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 -
An interesting "false flag" in the transgender culture war: a mystery group is impersonating a transgender group and sending texts and flyers to the wrong people:
https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/texans-receive-texts-impersonating-transgender-advocacy-group/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/trans-student-mailers-hit-texas-210015782.html
As far as I can tell, of course, the transgender groups in question have no disagreement with the contents in these messages, but they have been sent to the wrong people. They want this content to stay on the down low and for parents not to know about it. As on twitter poster put it "The trans people wouldn’t be stupid enough to send this out right before midterms unless they thought you were trans" (emphasis added). The pages on the websites that the pamphlets and texts linked to have been taken down, though archive links show they had content on them previously: https://web.archive.org/web/20261005063417/https://transtexas.org/trans-texas-takeover-tour/ https://web.archive.org/web/20260807023304/https://transtexas.org/resources/ which is a very interesting thing to do for a group that presumably wants people to attend their tour and have access to some resources.
This does reinforce the idea that the trans project is both unpopular and/or secretly transing kids without their parents knowing, as they reacting with horror that parents are being exposed to their message.
This hiding behavior is certainly not standard among all groups. Most groups would be thrilled to get free publicity pointed to their website, even if the messages are coming from an anonymous benefactor (assuming it doesn't get them on a spam shitlist or something). Nevertheless, it does seem like democrat ideology mandates that they support the maximalist trans movement, and their solution is to distance from it.
There is a longstanding mutual incomprehension on this question between activists and gender-criticals. Most activists would not deny that they are interested in helping children transition; they may downplay it during election season but it's not some great shameful secret, "Protect trans kids" is a widespread slogan. The reason "they're trying to trans your kids!" gets denounced as right-wing conspiracy-mongering is that active verb "transing". As the activists view it, they aren't transing anybody: they're trying to reach out to kids who are, in fact, already trans, and help them express their true selves. The implied accusation that they have some sort of program to brainwash cis kids into wanting to transition feels offensive and absurd - the only kids they're trying to reach out to really are trans, it's just that you can't tell who's in the closet, so obviously you have to shower everyone with "it's okay to come out, it'd be so brave, so life-changing" to ferret them out.
The problem is that to the typical trans activist, for a kid to "really be trans" basically means "this kid, if they knew transitioning was an option and faced no external pressure against doing so, would choose to transition" - anyone whose ideal self-actualized future self, given perfect information and absolute freedom, would transition, is ontologically trans. (Some theorists take this definition as-is, but the Blue Tribe activist on the street is more likely to hold some notion that if your idealized unconstrained future self would transition, this is evidence that you have in fact had the opposite gender written on your soul since birth.) So obviously, raising awareness of the possibility of transition will only serve to help kids who are, deep down, already trans - completely different from manipulatively "transing" cis kids. Whereas GCs, to the limited degree that they recognize the idea of kids "really being trans" - which wouldn't actually mean recognizing those kids' genders, of course, just acknowledging that they are of a kind with the population of "trans" adults in some deeper sense than parroting buzzwords they've been taught - would think that a "trans kid" must be a kid who already displays gender dysphoria and an active, persistent desire to be the opposite sex. So, of course, any intervention designed to raise awareness of transition among gender-conforming kids does literally constitute an effort to "make" them trans. And so the activists go on loudly and sincerely decrying accusations that they're transing kids while visibly and openly doing what their enemies mean by "transing kids".
On one hand, in the activists' defense, mainstream consensus has largely accepted that "encouraging closeted people to come out as gay" is not the same thing as "making them gay"; many Rowling-type moderate-left GCs would never endorse that conflation, yet take it absolutely for granted where trans is concerned. But on the other hand, in the GCs' defense, the trans activists' definition of "being trans" is obviously so confusing, radical, and esoteric that their continued misunderstanding of what their opponents mean by "transing kids" can only be some mixture of willful ignorance and unfathomable insularity, depending on individual levels of sincerity. Whoever you want to blame most, it's doing the state of the discourse no favors, and some people on both sides clearly like it that way.
(On the third hand, the right-wing discourse around "transing kids" is also riddled with motte-and-bailey rhetoric surrounding the spicier phrasing that trans activists are grooming kids - where, although it can always be claimed that they are simply using the word "grooming" to mean "manipulating impressionable youths" without connotations of literal pedophilia, this is often genuinely a cover for a veiled accusation that the activists are only telling kids to transition because they get some perverse sexual thrill from doing so, or even because they want to physically molest the kids they initiate. There, I think the anti-trans side are clearly at fault, and the activists are justified in rejecting the label even if the innocuous "motte" meaning of grooming is a defensible description of their behavior. I mention this because this reply turned into a bit of an effortpost, and an overview of the topic would not be complete otherwise; but I think the basic, less one-sided conflict outlined above would be with us with or without the "grooming" buzzword in the mix.)
Not necessarily sexual. Back when LibsofTikTok was just posting videos of libs talking to their own kind, there was a recurring archetype that I'll roughly sketch. Imagine a woman in her late 20's. She has a degree in education, a boring real life and a rich inner life. She posts videos talking about making her classroom a safe space, and a mild cynic could easily come to the conclusion that she really, really wants that experience of the "safe space" being necessary. That she believes that "school" is the setting for a drama anthology in which she is the main character, guiding and saving 22-26 desperate young people per year from repressive, intolerant, conservative parents.
The thing is, there just aren't that many gay kids. In a class of 20, she'll have maybe 2, and the odds of a terrible dramatic confrontation with the family where they have to seek help from their favorite English teacher that comes to a head in exactly that year is much, much smaller. How often can that really happen? Thrice in a career seems like a high estimate.
And yet a lot of teachers seem to be hyped as fuck at any hint that they get to do a big dramatic Very Special Episode type shit, just like the movies. That's why they got into teaching you know, and not because they're a lower-midwit who was afraid to leave a comfortable environment.
Objectively speaking, there are millions of teachers and only a few who post videos on TikTok giving the impression that if there aren't enough dramatically crying trans kids then they'll make them, but there are enough for a Twitter account to find a few every week for a year and make the meme well known.
More options
Context Copy link
I think an insurmountable gap here is that it's easy to accept that gay people exist. Sodomy and homoeroticism has been documented since biblical times and even some animals do it. Meanwhile people wanting to chop off their own oragans and pump themselves full of hormones is a modern world.
Average people can also easily understand how it's possible to achieve sexual pleasure throug homosexual activity even if they do not personally want to participate. Meanwhile the average person cannot understand why soemone would gain satisfaction from severe genital and body mutilation. Therefore they can only conclude that it must be the result of either mental illness or brainwashing.
In the 70's conservative activists opposed laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring because it would permit gay teachers in public school. The logic behind the "Save Our Children" campaign headlined by Anita Bryant was that gay people could not reproduce biologically so they must "recruit" children into being gay and therefore could not be trusted to be teachers. I don't think the average person who opposed gay teachers intuitively understood "gay people exist" I think they were concerned about "brainwashing" or "recruiting" the way people now are concerned about kids being "transed".
The broader framework of "we're concerned sexual minorities are recruiting children" vs. "there's no recruitment people are just born a certain way" isn't at all new. There are other features of the debate, like the consequences of medical treatment differing from sexual experimentation being different, that are new. But, I don't think it's all accurate to say that people in the past intuitively grasped that gay people existed and were not concerned about children being brainwashed.
Were they wrong?
With the rise of gay identifying it’s obvious people can be gayed. And then there are lavender marriages which produced children meaning most men can still get off to women. And honestly I think most gays are happier in lavender marriages where they get all the benefits of being a father and their children get a mother (plus not having to do childcare etc).
The rise in LGB self-identification is driven women who only date men identifying as bisexual. They haven't been gayed, they are claiming an oppressed identity for clout. The much smaller risk in gay male self-ID is entirely consistent with less closeting over time.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not interested in doing "social contagion" vs. "inherent predisposition towards behavior previously repressed by social sanction" round 237 with someone who throws out wild speculation like "honestly I think most gays are happier in lavender marriages" without supporting evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's certainly unclear whether it was just activists making that claim versus it being widely accepted in the anti-gay community. I find it more likely that people hated the gays first (while understanding their existence) and came up with rationalizations second.
I think there's also a nuance in the understanding in that they can believe that someone can be brainwashed into actually being gay, and actually legitimately enjoying the feeling of guzzling cock. But anti-trans will believe that nobody can be trans. Their claim is that trans people literally cannot exist and trans identifying people are simply brainwashed into participating in self mutilation. That trans identifying people won't be happy about it, but won't be able to speak up while being imprisoned by ideology and a destroyed body.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that's probably a factor, but I think there's more to it than that. Humans are pretty good at guessing the sex of other people. A lot of the time when I meet a trans-identifying-man, my subconscious brain instantly says "man" even if the person is wearing lipstick, makeup, and a dress. So it feels like I am being asked to believe a lie. Of course it doesn't help that a lot of these trans-identifying-men seem to derive personal benefits from being treated as women such as an advantage in sports or easy access to women's changing facilities.
I think my reaction is pretty typical: "No, that's a dude pretending to be a chick" says my monkey brain. "This seems like a scam" says my frontal cortex. "Ewwww" says my lizard brain.
More options
Context Copy link
I think most people can easily make sense of the idea that you might wish that certain aspects of your life were different. Someone might wish they were taller, or they had a million dollars, or they lived in Germany instead of America. These are all considered normal and comprehensible; most people don’t have trouble with the mere notion of a counterfactual.
If someone could wish for all these things, then why couldn’t they wish to be the opposite gender as well? Is it so much of a stretch?
And if you can accept the comprehensibility of that sort of wish, then I don’t think the comprehensibility of SRS is too much of a stretch, although I absolutely understand why many people would evaluate that the drawbacks are not worth the benefits, and that it might be considered odd or disconcerting for that reason.
It's not about attainability but relatability. Nearly everyone in the world would want 1 million dollars if you offered it to them. Moving to germany is a bit more situational but most people can acknowledge that germany has pretty good sausage, kraut, beer, and fast cars. But ask a random person what's in it for someone who wants to be a woman and he'd likely be at a loss.
And it's not just that they want to be a woman. They want it so bad they'll chop off their dicks and pump their bodies full of chemicals to make a poor imitation of this.
I mean, let me just ask: do you really think that there's so little to recommend in the lives of half of all humanity, approximately 4 billion people, that no rational actor, under a Rawlsian veil of ignorance, could ever want to be one of them?
If you do believe that to be the case, then the logical corollary is that you should become the most ardent of committed feminist activists. Alleviating their suffering would surely be the most pressing of political issues.
(I'm intentionally being a bit glib, but, what you said could be interpreted in that way.)
I'm sure there will be many people who can answer this. And they will probably be more sympathetic to the trans cause. But to the average person's point of view the trans person's pov is so alien as to be indistinguishable from insanity.
Well now I'm kinda curious. Do you think being a woman is that much worse than being a man? (I don't want to draw you into a long obnoxious argument, I just want to make sure I'm properly understanding you.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is not the first time that bottom chirurgery has been characterised in such a way on this forum, and I would like to correct the record:
To the best of my knowledge, vaginoplasty (male-to-female) does not involve 'chopping off' anything. The male genitals in their entirety are rearranged into female genitals, with the penis becoming the clitoris and the scrotum becoming the labia; phalloplasty (female-to-male) is the same but in the other direction.
Also, the methods used are very similar to those used in within-sex reconstructive chirurgery in cisgender patients who have suffered genital injuries.
My brother in Christ, what do you think the endocrine system does?
It may have been a 'poor imitation' a century ago, but much progress has been made; the regret rate for transgender operations is less than that for knee replacements.
To the average person, what you describe and "chopping off" are basically the same thing and repugnant for basically the same reasons. If it isn't literally "chopping off", that's a technicality, like "the burger doesn't taste like sewage, it tastes like excrement, so you're wrong when you say it tastes like sewage!".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're gerrymandering because these are all harmless as desires. Consider another example: I understand why people might want another roll at the die of high school. This is normal, in the sense that people often have regrets.
It's not normal, nor does it make sense to me, to actually make this into a life project. In fact, it would be very alarming and I would not trust the person who sincerely attempts to redo their high school experience (at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars and medical procedures with non-trivial effects) to have a good view of what would fulfill them since they seem mentally imbalanced/lacking basic prudence and social insight to explain why this is a very bad thing to try to impose on people (the mental health comorbidities make it even harder with trans).
In any case, it would not suffice as a justification to let them pull a Steve Buscemi even if they could convince me they'd be happier. High school doesn't exist for the pleasure of adults.
You’re conflating two things that I never conflated. There are two separate questions:
Whether the desire for SRS (or being trans in general) is coherent and understandable, outside of being a product of “mental illness or brainwashing”.
Whether society should rearrange itself to accommodate the desires of trans people.
I was only addressing (1). Personally, I answer yes to (1) and no to (2).
I don’t believe that, at our current level of medical technology, men can become women. If you’re born a man then you’ll stay a man. And as a corollary, I don’t believe that MTFs (i.e. men) should be given access to women’s spaces, nor should they expect to be recognized as women by other people. But, in line with my general libertarian priors, I think that consenting adults should mostly be free to dress how they want and get whatever medical procedures they want, and I understand why some people would opt for SRS for psychological comfort, even though it can’t actually at the end of the day fully realize their desires.
I'm not sure that there ought to be separate men's and women's spaces, if their existence leads to things like a trans woman dying of cancer because she isn't allowed in the women's ward, and also isn't allowed in the men's ward.
Bro I'm gonna be deadass honest with you, there are a lot of freaks who are just gonna hang out in the bathroom and listen to women fart and piss if we don't have separate bathrooms. But if women are cool with that then sure, tear down those walls.
As a resident of a PNW city with a large trans population I'd say the way things are going is many newly constructed spaces have only a gender neutral single shared room with sinks and a mirror and then a series of stalls that have full floor to ceiling walls and wooden locking doors. This is certainly more expensive than "two rooms with plastic dividers around stalls" but it would be difficult to hear anyone fart or pee through the doors (which honestly I appreciate for entirely non gender issues reasons).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If a person desires to have a limb amputated (which does happen) we accurately assess this to be mental illness.
If they desire to become the different gender, we say that is valid and give them the medical option to pursue it.
I really can't see a space morally between allowing a doctor to amputate someone's arm and allowing them to amputate someone's genitals. I can see why someone might want it. But I can't see why it should be allowed under our current system of medical ethics. Although, as a libertarian, perhaps you are okay with both surgeries, which would be a logically consistent position.
Yes.
I'm actually mostly ok with saying that transsexuality is a mental illness. On the one hand, from a certain perspective that's literally what it is: it's an abnormal neurological development that causes adverse health effects, most notably to the reproductive system. On the other hand, I want to stress that it's not merely a mental illness. An individual's reasons for wanting to transition, or wanting to be the opposite gender, can be very complex and multifaceted, and they can go beyond a simple "my body just doesn't feel right". The "wrong body map" theory is a convenient and digestible PR narrative that the trans community can use to explain the phenomenon to normies and make it more medically legitimate, but it only covers a small portion of people's actual experiences.
I do think that the neuroscience underlying transsexuality differs in crucial ways from the neuroscience underlying other types of body dysmorphia, but I don't know the current state of research in this area and I have no way of directly proving it, and at any rate it's a largely academic question.
Regarding the references to amputation, I feel compelled to note, contra Freud, that a vagina is not the mere absence of a penis; it is its own organ, it's just as much of a positive presence as a penis is. The ideal for MTFs is not to engage in a simple act of self-destruction, but to trade one functioning sexual organ for another (current surgical techniques, of course, cannot actually achieve this, but can only provide a facsimile of it).
More options
Context Copy link
I just feel like the metaphor obviously doesn't work. If a trans woman gets SRS and has a functional neovagina that she can have sex and orgasm with then she still has genitals that do most of what people use genitals for. Whereas if someone gets their arm chopped off they don't have a different appendage that does most of what an arm does, they just don't have an arm anymore.
Also if you're for example, a trans woman, your penis is not often "usable" sexually either because of psychological issues with using it, or because of long term atrophy from hormones, or because you're straight and wouldn't be using it anyway. In such cases using the tissue to construct a neovagina allows for functionality where previously none existed.
More options
Context Copy link
Another nuance here is that wanting to be the opposite sex and viscerally yearning for SRS are different things. I think @Primaprimaprima was talking about e.g. sad young men who wish that they'd been born as women in a daydreamy, intellectual kind of way but don't have the dysphoric "ick, ick, ick, get that thing off of me" reaction to their penises that pattern-matches to the arm thing, and who, if they attempt a surgical transition, would only do so in an attempt to make the dream come true. I think it's true that that sort of trans desire is no more pathological, and no more difficult for normies to grok, than yearning to have been born to different life circumstances in some other way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it still runs into the category issue under contest, namely, "what is gender", in ways that "Six-foot-five", "has a million dollars", and "lives in Germany" don't. What makes them normal and comprehensible is that the categories involved and adjudicating membership in them are agreed-upon.
The procedures to make someone 6'5", a millionaire, or a resident of Germany are similarly straightforwardly understood as to what they entail and what constitutes a successful intervention. Gender is different: under the GC definition of gender, no amount of intervention will ever be sufficient to move from membership in one category to another. Conversely, and somewhat confusingly, under the trans-activist definition of gender, no amount of intervention is ever required to move membership from one category to another. Many (most?) people seem to have a mushy concept of gender and see current SRS and hormonal interventions as insufficient to move membership from one category to another but are unsure about whether this will always be true and what a sufficient intervention would entail.
To be clear, I personally believe that the criteria for membership in a gender category is relatively straightforward, and I believe that most other people believe this too, even if they claim not to. A man is an adult human male with XY chromosomes that produces sperm. A woman is an adult human female with XX chromosomes that produces eggs. A few edge cases don’t impugn the general validity of the definition. Everyone knows this, including trans activists, probably.
I don’t believe that SRS as it currently exists is capable of changing someone from one gender to the other. But, given that these matters are so deeply intertwined with matters of personal identity, I can understand why some people would opt for the “next best thing”, even if it’s not perfect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it outweighs the rest of the argument, but it seems relevant that certain parts of the mainstream center-right remain deeply uneasy about the comfort of the Pride folks with, for lack of a better term, age gap relationships within their communities. To their credit, they did largely kick out NAMBLA, but stories like Milo's are not exactly uncommon.
More options
Context Copy link
That would make a great deal of sense if, when these exact same kids detransition after a couple years, they didn't say "you were never really trans" when the share the sordid details of how exactly the "gender affirming care" was provided to them.
I see two additional issues here, which intertwine.
The first is that there is no objective way to tell if a person is "trans." It's purely self identification. Which is reason to be skeptical about gender ideology, but it also relates directly to the second issue, which is that in many circles, there is a lot of social status accorded to trans people. There are surely organizations which are very welcoming to trans people.
When you combine that with the facts that many young people are desperate for both social status and a feeling of being accepted, I think it's virtually certain that the desire for social status and acceptance will heavily inform the decisions of young people who are deciding whether or not to self-identify as trans.
So to me, it's completely reasonable to use the word "trans" as a transitive verb. In effect, offering acceptance and social status to a young person in exchange for an acknowledgment.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see the objection; this seems precisely consistent with my claim that trans advocacy in schools is intended to target the "really trans". Those cis kids who give it a go but turn out not to like it in the long run are, indeed, told they were never really trans, and thus only collateral damage of a program which was intended to help those of their classmates who really were trans. You may shudder at the brute-force utilitarianism - I certainly do; it's why I'm opposed to children undergoing medical transition! - but I genuinely don't see where the internal contradiction is supposed to be.
I think it's less brute force utilitarianism than it is over-calibration to a past social environment. If there's massive social stigma against being trans and everyone who transitions expects to lose their family, social connections, and become quasi-unemployable outside of particular industries and cities, you can expect that the people who go through with transition are highly certain and feel themselves to have no other options. Therefore its not the job of healthcare providers to vet them further. The present "mere-identification" standard was developed in a world where the majority of people in the medical establishment were presumed to be transphobic and therefore not likely to accurately predict who is/isn't "really trans" because they were highly biased against people being trans. In a world where transness isn't stigmatized (which exists in perhaps a few highly educated milieu's in the west) it may become appropriate for health care providers to take on a larger role in deciding who should/shouldn't transition because lower certainty people are more likely to attempt to transition and because providers can be presumed to be more interested in diagnostic accuracy.
More options
Context Copy link
If we're embracing "brute-force utilitarianism", we might as well shuck anything other than heteronormativity from school curricula anyway. Why should we care about the concerns of small minorities? The greater good is at stake!
We shouldn't do so, obviously.
More options
Context Copy link
If they were never really trans, but underwent hormone therapy and got surgeries, surely that means they got transed?
No; it just means that they were mistaken for trans, by themselves and others. You wouldn't say that someone who got spooked by a very forceful "are you sure there's nothing deeper to your occasional twinges of bowel pain" campaign, was given an erroneous colon cancer diagnosis, and got unnecessary surgery they regretted, had been cancered.
I think cancer diagnosis is a bad analogy. Transgenderism is about a desire to be the opposite sex, so there is no way to be mistaken about it. If an XY-haver wants to be a woman, they are definitionally transgender.
The actual resolution is that gender identity can change with time (since it is a desire) - the detrans people were trans in the past, but now are cis. Obviously, it is not a resolution that mainstream activists accept, but it's the correct one.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean... why not? It's the job of the medical professional to say "calm the fuck down, you don't have cancer" rather then "your wish is my command, cash register go 'cha-ching'!". If they go for the latter, that does sound like getting cancered.
Well, I'm not saying the medical system would have acted correctly - though they might; the optimum number of erroneous cancer diagnoses is not necessarily zero. But I'm not asking you to picture shills who get kickbacks for every colonectomy or anything. Picture, instead, sincere people so keen not to let any actual cancer patients die preventable deaths after ignoring early symptoms that they forget about the effects of their rhetoric on people who are, in fact, healthy. We may criticize such people, but we wouldn't accuse them of only caring about turning as many people into colonectomy-seekers as possible, or of being dishonest when they said their message was targeted at people who actually had cancer. And it certainly doesn't prove otherwise if what they tell the people who got unnecessary surgery is "sorry, turns out you never actually had cancer".
I really like that analogy. Especially since it works for how modern medicine is practiced. People have unnecessary tests done all the time, patients demand frivolous CT scans, and psychiatrists overdiagnose as people medicalize ordinary suffering due to awareness campaigns.
Seeing trans-activism as another overzealous awareness campaign does seem to explain a good part of the movement.
More options
Context Copy link
But to the extent we don't do that, it's because they have objective-ish diagnostic criteria that tell with a high degree of accuracy (even if it never reaches 100%) whether or not they have colon cancer, and in the event they degree of accuracy is not high, that information is shared with the patient. If the official diagnostic criteria was "patient says they have colon cancer, and does not change their mind for the period of 6 months" we would, in fact, accuse them of only caring about turning as many people into colonectomy-seekers as possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Defenders would say that those procedures and treatments can be done for many reasons besides being trans, so even if someone got them, it doesn't mean they're transed
But there are cases of people who come out in public and say they thought they were trans, were affirmed by everyone around them from the public school system to social workers and medical professionals, then detransitioned, and then get told they were never really trans.
Defenders would say that if someone undertook an unnecessary procedure out of delusion, then it's a personal failure and is not something the fault of what trans advocates have done. They never were and never will be part of the trans community.
Ok, but even if it was out of delusion, and it was a personal failure, how does that not mean they got transed? Aren't medical professionals supposed to be able to accurately diagnose cases?
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
Detransition statistics are one of those things where the left and the right live in different realities. Trans advocates claim it basically never happens and so it does much more good to focus on encouraging transitioning for those who want to. Anti-trans claim that it happens a lot and is a deep, disturbing tragedy.
If they really actually believed it basically never really happens, they would debate it. They still, however follow the #nodebate tactics, which means they don't.
They do tend to cite statistics for medical detransition, where the numbers are indeed quite low. In this case, the right wingers are the ones using only anecdotes. I imagine debate seems like a waste of time when your opponent's seem to exist in a world entirely separate from your own. That goes for both sides.
iirc this is because the collected statistics are for people who registered detransition at the same clinic they transitioned at, as the process is to ask clinics which of their registered patients do they know detransitioned, which... doesn't exactly capture the whole scope of the thing, especially when a lot of it is "stop taking the medication" and a lot of the medication is gotten from brazilian bathtub brewers vis shady discord servers and subreddits.
More options
Context Copy link
They'll receive brownie points for citing statistics once they stop trying to ruin the lives of scientists who provide inconvenient statistics.
More options
Context Copy link
Online polls ran by explicitly pro-trans organizations, with "people who still identify as trans" being an entry criterion. And the issue I raised was they don't debate, so their arguments can't be addressed.
Literally anyone other than a pro-trans org will give you numbers ranging from 30 to 80% desistence.
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
More options
Context Copy link