On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR “apology” (ironic)
On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR “apology” (ironic)
🤯
What universe are you living in where everyone agrees and has the same opinions about transgender people? It’s more or less the definition of a controversial topic.
The world of morality purity testing. According to the democrats or the “left” in america right now, if you don’t pass the test at all times you are scum and should be banned and silenced. I’m just amazed so many people apparently have made not a single mistake in their lives.
I’ll give a good example, I think. Pete Hegseth is bad at his job and says controversial things, and yet all I hear about him is how much he likes drinking. You don’t need the purity test to dislike the guy, and yet its the first choice anyways.
Because bad at his job and says controversial things is subjective, but being an alcoholic in charge of the military, where being an alcoholic gets you kicked out (if discovered), should be disqualifying. It is what should be a common ground view across the political spectrum. If you’re constantly drunk and drink at work, you are not fit to be in charge of the military.
The point I’m making is that there isn’t a single story about him being drunk at his current job, yet all we hear about is how hes an alcoholic. I don’t understand how the possibility he might drink at work outweighs his actual choices and actions.
So, in your mind, setting aside differences in politics and raising concerns about the secretary of defense drinking to excess at work, regularly getting black out drunk, and losing inhibitions while intoxicated to the point of needing to pay someone $50k to drop rape charges is a “purity test”?
Or is it only a purity test when someone says something you agree with is actually a really shitty sentiment?
Maybe you should make note of how “the left” isn’t one person. Being able to find someone for every topic who has a very strong reaction doesn’t make it make sense to combine their opinions and extrapolate that to everyone.
Oh I had no idea all that happened while secretary of defense. So strange how I heard those things before he got the job though.
The point I’m making is that people calling him an alcoholic are late to the party, hes done far dumber stuff than drinking champagne out of a hot tub since hes taken his new position.
And your concern is that people can’t take issue with more than one thing at once? Did those stupid things he’s done recently make him not a rapist with a concerning alcohol problem?
Come to think of it, why does it matter if he raped someone before being appointed or not? We shouldn’t have a rapist as the secretary of defense regardless of when he did it. Likewise we shouldn’t have someone with a concerning alcohol problem handling classified military information.
Frankly speaking, “drunken rapist” is the closest you’re going to get to a “middle of the road” concern about a candidate. Not that it mattered, since as you point out, only the left seems to care about “not putting rapists in positions of high power”.
Is that an extreme example or did he really rape someone?
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25362284-hegseth-police-report/
https://apnews.com/article/hegseth-sex-assault-payment-trump-6674cc8cfee654c374725948e01ff666
As with all things legal in nature, he raped someone in the lay sense of the word. Legally speaking, he was accused and investigated for sexual assault, with law enforcement finding sufficient grounds to forward the case to prosecutors, who declined to press charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. He later paid the woman $50,000 not to sue in civil court.
What’s insufficient for the courts is more than enough to justify calling him a rapist, particularly since the police usually decline to refer rape cases to prosecutors at all, when they’re even reported to police in an investigative capacity.
Maybe people should mention this instead of whether he drinks or not then? I’m sure you mention it though, so I don’t mean to imply you don’t.
My rights are not a controversy. You’re just a bigot.
Technically, they are controversial. There are people who support your right to live and there are people who dont support it
If half of humans thought water was dangerous, drinking water would be a controversial topic
Its not black and white like that. There are people who support trans people but are concerned about the medicine and psychology, considering how young and mistake prone those fields are. Keep in mind there was a time where labotomies were defended in a similar way.
I don’t think taking HRT and getting a literal lobotomy are equal…
Probably not 1:1 but the point is that its risky when medicine moves too quickly, and human ego has proven to be an extremely potent force. I use extreme examples to make a point.
Mainly what concerns me right now is that people who have concerns or questions about the medicine or science are routinely harassed and/or banned from trans communities. That, and the amount of faith the general public has in our understanding of psychology.
Healthcare has been moving in this direction since at least… oh, that’s right, the Third Reich. It’s not moving too fast right now, it’s been moving too slow for the last century.
Which trans communities? There are some that are open to educating others. There are some that are not. It is absolutely not a trans person or community’s responsibility to educate you, and sometimes people want to have a space to exist without constantly justifying that existence to others. Even good faith questions can be exhausting when it’s your life that is being questioned.
Exactly what questions do you consider to be valid, good faith questions, presented to people or communities that are open to this discussion, and yet result in harassment?
Even this attitude of educating others, like every trans person is suddenly an expert in psychology or something. The way you frame it furthers the exclusivity of the group, which is odd to me because I would think trans people would want more people in their communities.
I’m not interested in going over specific instances with you, sorry. If thats what you need then you win the argument.
The education isn’t a teacher to a student. It’s a person revealing their life experience to others. Maybe they don’t want to constantly talk about their life experience with people who might not understand.
Why would you think that should be a universal thing, for communities to want to constantly expand and include people that may not share the same values as the community?
Would you expect every religious person to answer every concern or question that you have about their religion? Would you walk into a church, and expect the average parishioner to hear your concerns about the afterlife, and questions about inconsistencies in the bible?
If you don’t know how to sew, and will never sew a garment in your life, would you walk into a sewing club and expect them to welcome you in?
Or would you understand that maybe they’re in their own place, and don’t want to talk to you?
I repeat:
because the science is there and they keep dringing up the one study that has been wildly discredited.
What science? Which field? I’m not talking about disagreeing over whether gender dysphoria exists, I know it does. The discussion to be had is ehat can we do to fix and/or prevent it from happening. Its very hard to have these conversations in trans spaces though.
That’s because those conversations belong in healthcare spaces. Academic spaces. Political spaces.
Would you walk into an NA meeting, and expect them to welcome you and talk to you about the fentanyl crisis?
elaborate?
There are also people who arent on either extreme, but that doesnt really matter in the context of deciding if a subject is controversial or not
they are not bigot, they just dont live in an echo chamber.
whether you like it or not, there’s lots people not thinking like you. I’m not one of them, just to clarify before I suddenly become a bigot, but people like that do exist, in masses
If you “have an opinion about transgender people” that involves taking away their rights, or putting them in harms way and that prioritises the needs of everyone else first, and the needs of trans people last, if at all, then you have a bigoted opinion.
I know its a huge job but will Blahaj ever consider migrating to PieFed over this (presumably when the tooling ia ready)?
and where exactly was that my opinion? it is not an opinion, that such people exist. that is a sad and hard fact.
but sure, kill the messenger, call me a bigot for pointing out reality.
I wasn’t talking about you, I was talking in general, and the specific context was the person earlier in this discussion, who you explicitly stated is not a bigot.
So where exactly did the earlier guy state that was his opinion? He got called a bigot simply immediately after calling the issue controversial, not because he said he believed the things that you claimed.
Again, if you “have an opinion about transgender people” that involves taking away their rights, or putting them in harms way and that prioritises the needs of everyone else first, and the needs of trans people last, if at all, then you have a bigoted opinion. It’s a universal statement.
The person you were replying to described Nutomics position as “It’s hard for me to imagine a more agreeable and reasonable statement.” And as a reminder, Nutomics post was a statement complaining about pride flags on public buildings, calling transgender women “men” and stating that trans folk are a conspiracy/distraction pushed by the bourgeoisie, despite rich conservatives being largely responsible for the wave of trans hatred we’re currently experiencing.
That is pure transphobia.
True, he did say that on another comment, but the argument given here for why he is a bigot is not that comment, its the fact that he said this is a controversial topic.
If the guy who accused him of being a bigot wasn’t simply referring to his argument about the controversial nature but based on his actually bigoted views, then he should make it clearer.
We should have better standards of communication when accusing people of being a bigot, because badly delivered sane messages can actually sound pretty insane to people who weren’t in the loop from the start.
welcome to mog. Curious what you think
A lot of people thought that blacks shouldn’t be allowed to go to school.
yes, and what does it matter here? that’s another example of a controversial thing
Your rights to participate in inherently sexist institutions that feeds off athletes who end up with a broken body at 20?
Lol liberals have the weirdest kinks.
More transgenders billionnaire please /s
What rights do non trans have that the trans don’t?
How about re-entering the US as a US citizen with a passport doesn’t have a gender matching their birth certificate?
Yeah, that’s a thing that’s happened in the last 100-ish days…
The right to live as the gender you want
That is a right u got in most first world countries.
List some examples. Very few countries have equal right for trans people enshrined in law. Certainly not in the US or the UK.
In Australia, UK, nz, and I’m sure a bunch of places in Europe. Its illegal to discriminate based upon gender identity.
The rest of the rights are given to all people regardless of how they identify.
Didn’t hear about the recent Supreme Court ruling on trans women in the UK, huh? The others countries you mentioned might be fine for all I know, but I guarantee you that the vast majority of the world does not live in countries with trans rights enshrined in law.
Please go into detail about the Supreme Court ruling
What did the ruling actually change? A majority of the world doesn’t recognise gay rights 3rd world gonna 3rd world regardless of what we say or do.
Even in Canada and America it’s illegal to discriminate based on identity. It’s mostly 2nd and 3rd world countries that don’t have much for protections. Excluding the UK of course, they’re being weird about it.
I just read up on the UK ruling. Its only change is that single sex spaces are based upon biological sex not gender identity. Trans still have all protections under the anti decriminalisation and equality laws.
Not going to bite at this too hard, but how about starting with using a bathroom that matches their identity without people freaking out and trying to arrest them in several states?
What about people who don’t fit into a gender binary? How are they supposed to find a bathroom that matches their specific identity?
They get both options, depends on how one feels that day. Or, maybe we just make it universal to not specify who a room is for and get over it.
This is, to be honest, the only correct solution to the bathroom issue. Make em universal and make the stalls more private so people don’t feel as vulnerable to share bathrooms.
How I wish everyone would just switch to “has urinals and stalls” and “only has stalls” and be done with it.
Moving the goalposts, five-yard penalty.
They just pick whichever one is the most convenient to use at the time.
So its OK to force people to go into a bathroom that doesn’t match their identity?
Moving the goalposts, 5-yard penalty.
Who’s forcing anyone? There are bathrooms, they can use whichever they want. All bathrooms should be unisex anyway.
You clearly don’t actually know anyone who’s enby and just like inventing problems.
Should these unisex bathrooms have urinals?
Weather the whole concept causes controversy vs if trans identity is valid are two separate things.
At one point (before scrambling my instance so lost to this account) I made it a point to create a thread on a LGBT comm just to try and get some insight from people who actually lived it since I’m pretty far off from it and it was pretty enlightening. There are still some things I don’t really understand and don’t expect I will without direct experience.
In the end though it doesn’t cost anything for people to just treat the trans community as regular humans who in no way are hurting you. To that end the notion of if trans ID is valid shouldn’t be seen as controversial outside of by those refusing to allow someone else to live their life as they want to.
I love how if it’s controversial is now a controversial topic.
-sigh- It isn’t about IF it’s controversial, but WHY it is seen that way. Conservatism requires a minority to use as a boogeyman that needs defeated. They use this manufactured scare as a way to get votes and power.
It has been the tactic ever since Feudalism fell as a way to get back the power they held back then.
I’m ignoring your previous statements to reach out in good faith and hope for the best. Don’t give in to the propaganda that trans people are more likely to commit crimes than the greater population. Instead, they are more likely to be the victims, and the laws passed to hurt them end up hurting cis people as well.
I got absolutely nothing against adults doing whatever the fuck they want with themselves and other consenting adults.
I’m not a conservative I’m centre left (in Australia, so that’s probably communist by american standards). I take issue with 3 things related to transgenderism (let’s hope mentioning them doesn’t get me banned).
Everything else I couldn’t give a single fuck what u do or what u call urself. Fuck spiders for all I care.
sidenote: How are you feeling about the election results? It’s quite historic.
Regarding medical professionals and medical standards, how do you feel about Europe and some countries banning puberty blockers?
I would push back slightly on the term “ban”.
The US has parties pushing for a ban, which entails it becoming a punishable offense to offer the treatment to children.
As far as I’m aware, European countries have shifted standards of care in response to changing data, and De-Emphasized the treatment in favor of other avenues.
Although I tend to align with the American academy of pediatrics, as long as it’s a reasoned, evidence based conversation developing standards of care that are then applied by the care team working with the patient and their parents it seems appropriate to me. That leaves the standards of “good medicine” in the realm of public experts, and the specifics of treatment to the experts directly working with the person in question and let’s them make the appropriate choices and consultation.
So you’re fine with Europe blocking/changing/halting/modifying/specifying/altering/excluding the use of puberty blockers?
That’s a lot of verbs for a simple answer.
I’m fine with medical experts making medical decisions based on patient needs and scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is currently in flux because recent studies have conflicted with earlier studies.
Advising that different treatment options take priority while additional research is done isn’t wrong.
When elected officials and the general public start dictating what treatments people are allowed to get regardless of medical opinion or patient wishes I start to get concerned that it’s less about patient care and more about public opinion.
I see it as a matter of consent. Children can’t consent. Simple as that. From my readings (of peer reviewed papers none of which u have managed to cite) the suicide, depression, and self harm risk are not alternated to any degree of statistical confidence by hormonal treatments amongst non adults. Thus delaying treatment until they are adults shouldn’t have any adverse risks.
Trans women are significantly overrepresented within heigh level female sports than what would be expected according to statistics. This data is statistically significant enough to show that trans women just happen to be better at sports on average than cis women. The stats don’t make any judgements as to why or how they just are. Their are also other papers that have been tracking various data points between cis and trans women over time. Turns out when u look at those graphs u can see the difference in the data grouping very easily. Yes once u normalise for height, weight, muscle mass, and bone mass cis and trans are identical but now I’ve just shifted the issue to one of trans women having a systematic advantage in height, weight, muscle mass, and bone mass.
Their are truly evil people in this world who will lie, cheat, and corrupt any system for their own benifit. At the moment the barrier to get your gender change recognised by many governments (generalising for the 1st world here obviously) is low enough that corrupting that system for the purposes of exploitation by bad people is too easy.
It’s weird how we let children do all sorts of medically warranted things with parental consent under the consultation of a medical professional. It’s almost like if consent is the issue, then the entire topic is a non-issue because we’ve already got a system in place.
You don’t need to consent to other people’s children’s medical care. It’s none of your business. Fuck off you nosy bastard.
None of that, or your oft mentioned papers, have anything to do with the fact that it’s a vanishingly rare occurrence and not worth caring about. I honestly do not care if a trans woman is better at basketball or not. It’s sports, it doesn’t really matter unlike “respecting people”, which does matter.
As for 3… Has it ever happened? And what does it have to do with transgender people? Do they check your ID for gender on the way into the bathroom? What’s to stop a cis man from walking into a woman’s bathroom and doing whatever you’re afraid of without a disguise? Do you think cross dressing and a wig will make people just let the assault happen?
Do you think women will be more comfortable with a bearded man in the bathroom? Because that’s what you’re advocating for. If trans women can’t use the women’s room because a cis man might sneak it, then trans men must use the women’s room, which makes it easier for said cis man to sneak in. A cis man looks a lot more like a trans man than a cis man looks like a trans woman.
How concerned are you about making sure that police don’t get into women’s spaces and commit evil acts? The barrier to becoming a cop is lower than changing your gender, so the path of least resistance is to become a cop. You’ll probably get a paid vacation while they investigate your evil too.
And that’s not a hypothetical by the way. There are more sexual assaults by on-duty police officers than by trans persons in total, or by trans impersonators. Far more. So if you’re concerned for women’s safety, start there. Or almost anywhere else, statistically.
Nope. But then again I didn’t have to suffer the holocaust to say the Nazis are evil. We can and I would argue are morally required to have opinions on things that effect people other than ourselves. That’s kinda one of the main outcomes of empathy.
But i am one of the people i was talking about
Gender dysphoria is terrible
I don’t doubt that. I think as an adult u should have the right to do whatever the fuck you want with your own body.
I just don’t think that children have the mental capacity and development to make such a decision. I’ve also read (yes peer reviewed papers) that hormone therapy has a statistically insignificant effect on suicide rates or depression for underage people. As such I see no additional risk in delaying any hormonal treatment until someone is an adult capable of making that decision themselves.
May I ask, did u receive hormonal treatment as a child? If so how did it effect you psychologically? If not are you an adult now and decided to undergo such treatment?
I don’t put much value on qualitative data but would be interesting to hear nonetheless.
@[email protected] please elaborate
These are all conservative talking points. You’ve fallen for the propaganda.
please rebuke then
ricecake did: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18450729
Fairly interesting, though there’s not much budging from either of them
Well if its propaganda then it must be provably false.
What’s wrong with my point of view?
You could do some research online about all those points if you cared enough to. It’s not my job to educate you.
The thing is, you’re the person making the claim that they’ve fallen for propaganda, and therefore you do actually bear the burden of proof for your claims.
I believe you are correct, but I disagree with your idea that it’s “not your job to educate” someone when you’re telling somebody that the information they have is false without offering the true information to replace it with.
But it isn’t my job. If I wanted to make the effort to try to convince them, sure, the onus would be on me, but I don’t.
I have that’s why I have those views. I’ve been sent article with headlines that totally debunk my arguments. Then I go read the studies those articles are citing and turns out the studies agree with me.
please list those.