[theprincess]

> Being intersex is very rare and unfortunate, and I am sympathetic to those with such birth defects.

Agnes Torres was not intersex, she was merely classed as such which allowed her to live a normal life. Funny enough, your comment itself shows why this was successful. You see intersex as more legitimate and because of that you "give it a pass."

Agnes Torres was transgender, but was treated as legitimate back in the 1950's. Being treated like a normal human being allowed her to live a good life back then, free from hate.

It goes to show, if people would just allow trans people to live their lives, they could blend in with society. The thing holding them back is just... prejudice. How sad.

[peanutcrisis]

I'm not sure what the situation is like now concerning prejudice towards trans people in the US, but looking from the outside, I'm aware of the incredible amount of bad faith coming from medical and activist organisations from within the US.

For instance, any legitimate discussion or criticism about gender-affirming care, possible social cause that's driving the increase of trans-identifying teenagers (confounded by high rates of autism, mental illness, trauma), or how certain trans rights infringes on women's rights, are framed as "transphobic" by these medical and activist organisation. This would also mean that statements made by countries that are arguably more progressive than the US (i.e. UK and European countries) about the current trans issue would fall into that category as well.

Now, against the backdrop of the capture of cultural institutions by radical activists in the US who share a common foundation (critical social justice), it's hard to be sympathetic towards your claim that prejudice is what's holding them back, when the actions of the medical and activist organisations in the US is consistent with the silencing of valid criticism that other factions of the critical social justice adherents (i.e. race) have a track record of.

In other words, it's hard to believe that the medical and activist organisations in the US are actually acting in good faith; they are weaponising our empathy for marginalised groups to silence legitimate criticisms about a medical scandal and the ideological foundations driving the scandal.

Edit: Anyone of sound mind can clearly evaluate that my point isn't transphobic. The reply to this comment is a demonstration of what's wrong with the US.

[theprincess]

I think you're ideologically motivated, and arguing from a position of emotional distaste for trans people rather than unbiased concern about medical practice. Here's why:

> any legitimate discussion or criticism about gender-affirming care, possible social cause that's driving the increase of trans-identifying teenagers

Trans-identified is a term created by anti-trans activists initially as an "in joke" because calling someone a trans identified male or trans identified female created acronyms that spelled traditionally female and male names: TIM and TIF, where TIM would be applied to trans women and TIF would be applied to trans men. A group that is serious about improving the world wouldn't choose their terminology so as to make fun of or harass people. A hate group would.

> or how certain trans rights infringes on women's rights

It's not at all clear that trans rights infringe on women's rights. The right to segregate yourself from elements of the population that you find distasteful isn't guaranteed. Otherwise we'd still have Jim Crow laws in the American South and lesbians would still be barred from women's sports due to concerns about them being predatory in locker rooms - yes this was a big concern in the 1980's.

> the capture of cultural institutions by radical activists

This is conspiratorial thinking. "Institutions" are made up of individuals and operate under some guiding principles. They aren't captured like territories in a game of risk.

> This would also mean that statements made by countries that are arguably more progressive than the US (i.e. UK and European countries) about the current trans issue would fall into that category as well.

The UK and EU have different politics than the US. They are economically more egalitarian, but socially can be very conservative.

> it's hard to believe that the medical and activist organisations in the US are actually acting in good faith

Why would you conflate medical and activist organizations? Isn't it possible that you are the activist, and that you'd like to bend medical organizations to your will because they disagree with your own prejudices?

> Anyone of sound mind can clearly evaluate that my point isn't transphobic. The reply to this comment is a demonstration of what's wrong with the US.

Saying that nobody can disagree with you unless they are mentally unwell, and then calling someone who disagreed with you an example of "what's wrong with the US" is very odd behavior. It doesn't seem like the way someone operating in good faith would behave.

[mckern]

I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I'm not the "activist" you accused me of being, or the conspiracy theorist/covert "right winger" you're trying to paint me as. I clarify my position here [0].

>Saying that nobody can disagree with you unless they are mentally unwell, and then calling someone who disagreed with you an example of "what's wrong with the US" is very odd behavior. It doesn't seem like the way someone operating in good faith would behave.

I don't see how I acted in bad faith. However, it appears that your comment is an odd interpretation of the additional remarks I added to my original comment. Perhaps my command of english isn't as good as I thought (I'm not in the anglosphere), or perhaps, you're the one acting in bad faith and giving a convoluted take on my remarks. Regardless, allow me to clarify; "Feggal" replied to my original comment, accusing me of being a "transphobe" and claims that he's going to tattle to Dang for my alleged transgressions. The additional remark I added to my original comment was meant to extend the original points I made about how a particular group of ideologically motivated people are contaminating the conversation, and how "Feggal"'s ad-hominem reply is an example of that. I hope this clarifies things.

Lastly, I'm not interested in entertaining any more ad-hominem attacks. For anyone reading this thread, allow me to point you to this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[1], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet. You figure out the discrepancy in claims between the BMJ and that of the medical associations and activist organisations in the US, and decide which of the both is the conspiratorial one.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36684221

[1] https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p382