[Saline9515]

I read the article, it goes in depth to explain cancel culture in campus, its origins, has various testimonies. Cancelling and censorship is a classic of anglo puritanism, which you represent well in this discussion.

Same for Peterson, you can argue as you want, the article says that he would be fined for not calling someone with their invented pronouns. And yes, that's how he got famous since it gave him media coverage. I'm not discussing his intellectual merits here, but freedom of speech. I don't think that you have the ability to separate topics, so it's kind of pointless.

Trans issues are a very good case of why we need freedom of speech, and why threatening to kill people who do not agree with you is rather bad? It deals with underaged people at a time they are vulnerable, the evidence regarding the treatments is rather weak and it was ultra marginal before media gave it a large positive coverage.

And yes, a father saying that his daughter shouldn't have to share showers or toilets with biological men is totally reasonable in his freedom of speech to say it.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> it goes in depth to explain cancel culture in campu

which is why it opens up with its most harrowing tale, to really grip the readers attention. The black tie christmas invites of upper middle class chemical undergrads

> the article says that he would be fined for not calling someone with their invented pronouns.

the law however did not. It was adding gender expression to the list of protected categories. Which their neighbours in america had since 1964. No one in america in 1965 was being fined for not using made up pronouns, they just werent fired for being openly gay.

Bill C-16 has a wikipedia page and its super easy to read, the fact that Jordan peterson was bad at reading, is no excuse for you to follow suit.

> I'm not discussing his intellectual merits here,

would make for a short discussion

> It deals with underaged people at a time they are vulnerable,

Its funny you birng up anglo puritanism and then throw a random "will someone think of the children" plea.

99% of trans issues have nothing to do with minors, gender dysphoria can start in puberty but most pathological symptoms tend to become needing of intervention in early twenties mid twenties.

access to work, home, education, healthcare and public spaces are most of the concerns of trans people. A population who have shown absolutely no historical pattern of problematic behaviour, whose research shows repeatedly that they are normal humans and whose ostracising has led to countless problems both for them and people around them.

Its not that different from the left handed hate from years ago. And tying kids hands behind their back and forcing them to be right handed caused stuttering, suicides and long term education problems. not sure how denying that trans people exist is not gonna end up just as badly.

> the evidence regarding the treatments is rather weak

in what universe? Lets start with some stats, 96% of people do not regret transitioning which is the highest acceptance rate of any medical treatment (people who had transplants of live saving organs regret at 6-8% for example)

transitioning has shown to reduce suicide rates by 300% of people who suffer from gender dysphoria. reduced depression on similar rates.

Happiness surverys show overall increase in life satisfaction post transition for people suffering from gender dysphoria.

Like what "evidence" are we missing, when the treatments have been known for a century and the results are conclusive on every single country that offers them?

> it was ultra marginal before media gave it a large positive coverage.

You have it backwards. it is still ultra marginal and the media who started covering it was not positive, it was a orchestrated think tank choice to go after trans rights. It began in 2013 when overall american opinion on gay rights flipped, suddenly going after gay marriage was a vote loser instead of winner so they pivoted to trans rights. Groups like Atlas, or the heritage foundation have open papers on it. Same with other terms like DEI or Critical Race Theory they are all openly created narratives by think tanks with predicated interests that extend far beyond the thing being attacked.

> And yes, a father saying that his daughter shouldn't have to share showers or toilets with biological men is totally reasonable in his freedom of speech to say it.

And I would love to see the explanation of what "biological male" means, cause I think 99% of people stopped reading biology in 4th grade and perhaps do not understand how complicated shit is.

Should we have someone in the door of showers and bathrooms doing check ups on which bits people have before they shower? Would a father be happier with her kid having her bits inspected "for her safety", cause that has happened. Bathroom laws in america meant that the police get called (usually on uglier women, or butch lesbian, poc women, hairy women, taller women) and they need to "prove" they can enter that bathroom.

also transmen exist, would a father be happy with someone who looks 100% like a man walking into the shower because of his assigned sex at birth?

Its almost like "totally reasonable" gets complicated fast, and you just let a dude walk into the loo and your daughter have her knickers inspected all to protect her from something that isnt happening. Great job dad

[Saline9515]

Sources for your allegations ? The statistics I saw, showed in contrary an increase in suicide rates. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11063965/

Even if it was lower, I'm not sure that it's the right treatment. Of course, cutting arms will solve most finger infections, but it isn't likely to be the best way to treat it.

By the way, UK supreme court defined what is a biological sex: the one you had when you were born. Sounds fascist, right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t

And yes, if there are spaces for girls only, it's for a reason, and one of them is to keep perverts away. But I guess that the rights of those girls do not count, either.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> Sources for your allegations ?

not an allegation. You should avoid big words if you dont know what they mean.

> The statistics I saw, showed in contrary an increase in suicide rates. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11063965/

Surgery is not a common part of transitioning. Transitioning treatment, which is what I said, is usually a process where the most common plans include hormone replacement therapy, puberty blockers and therapy and lifestyle changes.

If you want actual data on it there was a recent meta study "Suicide-Related outcomes following gender-affirming treatment: A review" by Danial Jackson.

They analysed 23 studies and almost all mention and quantify reduced suicidiliaty, from less ideation, to less attempts, to less overall suicides compared to control groups.

> Even if it was lower, I'm not sure that it's the right treatment

you might not but every doctor association has, and they agree it is.

> Of course, cutting arms will solve most finger infections, but it isn't likely to be the best way to treat it.

cool analogy, but taking reversible pills and going to therapy is not the same as chopping anything off

> UK supreme court defined what is a biological sex: the one you had when you were born.

yeah thats cool and all, except sex assigned at birth is wrong in 1/2000 cases. So 34,000 people in the UK had their sex changed by a doctor after the one they were born due to either error, intersex conditions or nonconclusive genital development.

Btw genital inspection is one 3 ways to "biologically" determine someones sex, the other two are chromosomal make up (XX, XY or intersex) and the third is Phenotipic developemnt (long hair and boobs or beard and bald). The judge does not explain which one he means, but none of those 3 categories are Binary they are all Binomial. I know its not important for the judge, but it is important for biology, so its perhaps important that he would know anything past Grade 6 biology before putting it on a ruling...

> if there are spaces for girls only, it's for a reason, and one of them is to keep perverts away.

and how does this work exactly? Like actually going through the implementation of it. You need to prove you belong in an all womens space, so someone inspects your bits to make sure you belong? Like a little girl wants to go to the loo, but she must first go through the V inspector to make sure she can pee sitting down?

Is this the pervert protected future you imagine?

Transmen going to women only spaces is also gonna be a shitshow regardless of what their birth certificate says

If this guy walked into any women's bathroom they would call the police

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/04/19/dsc_0636_slide-c...

There are almost 0 cases of transpeople being perverts, 99% of them just wanna live their life and just exist. If they go to women spaces is probably to escape from the same problems that women go to those spaces for.

Or do you think this girl is safe in a mens bathroom?

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/euphoria-hbo/images/d/d4/H...

[Saline9515]

I read the study, the author is much less affirmative than you and spends a lot of time explaining that the data is really subpar:

"A dearth of high-quality studies that evaluate outcomes in suicide following gender-affirming treatment poses severe limitations on the extent of claims made during the informed consent process for gender-affirming treatment. An abundance of claims that are not backed by evidence does not represent quality empirical evidence but rather guidelines endorsed by various medical organizations."

Another way of saying that what doctor associations is groupthink rather than evidence-based medicine. Also, you use a classic motte-and-bailey tactic here, to limit treatments to hormonal ones, excluding surgical. Of course, some hormonal treatment symptoms are not reversible.

Regarding young girls, we didn't have problems before. So I don't see why you're looking for a special "method" for this. And whatever the status of trans people, a pervert could well say that he is one to enter in safe spaces for women. We see this already well in sports, and with the obvious, and sometimes dangerous problems associated.

[Arkhaine_kupo]

> Another way of saying that what doctor associations is groupthink rather than evidence-based medicine.

Way to read that in the worst way possible. Their biggest issue was how disparate the data was. I shared that one because it had the largest sample of papers, but there are plenty of other meta studies, and individual studies with the same conclusions

The website "What does scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition" by Cornell university did a review of 55 papers, found 0 that said it caused harm and 93% that said they improved life for trans people.

For an individual paper with good peer review and sample you can read Mental Health outcomes in Transgender and Non binary youth receving gender affirming care by Dana Tondoff, where they found that there was a 73% decrese in suicidicality and 60% decrease in depression.

Like its not group think when no one has done any research showing it does not work and plenty have shown it does

> Also, you use a classic motte-and-bailey tactic here, to limit treatments to hormonal ones, excluding surgical.

its not a tactic, it is literally the most common prescribed treatment for gender dysphoria. its like discussing cancer, teh most common treatments are surgery and chemotherapy. Some people get radiotherapy and they have much worse outcomes, because they were in a worse spot to begin with, not because radiotherapy does not work...

> Regarding young girls, we didn't have problems before.

but according to you all these spaces were created to safe them from perverts. So no problems, other than the rampant perverts?

> So I don't see why you're looking for a special "method" for this.

because you wanna enforce gender discrimination spaces based on genetials. So someone gotta check you got the right ones, or else a pervert could go in. So to "protect" your daughter you now have a way more invasive system than just letting people pee

> And whatever the status of trans people, a pervert could well say that he is one to enter in safe spaces for women

So the problem is not transpeople but perverts pretending to be trans people. So we should punish transpeople to protect girls from the perverts pretending to be trans people. Should we not just deal with the perverts and leave the transpeople alone?

> . We see this already well in sports, and with the obvious, and sometimes dangerous problems associated.

there have been 0 issues with transpeople in sports. The IOC has allowed trans women in the olympics since 2004, they have won 0 medals.

if transitioning was an overt advantage, if transwomen would 100% beat regular women then every medal would be won by a transowman. However its literally never happened.

The only cases of transpeople in sports that get discussed are Lia Thomas, a university swimmer (who won 1 race) and who is like 1 minute behind the best times of Katie Ledecky which is a cis swimmer. And thats about it.

The only scientific review of trans people in sports was done in the US army and they found no significant advantage in strength after 1 year in HRT and only 15% in cardio but the sports assoc always recommend 2 years on HRT and Athletes are 40-70% faster than regular women so transwomen would still be 30-50% slower than them. transitioning also makes you lose 60% of your muscle mass, the controlled test means they suually have lower levels than regular women and the "denser" muscles tend to get tired quicker due to worse oxygenation.

Transwomen in sports is a non issue, and the more it gets repeated the more it proves that the people who are against trans people simply have not thought about for longer than "oh a man shouldnt compete against women" and never again.

An average girl is 5'6, and average man is 5'9 so transwomen should dominate in basketball. Except the average WNBA player is 6'2.

Transwomen will never win in sports because athletes are the end of the tail distribution and transowomen are randomly sampled. A selected sample will always beat a random sample if the distributions are close.

if I have a dice with 5 numbers and I can throw it 100 times and pick the 3 highest, and you have a die that goes up to 6 but you only throw it once, I basically always gonna beat you.