as in this movie about a 15th century Hindu devotee who marries his two cousins). Also, have you seen how the Roman upper classes married and divorced multiple times for political alliances, for one example?

(3) Widowers. Women die in childbirth and post-puerperal. A man left with a child or children will probably remarry quickly, and men can have several wives over their lifespan in this manner.

Here is everyone We're just RETVRNING to tradition when 17 women reproduced for every man

A reminder for anyone reading what that statistic actually entailed. Clan warfare that wipes out male lineages, not massive harems.

There is a gigantic difference between the male-line/female-line extinction rate ratio and the number of women who reproduce per every male.

I said two months ago I would reply to a comment about this study on the mental health effects of gender transition. I have only now managed to find the time, so I'm going to post my reply as a top-level comment lest it get buried. You can find the previous discussion here.

To be honest, some of the statistical manipulation seems dubious, but that's above my pay grade, so I'm going to assume the study was conducted in good faith with no shenanigans.

In short, the study finds that, contrary to assumptions that transitioning should improve mental health, the share of people needing mental health treatment rises drastically after transition. Anti-trans people conclude that this means transition actually worsens mental health, and, hence, people should not be allowed to transition.

There's some nitpicking to be done here, for example, maybe the patients already needed mental health treatment and just found out they needed it at the same time as they found out they're transgender, or that just seeing a mental health professional regularly doesn't necessarily mean that your mental health is worse than it used to be.

But my fundamental objection is to the conclusion that no one should be allowed to transition. Suppose the anti-trans side is completely correct on the facts, that transitioning did, in fact, directly worsen the mental health of many or even most patients. There are still some patients who are better off. There are countless anecdotal reports online of people who are happier after transitioning. The most you can conclude is that the criteria for who should transition need to be changed. (If I'm interpreting the data right, the likelihood of needing mental health treatment after transitioning was higher in those born later, consistent with the rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)/social contagion hypothesis.) But if you care about people's happiness, some people should still be supported in transitioning.

Obviously if you believe all trans people are delusional and object to transition and treating people as their stated gender regardless of the effect on their mental health, this does not apply to you. But in that case the study isn't an argument you can use.

Speaking of ROGD, its rhetorical use by anti-trans people is a peculiar example of a self-contradictory motte-and-bailey: usually the bailey is a stronger version of the motte, and thus necessarily consistent with it, but here the bailey ("all trans people are delusional and none of them are their stated gender") contradicts the motte ("some trans people with a specific presentation – primarily adolescent girls – are not actually their stated gender") because the latter presupposes that some trans people are, in fact, their stated gender. If you believe all trans people are delusional, why do you care about the specific etiology of the transness of a specific subgroup of trans people? The treatment, whichever you prefer, should be the same.

I consider myself pro-trans, but I believe ROGD/social contagion may well be a real thing. If you agree about the possibility of social contagion, you should try to minimize the attention trans people receive, yet anti-trans activists have been the main publicists of transness for about a decade now – trans people really entered the mainstream with the North Carolina "bathroom bill". It used to be that you would only find information about transness if you went looking for it because you were questioning your gender, but now that trans people are everywhere (thanks to anti-trans activists), you get impressionable young people who were not predisposed to questioning their gender hearing about it and joining in for the standard reasons impressionable young people join trends. (Cf. media coverage of school shootings encouraging more school shootings – a common argument among anti-gun-control people.)

If you agree about the possibility of social contagion, you should try to minimize the attention trans people receive, yet anti-trans activists have been the main publicists of transness for about a decade now – trans people really entered the mainstream with the North Carolina "bathroom bill".

Not according to Google Trends. The bathroom bill passed in March 2016. In the US, searches for "Transsexual" peaked in January 2006, searches for "Transgender" peaked in February and September 2025, and searches for "transgender" peaked in July 2015 and May 2016. Searches for "Caitlyn Jenner" and "Laverne Cox" both peaked in June 2015 (Jenner publicly came out in April 2015). Searches for "I am Jazz" and "Jazz Jennings" peaked in July 2015. The idea that people only started talking about transgender issues because of anti-trans activism is baseless.

I also feel compelled to quote from the most popular thing I've ever written:

In his second article from last week, Freddie complains that gender-critical people have vastly overstated the significance of the trans issue, elevating it to the status of “the most important social divide of our time, apparently beating out crime and education and the collapse of the family etc” when trans/NB people make up at most 2-3% of the American population. I agree that, in the scheme of things, trans issues receive a vastly disproportionate share of column inches relative to their import. Where I differ from Freddie is placing the blame for this state of affairs solely at the feet of gender-critical people.

As noted by Wesley Yang, there are 40 separate days in the American political calendar specifically dedicated to celebrating trans people (and an additional 77 days dedicated to celebrating trans people as a subset of LGBTQ+) - in contrast to Black History Month, which famously falls on the shortest month in the Gregorian calendar, despite black Americans making up 13-14% of the US population. President Joe Biden gave a statement on Transgender Day of Remembrance, while Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren made the frankly bizarre campaign promise that her pick for education secretary would have to be personally vetted by a transgender child. There has hardly been a single political issue in the last ten years that hasn’t been framed as “how might this affect trans people?” or “what does this mean for the struggle for trans rights?” in the popular media, no matter how tangential the connection - everything from Black Lives Matter to the war in the Ukraine to gun violence in schools to the cost-of-living crisis to Covid to AI to the Israel-Palestine conflict to Brexit and even climate change (“[exposure to secondhand smoke] can exacerbate the respiratory stress that LGBTQI+ populations may experience from air pollution and chest binding, which is a common practice among transgender men to achieve a flat chest”).

It’s a bit rich to demand that Americans spend more than one-tenth of the calendar year celebrating trans people, “centring their voices” and putting their trials and tribulations at the forefront of their consciousness - only to then turn around and say "umm why do you even care about this, it’s such a tiny issue lol" when some of them offer even the mildest pushback. You brought it up.

This is a silly complaint in many ways.

1: It's easy to make up as many unofficial days as you want.

For example I just asked AI real quick about June and got

Men's Health Month, Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month, PTSD Awareness Month, Migraine and Headache Awareness Month, Scleroderma Awareness Month, National Safety Month, Immigrant Heritage Month, Caribbean American Heritage Month, Black Music Month, Great Outdoors Month, Food-Related Months, National Dairy Month, National Candy Month, National Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Month, Turkey Lovers Month, Iced Tea Month, National Camping Month, National Rivers Month, Rose Month, National Homeownership Month, National Employee Wellness Month, Effective Communications Month, Fight the Filthy Fly Month, Accordion Awareness Month, Candy Month, Zoo and Aquarium Month

And that's just a small portion. Most of those things are not actually observed in any meaningful way. November is not seen as "trans awareness month", I've never seen any LGBT community talking about that ever. In fact I asked what type of month November is considered and it gave me the five of Native American Heritage Month, Veterans and Military Families Month, National Family Caregivers Month, National Adoption Month, and Movember so presumably those, which I've never heard of once, are more prominent.

And it's not even on the national calendar day site. so seemingly something like National Tar Syndrome Awareness Month is still more cared about than "trans awareness month" is.

2: By the same standards, black related days have been drastically undercounted. Such as June also being Black Music Month! Or August as Black Business Month. And speaking of November, it's also National Black Catholic History Month. And don't forget about National Black Family Day or Black Women's Equal Pay Day or whatever else.

November is not seen as "trans awareness month", I've never seen any LGBT community talking about that ever.

Give me a break. That's not true.

You've been posting a constant stream of things that seem to defend libertarianism but which are either extreme, subtly wrong, or both, which is a classic trolling technique that is the equivalent of being a fed: post this material in the hope that you can provoke some of your enemies into agreeing with or defending the claims (if extreme) or into believing them (if wrong).

Unfortunately the moderators don't seem to understand this, even though it violates the rule "speak plainly".

I'd believe it.

I did a spot check of one of my Facebook friends: 12 posts so far for Pride month (up from nine last year), two for Transgender Day of Visibility (Nov 20), and one for Trans Awareness Week (Nov 17-21), and one last year for International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. None for Trans Awareness Month over the past two years.

Maybe it's because he's Canadian, but I doubt it because LGBT issues are more international than most.

I'd count the week as part of the month. It's clearly the same celebration with the same origin, even if celebrating the week is not literally the same as celebrating the month. The relevant part to the argument is the existence of the celebration at all, not how long it lasts.

I think we have to stick to pedantry here, and set aside the wider view. It's a separate entry in the list in the article, and having a known bad item on the list is weak evidence that the list as a whole is bad.

Remember that the original complaint was "1: It's easy to make up as many unofficial days as you want.". Trans Awareness Month is plausibly made up by a small group and listed by an aggregator, but not actually celebrated by any significant number of people.

You could easily argue that trans issues are overrepresented in general, but I think this is a reasonable objection on that one point.

Heaven forfend!

Imagine somebody having an extreme viewpoint on the Motte.

Or someone being subtly wrong on the Motte.

Come on, people having extreme views and being wrong on the Motte is something restricted to days that end in Y. Being extreme and wrong describes almost all of the Motte. The Motte might productively be defined as a place where you can be extreme and wrong.

The meta complaints about me are really interesting like that. Does someone really lack such self awareness that they don't recognize themotte, a pretty radical spinoff of an already pretty out there and eccentric group (rationalists) would be made up of a bunch of people with wildly different views from general society?

Well yeah probably, this place is bound to be autism central, such deficiency is expected to some degree. But it's like that meme of "autistic person meeting someone else slightly more autistic", like woah.

But I also think such meta complaints are used to mask a lack of meaningful response to the actual comment.

Is there a good criteria in which something like Black Music Month, which has a wikipedia page and congressional approval should not be counted as observed when comparing African American related holidays to trans holidays, but under which trans awareness month should be? Perhaps, I can't think of any but there might be I suppose.

There's been no answer regarding the actual meat of my argument there. Maybe he has an answer and just won't give it, maybe he has a convincing criteria that blows mine out of the water. Where was it?

This behavior is not uncommon for the site. For example consider this discussion where instead of providing any evidentiary meat to chew on to back up the claims that police had charged a protestor for assault when they were just defending themselves (like a Fox News article about it, or the charging documents, or something other than "random x user says so"), commentors get into a meta discussion. Where is it? Where's the meat? No one wants to provide any.

I even said this in a comment then

How about instead of having a meta conversation, we have the actual conversation where someone finally provides semi decent evidence for their claims a guy was charged for bruising and officers fists while blocking beyond "guy on X said so".

It all seems like a way to dodge that maybe said evidence might not actually exist. I couldn't find any! You double checked and didn't find it. So where is it?

Of the 10 people who saw this and down voted, none of them had any interest in providing actual evidence for the claims presented. Same with the original comment asking for any actual piece of evidence, no one seemed to think that providing proof was a reasonable part of discussion?

It's all meta hate, no substance.

I suppose it's easier to identify as an individualist, a heretic, a brave defier of social orthodoxies, etc., than it is to actually tolerate individualism or defiance when they arise. Just as the Motte is radical compared to wider society, you're radical compared to the Motte. You have a minority, unpopular position, sure, but I don't think your arguments for it are noticeably worse or more bad-faith than the modal Motte post on other subjects.

My point isn't "magicalkittycat is great". People can disagree on that, like you, dislike you, whatever. That's up to them. It's that I think you are not below the average level of discourse quality on this website, irrespective of one's position.

For what it's worth, on this particular issue, I think FtttG's Substack post is generally correct in its conclusion, and the comparison between Freddie's take on trans and Freddie's take on DID is damning. There clearly is room for good-faith hesitation, skepticism, or even opposition to various policies that trans advocates have, demonstrably, asked for. That said, I also agree that the Wesley Yang list of calendar days is a weak argument. There are specious days of awareness for pretty much everything, because there are no rules about who can declare them, and no governing authorities recognising them. The only month-long events I'd heard of in November are Movember, NaNoWriMo, and, er, the one about masturbation, but Wikipedia has a huge list of observances, most of which are obviously trivial. Consider the likes of No Music Day, which appears to just be one guy grinding an axe.

The point FtttG is making overall is, I think, correct, in that it's a bit rich to accuse conservatives of politicising the transgender issue or drawing attention to it. "You brought it up!" is the correct response for conservatives to make, perhaps with a side order of, "If it's so trivial and unimportant, why don't you just give in?" But the proliferation of completely vacuous days of remembrance or awareness days that nobody has ever heard of or cares about is indeed a phenomenon. The argument survives that - Pride Month, which is observed and recognised, is sufficient for FtttG's point - but I acknowledge your nitpick is valid.

Give me a break. That's not true.

One random thing from San Francisco is not evidence of it being actually widely observed. It doesn't even have a wikipedia page! TDOV and trans awareness week do. National Ice Cream Month does. The Black Music Month one does. And yet this one doesn't.

So black music month should be counted as far more official than trans awareness month should. In fact the former had a bill about it passed by Congress, it literally is more official! At the very least a count of African American related days vs trans related days should include black music month in it if it includes trans awareness month. If you don't, then you're just applying criteria inconsistently in order to fit a predetermined complaint.

You've been posting a constant stream of things that seem to defend libertarianism but which are either extreme, subtly wrong, or both.

This is just another way to say "things I personally disagree with". Like what exactly is extreme? My reform the FDA ideas are just like the things you'd find on Marginal Revolution. In my argument of ending anti discrimination law, I literally linked this ACX review.

Sure I guess compared to the average person who thinks social security should double, regulations should be endless and businesses are evil I'm extreme but in terms of the rationalist community I'm not uncommon. Maybe you should branch out more among rationalists beyond just this place.

You think he's aware of everything on the San Francisco public calendar? I live in Pittsburgh and I'm unaware of half the events on the public calendar, which, by the way, did not include a single one related to Transgender Awareness Month. At the very least, nothing required any streets to be shut down, and that's much more visibility than some press release or statement from the mayor that nobody is going to read.

It doesn't matter anyway. I never said no one has ever talked about it or mentioned it. I said that it's not observed in any meaningful way. A single acknowledgement from the San Francisco government about it is not a meaningful observation.

From pretty much any meaningful criteria, black music month is far more observed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_Music_Appreciation_Month

It was initiated as Black Music Month by President Jimmy Carter, who, on June 7, 1979, decreed that June would be the month of Black music.[1] After the announcement by Carter, the bill finally passed in 2000 when activist Dyana Williams' 10 years of effort persuaded Congress

This is officially recognized by Congress and created by a then sitting president. Any criteria that includes "trans awareness month" and not Black Music Month is stupid. Like this doesn't even have room for smart debate, it is the most official one by far. And black music month is still at the bottom of the barrel barely scraping by "meaningful observation".

Finding out that there exists a LGBT community talking about that would take five seconds of Googling. (Notice that he did take the time to ask an AI, but he was willing to post that because the results were more convenient for him.)

He did not claim that there was no LGBT community that observed it; he claimed that he had never personally encountered a LGBT community that does. If I want to prove that leopards are not commonly kept as pets in America, that leopard-keeping is a fringe practice, I can say "I've never seen any American with a pet leopard". I'm sure if I Googled it I could find counterexamples, but that would be besides the point, which would be to use "have I organically encountered X in my day-to-day life" as a Bayesian proxy for "how common is X".

Never having personally encountered it still requires not having Googled it, yet being willing to use AI on it. And I don't believe for a moment that he actually used AI but failed to Google it.

now that trans people are everywhere (thanks to anti-trans activists)

what other causes can so thoroughly be blamed on The Enemy?

very postmodern dao, the enemy of thing is solely responsible for thing.

How does this even work? Are Trans people only stopped from passing seamlessly due to anti-trans activists?

The way I understood the argument, it goes like this: the more chuds (chud, def.: the opposite of woke) hate something publicly, the more wokes are inclined to be that thing out of contrarianism. This also works the other way around, see: the hypersensitivity of chuds to even the slightest depiction of woke values in media (such as when female character is not white blonde bombshell with exposed D cups).

Thus, making anti-transness your personality as an opinion maker online means more young people who already disliked your memeplex identify as trans.

Yeah, that little dig sticks out as being the most narrative-over-reality. I distinctly remember Trans being pushed as the new demanded-empathy super-stimulus that every BPD person I knew was torn up about way back in 2012. Back then it wasn't even about encouraging people to be trans, it was "LOOK at these POOR people TRAPPED in the WRONG body" with much beating of chests and tearing at shawls in sympathy.

It's amazing how you can bootstrap a social movement by this method; suddenly every alt girl reacted to the R-word or mis-pronoun-ing the way a 20something beardy arab guy reacts to disrespect towards the Prophet, or an Italian guy reacts to something said about his mother by someone who has never met his mother.

Speaking from the anti-trans (as it would be represented) side, I think we really don't have enough established about existing mental health conditions and co-morbidities. I don't believe a two year old has a firm and unyielding grasp of their innate gender, such that parents and school should start socially transitioning their toddlers. I think puberty is a very stressful time of upheaval and change, in even a body horror type of fashion: suddenly all these changes, with no consent, knowledge or will of your own, and you don't know from day to day what the next alteration will be, and now these changes thrust upon you make the people around you behave differently and put a whole set of new expectations and limits on you. Add in any alienation from feeling you don't fit in and don't fit the pattern of what a girl or boy "should" be, and that's without even "are you indeed on the autism spectrum or have other problems?" and the rainbow pixie dust hugboxes online telling you that you are a Real Girl or Real Boy and that will solve everything!

I found puberty very tough. I felt boys had it easier. Thank God this was long before the days of the genderbread person or unicorn in every primary school classroom and people eager to urge on "of course you are a boy, why you don't have traditional girl interests and you like boy stuff, you need to become Chauncey and then everything will be marvellous and of course we'll work on your parents about do they want a dead child or a live one? leave it to us!"

All that being said: are there real trans people? Yeah, I'll accept that. Are the most egregious cases we see demanding publicity and special treatment really trans? I kind of doubt it, and I wish we could honestly and coolly look at cases such as "elderly murderer who already killed two women is now trans and declaring 'she' should be in women's prison" without the hysteria on both sides. But we're far, far from that.

I found puberty very tough. I felt boys had it easier.

I've found this to be generally true, to the point where someone describing puberty as a scary experience is generally a strong tell for me that the commenter is female. For me (and I assume most boys) the "worst" issues with puberty were (in no particular order):

  1. Voice changing/cracking
  2. Constant aching from growth spurts
  3. Acne
  4. Constant no-reason (and yes-reason) boners (probably the only "negative" part I miss, now that I have the joy of prostate issues to deal with)

Otherwise, for most boys puberty means getting taller, stronger, and faster. It means being able to grow facial hair (though it can look pretty pathetic initially, I wasn't able to grow a proper beard until my late teens/early 20's). It means finally being allowed to do more "grown-up" things (kids are retarded and don't realize that being a grown-up sucks).

For women I can absolutely see things like 3 to 5 days of pain and bleeding every month as being a horrible experience. But my brain can't relate to the horror I've heard some women express at developing breasts and similar features though, I just don't understand that one.

I think there’s a continuum of a sort of “dysphoria” with, on one end. people mildly uncomfortable with their sexual characteristics but able to eventually get used it, and on the other, people that never get over it and need to find drastic measures to cope (transitioning, joining a monastery, maybe extreme BDSM fantasies).

For me from the male side it also felt like terrifying, complete body horror, although probably more psychological apart from the sensory nightmare of growing hair everywhere (thank goodness for laser hair removal). Developing sexual attraction the way I did felt like I had a brain tumour, and that I was sexually assaulting myself every time my libido would make itself known. I think I would have joined an order of ascetic monks if I had lived long enough ago.

Apart from the physical changes, what I found difficult were the new set of constraints. Things I had been able to do before, now I couldn't do because "only boys do that/you're a young lady now" and no adequate, so far as I could see, reason for that. So I did grump about "can't do this, can't do that, I could if I were a boy".

As I say, being born too early for social experimentation saved me.

But my brain can't relate to the horror I've heard some women express at developing breasts and similar features though, I just don't understand that one.

Anecdotes are not data, but first - if you're not sexually attracted to women, then "oooh lady bits!" is not an arousing experience for you 😁 Second, just going by my own experience, suddenly I had these growing lumps on my chest, and now I had to get a whole new set of garments (bras) to manage them, and now it was important that I manage them, because modesty and all the rest of it, as well as attracting male attention. And I was eleven, which was way earlier than my mother expected me to start puberty, so she had told me nothing (in the opinion that she had time yet to sit me down and give me The Talk and do all the explaining; this was in the days when sources of information were "the dictionary" and "the encyclopaedia" if you had a set in the house so not much luck for me trying to make sense of all this on my own).

Boys have always had penis and testicles, imagine if you didn't but now suddenly things were growing out of areas that previously had nothing there!

I really liked having bigger genitals, chest hair, etc. I thought the first few whiskers were the awesomest thing ever, even though I had to start shaving. I liked the changes in facial structure, too.

I’m willing to admit these weren’t totally equivalent, but secondary sex characteristics were awesome, except for the part where my underwear now fit awkwardly.

Things I had been able to do before, now I couldn't do because "only boys do that/you're a young lady now" and no adequate, so far as I could see, reason for that.

Horseshoe theory is real. Both the extreme left and the extreme right believe in rigid gender roles. These activities, interests, and traits are MALE, these activities, interests and traits are FEMALE. If you do the first you are MALE. If you do the second you are FEMALE. If you like both then you are BOTH/NEITHER/WEIRD.

The main difference is that the the extreme right demands your activities, interests, and traits change to fit your gender, while the extreme left demands your gender change to fit your personality. The reason so many people go from radically right households to become radical leftists is because you don't have to change your structure of how gender roles ought to work, just whether it's possible/good to change sides. There's less inferential distance to get from one extreme to the other than there is to become a moderate who believes in letting people be themselves without getting all obsessed about Identities.

A good half of these do seem to be talking about "socially constructed" constraints, which does lead me back to wondering how much the possibility of transitioning has taken the wind out of the sails of any push to relax or change the gender-role expectations of women. (I have seen some people in the 4channy corners of the internet throw around the term "tomboy genocide".) Of course, if you are sufficiently culturally conservative (and if I remember correctly, you were...?) you might not have been sympathetic to that push either, in which case... do you just think of those constraints as something like women's rightful cross to bear?

Boys have always had penis and testicles, imagine if you didn't but now suddenly things were growing out of areas that previously had nothing there!

To be fair, the prepubescent form of those organs is nothing like what they turn into later. I do distinctly remember the feeling when I saw a grown man naked for the first time, which was disgust followed by a mild sprinkling of existential horror that I may soon look like that as well.

Testosterone, I think, does really disfigure humans in a way that has no equivalent counterpart in women (which is why men and women both easily agree that women are by default prettier/cuter); and it is only due to significant, though generally very effective, psychological conditioning that we learn to deny this. The conditioning does not always take a hold on boys before the changes actually start kicking in.

A good half of these do seem to be talking about "socially constructed" constraints, which does lead me back to wondering how much the possibility of transitioning has taken the wind out of the sails of any push to relax or change the gender-role expectations of women

It's a common complaint and one I take seriously, but at the risk of sounding like the "we need more Stalins" guy, that failure mode seems to be the province of moderate trans activists, of normie Blues who sort of support the general idea of transition and mouth the right slogans, but are probably a couple of decades behind on the philosophy. In online spaces that skew younger and leftier, your Tumblrs and Blueskies, people love nothing more than to validate trans women's right to be masculine or trans men's right to be feminine. Real trans activists love themselves a MTF butch lesbian who rounds back to using he/him pronouns with three nested layers of irony, and accordingly, would strongly oppose the idea that a girl not conforming with gender norms must mean that she's secretly a trans boy.

There's some nitpicking to be done here, for example, maybe the patients already needed mental health treatment and just found out they needed it at the same time as they found out they're transgender, or that just seeing a mental health professional regularly doesn't necessarily mean that your mental health is worse than it used to be.

The problem is we were told for years and years and years that any mental health issue or depression a trans person (and all LGBTs by extension) was facing can be squarely pinned on "minority stress". In other words, the majority should un-bigot themselves and stop punishing victimless acts. Fair enough. But the expectations departed from "stop commenting or interfering in people's personal lives" and segued to "how dare you not care, do you know silence is VIOLENCE, indifference is p-word" (the p-word being privilege, original sin of woke morality). I am a straight man, not religious, I don't care if a man I'll never meet marries another man. But the thought of a man sticking his hairy dick inside another man's hairy poop-chute is just a disgusting fetish to me, even if I'm polite enough to not say it out loud. I also believe sex and gender are the same thing, edge cases notwithstanding. I believe all transgenders are mentally ill and their delusions are encouraged only by algorithm, but I'm polite enough to keep that bit to myself. I don't really care if an adult man chooses to mutilate his own genitals, even if suicide was a 100% guaranteed outcome of transitioning.

But I absolutely do not want any kind of LGBT education in schools. I'll go further, if I could reliably diagnose an "LGBT marker" in my unborn child, I would want to abort it.

If you agree about the possibility of social contagion, you should try to minimize the attention trans people receive, yet anti-trans activists have been the main publicists of transness for about a decade now

Please, let's not make this a decibel contest. There are no objective metrics or units of measurement to quantify which side is "louder and more annoying", even if I should agree to points being awarded for silence. Now who you find louder is heavily filtered by:

  • where you spend your time online and IRL
  • what your algorithms push
  • who legacy media, academia, corporations and government tilt in favour of
  • good ole selection bias (you notice and remember what offends you most)

Every tribe experiences the other side as overwhelmingly loud and aggressive while viewing their own side as reasonable pushback. Look how DEI threads go in Star Wars and gaming forums. When you point out "why should Luke Skywalker and his bloodline be sacrificial lamb to uplift no-name girbloss", you get responses like "ugh every single time... dude why do you care? Stop making everything political!" from the other side, after they succeeded in having their way after years of complaining and outraging, the things they accuse you of. But it's always a cope deployed when the previously dominant narrative starts facing serious resistance. In any hotly contested issue, both sides amplify what serves them. The side with institutional capture tends to be louder in legacy channels. The dissident side tends to be louder and cruder where it actually has open space. I'll be more honest though. I am super anti-woke, I'm well aware many anti-wokes engage in behaviour I'd find insufferable were it directed at me. But I don't care, because I still agree with their objectives and heavily dislike woketopia.

How do you expect me to not pay attention and also put on performative enthusiasm for pride parades and pride month every year? If your sexual preferences and gender identity should not matter, why can't I just ignore you? If they should matter, why should I not get upset about pinkwashing legacy straight-male oriented media? I am fine with you living your life as you please, but why do I have to celebrate your perceived identity and fetishes? Why are you looking around the room to see who stops clapping first? Why are you expecting me to watch Brokeback Mountain as a media literacy test? Because it's cinematically artful? The raw emotional acting? Or because it's an important progressive conversation? To me, it's just Oscar bait gayslop. I'd rather watch a poor man's Fast & Furious for 12 hours. Everyone gets aggressive if you breach their red lines.

Why are you expecting me to watch Brokeback Mountain as a media literacy test?

I was at Chicago's Navy Pier the other day and the theater there was showing ads for a play of Brokeback Mountain.

If you agree about the possibility of social contagion, you should try to minimize the attention trans people receive, yet anti-trans activists have been the main publicists of transness for about a decade now

Whoa there, slow down before accusing my lying eyes of deceiving me. As far as I can see, both IRL and online, it's most decidedly the pro-trans side that's most vocal and active about promoting its views, not in the least because in many places opposition to that view is flat-out not permitted. Maybe American mainsteram television and newspapers are an exception to this - I wouldn't know, not consuming them - but online anywhere other than on the Motte and IRL in Germany it doesn't hold at all. Pro-trans activists are everywhere, anti-trans activists are in hiding because to voice their opinions in public will get them ostracized.

I think your perception is skewed. For one, the most powerful person in the world, elected by a majority of American voters, is anti-trans.

Trump was asked which bathrooms transwomen would need to use in Trump Tower. He said he didn't care. It is not obvious to me he is anti-trans. Unless you define it very broadly to the point that the typical American is "anti-trans" in some "they should be in women's combat sports or prisons" sense.

Surely that example deserves an asterisk. It was one bulwark breached in a 'hostile takeover' by a man who could survive based on his Fuck You money, and is mostly notable for being a continued exception to the dominant speech norms solely due to the way it bypassed the entrenched network effects.

This is not symmetry.

In fact, all three of the most powerful anti-trans people I can think of fit that mold (Musk and Rowling being the other two)

The basic issue with most trans studies is you'd need a control group of people who qualify for transition but are not allowed to (or are given placebo hormones but that wouldn't work cause hormones have pretty noticeable physical and emotional effects). Also you can't really isolate 'gender transition' as a mental health treatment separate from social treatment of transgender people which varies wildly based on social context. If everyone who got prozac had to wear a giant "I take prozac" hat all the time and some social circles considered taking prozac worthy of a social penalty ranging from mockery and derision to outright abuse, it would make it way harder to measure the effects of prozac.

Speaking of ROGD, its rhetorical use by anti-trans people is a peculiar example of a self-contradictory motte-and-bailey: usually the bailey is a stronger version of the motte, and thus necessarily consistent with it, but here the bailey ("all trans people are delusional and none of them are their stated gender") contradicts the motte ("some trans people with a specific presentation – primarily adolescent girls – are not actually their stated gender") because the latter presupposes that some trans people are, in fact, their stated gender. If you believe all trans people are delusional, why do you care about the specific etiology of the transness of a specific subgroup of trans people? The treatment, whichever you prefer, should be the same.

I think trans people can be largely divided into two groups:

People who had an affinity for the other sex from the time they were toddlers onward. A boy who prefers dolls and dresses to cars, etc. to the point of everyone around them knowing that this toddler is behaving like the opposite sex in a somewhat obsessive way. These people I have a lot of sympathy for, even if I disagree that this means that they are the opposite sex. Dr. Kenneth Zucker mostly treated this group, and in his clinical research about 80-90% went on to become normal gay men after puberty, with the remainder going through some sort of transition in adulthood. I honestly believe most have some kind of hormonal thing, maybe their mothers took estrogen during pregnancy, maybe some other endocrine disrupter got them early on. I still think the best thing is to wait and see if the desire to transition subsides after going through natal-sex puberty, but if the only group that transitioned was this group, as adults, then I would have few qualms for transition as a medical practice.

Unfortunately, there is the second group. Mostly consists of adolescents who for various reasons started thinking that transitioning will benefit them. The RODG group. The Autogynophelia group. Autistic girls who always felt something was off but never could put it into words. ETC. There might be some hormonal issues, but most of the time it's a social contagion of some kind. For this group, transitioning is probably the worst thing for them to do. It's a harsh medical intervention for something that will typically go away after puberty and therapy. Unfortunately, this group is the largest group getting medically transitioned and contains pretty much every transperson I know IRL.

I don't think any trans person is their desired gender, but that doesn't mean that they are delusional. It really is their desired gender. It's just that desiring a gender doesn't make them that gender.

Agreeing with your point about adolescents, honestly I never understood the argument for delaying puberty. That's one of the crucial times of sex differentiation where someone is really developing into a mature man or woman, from hormones to physical changes to all the rest of it. How in the world can someone say "they don't feel like a male" when they're not done developing all the way? I don't see how it's helpful to delay this process to, I guess, "give them time to figure it out". You're literally denying them information and the opportunity for self-discovery. For a lot of people, puberty just sucks, but that doesn't mean they're transgender.

The steelman is that the internal experience of puberty is supposed to be extremely unpleasant for trans people, and the later stages makes later transition much harder.

The 'very unpleasant' bit is more obvious for FtMs -- menses isn't fun for anyone and I'd assume it feels worse if the whole 'this is an alien thing rolling in my belly' sensation never goes away, breasts have obvious social impact and also just kinda suck from back pain and bras perspective to the point, and even in the modern day there's an absolute fuck-ton of social threat stuff a lot of young women suddenly get thrown at them. But the guy side isn't great, either: acne, cracking voice, more acne, your junk getting a mind of its own, and a lot of the things that make up for it for normal guys are actively unappealing for MtFs.

The transition bit is... the ugly paradox. Trans people really don't like to think about how it can be harder for some people to pass, no matter how much effort they put into it, but it's a thing, they know it's a thing, and there's a lot of tactical decision-making about how it's a thing. Both as a "I wish I had" moment, because a lot of trans activists only transitioned later in life, and because a there's a variety of pragmatic effects downstream of transition by physics and by law. The MtF who's six-foot-six, has a prominent Adam's apple, body hair everywhere, and enough upper arm strength to bench press a swimming team is going to have a lot more expensive, painful, longer-lasting surgical intervention just to pass to someone with poor gender recognition from thirty feet away. An FtM who has to get bras special-ordered and spent five years with the habits downstream of that isn't going to mode-switch into how cis guys act quickly, if ever.

The theory was that if someone's staying consistent in gender presentation for a year or two, you could be a lot more confident that they're not going to desist and get them to an age range where knowing consent is more realistic.

I think the trans movement badly over-corrected here, both in how early they started using puberty blockers (to the point where it made healthy life after transition more difficult), how long they used them, and by neglecting the amount of information people do pick up from early puberty. But while the former has a lot of problems downstream of bad practices by advocacy groups and active obfuscation by doctors of negative results, the latter is a more reasonable mistake. The numbers, even by social conservative expectations, had youth desistance just pretty damned rare. That was figmentary -- until 2020ish, prepuberty gender weirdness just wasn't be recorded much at all -- but it wasn't just hopes and dreams, either.

I think the part you don't understand about the argument - because it's hidden, even from the arguers themselves - is that the argument rests on a fundamental belief in dualism. That is, that a person has a soul that is some gender or another, which is only accessible to the person's mind and, as such, they are whatever gender that they believe they are. This form of argument was taken from the successful fight for gay marriage around the late 00s/early 10s, where it was deemed that gay people were "born that way," and as such, e.g. someone who comes out as gay after years of enthusiastic heterosexual sex that they didn't regret was always gay from the moment of birth to now. This, of course, also rested on a fundamental belief in dualism.

This is also why one common trans activist point of agreement is that babies can be trans before they're even verbal, which can be detected by their parents carefully observing their behaviors, a la facilitated communication. Interestingly, the belief in dualism and maximum autonomy also results in push for what seem like the complete opposite, that someone can change their gender at will, since their gender is entirely and only determined by the person's opinion.

So when a prepubescent person is confused about their gender identity, this isn't the result of them simply not having enough experience in life, or of them not having knowledge of what being a man or woman is like, or of them having been exposed constantly to social messaging about transness; it's necessarily only the result of their eternal soul expressing themselves in the truest, most genuine, real form. As such, denying them the ability to get on puberty blockers in order to transition their biology before their actual sex's puberty causes biological changes to them is cruelty. Furthermore, if they actually go through their natural puberty, they might believe that they "grew out" of their innate transness, which means one less trans person than there otherwise would have been, which is one of many forms that "trans genocide" takes place.

e.g. someone who comes out as gay after years of enthusiastic heterosexual sex that they didn't regret was always gay from the moment of birth to now.

How often does this happen?

Furthermore, if they actually go through their natural puberty, they might believe that they "grew out" of their innate transness, which means one less trans person than there otherwise would have been, which is one of many forms that "trans genocide" takes place.

No, the concern is that (1) being treated as the wrong gender is extremely unpleasant, and the sooner it ends, the better, and (2) transitioning later will make it more difficult to pass. I don't think trans people think people deciding they're cis after all is bad in any way. Some might believe it never happens, but for those who accept that it does, I don't think they consider it "trans genocide". Claims of "trans genocide" focus on alleged actual killings of trans people.

Claims of "trans genocide" focus on alleged actual killings of trans people.

They do not. Consider a representative example, which claims that bathroom bills, laws requiring people to compete in sports corresponding to their sex and elevated risk of suicide for trans people are all part of the "trans genocide" currently ongoing in the US.

Or consider the Wikipedia page about the concept (of course it has a Wikipedia page). Opening paragraph:

Transgender genocide or trans genocide (also transgendercide) is a term used by some scholars and activists to describe the targeting of transgender people as part of wider genocides, as well as describe an elevated level of erasure, systematic discrimination, and violence against transgender people.

By their own admission, trans activists consider the "erasure" of trans people (i.e. failing to affirm them and refer to them by the names and pronouns they wish to be addressed by; refusing to make every other character in a teen drama trans) and "discrimination" against them (i.e. demanding that they be housed in the prisons and hospitals corresponding to their sex; lesbians refusing to have sex with male people who "identify as" women) to be examples of "genocide". They also consider the elevated risk of suicide trans people face as an example of "genocide" i.e. the transgender genocide might be the world's first self-administered genocide. Sui-genocide? Geno-suicide?

Sterilization that is forced upon transgender people in order to obtain legal recognition is characterized by various researchers, including political theorist Anna Carastathis, as a violation of reproductive rights, eugenic, and genocidal.

Some countries make a gender recognition cert conditional on having undergone bottom surgery. This argument is sort of ridiculous because a) no one is forcing you to cut your dick off: if changing the sex on your birth cert is that important to you, that's a you problem; and b) unlike ethnicity, trans identification isn't hereditary.

You'll note that there's a bit of a Morton's fork here, as elsewhere in the article they claim that banning bottom surgery for minors constitutes "genocide". If you stop a trans person getting bottom surgery, that's genocide. If you say that a trans person can change the sex marker on their driver's license only if they get bottom surgery (in order to weed out bad actors), that's also genocide. As near as I can tell it, transgender genocide is just when you don't let trans people do exactly what they want 100% of the time.

Elsewhere in the article, there's a map of the US showing which states have banned gender-affirming care. You'll notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with "actual killings of trans people". The page argues that these laws meet certain criteria mentioned in the United Nations definition of genocide, as they "[cause] serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately [inflict] on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part". But this is assuming the conclusion: a major reason for these bans is because of researchers like Hilary Cass investigating and learning that the evidence base for the efficacy of these interventions is appallingly weak and poor quality. This whole discussion was started by you pointing out that some children's mental health worsens after they undergo gender-affirming care. If this is true in general, it implies that legalising gender-affirming care for minors constitutes "transgender genocide"!

Sue E. Spivey and Christine Robinson have argued that the ex-gay movement, which encourages transgender as well as other LGBTQ people to renounce their identities, advocates social death and therefore could meet some legal definitions of genocide.

In other words, if people stop identifying as trans, there will be no trans people left and hence trans people will have been (metaphorically) exterminated. (Note the popular slogan "death before detransition".) Again – absolutely nothing to do with "actual killings of trans people". If everyone stopped identifying as trans tomorrow, there would be no trans people left, without anyone actually having been killed. Nobody identifies as a mod or a rocker anymore, and yet it would be absurd to claim that mods or rockers have been "genocided".

Leah Owen highlights how far-right groups in the U.S. have been incorporating anti-transgender rhetoric and ideas, and the attempts at the time of writing that sought to eradicate transgender people through "broader cultural/legal/social action" rather than direct extermination.

There you go. When they talk about "transgender genocide", they are not talking about trans people being murdered.

I could go on and fisk the rest of the article in detail, but I think I've made my point. Only a small portion of the Wikipedia article about "transgender genocide" concerns itself with trans people actually being murdered.* The rest of it is just complaining about trans people being made to use the public facilities concordant with their sex, not being permitted to compete in opposite-sex sporting events, certain trans people no longer identifying as trans, medical bodies hitting pause on gender-affirming care for minors and so on. When you hear "transgender genocide", instead of thinking "trans people being murdered in their hundreds" you should hear "trans people being inconvenienced or failing to get exactly what they want, in any way".

Between this and Gaza, I'm starting to think the word "genocide" will need to be retired pretty soon.

*The article is 15,451 words long. "Murder" appears 15 times, "kill" 13 times, "violence" 38 times, "death" 9 times and so on.

I dislike the "trans genocide" terminology, but I'm kind of stuck on a better word that doesn't minimize the concerns. Attempts to extinguish belief systems by any means necessary up to and including forced conversion and outlawing specific rites are a well-attested historical phenomenon which seems like it'd make a better analogy, but I don't believe that idea has a more specific name than the somewhat broader umbrella of "religious persecution".

Well, at least you're acknowledging that a new religious movement is what trans is.

"Genocide" is obviously the wrong word because genocide means targeting an ethnic group for extermination, and trans people aren't an ethnic group. Over time, a religious order can become a distinct ethnic group provided they only marry each other (you'd be amazed how often I have to explain to people that the Holocaust was not an example of religious persecution, as the Nazis targeted anyone of the Jewish ethnicity, regardless of whether they were practising or were even aware of their heritage), but I don't get the impression that this description is likely to apply to trans people any time soon. Sure, members of the Blue Tribe tend to endorse gender ideology and tend to intermarry, but most people who endorse gender ideology are not themselves trans. And as a result of the medical interventions they've undergone, trans people are disproportionately likely to be unable to have children anyway.

If (as you more or less concede) taking HRT and puberty blockers is more akin to a holy sacrament than anything we think of as medical care in the ordinary sense of the term, and if top/bottom surgery are more similar to elective surgical procedures done as part of induction into a tribe (analogous to circumcision or FGM), then in my eyes this strengthens rather than weakens the case for banning these interventions for children. If communion wafers wreaked the changes on children's bodies that HRT does, I'd be in favour of banning them too. Many jurisdictions already ban FGM for teenage girls. I'm aware that this practice is closely affiliated with certain strands of the Islamic faith and hence trying to prevent it could be thought of as "religious persecution": I just don't care. Religion or no, you shouldn't cut off bits of teenage girls' genitals when not medically indicated, and a pluralistic society has to drawn the line somewhere. I haven't been circumcised, but if circumcision were to be banned outright in all Western countries I'd be delighted. I'm sure there would be much waiting and gnashing of teeth from these countries' Muslim and Jewish communities, but this is one case where even an outspoken philosemite such as myself would say "tough".

Well, at least you're acknowledging that a new religious movement is what trans is.

Not exactly, but I do concede that it's a belief system - and as a liberal atheist I believe belief systems should get the same kinds of legal protection whether or not they're grounded in supernatural beliefs, as historical belief systems tended to be. Persecuting Daoists or Buddhists for their beliefs continues to be wrong even if we're simply talking about their moral or philosophical beliefs rather than anything properly theological. I feel the same logic should apply to Transgenderism - and Vegetarianism, and Effective Altruism, etc.

(…) then in my eyes this strengthens rather than weakens the case for banning these interventions for children.

I wholeheartedly agree - about FGM, male circumcision, and medical transition for children. Physical alterations to children has always been the one point where I diverge from the progressive consensus re: trans issues, though it puts me into quite a lonely place politically - my belief is that in an ideal world, children should be allowed to socially transition, but barred from making permanent changes to their bodies just yet, and this is something both sides view as unacceptable from opposite directions.

(Now, mind, I do think that there's something of the isolated demand for rigor to the scrutiny applied to transitioning children. There are a lot of other alterations to children's bodies that are currently kosher, from getting a girl's ears pierced to so-called-"corrective" genital surgery on intersex infants. I tend not to find that much common ground with a lot of anti-child-transition campaigners due to them not caring about those things, never mind their views on adult transition, which are rarely congruent with mine. But I'm leaving this as a parenthetical here, insofar as given your stated position on circumcision I think you might actually be ideologically consistent on this kind of stuff.)

More comments

Technically, "persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined [to include only male and female], or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law" (defined as "intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of identity") does count as a crime against humanity, even though in common parlance it does not sound so weighty.

There should really a better way to encapsulate the specific idea "people are trying to make there not be any Xs anymore" as distinct from just "people are systematically mistreating Xs"; many groups are persecuted without their enemies' aim being to extinguish the relevant identity altogether. Trivially, that UN definition you quote conceives of itself as applying to gender-based "persecution", and it would be… surprising for any government to set itself the goal of actually erasing women from the Earth (even in the non-murder-based sense of trying to forcibly transition all women into trans men), so they can't intend that "persecute" should be understood as implying an intent to destroy.

More comments

Both the Substack article and the Wikipedia article seem to be suggesting that all this is merely the prelude to mass killings, along the lines of the ten stages of genocide. The Wikipedia article, being a page on a wiki, is admittedly less coherent.

And you'll notice that hypothetical mass killings of trans people are very much not actual killings of trans people.

I don't even concede that there are hypothetical mass killings. If criticism of a group (even based on malicious falsehoods) is a prelude to them being mass killed, then Kiwi Farms users are about to be genocided. So is everyone on The Motte.

More comments

How often does this happen?

Who knows? Doesn't matter, according to the "born this way" metaphysics of homosexuality.

Claims of "trans genocide" focus on alleged actual killings of trans people.

They focus on that, certainly, but focus doesn't mean exclusivity. Another common claim of "trans genocide" is that any microaggression against a trans person could be the marginal straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back that pushes them to suicide (which is famously common among trans people). And certainly, yet another is the but-for reduction of trans people by not allowing youths to transition. Which is why, e.g. pushes against "Drag Queen Story Hour" and similar activities have been labeled as part of "trans genocide" - the reasoning being that, if you don't normalize subversive gender expression like that among children, there will likely be at least some of them who would have discovered their innate transness but never did to due to not encountering such subversions, which reduces the population of trans people.

Who knows? Doesn't matter, according to the "born this way" metaphysics of homosexuality.

It doesn't make sense to complain about some bad thing your opponents caused if it never actually happens. I find it most implausible that someone should have "years of enthusiastic heterosexual sex that they didn't regret" and then come out as gay.

Which is why, e.g. pushes against "Drag Queen Story Hour" and similar activities have been labeled as part of "trans genocide" - the reasoning being that, if you don't normalize subversive gender expression like that among children, there will likely be at least some of them who would have discovered their innate transness but never did to due to not encountering such subversions, which reduces the population of trans people.

With all due respect, this suggests to me that you don't actually understand the other side very well. Trans activists, drag queens, and associated people draw a very clear distinction between trans women and drag queens. It is mostly anti-trans people who conflate the two.

It doesn't make sense to complain about some bad thing your opponents caused if it never actually happens. I find it most implausible that someone should have "years of enthusiastic heterosexual sex that they didn't regret" and then come out as gay.

Who's complaining? Please point out to me where in my:

e.g. someone who comes out as gay after years of enthusiastic heterosexual sex that they didn't regret was always gay from the moment of birth to now.

implies in any way that this is a bad thing or that I'm complaining about it.

With all due respect, this suggests to me that you don't actually understand the other side very well. Trans activists, drag queens, and associated people draw a very clear distinction between trans women and drag queens. It is mostly anti-trans people who conflate the two.

With all due respect, this suggests to me that you haven't actually spoken to people on your "side" (an aside: what an ugly word to use in this sort of conversation). I'm basing this on actual conversations I had with actual trans activists who I was on the same "side" as all the way through around early 2020s. I used to be an intersectional feminist (still a feminist today, just not that kind) who was very much on the entire "break down all social norms and queer everything" train (heh) up to that point and know for a fact that, yes, trans activists do draw a very clear distinction between trans women and drag queens, but they certainly see the normalization of the latter as a good tool for normalizing the former, via attacking heteronormativity and opening up people's minds to the possibilities of human expression and sexuality and etc. that are being suppressed by our current oppressive system. My comment did not, in any way, conflate trans women with drag queens, nor did my comment imply such as a base assumption.

Who's complaining? Please point out to me where in my:

e.g. someone who comes out as gay after years of enthusiastic heterosexual sex that they didn't regret was always gay from the moment of birth to now.

implies in any way that this is a bad thing or that I'm complaining about it.

The tone of the entire paragraph certainly suggests that you disagree with what you have dubbed "dualism".

I'm basing this on actual conversations I had with actual trans activists who I was on the same "side" as all the way through around early 2020s. I used to be an intersectional feminist (still a feminist today, just not that kind) who was very much on the entire "break down all social norms and queer everything" train (heh) up to that point

If you don't mind sharing, what made you change your mind?

and know for a fact that, yes, trans activists do draw a very clear distinction between trans women and drag queens, but they certainly see the normalization of the latter as a good tool for normalizing the former, via attacking heteronormativity and opening up people's minds to the possibilities of human expression and sexuality and etc. that are being suppressed by our current oppressive system.

I'll have to concede on this, as I am not personally involved in activist circles and am not privy to this kind of strategizing.

More comments

A boy who prefers dolls and dresses to cars, etc. to the point of everyone around them knowing that this toddler is behaving like the opposite sex in a somewhat obsessive way.

That's the part that kills me. Being old enough that second-wave feminism was the strain predominant when I was a child and growing up, the fight was over "no, men and women don't have different brains; no, men are not innately rational and logical while women are emotional and nurturing; no, girls can like playing with trucks and boys can like playing with dolls and it means nothing more than that; no, women don't have to tick all the boxes on a checklist of sugar and spice and all things nice".

I had some disagreements with all that, but mainly I was on the side of "there is no reason, apart from personal ability and capacity, that women can't do 'male' professions and men can't do 'female' professions".

Then along comes the Great Trans Gender Whoop-De-Do and now suddenly gender essentialism is back in town. Skirt go spinny, tee-hee! Your toddler pulls the ribbons out of her hair? That is a Big Signifying Event that your toddler is actually he not she!* You don't tick all the boxes on that checklist? Why then it's not that you are a woman who isn't stereotypically girly and pink, it's that you are really deep down inside a man!

Sweet Home Alabama.

*Seriously, that woman. A Credentialed Expert In The Science Is Settled who we bigots should listen to and learn from. A one year old child who doesn't even know the word for "dress", who has no idea of what culture they are living in and if men wear robes in that culture, a one year old child wants to unsnap their onesie to make a "flowing dress"† to indicate that they are transgender. This is who was writing policy for the likes of WPATH.

†Clearly all these ladies are transgender, can you not see their flowing dresses?

It's the "somewhat obsessive way" part that makes it more of a disorder than just an interest in areas forbidden to their gender.

But, when this group grew up with therapy to both accept that they liked these stereotypical girly things but that didn't make them a girl, and to slowly expose them to more masculine pursuits, the vast majority just realized they were gay men by adulthood. The 20% who still felt like the opposite sex I feel bad for, there might be something genuinely wrong with them.

I think you really need a third group: Autists for whom desiring to be the other sex is just one weird thing about them among many. These are the people who say ”I don’t understand why X should be linked to sex” and actually mean it. They are the most likely ones you’re going to run into in techie online spaces (by a massive margin).

I think that's just one segment of the second group.

I don't think any trans person is their desired gender, but that doesn't mean that they are delusional. It really is their desired gender. It's just that desiring a gender doesn't make them that gender.

What an interesting way to put this.

I read a bit in that study, and I am not exactly overwhelmed.

The abstract talks about X2 statistics. Now I am not a statistics nerd, but I have encountered the letter χ (chi) in passing and happen to know that it does not identify as X or x.

Also, what one sentence claims, the next takes away:

Among adolescents who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during follow-up [...]

Only to note that [my addition, emphasis mine]:

After adjusting for prior psychiatric treatment [which was a contraindication to gender reassignment], all gender-referred adolescents had similarly elevated risks of psychiatric morbidity

In the study itself, the key variable of interest was simply boolean:

Need for specialist-level psychiatric treatment before the index contact (yes/no) and thereafter (yes/no) was recorded.

The impact of the quality of life on visiting a psychiatrist is hard to quantify. Both a patient who is undergoing exposure therapy to better deal with their fear of spiders before moving to the countryside, and a patient locked up in forensic psychiatry after killing someone during a psychotic episode would simply fall in the "specialist-level psychiatric treatment" bin.

The statistics section briefly discusses confounders:

In the next step, controlling for possible confounders: Birth year and index year and finally adding the need for specialist-level psychiatric treatment before the index contact.

There is no discussion of any of the less obvious confounders. After all, some patients got interventions and some did not -- based on their case histories, not on some RNG, so they must systematically differ. Trivially, having gotten a medical gender reassignment might make a patient more trusting to seek out sensitive medical help (e.g. psychiatric care) in the future. Or perhaps the eye color of the doctor deciding on the intervention is both correlated with their decision -- green-eyed doctors approve more, but getting treated by a green-eyed doctor will also drive 10% of patients mad. (Unlikely, the point here is to illustrate the required paranoia when separating confounders from the effect of the intervention.)

As a data point for the benefits and risks of gender-related interventions, this study does not tell us a lot either way.

Need for specialist-level psychiatric treatment before the index contact (yes/no) and thereafter (yes/no) was recorded.

The impact of the quality of life on visiting a psychiatrist is hard to quantify. Both a patient who is undergoing exposure therapy to better deal with their fear of spiders before moving to the countryside, and a patient locked up in forensic psychiatry after killing someone during a psychotic episode would simply fall in the "specialist-level psychiatric treatment" bin.

The statistics section briefly discusses confounders

They don't:

Ben Ryan: Is it fair to say that just by virtue of having contact with GIS [gender identity services—ie: the gender clinic] and undergoing GR [gender reassignment], the youth in the study cohort would be more likely to be referred to a specialist psychiatrist than someone in the general population, even if they had similar psychiatric comorbidity?

Riittakerttu Kaltiala: No. Specialist level psychiatric treatment is provided in case of severe mental disorders, and the need is assessed with national equity criteria that exist to maintain equal access across the country. Referrals to specialist level psychiatric services by different referring agents (such as primary care, GIS, occupational health, student health, private practitioners) are assessed similarly regardless of where they come from.

The abstract talks about X2 statistics. Now I am not a statistics nerd, but I have encountered the letter χ (chi) in passing and happen to know that it does not identify as X or x.

😹 I hereby award you🥈in the One Joke championships! (The 🥇 goes to 'vegetables thing that identifies as a beef burger'.)

There is no discussion of any of the less obvious confounders.

Or the more obvious confounder that the tribe that is more likely to transition is also more likely to seek psychiatric help?

Some people use statistics as a drunk man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than for illumination.

Woke people often complain that conservatives only know how to tell one joke, but even if that were true, I will remind them that 1 > 0.

The abstract talks about X2 statistics. Now I am not a statistics nerd, but I have encountered the letter χ (chi) in passing and happen to know that it does not identify as X or x.

One time in physics class I said “doubleyou” instead of “omega” and everyone laughed at me.

... because everyone knows that the "w" sound is represented by digamma in Greek.

So a trans person that got a follow up psychiatrist appointment to treat ADHD or a crippling fear of heights would be counted? That’s not very useful statistic.

I suppose it would be possible, if the ADHD was severe, and and phobia was truly crippling. He was actually quoting an excerpt showing that the more mundane cases were excluded (see here).

How is it not a useful statistic? Again, the study didn't just compare trans people to controls. They compared to how the mental health of trans people developed over the years as they transition / or don't, to how it develops in the control group. The group of trans people that took blockers or hormones, or had surgeries, had a higher rate of severe mental disorders than the trans people that didn't.

Even if the modal case is a crippling fear of heights, a result showing that these crippling phobias develop after their medical intervention, but not in people who don't go through with the transition, is interesting, no?

There are countless anecdotal reports online of people who are happier after transitioning.

This is fundamentally just a really bad way to judge whether a treatment works, one that we rightly dismiss for other treatments. There are also countless anecdotal reports of people who recover from cancer after faith-healing. And unlike spontaneous remission of cancer, which is rare, regression to the mean in mental health is the norm. "My mental health got so bad that I sought out X treatment, after which I got better" is the default result.

Go read Scott's Alcoholic Anonymous post (another treatment that a lot of supposed beneficiaries swear by that some critics accuse of being cult-like). Notice both how the evidence base is a complete mess (because it's really hard to test these things) and how the ultimate conclusion seems to be that AA (and pretty much all other treatments tested) is similarly effective to your doctor spending a few minutes telling you that alcoholism is bad and you should stop. Well, the evidence regarding gender transition is even worse. If it turns out outcomes for gender transition are equal or worse than your doctor spending a few minutes telling you "puberty can be scary but you'll be fine" or "accept yourself", that's something we really want to know rather than continuing with a standard treatment with so many downsides. Really it's something we should have known before establishing it as a standard treatment, but instead it went from "so rare you can't do decent studies" to "so common and standard that it would be unethical and difficult to have a real control group" without the step where we actually find out if it works.

A lot of arguments regarding gender transition research seem similar to other arguments that you pick up reading about medical research from people like Scott or Derek Lowe, just with the additional politicized element.

  1. A lot of treatments are based on popular theories on how things work that make the effectiveness of the treatment seem like an inevitability, then crash and burn in randomized control trials. Suggesting a biochemical pathway is bullshit is less likely to get you fired than suggesting "inborn gender identity" is bullshit, which makes it even worse.

  2. "The trial doesn't look good but maybe it works in a subgroup" is the sort of dubious cope you see all the time. At least the p-hackers saying "efficacy was shown in middle-aged hispanic women" have some sort of evidence, saying "okay but assuming the treatment works we just need to do a better job of diagnosing the people it'll work on" is even worse. The only saving grace is that the negative studies on gender transition aren't high-quality randomized control trials because none of the studies on the subject are.

  3. Most fundamentally, everyone knows that the vast majority of prospective treatments fail and the burden of proof is with the people who think they'll succeed. You can have a clear mechanism, anecdotes, observational trials pointing the right direction...and people know not to get too excited. Yes there are standard treatments that are grandfathered in without going through the FDA or equivalent, but the reason why that works isn't really "standard of care", it's "so incredibly obviously effective that the result was clear with much lower standards of evidence". The argument would be that gender transition is such a case, but the various negative studies (and "positive" studies that are pretty negative on closer examination) seem to show it's not really that obvious.

If you believe all trans people are delusional, why do you care about the specific etiology of the transness of a specific subgroup of trans people?

Because it calls into doubt both the advisability of the current standard of care and the theoretical framework the treatment is based on. If "diagnose people with gender dysphoria if they say they're trans" is an effective diagnosis method, why is it getting so many apparent false-positives? If "gender identity" is an inborn trait that people have an internal sense of, how are all these people getting it wrong? Why don't they just feel "gender dysphoria" the first time someone calls them "he" and immediately stop? For those who think they're not false-positives, why does it seem to so obviously spread socially? If the answer is something like "because the born-trans members felt more comfortable coming out", how does it get such absurdly high rates among not-very-selected subgroups? If 40% of a classroom in a private girl's high-school comes out as trans, does that mean we should believe 40% of all women throughout the world and all of history are closeted transgender people? I don't think you have be certain about whether you think "inborn transgenderism isn't real" or "inborn transgenderism is real but 99% of post-surge ones are false-positives" or "more than 1% are real but there's a large fraction of false-positives" to point out the ways the dominant theoretical framework and treatment methodology doesn't really make sense. Nor is there going to be a lot of a agreement on those among critics. Also "Are there a group of people with an inborn 'wrong gender identity' disorder that is best treated through gender transition?", "Are those people 'really' the other gender?", and "Would it be best if society did X to encourage or enforce classifying them as the other gender?" are three different questions.

If "diagnose people with gender dysphoria if they say they're trans" is an effective diagnosis method, why is it getting so many apparent false-positives?

I rated your post Good, but I'll have to pull you up on this one. Gender dysphoria is the syndrome, where people start feeling terrible about their sex and sometimes get phantom-limb. It obviously exists; I've had it. The debate is about the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria, which in my case appears to have been "ignore it and it'll go away".

Right, but "Gender Dysphoria" is the name used for the overall condition in the DSM-5. "A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics" and "A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender" are potential symptoms but not required ones. In fact diagnosing it in "Adolescents and Adults" only need 2 off this list, so for instance "A strong desire to be of the other gender" and "A strong desire to be treated as the other gender" are sufficient. (Diagnosing it in children requires 6 off a different list.) Of course in practice psychiatrists don't just do what the DSM-5 recommends and there is considerable variation.

So for those (including many psychiatrists) who believe self-identification is paramount to transgenderism, this means that a girl who comes in and says "I'm transgender" after the rest of her friend group did the same should be diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria even if she doesn't seem particularly upset with her body. (Not that discomfort with your body, particularly during puberty, is uncommon. Or believing yourself to be discomforted with it after learning that's how you should feel, or saying it after learning those are the magic words you should say to get past medical gatekeepers.) That people can genuinely feel that way and then have it go away after they ignore is obviously also important, but I was referring to the issues with the concept of transgenderism that claims self-identification is all-important.

...contradicts the motte ("some trans people with a specific presentation – primarily adolescent girls – are not actually their stated gender") because the latter presupposes that some trans people are, in fact, their stated gender. If you believe all trans people are delusional, why do you care about the specific etiology of the transness of a specific subgroup of trans people?

I don't think that follows without more argument. It's setting off alarm bells of the shape:

  • Summarize a position
  • the summary doesn't contain necessary element X
  • therefore, the original position mustn't have contained X
  • therefore, the original position is wrong.

Your summary presupposes that some trans people are their stated gender, and I don't know if it's more accurate than other summaries that don't make that assumption, for example "this subset of trans people are deluded in this specific way (while others are in other ways)".

The treatment, whichever you prefer, should be the same.

No, absolutely not.

If gender identity and dysphoria is fixed at birth, then you have to deal with which rights to give them and what medical treatments to perform. "None" is a valid answer, even if it's not one I like.

If gender identity is mutable and dysphoria can be caused, then you also have to deal with social policies that cause or prevent it.

Your summary presupposes that some trans people are their stated gender, and I don't know if it's more accurate than other summaries that don't make that assumption, for example "this subset of trans people are deluded in this specific way (while others are in other ways)".

But the typical anti-trans claim is that being trans is itself a delusion, that one cannot change one's gender, or there is no such thing as gender, only sex, which cannot be changed, etc. In that case, why you believe you are a different gender is irrelevant.

No, absolutely not.

If gender identity and dysphoria is fixed at birth, then you have to deal with which rights to give them and what medical treatments to perform. "None" is a valid answer, even if it's not one I like.

If gender identity is mutable and dysphoria can be caused, then you also have to deal with social policies that cause or prevent it.

I'm addressing people who answer "none". People who believe trans people should have rights and get treatment, etc., but also ROGD is a thing, etc., are certainly not the majority of the anti-trans movement. I am, in fact, such a person, but I am not part of the anti-trans movement.

In that case, why you believe you are a different gender is irrelevant.

I don't see how that follows. If endocrine disruptors cause your gender-center to misfire, then the proper response is better food/material/pollution standards. If social contagion causes mass delusions, then you have to change the social context. If it's linked to abuse, then strengthen and improve child and family services. If it's purely genetic, then you're pretty much stuck with it because eugenics is unthinkable. These are not exclusive options, as different ones can be true for different individuals.

In each case the causes suggest cures. A chemical cause hints that there might be a chemical solution, and same for when it's caused by peers.

I highly doubt you're arguing in good faith here.

Obviously if you believe all trans people are delusional and object to transition and treating people as their stated gender regardless of the effect on their mental health, this does not apply to you. But in that case the study isn't an argument you can use.

Not sure who you're talking to, but that isn't the modal "anti-trans" view, and I doubt anyone has that strawman view on this forum. Sure, many trans people are delusional (the ones who merely declare they want to be treated as the other sex aren't, but the modern line that they are and always have been another sex is just obviously false). But adults are free to pursue happiness in their own way, including transitioning, and it's no big deal for me to be polite and play along with their preferences most of the time.

I suspect you know that most people's main objection is to forcing the rest of society to play along. That includes:

  • rewriting history and Wikipedia to avoid "deadnames" in a very Stalinesque/Orwellian way
  • policing of pronoun usage, with penalties ranging from loss of employment to jail
  • being forced to loudly affirm that trans people and ideologies are the bestest ever, with penalties ranging from loss of employment to jail
  • destroying the categories of "male" and "female" in all discourse
  • having no willingness to rein in (or even acknowledge) bad actors who are feigning transness as a way to invade women's spaces and sports

yet anti-trans activists have been the main publicists of transness for about a decade now

This is a hilariously absurd take. You're just shit-stirring.

rewriting history and Wikipedia to avoid "deadnames" in a very Stalinesque/Orwellian way

Where does that happen? Let's look at Wikipedia specifically. The articles for Caitlyn Jenner and Elliot Page have their former names right there in the first sentence. I think a lower-profile trans person who wasn't notable before transitioning might have their name excluded, maybe because there are no reliable sources available stating their former name, maybe as a courtesy, since it is of no interest to the public anyway. The same courtesy was unfortunately not extended to Scott Alexander, but it is extended to, for example, the streamer Jerma985 whose real name you won't find anywhere in his article. It formerly contained a fake real name, which he presents as his real name, presumably to protect his privacy, but even that has now been removed.

policing of pronoun usage, with penalties ranging from loss of employment to jail

Has anyone ever lost their job because they didn't use the right pronouns? If they did this consistently, especially if they did it to customers, it could be seen as disrespectful, akin to calling their coworkers or customers names, which is a valid reason to lose a job.

Has anyone ever gone to jail because of pronouns? As far as I can tell, that is just a fantasy of Jordan Peterson's.

being forced to loudly affirm that trans people and ideologies are the bestest ever, with penalties ranging from loss of employment to jail

Has that ever happened?

destroying the categories of "male" and "female" in all discourse

If you look carefully, you'll notice that all they've done is change the terms to "AMAB" and "AFAB", respectively. Having these categories is, in fact, necessary, and even trans activists can't get away from them. All they can do is be politically correct.

having no willingness to rein in (or even acknowledge) bad actors who are feigning transness as a way to invade women's spaces and sports

If that's your concern, talk about that instead of claiming that all trans people are perverts, rapists, misogynists, etc., and none of them should be treated as their preferred gender. FWIW, I agree these concerns are valid.

Has anyone ever gone to jail because of pronouns?

At least one British man was convicted for misgendering, although his conviction was overturned on appeal. Something similar happened to a British woman, who was convicted for calling a trans-identified male a man, a conviction that was likewise overturned.

To the best of my knowledge no one has actually been sent to prison for misgendering, but at least two people have been arrested and held in jail cells for misgendering.

you'll notice that all they've done is change the terms to "AMAB" and "AFAB", respectively.

Which amounts to destruction. No one's sex is "assigned" at birth, like you just arbitrarily bestowed a sex on them but another one would have done just as well. Sexes are observed at birth. The claim that a doctor simply "assigns" them on a whim does, in fact, amount to a fundamental demolition of what the word "sex" means. Which would be bad enough if that was all trans activists were doing, which it isn't. See the absurd attempts to portray sex as a "spectrum", the inability of medical doctors to give a straight answer to simple questions like "can men get pregnant?", the replacement of commonly used anatomical terms with ghastly, dehumanising substitutes like "front hole", "chestfeeding", "birthing person" and "menstruators"...

It would be bad enough if "all" trans activists had done/wanted to do was replace the words "male" and "female" with "AMAB" and "AFAB" respectively. But it's abundantly obvious that that is not all they have done or want to do. Frankly, it strains credibility that you are so ignorant of the specifics of this group you're so routinely going to bat for.

My stance is more or less what you describe, but I was under the impression that that makes me an outlier on this forum (especially if weighted by posting activity). The majority of active posters now seem to be sexual traditionalists with enough of an authoritarian streak that they subscribe to argumentation to the effect of (1) society is rotten, (2) the existence of sexual deviants contributes to its rottenness, (3) therefore we need to crack down on sexual deviation, over any ideas that adults are free to pursue happiness in their own way.

There's a reason for that, once succinctly (if rudely) expressed by Winston Churchill -- "The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet". Live and let live, in general and with trans stuff in particular, has simply not worked -- every bit of tolerance has been used as a wedge to demand something more.

These "we have to do the bad thing to them or else they will do the bad thing to us" statements are facile. Churchill's "Hun", you must realise, is Germany, which is currently not at Britain's feet. Did the British make a mistake in acquiescing to the post-WWII European security architecture?

I'm not sure what the equivalent of utterly defeating Germany, tearing it in half, having different coalitions occupy the two halves, one for almost half a century, and only then finally letting off while still having both Germany and the UK arguably at the feet of the US would be for trans activists, but I'm sure it hasn't happened.

Did the British make a mistake in acquiescing to the post-WWII European security architecture?

Undeniably

These "we have to do the bad thing to them or else they will do the bad thing to us" statements are facile.

Then why did they, in fact, immediately do bad things to us right after pressure on the was relieved, when they loudly and repeatedly promised that all they want is tolerance?

Look at Britain post-WW2. Look at Britain now.

I’d say that’s a yes. We should have done what the French did and told everybody else to shove it and built our own security architecture.

Do you think British decline would actually have been forestalled if they had focussed their energies on continuing to forestall the Germans? I guess that if you believe things now are worse most everywhere, it's easy to point at past choices to deescalate and imagine the counterfactual would have turned out better. (But, should Japan and Korea have stayed at each other's throats? The US and Canada? Sweden and Denmark?)

The French surely had their own version of that meme, considering their rivalry with the Germans went back further and they were the ones to push the most for the punitive terms of Versailles.

Not sure who you're talking to, but that isn't the modal "anti-trans" view, and I doubt anyone has that strawman view on this forum.

It applies to me. All transgenders are wrong about a very obvious and easily verifiable fact. That is, literally, the definition of transgender. They confront proof of this wrongness every time they take a shower or use the toilet- hopefully, multiple times a day. They are, in other words, delusional, and playing along for the sake of their mental health is not actually any sort of obligation, except perhaps occasionally for actual mental health professionals, and not for the sake of increasing their comfort with their delusion but only for that of getting at and treating the underlying issues.

Now there are many lumped into the category of transgender who believe themselves to be something other than male and female, who identify as 'queer' or 'nonbinary'. I don't know what these categories are because these categories are not real, and while these people are wrong they're wrong about metaphysics- claiming to be something that isn't real on nonexistent philosophical grounds isn't falsifiable, it can't be delusional. But these people are not transgenders proper.

This stance does not, incidentally, actually determine whether people should be banned from transition. Not least, transition is sufficiently difficult to define as to make that hard.

This stance does not, incidentally, actually determine whether people should be banned from transition. Not least, transition is sufficiently difficult to define as to make that hard.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but OP was addressing imaginary people who say "no one should be allowed to transition". It doesn't sound like you fit that mould. Of course, the pro-trans media will throw people who don't want kids to transition, or who don't want to be forced to pay for others transitioning, into that category. But that's politics for you; and you shouldn't do their work for them by self-identifying as such.

I don't disagree with anything you said, but OP was addressing imaginary people who say "no one should be allowed to transition". It doesn't sound like you fit that mould. Of course, the pro-trans media will throw people who don't want kids to transition, or who don't want to be forced to pay for others transitioning, into that category. But that's politics for you; and you shouldn't do their work for them by self-identifying as such.

FWIW I don't think anyone should be allowed to transition in the same sense I believe nobody should be allowed to get an amputation of a healthy functional limb. There is a basic principle that physicians shouldn't facilitate self-harm by mentally ill people. Physicians are licensed and regulated by the State and it's reasonable (in my opinion) for the state to impose restrictions on the kinds of medical procedures physicians can do. Ideally this should be province of state medical boards and state medical associations, but there is a big enough problem of ideological capture by insane Leftism that it's appropriate for the legislature to step in.

That being said, the transitioning of minors is a far more outrageous and compelling issue than the general question of sex-change procedures. What's almost as outrageous (and compelling) is social and legal compulsion of people to play along with trans ideology. If the trans crowd would agree to (1) stop trying to trans people who are underage; and (2) stop forcing people to use the word "ma'am" with someone who is obviously a dude in a dress (and this includes coercing institutions into letting obvious men use the ladies' locker room), I personally would concede on letting consenting adults going through sex-change operations.

FWIW I don't think anyone should be allowed to transition in the same sense I believe nobody should be allowed to get an amputation of a healthy functional limb. There is a basic principle that physicians shouldn't facilitate self-harm by mentally ill people. Physicians are licensed and regulated by the State and it's reasonable (in my opinion) for the state to impose restrictions on the kinds of medical procedures physicians can do.

Realistically, though, this is always going to be a subjective judgement call. If you go to the extremes on this, then tattoos or even ear piercing should be illegal! Cutting off an arm is clearly a much worse (and more irreversible) level of harm than surgery on your genitals. Yes, the latter squicks me out, but given my libertarian leanings, I want the government to have a really compelling, almost-universally-accepted reason to outright ban something. Which amputation satisfies, but transition surgery does not.

Cutting off an arm is clearly a much worse (and more irreversible) level of harm than surgery on your genitals.

While the former would have a much greater impact on your day-to-day activities, never being able to have children seems like a really big imposition. It would be interesting to do a poll asking people if they'd rather lose an arm or all functioning in their genitalia.

I don’t understand what’s the delusion? The vast majority of trans people are acutely aware of the reality of their biological sex, otherwise they would not be taking hormones and having surgery.

Being trans is about wanting to be the opposite sex, or at least being distressed by your own biological sex and sexual characteristics. What are they wrong about?

It’s like thinking overweight people who take GLP-1 antagonists are delusional about thinking they’re actually skinny. That seems… completely backwards? There’s anorexic people who take Ozempic but the delusion is thinking they’re being fat - the equivalent would be a cis woman taking estrogen because she has a delusion that she’s biologically male. A trans woman is 100% correct about not being biologically female, which is why she’d want medical interventions instead of doing nothing!

There’s an ontological debate over the definition of the words “woman” and “man” and the whole gender vs sex kerfuffle, and some activists’ definition of “woman” is circular to the point of uselessness, but that’s a separate issue and more of a debate around values, not facts.

The delusion is thinking that the hormones and whatever else actually make you a man/woman, rather than the opposite in a costume. It no more entitles he to she transgenders to use the women’s room than a naughty nun costume for a Halloween party does. People on ozempic are actually literally skinny, they can verify this with a scale. People on hormones are actually literally not the other sex.

Now like I said, this doesn’t have anything in particular to do with whether transition should be allowed. I would lean towards ‘no’, but that’s a separate point having to do with attitudes towards gender roles. It’s not some axiomatic conclusion from the point being made.

I don’t understand what’s the delusion? The vast majority of trans people are acutely aware of the reality of their biological sex, otherwise they would not be taking hormones and having surgery.

Delusions such as "Now that I take artificially produced female hormones, I totally have changed my biological sex I am now indeed a biological woman just like other women". Delusions such as "One of the side-effects of taking hormones is abdominal cramping and pains. This is precisely the same thing as female periods, I am a real woman having real periods just like other women".

Ah, the happy days of "gender is not the same as sex and none of us are claiming that", how I look back wistfully upon them.

I know, I know, nutpicking and all that, but I've encountered more than my fair share of trans-identified males who will complain about being described as "male" and who insist that they're every bit as female as any cis woman. I have no idea how common such people are, but they absolutely exist.

Regardless of how many people actually believe this, it's obvious that politically this is the line mainstream trans activism has to take, because otherwise to exclude trans people from spaces, all their opponents have to do is relabel them from, say, "women's sports" to "female sports", and that would defeat the entire purpose of trans activism.

The delusion is in insisting that wanting to be something is exactly the same thing as being that something, which is obviously ridiculous. Honestly you are starting to sound wilfully ignorant which makes me think you are trans-identified yourself, because consistently denying reality and pretending not to understand things that have been explained to you ad nauseam is a key characteristic of trans-identified people and their allies.

But I'll bite and explain once more. According to mainstream gender ideology:

  1. Any person who self-declares themselves as the opposite of their biological sex is the opposite of their biological sex.
  2. That person has always been the opposite sex!
  3. Absolutely no medication or change in behavior is required to become the opposite sex.

It’s like thinking overweight people who take GLP-1 antagonists are delusional about thinking they’re actually skinny.

To apply this analogy, it would be like thinking that overweight people become skinny merely by expressing the desire to become skinny. And moreover, not only are they now skinny (even though they are objectively still fat), they have retroactively always been skinny, and if you deny this, you are a bigot and you will get banned for misweighting a stunning and brave transskinny person.

The fact that nobody actually thinks like this when it comes to fat people shows how ridiculous gender ideology is.

And sure, there is a type of trans person who actually tries to transition. They will take cross sex hormones, change out their wardrobe, change their behavior, and so on. Those people have at least some valid claim to be treated as the opposite sex. But importantly, gender ideology doesn't require anyone to do anything like that (claiming someone needs to transitions to be “valid” as a transgender makes you truscum which is practically as bad as being a TERF) and even if you go through all that trouble, obviously it doesn't change who you were before your transition, although gender ideologues will insist that who you were in the past depends entirely on what you identify as today.

which makes me think you are trans-identified yourself

@rae is trans, yes.

But I'll bite and explain once more. According to mainstream gender ideology:

  1. Any person who self-declares themselves as the opposite of their biological is the opposite of their biological sex.
  2. That person has always been the opposite sex!
  3. Absolutely no medication or change in behavior is required to become the opposite sex.

My understanding of the matter is more:

  1. Any person who self-declares themselves as the gender opposite of their biological sex is the opposite gender to their biological sex.
  2. That person has always been the opposite gender.
  3. Absolutely no change in biological sex is required to become the opposite gender.
  4. Other people's biological sex, if they don't bring it up, is none of anyone else's beeswax.
  5. If you can tell that someone's biological sex is partially or entirely mismatched to their gender, you should keep that to yourself unless they bring it up first, just as you would if they had an embarrassing skin condition or a missing limb.

The premise that gender is merely a separate thing from sex was used as a foot in the door twenty years ago. No modern gender ideologue operates on the basis that biological sex is real and important today.

If you disagree, I will ask you the same thing as I asked Rae: go ahead edit the fact that Imane Khelif is male and that Elliot Page is female into their respective Wikipedia pages. If you manage to do that, I will concede that gender ideologues in the real world separate sex from gender identity.

Other people's biological sex, if they don't bring it up, is none of anyone else's beeswax.

Sure, that's what gender ideologues believe, but why shouldn't it be? Especially if they use their false claim to get special privileges, like Imane Khelif falsely claiming to be a woman to compete in the women's boxing tournament.

If you can tell that someone's biological sex is partially or entirely mismatched to their gender, you should keep that to yourself unless they bring it up first, just as you would if they had an embarrassing skin condition or a missing limb.

Again, that's perfectly reasonable up to the point where they make false claims to access resources they shouldn't have access to. The analogy fails because people with embarassing skin conditions or missing limbs don't generally claim to have flawless complexions or complete bodies.

The closest case I can think of is someone like Oscar Pistorius who is a sprinter with artifical legs who was eventually banned from competing against natural humans because he had an advantage over regular athletes. If we can ban Pistorius from men's sports, why can't we ban Khelif from women's sports?

Imane Khelif isn't even trans! By all accounts, she has a vagina and was raised as a girl, and she and her entire family have believed she is female her whole life. Even if she does have XY chromosomes (not confirmed), a hundred years ago we wouldn't have even known that and no one would have questioned her womanhood.

Whether Khelif is trans or has a vagina really depends on which definition you use, but let's talk about something more interesting:

she and her entire family have believed she is female her whole life

I'm willing to believe that Khelif and her family assumed her female until puberty, but after that, they must have noticed something was up.

I find it hard to believe that even in a relatively poor country like Algeria, a teenage girl can go through puberty without ever menstruating or developing secondary sexual characteristics like breasts and hips, and nobody questions it or takes her to the doctor. Algeria is a poor country, but they're not that primitive. And even primitive peoples understand the basics of male and female anatomy pretty well.

And then of course there were all the failed sex tests: first by the IBA, and then by a private doctor in France in 2023, which Khelif later admitted confirmed he has male genetics and male typical testosterone levels.

Note that his was before the 2024 Olympics, when it became known that he had failed the IBA tests, but the results of his private tests weren't public knowledge yet. The IOC and various useful idiots spread the lie that the IBA results had been falsified by evil Russians. Khelif knew this wasn't true, because his own private results confirmed the IBA tests, but he never spoke up. This seems calculated.

Then later, in 2025, Khelif tried to participate in the boxing championship held in the UK, organized by World Boxing, the Western organization that was created to replace the IBA. They also required a sex test, which Khelif refused to take, despite being desparate to compete (he even sued the organization to force admission without doing the test, but lost). Why would a person who legitimately believes himself to be female refuse to take a sex test designed to confirm that fact?

So it's clear at this point Khelif knows he's genetically male, and that therefore he will never pass any test designed to screen out genetic males. He probably knew this at the 2024 Olympics, too, because he had already failed the IBA tests and had them confirmed by his own doctor. He was intentionally witholding that information.

Photos from the Olympics clearly show Khelif being carried on their coach's shoulders and their coach's hands touching Khelif's bare skin. In theocratic MENA countries it's a big no-no for a man to touch the bare skin of a woman who isn't his wife (many women won't even shake hands with a man when meeting him). The coach definitely knew.

Even if she does have XY chromosomes (not confirmed),

Strange, given Khelif has admitted it.

If you can tell that someone's biological sex is partially or entirely mismatched to their gender, you should keep that to yourself unless they bring it up first, just as you would if they had an embarrassing skin condition or a missing limb.

Sure, I'll happily keep my mouth shut about that should I ever encounter an obviously trans person in real life (by the way, that's another claim I've seen: 'you do know trans people, hundreds of them, you've met them, they're all around you'. Er, no.)

But when someone starts in about "how about we all share our pronouns?" or the likes and makes it about "let's not embarrass trans people by relying on visual identification where they don't pass, let's all share our pronouns so we're not outing anyone, even though we are in fact outing people" (and I'll admit that's often or mostly the allies, or some other branch of the LGBT+++ movement, not the trans people themselves doing it), then they make it about "I am clearly pretending to be something I'm not and demanding you openly accede to that verbally". If you're going to demand I say out loud "yes, Sally is a girl" then I reserve the right to say out loud "We all know Sally used to be John". I'm willing to exchange courtesy for courtesy and live-and-let-live, but not if I'm asked (or strongly encouraged) to participate in the pretence.

I did see an example in my own work life of someone firing off emails with their pronouns in the signature line, I don't know if this was something mandated by where they worked (because it was a couple of different people in the same organisation doing it) but thankfully that seems to have died a natural death. If you can't tell by my obviously female name what gender I present as, and we're never going to meet face-to-face, and you don't need to know my gender/sex/number of limbs, then why make a big deal out of it? I did not need to know that Susie was going by "she/her" in order to send back the completed form as requested per your last.

My mum argued that pronouns can be helpful, not for the purposes of trans inclusivity, but because sometimes she gets emails from people from foreign countries and isn't sure if their forename is a boy's or girl's name.

I pointed out that we used to have a perfectly effective means of solving this problem: Mr./Mrs./Ms. This seems like a great example of jugaad ethics.

If you can tell that someone's biological sex is partially or entirely mismatched to their gender, you should keep that to yourself unless they bring it up first, just as you would if they had an embarrassing skin condition or a missing limb.

Again, that's perfectly reasonable up to the point where they make false claims to access resources they shouldn't have access to. The analogy fails because people with embarassing skin conditions or missing limbs don't generally claim to have flawless complexions or complete bodies.

Also, the euphemistic "should" in "should keep that to yourself" is playing the part of a motte. I have no problem with the idea that it's just as impolite to point out that a transwoman looks ridiculous as it is to call attention to somebody's missing arm (although I would hope the transwoman had someone in their life who was honest with them). The actual bailey is "you MUST keep that to yourself, or you are a declared Enemy and we will publicly advocate for doxxing you, getting you fired, and (in the UK, at least) jailing you".

Also, the euphemistic "should" in "should keep that to yourself" is playing the part of a motte.

I agree. Part of the problem with the skin condition analogy is that the issue doesn't normally come up in ordinary life. The way you address a person isn't normally based on whether the person has clear skin. By contrast, you normally call a person "sir" or "ma'am" based on whether they are male or female. Similarly, people don't use a particular locker room based on whether or not they have a skin condition.

I think A better analogy would be if people with serious skin conditions were given access to special resources, for example more convenient parking spaces during the summer months so that they wouldn't have to spend as much time walking outdoors. And if a person with perfectly healthy skin was permitted to identify as having a skin condition and take advantage of this special access. And if anyone who complained about the situation (or who didn't go along with pretending that the person had a skin condition) were ostracized.

More comments

That’s my understanding as well. Maybe @MartianNight and @hydroacetylene don’t believe in the gender/sex distinction but it’s central to the mainstream trans viewpoint and it’s either a straw man or a misinterpretation to interpret “x was always a man” as “x is and always was biologically male”.

Progressives will be very sensitive about language and avoid explicitly calling a trans man a biological female, but they aren’t (completely) denying reality, they’ll just use euphemisms and softer language (like AFAB/AMAB, “presenting as female at the time”). If you don’t have hold the sex/gender distinction it’s easy to think it’s complete nonsensical absurdity and that they’re saying a man can will himself into having a uterus, as opposed to having this nebulously defined conception of the inner self as a woman.

There is no gender/sex distinction. Famously, Matt Walsh asked “what is a woman?”. Self ID doesn’t get you there because unless you have a platonic form there is no way one can in fact identify as a woman (what is someone identifying with if there is no form). So the only possible coherence is to look at the platonic form of a female and see if women maps onto it.

But then trans folks are basically claiming that doing certain activities are the defining form of being a woman (again if there is any coherence to trans ideology — one could say there are many ways to be a woman but trans people need there to be a platonic form). And by doing so, by saying “women are X, Y, and Z” trans folks are basically telling a bunch of females that they actually aren’t a woman (unlike the trans “woman” who is male). That is patently ridiculous. No, the woman who was born with women’s characteristics shouldn’t be told she isnt a woman by a confused man. Being a woman (based on sex) is easily defined and generally has worked for society for ages; yes there are extreme edge cases but far fewer than if the trans incoherence was adopted.

So even if you take the weak form of trans claims, they still fall apart into incoherent delusions since the only way to make any sense of gender is by tying it in to sex and therefore breaking the alleged binary.

don’t believe in the gender/sex distinction but it’s central to the mainstream trans viewpoint

No it's not, and I've already pointed you to enough examples that I now believe you are being completely disingenuous the way all gender ideologues are always completely disingenuous.

If gender ideologues embraced the sex/gender distinction, Wikipedia's Elliot Page article would start with: "Elliot Page is a female actor who identifies as a man"

And Wikipedia's Imane Khelif article would start with "Imane Khelif is an intersex male suffering from 5AR2D who identifies as a woman..."

The Khelif article literally contains the false claim that "Khelif was born female" and for months contained the completely unsubstantiated sentence "false claims that she was a male circulated online": while these claims did circulate online, they were factually true, and this is still not acknowledged, though the sentence has been modified by replacing "male" with "man" which is still a lie since Khelif is a man in the trivial meaning of the word.

There is no "sensitivity" or "soft language" here. There is just a complete denial of objective reality. And it's not an oversight: this was one of the most-viewed articles of 2025. Many people tried to correct the "born female" and "false claims" phrasing; these people were all overruled by the gender activists that watch these articles like hawks and police the language carefully with the intent to maximally deceive the public.

If you disagree and you think the statement "Khelif was born female" was not meant to deceive the reader into thinking Khelif was born female (when in fact Khelif was born male) I would love to read your argument to that effect. But stop your bullshit about me not “believing” in a gender/sex distinction that obviously real world gender ideologues don't believe in either, considering that they're always intentionally conflating gender with sex, and never plainly state the sex of transgender/intersex people.

Intersex is a whole other kettle of fish, and I have sympathy there. But it's been hijacked as the "hit me now with the child in my arms" by the trans activists in order to go "well ackshully chromosomes aren't enough or assignment at birth isn't enough because what about this case and this case and this case of intersex people? checkmate, bigot!"

Someone with Klinefelter Syndrome is not the same as someone with functional sexual characteristics and two X chromosomes now declaring that they are the same as XY male for all intents and purposes. So what if I'm getting pregnant, I am the father of this child not the mother!

However, pregnancy can be a challenging time emotionally. Transgender men and transmasculine folks who become pregnant often experience scrutiny from their communities.

As Kaci points out, “There’s nothing inherently feminine or womanly about conception, pregnancy, or delivery. No body part, nor bodily function, is inherently gendered. If your body can gestate a fetus, and that’s something you happen to want — then it’s for you, too.”

Honestly you are starting to sound wilfully ignorant which makes me think you are trans-identified yourself, because consistently denying reality and pretending not to understand things that have been explained to you ad nauseam is a key characteristic of trans-identified people and their allies.

How have I denied reality? I guess we can argue over the proportions of people with extreme beliefs about gender. I’m not even saying I agree with the mainstream pro trans position, I don’t, but I feel like you’re painting a straw man here.

But I'll bite and explain once more. According to mainstream gender ideology:

Anyone who believes trans people literally become the opposite sex by self declaration is delusional and an idiot. That might be a big proportion of people arguing online about it, I don’t know, but I’ve thankfully never met anyone who believed that IRL.

Absolutely no medication or change in behavior is required to become the opposite sex.

That is so stupid it has so be a straw man or a minority of hardcore activists that don’t represent most trans people (which I have never encountered). Trans activists are all about separating gender from sex, and saying you being a man or a woman is different from you being male or female. That’s why there’s the whole “what is a woman” debate, otherwise how would that work, would they believe you can spontaneously manifest a uterus by believing you have one?

And sure, there is a type of trans person who actually tries to transition. They will take cross sex hormones, change out their wardrobe, change their behavior, and so on. Those people have at least some valid claim to be treated as the opposite sex.

This is the vast majority of trans people I know, at least for hormones and wardrobe, behaviour is somewhat hit or miss.

claiming someone needs to transitions to be “valid” as a transgender makes you truscum which is practically as bad as being a TERF

Guess I’m as bad as a TERF then. If you make no attempt to present as a woman before going to the woman’s bathroom or locker room, obviously you might make people uncomfortable and they wouldn’t be out of bounds in asking you to leave.

I know that this feels like we're all piling on to you, but there are enough crazy people out there pushing extreme edges that most of us are frustrated. If it were just crazy people on social media declaring that they are trans masc non-binary female presenting two-spirit third gender folx, we'd roll our eyes and move on. But the craziness has real world consequences, from prisons to sports to encounters in everyday life.

This entire topic has become way too heated; first it was "trust the science, bigot" but now the science is inconvenient so that becomes "oh well they're all TERFs and no, that thing that happened never happened!"

I don’t even agree with mainstream transgender philosophy, I don’t believe in “gender” in the classic sex/gender dichotomy (it’s far too influenced by biological factors in my view). But everybody here is jumping to the least charitable interpretation of “gender ideology” and assuming I share those beliefs. You can’t call all trans people delusional, then when I ask what delusions I have, start bringing up straw men or viewpoints I don’t even have and have repudiated many times.

The same way the trans masc non-binary female presenting two-spirit third gender folx pushed people to the right, the “all trans people are delusional, trans healthcare should be banned, there should be laws and fines for going to the wrong bathroom” takes are gonna push people to the left. I feel like there’s already a vibe shift where the people are nostalgic for woke and seeing it as having been mostly silly and not that big of a deal. The they/thems didn’t start a war in the Middle East at least.

What we're all is trying to drill into you is that the absurd things we describe are not strawmen. They are official policy and actual law in many places.

Guess I’m as bad as a TERF then. If you make no attempt to present as a woman before going to the woman’s bathroom or locker room, obviously you might make people uncomfortable and they wouldn’t be out of bounds in asking you to leave.

Yes! This makes you as bad as a TERF! Your common sense here is - and I want to emphasize that this is not hyperbole or exaggeration - against the law in California. You cannot ask a man not to use the women's shower, as this constitutes discrimination against their self-declared gender. The relevant law is the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which includes "gender identity and gender expression" as protected categories.

Here is one attempt to fix this with legislation. The site Trans Legislation Tracker declares that this is an anti-trans bill. Their own hostile summary includes this: "The Legislature finds and declares [...] Gender identity is fluid, and there is no ability for a commercial enterprise to determine if an individual's claim of a gender identity is sincere or is a pretext to obtain access to the opposite sex's intimate spaces." Which is absolutely correct! Just the acknowledgement that bad actors exist is treated as anti-trans!

You need to get your head out of the sand. Trans-aligned politics is absolutely bonkers. The vast majority of us allegedly "anti-trans" folks aren't being bigots; we're just trying to restore a measure of normalcy.

The vast majority of us allegedly "anti-trans" folks aren't being bigots; we're just trying to restore a measure of normalcy.

The vast majority of anti-trans people are not enacting minimum standards to use toilets or do other sex-segregated activities: they're banning trans people completely, regardless of how well they pass, how much effort they've put in, or how sincere they are. That is the mainstream anti-trans view. Your view, if you have described it accurately, is fringe.

they're banning trans people completely

I don't propose banning trans people (whatever that means). I don't propose rounding trans people and herding them into camps. I propose making people use the public facilities and compete in the sporting events that concord with their sex. I'm not saying "trans people can't compete in sporting events ever"; I'm saying "if they wish to compete in sporting events, trans people must compete in the sporting events corresponding to their sex, just like everyone else".

Anyone who believes trans people literally become the opposite sex by self declaration is delusional and an idiot.

OK but that is literally the standard model of gender ideology in the real world, and if you argue for your interpretation you will get banned from half the internet and fired from every job in academia, hollywood, sillicon valley, and wherever else the woke reign supreme.

Go try and edit Wikipedia to reflect your belief that Elliot Page was a woman when he played a pregnant teenage girl. Heck, go on Wikipedia and edit the Elliot Page article to state that Page might be a man now but he still is biologically female and was born female (rather than merely being “assigned female at birth” by an ignorant doctor) If you manage to do that without getting banned or ganged upon by a rabid troupe of gender ideologues who will swiftly revert your changes, I might consider your hypothesis that gender ideology might possibly mean what you claim it means.

But who are we kidding? We both know that your conception of gender ideology doesn't exist outside The Motte. It's actually a fantastic example of the motte-and-baily fallacy. Only in The Motte, that wretched hive of scum and villainy, where people don't automatically agree that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman, does transwoman mean “person who wishes they are a woman but is a male in reality”. Everywhere else it means “woman, and if you deny it you're banned”.

Go try and edit Wikipedia to reflect your belief that Elliot Page was a woman when he played a pregnant teenage girl. Heck, go on Wikipedia and edit the Elliot Page article to state that Page might be a man now but he still is biologically female and was born female (rather than merely being “assigned female at birth” by an ignorant doctor)

You're just nitpicking about terminology. Everyone knows that "AFAB" is a euphemism for "born female". Do you campaign against euphemisms in general or is it this one specific pair of euphemisms that you consider the great political issue of our time?

No, I don't think it's nitpicking to point out that "born female" implies "born biologically female" much more strongly than the related but different term "assigned female at birth".

I understand AFAB is often used as a euphemism for "biological female" but that relies on the fact that most transgender people are the biological sex they were assigned at birth. The entire point of the Khelif controversy is that he was assigned female at birth despite being biologically male.

And although I do think an encyclopedia should avoid euphemisms in favor of clear language, I didn't bring the AFAB/born female distinction up as part of a cruscade against euphemisms on Wikipedia, but to support my point that Wikipedia does not use these words interchangably, and the choice to describe Khelif as "born female" was intended to falsely suggest that Khelif is biologically female.

I’m surprised @MartianNight isn’t aware of the “AFAB only” spaces controversy which is the woke way of saying “biological female only”. Also “AFAB vs AMAB socialisation”.

Woke people are quite aware of biological sex. There’s probably some horseshoe theory thing at play where both woke and gender critical people end up with similar viewpoints and are both dismissive of trans people and physical dysphoria.

rewriting history and Wikipedia to avoid "deadnames" in a very Stalinesque/Orwellian way

Wikipedia is a private organization and is allowed to set their policies as they please.

penalties ranging from loss of employment

Employers should have a right to free association and should be able to fire someone for any reason they please.

to jail

I am not aware of this ever happening in the US. There may be some other nations that have done so, but those nations also tend to be highly censorious in other areas too (like how the UK has effectively outlawed a lot of Palestine support) so it seems to be a general free speech issue with them.

being forced to loudly affirm that trans people and ideologies are the bestest ever, with penalties ranging from loss of employment to jail

Same thing with this. Employer right to free association is based, government compelling something is not.

destroying the categories of "male" and "female" in all discourse

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/

having no willingness to rein in (or even acknowledge) bad actors who are feigning transness as a way to invade women's spaces and sports

The only instance I know of people actually trying to feign transness to enter sports was for the Daily Wire's movie LadyBallers in which they failed to get a man actually willing to undergo the transition requirements in joining the women's competitions.

Moreover, Shapiro notes that the male actors involved were not willing to undergo the necessary procedures to be able to participate on women's teams

Makes sense, nobody cares about women's sports to begin with so people aren't giving themselves hormones and surgeries for multiple years just to win in them. Every trans participant in women's sports I've heard of (the vanishingly few already) seem to have been transitioning for real and persisted even after they stopped participating.

  • -20

Citing employers free association rights are rich when they will get sued by the government for creating a hostile work environment if they for example didn’t want trans.

I'm against anti discrimination laws and think they should be overturned.

Wikipedia is a private organization and is allowed to set their policies as they please.

and they should choose different policies.

Employers should have a right to free association and should be able to fire someone for any reason they please.

and they should choose different policies.

Same thing with this. Employer right to free association is based, government compelling something is not.

and they should choose different policies.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/

and they should choose different policies categories.

People can freely choose to do bad things, and I can object to it. The government isn't the only valid target for disapproval.

I saw that pattern of arguments a lot more in "free speech" debates, where one side would highlight something that suppressed viewpoints, stifled debate, and prevented the free flow of information, while the other side would dismiss it because the American government did not violate their First Amendment.

Once the government-only frame is accepted, it's really hard to get the debate out of it.

Wikipedia is a private organization and is allowed to set their policies as they please.

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. I do not believe that it should be illegal for Wikipedia to do what they do. But just because it's legal doesn't mean it's acceptable. I believe that it is unreasonable for Wikipedia to act in the way they do, and I (and others) criticize them on that basis.

And when Wikipedia is trying to operate on an idea of being an impartial open source collective of human information. Then on certain issues they hardcore advocate for certain opinion driven stances.

You are allowed to disagree with them, you have just as much rights as any of them do. The only reason I'm pointing this out is because the comment included them as an example of

suspect you know that most people's main objection is to forcing the rest of society to play along. That includes:

Wikipedia is not forcing you to "play along". If they were using the threat of violence in some form they would be. But as is, they're a private organization that gets to decide their own policies.

Note that I said "rewriting history and Wikipedia". There is absolutely compulsion involved here. In the happy event that the Wikimedia Foundation decided tomorrow that they would like to return to the ideal of a crowd-sourced encyclopedia, and unlocked all the trans-adjacent pages to allow mainstream views, they would be attacked and sued. And anyone else who publishes information that includes "deadnames" is declared as anti-trans and will, in some countries, be in serious trouble. (Not the US - yet - but not for lack of trying! I'm grateful that the US has the strongest free-speech protections in the world.)

This is 100% Orwellian. "We have always been at war with Eastasia." "Elliot Page has always been a man."

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/

http://unremediatedgender.space/2018/Feb/the-categories-were-made-for-man-to-make-predictions/

The problem with this response has always been is that categories vary wildly between groups.

Even something as simple as "what is a sound?" gets a fierce debate when you ask if a tree falling in a forest with no one around makes one. No one contests the base level reality, that the air around the tree vibrates. They disagree over whether or not the vibrations itself counts as sound, or if it's the perception of said vibrations that do.

We see this everywhere. Is water wet? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is a palm tree a tree?

And the words themselves can shift depending on the context they're used in. The tomato as a fruit vs a vegetable is a common example of this. And Scott's own example of whales and dolphins as dag for the department of dag.

And words change over time too. And it's not just trans activists who commit this either. When someone refers to Caster Semenya, Imane Khelif or other intersex individuals with female presenting genital as a man, they have changed the definition of man and woman. They are applying a new modern definition over words far far older than chromosomes were known to exist for. Historically intersex people like Semenya and Khelif would have been women, it is the changed definition that says otherwise.

The trans debate is often like this. A debate over categories, a debate if sound is the vibrations or the perception. A debate if a tree is the morphological structure of a tall perinnial plant with a trunk and crown and thus the palm tree is included, or if a tree is that but also as a woody plant with secondary growth. Or if we wanted to define it even more exclusively, we could do a woody dicot with secondary growth and exclude stuff like conifers as well since they're of a different lineage. We can do all sorts of things like that! And we do. And we argue about them all the time. Categories are made for man, not man for the categories.

  • -11

The problem with this response has always been is that categories vary wildly between groups.

The problem is that Scott's essay was silly, socially motivated, and shot a hole through the chest of Rationalism as being anything more than postmodern word games with a nerd's coat of hobby paint.

Categories are made for man, not man for the categories.

HA! You know, I just realized that in context the phrasing highlights quite explicitly the TERF complaint that most trans discourse is inherently misogynistic. Indeed, the categories were made for man.

Can't believe it took me this long. I wish I could think Scott was being subtly Straussian but no chance of him being less than a true believer.

The problem is that Scott's essay was silly, socially motivated, and shot a hole through the chest of Rationalism as being anything more than postmodern word games with a nerd's coat of hobby paint.

In other words, you just don't like it. Meta discussions about words and meaning have been here since the beginning of rationalism https://www.lesswrong.com/s/SGB7Y5WERh4skwtnb

HA! You know, I just realized that in context the phrasing highlights quite explicitly the TERF complaint that most trans discourse is inherently misogynistic. Indeed, the categories were made for man.

Speaking of, that's an example! "Man" in Scott's case is referring to humans, homo sapiens.

When someone refers to Caster Semenya, Imane Khelif or other intersex individuals with female presenting genital as a man, they have changed the definition of man and woman. They are applying a new modern definition over words far far older than chromosomes were known to exist for. Historically intersex people like Semenya and Khelif would have been women, it is the changed definition that says otherwise.

This is simply not true. Historically, most males with 5ARD (which is the condition that Semenya and Khelif have) would be considered men after going through puberty.

This varies between cultures, obviously, but for example, in the Dominican Republic boys with 5ARD are called guevedoces (literally: penis-at-twelve) and they are considered men who only grow a penis when they hit puberty. They aren't considered women, which makes sense, when they don't have any of the traits of women: they don't have breasts, wider hips, they don't have ovaries or a uterus, and cannot give birth. But they can impregnate women, like men, just like Caster Semenya has.

So historically, intersex males with 5ARD have been considered men, not women. You are changing definitions if you insist that Semenya and Khelif are women.

There's actually an incredibly easy way to check this simply by looking at how Semenya and Khelif were treated before their intersex conditions were known. Semenya was assigned female and raised as a girl, and lived through her life as a woman. Likewise Khelif was also assigned female, raised as a girl, and lived through her life as a woman. Their specific lives were as girls and women.

This varies between cultures, obviously, but for example, in the Dominican Republic boys with 5ARD are called guevedoces (literally: penis-at-twelve) and they are considered men who only grow a penis when they hit puberty. They aren't considered women, which makes sense, when they don't have any of the traits of women: they don't have breasts, wider hips, they don't have ovaries or a uterus, and cannot give birth. But they can impregnate women, like men, just like Caster Semenya has.

Yes it does vary among cultures, which is a great example of how even biological categories can be really fuzzy. After all, categorization systems are created by humans for humans. The map is not the territory.

It also depends on the intersex condition in question too, there is way more than just 5ARD so even if every case of 5ARD in every single culture throughout all of history was treated as men, we would still have tons of other fuzzy conditions to consider. And things like the SRY gene test can not be following the historic definition, as genes were not known until very recently. It is literally impossible unless time travel is invented and someone taught our ancient Germanic/Norse/whateverelseispartofEnglish ancestors about genetics.

You're dodging the central point, which is that ancient cultures already knew that geuevedoces weren't women. They called them "penis at twelve" exactly because they thought of them a special kind of boy that only grows his penis when he hits puberty (when most boys are born with them). They weren't considered women.

Khelif was also assigned female, raised as a girl, and lived through her life as a woman

No, she didn't live life as a woman. She lived as a girl until puberty. Then when girls started to develop into women, Khelif developed into a man. He grew taller, with broad shoulders, and narrow hips, while his female peers developed wider hips and started menstruating. Khelif has never had a period in his life, because he lacks any female organs, which is how he knew he was male. He must have figured it out at age 15 or 16 at the latest. Since then, he has been living a lie.

It also depends on the intersex condition in question too, there is way more than just 5ARD

Sure, but 5ARD is the most common and it is what Khelif and Semenya and a bunch of other male athletes who competed in women's sports have. Let's start by getting the gender ideologues to acknowledge that, then we can move into more obscure conditions.

And things like the SRY gene test can not be following the historic definition, as genes were not known until very recently.

Humans knew about the male and female sex before the discovery of chromosomes. You don't need to know the genetic details to understand that males and females are built differently. In any case, it doesn't excuse the current state of the world. It's settled science that Imane Khelif is a man in all ways that matter for the purpose of boxing.

You're dodging the central point, which is that ancient cultures already knew that geuevedoces weren't women.

One ancient culture, which also isn't even fully true as plenty do continue to live as women

Imperato-McGinley's thorough medical investigations showed that in most cases their new, male equipment seems to work fine and that most Guevedoces live out their lives as men, though some go through an operation and remain female.

So even in the specific Dominican Republic culture, 5ARD is not always man.

No, she didn't live life as a woman. She lived as a girl until puberty. Then when girls started to develop into women, Khelif developed into a man.

A man with female on their birth certificate and presumably female appearing outer genitalia treated as a woman in an extremely anti trans Muslim country. If Algeria with religious fatwas ordered against transitioning considers Khelif a woman, perhaps she is in many contexts and it's not a "lie".

Humans knew about the male and female sex before the discovery of chromosomes. You don't need to know the genetic details to understand that males and females are built differently.

Sure, but they didn't (couldn't) test it through genes but instead stuff like the outer genitalia. Which Semenya and Khelif both seem to have female presenting outer genitalia. They would have been considered female by many people in many areas such as the anti trans Algeria!

It's settled science that Imane Khelif is a man in all ways that matter for the purpose of boxing.

Declaring it settled doesn't mean it is. Again Algeria, a country even more anti trans than many of the people here, considers her as a woman. The doctors who handled her at birth considered her as female. Clearly there is still dispute.

More comments

Employers should have a right to free association and should be able to fire someone for any reason they please.

Bostock begs to differ.

Anti discrimination laws are largely bullshit and unnecessary (as any society that passes and maintains an anti discrimination law is one already broadly against discrimination) so they shouldn't really exist.

But in so much as they do exist, Bostock was a logical decision that discrimination against gay or trans employees is defacto discrimination against them for their sex, under the logic that allowing X from male employees (like certain names or clothes or medical treatments or spouses) but not female employees or vice versa requires sex discrimination.

They're not good, but it's not the court's job to decide what is and isn't good. It's to decide constitutionality and interpretation.

Bostock was not logical. The question is what did the words of the civil rights law mean (not quite the same as intent). It seems obviously clear that in the 1960s the words had a specific meaning and we then used a meaning in the 2020s to read into the historic statutes a specific requirement.

Stated differently, nobody but nobody would have believed in the 60s that the law passed created Bostock. Once you accept that, you have to believe that the meaning of law can change overtime.

Bostock was not logical. The question is what did the words of the civil rights law mean (not quite the same as intent). It seems obviously clear that in the 1960s the words had a specific meaning and we then used a meaning in the 2020s to read into the historic statutes a specific requirement.

Neil Gorsuch addressed this already as a staunch textualist.

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Gorsuch is a remarkably consistent textualist when it comes to statutory interpretation. Maybe you disagree with textualism as a concept, but it is a coherent and understandable legal philosophy.

Congress should get rid of such anti discrimination laws, but that is not the court's job so long as they do not violate the constitution. It is to adjucate interpretation, and from a textualist standpoint I agree with Gorsuch that Title VII includes LGBT people.

any society that passes and maintains an anti discrimination law is one already broadly against discrimination

Sometimes the broader society is against discrimination, while some areas within it are less enlightened. (This was approximately the case with the origin of anti-discrimination laws.)

A 'something sort of like left-libertarianism-ist' solution might be to have anti-discrimination laws, to establish non-discrimination as the baseline standard, but allow businesses to buy exemption from such, with the price going to an organisation rendering assistance to whichever group with which the business owner does not wish to associate; in a major city with fifty bakeries, forty-nine of whom will cater anyone's wedding as long as their money's good, the fiftieth would pay a purely nominal sum to an LGBTQWERTY+-*/ advocates' firm, and be allowed to have a 'one-man-one-woman weddings only' policy; in a small town with two bakeries, both of whose owners hope to attract customers who resent that gay people are permitted to keep their blood inside their bodies, the fee would be increased until either one of them yields, or someone opens a third bakery and undercuts them.

customers who resent that gay people are permitted to keep their blood inside their bodies

What a lovely, neutral, non-inflammatory way to describe people who don't want to bake cakes for things against their conscience. Can we get non-discrimination laws that will force Jewish delis to serve bacon sandwiches too, or at least pay a fee which "would be increased until either one of them yields"? How about we make daycare centres cater to adult babies, or pay through the nose for not serving such?

Sometimes the broader society is against discrimination, while some areas within it are less enlightened. (This was approximately the case with the origin of anti-discrimination laws.)

This was actually one of the reasons why big business pushed for the anti discrimination laws. General society wasn't open to blatant discrimination anymore, but there was strong enough pockets left they feared it could create a market niche and enable smaller competition to take their more bigoted customers away. The solution then was to make sure that couldn't happen by enshrining it everywhere as illegal instead.

Wikipedia is a private organization and is allowed to set their policies as they please.

Employers should have a right to free association and should be able to fire someone for any reason they please.

This is strawman libertarianism. People should have a right to do these things, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized for doing so. The only thing that libertarians require here is that it not be made illegal. Nobody, of course, is saying that it should be illegal for Wikipedia to have pro-trans policies.

And if you say "that isn't a strawman, I really believe that", I don't believe you, unless you follow that to its logical conclusion and say that, for instance, employees should be able to fire people based on race. But I bet you would reject that conclusion.

This is strawman libertarianism. People should have a right to do these things, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized for doing so.

In what way have you not been allowed to criticize Wikipedia?

The only thing that libertarians require here is that it not be made illegal

Yes. Government actions and private actions are different things. Government has a monopoly on violence and everything they do is with violence backing them up. Individual bad actors do sometimes use violence too (we can not constantly monitor and control every person 24/7), but that is illegal and we lock them up and punish them for it when we can prove it.

Or put it this way, John calls his boss's wife a whore.

His boss punches John in response: Not acceptable.

His boss calls the police chief and John is locked up via government force: Not acceptable

His boss fires John: Acceptable. He has free association for his business.

And if you say "that isn't a strawman, I really believe that", I don't believe you, unless you follow that to its logical conclusion and say that, for instance, employees should be able to fire people based on race.

I believe they should be able to do that if they wish. Let the market and the private actors they associate with respond to that as they please.

In what way have you not been allowed to criticize Wikipedia?

You have implied that criticism of Wikipedia does not fit libertarian principles. Unless I am saying that Wikipedia should be made illegal, criticism of Wikipedia does fit libertarian principles.

You are allowed to criticize Wikipedia, of course you are. I am allowed to point out that Wikipedia has their rights as a private organization and their exercise of their rights does not constitute "forcing" a person into anything.

The same way if I were to kick you out of my house for chewing on my couch doesn't force you to not chew on couches. You can go chew on your own. It just means you can not chew on my couch in my home since I have the right to remove you from my home for whatever reason (including no reason!) as I deem. As you leave, feel free to call me a fascist couch Nazi or something.

In what way have you not been allowed to criticize Wikipedia?

You were the one who implied he shouldn't criticize Wikipedia, by giving the "but it's legal" retort. Come on now.

You were the one who implied he shouldn't criticize Wikipedia, by giving the "but it's legal" retort. Come on now.

But he said

suspect you know that most people's main objection is to forcing the rest of society to play along. That includes:

He is allowed to criticize Wikipedia. In the same way I am allowed to point out that Wikipedia exercising their rights is not "forcing" him to do anything.

If Wikipedia was actually forcing him to do something that would be wrong. But they aren't.

He is allowed to criticize Wikipedia.

He is also welcome to start his own version with deadnames and deadpronouns if he feels like it.

The old "recreate pillarized civilization from the ground up" retort, really?

having no willingness to rein in (or even acknowledge) bad actors who are feigning transness as a way to invade women's spaces and sports

The case of rapist Isla Bryson, still referred to by Wikipedia as a 'woman', literally brought down the Scottish government because Nicola Sturgeon could not be made to admit the possibility that putting a man who was going to jail for raping women into a prison full of women might be inappropriate.

Is it appropriate to put a man who is going to jail for raping men into a prison full of men?

Solitary's always an option, but I suspect the "put men in women's prisons" folx aren't too fond of that for other reasons.

Yes.

In sports, there are not actually "Men's leagues" and "Women's leagues". There are "Women's leagues" and "Open leagues". The Women's leagues are a special category created because they generally can't offer table stakes level competition in the Open leagues.

Just so with prisons.

There's some nitpicking to be done here, for example, maybe the patients already needed mental health treatment and just found out they needed it at the same time as they found out they're transgender, or that just seeing a mental health professional regularly doesn't necessarily mean that your mental health is worse than it used to be.

Neither of those argument doesn't work. There are 3 groups in the study:

  • people with dysphoria pre- some form of transition (blockers, hormones, surgeries)
  • people with dysphoria post- transition
  • people without dysphoria as controls

The conclusion isn't based on just comparing trans people to controls It's based on how theie mental health deteriorated after transition. I also remember the author of the interview saying all students get a regular (yearly?) mental health assesment in Finland.

But my fundamental objection is to the conclusion that no one should be allowed to transition.

I agree that this study is not enough to conclude that, but I don't I've seen anyone say "this study clearly shows that no one should transition". Instead, it is a rebuttal to the pro trans narrative that claims they are able to accurately diagnose dysphoria, and that these interventions not only help, but are medically necessary. This conversation has a long running context, where the pro-trans side was deliberately misleading people and attacking skeptics for years, so I don't think it's right to try and portray them as saying "well, we just think there's a non-zero number of people who might benefit from this"

Speaking of ROGD, its rhetorical use by anti-trans people is a peculiar example of a self-contradictory motte-and-bailey: usually the bailey is a stronger version of the motte, and thus necessarily consistent with it, but here the bailey ("all trans people are delusional and none of them are their stated gender") contradicts the motte ("some trans people with a specific presentation – primarily adolescent girls – are not actually their stated gender") because the latter presupposes that some trans people are, in fact, their stated gender.

The kind of people who say "no one should transition" don't so much believe some one "isn't their stated gender", they question the very concept of gender. I think it's a strong argument, "gender" is effectively a religious belief. Specifically it seems that it's a secular version of the belief in a soul, and I think it's fair to say that this is not a valid basis for a medical intervention

I also don't see the contradiction. You can say "no one should transition", and "this social contagions seems to be affecting mostly adolescent girls". I see no presupposition of validity of other people's gender dysphoria.

I agree that this study is not enough to conclude that, but I don't I've seen anyone say "this study clearly shows that no one should transition".

That's the certainly the impression I got from people citing the study, even if none of them said so explicitly. Do you agree some people should transition?

Instead, it is a rebuttal to the pro trans narrative that claims they are able to accurately diagnose dysphoria, and that these interventions not only help, but are medically necessary. This conversation has a long running context, where the pro-trans side was deliberately misleading people and attacking skeptics for years, so I don't think it's right to try and portray them as saying "well, we just think there's a non-zero number of people who might benefit from this"

I am not the pro-trans side; I am one person on this website. You are arguing with my claim that some trans would benefit from, and should be allowed to, transition.

The kind of people who say "no one should transition" don't so much believe some one "isn't their stated gender", they question the very concept of gender. I think it's a strong argument, "gender" is effectively a religious belief. Specifically it seems that it's a secular version of the belief in a soul, and I think it's fair to say that this is not a valid basis for a medical intervention

A simple concept of "gender" that avoids any metaphysical or spiritual claims is that "my gender is 'woman'" means "I want to be treated, in most social situations, as you would treat the average person with XX chromosomes (however you refer to such a person)". I realize this is not the version typically advocated, but I am not the typical pro-trans advocate.

That's the certainly the impression I got from people citing the study, even if none of them said a@so explicitly.

You might be picking up correctly what their opinion is, but not their justification for it. It's particularly strange you claim that it has something to do with the study, when they don't say anything of that sort explicitly.

Do you agree some people should transition?

Depends what exactly you mean. There are scenarios where I believe people should be allowed to transition if they want to, but I don't think they should. But either way my opinion is not based on that study, nor am I using it the study to back that particular opinion.

I am not the pro-trans side;

I think that if you're going criticize the arguments people are making, you should take the context in which they are made, and what they're responding to, into account.

A simple concept of "gender" that avoids any metaphysical or spiritual claims is that "my gender is 'woman'" means "I want to be treated, in most social situations, as you would treat the average person with XX chromosomes (however you refer to such a person)". I realize this is not the version typically advocated, but I am not the typical pro-trans advocate.

If "gender" is just a desire for being treated that way, than clearly that desire exists, but then people who say "no one should transition" aren't saying "X isn't their stated gender", which would have to mean "they don't actually have that desire", they're saying they're refusing to fulfill it.

  • people with dysphoria pre- some form of transition (blockers, hormones, surgeries)
  • people with dysphoria post- transition
  • people without dysphoria as controls

One problem is that when considering the effect of an intervention, this is basically an apples-to-oranges-to-licorice comparison.

The gold standard for determining the effect of an intervention would be a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Take a patient and then prescribe them either a puberty blocker or a placebo, so that neither you nor they know what they got, and then follow up on the outcome years later.

Obviously this is hard to do for ethical reasons. But anything else risks simply measuring confounders. Perhaps the people opting for intervention simply had a higher trust in their medical system, and consequently were also more likely to seek psychiatric help with other problems. Or a million other things.

The kind of people who say "no one should transition" don't so much believe some one "isn't their stated gender", they question the very concept of gender. I think it's a strong argument, "gender" is effectively a religious belief. Specifically it seems that it's a secular version of the belief in a soul, and I think it's fair to say that this is not a valid basis for a medical intervention

This is not my experience. The anti-trans side believes very strongly in their conception of gender, hence all the bathroom bans. Someone who actually rejected the concept of gender might preach some kind of pansexuality where you simply do not care what kind of sex bit your partners have. They might reject the very concept of straight and gay couples because There Is No Gender, Man.

By contrast, the people most offended by trans people believe very strongly in the existence of gender, they just happen to think that it is identical to sex-assigned-at-birth.

The anti-trans side believes very strongly in their conception of gender, hence all the bathroom bans. Someone who actually rejected the concept of gender might preach some kind of pansexuality where you simply do not care what kind of sex bit your partners have. They might reject the very concept of straight and gay couples because There Is No Gender, Man.

By contrast, the people most offended by trans people believe very strongly in the existence of gender, they just happen to think that it is identical to sex-assigned-at-birth.

This is a weird framing. I wouldn't say I believe in gender, but think it's identical to sex (not "sex-assigned-at-birth", just "sex"). I would say that, of the two, sex is the only thing that actually exists. No one actually has a "gender identity" (hell, no one can even provide a cogent, non-circular definition of what "gender identity" even is), but even if they did, it's a bad idea to design public policies around unfalsifiable claims people make about their own inner experiences. "Gender identity" meets this description, "sex" does not, ergo "sex" is a good basis on which to design public policies and "gender identity" is not.

I think we are just arguing over semantics. Of course, if "gender" and "sex" are co-extensive, then there is no need for two different words.

If we were in a society of peafowl or nudists, that would work. You just see the colorful plumage (or the penis) of the person you meet, and you know for certain that you are dealing with a male.

In most human societies, it is not as easy to identify the sex of another person. Asking them to show you their genitals is mostly frowned upon, so you rely on Bayesian evidence -- beards, breasts under clothing, gendered clothes, height, hairstyle, behavior, voice register. All of these can be mimicked, and depending on the social setting some trans people might pass.

"Sex and gender are co-extensive" is a claim which can only be made if one has two different words. Even if it was, it might still be worthwhile to keep the two terms around to discuss this fact. Physics has a concept of "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass", even though as far as we know both are co-extensive.

If I were to ask evangelicals if they supported "traditional gender roles", I think most would affirm (even if they would prefer the vaguer phrasing of traditional family values). If I asked them if they supported "traditional sex roles", they would likely be confused. Am I some freak talking about missionary sex, or an even greater freak talking about sexual roleplay, or am I talking about some ancient environment, as in "males specialize in hunting mammoth, females in picking berries", and could I please avoid saying the s-word?

For what it's worth, I am not a gender fanboy. My (mostly underinformed) impression is that while there are some social sciences who do an admirable job of cargo-cult science, gender studies do not even rise to that level and are probably about as epistemically useful as theology. I just do not think that the main concept they are (presumably) dealing with is devoid of meaning.

In most human societies, it is not as easy to identify the sex of another person.

Ah yes, one of those incredibly difficult tasks that babies learn to do before they can walk or talk.

In most human societies, it is not as easy to identify the sex of another person.

impossible to have a conversation with someone who asserts such transparently false things

Obviously this is hard to do for ethical reasons. But anything else risks simply measuring confounders.

Oh, that's rich. When the Cass Review pointed out that the evidence for trans medicine is of low quality, the pro-trans side was claiming that it's oh-so-unfair that Cass would only declare a study "good" if it's double-blind (spoiler: she didn't), but now we're supposed apply that standard to studies with negative results, otherwise the interventions should be deemed good by default? How does that make any sense?

This is not my experience. The anti-trans side believes very strongly in their conception of gender, hence all the bathroom bans.

Thay sounds lime your belief in gender being so strong, that you can't conceive of someone having an alternative belief, and interpreting their thoughts through your lens. Why would I need to believe in "gender" to segregate people by sex?

By contrast, the people most offended by trans people believe very strongly in the existence of gender, they just happen to think that it is identical to sex-assigned-at-birth.

That makes no sense. Let's say I accept "gender" exists, even under that belief system it's possible to say "even though we sometime segregate people by gender, in this context it's more appropriate to segregate them by sex". I've been told that by pro-trans people! So if I can segregate people by sex when gender exists, I can do so when I think it doesn't.

Gender-as-distinct-from-sex is either of nonsense or actively reifying stereotypes, take your pick. Souls are more coherent than strict self-ID gender. That sounds harsh, but for those following along at home, play this out for a minute. If your gender has no connection to the outside world, it's just your internal experience and label for yourself that you definitionally can't be wrong about, then there's absolutely zero reason for anybody to ever treat anybody else differently based upon their gender. There's no reason for gendered spaces or activities or anything at all, and so since the outside world has no reason to care, poof! Bye, gender. Trying to hold onto it is going to just wrap around into it not mattering or build up inconsistencies and nonsense. So for gender to be A Thing about which We Should Care, it has to have some ties to the outside world. Being distinct from sex, we're already ruling out biology. So that leaves social/cultural factors, which are not innate, not inherent, and indeed we see them vary by culture. So we should care about a bundle of traits and properties a particular culture has decided go together - that is a stereotype!

If women are people who X and only X, then let's just deal with X directly rather than lay an extra category on top. If women are people who X and Y, then baby you've got a stew stereotype going! If women are people who call themselves women and nothing else, then we've no reason at all to care. Once you take the biology out of the gender, you have nothing left that anybody can or should care about but social and cultural baggage, and so by clinging to it and impressing how important it all is to you, you're just strengthening your cultural stereotypes and calling 'em sacred. Quit it.

The '90s had the right idea. Boys can wear dresses and have tea parties, girls can play with monster trucks and hit one another with sticks, etc and so on, and none of those things make them not boys or not girls. Let the words refer to the biological reality underneath that is true and correct in 99+% of cases, invent special terms for the outliers if you must, drop the social/cultural barriers, and just let people do their thing. There's no reason for all the hassle, and it can't and won't get anybody any more freedom anyway.

You want to take hormones and are otherwise okay with opening the gates on letting people put stuff in their bodies if they feel like it, go for it. You want to wear 'gender inappropriate clothing' and are otherwise okay with a general lack of expected dressing standards, go for it. You want elective/cosmetic surgery so that your body is more pleasant for you and are otherwise okay with people having other such surgeries, go for it. Do What You Want, up to the limit of what you think society should allow in general, because you are not a special case. You cannot be a special case, because there is nothing special underneath. You're just a boy or a girl who wants to do an activity which is not gated by gender.

The '90s had the right idea. Boys can wear dresses and have tea parties, girls can play with monster trucks and hit one another with sticks, etc and so on, and none of those things make them not boys or not girls.

Wasn't this at least part of the motivation behind the thing with the drag queens?

IMO trying to completely separate gender from its biological aspect is partly cope for the fact that transition is an imperfect technology and not everybody ends up passing, and no surgery can make you have the reproductive functionality of the opposite sex yet.

Most trans people desperately want to be the opposite sex on a biological level and a trans woman being allowed to wear dresses because boys can dress however they want won’t help with the fact that her hips are too narrow and she hates having stubble and that having a penis means most men will be uninterested in dating her, and that she won’t be able to have a normal sex life regardless, or have children the normal way, etc.

Obviously if you believe all trans people are delusional and object to transition and treating people as their stated gender regardless of the effect on their mental health, this does not apply to you.

I take the opposite stance, regardless of mental health outcomes banning people from transitioning is wrong. The discussion isn't just about trans people, but the underlying thought processes involving the role of government and restrictions to "save people from themselves". And those thought processes have real consequences.

The FDA is already really bad for this, the US government takes an approach that everything is basically banned until "proven" safe. Our default is that you are a moron who can't be trusted to take any risk. And this means small stuff like why you can't buy good sunscreen, to more serious issues like why it's difficult for terminally ill patients to try new risky procedures, or as this ACX post has gone over before, why your child might have died because they couldn't get European fish oil.

And it delays medical and scientific advances a lot! Look at this estimate putting the COVID vaccine by 2033. Thank god for operation warp speed allowing us to bypass tedious bullshit (or at least do them simultaneously) and get it out in less than a year. Imagine if other medicine could come out so quickly like the GLP1s! Imagine how many lives could be saved or improved if not for the nanny state "protecting" us.

The we must protect morons from themselves stance inevitably means treating you as a moron too. You must be kept safe from the sunscreen that is widely used in Asia and Europe. You must be kept safe from experimental treatments before you die. You must be kept safe from saving your kid. You must be kept safe from deciding that you're happier with cross sex hormones. You must be kept safe from scientific advancements. You are a moron, you do not get to make your own choices, the central bureaucrats simply know better.

We don't stop this by engaging in more banning. We have to throw away the entire concept in the trash, and accept that yes morons will sometimes make moronic decisions that hurt themselves but restrictive government just means treating everyone as a moron. I don't see myself as a moron. Does anyone here think differently of themselves?

The FDA is already really bad for this, the US government takes an approach that everything is basically banned until "proven" safe. Our default is that you are a moron who can't be trusted to take any risk. And this means small stuff like why you can't buy good sunscreen, to more serious issues like why it's difficult for terminally ill patients to try new risky procedures

The alternative is clearly worse. Because what sucks more than not having Euro sunscreen? Giving someone money for a jar of "SPF50 coconut oil" and burning lobster red. Giving somebody money for bootleg Asian sunscreen and getting a batch contaminated with benzene (carcinogenic in California, and everywhere else). Both happened. Both are worse than having a small selection of reliable sunscreen.

And sure, I can do the research myself. But I don't want to do that every time I go shopping. I also don't trust 90% of the population to do it right, especially not against hostile advertising. And sure, both sunscreen brands can be sued under some libertarian arbitration scheme. But I like not having skin cancer more than a 7 figure settlement (or getting nothing besides the privilege of watching my opponent go bankrupt). I can see the argument for experimental drugs for terminally ill patients. But terminally ill people are desperate, and absolutely need some form of protection - at least against financial exploitation.

And don't get me wrong, the FDA isn't really doing a good job here. But it's a job that needs to be done, and probably to a standard that's not so far removed from what is done today. Regulations are written in blood, ect.

The alternative is clearly worse. Because what sucks more than not having Euro sunscreen? Giving someone money for a jar of "SPF50 coconut oil" and burning lobster red. Giving somebody money for bootleg Asian sunscreen and getting a batch contaminated with benzene (carcinogenic in California, and everywhere else). Both happened. Both are worse than having a small selection of reliable sunscreen.

That's called fraud. We can enforce against fraud without requiring genuine suppliers to pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars "proving safety" of something widely used around the world without issue. People lying about the contents of a product or what it can do is a different category than "here's product A, it's used as a sunscreen in Countries X, Y and Z"

And don't get me wrong, the FDA isn't really doing a good job here. But it's a job that needs to be done, and probably to a standard that's not so far removed from what is done today. Regulations are written in blood, ect.

Some do get written in blood sure, but tons of regulations are just made up. Lots of regulations are even made just to make it more difficult for competition to exist, like why does being a barber in NC require almost 1600 school hours plus a 12 month apprenticeship? Do we genuinely think that this is because there was a bunch of wild barbers out there chopping people's ears off like they're Sweeney Todd? No. It's to make it more difficult for haircutting alternatives and drive up prices.

That's called fraud.

In the US, the FDA defines what "SPF50" even means. They have norms and test protocols to ensure this significance. Without the FDA, coconut oil has SPF50 for all intents and purposes. Could some other industry committee define "SPF", and sue cosmetic companies that use it wrongly? Sure. But I have to think for a long time until I can think of the first product at a supermarket that has an industry-defined label I respect (in fact, I can only think of greenwashing labels I don't trust ("fair trade", "organic") and technical standards I trust unconditionally ("USB-C" is a very reliable label, even on AliExpress).

We can enforce against fraud without requiring genuine suppliers to pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars "proving safety" of something widely used around the world without issue.

Can we? Sunscreen is like the lowest common denominator, and it already gets tricky. Someone has to check for efficacy and side effects. The age of mineral-based UV filters is long past, today sunscreen often contains organic UV filters. A common conspiracy theory is that those organic rings are more harmful than sunburn itself - so someone better check side effects. And, sure enough, the organic UV filters from the 80s easily end up in detectable doses in blood, urine and breast milk of people who use them, and sure enough, they interact (weakly) with estrogen, androgen, or thyroid hormone receptors. Should this be allowed? Is this still acceptable? And should we really let sun screen producers answer those questions for us? (Ironically, those old aromatics are still in use today in US sun screen, most other countries have moved on to newer, larger and better organic filters, which the FDA hasn't evaluated yet and which pass through the skin much less readily)

Lots of regulations are even made just to make it more difficult for competition to exist

Yes, without doubt. I'm not actually all that pro regulations. But that doesn't mean we can just remove them all, Chesterton’s Fence is there for a reason - maybe not a good reason, but I like my food and my drugs well tested. My barber may be held to lower standards.

the US, the FDA defines what "SPF50" even means. They have norms and test protocols to ensure this significance. Without the FDA, coconut oil has SPF50 for all intents and purposes. Could some other industry committee define "SPF", and sue cosmetic companies that use it wrongly? Sure

A government organization could still exist to define things in a certain way and charge people for fraud if they make the false claim to fit the government set definition when they don't, without having to also ban access to anything and everything that doesn't fit. If the government wants to define ice cream as a certain x% butterfat then so be it, as long as I'm still allowed to buy things that aren't at that percentage.

(Ironically, those old aromatics are still in use today in US sun screen, most other countries have moved on to newer, larger and better organic filters, which the FDA hasn't evaluated yet and which pass through the skin much less readily)

It is not ironic that the market has already moved into safer and better filters while the central bureaucracy at the FDA has failed to keep up. It is a major part of my complaint. It's not just that paternalism treats us like morons, it's that paternalism is also done by morons whose priorities and definitions don't align with everyone else. People want those better filters, but isn't there someone you forgot to ask?

Yes, without doubt. I'm not actually all that pro regulations. But that doesn't mean we can just remove them all, Chesterton’s Fence is there for a reason - maybe not a good reason, but I like my food and my drugs well tested. My barber may be held to lower standards.

There should also be good reason when regulations are put up too. And just because it's "safety coded" doesn't even mean it makes an impact. Look at the push for single stair reform for instance, the two means of egress model not only costs way more money but an actual irony here, can end up hurting people more due to the other design decisions forced by such choices.

Regulations can hurt people a lot. Like why don't many apartments have elevators? Over regulation on the size, maintenance and labor requirements wildly drive up prices so they no longer pencil in for many new developments. How many people suffer trying to haul furniture up multiple flights of stairs because of this? I have a friend who was injured moving a dresser once, that could have been prevented if it wasn't for regulation blocking elevators.

I have to think for a long time until I can think of the first product at a supermarket that has an industry-defined label I respect.

Top Tier gasoline (1 2) comes to mind.

Huh, interesting. That one was firmly on the long list of labels I was fairly confident to be complete garbage. I never buy that stuff, and my last three cars made it well past 200k without a single instance of engine troubles. "Gunk" in the engine itself sounds like such a 1970's problem, I haven't ever heard of anybody having trouble with that.

Why not have “FDA approved” products but still allow other products? You can buy FDA approved sunscreen and know it’s not coconut oil or benzene.

Since that "FDA approved" label on the box is likely to cost millions (maybe billions) of dollars, I don't think you can make it optional. The price discrimination would be too large, and many products categories would stop entirely having new products FDA approved, leaving us only with the "legacy FDA" products already in the market.

Since that "FDA approved" label on the box is likely to cost millions (maybe billions) of dollars

It doesn’t have to. What if, instead of companies applying, the FDA seeks out products that meets its standards, and/or creates its own approved baseline?

Products that don’t get FDA approval (unless the FDA allows them to pay for the necessary tests themselves) are disadvantaged, but it’s better than today where they’re outlawed.

the FDA seeks out products that meets its standards, and/or creates its own approved baseline?

To preserve any kind of quality, this means multi-stage trials and double blind studies. That's where the cost is. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the current system is good. But it is extremely difficult to improve it.

Better start small: I think FDA exemptions for terminally ill patients with informed consent should be fast-tracked and default-approved. Maybe add some profit limit to prevent exploitation of the desperate.

Or a larger step: identify international partner organizations with adequate quality control. If something has been legal in Japan or the EU for five years, strongly accelerated approval should be possible.

I'm often pretty moronic. That doesn't make me more in favor of restrictive government, though. The average representative there seems to be even dumber than me, and we may be unable to choose better ones, because the median voter seems to be even dumber than them! I'll take my chances with my own decisions, thanks.

A fine stance to have, but it runs into difficulties with children and minors and the question of whether they can, or should be allowed to, provide consent.

That's a similar issue of how much more controlling we have gotten about children as well. My parents are old enough that as children they would go out biking around the neighborhoods miles away without supervision, without cell phones, and without much worry from my grandparents. In fact it was expected that you would go out and play for the most of the day and come home for dinner. This was the norm.

I wasn't allowed very far, but I could bike around the neighborhood some, go to neighbors houses to hang with the kids there, go down to the local pool. Maybe get dropped off at the mall as a teen and hang out there or whatever.

Now, 11 year olds aren't trusted to go to a different aisle in the grocery store. A different aisle in the same store.

We have decided that modern kids are morons in ways that they weren't for the entire rest of history. And we've culturally decided that too, where parents who don't engage in hysteria get CPS called on them constantly and some parents have ended up arrested. Which means even I have to be cautious in the freedoms I give my own kids, not even the same ones I had growing up yet alone those of my parents. Not by choice, but because government enforcers decided my kids are apparently too stupid to walk down to a nearby store or something.

Modern society coddles our children and trains them to be immature and incapable in their teens. But not too long ago, a good bit of those teenagers would have been off from their families working jobs as squires or farmhands or "youngsters" midshipmen or something else speaking of ships, a cabin boy or an apprenticeship for the local blacksmith/tailor/etc or whatever else. The world wasn't rich enough to coddle older children and teens from serious work and serious decisions, so the teens were capable. They had to be.

Which is another important point. Coddling makes us weaker. When government treats us like morons, we slowly become morons even when we are capable of more. We are lobotomized by paternalist attitudes.

I think we're all negotiating on price. Like, to give the obvious example, do you think kids should be allowed to kill themselves? Hell, do you think they should be allowed to apply for euthanasia if they get depression? I'd say no, and I'd say that on the grounds that most kids disallowed from killing themselves will, on reflection (and usually not that long a reflection!) be glad that they were stopped; their coherent extrapolated volition is to be disallowed from something that stupid. Hell, I've attempted suicide three times and am glad I was stopped the latter two (the first one I wasn't actually stopped; I just failed by myself).

Medical transition is not as serious as literal suicide. It's also far more serious than essentially everything else on the list of things the fun police don't want to let kids do with maybe the exception of some drugs. Kids playing by themselves without supervision are very unlikely to be maimed for life. Kids medically transitioning will with near-certainty. So one can consistently support free range kids and still oppose transitioning kids, at least as long as one doesn't take "free range kids" to the psychotic extreme of "deliberately let the kids jump off cliffs!".

I think we're all negotiating on price. Like, to give the obvious example, do you think kids should be allowed to kill themselves?

It's not illegal for a kid to try to kill themselves. Most kids don't commit suicide for the simple reason that they don't want to kill themselves and of those kids who do, it is not the law that serves to prevent their deaths. No suicidal child says "I was gonna jump off the roof but 5(b) makes it a criminal charge with a two year probation if caught".

It's not illegal for the kid to go wandering around the neighbourhood either (the kid won't be charged with a crime); the problem is that the laws/policies punish the parents for physically allowing him/her to so wander. Likewise, there are a zillion ways in which things are set up to prevent kids from killing themselves, and it would (AFAIK, though IDK about Canada) be illegal for a euthanasia clinic to assist a child suicide.

I don't think anyone's arguing for kids to be considered criminals for trying to transition; the anti-trans side want teachers and doctors (and maybe parents) to be liable for facilitating that transition, and for parents to not be punished for preventing that transition.

I heavily agree with this post and the one up above about allowing medical procedures.

There is a frustrating modern tendency to either have allowed and encouraged, or discouraged and forbidden.

I'm libertarian and I'd like drugs, gambling, prostitution, plastic surgery, porn, etc to be legal and discouraged.

Seeing them legal and encouraged has really strained my principles here. If I'm absolutely forced to choose between the two realistic options ... I'd pick legal for everything to deny the state the capacity. But if they already have the capacity, I'd be picking illegal for some things. Gender reassignment is probably one of them.

Seeing them legal and encouraged has really strained my principles here. If I'm absolutely forced to choose between the two realistic options ... I'd pick legal for everything to deny the state the capacity. But if they already have the capacity, I'd be picking illegal for some things. Gender reassignment is probably one of them.

Well do keep in mind that there's also illegal and encouraged. People will just ignore the law and at some point you're stuck fighting a losing battle trying to actually enforce it too much. You haven't actually stopped it, you're just harassing people every once in a while.

Traffic enforcement is at constant odds with this issue, no one wants speeders in their neighborhood but everyone wants to speed in other neighborhoods. People even get pissed at you if you don't speed. We all accept it as technically against the law, but there's no winning the fight here. You can't even automate the process because no one wants it. We will not stop the speeders, so we just give everyone a x% chance of being unlucky and paying a fine each time they drive.

It's the same thing with a lot of drugs, and prostitution and gambling. There's just only so much you can do, because lots of people want it and they want it very much. And enforcing against it can just make them pissed. Joe Rogan famously smokes weed on his podcast despite being in Texas. Will Texas authorities ever go after him? No. Actually enforcing Texas's marijuana laws like that is unpopular and they know it.

You can change a fair bit with law, and you can harass random people every once in a while like we do with traffic enforcement and prostitution stings but in general if people want it they'll just do it anyway. The people who really want to gamble will find a way to gamble. The people who really want a prostitute will find some sort of escort loophole. The people who really want drugs will get it. And the markets will respond, the demand pulls in more supply. There's a reason why Trump's drone strikes on traffickers hasn't done much, because markets. If supply goes down then price goes up and there's more reward to providing new supply. Even Singapore struggles.

But even the data we do have show the number of detained drug users steadily rising, especially among youth under 20. If demand didn't exist, smugglers wouldn't regularly risk their lives muling their product into the country.

And likewise people who really want to transition will find a way. People manage it in Russia of all countries, they will handle it here.

I deleted a section on kids, that I think would have completed my post.

Snoop Dogg is effectively allowed to encourage people to smoke weed as a matter of free speech.

Your average school teacher is effectively prevented from doing so as a matter of job security.

I'd probably be fine with gender reassignment surgery being in the same legal category as weed currently is. Some more liberal states allow it. Some require basically a fake doctors note. Everyone agrees to keep it should generally be kept away from children, even if some 16 year olds manage to get access. Cops won't arrest you for it. Banks won't take money from businesses that engage in it. (By the way I'm not saying that I think weed is treated appropriately, I'd prefer it be treated more like alcohol)

I'm not a paternalist, and I was much more not a paternalist when I wasn't an actual father. The way the legal landscape and public school works these days means that I want transition soft banned so schools can't advocate for it and do it behind my back. You might think I'm crazy to be worried about such a thing, the only place that sort of craziness occurs is in like two counties in northern Virginia that keep making national news over those issues ... well I live in one of those counties. And I have three daughters, and one of them already insists on calling herself a boy and she isn't even in kindergarten. So I have worries about how that kid and the school system will interact.

I'm at a stage in life where a lot of my legal preferences are highly selfish. I really don't care if a stranger gets a transition and ruins their life and looks, or fulfills their lifelong dream and never experiences hardship again. I just don't want my daughter being talked into it by an ideologically captured teacher that only feels fulfillment in their life by acting out the most extreme forms of progressive activism. So I want it softly illegal. If I can't get that, at least make motorcycles illegal (guess which daughter really wants to ride one of those).

at least make motorcycles illegal (guess which daughter really wants to ride one of those).

Let your daughter be a tomboy, by the time she's old enough to ride a motorcycle she may no longer want to 😊

George (actually, Georgina) is Julian, Dick and Anne's cousin. She is a tomboy who demands that people call her George instead of Georgina; she cuts her hair very short and dresses like a boy. She is headstrong and courageous by nature and, like her father, scientist Quentin Kirrin, has a hot and fiery temper. Introduced to the other characters in the first book, she later attends a boarding school with Anne where the teachers also agree to call her 'George'. Blyton eventually revealed that the character was based on herself. It is notable that the chief protagonist of the Malory Towers stories also possessed a fiery temper as a defining character trait. George has a loyal dog named Timmy who would do anything for her. She often gets cross when anyone calls her by her birth name or makes fun of Timmy, and she loves it when somebody calls her George or mistakes her for a boy. In Five Get into a Fix, old Mrs Janes mistakes her for a boy: even though Julian had told her that she was a girl, she later forgets this. George sometimes takes this to the point of asking that her name be prefixed with Master instead of Miss. Various references have been made to what meaning should be read into this – for instance "I remember reading in my first Famous Five book about a girl called Master George. What a puzzle and thrill. She claims to never tell lies as that is cowardly."

We are fine letting her rock it as a tomboy. We basically shop in the little boys clothes section, she is signed up for tball, calls girls icky etc. My family has a history of tomboys, my mother and sister were both like that. They are both happily married to men.

We just don't want that to lead to some overzealous guidance counselor getting her on puberty blockers or something.

Define "transition". If transition means teenagers receiving more mental health counseling and hormones that blunt part of the effects of puberty, I'm willing to believe that that helps some people feel better. If transition means some soft boys and girls uncomfortable with their sexual development donning new clothes and personae as they settle into a community of support, I'm willing to believe that that helps some people feel better. If transition means having your dick cut off and turned into an open wound that needs to be constantly dilated, however... I'm not sure I can believe that that really helps anybody. I guess you can always find someone delusional enough to feel better after almost anything. Doesn't the term "Stockholm Syndrome" exist to diagnose a particular case where the objectively bad experience of being kidnapped can be seen by the victim as a good development? What are we being asked to concede here? It's not clear to me.

yet anti-trans activists have been the main publicists of transness for about a decade now – trans people really entered the mainstream with the North Carolina "bathroom bill". It used to be that you would only find information about transness if you went looking for it

... Is that really how you see it? That is not my impression at all. Trans activists deliberately made themselves subject to public scrutiny and public outreach as an attempt to re-enact the classic Civil Rights playbook. LGBT organizations deliberately moved to push trans rights as the next frontier after the success of gay marriage. Liberal activists happily complied and began campaigns to push trans equity groups in corporate spaces and pronouns in professional working environments. Bruce Jenner came out as Caitlyn in 2015. That was the point at which a generation of online debate about trans rights finally bubbled up into the mainstream. Then Jordan Peterson achieved notoriety for refusing to comply with amendments to Canada's Human Rights Act that would compel preferred pronouns. North Carolina's "bathroom bill" in fact was only a response to ordinances from local municipalities that passed pro-trans legal codes first.

Likewise, JK Rowling only started associating with TERF causes after perceived trans excesses that began the whole debate. It isn't as if conservatives woke up and decided that they needed a new scapegoat one day and the trans community was as good a target as any.

If anything, it seems to me like trans activists succeeded in their public outreach, then overreached by doubling down on trans kids. Now that the tide is shifting against trans rights, the movement is unable to admit that their own strategies had anything to do with anything.

Doesn't the term "Stockholm Syndrome" exist to diagnose a particular case where the objectively bad experience of being kidnapped can be seen by the victim as a good development?

In that particular case, the police somehow managed to make literal bank robbers the lesser evil!

Define "transition".

The study defines it thus:

Medical GR interventions included masculinising/feminising hormonal treatments, chest masculinisation, and/or genital surgery (vaginoplasty/phalloplasty/metoidioplasty). Hormonal GR was recorded if the register of the SII showed that the patient had purchased masculinising/feminising hormones with a special reimbursement code that is available for individuals diagnosed with F64.0 in the nationally centralised GIS when the treatment has continued for a year. Information on surgical GR was obtained from the CRHC.

It doesn't state how many just got hormones and how many got surgery.

hormones that blunt part of the effects of puberty

Not sure what you mean by this. Puberty blockers or actual HRT? Obviously puberty is difficult for many and putting it off can prevent temporary discomfort, if that's what you mean, but in fact many trans people are happier after going through puberty, provided that it's the right puberty.

If transition means some soft boys and girls uncomfortable with their sexual development donning new clothes and personae as they settle into a community of support, I'm willing to believe that that helps some people feel better.

You mean social transitioning? The study was about medical transition. If it were just clothes and personae, the controversy would be much less severe.

If transition means having your dick cut off and turned into an open wound that needs to be constantly dilated, however... I'm not sure I can believe that that really helps anybody.

You've been fed cherry-picked information about sex reassignment surgery. Many people are, in fact, happy about their surgeries. See /r/Transgender_Surgeries. Some of the dissatisfaction with SRS may be attributed to ineptly performed operations. The linked subreddit has much discussion on the quality of different surgeons, which varies greatly. One is dubbed "the butcher of Montreal"; another is widely known to be substandard and people only go to them because they're the only one covered by insurance.

And in any case, many trans people, even after socially transitioning and getting on HRT, prefer not to get SRS.

I guess you can always find someone delusional enough to feel better after almost anything.

What objective metric do you propose to measure whether or not someone is better off other than asking them if they feel better?

Trans activists deliberately made themselves subject to public scrutiny and public outreach as an attempt to re-enact the classic Civil Rights playbook. LGBT organizations deliberately moved to push trans rights as the next frontier after the success of gay marriage. Liberal activists happily complied and began campaigns to push trans equity groups in corporate spaces and pronouns in professional working environments. Bruce Jenner came out as Caitlyn in 2015. That was the point at which a generation of online debate about trans rights finally bubbled up into the mainstream. Then Jordan Peterson achieved notoriety for refusing to comply with amendments to Canada's Human Rights Act that would compel preferred pronouns.

And all of the media coverage could have been avoided if people had just treated it as a curiosity and a medical condition, and not some kind of new woke perversion to be fought. Like in Iran.

"Some people prefer to be referred to as a gender different from the one they were born with."

"Oh. Okay."

That's the normal response. The kind of response a person not looking for another culture war battle to fight would give.

If transition means having your dick cut off and turned into an open wound that needs to be constantly dilated, however... I'm not sure I can believe that that really helps anybody.

You've been fed cherry-picked information about sex reassignment surgery. Many people are, in fact, happy about their surgeries. See /r/Transgender_Surgeries.

That's not cherry-picked information. That is one of the medical interventions in question. That is an actual trans medical intervention, and that is what happens in that surgery. The penis is removed. You are left with an hole that needs to be constantly dilated. You don't get to just waive your hands and say the magic words "cherry-picking" to dismiss arguments you don't like.

You pointing us to to reddit . com for a bunch of people happy with that same surgery is an actual example of cherry-picking.

"Some people prefer to be referred to as a gender different from the one they were born with."

It was never just this, don't lie to us.

That's not cherry-picked information. That is one of the medical interventions in question. That is an actual trans medical intervention, and that is what happens in that surgery. The penis is removed. You are left with an hole that needs to be constantly dilated. You don't get to just waive your hands and say the magic words "cherry-picking" to dismiss arguments you don't like.

You pointing us to to reddit . com for a bunch of people happy with that same surgery is an actual example of cherry-picking.

I've seen the images they've seen, the collages, the screenshots, the threads, that gave them that opinion on SRS. It's not neutral, unbiased coverage.

I mentioned people unhappy with their surgeries and if you'd bothered to click on the link you'd've seen the thread titled "Unhappy with my results" right there on the front page (it was there yesterday, it's a bit more hidden now; instead there's one titled "Really disheartened." now).

It was never just this, don't lie to us.

So are you saying that if that had been the demand, you would have agreed, but you disagree with the greater demands that trans activists are actually putting forth? If that is the case, treat people as their preferred gender, since you agree that's reasonable, and don't acquiesce to the greater demands. There are certainly many things trans activists advocate that I disagree with.

I mentioned people unhappy with their surgeries and if you'd bothered to click on the link you'd've seen the thread titled "Unhappy with my results" right there on the front page (it was there yesterday, it's a bit more hidden now; instead there's one titled "Really disheartened." now).

Cherry-picking negative examples from your reddit cherry-pick

I've seen the images they've seen, the collages, the screenshots, the threads, that gave them that opinion on SRS. It's not neutral, unbiased coverage.

Lol

So are you saying that if that had been the demand

No I said that was never the demand, and I asked you not to lie to us that it was the demand, and now I am telling you that when you argue with someone and try to make a point to them by telling them something that both of you know is not true they are only going to change their mind about your credibility.

Like in Iran.

"Some people prefer to be referred to as a gender different from the one they were born with."

"Oh. Okay."

Isn't the Iran solution to force gay men into reassignment surgery or execute them?

It's not exactly a San Francisco of anything-goes roles that you seem to suggest.

Indeed, they don't treat gay men very well, but it's very interesting how this doesn't extend to trans people. This suggests that transness is not necessarily a controversial political question closely associated with LGB rights. It just became one in the West due to contingent historical circumstances. But it could have gone the other way, and that is the whole point of bringing up Iran. Iran is not some kind of progressive utopia – trans rights don't have to be a progressive, woke, liberal or left-wing issue.

It's a very interesting question, and certainly one which people who want to discuss the culture war rather than wage it should care about, why and how something becomes a culture war issue.

There's a four-panel Anakin/Padme joke in here somewhere.

  1. I think we should treat gay and trans people like Iran does.
  2. Treating it as a curiosity and a medical condition?
  3. ...
  4. Treating it as a curiosity and a medical condition, right?

Well, you appear to be saying that let's all be reasonable, let's all agree on something, can't we all let's agree that some trans therapy works for some patients. And I want to be reasonable, so I ask, ok, which trans therapy? And the answer seems to be all of them all the time.

I'm willing to concede that sometimes trans therapy helps some people. This doesn't seem to cost me very much. The standard is merely whether it makes some people feel better, which seems like something almost any treatment could achieve. I think sugar pills would make some people feel better.

But then, is this the most reasonable standard? There are some treatments I would never consider good treatments no matter how many people they made feel better. That's not me trying to argue as such, that's just me trying to be open about how much I'm willing to concede. For instance, I just don't think "having your dick cut off" or vaginoplasty is really a valid form of treatment. I'm not saying this as the result of any evidence about post-op follow-up studies. For me that evidence doesn't even register. You can call me retrograde for this, I won't mind. But I do observe that sometimes people enjoy things that are objectively bad for them. This is what I mean when I use the word "delusional" (which, with apologies, I am not trying to direct at transgender individuals in particular.) There's no limit to what people could convince themselves is good. So at a certain point I stop looking at their own evaluations of whether they feel better and I start substituting my own judgment of the world. Which includes my judgment against vaginoplasty.

But I'm willing to concede that the world is big and that there are a lot of people in it.

And all of the media coverage could have been avoided if people had just treated it as a curiosity and a medical condition, and not some kind of new woke perversion to be fought.

I mean, do you think that there is no perversion in the trans movement at all? Gay rights went through this in the 90s where a significant part of the movement was in fact made up of organizations like the "North American Man-Boy Love Association". And the movement kicked those people out and tried to present itself as "normal". And then the public started to accept it more. And there are still people who dress up in leather on the sidewalk and piss on each other in public. And there are gay activists who declare that they're proud to be perverts and that being perverted is good.

As in, you're trying to fundamentally change what people understand by the basic biological categories of male and female, and not only is that controversial by itself, but there is in fact a lot of deviance within the trans movement. And I don't say that to be mean, I'm sure there are a lot of trans individuals who are basically "normal". But acting as though everything in the movement is totally normal and it's the anti-trans activists who made everything toxic seems like denial as a strategy.

There are some treatments I would never consider good treatments no matter how many people they made feel better. That's not me trying to argue as such, that's just me trying to be open about how much I'm willing to concede. For instance, I just don't think "having your dick cut off" or vaginoplasty is really a valid form of treatment. I'm not saying this as the result of any evidence about post-op follow-up studies. For me that evidence doesn't even register. You can call me retrograde for this, I won't mind.

So it's some kind of irrational bias?

I mean, do you think that there is no perversion in the trans movement at all? Gay rights went through this in the 90s where a significant part of the movement was in fact made up of organizations like the "North American Man-Boy Love Association". And the movement kicked those people out and tried to present itself as "normal". And then the public started to accept it more. And there are still people who dress up in leather on the sidewalk and piss on each other in public. And there are gay activists who declare that they're proud to be perverts and that being perverted is good.

As in, you're trying to fundamentally change what people understand by the basic biological categories of male and female, and not only is that controversial by itself, but there is in fact a lot of deviance within the trans movement. And I don't say that to be mean, I'm sure there are a lot of trans individuals who are basically "normal". But acting as though everything in the movement is totally normal and it's the anti-trans activists who made everything toxic seems like denial as a strategy.

Certainly there are perverts, according to any reasonable definition, in every letter of LGBT. What I object to is the notion that being trans (or LGB) is in itself a perversion.

"Some people prefer to be referred to as a gender different from the one they were born with."

"Oh. Okay."

That's the normal response. The kind of response a person not looking for another culture war battle to fight would give.

That's the normal response where underlying it is "okay, some people are crazy, God love 'em, and need mental health services, but what has that to do with me? Oh, one of those crazy people wants to be in the bathroom, or store changing room, or other intimate space with me. And they've still got their man bits. Ooookay... no."

Do you look at other people's genitals in the toilet or the changing room? How does it affect you? Especially women's toilets which only have stalls and no urinals.

There's actually been incidents in which transwomen have their dicks out in women's locker rooms. Widely reported on if you are curious and wish to Google it. That obviously violates social norms.

Okay, are we talking about toilets or locker rooms?

Regarding locker rooms, how does a trans woman's penis negatively affect the cis women in the locker room? Just look away.

And does it not equally violate social norms to have a trans woman's breasts, which look like normal female breasts, displayed in a men's locker room?

With this logic men should be allowed in the women's locker room. Those women are free to look away from my penis also. In what way is its mere presence wounding them? The only point of sex restricted spaces is to avoid this one situation. The social norm of private nude spaces for only one sex.

My understanding is that the reason for segregating locker rooms by sex is to prevent men from looking at women because that would make the women uncomfortable, not to protect men's eyes, and, to a much lesser extent, to prevent women from looking at men because that would make the men uncomfortable, not to protect women's eyes. Yes, this does ignore LGB people, but sex-segregated locker rooms originate in an era when LGB people were ignored.

More comments

The normal response to defecting from gender roles is, uh, not a polite 'oh. okay.'. Go wear a dress in public(and not in the gay district) with a big bushy beard if you don't believe me.

Surely you will agree that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a progressive utopia where gender roles have been abolished. They just weren't ideologues looking for a fight to pick (in this one specific respect).

You've been fed cherry-picked information about sex reassignment surgery. Many people are, in fact, happy about their surgeries. See /r/Transgender_Surgeries.

Firstly, I think it's profoundly condescending to tell someone they've been "fed" cherry-picked stories, dumb sheeple that they are. Secondly, @Shakes wasn't passing a value judgement on the efficacy of bottom surgery: the part of his comment that you quoted is literally just an (accurate) description of what a vaginoplasty entails. Thirdly, it's rather hypocritical of you to accuse someone of having fallen for cherry-picked stories that portray bottom surgery negatively, then link to a subreddit that selects for people who are happy with their surgeries while excluding detransitioners (or, more sadly, people who took their own lives after undergoing bottom surgery). Fight cherry-picking with studies and meta-analyses, not cherry-picking in the opposite direction.

What objective metric do you propose to measure whether or not someone is better off other than asking them if they feel better?

This proves too much. Heroin addicts claim to feel better when they use heroin. (I don't even disbelieve them – I'm sure they do feel happier in the short-term.) The fact that gender reassignment surgeries open their recipients up to a host of health problems they would not otherwise have had seems as good an "objective" metric as any other. As you more or less concede in the top-level comment, the question of whether surgical transition actually improves trans people's mental flourishing certainly seems to be an open one, and the point of medical studies is to give us hard data which will inform our decisions on whether it's a good idea for individual patients. If 90% of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria saw a durable uplift to their subjective well-being after undergoing surgical transition, it would be a no-brainer. 70%? Sure. 50%? Hmm – you might need to have a bit of a think about that one. 30%? Probably not until you've already tried several years of talk therapy. 10%? Only as a matter of last resort for those in such severe psychic distress that it's this or suicide.

If a person is considering undergoing a major elective medical procedure which will render it impossible for them to have children and opens them up to a host of medical problems they would not otherwise have had, we need robust data on the efficacy of that procedure in improving its recipients' subjective sense of well-being. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "well, some people feel better afterwards" simply isn't good enough. (All of this goes double if you're expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill, as some trans activists demand.)

Personally, I support bodily autonomy for adults – but if one of my loved ones was considering surgically transitioning, I would do everything in my power to try to dissuade them. (In much the same way that I support the right of adults to practise polyamory or pursue careers in pornography or the entertainment industries, even though I know that the overwhelming majority of people who do so will see their subjective well-being take a hit as a result. If a close female friend of mine was considering starting an OnlyFans, I would support her right to do so, but I would also tell her that this is a decision she will almost certainly regret.)

and not some kind of new woke perversion to be fought

When convicted male rapists with intact genitalia are demanding to serve their sentences in the female estate and these demands are being granted – then yes, this is a woke perversion to be fought. It's pure historical revisionism to claim that gender-critical people started this fight and that "trans people just want to live their lives in peace".

Firstly, I think it's profoundly condescending to tell someone they've been "fed" cherry-picked stories, dumb sheeple that they are.

Maybe "fed" is the wrong word, but I've seen the images they've seen, the collages, the screenshots, the threads, that gave them that opinion on SRS.

Secondly, @Shakes wasn't passing a value judgement on the efficacy of bottom surgery: the part of his comment that you quoted is literally just an (accurate) description of what a vaginoplasty entails.

Doctors would not describe a neovagina as an "open wound".

Thirdly, it's rather hypocritical of you to accuse someone of having fallen for cherry-picked stories that portray bottom surgery negatively, then link to a subreddit that selects for people who are happy with their surgeries while excluding detransitioners (or, more sadly, people who took their own lives after undergoing bottom surgery).

I mentioned people unhappy with their surgeries and if you'd bothered to click on the link you'd've seen the thread titled "Unhappy with my results" right there on the front page (it was there yesterday, it's a bit more hidden now; instead there's one titled "Really disheartened." now).

This proves too much. Heroin addicts claim to feel better when they use heroin. (I don't even disbelieve them – I'm sure they do feel happier in the short-term.)

Usually they admit when it wears off somewhat that they're actually miserable and their life sucks. They're not acting rationally when they shoot up. Trans people don't go back and forth like that.

The fact that gender reassignment surgeries open their recipients up to a host of health problems they would not otherwise have had seems as good an "objective" metric as any other. As you more or less concede in the top-level comment, the question of whether surgical transition actually improves trans people's mental flourishing certainly seems to be an open one, and the point of medical studies is to give us hard data which will inform our decisions on whether it's a good idea for individual patients. If 90% of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria saw a durable uplift to their subjective well-being after undergoing surgical transition, it would be a no-brainer. 70%? Sure. 50%? Hmm – you might need to have a bit of a think about that one. 30%? Probably not until you've already tried several years of talk therapy. 10%? Only as a matter of last resort for those in such severe psychic distress that it's this or suicide.

If a person is considering undergoing a major elective medical procedure which will render it impossible for them to have children and opens them up to a host of medical problems they would not otherwise have had, we need robust data on the efficacy of that procedure in improving its recipients' subjective sense of well-being. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "well, some people feel better afterwards" simply isn't good enough. (All of this goes double if you're expecting the taxpayer to foot the bill, as some trans activists demand.)

I'm confident that criteria could be developed that, when administered by an experienced psychiatrist, their mind clouded neither by transphobia nor by trans-affirming delusions, could determine whether someone would actually benefit from transition with >90% accuracy.

When convicted male rapists with intact genitalia are demanding to serve their sentences in the female estate and these demands are being granted – then yes, this is a woke perversion to be fought. It's pure historical revisionism to claim that gender-critical people started this fight and that "trans people just want to live their lives in peace".

If your concerns are about trans prisoners specifically, talk about that instead of accusing all trans people of being perverts, rapists, misogynists, etc.

but I've seen the images they've seen, the collages, the screenshots, the threads, that gave them that opinion on SRS.

What "opinion"? @Shakes gave an entirely accurate description of what a vaginoplasty entails. Are you claiming the description is inaccurate? If so, how?

Doctors would not describe a neovagina as an "open wound".

And a used-car salesman wouldn't describe a lemon as a lemon. Of course the person selling something will try to present it in as flattering a light as possible.

Usually they admit when it wears off somewhat that they're actually miserable and their life sucks.

Citation requested. Many heroin addicts (and alcoholics, gambling addicts etc.) never admit that they have a problem or that their lifestyle is unhealthy.

They're not acting rationally when they shoot up.

Who are you to decree who is and isn't acting rationally? According to you, it doesn't matter if medically transitioning sterilises the recipient and opens them up to a host of health problems they wouldn't have otherwise – the only thing that matters is that they subjectively report feeling happier afterwards. By your own logic, a heroin addict who consistently maintains that heroin makes him happier is acting rationally, and the fact that heroin objectively destroys his mind and body and imposes negative externalities on the broader society is immaterial.

Trans people don't go back and forth like that.

Then why does /r/detrans have a five-figure number of subscribers? Why do most trans children desist before adulthood?

talk about that instead of accusing all trans people of being perverts, rapists, misogynists, etc.

When did I do that?

I know I keep referencing this example, but it's because I simply can't effin' believe it happened in reality. And the trans cheerleaders still insist this is a real lady who is being oppressed and discriminated against and horribly mistreated by not being allowed back into a women's jail (presumably to impregnate more of her cellmates?)

And this all happened as a result of laws supposed to be anti-discriminatory, which then got twisted into test cases and "yes, the prison system of this state can be forced to put a guy with functioning male reproductive system into a women's prison" was the result.

The sex in this case was consensual. No one was harmed, other than the potential children if they didn't end up being aborted. The claim was trans women would be raping cis women prisoners. If anything, having consensual sex makes your prison experience nicer. Not that I think it's a good thing.

Claims of rape are still baseless. Trans women who've been on hormones for years can't even get an erection. And a feminine-looking individual, regardless of what you believe their gender is, is at serious risk in an American men's prison (not that most feminists care about men being raped). Ideally a distinction would be made between people who were on hormones before going to prison and those who "come out" as trans only after being locked up to stir shit because they're antisocial degenerates who want to watch the world burn. (I mean, ideally prison rape would be addressed, but that's far more ambitious.)

Claims of rape are still baseless.

You obviously aren't familiar with "Karen" White. What do you mean by "baseless"? Do you mean that no trans-identified inmate in a women's prison has ever raped one of their fellow inmates?

According to the Guardian, there were 97 sexual assaults in the female estate between 2016-19, of which 7 were committed by transgender inmates. At the time there were 3,795 people housed in the female estate, of whom 34 were transgender. In other words, a transgender inmate is more than ten times more likely to sexually assault a fellow inmate than a cisgender female inmate. But sure, "baseless".

Trans women who've been on hormones for years can't even get an erection.

Well this guy clearly could, and all his "transness" consisted of was growing out his hair and changing his name. That's the problem: you're trans if you say you're trans, you have to be treated according to your gender identity, you don't have to transition medically or surgically unless you want to, trans women don't owe you femininity, etc.

As I said, I agree there should be standards for trans people to be treated as their preferred gender. But if that's what you believe, advocate that, instead of claiming that all trans people are perverts, rapists, misogynists, etc., and none of them should be treated as their preferred gender.

If people had just treated it as a curiosity and a medical condition

The implementation of the liberal affirmative model accompanying a medical model put this to bed. You can't have a medical condition and a socially affirmative model assisted by wide celebration of concepts of identity placed in proximity to the general population, including children. You can't do so and claim you are adhering to rigorous medical research which has a default answer of "We don't know" to many basic questions about the condition, causes, and populations effected. Not when advocates and experts in medicine insist dysphoria is not a prerequisite for transgenderism.

If the Dutch Protocols led to 20 years more rigorous study with small experimental cohorts that invited critical dissent and testing, trans people not only would be better off but we might have a more advanced understanding of the condition. Of course if you tolerate slow, plodding research that demands dissent to progress in experimental areas -- to question and define the nature of gender, sex, identity and dysphoria -- you will have condemned some small number of trans people to suffering. They would have suffered for a purpose, namely a greater understanding and a lower profile that provided more tolerance via obscurity. Maybe we could do brain scans by now to screen or something.

The ideal outcome was for trans research to go on as a medical venture without ideological or social interest. An interesting article in The Atlantic would have popped up every few years. By now trans people would know know about the trans-Mecca neighborhood in Seattle in the event they were born in Utah.

The implementation of the liberal affirmative model accompanying a medical model put this to bed. You can't have a medical condition and a socially affirmative model assisted by wide celebration of concepts of identity placed in proximity to the general population, including children.

Some people are attention-seekers; therefore, everything believe is wrong?

You can't do so and claim you are adhering to rigorous medical research which has a default answer of "We don't know" to many basic questions about the condition, causes, and populations effected. Not when advocates and experts in medicine insist dysphoria is not a prerequisite for transgenderism.

If your belief is that there isn't enough gatekeeping – which I agree with – then argue that, and not that all trans people are wrong and need to be stopped, etc.

If the Dutch Protocols led to 20 years more rigorous study with small experimental cohorts that invited critical dissent and testing, trans people not only would be better off but we might have a more advanced understanding of the condition. Of course if you tolerate slow, plodding research that demands dissent to progress in experimental areas -- to question and define the nature of gender, sex, identity and dysphoria -- you will have condemned some small number of trans people to suffering. They would have suffered for a purpose, namely a greater understanding and a lower profile that provided more tolerance via obscurity. Maybe we could do brain scans by now to screen or something.

The ideal outcome was for trans research to go on as a medical venture without ideological or social interest. An interesting article in The Atlantic would have popped up every few years.

Yet no one (other than me?) is arguing that. It's either the unquestioningly pro-trans side, with all the valid criticisms you listed, or the absolutely anti-trans side, claiming trans people are perverts, rapists, misogynists, etc.

I'm not arguing that. I made a statement about what has happened and proposed a counter-factual I consider plausible with hindsight. Unfortunately for real trans people, if this is a meaningful category, there are no do overs in Discourse. The critics you hand wave away or condemn -- the TERFs and conservatives with all their vicious nasty political, legal, and cultural warfare -- you have them to to thank for pushing against the medical profession led around by so-called bodies of experts like WPATH. If you consider your position the popular one historically and currently, then all I can say is don't outsource your advocacy in the future.

I believe society can make more fascists, murderers, or homosexuals if a society chooses to do so. We know this, because different societies have had different rates of fascists, murderers, and homosexuals across time and place. There are limits to what a society can impose with propaganda, culture, circumstance, or leverage with individual genetic predisposition. But those limits include fascists who don't believe in fascism and homosexuals who like brunch but don't enjoy gay sex very much. Many raised murderers will be bad at murdering and some might not even enjoy it. Does a real murderer include murderers who feel shame and regret, or murderers who fail at murdering despite their best efforts?

What does belief have to do with this medical condition? I have a general idea of what it has to do with something like schizophrenia. We speak around a confused pit of philosophical, psychological, sociological, and medical concepts. Stick your hand in, pull out what you want. It's beyond me I'm afraid. I do strongly believe that the ideal treatment for someone with gender dysphoria is an antidote that cures them. Seems to me medical transition and social acceptance lands short of general miracle cure status, so yes it's probably best we don't experiment on children until results improve or alternatives are found. Are alternatives being researched?

And all of the media coverage could have been avoided if people had just treated it as a curiosity and a medical condition

This is a little disingenuous. It was treated as a curiosity and a medical condition. It was specifically the activists who declared that it is an identity and absolutely not a medical condition, which was the genesis of the whole controversy.

Transvestites have been a curiosity since time immemorial. Dysphoria has been a medical condition in the books ever since we've had books. Don't pretend like it was the anti trans lobby that made this an issue.

now that trans people are everywhere (thanks to anti-trans activists)

Surely this can't be serious? I've worked with numerous people who went down the autistic adult male to trans woman pipeline. I doubt I would have known even a single person like this thirty years ago. Are we really to believe that this was all due to anti trans activists?

I feel like Mottizens are probably more likely than most to have run into MtFs in their day-to-day life as a result of affluence, education, industries of choice etcetera. Admittedly mostly the 'Speedrunning-American' class of such.

Surely this can't be serious?

Surely there's a deadnaming joke in there somewhere.

Surely it was a man's name before that Bronte lass popularised it for her heroine!

An interesting question with all the “autistic trans programmers” where is the trans-Bill Gates in his 60’s who transitioned a decade ago when it became normalized. Last I checked Bill Gates is on Epstein Island in his old age not suddenly trans.

When I read or watch information about some of the best game programmers of the 80s I remember multiple times where the person transitionned later in life. The only one that comes to my mind spontaneously is Daniel/Danielle Bunten (creator of M.U.L.E, one of the best early Electronic Arts titles). Going by google, there's quite a few more, including some with some notable credits to their names, certainly more than you'd expect for that generation.

Seldomly on hacker news a woman is linked „look at this awesome womens youtube channel collecting miniature-clocks/explaining-soldering-electronics/extremely-male-nerd-hobby“ and it is always an old geezer who recently transitioned to a womens name.

It's kind of a meme or cliche in the gaming communities that any time someone talks about a woman speedrunner or pro e-sports player who performs at a world-class level, the odds are at least 9/10 that it's a trans male. That said, your comment reminded me of the YouTube channel Britta Food4Dogs, who, AFAICT, is just a regular old woman who seems to have genuine love for extremely nerdy JRPGs and other anime-related media, from watching some videos of her covering some very niche nerdy visual novels that I'm familiar with.

What a lovely channel!

To be honest, at this point whenever I see mention of a woman in programming (or other very nerdy things like speedrunning), I assume that it's a dude until I see evidence to the contrary. It's just by far the more likely bet, in my experience.

Bill Gates isn't rich because he was a great programmer.

I am using his name as a stand-in for great programmer then.

But he’s credited with developing MSFT originally software and had a 1590 SAT score back when that was rare and students could get into Harvard with 1300. If he’s not a stand-in for great programmer then I have no idea whose a great programmer.

in the future use Fabrice Bellard as your example, he deserves it. or Steve Yegge if you want to troll.

He was a fine programmer, but there were many better programmers to work at Microsoft then and now. What he was, and what the autistic programmers often are not, was a brilliant businessman, and that made all the difference.

Yeah, the way the small Microsoft basically slew the juggernaut IBM's personal computer division (it took some time to bleed out, of course) and secured itself a place as one of the most powerful and important companies on the planet is the stuff of business legends.


What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats