Peak Trans

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the point being made is that you didn't mention anywhere about the abuse of children, which is exactly what was done at the time when children were separated from their parents and subjected to experimental treatments, and these people were supported and funded by the State.


Some very fair points raised that I'm far too inebriated to properly answer atm. Thanks for raising them and I'll get back to you later if this thread is still alive


It's not nearly as benign as you make out though. You're thinking inside your own black and white binary world when you can only perceive people being themselves and causing no harm to others, when the fact is that there are people campaigning for harm to be done to children so that they as adults can feel better about themselves. That's where the harm is, and to ignore that or pretend there is no harm is what causes people to question the ideology even more, because they see that harm is being done, and wonder why are a small minority of people playing down the harm being done or attempting to put people off asking questions by claiming they are transphobic.

Instead of reaching for the transphobic label when you don't like the ideology being questioned, it would be more in your interests to acknowledge that the vast majority of adults who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria do not opt for medical transition, and their discomfort is instead alleviated by acceptance. There are people diagnosed with gender dysphoria who choose not to even socially transition as it's not their dysphoria causes them mental distress, but the lack of acceptance from their families, their peer groups, their work colleagues, and even some people within the transgender community who refer to them pejoratively as 'transtrenders' - those who have chosen not to undergo either medical transition or gender confirmation surgery.

It's actually people who have chosen to medically transition or go as far as having gender confirmation surgery are in a minority who want the power to dictate to the majority how they should be able to raise their children, or else risk having their children removed from their care. That too, is just as much a restrictive black and white binary as the one you are rallying against. The difference isn't motivated by transphobia, it's motivated by a difference of perspective.

Using terms like 'cis' to refer to people who are not transgender, and it's a term that is generally used in the pejorative sense, is attempting to shift the paradigm of gender congruity to one where 'cis' is perceived as something undesirable. It's a political and linguistic manoeuver which doesn't really work if it's proponents reject a label they find undesirable, while at the same time suggesting that their attempt to label people is merely a benign classification of their opposite. It's transparent that their motivation is anything but benign.





Except that's not really true, is it?

The reason why objections on either side exist is because people do define people in ways in which they find useful, and with regard to children, attempts to define children as transgender before they've even reached puberty is something which people are going to find objectionable. It's an attempt to paint children into a corner by pathologising observed behaviour and attitudes towards themselves and towards others. Children define themselves according to behaviours and attitudes they observe in others. Adults define children's behaviours and attitudes according to themselves. I have no issue with telling other adults who try to define my child according to their standards, that I would appreciate if they didn't do that. If they attempt to continue to do it, I'm still not going to be rude about it, but I would suggest that they keep their projections of their issues onto my child, to themselves. That may have them perceive me as transphobic, but from my perspective, their behaviour and their attitude towards others is that of an asshole. In terms of how my child is raised, my perspective carries a hell of a lot more weight to me than their perspective.





It's very easy to categorise a difference of opinion as an expression of fear and anger of something that people don't understand, or blatant transphobia or whatever else. But differences of opinion are based on different standards, and simply labelling a difference of opinion as the person being afraid of or angered or misunderstanding or blatant transphobia really doesn't contribute anything towards further understanding. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

Similarly, as you suggested earlier - Irish people generally have a sense of what's the right thing to do, and the more extreme elements in any movement do not represent the majority. Why then would you assume that the majority of people who disagree with your opinion don't understand or are afraid, angry or transphobic? It's a bit of a leap, which you yourself point out is rather fallacious logic.





That's not really the question that people are asking though, is it? What people are questioning is other people's authority to define what those children should become, according to their perception. Children of that age cannot possibly be fully armed with the facts or their eyes wide open when they are not fully developed adults themselves for one thing, and secondly when nobody, even the world's foremost experts in science, medicine, law, sociology, psychology, psychiatry endocrinology and so on, can offer them any guarantees of outcomes whatsoever. At least as adults themselves, then they are in a far better position to understand their condition and their options and the potential outcomes for themselves as adults that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

No you morons - I'm a bird, I just happen to understand the offside rule, the forward pass prohibition in rugby and all ways of getting out at cricket.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think the point being made is that you didn't mention anywhere about the abuse of children, which is exactly what was done at the time when children were separated from their parents and subjected to experimental treatments, and these people were supported and funded by the State.

It's not nearly as benign as you make out though. You're thinking inside your own black and white binary world when you can only perceive people being themselves and causing no harm to others, when the fact is that there are people campaigning for harm to be done to children so that they as adults can feel better about themselves. That's where the harm is, and to ignore that or pretend there is no harm is what causes people to question the ideology even more, because they see that harm is being done, and wonder why are a small minority of people playing down the harm being done or attempting to put people off asking questions by claiming they are transphobic.

Instead of reaching for the transphobic label when you don't like the ideology being questioned, it would be more in your interests to acknowledge that the vast majority of adults who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria do not opt for medical transition, and their discomfort is instead alleviated by acceptance. There are people diagnosed with gender dysphoria who choose not to even socially transition as it's not their dysphoria causes them mental distress, but the lack of acceptance from their families, their peer groups, their work colleagues, and even some people within the transgender community who refer to them pejoratively as 'transtrenders' - those who have chosen not to undergo either medical transition or gender confirmation surgery.

It's actually people who have chosen to medically transition or go as far as having gender confirmation surgery are in a minority who want the power to dictate to the majority how they should be able to raise their children, or else risk having their children removed from their care. That too, is just as much a restrictive black and white binary as the one you are rallying against. The difference isn't motivated by transphobia, it's motivated by a difference of perspective.

Using terms like 'cis' to refer to people who are not transgender, and it's a term that is generally used in the pejorative sense, is attempting to shift the paradigm of gender congruity to one where 'cis' is perceived as something undesirable. It's a political and linguistic manoeuver which doesn't really work if it's proponents reject a label they find undesirable, while at the same time suggesting that their attempt to label people is merely a benign classification of their opposite. It's transparent that their motivation is anything but benign.

Except that's not really true, is it?

The reason why objections on either side exist is because people do define people in ways in which they find useful, and with regard to children, attempts to define children as transgender before they've even reached puberty is something which people are going to find objectionable. It's an attempt to paint children into a corner by pathologising observed behaviour and attitudes towards themselves and towards others. Children define themselves according to behaviours and attitudes they observe in others. Adults define children's behaviours and attitudes according to themselves. I have no issue with telling other adults who try to define my child according to their standards, that I would appreciate if they didn't do that. If they attempt to continue to do it, I'm still not going to be rude about it, but I would suggest that they keep their projections of their issues onto my child, to themselves. That may have them perceive me as transphobic, but from my perspective, their behaviour and their attitude towards others is that of an asshole. In terms of how my child is raised, my perspective carries a hell of a lot more weight to me than their perspective.

It's very easy to categorise a difference of opinion as an expression of fear and anger of something that people don't understand, or blatant transphobia or whatever else. But differences of opinion are based on different standards, and simply labelling a difference of opinion as the person being afraid of or angered or misunderstanding or blatant transphobia really doesn't contribute anything towards further understanding. I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it.

Similarly, as you suggested earlier - Irish people generally have a sense of what's the right thing to do, and the more extreme elements in any movement do not represent the majority. Why then would you assume that the majority of people who disagree with your opinion don't understand or are afraid, angry or transphobic? It's a bit of a leap, which you yourself point out is rather fallacious logic.

That's not really the question that people are asking though, is it? What people are questioning is other people's authority to define what those children should become, according to their perception. Children of that age cannot possibly be fully armed with the facts or their eyes wide open when they are not fully developed adults themselves for one thing, and secondly when nobody, even the world's foremost experts in science, medicine, law, sociology, psychology, psychiatry endocrinology and so on, can offer them any guarantees of outcomes whatsoever. At least as adults themselves, then they are in a far better position to understand their condition and their options and the potential outcomes for themselves as adults that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

2 Scoops wrote: »

Yeah except you're forgetting about the fact the Children have to grow up with their bodies and hormones all messed with because their parents decided among themselves that a 4 year old toddler has the mental capacity to make decisions which will impact the rest of his/her natural life.