"First, I don't think being trans is a choice. Especially in the case of people with gender dysphoria, but even, as I explained, in the case of some people who *don't* have gender dysphoria."
You'll need to explain this a lot more convincingly.
I take pains, regularly, to distinguish the authentically dysphoric from those who are just in i…
"First, I don't think being trans is a choice. Especially in the case of people with gender dysphoria, but even, as I explained, in the case of some people who *don't* have gender dysphoria."
You'll need to explain this a lot more convincingly.
I take pains, regularly, to distinguish the authentically dysphoric from those who are just in it for attention. You are now saying that there are people who are not dysphoric, something that is usually established early in adolescence, yet who ... and sorry, but this makes NO sense to me ... are helpless to resist and who are as compelled as a genuinely dysphoric person to become "trans," that choice does not play a role.
Remember, the argument that being gay was a choice was pivotal in denying us equal rights, and it was the final nail in the coffin of this lie that made denial of equality insupportable.
If it isn't choice, then what the hell is it? Given the intense role of conformity (I keep comparing this to other teen fads like listening to a Korean smile vocal group) in teen lives, what is this other factor? And why should anyone give it the same respect as we give to those who actually have no choice?
A lot of people do things for attention. Lookit me, lookit me. Senators Liebermann on ACA and Manchin on AGW. Grinning from ear to ear because reporters are hovering on their every word. It is VERY obvious to me that a lot of people in the "trans" and "nonbinary" fads are 100% in it for attention. Being someone who did the same in childhood with my intelligence and overcame the urge I, yes, resent people who still do it. Why should anyone dignify this? Why should anyone take time to give them special attention, to honor their demands? I would scrupulously honor those with unsummoned afflictions, I feel no obligation to respect people who just enjoy being nuisances.
You tend to gloss over the distinction between the real and the fake here. I am asking you to explain why you think the latter are NOT fake.
"You'll need to explain this a lot more convincingly."
Think about it this way.
Megan Phelps-Roper attended her first protest with the Westboro Baptist Church when she was five years old. She was holding a sign that read "Gays are worthy of death." She spent years campaigning against gay rights, abortion rights, pretty much every bigoted view you can name. She left the church 22 years later, renouncing her previous views in the process, after speaking to people online over many years who helped her see that she was wrong.
Now, did Megan *choose* to join the cult? Was she insincere in her beliefs while she held them even though they eventually changed? Did the environment she grew up in make it incredibly likely she'd take on and believe these ideas?
Megan is still responsible for her actions during that time, and you can argue that she might have been motivated, in part, by a desire to fit in or be praised by her peers, but I think it's wildly unreasonable to describe them as a choice. She was a child who was susceptible to an ideology that surrounded her and made bad decisions because of it.
A lot of these kids are in a similar situation. And they're also deeply unhappy. They're going through a notoriously difficult period of their lives. The idea that transition is some kind of a magic bullet for their problems is everywhere around them. And while I don't think a lot of these kids have the medically recognised condition of gender dysphoria, there's a kind of gender dysphoria-by-proxy being foisted on them from multiple directions. I think it's equally unreasonable as Megan's case to describe kids in that situation as attention seekers or fakers.
Again, the problem is the ideology. Not the people, and especially not the kids, who are captured by it
"First, I don't think being trans is a choice. Especially in the case of people with gender dysphoria, but even, as I explained, in the case of some people who *don't* have gender dysphoria."
You'll need to explain this a lot more convincingly.
I take pains, regularly, to distinguish the authentically dysphoric from those who are just in it for attention. You are now saying that there are people who are not dysphoric, something that is usually established early in adolescence, yet who ... and sorry, but this makes NO sense to me ... are helpless to resist and who are as compelled as a genuinely dysphoric person to become "trans," that choice does not play a role.
Remember, the argument that being gay was a choice was pivotal in denying us equal rights, and it was the final nail in the coffin of this lie that made denial of equality insupportable.
If it isn't choice, then what the hell is it? Given the intense role of conformity (I keep comparing this to other teen fads like listening to a Korean smile vocal group) in teen lives, what is this other factor? And why should anyone give it the same respect as we give to those who actually have no choice?
A lot of people do things for attention. Lookit me, lookit me. Senators Liebermann on ACA and Manchin on AGW. Grinning from ear to ear because reporters are hovering on their every word. It is VERY obvious to me that a lot of people in the "trans" and "nonbinary" fads are 100% in it for attention. Being someone who did the same in childhood with my intelligence and overcame the urge I, yes, resent people who still do it. Why should anyone dignify this? Why should anyone take time to give them special attention, to honor their demands? I would scrupulously honor those with unsummoned afflictions, I feel no obligation to respect people who just enjoy being nuisances.
You tend to gloss over the distinction between the real and the fake here. I am asking you to explain why you think the latter are NOT fake.
"You'll need to explain this a lot more convincingly."
Think about it this way.
Megan Phelps-Roper attended her first protest with the Westboro Baptist Church when she was five years old. She was holding a sign that read "Gays are worthy of death." She spent years campaigning against gay rights, abortion rights, pretty much every bigoted view you can name. She left the church 22 years later, renouncing her previous views in the process, after speaking to people online over many years who helped her see that she was wrong.
Now, did Megan *choose* to join the cult? Was she insincere in her beliefs while she held them even though they eventually changed? Did the environment she grew up in make it incredibly likely she'd take on and believe these ideas?
Megan is still responsible for her actions during that time, and you can argue that she might have been motivated, in part, by a desire to fit in or be praised by her peers, but I think it's wildly unreasonable to describe them as a choice. She was a child who was susceptible to an ideology that surrounded her and made bad decisions because of it.
A lot of these kids are in a similar situation. And they're also deeply unhappy. They're going through a notoriously difficult period of their lives. The idea that transition is some kind of a magic bullet for their problems is everywhere around them. And while I don't think a lot of these kids have the medically recognised condition of gender dysphoria, there's a kind of gender dysphoria-by-proxy being foisted on them from multiple directions. I think it's equally unreasonable as Megan's case to describe kids in that situation as attention seekers or fakers.
Again, the problem is the ideology. Not the people, and especially not the kids, who are captured by it