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
> 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.
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.
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.
I believe that happens for other reasons though. No law is telling Visa/Mastercard to prohibit payments to furry artists. They have some risk model that says it’s not good business and additionally pressure from advertising partners to not have their logo near that stuff.
> 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.
I used to feel the same way about prisoners, but there are plenty of arguments that they’re not slaves. The one that convinced me was that you can’t buy a prisoner, for example. Ditto for children (most of the time).
The trouble about laws involving children is that you’re up against every parent who has a child. By default they’ll err on protection, because our biology says that’s the safest thing to do. But as you say, that’s not always the best approach.
Male circumcision is an interesting one. The correct thing to do isn’t to say "here’s an example of something screwed up" as a way to justify something else; instead, ban the screwed up thing.
Personally, I hope it’ll be banned one day. I once asked my dad whether I was circumcised. He laughed and said haven’t you looked? I still have no idea whether I am. Now I’d rather not know.
> The one that convinced me was that you can’t buy a prisoner, for example
So slavery has taken MANY forms throughout history - the form most people are familiar with is american chattel slavery “a form of slavery where individuals are treated as personal property and can be bought, sold, or owned indefinitely”. There are lots of other forms of slavery many that don’t including purchasing humans, and the US prison labour system is slavery beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Why beyond the shadow of a doubt? Because the 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
Also, since the US prison system allows prison labour to be sold to private corporations, you can actually buy a prisoner’s forced labour.
13th amendment explicitly permits slavery as a punishment for a crime. And, you can definitely buy time manufacturing with prison labor.
Now, you're probably confusing chattel slavery as the only form of slavery, of which you buy and sell humans as property. There are other types, now predominantly slavery by the state (as punishment of a crime).
As for children, it definitely looks like a slave-owner type arrangement.
I have absolutely no clue about circumcision in the bible. But if it's in there WHY would it be, there's probably a reason that they figured out overtime and the benefits. There is an abundance of literature and well formed research to indicate the benefits of circumcision. It's not at all unlikely that people 1000s of years ago figured that out too, especially during a time when there were far fewer hygiene options.
The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence. As evidenced by the lower rates in the US despite the much poorer healthcare than in European countries, particularly the Nordics that choose not to embrace science and advocate for circumcision.
Lobotomies were also once considered solid science, but our views change over time. That people did it millennia ago isn’t really a persuasive point.
Would you mind citing some of the research supporting that it’s a good idea to take a knife to a baby’s penis? (Sometimes it feels like the word "circumcision" is a nice way to sidestep the implications.)
It seems strange to blame infant penises for higher cancer rates, but if there’s science to support the claim, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
On the other hand, perhaps a higher cancer rate would be worth it. The question is, how much higher?
If that is the reasoning behind allowing infant circumcision, then there should be no argument against puberty blockers. It is proven to be beneficial to a person's quality of life if they suffer from gender dysphoria.
I'm not sure what my personal opinion is on the topic, since I'm principally against infant circumcision. But I have less problems with puberty blockers, since it can still be reversed once a person is old enough to give consent.
> The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence. As evidenced by the lower rates in the US despite the much poorer healthcare than in European countries, particularly the Nordics that choose not to embrace science and advocate for circumcision.
Interesting, I would like to see that evidence. Specially when compared with the vaccination against HPV. Because, as far as I'm aware, that's by far the best way to prevent cervical cancer.
If you want to cut off your foreskin, do it as an adult. Some other procedures to consider for additional health benefits:
- You can also decide to cauterize the nailbeds on your toes to get lifelong protection against ingrown toenails.
- You can preemptively put metal crowns over all your teeth to protect them from tooth decay - metals are stronger than enamel!
- You can also remove all your body hair with laser treatments, to get protection from ingrown hairs - those can get badly infected!
- You can also tattoo your blood type on your chest, like they did in the SS, to save precious time in case you need blood transfusion while unconscious.
You can do all of these things to yourself, as an adult with informed consent. But don't do it to infants.
> 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".
> 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?
> 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
“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.
My overarching question - the one that started this comment chain - explicitly mentioned gender expression and gender identity. It has been brought up by me several other times in this comment thread. I am not hiding what this discussion is ultimately about.
> 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?
>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".
Mere gender non-conformity isn't enough for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, despite what you're claiming. These are the DSM criteria for diagnosis of gender dysphoria in children:
---
A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months’ duration, as manifested by at least six of the following (one of which must be Criterion A1):
1. A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender).
2. In boys (assigned gender), a strong preference for cross-dressing or simulating female attire; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong preference for wearing only typical masculine clothing and a strong resistance to the wearing of typical feminine clothing.
3. A strong preference for cross-gender roles in make-believe play or fantasy play.
4. A strong preference for the toys, games, or activities stereotypically used or engaged in by the other gender.
5. A strong preference for playmates of the other gender.
6. In boys (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically masculine toys, games, and activities and a strong avoidance of rough-and-tumble play; or in girls (assigned gender), a strong rejection of typically feminine toys, games, and activities.
7. A strong dislike of one’s sexual anatomy.
8. A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics that match one’s experienced gender.
B. The condition is associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, school, or other important areas of functioning.
---
> 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.
Classy as ever implying that trans people are grooming children to be trans.
It seems like the opposite happens to me: parents with attitudes like yours will attempt to keep the existence of trans people secret in an attempt to groom their child to be cis, but if their child is gender dysphoric, it's not going to work and they're just going to suffer worse dysphoria-induced distress during puberty and transition as adults.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Doctors intervene to operate on minors all the time. Their guardian and doctors can decide to do essentially anything. If the doctor and guardian feel that the blockers, while harmful, are outweighed by the risk of self harm even with therapy and other medication, then let the doctor do the doctoring, not the politicians. There are almost twice as many intersex people who literally have at least partial sets of both reproductive organs as there are people who identify as trans. Doctors have to make hard calls without knowing the future on a regular basis. They can handle this too.
> Doctors intervene to operate on minors all the time.
On objective metrics, certainly. Never on subjective metrics.
Kid got a broken leg? Sure, doctors can intervene, often without even parental involvement (Emergencies, for example).
Kid feels like they have a broken leg? The doctor that cuts up that kid without doing any scans and working simply off the kid's self-reported feelings is going to be out of practice very very quickly.
Hell, doctors won't even prescribe antibiotics based off a kid's self-reported feelings; they'll confirm with a number of objective metrics (presence/absence of mucous in mouth/lungs, body temperature, pulse, etc).
So, no, we don't allow doctors to perform any procedures on children with only self-reported feelings as "evidence"[1].
[1] With the exception being male genital mutilation at birth, which is something I've always been vocally against.
There’s plenty of reason to argue for parents’ rights to make difficult ethical calls on behalf of their children. This happens all of the time. The only counter-argument is denying the harm that going through puberty as the wrong gender causes. Suicide rates support the reality. “Stop fighting against trans suicide” is disingenuous.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Plenty do, but the ones that don't give credence to the idea that forced closeting as a teenager makes it harder to follow your heart later. And that's in a situation where it doesn't get more difficult to come out later (if you're not married). Transitioning pre- and post- puberty is very different with current medical technology, so a lot more people will get "stuck".
As per the linked study, the desisters tend to no longer experience gender dysphoria. It's not just that they don't transition later in life. The scenario you're describing - people struggling with gender dysphoria but reluctant to transition on account of having undergone natal puberty - does not describe the bulk of the sample.
I never said that they don't, just that the opportunities to do so diminish post-puberty and with age, and many people give up on the dream of being themselves.
> But plenty of them come out as gay later in life.
Some do, but statistics show that the majority don't. At some point it stops making sense to identify as a gay/bi person if you've been married for 20 years and have no intention of leaving. That ship has sailed, so to speak. The same thing happens with trans people for very practical and biological reasons post-puberty.
The majority of patients stop experiencing gender dysphoria. The analogy to a married person "stuck in the closet" is not correct: in that scenario this person is still same-sex attracted but suppresses that desire. In the case of ~80% of gender dysphoric youth, they stop desiring to be the cross-sex gender altogether. They are not refraining from transition on account of doubting their ability to pass after having gone through natal puberty.
> Some do, but statistics show that the majority don't.
Well, yeah. That's because it literally was a passing phase that the child experienced. That's why there's so many studies (some of them linked in this thread) showing that if you simply defer the decision until the minor is a major , the majority of gender dysphoria desists.
IOW, once the child has actually matured a little, their identity confusion goes away.
Deferring is the path of least harm; is it any wonder then that most of the people in the world, including highly secular countries, go that route?
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.
The initial puberty is never going to be undone. If they'd rather live with it now that it happened, then it's great that they're probably not undergoing heavy dysphoria but that doesn't mean it's zero or that this was the best outcome.
> The initial puberty is never going to be undone. If they'd rather live with it now that it happened, then it's great that they're probably not undergoing heavy dysphoria but that doesn't mean it's zero or that this was the best outcome.
Well there was never going to be a perfect solution, right? So a solution that results in the most number of satisfied adults is an okay goal.
Given the disparity in life outcomes between trans people and cis people, the idea that the desisters would have been better off transitioning is quite the bold speculation.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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".
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?