[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.

[dcow]

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.

[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]

[sillysaurusx]

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.

[kennywinker]

> 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.

[mystraline]

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.

[Revisional_Sin]

If you decide you want to know I can provide a description to help you figure it out.

If you REALLY don't want to know, it might be best to remove this comment, in case somebody decides to grief you.

[heavyset_go]

Chattel slavery is only one kind of slavery and you can certainly buy slave/prison labor.

[hattmall]

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.

[sillysaurusx]

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?

[deathanatos]

> Would you mind citing some of the research supporting that it’s a good idea to take a knife to a baby’s penis?

First,

> In medicine, an indication is a valid reason to use a certain test, medication, procedure, or surgery.

From https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2128632/ ,

> What are the absolute medical indications for circumcision?

> Medical indications […] occur in 1.5% and 1% of boys respectively.

That is, the overwhelming majority (>98%) of circumcisions in the US are not done for medical reasons. As the article states,

> Nearly all circumcisions are carried out for cultural or religious reasons.

Lastly, this:

> The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence.

Is an illogical argument for circumcision as it is being discussed here, at birth.

> 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.

… the claim is absurd. There's no science to support it.

The argument as raised above stands: why is circumcision — done at birth and without the consent of the patient — permissible, but puberty blockers — done far closer to adulthood and with the consent of the patient — are impermissible?

[CrossVR]

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.

[sillysaurusx]

Not sure about them, but for me, that’s correct. Solid research should be the foundation we make decisions on.

I used to have a problem with that idea too, until someone pointed out that puberty is an irreversible process with major consequences. The fact that everyone goes through it is a bit irrelevant; if it was happening to someone over 18, puberty blockers wouldn’t even be controversial.

As a parent, what to do? I look at my 2yo daughter and wonder if I’ll have to support her in a decision like that one day, or go against her wishes just because she’s 11. If there’s research indicating that delaying puberty doesn’t have major long term harm, then I’m more likely to endorse puberty blockers.

[lelanthran]

> If that is the reasoning behind allowing infant circumcision, then there should be no argument against puberty blockers.

That sword cuts both ways: if the reasoning for banning infant male circumcision is "they can always do it as an adult", then that's a perfectly good reason for doing it with puberty blockers too.

I've always been against infant circumcision. Why would I extend that exception to be broader? I'd rather narrow the number of things we can do to children, not expand them.

[outworlder]

> 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.

[meindnoch]

The lower HPV incidence rate is due to the fact that the skin on a circumcised penis is thickened due to the constant abrasion. Basically your penis gets covered with a callus. This thicker skin provides an improved barrier compared to the thin and moist skin inside an intact foreskin. But a thicker skin merely lowers the HPV infection rate, as evidenced by plantar warts on people's feet, which are also caused by HPV.

Luckily, as you've said, we already have HPV vaccines, so maybe it's time to stop cutting off pieces from little boys' penises?

[meindnoch]

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.

[hattmall]

Should we wait on vaccines too?

[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.

[LexiMax]

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.

[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?

[LexiMax]

Since you are throwing around accusations of bad faith and grooming, I do not believe that this conversation is of any further productive use.

Instead, I only offer a gentile reminder of the Hacker News guidelines, along with a genuine wish that you are having a fulfilling day. :)

[trealira]

>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.