(untitled)

What is the place of transgender people on the internet? How about in the real world? How about on lainchan? Yeah, >>9462 gave fair warning - >>9464 took that at face value. Antagonistic arguments are not going to help anyone approach the truth. I read through >>9462, >>9463, and I gotta say.. pretty antagonistic. It's mostly all that spikiness that >>9460 mentioned. There were a few meaningful items scattered in there, but through so much manure.. >>9462 said they were interested in convincing - they did a terrible job of that. Probably insufficient understanding - but they're not interested in learning, so they'll be stuck in their inability to convince. One thing I just want to point out to them, just for their own benefit - not necessarily to further explore any of the ideas in this thread: >If ... [then] I see little reason to listen to you at all, >I'm not interested in being convinced When did you first stop being interested in changing your mind? No, no, you don't have to tell us. Just think about that. That moment, exactly, is when your intellectual development stopped. You literally, by your own free will, decided to be a retard. Think about that, if you're still able. It might do you good. Unless you already know everything about everything you might want to know - do you? Again, you don't have to tell us. Just think about it. It's your mind, your choice what you do with it. Anyway, >Yes, I wrote the aforementioned post [ >>9462 ] in a disagreeable manner >I request you go back and engage my writing >You will find it disagreeable, uncomfortable, but frank and honest. Only you can know whether it was honest. Perhaps it's uncomfortable to read - it doesn't have to be: those ideas can be expressed, in a calm, lucid style. You seem capable of that - why did you choose otherwise? Don't you want people to read and understand you? >I'm interested in convincing Please, convince. Don't expect others to convince themselves of your ideas, though. >I believe in a genderless, race-less, sex-less, age-less, identity-less online existence. OK, I guess. So don't present any of those aspects of yourself. You're free to do that, you know. Or do you mean to impose that on everyone? >>9405, paragraph last, has a sufficient reason that that'd be harmful - that the opposite freedom - the freedom to express oneself - is important. >We don't just hand out opiates because somebody claims to have a pain. Yes, we do - by that screwy conception of what self-diagnosis is. In some cases, the pain is "obvious" based on externally recognizable things, but in many cases, the only thing that's known about the pain, is what the person is reporting. Of course, if a person just comes to a doctor, and says they're in pain, and need opiates, the doctor's going to be skeptical. But that's not the only thing that would be "self-diagnosis", in that screwy sense. No, a description of the experience of pain, that the doctor would consider, and see if it sufficiently matches the necessary medical criteria, before putting any diagnosis or prescribing anything. The same is true about attention deficit. If you go to a doctor, say you have attention deficit, and ask for stimulants, the doctor's going to be skeptical. If you describe the experience, the doctor will consider it, and determine the appropriate - if any - treatment. Hey ho! It's the same with depression, too - filling in the details is left to the reader as an exercise. Anyway, it's also the same with gender dysphoria: If you go to a doctor, say you have gender dysphoria, and ask for hormone therapy, the doctor's going to be skeptical. If you describe the experience, the doctor will consider it, and determine the appropriate - if any - treatment. But so what! if somebody who doesn't have those conditions gets those treatments? That's their problem, if they knew what they were getting into. So that means proper education about all the effects, then it's up to them to make that informed choice... Hey wait a minute! Isn't that exactly the sufficient safeguards that were mentioned before, about getting gender transitioning services? The whole point of informed consent, is to inform the patient of all the effects, let them consider it, and let them choose whether to proceed. If you're worried about the person being incapable of making the decision - ever heard of non compos mentis? Yeah, believe it or not, the systems we have in place address that. If you have some specific concerns about something, voice those specific concerns.

Somebody clearly didn't read the post or is responding in bad faith~~~~~~ Liars and deceivers. Typical tranny trash~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mods can't handle clinton in a dress. Funny that...

>>9445 >And that's why some providers of transgender health require that other mental conditions are stably managed, so that such such self-reporting isn't skewed (but maybe there are ways to mitigate such skewing---I'm not gonna claim to be an expert on that). You could call that guided `self' diagnosis, but it's really still a properly-trained professional, whose job, whose professional standing depends on not diagnosing false positives---nor false negatives, but there's some room for `unsure, needs more study.' This is false. There is no requirement for other health conditions to be managed in order to obtain a self-diagnosed agreement for "transgenderism". It is 100% self-diagnosis, claiming otherwise is deceitful. There are significant studies to back this up, especially when you consider the staggering number of detransitioners (especially in the youth). This suggests that the criteria of diagnosis is flawed, and given the "Standards of Care" promoted by the transgender activists, it is clear that this is merely "I said so". >We don't force people do behave differently---we do expect, in many parts of the world, people to accommodate he underprivileged. You do realize that you just weasel worded your way into the exact same thing, right? However, unlike the underprivileged, the transgenderists are not lacking in privilege except by their own hand (see: self-diagnosis). >Technically, installing a ramp, conveys wheelchair-users a privilege---but that privilege is in mitigation of their lower privilege. This is another lie. The ramp merely gives them the exact same privilege everyone else already has: access. You're advocating for special privileges: me not being able to "misgender" you because you chose to change your identity arbitrarily. I can call any man a "stupid bitch" or a "little girl" for my macho reasons, not that I would since that's below me, but I cannot show that same disregard to somebody because they have a special self-assigned identity? Please. That is the definition of special privilege. >Further, we accommodate persons with speech disorders, by using the communication method that fits them---yes, a social privilege, as you mention, but---it's in mitigation of their lower privilege. Again you are conflating the raising of an individual with the lowering of the rest of us. Do I need to learn sign language for the deaf? No. We have translators to assist. >We're not raising these persons' quality of life above `normal,' but trying (and most often, failing miserably) to raise it up to `normal.' I didn't think you were capable of making a non-fallacy-rich statement. Well done! >I suppose you're referring to something like using the person's real name, or using their correct pronouns. That's just fυcking dehumanizing, calling someone, never by their real name. Or putting quotes around it, as though you meant it wasn't their real name. If you have difficulties with it---fine, we accommodate that. Some people have difficulties, for example, switching from using one name to refer to someone, to another. I know a few people like that---it's not just with trans persons, but nicknames that they've learned, that they later find the person doesn't like. That's why I put it as a preference---in the same way that you have a preference to be called by your real name. People have every reasonable expectation to be called by their right name, or their right pronoun. However, we should realize that expectation does not match reality. There's plenty of people who simply don't care. I'm indifferent, I go with what I already know. If you arbitrarily change it mid-sentence, that's your problem, not mine. >You say ``safeguards,'' I say ``gatekeeping''---there are plenty safeguards: like going through and getting a complete understanding of the procedure and it's possible effects (including `side effects'), weighing the possibilities, and the making the choice. So protecting mentally ill people from making serious errors in judgement is now "gatekeeping". That is very amusing. I guess we shouldn't gatekeep people from butchering themselves when they have bodily integrity dysphoria, since it prevents them from being "whole" (ironic). Or we shouldn't gatekeep pedophiles from preying on little children, since it prevents them from experiencing love. News for you: all medicine is gatekeeping. We don't just hand out opiates because somebody claims to have a pain. We don't remove an appendix because somebody has a sensation. We don't perform brain surgery because somebody reports unusual thinking. We gatekeep all medical interventions. Why do you insist that transgenders get some special treatment? >You know, we could put more `safeguards' on determining whether a person with diabetes really has diabetes, or a sweet tooth, or whether a person has depression, or is just lazy. You know, we could put a lot of `safeguards,' that are really just bureaucratic delays. If you think that's a good thing, then by all means, when you go to transition, insist on going through all the things you consider necessary safeguards---that's your prerogative---but if you're going to say that everyone should, then you better have strong reasons that those safeguards are effective. According to the logic you're attempting to employ, we should just give out insulin to anybody who says they get sleepy after a meal, or hyper after eating candy. Imagine all of the deaths that would result from such irresponsibility. Nobody, including me, wants to see anybody denied righteous medical treatment that is suitable to their circumstance, however I'm not interested in facilitating people who are severely ill with a problem that makes their symptoms appear to be something that they aren't. We cannot treat their apparent situation based on their own speculation, that's plainly irresponsible and malpractice. >I wonder what you think about airport security `safeguards:' don't prevent on-board violence, and cause problems for many passengers---notably: delays---or air marshals: can, will, and do stop on-board violence, without delaying every, single, boarding, passenger---hell, without delaying anything, unless an incident occurs. I don't believe in security theater. You're conflating two things which are wholly unrelated, btw. Airport security is a situation of bulk transit of many bodies with a low incidence of error. The current situation is to pretend that randomly sampling the population will necessarily pick out bad actors. On the contrary, transgenderism is when you have no random sampling, but rather individual coming up to the inspectors and saying "I might be a terrorist". They get checked, and as expected are allowed to pass in most circumstances. Unfortunately, some terrorists have a conscious and come up, explain their situation, but by then the guards have become accustomed to people seeking attention and let them through. This sign from <whatever> leads them to kill all those on the plane. See how hyperbolic I had to make the scenario to make it remotely like what you're advocating?

>>9451 >So... it imposes on your own hugbox and therefore must be eliminated. That's what I'm reading here. Any other topics you don't want in your safe space? I for one like the soykafshow of trannies vs. retards. Let's promote it. >>9453 >Thing is, other people saying that you are X gender, the one which your are disconnected from due to the illness, makes dyphoria flare up. So, it is inherintly harmful to them - that's just how the condition manifests itself. If I tell an otherkin they're not a dragon, that causes them to flare up, maybe even engage in self-harm. However we rightfully don't recognize that as a valid condition. How is this different? If I remind a person with bodily integrity dysphoria that their left arm belongs to hitler (according to them, since they're the only ones who experience such a thing), does that make them justified in removing it? These two examples demonstrate that these people have the same experience as trans people, yet we recognize their claims as invalid. How do you square the circle of differentiating these situations? >Thus there's a conflict: Do you change social conventions in order to accomodate them and make them not suffer? Or do they shelter themselves and grit their teeth, living under serious streess. This is a much different question, and much more difficult. I am all for an evolution of social convention, we have much to do in many areas (POC, Homeless, Mentally Ill, Drug Addicted, etc.), but these things suffer from two very critical aspects: they do not solve the underlying problems (privilege, inequality, access, aid, etc.), nor the incredibly slow movement of societal norms. This isn't your fault, or necessarily anyone else's. These are just facts of life. >And I propose that's because of conflicting scientific views that tie to personal experiences. It's great to discuss science purely, but, when they directly tie in to you, denying an article is very easy to be percieved as denying their character, intentional or not, - this is valid for both sides. This is not a valid line of thought, nor a defense. If there is reasonable cause to suspect the behavior of the status quo institutions, we don't say "well, maybe they're wrong", we call them out. If they can be defensed, they are. If they cannot, they fall. What is being said is to accept the word of a few individuals as an article of faith, despite evidence to the contrary. It isn't a little evidence, it's a lot of evidence. There are alternative diagnosis, justifications for identification, the ever-present self-diagnosis paradox, unresolved comorbidity, and the failure to address escapism due to distress. >Idk, would you consider it nice, for a person to say someone is a "she", even if you do not themselves believe or percieve them so, just to not trigger their symptoms? Heck you can avoid mentioning gender altogehter just to be polite, that's valid. If they continue becoming more and more feminine, and people start percieving them and addressing them as a she regardless of their sex...is that bad? Does it even matter? Does it bear any influence on whatever they have to say, as a person? Annnd then we go into the topic of gender (not sex) as a social construct and it's importance in society or claim validity, so uhhh let's not lmao, scrap all that. This is just dodging the question of if they're actually feminine. In the majority of cases, as demonstrated by scientific studies, MTF people are largely returning to male roles. Do we warp the notions of gender so far as to bend to their whims? Furthermore, we call men "pansies", "pussies", "little girls" (rightfully or wrongly, I don't care) without repercussions. What is advocated for, and created in some more "forward thinking" countries is the atmosphere and legal environment of persecution for merely "misgendering". If you cannot handle somebody referring to you incorrectly (giving the good faith assumption you yourself are correct), you're living in the wrong reality. Furthermore, the fact you want to change yourself and have everyone adapt to you is asinine. Unfortunately, there's plenty of assholes in the world who don't give a flying fuarrrk. If they met you as Bob, to them you'll die as Bob. It doesn't matter if you "become" Sally. Yes, they're wrong for being a prick who refuses to accommodate such a simple and pointless convention, but in the end they have every right to be an asshole. You have every responsibility to ignore them and move on with your life. The fact is, however, it's becoming very dangerous just to be an asshole. Pretty soon, we'll all be self-censoring and carefully checking ourselves for things we don't even believe in. >Anyway, that's just my attempt at an explanation, at least form one side. Hopefully it at least clears up some way of thinking about it. Yes, one side. Very one-sided in point of fact. Extremely so. I love how some people in this topic talk about nuance, but there's a complete lack of it in people like your writing. Conform or stfu. Accept or die. >So I say: It's very easy to miscommunicate things like this - e.g. being anti-specific treatemnt could very, very easily be percieved as being generally anti-treatment.. The only person who woul make this mistake is somebody who didn't read, or chose to misrepresent it. When people are actively advocating one thing while detracting another, if you ignore the thing they're advocating, you're actively lying. >I think qualitative data is also key. > I don't think personal and social experiences shouldn't be analyzed purely as statistical numbers - they should be analyzed and scrutinized and asked why and how they arise and impact people, but, human behaviour is hard to quantify, so it can give us some real insight into more social topics like this. How are you going to treat all of those Otherkin who's "qualitative" data indicate they have a very serious problem to resolve? Quantitative data fails to yield anything, but that's just privilege/prejudice. >You can go down a real rabit hole if you just keep asking "why?" over and over, y'know? Scientists/Doctors should be specifying this, yes, but it's good to keep in mind their data is still derived directly from trans people and their experience, or else it would not be valid. So the experience of 1 user, if aligns with general scientific trends they show, very likely to be valid. But those general trends should be discussed, not their personal experience (if talking science). This interpretation of scientific methodology and medical science indicates a very immature or/and naive understanding of both.

>>9488 How long is a piece of string ? Can you elaborate on what you are actually asking ? because your current opening post is a Rule 3 and Rule 4 violation. Gender identification is irrelevant on Lainchan. Triibalism and bickering about specific places for specific tribes on Lainchan is also not relevant. E.g. regardless of how you identify yourself, whether named, gendered , anonymous, you are either a anon , a lainon, or whatever else. There is no point in tribalism and bickering.

>>9497 You're enabling transphobes causing real harm to transgender people.

>>9498 I am not enabling anything.

>>9499 Clearly you are, you're allowing people to invalidate trans identities, and question trans medicine. It saves lives.

>>9499 Right wing transphobe confirmed.

>>9499 Why am I not surprised that lainchan allows transphobic narratives to prevail?

I want to appologize in advance if I miscomunicate, i am running on way too little hours of sleep. Please do feel free to ask to clear up anything that sounds weird. >>9443 >Which makes me wonder why we only treat transgender people specially in the sense they get to dictate their self-diagnosis [...] to have everyone else fulfill their self-image? >We're talking about literally restructuring our social conventions and conferring special privileges and permissions to people who we have justifiable reason to believe are not as they claim to be. A good question. I think it's because their most common treatment bundle, which has been found to help people, includes social transitioning, which directly ties into societal conventions. A note: or trans-women, commonly, seeing their own "masculine" features e.g. arm hair makes dysphoria flare up, causining stress. So they will do their best to remove it, so that it's more feminine. And that alleviates the symptoms. This is a nice physical way for them to manage a factor in their condition. Hormone treament is another. Thing is, other people saying that you are X gender, the one which your are disconnected from due to the illness, makes dyphoria flare up. So, it is inherintly harmful to them - that's just how the condition manifests itself. Thus there's a conflict: Do you change social conventions in order to accomodate them and make them not suffer? Or do they shelter themselves and grit their teeth, living under serious streess. We have, physically, in much the same way, accomodated wheelchair users by providing ramps and diabetics by providing insulin. However for trans people, we cannot just accomodated them phyiscally, by giving them something. No magical gender juice that let's them hear their pronouns nicely always. If we could, it'd be a non-issue, we'd just give it to them and be on our marry way. Instead, it requires a change in social conventions, and how people must talk to them and percieve them, which people naturaly oppose, for many many reasons. Idk, would you consider it nice, for a person to say someone is a "she", even if you do not themselves believe or percieve them so, just to not trigger their symptoms? Heck you can avoid mentioning gender altogehter just to be polite, that's valid. If they continue becoming more and more feminine, and people start percieving them and addressing them as a she regardless of their sex...is that bad? Does it even matter? Does it bear any influence on whatever they have to say, as a person? Annnd then we go into the topic of gender (not sex) as a social construct and it's importance in society or claim validity, so uhhh let's not lmao, scrap all that. Anyway, that's just my attempt at an explanation, at least form one side. Hopefully it at least clears up some way of thinking about it. >This is incorrect. Nobody in the thread were doing any such thing. >Representing everyone as being "anti-treatment" Did not mean it to sound that way - don't really mean to represent anyone as anything if I'm being honest. Mostly just kinda expanding on why, in a more general sense, i believe a trans person may act the way they do/what their perceptions of the world are. That is for exmaple, why e.g being anti-trans-treatment will label you as a bad person. I think more, I'm pointing out one of the many bad cases. Perhaps I could've phrased it better, yes it doesn't necessarily tie into the specific thread, but it does at least point out another type of person that would inherintly be advocating violence (harm) by being 'anti-trans' - if they were anti-treatment. I do think i understand your point a bit better now. So I say: It's very easy to miscommunicate things like this - e.g. being anti-specific treatemnt could very, very easily be percieved as being generally anti-treatment.. And I think that's nice that we're basically narrowing down specific forms of "bad posting", or, advocating for bad things, clears up a lot. Admitely "I doubt anybody on this entire board is unironically "anti" trans." is highly debatable lmao, boards harbor all sort of types, very including ironically (but kinda not really) types, but, I digress, not relevant (and i kinda covered it super duper early anyway?). The crux of the issue is >If you question the party line, it's "harm". If you bring up alternative theories with much more scientific rigor or backing, it's "harm"... And I propose that's because of conflicting scientific views that tie to personal experiences. It's great to discuss science purely, but, when they directly tie in to you, denying an article is very easy to be percieved as denying their character, intentional or not, - this is valid for both sides. For example, unless you explicitly said you support gay people, dropping on me a scientific article which you claim says gay (or straight if it's more reltable) people are bad for society in some way, and stating that it has strong backing to your best knowledge, and that you agree with it - would absolutely make feel feel threatened and think you're a bad person for being anti-gay because of it's anti-human-experience link. However, if you said "I do not support harm to gay people, however, this is an article that raises strong anti-gay points that I am inclined to agree with, can we critically discuss this?" would be a lot more paletable. Admiteldy - i'd still think you'd be a bit weird for supporting anti-gay views on a social level, but that's absolutely what discussion is for and my non-social opinion of you is irrelevant. We can critically contrast diferent scientific bits on the topic and arrive at the natural conclusion, which i personally would hope for would be pro-gay. It's an inherintly divisive topic riddled with trigger-happy miscomunication waiting to happen, so I think putting serious effort into having a good discussion and being more verbose on both sides, so that it doesn't dissolve into a big misunderstood soykafpost mess, is key. Basically I think a lot of the trans threads on here could survive a lot better, from all sides, if people more clearly expressed their views, didn't reply to inherintly morally bad/faithfully bad posters, and stuck to 1 topic at a time lol. I think we'd genuinelly see some nice discussion, like in this thread, if that was the case. Alas, we are human, It's just too easy to percieve something as negatively impacting your current human experience when someone says they support data that opposes it, no matter who you are, so it's be nice to clear things like that up more i guess. Can we reasonably promote this or should we ban trans topics outright because too many people behave badly? idk >If anybody should be allowed to specify what is "harmful", it should be doctors. Something i just wanted to throw out there so I'll put under this point though it's not super direct - It'd be very nice if everything was hard-quantitative, but personally, for an inherintly social and psychological topic like this, I think qualitative data is also key. I don't think personal and social experiences shouldn't be analyzed purely as statistical numbers - they should be analyzed and scrutinized and asked why and how they arise and impact people, but, human behaviour is hard to quantify, so it can give us some real insight into more social topics like this. You can go down a real rabit hole if you just keep asking "why?" over and over, y'know? Scientists/Doctors should be specifying this, yes, but it's good to keep in mind their data is still derived directly from trans people and their experience, or else it would not be valid. So the experience of 1 user, if aligns with general scientific trends they show, very likely to be valid. But those general trends should be discussed, not their personal experience (if talking science). I had more on >this is the only medical condition where the subject is allowed to self-diagnose without question or opposition or confirmation. but uh, ran out of post space lol, holla if ur interested ig

>Same thing for dysphoria - it creates a contradiction between your sense of self and your body because of brain chemical imbalance or other mumbo jumbo. Label it illness or not doesn't matter, causes are irrelevant too - at the end of the day dysphoria exists and causes enormous stress and it's mental and physical effects cannot be ignored. Who the hell even knows what the cause is. I see it---the dysphoria---as an illness: pretty patent, way I see it. But I see people who say that being transgender, dysphoria or no, is an illness---that's tenuous at best. Or it would be an `illness' the same way that a successfully managed depression is: technically, an illness, but it's not a problem. Actually, there are differences there, too---I'm getting away from my point. The point is, denying the ability to transition, would be denying one possible treatment---that would be causing the patient suffering. That, would be violence. >It is a specific type of "violence" - which is, I believe, what trans people claim when they mean anti-trans people promote violence (that is, outside of actual obvious violence). Not explicit hostility. I feel more accurate to label it as "harm" The violence, is in a more abstract sense, more about violating `natural' freedoms i.e. the freedom to do something that only affects people who agreed---e.g. undergoing a treatment, affects the . Or about `violating' the things that we promise everyone. Things like giving a person the medical care they require, as covered by their insurance. Things like health insurance actually covering real treatments for real medical conditions. I was thinking, initially, more about overt threats of attack, but stuff like getting everyone to pretend a condition doesn't exist, is violence, just as real, except not as visible, as being shot. It's actually worse by it's being less visible as such. People not recognizing it as violence, might accept it more. (It's similar to the fascist rallies example that you gave, in that sense.) To be fair, the long-term effects of some of the treatments are not well studied. That's something for the patient to discuss with their doctor. >You would not be considered a good person by wheelchair users if you were anti-wheelchair. Or by diabetics if you were anti-insulin. This is probably obvious: You'd probably be considered even worse if you were simply against certain people because they have diabetes. Sometimes anti-trans ideation looks alot like that---these people bad, because blablabla. >To trans people, being trans is not too much different from being a person with dysphoria and dealing with it. At a basic level, yes, and in world that deals with the existence of trans persons in a healthy way, that's how it'll be, but ambient anti-trans pressures tend towards communities of mutual support, or solidarity---that are there because of how many people are so against it---that lead to fairly strong feelings of relating deeply to this community---to this group of persons defined, mainly, relative to that condition. I think it's similar to communities centered around other mental health conditions, in a past (that very much still exists in some places in the world) when mental health was barely, if at all, understood/accepted. (To wit: aspie supremacy is a thing.) >Not suffering from it (treatment) comes at a price of being shuned on a social level. Yes, presently. Part of the point is that it shouldn't have that cost. That that cost is something that is placed there artificially, and is harmful not only against who are shunned, but also by-and-large against those doing the shunning. They're missing opportunities, voluntarily, but based on a poor understanding of the situation. Maybe some of them understand it well enough, have considered the possibilities well enough, and have chosen to shun them well enough, so that it's more-or-less towards their interest to do so---most persons, it seems, just have a kick from their gut that tells them to avoid, what would be better for them to experience. >They should be able to say "I'm a trans person." with the exact same irrelevancy. >Being anon and not mentioning that is, from that perspective, - a bandaid fix. Nothing will change unless broader views about them being just people will change. >but, doing nothing and sitting there being supressed for even mentioning that you happen to be an insulin user is...not a good existence. It's also a matter of visibility. If nobody mentions they're depressed, ever, and you happen to be depressed, there's a lot of pressure---not in any specific direction, just a constant pressure---that you're alone in this, that nobody else ever anywhere, or if somewhere, only in a TV lala-land or somewhere else far away, and maybe only in some fiction/pretend space, is experiencing this thing. Personally---I don't mind that; I was disappointed to learn that many had had similar experiences---it was just like, I'd imagine, finding out my job was replaced by a machine: that I was being made redundant. Of course, just like a profession being replaced by machines, the over all benefits---the greater self-understanding, the more lifestyle-, or medical-, or,, options---would be better than the dozens years wasted on original rediscovery---it'd be even better to know from the start, or earlier on, so that I wouldn't even have invested so much of my me into these experiences. I'd say, also, that the pressure includes the fact Part of the non-, or mis-, understanding, is that there's >Same thing for depression - you're just a person, but with a chemical imbalance in your brain causing you to feel extreme apathy and no joy in things. Pretty deteremental to day-to-day life. >You can successfuly alleviate the painful-to-deal-with symptoms via transitioning and hormone therapy, as far as we have found to date anyway. Reminds me---often, trans persons, pre-transitioning, have worse other mental conditions, like depression. I was severely---I mean can't get-out-of-bed for hours at least 2/7 of the days level---depressed. That was one of the things my `friend' was the most dismissive of---that all the other things, that were dysphoria, were really just those other things. No sense of self? Sense of stable reality of the external world? Yeah, that's a condition unto itself---but it's also an aspect of dysphoria, that was alleviated with transitioning. Hell, it was alleviated some just by recognizing the fact, that I was trans. Similarly with depression. I'm still depressed (there's your bit, to quote out of context) but it's much lighter now. Now, maybe half the days, I actually feel more than 3 emotions. >One could hope That's really all it is, now. It's really up to chance to decide, whether we'd come back to each other, whether they've just needed time or have just gone off the deep end,, >and do hope things turn out better for you anon, be it with this person or with the next Funny you say it this way.. we might have been dating? in a strictly platonic way. And there might not have been romantic (nor sexual) feelings on either side---and who knows what my feeling were, say, this time last year---but the way we hung out, was much like (monogamous!) dating. So.. that hit me pretty hard, like a break-up would. I'm taking it about as well as I have date dates breaking up---except without conclusive knowledge about whether it's a break-up, or just some strange hiatus in our interactions. (Shit, I've been ```dating''' them on-and-off---more `on' than `off'---for probably a decade.) >because clearly idk how to use less words. You and me, both, colleague. You and me both. >From a more social-science rather than psycho-science point of view: the topic of gender as social construct/whether they're a real man/woman/etc. whether we should accept them, etc. will make this waaayy way too big of a thread, honestly. And also I'm 2 burned out for that one. This is a whole can of worms in itself, but I do want to point out, that math, physics, economics,, are all `social constructs.' Of course, the thing, `underneath' the word ``gravity'' doesn't stop being when we stop imagining it in our minds---but we imagine it in our minds nonetheless. One might argue about which social constructs we should be using, or rather, which have which qualities, and which qualities might be better to have in which situations. In that sense, it's much like the choice of programming language---let's not derail this thread to be about which programming language is `the best,' and, in fact, being a meta-discussion, shouldn't try to devolve into which `conceptual language' (ugh, I hate all those `X language' metaphors) best works for considering gender etc.

>mods pic related

lainchan confirmed nazi spawn point

wow, look at all the transphobes. very telling. very very telling.

>Didn't someone recently try to make a thread in /hum/ to discuss transgender, and it was quickly deleted? It didn't look like it was anti-trans, so would that mean lainchan's position is no discussion of transgender? This is a total guess mind you, I have no idea what their though process actually is of course, but: It's probably because they might not believe a civil discussion about it is possible here. If that's the case, I'm almost inclined to agree. With the kind of people that browse here, some of which you can already see in this thread, rather than in-good-faith discussion and support, it will probably quickly dissolve into a thread filled with emotionally-charged anti-trans garbage, or just straight up bad advice cause they got their info from 4chan infographic 3 years ago and stuck with it. The latter of which is at least ok since it can be discussused and debunked, but it's a quick way to get off-topic and very heated, very quick. I mean heck, you can't even really have a discussion about LGBT stuff on sushichan, and that's supposed to be a comfy, welcoming place. They have 1 thread on /hell/ with 50% bad advice and 20% unnecessary off topic. > I don't think that's very healthy. I am inclined to agree, at least on some level. But then the other alternative is what, only delete the not-in-good-faith replies? At which point congratulations - you have a nigh equivalent of a subreddit, and everyone goes on to flame the admins because of censorship. Ether you let it be and crate a harmful environment for a group of regular people, or, disrupt the status-quo and put yourself in the crosshairs. So it's probably just cleaner to nip it at the bud, even if a thread about it would, ideally, be able to survive here. Or anywhere for that matter. >Note, also, that for many trans folk, there isn't an opportunity to be themselves where they are, so the internet is about the only place they can really be themselves That whole section is just all a good points yea. Honestly it's kinda hard to find a good trans place on the internet? Imageboard tend to be bad at best and hostile at worst, Discord servers turn into the exact opposite harmful environment where instead of any discussion and support they just *pet* each other. Reddit is the same but with memes, any serious discussion against the group-mind is "harmful", it's okay for validation at least. Perhaps one day people can say "I'm a trans guy lol" in same way I can say "I'm a guy lol" as a reply and it will just be treated all the same. Just an aspect of their life.

>>9417 >I wonder if there's a way to "scare off" worst anti-trans posters. Realistically not. Unless 60%+ of this board's users suddenly become pro-trans posters overnight and immediately shut down all anti-trans posts, the way people currently try to shut down pro-trans posts. Otherwise you're just stoking fires for no reason, I think? >a reasonable critical voice, if they behave themselves lol yeah right >>9411 is right, privacy and anonymity naturally attract 'antisocial elements' - people will use their ability to speak freely to create a harmful environment for another group they dislike or disagree with. Especially so for views currently frowned upon in broader society, as where else would you express them? Hence "antisocial". You can debate in good faith with your opposition, absolutely, and I'm all for that. But If a person doesn't go into a discussion to to so, It's inherintly impossible to have a healthy discussion with them. People like that don't really change their minds? Especially if their beliefs are idalistically, emotionally rooted as "bad vs good". Speaking of - that also automatically, eventually, breaks rule 3, which is probably why admins shut those threads down, now that I think about it. >>9411 Honestly lainon, if there ever exists a privacy and tech-centered, non-cj, "free speech but strictly no supression" forum or board, I'd be totally there. If you're considering making one, I say go for it. I wanna talk code with other reasonable, programming-socks wearing individuals lol. Preferably ones that don't use their freedom of expression to harass/infringe upon the rights of other people.

>No, you're not being yourself online when you claim to be the opposite gender. Based and pink-pilled. You seem to understand it perfectly, but your brain seems to have switched the gender they are, and the `opposite' gender. You should go see somebody about that, lest your degeneracy affects other parts of your life. Oh, what did you mean by opposite gender? Do think that apples are opposite oranges? tea opposite coffee? pepsi opposite coke? android opposite iOS? WIndows opposite macOS? C opposite python? emacs opposite vi?---There might be 2 popular genders, but they're neither opposites, nor the only ones. Of course, if you furnish proof otherwise, I'd be glad to change my position to reflect the better data. I wonder if you're a reasonable person, who'll listed to science, or if you're into some scientism that rejects real science, in favor of some preconceived notions of how the world works. Hey, don't take my word for it---do your own research: go read all (yes, all---not just the one's who reinforce your degeneracy) the medical studies on the topic. >>9422 > >>9411 is right, privacy and anonymity naturally attract 'antisocial elements' - people will use their ability to speak freely to create a harmful environment for another group they dislike or disagree with. Especially so for views currently frowned upon in broader society, as where else would you express them? Sadly, I don't know if it could be pure free speech, because `muh freeze peach.' At least theoretically, `freeze peach' should be protected as speech---but if you're doing something like inciting violence or threatening someone, the problem isn't that you said it, but that you're doing the harmful thing (inciting violence or threatening someone), and the speech is what that's embodied in. In many cases, there's a way to express the ideas, without making it harmful. >Honestly lainon, if there ever exists a privacy and tech-centered, non-cj, "free speech but strictly no supression" forum or board, I'd be totally there. If you're considering making one, I say go for it. I wanna talk code with other reasonable, programming-socks wearing individuals I've had some ideas. One is to have it be pseudonymous, but without asking for anything about the person. One idea would be to use cryptographic identities, that are not linked to anything else, and can be easily made. This would allow for a reputation incentive to be there, and if there's an author who cranks out heaps of soykaf, audiences can choose to ignore it, by seeing who the author is. One idea with pseudonymous messageboards, would be that the first message goes through moderation, and if it's Good Enough,™ it's added, and the next messages go through directly i.e. without intermediate moderation. Or the first however many, or until mods think the author's good enough. Another point could be to have it not a website per se but to have it be as software on authors/audiences computers. I think someone mentioned that, way back when, they had scripts to scrape their favorite forums, that they'd pipe into PGP, to check for incoming (signed---I can imagine some tricky business about getting new authors' public keys) posts or private (encrypted to them) messages. Something like that, for reading. For writing, it would be to sign message, maybe encrypt it to someone, and put it `out there.' That's kinda vague, I know. I think the idea should be that, the same way that PGP isn't dependent on any particular transfer method (but obviously requires some transfer method), so should such a forum be. Or it's not really much a forum per se, but each person would have their own slice of one helluva swamp of a forum. Then there might be some intermediary services, facilitating such transfer---extant messageboards, forums, or other places where visitors can add something that can be seen by others, could be fine as such hosts. I've already seen some persons signing their posts here. Other possibilities could be personal net-sites, where an author copies their (or others') signed messages. These are some ideas I think are in the right direction.

>Based and pink-pilled If you want to promote good discussion anon, don't reply to posts that aren't in good faith. We know they're not gonna get learnt. And honestly, It's just not worth your breath. >Sadly, I don't know if it could be pure free speech, because `muh freeze peach.' At least theoretically, `freeze peach' should be protected as speech---but if you're doing something like inciting violence or threatening someone, the problem isn't that you said it, but that you're doing the harmful thing (inciting violence or threatening someone), and the speech is what that's embodied in. Yeah, you're pretty much on point. "Pure" free speech, at the end of the day, is just idealistic. Here's an example that stuck with me: Let's say you are a person who supports freedom of speech, and there is a group/party in your envrionment (website, country, whatever) that advocates for mass censorship. But they do nothing except speak. They hold public conferences or make a lot of posts about it, etc. You, as a person who supports said freedom, will allow them to spread their ideas freely. You might speak too and counter their ideas, sure, but you let them speak. But what's not appealing to you is appealing to someone else. And depends on how they sell it - people loved fascist speaches for a reason, despite the group being, apolitically, bad people. And with that, you allow them to gather in numbers and support. And then studdenly they willl gather enough support and over-throw the currently ruling ideas and, in fact, apply censorship in order to stay in power, like they said they would. They will suppress the "enemy" - anti-them/pro-anything-they-dislike - views. Especially those previously prevailing - yours. So you, by actively not stopping them, are succesfully are anti-free speech. But they've done nothing but talk so you can't trample on their freedom of speech to stop them? Freedom for who? To say what? To who? For what purpose? With what implications? Speech has an audience. And every idea needs to successfully suppress oposing ideas in order to survive. But an idea's large support does not mean it is morally or scientifically valid. Just that it's popular and that it's proponents are sucessfully thwarting the opposition. We can, however, absolutely have an environment where people are free to say what they want as long as it does not promote harm or the removal of the material or social needs of another human being. >I've had some ideas. One is to have it be pseudonymous, but without asking for anything about the person. One idea would be to use cryptographic identities, that are not linked to anything else, and can be easily made Your thoughts are good I say, though I will admit I don't as much about the topic as I'd like to, so take this with a grain of salt. I suppose you can have both, what with unique throw-away identities that allow for optional non-identifiable data. Want an avatar + username? Sure. Wanna just be a tripcode you can toss away? Okay too. They do have to be unique so people don't pretend to be someone ofc. As a suggestion: Perhaps a fediverse (https://fediverse.party/en/fediverse) server could be a stepping stone to a more proper one (or just good enough)? And since at least 5 people know about it so u'll have a small starting audience lol. I've not done much research into Lemmy specifically quite yet, so I have no clue how good it would be privacy-wise, but, it seems pretty neat for a discussion-forum-based thing? Agregator of DIY reddit-like servers (https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy). Does provide basic privacy e.g. fully erasing your data feat. replacing all posts and comments, and I'm sure it's possible to also just fork it and add some privacy features yourself if necessary. Encrypt everything, shread anything identifiable, etc. Has potential, at any rate.

>>9425 >It's really ironic that you all talk about these transgender people posting in "good faith" Haven't mentioned that, I don't think? Apart from this thread itself which I'll stand by and say is p chill so far. Sorry, I genuinelly am not sure what bit exaclty you're referring to, could u quote, maybe I'm just dumb. If anything, I'm talking about about the opposite thing - that anti-trans actors often times tend to act in bad faith. At least so in my experience, and that seemed to resonate with the experience of others here, so I think that's a reasonable point. "Anti-trans posters tend to act in bad faith" does not lead to me saying "pro-trans posters tend to act in good faith". That's an fallacy of the inverse, I think? My original point is that, I think a civil discussion about that topic is not possible on here, which I think we agree on. For me, I believe it's because on imageboards, there is a large and/or vocal majority of anti-trans people who tend to ether debate in bad faith, without any willingless to change their view when presented with a fairer point, or just straight up not not debate and be actively hostlie, saying "go away u degen >:C" ad-homs and what not - like right in this very thread. Basically just creating a harmful environment for both trans people and discussion alike. Generally, my experience on imageboards has been so. I'll say that that's because anonymity and free-speech-focused boards harbor people who are more likely to hold socially unpopular beliefs — for lainchan, this very much includes ones that that would be harmful against trans people. So it shouldn't really come as a surprise that there are more anti-trans people here. Including bad ones. Basically just boils down to "anon boards focused on absolute free-speach naturally harbor anti-trans people, which directly relates to creating a hostile environment for trans people". So, I suppose I could say: "If anything, all discussion of the topic should just be derezzed, since it's becoming clear that the anti-transgender side is incapable of taking valid criticism or debating the facts." >I recognize who is actively degrading the quality of the conversation Same. >>9419, >>9420. The only reason I point them out is to say that there are bad actors on both sides. Humans are dumb. I hold strong opinions on the lgbt topic, but "I'm not invested in who's right" right now ether — just because someone holds your view (like the mentioned pro-trans poster probably holds mine) doesn't mean that they're creating a good quality thread. And if they are debating in bad faith, regardless if they're on my side, I am absolutely justified in not supporting them in doing that. There's gonna be dumb emotional backlash from both sides. There's gonna be bad advice and dodgy debate tactics here as well as there. It isn't all or nothing. If they argue in bad faith then I am against that too. There's something somewhere in there about assimilating both points and just saying - it's not just because of the anti-trans or pro-trans posters as both could very well act in bad or good faith, and educate one another to change the opposition's views. It's because of people, regardless of their views, who don't know how to have a good discussion and keep a thread healthy. Though I do stand by that "if u shove a bunch of anti-trans people into the same space and say it's ok to express anti-trans views, it's likely u'll have a harmful environment for trans people" is a fairly reasonable statement. >>9426 >There's also something called sHiTMyseLf 1. I have not heard of this before 2. This seems like a very cool thing! Although I'm not sure about a single file/board. If you want an lgbt/tech discussion you probably want dedicated spaces to programming stuff, privacy stuff, life stuff, etc. If it's very small it can be just a single room but with some more people it might get very messy? Though I suppose you could solve that with just...multiple files. >If your pubkey's already in, posting a message is appended directly, otherwise, it goes through moderation. If it's deemed worthy, it's appended manually: Generally speaking, this seem like a reasonably good solution for moderation, at least at a glance >Or maybe that could be an invite system. An invite system always seems very strict to me? Though, I suppose that'd be what you want for an environment like that. Always scares me a lil because it usually means the community is gonna be very small, unless it's discord style where authorized (?) members can all invite whoever they like. Though it's not inherintly a bad thing. Could be p comfy.

DON'T QUESTION THE TRANS LOBBY COMRADE!!!!

>An invite system always seems very strict to me? Though, I suppose that'd be what you want for an environment like that. Always scares me a lil because it usually means the community is gonna be very small, unless it's discord style where authorized (?) members can all invite whoever they like. Though it's not inherintly a bad thing. Could be p comfy. My fears are the opposite: i.e. where anyone already `in' can allow another author in by mentioning their pubkey, that explodes with one erroneous addition---from anyone. >>There's also something called sHiTMyseLf Yeah, it's still under alpha development I think---rumor have it, there's an live instance somewhere. And that's true, about single-file board. I think it might be more interesting, if there's a way to keep it as a single-file board---almost like it's the activity log, with additional indexes---but have some sort of message selection language, to choose which messages by author, reply-chains, or other criteria. I read a small website once that privacy policy said, just ``what you see is all we have.'' >That's a very manipulative way of promoting your side of the debate without taking responsibility for how your comrades in arms behave There's a few things wrong with this. First, the idea of sides---we're all here, first, to approach the truth. If you think there's sides---there are, but that's not the primary thing, and even then, the `sides' are some people who want violence against a certain group, and that group. I think your comment is a manipulative way of condoning violence, without taking responsibility---but there's another thing wrong with your message: responsibility for whose actions? (Just to note: I'm pointing out your responsibility for your effectively condoning violence.) I take responsibility for myself---that's all. I don't know that the person you cited ever declared that they have responsibility for someone else, and you certainly haven't proffered any evidence towards that. You could probably do well to de-escalate the stakes. This isn't a war. There are no `comrades in arms.' For your own mental health, don't let them rile you up so much. >Check out the thread cited, What thread? Something about those two pointers to a site showing only a `use ЖабаScript' admonition? >Misrepresenting them, or my own post only shows that your willing to ... Could you be more specific? Which post was misrepresented? How was it misrepresented? For one thing, it's possible---possible---that they misunderstood your message. It's possible---possible---that you composed it in a way that's prone to be misunderstood. And it's possible---possible---that your message was well composed. We can't know if you don't specify. Even if it was---well composed, reasonable, etc---that's wouldn't be of the type of message that's meant---unless you're trying to say that all anti-trans messages are perfectly decent: are you ready to furnish proof of that? That there there are no harmful anti-trans messages? I know >>9429 doesn't look like they're playing fair. The reason I'm engaging them, is because I recognize the thought and language pattern, as just like someone I know from elsewhere. Maybe they're someone else. It's probably fruitless trying to engage them, if they are the same person---they'll probably just find some petty excuse to abandon the discussion. (And I'm sure in their mind, it'll feel like a perfectly appropriate reason to do so.) (If it is you: I only care enough to write this because you're still an important person to me.) Yeah, I suppose this paragraph looks manipulative.

>>9425 >It's really ironic that you all talk about these transgender people posting in "good faith" Haven't mentioned that, I don't think? Apart from this thread itself which I'll stand by and say is p chill so far. Sorry, I genuinelly am not sure what bit exaclty you're referring to, could u quote, maybe I'm just dumb. If anything, I'm talking about about the opposite thing - that anti-trans actors often times tend to act in bad faith. At least so in my experience, and that seemed to resonate with the experience of others here, so I think that's a reasonable point. "Anti-trans posters tend to act in bad faith" does not lead to me saying "pro-trans posters tend to act in good faith". That's an fallacy of the inverse, I think? My original point is that, I think a civil discussion about that topic is not possible on here, which I think we agree on. For me, I believe it's because on imageboards, there is a large and/or vocal majority of anti-trans people who tend to ether debate in bad faith, without any willingless to change their view when presented with a fairer point, or just straight up not not debate and be actively hostlie, saying "go away u degen >:C" ad-homs and what not - like right in this very thread. Basically just creating a harmful environment for both trans people and discussion alike. Generally, my experience on imageboards has been so. I'll say that that's because anonymity and free-speech-focused boards harbor people who are more likely to hold socially unpopular beliefs — for lainchan, this very much includes ones that that would be harmful against trans people. So it shouldn't really come as a surprise that there are more anti-trans people here. Including bad ones. Basically just boils down to "anon boards focused on absolute free-speach naturally harbor anti-trans people, which directly relates to creating a hostile environment for trans people". So, I suppose I could say: "If anything, all discussion of the topic should just be derezzed, since it's becoming clear that the anti-transgender side is incapable of taking valid criticism or debating the facts." >I recognize who is actively degrading the quality of the conversation Same. >>9419, >>9420. The only reason I point them out is to say that there are bad actors on both sides. Humans are dumb. I hold strong opinions on the lgbt topic, but "I'm not invested in who's right" right now ether — just because someone holds your view (like the mentioned pro-trans poster probably holds mine) doesn't mean that they're creating a good quality thread. And if they are debating in bad faith, regardless if they're on my side, I am absolutely justified in not supporting them in doing that. There's gonna be dumb emotional backlash from both sides. There's gonna be bad advice and dodgy debate tactics here as well as there. It isn't all or nothing. If they argue in bad faith then I am against that too. There's something somewhere in there about assimilating both points and just saying - it's not just because of the anti-trans or pro-trans posters as both could very well act in bad or good faith, and educate one another to change the opposition's views. It's because of people, regardless of their views, who don't know how to have a good discussion and keep a thread healthy. Though I do stand by that "if u shove a bunch of anti-trans people into the same space and say it's ok to express anti-trans views, it's likely u'll have a harmful environment for trans people" is a fairly reasonable statement. >>9426 >There's also something called sHiTMyseLf 1. I have not heard of this before 2. This seems like a very cool thing! Although I'm not sure about a single file/board. If you want an lgbt/tech discussion you probably want dedicated spaces to programming stuff, privacy stuff, life stuff, etc. If it's very small it can be just a single room but with some more people it might get very messy? Though I suppose you could solve that with just...multiple files. >If your pubkey's already in, posting a message is appended directly, otherwise, it goes through moderation. If it's deemed worthy, it's appended manually: Generally speaking, this seem like a reasonably good solution for moderation, at least at a glance >Or maybe that could be an invite system. An invite system always seems very strict to me? Though, I suppose that'd be what you want for an environment like that. Always scares me a lil because it usually means the community is gonna be very small, unless it's discord style where authorized (?) members can all invite whoever they like. Though it's not inherintly a bad thing. Could be p comfy.

>An invite system always seems very strict to me? Though, I suppose that'd be what you want for an environment like that. Always scares me a lil because it usually means the community is gonna be very small, unless it's discord style where authorized (?) members can all invite whoever they like. Though it's not inherintly a bad thing. Could be p comfy. My fears are the opposite: i.e. where anyone already `in' can allow another author in by mentioning their pubkey, that explodes with one erroneous addition---from anyone. >>There's also something called sHiTMyseLf Yeah, it's still under alpha development I think---rumor have it, there's an live instance somewhere. And that's true, about single-file board. I think it might be more interesting, if there's a way to keep it as a single-file board---almost like it's the activity log, with additional indexes---but have some sort of message selection language, to choose which messages by author, reply-chains, or other criteria. I read a small website once that privacy policy said, just ``what you see is all we have.'' >That's a very manipulative way of promoting your side of the debate without taking responsibility for how your comrades in arms behave There's a few things wrong with this. First, the idea of sides---we're all here, first, to approach the truth. If you think there's sides---there are, but that's not the primary thing, and even then, the `sides' are some people who want violence against a certain group, and that group. I think your comment is a manipulative way of condoning violence, without taking responsibility---but there's another thing wrong with your message: responsibility for whose actions? (Just to note: I'm pointing out your responsibility for your effectively condoning violence.) I take responsibility for myself---that's all. I don't know that the person you cited ever declared that they have responsibility for someone else, and you certainly haven't proffered any evidence towards that. You could probably do well to de-escalate the stakes. This isn't a war. There are no `comrades in arms.' For your own mental health, don't let them rile you up so much. >Check out the thread cited, What thread? Something about those two pointers to a site showing only a `use ЖабаScript' admonition? >Misrepresenting them, or my own post only shows that your willing to ... Could you be more specific? Which post was misrepresented? How was it misrepresented? For one thing, it's possible---possible---that they misunderstood your message. It's possible---possible---that you composed it in a way that's prone to be misunderstood. And it's possible---possible---that your message was well composed. We can't know if you don't specify. Even if it was---well composed, reasonable, etc---that's wouldn't be of the type of message that's meant---unless you're trying to say that all anti-trans messages are perfectly decent: are you ready to furnish proof of that? That there there are no harmful anti-trans messages? I know >>9429 doesn't look like they're playing fair. The reason I'm engaging them, is because I recognize the thought and language pattern, as just like someone I know from elsewhere. Maybe they're someone else. It's probably fruitless trying to engage them, if they are the same person---they'll probably just find some petty excuse to abandon the discussion. (And I'm sure in their mind, it'll feel like a perfectly appropriate reason to do so.) (If it is you: I only care enough to write this because you're still an important person to me.) Yeah, I suppose this paragraph looks manipulative.

>>9429 >That's a very manipulative way of promoting your side of the debate without taking responsibility for how your comrades in arms behave, while denigrating their (your) opponents. I am not responcible for the actions of others? Supporting the actions of others are completely seperate from supporting their value system. This goes for you, too. Do you support people who create bad threads and flame anti-trans posters telling them to go die? Why? Why would you support someone who's just being a jerk and contributes nothing, regardless if they hold your beliefs? If someone is pro-trans but came in here and started screaming at people to go die in a fire for being anti-trans scumbags, although I'm sure we share some value somewhere, they can heck off?? I don't support that action, obviously. They're just rude and create a bad environment. If you're pro-gun that doesn't mean that you have to take responcibility for, support, and/or defend every crazed gun-nut out there, especially if they're violent, just because they're pro-gun. There are reasonable people with your view point. There are also bad people with your view point. You support your argument, not the people discussing it. My argument is not "all trans-posters good". It is also not "all anti-trans posters bad". That would be a sweeping all-or-nothing generalization. "There are bad actors on both sides. Humans are dumb.". Some people are just not educated enough on a topic and are willing to discuss and adapt their views. My argument is "anonymous boards focused on absolute free-speach naturally harbor anti-trans people, because these boards will naturally harbor people with socially unpopular beliefs, such as transphobic ones. Transphobic views have a tendency to be of ether a rather hostile manner, or attached to a person more likely to be hostile, as they tend often tend to promote violence against said specific group. This directly correlates to creating a hostile environment for trans people. As such, in an environment like this, discsussing trans issues would very likely end up being volitlie because it's therefore more likely anti-trans posters will act-out in a hostile or bad-faith manner or advocate violent measures." Yes, it can end up being volitile because of bad faith actors on the pro-trans side. Yes, the anti-trans side can be good and debate thing well. You yourself aren't a bad person, even if you are on whatever side of this argument. Threads aren't "everyone good vs everyone bad". However, I think it's generally more likely, because of the type of people which anon imagboards naturally attract, that the anti-trans side would act in bad faith. Statistically, I think this would be the case. This has been my experience so far as well. If you think that's not true, please tell me how and why. If you think this isn't relevant, please elaborate and what point and how. If you think his is a reasonable statement, then...it'd be the intelectual thing to accept it as such, and that would be fine too. [i]Individual[/i ]threads, posts, etc. end up being, although totally relevant, a bit anecdotal, and we can both dig up and point at threads and posters until the sun burns down and run in circles saying "see good poster! no look, bad poster!". I am sure I can comb over that thread and say "a lot of people bad". Generally, to support ether of our points, we'd need aggregated data from like, all trans threads ever on these boards. Which is why my argument is based on "X type of place attracts x type of people with y view, and x type of people/y view are statistically and/or inhreintly more likely to do/advocate for/lead to z" rather than "x people in this thread prove that x people do y". >Misrepresenting them, or my own post only shows that your willing to lie or use deceit to gain something, which makes your side look very problematic at best, and outright harmful at worst. I don't think I misrepresented your post? I tried my best to argue fairly, but, if I haven't, a) sorry, b) please tell me how? What was the intended message, what was the percieved message, etc? I don't mean this as an attack in any way, but, when you say "you misrepresented my view point and used deceit/argued bad", please do elaborate on how and why and where, so that we can clear that up, thanks. As a moot point: I have nothing to gain from debating people on the internet lol, it's just fun discussing things, y'know? Hope ur having a good time too lol >>9432 >"assuming you're the same person" Nope, >>9430 is >>9423, >>9426 (p sure) I am >>9428 Regardless the only way they're saying that is because they think they might know the poster anyway so if it's a personal statement, so be it, moot point >>9430 >My fears are the opposite: i.e. where anyone already `in' can allow another author in by mentioning their pubkey, that explodes with one erroneous addition---from anyone. That's valid, if everyone could invite it might spiral out. But I think you can reach a middle point where everyone can invite, but all individual invites have to be accepted by admin still. Then it's just a manner of banning 1 bad person. >rumor have it, there's an live instance somewhere. Ooh, It's a mystery, shame it's basically impossible to find out there lol >``what you see is all we have.'' I like that, just because of the cool factor. Tag your topic in your coment, like you would the reply or something? "[LGBT]: @poster1 ur gay" and then you can just filter by that topic exclusively if you wish.

lainchan promotes pedophilia by allowing trannies

>>9417 >I wonder if there's a way to "scare off" worst anti-trans posters. Realistically not. Unless 60%+ of this board's users suddenly become pro-trans posters overnight and immediately shut down all anti-trans posts, the way people currently try to shut down pro-trans posts. Otherwise you're just stoking fires for no reason, I think? >a reasonable critical voice, if they behave themselves lol yeah right >>9411 is right, privacy and anonymity naturally attract 'antisocial elements' - people will use their ability to speak freely to create a harmful environment for another group they dislike or disagree with. Especially so for views currently frowned upon in broader society, as where else would you express them? Hence "antisocial". You can debate in good faith with your opposition, absolutely, and I'm all for that. But If a person doesn't go into a discussion to to so, It's inherintly impossible to have a healthy discussion with them. People like that don't really change their minds? Especially if their beliefs are idalistically, emotionally rooted as "bad vs good". Speaking of - that also automatically, eventually, breaks rule 3, which is probably why admins shut those threads down, now that I think about it. >>9411 Honestly lainon, if there ever exists a privacy and tech-centered, non-cj, "free speech but strictly no supression" forum or board, I'd be totally there. If you're considering making one, I say go for it. I wanna talk code with other reasonable, programming-socks wearing individuals lol. Preferably ones that don't use their freedom of expression to harass/infringe upon the rights of other people.

It's really ironic that you all talk about these transgender people posting in "good faith" when we have an active thread with a transgender or one of their supporters posting in very bad faith. They're given evidence, justifications, etc. for opposing views (which, I might add, are not hostile their their ability to live in any way), yet they consistently use all sorts of dodgy debate tactics, engage in bald faced lying, and use fallacies. https://archive.vn/XbcGY https://archive.vn/ae5LD I'm not invested in who's right, but at the same time, I recognize who is actively degrading the quality of the conversation. If anything, all discussion of the topic should just be derezzed, since it's becoming clear that the transgender side is incapable of taking valid criticism or debating the facts.

>>9425 >It's really ironic that you all talk about these transgender people posting in "good faith" Haven't mentioned that, I don't think? Apart from this thread itself which I'll stand by and say is p chill so far. Sorry, I genuinelly am not sure what bit exaclty you're referring to, could u quote, maybe I'm just dumb. If anything, I'm talking about about the opposite thing - that anti-trans actors often times tend to act in bad faith. At least so in my experience, and that seemed to resonate with the experience of others here, so I think that's a reasonable point. "Anti-trans posters tend to act in bad faith" does not lead to me saying "pro-trans posters tend to act in good faith". That's an fallacy of the inverse, I think? My original point is that, I think a civil discussion about that topic is not possible on here, which I think we agree on. For me, I believe it's because on imageboards, there is a large and/or vocal majority of anti-trans people who tend to ether debate in bad faith, without any willingless to change their view when presented with a fairer point, or just straight up not not debate and be actively hostlie, saying "go away u degen >:C" ad-homs and what not - like right in this very thread. Basically just creating a harmful environment for both trans people and discussion alike. Generally, my experience on imageboards has been so. I'll say that that's because anonymity and free-speech-focused boards harbor people who are more likely to hold socially unpopular beliefs — for lainchan, this very much includes ones that that would be harmful against trans people. So it shouldn't really come as a surprise that there are more anti-trans people here. Including bad ones. Basically just boils down to "anon boards focused on absolute free-speach naturally harbor anti-trans people, which directly relates to creating a hostile environment for trans people". So, I suppose I could say: "If anything, all discussion of the topic should just be derezzed, since it's becoming clear that the anti-transgender side is incapable of taking valid criticism or debating the facts." >I recognize who is actively degrading the quality of the conversation Same. >>9419, >>9420. The only reason I point them out is to say that there are bad actors on both sides. Humans are dumb. I hold strong opinions on the lgbt topic, but "I'm not invested in who's right" right now ether — just because someone holds your view (like the mentioned pro-trans poster probably holds mine) doesn't mean that they're creating a good quality thread. And if they are debating in bad faith, regardless if they're on my side, I am absolutely justified in not supporting them in doing that. There's gonna be dumb emotional backlash from both sides. There's gonna be bad advice and dodgy debate tactics here as well as there. It isn't all or nothing. If they argue in bad faith then I am against that too. There's something somewhere in there about assimilating both points and just saying - it's not just because of the anti-trans or pro-trans posters as both could very well act in bad or good faith, and educate one another to change the opposition's views. It's because of people, regardless of their views, who don't know how to have a good discussion and keep a thread healthy. Though I do stand by that "if u shove a bunch of anti-trans people into the same space and say it's ok to express anti-trans views, it's likely u'll have a harmful environment for trans people" is a fairly reasonable statement. >>9426 >There's also something called sHiTMyseLf 1. I have not heard of this before 2. This seems like a very cool thing! Although I'm not sure about a single file/board. If you want an lgbt/tech discussion you probably want dedicated spaces to programming stuff, privacy stuff, life stuff, etc. If it's very small it can be just a single room but with some more people it might get very messy? Though I suppose you could solve that with just...multiple files. >If your pubkey's already in, posting a message is appended directly, otherwise, it goes through moderation. If it's deemed worthy, it's appended manually: Generally speaking, this seem like a reasonably good solution for moderation, at least at a glance >Or maybe that could be an invite system. An invite system always seems very strict to me? Though, I suppose that'd be what you want for an environment like that. Always scares me a lil because it usually means the community is gonna be very small, unless it's discord style where authorized (?) members can all invite whoever they like. Though it's not inherintly a bad thing. Could be p comfy.

>>9429 >That's a very manipulative way of promoting your side of the debate without taking responsibility for how your comrades in arms behave, while denigrating their (your) opponents. I am not responcible for the actions of others? Supporting the actions of others are completely seperate from supporting their value system. This goes for you, too. Do you support people who create bad threads and flame anti-trans posters telling them to go die? Why? Why would you support someone who's just being a jerk and contributes nothing, regardless if they hold your beliefs? If someone is pro-trans but came in here and started screaming at people to go die in a fire for being anti-trans scumbags, although I'm sure we share some value somewhere, they can heck off?? I don't support that action, obviously. They're just rude and create a bad environment. If you're pro-gun that doesn't mean that you have to take responcibility for, support, and/or defend every crazed gun-nut out there, especially if they're violent, just because they're pro-gun. There are reasonable people with your view point. There are also bad people with your view point. You support your argument, not the people discussing it. My argument is not "all trans-posters good". It is also not "all anti-trans posters bad". That would be a sweeping all-or-nothing generalization. "There are bad actors on both sides. Humans are dumb.". Some people are just not educated enough on a topic and are willing to discuss and adapt their views. My argument is "anonymous boards focused on absolute free-speach naturally harbor anti-trans people, because these boards will naturally harbor people with socially unpopular beliefs, such as transphobic ones. Transphobic views have a tendency to be of ether a rather hostile manner, or attached to a person more likely to be hostile, as they tend often tend to promote violence against said specific group. This directly correlates to creating a hostile environment for trans people. As such, in an environment like this, discsussing trans issues would very likely end up being volitlie because it's therefore more likely anti-trans posters will act-out in a hostile or bad-faith manner or advocate violent measures." Yes, it can end up being volitile because of bad faith actors on the pro-trans side. Yes, the anti-trans side can be good and debate thing well. You yourself aren't a bad person, even if you are on whatever side of this argument. Threads aren't "everyone good vs everyone bad". However, I think it's generally more likely, because of the type of people which anon imagboards naturally attract, that the anti-trans side would act in bad faith. Statistically, I think this would be the case. This has been my experience so far as well. If you think that's not true, please tell me how and why. If you think this isn't relevant, please elaborate and what point and how. If you think his is a reasonable statement, then...it'd be the intelectual thing to accept it as such, and that would be fine too. [i]Individual[/i ]threads, posts, etc. end up being, although totally relevant, a bit anecdotal, and we can both dig up and point at threads and posters until the sun burns down and run in circles saying "see good poster! no look, bad poster!". I am sure I can comb over that thread and say "a lot of people bad". Generally, to support ether of our points, we'd need aggregated data from like, all trans threads ever on these boards. Which is why my argument is based on "X type of place attracts x type of people with y view, and x type of people/y view are statistically and/or inhreintly more likely to do/advocate for/lead to z" rather than "x people in this thread prove that x people do y". >Misrepresenting them, or my own post only shows that your willing to lie or use deceit to gain something, which makes your side look very problematic at best, and outright harmful at worst. I don't think I misrepresented your post? I tried my best to argue fairly, but, if I haven't, a) sorry, b) please tell me how? What was the intended message, what was the percieved message, etc? I don't mean this as an attack in any way, but, when you say "you misrepresented my view point and used deceit/argued bad", please do elaborate on how and why and where, so that we can clear that up, thanks. As a moot point: I have nothing to gain from debating people on the internet lol, it's just fun discussing things, y'know? Hope ur having a good time too lol >>9432 >"assuming you're the same person" Nope, >>9430 is >>9423, >>9426 (p sure) I am >>9428 Regardless the only way they're saying that is because they think they might know the poster anyway so if it's a personal statement, so be it, moot point >>9430 >My fears are the opposite: i.e. where anyone already `in' can allow another author in by mentioning their pubkey, that explodes with one erroneous addition---from anyone. That's valid, if everyone could invite it might spiral out. But I think you can reach a middle point where everyone can invite, but all individual invites have to be accepted by admin still. Then it's just a manner of banning 1 bad person. >rumor have it, there's an live instance somewhere. Ooh, It's a mystery, shame it's basically impossible to find out there lol >``what you see is all we have.'' I like that, just because of the cool factor. Tag your topic in your coment, like you would the reply or something? "[LGBT]: @poster1 ur gay" and then you can just filter by that topic exclusively if you wish.

Nice tor block list. Works very well :)

>>9439 >That isn't what others are claiming. They're claiming that the people against transitioning are promoting violence, and are thus all bad. This is shown to be wrong if you look at the threads that were posted earlier. Right, that's completely different points from the one I was discussing, yes. In fact, phrased like that, it's kinda two things: >They're claiming that the people against transitioning are promoting violence, and are thus all bad. This is kinda the big one, yeah - "trans people are people" argument, or at least, strictly tied to it. Now, I'll be honest: idk yet how deep i actually want to go into this topic, I fear it might be opening a can of worms and I'm just a lil tired i think. But, maybe as food for thought, I'll at least state my view: From a socially-exclusive, hard-scientific (psychological) point of view: I myself see no reason to treat someone with gender dysphoria any different than any other human being with a condition that negatively impacts their life. For example you can become wheelchair-bound because of an accident or genetically - but regardless, you're still very much a human person, just...without legs or smth. Even if you act different and now have different needs (e.g. need wheelchair, accessibility ramps), you just a dude with no leg. Same thing for depression - you're just a dude, but with a chemical imbalance in your brain causing you to feel extreme apathy and no joy in things. Pretty deteremental to day-to-day life. Same with diabetes - u now need insulin. Same thing for dysphoria - it creates a contradiction between your sense of self and your body because of brain chemical imbalance or other mumbo jumbo. Label it illness or not doesn't matter, causes are irrelevant too - at the end of the day dysphoria exists and causes enormous stress and it's mental and physical effects cannot be ignored. You can successfuly alleviate the painful-to-deal-with symptoms via transitioning and hormone therapy, as far as we have found to date anyway. There is, I think personally, a decent point in there - advocating against helping people with gender dyphoria (e.g. against hormone therapy) would be like advocating against wheelchairs or insulin. It is a specific type of "violence" - which is, I believe, what trans people claim when they mean anti-trans people promote violence (that is, outside of actual obvious violence). Not explicit hostility. I feel more accurate to label it as "harm", but labels don't matter, call it whatever - the effect and impact stands. You would not be considered a good person by wheelchair users if you were anti-wheelchair. Or by diabetics if you were anti-insulin. From a more social-science rather than psycho-sience point of view: the topic of gender as social construct/whether they're a real man/woman/etc. whether we should accept them, etc. will make this waaayy way too big of a thread, honestly. And also I'm 2 burned out for that one lol. >This is shown to be wrong if you look at the threads that were posted earlier. With the above point in mind, I think this might be incorrect evidence for your argument? In fact, I think it might even just be miscomunication, too, even on the level of that thread. Taking into account the previous point - pro-trans people argue that anti-trans topics are inherintly violent (harmful) and therefore if you advocate them - you are a bad person. So, is your point that the people in that thread are good posters or good people? Our original point was about good discussion - but you can post the best faith most amazing discussion thread in the world advocating for idk murder. You're still a bad person. There's some moral argument there, I will admit. But I think being e.g. anti-wheelchair is unequivocally bad? So for trans people: being, e.g. anti-dyphoria-treatment (or anything such) would be regarded just as unequivocally bad. >Also, I think we can both agree that being trans- or having an opinion about trans- does not bear anything on your posting Strong agree. >, but I think we should strictly forbid any mention of trans- topics, including self identifying. Less argument more just discussion: To trans people, being trans is not too much different from being a person with dysphoria and dealing with it. Not suffering from it (treatment) comes at a price of being shuned on a social level. And that's kinda the core of the discourse, I think. Pro-trans people also absolutely think that mentioning who they are or their opinion on the topic should not bear anything on the validity of their actual post. The same way I can absolutely say "I'm a dude." or "I have diabetes" or something, and it's basically completely irrelevant, why would anyone pick that out unless it bares some core relation to the conversation, y'know? So a trans person wants to have that same treatment. They should be able to say "I'm a trans dude." with the exact same irrelevancy. But, as you said, oftentimes online especially it's picked out for various reasons. I think it's reasonable to see why it's, at least percieved as, harmful/opressive. Being anon and not mentioning that is, from that perspective, - a bandaid fix. Nothing will change unless broader views about them being just people will change. To use the same analogy, If you go on an anti-diabetics thread (imagine those exist lol) you should probably not really mention that you're a diabetic yourself yes - you'll invite arguments and harassment. But...it shouldn't really have to be that way in the first place, if that makes sense? These people are not going to just go away over night, but, doing nothing and sitting there being supressed for even mentioning that you happen to be an insulin user is...not a good existence. Ideally we'd be in an environment where, even if you are anti-insulin, a pro-insulin user can freely be themselves - that is - just say they're a diabetic lol. So idk. Do you ban all diabetees discussion altogether? >>9441 Wonder if I should split my split my replies because clearly idk how to use less words. >Yeah, something like that. It could even be freer-form >step of from that, would be to have a separate rendering system associated with it Yeah and then you can do custom themes and display everything all pretty for yourself, too! Pretty easy to just edit a theme for some text parser you're personally running, or make a new website theme. Sound nice! >but since I started transitioning a few months ago [...] then they started killing off the communication methods that I know them by I feel bad for that, here's hoping you have found another nice friend that did accept you, anon. You seem cool as far as I'm concerned, anyway! >I don't know what's up, so I've been watching the places they might be, for their `spirit' so to speak, so that maybe we could initiate a rapprochement. >I'd even be fine if they told me they were anti-transgender and want nothing to do with me---I'd rather know that, so that we could part on cordial, even if opposing, terms. I totally understand you. Being ghosted is so much worse than a person at least saying goodbye. Though if they've been actively cutting contact I don't know if you should accept it. Idk how long it's been. It's just that you'll end up being aimless for a long long time if you take no action. And that's not a nice place to be in, i think >Even better would be if they're anti-transgender, but willing to peacefully coexist, without either of us trying to sabotage the other's beliefs. Even better if we're both willing to discuss it reasonably---I'm always on the lookout for critical data, to better my ideas about how things are. One could hope >Or they've never really been supportive/accepting of all different persons. Rather easy to say "I accept everyone" and then being faced with discomfort and not knowing how to handle it. You might be right, it might be just the initial shock/need for process time. The first time I've had a friend of mine come out to me as trans I've had to take quite some time to re-frame my whole brain as to how I percieve them. I think that's just normal, monkey brain doesn't like change. Though something tells me if they, instead of even just ghosting, they actively cut contact - they made up their mind a while ago. Forgive me if I'm digging too deep or anything, don't mean to tell you what to do or scrutinize too hard or anything, just am tired, have thoughts and do hope things turn out better for you anon, be it with this person or with the next

>>9441 We don't need another transgender hug-box. Like has already been expressed, all LBGTQ+ topics should just be derezzed completely. Too polarizing, and we don't need to deal with it. This is an anonymous space, so we don't need you guys/gals making everything about you and asking for special treatment. >>9442 >From a socially-exclusive, hard-scientific (psychological) point of view: I myself see no reason to treat someone with gender dysphoria any different than any other human being with a condition that negatively impacts their life. This is something I completely agree with this. Which makes me wonder why we only treat transgender people specially in the sense they get to dictate their self-diagnosis (which is entirely invalid for literally any other condition) to others and to have everyone else fulfill their self-image? Even people with "obvious" conditions like paralysis don't get to decide when there's no chance they'll walk again. Additionally, we extend tangible benefits to them that give them equivalent access, but we do not force everyone to behave differently or convey to them any social privilege. >There is, I think personally, a decent point in there - advocating against helping people with gender dyphoria (e.g. against hormone therapy) would be like advocating against wheelchairs or insulin. This is incorrect. Nobody in the thread were doing any such thing. Yes, there's people out there who fail to recognize our shared humanity, and fuarrrk those people, but that isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about literally restructuring our social conventions and conferring special privileges and permissions to people who we have justifiable reason to believe are not as they claim to be. We also point out that there are other realistic diagnosis that have been ideologically marginalized. Additionally as I pointed out above, this is the only medical condition where the subject is allowed to self-diagnose without question or opposition or confirmation. Does that mean I or others doubt that it is plausible that a doctor could reasonably come to the conclusion the person is correct? Certainly not. However, given the common use of propaganda to advance their so-called [special] "rights" and the continual decrease in safeguards and medical monitoring beyond mere rubber-stamping, there is very real cause for concern, especially with the young. Somebody posted some amazing studies a few hours ago on the current thread, and the stats are startling, even to me. 85% or more of kids "stop being transgender" before reaching adulthood. This is despite the fact we're more than willing as a society to prescribe them very powerful drugs that inhibit their natural development. In some cases, it is also reported that they're being given hormones even, which doesn't have the theoretical possibility of being reversed (some science I've seen is starting to indicate that the drugs they're given to prevent puberty actually aren't as reversible as originally believed). >It is a specific type of "violence" - which is, I believe, what trans people claim when they mean anti-trans people promote violence (that is, outside of actual obvious violence). Not explicit hostility. I feel more accurate to label it as "harm", but labels don't matter, call it whatever - the effect and impact stands. This is just as disingenuous as me saying you're harming people by trying to have a reasonable conversation about the topic. If you question the party line, it's "harm". If you bring up alternative theories with much more scientific rigor or backing, it's "harm". If you propose that self-diagnosis is not valid, it's "harm". If you worry that giving drugs to kids is dangerous and unfounded, it's "harm". The whole notion of "harm" has been extended and distorted so severely that it is impossible to do anything that might raise any bit of controversy without "hurting" somebody. >You would not be considered a good person by wheelchair users if you were anti-wheelchair. Or by diabetics if you were anti-insulin. This kind of rhetoric makes you look very disingenuous, given the people in the thread have specifically not denied anybody should get treatment. However, there is not the assumption that your particularly favorite type of treatment is the right one. Representing everyone as being "anti-treatment" when they are so far from that is bluntly lying. >From a more social-science rather than psycho-sience point of view: the topic of gender as social construct/whether they're a real man/woman/etc. whether we should accept them, etc. will make this waaayy way too big of a thread, honestly. And also I'm 2 burned out for that one lol. I for one am not interested in theoretical masturbation. I'm interested in making sure people get real help for their real problems. Part of the problem we've allowed ill people to determine their own treatment is we've promoted "social-science" magical thinking over hard medical fact. >Taking into account the previous point - pro-trans people argue that anti-trans topics are inherintly violent (harmful) and therefore if you advocate them - you are a bad person. This is the problem with black and white thinking: "pro" or "anti". I doubt anybody on this entire board is unironically "anti" trans. However, there is a healthy number of people who recognize that medical treatment is not either trivial, and needs to be done in a fully informed manner, with the decisions made by people who are capable and trained of doing such. Framing such people as "anti" anything is not actually helpful. Yes, as I acknowledged earlier (and likely before whenever I've posted), there are assholes in the world who refuse to acknowledge other's humanity, but the same goes for their views of Black people and Jews who have no discernible defect for them to exploit. Trans people, by and large, appear to have significant problems that our currently accepted medical interventions do not solve, and may actually exacerbate. Allowing trans people to dictate what is "harmful" is dangerous both for them, societal cohesion, and the medical profession. If anybody should be allowed to specify what is "harmful", it should be doctors. >Our original point was about good discussion - but you can post the best faith most amazing discussion thread in the world advocating for idk murder. You're still a bad person. The fact you are projecting your worst fears onto people who have done no such thing very much speaks to a bad faith mentality. >There's some moral argument there, I will admit. But I think being e.g. anti-wheelchair is unequivocally bad? So for trans people: being, e.g. anti-dyphoria-treatment (or anything such) would be regarded just as unequivocally bad. There is no moral question in the sense you're promotion. The moral thing to do medically is to help people. Doing things as we currently do seems to be actively causing harm, which would make it immoral. At no point does any of your hang wringing enter the equation, since literally nobody here is advocating harming them. I encourage you to go check out the thread. Somebody posted some really interesting studies earlier that I've been reading through slowly. The basic gist of it is that there are significant reasons to believe that the "social sciences" interpretation of the trans experience is flawed and doesn't comport with reality. There's multiple reasons for this given: other diagnosis, the prevalence of detransition (growing; especially among children), psychological comorbidity as cause of gender-identity-distress or a source of problematic misunderstanding when one is allowed to self-diagnose. Together, each of these various facets show that we are playing very dangerous games with people's lives as we currently allow things to go. Does any of this mean there aren't transgender people at all whatsoever? No, not at all. Does this mean they're under "attack" from people who want to protect them from the much more likely chance they just have a severe mental illness? No, not at all.

>Same thing for dysphoria - it creates a contradiction between your sense of self and your body because of brain chemical imbalance or other mumbo jumbo. Label it illness or not doesn't matter, causes are irrelevant too - at the end of the day dysphoria exists and causes enormous stress and it's mental and physical effects cannot be ignored. Who the hell even knows what the cause is. I see it---the dysphoria---as an illness: pretty patent, way I see it. But I see people who say that being transgender, dysphoria or no, is an illness---that's tenuous at best. Or it would be an `illness' the same way that a successfully managed depression is: technically, an illness, but it's not a problem. Actually, there are differences there, too---I'm getting away from my point. The point is, denying the ability to transition, would be denying one possible treatment---that would be causing the patient suffering. That, would be violence. >It is a specific type of "violence" - which is, I believe, what trans people claim when they mean anti-trans people promote violence (that is, outside of actual obvious violence). Not explicit hostility. I feel more accurate to label it as "harm" The violence, is in a more abstract sense, more about violating `natural' freedoms i.e. the freedom to do something that only affects people who agreed---e.g. undergoing a treatment, affects the . Or about `violating' the things that we promise everyone. Things like giving a person the medical care they require, as covered by their insurance. Things like health insurance actually covering real treatments for real medical conditions. I was thinking, initially, more about overt threats of attack, but stuff like getting everyone to pretend a condition doesn't exist, is violence, just as real, except not as visible, as being shot. It's actually worse by it's being less visible as such. People not recognizing it as violence, might accept it more. (It's similar to the fascist rallies example that you gave, in that sense.) To be fair, the long-term effects of some of the treatments are not well studied. That's something for the patient to discuss with their doctor. >You would not be considered a good person by wheelchair users if you were anti-wheelchair. Or by diabetics if you were anti-insulin. This is probably obvious: You'd probably be considered even worse if you were simply against certain people because they have diabetes. Sometimes anti-trans ideation looks alot like that---these people bad, because blablabla. >To trans people, being trans is not too much different from being a person with dysphoria and dealing with it. At a basic level, yes, and in world that deals with the existence of trans persons in a healthy way, that's how it'll be, but ambient anti-trans pressures tend towards communities of mutual support, or solidarity---that are there because of how many people are so against it---that lead to fairly strong feelings of relating deeply to this community---to this group of persons defined, mainly, relative to that condition. I think it's similar to communities centered around other mental health conditions, in a past (that very much still exists in some places in the world) when mental health was barely, if at all, understood/accepted. (To wit: aspie supremacy is a thing.) >Not suffering from it (treatment) comes at a price of being shuned on a social level. Yes, presently. Part of the point is that it shouldn't have that cost. That that cost is something that is placed there artificially, and is harmful not only against who are shunned, but also by-and-large against those doing the shunning. They're missing opportunities, voluntarily, but based on a poor understanding of the situation. Maybe some of them understand it well enough, have considered the possibilities well enough, and have chosen to shun them well enough, so that it's more-or-less towards their interest to do so---most persons, it seems, just have a kick from their gut that tells them to avoid, what would be better for them to experience. >They should be able to say "I'm a trans person." with the exact same irrelevancy. >Being anon and not mentioning that is, from that perspective, - a bandaid fix. Nothing will change unless broader views about them being just people will change. >but, doing nothing and sitting there being supressed for even mentioning that you happen to be an insulin user is...not a good existence. It's also a matter of visibility. If nobody mentions they're depressed, ever, and you happen to be depressed, there's a lot of pressure---not in any specific direction, just a constant pressure---that you're alone in this, that nobody else ever anywhere, or if somewhere, only in a TV lala-land or somewhere else far away, and maybe only in some fiction/pretend space, is experiencing this thing. Personally---I don't mind that; I was disappointed to learn that many had had similar experiences---it was just like, I'd imagine, finding out my job was replaced by a machine: that I was being made redundant. Of course, just like a profession being replaced by machines, the over all benefits---the greater self-understanding, the more lifestyle-, or medical-, or,, options---would be better than the dozens years wasted on original rediscovery---it'd be even better to know from the start, or earlier on, so that I wouldn't even have invested so much of my me into these experiences. I'd say, also, that the pressure includes the fact Part of the non-, or mis-, understanding, is that there's >Same thing for depression - you're just a person, but with a chemical imbalance in your brain causing you to feel extreme apathy and no joy in things. Pretty deteremental to day-to-day life. >You can successfuly alleviate the painful-to-deal-with symptoms via transitioning and hormone therapy, as far as we have found to date anyway. Reminds me---often, trans persons, pre-transitioning, have worse other mental conditions, like depression. I was severely---I mean can't get-out-of-bed for hours at least 2/7 of the days level---depressed. That was one of the things my `friend' was the most dismissive of---that all the other things, that were dysphoria, were really just those other things. No sense of self? Sense of stable reality of the external world? Yeah, that's a condition unto itself---but it's also an aspect of dysphoria, that was alleviated with transitioning. Hell, it was alleviated some just by recognizing the fact, that I was trans. Similarly with depression. I'm still depressed (there's your bit, to quote out of context) but it's much lighter now. Now, maybe half the days, I actually feel more than 3 emotions. >One could hope That's really all it is, now. It's really up to chance to decide, whether we'd come back to each other, whether they've just needed time or have just gone off the deep end,, >and do hope things turn out better for you anon, be it with this person or with the next Funny you say it this way.. we might have been dating? in a strictly platonic way. And there might not have been romantic (nor sexual) feelings on either side---and who knows what my feeling were, say, this time last year---but the way we hung out, was much like (monogamous!) dating. So.. that hit me pretty hard, like a break-up would. I'm taking it about as well as I have date dates breaking up---except without conclusive knowledge about whether it's a break-up, or just some strange hiatus in our interactions. (Shit, I've been ```dating''' them on-and-off---more `on' than `off'---for probably a decade.) >because clearly idk how to use less words. You and me, both, colleague. You and me both. >From a more social-science rather than psycho-science point of view: the topic of gender as social construct/whether they're a real man/woman/etc. whether we should accept them, etc. will make this waaayy way too big of a thread, honestly. And also I'm 2 burned out for that one. This is a whole can of worms in itself, but I do want to point out, that math, physics, economics,, are all `social constructs.' Of course, the thing, `underneath' the word ``gravity'' doesn't stop being when we stop imagining it in our minds---but we imagine it in our minds nonetheless. One might argue about which social constructs we should be using, or rather, which have which qualities, and which qualities might be better to have in which situations. In that sense, it's much like the choice of programming language---let's not derail this thread to be about which programming language is `the best,' and, in fact, being a meta-discussion, shouldn't try to devolve into which `conceptual language' (ugh, I hate all those `X language' metaphors) best works for considering gender etc.

>>9443 >Which makes me wonder why we only treat transgender people specially in the sense they get to dictate their self-diagnosis [...] to have everyone else fulfill their self-image? >We're talking about literally restructuring our social conventions and conferring special privileges and permissions to people who we have justifiable reason to believe are not as they claim to be. A good question. I think it's because their most common treatment bundle, which has been found to help people, includes social transitioning, which directly ties into societal conventions. A note: or trans-women, commonly, seeing their own "masculine" features e.g. arm hair makes dysphoria flare up, causining stress. So they will do their best to remove it, so that it's more feminine. And that alleviates the symptoms. This is a nice physical way for them to manage a factor in their condition. Hormone treament is another. Thing is, other people saying that you are X gender, the one which your are disconnected from due to the illness, makes dyphoria flare up. So, it is inherintly harmful to them - that's just how the condition manifests itself. Thus there's a conflict: Do you change social conventions in order to accomodate them and make them not suffer? Or do they shelter themselves and grit their teeth, living under serious streess. We have, physically, in much the same way, accomodated wheelchair users by providing ramps and diabetics by providing insulin. However for trans people, we cannot just accomodated them phyiscally, by giving them something. No magical gender juice that let's them hear their pronouns nicely always. If we could, it'd be a non-issue, we'd just give it to them and be on our marry way. Instead, it requires a change in social conventions, and how people must talk to them and percieve them, which people naturaly oppose, for many many reasons. Idk, would you consider it nice, for a person to say someone is a "she", even if you do not themselves believe or percieve them so, just to not trigger their symptoms? Heck you can avoid mentioning gender altogehter just to be polite, that's valid. If they continue becoming more and more feminine, and people start percieving them and addressing them as a she regardless of their sex...is that bad? Does it even matter? Does it bear any influence on whatever they have to say, as a person? Annnd then we go into the topic of gender (not sex) as a social construct and it's importance in society or claim validity, so uhhh let's not lmao, scrap all that. Anyway, that's just my attempt at an explanation, at least form one side. Hopefully it at least clears up some way of thinking about it. >This is incorrect. Nobody in the thread were doing any such thing. >Representing everyone as being "anti-treatment" Did not mean it to sound that way - don't really mean to represent anyone as anything if I'm being honest. Mostly just kinda expanding on why, in a more general sense, i believe a trans person may act the way they do/what their perceptions of the world are. That is for exmaple, why e.g being anti-trans-treatment will label you as a bad person. I think more, I'm pointing out one of the many bad cases. Perhaps I could've phrased it better, yes it doesn't necessarily tie into the specific thread, but it does at least point out another type of person that would inherintly be advocating violence (harm) by being 'anti-trans' - if they were anti-treatment. I do think i understand your point a bit better now. So I say: It's very easy to miscommunicate things like this - e.g. being anti-specific treatemnt could very, very easily be percieved as being generally anti-treatment.. And I think that's nice that we're basically narrowing down specific forms of "bad posting", or, advocating for bad things, clears up a lot. Admitely "I doubt anybody on this entire board is unironically "anti" trans." is highly debatable lmao, boards harbor all sort of types, very including ironically (but kinda not really) types, but, I digress, not relevant (and i kinda covered it super duper early anyway?). The crux of the issue is >If you question the party line, it's "harm". If you bring up alternative theories with much more scientific rigor or backing, it's "harm"... And I propose that's because of conflicting scientific views that tie to personal experiences. It's great to discuss science purely, but, when they directly tie in to you, denying an article is very easy to be percieved as denying their character, intentional or not, - this is valid for both sides. For example, unless you explicitly said you support gay people, dropping on me a scientific article which you claim says gay (or straight if it's more reltable) people are bad for society in some way, and stating that it has strong backing to your best knowledge, and that you agree with it - would absolutely make feel feel threatened and think you're a bad person for being anti-gay because of it's anti-human-experience link. However, if you said "I do not support harm to gay people, however, this is an article that raises strong anti-gay points that I am inclined to agree with, can we critically discuss this?" would be a lot more paletable. Admiteldy - i'd still think you'd be a bit weird for supporting anti-gay views on a social level, but that's absolutely what discussion is for and my non-social opinion of you is irrelevant. We can critically contrast diferent scientific bits on the topic and arrive at the natural conclusion, which i personally would hope for would be pro-gay. It's an inherintly divisive topic riddled with trigger-happy miscomunication waiting to happen, so I think putting serious effort into having a good discussion and being more verbose on both sides, so that it doesn't dissolve into a big misunderstood soykafpost mess, is key. Basically I think a lot of the trans threads on here could survive a lot better, from all sides, if people more clearly expressed their views, didn't reply to inherintly morally bad/faithfully bad posters, and stuck to 1 topic at a time lol. I think we'd genuinelly see some nice discussion, like in this thread, if that was the case. Alas, we are human, It's just too easy to percieve something as negatively impacting your current human experience when someone says they support data that opposes it, no matter who you are, so it's be nice to clear things like that up more i guess. Can we reasonably promote this or should we ban trans topics outright because too many people behave badly? idk >If anybody should be allowed to specify what is "harmful", it should be doctors. Something i just wanted to throw out there so I'll put under this point though it's not super direct - It'd be very nice if everything was hard-quantitative, but personally, for an inherintly social and psychological topic like this, I think qualitative data is also key. I don't think personal and social experiences shouldn't be analyzed purely as statistical numbers - they should be analyzed and scrutinized and asked why and how they arise and impact people, but, human behaviour is hard to quantify, so it can give us some real insight into more social topics like this. You can go down a real rabit hole if you just keep asking "why?" over and over, y'know? Scientists/Doctors should be specifying this, yes, but it's good to keep in mind their data is still derived directly from trans people and their experience, or else it would not be valid. So the experience of 1 user, if aligns with general scientific trends they show, very likely to be valid. But those general trends should be discussed, not their personal experience (if talking science). I had more on >this is the only medical condition where the subject is allowed to self-diagnose without question or opposition or confirmation. but uh, ran out of post space lol, holla if ur interested ig

>>9446 > It's really up to chance to decide, whether we'd come back to each other, whether they've just needed time or have just gone off the deep end Good luck out there >We might have been dating? in a strictly platonic way. And there might not have been romantic (nor sexual) feelings on either side I find it a bit silly to call it dating, admitedly, but yes, you were hanging out like really good friends do. Friend-dates, hehe >So.. that hit me pretty hard, like a break-up would. It's very understandable, you were very close after all. Losing close people is always so difficult. >Shit, I've been ```dating''' them on-and-off---more `on' than `off'---for probably a decade If you've been on and off normally, yeah, could this be an off period? I'm kinda skeptical off them d/c-ing from coms though, but idk >You and me, both, colleague. You and me both. I'll be brutally honest with you, you have v interesting points on the meta trans discussion too, and I do want to respond but my lord putting that in too would make my posts ridiculous lol. I already reached the body limit 2 much and had to split this responce I've already been sitting here for what, more than 2 hour specifically trying to piece togehter a percice response and really really understand what people are saying, and I'm loving it, but i'll be here forever and ever if i went for it ehe but do know that i like your thoughts, and they very much do give a unique perspecitve and points that should be thought about, deffo

>We have, physically, in much the same way, accommodated wheelchair users by providing ramps and diabetics by providing insulin. I think the metaphor with diabetes and insulin doesn't apply here - that could be akin to the medical accommodation (rather, treatment) of hormone therapy. A social accommodation for diabetes, would be that some local grocers have a "sugar free" section, or having shared meals be inclusive, by not using sugar, or having a sugar-free version. At work, if there's a vending machine, it could mean stocking sugar-free treats. These are some "social" accommodations, that let persons with diabetes enjoy a similar quality of life, as persons without diabetes. - This isn't to call you out - diabetes is not as "visible" a condition as paraplegia (or other "wheel chair" conditions). >Heck you can avoid mentioning gender altogehter just to be polite, that's valid. I started doing this years ago, when I first learned about gender diversity, simply because I knew I would not be able to handle anything more complicated than 2 genders, that I'd only be able to recognize by esthetic stereotyping. It was worth it, because now, I always use "they" pronouns, even if I know the person's gender, which doesn't deny anyone's gender, and it's really much easier for me to do it this way, than juggling "he" or "she" pronouns ever was. >Annnd then we go into the topic of gender (not sex) as a social construct and it's importance in society or claim validity, so uhhh let's not lmao, scrap all that. One thing that someone noticed, recently, is that the "sex" listed on birth certificates, doesn't makes sense as sex, but as gender, because sex is biological, and the birth certificate is social - I (doctor/hospital) declare that this person (name) now (time) exists here (jurisdiction), and this/these person(s) (parents) is/are responsible for it. So if you put sex there... it's not gonna be the biology, that it's used for, so it's gender, even if it uses the word "sex". I would say, don't record the "sex" or gender on the birth certificate at all. >Instead, it requires a change in social conventions, and how people must talk to them and percieve them, which people naturaly oppose, for many many reasons. I don't understand the reasons that people oppose it. I wish I did, because without knowing the reason, it will feel like some people are just brutes or idiots or something. >However, if you said "I do not support harm to gay people, however, this is an article that raises strong anti-gay points that I am inclined to agree with, can we critically discuss this?" would be a lot more paletable. Admiteldy - i'd still think you'd be a bit weird for supporting anti-gay views on a social level, but that's absolutely what discussion is for I think this says alot. A person can have some specific, possibly valid, beliefs that are associated with other beliefs that are vague or bad, but get mixed in with valid beliefs. A person might point to a packet of beliefs - e.g. an article - as something they believe, when they really only believe some of the beliefs, but be vaguely indifferent, or have a tendency to support, the adjacent beliefs. This could be called "intellectual laziness" but it's something many persons do, so we don't keep wasting our time by having everyone go over every little detail. >I find it a bit silly to call it dating, admitedly, but yes, you were hanging out like really good friends do. Friend-dates, hehe I think it's fair to call it dating. It's the intimacy that would make it so. Romantic intimacy is emotional. Sexual intimacy is, well, sexual. I think the "dating" metaphor is that there's that same level of intimacy, but not emotional or sexual. I think it's probably something more than friends, more than "best" friends, but... Friend-dates would be it, then. I'd be interested to know more about this concept. This is one of the better LAINCHAN threads - and it's on /q/ ;). I think that shows that there are good posters enough on both sides. >Basically I think a lot of the trans threads on here could survive a lot better, from all sides, if people more clearly expressed their views, didn't reply to morally bad/faithfully bad posters, and stuck to 1 topic at a time It's important to be clear and full in what is written, so that there is little room for miscommunication, and about being willing to return to what was already said, in the case that someone doesn't understand it properly. It's definitely better to write alot about one point, than a little about many, but if you can write alot about many points, that should be fine too. >Can we reasonably promote this or should we ban trans topics outright because too many people behave badly? My impression of threads about transgender is that they were all started by persons against transgender. In some cases, it looked like "raid" style posting i.e. extremely provocational, with more posters against transgender than usual, and almost like they don't really care one way or another, but just want to egg on more soystorming posts. I think there's a tendency that transgender persons are less willing to create or participate in these threads, because there are posters who seem to actively try to trigger their dysphoria. It's not about having a "circle jerk" or "hug box" but about the room not being so spiky. I think the problem is that many anti-trans posters intentionally make things spiky, to the point that those that aren't meaning to, end up picking up those bad habits by mimicry, and then, those few that don't do anything "spiky" are so closely associated, in the minds of transgender persons, with that spikiness, that they won't take the chance, because they're not given a chance to tell the difference between legitimate posters, and the one's that just make it spiky - because the spiky posters learn how to look like legitimate posters. Something like that, maybe? The effect would be that the spiky posters drive trans persons into their "circle jerk hug box" communities. I'm mainly pointing this out, because often, I see spiky, and seemingly reasonable anti-trans posters complaining about the "circle jerk" or "hug box" communities, that they're partly causing.

>>9445 >And that's why some providers of transgender health require that other mental conditions are stably managed, so that such such self-reporting isn't skewed (but maybe there are ways to mitigate such skewing---I'm not gonna claim to be an expert on that). You could call that guided `self' diagnosis, but it's really still a properly-trained professional, whose job, whose professional standing depends on not diagnosing false positives---nor false negatives, but there's some room for `unsure, needs more study.' This is false. There is no requirement for other health conditions to be managed in order to obtain a self-diagnosed agreement for "transgenderism". It is 100% self-diagnosis, claiming otherwise is deceitful. There are significant studies to back this up, especially when you consider the staggering number of detransitioners (especially in the youth). This suggests that the criteria of diagnosis is flawed, and given the "Standards of Care" promoted by the transgender activists, it is clear that this is merely "I said so". >We don't force people do behave differently---we do expect, in many parts of the world, people to accommodate he underprivileged. You do realize that you just weasel worded your way into the exact same thing, right? However, unlike the underprivileged, the transgenderists are not lacking in privilege except by their own hand (see: self-diagnosis). >Technically, installing a ramp, conveys wheelchair-users a privilege---but that privilege is in mitigation of their lower privilege. This is another lie. The ramp merely gives them the exact same privilege everyone else already has: access. You're advocating for special privileges: me not being able to "misgender" you because you chose to change your identity arbitrarily. I can call any man a "stupid bitch" or a "little girl" for my macho reasons, not that I would since that's below me, but I cannot show that same disregard to somebody because they have a special self-assigned identity? Please. That is the definition of special privilege. >Further, we accommodate persons with speech disorders, by using the communication method that fits them---yes, a social privilege, as you mention, but---it's in mitigation of their lower privilege. Again you are conflating the raising of an individual with the lowering of the rest of us. Do I need to learn sign language for the deaf? No. We have translators to assist. >We're not raising these persons' quality of life above `normal,' but trying (and most often, failing miserably) to raise it up to `normal.' I didn't think you were capable of making a non-fallacy-rich statement. Well done! >I suppose you're referring to something like using the person's real name, or using their correct pronouns. That's just fυcking dehumanizing, calling someone, never by their real name. Or putting quotes around it, as though you meant it wasn't their real name. If you have difficulties with it---fine, we accommodate that. Some people have difficulties, for example, switching from using one name to refer to someone, to another. I know a few people like that---it's not just with trans persons, but nicknames that they've learned, that they later find the person doesn't like. That's why I put it as a preference---in the same way that you have a preference to be called by your real name. People have every reasonable expectation to be called by their right name, or their right pronoun. However, we should realize that expectation does not match reality. There's plenty of people who simply don't care. I'm indifferent, I go with what I already know. If you arbitrarily change it mid-sentence, that's your problem, not mine. >You say ``safeguards,'' I say ``gatekeeping''---there are plenty safeguards: like going through and getting a complete understanding of the procedure and it's possible effects (including `side effects'), weighing the possibilities, and the making the choice. So protecting mentally ill people from making serious errors in judgement is now "gatekeeping". That is very amusing. I guess we shouldn't gatekeep people from butchering themselves when they have bodily integrity dysphoria, since it prevents them from being "whole" (ironic). Or we shouldn't gatekeep pedophiles from preying on little children, since it prevents them from experiencing love. News for you: all medicine is gatekeeping. We don't just hand out opiates because somebody claims to have a pain. We don't remove an appendix because somebody has a sensation. We don't perform brain surgery because somebody reports unusual thinking. We gatekeep all medical interventions. Why do you insist that transgenders get some special treatment? >You know, we could put more `safeguards' on determining whether a person with diabetes really has diabetes, or a sweet tooth, or whether a person has depression, or is just lazy. You know, we could put a lot of `safeguards,' that are really just bureaucratic delays. If you think that's a good thing, then by all means, when you go to transition, insist on going through all the things you consider necessary safeguards---that's your prerogative---but if you're going to say that everyone should, then you better have strong reasons that those safeguards are effective. According to the logic you're attempting to employ, we should just give out insulin to anybody who says they get sleepy after a meal, or hyper after eating candy. Imagine all of the deaths that would result from such irresponsibility. Nobody, including me, wants to see anybody denied righteous medical treatment that is suitable to their circumstance, however I'm not interested in facilitating people who are severely ill with a problem that makes their symptoms appear to be something that they aren't. We cannot treat their apparent situation based on their own speculation, that's plainly irresponsible and malpractice. >I wonder what you think about airport security `safeguards:' don't prevent on-board violence, and cause problems for many passengers---notably: delays---or air marshals: can, will, and do stop on-board violence, without delaying every, single, boarding, passenger---hell, without delaying anything, unless an incident occurs. I don't believe in security theater. You're conflating two things which are wholly unrelated, btw. Airport security is a situation of bulk transit of many bodies with a low incidence of error. The current situation is to pretend that randomly sampling the population will necessarily pick out bad actors. On the contrary, transgenderism is when you have no random sampling, but rather individual coming up to the inspectors and saying "I might be a terrorist". They get checked, and as expected are allowed to pass in most circumstances. Unfortunately, some terrorists have a conscious and come up, explain their situation, but by then the guards have become accustomed to people seeking attention and let them through. This sign from <whatever> leads them to kill all those on the plane. See how hyperbolic I had to make the scenario to make it remotely like what you're advocating?

>>9451 >So... it imposes on your own hugbox and therefore must be eliminated. That's what I'm reading here. Any other topics you don't want in your safe space? I for one like the soykafshow of trannies vs. retards. Let's promote it. >>9453 >Thing is, other people saying that you are X gender, the one which your are disconnected from due to the illness, makes dyphoria flare up. So, it is inherintly harmful to them - that's just how the condition manifests itself. If I tell an otherkin they're not a dragon, that causes them to flare up, maybe even engage in self-harm. However we rightfully don't recognize that as a valid condition. How is this different? If I remind a person with bodily integrity dysphoria that their left arm belongs to hitler (according to them, since they're the only ones who experience such a thing), does that make them justified in removing it? These two examples demonstrate that these people have the same experience as trans people, yet we recognize their claims as invalid. How do you square the circle of differentiating these situations? >Thus there's a conflict: Do you change social conventions in order to accomodate them and make them not suffer? Or do they shelter themselves and grit their teeth, living under serious streess. This is a much different question, and much more difficult. I am all for an evolution of social convention, we have much to do in many areas (POC, Homeless, Mentally Ill, Drug Addicted, etc.), but these things suffer from two very critical aspects: they do not solve the underlying problems (privilege, inequality, access, aid, etc.), nor the incredibly slow movement of societal norms. This isn't your fault, or necessarily anyone else's. These are just facts of life. >And I propose that's because of conflicting scientific views that tie to personal experiences. It's great to discuss science purely, but, when they directly tie in to you, denying an article is very easy to be percieved as denying their character, intentional or not, - this is valid for both sides. This is not a valid line of thought, nor a defense. If there is reasonable cause to suspect the behavior of the status quo institutions, we don't say "well, maybe they're wrong", we call them out. If they can be defensed, they are. If they cannot, they fall. What is being said is to accept the word of a few individuals as an article of faith, despite evidence to the contrary. It isn't a little evidence, it's a lot of evidence. There are alternative diagnosis, justifications for identification, the ever-present self-diagnosis paradox, unresolved comorbidity, and the failure to address escapism due to distress. >Idk, would you consider it nice, for a person to say someone is a "she", even if you do not themselves believe or percieve them so, just to not trigger their symptoms? Heck you can avoid mentioning gender altogehter just to be polite, that's valid. If they continue becoming more and more feminine, and people start percieving them and addressing them as a she regardless of their sex...is that bad? Does it even matter? Does it bear any influence on whatever they have to say, as a person? Annnd then we go into the topic of gender (not sex) as a social construct and it's importance in society or claim validity, so uhhh let's not lmao, scrap all that. This is just dodging the question of if they're actually feminine. In the majority of cases, as demonstrated by scientific studies, MTF people are largely returning to male roles. Do we warp the notions of gender so far as to bend to their whims? Furthermore, we call men "pansies", "pussies", "little girls" (rightfully or wrongly, I don't care) without repercussions. What is advocated for, and created in some more "forward thinking" countries is the atmosphere and legal environment of persecution for merely "misgendering". If you cannot handle somebody referring to you incorrectly (giving the good faith assumption you yourself are correct), you're living in the wrong reality. Furthermore, the fact you want to change yourself and have everyone adapt to you is asinine. Unfortunately, there's plenty of assholes in the world who don't give a flying fuarrrk. If they met you as Bob, to them you'll die as Bob. It doesn't matter if you "become" Sally. Yes, they're wrong for being a prick who refuses to accommodate such a simple and pointless convention, but in the end they have every right to be an asshole. You have every responsibility to ignore them and move on with your life. The fact is, however, it's becoming very dangerous just to be an asshole. Pretty soon, we'll all be self-censoring and carefully checking ourselves for things we don't even believe in. >Anyway, that's just my attempt at an explanation, at least form one side. Hopefully it at least clears up some way of thinking about it. Yes, one side. Very one-sided in point of fact. Extremely so. I love how some people in this topic talk about nuance, but there's a complete lack of it in people like your writing. Conform or stfu. Accept or die. >So I say: It's very easy to miscommunicate things like this - e.g. being anti-specific treatemnt could very, very easily be percieved as being generally anti-treatment.. The only person who woul make this mistake is somebody who didn't read, or chose to misrepresent it. When people are actively advocating one thing while detracting another, if you ignore the thing they're advocating, you're actively lying. >I think qualitative data is also key. > I don't think personal and social experiences shouldn't be analyzed purely as statistical numbers - they should be analyzed and scrutinized and asked why and how they arise and impact people, but, human behaviour is hard to quantify, so it can give us some real insight into more social topics like this. How are you going to treat all of those Otherkin who's "qualitative" data indicate they have a very serious problem to resolve? Quantitative data fails to yield anything, but that's just privilege/prejudice. >You can go down a real rabit hole if you just keep asking "why?" over and over, y'know? Scientists/Doctors should be specifying this, yes, but it's good to keep in mind their data is still derived directly from trans people and their experience, or else it would not be valid. So the experience of 1 user, if aligns with general scientific trends they show, very likely to be valid. But those general trends should be discussed, not their personal experience (if talking science). This interpretation of scientific methodology and medical science indicates a very immature or/and naive understanding of both.

>I guess we shouldn't gatekeep people from butchering themselves when they have bodily integrity dysphoria. Research into BID is nascent, but there are reports that correcting the body to conform to the mind removes that dysphoria---some cases. (Also, funny: this cyberpunk messageboard, where some people think the psyche should conform to the body instead of making the body conform to the psyche.) Also, ``butchering themselves'' is a wildly unfair phrasing---if it becomes standard practice to let someone who wants to be amputated, to be amputated, surely they'll get it done by someone with proper training. In the case of gender dysphoria, gatekeeping is what causes people to self-medicate---using hormones from sources of lower external scrutiny, without necessarily understanding the whole effects, or proper dosage. And with BID, there are persons who do intentionally mutilate their body e.g. putting their leg under a train or damage their leg to the point that it'll be amputated professionally. Of course, research being nascent, it's not at all clear whether there is a psychological treatment, or if it is, maybe, another form of human diversity, to better embrace. Note: this thread has been focusing more on dysphoria, but there's something called gender euphoria, which is the opposite: when someone who had (or still has some) gender incongruence has their gender affirmed. I recall reading someone on LAINCHAN mentioning that they did medical transitioning, despite no gender dysphoria, because they would be much better with that new body. Any gender incongruence, should be sufficient to allow medical transitioning. There's actually a deeper problem with our medical systems, that only considers deviance from the norm as a problem. Really, it should be considering any possible improvements---and that should be applied generally, even to you, anti-trans person. (you do have something you'd want improved, doncha? Maybe you're one of the lucky ones, but even if you think you are, you're probably repressing something, because ```society''' trains that into whoever they can: conform to your body---to how they want you, your body, to be---instead of letting you listen to yourself.) Even if you have no ideas about how you might want to be, it's important to allow as much freedom (of course there are priorities about which freedoms to make possible), just so that you can---so long as it's not harming anyone else who isn't agreeing to being harmed, of course.

RationalWiki tend to be.. rational. Let me know if they ever refuse to update their ideas despite good evidence. (Be sure to cite the good evidence, and why it's good evidence, though.) Here are a few their pages relevant to this topic: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transgender https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender_transition https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gender https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abolition_of_gender They also tend to be snarky and sarcastic. I think it's pretty obvious which is serious and which is facetious, but there are persons who have difficulties distinguishing the difference.. i.e. beware: humor. Anyway, I'm actually for the removal of gender as a default social construct. Everyone should have the freedom to express/present themself however, irregarding gender or sex, and some persons might like to apply gender to themself. I think that's perfectly OK. Nobody should be forced or encouraged to have any gender (or lack thereof) that they don't themself determine.

u can find tranny stuff on 8chan. It's rife with it. Merry xmas.

>>9498 hahahahahahahahahahahahaah the only harm trannies face is self-harm, blow it out your ass glitterboy. Lainchan was never a free speech chan but mods never derezzed people for having "illegal opinions", which is what you're trying to push for. fuarrrk off cunt >>9500 >>9501 >>9502 I'm willing to bet that this is a same user, these posts were made only a couple of minutes apart. Cope, seethe and dilate.

>the only harm transgender persons face is self-harm I didn't know they could occupy multiple bodies at once. Why do they make one of their bodies kill another of their bodies, though? >Lainchan was never a free speech chan but mods never derezzed people for having "illegal opinions" That's one of the things I value about lainchan. There's a difference between expressing "illegal opinions" and being a git, though. You can be both, either, or neither. I think the general intellectual culture around here could use less gits, and more "illegal" opinions. That means more trannies, and more anti-trannies, speaking in intelligent and civilized ways. There are some good arguments both ways.

>>9545 >That's one of the things I value about lainchan. There's a difference between expressing "illegal opinions" and being a git, though. You can be both, either, or neither. I think the general intellectual culture around here could use less gits, and more "illegal" opinions. That means more trannies, and more anti-trannies, speaking in intelligent and civilized ways. There are some good arguments both ways. No, we shouldn't discuss wheather being a bug chasing cock hungry sodomite is something to be proud of or not. Shitting up the board just because both sides want to push their agenda is retarded. I'm not on Lainchan because I want to talk about disgusting trannies or talk about how I hate niggers.

>>9546 filthy fuarrrkin Italians and their pretend noodles B& this pizza munching fat sack of lasange

>>9497 >>9499 I have to agree with appleman here I go to lainchan to avoid the usual political gender/trans issues it gets tiring after a while

>>9488 >What is the place of transgender people In a grave.

>>10470 Oooh edgy. Careful not to cut yourself on that edge.

hairy man can't just become woman, neck yourself troon.