Itās one thing to have differing views, but Iāve seen enough attempted reddit migrations to be relieved that the popular communities in the fediverse so far havenāt been about crazy racist stuff or other extreme right bullshit.
I am also glad that Iām getting away from redditās general political shitposting, which was more left leaning. You couldnāt have any proper discourse on there, and even I with my generally more left leaning views recognized that.
What stuff of yours was censored?
That is the key question.
I was banned from a bunch of subs all at once because I said in one (Iām still not sure which one), that I donāt think children should undergo gender or sex transition.
Lmao, yeah you deserved to have your trash take ācensoredā. Gender affirming care saves lives, and has a less than 1% āregret rateā. For reference, knee replacements have about a 15% rate. Shocking how trans-inclusive spaces donāt want transphobes around.
I get why subs that consider themselves safe spaces for trans folk would ban you for that.
Transitions are Never done willy nilly. Several doctors and psychologists will be in contact with that person before. If they agree it is fine, as Healthcare professionals, then it must be that forcing the person to stay their birth gender will do more harm
I think the problem with your opinion is that it conveys that you believe children are being throw into surgery rooms and given sex transitions loosely and without thought to the consequences.
I think your real opinion is that you believe children shouldnāt be given unnecessary surgeries. If that is true, the large majority of the population would agree with you.
In addition, have you explored what Doctors believe is a necessary sex transition for a child? What are those parameters? If you donāt know, then I would consider your original stance to be of ignorance. Since you really never dive into the subject, most people will assume that you havenāt explored those parameters and donāt understand the reasoning behind them. That is why youāre facing aggression with your opinion.
Youāre entitled to your opinion, but the consensus among the medical and scientific communities is that you are wrong. They are the experts here, not you. At some point, blindly repeating falsehoods based on prejudice stops being an avenue for constructive debate and instead just wastes everybodyās time and makes people angry for no reason.
Youāre advocating against life-saving treatments. Of course youāre going to get shit on.
What a boring and unnecessary opinion to have. Youāre not their doctor, they arent your patients, what business is it of yours? and to go on about sharing that uneducated, untrained, unsolicited opinion online and then complaining about censorship when your medical advice is not well receivedā¦ I just canāt wrap my head around the entitlement.
ok, so if youāre not a doctor you can have no opinion on healthcare now? ridiculous statement. i think healthcare should be free. i donāt work in healthcare or health insurance. so am i just supposed to shut the fuck up and know my place?
no, I have my opinion and Iām going to share it and @JasSmith has his opinion and heās going to share it. thatās the whole point of having discussion boards. the last thing i want is this place to become an echo chamber
i think kids should be able to transition. but itās also not so simple a conversation when youāre making permanent changes to teenage kids - https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/
kids are fickle creatures and fads catch on - all of a sudden we see a dramatic rise in kids wanting to transition - like 4400% increase in girls wanting to transition to boys. is it because we are now more accepting as a society or is it social contagion? probably both and itās a serious topic we need to address if we actually do want the best for the kids. we need to keep ideology out of healthcare and make sure each individual kid is taken care of with whatever is best for them - transitioning is not always the best option. but sometimes it is.
Itās so funny to me this person donāt ever seem to have the same concerns about the nose jobs, boob jobs, lip enhancements, etc that are also being done on teens AND CHILDREN. I hear nothing from you about the performance enhancing drugs for teenage boys, or the altering of the bodies of gymnasts who also start in their early childhood. In the case of the latter, they get stunted growth because the intensive amount of training affects hormones and delays puberty. Gee what other thing that you argue about sounds similar to that?
Maybe you didnāt know about those things before. Iāll give you the benefit of the doubt. But now I fully expect that you go to all of gymnastics forums where theyāre talking about young female gymnasts and male athletes,l and tell them that you donāt think they should do those sports anymore. Youāre totally going to do that right? Right?
Sure, I can go harass people on gymnastics forums if thatās what you want. But in that case itās only fair that I start harassing people on trans forums as well. I wasnāt doing either of those things before, but you said I have to so I guess itās time to go bully some trans people.
I have no problem with condemning the people who push children into intensive training for competition gymnastics. And no, I donāt believe them either when they argue that āthe child wanted this.ā The parents wanted a child who fits a certain mold and the child is just trying to make their parents happy, or atleast not angry depending on how externally abusive that parent is being.
Also I absolutely support the idea of banning under 18s from getting nose jobs, boob jobs, lip fillers, taking PEDs, etc. Heck throw in piercings and tattoos as well for all I care. No procedure and no parental permission exceptions.
I mean, you donāt know me, or youād know that I also think those things are wrong. I also tell people that I think those things are wrong. Donāt you?
I mean the top comment is a guy who was banned because of his opinion on gender/sex transitionā¦ And the person you answered to expressed their opinion on that topic. Why would they talk about nose jobs or whatever? If you want to discuss these topics why not ask them about it instead of assuming their political agenda? Not saying I agree with them, but thatās not how debates work.
we arenāt seeing a 4000% increase in kids becoming gymnasts
itās a poignant social topic. instead of attacking my credibility, aiming to represent me as biased, you should try to attack my argument
having said that, i support kids transitioning. iām more upset about the āwrongthinkā mentality where someone canāt even share their opinion without getting pounced on. he isnāt sharing hate speech heās just talking
we arenāt seeing a 4000% increase in kids wanting to transition
Indeed, Iāve been finding myself hesitant to chime in on this because I know Iām inevitably going get lumped in with transphobe Nazi facists because at some point Iām going to say āhey hang on, thereās some nuance here that youāre missing.ā
Nuance is cryptonite for central authority.
Can you cite a source on that number
was in the article i linked
i guess itās too much to expect people to read things
So ātransition treatmentsā have gone up 4000% ā¦ in the time period following the treatment becoming available. If being a gymnast was illegal until 2009, or nobody had invented a trampoline until then, you can certainly bet making it legal or possible to do floor routines would result in a 4000%+ increase in people who were openly and publically gymnasts.
Trans people, trans kids, have always existed - we just didnāt have the technology to provide the treatment in that article.
That article is choosing to cite the numbers on the treatment rather than the condition because the treatmentās very recent launch means it allows the presentation of a scarier number.
See the problem here is that you forgot that opinions are only allowed to include concerns or nuances that are on the approved list.
Anything you might be concerned about that isnāt on the approved list puts you straight into wrongthink, double plus ungood.
Ah yes the great source of the New York post. I donāt think you are being harmful on purpose but I do believe that by spreading shit like this you are harming trans people. There is no trans epidemic or social fad. That opinion is absolutely ridiculous. I have a close family member who is trans and the difficulty of even getting hormones is extreme. Multiple meetings with psychologists and endocrinologist, many exams and paperwork, not even mentioning the bureaucracy you have to deal with afterwards. And this is as an adult, transitioning as a minor is way way harder. No one just gets transitioned in an accident, and 99% donāt regret it. Now on the flip side 30-50% of trans kids want to commit suicide due to societal pressure and bullying. The only ācureā for gender dysphoria is, shocking I know, transitioning. So when people say to protect trans kids, itās literally protecting them from self harm or from getting attacked. Also, do you really think that more people identify as trans because itās a āfadā or maybe itās because your can finally openly talk about it! Itās like saying that the rise of left handed people after them not being retrained in school anymore is a social fad. Itās a stupid opinion. Whenever you have more societal acceptance of something more people will feel safe coming out. I understand that some people are scared of their kids being transed by the woke liberal teachers but the same people also think that Obama turned the frogs gay.
Are you questioning that Chloe exists? Sheās been speaking at length about her de-transition because the whole experience has destroyed her body permanently. You can read about her on her Wikipedia page. Itās cool to question sources, but you didnāt even take a sec on Google to check if your ad hominem attack was valid.
Here is another example. Sweden went all-in on ātemporaryā puberty blockers for gender affirming care until children started experiencing life-long injuries. They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.
Chloeās case is a tragedy, for sure. The issue I have is that people are calling for bans rather than enhanced oversight.
Healthcare, at its core, is a numbers game. No effective treatment weāve ever discovered is completely without risk. Every surgery or treatment, no matter how innocuous, could lead to complications or death. To use a recent example, the Covid vaccinations. Theyāre considered extremely safe, and over 13 billion vaccination doses have been given to date with over 5 billion people having been vaccinated. Given that Covid kills or permanently disables 2 in every 100 unvaccinated people, and vaccines lower that rate by at least 90%, thatās nearly 100 million lives that have been safeguarded by the vaccine. However, the vaccine has certainly harmed some people with extremely rare side effects. We accept that tradeoff, because saving 100 million lives is worth the risk of harming a few thousand people.
Gender affirming care for children is the same thing. We know that trans children are at extremely elevated risks of self harm and suicide, and gender affirming care is proven to be effective in preventing those outcomes. We know that some will regret their decision to transition because those cases are inevitable in any population that transitions. The focus should be on reducing the cases of regret with better screening and more oversight.
So, to debate this seriously, you need to answer the following question:
How many regretful de-transitioners are you willing to risk in order to save the lives of successful transitioners?
If the answer is zero, then youāre not willing to seriously debate the use of a medical treatment and your opinion is dogmatic and carries no semantic value.
If the answer is very few, then congratulations, youāre on the same side as many allies who want more funding for care and screening for trans issues.
Chloe would have likely been helped by more psychiatric care and screening, as from her story itās clear that her sexual assault as a minor precipitated a complex regarding her sexuality that was misdiagnosed as a desire to transition.
i think itās both. i donāt know at what ratio, but kids really do follow fads. one kid kills themselves at a school and it raises the chances for all of them to do so. ideas are contagious. a kid that may just be going through the regular teenage angst period searching for an identity might latch onto the trans label to explain their feelings when really itās just a normal teenage thing to go through identity issues
again, iām not trying to say kids shouldnāt transition. i view transitioning as healthcare so to block kids off from it is absurd. but i think we also need to be careful and talk about the elephant in the room - that the rate of trans kids increasing so dramatically points to some issues with the ways we are doing it. when something jumps up so dramatically we should be asking questions
Itās like the prevalence of left-handedness shot up dramatically once it was socially acceptable. You canāt look at changes alone and say that things changing is a concern because itās changing.
This is false equivalence if Iāve ever seen it. The treatment for left-handedness was to sit on your hand, not do a fucking life-altering permanent surgery.
The problem is that thereās a very big difference between wanting a blanket ban on transition preparation and wanting the actual people involved (the trans kid, the parents, and the doctors) to do a better job of evaluating the situation and working out the best path for each case.
While your opinion may be more reasonable you should be careful to not assume they share your opinion. A lot of people donāt realize that the common choice for ātransitionā treatments for teens does not transition them, but rather delays/suppresses puberty in such a way that they can choose which way to go at a later time. Banning this treatment forces a choice and disallows a trans personās ability to fully transition once of age.
No, the point is you arenāt their doctor. (which is what was said)
Nor are you (or I) part of the conversation in any way. The conversation exists (and should exist) only between children, their parents, and their healthcare professionals.
Itās ridiculous for a third party to go āI donāt know this child, I donāt know their parents, I donāt know what their relationship is like, I donāt know their personal history, I donāt know what their doctor has said to them or what the parameters of that discussion have been, but I know whether that child should transition, go on puberty blockers, or wait.ā
Sure, of course you can have an opinion, but why on earth you would think it should impact any specific childās outcome, or that anyone really cares what it is? Itās an intrinsically private and personal decision.
You have some points, but ānot well recievedā would be downvotes. I think banning is censorship and can be a fair complaint.
With that said, maybe the sub had posted rules that were violated. It isnāt like OP couldnāt create their own sub if that was the situation.
Banning people from communication spaces though should be a concerning behavior. It goes both ways.
If your goal is to have a safe space for an oppressed minority group to express themselves, allowing transphobes to go about ājust asking questionsā and harassing people shuts down conversation of a group that actually has their freedom of expression threatened. Allowing harassment is more censorship than banning it. And no one should have the expectation of being able to just go into anyoneās house and shit on their floor without consequence. And that might mean being banned from going to all of their friendās houses as well.
But you donāt know what they said or what the community was. You are missing my general point. Please donāt support general fascism behavior, whether it is from the right or left.
On top of that, this isnāt somebodyās house. That isnāt a good analogy.
They repeated what they said, which is good enough reason to ban them from dozens of communities. People generally portray themselves in the least controversial light possible in these circumstances, so thatās the best case scenario.
Many subreddits are the personal spaces of groups of people. Doesnāt matter whether itās literally a physical house someone lives in or a metaphorical home for marginalized people. Itās still their personal space. Theyāre justified in excluding people even for trivial reasons such as liking the number 7. Blatant transphobia is an obvious reason to ban people from such spaces.
Blocking people from harassing marginalized people is not fascism. Excusing the persecution of marginalized people otohā¦
They already said quite clearly that theyāre transphobic. The āI donāt think children should undergo gender or sex transitionā is almost verbatim an anti-trans talking point.
Hereās some actual research on the subject of trans people, including trans youth, and suicide risk. With citations;
Hereās a study showing that children know what gender they prefer and donāt change their minds on it.
Hereās another meta study on trans youth who received gender-affirming care, and who saw a decrease in suicide risk.
Iām literally transsexual, have transsexual friends, and donāt think children should undergo gender/sex transition. that isnāt an āanti-trans talking pointā itās common sense backed by medical literature and scientific studies.
Transitioning is One solution, and it is valid to be able to discuss other options. Your citations bring good discussion points, but shouldnāt be used to ban people.
My point is about censorship and the race to the bottom thst it can and often brings.
I donāt know, Iām always in favor of banning transphobes. Their arguments are always based in hatred, not any verifiable science. I gave you the science.
If the scientific community overwhelmingly and independently comes to the same conclusion over and over again, insisting on being able to discuss other solutions, especially not in the context of academic exploration (because it IS important for the scientific process to check opposing hypothesis and to peer review) but in the Context of telling a baseless opinion easily disputed, then no.
Thatās like the people who insist on ādiscussing other explanazionsā for climate change.
And it is more than understandable that this insistence then is seen as the Opposite of good faith arguing and met with resistance. There is no point in giving a forum to harmful lies. That is not productive discourse
Except thatās a sidestep. The viewpoint you were defending was saying that this one specific option, that has substantial academic backing for positive outcomes for kids, should not happen or should be prohibited.
Thatās not ādiscuss other optionsā - thatās discussing this option and arguing that society should take it away.
That youāre now trying to argue that itās just discussion and itās reasonable debate and - forgive my bluntness - being openly dishonest about what the original speech was that youāre defending with āfree-speechā and anti-censorship talking points is like ā¦ the example case for how this thread started. The nazis and the transphobes and the hateful bigots can always, easily, spin their own takes as righteous and reasonable debate - if you let them lead the dialogue and frame their discourse through the most-appealing lenses possible. And they can make valid-sounding and appealing arguments for why you, too, should defend them and their right to speak.
But inevitably they are also going to use any and all space you clear for them to be hateful and bigoted and call for harm to other people - that is their goal. Everything else is just a setup play.
I have opinions on when and how children should be allowed to access cigarettes, alcohol, and motorcycles. Are those opinions also boring, unnecessary, and entitled?
If that medical opinion wasnāt backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community, Iād imagine that opinion probably would be.
The medical opinion backed up by doctors and the majority of the medical community used to be that alcohol for minors was fine and that cigarettes were good for you.
The medical community is perfectly capable of being wrong and prescribing societal dogma over anything else.
Youāre dismissing all of modern medicine there, which IMO is even worse. Knowledge might change, but until it does, we have to follow the current state of science. Otherwise weāre back to guesswork.
No, Iām dismissing the idea that the āmedical consensusā is unquestionable truth.
If questioning the medical consensus was always wrong then weād still believe that handwashing was a waste of time, and cigarettes would probably be lauded as a way to resist the miasma.
When the consensus changed to say that cigarettes and underage drinking are bad, that didnāt overthrow the idea that handwashing is still good. And when the consensus changes to say that the modern approach to transitioning has caused more harm than help, that wonāt overthrow the idea that underage drinking and cigarettes are still bad.
Questioning the medical consensus is ok, as long as youāre a medical researcher with a study to show that thereās a problem. I donāt get the feeling that you are.