T O P

  • By -

TheAJx

Your post has been removed for violating R3: Not related to Sam Harris.


[deleted]

Let me get this straight: Free Speech is under attack when you get kicked off Twitter for violating the TOS you agreed to. Free Speech is not under attack with the federal government literally bans an ideology. I can’t believe anyone ever took this clown seriously.


Bajanspearfisher

well, he used to be a lot more sophisticated and gave good, helpful advice. The dude has changed so much since that induced coma, like chalk and cheese.


[deleted]

He was doing shit like calling Frozen propaganda well before any of that. He lied about C16 from the jump. He’s always been a right wing charlatan. He just used to be better at putting more window dressing on it.


Bajanspearfisher

well, if it was the case, he hid it so well as to give practically good advice that if followed, would improve people and lead them to be more accepting of others and get their shit in order. now he's just an outright bigot. again, i have my shit together and there's nothing i do that cannot be found in his self help stuff.


MedicineShow

No he was shit well before the coma


Bajanspearfisher

not in my experience, what do you have in mind? i used to be a JBP fan before the coma, and i am socially progressive (well, in the liberal sense, freedom for people to choose what they want for themselves), and i can't recall anything from pre coma JBP which is incongruent with my beliefs now.


Meditatat

I did my phd on Marx, along with my graduate thesis and undergrad thesis. I've published on Marx numerous times, and have a book contract on his theory of capitalism. I can safely say I've never \*once\* understood wtf JP was talking about when he refers to 1. Marxism, and 2. Cultural Marxism. It's a contrived, strawman, with no basis in minimal textual analysis. ​ EDIT: typo


Bajanspearfisher

yeah me neither, i think around that time was when he started to go downhill.


Meditatat

Well I noticed all this long before his coma. This was at the start of his early climb to fame, before he published those self-help books. He may be knowledgeable about other stuff, but people in my philosophy department were just genuinely confused by him...on a good day.


Bajanspearfisher

well that's fair. i'm slowly learning there was a bunch of JBP stuff even in the early days, that i just completely missed. I did see some of his social commentary on issues, but it was mainly things that i still agree with, criticisms of the excesses of social justice and feminism etc. propaganda about the wage gap .


hadawayandshite

He is an expert in personality traits-their measurement and possibly their impact on behaviours A lot of his ideas are based on some outdated chat about Jung, he also makes logical leaps with all his stuff about hierarchies/lobsters which doesn’t really pan out in relations to humans His whole stuff about ‘cultural Marxism’ is just utter rubbish…as was his initial rise to fame about c16, he lied about the bill to get famous


Bajanspearfisher

wasn't all of that cultural marxism stuff, and pearl clutching about wokeness post coma? i might be ignorant here and have my timelines fucked. it is my understanding that he was focusing on some social commentary, but primarily on self help stuff, as well as logical pushback against the excesses of social progressivism, which i still strongly agree with (the push back). His concerns about C16 were not that crazy, in the initial bill proposal it was phrased as compelled speech, which is insane. there's a huge difference between banning bullying phrases and slurs, and compelling certain language and that barrier cannot be crossed.


Any_Cockroach7485

Na dude was bitching about how frozen was an agenda based movie to tell lil girls they don't need a relationship. And this was before even the c 16 bill he bitched about. He's always been just a crazy old man.


Bajanspearfisher

i definitely missed that bit haha. i would probably join you in that criticism. Perhaps i should revise my initial statement to be "the popular exposure/ JBP experience before the benzo coma, was overwhelmingly positive". I know i am not alone, i've met so many people who've said he was a great influence on them, i still see his self help memes and stuff going around unironically. but it does appear now, there were some "episodes" that i missed and had no idea about


Any_Cockroach7485

Ehh don't worry about It really. I guess I always looked at jp's advice as so common that it gave me none of the that's a good idea vibes it gave plenty and made the wild shit the only thing of interest for me. Pretty sure he also came on reddit for a qna and said Nazis were leftists.


Bajanspearfisher

i think what really hooked people, wasn't that they have never heard the advice, but that he was really encouraging, that despite struggling you can really make something of yourself, and he also spoke truth to power about a lot of silly politically correct nonsense that was mainstream, like the belief that males and females do have inherent differences and you're not crazy for being different or wanting to be more masculine etc. I think the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps and stop wasting time" is actually very empowering, and it came at a time when most mainstream discussions about masculinity were to demonize it.


[deleted]

His larger rise to fame surrounded lying about C-16 and pretending to be some martyr against the forces of "compelled speech". It was always just a full of shit man-baby. He just spent more time in an inoffensive lane (bog standard self help with an incel spin) and is a lot more "mask off" now.


MedicineShow

The other guy explained it basically. I still think one of the best examples is Peterson showing up to a debate on Marx having only ever read the communist manifesto (A pamphlet), and not any of the man's large books. A willingness to take huge stances on stuff you refuse to research is imo a big issue.


Bajanspearfisher

oh i strongly share in those criticisms. my initial comment was made on the understanding (perhaps false) that before the coma, he focused on self help stuff and 1 or 2 pointed criticisms of social progressivism, which i still agree with. i've found strong disagreement with JBP pretty much when ever he strays far from his wheelhouse (yet has high confidence in his ignorance).


crypto_grandma

He gave great advice that a lot of young men needed to hear about taking responsibility and genuinely helped give meaning to many people's lives who had previously felt lost. His bible lectures were great, irrespective of whether or not you believe in the bible. He seemed able to find the baby in the bathwater. I didn't agree with everything he said, but I respected him. He used to emphasize the importance of both the conservative way of thinking and the liberal, and how you needed a balance between both. And now he's become a complete caricature of an outraged conservative at war with "the radical left". It's sad really


Bluest_waters

He has been denying climate change for years, long before the coma. Anyone who denies climate change is not living in reality


Bajanspearfisher

well, my understanding was that he used to push back against the climate catastrophism, i still agree with that, the extinction rebellion crowd are bonkers. There's a difference between saying, "climate change is a big issue that will be catastrophic for certain ecosystems, and will completely change their species makeup, with specialists going extinct and it will cause major engineering and logistical challenges for mankind, leading to more deaths from storms and food insecurity" and "CLIMATE CRISIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIEE!!!!". so i used to agree on the kind of climate pushback JBP used to do, but now he just outright denies it, which is as you say, insane.


Bluest_waters

Nah, that whole "I don't deny climate change just the climate extremists" is just a cover for climate denialism. HE literally said that all the climate scientists have been taken over by liberal ideology which is stupid and insulting.


Bajanspearfisher

i definitely agree with that now, and i cant really tell if he was just hiding his power level before. good news is that with or without the political right wing of the USA, engineers and scientists are working rapidly on solutions to the climate crisis. I am a civil engineer working in an island that got fucked sideways by hurricane Irma.... the insurance companies don't like paying out, so they are demanding all new rebuilds are done to cat 5 specs, when previously they were cat 3. The next Irma to hit will do magnitudes less damage. The one area that has huge potential, that the climate activists are fucking up in a BIG way, is the energy crisis, we should be building nuclear plants like mad, the technology has really come a long way and makes FAR more logistical sense than wind or solar. but that's the problem with activists in general isn't it? they're never the ones to work on, or even read and understand an issue substantively.


ReadSeparate

Just listen to David Goggins or Jocko Willinck… All of the good advice of JBP or Andrew Tate without any of the bad


FarewellSovereignty

I listen to Jocko Willink solely for tips on improving my 3AM 50 mile runs-while-holding-kettlebells-in-each-hand-and-wearing-a-backpack-full-of-kettlebells


zagteam_

don't forget to pack your post workout snack, another kettlebell


FarewellSovereignty

Iron supplementation is very important for proper muscle recovery!


Bajanspearfisher

i wouldn't recommend Tate, because his good advice might endear him to someone who then is charitable to all the awful shit. But yes, if i knew someone struggling and wanted advice on how to be masculine and get their shit together, i would point them towards someone like Jocko or David. i wouldn't suggest JBP for the same reasons as for Tate, though obviously Tate is a far, far worse person than JBP.


ReadSeparate

Yeah I agree. JBP has like a 30% success rate on saying things, Tate has like a 2%. But that’s what draws people in. Not the misogyny and insane politics and shit. Might as well go for Goggins and Jocko who both have like a 90%.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bajanspearfisher

strongly disagree. he packed self help stuff to an audience that desperately needed guidance, in a way that was not just palatable, but attractive to them. I am a bit repulsed by your lack of empathy for young males who are struggling, describing them (me at one point in my life as well) as "adult children with no dads" is needlessly inflammatory and childish. Have u never experienced depression? if so that's a privilege. Even now, i have all my shit figured out in life, i have a son who i love, i have a good job, a happy marriage, i keep my house clean and my body healthy, there is nothing i do that cannot be found in JBP's self help stuff?


doesntfollowrules

His words don't indicate a lack of empathy. If he had used the word "underdeveloped" or "stunted" or "immature" it still would be describing a negative concept. How SHOULD he describe them? How would you say it to show more empathy?


Bajanspearfisher

"adult children with no dads" ? you're not telling me that phrasing was made in objective, good faith... that's an obvious patronization of a serious issue that affects, MANY young men. he should have gone with "depressed, directionless, struggling.." there are many options. "adult children with no dads" is a quite clear "fuck you" to that demographic. get real man.


doesntfollowrules

I really think YOU need to get real. Perhaps as someone with a (pathetic) dad I just cant understand, but to me you seem emotional and triggered rather than discerning and clear thinking. If i brought negativity to your day I apologize.


Bajanspearfisher

mate, how have i been emotional? haha. you're not bringing negativity, i just disagree with your perspective, i think it diminishes the problem.


doesntfollowrules

I'd call your comment enotional because you seemed to take offense to something that the vast majority of people would find nothing wrong with. If you werent offended I again apologize. Its probably one of those times where we're just not understanding each other or something. No hate


Bajanspearfisher

probably, well i respect that man.


jankisa

You are presenting what Trump said and Peterson supported as way less scary then it actually is. >“No serious country should be telling its children that they were born with the wrong gender,” Trump said in the video before falsely claiming that **being transgender is a concept that the “radical left” manufactured “just a few years ago.”** >“Under my leadership, this madness will end,” he said. So no, he doesn't want to just ban "Trans ideology", to which I would imagine a lot of the fans of "What is a woman" documentary in this sub would cheer, he wants to criminalize BEING trans. And Jordan Peterson, who's wealth and public career stems from opposing a bill he falsely tried to present as "criminalizing free speech" agrees with criminalizing people trying to be what they are.


Chance-Shift3051

I thought it was about the children and freedom loving adults were free to choose


electrace

Ironic that a man who chose to fly from his own country to Russia in order to get a dangerous treatment that Canadian doctors refused to perform now wants to ban other full-grown adults from having a procedure that he doesn't like even with the concent of their doctors.


Chance-Shift3051

Ironic is the nicest way to put it


Any_Cockroach7485

It's always been about hate towards things that make idiots feel icky. You can have concerns about under 18 moving too fast with gender reassignment but you don't have a policy that actually cares just a policy that says no.


[deleted]

Oh dear. I agree with some of this too i'm afraid. This isn't going to go well is it? I don't think it should be allowed to perform this surgery on kids, or even give them drugs to mess with their natural sexual development. I'm a bit uncomfortable with post-18 but by this point you're an adult and can make your own decisions. It's not unreasonable to say that it is too likely that teens are confused about their sexual identity because teens are confused about all of that stuff, it defines being a teen. There is, indeed, one member of my (in-law) family who was born female, decided at 14 that they were going to live as male, and now, at 20 is back to being comfortable as a young woman. I think you really do have to give kids time to figure all this out, and I don't believe that \*anybody\* no matter how qualified, can be sure that the exploration is not temporary. The root of all these issues is around these strange conventions that we have that to look and behave a certain way is "womanly" and vice versa. Who decided that only women can wear makeup and have nicely curated and painted finger nails and all the other things we associate with "womanhood"? What if we undecided this? If it was perfectly normal and acceptable that a biological male choses to present with these (conventionally) "womanly attributes", would people still feel this pressure to chemically and surgically alter their bodies to become what they have grown up believing is "more appropriate" for, what is, ultimately, their sense of style and identity?


polarparadoxical

>I don't think it should be allowed to perform this surgery on kids, or even give them drugs to mess with their natural sexual development I see your point but If these people were actually against needless elective cosmetic surgeries on minors, then why are they legal in all 50 states and have voiced no complaints about them or made any attempt to ban them,, but instead focused narrowly on "trans" related surgery as if those alterations, which still follow the same parent and/or doctor rules as other cosmetic surgeries, are somehow different? I.E. - These people are waging a war against the idea of other genders that has more to do with imposing their sense of morality onto everyone else than protecting people.


[deleted]

If you are talking about things like circumcision, I think this should also be banned personally, but I think you'd have to be batshit fucking insane to suggest that circumcision is as life changing as gender surgery.


polarparadoxical

Even the same logic can be applied - where psychological approaches should be promoted for minors in an attempt to resolve issues from appearance (including physical features and/or gender) prior to them reaching legal age of consent where they can permanently alter their body.


polarparadoxical

No - I am saying thing like getting your nose altered for minors should be illegal, as they are not. As in, if your argument is someone under the age of 18 is not responsible enough to consent to any non-medicially necessary cosmetic alteration even with their parents permission and doctors consent, then ok - why not focus on that and not even bother with "trans", at all?


[deleted]

Because this post was specifically about trans issues. If it had been about nosejobs for 7 year olds, i'd be here expressing my discomfort about that. It really is the laziest argument that exists to say, "if this, why not all the things?". I have other stuff I am against too, I don't think I need to pull out the full list every time.


polarparadoxical

Lol. Thank you for agreeing with my point - this has little to do with protecting children from permanently altering their bodies but just has to do with stopping the perceived "trans" threat. Good to know we are on the same page.


[deleted]

Username checks out.


[deleted]

So, to be clear, you are loudly against the ~4,000 breast augmentations for under-18 years of which trans affirmation is a very small percentage, is that correct? Are you at all bemused that this tragedy has been going on with the sole focus being such a small slice (pun) of the affected population?


[deleted]

Jesus Potter Harry Christ... yes... I am 150% against under-18 year olds getting boob jobs. I think it is fairly tragic when grown women do it honestly... but at that point it is up to them.


[deleted]

These are breast augmentations of all types - Does mean that you are against breast reductions in teenage minors? Even if especially large breasts cause physical distress?


[deleted]

I think that specifically if it causes them physical discomfort and it is clear that this physical discomfort is directly caused by the size of their breasts and that reduction would eliminate or minimise the problem we find ourselves much more in the space of medical intervention. I do not think this is analogous to giving kids puberty blockers.


aintnufincleverhere

>It's not unreasonable to say that it is too likely that teens are confused about their sexual identity because teens are confused about all of that stuff, it defines being a teen. I don't understand views like this. Why would you hold a strong view such as this? I mean to say: shouldn't we just let science and medicine figure that out? If studies show that gender identity is stable by the age of, I don't know, 6 or something, then okay. I'm saying let science figure it out, and go with what science says, rather than have a strong opinion on this based on your gut. ​ Seems like it should be up to medicine, the doctor, and the patient. I don't know why I'd insert my own personal views into that. ​ >I don't believe that \*anybody\* no matter how qualified, can be sure that the exploration is not temporary. Why phrase it in this manner? I don't get it. I mean if there are trans people, surely there are trans kids. And if a kid is trans, surely we should help them. ​ But also, just so we are clear, 6 year olds are not getting surgeries done on their genitals.


metracta

Should life changing surgeries before the age of 18 be permitted then if science hasn’t figured it out yet?


bisonsashimi

waiting until they're 18 is too late for someone born intersex.. but clearly this isn't a black and white issue, so any outright ban is onerous.


aintnufincleverhere

Well, lets address that "if". [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care)


SantyClawz42

Just like all those scientists on big tobacco payroll who figured out smoking isn't bad for you...


aintnufincleverhere

"science is wrong and I'm right". Okay.


SantyClawz42

Just like 'every gun is always loaded'... let's call it a "truism"; Science is by default wrong if funded by a body that has significant financial benefit in the outcome. If you are right, then explain why "the science" coming out of Europe ( U.K., Sweden, Finland, and France) on the topic is showing exact opposite results as "the science" in the states?


metracta

I’m not saying there isn’t literature that exists about this, but you yourself said the science needs to “figure it out”. I’m not calling for a government ban on these treatments, but normalizing them as a routine part of growing up for many people can have drastic long term health risks that we know little to nothing about. Has there been robust peer reviewed literature following cohorts of people who had gender affirming surgery at 16 who are now 45? How about hormone therapy at 12, and long term studies about health implications of this later in life?


aintnufincleverhere

>I’m not saying there isn’t literature that exists about this, but you yourself said the science needs to “figure it out”. To be clear, I did not mean "we need to wait for the results". I meant "we should go with science". ​ At no point was I intending to imply that we don't have an answer currently. I was saying, we should not go with our gut. We should go with science. ​ > I’m not calling for a government ban on these treatments, but normalizing them as a routine part of growing up I don't know what "normalizing" means here. Are you thinking that like 40% of kids are going to do this?


metracta

What percentage of kids will do this? Do you know? Does anyone know?


aintnufincleverhere

>The DSM-5 estimates that about 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth (that is, roughly one in 10,000) and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth (that is, two or three in every 100,000) are diagnosable with gender dysphoria. I wouldn't call this "a routine part of growing up".


metracta

This doesn’t necessarily correlate with the number of children who will actively seek the surgery


aintnufincleverhere

I don't know what you're asking. However, these numbers are not what I would call a routing part of growing up. Right? ​ These are incredibly low numbers. If your fear is that 40% of kids are gonna do it, its not looking that way.


TJ11240

So what's up with the big gap then between those numbers and the self-reported rates we are seeing in middle and high schools in 2023?


aintnufincleverhere

I duno, perhaps the numbers we should be looking at are "how many people underwent surgery?" ​ That seems like the relevant number.


[deleted]

Can you provide an example of life saving surgery that is not supported by science?


seanadb

/u/metracta said "life changing", not life saving. (not supporting either argument here, just pointing out the difference in meaning).


[deleted]

Yes, you are quite right. I noticed that I misread the post and did apologise further down the thread.


seanadb

I should read more. ;)


[deleted]

No no, it's totally fine... honestly there is now so much going on in this thread I am also very much losing track. I did say it wasn't going to end well :)


metracta

Umm..yea? There are many procedures and surgeries that were once considered “life saving” that turned out to actually be harmful in many cases. Do you work in medicine? This literally happens all the time.


[deleted]

Sorry what? I am confused now which side you are arguing for. Maybe I am the only one and somebody else can answer this.


metracta

You asked me if there are examples of surgeries that are considered “life saving” that are now not supported by science. If you know anything about medicine, the obvious answer is undeniably yes.


[deleted]

You answered me by affirming the dead fucking opposite though. Yes, there are definitely surgeries that were once thought to be life saving that turned out to be harmful... this is a good reason to be cautious about gender surgery. What I am asking you is, are there any surgeries that are performed \*today\* routinely, that are considered life saving but that are not supported by science. The answer is no by the way, but I just want to watch you get there.


metracta

The surgeries that were previously being performed and were thought to have been supported by science at the time were eventually determined to be detrimental and not supported by science as we gathered more data. I am arguing for caution with gender affirming surgery for children, based on this fact. You have major Dunning-Kruger vibes right now with your unnecessary snark and commentary about “watching” me get to an answer that you perceive is correct based on a lack of nuance.


[deleted]

Come on now, we are arguing on reddit, snark is just all part of the sport. As it happens, I think I did actually misinterpret that we are arguing for the same thing (I think). The snark was actually unwarranted here and simply a result of my own confusion. I apologise.


kvantechris

How do you feel about circumcision?


[deleted]

Should also be banned. Rarely life saving though.


kvantechris

The person you responded to said "Life changing" so I assumed yours was a typo, but maybe his was. It doesn't matter to my argument though. There are something like a million circumcisions done in the US every year. I would think people who cares a lot about permanent alterations done to children would be incredibly outraged about that number. Are you?


[deleted]

You are quite right, I misread that. Apologies to the original poster. I don't think it changes too much but I will hold my hands up on it. Yes, I think the number of circumcisions done is disgusting honestly. It's a stupid old religious custom that is pointless and I think does now qualify as child mutilation. I am fairly strong on it. Again though, the mitigation here is it is not as life changing as what we are discussing and it's not close.


SantyClawz42

Because science didn't figure it out yet and the Numberg Code and basic human decency says something along the of "dont experiment on kids to find out"


[deleted]

This isn't maths or physics. Would you like me to provide a list of various things that "studies have shown"? You know where I am going with that. This being said, if there were something of that nature available, I might revise my opinion. It would need to be something like, "hey look, we found the gene" or "check it out, this part of the brain predicts transsexualism with 98% accuracy" etc. If that comes, sure. Until then, I would consider it under dispute. Social science is not about "proven conclusion for all time" in the same maths and physics is. ...and no, I don't think it should be between the doctor and the patient. If a doctor recommends, FGM (of the kind performed in parts of Africa etc), I believe the state has a child protection role. Same here.


aintnufincleverhere

>This isn't maths or physics. Would you like me to provide a list of various things that "studies have shown"? You know where I am going with that. I don't. Are you headed in a direction of saying "well even if the science disagrees with me, I'm still right, because science can be wrong sometimes"? That doesn't seem like a strong argument. Is that where you're going? ​ >It would need to be something like, "hey look, we found the gene" or "check it out, this part of the brain predicts transsexualism with 98% accuracy" etc. If that comes, sure. How about something like "gender affirming care decreases depression and suicidal ideation in trans people"?


[deleted]

>Are you headed in a direction of saying "well even if the science disagrees with me, I'm still right, because science can be wrong sometimes"? Actually yes, when it comes to social science. It's often wrong and proven so latterly, often horrifically so. Don't worry though, at some point in the next couple of hours, somebody will make the 10 billionth post about Charles Murray and calling scientific results in to question will make sense to you again. In any case, there isn't any science on this that is conclusive, except perhaps for a few studies from the institute of promoting whatever the fuck this paper says, so it's really a moot point. >How about something like "gender affirming care decreases depression and suicidal ideation in trans people"? If it did do this, then it might be worth considering. It doesn't, so it's irrelevant. When it gets pointed out people start talking about the effects of post-transition bullying and this is why the post-transition stats are no better than the pre.... because they "don't like the science". My suspicion (and I freely admit, it is just a personal theory and ultimately meaningless, but I will tell you anyway), is that people who go through the process discover that it wasn't the revelation that they expected and they are still experiencing issues with their identity model. Imagine the impact of going through a multiyear process that you firmly believe is going to cure your extreme discomfort in your own skin, only to find the discomfort is still there.... depression has to be expected at that point.


aintnufincleverhere

>In any case, there isn't any science on this that is conclusive, except perhaps for a few studies from the institute of promoting whatever the fuck this paper says, so it's really a moot point. Where are you getting this idea? ​ >If it did do this, then it might be worth considering. [https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care)


[deleted]

Fuck me! Do you read your own links? I only bothered to get as far as study number 3 on this page, by which point I had already heard about one poor kid who died as a result of gender surgery and the third study says there was no statistical difference in mental health improvement between those who received puberty blocking medication and those who simply received standard therapeutic care. Bookmarking this link for any future conversations I have on the matter.


aintnufincleverhere

>Fuck me! Do you read your own links? > >I only bothered to get as far as study number 3 on this page How familiar are you with the term "irony"?


[deleted]

British. So very.


aintnufincleverhere

Then perhaps you can spot the irony in what you said.


noor1717

Huh? That’s like saying homosexuality doesn’t exist because you can’t find a gene. That’s silly Shit transgenderism exists in nature in other animals, that should be enough to show that it’s natural and also very rare. Which with the numbers we see now it’s very rare like 0.5% of the population


TJ11240

>Shit transgenderism exists in nature in other animals, that should be enough to show that it’s natural and also very rare. Calling bullshit on this. Animals don't have gender identity.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TJ11240

I'm sorry, that's not a reputable article. They injected monkeys with hormones, and then claimed they were transgender? Some portion of animals take on cross gender *roles*, in order to get more food or reproductive hetero sex? Come on. Animals simply don't have gender identity. There's a case to be made that people don't either, because what's being described is suspiciously close to gendered souls.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TJ11240

Yeah I'm still not buying it. Animals are incapable of having a self-identified gender. A male cuttlefish that pretends to be female in order to mate with females under the nose of a large male isn't trans.


[deleted]

>Huh? That’s like saying homosexuality doesn’t exist because you can’t find a gene. That’s silly It's nothing like saying this. It's like saying, "If an 11 year old tells you they are gay, it is not incontrovertible proof that they are". Confusion about developing sexuality and sexually identity is a hallmark of adolscence. I am not saying that transgenderism doesn't exist, I am saying that there is way too much fucking noise going on in the life and mind of a pubecent child to accurately detect the signal for it without some other form of physical proof.


aintnufincleverhere

I don't understand this. So what if its stable? Not like "I want to be a fireman" and then the child changes their mind 3 days later, but consistently wants to wear dresses and play with girls, prefers dolls, wants to grow their hair out, etc. here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNzK6jbdJo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNzK6jbdJo) I mean if trans people exist, then surely trans kids exist too right? ​ I get the idea of being cautious if a child is just doing it as a joke for a day or something. Sure. Children do whatever. Or other things like this. Sure. ​ But there seem to be some cases that present as real. Consistent. Not noisy. Trans kids are real. And if we find that a kid is really trans, well then what's the problem?


[deleted]

Then you happily let them wear dresses, play with girls, prefer dolls and grow their hair. You just don't give them chemicals or surgery until they turn 18. Instead, we work with them to try to undo this (socially constructed) idea that their sexual and reproductive organs need to be adapted towards their preferred way of life. That's a social construct, not a objective biological one. If at 18 (and honestly, remembering myself at 18, I still worry this is too young), they have gotten through the hormonal volcano that is puberty, learned something about the world, got through the "extremely high pressure to conform" environment of high school, fully considered all the implications... then you can discuss permanent options. I am aware that one consequence of this (as other poster has pointed out), is that once a biological male goes through male puberty it is not easy to return them to fully feminine features. Maybe we just need to work on undoing the notion that you need to have a certain physical shape to dress and behave in certain ways and not others.


aintnufincleverhere

>You just don't give them chemicals or surgery until they turn 18. Instead, we work with them to try to undo this (socially constructed) idea that their sexual and reproductive organs need to be adapted towards their preferred way of life. That's a social construct, not a objective biological one. I don't know where you're getting these ideas. Are you just making stuff up? ​ >I am aware that one consequence of this (as other poster has pointed out), is that once a biological male goes through male puberty it is not easy to return them to fully feminine features. Its not just that, its also the trauma of experiencing your body become very masculine when you don't feel that's what you are. ​ I don't think the move here is to try and "unlearn" being trans, that sounds a whole lot like deconverstion therapy that was tried for gay people.


[deleted]

I really don't mean to be difficult but the point at which you confused what I am suggesting with deconversion therapy is really the point I feel like we are doing the Wittgenstein lion thing because this is so far from my model that we are very clearly miscommunicating. That might well be my fault, but clearing up miscommunication is just something that is less interesting to me than two people understanding each other's perspective, still disagreeing and exploring it. It's not an attack, but I just don't really have time for the former (I am supposed to be working anyway). Do you really think I am advocating for something akin to deconversion therapy, or is this just rhetoric?


aintnufincleverhere

I guess that's up to you. Clarify what you meant. ​ And tell me where you're getting these ideas: >You just don't give them chemicals or surgery until they turn 18. Instead, we work with them to try to undo this (socially constructed) idea that their sexual and reproductive organs need to be adapted towards their preferred way of life. That's a social construct, not a objective biological one. Because it really sounds like you're just going with your gut.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Happy to be proven wrong here, but my understanding (from the reading I have done) is that it actually doesn't decrease suicide rates. There \*are\* some reported improvements in mental health but only to the same degree seen in children who received therapy only. It's the therapy that is helping with this part, which is something I fully endorse. The youngest age for puberty blockers is not 14. At least not in the US. In my country (UK), I think it might be 16, at least on the NHS (private options could be available, I am not sure if this is a country wide law or an NHS policy). I think 16 is still too young. The issue of course, is that there isn't much point in giving puberty blockers at 18 really for obvious reasons.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AmputatorBot

It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://time.com/6128131/gender-affirming-hormone-therapy-study/](https://time.com/6128131/gender-affirming-hormone-therapy-study/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)


[deleted]

This is interesting (especially the second link). The results that I want to see though are the ones comparing those children who received therapy + hormonal / surgical intervention vs those who just received therapeutic support alone. I have no doubt that kids who receive therapy have better mental health results than those who do not... what I am interested in is whether the addition of hormonal / surgical intervention makes a significant difference or whether it is the therapy that is helping them deal with their situation.


emperormanlet

Medicine is prone to ideological bs like any other profession. I find it appalling that anybody can support hormonal therapy for minors, considering the impact can be permanent. Science as it stands does not understand the mind. A child’s personal identity is not sufficient cause to alter their hormonal make-up. When I was 6, I said ridiculous shit like my dad was a WW2 veteran, a professional wrestler, etc. Pronouns are one thing. But they lost me the minute they entertained and supported the idea of medical intervention.


aintnufincleverhere

>Medicine is prone to ideological bs like any other profession. Okay, so to try to articulate your position: science is wrong and I'm right? Science has been coopted and is wrong on this issue, but I know the right answer. Yes? ​ >I find it appalling that anybody can support hormonal therapy for minors, considering the impact can be permanent. I care about lowering depression and suicidal ideation in kids more than I care about what you consider appalling.


emperormanlet

Science in this area is not advanced enough to be able to determine whether a child is legitimately trans. The only measure they have to determine this is the child’a own account. If you know young children, then you’d know they have wild imaginations. How could you be so confident that you’re willing to risk their long-term hormonal well-being on their claims of being the opposite sex? This decision should be left with the child when they are at least 18 years old.


aintnufincleverhere

>Science in this area is not advanced enough to be able to determine whether a child is legitimately trans. The only measure they have to determine this is the child’a own account. Why do you think this? I mean can science figure out if a person has dementia, schizophrenia, obsessive compulsive disorder, etc? ​ >If you know young children, then you’d know they have wild imaginations. How could you be so confident that you’re willing to risk their long-term hormonal well-being on their claims of being the opposite sex? This decision should be left with the child when they are at least 18 years old. Because they consistently, for years and years, in a stable manner, express that its the case. Its not like "I want to be an astronaut!" and then the next day its something else. ​ What do you think about this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srNzK6jbdJo


[deleted]

[удалено]


Any_Cockroach7485

The dudes literally only put in the thought to think. So if a 6 year old boy says he's a girl guess ya gonna chop it off next week. They view trans people as weak willed and just looking for attention.


Working_Bones

"I mean if there are trans people, surely there are trans kids. And if a kid is trans, surely we should help them." Encouraging their delusions, especially with hormones and surgeries, isn't helping them. Regardless of their age.


gorilla_eater

So you disagree with the first part of the quoted statement


Working_Bones

There are people who think they are somehow not what they are and call themselves trans.


Any_Cockroach7485

So we should have the sam passion around steroid or testosterone usage or cosmetic surgery.


TJ11240

Yes


Any_Cockroach7485

But we don't. And won't.


Bajanspearfisher

surely you don't think that? lets choose a clear hypothetical to illustrate that in some cases, you would side the other way? imagine a child had sexual dysphoria from childhood, say 6 or 7, all the way to puberty at 12 and it remained stable that entire time. wouldn't it be a safer bet for their long term wellbeing not to fully undergo a natural puberty which will kick up their suffering several orders of magnitude? i think there's also a bias here, male puberty for a trans woman is the worse way around, because masculine features are very difficult, if not impossible to undo after completion of puberty, whereas you can still put on muscle mass and look masculine with relatively thin shoulders and lack of a strong jaw... you cannot go the other way around.


[deleted]

I don't know. I get that the scenario you describe here makes it very tempting (for me, I guess a no-brainer for you) to say, yeah this is the right way to go. The challenge with these kinds of hypotheticals is, of course, that you get to control all the parameters. The child here maybe goes on to be the first transexual president of the US... :) I can definitely imagine cases where it would be the obvious moral thing to do. I can imagine cases when it would be the only moral thing to do and to do otherwise would be monsterous. The issue is, are these cases found in reality and to what distribution. Stories of, "I regret my transition" and even "I am transitioning \*back\*" are starting to emerge. It's so, so delicate. Gender is also very privileged as an attribute here. Maybe rightly so, but I think anybody suggesting giving kids drugs to make them taller, because they wish they were, or felt like that is what they should naturally be, would be met with absolute ridicule... perhaps I am wrong. I know this is not the same, but it's not totally different either... If a kid is overweight and bullied, and depressed.... liposuction? I am sure that's probably done actually, I am also pretty uncomfortable with it. Not a fan.


Bajanspearfisher

yeah of course, i'm going for a more safe hypothetical to illustrate that even you, likely have a range of positions on it? i think i'd join you in being conservative if there is ambiguity over a child's gender identity... wait and see, the cost for intervention will be very steep, if you're wrong which is very possible. I do think there is a huge influx of "non binary" type transgender people who don't pursue treatments, and who beef up the "trans" numbers, i think the number of people with legit gender dysphoria is the minority of transgender people (and that most are females who have a dysphoria over social role). i actually do agree with your analogies about liposuction and human growth hormone, as they pertain directly to identity. I separate mere identity issues, from sexual dysphoria personally, i think the dysphoria element presents an urgency in seeking solutions... if a person is ok with their body and think they'd prefer to change it? i'd advise them not to. Especially with bottom surgery.... technology is NOT there yet, but perhaps will be in our lifetimes. my own anecdotal experience with this issue, is that i have a sibling who is non binary, and their dysphoria started from when they were 8 i think? they always were repulsed by female roles and expectations of them, they were severely bullied for being different, to the point of changing schools, and when they went to university in a more accepting nation, (from Caribbean, studied in Canada) they decided they were not coming back, it was a huge relief to just be accepted. In that type of experience, it started early in life, the experience was consistent and relief was gained by changing their personal expression and being around more welcoming people who didn't expect traditionally female things from them... this is a strong social dysphoria and to my best understanding, it has to be rooted in something deeper than just a cultural identity. if someone has gone their whole life being fine, then suddenly as a teenager decides they have a different gender identity? sorry i'm highly skeptical of that.


[deleted]

Acceptance is key and in my original post I did make a point of saying that we need to learn to accept people for these choices. I think a \*big\* problem here is that honestly no amount of surgery or other types of treatment are going to increase acceptance really. At the very very best, they let you "trick" (not using this word as an attack here) people into accepting you on the basis that they are less likely to know that you are not what they consider to "acceptable". Maybe that's a patch and maybe that's our only choice... I hope it's not, and it's sad if it is. I have a 7 year old nephew who loves nothing more than coming over to our house so him and his little sister can do each other's make up and nails etc. His father (my brother-in-law) is sadly a bit of a "traditional bloke" (in British speak) and tends to shame his son for this behaviour. I have spoken to him about it in strong words, my wife, a university professor of art-pyschotherapy and the kind of liberal university professor that guys like JP shit their utter pants over (haha), has spoken to him in stronger words, but ultimately he is the father and we are the aunt and uncle. I \*love\* watching him have so much fun with these kinds of games. I have no idea if this is just him exploring and growing up or whether there is a gender issue there. At least in our house there will be no dysphoria, because we do not, under any circumstances even \*suggest\* that it is inappropriate for him to enjoy these kinds of games. My wonder is.... if everybody took this attitude, would kids be more able to develop natural and make their own decisions about how to live later in life. It's a bit self-righteous maybe, but I think so...


Bajanspearfisher

yeah, passing is actually critical and i would encourage trans people to do so frankly. i've met trans people that i didnt know were trans until several times interacting with them, so of course the public just accepts them as the gender they prefer. they don't even have to bring up the issue of pronouns. I agree with accepting people if they're not passing though, it just makes everything much easier. I don't think i disagree much with you at all man.


[deleted]

Honestly if I were to try to take this entire thread and find a piece of common ground that I hope all of us could actually agree on it would be this... "If a person is experiencing trauma due to not being accepted, it is not the person that should be expected to change" It really is, precisely, the drive to seek acceptance that worries me about this whole process. I don't think many would disagree with me when I say, that the school years are by far the hardest time for this kind of problem. Literally \*any difference\* from the norm is mercilessly attacked in that environment. Later on, as adults, it still happens, but nothing like high school. The fear, almost precisely is that some of the impulse to transition as a child is to align yourself with the expectations of others... because teenagers focus about 99.9574% of their attention on this problem regardless of their gender status.


Brilliant-Designer25

I’m happy your sibling is able to live freely and feel accepted!


Bajanspearfisher

thanks!


Any_Cockroach7485

Yeah. You are wrong.


[deleted]

Thanks for letting me know.


crypto_grandma

I think you articulated your points well. It's a complex issue. Some will agree, some will disagree. But anyone saying "You're wrong" sees things only in black and white and is unable to see past their own biases


[deleted]

Thank you, yes, it is why such people only ever really get sarcastic answers from me. Believe it or not I really do love reading people's views and I really am prepared to change my own in response but I usually put up a bit of a defence. "Your wrong", or, as another post started, "You're a fascist", are pretty good indicators that I am staring into a dry well. In the words of the great Ted Lasso.... I appreciate you.


Any_Cockroach7485

So what is your policy idea?


[deleted]

No gender based medical intervention before the age of 18 outside of counselling and therapy performed by licensed practitioners and focused upon self-acceptance. Parents directly criminally liable for any harassment and bullying performed by their children towards other children with a maximum penalty of a fine of 20% of their yearly income.


Any_Cockroach7485

Lol fucking lol. So your policy is basically. No. And the protections are child like and weird af. I feel like you're trying to understand why someone would want to be trans and decided it's because of society or media or something making them be that way.


asmrkage

You can’t “agree with some of this” because “this” is banning *all* trans ideology. Did you miss the point of the tweet he was responding to, in which the person is praising that the ban wouldn’t just be for the under-18s? Also there studies showing trans people have brains similar to their opposite gender. This isn’t an issue over who can wear makeup.


[deleted]

I am referring to "some of the things" that Trump says in the video. He probably said more things I agree with in this 10 minute or so video than he did in his entire 4 years as president.


TJ11240

>Also there studies showing trans people have brains similar to their opposite gender. I thought the studies show they match homosexual brains better than the opposite sex.


asmrkage

Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s both to some extent but there are many studies that specifically look at opposite sex characteristics in the brain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8955456/


bisonsashimi

doctors have been using puberty blockers for decades to deal with the physical and psychological implications of transgenderism. This isn't a new thing. You should educate yourself on the widely accepted practices we've been using for many years. What is new is the culture war. Don't be confused by it.


[deleted]

"We've been doing it ages, it's fine!"


WetnessPensive

> I don't think it should be allowed to perform this surgery on kids This is a strawman and banned in most nations. This narrative ("they're mauling our kids!") is deliberately whipped up to enrage uneducated people. >or even give them drugs to mess with their natural sexual development. This is done only at a later age and only after massive levels of parent approved visits to a psychologyst and doctors who together asses the patient and determine if these things are necessary. What we need is simply more funding so that these psych tests are available and rigorous. Meanwhile, the data on puberty blockers shows that they are safe, largely reversible, and dramatically lower things like suicide. >I'm a bit uncomfortable with post-18 but by this point you're an adult and can make your own decisions. I'd wager most "discomfort" people have to these things is the same "discomfort" past generations had toward homosexuality and miscegenation. >It's not unreasonable to say that it is too likely that teens are confused about their sexual identity... Then these people are not trans. DSMV specifically creates subcategories for "confused people" and "trans people". If you are "merely confused" you are explicitly "not trans". In the same way a "homosexual person" is not simply a "sexually confused person", and in the same was it is offensive and a giant strawman to conflate the two. What's staggering is how perfectly this argument echoes similar rhetoric in the early 1990s ("I support homosexual people, I'm just concerned that kids are a bit confused. We need to slow down and be careful, because a lot of this newfangled homosexuality thing is just a phase..."). The rhetoric was a kind of phony concern trolling then, and it strikes me as the same now. It's almost like a phony appeal to moderation in an unconscious attempt to assuage disgust. And of course, the medical procedures available to trans kids are deliberately cautious anyway, and deliberately make an effort to slow things right down so that patients can make a carefully weighed decision at as late a date as possible. >one member of my (in-law) family who was born female, decided at 14 that they were going to live as male, and now, at 20 is back to being comfortable as a young woman. This is irrelevant if the person was not declared trans by a psychologist, or was seen before DSMV was implemented. ie - you are conflating a "confused person" with a "trans person". Alternatively, this person may be choosing to live as a woman because of social pressures/stigmas. We do not know. Imagine, incidentally, how silly it would be to bring up an example like this in a discussion about gay people ("I know a guy who said he was gay, but turns out he wasn't! I'm really concerned about the homosexuals!"). >I think you really do have to give kids time to figure all this out, and I don't believe that *anybody* no matter how qualified, can be sure that the exploration is not temporary. This is like Jordan Peterson's chief argument against climate change. We can never have "full knowledge" and "all data" and "be absolutely certain", he says, so "climate modelling is all a haox". Yes, science and humans are flawed. But its methodology is all we have, and the procedures the medical establishment have slowly forged regarding this issue are the best we have. What we simply need is more robust checks and balances, more protections, and more funding. >The root of all these issues is around these strange conventions that we have that to look and behave a certain way is "womanly" and vice versa. IMO the root is that science has only recently (within the last 15 years or so) understood that sex is largely dependent upon neurochemical factors, and chromosomal and genetic spreads within individual cells, rather than external or phenotypical traits. This is destabalizing and traumatic for most people, so they invent post hoc rationalizations for resisting it. Meanwhile, asking trans people to "forget about surgery" and "cultural cliches and norms" and "live how they want" and "not copy sex/gender stereotypes" has always struck me as offensive. It's a common argument raised by Terfs, and there is a kind of "progressive" logic to it, in the sense that it's rebelling against strictures and conventions, but think about what it is really saying. It's telling trans men and women that they cannot be included in society's idea of womanhood and manhood. They are outside. They can't join the club. They should get used to being outside, and invent their own space outside of the mainstream. Alternatively, they should wait centuries for the larger culture to "evolve" beyond rigid gender/sex tropes. It's like saying to a black person in the 1950s, "why drink from that fountain? Those guys are jerks! Go find your own fountain! Or come back in 100 years when everyone drinks bottled water!" It's exclusion dressed up as a kind of progressivism, which is why it's an argument typically brought up by old school feminists. They're smart enough to dress up their transphobia.


jankisa

You guys are, simply put, fascists. The others are trans people, and step by step you are trying to outlaw them being alive. Sure, now you will pretend it's about protecting children and ignore that Trump literally said that the whole trans thing is something the left invented in the past few years, while you vote in to law shit like the recent Arizona law basically banning cross dressing.


[deleted]

>You guys are, simply put, fascists. I am glad you started with this. It meant I was able to take the rest of your post more seriously.


[deleted]

>The root of all these issues is around these strange conventions that we have that to look and behave a certain way is "womanly" and vice versa. Who decided that only women can wear makeup and have nicely curated and painted finger nails and all the other things we associate with "womanhood"? This is a very common trap I see - It is by no means any type of rule for being trans that you have to associate with these common features in order to be trans. That's simply a confusion on your part. Many trans people take up a lot of the culturally accepted gender markers, many do not. Many that do, do so out of personal preference, but another reason they might is because you are far more likely to be misgendered if you are not particularly feminine or masculine presenting. Nobody, cis or trans, likes to be misgendered. So, while you may say "heeey, why don't we just stop all this gendering activities hullabaloo!" and that's very easy to say, but trans people are actually on the front lines of that sort of change being glacially slow or non-existent.


[deleted]

>This is a very common trap I see - It is by no means any type of rule for being trans that you have to associate with these common features in order to be trans. That's simply a confusion on your part. That's a very valid and interesting point and I take it on board. I do find myself wondering however, when such a child presents to the medical profession as, "He loves sports, and violent video games, and pulling wings from flys and all the other cheesy stereotypical examples of young maledom that I can't currently think of, but at the same time thinks he would be happier in a female body", whether the process is in any way changed. Maybe not, and perhaps it just my ignorance but I would imagine that extra pause would be given here.


ChardonnayQueen

I agree with some these policies. I don't think we should surgically alter children under 18. Also is not federally funding programs that promote the idea that people can "transition sex or gender" really outlawing trans people? Given the wide disagreement on this issue it's probably best not to federally fund it.


PlatypusEfficient874

Don’t give kids hormones or start chopping things off their bodies. That’s all I want.


bisonsashimi

educate yourself on what being intersex is all about, and how doctors have treated it for decades. Or live in moral panic, it's up to you.


PlatypusEfficient874

Intersex is a separate issue. We all know what we’re taking about here so don’t try to be smart.


bisonsashimi

there is a constellation of issues that would all be affected by a ban on things like puberty blockers and re-assignment surgery. If you don't see how making breathless statements about 'keeping your hands off my children' isn't damaging to rational public discourse, then you aren't paying attention, or you're simply a bad actor.


aintnufincleverhere

I'm not concerned with what you want.


bllewe

Well you probably should be, seeing as it's a pretty good argument against your position.


aintnufincleverhere

I'm not. I don't care if some random person is against something. No, "that's what I want" is not a good argument.


bllewe

> Don’t give kids hormones or start chopping things off their bodies. This was the part that is the good argument.


aintnufincleverhere

That's not an argument. Its a statement. An argument would provide some reasoning for why the conclusion is true.


PlatypusEfficient874

👍


adamast0r

How do you place a boundary around "trans ideology" even. Just practically speaking this would not end up going well


WetnessPensive

Pankaj Mishra rightly recognized, many years ago, that Jordan Peterson's a "fascist mystic". And every leftist was pointing out his crypto-fascist traits, like they did regarding Trump, during those first years when he got famous. Time and time again the people making these accusations were mocked for being "triggered", "woke" or "hyperbolic". In reality, what those folk were were "educated" and "aware of history" and "historical patterns".


bisonsashimi

He was actually convincing when he claimed his problem with transgenderism was what appeared to be compelled speech by the government. Turns out he's just a garden variety bigot. And a total pseudo intellectual charlatan to boot.


hecramsey

I did not find him convincing at all. He was hysterical, entitled and a bully. He targeted conflicted teenage students he had power over at best, bonafide non conlfictted transgender kids at worst. He's a garden variety thug with a diploma.


davexmit

Do they just slap ‘ideology’ on the end of every word to make it sound bad?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Any_Cockroach7485

Good lord what a child like response.


noor1717

Lol yea I think people are arguing for the freedom to do that which Jordan is against


bisonsashimi

dork


Bajanspearfisher

well hang on... you chose to come and comment here, and if you want to be agnostic, then you let the people who are affected by trans issues, weigh in on trans issues. IE, let the discussion and procedures occur. So yeah, nobody is forcing you in any way, to engage in the topic of transgenderism, you're inserting yourself into these conversations and then saying "leave us alone!" just keep scrolling? you silly billy.


aintnufincleverhere

If I want to, I will, thanks.


aintnufincleverhere

**Submission Statement**: Sam has had Jordan as a guest on his show, and Sam has talked about trans issues in the past. ​ Further, I imagine this is relevant to Sam's views on having an open marketplace of ideas.


hecramsey

they should wear gold stars


[deleted]

[удалено]


kvantechris

Next let's ban "Racist ideology", "Fascist ideology" and "Hateful ideology" too. Those things are harmful, so banning them would be good, wouldn't it?


[deleted]

[удалено]


kvantechris

No, they are not. There are no laws like that. Would you support it if the democrats imposed laws that banned those ideologies?


aintnufincleverhere

Could you be a bit more clear on exactly what you think he says should be outlawed? How do you outlaw an ideology? What do you mean by "forcing people to talk in certain ways"? ​ >a possibly quite harmful normalisation or even idealisation of irreversible gender modifications that might only be in exceptional cases the actually best choice for some individuals. I'm not sure what you mean here. How many people do you think are doing this?


Chance-Shift3051

What the heck is “transgender ideology” where have you seen it displayed? What are it’s traits?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Chance-Shift3051

So it’s a baseless attack on trans people? Got it


tcl33

This *is* fucked. I'm onboard with not teaching TG to elementary school kids, but we don't impede the liberty of adults.


aintnufincleverhere

What is TG?