All Things LGBTQ+ (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[coldseat]

Thank you for clarifying. Interestingly enough this is actually what we decided for my own kid (the doctors, therapists, my wife and I, and my kid). We had been doing therapy and anti-depressants for about 3 years with only sporadic and temporary success, but inevitably led back to suicide attempts and hospitalizations. So we started testosterone at a quarter dose, and after 6 months to a half dose. And at the moment we're staying there... things have seem to stabilized, no suicide attempts in 6 months, general happiness and increased socialization. This is an n=1 scenario of course, and we also switched therapists to one that seems better suited for my kid.

I'm glad you're "fine" with that approach, but with all due respect, I don't see why you should have a say at all in it. You aren't our doctor, you aren't a part of any medical review board, and you aren't our insurance company. Ie, you have no standing in this decision.

I'm glad to hear that your child is doing better! I hope that their outlook and mental health continues to improve. General good vibes and thoughts to you and your wife, because I know the journey your family has been on has not been easy. Hopefully you can look back at it one day, with a healthy and happy kid, and know that it was all worth it.

 

[MT15]

UTJ - thanks for sharing. I knew you had more knowledge than most of us (probably all of us) on this subject but didn’t know you had direct family experience. I’m so happy to hear that the situation seems to have stabilized and I’m glad your child had someone like you as a parent to help them. I’m sure you have made a big difference in their life.

 

[Booker]

I don't see why you should have a say at all in it. You aren't our doctor, you aren't a part of any medical review board, and you aren't our insurance company. Ie, you have no standing in this decision.

This right here. It's no one else's business.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Thank you for the more in depth reply.

I did know those were abstracts and such b/c many peer reviewed studies are behind paywalls of whatever publication has it. It had enough info for my purposes though -- generally outlining the methodology and the conclusions (since I find in most science reporting that the conclusions are not accurately represented in whatever article that is reporting on the study). And in some of those studies, they aren't grabbing people after the fact, but observational from a current group, and doing check-ins after a year and two years on.

Yes, I noticed that in the first study, and that is an improvement over other such studies in the recent past that have been cited as evidence.

I'm not a medical researcher, but I do have a fair amount of experience statistical analysis, and I did assist with some psychology experiments in college. So I have a very passing familiarity with them, and these seem more or less in line with what I've seen in mental health studies.

They are in line with studies that are preliminary research, that would nearly always end with a statement that further research is needed. I hate to see a popular science-themed magazine like the one you cited treat them as authoritative and definitive.

The double blind study issue was addressed earlier, but besides having some ethical considerations - there's a big problem with being able to conduct the experiment because in order for it to be effective, no one can know who received treatment and who did not... but HRT produces noticeable physical changes, making it pretty obvious for a number of subjects. So, the subjects and researchers will likely know what's going on early on, skewing the results -- potentially making those who did not receive treatment even more negative than they would have otherwise.

I missed the discussion about having some ethical considerations, so I don't know how to comment on that.

Yes, double blind studies conducted with rigor are more difficult than having people fill out a form before and after the treatment. But it is vital to go to the effort, if you want best practices to be evidence based. The whole point of placebos and randomization of control group and experimental group are to determine whether it is indeed the treatment providing the benefit.

It is an attempt to rule out other variables such as the participant feeling that their concerns are being taken seriously, and the emotional and counseling support that they get along with the treatment.

Also, it should not be just filling out a form, no matter how good a form it is. People knowing that they are part of an experiment to determine whether a treatment they receive is effective, will be motivated to give answers that say it is, since they already indicated they believe in the treatment by taking it.

Some of the early so-called scientific studies I have been shown were much worse about that, recruiting people online who have had treatment for a survey about their outcomes, inviting self-selection of people who want to say that it had great outcomes. Also making the surveys anonymous and available to be taken multiple times by the same person. Not to mention being funded by a front group for corporate pharma.

Since it is very common for trans activists to claim that gender affirming care reduces suicides, they should produce studies that look at number of actual suicides, not things like self-reported suicidal ideation. If a doctor tells a parent, "scientific studies have shown that withholding gender affirming hormones and surgery leads to higher suicide rates," that is such a wild exageration that the parent would be giving disinformed consent, rather than informed consent.

What is noticeably absent are studies that show negative effects (including regret). So we have studies that indicate mostly positive outcomes and none that indicate negative outcomes.

That is a point in favor of the treatment. But what about actual teenagers and young adults who report regret about their transition? How does that happen if regret is absent?

Yes, we agree that the state has the right and duty to regulate medical care. You initially indicated that this was something that could be compromised on though, which indicates you think of it as a political issue and not a medical issue.

Anytime government regulates any activity, it is political. Obviously, it is a medical issue and a political issue. Just as marriage is both a personal relationship issue and a political issue. Government regulates marriage and we have political fights over how it should regulate marriage, not whether it should.

Which seems weird to me... either it's a valid treatment or it isn't. And a valid treatment doesn't mean it's good every time for everyone, but that it is something that helps people or it doesn't. There seems to be no moral room for compromise on that -- if it is a valid treatment it should be allowed and if it isn't then obviously it shouldn't be.

When it comes to adults, I would be on the side of letting doctors and patients decide what to do. I don't think that even an 18 year old should make a decision to have a doctor remove their genitals and breasts. I know and have known many 18 year olds and they are still growing up. But 18 has been the age of majority for a long time, and that's where the line is drawn so I accept that and mind my own beezwax.

So to me, the only discussion is around what is the process for determining valid medical treatments. Determining medical treatment based on popular vote seems like a terrible process. People are not trained to read medical journals and so on (which I think we all agree on), so why should Bob from accounting have a say on whether Mary gets her kidney removed laparoscopically or openly.

He shouldn't and procedures like that never become political. I had one and it was not at all political. I felt lucky that my doctor was an early adapter for my particular procedure, nobody mentioned any laws about it. That isn't what we are talking about at all, any more than transgender surgeries are about intersex babies.

I don't think that the LGBT-Q+ movement is willing to admit why there has been such a backlash against gender affirming procedures recently. It's because it is very recent that they are subjecting children to chemical and physical castration, cross-sex hormones not for depression, and permanent removal of breasts.

Of course, people are going to have something to say to them. Accountants, plumbers, and adults in many other non-medical professions know that children should not be allowed to make such life changing decisions for themselves. They know that no one should be making those decision for them except in cases of actual medical need. Surgery to solve a psychological problem that a child may very well outgrow is not something that should be done without oversight if at all.

Remove breasts to keep a child from dying of rare childhood breast cancer? Sad, but must be done. Remove healthy breasts on the grounds that studies we cannot see to analyze show that they tend to score better on self-completed questionaires? No, that makes no sense.

I'm not sure... there were only 56 genital alterations performed over a 3 year period, so it's obviously not something people do lightly.

Nor should they. You realize the alteration consists of destruction as a functioning organ and an attempt to construct an artificial likeness of the genitals of the opposite biological sex. That is quite an alteration.

Off the top of my head, I'd imagine if a child was performing self mutilations, and committed serious suicide attempts due to severe dysphoria and other treatments have failed, I can imagine that would become a viable treatment.

Is that the standard, though? Actually, I would hope not. A child who acts out in that extreme way has a lot more going on than Gender Dysphoria. Which makes sense in that Gender Dysphoria is so often co-morbid with other mental conditions, especially depression. Treat the depression with cross-sex hormones, but don't suppress the puberty of a child to help those cross-sex hormones create a resemblance to the opposite sex.

And the kid can't give informed consent, but the parent/guardian can. Same for any other surgery.

Not for any surgery. A parent cannot consent to a child having their leg removed or eye taken out because they identify as a pirate and might be at greater risk for suicide if they do not transition into one surgically. I would hope that they could not give consent for their child to have excessive cosmetic surgeries, or that a doctor would be held to account for malpractice if he created a child version of the unfortunate adult victims of that.

In most states you can't get a tattoo even with parental consent under 18.

Thank you for clarifying. Interestingly enough this is actually what we decided for my own kid (the doctors, therapists, my wife and I, and my kid). We had been doing therapy and anti-depressants for about 3 years with only sporadic and temporary success, but inevitably led back to suicide attempts and hospitalizations. So we started testosterone at a quarter dose, and after 6 months to a half dose. And at the moment we're staying there... things have seem to stabilized, no suicide attempts in 6 months, general happiness and increased socialization. This is an n=1 scenario of course, and we also switched therapists to one that seems better suited for my kid.

Very happy that your child is better. Depression is a horrible thing for a child to go through.

I'm glad you're "fine" with that approach, but with all due respect, I don't see why you should have a say at all in it. You aren't our doctor, you aren't a part of any medical review board, and you aren't our insurance company. Ie, you have no standing in this decision.

I get it. If the people involved were all over 18, I'd agree that it is absolutely none of my business. But unless you are stating that the state has no interest in protecting children from any parental action whatsoever, then we are talking about how the state should regulate treatment of children, not whether they should. If government is to regulate medical care, my standing comes from being a voter and taxpayer.

Hey, I'd love to look at ways to get rid of or reduce the profit motive in medicine and insurance. Can we say it together? Socialized medicine!!!

Like the proverbial stopped clock, socialized medicine is getting gender affirmation more right in Europe than we in America, who are getting it painfully wrong. What would you say to the government run medical organizations in Europe about respecting parental rights and performing transgender surgeries?

Absolutely not. I'm a strong believer in government regulation in a number of industries, medicine being one of them. I'd actually favor strengthening the regulations we have in place.

Then you do favor voters electing politicians who regulate medical practice.

I consider myself to be a process conservative. Humans are fickle, emotional and prone to bias. The best way to arrive at optimal solutions is to develop a process and then continuously improve those processes. Direct approval of medical procedures by politicians or the electorate seems to be a terrible process. That would open things to be run by the mob, it's idiocy imo.

You don't believe that in socialized medicine countries, government determines what procedures are acceptable and not? It isn't direct approval of individual medical procedures. Rather it is policy setting by government or government appointed boards. Socialized medicine does that much more than in the U.S.

The best process is to have a medical review board that governs what procedures are valid and the general conditions and scenarios they are valid for. That medical review board should be made up of medical professionals with specialties in the fields being examined - they should not be appointed based on their political leanings. The medical review board should have their own process for determining what is approved and what isn't. Their decisions and reasoning should be public.

Who would appoint them, if not elected politicians or people appointed above them by elected politicians?

If a poor decision is made, then the process should be reviewed for flaws. But you don't ignore the results from a process if you don't like it... you can examine the process itself, but in the meantime you abide by the result of the process you set up.

Agreed. None of that means "doctors and parents can do whatever they want and it's nobody's business." You seem to be advocating in this last part of your post what you seemed to argue against in the first part, which is medical decisions being regulated by government or a government appointed board of doctors. If I misunderstood, I apologize in advance.

Maybe you are envisioning parents being told "you can't consent for this treatment of your child because a bunch of Trump supporters, and DeSantis disciples managed to win an election." Now that I type it, that is not a completely unfair characterization. Elections have consequences, including determining the makeup of medical boards.

Every state has a medical board now, it is not a new idea. Florida's surgeon general and medical board - all doctors - have decided to take steps to ban gender affirming care for minors. You may not like the guy who appointed them, but someone has to appoint such medical authority.

Biden winning an election gave us Rachel Levine as assistant Secretary of Health. DeSantis winning an election gave us people you might find just as ridiculous as I find Levine. Not because she is trans, but because she advocates for inappropriate treatments for children.

I don't expect my advice to be taken, but It might be time to consider dialing back on the worst excesses of the child transgenderization movement so that politicians who oppose it don't resonate so well with voters. I'll make a separate post to explain exactly what I mean by that.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I get it. If the people involved were all over 18, I'd agree that it is absolutely none of my business. But unless you are stating that the state has no interest in protecting children from any parental action whatsoever, then we are talking about how the state should regulate treatment of children, not whether they should. If government is to regulate medical care, my standing comes from being a voter and taxpayer.

I'm not going to touch most of this because this is based on someone's lived experience, but I want to comment on this part. Your standing as a taxpayer gives you as much right to dictate the medical care and treatment plans of other people as it does to contribute to military operations- zero.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm not going to touch most of this because this is based on someone's lived experience, but I want to comment on this part. Your standing as a taxpayer gives you as much right to dictate the medical care and treatment plans of other people as it does to contribute to military operations- zero.

So, I have no right to give an opinion on military operations? The following may upset you:

The U.S. should not ever send troops to Ukraine to die in yet another European war. Responding to 9/11 with a twenty-years long unwinnable war was incredibly foolish. Sending out of shape reservists to the first battles of our involvement in the Korean War was a dumb decision militarily. Whose bright idea was it to enter WWII focusing on the country that invaded France and Russia rather than prioritizing the the country that attacked us? No more funding long wars that are never declared.

You hear that eyepatch guy whose name escapes me but is my congressman? Ted Cruz? John Cornyn? Joseph Biden? I pay your salary and I pay for all that military equipment, so I get a say through my vote!

Cuddlemonkey, are you gonna turn me in to someone?

 

[MT15]

Sack - how in hell do you do a “double-blind, placebo” clinical study when the treatment involves counseling? Gender-affirming care is never “just give them a pill” care. Standard of care involves a lot of different assessments, counseling sessions, and examinations, by more than one type of physician.

They aren’t merely trying to validate what puberty blockers do, they’ve been used for decades in children who have premature onset of puberty. We know what they do, pretty much. The questions about a treatment plan are much too complex for the sort of study you keep talking about.

Not to mention that it would be physically obvious who was getting the blockers versus a placebo. And unethical and immoral to deny a teen in anguish to the point of considering suicide a shot at a real treatment plan that would include real counseling and assessment.

It is none of your business how parents with these children choose to help their child. As UTJ has very patiently explained to you more than once, there are no studies showing deleterious effects of the normal protocol of gender affirming care. But there are multiple studies showing at least some benefit.

So, while you are entitled to your opinion on these things, you are NOT entitled to force others to abide by your opinions.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Your definition makes assumptions about prejudice.

I don't make that assumption in my post that you quoted, at least not that I can see. I know I didn't intentionally make such assumptions. Would you please point out specifically where you see me making that assumption? I might have done it unintentionally or might have miscommunicated what I meant.

I fit into the category of people that think that chromosomes define whether you are a woman or a man, and it affects a person’s development, but I never said that it should define a person’s behavior, nor restrict people from doing things that fit their gender identity, as long as it doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights. Those biological factors affect how a person develops, therefore I think it is fair to use that to develop laws.

That sounds reasonable to me. I think if were going to develop laws based on the biological development of a person, then we have to based it on the latest medical knowledge, even when the latest medical knowledge might create uncomfortable realities for us.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You've already agreed that the trans community here in the US and around the world is a very small percentage of the population. Given that, it would seem logical that "profit motive" isn't the driving force for gender dysphoria treatment. Nobody is getting rich by treating gender dysphoria, and I doubt the profits generated from either medication, surgery or other treatments is significant enough to motivate doctors/pharmaceuticals to do so unethically or illegally. We see this play out in Republican states when anti-trans laws are passed and all of the doctors/hospitals treating trans people change their procedures to comply, even going as far as to violate their patients HIPPA rights in the case of Vanderbilt.

This reasoning doesn't hold water.

Yes. In a not-so-bizarre juxtaposition, three of the things that big pharma and surgeons get the richest off of is treating male baldness, male impotence and enlarging penises/penes.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Sure... still, in the realm of athletic competition, transmen are allowed to use PEDs, while males of the species aren't. Testosterone is a PED, after all. If you are a male of the species and have low testosterone levels, as long as you don't drop past 400, you are SOL, no prescription testosterone for you.

On the issue of sports participation, I see validity in the concerns and perspectives that I've heard. I see validity in your concerns and perspective.

I haven't been able to form a definitive opinion or opinion on the sports participation question. I lean toward policies being the most inclusive and equally fair they can be.

On the issue of testosterone and supplements issue, my approach would be:

1. Determine the maximum level of testosterone that is safe for both XX and XY participants if that is medically possible
2. Allow all participants to supplement to that level if they choose, but only if prescribed and supervised by doctors specifically accredited for sports hormone supplementation.
3. If there is no doctor willing to prescribe any level of testosterone to any specific XX or XY athlete due to safety concerns for that athlete, then that athlete would not be allowed to take testosterone.

I think on just that aspect of sports participation, that is the most inclusive and fair way to go. That's just what I think and only on that issue.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Your standing as a taxpayer gives you as much right to dictate the medical care and treatment plans of other people as it does to contribute to military operations- zero.

So, I have no right to give an opinion on military operations?

Interesting that you took “don’t have the right to dictate” as meaning the same thing as “don’t have the right to an opinion”

 

[Snarky Sack]

Interesting that you took “don’t have the right to dictate” as meaning the same thing as “don’t have the right to an opinion”

Not that interesting.

I believe that cuddlemonkey is smart enough to know that I can't dictate anything to anyone about their medical care. My assumption was that it was hyperbole and she did mean that I shouldn't be expressing an opinion on people's medical care.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sack - how in hell do you do a “double-blind, placebo” clinical study when the treatment involves counseling? Gender-affirming care is never “just give them a pill” care. Standard of care involves a lot of different assessments, counseling sessions, and examinations, by more than one type of physician.

They aren’t merely trying to validate what puberty blockers do, they’ve been used for decades in children who have premature onset of puberty. We know what they do, pretty much. The questions about a treatment plan are much too complex for the sort of study you keep talking about.

The study would isolate the variable of the puberty blockers. The control group gets the placebo, but also gets real counseling by counselors who do not know whether they are getting the placebo or he real puberty blockers. If the results are similar, that would be lack of evidence that the puberty blockers are having the desired effect. If the experimental group shows statistically significant better results, that would be evidence that the blockers are effective.

That's the kind of study the FDA expects before it approves a medication for a specific purpose. It is done all time.

Not to mention that it would be physically obvious who was getting the blockers versus a placebo. And unethical and immoral to deny a teen in anguish to the point of considering suicide a shot at a real treatment plan that would include real counseling and assessment.

Except that that statement assumes that puberty blockers reduce suicides and there is zero evidence for that. All the supposed evidence is about self-reports of mental improvement, not about reduced suicide rates. Undergoing the treatment plan, with real counseling and assessment, but with the control group getting a placebo, would be a great benefit for the placebo group if the experiment showed that they got as much benefit as the experimental group.

They got the benefit and still had normal physical development. You may think that the blockers prevent suicide but there is no science that says that they do.

It is none of your business how parents with these children choose to help their child. As UTJ has very patiently explained to you more than once, there are no studies showing deleterious effects of the normal protocol of gender affirming care. But there are multiple studies showing at least some benefit.

So, while you are entitled to your opinion on these things, you are NOT entitled to force others to abide by your opinions.

Fortunately, I am not at all able to force others to abide by my opinions.

Question: why do you think European countries with socialized medicine are reducing the number of children being put on puberty blockers and other gender affirming treatment?

 

[LA - L.A.]

I've been hearing, on the news and reading in articles and on here, the phrase "transgenderization movement" thrown about without ever hearing any kind of specific or detailed explanation of what that's supposed to mean.

All I know is this. The vast majority of people speaking out on behalf of transgender children are speaking out for an equal right of parents and individuals to determine what's best for themselves or their children, whom they love and care about deeply.

So for almost all people, supporting transgender rights is an issue of equal rights, not one of converting other people into transgender people or convincing other people they are transgender. It's simply, as was eloquently stated by @UncleTrvlingJim, a matter of what I do for my children or myself is no one else's business.

Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe or say that there aren't some nutjobs running around who would like to make everyone transgender or convince everyone that they are transgender. There's a lot of fricking crazy in the world, so anyone can probably find examples of that kind of craziness.

However, that kind of craziness exists only as a very minsicule minority. It's the statistically rare exception. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them. "Well, how can they be a statistical exception if there are so many of them," some might ask? Consider this:

• There are about 1.3 million transgender people over the age 18 in the US https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-study-estimates-16-million-us-identify-transgender-2022-06-10/
• 1% of 1.3 million is 13,000 people. That's a lot of people, but it's only 1% of transgenders who have let us know who they are.
• There isn't any group that doesn't have a lunatic fringe that makes up at least 1% of their group, which is most unfortunate for the vast majority of us who don't dwell in the realm of any lunatic fringes.

If the group of transgenders has a 1% lunatic fringe element within their whole group, that's a 13,000 people strong lunatic fringe element. So, it's going to be really easy to find lots of articles and lots of videos of lunatic stuff being spewed by that lunatic fringe.

I don't think it's fair or rational to judge about 1.287 million people based on the couple of dozen examples of the lunatic stuff we see and hear from a handful of individuals that are clearly part of lunatic fringe, self-evident from the lunatic stuff they do and say.

If there was more than 13,000 of them, we would know it, because we'd be able to easily find thousands of videos, photos and articles of them saying the lunatic stuff they say.

Even judging millions of people for the actions and words of thousands of people is irrational, illogical, unfair, silly and is two of the definitions of prejudice. It's even more absurd to make those judgments based on only a couple of dozen known examples.

Definition of PREJUDICE

injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims; preconceived judgment or opinion; an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Heck, we haven't even seen videos, photos, or articles of hundreds of transgender people trying to convince non-transgender people that they are transgender or that they should become transgenders.

Which brings me to my final question. What is this so-called "transgenderization movement" that I keep hearing about?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The word "woman," like all of the words we use when referring to objects and concepts, doesn't have any inherent definition. It only has the definition people give it.

Agree. On this board it means something different than it does to the majority of Americans. But that is how words work. Words like "boot" "bonnet" and "lift" mean different things in London than in Houston.

Some define being woman as being biologically born with XX chromosomes as opposed to XY.

Yes, the majority of Americans.

Those same people believe that everyone who belongs to XX or XY should think of themselves and behave in a way which conforms to their demands of how XX or XY people should think about themselves and how they behave themselves.

That's a leap with no supporting evidence. People can and often do believe that biology determines gender but also believe that women and men should think and behave as they please.

 

[Lapaz]

I don't make that assumption in my post that you quoted, at least not that I can see. I know I didn't intentionally make such assumptions. Would you please point out specifically where you see me making that assumption? I might have done it unintentionally or might have miscommunicated what I meant.

That sounds reasonable to me. I think if were going to develop laws based on the biological development of a person, then we have to based it on the latest medical knowledge, even when the latest medical knowledge might create uncomfortable realities for us.

The part that makes an assumption about prejudice is where you said "behave in a way which conforms to their demands of how XX or XY people should think about themselves and how they behave themselves." You assumed that if a person believes that chromosones determine one's gender, then they must also believe that a person should therefore behave according to that gender. Gender identity determines how a person behaves, and it would be prejudiced not to believe that a person can behave according to their gender identity. Chromosones determine how people develop, but it doesn't follow that people have to behave according to their chromosones.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I've been hearing, on the news and reading in articles and on here, the phrase "transgenderization movement" thrown about without ever hearing any kind of specific or detailed explanation of what that's supposed to mean.

All I know is this. The vast majority of people speaking out on behalf of transgender children are speaking out for an equal right of parents and individuals to determine what's best for themselves or their children, whom they love and care about deeply.

So for almost all people, supporting transgender rights is an issue of equal rights, not one of converting other people into transgender people or convincing other people they are transgender. It's simply, as was eloquently stated by @UncleTrvlingJim, a matter of what I do for my children or myself is no one else's business.

Now, I'm not foolish enough to believe or say that there aren't some nutjobs running around who would like to make everyone transgender or convince everyone that they are transgender. There's a lot of fricking crazy in the world, so anyone can probably find examples of that kind of craziness.

However, that kind of craziness exists only as a very minsicule minority. It's the statistically rare exception. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them. "Well, how can they be a statistical exception if there are so many of them," some might ask? Consider this:

• There are about 1.3 million transgender people over the age 18 in the US https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-study-estimates-16-million-us-identify-transgender-2022-06-10/
• 1% of 1.3 million is 13,000 people. That's a lot of people, but it's only 1% of transgenders who have let us know who they are.
• There isn't any group that doesn't have a lunatic fringe that makes up at least 1% of their group, which is most unfortunate for the vast majority of us who don't dwell in the realm of any lunatic fringes.

If the group of transgenders has a 1% lunatic fringe element within their whole group, that's a 13,000 people strong lunatic fringe element. So, it's going to be really easy to find lots of articles and lots of videos of lunatic stuff being spewed by that lunatic fringe.

I don't think it's fair or rational to judge about 1.287 million people based on the couple of dozen examples of the lunatic stuff we see and hear from a handful of individuals that are clearly part of lunatic fringe, self-evident from the lunatic stuff they do and say.

If there was more than 13,000 of them, we would know it, because we'd be able to easily find thousands of videos, photos and articles of them saying the lunatic stuff they say.

Even judging millions of people for the actions and words of thousands of people is irrational, illogical, unfair, silly and is two of the definitions of prejudice. It's even more absurd to make those judgments based on only a couple of dozen known examples.

Heck, we haven't even seen videos, photos, or articles of hundreds of transgender people trying to convince non-transgender people that they are transgender or that they should become transgenders.

Which brings me to my final question. What is this so-called ""transgenderization movement" that I keep hearing about? Inquiring minds want to know.

I see that you want to make a distinction between a 1% lunatic fringe that provides anti-trans activists with lots of video fodder and articles that could be used to paint all trans activists as part of that fringe. Fair enough.

What is the difference in beliefs on the part of that fringe that makes them different from other trans activists? What policies to they advocate that other trans activist believe are the spewings of lunatics? Please give concrete examples of this video and article fodder that mainstream trans activists find maniacal.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The part that makes an assumption about prejudice is where you said "behave in a way which conforms to their demands of how XX or XY people should think about themselves and how they behave themselves." You assumed that if a person believes that chromosones determine one's gender, then they must also believe that a person should therefore behave according to that gender.

You're absolutely correct. That is a flawed assumption and what I wrote clearly does make that wrong assumption. I screwed up and I appreciate you pointing it out, so that I can clean up my miscommunication.

I agree with you that a person just believing that chromosones determine one's gender is not prejudiced and not everyone who believes that is trying to force their beliefs onto anyone else.

I believe that the prejudice occurs only when people try to force others to conform to their beliefs, which you clearly aren't doing.

In general on all issues, for me prejudice is not in the believing of something. Prejudice only occurs when someone tries to force others to conform to whatever beliefs they have.

I hope that clears up what I think. Let me know if it doesn't.