[a_shovel]

A lot of the terminology Money coined is still in use because it is perfectly serviceable and it describes the experience of many trans people decently well. Ultimately, the validity of an idea is not dependent on whether the person who first proposed it was a horrible bastard or not.

> "It's not gonna lick itself" and men in fishnets running around

Everyone in that video is more covered up than any woman at the beach, and if innuendo that kids won't understand is unacceptable to you, then basicly every animated kids' movie from the past twenty years would disagree.

> please go read /r/detrans

Please go read these statistics. https://journals.lww.com/prsgo/fulltext/2021/03000/regret_af...

There's a trend of anti-trans detrans people (this distinction is necessary, as not all detransitioned people hold the same opinions as those on /r/detrans) who describe genital surgery in a way completely different from what transgender people report. "Neo-vaginas" do not "fester", they don't require "lifelong" dilation, and those who've spoken about it assure us that they are perfectly functional for all relevant purposes (if you know what I mean).

> Its obvious that "validating" them is only a minimal, temporary solution, if even that.

Here's another study for you to read. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Sometimes we have to make do with anecdotes when there isn't enough data on a topic, but "is gender-affirming healthcare beneficial" is absolutely not one of those topics.

[Slighted]

The terminology is not perfectly serviceable. Note how in my previous post I referenced his experiment, calling it a complete failure. The term "gender" came into existence because Money believed that a biological male could be "socially female" through surgical intervention and social influence. That obviously didn't work because the child refused to believe he was female and eventually committed suicide, as did his brother who was forced into sexual intercourse with him. This is what "gender" is based off of. Male and female roles have been dynamic throughout human history but both sexes maintained distinct sex-related behaviors from one another despite this fact.

>Everyone in that video is more covered up than any woman at the beach, and if innuendo that kids won't understand is unacceptable to you, then basicly every animated kids' movie from the past twenty years would disagree.

The human body isn't inherently sexual, as evidenced by ancient humans and various current societies, so its not a matter of coverage but rather a matter of context and purpose (of the particular types of clothing used in that video). You are either extraordinarily ignorant, malicious, or both if you don't think that men dressed up as sexual versions of women along with sexual innuendo "It's not gonna lick itself" on the wall in a bar/nightclub is a bad place for children to be.

>Please go read these statistics...

>Here's another study for you to read...

There are so many problems with simply linking individual (confirmation-bias-fueled cherry-picked) studies that I'm not even going to bother touching this.

The big "seeing the forest rather than the trees" idea that needs to be known is that mental illness is rampant in trans people and communities (aside from the transgenderism itself) and suicide rates are extremely high. "Neo-vaginas" do not have the same faculties as a normal vagina to maintain their cleanliness and will attempt to heal themselves over time unless dilated (As they are nothing more than glorified puncture wounds). Those that manage to de-transition rather than committing suicide are overwhelmingly regretful and suffer from numerous health-related issues.

[a_shovel]

In your terminology, (one definition of) Gender is the idea that the social/cultural aspects of sex are distinct from its physiological aspects. What the failure of Money's experiment showed was that one cannot intentionally alter the gender of someone else through medical or social means--in other words, that conversion therapy does not work. You say that the terminology is "not serviceable" but don't actually explain how it fails.

> There are so many problems with simply linking individual (confirmation-bias-fueled cherry-picked) studies that I'm not even going to bother touching this.

The closest you've gotten to citing a source is a link to a subreddit. You are in no position to dismiss multiple scientific studies you haven't read as "cherry-picked."