[cmilton]

While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.

[afavour]

The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.

[lelanthran]

You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.

[LexiMax]

> transgender treatments

The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues."

Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

[xethos]

This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though. This is "Will the American State and Federal government impose an increasingly stringent moral compass on the wider internet, over time"

Which... the VISA-Mastercard duopoly, backed by American soft power and with an American moral compass, already rather proves that point for anyone that's ever tried to pay for erotica outside the mainstream

[LexiMax]

> This isn't an "I believe..." / "Do you believe..." kind of issue though.

I asked because I wanted to get a sense on if he conflating the two by accident, or if it was an attempt to steer the conversation away from free speech concerns.

[frumplestlatz]

Let’s be clear about what you mean when you say “outside the mainstream”, because that innocuous turn of phrase is doing a lot of work to cover what you’re really saying.

Visa and MasterCard disallow content depicting CSA, rape, incest, bestiality, necrophilia, scatological erotica, torture, extreme sexual violence, and revenge porn.

[xethos]

Equivocating child sexual abuse with the dude drawing consentual fan-fic or furry porn feels disingenuous at best, and more like bad faith though.

Because you're not wrong, the mainstream is fairly narrow, but to say the credit card duopoly excludes only the most heinous and vile imagery that can only barely be covered under "artistic expression" isn't exactly an entirely accurate depiction of reality.

[lelanthran]

> The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues."

You don't think that transgender treatments is a transgender issue? If you think it is then my response is perfectly on-topic.

> Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you can't target to kids. Why should there be a special exemption for this?

Besides, my belief on this is irrelevant; the only transgender issue that has gotten pushback en-masse from the clear majority of people world wide has been transgender treatments on minors.

IOW, this (treatment for persons unable to give informed consent) is a very unpopular position.

[ddq]

[flagged]

[mystraline]

[flagged]

[lelanthran]

> Infant circumcision is proof people don't actually give a fuck about informed consent. You can perform genital alteration surgery on all the baby boys you want and nobody bats an eye.

Right, and my argument is "We should stop things like that" while your argument is "we should do more things like that".

Which sounds more reasonable to you?

[LexiMax]

> Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you can't target to kids. Why should there be a special exemption for this?

Because the idea that the only acceptable gender norms a kid is allowed to be exposed to and express is the one tied to their genes is frankly a ridiculous concept.

There's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls. If you don't believe that harmless message should reach the ears of kids, then why? What is in that sort of message that you're afraid of?

[bluefirebrand]

> There's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls. If you don't believe that harmless message should reach the ears of kids, then why?

I fully agree there's nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls

I think the idea that a boy wearing dresses and playing with dolls must automatically be trans is actually very harmful and I do oppose that message reaching anyone

[umanwizard]

“There’s nothing wrong with boys wearing dresses and playing with dolls” is true, but it’s a very dishonest summary of what the transgender movement advocates for.

A more honest example would be something like “children with a male anatomy might actually be girls, depending not on physical but rather on psychological characteristics (i.e. ‘gender identity’)”. That’s a completely different claim, and one that fewer people would agree with, so your post is more or less a motte and bailey.

[lelanthran]

> What is in that sort of message that you're afraid of?

Your line questioning is sort of revealing that this only points you are wishing to score. I have, after all, not taken a position on targeted messages at children (I only pointed out that there are still restrictions on messages targeted to children).

I have already clarified that the specific contentious "transgender issue" is "transgender treatment", and that the clear majority of people all over the world are opposed to that specific "transgender issue".

I have not taken any position on whether or not children should be targeted with messages across the spectrum, ranging from the extreme on one end "It's okay for boys to play with dolls", to the extreme on the other "You will be happier after castration".

The reason I have not taken any position on messages is because of the many times proponents use the former as examples of what the rules should allow while ignoring that the rule they are championing also allows the latter message.

My position on the messages that children are to hear will always depend on the specific message. This is because children (even some young adults to, TBH) are impressionable!

If I had adopted your method of arguing for/against a point, I would have asked "Why are you so afraid of having your access to children cut off?" but I did not. Since you appear to be arguing your point in bad faith, I'm just going to go ahead and ask it.

If you had any faith that your message was the correct one you wouldn't be on the internet arguing for access to other people's children.

Why are you so afraid of having the easily impressionable in society prevented from seeing your message? Are you really afraid that if you don't get to imprint them with your message at the correct age they might never buy it as an adult?

[Hikikomori]

So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?

[lelanthran]

> So majority chooses what healthcare options are available?

You sound surprised, so maybe you really don't know this: this state of affairs is how it's always been, and is likely to continue well into the future.

The government regulates all medicines, all medical procedures, and all medical practices.

It's literally one of the many jobs of government.

[AaronAPU]

But what if they ban something like robbery? Then the robbers won’t be able to rob things, thus depriving them of their right to choose robbery.

[brookst]

Government run did not always mean majority ruled. Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion. In today’s US, we’re trending toward enforcing minority opinions about e.g. vaccines.

[lelanthran]

> Government run did not always mean majority ruled.

Right.

> Many times rights of the minority have been ruled to be important, as in cases like abortion.

Correct, but it was with the agreement of the majority of voters! IOW, the majority opinion still prevailed.

We are not talking about tyranny of the minority by the majority; your example is literally the majority agreeing that those specific minorities rights be granted to them.

TBH, the opposition that we are seeing is opposition to medical intervention on minors who by definition alone cannot give informed consent.

Stop fighting that battle and I guarantee that this entire "issue" turns into a nothing-burger.

There is no reason to argue for medical interventions on someone who is unable to consent.

[schrodinger]

I'm going to assume you're asking in good faith, and the short answer is yes — this is already happening!

Before engaging in what could be a huge discussion here, I suggest you do some quick searching about legal risks of performing life-saving abortion procedures, gender-affirming care for prison inmates, and workplaces choosing whether the health insurance they provide employees covers gender-affirming care as starting points to learn about the sad state of affairs.

[kennywinker]

Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available?

The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will

[Manuel_D]

"Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. The core issue at hand is that absent puberty blockers, somewhere between 60-80% do not persist with a cross-sex gender identity after going through their natal puberty. Psychologists attempted to predict which patients would persist in a cross sex gender identity and which would not, but they were never able to do so.

When patients are given puberty blockers, desistence rates are miniscule, in the single digits. Proponents of hormonal intervention insist that this is proof that doctors are selecting kids that would persist in a cross sex gender absent blockers. But that's hard to reconcile with psychologists previous failures to predict persistence. While they're billed as giving "time to think", it's pretty much impossible to deny that blockers are causing patients who would have desisted in their cross sex gender identity if they went through their natal puberty.

It's not just conservative American States that are changing course on blockers for children: Finland, Sweden, the UK, Italy, Denmark, and Norway have all stopped prescription of blockers in children. Plenty of other countries never allowed it in the first place.

[heavyset_go]

The effects of puberty prevent people who are trans from living as their gender identities. Why bother when you'll need $400k in surgery post-puberty just for a chance to maybe look your gender?

If you ask trans people, "it's too late to live as my gender" is a common sentiment. You even see it in the gay community, where gay/bi people who come to acceptance of their sexualities late in life, feel like it's "too late" to live with that identity, and choose to continue to live and identify as straight people.

Hence the option for puberty blockers.

Turns out trans people will opt to go through the puberty that matches their gender if the opportunity arises, just as more people come out gay/bi/etc at an earlier age now that the opportunity arose.

[Manuel_D]

People can, and do, transition as adults. Natal puberty clearly does not prevent all people from transitioning. Effectively 100% of trans people prior to about 2010 transitioned as adults.

Same thing with gay people, as per your example. I'm sure some do remain closeted their entire lives. But plenty of them come out as gay later in life.

[Dylan16807]

> "Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers.

That is an extremely generous interpretation. I think you're giving way too much credit to the average person that uses that argument.

Also I really have to wonder how much of that desistance is giving up versus actually being satisfied.

[Manuel_D]

What do you mean by "giving up"? These patients have the opportunity to transition later in life. Patients were followed up with for 10+ years, well past puberty and into adulthood. The minority that persisted transitioned as adults.

[wreedtyt]

It seems like you're referring to a specific study, could you link it?

[Manuel_D]

A multitude of studies, not just one. This is the review covering the outcomes of gender dysphoric children who aren't given blockers:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44546443

[lelanthran]

> Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available?

We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.)

The government, for good or bad, regulates all healthcare, and that government is guided by its voters.

The majority of voters don't see this as a bigger problem than the issue they are currently voting on.

[kennywinker]

> We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.)

As someone else pointed out, the idea of gov deciding what our doctors can and cant give us is a VERY modern concept.

But your examples: arsnic & crack

1. Cocaine is legal for doctors to prescribe and use in specific circumstances. What is legally prohibited is recreational use. Most of the restrictions on use are due to the threat of addiction, not the threat of appropriate medical use.

2. Arsnic is similarly entirely legal for medical use. Restrictions are around putting it in FOOD because it’s POISON. Nobody is saying you can’t treat cancer with it, if it’s shown to be effective.

Your examples are not examples of the majority regulating medical care for individuals.

[thaumasiotes]

> We've always done so - popular opinion as reflected by the voters dictate that you aren't getting a prescription for arsenic (anymore? Or crack cocaine, for that matter.)

That began in 1906; it's hardly something we've "always done".

[bobbruno]

> society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography

Once a significant part of said society can't (or won't) differentiate sexual education and intimacy from pornography, I don't think your statement holds true anymore.

[rocqua]

Those bans are leaky, and physical. They aren't censorship, and (almost?) Exclusively ban services or sale of goods to underage people. They are also costly to implement, and require a lot of state effort to enforce.

These digital checks, if done "right". Are cheap to implement, and hard to get around. They don't easily let adults allow a kid to do it anyway. And a government can trivially check if a whole swath of businesses is implementating it.

That last point makes it very easy for governments to use this for widespread ideological interventions. With very little option for others to push back, because few people are involved in enforcement.

[eqvinox]

> we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. […] a society decide […]

Which society though? It used to be that political decisionmaking understood and accepted the existence of people not like the voting majority, and work to a common consensus… that's rather eroded now, and not just in the USA.

> Obviously, there should be limits.

Obviously? The only thing I'd accept as "obvious" in terms of speech limits is that which is actively violating people, e.g. CSAM, revenge porn and doxxing.

Raunchy stories? Porn with consenting participants? Fictional horror & gore? Those are not "obvious" limits…

…and then consider nude selfies exchanged consensually between 15yo teens. Is that CSAM?

[sophrosyne42]

A society doesn't decide and can't decide, society is an abstraction. People have different morals, and they decide. The only thing that "putting it in the hands of society" is to put it in the hands of a small group of people who will force others to comply.

[tayo42]

What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.

[cls59]

Many businesses in the US check ID at the door. If you are underage, they don't let you in.

On the surface it seems reasonable to ask for an equivalent ID check online.

But. The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it in a poorly secured back room that is regularly raided by criminal enterprises or outright sold by unscrupulous owners of the establishment. Similarly, they don't check in with the government in a manner that leaves a record.

I'm fine with an ID check, but I think it is also reasonable to demand the same level of privacy that one gets when visiting a bar, casino, burlesque club, or similar establishment.

[inkyoto]

> The bouncer doesn't photocopy my ID and store it […]

It simply means that it has not arrived in your vicinity yet. In Sydney (Australia, not Canada), whilst most venues are satisfied with quick visual checks of one's face / ID for anyone who looks young, some venues have equipped the bouncers with iPads that run an app dedicated to taking one's face picture and recording the government issued ID details (driver licence number, residential address and particulars – all of them! or no entry). I have had an argument with them a couple of times where the bouncers refused to say – and pretty aggressiveley so – how the PII is handled, who will own it after handing it over, and how to delete it. I simply walked away each and every time, and I no longer approach the venues that record the ID details.

Frankly, the erosion of privacy in western countries is reaching epic proportions, with incumbent governments making substantial efforts to get into one's colon against the citizen's wish.

[charcircuit]

They just take a picture with a phone or tablet. The reason you don't see people using photocopiers because there are better options.

[cls59]

I've never encountered a bouncer taking pictures of an ID. They check it, using a flashlight if needed, and wave you in.

[627467]

I take you never been to alcohol/tobacco websites

[duskwuff]

I don't think I've ever seen one with an age gate stricter than "please enter your date of birth".

[DangitBobby]

R rated movies for one.

[duskwuff]

Absolutely not "banned". Movie theaters customarily won't let children under 17 into R-rated films without a parent, but there's no law that I'm aware of enforcing that - it's purely an industry custom. And there's certainly no analogous restriction when purchasing an R-rated DVD, or watching one on a streaming service.

[DangitBobby]

Oh wild. Learn something new every day. I worked at a movie theater myself and totally thought it was a law that people under 18 had to be accompanied by a guardian by law.

[jasonfarnon]

The very reason this isn't legally enforced is because industry self-regulated this way (to avoid legislation that would come with actual liability). If the Internet made any effort at self-regulation beyond "say, you're over 18, right?" perhaps we wouldn't be in this situation.

[cowboylowrez]

logistics for age checks are much easier for a movie theater.