Treatments for trans children and politics, world-wide

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

The problem is that anyone who questions this topic in ANY way is labeled as TERF or transphobic. 

I think the problem is that there are several people who are questioning this topic in many ways who are acting precisely like a transphobe. As an example, recommending segregation when there are a crazy amount of ways to allow for people to participate is clearly not questioning this topic in 'any' way; it's clearly siding with the notion that you simply don't want that person to be part of the group. And maybe that's not transphobic directly, but it is exactly what transphobes are proposing. 

Also, I don't really think that the actual problem is that people who question this are labeled as transphobic. I think that the problem is that a whole lot of trans people are getting the message that they are not welcome in basic parts of society, and a whole lot of those people are looking at allies who are also throwing them out because of concerns of 'fairness'. The labeling is not nearly the actual problem. 

I'll also note the cleverness of framing this in terms of fairness. For most conservatives simply being able to block folks because they're trans is more than enough from a purity/ingroup perspective, but liberals famously favor fairness. Doing this argument this way means many liberals will then be real concerned about restricting people's access in terms of being fair. 

 

 

[BigFatCoward]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, I don't really think that the actual problem is that people who question this are labeled as transphobic. I think that the problem is that a whole lot of trans people are getting the message that they are not welcome in basic parts of society, 

I'll also note the cleverness of framing this in terms of fairness. For most conservatives simply being able to block folks because they're trans is more than enough from a purity/ingroup perspective, but liberals famously favor fairness. Doing this argument this way means many liberals will then be real concerned about restricting people's access in terms of being fair. 

 

 

The Olympics/high end sports isn't a basic part of society. 

Maybe, people aren't thinking about it that cynically and they really do just think fairness is really important. 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The Olympics/high end sports isn't a basic part of society. 

Yet it's crucial to make this a major issue?

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Maybe, people aren't thinking about it that cynically and they really do just think fairness is really important. 

Oh, I don't think that people like you are thinking about it that cynically, but I'm far more confident that the folks who are framing these attacks at the higher levels are doing this. They might not be studying Haidt et al, but they'll be doing it this way because their focus groups and studies indicate that this messaging is more effective at getting more people involved than doing other things. That's just the nature of these kinds of attacks. They aren't coming organically from the world; the trans attacks are part of a coordinated, well-funded effort. 

ETA: the other aspect of it that we were talking about before - the puberty blockers - is another good one that tends to trigger liberals real well, the notion of causing harm. Another masterful technique to get more people on board. 

Edited April 25 by Kalbear

[DaveSumm]

Nevermind.

Edited April 25 by DaveSumm

[maarsen]

Anybody looking to enforce their viewpoint onto the rest of the community because the rest of the community is WRONG! in believing in something different, whether it is religion, the books they read, how they dress, or even what they put on a tuna sandwich.

[Tears of Lys]

Well that was very enlightening.  Don't consider fairness because there is a vast conspiracy that uses it as a tool to confound liberals. 

It must have worked because I'm feeling confounded.  

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said:

Well that was very enlightening.  Don't consider fairness because there is a vast conspiracy that uses it as a tool to confound liberals. 

It must have worked because I'm feeling confounded.  

I didn't say that, but thanks!

No, it's important to understand why this issue in particular might be especially important to you. And one of the reasons is that it triggers your moral outrage around fairness. This is the same principles behind things like sharing false stories or getting engagement on social media or any number of things. I absolutely believe that you feel fairness is an important issue, possibly one of the most important things you personally can consider. The trick is that other people know that too. And they will absolutely use that to get you engaged. 

And it isn't a vast conspiracy; it's just marketing. Marketing people understand these viewpoints either directly or effectively via testing of messages. They do revisions of the messaging all the time along with opinion tests, and then they hit on things that affect more people the way they want to. Do you think they don't? Do you think that every Republican out there harping on the fairness of athletics for women vs trans women happened in a vacuum, and they all just magically came to that conclusion? How do you think that Republicans get their talking points? 

 

[Ran]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, it's important to understand why this issue in particular might be especially important to you.

But, Kal, why is this issue in particular of particular importance to you?

You're basically a sheep engaged by political marketing talking (in your view) to other sheep who are also engaged by political marketing, but you're still just a sheep, so ... why should anyone actually listen to anything you're saying? You're not an island of rationality in a vacuum. You're highly politically motivated, as anyone who looks at any random page of the US politics thread will see, so it seems you've fallen into the very trap you're tut-tutting about.

 It's a really strange thing. I assume you are very much aware of it, but it seems to make any discussion futile because you're now no longer in the position of someone offering your own reasoning or views, but rather in the position of someone who is repeating someone else's reasoning because their marketing has hooked you.

Edited April 25 by Ran

[Tears of Lys]

Interesting viewpoint.  I'm becoming less confounded.

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

But, Kal, why is this issue in particular of particular importance to you?

Because I have friends who are trans. Probably not a lot more than that, honestly. 

1 hour ago, Ran said:

You're basically a sheep engaged by political marketing talking (in your view) to other sheep who are also engaged by political marketing, but you're still just a sheep, so ... why should anyone actually listen to anything you're saying? You're not an island of rationality in a vacuum. You're highly politically motivated, as anyone who looks at any random page of the US politics thread will see, so it seems you've fallen into the very trap you're tut-tutting about. 

Didn't say I wasn't! To be clear I'm not saying that you can't have rational viewpoints on something, only that you care more about something because of those marketing hooks. This isn't the same as following something blindly because other people are telling you to, exactly; it's that you are more engaged about certain things because of these manipulations. 

And that, in turn, makes it more likely for you to make less rational decisions because  they are triggering your moral responses. 

But no, I don't claim to be an island of rationality in a vacuum. I only claim that there are specific reasons why such an incredibly minor issue - of trans people in professional sports, of which there is maybe 1 if you look kinda sideways at it - causes such an emotional reaction in people to restrict those specific people's ability to participate, and that's because it plays into some of liberal's natural biases. 

Again, there is a difference between taking the spoon-fed narratives that sides are giving you (which is what I think you think I'm talking about) and having a visceral and emotional response to specific arguments because of your moral leanings. 

1 hour ago, Ran said:

 It's a really strange thing. I assume you are very much aware of it, but it seems to make any discussion futile because you're now no longer in the position of someone offering your own reasoning or views, but rather in the position of someone who is repeating someone else's reasoning because their marketing has hooked you.

Ultimately it's something I'm constantly thinking about, and I'm sure I get it wrong some times. Something I do regularly is that if I see myself reacting strongly to something - especially something really positive - I deliberately step back from it and pause significantly before responding or engaging. I don't know everyone does that, and more importantly I don't know a whole lot of people are conscious of how specific things may engage them more than others. 

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

You're basically a sheep engaged by political marketing talking (in your view) to other sheep who are also engaged by political marketing, but you're still just a sheep, so ... why should anyone actually listen to anything you're saying? You're not an island of rationality in a vacuum. You're highly politically motivated, as anyone who looks at any random page of the US politics thread will see, so it seems you've fallen into the very trap you're tut-tutting about.

One of the ways in which I have matured over time is that I no longer assume that people who have a opinions I disagree with, even opinions I think are ill-formed and absurd, are either fooled or evil. There is comfort in thinking so; the world makes sense when you figure that your opponents are either blind or base. Those are easy-to-understand explanations that enable you to quickly close the book.

The world makes a lot less sense when you consider the possibility that some people aren't stupid, or malign, and they're not puppets dancing on the strings of some cosmic Karl Rove. They have odd life experiences, or different values, or personal idiosyncracies, all of which combine to produce convictions that don't always seem to add up. 

For myself, I assume that people actually believe what they say they believe, and go from there. Just because they aren't thinking like me doesn't mean they aren't thinking.

Edited April 26 by TrackerNeil

[Kalbear]

That would have hit harder if you had actually read what I said instead of ignoring it or if you had read what I said instead of what Ran interpreted it as. 

But keep on assuming I'm saying those specific people are fooled but I'm not, or even that I had a single thing to say about being misled. It is as you say significantly easier to dismiss a point when you ignore it and substitute your own point that you can rebut instead.

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

For myself, I assume that people actually believe what they say they believe, and go from there. Just because they aren't thinking like me doesn't mean they aren't thinking.

doesnt mean they arent thinking, but what "they" think is doing material harm to people, what they belive can have very bad consequences for the people that are actually impacted, like for most of us here this are just abstract discussions on fairness or whatever, but for trans people there are actual stakes, including their lives

[BigFatCoward]

4 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

For most of us here this are just abstract discussions on fairness or whatever, but for trans people there are actual stakes, including their lives

Trans peoples health and safety are at risk for a great many reasons, but they are not at stake just because we don't allow them to play sports, behave.

Unless they get fat and have a heart attack from it. 

 

 

Edited April 26 by BigFatCoward

[Arakasi]

Come on. It’s not hard to see that when you start excluding people from participating in some parts of life that it becomes easier to spread that to other things more important than sports.

[BigFatCoward]

58 minutes ago, Arakasi said:

Come on. It’s not hard to see that when you start excluding people from participating in some parts of life that it becomes easier to spread that to other things more important than sports.

I dont disagree that that may be the case for certain issues. That's not what was said though was it? 

And I don't think saying 'you can't compete in elite sports because the science says you can potentially have a distinct advantage' leads to 'we will take away your medical care or other rights' for example. 

Edited April 26 by BigFatCoward

[polishgenius]

I always feel bad for Karradin when this topic comes up because it always begins with her putting her viewpoint and experience as someone who knows what she's talking about across in the most clear way she can do it and engaging with opposing viewpoints politely and it always ends up with a load of people just shouting at each other past her, without taking on board anything she's said and with no concern for how certain thoughts expressed might impact someone who's living this even though she's telling us.

(I'm not saying I've never been guilty of this but come on guys what are you doing the last few pages here have been horrendous)

 

 

 

Edited April 26 by polishgenius

[karaddin]

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I always feel bad for Karradin when this topic comes up because it always begins with her putting her viewpoint and experience as someone who knows what she's talking about across in the most clear way she can do it and engaging with opposing viewpoints politely and it always ends up with a load of people just shouting at each other past her, without taking on board anything she's said and with no concern for how certain thoughts expressed might impact someone who's living this even though she's telling us.

(I'm not saying I've never been guilty of this but come on guys what are you doing the last few pages here have been horrendous)

Well at least I feel seen now. Thanks.

[BigFatCoward]

34 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I always feel bad for Karradin when this topic comes up because it always begins with her putting her viewpoint and experience as someone who knows what she's talking about across in the most clear way she can do it and engaging with opposing viewpoints politely and it always ends up with a load of people just shouting at each other past her, without taking on board anything she's said and with no concern for how certain thoughts expressed might impact someone who's living this even though she's telling us.

(I'm not saying I've never been guilty of this but come on guys what are you doing the last few pages here have been horrendous)

I'd be happier if this subject went the way of tipping and was banned (lets be honest, nobody has been educated or changed their mind even a teeny tiny bit on either side in the 30 odd times this has been a topic since I joined), not necessarily because I don't want to offend her, she's can take care of herself and I'm sure she absolutely doesn't expect special treatment. 

That being said if people say stuff i disagree with, I'm going to respond, I wish I could leave it alone and be the bigger person, but I just can't. 

Especially when someone says any position other than in their opinion 'the correct one' is transphobic, that really pisses me off. 

Edited April 26 by BigFatCoward

[karaddin]

What I particularly hate is when it seems like the behaviour of non-trans individuals in these threads seems to worsen other peoples attitudes towards trans people, that's just completely illogical and quite relevantly to the discussion - completely unfair.