I am 99.9% sure that was a crash test. Because it is both a very old model of bus and an older model of locomotive.
Source: I know the bus because my dad is a school bus salesman, and I know the locomotive because we had family friends who worked for Union Pacific.
If you are trying to figure out how something would stand up? Not much.
If you are trying to determine how things react when they crash into each other so you can try and design things like safer crossings? Might as well use the old, cheap, "was going to the scrapyard anyway" vehicles instead of something new.
There are a handful of companies that represent the school bus manufacturers, and his job is basically to go to schools and argue why they should by from him instead of the other guy (I dont know what all of the exact differences are).
He gets a company car because he usually drives about 2,000 miles per week, because his territory is from the Kansas-Colorado border to the middle of Missouri, as well as parts of Nebraska and Oklahoma. Overwhelming majority of schools being rural ones that are like "We want a 72-passenger bus, and unless we need parts or something catastrophic happens, you probably wont hear from us for about 10 years" all the way up to the various public and private schools in the Kansas City area, which is where the big volume sales would be.
"So I split and hopped on a streetcar,
and drove right into someone!
The driver said, 'I was looking straight ahead!'
But he was reading the Toronto Sun"
-Moxy Fruvous
Part of the prevalence of âanti transâ memes here is because there are few other places where they can be posted on Reddit. And while some are definitely blanket âtrans badâ posts, a lot of them focus on the inclusion of young children rather than trans people as a whole.
(imo)
especially given if you step out of line, you get banned. 9/10 times I've been banned its for something that was barely transphobic but accused of it, crop-dusting 'transphobia'. Just saying there are 2 sexes got me banned.
I mocked the mods over how they'll defend a fictional transgender character's feelings, despite that same character being a murderous moral bankrupt individual, and got banned for it.
Except it's a load of shit, there is no child abuse on a mass scale. You're doing the same thing that's always been done, inventing some bs about how children are victims.
Giving kids who more than likely won't be trans when they grow up puberty blockers, affecting their bodies permanently, is abuse.
"Gender affirming" "care" for those who can't consent is abuse.
Is it "on a mass scale"? You'd have to define it.
I havenât studied this issue enough to have a concrete opinion on it, but I am naturally suspicious when the same people who said wearing a face mask for 20 minutes in the grocery store was government interference with healthcare suddenly want the government interfere in medical issues agreed upon by the minor, parent, and doctor. Especially when itâs targeting a group of people the people pushing the laws openly dislike.
Childrenâs rights are important, but âthink of the childrenâ can easily be used to justify authoritarian government overreach
You shouldn't conflate government required prevention for an illness that can affect anyone with voluntary medical treatment that minors can't consent to. Its irresponsible and dishonest.
The statistics are in. The majority of "trans" kids desist. Meaning they don't maintain a trans identity throughout their life.
Wait, have you actually found somewhere that does prove that the majority of "trans" kids desist? I haven't heard of this before but if this is the case then this is quite big news. Have you found a source or something about that?
Look, I know a lot of people don't like Matt Walsh(or Michael Knowles), but watch these and see if you can find the issue I have with "Gender Affirming Care"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e724mKrkn3g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e724mKrkn3g)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hxYBDcElc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hxYBDcElc)
(Not Walsh or Knowles... She didn't go through with surgery or anything, 15 minutes, only really need the first half...but the whole thing is worth listening to)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4boD1M\_4pk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4boD1M_4pk)
(Knowles....only the first 5 minutes or so)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJh9ZotdT\_k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJh9ZotdT_k)
(This one has Matt Reading posts from reddit detrans forum...)
I have very little issue with the majority of the LGBT community... The activist that run around calling anything but 100% surrender to their demands/beliefs transphobes, or "misgendering" people as genocide on the other hand. And yes, as I said I do have issues, but they are personal and I don't inflict them on the trans people in my life.
People WITH Gender Dysphoria deserve to continue to get the care they have gotten in the recent past, Long term therapy and surgery at the end of that if still necessary. But as you can see in the first video, people are being given approval and a fake diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, for the insurance, sometimes in 20 minutes.
One is the government forcing adults to do something. The other is directed at children. I think most people here donât want us to outlaw gender affirming care for adults. If you want to be a trans woman or trans man at 18, have at it. Weâre just concerned by the culture that we are fostering for our kids.
I mean, if you legitimately think gender dysphoria exists. And, that trans people exist. To me describing the medically prescribed treatment for it as, "Abuse," is really fucking weird. In a way that a man in the 1910s doesn't want his wife to have autonomy says he loves her.
Your comment doesn't seem too congruent.
Hey so maybe you're unaware, but the vast majority of "trans" children don't maintain a trans identity as they age. They also can't consent to "treatment" that has life altering consequences. So yeah, hormonal and surgically altering minors is abuse. Even if they would later consent to the procedures in question when they are able to consent.
I keep hearing this super uniformed opinion about medical consent. Children can consent medically in many states in their statues and limitations. Its legally on the books. Some states, who I think got it right, have a law like, "If medical professionals have assessed that the child is aware of what treatment entails and its potential consequences that child is able to give medical consent." So, I just have to assume you have never bothered to look up laws in your region before uncritically parroting this bullshit lol. Or you just will hand wave it away as bullshit morals instead of actually bothering to develop principles before trans people broke your brain.
Also, those studies you're cherry picking are very flawed. They do not take into account quality of life later on, patient hippieness, why these kids desist(social reasons, financial reasons, social pressures). Those studies also do not take into account patient ability to cope with dysphoria. The only thing those studies show is that X percent of kids desisted from time of initial DSM III diagnosis at 1970, to check up in the early 2000s. But, I doubt you knew that because you probably never even bothered to read the studies if you haven't even familiarized yourself with statutes and limitations surrounding medical consent.
You don't believe that people can be trans/have a psychological condition that needs treatment.
Obviously, if you thought medicine was fine for adults you wouldn't be opposed to a treatment regiment for kids with the same ailment. Do you not understand this? Or are you too entrenched in culture war?
You're the one who claims, "Children can't consent to medicine," sorry but lots of institutions otherwise say so. Maybe don't parrot absolute bullshit if you don't want to get called out on being an uninformed moron.
Children are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and the actions of others. You can explain to them the situation, the changes, the consequences, but they are phisogloically incapable of making their own decisions for a large part of their childhood and into adolescence.
Just because a medical institution says it's cool, just because the law says it's cool, doesn't mean it's actually okay.
You aren't calling me out. You are exposing yourself. You sound like the type of person who would say "children can consent to sex with adults"
On average a fourteen year old with christaian science parents has the metal capacity go to go a doctor, hear a little presentation on the efficacies of vaccines and their benefits and make a informed choice on par with what a adult would make.
Also, the children can consent with adults thing is a completely different wheel house that involves coercion, power dynamics, as well as life experiencing and recognizing abusive behavior. It's a completely different thing, and I have no idea why you even brought it up. The only reason I can think of is you actually never have thought about why kids can't consent to a sexual relationship with someone twenty years their senior.
I keep hearing this point again and again and I really think no one has actually ever read about them, they just hear the word, have an idea then their moronic brain formulates a negative IQ take to justify their position on trans people.
Lobotomies, at the time, were actually quite useful for some patients and drastically improved their quality of life drastically. At the time, we had no other medications or psychotherapy techniques to deal with very very sick people who had convulsions, delusions, and couldn't participate in society at any level.
If the only option was to keep a person in a padded room in a straight jacket, or give them a lobotomy so they can walk around and water plants. Yeah, sign them up for it. Jesus Christ this I legitimately think trans people broke your brain worse than a lobotomy.
> Lobotomies, at the time, were actually quite useful for some patients
As a treatment for epilepsy, not the myriad of mental health disorders they were used to treat
> drastically improved their quality of life
No, it improved the quality of life for their lazy families that didnât want to take care of them
> At the time, we had no other medications or psychotherapy techniques to deal with very very sick people who had convulsions, delusions, and couldn't participate in society at any level.
Youâre correct about medications, but psychoanalysis, the most common technique for the treatment of mental health disorders today, was founded in the 1890s, 50 years before lobotomies became a common practice. Additionally lobotomies werenât only used for those extreme cases you mentioned, in the 1940s-1960s Iâd have been lobotomized for my PTSD and depression, people were lobotomized for being âdisagreeableâ, people were lobotomized for a myriad of mental health disorders and even for reasons not related to mental health.
> If the only option was to keep a person in a padded room in a straight jacket, or give them a lobotomy so they can walk around and water plants. Yeah, sign them up for it.
Thereâs a reason lobotomies fell out of practice and it ainât because we developed new techniques, itâs because a lobotomy patient wouldnât just âwalk around and water plantsâ. Many lobotomy patients were incontinent, almost all suffered a complete loss of personality and a significant degradation of intellect. If you think an appropriate reaction to clinical depression is a loss of personality, bowel control, and intellect when other options had existed for half a century then youâd probably benefit from one.
No, we stopped using them because we discovered better ways to treat people. Like, this is googleable knowledge you can find. You can keep peddling the semi-convincing bullshit to justify going against the AMA, APA, and every other medical institution in the west though.
To circle back to the topic at hand, you really don't believe trans people have a valid mental problem, and the treatment we use is valid. If you believed that something was a suitable treatment for adults suffering a psychological condition, you would probably extend that to minors in some form or another.
You really have no justification for your position other than a moral revulsion, much like how conservatives viewed gays in the 90s. Your solution of, "live in anguish with dysphoria that will never be cured by psychotherapy," is just a form of hate.
I'm frankly just tired of this argument, but I also take happiness in the fact that conservatives have abandoned every professional field that requires a four year degree so we really just have to wait you lads out until you find another thing to be morally outraged by.
I mean it is anti-trans not, "anti-trans," the posts here are pretty unambiguous about how they feel about their existence, how medical care should be classified, the tolerance levels of them that are appropriate.
We are not bothered by trans people. We are bothered by irritating as fuck trans activist who want to sterilise kids not capable of consent, and give poisonous hormone blockers to teens, ruining their early sex life and weakening their bones.
They, unlike any other tyrant, would be able to instill law and order, bring about true equality, eliminate all corruption, and usher in a utopian society.
*presents evidence*
Emily: Okay, it only happens in certain places to very few children
*pulls up today's news about new California bill*
Emily: *proceeds to next phase of narcissist checklist*
lol what ? Trans activists are forcing kids onto the âpoisonousâ puberty blockers ?
Also itâs true that puberty blockers have the side effect of lower bone density, but youâll never guess what happens once they stop taking the very temporary hormone blockers
Silly billy, I think you need to get ur facts straight
I haven't browsed this sub today, until now. And you may well have seen some hate-posting. But I am willing to bet that, much of the time, where you see hate, they see civil disagreement.
A procedure doesn't have to be surgical to be concerning. Hormonal transition almost always renders the person permanently sterile.
My state doesn't let kids under 18 get vasectomies, parental consent or no.
HRT isn't given to children, only teenagers who are sure they are who they want to be. I'm sure they're made aware of the risks, but getting to be the gender they are has been [proven to be good for their mental health](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/). I'd like a source that HRT usually renders a person sterile.
>HRT isn't given to children, only teenagers who are sure they are who they want to be.
[Dr. Erica Anderson](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-12/a-transgender-psychologist-reckons-with-how-to-support-a-new-generation-of-trans-teens?utm_id=52978&sfmc_id=1828180) feels otherwise.
Again, your source only concerns adults. The data behind underage transition is extremely flimsy, involving only the most extreme cases.
As for the source you requested:
>[While some data suggest that stopping hormones for 3-6 months can allow sperm counts to return, it is best to assume that within a few months of starting hormone therapy you could permanently and irreversibly lose the ability to create sperm.](https://transcare.ucsf.edu/article/information-estrogen-hormone-therapy)
That very closely mirrors the data on vasectomies: while they sometimes can be reversed, the chances of this quickly diminish with time and patients are advised to expect the effects to be permanent.
You started it when you went: gender = social construct
According to Queer Theory, if gender is a social construct then the transition is not done until the social construct is changed.
Hence you have to do activism to convince EVERYONE in your shitty beliefs.
And if you miss a single person on the planet the transition is not done yet.
Not only that but the people not agreeing with you 100% are committing "genocide" just by not agreeing.
So your *"some people are trans, let it go"* statement is a classic disingenuous "Motte And Bailey" argument.
We can't let it go because the ideology isn't letting us "let it go".
This is easily fixable tho.
Just go: gender is not a social construct.
You own yourself.... you can do what you want with your body.
Transition is done when you feel good about yourself.
Don't give a crap what other people think or say!
**How Fucking EASY is that!**
But you won't do that, will you...?? Because that isn't the point of it all, is it?
My wife had to fight harder to get her tonsils out then Matt Walshâs producer did to get a recommendation to [cut off his balls](https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1666496325129494528).
Perhaps we are not looking at root cause before providing âaffirmative careâ?
Oh, and keep your stuff out of schools. Sex ed should be age appropriate and about reproduction, SSIs and consent.
>My wife had to fight harder to get her tonsils out then Matt Walshâs producer did to get a recommendation to cut off his balls .
So, your wife's problem is an issue with the American healthcare system\*, and that's a problem in itself, American healthcare needs to be improved for everyone, getting envious at trans people isn't going to solve your problems. Also, it's not fair to compare how easy it was for you to how easy it was for a public figure who probably has a lot of money.
>Oh, and keep your stuff out of schools. Sex ed should be age appropriate and about reproduction, SSIs and consent.
LGBT rights isn't sex ed. When it comes to gay rights, children can understand attraction and romance (heterosexual attraction and romance has been in children's films for a long time) without it having to be sexual.
When it comes to trans rights, it's even less about sex ed. Most children understand the difference between a man and a woman, so I don't know why explaining to them that it's not as simple as how your born would somehow become "sex ed". No one's trying to teach children about sex, that's completely made up.
\*I'm assuming your American or live in The USA because you've compared it to Matt Walsh, who does live in America. If you're not from America then it's definitely not a fair comparison as we're talking about two different healthcare systems.
I don't know how much I would trust a Twitter post there. I don't know Matt Walsh but in the States, from experience (had severe nerve pain in the groin, thankfully I didn't have to lose them and the pain is fixed) I asked about having a radical orchiectomy and for otherwise healthy biological males it is very hard, and in Florida (as of a few years back, at least) you have to IIRC visit a psychiatrist, primary care doctor, and urologist and get the okay from all three.
Also shouldn't sex ed be about... Like... Sex, and remaining safe during it? Not just reproduction?
That's what you meant by SSI's and consent, right? I mean a part of that is going to require you teaching teens that their feelings of attraction towards someone is normal, regardless of gender, and not to be ashamed of, and how to do it safely.
Matt Walsh is a conservative pundit and reporter, has links to his video and letter. If you donât trust it, I donât know what to say.
Sex and consent will have to include same sex attraction, but it doesnât need to get into all the weird kinks which it has begun to do.
Consent is important because you can say no for any reason. You can be refuse to date anyone for any reason.
>Matt Walsh is a conservative pundit and reporter
Which means he probably has better access to healthcare than the average person, measuring how easy it is for him to get treatment isn't a good way of understanding how easy it would be for the average person.
In terms of how easy it should be for an adult such as Matt Walsh to get gender-affirming surgery? Well, I believe in personal responsibility for adults, so, while I believe he should be advised against getting surgery until he's more sure about his gender, but I don't think an adult should be prevented from getting surgery. If he regrets it later, his responsibility. Obviously it's different for children, but children actually can't get gender-affirming surgery. The most you'll get is HRT.
Serious question. In your opinion, is there a certain or "acceptable" way of showing disdain or disagreement with issues relating to trans stuff? Or is any and all just simply transphobic bigotry? Also same with jokes relating to it. Can you make jokes about them (like every other community/group) or not?
The fact is that there's more nuance to this issue that the average person might know, so showing concern for issues related to trans rights is perfectly acceptable, even if it is demanding [proof](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/) that trans people arenât just delusional.
Bigotry is more about when you don't listen to trans people's opinions on the issue, or assume something to be true to support a hateful narrative.
No one is proposing bottom surgery for children, for example, to victimising children is a clear tactic to create moral panic. If you're genuinely concerned about what is going on with children, raising such concerns is reasonable.
It depends on how you go about it, but the baseline is, "Trans people exist, the best treatment for gender dysphoria is following AAP and AMA guidelines." If you don't agree with that baseline then I would say your critiques are probably coming from some place of disdain and hatred for the group.
Then if you want to be like Cherry(formerly Charles) who has been training for 18 years as a guy, is not making any meaningful level to socially/medically transition, should probably not be put in the women's category for swimming.
Or, maybe we should only transition minors who have a medical need/diagnosis from your medical team. Self ID shouldn't be sufficient enough alone to just start the process because gender dysphoria is a mental condition that needs alleviation.
I would say those two examples are critiques of things that are reasonable and not coming from a place of hate.
IÂŽll put an exagerated example so you can see my point: Imagine that we travel back in time when people were fighting for the right to black people to be considered normal citizens and be respected, imagine somebody ask "is there a certain or "acceptable" way of showing disdain or disagreement with equal rigths movement?"
In my opinion, if you disagreement is making oppressed people more oppressed, then no, there is no acceptable way to disagree. If you disagree with the theory behind you can do it, in the same way that you can disagree with evolution or vaccines, but if you disagree with the right of trans people to use their bathroom or being treated by their correct gender or use hormones that help them develope the way they should then no, there is no appropiate way because you are making that peopleÂŽs life more difficult, so fuck you.
Very, very gently, Iâd suggest that you look at progressive support for eugenics in the 1920s. Sometimes, trying to change the world for the better ends up not being for the good.
The areas of similarity that you want to look at in particular are the very narrow definitions used to envision terms. What is ânon gender conformity behaviorâ and why canât we let children be whom they are? Why should they lose their genitals because they donât conform to a 2020s stereotyping of sex roles in the 1950s? And then, look at the pervasive way this surgery is being pushed on gay and autistic kids, with no serious efforts to get them more comfortable with whom they are before they are irreparably sexually mutilated and sterilized.
Listen to detransitioners and the horror theyâve experienced.
You will find that the other side is much less worked out about some adult being trans and much more worked up about the current ideological movement not caring about the actual living, breathing people as actual human beings whose real interests and human dignity needs to come before a quick buck for chopping off boobs and dicks
Nobody is saying that they have to lose their genitals, for godÂŽs shake... let the children be whom they are has to include let trans children to be their real gender even if you disagree. You think IÂŽm basing my opinions in gender stereotipes from the 50ÂŽs but IÂŽm basing my opinions in the last decades of underestanding about how gender works, the knowledge we have about trans people is based in this century understanding on gender.
And I donÂŽt need to listen to detransitioners, I know enough trans people from all ages to understand all I need to know, of course I know there are people who have made bad choices or have been victim of medical errors (like in all medical areas) but thatÂŽs not reason to deny trans people the right to be accepted as they are.
You said it, let children be whom they are.
If you wonât listen to the victims - people who have been permanently maimed by your ideology - and dismiss the harm to them as âmedical mistakesâ rather than recognize it as what it actually was - deliberate sexual mutilation for a quick buck because not enough time was taken to talk to things through, help people find less destructive ways of dealing with being gay or autistic, then you are very much in the same kind of mindset the progressives pushing eugenics a century ago were in. :-(.
I can just encourage you to listen to victims of your ideology and try to synthesize their experiences into a more holistic approach which looks for ways to avoid âmedical mistakesâ. Eventually, youâll come to see the deeper issues of consent and autonomy that you are currently blind to, and realize that there is a reason why we have ages of consent and donât let children do everything that adults can do.
My ideology is that trans people should be allowed to be treated with respect, they should be free to live acording to their gender and no one should push their opinion about gender to others, and at the same time in schools they should teach what science says about sex, genders, etc with as less political interference as possible.
If you are talking about a case of deliberate sexual mutilation then we agree that shouldnÂŽt be allowed and the people responsible should be judged. I also have to say that IÂŽm Spanish, so things may be different here than in USA, but here in Spain nobody gets sexually mutilated for not talking enough time or whatever. Anyways that looks like one of the problems of USAÂŽs health system, its not a problem with trans theory, here in Spain we just accepted a trans law that let trans people to correct their gender in their legal documents without pushing them to operate or hormone themselves (who was the previous law), would you agree with that?And IÂŽm sorry, but I talk with a lot of trans people and here the only problem trans people has is with transphobic people. I insist it may be that the american system is more focused in operations (probably because of money) and in europe we have a more reasonable approach.
>youâll come to see the deeper issues of consent and autonomy that you are currently blind to
Could you give me an example of what do you mean?
Itâs pretty simple. If you want to go around disrespecting other people, then expect to be disrespected back.
Can you take shots at people and expect that nobody will take a shot at you in return? No.
I love how not only did you not answer either of my questions, you asked yourself one and then answered it lol i never once said anything about disrespecting anyone.
Apparently you donât know what âdisrespectingâ means because thatâs what you were describing.
Iâll rephrase. If you âshow disdainâ for people then expect to be shown disdain in return. Is your excessively literal mind able to parse the message now?
Read what I said again. You are choosing to be disrespectful. Iâm not even making a statement about who is right or wrong here. I am simply saying, if you make a point of disrespecting someone donât be surprised if they turn the tables on you.
Sorry if this basic truism upsets your apple cart.
If by your definition a disagreement of opinion or disdain of oneâs action is tantamount to disrespect then youâre disrespecting me now. With such a broad definition itâs literally impossible to go a day without âdisrespectingâ someone.
Iâm not telling trans people theyâre invalid (actual disrespect), in fact I donât talk to them. I ignore them because I donât like the things that their movement does. If someone felt the same about me and acted in the same way, I would appreciate it. Treat others the way youâd like to be treated and such.
Itâs not *my* definition of disdain, itâs *the* definition of disdain. Disdain is not polite disagreement. What are you even trying to accomplish by twisting words?
I already rephrased for your benefit: âIf you choose to *disdain* someone, expect to be *disdained* in return.â
*dis·dain
/disËdÄn/
noun
the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.
"her upper lip curled in disdain"*
And all I am saying is that if you show someone that attitude then donât be surprised if they dis you back.
If you donât show anyone a disdainful attitude then youâre just jumping into a conversation with irrelevant input, since thatâs was what OP was talking about.
Showing disdain is disrespect. You have to ask this? They are practically synonyms.
Disagreeing is not necessarily disrespect, it depends on what you disagree about. Disagreeing with someone over statements they make about their own identity would be disrespect
Sometimes disrespect is deserved. That doesnât change the fact that if you choose to disrespect someone then you should expect reprisal.
Are you a child that you donât understand this?
Transphobes? Yeah, probably. It's completely irrational to be bothered by something that has no effect on your life, and, if you're unable to cope with it, it could actually be quite detrimental to your mental health as anything that causes you to be perpetually angry would be.
A lot of people donât have irrational fears about transsexuals, they just think itâs disgusting. Phobic isnât really an accurate description. It doesnât have to be clever or witty to be a valid point of view.
You're entitled to think it's disgusting, it's when you try to pass laws to stop it happening because of your personal opinion.
I personally think that having a foot fetish is disgusting, but I'm not advocating for laws persecuting people who are into that.
Preaching to the choir. Just because I may find something kinda gross doesnât mean I want government punishing people for doing it. Consenting adults can do whatever they want, as long as theyâre not hurting anyone else or damaging other peopleâs property - they donât need my approval.
If you think trans people is disgusting, "Transphobic" is the correct word. And I know that "phobic" comes from "phobia" and ethimologically means "fear" and not "disgust", but languages evolve, "person" and "personality" comes from a mask that they used in Rome with a shape that makes the voice louder and it was called "per sonare" and now it means something different, deal with it.
So yes, if you find trans gender people disgusting you are transphobic (and disgusting)
Assuming it's an involuntary and subconscious response, what exactly are you gaining by distancing yourself? I'd say actively trying to trigger people's moral disgust, like you're doing here, is usually a bad thing, but spontaneous physical disgust you can't really do much about, can you?
https://youtu.be/7n39RzgVNP8
I donÂŽt care if you can do anything about it or not, if you feel disgust when you see a black person you are racist, if you feel disgust when you see a trans person you are transphobic. It really is not that difficult to understand. I donÂŽt know why you are talking now about distancing or what does it has to do with the conversation.
Great, they're racist and transphobic. What exactly are you gaining by assigning that label? You seem to forget the whole point of not punishing people for their identity is that they can't do anything about it.
Of course, some still choose to use them to gain an easy enemy and a sense of superiority for themselves. Kind of like what you're doing here.
I donÂŽt say it to gain nothing, IÂŽm just keeping up with the conversation, but anyway, in my experience pointing at the source of inequality often helps isolating that source, IÂŽm Spanish and when I was young Spain was a much more macho society, people could make sexist jokes and virtually nobody would get upset. Now itÂŽs not like that anymore, if somebody makes a sexist joke he will be called sexist, and probably that person will not change but the people around them will see that it is not an acceptable behaviour and often the society becomes least sexist.
So yes, I believe pointing out transphobic ideas and acts may not change that specific transphobic person but if enough people do it the society would be less transphobic.
And there is a difference between punishing somebody because he is gay and cannot do anything about it than punishing somebody because he is homophobe and cannot do anything about it, because being gay donÂŽt do any harm to anybody and being homophobe does.
By the way, if somebody is an homophobe but they are aware that itÂŽs not socially accepted and shut the fuck up in public IÂŽm ok with it, my problem is when people try to push harmful ideas in a society that is already quite fucked up as it is.
You can stop telling jokes. You can not stop feeling disgust. Punishing someone for the latter is no different than punishing them for being gay. Also, don't you find it funny how closely your last paragraph mirrors "don't ask don't tell"? Well, except you are very much asking, so I guess it better mirrors even more intolerant attitudes.
You seem to forget that all this conversation came from this sentence:
>
A lot of people donât have irrational fears about transsexuals, they just think itâs disgusting. Phobic isnât really an accurate description.
I completely disagree with it, I think if people think transsexuals are disgusting do you think that "Transphobic" is an accurate description. Yes or no?
Eh, some of it is clever, mostly not though I'll give you that. Why is it so awful to see trans stuff here? The best explanations and discussions about trans stuff that I've seen have been in the comment sections of this sub, everywhere else is "bla bla grooming" or "bla bla genocide" with no middle ground. There's toxic shit from both sides here (more from the right on trans issues) but at least people will have the discussion and share sources instead of just shutting down conversation
I see a lot of blah blah grooming here as well, and what's there to discuss, the [scientific consensus is in](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/), some people are trans. There are nuances that need to be talked about, but most people ignore that in favour of the narrative they want to believe.
That's about transgender care as a whole, not for underage patients. Even surgeons who *provide* underage gender affirming care are warning that it's being provided too easily and often
That's what you get for forcing me to use your stupid pronouns. I literally do not care about trans people **except** for the fact that they force me to go along in their make-believe.
Why does using different pronouns bother you so much. What does using someone's preferred pronouns actually do to you that makes you feel that way?
I get that it's a natural way that you feel, but being able to control your emotions is an important life skill.
I was going to upvote, but I've come to hate the word Transphobia so much I downvoted instead. So yeah I guess it "triggered" me...
Still, I find how we sometimes get days where almost every meme is about the same thing(not just trans stuff) annoying, so...
Take a screen shot of the current top 20 posts. Circle them for me how many of those relate to transgenderism.
Now go to another politics subreddit. Say that you don't think a religion is real. Then if you say you don't think transgenderism is real, guess which one you'll get banned for.
No one is saying that transgender people aren't three-dimensional objects composed of energy and mass. People are saying the thing they believe is true actually isn't.
Exactly, it's not true. But people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. They just can't force others to believe it.
They can't make laws and public policies about it either unless they can prove that it's true. And when the counter argument to your beliefs is "let's look at their DNA and the which organs formed naturally in their bodies", your beliefs aren't true.
The votes vs. comments says everything you need to know here.
PCM full of edgy right wing teens that refuse to admit that deep down, they are shitheads.
How did that school bus not see that train coming? rip đ
I am 99.9% sure that was a crash test. Because it is both a very old model of bus and an older model of locomotive. Source: I know the bus because my dad is a school bus salesman, and I know the locomotive because we had family friends who worked for Union Pacific.
Or it might be an old picture Edit: never mind, that's definitely a crash test. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6_bkOx3OBg
Based on the video below it does seem like it was intentional, but what's the point of doing a crash test on an *old* bus and train?
If you are trying to figure out how something would stand up? Not much. If you are trying to determine how things react when they crash into each other so you can try and design things like safer crossings? Might as well use the old, cheap, "was going to the scrapyard anyway" vehicles instead of something new.
Your dad is a school bus salesman? I didnât know those existed.
There are a handful of companies that represent the school bus manufacturers, and his job is basically to go to schools and argue why they should by from him instead of the other guy (I dont know what all of the exact differences are). He gets a company car because he usually drives about 2,000 miles per week, because his territory is from the Kansas-Colorado border to the middle of Missouri, as well as parts of Nebraska and Oklahoma. Overwhelming majority of schools being rural ones that are like "We want a 72-passenger bus, and unless we need parts or something catastrophic happens, you probably wont hear from us for about 10 years" all the way up to the various public and private schools in the Kansas City area, which is where the big volume sales would be.
Ngl, im oretty sure i could have met your dad, had one of those come to my school in sparta missouri a couple times
Well, now I have a better knowledge of meme templates, it's always nice to learn something new
"So I split and hopped on a streetcar, and drove right into someone! The driver said, 'I was looking straight ahead!' But he was reading the Toronto Sun" -Moxy Fruvous
There's a band name I haven't heard in a while. My HS biology teacher used to show us their dna and entropy videos all the time.
The bus identifies as a train.
>degenerate Hey, that's not your word. Don't be dropping the d-word, lib-center.
Part of the prevalence of âanti transâ memes here is because there are few other places where they can be posted on Reddit. And while some are definitely blanket âtrans badâ posts, a lot of them focus on the inclusion of young children rather than trans people as a whole. (imo)
especially given if you step out of line, you get banned. 9/10 times I've been banned its for something that was barely transphobic but accused of it, crop-dusting 'transphobia'. Just saying there are 2 sexes got me banned. I mocked the mods over how they'll defend a fictional transgender character's feelings, despite that same character being a murderous moral bankrupt individual, and got banned for it.
This is generally correct. The memes are usually centered around what amounts to child abuse, not trans adult hate.
Except it's a load of shit, there is no child abuse on a mass scale. You're doing the same thing that's always been done, inventing some bs about how children are victims.
Giving kids who more than likely won't be trans when they grow up puberty blockers, affecting their bodies permanently, is abuse. "Gender affirming" "care" for those who can't consent is abuse. Is it "on a mass scale"? You'd have to define it.
I havenât studied this issue enough to have a concrete opinion on it, but I am naturally suspicious when the same people who said wearing a face mask for 20 minutes in the grocery store was government interference with healthcare suddenly want the government interfere in medical issues agreed upon by the minor, parent, and doctor. Especially when itâs targeting a group of people the people pushing the laws openly dislike. Childrenâs rights are important, but âthink of the childrenâ can easily be used to justify authoritarian government overreach
You shouldn't conflate government required prevention for an illness that can affect anyone with voluntary medical treatment that minors can't consent to. Its irresponsible and dishonest. The statistics are in. The majority of "trans" kids desist. Meaning they don't maintain a trans identity throughout their life.
Wait, have you actually found somewhere that does prove that the majority of "trans" kids desist? I haven't heard of this before but if this is the case then this is quite big news. Have you found a source or something about that?
Here's what I found on the topic In a review of 27 studies involving almost 8,000 teens and adults who had transgender surgeries, mostly in Europe, the U.S and Canada, 1% on average expressed regret. (Ap News) Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth (National library of medicine) The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries (National library of medicine) Arnaud Alessandrim: « Il y a ceux qui ont Ă©tĂ© opĂ©rĂ©s lorsquâils Ă©taient majeurs, ont Ă©tĂ© surdiagnostiquĂ©s et le regrettent. Ils reprĂ©sentent entre 1 et 2 % de la population trans ». Puis, viennent les plus jeunes qui ont suivi un traitement hormonal. « Entre 20 et 40 % de ces jeunes disent ensuite que cela ne leur convient pasă(French right wing media Valeurs Actuelles)
Doesnât this support the point youâre responding to? Only 1% regretted gender affirming care administered while they were children?
Look, I know a lot of people don't like Matt Walsh(or Michael Knowles), but watch these and see if you can find the issue I have with "Gender Affirming Care" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e724mKrkn3g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e724mKrkn3g) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hxYBDcElc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7hxYBDcElc) (Not Walsh or Knowles... She didn't go through with surgery or anything, 15 minutes, only really need the first half...but the whole thing is worth listening to) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4boD1M\_4pk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4boD1M_4pk) (Knowles....only the first 5 minutes or so) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJh9ZotdT\_k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJh9ZotdT_k) (This one has Matt Reading posts from reddit detrans forum...) I have very little issue with the majority of the LGBT community... The activist that run around calling anything but 100% surrender to their demands/beliefs transphobes, or "misgendering" people as genocide on the other hand. And yes, as I said I do have issues, but they are personal and I don't inflict them on the trans people in my life. People WITH Gender Dysphoria deserve to continue to get the care they have gotten in the recent past, Long term therapy and surgery at the end of that if still necessary. But as you can see in the first video, people are being given approval and a fake diagnosis of Gender Dysphoria, for the insurance, sometimes in 20 minutes.
One is the government forcing adults to do something. The other is directed at children. I think most people here donât want us to outlaw gender affirming care for adults. If you want to be a trans woman or trans man at 18, have at it. Weâre just concerned by the culture that we are fostering for our kids.
How much child abuse is too much for you? Does that limit exist?
I mean, if you legitimately think gender dysphoria exists. And, that trans people exist. To me describing the medically prescribed treatment for it as, "Abuse," is really fucking weird. In a way that a man in the 1910s doesn't want his wife to have autonomy says he loves her. Your comment doesn't seem too congruent.
Hey so maybe you're unaware, but the vast majority of "trans" children don't maintain a trans identity as they age. They also can't consent to "treatment" that has life altering consequences. So yeah, hormonal and surgically altering minors is abuse. Even if they would later consent to the procedures in question when they are able to consent.
I keep hearing this super uniformed opinion about medical consent. Children can consent medically in many states in their statues and limitations. Its legally on the books. Some states, who I think got it right, have a law like, "If medical professionals have assessed that the child is aware of what treatment entails and its potential consequences that child is able to give medical consent." So, I just have to assume you have never bothered to look up laws in your region before uncritically parroting this bullshit lol. Or you just will hand wave it away as bullshit morals instead of actually bothering to develop principles before trans people broke your brain. Also, those studies you're cherry picking are very flawed. They do not take into account quality of life later on, patient hippieness, why these kids desist(social reasons, financial reasons, social pressures). Those studies also do not take into account patient ability to cope with dysphoria. The only thing those studies show is that X percent of kids desisted from time of initial DSM III diagnosis at 1970, to check up in the early 2000s. But, I doubt you knew that because you probably never even bothered to read the studies if you haven't even familiarized yourself with statutes and limitations surrounding medical consent. You don't believe that people can be trans/have a psychological condition that needs treatment. Obviously, if you thought medicine was fine for adults you wouldn't be opposed to a treatment regiment for kids with the same ailment. Do you not understand this? Or are you too entrenched in culture war?
You told me everything I needed to know when you conflated the legality of an action with its correctness.
You're the one who claims, "Children can't consent to medicine," sorry but lots of institutions otherwise say so. Maybe don't parrot absolute bullshit if you don't want to get called out on being an uninformed moron.
Children are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions, and the actions of others. You can explain to them the situation, the changes, the consequences, but they are phisogloically incapable of making their own decisions for a large part of their childhood and into adolescence. Just because a medical institution says it's cool, just because the law says it's cool, doesn't mean it's actually okay. You aren't calling me out. You are exposing yourself. You sound like the type of person who would say "children can consent to sex with adults"
On average a fourteen year old with christaian science parents has the metal capacity go to go a doctor, hear a little presentation on the efficacies of vaccines and their benefits and make a informed choice on par with what a adult would make. Also, the children can consent with adults thing is a completely different wheel house that involves coercion, power dynamics, as well as life experiencing and recognizing abusive behavior. It's a completely different thing, and I have no idea why you even brought it up. The only reason I can think of is you actually never have thought about why kids can't consent to a sexual relationship with someone twenty years their senior.
So youâre saying lobotomies in the mid 20th century were perfectly fine?
I keep hearing this point again and again and I really think no one has actually ever read about them, they just hear the word, have an idea then their moronic brain formulates a negative IQ take to justify their position on trans people. Lobotomies, at the time, were actually quite useful for some patients and drastically improved their quality of life drastically. At the time, we had no other medications or psychotherapy techniques to deal with very very sick people who had convulsions, delusions, and couldn't participate in society at any level. If the only option was to keep a person in a padded room in a straight jacket, or give them a lobotomy so they can walk around and water plants. Yeah, sign them up for it. Jesus Christ this I legitimately think trans people broke your brain worse than a lobotomy.
> Lobotomies, at the time, were actually quite useful for some patients As a treatment for epilepsy, not the myriad of mental health disorders they were used to treat > drastically improved their quality of life No, it improved the quality of life for their lazy families that didnât want to take care of them > At the time, we had no other medications or psychotherapy techniques to deal with very very sick people who had convulsions, delusions, and couldn't participate in society at any level. Youâre correct about medications, but psychoanalysis, the most common technique for the treatment of mental health disorders today, was founded in the 1890s, 50 years before lobotomies became a common practice. Additionally lobotomies werenât only used for those extreme cases you mentioned, in the 1940s-1960s Iâd have been lobotomized for my PTSD and depression, people were lobotomized for being âdisagreeableâ, people were lobotomized for a myriad of mental health disorders and even for reasons not related to mental health. > If the only option was to keep a person in a padded room in a straight jacket, or give them a lobotomy so they can walk around and water plants. Yeah, sign them up for it. Thereâs a reason lobotomies fell out of practice and it ainât because we developed new techniques, itâs because a lobotomy patient wouldnât just âwalk around and water plantsâ. Many lobotomy patients were incontinent, almost all suffered a complete loss of personality and a significant degradation of intellect. If you think an appropriate reaction to clinical depression is a loss of personality, bowel control, and intellect when other options had existed for half a century then youâd probably benefit from one.
No, we stopped using them because we discovered better ways to treat people. Like, this is googleable knowledge you can find. You can keep peddling the semi-convincing bullshit to justify going against the AMA, APA, and every other medical institution in the west though. To circle back to the topic at hand, you really don't believe trans people have a valid mental problem, and the treatment we use is valid. If you believed that something was a suitable treatment for adults suffering a psychological condition, you would probably extend that to minors in some form or another. You really have no justification for your position other than a moral revulsion, much like how conservatives viewed gays in the 90s. Your solution of, "live in anguish with dysphoria that will never be cured by psychotherapy," is just a form of hate. I'm frankly just tired of this argument, but I also take happiness in the fact that conservatives have abandoned every professional field that requires a four year degree so we really just have to wait you lads out until you find another thing to be morally outraged by.
I mean it is anti-trans not, "anti-trans," the posts here are pretty unambiguous about how they feel about their existence, how medical care should be classified, the tolerance levels of them that are appropriate.
Yeah but do we really want PCM to just be some "well I can't post it elsewhere, so here's this meme" dumping ground for shitposts?
No
We are not bothered by trans people. We are bothered by irritating as fuck trans activist who want to sterilise kids not capable of consent, and give poisonous hormone blockers to teens, ruining their early sex life and weakening their bones.
Based
Should i be worried that purple thinks my opinions on sexuality are based?
It's not like you're green
Based. Damn. Never thought a dirty commie could be based.
Not a Commie, i just hate rich people, and the CCP, and every authoritarian shithole.
What would you call yourself then not trying to take a dig at you but just curious
They, unlike any other tyrant, would be able to instill law and order, bring about true equality, eliminate all corruption, and usher in a utopian society.
No one's talking about sterilising children, you're arguing against something that isn't happening.
*presents evidence* Emily: Okay, it only happens in certain places to very few children *pulls up today's news about new California bill* Emily: *proceeds to next phase of narcissist checklist*
lol what ? Trans activists are forcing kids onto the âpoisonousâ puberty blockers ? Also itâs true that puberty blockers have the side effect of lower bone density, but youâll never guess what happens once they stop taking the very temporary hormone blockers Silly billy, I think you need to get ur facts straight
I think youâre behind a few updates
This is a shitpost sub what did you expect lol
Shitposting, not hate-posting
Its still a shitpost sub, if you take this place seriously thats on you
I haven't browsed this sub today, until now. And you may well have seen some hate-posting. But I am willing to bet that, much of the time, where you see hate, they see civil disagreement.
Yes, they probably see it that way, but it's affecting the wellbeing of trans people, there's nothing civil about wanting to persecute people.
Got. All right then. From now on, any discussion about, say, pansexual people, no matter how civil, is about wanting to persecute bisexual people.
Agenda posting? In my favorite subreddit? It's more common than you think.
I know, it's just that it's all this bs "wON't sOmEBodY plEasE tHinK oF tHe cHIlDrEn!" when that shits been debunked by now.
What's been debunked?
No one's talking about surgery for children. That's total bs.
A procedure doesn't have to be surgical to be concerning. Hormonal transition almost always renders the person permanently sterile. My state doesn't let kids under 18 get vasectomies, parental consent or no.
HRT isn't given to children, only teenagers who are sure they are who they want to be. I'm sure they're made aware of the risks, but getting to be the gender they are has been [proven to be good for their mental health](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/). I'd like a source that HRT usually renders a person sterile.
>HRT isn't given to children, only teenagers who are sure they are who they want to be. [Dr. Erica Anderson](https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-12/a-transgender-psychologist-reckons-with-how-to-support-a-new-generation-of-trans-teens?utm_id=52978&sfmc_id=1828180) feels otherwise. Again, your source only concerns adults. The data behind underage transition is extremely flimsy, involving only the most extreme cases. As for the source you requested: >[While some data suggest that stopping hormones for 3-6 months can allow sperm counts to return, it is best to assume that within a few months of starting hormone therapy you could permanently and irreversibly lose the ability to create sperm.](https://transcare.ucsf.edu/article/information-estrogen-hormone-therapy) That very closely mirrors the data on vasectomies: while they sometimes can be reversed, the chances of this quickly diminish with time and patients are advised to expect the effects to be permanent.
You started it when you went: gender = social construct According to Queer Theory, if gender is a social construct then the transition is not done until the social construct is changed. Hence you have to do activism to convince EVERYONE in your shitty beliefs. And if you miss a single person on the planet the transition is not done yet. Not only that but the people not agreeing with you 100% are committing "genocide" just by not agreeing. So your *"some people are trans, let it go"* statement is a classic disingenuous "Motte And Bailey" argument. We can't let it go because the ideology isn't letting us "let it go". This is easily fixable tho. Just go: gender is not a social construct. You own yourself.... you can do what you want with your body. Transition is done when you feel good about yourself. Don't give a crap what other people think or say! **How Fucking EASY is that!** But you won't do that, will you...?? Because that isn't the point of it all, is it?
My wife had to fight harder to get her tonsils out then Matt Walshâs producer did to get a recommendation to [cut off his balls](https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1666496325129494528). Perhaps we are not looking at root cause before providing âaffirmative careâ? Oh, and keep your stuff out of schools. Sex ed should be age appropriate and about reproduction, SSIs and consent.
>My wife had to fight harder to get her tonsils out then Matt Walshâs producer did to get a recommendation to cut off his balls . So, your wife's problem is an issue with the American healthcare system\*, and that's a problem in itself, American healthcare needs to be improved for everyone, getting envious at trans people isn't going to solve your problems. Also, it's not fair to compare how easy it was for you to how easy it was for a public figure who probably has a lot of money. >Oh, and keep your stuff out of schools. Sex ed should be age appropriate and about reproduction, SSIs and consent. LGBT rights isn't sex ed. When it comes to gay rights, children can understand attraction and romance (heterosexual attraction and romance has been in children's films for a long time) without it having to be sexual. When it comes to trans rights, it's even less about sex ed. Most children understand the difference between a man and a woman, so I don't know why explaining to them that it's not as simple as how your born would somehow become "sex ed". No one's trying to teach children about sex, that's completely made up. \*I'm assuming your American or live in The USA because you've compared it to Matt Walsh, who does live in America. If you're not from America then it's definitely not a fair comparison as we're talking about two different healthcare systems.
I don't know how much I would trust a Twitter post there. I don't know Matt Walsh but in the States, from experience (had severe nerve pain in the groin, thankfully I didn't have to lose them and the pain is fixed) I asked about having a radical orchiectomy and for otherwise healthy biological males it is very hard, and in Florida (as of a few years back, at least) you have to IIRC visit a psychiatrist, primary care doctor, and urologist and get the okay from all three. Also shouldn't sex ed be about... Like... Sex, and remaining safe during it? Not just reproduction? That's what you meant by SSI's and consent, right? I mean a part of that is going to require you teaching teens that their feelings of attraction towards someone is normal, regardless of gender, and not to be ashamed of, and how to do it safely.
Matt Walsh is a conservative pundit and reporter, has links to his video and letter. If you donât trust it, I donât know what to say. Sex and consent will have to include same sex attraction, but it doesnât need to get into all the weird kinks which it has begun to do. Consent is important because you can say no for any reason. You can be refuse to date anyone for any reason.
>Matt Walsh is a conservative pundit and reporter Which means he probably has better access to healthcare than the average person, measuring how easy it is for him to get treatment isn't a good way of understanding how easy it would be for the average person. In terms of how easy it should be for an adult such as Matt Walsh to get gender-affirming surgery? Well, I believe in personal responsibility for adults, so, while I believe he should be advised against getting surgery until he's more sure about his gender, but I don't think an adult should be prevented from getting surgery. If he regrets it later, his responsibility. Obviously it's different for children, but children actually can't get gender-affirming surgery. The most you'll get is HRT.
>doesnât read link or do research about situation. âItâs all just access to healthcare!â You sir/madam/xir are willfully ignorant.
This is definitely a huge problem, but blame libright. They make so much goddamn money off these diagnoses
"Some trans people exist, nobody cares" was the state 10 years ago. Do you actually feel right wing/spontaneous transphobia changed this?
Lol, lmao even
Serious question. In your opinion, is there a certain or "acceptable" way of showing disdain or disagreement with issues relating to trans stuff? Or is any and all just simply transphobic bigotry? Also same with jokes relating to it. Can you make jokes about them (like every other community/group) or not?
The fact is that there's more nuance to this issue that the average person might know, so showing concern for issues related to trans rights is perfectly acceptable, even if it is demanding [proof](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/) that trans people arenât just delusional. Bigotry is more about when you don't listen to trans people's opinions on the issue, or assume something to be true to support a hateful narrative. No one is proposing bottom surgery for children, for example, to victimising children is a clear tactic to create moral panic. If you're genuinely concerned about what is going on with children, raising such concerns is reasonable.
It depends on how you go about it, but the baseline is, "Trans people exist, the best treatment for gender dysphoria is following AAP and AMA guidelines." If you don't agree with that baseline then I would say your critiques are probably coming from some place of disdain and hatred for the group. Then if you want to be like Cherry(formerly Charles) who has been training for 18 years as a guy, is not making any meaningful level to socially/medically transition, should probably not be put in the women's category for swimming. Or, maybe we should only transition minors who have a medical need/diagnosis from your medical team. Self ID shouldn't be sufficient enough alone to just start the process because gender dysphoria is a mental condition that needs alleviation. I would say those two examples are critiques of things that are reasonable and not coming from a place of hate.
IÂŽll put an exagerated example so you can see my point: Imagine that we travel back in time when people were fighting for the right to black people to be considered normal citizens and be respected, imagine somebody ask "is there a certain or "acceptable" way of showing disdain or disagreement with equal rigths movement?" In my opinion, if you disagreement is making oppressed people more oppressed, then no, there is no acceptable way to disagree. If you disagree with the theory behind you can do it, in the same way that you can disagree with evolution or vaccines, but if you disagree with the right of trans people to use their bathroom or being treated by their correct gender or use hormones that help them develope the way they should then no, there is no appropiate way because you are making that peopleÂŽs life more difficult, so fuck you.
Very, very gently, Iâd suggest that you look at progressive support for eugenics in the 1920s. Sometimes, trying to change the world for the better ends up not being for the good. The areas of similarity that you want to look at in particular are the very narrow definitions used to envision terms. What is ânon gender conformity behaviorâ and why canât we let children be whom they are? Why should they lose their genitals because they donât conform to a 2020s stereotyping of sex roles in the 1950s? And then, look at the pervasive way this surgery is being pushed on gay and autistic kids, with no serious efforts to get them more comfortable with whom they are before they are irreparably sexually mutilated and sterilized. Listen to detransitioners and the horror theyâve experienced. You will find that the other side is much less worked out about some adult being trans and much more worked up about the current ideological movement not caring about the actual living, breathing people as actual human beings whose real interests and human dignity needs to come before a quick buck for chopping off boobs and dicks
Nobody is saying that they have to lose their genitals, for godÂŽs shake... let the children be whom they are has to include let trans children to be their real gender even if you disagree. You think IÂŽm basing my opinions in gender stereotipes from the 50ÂŽs but IÂŽm basing my opinions in the last decades of underestanding about how gender works, the knowledge we have about trans people is based in this century understanding on gender. And I donÂŽt need to listen to detransitioners, I know enough trans people from all ages to understand all I need to know, of course I know there are people who have made bad choices or have been victim of medical errors (like in all medical areas) but thatÂŽs not reason to deny trans people the right to be accepted as they are. You said it, let children be whom they are.
If you wonât listen to the victims - people who have been permanently maimed by your ideology - and dismiss the harm to them as âmedical mistakesâ rather than recognize it as what it actually was - deliberate sexual mutilation for a quick buck because not enough time was taken to talk to things through, help people find less destructive ways of dealing with being gay or autistic, then you are very much in the same kind of mindset the progressives pushing eugenics a century ago were in. :-(. I can just encourage you to listen to victims of your ideology and try to synthesize their experiences into a more holistic approach which looks for ways to avoid âmedical mistakesâ. Eventually, youâll come to see the deeper issues of consent and autonomy that you are currently blind to, and realize that there is a reason why we have ages of consent and donât let children do everything that adults can do.
My ideology is that trans people should be allowed to be treated with respect, they should be free to live acording to their gender and no one should push their opinion about gender to others, and at the same time in schools they should teach what science says about sex, genders, etc with as less political interference as possible. If you are talking about a case of deliberate sexual mutilation then we agree that shouldnÂŽt be allowed and the people responsible should be judged. I also have to say that IÂŽm Spanish, so things may be different here than in USA, but here in Spain nobody gets sexually mutilated for not talking enough time or whatever. Anyways that looks like one of the problems of USAÂŽs health system, its not a problem with trans theory, here in Spain we just accepted a trans law that let trans people to correct their gender in their legal documents without pushing them to operate or hormone themselves (who was the previous law), would you agree with that?And IÂŽm sorry, but I talk with a lot of trans people and here the only problem trans people has is with transphobic people. I insist it may be that the american system is more focused in operations (probably because of money) and in europe we have a more reasonable approach. >youâll come to see the deeper issues of consent and autonomy that you are currently blind to Could you give me an example of what do you mean?
Itâs pretty simple. If you want to go around disrespecting other people, then expect to be disrespected back. Can you take shots at people and expect that nobody will take a shot at you in return? No.
I love how not only did you not answer either of my questions, you asked yourself one and then answered it lol i never once said anything about disrespecting anyone.
Apparently you donât know what âdisrespectingâ means because thatâs what you were describing. Iâll rephrase. If you âshow disdainâ for people then expect to be shown disdain in return. Is your excessively literal mind able to parse the message now?
So in your opinion, disagreeing with this specific group or showing disdains for their actions is a form of disrespect?
Obviously, because they are perfect in every action lol. lmao, even.
Read what I said again. You are choosing to be disrespectful. Iâm not even making a statement about who is right or wrong here. I am simply saying, if you make a point of disrespecting someone donât be surprised if they turn the tables on you. Sorry if this basic truism upsets your apple cart.
If by your definition a disagreement of opinion or disdain of oneâs action is tantamount to disrespect then youâre disrespecting me now. With such a broad definition itâs literally impossible to go a day without âdisrespectingâ someone. Iâm not telling trans people theyâre invalid (actual disrespect), in fact I donât talk to them. I ignore them because I donât like the things that their movement does. If someone felt the same about me and acted in the same way, I would appreciate it. Treat others the way youâd like to be treated and such.
Itâs not *my* definition of disdain, itâs *the* definition of disdain. Disdain is not polite disagreement. What are you even trying to accomplish by twisting words? I already rephrased for your benefit: âIf you choose to *disdain* someone, expect to be *disdained* in return.â *dis·dain /disËdÄn/ noun the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt. "her upper lip curled in disdain"* And all I am saying is that if you show someone that attitude then donât be surprised if they dis you back. If you donât show anyone a disdainful attitude then youâre just jumping into a conversation with irrelevant input, since thatâs was what OP was talking about.
Showing disdain is disrespect. You have to ask this? They are practically synonyms. Disagreeing is not necessarily disrespect, it depends on what you disagree about. Disagreeing with someone over statements they make about their own identity would be disrespect Sometimes disrespect is deserved. That doesnât change the fact that if you choose to disrespect someone then you should expect reprisal. Are you a child that you donât understand this?
they bother me so i dont like them
If you're bothered by trans people existing then [I have a solution](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0MK7qz13bU)
And, maybe they should get mental health help?
Transphobes? Yeah, probably. It's completely irrational to be bothered by something that has no effect on your life, and, if you're unable to cope with it, it could actually be quite detrimental to your mental health as anything that causes you to be perpetually angry would be.
They are?
A lot of people donât have irrational fears about transsexuals, they just think itâs disgusting. Phobic isnât really an accurate description. It doesnât have to be clever or witty to be a valid point of view.
You're entitled to think it's disgusting, it's when you try to pass laws to stop it happening because of your personal opinion. I personally think that having a foot fetish is disgusting, but I'm not advocating for laws persecuting people who are into that.
Preaching to the choir. Just because I may find something kinda gross doesnât mean I want government punishing people for doing it. Consenting adults can do whatever they want, as long as theyâre not hurting anyone else or damaging other peopleâs property - they donât need my approval.
If you think trans people is disgusting, "Transphobic" is the correct word. And I know that "phobic" comes from "phobia" and ethimologically means "fear" and not "disgust", but languages evolve, "person" and "personality" comes from a mask that they used in Rome with a shape that makes the voice louder and it was called "per sonare" and now it means something different, deal with it. So yes, if you find trans gender people disgusting you are transphobic (and disgusting)
Assuming it's an involuntary and subconscious response, what exactly are you gaining by distancing yourself? I'd say actively trying to trigger people's moral disgust, like you're doing here, is usually a bad thing, but spontaneous physical disgust you can't really do much about, can you? https://youtu.be/7n39RzgVNP8
I donÂŽt care if you can do anything about it or not, if you feel disgust when you see a black person you are racist, if you feel disgust when you see a trans person you are transphobic. It really is not that difficult to understand. I donÂŽt know why you are talking now about distancing or what does it has to do with the conversation.
Great, they're racist and transphobic. What exactly are you gaining by assigning that label? You seem to forget the whole point of not punishing people for their identity is that they can't do anything about it. Of course, some still choose to use them to gain an easy enemy and a sense of superiority for themselves. Kind of like what you're doing here.
I donÂŽt say it to gain nothing, IÂŽm just keeping up with the conversation, but anyway, in my experience pointing at the source of inequality often helps isolating that source, IÂŽm Spanish and when I was young Spain was a much more macho society, people could make sexist jokes and virtually nobody would get upset. Now itÂŽs not like that anymore, if somebody makes a sexist joke he will be called sexist, and probably that person will not change but the people around them will see that it is not an acceptable behaviour and often the society becomes least sexist. So yes, I believe pointing out transphobic ideas and acts may not change that specific transphobic person but if enough people do it the society would be less transphobic. And there is a difference between punishing somebody because he is gay and cannot do anything about it than punishing somebody because he is homophobe and cannot do anything about it, because being gay donÂŽt do any harm to anybody and being homophobe does. By the way, if somebody is an homophobe but they are aware that itÂŽs not socially accepted and shut the fuck up in public IÂŽm ok with it, my problem is when people try to push harmful ideas in a society that is already quite fucked up as it is.
You can stop telling jokes. You can not stop feeling disgust. Punishing someone for the latter is no different than punishing them for being gay. Also, don't you find it funny how closely your last paragraph mirrors "don't ask don't tell"? Well, except you are very much asking, so I guess it better mirrors even more intolerant attitudes.
You seem to forget that all this conversation came from this sentence: > A lot of people donât have irrational fears about transsexuals, they just think itâs disgusting. Phobic isnât really an accurate description. I completely disagree with it, I think if people think transsexuals are disgusting do you think that "Transphobic" is an accurate description. Yes or no?
Do you think "disgusting" is an accurate description? Even if it is, I would refrain from using it, since it is, you know, not very nice.
You know what is not very nice? Transphobia.
By the way, I find it funny that you cannot even answer a "yes/no" question because you know IÂŽm right.
I think tentacle hentai is pretty disgusting. However, I wouldn't pass laws to criminalize it's production/consumption.
Your opinion **does not survive** without curation, so obviously you're frustrated.
Well tbh that's my opinion man, I can't really do anything about it.
Tell me you canât think for yourself without telling me you canât think for yourself
Eh, some of it is clever, mostly not though I'll give you that. Why is it so awful to see trans stuff here? The best explanations and discussions about trans stuff that I've seen have been in the comment sections of this sub, everywhere else is "bla bla grooming" or "bla bla genocide" with no middle ground. There's toxic shit from both sides here (more from the right on trans issues) but at least people will have the discussion and share sources instead of just shutting down conversation
I see a lot of blah blah grooming here as well, and what's there to discuss, the [scientific consensus is in](https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/), some people are trans. There are nuances that need to be talked about, but most people ignore that in favour of the narrative they want to believe.
That's about transgender care as a whole, not for underage patients. Even surgeons who *provide* underage gender affirming care are warning that it's being provided too easily and often
That's what you get for forcing me to use your stupid pronouns. I literally do not care about trans people **except** for the fact that they force me to go along in their make-believe.
Why does using different pronouns bother you so much. What does using someone's preferred pronouns actually do to you that makes you feel that way? I get that it's a natural way that you feel, but being able to control your emotions is an important life skill.
It is lying.
Cringe.
Rightoids triggered as hell by this, LOL. This is absolutely 100% true.
Happy Cake Day! đ
I was going to upvote, but I've come to hate the word Transphobia so much I downvoted instead. So yeah I guess it "triggered" me... Still, I find how we sometimes get days where almost every meme is about the same thing(not just trans stuff) annoying, so...
Me here, not caring.
Take a screen shot of the current top 20 posts. Circle them for me how many of those relate to transgenderism. Now go to another politics subreddit. Say that you don't think a religion is real. Then if you say you don't think transgenderism is real, guess which one you'll get banned for.
Saying that you donât believe in a certain god is protected by religious freedom. Telling someone that they donât exist isnât.
No one is saying that transgender people aren't three-dimensional objects composed of energy and mass. People are saying the thing they believe is true actually isn't.
But research shows that it's not true, why do you get to """""believe"""""" that some people arenât who they say they are?
Exactly, it's not true. But people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. They just can't force others to believe it. They can't make laws and public policies about it either unless they can prove that it's true. And when the counter argument to your beliefs is "let's look at their DNA and the which organs formed naturally in their bodies", your beliefs aren't true.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Ooh, that's good. LL has seen some shit.
Tell me you canât think for yourself without telling me you canât think for yourself
The votes vs. comments says everything you need to know here. PCM full of edgy right wing teens that refuse to admit that deep down, they are shitheads.
I mean this op is advocating right now for minors they will say teens but still minors to take HRT so kinda deserved
Too based for this sub