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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
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.)
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.
... 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.
In that particular case, the police somehow managed to make literal bank robbers the lesser evil!
More options
Context Copy link
The study defines it thus:
It doesn't state how many just got hormones and how many got surgery.
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.
You mean social transitioning? The study was about medical transition. If it were just clothes and personae, the controversy would be much less severe.
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.
What objective metric do you propose to measure whether or not someone is better off other than asking them if they feel better?
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.
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.
It was never just this, don't lie to us.
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).
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.
Cherry-picking negative examples from your reddit cherry-pick
More options
Context Copy link
Lol
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
There's a four-panel Anakin/Padme joke in here somewhere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
So it's some kind of irrational bias?
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.
I have a penis and this physical experience tells me that mutilating it would be extremely bad. I am so confident in my experience that studies and polls where people claim to have benefited from mutilating their penises are unconvincing to me. This is extremely rational.
Look, I'm gay, I get it. "Perversion" is a normative word. And we can all collectively decide that being gay is normal and being trans is normal and therefore not perverted. And this is a coherent definition and everybody knows what we mean. In fact, this is probably what most people mean at this point.
But also the biological "norm" is for man to reproduce with woman and for man to stay a man. Social convention can't change that. And by any reasonable definition what we're talking about is perverted. We are literally perverting normal biological sex.
Reasonable minds can disagree and this ultimately becomes a mere semantic point in a liberal society. Perversion is accepted, it's a liberal society. It doesn't really matter if we call it perversion or not. But I think it is a perversion. A lot of people think so. And when we try to deny that and act as though there's something wrong with them, that sounds like denial.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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 options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.)
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".
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.
Doctors would not describe a neovagina as an "open wound".
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).
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.
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.
If your concerns are about trans prisoners specifically, talk about that instead of accusing all trans people of being perverts, rapists, misogynists, etc.
What "opinion"? @Shakes gave an entirely accurate description of what a vaginoplasty entails. Are you claiming the description is inaccurate? If so, how?
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.
Citation requested. Many heroin addicts (and alcoholics, gambling addicts etc.) never admit that they have a problem or that their lifestyle is unhealthy.
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.
Then why does /r/detrans have a five-figure number of subscribers? Why do most trans children desist before adulthood?
When did I do that?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.)
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 ~10 times more likely to sexually assault a fellow inmate than a cisgender female inmate.
But sure, "baseless".
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Some people are attention-seekers; therefore, everything believe is wrong?
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.
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?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link