Utah lawmakers’ own study found gender-affirming care benefits trans youth. Will they lift the treatment ban?

[JSRG]

The trouble is, those discussions are carried out without concern for "Bibilical" sexual morality. That's the real objection to trans.

It's hard to see this as the "real objection to trans" given that some of the most anti-trans people I've met are atheists.

 

[RileyG]

To cut to the chase, doctors are not forbidden from treating minors.

I’ve never said otherwise.

 

[BCP1928]

They are taking it up because its trendy and rebellious. Its what teens have always done. Its the thing now to create shock value, to separate themselves from the norm, to stand out.

Exactly what I said.

Ive seen teens doing this since the 60s. That's when I became aware of such things.

Ive raised four teens myself and seen 5 of my grandkids go through the process.

Non-binary, gender fluid no sense is just that. They really aren't. Rhey just say they are. And trans is not that at all.

"Really?" What are they "Really?"

 

[Hans Blaster]

For example, "Religious Freedom" -- there's widespread agreement on the strict definition meaning that people should have the right to believe and worship whatever deity they please, but we know that when a certain subset of people say it, they're playing a word game because they're actually referring to wanting to make themselves exempt from certain laws or being legally allowed to discriminate.

Unfortunately, that subset of people goes by the moniker "The Roberts Court".

 

[BCP1928]

It's hard to see this as the "real objection to trans" given that some of the most anti-trans people I've met are atheists.

Yes, I believe that there are non-religious people who believe that trans is not real and that kids who say they are trans are either seriousy mentally ill or wicked pretenders, but there are also Christians who think trans is real and that trans kids need compassionate treatment. No, I was referring more to the nature of the arguments. All the real arguments that can be raised against trans can be resolved in some way or other, have been solve in the case of boys in girls sports, but still the arguing goes on and now we have federal bullying about a handful of trans kids who have been accepted by their female peers. No, the real objection to trans is based on morality, even for atheists.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

"But it doesn't look like society is going to let go of it anytime soon, so therefore"

"Or maybe I'll just blow it all off and come out as nonbinary."

Have they even considered the possibility that the patterns and lived experiences that led to many of the sex-linked "gender roles" in a multitude of societies (past and present) came about somewhat organically as a result of things that were discovered and not created?


Because it seems like many are simply fixated on trying to break down anything that's considered a "social construct" without considering the possibility that some things became constructs for a reason...and that not every reason was an "oppressed vs oppressor" dynamic?

 

[RileyG]

It's hard to see this as the "real objection to trans" given that some of the most anti-trans people I've met are atheists.

Not to mention, plenty of homosexuals, too.

 

[BCP1928]

Have they even considered the possibility that the patterns and lived experiences that led to many of the sex-linked "gender roles" in a multitude of societies (past and present) came about somewhat organically as a result of things that were discovered and not created?

You mean like in cultures where there are four accepted gender categories instead of just two?

Because it seems like many are simply fixated on trying to break down anything that's considered a "social construct" without considering the possibility that some things became constructs for a reason...and that not every reason was an "oppressed vs oppressor" dynamic?

No, they are just rejecting a social construct they think is not appropriate for them. I see no reason that they shouldn't bug out if they want to.

 

[BCP1928]

Not to mention, plenty of homosexuals, too.

Yes, plenty of opinions. Everybody's got one.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure what your point is anymore, because you keep shifting the goalposts. We were talking about your comparison to BDD, which involves people continuously trying to modify their body to meet an ever-changing standard. Whatever progress they make is "never enough". BDD is a problem because it's self-destructive - people beat themselves up because they cannot attain the body that they think they should have, and injure themselves pushing for more and more. That's not a phenomenon that's generally seen in the trans community, so your comparison falls a bit flat. Most trans people do hormone therapy and maybe have some surgery, but you don't see them continuously going under the knife or undergoing riskier and riskier treatments in pursuit of an unrealistic standard. I thought your point in bringing up those two particular trans people was to point out the extent to which they had managed to make themselves "passing" and claim that that's the standard that trans people in general were aiming for. Which isn't true.

But now you want to talk about how you think they're being inconsistent. That's not actually an argument against the idea of gender-affirming care though; it's just you complaining that they don't "think correctly."

That reply was in response to your reply, suggesting that what Buck and Blaire aimed for (in terms of the looks they were going for) wasn't representative of the trans community.

I was providing numbers that demonstrate that over three quarters of them think exactly like that.


With regards to them "not thinking correctly", well, that's up to each person to interpret whether or not their logic is consistent.

To me, saying "we need to break the binary, and recognize that gender isn't tied to sex" while simultaneously striving to look like the opposite sex in the name of "affirming their gender identity" seems counterintuitive. As, if there was no link between the two, there'd be no need for any sort of hormonal or surgical intervention at all.

It'd be like if an anti-gun person said "I need to get a gun to make sure I can defend myself against all those pro-gun people"

 

[BCP1928]

That reply was in response to your reply, suggesting that what Buck and Blaire aimed for (in terms of the looks they were going for) wasn't representative of the trans community.

I was providing numbers that demonstrate that over three quarters of them think exactly like that.


With regards to them "not thinking correctly", well, that's up to each person to interpret whether or not their logic is consistent.

To me, saying "we need to break the binary, and recognize that gender isn't tied to sex" while simultaneously striving to look like the opposite sex in the name of "affirming their gender identity" seems counterintuitive. As, if there was no link between the two, there'd be no need for any sort of hormonal or surgical intervention at all.

It'd be like if an anti-gun person said "I need to get a gun to make sure I can defend myself against all those pro-gun people"

If he felt that the pro-gun people were a danger to him it might be the right move, and not inconsistent. Being "anti-gun" is not the same thing as being anti-self defense.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That reply was in response to your reply, suggesting that what Buck and Blaire aimed for (in terms of the looks they were going for) wasn't representative of the trans community.

I was providing numbers that demonstrate that over three quarters of them think exactly like that.

I think we had a mutual misunderstanding then - as I said, I thought you were still on about unrealistic standards.

With regards to them "not thinking correctly", well, that's up to each person to interpret whether or not their logic is consistent.

To me, saying "we need to break the binary, and recognize that gender isn't tied to sex" while simultaneously striving to look like the opposite sex in the name of "affirming their gender identity" seems counterintuitive. As, if there was no link between the two, there'd be no need for any sort of hormonal or surgical intervention at all.

I think that you'll find that there's a spectrum of beliefs when it comes to this, even among the trans community. You're massively over-generalizing here, and I think also misunderstanding what people mean.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You mean like in cultures where there are four accepted gender categories instead of just two?

How many of those cultures are still around today, and did they flourish? Or did they end up getting overtaken by cultures that perhaps injected certain pragmatic concepts pertaining to the most practical way to handle things like division of labor?


For instance, let's say we have two civilizations that are starting out on roughly equal footing.

Civilization 1 - Doesn't implement any sex assigned roles in the division of labor

Civilization 2 - Recognizes "Hey, in order for our next generation to survive, it's kind of important that the babies be able to nurse, so maybe it doesn't make much sense to send the females out hunting while the men stay back, because if the females die, the babies starve to death...plus, we've noticed that the males seem to be bigger stronger and faster, so it makes more sense for them to do the hunting while the females hand back and care of the little ones"

Just on that simple acknowledgement alone, Civilization 2 is going to advance beyond Civilization 1 in a few mere generations.


People will assign the pejorative connotation of "colonialism" to it when Civilization 2 comes in and takes over the land of Civilization 1 and implements their own systems as the new "law of the land".


But the part they're ignoring is that in order for Civilization 2 to be to get to a position where they could advance to a degree where they can do that, was because they did get some things right.

The reality is, if everyone's way of doing things was equally beneficial to advancement, then every civilization would've made it to roughly the same place despite taking very different paths... instead of what we have now, which is some societies building skyscrapers and mastering air travel, while others are still trying to chase down wild boars in the rainforest in hopes of getting a meal without getting attacked by a jaguar in the process.

No, they are just rejecting a social construct they think is not appropriate for them. I see no reason that they shouldn't bug out if they want to.

...it's because they're demanding that everyone else go along with it and restructure everything around their vision of "ideal".

They're not saying
"Your system is flawed, we want out"

They're saying
"We want you take all of the constructs that allowed for this society to advance to this degree in the first place (because we still want to enjoy the benefits), and scrap the aspects of it that clash with what my sociology philosophy professor taught me in my 2nd semester"

 

[BCP1928]

How many of those cultures are still around today, and did they flourish? Or did they end up getting overtaken by cultures that perhaps injected certain pragmatic concepts pertaining to the most practical way to handle things like division of labor?

They still exist. I lived in one such as a Peace Corps volunteer for several years.

For instance, let's say we have two civilizations that are starting out on roughly equal footing.

Civilization 1 - Doesn't implement any sex assigned roles in the division of labor

Nobody is saying that.

Civilization 2 - Recognizes "Hey, in order for our next generation to survive, it's kind of important that the babies be able to nurse, so maybe it doesn't make much sense to send the females out hunting while the men stay back, because if the females die, the babies starve to death...plus, we've noticed that the males seem to be bigger stronger and faster, so it makes more sense for them to do the hunting while the females hand back and care of the little ones"

Just on that simple acknowledgement alone, Civilization 2 is going to advance beyond Civilization 1 in a few mere generations.

So what? That's not what we are talking about.

People will assign the pejorative connotation of "colonialism" to it when Civilization 2 comes in and takes over the land of Civilization 1 and implements their own systems as the new "law of the land".


But the part they're ignoring is that in order for Civilization 2 to be to get to a position where they could advance to a degree where they can do that, was because they did get some things right.

The reality is, if everyone's way of doing things was equally beneficial to advancement, then every civilization would've made it to roughly the same place despite taking very different paths... instead of what we have now, which is some societies building skyscrapers and mastering air travel, while others are still trying to chase down wild boars in the rainforest in hopes of getting a meal without getting attacked by a jaguar in the process.

And these social constructs must be rigidly defined and enforced and can never tolerate nonconformity and can never, never be changed. The survival of Western Civilisation depends on it.

They're not saying
"Your system is flawed, we want out"

Since we are talking about non-binary people, yes, that is exactly what they are saying.

They're saying
"We want you take all of the constructs that allowed for this society to advance to this degree in the first place (because we still want to enjoy the benefits), and scrap the aspects of it that clash with what my sociology philosophy professor taught me in my 2nd semester"

"All of the constructs?"

 

[RileyG]

Yes, plenty of opinions. Everybody's got one.

Yup. It’s not just Christians who are opposed.

 

[BCP1928]

Yup. It’s not just Christians who are opposed.

By no means. Muslims are also opposed, I understand. There are trans people all over the world, always have been, and various cultures have handled the problem in different ways over time.

 

[RileyG]

By no means. Muslims are also opposed, I understand. There are trans people all over the world, always have been, and various cultures have handled the problem in different ways over time.

Yup. No argument from me.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Nobody is saying that.

Aren't they, though?

By some of them implying that "gender constructs are just a thing people made up as a way of giving themselves hierarchical power" rather than acknowledging that some of these came about organically as a result of biological differences and observations, they're basically saying that aspects that had a large hand in making these powerful and influential societies what they are today.


On one hand, you have feminist philosophers like Simone de Beauvoir making statements like "Women should be forbidden from staying home to raise their children, because if allowed, too many would make that choice"

Meanwhile, there are modern studies (conducted in societies that are more egalitarian than ours), that would seem to support some of the more traditional gender roles.

The Norwegian study (later published by the Stanford Journal of Labor Economics)

In 1998 the Norwegian government conducted a study to evaluate the educational outcomes of children based on the level of maternal labor force participation...and tracked the kids from early childhood up until the 10th grade.

Their conclusion:
We find a significant positive treatment effect on 10th grade GPA. Pupils with mothers who stayed in the home had up to 1.2 points higher GPAs by 10th grade compared to peers whose mothers worked outside the home., and this effect seems to be largely driven by mother’s reduced labor force participation and not by changes in family income or father’s labor force participation.

Their key findings (in plain English):
Moms tend to be more patient in assisting with schoolwork as opposed to Dads, babysitters, or older siblings
The kids at home with mom (vs. being in childcare) exhibited less stress and aggression
Educational and structured activities with mothers correlate positively with cognitive and behavioral outcomes (in ways that can't be replicated with dad, siblings, and strangers)

And these social constructs must be rigidly defined and enforced and can never tolerate nonconformity and can never, never be changed. The survival of Western Civilisation depends on it.

Not all "nonconformity" is created equal.

For example, if you look at the conversations the nation was having about the topic of drugs a decade or two back with regards to the "status quo" of the time...

Both
"I think we should legalize marijuana for adults over 21 and regulate it like alcohol"
and
"We should legalize all drugs for everyone, full stop"

...were both "nonconformity" as both saw a restriction on human activity that they felt didn't need to exist.

However, those two positions are lightyears apart in terms of their potential impacts.

 

[rjs330]

What baloney. Where are the criminal and civil actions for this alleged universal ethical lapse?

AFAIK the couple lawsuits out there have not been decided, so nothing of the sort has been 'proven'.

The WPATH files proved it. The kids and parents dont really understand what the ramifications are for the medicalization of kids. It absolutely has been proven. Even the so called experts said so.

 

[rjs330]

"Really?" What are they "Really?"

Males and females who have decided they want to show some rebellion and set themselves apart from the group. Making a claim of non-binary or gender fluid is just one of the newer ways to do that. But they are still just boys or girls, males or females. They are just looking for edgy ways to be different.

They are still in the binary and are still boys or girls no matter what kind of proclamations they make. In essence they are just play acting. Playing dress up to make some sort of statement.

Which of course is okay for them as an individual to do.