"Cancel Culture" 3

[Altherion]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Question, why should they?

The goal of their company is to make money.

If they can just make slightly more-even if just a penny-why shouldn't they?

If they could, they would, but given that the number of people who disagree with the cancel culture crowd is far larger than the size of said crowd, it's quite likely that, to the small extent that it makes any difference at all, aligning themselves with the larger group is more profitable.

18 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Is government the sole arbiter on what can and cannot be canceled?

No, but it is by far the most consensus-based one and the one from whom we have explicit protections built into the law so I don't see the reason for complaining about it.

19 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Also, if he could succeed on this, would that make his attempt morally justifiable?

To succeed, he would need a majority of the House, 60 of 100 Senators and the signature of the President. If all of those people agree on defunding a cause, chances are there is something seriously wrong with that cause so yes, most likely he'd be morally justified. Note that as it stands, he'll come nowhere close -- I doubt this makes out of committee in the Senate, never mind the House.

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 minutes ago, Altherion said:

No, but it is by far the most consensus-based one and the one from whom we have explicit protections built into the law so I don't see the reason for complaining about it.

To the bolded Not really no. Plenty laws, and acts, have been made by government with divided support from the public, or even lack from it.

And to the second; companies can already decide keeping on or taking on x individual or cause is well worth the associations with them.

If they do decide not to associate with x individual or cause, because they fear public backlash that too isn't a new thing.

It's basically how businesses have always functioned.

Like, you get how in the 50s a major on actor declaring himself communist, or perceived to be communist would be the end of his or her acting career right?

27 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If all of those people agree on defunding a cause, chances are there is something seriously wrong with that cause so yes, most likely he'd be morally justified

Argumentum ad populum? 

Seriously? So long as the majority of a government says x cause is wrong, than it's solid proof x cause is wrong?

If government passed a law that says killing x ethnic group on sight is now permissible, would you contend that it's likely morally acceptable since it went through the proper legal channels?

32 minutes ago, Altherion said:

If they could, they would, but given that the number of people who disagree with the cancel culture crowd is far larger than the size of said crowd, it's quite likely that, to the small extent that it makes any difference at all, aligning themselves with the larger group is more profitable.

Or perhaps the large group who don't care about x controversy either way won't oblige companies to not lessen to the few threatening to withhold money.

[Altherion]

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

To the bolded Not really no. Plenty laws, and acts, have been made by government with divided support from the public, or even lack from it.

Even so, it is still by far the most consensus based. No other actor -- neither an individual nor a corporation -- is even theoretically responsible to society as a whole to the same extent.

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Seriously? So long as the majority of a government says x cause is wrong, than it's solid proof x cause is wrong?

If government passed a law that says killing x ethnic group on sight is now permissible, would you contend that it's likely morally acceptable since it went through the proper legal channels?

No, of course not. The latter example goes far beyond what any modern government is allowed to do. However, it is completely distinct from the question of how a government chooses to allocate tax money (which is what the original example was about).

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Or perhaps the large group who don't care about x controversy either way won't oblige companies to not lessen to the few threatening to withhold money.

This is how they've been operating thus far, but the number who don't care about cancel culture is not actually that high anymore. The original freedom of speech letter was pretty well thought out: people who learn about what has been happening are overwhelmingly likely not to like it. We'll see.

[Varysblackfyre321]

58 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Even so, it is still by far the most consensus based. No other actor -- neither an individual nor a corporation -- is even theoretically responsible to society as a whole to the same extent.

Not responsible exactly no.

But still capable from suffering from the public’s ire, through social isolation, or refusal of to do business with, or give support to.

 

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

No, of course not. The latter example goes far beyond what any modern government is allowed to do.

Yeah, there’s no define mandate that automatically constricts what a government or cannot do.

If a government says genocide is now legal, it goes through the proper set up channels to make such a thing legal, then genocide within in regards to the country the government rules over is legal.
 

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

However, it is completely distinct from the question of how a government chooses to allocate tax money (which is what the original example was about).

Alright here’s a better example; if the government to no longer give funds to the fire department and and instead offshooted the responsibility to private companies would the fact it went through the legal channels to do such a thing make it likely to be moral?

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

This is how they've been operating thus far, but the number who don't care about cancel culture is not actually that high anymore.

Possibly. As in now that more people can see others being penalized for having positions they may hold.

So now ”cancel culture” is a threat to Western culture, and democracy and blah blah blah.

When a person could be fired for being socialist, or pro-gay rights, or gay it was more acceptable.

Now that it can be a homophobe who says gays deserve to burn in hell, who can get fired, it's a existensial threat that should be allowed.

Listen, I don't think every target of CC is justified. But I'm not going to pretend it's some new thing and absolutely wrong in all cases, in the past or in the present.

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The original freedom of speech letter was pretty well thought out: people who learn about what has been happening are overwhelmingly likely not to like it. We'll see.

But anger at CC isn't really about freedom of of speech.

It's a satisfaction on how people are choosing to use their freedom of speech.

Boycotts, shaming, these are proper modes of protest in a democratic society. 

[DaveSumm]

8 hours ago, karaddin said:

I'm getting whiplash on whether JK supports free speech

There is absolutely nothing libelous there, this is purely using her money to shut down speech she doesn't like, even the quote in the tweet is relating to other people  so at most that comment is an association. It's also a subjective statement not a factual claim.

I think there’s a slight wrinkle in that this was being used to educate children. I agree it’s not really libellous, but I can’t really say that I wouldn’t try and get it removed if I had the money. Seems like a fairly lazy comparison, although the full text isn’t in that article that I can see.

6 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

He's been challenged over and over and over.  People have challenged him to debates and he always backs down.  You've had three linked examples in this thread of people debating or engaging with him - Andrew Neil, Sean Illing, and Joe Rogan.  Which is a decent ideological spread for three white boys.  He's been given airtime, rhetorically destroyed, and yet there he be, crying that no one will engage with him.  He's not fucking cancelled - he's just an annoying idiot who continues to bleat on and one regardless of how badly he's been able to defend his ideas.

To be clear, that was a slight tangent and I don’t think anyone was claiming Shapiro was being ‘cancelled’. Just that, if you keep hearing his name and wonder who he is, it’s good to google it and find refutations of his points (ala the recent Rogan interview) as opposed to just left wing people denouncing him and encouraging people to ignore him. That’s extremely off putting, and you end thinking maybe he has a point if people are so scared of what he has to say. Despite saying a lot of stuff I disagree with, Shapiro has clearly built his own platform based on that stuff. So it seems wrong to try and argue that he should be ignored, when just off the back of his books, there’s clearly an audience and an appetite for it.

The reason I raised this point was due to my own experience of the JK issue: I knew next to nothing about trans issues (beyond being a generally liberal person and believing people can live how they choose if it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s freedom to do the same), and so I looked up criticism of her essay and found nothing but lazy responses. “JK Rowling is a TERF, trust us” (I had to look up what a TERF was), and I think the avclub’s response was “don’t bother reading it”. The most widely publicised was Daniel Radcliffe’s response, which doesn’t contain any specific refutations of what she claims. I had to look quite hard for an actual evidence based refutation of her “60-90% of teens change their minds” claim.

6 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Might be helpful if someone who thinks that free speech is being attacked by 'cancel culture' would be willing to toss out a few legal protections for consideration.  Like, can I fire a dude dropping n-bombs on social media?

For my own part, I think the free speech issue is much more interesting than anything contained in the Harper’s letter and so I’ve been kind of cheating and debating that instead. I would say most interpretations of ‘cancel culture’ don’t really have anything to do with free speech, although we’ve been trying and failing to come up with a definition for 3 threads now.

[Ser Reptitious]

25 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I had to look quite hard for an actual evidence based refutation of her “60-90% of teens change their minds” claim.

Hold on a second. She just gets to throw out a claim like that and it's the refutation that has to be evidence-based? Shouldn't she (or anyone who is inclined to agree with her) provide solid evidence of the claim made in the first place? 

Maybe I'm missing something (and if so, I'm happy to be corrected), but from what I've seen a big criticism of her essay has been precisely that she makes a lot of big claims (such as the one mentioned above) without providing any actual evidence backing them up. 

So did you actually find such evidence, or did you just take her claim at face-value and felt that the onus of providing evidence was on the people making the refutation?

[DaveSumm]

35 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Hold on a second. She just gets to throw out a claim like that and it's the refutation that has to be evidence-based? Shouldn't she (or anyone who is inclined to agree with her) provide solid evidence of the claim made in the first place? 

She absolutely should have done. I’m not defending her essay, but sadly she wrote it and has a large platform and so here we are. It’s in the limelight now, so it needs refuting. Tit for tat on the quality of your assertions isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.

Quote

So did you actually find such evidence, or did you just take her claim at face-value and felt that the onus of providing evidence was on the people making the refutation?

There’s a Medium article that was good, that eventually links here. I found a few others with experts claiming it’s a false assertion, but without links. “What does the science say on this” should be the first port of call for any refutation, and it took me far too long to find this, and then it was by googling very specific terms (JK trans “60-90%” claim).

EDIT: actually it was this link here I intended, one click further.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

I think there’s a slight wrinkle in that this was being used to educate children. I agree it’s not really libellous, but I can’t really say that I wouldn’t try and get it removed if I had the money. Seems like a fairly lazy comparison, although the full text isn’t in that article that I can see.

To be clear, that was a slight tangent and I don’t think anyone was claiming Shapiro was being ‘cancelled’. Just that, if you keep hearing his name and wonder who he is, it’s good to google it and find refutations of his points (ala the recent Rogan interview) as opposed to just left wing people denouncing him and encouraging people to ignore him. That’s extremely off putting, and you end thinking maybe he has a point if people are so scared of what he has to say. Despite saying a lot of stuff I disagree with, Shapiro has clearly built his own platform based on that stuff. So it seems wrong to try and argue that he should be ignored, when just off the back of his books, there’s clearly an audience and an appetite for it.

The reason I raised this point was due to my own experience of the JK issue: I knew next to nothing about trans issues (beyond being a generally liberal person and believing people can live how they choose if it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s freedom to do the same), and so I looked up criticism of her essay and found nothing but lazy responses. “JK Rowling is a TERF, trust us” (I had to look up what a TERF was), and I think the avclub’s response was “don’t bother reading it”. The most widely publicised was Daniel Radcliffe’s response, which doesn’t contain any specific refutations of what she claims. I had to look quite hard for an actual evidence based refutation of her “60-90% of teens change their minds” claim.

For my own part, I think the free speech issue is much more interesting than anything contained in the Harper’s letter and so I’ve been kind of cheating and debating that instead. I would say most interpretations of ‘cancel culture’ don’t really have anything to do with free speech, although we’ve been trying and failing to come up with a definition for 3 threads now.

Anyone with a computer or a phone can put their thoughts out into the world.  If I've read enough of Ben Shapiro's 7th grade debate club fuckery to determine that it's poorly considered drivel, I'm not sure that everytime his name comes up I need to produce an essay on why his barely worked out ideas aren't worth the time.  

No one is silencing him by saying "Shapiro writes trash, don't bother".  We don't need it explain why I think xenophobia is bad every single time it rears its head, or engage with flat earther's each time they bring a level as their carry-on item.  

Anyway, I obviously don't have much of an issue with "deplatforming".  There is a finite amount of airtime and column space out there in the world, not every asshole gets to be engaged by being given a lecture at universities or get an editorial in the NY Times just because they have an opinion.  

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

She absolutely should have done. I’m not defending her essay, but sadly she wrote it and has a large platform and so here we are. It’s in the limelight now, so it needs refuting. Tit for tat on the quality of your assertions isn’t going to get anyone anywhere.

There’s a Medium article that was good, that eventually links here. I found a few others with experts claiming it’s a false assertion, but without links. “What does the science say on this” should be the first port of call for any refutation, and it took me far too long to find this, and then it was by googling very specific terms (JK trans “60-90%” claim).

EDIT: actually it was this link here I intended, one click further.

Why? Rowling just pulled that number out of her ass, why do we have to do the work to disprove it?

Some of ya'll have never tried to debate a creationist and it fucking shows.

[DaveSumm]

42 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

No one is silencing him by saying "Shapiro writes trash, don't bother".  We don't need it explain why I think xenophobia is bad every single time it rears its head, or engage with flat earther's each time they bring a level as their carry-on item.  

Anyway, I obviously don't have much of an issue with "deplatforming".  There is a finite amount of airtime and column space out there in the world, not every asshole gets to be engaged by being given a lecture at universities or get an editorial in the NY Times just because they have an opinion.  

Sure, but we can have proportional responses. Ben Shapiro is popular, and his popularity is as a direct result of his opinions. It’s not like Rowling where he wrote an unrelated fantasy series and then pivoted, there’s just an audience for what he’s saying. So it needs engaging with. I’d argue we’ve given flat earthers a proportional response based on there smaller numbers: they’ve been refuted, but largely ignored. Same goes for...

45 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Why? Rowling just pulled that number out of her ass, why do we have to do the work to disprove it?

Some of ya'll have never tried to debate a creationist and it fucking shows.

...creationists. There’s ample amount of evidence for evolution, if someone wants to debate it I’ll point them to that and not bother. As to the first paragraph, “we” don’t have to, I’m just saying it’s wise to if you want to sway peoples opinion on the matter. JK complains of a twitter mob clamping down on her “wrongthink” and then, if you do a cursory google, you’d think she had a point as that’s what the majority of coverage comes across as. It denounces what she said and doesn’t explain why.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 7/23/2020 at 7:07 AM, TrackerNeil said:

Not to seem like I am "calling you out", @karaddin, but I am not sure that what I have seen counts as mere passion. When I hear leftists calling each other pieces of shit, or trash, or scumbags, I get the feeling there's more than simple feistiness at work. Again, I strongly recommend reading Michelle Goldberg on this, if you haven't.

That said, I definitely agree that this is often born of real pain, and that, IMO, is the insidious aspect to call-out culture, or cancel culture, or Internet pile-ons. We get to act cruelly and thoughtlessly while feeling righteous and noble, as if we are wielding the sword of justice when we're really just acting out. That might not be a problem if this misbehavior were isolated, but it's not; it spreads like wildfire, probably because being self-righteous and swatting down your "enemies" feels good. And, like wildfire, these pile-ons sometimes turn on their instigators, as happened with Adria Richards, who started one Internet mob only to rapidly become the victim of another. These incidents cost people their jobs and their safety, and I find that, in general, the biggest victims are the most marginalized, like Emily VanDerWerf.

Again, this is no call for civility, at least not by me; it's a reminder that those who purport to detest cruelty shouldn't become purveyors of it. 

When you look into the abyss the abyss looks back into you.  In other words take care not to become that which you oppose in your ziel to fight that thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 7/23/2020 at 5:38 AM, Ran said:

Time to defenstrate the Overton window.

I'll never forget when Shapiro ran away, tail between his legs, after calling arch-conservative Andrew Neil a "leftist" and whining that Neil was pressing him only because he was chasing clout because of Shapiro being more famous.

Throw the window out the window?  That’s a strangly fractal image in my mind.

[Ran]

57 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Why? Rowling just pulled that number out of her ass, why do we have to do the work to disprove it?

She didn't. All the stuff she mentions are not ideas she came up with. She just didn't provide sources, much as many in the media did not provide sources when writing about it. It's a blog post, not a research paper.

The numbers are all based on interpretations of legitimate data. There has been a 4400% increase in referrals, there have been reports in media in the US and elsewhere of what seems like increased detransitioning. This is actually being seen throughout the Western world -- Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, they've all noted it -- though the size and scope can be argued about (I think "explosion" would not be how I'd characterize the evidence)

The reasons for these increases and for these disparities are being argued about, as they should be. The common claim for why there's an increase is more visibility and openness and availability, but what's the proof? You could survey and poll and attempt to research why, but there's a sense from the Newhook critique that in fact it should just be accepted that that's the reason and not that maybe there are other factors at play that should have relevance to how you approach diagnosing and treating.

The heavily editorialized ThinkProgress piece is especially egregious in its presentation of everything, painting the critiqued reasearchers as being bad or wishy-washy on their responses whereas you can read the response from Steensma and Cohen-Ketensis, It's very even-handed. Zucker also responded, though that requires journal access. 

The real battleground is this: young people and how to help them best. Up until relatively recently, these things were mostly true: young people who presented with gender dysphoria existed but were relatively rare, social transition as well as hormonal and surgical interventions required extensive analysis before being approved and generally did not fully happen until adulthood, and regret after the fact  about transitioning was rare . In the last 5 years, though, gender dysphoria referrals have increased substantially and there has been increasing pressure to reduce the bar for affirmative interventions, making for younger and younger transitions. The concern from some is that just as the ease of transitioning is increased, the amount of people who will regret transitioning will increase substantially, meaning that doctors and therapists will have caused harm.

But of course, harm can be caused by denying something needed just as providing something unneeded. So science is needed, and debate is needed, to find the course that provides the most help and the least harm.

[TrackerNeil]

28 minutes ago, Ran said:

But of course, harm can be caused by denying something needed just as providing something unneeded. So science is needed, and debate is needed, to find the course that provides the most help and the least harm.

I don't disagree with any of this, and yet I can also see how trans people might be wary. A lot of harm has been done by bigotry masquerading as science, and that has unfortunately poisoned the well for those who genuinely want to explore and understand how best to assist those who express a desire to transition. So I can totally understand why trans people are skeptical--we should all possess a healthy skepticism in this regard. 

(I speak with full acknowledgment that I do not know the science and the caveat that I am making no scientific claims.)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

52 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't disagree with any of this, and yet I can also see how trans people might be wary. A lot of harm has been done by bigotry masquerading as science, and that has unfortunately poisoned the well for those who genuinely want to explore and understand how best to assist those who express a desire to transition. So I can totally understand why trans people are skeptical--we should all possess a healthy skepticism in this regard. 

(I speak with full acknowledgment that I do not know the science and the caveat that I am making no scientific claims.)

It's correct to say bigotry has often been hidden in the name of science, and a healthy skepticism is warranted. I just think it may be wiser to take less invasive steps when dealing with younger children with signs of gender dysphoria until they're mature enough cognitively to demonstrate that they can understand the aforementioned issues. 

[TrackerNeil]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's correct to say bigotry has often been hidden in the name of science, and a healthy skepticism is warranted. I just think it may be wiser to take less invasive steps when dealing with younger children with signs of gender dysphoria until they're mature enough cognitively to demonstrate that they can understand the aforementioned issues. 

I can't say you're wrong, and yet, I have heard, maybe incorrectly, that with these things there is a window of opportunity that, once closed, never reopens. If that is the case, waiting may not always be a healthy option. I think the law has to tread very carefully here--it seems to me it is hard enough to be trans without having activists and officials telling you what you need.

I'd like to hear from the trans members of the board on this topic. 

[karaddin]

No one is giving young trans kids any "invasive" steps in treatment. Its entirely social right up until puberty, and then its puberty blockers - which prevent a permanent invasive change - for a period of time before even the most trans friendly doctor is going to give us hormones to have the puberty we need at a later age than our peers. 

And if the group of researchers that you're reading work from includes Kenneth Zucker then you're not reading research that gives us a remotely fair take. He's a discredited doctor that harmed many trans kids, lost his position, spends time on twitter harassing trans women like a fucking chaser and insists on pathologising and sexualising us.

[OldGimletEye]

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Because I don't believe the government should be allowed to suppress the speech of people against the government. I am advocating for more heavy restrictions by the government.

And what type of heavy restriction do you want? I’m not opposed to some restrictions, but those restrictions would have to be pretty narrow and tight.  Otherwise you end up getting likes of hate speech law, like what is being passed in Ethiopia, which is so broad and vaguely defined, that there are real concerns it will become an instrument of suppressing dissent.

Anyway, I’d hope in advocating for more heavy restrictions you will realize two things. One, don’t assume it will be your side calling the shots. And two, make sure those laws are very well drafted so we can avoid situations like:

1. France.  People facing criminal conviction for wearing T-shirts that say “Long Live Palestine, boycott Israel.”
2. A British Muslim teenager, Azar Ahmed, arrested for saying unkind things about British soldiers on his facebook page.
3. The UK. Harry Taylor, an atheist getting a six month suspended sentence for leaving both anti-Christian and anti-Muslim fliers in the religious room of a Liverpool airport.
4. A leftist activist in France who got convicted and fined for holding up a sign, in reference to President Nicolas Sarkozy, that said “Get Lost Jerk”.
5. A leftwing website in Germany being shut down for allegedly stirring up “unrest”.
6. A group of Muslim men being arrested in Germany for wearing orange vest that said “Sharia Police”. Fortunately, the German court had the sanity to throw the case out, but last I’ve heard their decision maybe appealed.
7. France’s ban on Burqas
8. A protestor in France arrested and fined for calling somebody a “homophobe”.
9. Barry Thew. UK. Arrested for wearing an anti-police t-shirt.
10. Simon Ledger, UK. Arrested for singing Kung Fu Fighting.
12. Jan Boehmermann. Germany. Prosecuted for making fun of Erdogan.
13. Sabina Guzzanti. Almost rosecuted for making joke about the Pope.
14. D’Asia R. Perry and Joy Shuford. Maryland. Charged with a hate crime for burning MAGA sign on the theory, Trump supporters are a protected group. Las I heard the charge was dropped. Still what a pain the ass for something so stupid.
15. Canada. Activist advocating the boycotting of Israel, threatened with prosecution under Canadian hate crimes law.
16. China. A human rights lawyer indicted for “inciting ethnic hatred”.
 

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Other governments appear to do this just fine. Plus the US has limits on free speech too. 

I’m well aware that the United States puts limits on free speech. I have commented on that. But, where the US differs is that it is extremely hesitant to engage in subject matter or viewpoint regulations in open forums. I have commented before on the restricted environment versus open forum. It is an important distinction.
And I have just listed a number of troubling cases in countries that just “do fine”.
 

20 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 First, he was a known liar since 2012. And he won the election. Obviously enough people supported him then. Therefore, regardless of this election's results the notion that truth matters more than emotional appeal is obviously wrong. 

And one wonders how this emotional appeal changed to make people change their mind. I guess reports of Trumps screwups, misdeeds, etc. had nothing to do with it.

Look I’m a fan of Robert Schiller’s work. Asset price bubbles happen because people are often driven by emotion and herd mentality etc. But, then at some point reality sets in. The rational exuberance may go on for quite awhile, but then the bubble pops. 

Let’s be thankful that Trump doesn’t have the ability to shut down the press and silence his critics. Though the US is not all that great when it comes to freedom of the press compared to some other countries. Finally, even if your preferred speech regulations had been made law, that is no guarantee that would have stopped Trump from winning. Maybe some kind of regulation combats the extreme supporters and nuttjobs at the margin.
 

[Ran]

48 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't disagree with any of this, and yet I can also see how trans people might be wary. A lot of harm has been done by bigotry masquerading as science, and that has unfortunately poisoned the well for those who genuinely want to explore and understand how best to assist those who express a desire to transition.

Absolutely agreed with this. I don't question wariness or skepticism, especially considering history.

 

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

I can't say you're wrong, and yet, I have heard, maybe incorrectly, that with these things there is a window of opportunity that, once closed, never reopens. If that is the case, waiting may not always be a healthy option. I think the law has to tread very carefully here--it seems to be it is hard enough to be trans without having activists and officials telling you what you need.

I'd like to hear from the trans members of the board on this topic. 

Adolescence is a thing that happens. We have no control over it, you get one of them in your life and thats it. Puberty blockers prevent us going through the wrong puberty, and theyre accepted as an interim measure, but even that stalling measure still has an impact on our adolescence. A few years can be managed, more than a few years and you're going to be developmentally too far behind your peers and those are years you'll never get back. 

I didn't get even that option, I got my body poisoned and tainted by something that made me hate life for 15-20 years, has left me suppressing memories of what is still more than half of my life, and I missed the formative experiences of queer female youth. I get to live the rest of my life with this gaping void of anger and regret that I can never have that, there is no way I can take any of that back. I also get to have all my relationships with family and friends tainted - entirely on my end, through no fault of theirs - by my awareness that they'll always see a mix of me and who I pretended to be instead of just seeing me. That makes me uncomfortable and it reduces my enjoyment and comfort of seeing them. On top of it all by the time I got to look and be myself, I had a couple of years and then my health has gone to shit with chronic illness.

So yes, there is a limited window of opportunity and making us miss it has a cost. Thank you for recognising the need to ask us, any anger in this post isn't at you - its the anger that is with me always at what I lost.