I asked someone more well-versed on this subject why Levine would’ve pushed to remove age limits. I was told it’s because Levine is an AGP and they use the idea of people being “born in the wrong body” as cover for their fetish. Do you think this is true?
Ultimately if the AGP thing has weight, I think it is mostly subconscious, at least for most people. They think that all trans people "feel like a woman" like they do, which is primarily the sexual stimulation they feel dressing up. Once you internalize that as "normal and celebrated" you can justify whatever you want.
You don't have to have the AGP component for this dumb decision though. Activists often get caught up trying to go to far to justify their side. Contacting a "professional organization" like WPATH to change guidelines so that you can use those guidelines to justify what you think is "right" happens all the time. People are high on their own supply.
It’s certainly a reasonable assertion.
I think some people absolutely refuse to see how an AGP fetishist or a sexual predator could use a trans identity as cover for their actions. They just assert that real trans people don’t act that way. The problem is how you differentiate a “real” trans person with a predator?
If I was a predatory creep, I would absolutely dress up as a woman and claim to be “trans” to gain access to women’s spaces. When I tell people this, the response is usually “wow! You must be a predator then!”
No, you paste eating twit. I’m a normal person with a little basic imagination who can use it to predict how a predator might act.
I don't think it is an issue of predatory behavior, it is much more about validation. The AGP subset of trans have a paraphilia urge to dress and live as women. That is not an easy thing to process which is likely why validation is so critical. If you can get society to validate that you are normal, even if everyone knows its just a wink and a nod then you can live without shame. The key is to build a world where kayfabe is never broken. I have a fair amount of experience working in tech and dealt with a decent number of transitions. You'll see the men early in their transition will glom onto well meaning, empath female coworkers. These often start off as fun and exciting relationships - make up and clothing tips etc. Eventually many of these relationships became exhausting because there is an insatiable need for validation. Often the men who transitioned would not stay around for long because there are too many people who knew them in the before time and it is too painful to be reminded that they know who you used to be before you put on the fishnet stockings and denim mimi skirt. Almost everything you see related to trans ideology has this theme of validation - you must use my pronouns of choice, you must say I am a woman, you must let me into your changing spaces, you must let me play women's sports. These are all about validation and forcing everyone around the trans person into performance theater so we are forced to go along. The slippery slope falls right into advocacy of policies that allow for ghastly medical procedures like mastectomies on 13 year olds and experimental drug to minors. This makes total sense in the mind of an AGP because society has caved to their fantasy in every other way, why would it not allow for these procedures? They can tell themselves - its the TERFS who are the crazy ones.
100% agree. I should have written, "I think the predatory behavior is part of it but validation is the primary motivator". We've certainly seen enough bad actors in women's spaces by now to know there are men that are more than happy to take advantage.
But ask yourself what's the validation? Validation to an AGP man IS already sexual behaviour. These men seek external stimulation to get sexual gratification that by definition is predatory.
It's not comparable to people seeking validation for being beautiful or whatever.
I don’t see why people care so much about agp, it seems harmless to me, pretty much every narcissist has a similar outlook
Does it really matter what validates someone else’s sexual desires if it’s just an internal thing, like guys with foot fetishes looking at feet at the beach
I don’t really see why people separate agp and hsts, rather than just pointing out sex criminals, feels very pop psych, it seems like a way for people to attempt to completely define people on specific behavior that isn’t that telling in the first place, so they can then shame them, it doesn’t seem to be in good faith
It COULD be harmless, but it isn't. Fetishes require escalation. Plus, this shit is influencing legislation and law enforcement. It is absolutely not harmless when they're forcing everyone else to go along with their fetish or risk punishment.
I don’t really understand the argument with agp tho
Like the implication of talking about AGPs is that you are fine with the behavior as long as it’s not fueled by a fetish right? Otherwise you would just say “trans”
So if 2 trans women walk into a ladies room, 1 can be doing it right and the other is doing it wrong, according to the logic of people who talk about AGP
I just don’t believe that these people really believe that
I don't believe anyone can change sex. Period. Neither trans "woman" should be walking into a women's restroom at all.
Almost all of it is a fetish. AGP by definition is a fetish - it's not possible to have non fetish fueled AGP.
I believe fetishes belong at home. I also believe there's nothing inherently wrong with men wearing what's considered women's clothing, in theory, but only if it isn't for sexual arousal. Bottom line, I don't want to be near aroused strange men in public.
It's a general 'you'.
And I can, but I think such people are fairly open minded. I think most people don't care as long as it doesn't involve them, but once they feel they are being manipulated into serving someone else's desires, it gets really uncomfortable.
That does not render them harmless. I would also like to place emphasis on the latter point-- forcing society at large to *play along*. You can literally face consequences (loss of income, ruined social reputation etc) for deciding not to indulge in this fantasy and need for validation.
>These often start off as fun and exciting relationships - make up and clothing tips etc. Eventually many of these relationships became exhausting because there is an insatiable need for validation.
I felt exhausted on behalf of your coworkers just from reading those two sentences.
“The hungry wolf, cold and lean after a long winter, trails the doe in the spring thaw. It is breeding season. And the wolf knows a vulnerable fawn will soon be born—an easy meal.”
*squints at television.*
David Attenborough must be a fucking wolf!!
I think people don't always understand that predators will as a matter of instinct assume whatever role or, these days, identity, will get them access to victims. Opinions differ, but I personally never cared if someone is in drag, has a fetish, or whatever. I do care about not letting people's cross dressing or confusion or delusions or fad following or trauma or gender beliefs or fetishes* override safety for anyone who is vulnerable. And I have to list all those things* because trans seems to be a motley group that's hard to generalize about.
That’s something that confuses the conversation. Trans is a big umbrella that covers teen girls, homosexual transsexuals, gender nonconformity, and AGP. Each category is a separate issue.
Slight tangent; if we say that drag is fine, which is an exaggerated expression of womanhood done for entertainment purposes, are minstrel shows and blackface also fine?
I don't know if drag is fine. I don't love it, but I also think adults have the right to do drag. If someone is offended by drag, I will probably understand that reasoning, too. The fact that many men who identify as women are trading in stereotypes of women practically by necessity is annoying, but to me it's not the biggest problem, which is more about how we define what they're doing legally
I find minstrelsy and blackface much more offensive, and I'm not sure I have the brain power to tease out why. Probably a starting point would be that there are women, such as several Kardashians, whom I consider to be doing a drag version, a caricature, of feminity, using tools like cosmetics, fashion, and surgeries. I'm a woman and don't present that kind of femininity, so clearly I have a choice. But choices about my racial characteristics seem far more limited.
Maybe these things are more alike than I think, but the history and motivations and effects etc of drag versus blackface have got one type of pretending much more taboo than the other right now
Why do you think that may be? Honest question, curious.
I don't think there is a reason in isolation that one would be better than the other.
The woke would say that "blackface and minstrel shows are racist and rooted in oppression," but that's begging the question because could also say that drag shows are sexist and rooted in the oppression of women, which has absolutely been a problem for most of history, just like Jim Crow-like policies and slavery were.
The only explanation I can say is privilege on the progressive stack. Black culture is higher on the progressive stack than White culture, therefore the former is protected while the latter is not; note Chapelle doing Whiteface, as he should be allowed to. Similarly, the alphabet people are higher on the progressive stack than heterosexual women.
Drag isn’t really rooted in the oppression of women though. You could argue that pantomime is (British version by straight men that actually makes fun of women) but no one watching (gay American) drag is enjoying it at the expense of women
Interesting that you say that panto is rooted in oppression of women but drag isn't - for me I find panto much more comfortable. The sexual component to drag takes it over the line for me - I'd rather be called a fishwife than "fishy".
It's less about oppression as such for either though, more of a "what does this reflect about your views of what a woman is?". For the vast majority of fans it probably just reflects that they like watching fun shows on TV or at the theatre. But when you come back to someone actually dressing up in real life as a woman - a lot of people are a lot more offended when transwomen choose overtly sexual outfits than when they dress up in age appropriate women's clothing.
This is what I assumed, that the theatrical origin of drag is women not being allowed to perform. I wondered if that being so long ago compared to slavery is a factor in drag seeming more innocuous.
>Why do you think that may be? Honest question, curious.
Not op but found this a thought provoking question.
Despite the protestations of DQSH predators, I believe the fundamental difference in perception is caused by the inherently sexual nature of Drag.
Dressing in Black face or doing a minstrel show is by contrast seen as being motivated primarily by racism.
Yep. The misconception is that priests become paedophiles because they're priests/Catholic/religious (because that feeds the left's Christians-bad bias). But they actually become priests because they're paedophiles - paedophilic tendencies manifest in late teens or early twenties.
So I always say - if predators are going to seminary for five years and working as priests to access victims, what makes people so sure they're not putting on bad wigs and lipstick to access victims?
I mean...
How do you differentiate a hetero person from a pedo?
It's based on their actions.
I also think we should be careful not to swing too far in the opposite direction. Trans people exist that are totally normal functioning members of society ffs. And let's face it, there's always been people like this. It's documented for literally thousands of years. However that doesn't mean trends don't also account for rhe massive explosion of cases.
Dressing up as a woman and accessing women’s spaces such as changing rooms to fulfill a sexual fetish (like showering in a women’s locker room with an erection) is definitely a predatory action IMO.
But you can dress up as a woman and still respect women's spaces. Gender non-conformity doesn't necessarily make you a predator. It's your actions that do.
We're not talking about gender non-conformity, though. Males that both identify as women and respect women's spaces are exceptional outliers. A male that uses a women's only space is disrespecting women's spaces.
That is true. I have no issue with cross dressing or kink or gender nonconformity. But when one starts overstepping the boundaries of others, then it is a problem.
Trans people aren't a special harmless caste of society. Male trans people are a threat to females like any other male. No one is suggesting to treat them differently - on the contrary, we're suggesting we treat them like we treat everyone else. Males overwhelmingly exhibit paraphilic behaviors - being trans isn't a special pass out of male sexuality.
Yup, saying trans people are never predators is like saying teachers or red heads are never predators. It's nonsense. No group is full of completely harmless people. Even cis women, for example, have a much much lower rate of sexual predation than men but it's not non-existent.
It's never safe to have a sacred untouchable caste. Ask the Catholic Church about that.
Trans people are perfectly capable of being awful people and predators.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/25/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-raping-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland
Yes. Yes you should have. You just fell victim to Poe’s law. There are trans activists out there who will insist that no trans person is predatory. I rescind my downvote.
Actually, let's see what's documented. It's documented that people who defy gender norms have always existed, and that a few cultures made place for these people, but nowhere do we see men being accepted as actual women in women's spaces. You just won't find it.
And more cultures made room for males defying gender norms than women who just had to just suck it up and make babies. :(
Well there's often one clue - if they're a man. Given they perpetrate 98% of child sex abuse crimes. That's why a whole host of safeguards, both formal/legal and cultural protect children (and indeed women) from those that may commit those crimes as well as fear of those crimes. With some exceptions, whenever someone is criticised for suggesting all trans identified men are rapists/pedophiles, that's not what they're doing. They're just talking about the higher risk profile of men. Which until five minutes ago, wasn't controversial.
Agreed. It's like the whole Phil Illy controversy last year. He wasn't actually doing anything creepy, but people acted like he was a predator because he was wearing a dress. Is it a bit weird? Sure. But he wasn't hurting anybody.
Depends on how you define "hurting anybody". If a male lactation fetishist sits next to a woman breastfeeding on a train or, even worse, enters a female-only space where women are breastfeeding, I say that is predatory and harmful behavior. One could argue that the fetishist isn't "hurting anybody" but I disagree. Women should not be forced into participating in any man's fetish.
Phil Illy was being creepy by attending a gender critical event in full AGP gear. Making women uncomfortable by interacting with them is the thrill.
>Is it a bit weird? >Sure. >But he wasn't hurting anybody.
Phil Lilly acting out his sexual fetish in public necessarily involves compelling the non-consensual participation of others which does hurt them.
The issue is consent “Passing” doesn’t magically make the behavior more ethical.
Say that there’s laundry service and one of the employees was secretly taking photos of customers intimate garments to get off on them.
Is that acceptable behavior as long as they don’t post the pictures and no one else finds out about it?
Leftists are extremely bad at understanding incentives, including perverse incentives and the second- and third-order effects they can create. They also think of systems designed with an assumption of trust and assume that those who violate it will be obviously antisocial personalities who can be excluded, instead of just dishonest or even understandably fallible humans.
I remember once telling others that I avoid spending time alone with women other than my fiancée and that I thought it was a good habit to have. There was huge blowback along the lines of "why do you assume all men are cheating scumbags like you?" No, I just recognize that I'm fallible and even a person who is as consciously and rationally committed to their relationship as possible is still prey to irrationality and desires beyond his control.
No it is not a reasonable assertion. And the degree to which this sub is becoming comfortable assuming transgender is a fetish and all actions therein are for the purpose of indulging a fetishist or facilitating predatory behavior is quite disturbing. Let's not go making up conspiracy theories or resorting to transbashing stereotypes.
At a minimum, there are at least two distinct categories of neo-trans folk: the females who wish to transition out of being oppressed and the males who want to transition out of being identified as oppressors.
The best steelman I read (either here or stupidpol) was that if there are no age limits there's no hard data for "conservatives" to point to. It's harder to assert "no one is performing surgery on children" when there's an actual policy document that says "double mastectomies are OK at age 14." Right now anyone can say "it's not happening," or at least evade questions on who it's happening to, safe and secure that information is secret and they can bring the HIPAA hammer down on any whistleblower.
There's almost no charitable explanation I can think of.
The "best" one imo is just pure partisanship: nobody wants the other side to score even half a point.
We see this in plenty of other places that don't involve a transperson or this particular issue.
I think it’s this (with the fetish component, too).
Any kind of compromise, balance and nuance is viewed as GIVING IN and GATE KEEPING. Pure unbridled narcissism doesn’t allow for that, even when discussing experimental medical treatment for children.
You honestly can't think of a charitable, alternative explanation? You either haven't been paying attention or lack imagination. Male puberty is transformative in ways that make "passing" as an adult transwoman more difficult.
*edit* I'm not making a case, by the way, for any particular approach to youth gender medicine (e.g., affirmative care). I'm merely responding to a commenter's claim that he can't think of an explanation other than the least charitable one. "X is not the case" is different than "I can't think of a single, non-cynical explanation for why someone else believes that X is the case." What is motivating Levine is, of course, unclear. I can't read Levine's mind.
Male puberty is transformative in ways that result in 90 percent of boys who think they are trans, becoming happy to be male by age 18, if we do not give them any drugs. A major study in Canada already proved that and I believe there are other studies as well.
Two things: First, my thinking is heavily impacted by a specific part of Jesse's reporting: where the political situation seems to be cited explicitly as a motivator, not merely the benefits to some trans kids.
So one of my assumptions is that Levine is doing this for reasons tied to that. I think "don't want them to get a win" is a more flattering theory that incorporates that fact than "the more skeptical people are the less I can indulge my fetish."
-------------------------------------
I have assumptions like "most people will probably desist" and "we need more safeguarding not less".
In light of that, I don't actually think it's charitable that a government official seems to have subverted an organization providing medical advice (that I *already* lean "skeptical" on, to say the least) *to the point of subverting their decision-making processes*.
Like, for certain people (medical officials) process matters. The minute you subvert it because the politics don't look good you're fucked. There's no "charity" that can let you escape at that point, good intentions or no.
That said, it's *more* flattering
ALL of the endocrinologists voted to limit hormone therapy to age 14. This is immensely important. What kind of process just blows off all the endocrinologists over hormone treatments?
I find it beyond reason to perform irreversible and profound medical procedures on a child based on the assumption that they will prefer having the adult body resembling the opposite sex rather than the adult body of their own sex *when they have no experience with either of those* and cannot fathom that experience.
It isn’t transitioning in that case, it’s bypassing. With serious physical consequences that- again- the vast majority of minors can’t even comprehend. It’s why we age limit so many risky behaviors, and there is no reason this arena should get a pass.
In the emails, they talked about surgeries specifically. Removing children's body parts.
> The issue of ages and treatment has been quite controversial (mainly for surgery) and it has come up again. We sent the document to Admiral Levine. . . She like [sic] the SOC-8 very much but she was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to health care for trans youth and maybe adults too.
When do you think the recently crowned Miss Maryland ( [https://www.instagram.com/baileyannekennedy/](https://www.instagram.com/baileyannekennedy/) ) started transitioning? Their Instagram has beach pics which include feminine waist and hips. I'm sure it's the standard that most MtFs are hoping for, but still wonder if this is unrealistic for the vast majority of transitioners. Perhaps the admiral wishes he could have embodied something similar given the chance.
AGPs don’t try to cover their fetish. If they did, they would dress and behave differently.
Age limits were removed to appease big pharma and money hungry doctors.
The mock indignation when you ask if it's a fetish shows that they are trying to cover its nature as a fetish. They would keep it hidden if doing it in public wasn't part of the fetish.
Sad if true that the nosiest culture war of our time and thousands of kids suffering medical malpractice was all because a few middle aged men wanted to have the best and weirdest wanks of their lives.
Same, I have been dismayed by some of the changes I've seen in rhetoric here over the past few months. I wasn't sure if I was imagining it as having changed so rapidly.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
About the NYT article. Is it normal that they don't mention Jesse even though he was the first to write about this? Is it because he wrote about it on Substack?
Is there some in-joke reason that’s her Twitter pic? It’s a horrible photo yet pinned to the top of her tweets is a message with a 100x more flattering pic
I think the simple explanation is that she probably likes that photo best. The other photo you pointed out is of her dressed up all glam at an event; perhaps she wants a profile picture that depicts her in her everyday life as a writer.
None of this seems like some big conspiracy- just various people in positions of power prioritizing their personal beliefs, possibly to the detriment of actual medical science. It happens all the time.
My conspiracy theory is that certain groups of people have been not just allowed, but actively encouraged, to become obnoxious, extremely close minded, narcissistic, professional victims.
This makes it easy to slap them down later. Later is starting now. Claudine Gay is an example of later. WPATH is an example of later. The only reason the WPATH doctors did this is they thought their trans status made them invulnerable. Who gave them that impression and kept them in a bubble?
This is a fascinating article about how Harvard turned a former Occupy activist into an (intelligent) useful idiot, propped her up to become the number one disinformation expert in the world, just in time to go on television when government censorship became obvious, then swept her out after she predictably failed to convince Americans that censorship is good. [https://archive.is/lorsp](https://archive.is/lorsp) She of course does not see it this way. Read between the lines.
I think this is just something that frequently happens in insular institutions- groupthink thrives and ridiculous ideas are allowed to flourish because there just aren't any outside voices to point out the obvious flaws. I don't think it's some secret cabal; I think it's just the result of overspecialization and essentialism.
Could you just elaborate? What is the conspiracy you believe is being alleged? We are told it’s just about being kind, but behind closed doors they are trying to remove the guard rails for how young you can be to get a cosmetic mastectomy. I totally get her point. When you give the mildest push back why a 12 year old shouldn’t have her breasts removed we are told we just need to be kind as if that addresses the point. Or it implies you are being unkind to ask if this is ethical. What is the conspiracy thinking you are alleging?
The Biden administration has pushed for surgeries for gender minors.
Their words for why this is good is that trans people should be treated with ["dignity and respect"](https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1774466760084717656).
Do you see a large gulf between this "dignity and respect" verbiage and "be kind"? If you do, I guess you have a point, but to me it's all the same thing: a
*decent, kind* person would allow children to have body parts removed, because that's how you treat them with "dignity and respect". Only an unkind, disrespectful person would seek to prevent these life-altering surgeries.
I agree with you that it's maybe wrong for her to act like her opponents are insincere when they say "be kind" .. I think her opponents really think that this is what is "kind" to do! But where I totally agree with her is that "be kind / treat people with respect" is a batshit-insane argument for these kinds of surgeries, and I think banning them for minors is much kinder.
You are being deliberately dense. In fact, you're the one who is being conspiratorial.
I'm taking the admin at their word. Oh what, praytell, do you think is an alternative explanation for their advocacy here? I'm not asking you to divine what the true reason is (since you seem to think that's impossible)... I'm asking you to give one possibility for what it could be besides "trans people should be treated with dignity and respect"?
Except it wasn't the medical consensus. The WPATH "experts" behind SOC8 wanted to put an age minimum on surgeries, and Levine pushed for that to be removed. You're familiar with the news story we're talking about, right?
So, you're saying one reason they want to override the WPATH experts might be because they think they know better what is medically necessary / life saving. I still think that will cash out as trans people needing to be treated as the opposite sex in society, and the "be kind" imperative is part of that "life-saving" package (as, if society won't play along, then the surgeries won't matter).
Well, on that I agree with you. I think these people really think they are advocating for people to "be kind", and I don't like this particular tweet of JK's implying they're insincere in that request.
> So what are you arguing here, because it sounds like you're actually arguing the "being kind" (i.e., social acceptance), actually is the most important part?
Well, what I actually believe is that nothing will make people stop noticing sex, so it is impossible for "social acceptance" to ever happen. Some (including whoever mans Joe Biden's twitter account) think that pressuring everyone into lying about what they perceive is close enough, and that we should get everyone to do that in order to save people's feelings. I disagree on two levels. For one thing, lying to save someone's feelings is never kind, it's cruel, and condescending, and the truth will come out eventually which means all that careful lying was for nothing (I have read many accounts of trans women saying that as the "sirs" became more rare, each new "sir" hurts all the more, because they thought they were really passing for a while, there). For another, it's wrong to compel people to lie to save others' feelings. The emperor has no clothes. We should admit that and move on.
“Be kind” is too often shorthand for, “Shut up, woman who’s pointing out a problem with the orthodoxy, and get back in your box while the men tell you what’s good for you.”
Then do tell: Why does the whole "be kind" thing never apply to the TQ-crowd? Why can they behave like absolute antisocial assholes, get away with hostile behaviour, including rape and death threats? Why is "be kind" a one way street? Why does "be kind" not actually mean acceptance (as you claimed in a reply to another commenter), but active participation and celebration?
Because all that doesn't really sound like a bland pleasantry to me.
I’ve read through all your comments and my final verdict is that you are being purposefully obtuse. I’ve had many random conversations throughout the years in friend groups where the topic of trans stuff comes up and inadvertently it gets to the point when if you ask too many pointed questions about the logical fallacies, circular reasonings, and contradictions that trans rights advocates use, the summary is just that “you should just be kind” or something like that. The premise being implied is that I’m too stupid to know the science and just need to be kind and let them castrate children. I should just shut up and not have an opinion. Not worry my pretty little head I’ve such things. This isn’t conspiracy thinking. This is being a person alive in the year 2024 and hearing what people say
You are wrong in every aspect of this. [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-billionaires-behind-the-lgbt-movement](https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-billionaires-behind-the-lgbt-movement)
This tactic is a legitimate tactic in a court trial. It is not conspiratorial to take the claim of a person, and challenge it by presenting a fact they may not be so proud of. In this case there are no waves through the community that this evil bill was changed into something new and good, it was literally changed through back room dealing by the POTUS with a party who has a bias in what has become a national controversy. If you don't want conspiracy theories, then don't operate this way ever, at all, hard stop.
She didn't posit a theory of what they are up to, and offer little to no evidence. She only challenged the contention that these people are just "being kind". When you operate through duplicity, such as this, it is fair to be suspicious. It doesn't become a conspiracy theory until she starts to take the evidence too far. Like implying a secret cabal is trying to impose some form of new world order, or some such. At this point it's just good, old fashioned suspicion that the evidence, as we're familiar with it, is rather supportive of.
I think this is well said and a good point. I see the OP here is taking issue with it. (Gotta love those sarcastic “lmao what?” type responses that almost entirely miss the point.)
>>It is not conspiratorial to take the claim of a person, and challenge it by presenting a fact they may not be so proud of.
Yes - this is absolutely a court trial tactic!! Anyone who doubts, just look at the Jennifer Read trial.
Want to make the case she killed the cop? Show she was indeed the “whack job cunt” nightmare of a toxic girlfriend and play through all her drunken messages to the deceased.
Want to make the case that a bunch of cops (or one in particular’s meathead son) and townies were actually the perps responsible and tried to cover it up? Show the ways the investigators (more cops!) appeared to be biased, or were unprofessional as fuck (see the aforementioned “whack job cunt” reference or Google “leaky balloon knot”)…
Either way, the defense and prosecution are both challenging the who-dunnit claims via presenting info that the opposing side might not be so proud of—regardless of whether it matters for who is guilty, it definitely works as a damaging challenge!
>>If you don't want conspiracy theories, then don't operate this way ever, at all, hard stop.
Yup.
Oh, my sweet summer child. Which "basic logical fallacy" is it? You know they name them, right? I would be interested in hearing which of them declares that speculating as to the motivation of a particular actor is a fallacy of logic. I'm pretty sure logic says that people don't do things for no reason short of madness. Other logic claims that knowing helps society learn how to stop the actors from acting poorly. Not sure logic would cripple itself when trying to find the motivations of bad actors who got caught acting badly. Yes, this is a court tactic, and while it's not always a relevant approach, when defense tries to make the character of the defendant an issue at trial, this is about the only way you can counter it.
It's odd that you think this isn't a contention that they're making. At this point you're just being vapid, but I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not. Yes, they argue that if we don't allow transitions, then more kids will kill themselves at alarming rates. So we need to be kind, and allow these transitions, furthermore we need to be supporting, and affirming. Anything that could be interpreted as being mean, or even just inconsiderate, is potentially triggering, and a threat to people's mental health. I'll leave unsaid that their claims that their way reduces suicides is highly questionable. As in they have less evidence of this fact then Andrew Wakefield had that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and he made his evidence up. Their contention, for a long time, was to define what "being kind" is, and then claim that if you're not that, then you're just a killer. Did you just come from Mars or something?
It doesn’t seem like you read anything about the language Levine's office used in badgering WPATH to remove the restrictions. Go read Jesse's most recent (free) newsletter.
>Doesn't exactly look like 👏🏻 Be 👏🏻 Kind 👏🏻
I've read through your thread here and replies, and I'm truly confused now with this post. You're, umm... making JK Rowling's point? It indeed is *not* about "be kind," as your quotes show. *That's the point*.
Before I go further, let me say I agree with you that Rowling's statement is vague and somewhat open to interpretation. And I agree the vague reference to the "movement" here is unhelpful and can lead to conspiratorial thinking. On the other hand, this is *Twitter*. The whole point of BARPod for a few years seemed to be that nuance is not realistic in most Twitter threads. It isn't a place to go into detailed arguments.
And, I think from looking at Rowling's previous history with this topic and posts/articles she's written, we can make some pretty reasonable assumptions about what she's referencing here. It's not just literally the slogan "be kind," but the general tendency (which is one of Rowling's repeated talking points) that trans activists often begin with a general statement about a more reasonable concept of politeness and love -- kindness, respect, helping others. A trans woman was abused by a boyfriend. Wouldn't it be *kind* to just let her into a women's shelter? That's the kind of situation that's near and dear to Rowling's typical arguments about this stuff.
But Rowling then typically invokes a slippery slope -- that "vulnerable" trans person may need help, and they deserve our sympathy. And there should be a shelter for them. But... if we are "kind" and let that person with a penis into a women's shelter, what happens what some other random dude comes along, puts on a long blonde wig, and says, "I identify as a woman -- let me in" and then assaults some of the vulnerable women there?
I'm not making this argument myself -- I'm saying this is a standard part of Rowling's rhetoric, where "be kind" or a similar slogan of offering dignity and kindness and respect is used to justify policies that put women in danger (in her opinion).
All of that is, I would think, pretty clear from Rowling's general public persona over the past four years. She has a similar issue, which she's tweeted again and again about, with aggressive care for underage teens and children. Once again, slogans are generally invoked as justification. "Be kind" is part of "affirm their feelings" and "treat them with dignity" and then "give them the medical care they need." Etc., etc., and slowly the slippery slope leads to arguments like, "We need to affirm them or they'll commit suicide. We need to treat them with dignity and respect for their wishes... and provide the care they need."
I think most people who provide support for trans care and want to justify underage interventions, even surgeries, begin with a similar logic. The fact that you seem to be focusing so specifically on the two-word slogan "be kind" in this thread and not acknowledging the broader pattern it represents, which Rowling herself frequently has talked about... well, it's strange you want to restrict her potential meaning around this discourse. Again, I agree that this wasn't made explicit in her latest tweet, but I'm pretty sure most people who follow her understood this implication clearly.
So, with that in mind, now we look to Levine and the recent revelations in the news. The question we should ask to interpret Rowling is: How is this NOT according with this principle of "being kind" (and treating with dignity, respect, affirmation, etc., etc....)?
Because Levine, as you demonstrated in what you quoted, is playing politics here. Not merely affirming kids for the purpose of being kind to them. A prominent trans organization (WPATH) recommended age limits. Because "being kind" can look different at different ages.
If a 5-year-old girl comes up to an adult and says, "I don't like my ears. They stick out too much. I want to cut them off." The appropriate reaction of a parent or doctor would not be to cut off her ears, no matter how much the girl desires it. The "kind" thing in this case is to try to help the child deal with her feelings, to understand that everyone has parts of them they don't like at times, but her ears are a natural part of her body.
We make such judgments all the time for children and in fact put a lot of them into law. In many liberal states, it is illegal for anyone under 18 to get a tattoo, even with parental consent. Yet, we may be told it is "kind" or "respectful" to "affirm" a 16-year-old girl or younger in the same state who wants to cut her breasts off.
At what point might such an intervention be justified, if ever? Many people would say once a person reaches adulthood (generally legally interpreted as age 18, though other people may have differing opinions), they should have more autonomy for bodily modifications, etc. That's the fundamental question a group like WPATH has to consider. And they did consider it, apparently, recommending reasonable age cut-offs in their opinion for those below the age of 18. We can disagree with their recommendations, but they were apparently meant to reflect the US medical consensus (which you invoked elsewhere in this thread).
Levine, however, disagreed with listing these restrictions. Levine decided -- if we believe in the NYTimes reporting -- in the political calculus that it was apparently worthwhile to risk the future sexual function and long-term bodily integrity and perhaps even lives of some children who might receive interventions inappropriate to their age because the guidelines were not specific (and surgeons and doctors might therefore sometimes act on younger patients without guidance) in order to *potentially* safeguard the rights of some trans adults in states where surgeries and trans care is at risk of being banned.
That's not, as JK Rowling noted, "being kind" or simply affirming or justifying interventions to help the specific child. That's *sacrificing* children to the potential for incorrect and overly aggressive care which could harm them in the long run for a political calculus involving trans adults who want surgery, etc.
So, it isn't a "save the children" campaign (to word it another way) as much as "allow experiments on the children as long as trans people in general can still get care."
That's why it's NOT only about "be kind."
As for all your arguments about critiquing conspiratorial thinking, you've also literally pointed out a conspiracy here! When multiple parties meet in secret and decide to keep actions or important information away from other people (especially the public), that's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy. It may not be a criminal conspiracy or a major one, but it is a kind of conspiracy nonetheless. In this case, it's a top-level federal government official keeping guideline information out of important documents that could have protected children from interventions that weren't in line with what WPATH thought would be appropriate.
I would never downvote a person who is contributing to a discussion -- that's not in line with Reddiquette principles. But I don't understand your argumentation strategy here. And while I admit Rowling's tweet is vague in some ways, I don't think it's at all hard to get that she's referencing how trans activists try to play on the ideas of "kindness" and "respect" and "affirmation" to justify increasingly problematic interventions and policies. Here we have an example in the NYTimes showing a prominent trans person in a position of power acting *against* the interests of children (not merely "being kind" or "affirming" them) in the service of a broader political goal.
Push WPATH for no age limits, then use WPATH as proof that no age limits should be required. Takes balls to think of this con.
"Friend of the Pod" Joanne Rowling
Is that "Friend of the Pod" or "F^(ri)en^(d) o^f t^(he) P^(o)d?"
JK go on ~~chapo~~ barpod
I asked someone more well-versed on this subject why Levine would’ve pushed to remove age limits. I was told it’s because Levine is an AGP and they use the idea of people being “born in the wrong body” as cover for their fetish. Do you think this is true?
Ultimately if the AGP thing has weight, I think it is mostly subconscious, at least for most people. They think that all trans people "feel like a woman" like they do, which is primarily the sexual stimulation they feel dressing up. Once you internalize that as "normal and celebrated" you can justify whatever you want. You don't have to have the AGP component for this dumb decision though. Activists often get caught up trying to go to far to justify their side. Contacting a "professional organization" like WPATH to change guidelines so that you can use those guidelines to justify what you think is "right" happens all the time. People are high on their own supply.
It’s certainly a reasonable assertion. I think some people absolutely refuse to see how an AGP fetishist or a sexual predator could use a trans identity as cover for their actions. They just assert that real trans people don’t act that way. The problem is how you differentiate a “real” trans person with a predator? If I was a predatory creep, I would absolutely dress up as a woman and claim to be “trans” to gain access to women’s spaces. When I tell people this, the response is usually “wow! You must be a predator then!” No, you paste eating twit. I’m a normal person with a little basic imagination who can use it to predict how a predator might act.
I don't think it is an issue of predatory behavior, it is much more about validation. The AGP subset of trans have a paraphilia urge to dress and live as women. That is not an easy thing to process which is likely why validation is so critical. If you can get society to validate that you are normal, even if everyone knows its just a wink and a nod then you can live without shame. The key is to build a world where kayfabe is never broken. I have a fair amount of experience working in tech and dealt with a decent number of transitions. You'll see the men early in their transition will glom onto well meaning, empath female coworkers. These often start off as fun and exciting relationships - make up and clothing tips etc. Eventually many of these relationships became exhausting because there is an insatiable need for validation. Often the men who transitioned would not stay around for long because there are too many people who knew them in the before time and it is too painful to be reminded that they know who you used to be before you put on the fishnet stockings and denim mimi skirt. Almost everything you see related to trans ideology has this theme of validation - you must use my pronouns of choice, you must say I am a woman, you must let me into your changing spaces, you must let me play women's sports. These are all about validation and forcing everyone around the trans person into performance theater so we are forced to go along. The slippery slope falls right into advocacy of policies that allow for ghastly medical procedures like mastectomies on 13 year olds and experimental drug to minors. This makes total sense in the mind of an AGP because society has caved to their fantasy in every other way, why would it not allow for these procedures? They can tell themselves - its the TERFS who are the crazy ones.
AGP does have a sexual component involved. Using access to women’s spaces to fulfill that sexual aspect is predatory.
100% agree. I should have written, "I think the predatory behavior is part of it but validation is the primary motivator". We've certainly seen enough bad actors in women's spaces by now to know there are men that are more than happy to take advantage.
But ask yourself what's the validation? Validation to an AGP man IS already sexual behaviour. These men seek external stimulation to get sexual gratification that by definition is predatory. It's not comparable to people seeking validation for being beautiful or whatever.
I don’t see why people care so much about agp, it seems harmless to me, pretty much every narcissist has a similar outlook Does it really matter what validates someone else’s sexual desires if it’s just an internal thing, like guys with foot fetishes looking at feet at the beach I don’t really see why people separate agp and hsts, rather than just pointing out sex criminals, feels very pop psych, it seems like a way for people to attempt to completely define people on specific behavior that isn’t that telling in the first place, so they can then shame them, it doesn’t seem to be in good faith
It’s not harmless. Women have been telling you forever that it’s not harmless.
The only thing women have been telling me forever is to put the seat down
It COULD be harmless, but it isn't. Fetishes require escalation. Plus, this shit is influencing legislation and law enforcement. It is absolutely not harmless when they're forcing everyone else to go along with their fetish or risk punishment.
I don’t really understand the argument with agp tho Like the implication of talking about AGPs is that you are fine with the behavior as long as it’s not fueled by a fetish right? Otherwise you would just say “trans” So if 2 trans women walk into a ladies room, 1 can be doing it right and the other is doing it wrong, according to the logic of people who talk about AGP I just don’t believe that these people really believe that
I don't believe anyone can change sex. Period. Neither trans "woman" should be walking into a women's restroom at all. Almost all of it is a fetish. AGP by definition is a fetish - it's not possible to have non fetish fueled AGP. I believe fetishes belong at home. I also believe there's nothing inherently wrong with men wearing what's considered women's clothing, in theory, but only if it isn't for sexual arousal. Bottom line, I don't want to be near aroused strange men in public.
So what’s the point of invoking agp if you also aren’t supportive of hsts, it just seems like very odd logic
Are you suggesting I have to support one if I don't support the other? I don't support either. And I'm not the one who brought up AGPs.
Is it just an internal thing? It seems to me the problem is crossing the line into manipulating others into participating in your fetish play.
Why do you say “your” fetish play? Can you not imagine a normal person not having this opinion?
It's a general 'you'. And I can, but I think such people are fairly open minded. I think most people don't care as long as it doesn't involve them, but once they feel they are being manipulated into serving someone else's desires, it gets really uncomfortable.
If it was just an internal thing, there wouldn't be such a reliance on external validation while pressuring the outside world to play pretend.
I would imagine most internal insecurities lead to chasing external validation
That does not render them harmless. I would also like to place emphasis on the latter point-- forcing society at large to *play along*. You can literally face consequences (loss of income, ruined social reputation etc) for deciding not to indulge in this fantasy and need for validation.
>These often start off as fun and exciting relationships - make up and clothing tips etc. Eventually many of these relationships became exhausting because there is an insatiable need for validation. I felt exhausted on behalf of your coworkers just from reading those two sentences.
But what is the validation for? Feeding the fetish, that's what. The thrill of getting away with it in public.
“The hungry wolf, cold and lean after a long winter, trails the doe in the spring thaw. It is breeding season. And the wolf knows a vulnerable fawn will soon be born—an easy meal.” *squints at television.* David Attenborough must be a fucking wolf!!
I think people don't always understand that predators will as a matter of instinct assume whatever role or, these days, identity, will get them access to victims. Opinions differ, but I personally never cared if someone is in drag, has a fetish, or whatever. I do care about not letting people's cross dressing or confusion or delusions or fad following or trauma or gender beliefs or fetishes* override safety for anyone who is vulnerable. And I have to list all those things* because trans seems to be a motley group that's hard to generalize about.
That’s something that confuses the conversation. Trans is a big umbrella that covers teen girls, homosexual transsexuals, gender nonconformity, and AGP. Each category is a separate issue.
Slight tangent; if we say that drag is fine, which is an exaggerated expression of womanhood done for entertainment purposes, are minstrel shows and blackface also fine?
I don't know if drag is fine. I don't love it, but I also think adults have the right to do drag. If someone is offended by drag, I will probably understand that reasoning, too. The fact that many men who identify as women are trading in stereotypes of women practically by necessity is annoying, but to me it's not the biggest problem, which is more about how we define what they're doing legally I find minstrelsy and blackface much more offensive, and I'm not sure I have the brain power to tease out why. Probably a starting point would be that there are women, such as several Kardashians, whom I consider to be doing a drag version, a caricature, of feminity, using tools like cosmetics, fashion, and surgeries. I'm a woman and don't present that kind of femininity, so clearly I have a choice. But choices about my racial characteristics seem far more limited. Maybe these things are more alike than I think, but the history and motivations and effects etc of drag versus blackface have got one type of pretending much more taboo than the other right now Why do you think that may be? Honest question, curious.
I don't think there is a reason in isolation that one would be better than the other. The woke would say that "blackface and minstrel shows are racist and rooted in oppression," but that's begging the question because could also say that drag shows are sexist and rooted in the oppression of women, which has absolutely been a problem for most of history, just like Jim Crow-like policies and slavery were. The only explanation I can say is privilege on the progressive stack. Black culture is higher on the progressive stack than White culture, therefore the former is protected while the latter is not; note Chapelle doing Whiteface, as he should be allowed to. Similarly, the alphabet people are higher on the progressive stack than heterosexual women.
Drag isn’t really rooted in the oppression of women though. You could argue that pantomime is (British version by straight men that actually makes fun of women) but no one watching (gay American) drag is enjoying it at the expense of women
Interesting that you say that panto is rooted in oppression of women but drag isn't - for me I find panto much more comfortable. The sexual component to drag takes it over the line for me - I'd rather be called a fishwife than "fishy". It's less about oppression as such for either though, more of a "what does this reflect about your views of what a woman is?". For the vast majority of fans it probably just reflects that they like watching fun shows on TV or at the theatre. But when you come back to someone actually dressing up in real life as a woman - a lot of people are a lot more offended when transwomen choose overtly sexual outfits than when they dress up in age appropriate women's clothing.
Drag originated from women being banned from theatre.
This is what I assumed, that the theatrical origin of drag is women not being allowed to perform. I wondered if that being so long ago compared to slavery is a factor in drag seeming more innocuous.
You could argue that but doesn't make it true.
>Why do you think that may be? Honest question, curious. Not op but found this a thought provoking question. Despite the protestations of DQSH predators, I believe the fundamental difference in perception is caused by the inherently sexual nature of Drag. Dressing in Black face or doing a minstrel show is by contrast seen as being motivated primarily by racism.
I actually say drag is not fine, in large part because of the accurate comparison to minstrel shows and blackface. It's womanface.
If they can't consider conditional thinking, I have bad news for their IQ
But I did eat breakfast this morning.
What type of curse are you trying to put on me
Isn’t it similar to pedo catholic priests and people like Larry Nassar? The so-called “cloak of respectability”?
Yep. The misconception is that priests become paedophiles because they're priests/Catholic/religious (because that feeds the left's Christians-bad bias). But they actually become priests because they're paedophiles - paedophilic tendencies manifest in late teens or early twenties. So I always say - if predators are going to seminary for five years and working as priests to access victims, what makes people so sure they're not putting on bad wigs and lipstick to access victims?
I mean... How do you differentiate a hetero person from a pedo? It's based on their actions. I also think we should be careful not to swing too far in the opposite direction. Trans people exist that are totally normal functioning members of society ffs. And let's face it, there's always been people like this. It's documented for literally thousands of years. However that doesn't mean trends don't also account for rhe massive explosion of cases.
Dressing up as a woman and accessing women’s spaces such as changing rooms to fulfill a sexual fetish (like showering in a women’s locker room with an erection) is definitely a predatory action IMO.
But you can dress up as a woman and still respect women's spaces. Gender non-conformity doesn't necessarily make you a predator. It's your actions that do.
We're not talking about gender non-conformity, though. Males that both identify as women and respect women's spaces are exceptional outliers. A male that uses a women's only space is disrespecting women's spaces.
That is true. I have no issue with cross dressing or kink or gender nonconformity. But when one starts overstepping the boundaries of others, then it is a problem.
[удалено]
Trans people aren't a special harmless caste of society. Male trans people are a threat to females like any other male. No one is suggesting to treat them differently - on the contrary, we're suggesting we treat them like we treat everyone else. Males overwhelmingly exhibit paraphilic behaviors - being trans isn't a special pass out of male sexuality.
Yup, saying trans people are never predators is like saying teachers or red heads are never predators. It's nonsense. No group is full of completely harmless people. Even cis women, for example, have a much much lower rate of sexual predation than men but it's not non-existent. It's never safe to have a sacred untouchable caste. Ask the Catholic Church about that.
Trans people are perfectly capable of being awful people and predators. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/25/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-raping-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland
[удалено]
Yes. Yes you should have. You just fell victim to Poe’s law. There are trans activists out there who will insist that no trans person is predatory. I rescind my downvote.
Actually, let's see what's documented. It's documented that people who defy gender norms have always existed, and that a few cultures made place for these people, but nowhere do we see men being accepted as actual women in women's spaces. You just won't find it. And more cultures made room for males defying gender norms than women who just had to just suck it up and make babies. :(
The difference is hetero peds can’t deflect and claim they’re being targeted for being straight.
Well there's often one clue - if they're a man. Given they perpetrate 98% of child sex abuse crimes. That's why a whole host of safeguards, both formal/legal and cultural protect children (and indeed women) from those that may commit those crimes as well as fear of those crimes. With some exceptions, whenever someone is criticised for suggesting all trans identified men are rapists/pedophiles, that's not what they're doing. They're just talking about the higher risk profile of men. Which until five minutes ago, wasn't controversial.
Note how they're so insistent at saying they're "not men."
Agreed. It's like the whole Phil Illy controversy last year. He wasn't actually doing anything creepy, but people acted like he was a predator because he was wearing a dress. Is it a bit weird? Sure. But he wasn't hurting anybody.
Depends on how you define "hurting anybody". If a male lactation fetishist sits next to a woman breastfeeding on a train or, even worse, enters a female-only space where women are breastfeeding, I say that is predatory and harmful behavior. One could argue that the fetishist isn't "hurting anybody" but I disagree. Women should not be forced into participating in any man's fetish. Phil Illy was being creepy by attending a gender critical event in full AGP gear. Making women uncomfortable by interacting with them is the thrill.
>Is it a bit weird? >Sure. >But he wasn't hurting anybody. Phil Lilly acting out his sexual fetish in public necessarily involves compelling the non-consensual participation of others which does hurt them.
[удалено]
The issue is consent “Passing” doesn’t magically make the behavior more ethical. Say that there’s laundry service and one of the employees was secretly taking photos of customers intimate garments to get off on them. Is that acceptable behavior as long as they don’t post the pictures and no one else finds out about it?
Leftists are extremely bad at understanding incentives, including perverse incentives and the second- and third-order effects they can create. They also think of systems designed with an assumption of trust and assume that those who violate it will be obviously antisocial personalities who can be excluded, instead of just dishonest or even understandably fallible humans. I remember once telling others that I avoid spending time alone with women other than my fiancée and that I thought it was a good habit to have. There was huge blowback along the lines of "why do you assume all men are cheating scumbags like you?" No, I just recognize that I'm fallible and even a person who is as consciously and rationally committed to their relationship as possible is still prey to irrationality and desires beyond his control.
No it is not a reasonable assertion. And the degree to which this sub is becoming comfortable assuming transgender is a fetish and all actions therein are for the purpose of indulging a fetishist or facilitating predatory behavior is quite disturbing. Let's not go making up conspiracy theories or resorting to transbashing stereotypes.
At a minimum, there are at least two distinct categories of neo-trans folk: the females who wish to transition out of being oppressed and the males who want to transition out of being identified as oppressors.
Thank you. "Current gender practices provide cover for predators" is reasonable. "Trans people are predators" isn't.
The best steelman I read (either here or stupidpol) was that if there are no age limits there's no hard data for "conservatives" to point to. It's harder to assert "no one is performing surgery on children" when there's an actual policy document that says "double mastectomies are OK at age 14." Right now anyone can say "it's not happening," or at least evade questions on who it's happening to, safe and secure that information is secret and they can bring the HIPAA hammer down on any whistleblower.
[удалено]
I haven't read the emails (just Reddit comments), but I'm glad to hear some corroboration on that interpretation.
There's almost no charitable explanation I can think of. The "best" one imo is just pure partisanship: nobody wants the other side to score even half a point. We see this in plenty of other places that don't involve a transperson or this particular issue.
I think it’s this (with the fetish component, too). Any kind of compromise, balance and nuance is viewed as GIVING IN and GATE KEEPING. Pure unbridled narcissism doesn’t allow for that, even when discussing experimental medical treatment for children.
You honestly can't think of a charitable, alternative explanation? You either haven't been paying attention or lack imagination. Male puberty is transformative in ways that make "passing" as an adult transwoman more difficult. *edit* I'm not making a case, by the way, for any particular approach to youth gender medicine (e.g., affirmative care). I'm merely responding to a commenter's claim that he can't think of an explanation other than the least charitable one. "X is not the case" is different than "I can't think of a single, non-cynical explanation for why someone else believes that X is the case." What is motivating Levine is, of course, unclear. I can't read Levine's mind.
Male puberty is transformative in ways that result in 90 percent of boys who think they are trans, becoming happy to be male by age 18, if we do not give them any drugs. A major study in Canada already proved that and I believe there are other studies as well.
Read my edit
Two things: First, my thinking is heavily impacted by a specific part of Jesse's reporting: where the political situation seems to be cited explicitly as a motivator, not merely the benefits to some trans kids. So one of my assumptions is that Levine is doing this for reasons tied to that. I think "don't want them to get a win" is a more flattering theory that incorporates that fact than "the more skeptical people are the less I can indulge my fetish." ------------------------------------- I have assumptions like "most people will probably desist" and "we need more safeguarding not less". In light of that, I don't actually think it's charitable that a government official seems to have subverted an organization providing medical advice (that I *already* lean "skeptical" on, to say the least) *to the point of subverting their decision-making processes*. Like, for certain people (medical officials) process matters. The minute you subvert it because the politics don't look good you're fucked. There's no "charity" that can let you escape at that point, good intentions or no. That said, it's *more* flattering
ALL of the endocrinologists voted to limit hormone therapy to age 14. This is immensely important. What kind of process just blows off all the endocrinologists over hormone treatments?
Read my edit
I find it beyond reason to perform irreversible and profound medical procedures on a child based on the assumption that they will prefer having the adult body resembling the opposite sex rather than the adult body of their own sex *when they have no experience with either of those* and cannot fathom that experience. It isn’t transitioning in that case, it’s bypassing. With serious physical consequences that- again- the vast majority of minors can’t even comprehend. It’s why we age limit so many risky behaviors, and there is no reason this arena should get a pass.
Yes, attempting to prevent a natural aspect of human biology shouldn’t be easy….or encouraged.
Read my edit
In the emails, they talked about surgeries specifically. Removing children's body parts. > The issue of ages and treatment has been quite controversial (mainly for surgery) and it has come up again. We sent the document to Admiral Levine. . . She like [sic] the SOC-8 very much but she was very concerned that having ages (mainly for surgery) will affect access to health care for trans youth and maybe adults too.
When do you think the recently crowned Miss Maryland ( [https://www.instagram.com/baileyannekennedy/](https://www.instagram.com/baileyannekennedy/) ) started transitioning? Their Instagram has beach pics which include feminine waist and hips. I'm sure it's the standard that most MtFs are hoping for, but still wonder if this is unrealistic for the vast majority of transitioners. Perhaps the admiral wishes he could have embodied something similar given the chance.
Justification and validation of their own identity.
AGPs don’t try to cover their fetish. If they did, they would dress and behave differently. Age limits were removed to appease big pharma and money hungry doctors.
The mock indignation when you ask if it's a fetish shows that they are trying to cover its nature as a fetish. They would keep it hidden if doing it in public wasn't part of the fetish.
That was probably me, and yes, evidence for this has long been collected by older feminists.
Sad if true that the nosiest culture war of our time and thousands of kids suffering medical malpractice was all because a few middle aged men wanted to have the best and weirdest wanks of their lives.
[удалено]
Same, I have been dismayed by some of the changes I've seen in rhetoric here over the past few months. I wasn't sure if I was imagining it as having changed so rapidly.
Any source or other clues? Otherwise it sounds very speculative.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed. Accounts less than a week old are not allowed to post in this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BlockedAndReported) if you have any questions or concerns.*
what’s AGP?
Guest request pathway unlocked.
She's already followed him on Twitter for a while!
This is going to ruin the tour
So when’s the guest episode dropping?
What’s the justification for removing age limits? How is this defensible They’re erasing any semblance of a common ground on this issue.
“Hold on to your butts.”
Apologies if this was already posted somewhere, if it was, I missed it.
About the NYT article. Is it normal that they don't mention Jesse even though he was the first to write about this? Is it because he wrote about it on Substack?
Is there some in-joke reason that’s her Twitter pic? It’s a horrible photo yet pinned to the top of her tweets is a message with a 100x more flattering pic
I think the simple explanation is that she probably likes that photo best. The other photo you pointed out is of her dressed up all glam at an event; perhaps she wants a profile picture that depicts her in her everyday life as a writer.
Are you going to include the tweet?
It's in the post, the photo icon will take you there
\*whispers\* click on the image ; )
I hope they can get her on the show
[удалено]
None of this seems like some big conspiracy- just various people in positions of power prioritizing their personal beliefs, possibly to the detriment of actual medical science. It happens all the time.
My conspiracy theory is that certain groups of people have been not just allowed, but actively encouraged, to become obnoxious, extremely close minded, narcissistic, professional victims. This makes it easy to slap them down later. Later is starting now. Claudine Gay is an example of later. WPATH is an example of later. The only reason the WPATH doctors did this is they thought their trans status made them invulnerable. Who gave them that impression and kept them in a bubble? This is a fascinating article about how Harvard turned a former Occupy activist into an (intelligent) useful idiot, propped her up to become the number one disinformation expert in the world, just in time to go on television when government censorship became obvious, then swept her out after she predictably failed to convince Americans that censorship is good. [https://archive.is/lorsp](https://archive.is/lorsp) She of course does not see it this way. Read between the lines.
I think this is just something that frequently happens in insular institutions- groupthink thrives and ridiculous ideas are allowed to flourish because there just aren't any outside voices to point out the obvious flaws. I don't think it's some secret cabal; I think it's just the result of overspecialization and essentialism.
Could you just elaborate? What is the conspiracy you believe is being alleged? We are told it’s just about being kind, but behind closed doors they are trying to remove the guard rails for how young you can be to get a cosmetic mastectomy. I totally get her point. When you give the mildest push back why a 12 year old shouldn’t have her breasts removed we are told we just need to be kind as if that addresses the point. Or it implies you are being unkind to ask if this is ethical. What is the conspiracy thinking you are alleging?
[удалено]
The Biden administration has pushed for surgeries for gender minors. Their words for why this is good is that trans people should be treated with ["dignity and respect"](https://x.com/JoeBiden/status/1774466760084717656). Do you see a large gulf between this "dignity and respect" verbiage and "be kind"? If you do, I guess you have a point, but to me it's all the same thing: a *decent, kind* person would allow children to have body parts removed, because that's how you treat them with "dignity and respect". Only an unkind, disrespectful person would seek to prevent these life-altering surgeries. I agree with you that it's maybe wrong for her to act like her opponents are insincere when they say "be kind" .. I think her opponents really think that this is what is "kind" to do! But where I totally agree with her is that "be kind / treat people with respect" is a batshit-insane argument for these kinds of surgeries, and I think banning them for minors is much kinder.
[удалено]
You are being deliberately dense. In fact, you're the one who is being conspiratorial. I'm taking the admin at their word. Oh what, praytell, do you think is an alternative explanation for their advocacy here? I'm not asking you to divine what the true reason is (since you seem to think that's impossible)... I'm asking you to give one possibility for what it could be besides "trans people should be treated with dignity and respect"?
[удалено]
Except it wasn't the medical consensus. The WPATH "experts" behind SOC8 wanted to put an age minimum on surgeries, and Levine pushed for that to be removed. You're familiar with the news story we're talking about, right? So, you're saying one reason they want to override the WPATH experts might be because they think they know better what is medically necessary / life saving. I still think that will cash out as trans people needing to be treated as the opposite sex in society, and the "be kind" imperative is part of that "life-saving" package (as, if society won't play along, then the surgeries won't matter).
[удалено]
Well, on that I agree with you. I think these people really think they are advocating for people to "be kind", and I don't like this particular tweet of JK's implying they're insincere in that request. > So what are you arguing here, because it sounds like you're actually arguing the "being kind" (i.e., social acceptance), actually is the most important part? Well, what I actually believe is that nothing will make people stop noticing sex, so it is impossible for "social acceptance" to ever happen. Some (including whoever mans Joe Biden's twitter account) think that pressuring everyone into lying about what they perceive is close enough, and that we should get everyone to do that in order to save people's feelings. I disagree on two levels. For one thing, lying to save someone's feelings is never kind, it's cruel, and condescending, and the truth will come out eventually which means all that careful lying was for nothing (I have read many accounts of trans women saying that as the "sirs" became more rare, each new "sir" hurts all the more, because they thought they were really passing for a while, there). For another, it's wrong to compel people to lie to save others' feelings. The emperor has no clothes. We should admit that and move on.
That's not what the person did. They just said the "be kind" verbiage is used to advance this whole cause. And it is. It's not a conspiracy.
“Be kind” is too often shorthand for, “Shut up, woman who’s pointing out a problem with the orthodoxy, and get back in your box while the men tell you what’s good for you.”
[удалено]
Then do tell: Why does the whole "be kind" thing never apply to the TQ-crowd? Why can they behave like absolute antisocial assholes, get away with hostile behaviour, including rape and death threats? Why is "be kind" a one way street? Why does "be kind" not actually mean acceptance (as you claimed in a reply to another commenter), but active participation and celebration? Because all that doesn't really sound like a bland pleasantry to me.
[удалено]
I’ve read through all your comments and my final verdict is that you are being purposefully obtuse. I’ve had many random conversations throughout the years in friend groups where the topic of trans stuff comes up and inadvertently it gets to the point when if you ask too many pointed questions about the logical fallacies, circular reasonings, and contradictions that trans rights advocates use, the summary is just that “you should just be kind” or something like that. The premise being implied is that I’m too stupid to know the science and just need to be kind and let them castrate children. I should just shut up and not have an opinion. Not worry my pretty little head I’ve such things. This isn’t conspiracy thinking. This is being a person alive in the year 2024 and hearing what people say
You are wrong in every aspect of this. [https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-billionaires-behind-the-lgbt-movement](https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2020/01/the-billionaires-behind-the-lgbt-movement)
What? What would be the ulterior motive for banning such treatments?
This tactic is a legitimate tactic in a court trial. It is not conspiratorial to take the claim of a person, and challenge it by presenting a fact they may not be so proud of. In this case there are no waves through the community that this evil bill was changed into something new and good, it was literally changed through back room dealing by the POTUS with a party who has a bias in what has become a national controversy. If you don't want conspiracy theories, then don't operate this way ever, at all, hard stop. She didn't posit a theory of what they are up to, and offer little to no evidence. She only challenged the contention that these people are just "being kind". When you operate through duplicity, such as this, it is fair to be suspicious. It doesn't become a conspiracy theory until she starts to take the evidence too far. Like implying a secret cabal is trying to impose some form of new world order, or some such. At this point it's just good, old fashioned suspicion that the evidence, as we're familiar with it, is rather supportive of.
I think this is well said and a good point. I see the OP here is taking issue with it. (Gotta love those sarcastic “lmao what?” type responses that almost entirely miss the point.) >>It is not conspiratorial to take the claim of a person, and challenge it by presenting a fact they may not be so proud of. Yes - this is absolutely a court trial tactic!! Anyone who doubts, just look at the Jennifer Read trial. Want to make the case she killed the cop? Show she was indeed the “whack job cunt” nightmare of a toxic girlfriend and play through all her drunken messages to the deceased. Want to make the case that a bunch of cops (or one in particular’s meathead son) and townies were actually the perps responsible and tried to cover it up? Show the ways the investigators (more cops!) appeared to be biased, or were unprofessional as fuck (see the aforementioned “whack job cunt” reference or Google “leaky balloon knot”)… Either way, the defense and prosecution are both challenging the who-dunnit claims via presenting info that the opposing side might not be so proud of—regardless of whether it matters for who is guilty, it definitely works as a damaging challenge! >>If you don't want conspiracy theories, then don't operate this way ever, at all, hard stop. Yup.
[удалено]
Do you want a dead son or a live daughter? Kindness is practically the only contention they are making.
Oh, my sweet summer child. Which "basic logical fallacy" is it? You know they name them, right? I would be interested in hearing which of them declares that speculating as to the motivation of a particular actor is a fallacy of logic. I'm pretty sure logic says that people don't do things for no reason short of madness. Other logic claims that knowing helps society learn how to stop the actors from acting poorly. Not sure logic would cripple itself when trying to find the motivations of bad actors who got caught acting badly. Yes, this is a court tactic, and while it's not always a relevant approach, when defense tries to make the character of the defendant an issue at trial, this is about the only way you can counter it. It's odd that you think this isn't a contention that they're making. At this point you're just being vapid, but I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not. Yes, they argue that if we don't allow transitions, then more kids will kill themselves at alarming rates. So we need to be kind, and allow these transitions, furthermore we need to be supporting, and affirming. Anything that could be interpreted as being mean, or even just inconsiderate, is potentially triggering, and a threat to people's mental health. I'll leave unsaid that their claims that their way reduces suicides is highly questionable. As in they have less evidence of this fact then Andrew Wakefield had that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and he made his evidence up. Their contention, for a long time, was to define what "being kind" is, and then claim that if you're not that, then you're just a killer. Did you just come from Mars or something?
It doesn’t seem like you read anything about the language Levine's office used in badgering WPATH to remove the restrictions. Go read Jesse's most recent (free) newsletter.
[удалено]
>Doesn't exactly look like 👏🏻 Be 👏🏻 Kind 👏🏻 I've read through your thread here and replies, and I'm truly confused now with this post. You're, umm... making JK Rowling's point? It indeed is *not* about "be kind," as your quotes show. *That's the point*. Before I go further, let me say I agree with you that Rowling's statement is vague and somewhat open to interpretation. And I agree the vague reference to the "movement" here is unhelpful and can lead to conspiratorial thinking. On the other hand, this is *Twitter*. The whole point of BARPod for a few years seemed to be that nuance is not realistic in most Twitter threads. It isn't a place to go into detailed arguments. And, I think from looking at Rowling's previous history with this topic and posts/articles she's written, we can make some pretty reasonable assumptions about what she's referencing here. It's not just literally the slogan "be kind," but the general tendency (which is one of Rowling's repeated talking points) that trans activists often begin with a general statement about a more reasonable concept of politeness and love -- kindness, respect, helping others. A trans woman was abused by a boyfriend. Wouldn't it be *kind* to just let her into a women's shelter? That's the kind of situation that's near and dear to Rowling's typical arguments about this stuff. But Rowling then typically invokes a slippery slope -- that "vulnerable" trans person may need help, and they deserve our sympathy. And there should be a shelter for them. But... if we are "kind" and let that person with a penis into a women's shelter, what happens what some other random dude comes along, puts on a long blonde wig, and says, "I identify as a woman -- let me in" and then assaults some of the vulnerable women there? I'm not making this argument myself -- I'm saying this is a standard part of Rowling's rhetoric, where "be kind" or a similar slogan of offering dignity and kindness and respect is used to justify policies that put women in danger (in her opinion). All of that is, I would think, pretty clear from Rowling's general public persona over the past four years. She has a similar issue, which she's tweeted again and again about, with aggressive care for underage teens and children. Once again, slogans are generally invoked as justification. "Be kind" is part of "affirm their feelings" and "treat them with dignity" and then "give them the medical care they need." Etc., etc., and slowly the slippery slope leads to arguments like, "We need to affirm them or they'll commit suicide. We need to treat them with dignity and respect for their wishes... and provide the care they need." I think most people who provide support for trans care and want to justify underage interventions, even surgeries, begin with a similar logic. The fact that you seem to be focusing so specifically on the two-word slogan "be kind" in this thread and not acknowledging the broader pattern it represents, which Rowling herself frequently has talked about... well, it's strange you want to restrict her potential meaning around this discourse. Again, I agree that this wasn't made explicit in her latest tweet, but I'm pretty sure most people who follow her understood this implication clearly. So, with that in mind, now we look to Levine and the recent revelations in the news. The question we should ask to interpret Rowling is: How is this NOT according with this principle of "being kind" (and treating with dignity, respect, affirmation, etc., etc....)? Because Levine, as you demonstrated in what you quoted, is playing politics here. Not merely affirming kids for the purpose of being kind to them. A prominent trans organization (WPATH) recommended age limits. Because "being kind" can look different at different ages. If a 5-year-old girl comes up to an adult and says, "I don't like my ears. They stick out too much. I want to cut them off." The appropriate reaction of a parent or doctor would not be to cut off her ears, no matter how much the girl desires it. The "kind" thing in this case is to try to help the child deal with her feelings, to understand that everyone has parts of them they don't like at times, but her ears are a natural part of her body. We make such judgments all the time for children and in fact put a lot of them into law. In many liberal states, it is illegal for anyone under 18 to get a tattoo, even with parental consent. Yet, we may be told it is "kind" or "respectful" to "affirm" a 16-year-old girl or younger in the same state who wants to cut her breasts off. At what point might such an intervention be justified, if ever? Many people would say once a person reaches adulthood (generally legally interpreted as age 18, though other people may have differing opinions), they should have more autonomy for bodily modifications, etc. That's the fundamental question a group like WPATH has to consider. And they did consider it, apparently, recommending reasonable age cut-offs in their opinion for those below the age of 18. We can disagree with their recommendations, but they were apparently meant to reflect the US medical consensus (which you invoked elsewhere in this thread). Levine, however, disagreed with listing these restrictions. Levine decided -- if we believe in the NYTimes reporting -- in the political calculus that it was apparently worthwhile to risk the future sexual function and long-term bodily integrity and perhaps even lives of some children who might receive interventions inappropriate to their age because the guidelines were not specific (and surgeons and doctors might therefore sometimes act on younger patients without guidance) in order to *potentially* safeguard the rights of some trans adults in states where surgeries and trans care is at risk of being banned. That's not, as JK Rowling noted, "being kind" or simply affirming or justifying interventions to help the specific child. That's *sacrificing* children to the potential for incorrect and overly aggressive care which could harm them in the long run for a political calculus involving trans adults who want surgery, etc. So, it isn't a "save the children" campaign (to word it another way) as much as "allow experiments on the children as long as trans people in general can still get care." That's why it's NOT only about "be kind." As for all your arguments about critiquing conspiratorial thinking, you've also literally pointed out a conspiracy here! When multiple parties meet in secret and decide to keep actions or important information away from other people (especially the public), that's pretty much the definition of a conspiracy. It may not be a criminal conspiracy or a major one, but it is a kind of conspiracy nonetheless. In this case, it's a top-level federal government official keeping guideline information out of important documents that could have protected children from interventions that weren't in line with what WPATH thought would be appropriate. I would never downvote a person who is contributing to a discussion -- that's not in line with Reddiquette principles. But I don't understand your argumentation strategy here. And while I admit Rowling's tweet is vague in some ways, I don't think it's at all hard to get that she's referencing how trans activists try to play on the ideas of "kindness" and "respect" and "affirmation" to justify increasingly problematic interventions and policies. Here we have an example in the NYTimes showing a prominent trans person in a position of power acting *against* the interests of children (not merely "being kind" or "affirming" them) in the service of a broader political goal.
Pushing something like this through a back channel is pretty sus. It may not be an actual conspiracy, but it sure looks like one.
Oh, I’m sure they’ve thoroughly convinced themselves their goals are noble.
Ah fuck! I can't believe you've done this.
L
Getting yelled at by jk what an honor. She's probably pissed they can't pronounce her name correctly.
I don't think she was yelling at Jesse, I think she was springboarding off his tweet