The costs of trans visibility

I think any socially adept person understands the value of being accepting, especially toward a stranger. This isn’t a useful point.

Uh, no, advocates of trans people aren't claiming some biological or scientific thing that is inaccurate. It isn't like they are saying that trans women have XX chromosomes or that trans women have uteruses. That would be wrong, but that isn't the position of advocates of trans people (nor either of the people you quoted). Instead the claim is one of gender, not sex. Trans women are indeed literally women, as in their gender. Some women are trans and some are cis. If you prefer, you can say this is sort of definitional, that I'm defining the word women to be inclusive in this way. You can be mad at that, but it is silly to pretend this is any disagreement about the level of support by "science".

I'm glad to hear that any socially adept person is accepting of trans people. I still don't know gregory was going on about some supposed salient difference between lesbians and trans people on this point.

My point is the trans discussion is obviously more complicated than “How should I treat some random trans identifying person,” so it seems a bit dishonest that you keep using this frame for everything.

It’s easy for you to do this and trivialize the issue in this way when your family hasn’t been torn apart by it.

I'm sorry, has YOUR family been "torn apart" by trans issues? One of the great things about being a "socially adept person" as you put it is I am not in the slightest bit quivering in my boots about my family being torn apart if either of my kids turns out to be trans. It'll be ok!

Note that sometimes banal and obvious points are said in response to specific people in specific discussions.

First off, I’m not sure what exactly you mean by “trans-activism”. That’s a very loaded phrase it seems like, because you’re using it in a peculiar way I’ve never seen before. From my experience with for instance gender abolitionists, they would be the first to argue that you actually don’t need medical transition to be trans, you just have to identify as a gender other than the one you were assigned at birth. So they seem very open to just not caring at all about medically transitioning, which is actually something that has been discussed at length in this thread. In fact I would argue what kicked off all the trans controversy was the charge that predatory men were pretending to be women so they could invade female spaces, often with very little medical transition. There were even alleged cases of psychos transitioning in order to go to women’s prisons for instance.

What’s my point? I think this is an easy strawman for you to raise up and argue against. It’s not really generally the case that trans people or trans activists are homophobic, except if they don’t respect genital preference which I think can be homophobic. Probably the gayest spaces would be the ones where trans people feel most at home.

Look we can talk about minor gender transition but I think it’s a pretty specious claim to think that the vast majority of minor gender transition is out of homophobia, and I think it’s funny that a lot of the more conservative gays will sometimes ally with the far right or out and out homophobes in order to coalition build. I’m not going to charge the anti-trans movement as being homophobic either, I’m actually saying this is a complete dead end conversation and I’m surprised so many people liked this post. Maybe I’m missing something but when I see this post I see someone who is not really in touch with the greater issues here and is pulling a schizo lefty rant, but because it supports the anti-trans position people are accepting it.

57 on red is British.

In the UK lesbian associations had severe legal issues with trans activists because trans activists wanted them to lose tax exempt/charity status because they didn't accept people with dicks as lesbians.

That's kind of what is going on RIGHT NOW, not an hypothetical, in the UK ok?

That's the context.

Not sure what you think about that, are lesbian associations violating British transphobia laws if they don't accept as members biological men?

Insisting that a person with a dick can be a lesbian, in a legal sense, and so mandate associations to take them in, is more homophobic than the worst conservatives can ever be.

It's demeaning in a way that not even negation of homosexuality as natural can be. It's evil

I already gave the caveat that this would be an issue where it can be arguably homophobic in practice though probably not in intent necessarily. That position is psychotic, absolutely.

I don’t think it gets any more homophobic than “you are going to burn for all eternity”, “you should be put to death for being gay”, “gay is fake you are just a sinner”, capturing kids from their houses and sending them to conversion camps, wanting to deny their right to marry, criminalizing homosexuality, etc. That is a complete exaggeration/rhetorical flourish on your part.

And it’s not even the point, the point is that trans is not practiced as a way to convert gay people, how would that even make sense? If you are a trans woman having sex with another male by your biological definition of homosexuality that’s still gay as hell. No homophobe is going to look at that relationship and say “wow, totally normal straight relationship there!” It doesn’t even pass the conceptual sniff test.

it's not conversion to justify the conservatives view of society, it's conversion when you count the size of the legions.

there are theorists that want everyone who isn't exactly purely normal (they say "cis") hererosexual to count as queer, to have huge queer numbers they can use for political (and donation) purposes, even if that makes homosexual identities disappear.

if an homosexual can be convinced to identify as trans (even temporarily) that changes the cohort sizes for donation and political purposes.

if you understand the actual reason people become activists on the left on general is to get paid, steal money from donors and keep inventing fake problems to justify their roles, everything follows.

it's an internal fight among leftist factions

I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about at all, because you seem to be conflating many different things and also ascribing a degree of specific motivation that has such a high burden of proof that it seems almost insurmountable. It’s hard enough to prove that a public official is lying, to say that all these activists are fighting for donations and trying to convert people to queerness to raise their donation rate just sounds absolutely schizo.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/new-hamps...

Saw this and thought it was mildly interesting from a constitutional perspective. I was under the impression that armbands would be considered constitutionally protected speech.

for reasons I never completely understood the legal system allows school settings to restrict speech in general a lot more than what would be allowed in general society.

I don't remember all the case law on the topic but I do remember there are some significant precedents allowing restrictions that would be considered unconstitutional in normal settings.

not sure if this specific case you link about is covered or not though

Luciom do you just make crazy statements and never back them up as a trolling technique? This is why I stopped responding to you I forgot.

crazy statements about what, where? when I source them you guys completely disregard them anyway so I will only source if given the promise that people will switch their response and agree with me and apologize when sourced.

I won't really play the game of "source", and after I provide it you invent some dodge every time anyway.

it has been years all leftists do that in all topics, so I learnt.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/tinker-v-...

Tinker v Des Moines is the original armband case where they decided that students couldn't be prohibited from protesting the Vietnam war with armbands given how unobtrusive they are.

In this case it's parents on school property but in a non-educational setting so it would be hard to imagine what the rational would be to allow their speech to be restricted.

I didn’t ask for a source at all. I pointed out that most likely what you are saying could never even be proven, and there are tons of reasons to believe that it’s impossible what you are saying. If anything I just said you are full of it and making stuff up. If you don’t want to back up your claims at all, that’s not on me.

https://x.com/NewHampJournal/status/1837...

Twitter post about it with many of the comments referencing the Tinker decision.

If we’re just dealing with the constitutional question here, I think the difference between the case cited and this one is that the case involving students did not have them directly protesting another student. I’m not sure about other free speech questions surrounding protests on school grounds that are unobtrusive, but that would be my guess as to what the symmetry breaker will be.

that sucks to read but i want it to be based on physical data rather than opinion polls from facebook

Sadly 5 years ago you would say this can't be real now.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...

--So there is a transgender volleyball player, where multiple teams in their conference are refusing to compete against and forfeiting games. I have said this multiple times, but I think this is how this controversy gets resolved eventually, in that at some point a lot of women are just going to refuse to compete against transgender women in sports**, and there is just going to be a lot less women involved in sports. Which isn't the end of the world. Life will go on.

Interesting, but not super surprising that this is happening in volleyball. As it must be extremely intimidating having to be on the receiving end of spikes that are much harder than what you are used to or comfortable with.

**I acknowledge in this case all the schools forfeiting games are in red states, so there is undoubtably some partisan politics going on too, on top of whatever safety or comfort concerns there are.

Poor girl. It sucks but I really don’t think she should be playing in college sports.