this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
92 points (98.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43963 readers
1270 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Personally I think not having karma limits is nice currently! I understand why they were used but grinding karma as a lurker on reddit was frustrating.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Synnikel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am aware of the concept of being transgender I am just wondering what your "polite disagreements" are with it

[–] sleepyTonia@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'd say that a fairly debated topic related to transgender people, which isn't just transphobes attacking people trying to live their own life, is the presence of transgender athletes in competitions. Some will take it as a personal attack whether you take a side or sit on the fence. I'm not looking to start that conversation here, but yeah. It's definitely possible to hold a polite conversation about this while disagreeing on parts of the question. In a healthy space.

[–] Synnikel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] sleepyTonia@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

All good! Sorry for the paragraph. I'm just bad a writing short messages… 😅

[–] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

the presence of transgender athletes in competitions

I disagree, that isn't a "polite disagreement" and is, absolutely, "just transphobes attacking people trying to live their own life" as you put it. Every time that "Argument" happens it's openly done in biologically unfounded ways by people who simply don't understand how our bodies actually work- yet those arguments get mass upvoted by people who also don't understand how biology actually works and who believe that trans athletes get some insane, unfair advantage.

If you want to pass laws to restrict trans people from sports, then you want to pass laws to discriminate against trans people. That's not really up for debate IMO, it's a straight up fact; it's what you're doing when you advocate for laws that are not founded in science, that are specifically targeting a tiny minority for the chance that one of that tiny minority might beat cis athletes in an "unfair" way, you're advocating for bigoted laws.

Such arguments are also inevietably filled with people misgendering trans people, deliberately calling trans women "men" and hiding behind the "I'm talking about biology" argument to do so.

Replace the word "trans" with "black" and you'll find that people are making literally identical arguments to those against desegregating professional sports leagues 80 years ago. Literally word for word.

[–] usernotfound@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Every time that “Argument” happens it’s openly done in biologically unfounded ways by people who simply don’t understand how our bodies actually work.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know how our bodies work, but I think explaining it will be more helpful in the long run than just making the subject taboo and banning everyone who asks it.

At the beginning of the pandemic a common argument against masks was "the virus is too small to be caught in a mask" - which made sense from a layman's point of view. When people started explaining that masks did stop the water droplets the virus needs to be airborne - that argument become a lot less common.

Not everybody who has questions is "just asking questions", if you catch my drift.

[–] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not everybody who has questions is “just asking questions”, if you catch my drift.

I agree with that statement, context is everything.

I think that in the context of someone starting out going "it's unfair for men to compete in women's sports," the person is "just asking questions." That context poisons the well for questions.

But if someone comes in and makes a thread like "I don't understand how hormone therapy works, can someone please explain it?" that, to me, is a good faith question and 100% should not be bannable.

[–] usernotfound@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All good :)

Now that I have your attention though, what would be a good counter argument on why trans women should be allowed to compete in the same league as non-trans women (please excuse my lacking vocabulary)?

Like I mentioned, at first sight as a layman, the argument that trans women would have an competitive advantage makes sense to me. So I'd be grateful if you could take away my ignorance.

[–] Landrin201@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

First for the vocabulary:

non-trans = cisgender. cis meaning "same," as in "same gender as assigned at birth."

Second, I'm not the best at doing that, but I know of a really good report which has good citations of studies and really thoroughly discusses the issue. PDF WARNING: It can be found here.

[–] usernotfound@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Thanks for the former, guess I should have known that, but I'll be sure to remember now. As for the second... I'm interested in the answer, but not 86 pages scientific report interested. Guess I'll just have to wait around for the "water droplet"-size answer, but thanks for your patience nonetheless :)

[–] PlasmaK@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think that after HRT the difference is not that big. Trans athletes may even be at the disadvantage since there are some cis woman that have higher than average amount of testosterone.

In the long shot I think it would be for the best to abolish gender based separation altogether and replace it with something more like weight categories.

[–] OldIndianMonk@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Consider two 5'6" 65kg athletes, one man and one woman, are you saying that the man doesn't have an advantage?

I used to believe the same until I saw the recent Women's Premier League in Cricket. They had to reduce the size of field and the weight of ball. Even with that, the fastest bowl in the tournament was 130kmph while that speed is considered a "slower ball" in men's cricket.

Now some of these female cricketers earm more than any Pakistani male cricketers. Which is fair, bigger market, bigger payout. But female cricketers don't stand a chance against the male cricketers

[–] Knoll0114@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are things that don't completely change with HRT (particularly when started after puberty.) Height, bone density, lung capacity, hand/foot/limb size etc. do not vary significantly after HRT and depending on the sport can make a huge difference (eg. Hand and foot size or lung capacity in swimming even where the two swimmers are the same height.)

[–] PlasmaK@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Then we should allow people to access gender affirming treatment earlier, no?

[–] JasSmith@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you genuinely interested or just looking to start a fight? I know recreational outrage is a thing on Reddit and I had hoped to leave it there.

[–] Synnikel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No I'm genuinely interested to hear your perspective and why it was a point of contention

[–] JasSmith@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No worries. Sorry for being defensive. I’ve received death threats before so you can imagine my reticence to speak freely.

Forgive the brevity. The topic is quite personal to me. I had a trans person in my family until recently. They committed suicide. I took it upon myself to research the topic to the best of my abilities. My current stance is that, while I support the right for adults to do with their body as they wish, I do not support the practise of transitioning children; be it medically or socially. In all my research I couldn’t find a single study, anywhere, demonstrating an objective quality of life improvement. These would be measurable metrics like:

  • Life expectancy.
  • Suicide rate.
  • Rates of addiction.
  • Health outcomes such as reduced rates of obesity and heart attacks.
  • Rates of crime.
  • Rates of homelessness.
  • Rates of victimisation (rape, assault, etc.).
  • Income.
  • Wealth.

It’s not for lack of trying, either. I’ve never seen so much funding go to any single topic in academia. Given this lack of evidence, researchers turned to subjective measures of improvement. The primary being “suicidality.” They ask subjects how they feel about suicide. This is an effective proxy for, “are you happy with the major medical procedure you just asked for?” Unsurprisingly, this is subject to enormous bias.

Instead, I found evidence that not transitioning is a much better, much more effective treatment for children. This study found that only 37% of children still identified as dysphoric five years later. This study found that 88% had desisted (they were no longer dysphoric). This mirrors other historical research into various areas of child psychology. Children frequently change identity and beliefs around identity.

The primary arguments appear to be, a) if we don’t transition children, they will commit suicide. As above, I believe this is false. The second premise is, b) puberty blockers are completely reversible. This isn’t true either. These are the expected side effects of puberty blockers:

Common side effects of the GnRH agonists and antagonists include symptoms of hypogonadism such as hot flashes, gynecomastia, fatigue, weight gain, fluid retention, erectile dysfunction and decreased libido. Long term therapy can result in metabolic abnormalities, weight gain, worsening of diabetes and osteoporosis. Rare, but potentially serious adverse events include transient worsening of prostate cancer due to surge in testosterone with initial injection of GnRH agonists and pituitary apoplexy in patients with pituitary adenoma. Single instances of clinically apparent liver injury have been reported with some GnRH agonists (histrelin, goserelin), but the reports were not very convincing. There is no evidence to indicate that there is cross sensitivity to liver injury among the various GnRH analogues despite their similarity in structure. There is also a report that GnRH agonists used in the treatment of advanced prostate cancer may increase the risk of heart problems by 30%.

Osteoporosis and diabetes are absolutely life altering. Sweden went all-in on "temporary" puberty blockers for gender affirming care until children started experiencing life-long injuries. They are now effectively banned for gender affirming care for children.

In one particularly shocking case, a girl who wanted to become a boy began taking hormone-blocking drugs at just 11-years-old. Almost five years after the treatment began, the puberty-pausing drugs induced osteoporosis and permanently damaged the teen’s vertebrae, severely limiting the teen’s mobility.

“When we asked him regularly how his back felt, he said: ‘I’m in pain all the time’,” she added.

Further, there is a growing body of evidence to show high risk of infertility after prolonged use of these drugs.

And these are just the dangerous irreversible side effects. The cosmetic side effects are devastating, and include men with child-sized penises and testicles, and women without breasts. This is one such case. The teenager had taken puberty blockers, resulting in a small penis. With insufficient penile tissue, doctors attempted to remove and use part of his colon to create a fake vagina. He died less than a day later from complications.

Ultimately, I believe I am very open to evidence. I have reached my position precisely by pouring over research. I am open to honest discussion and debate. I don't belittle or minimise anyone's experiences or beliefs. I simply want the best outcomes for children. For this opinion, I have been banned on many subreddits. I have been sent death threats. I have been called every disgusting name in the dictionary, and then more. I hope that Lemmy is a place which allows respectful discussion.

[–] hannadryad@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What the hell is this? Trans person here. This is not the thread to start concern trolling about trans issues. If you really want a space to talk freely about your concerns you can start a community or even your own instance.

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago

He's literally responding to a user who said

I'm genuinely interested to hear your perspective and why it was a point of contention

So he explained his perspective. Concern trolling lmao.

If you want a space where you don't encounter other perspectives, there are plenty of spaces like that both in the real world and on the internet.

[–] Awoo@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@dessalines@lemmy.ml this is exactly why tone policing is bullshit moderation policy.

Your modteam is allowing this transphobic screed to exist, and has in fact unbanned the user that posted it despite the very very obvious fact that they are a transphobe doing concern-trolling and "just asking questions" style veiled bigotry, while simultaneously banning everyone that has reacted to their behaviour by rightfully calling them the names they deserve to be called.

This policymaking is what results in people in the left calling someone a terf or a fascist getting banned while the fascists and terfs roam free. The site will be taken over by this and the left will slowly be banned and pushed out by it. The fact that the team can't seem to get into their heads that trans people might get a little fucking heated when bigots are allowed to exist and clearly defended by some of the incompetent members the modteam is another part of the problem.

You should get some trans people on your team to keep the rest of the idiots on it making these shit decisions in check. This nerd should absolutely be rebanned and every other person that copped a ban over this shit should be unbanned.

Demanding that lgbt people, racial groups and the lower classes engage with their oppressors in a suitable “tone” without ever getting heated is unrealistic. The outcome of tone policing is that the oppressed get banned from spaces when they don’t behave with the right tone when discussing their oppression while those doing the oppressing (this fucker) come to dominate it more and more. The oppressed come to be alienated by it (leaving the space as a result) while the oppressors come to be empowered by it. Tone policing should NEVER come before principle and protection of the marginalized.

[–] TheOubliette@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@dessalines@lemmy.ml please reconsider reprioritizing civility fetishism, particularly in defense against transphobia. The course of events here was extremely uncool and is tantamount to making this space systemically transphobic.

All it will take to drive trans people off is for you to ban them when they defend themselves against transphobic hate. And all it will take for transphobes to make that happen is for transphobes to harass people here until they react. This pattern has happened many times on many platforms and I'm surprised if you're not aware of it.

[–] bh11235@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

I'm torn on this. One the one hand there's something to be said against insta-banning a person just because they wrote "I don't know if a 12-year-old can meaningfully consent to gender affirming care". On the other hand you get people who engage in that kind of discourse just to hide their power level. e.g. one of the links in the above-discussed comment goes to transgendertrend dot com, a website I did not know of until today, but it took me exactly one look at its main page and its "about us" section to suspect that anyone who linked anything from there must be way more radicalized than the stage where they are "open to evidence and to honest discussion and debate". As a filthy moderate myself, I know that a fellow filthy moderate would at least make the minuscule effort to find a source that pretends not to be propaganda.

The author of that manifesto two levels up is not making an argument out of the bottom of their heart; they are proselytizing. They are engaging in what the Musk fan, Tim Urban, once described in his blog as "thinking like an attorney":

An Attorney and a Sports Fan have a lot in common. They both have a preferred [conclusion], while also still maintaining some level of dedication to [the process of objective reasoning]. They’re both conflicted between the values of truth and confirmation. The critical difference is in which value, deep down, is higher in their Values Stack. A Sports Fan wants to win, but when pushed, they care even more about fair play than winning. An Attorney’s job is to win, and no matter how hard you push them, nothing can alter their allegiance. Because has THIS ever happened? [A crude drawing of a courtroom; a judge asks "anything more from the defense?" and the defense attorney, to the horror of the defendant, answers: "actually, your honor, the prosecutor just made some really excellent points. I guess my client is guilty after all."] No. That has never happened.

"Civility fetishism" is a real problem and I have personally seen it destroy some spaces I have held dear, via attorneys attorney-ing all day and shouting "debate me, debate me, it's just facts and logic, what are you so afraid of". So I fully understand the weariness of the person I am replying to.