You're viewing a single thread.
The mental model you guys are working off of is completely wrong.
Not much direct research has been done, but the impression I get is that a surprising amount of the post-2016 right aren't lifelong Christians (or even Christians at all even now, belonging to factions such as libertarianism which isn't tied to religion at all), and aren't even lifelong conservatives. A lot of them vocally supported Obama in 2008 if they're that old. the support for gay marriage among Republicans has approached 50%, which is a massive increase over the previous support near 20%. Moreover, you may be surprised to find that not everyone who is concerned about what's going on is a conservative or a republican either. Protecting children from people who hope to cause them harm is a universal human value, and likely is derived from instincts far before that.
It's really important to understand the recent history of conservatism, because it's a rapidly changing landscape. On one hand, you have traditional liberals who are now considered conservative for not rushing headlong enough into the latest thing, and on the other hand you have openly far right factions and they aren't hiding their open contempt for other factions for not being extreme enough, and they aren't hiding their opinions on things like women, black people, and jews. In that respect, I see a lot of people working off a playbook that's out of date and coming to wildly wrong conclusions on a wide variety of topics from that false model. After the Republicans got crushed in 2008 they had to go back to the chalkboard and find new strategies that would work in a new world. People made fun of some of the attempts such as the tea party, but that resulted in a lot of new ideas and new blood coming into the party. Many other conservative parties around the world needed to do the same thing because they faced similar defeats. As a result, around the world parties that were considered completely outside the overton window for being conservative are gaining ground. AFD in Germany, Fratelli d'Italia in Italy, and even the far right populist PPC got more votes than the green party in Canada in the recent election, and in the next election the Conservatives are on track to win a massive majority. This isn't happening because they're telling the same stories they were 15 years ago, it's happening because they're finding new stories to tell while their left-wing opponents are just quadrupling down on the stories they told 15 years ago that don't represent a reality in 2024. Conservatism isn't just Christianity therefore, it's a much flatter, much wider thing including a lot of the cultural consensus from 15 years ago and a lot of stuff that would be considered literally unspeakable 15 years ago.
If you want to blame someone for making people think they're trying to make kids gay or trans, you should probably blame all the idiots who were recorded saying they wanted to make kids gay or trans. You should blame people who use the phrase "not so secret gay agenda" positively in describing what they're doing in their work on kids shows. You should blame the people who put out musical numbers singing "We'll convert your children!". As well, you should blame the people who have decided that starting to transition children in schools while explicitly keeping it secret from parents is a hill they want to die on. In some of the cases I'm referring to they claim to be just joking, but it is the contemporary left that drew the line in the sand that if you joke about anything you're advocating for the most extreme thing you can imagine with respect to that thing. If you care deeply about your kids, and someone is "joking" about doing something you find unspeakable to your kids, why take a chance and why not just believe them?
In the 1970s and 1980s, there was something called the "Satanic Panic". The police questioned kids about certain things and eventually they got stories from these kids that led to the arrest of dozens of people. The problem at that time is it was all false. One kid claimed the cultists killed and ate and forced him to eat his friend (who was very much alive). Police scoured airports looking for airplanes that could land secretly in a residential neighborhood, fly a child to mexico to be molested, then returned to the same neighborhood in the same day. Another kid spoke of a complex series of tunnels under a town that the cultists used for their satanic rituals, and when it was checked there were no tunnels. In the end, it turned out that all the people accused ended up being innocent, and what we learned from that is that we need to be very careful when trying to figure stuff out from kids because they want to tell us things we want to hear. Today there's a completely different method of questioning children in criminal cases exactly because we know kids are impressionable and we need to be careful about finding the truth and not just the answers that are convenient to us. In the same way, to be responsible we need to be extremely careful about giving kids drugs or surgery that permanently modify the path of their bodies solely because they tell us they are something.
Compare the way "trans kids" are being treated by politicans and the media, and even if you assume good faith and that it isn't intentional, it's impossible to see the behavior as anything but manipulative and dangerous from a completely secular viewpoint. Telling kids that if they assume a certain characteristics that they're so loved and so wanted and so supported and they're being mistreated by everyone around them that just doesn't know how special they are and giving the same message all the time -- of course a bunch of kids will go "oh, well if that's what the important adults want me to be then that's what I'll be".
Now, one important piece of the puzzle with respect to "trans kids" is that someone who questions their sexuality isn't going to ask anyone to surgically alter their bodies, which would be why that piece of the puzzle is particularly contentious.
Different studies of kids trans kids showed that between 60 and over 90% of kids who expressed confusion about their gender identity ended up the gender identity of their birth after 18 without treatment. If nothing else, that should raise serious questions about whether treatment of any kind before the age of 18 is ethical, considering you could potentially end up causing needless harm to 9 kids for every 1 kid you help. There is certainly a lot of research disputing these findings, and in fact the number of articles saying "nuh uh" absolutely dwarfs the actual claims, but as a politically charged issue there's an obvious concern about politically induced bias here, which makes me want to believe the older studies from before this was such a front and center topic. You can disagree, but I'm sure my skepticism of "new study shows everything political movement claims is true" is not so unreasonable. If I'm not going to believe creationists when they spit out a flood of studies 'proving' the world is only 8000 years old, why would I believe trans youth ideologues when they spit out a flood of studies seemingly solely in response to being challenged politically?
There has been an explosion in the number of kids identifying as trans. Now, it could be that we're just living in the gayest, transest time in the history of the world, but when we're dealing with numbers increasing by many orders of magnitude, it's equally possible that there's an element of social contaigen. Some people might claim that social contaigen is absurd and wouldn't cause people to do something as extreme as this. The thing is, it is uncontroversial that there is an element of social contaigen in cutting, anorexia and suicide which are both purely harmful, and recreational drug use which can be quite harmful.
Given the basis of the Hippocratic oath, medicine should be politically Conservative but practically conservative and be very careful about implementing new treatments, particularly on a very large scale, particularly when the effects of those treatments are so overwhelmingly dire. Fundamentally modifying and fundamentally damaging sex organs and primary and secondary sexual characteristics is something we have to be very careful about doing and nobody should be jumping for joy at the idea that it's something that we have to do, in the same way that no one should be jumping for joy at the idea that they should need an organ transplant.
Another important thing to remember is that there is a solid history in the 20th century of medical ideologies or technologies that become wildly popular and end up proving to be somewhat evil. Tommy Douglas, the founder of Canadian healthcare, was a vocal proponent of eugenics. The prefrontal lobotomy eventually ended up coming to be considered an example of barbarism but when it was first invented was considered a miracle cure. Prior to the 20th century, cocaine was considered so fantastic that Sigmund Freud himself wrote a book called on cocaine which was about how much he thought cocaine was a beneficial drug. All of these are cautionary tales about simply accepting the current orthodoxy on a current medical treatment.
You'll note that none of these are religious arguments. You don't need to believe in any God to look at the above. You can be a hard atheist and look at the facts above and be concerned because you don't want people hurting your kids for their political ideology. If you think that it's solely due to christianity that someone would look at the above and be concerned then you're fundamentally misunderstanding people around you.
Now to give everything a broad view, just because something ends up being bad in the way that it's implemented doesn't necessarily mean that it is entirely bad. Eugenics taken to it it's extremes horrible and immoral, but some individuals with major genetic diseases choose independently not to have kids because of the risks involved. Prefrontal lobotomies as a carry-all for anything that could heal you is obviously absolutely horrific and terrible, but it is still very occasionally used for very specific situations. I believe that even cocaine has legitimate medical applications, and if it doesn't then certainly it's cousin opiates or something that are quite dangerous and should not be thrown around thoughtlessly but have incredible levels of therapeutic benefit. I would even go so far as to say that there may be situations where very early intervention in transgender cases could be tremendously beneficial, but I think that the data is clearly showing you have to be very careful and being a political topic the way it is I don't think it's being treated very carefully.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
[2] https://ballotpedia.org/Pivot_Counties:_The_counties_that_voted_Obama-Obama-Trump_from_2008-2016
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/22/us/gender-identity-students-parents.html
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/us/satanic-panic.html
[9] https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/23/satanic-panic/
[10] https://twitter.com/theJagmeetSingh/status/1753190259343708432
[12] http://www.sexologytoday.org/2016/01/do-trans-kids-stay-trans-when-they-grow_99.html
[13] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216800/
[14] https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/958742?form=fpf
[15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/
[16] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004867413502092
[17] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23387399/
[18] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3926100/
[19] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/hippocratic-oath-today/
[20] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/tommy-douglas-and-eugenics
[21] https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55854145
[22] https://www.vice.com/en/article/payngv/how-cocaine-influenced-the-work-of-sigmund-freud
Meh, you can't disregard the current medical and scientific consensus because it may turn out to be wrong in the future. This is the same thing the pro-fossil-fuel and tobacco organizations used to do. You work with the best information you've got.
Even if gayness and trans-ness was a social contagion (I don't think it is), what would be wrong with that? The argument seems to be implying that being gay or trans is bad.
Do you mean to suggest that linking gender-affirming care to satanism/pedophilia, eugenics and hard drug use, in one disjointed pseudo-religious rant is indicative of an agenda? I am shocked!!
Your "multiple studies of kids showing that they revert naturally before the age of 18" were all conducted in the 70's dude. Non acceptance from a community is very good at creating closeted individuals. We do what we do to try and be happy, if we are routinely physically and socially punished for being who we are we do revert to walking the path of least resistance to survive but it is a hard and miserable path. Here's a study more updated that flips numbers on it's head. Around 95 percent of trans kids who socially transition these days are consistent in their identities over the 5 years of the study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9936352/#:~:text=We found that an average,to their binary transgender identity.
Also you're treating this healthcare as experimental and new but it's decently far along. Puberty blockers are the newest addition to the tool kit but they were approved for use after extensive research trials over 30 years ago and principles of their safety of use were based on observations from naturally stalled puberties and endocrinology data of hormonal insensitivity disorders...and we've been using them for trans kids pretty much right from the beginning so the first paitents are in their 40's now. There is data that the puberty blocker process is imperfect but like any medical advancement there are nessisary fine tunings of treatment. It's not a set it and forget it situation. We know the endocrinologist check ins and scans need to keep coming and the risk assessment for a paused puberty needs to be a carefully routinely updated thing with suspension of treatment being a viable option if things don't go well...but removing the option from the medical feild entirely and refusing to keep working to develop its safety efficacy further and isn't going to make overall treatment outcomes better for patients.
This lie that doctors are slapdash and haphazard in trans healthcare is nothing but fabrication. It requires a panel of a psychologist, social worker, pediatrician and endocrinologist the child and the child's legal guardians to sign off on any medical interventions and they have to do their research first to meet a determined burden of proof that interventions are nessisary and they make it a pretty high bar... At 16 there's very limited number of things available and any surgeries made available are also available to cis kids. If a 16 year old teen wants a breast reduction it doesn't matter if their trans or not they just need parental approval. Hormonal transition requires a lot more sign off than that. If a parent doesn't sign off then the kid can't make their own medical choices until after 18. The system is designed to mitigate risks and yes a lot of the outcomes for trans paitents are markedly better when they can more effortlessly pass as their gender because you avoid a lot of social shunning and hate when your transness is invisible to the public.
Our society creates a catch 22 senario for trans people where segements of society demand that a person isn't actually a viable member of their gender unless they can show medical documentation they've transitioned... And they treat non-binary trans masc and trans femme non medical coping strategies as being less legitimate. If you are trying to navigate a situation where you require coping strategies to deal with experiencing daily body horror and you deny people the use of mental only coping mechanisms they are not going to veiw mental only coping mechanisms a reasonable solve. Telling us that one option to deal with our problems is self harm and then making fun of or dismissing the other as "social contagion" and treating us as a different kind of problem is basically just telling us that you think permanent misery should be our only option.
If you REALLY want to lessen the pressures on trans people to medically transition your move is not to clamp down on medical options... It's to make non-binary physical presentations and safe rewarding social transitions a more viable option by offering greater levels of social acceptance. The whole "Well I will never accept you as a ____. Because physically you are not" behavior does nothing but add fuel to a dysphoria and injure a trans person's ability to exist comfortably in a social sphere. Cis people make an equal fuss about pronouns as they do surgeries. There's zero empathy. Faced with that we are just going to try harder to physically hide from you so you can't visually pick us out of a crowd using whatever means we have.
Social contagion and the likes of Abagail Shrier is a discredited myth. At best the very shallow end of non-binary transness might be represented but that is basically "I don't like it when people make a big assumptions of me based around my sexual characteristics so please don't " which is kind of just a reasonable response to sexism. The actual euphoria /dysphoria body and culture related stuff isn't something you are going to catch... And framing medical transition in terms of self harm is gross. What people feel and ultimately choose to do with their bodies is something individually very cautiously considered. Treating the matter as though they are defacing a public owned good or resource is just projection. Your values regarding your sexual organs and physical characteristics are not universal. You do not have to live their lives, their choices are not your business so please stay in your lane.
Lastly, people tell trans kids they are loved because as people we are routinely framed by hostile cis people as a logistical problem. Telling kids they are a problem tends to drive them inside themselves and creates a sense of isolation. A lot of kids growing up, not just trans kids already generally think that people won't miss them if they just disappear because they are a burden or a problem. The youngest trans kid I know right now is seven... And they have already had peers their age tell them to their face that they should kill themself. When I was growing up the "weird kid" I wanted to die but I knew my family wouldn't recover from that so I didn't. It isn't that kids are doing this to be lavished with attention. I can tell you that the experience of myself and every trans person I know is that people making any kind of big deal about us based on our genders positive or negative just makes you feel like an outsider. People harping on about how "strong" you are for being visible generally just comes across as pulling more attention to things we just want people to treat as so normal it's beneath commentary. That young trans person I know today struggles because they are closeted at school not wanting to stick out from the crowd because they fear the potential unwanted fuss and can only be themselves at home. I am partially closeted at work partially because it will negatively impact my hiring chances between gigs and partially because onboarding new people into understanding non-binary transness and using correct pronouns is exhausting. Having everyone take their trans hot takes to you or asking invasive questions about your life experiences while you have shit on the docket to do quite frankly sucks.
Your understanding of trans people isn't based on first hand or even second hand knowledge of our experience or from empathy towards our situations. It's in the framework of us being a "problem".
A problem of your convenience an "I shouldn't have to change my behaviour to make someone else's life easier ".
A logistical problem a " we shouldn't have to make concessions or changes as a society for the benefit of the few".
A mental problem "They are delusional or mentally ill and we shouldn't listen to what they say they need."
A medical problem "Well they shouldn't have access to the system because they take up resources and their choices creep me out. What if they do something they regret? ".
A safety problem "You're leaving the door open for creeps to take advantage. "
A visual problem "They are ugly and I should not have to see them. My kid shouldn't have to see people like that. "
An authority problem "I as a parent ahould have control of my child's behaviour at all times. "
All of this framework doesn't hold ANY solutions for us. They just hold solutions for you so people just don't have to interact, think of or see us...we just can be swept under the rug as unfortunates and failures which is no way to live.
I'm only skimming that text dump.
They can't do anti-gay as much any more because too many of their relatives and too many people in general are gay. So it's just slipped over to trans like I said "Now it’s not just gay, it’s trans too". I thought I said that clearly enough, but take one of those sections and put in trans. Same thing.
The rest I'm not touching.
"didn't read here's a nitpick"
lol about the response I expected.
"Here's one misinterpreted item from your post and a whole bunch of unrelated rantings, oh you only corrected the part about the post? nOt fAiR". Looks like I made the right call. Ciao.
"I nitpicked a word you used, therefore not just refuting your entire post that I didn't read, but you as a human being. What, you pointed out my behavior? Clearly it only proves that my refutation of you as a human being is wholly correct."
I love how you basically state "here's what I believe!" and then try to deflect all criticism by saying you don't trust medical studies from the past 30 years.
If you are not receptive to new information, it seems to me that is the definition of blind belief and brainwashing.