Amazon will not sell books that 'frame sexual identity as mental illness'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Amazon will not sell books that 'frame sexual identity as mental illness'
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56381862
170 comments
Lots of graves because it's fact even if they get alterations they still commit suicide greater number than anyone else.
I have been friends with a few trans folks in the past, and more than one has suggested that things are going too far. The prevailing opinion I get is they just want to be left alone (after going through what is a traumatic situation), but they keep getting dragged into this culture war crap by a very loud and dangerous minority.
this resonates well with an article in a german liberal newspaper about the fight for a "third sex". While the newspaper was merrily engaging in this culture war by their website, this article (from the actual physical paper) clearly mentioned that this problem (which by the way was akin to changing a single letter from a supposedly too aggressive variant to a "better" one) was only applicable to maybe 300 people in total, because even with a higher prevalence of chromosome defects, most people tend to grow/live happily one way. So we had a 1 year discussion about this problem, which was not a problem at all (just the wording was considered "offensive" by a single individual) occupying our parliament for hours. For me, this seems like a kind of tyranny by the few (since the change in wording doesn't change any of the liberties this one person has...)
Hormone blockers are not "transition" and the hormone treatments given to trans teenagers are regularly prescribed for cis people of all ages for other reasons.
Read the article again. We know there are severe long term effects to a child's development, and there's been more than a few cases of people saying they regret it decades down the line.
As is the normal talking point for the UK anti-trans lobby, you are conflating the medical intervention for children (hormone blockers) with the medical intervention for young adults (hormones) with the long-term effects of hormones after taking them for years - well into adulthood.
Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments. Many more adults regret not getting access to hormone treatments sooner. Others regret going off hormones for personal or professional reasons and then not being able to start again because their doctor says they must not really be trans.
The solution for all these problems is easier and more flexible access to the treatments and a society more open to all modes of gender. Not a "but the children" moral panic.
Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments. Many more adults regret not getting access to hormone treatments sooner. Others regret going off hormones for personal or professional reasons and then not being able to start again because their doctor says they must not really be trans.
The solution for all these problems is easier and more flexible access to the treatments and a society more open to all modes of gender. Not a "but the children" moral panic.
First, I'm not some kind of shill who's "part of the UK anti-trans lobby". I'm not anti trans. What I am concerned about is damaging children's hormonal development and having them later regret it.
> Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments.
Even a single child regretting this when they're older is enough for me to say this is morally ambiguous, but I bet you those numbers will go up in decades to come.
> Some adults do regret the long-term effects of their hormone treatments.
Even a single child regretting this when they're older is enough for me to say this is morally ambiguous, but I bet you those numbers will go up in decades to come.
What about children who are later angry they could not get treatment that would’ve helped them? Do they not count?
We could just, never treat anyone for anything, then nobody would ever regret any treatment.
We could just, never treat anyone for anything, then nobody would ever regret any treatment.
It's not a good solution, but no. We don't allow children to have sex until they're 16, or drink until 18, for valid reason. This is the same situation.
Which is that they're not mentally developed enough to consent to those things.
Which is that they're not mentally developed enough to consent to those things.
There is a doctor involved. There is, for children, an incredibly long wait time, a number of sessions in order to diagnose, very likely therapy, more appointments to decide what is the correct treatment process. If everyone involved agrees they should go on puberty blockers (for example, because their body development is causing them problems in line with gender dysphoria diagnostic criteria), there’s therapy and more assessments all the way through that. And now in the UK a fucking court is involved too. In a medical decision. That is, someone who is not a doctor has complete control over someone’s medical treatment.
A child can get put on lithium and kill their emotions for years with less hassle. And no court involved. That should tell you the priorities of the people who tell you it is a good idea to prevent kids from accessing medicine that is widely agreed to be safe and effective.
It wasn’t easy for children to be put on puberty blockers before and it’s worse now.
If you can’t see how it’s fucked that all this isn’t enough, and we must make it even more impossible for doctors to do their jobs, I don’t know what to say.
A child can get put on lithium and kill their emotions for years with less hassle. And no court involved. That should tell you the priorities of the people who tell you it is a good idea to prevent kids from accessing medicine that is widely agreed to be safe and effective.
It wasn’t easy for children to be put on puberty blockers before and it’s worse now.
If you can’t see how it’s fucked that all this isn’t enough, and we must make it even more impossible for doctors to do their jobs, I don’t know what to say.
Preaching to the choir here. I already know the data you've just listed. My point still stands.
Trans children who wish to go on puberty blockers don’t consent to puberty.
But inaction is always more moral than action, even when it harms people, right? When we see that we’re about to run over 5 people, but we could instead run over 1 by pulling a lever, we shouldn’t pull the lever?
But inaction is always more moral than action, even when it harms people, right? When we see that we’re about to run over 5 people, but we could instead run over 1 by pulling a lever, we shouldn’t pull the lever?
I don't consent to being ugly, but we don't let children get plastic surgery. Poor self esteem is directly linked to mental health, just like gender dysphoria.
Plastic surgery is not comparable to puberty blockers.
Blocking hormones can have just a bad effect as giving hormones. Hormones are signals for the body. I don't think we know enough about the developmental process to justify interfering with it.
This is a quote from a recent article in the Economist[0].
>One big worry is that puberty blockers seem to reliably lead to cross-sex hormones, in what doctors call a “cascade of interventions”. The best estimate, from studies starting in the 1970s, is that around 80% of gender-dysphoric children who are allowed to express themselves as they wish, but who do not socially transition—change their clothes, pronouns and the like to present as members of the opposite sex—will, as they grow up, become reconciled to their biological sex. Yet puberty blockers seem to prevent that reconciliation.
[0] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/02/20/...
This is a quote from a recent article in the Economist[0].
>One big worry is that puberty blockers seem to reliably lead to cross-sex hormones, in what doctors call a “cascade of interventions”. The best estimate, from studies starting in the 1970s, is that around 80% of gender-dysphoric children who are allowed to express themselves as they wish, but who do not socially transition—change their clothes, pronouns and the like to present as members of the opposite sex—will, as they grow up, become reconciled to their biological sex. Yet puberty blockers seem to prevent that reconciliation.
[0] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/02/20/...
Yes... Like hormonal imbalance. This is a disingenuous framing.
Yes, and like hormonal imbalance in cis people, the evidence is clear the benefits of the treatments outweigh the risks also for trans people. This is how we make medical decisions, not as a proxy for moral panic.
The only disingenuous framing is hormone blockers as "transition".
I'm extremely cynical about Amazon's move qua their own ethics, here but I also understand where the internal pressure is coming from given how rapidly the UK mainstreamed such deep transphobia.
The only disingenuous framing is hormone blockers as "transition".
I'm extremely cynical about Amazon's move qua their own ethics, here but I also understand where the internal pressure is coming from given how rapidly the UK mainstreamed such deep transphobia.
konjin(2)
> There is a movement to stop any kind of discussion about therapy on gender dysphoria other than transition.
Can you please unpack this sentence a little more? I'm just trying to understand things better.
My understanding of therapy is that it is used for healing and / or to cure a disorder.
And so I can see why using the word "therapy" in this context is problematic, because it implies that there exists something which needs to be healed, or a disorder which needs to be cured.
I'd value your thoughts on this. Thanks.
Can you please unpack this sentence a little more? I'm just trying to understand things better.
My understanding of therapy is that it is used for healing and / or to cure a disorder.
And so I can see why using the word "therapy" in this context is problematic, because it implies that there exists something which needs to be healed, or a disorder which needs to be cured.
I'd value your thoughts on this. Thanks.
I am not an expert on this, and these below are not my opinions but how I have understood the debate thus far:
- Gender dysphoria is classified in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)
- When it manifests in young people, there can be various reasons, for example, coming to terms with being gay.
- Therapy can explore the reasons for this and help understand how to best help the patients
- For some patients, the right course of action is to have gender affirming surgery and transition
- For other patients, this is a temporary discomfort with their identity that passes or can be resolved otherwise (e..g by accepting sexual identity etc). <--- This is the controversial part. Trans right activists see this position as an erasure of trans identity/denying their right to exist, etc pp. They seek to suppress any kind of research investigating e.g. the rapid rise in gender dysmorphia in teenagers as a medical phenomenon (e.g. in https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/an-interview-with-lisa-litt...), and seek to ban any books/research/open debate in this area.
I have no idea on the biological or psychological reasons, but I object to any suppression of research on medical phenomena.
- Gender dysphoria is classified in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)
- When it manifests in young people, there can be various reasons, for example, coming to terms with being gay.
- Therapy can explore the reasons for this and help understand how to best help the patients
- For some patients, the right course of action is to have gender affirming surgery and transition
- For other patients, this is a temporary discomfort with their identity that passes or can be resolved otherwise (e..g by accepting sexual identity etc). <--- This is the controversial part. Trans right activists see this position as an erasure of trans identity/denying their right to exist, etc pp. They seek to suppress any kind of research investigating e.g. the rapid rise in gender dysmorphia in teenagers as a medical phenomenon (e.g. in https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/an-interview-with-lisa-litt...), and seek to ban any books/research/open debate in this area.
I have no idea on the biological or psychological reasons, but I object to any suppression of research on medical phenomena.
Here's a rebuttal to the Littman paper: https://juliaserano.medium.com/everything-you-need-to-know-a...
Here, OTOH, is a young woman talking about how she was temporarily convinced she was a trans man: https://youtu.be/r57wGbiK3U8
Here, OTOH, is a young woman talking about how she was temporarily convinced she was a trans man: https://youtu.be/r57wGbiK3U8
> Gender dysphoria is classified in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)
So, will Amazon now de-list diagnostic manuals?
So, will Amazon now de-list diagnostic manuals?
Thanks for breaking down the evolution of the debate; your summary gave me a lot more context to this discussion.
> This is the controversial part. Trans right activists see this position as an erasure of trans identity/denying their right to exist, etc pp. They seek to suppress any kind of research investigating
Does this mean _all_ Trans rights activists?
I'm wondering if there is discourse from Trans rights activists who are activists for reasons other than those associated with medical research - and who possibly object to this attempt by a subset of Trans rights activists to suppress said research.
I only have one Trans friend that I actively engage with on this topic, and I get the impression that even within the Trans community there is a lot of disagreement in terms of what's best for society (and how to best raise our children).
Which is perfectly normal - especially given the deeply nuanced nature of this discussion.
I'm just trying to wrap my mind around why Amazon took this step.
> This is the controversial part. Trans right activists see this position as an erasure of trans identity/denying their right to exist, etc pp. They seek to suppress any kind of research investigating
Does this mean _all_ Trans rights activists?
I'm wondering if there is discourse from Trans rights activists who are activists for reasons other than those associated with medical research - and who possibly object to this attempt by a subset of Trans rights activists to suppress said research.
I only have one Trans friend that I actively engage with on this topic, and I get the impression that even within the Trans community there is a lot of disagreement in terms of what's best for society (and how to best raise our children).
Which is perfectly normal - especially given the deeply nuanced nature of this discussion.
I'm just trying to wrap my mind around why Amazon took this step.
You need to be wary about what positions people report "trans activists" as holding. The website you link to is considered "questionable" by the Media Bias Fact Check website (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/) and The Times has been instrumental in pushing transphobic rhetoric mainstream.
While I'm sure you could find someone on tumblr posting about how all 3 year old boys who play with dolls should immediately be given HRT, all mainstream thought (by trans people and medical professionals) I've seen is that children who exhibit gender dysphoria should be given puberty blockers while thorough psychological analyses etc are carried out.
While I'm sure you could find someone on tumblr posting about how all 3 year old boys who play with dolls should immediately be given HRT, all mainstream thought (by trans people and medical professionals) I've seen is that children who exhibit gender dysphoria should be given puberty blockers while thorough psychological analyses etc are carried out.
But even puberty blockers cause development issues in children. We are talking about permanent damage for something that might actually be temporary. Why not just let them decide at 18?
At 18 it is too late and puberty has already done permanent damage. The entire purpose of puberty blockers is to make it possible to defer the decision until they are adults.
Do you have more information? The only issue I've heard about puberty blockers is a slight reduction in bone density over extended usage which is apparently considered negligible. I'd be interested to read a paper or medical journal indicating otherwise.
EDIT: But also to answer your question - if you think a 10 year old child might be suffering from gender dysphoria but you decide to leave it 8 years to see how things turn out, you then have to spend an enormous amount of money undoing the puberty they went through and performing various surgeries (eg mastectomy).
However if you put that child on puberty blockers and give them therapy, it should become obvious very quickly if they're just faking it for attention and they can be taken off them again.
EDIT: But also to answer your question - if you think a 10 year old child might be suffering from gender dysphoria but you decide to leave it 8 years to see how things turn out, you then have to spend an enormous amount of money undoing the puberty they went through and performing various surgeries (eg mastectomy).
However if you put that child on puberty blockers and give them therapy, it should become obvious very quickly if they're just faking it for attention and they can be taken off them again.
The last point is incorrect. Gender dysphoria being temporary for some people isn't controversial. Trans people oppose Littman's paper being taken seriously because it's incredibly shoddy.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnc_KvWkiHw&t=3324s
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnc_KvWkiHw&t=3324s
> For other patients, this is a temporary discomfort with their identity that passes or can be resolved otherwise (e..g by accepting sexual identity etc). <--- This is the controversial part. Trans right activists see this position as an erasure of trans identity/denying their right to exist,
No, this is untrue. Trans people all accept that questioning is a valid part of treatment. The controversial bit is that transphobes say that the only allowable treatment is questioning and denial, and that any attempt to support someone to transition is abusive.
> etc pp. They seek to suppress any kind of research investigating e.g. the rapid rise in gender dysmorphia in teenagers as a medical phenomenon
Linking to Quilette lowers your credibility. Littman did not interview any trans children. She went to an online forum for "gender critical parents" and asked if their children's transition was a sudden. Unsurprisingly, many of those parents said yes. Turns out if you go to conspiracy theory forums you find people who believe conspiracy theories. That doesn't make them true. It's a bit weird to see people on HN suckered into this so easily, but here we are. Her "study" has been widely debunked by experts.
> and seek to ban any books/research/open debate in this area.
No they don't.
No, this is untrue. Trans people all accept that questioning is a valid part of treatment. The controversial bit is that transphobes say that the only allowable treatment is questioning and denial, and that any attempt to support someone to transition is abusive.
> etc pp. They seek to suppress any kind of research investigating e.g. the rapid rise in gender dysmorphia in teenagers as a medical phenomenon
Linking to Quilette lowers your credibility. Littman did not interview any trans children. She went to an online forum for "gender critical parents" and asked if their children's transition was a sudden. Unsurprisingly, many of those parents said yes. Turns out if you go to conspiracy theory forums you find people who believe conspiracy theories. That doesn't make them true. It's a bit weird to see people on HN suckered into this so easily, but here we are. Her "study" has been widely debunked by experts.
> and seek to ban any books/research/open debate in this area.
No they don't.
“Therapy” does not necessarily imply a disorder. Consider physiotherapy, which is quite common to address things like a pain in the back or to support the recovery of muscles after an accident. Neither are disorders. Therapy does not even imply changing something with the client, but could be simply targeted at helping the client to find better strategies to handle something that is bothering them, for example helping a client to be better deal with the fact that not everyone understands his or her sexual orientation.
> Therapy does not even imply changing something with the client, but could be simply targeted at helping the client to find better strategies to handle something that is bothering them, for example helping a client to be better deal with the fact that not everyone understands his or her sexual orientation.
That really helped frame things in a more constructive light for me.
Thank you.
That really helped frame things in a more constructive light for me.
Thank you.
[deleted]
This is a classic application of the appeal to think of the children. I'm sure before homosexually became culturally acceptable there were plenty of people employing the same arguments against legalising homosexually.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
"Think of the children" is not an universal red herring, though. It can be used in bad ways and good ways, and a lot of ways in the middle. Child labor was banned because people started to think of the children.
Transition of minors does not seem to be a morally clear cut topic to me, given that they aren't allowed to do a lot of other life changing things. You can argue for the opposite, but too many trans activists are painting their opponents as stupid, disingenious or even hateful and want to silence them by force.
This will blow back on them.
Transition of minors does not seem to be a morally clear cut topic to me, given that they aren't allowed to do a lot of other life changing things. You can argue for the opposite, but too many trans activists are painting their opponents as stupid, disingenious or even hateful and want to silence them by force.
This will blow back on them.
Where do children get cross sex hormones or surgery?
(If you can't answer this question without googling it shows that maybe you need to slow down before posting, to avoid spreading misinformation.)
(If you can't answer this question without googling it shows that maybe you need to slow down before posting, to avoid spreading misinformation.)
Minors are prescribed hormone blockers, which are not "transition." You are being lied to by the UK press.
We are literally thinking about the children here. We are asking: "Should we let children cut off their genitals?"
If we are going to let them do that we should at least let them put their genitals where they feel like before then.
The hypocrisy is the problem. You can't both have children be too immature to decide to have sex, yet be mature enough to make decisions about their sex which will impact them for the rest of their lives.
If we are going to let them do that we should at least let them put their genitals where they feel like before then.
The hypocrisy is the problem. You can't both have children be too immature to decide to have sex, yet be mature enough to make decisions about their sex which will impact them for the rest of their lives.
> "Should we let children cut off their genitals?"
It is currently against any kind of recommended practice to perform genital surgery on children. It is not approved nor is it practiced. This kind of intentionally hyperbolic language is the sort of thing that is the stuff of tabloid headlines, not reasoned discussion.
It is currently against any kind of recommended practice to perform genital surgery on children. It is not approved nor is it practiced. This kind of intentionally hyperbolic language is the sort of thing that is the stuff of tabloid headlines, not reasoned discussion.
Yet there are people condoning this in this very comment section.
> Should we let children cut off their genitals?
This is disingenuous moral panic and a good example of the motte-and-bailey approach the UK press uses to discredit proper medical treatment of trans youth.
This is disingenuous moral panic and a good example of the motte-and-bailey approach the UK press uses to discredit proper medical treatment of trans youth.
This is disingenuous and sidesteps the argument about capability of children.
It's really simple:
You are either OK with kids having control of their bodies up to and including invasive surgery and having sex with who they want or you are not.
Anything in between is either pedophiles trying to push the narrative on their side, or idiots not understanding what they are doing.
It's really simple:
You are either OK with kids having control of their bodies up to and including invasive surgery and having sex with who they want or you are not.
Anything in between is either pedophiles trying to push the narrative on their side, or idiots not understanding what they are doing.
Conflating sexual identity with precocious sexuality is clown-car category duplicity. Sometimes the audience here even takes offence at being treated like that.
You're basing your argument on a lie. Children do not get GCS nor cross-sex hormones.
Transition is the generally recognized treatment for gender dysphoria.
yes. but why is pumping bodies full of hormons and cutting them preferred to non-invasive techniques? (which may or may not work as well and which are the first "solution" to similar problems before going to the meds)
Non invasive techniques are used -- people socially transition before they get access to hormones and surgery. For some people social transition is all they need, but ofr a small group of people hormones and surgery are life saving interventions.
ok, but why are we talking about a lot of kids doing this then (with the technicality of just removing the hormons and not adding them). I don't think you can judge whether social transitioning works within a month or so?
Also: is there any indication that this is (in the sense that people need transition or otherwise kill themselves) is a problem in other societies than ours (or just with a bunch of apes). Because I still think that we should maybe change our society before we do hardly reversible things to people to make them fit in (very unpopular and quite influenced by conservative christianity (though I'm not affiliated))
Also: is there any indication that this is (in the sense that people need transition or otherwise kill themselves) is a problem in other societies than ours (or just with a bunch of apes). Because I still think that we should maybe change our society before we do hardly reversible things to people to make them fit in (very unpopular and quite influenced by conservative christianity (though I'm not affiliated))
> but why are we talking about a lot of kids doing this then
Because you've been lied to. You've been duped by hate groups, and now you're happily spreading their disinfo.
> Also: is there any indication that this is (in the sense that people need transition or otherwise kill themselves) is a problem in other societies than ours (or just with a bunch of apes). Because I still think that we should maybe change our society before we do hardly reversible things to people to make them fit in (very unpopular and quite influenced by conservative christianity (though I'm not affiliated))
It's not a problem in other cultures because other cultures just let people transition. Without transition we do see increased rates of distress, including higher rates of attempted suicide and deaths by suicide.
Because you've been lied to. You've been duped by hate groups, and now you're happily spreading their disinfo.
> Also: is there any indication that this is (in the sense that people need transition or otherwise kill themselves) is a problem in other societies than ours (or just with a bunch of apes). Because I still think that we should maybe change our society before we do hardly reversible things to people to make them fit in (very unpopular and quite influenced by conservative christianity (though I'm not affiliated))
It's not a problem in other cultures because other cultures just let people transition. Without transition we do see increased rates of distress, including higher rates of attempted suicide and deaths by suicide.
> You've been duped by hate groups, and now you're happily spreading their disinfo.
ok, this is three people in a very left-wing german publication: https://www.zeit.de/2020/22/transsexualitaet-lgtbq-geschlech... - one of them states that more people are coming to him. The intro states that the number in Sweden multiplied 15-fold. I'm sorry, but I miss the hate-group disinformation aspect here? (unless, everyone not agreeing with your PoV is a hate group. Which is interesting but in the past this behaviour usually led to violent conflict...)
> It's not a problem in other cultures because other cultures just let people transition.
oook. So which culture except Iran (which is certainly influenced by western capitalism) does/did this? To my knowledge the typical instruments of physical transition are only available in the western capitalism influenced sphere nowadays?
> Without transition we do see increased rates of distress, including higher rates of attempted suicide and deaths by suicide.
So, you for sure have numbers for that. But no, that can't be, because the number of people transitioning is constant!
ok, this is three people in a very left-wing german publication: https://www.zeit.de/2020/22/transsexualitaet-lgtbq-geschlech... - one of them states that more people are coming to him. The intro states that the number in Sweden multiplied 15-fold. I'm sorry, but I miss the hate-group disinformation aspect here? (unless, everyone not agreeing with your PoV is a hate group. Which is interesting but in the past this behaviour usually led to violent conflict...)
> It's not a problem in other cultures because other cultures just let people transition.
oook. So which culture except Iran (which is certainly influenced by western capitalism) does/did this? To my knowledge the typical instruments of physical transition are only available in the western capitalism influenced sphere nowadays?
> Without transition we do see increased rates of distress, including higher rates of attempted suicide and deaths by suicide.
So, you for sure have numbers for that. But no, that can't be, because the number of people transitioning is constant!
It's a mistake to think this is a left vs right thing.
Increased numbers of people seeking treatment just means more people understand gender incongruence and are prepared to seek treatment for it.
Increased numbers of people seeking treatment just means more people understand gender incongruence and are prepared to seek treatment for it.
great!
so let's subsume the results of my critical gender theory instructions today:
- hate groups are everywhere. everything which doesn't think physical intervention is the only solution is transphobic and you don't have to argue there.
- specifically: _every_ culture treats gender dysphoria by operating/hormones and the problem is not related to any social structures
- there is no increase in adolescents transitioning (despite publications and people who obviously are very transphilic saying otherwise) but we know that the rate of suicide is very high with people experiencing gender dysphoria. I wonder how you measure the last because if there's no change and everyone is oppressed by TERFs and the patriarchy I am not sure how you can reliably associate a constant rate of suicides to a specific condition.
If I look at this list, it looks awfully like the usual conspiracy theory, allowing me to assign the following properties:
- mental illness unrelated to the cause seems widespread between most modern "activists"
- most conspiracy theorists have no clue which actual kind of forces they and the society are subject to
- logic is the instrument of the powerful thus be done with it.
so let's subsume the results of my critical gender theory instructions today:
- hate groups are everywhere. everything which doesn't think physical intervention is the only solution is transphobic and you don't have to argue there.
- specifically: _every_ culture treats gender dysphoria by operating/hormones and the problem is not related to any social structures
- there is no increase in adolescents transitioning (despite publications and people who obviously are very transphilic saying otherwise) but we know that the rate of suicide is very high with people experiencing gender dysphoria. I wonder how you measure the last because if there's no change and everyone is oppressed by TERFs and the patriarchy I am not sure how you can reliably associate a constant rate of suicides to a specific condition.
If I look at this list, it looks awfully like the usual conspiracy theory, allowing me to assign the following properties:
- mental illness unrelated to the cause seems widespread between most modern "activists"
- most conspiracy theorists have no clue which actual kind of forces they and the society are subject to
- logic is the instrument of the powerful thus be done with it.
I know you think you're making some amazing points here, but really you're just showing that you have no idea what modern science and medicine has to say about healthcare for trans people.
You're also saying stuff which I know can be sourced to organisations like LGB Alliance or the Heritage Foundation. You might not know that because, again, you don't know what you're talking about, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
In particular, you appear to be completely ignorant of the UK context and that's causing you to make a number of errors across your post. You're not interested in learning what those errors are nor correcting those errors because ... well, I'll let you complete that sentence.
You're also saying stuff which I know can be sourced to organisations like LGB Alliance or the Heritage Foundation. You might not know that because, again, you don't know what you're talking about, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
In particular, you appear to be completely ignorant of the UK context and that's causing you to make a number of errors across your post. You're not interested in learning what those errors are nor correcting those errors because ... well, I'll let you complete that sentence.
I'd be really happy, if you could point out my errors and I could learn.
In fact I don't care very much about what happens in the UK, because I don't live there and I don't see how any points are specific to there.
I indeed have serious doubts that humanity will survive with our current societies, so I'd like to change them - same as you do and I'd really like you to be on my side because you're profile doesn't look like an idiot.
Though honestly you don't seem to be too interested in a logical and coherent discussion on this topic. I just noticed that I only talked to one person (I thought it was two), who first told me (within a short timeframe) that 1) no there's not more children wanting to transition than before and 2) of course nowadays more people transition. If you think that's a coherent worldview: fine, but then you're no better than the heritage foundation OR you seem to have serious problems with your brain (which probably a lot of the heritage foundation people have too).
In fact I don't care very much about what happens in the UK, because I don't live there and I don't see how any points are specific to there.
I indeed have serious doubts that humanity will survive with our current societies, so I'd like to change them - same as you do and I'd really like you to be on my side because you're profile doesn't look like an idiot.
Though honestly you don't seem to be too interested in a logical and coherent discussion on this topic. I just noticed that I only talked to one person (I thought it was two), who first told me (within a short timeframe) that 1) no there's not more children wanting to transition than before and 2) of course nowadays more people transition. If you think that's a coherent worldview: fine, but then you're no better than the heritage foundation OR you seem to have serious problems with your brain (which probably a lot of the heritage foundation people have too).
Because the other options don’t work. Do even a little research instead of reposting the same question that you keep getting flagged for.
[deleted]
Personally, I believe that Amazon should be free to choose what they want to sell. The problems start if they are pressured to adjust what they sell, based on a small, but vocal minority group with self serving interest.
In this case there's a group of transsexuals, who feel, perhaps rightly so, that society haven't been sufficiently helpful or protective. They just fail to understand that not all who identify as transsexual at an yearly age grow up to be transsexual. Some end up being comfortable with the gender they where born with, why other turn out to just be homosexual. Exposing these groups to a non-critical treatment and not discussing other options will hurt a group of people much larger than those you are currently denied help with transition.
It's just hard to argue with a well meaning minority, without being cast as being against them.
In this case there's a group of transsexuals, who feel, perhaps rightly so, that society haven't been sufficiently helpful or protective. They just fail to understand that not all who identify as transsexual at an yearly age grow up to be transsexual. Some end up being comfortable with the gender they where born with, why other turn out to just be homosexual. Exposing these groups to a non-critical treatment and not discussing other options will hurt a group of people much larger than those you are currently denied help with transition.
It's just hard to argue with a well meaning minority, without being cast as being against them.
Calling transgender people "transsexuals" is the same as calling black people "blacks". It's dehumanising.
I never understood that really.
Trans people that transition do not do that to assume the opposite gender (at least as Gender is used today especially in the same circles), they are attempting to assume the primary secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex.
I never got a good explanation why transsexual was changed to transgender other than the fact that you can’t change your biological sex.
The whole sex vs gender debate is a literal mess. On one hand gender is a social construct if so transgenderism would never be an issue, if gender is so fluid and a “choice” then why convention therapy can’t work (I don’t think it can, and I also don’t think that gender / sexual orientation is particularly fluid or a choice).
Personally I started to look at sex or well sexuality as the social construct these days, it’s clearly a tool to form societal structures as seen in places like prisons for example.
Gender on the other hand for me is the heuristics that arise from biological constraints due to the (biological) sexual dimorphism of humans.
As far as “black” vs “African American” that seems to be an utterly American thing.
In the U.K. Black British for example is literally an acceptable way to call a black person, if they are black British that is since there are plenty of other black minorities in the U.K. like black Caribbean etc. I’ve never seen anyone saying African British.
Trans people that transition do not do that to assume the opposite gender (at least as Gender is used today especially in the same circles), they are attempting to assume the primary secondary sexual characteristics of the opposite sex.
I never got a good explanation why transsexual was changed to transgender other than the fact that you can’t change your biological sex.
The whole sex vs gender debate is a literal mess. On one hand gender is a social construct if so transgenderism would never be an issue, if gender is so fluid and a “choice” then why convention therapy can’t work (I don’t think it can, and I also don’t think that gender / sexual orientation is particularly fluid or a choice).
Personally I started to look at sex or well sexuality as the social construct these days, it’s clearly a tool to form societal structures as seen in places like prisons for example.
Gender on the other hand for me is the heuristics that arise from biological constraints due to the (biological) sexual dimorphism of humans.
As far as “black” vs “African American” that seems to be an utterly American thing.
In the U.K. Black British for example is literally an acceptable way to call a black person, if they are black British that is since there are plenty of other black minorities in the U.K. like black Caribbean etc. I’ve never seen anyone saying African British.
Hey, that interesting.
> The whole sex vs gender debate is a literal mess. On one hand gender is a social construct if so transgenderism would never be an issue, if gender is so fluid and a “choice” then why convention therapy can’t work (I don’t think it can, and I also don’t think that gender / sexual orientation is particularly fluid or a choice).
I agree with the "it is a mess" part.
> Personally I started to look at sex or well sexuality as the social construct these days, it’s clearly a tool to form societal structures as seen in places like prisons for example.
> Gender on the other hand for me is the heuristics that arise from biological constraints due to the (biological) sexual dimorphism of humans.
For me it is the other way around. With animals, we're talking about the sex they have, not their gender. So to me it seems that "sex" is the term that describes the biological morphisms that arise from the expression of various reproductive strategies, whereas I've only ever heard "gender" to be used in human social or linguistic context (e.g. to different names for female or male individuals of a species)
> The whole sex vs gender debate is a literal mess. On one hand gender is a social construct if so transgenderism would never be an issue, if gender is so fluid and a “choice” then why convention therapy can’t work (I don’t think it can, and I also don’t think that gender / sexual orientation is particularly fluid or a choice).
I agree with the "it is a mess" part.
> Personally I started to look at sex or well sexuality as the social construct these days, it’s clearly a tool to form societal structures as seen in places like prisons for example.
> Gender on the other hand for me is the heuristics that arise from biological constraints due to the (biological) sexual dimorphism of humans.
For me it is the other way around. With animals, we're talking about the sex they have, not their gender. So to me it seems that "sex" is the term that describes the biological morphisms that arise from the expression of various reproductive strategies, whereas I've only ever heard "gender" to be used in human social or linguistic context (e.g. to different names for female or male individuals of a species)
I wonder how much of this is linguistic dependent.
Many languages don’t even have different words for sex and gender, Hebrew and German come to mind.
I also find sex as in the act to be quite different.
At least when it comes to male on male sex “sadomy” was complicated through history, it was used to show dominance even in societies where homosexuality wasn’t acceptable especially in adulthood - this is an example of a Japanese propaganda poster following the battle of Port Arthur https://imgur.com/a/t9RtebX
In general it seems that same sex sexual activity has more to do than just sexual orientation, it’s far more common in sexually segregated environments wether it being prison or boarding schools.
And it’s just as commonly used to establish an intimate human connection as it is to assert power.
However I don’t particularly see this as related to what we normally call homosexuality which seems have much more to do with proper sexual attraction and sexual mating.
Many languages don’t even have different words for sex and gender, Hebrew and German come to mind.
I also find sex as in the act to be quite different.
At least when it comes to male on male sex “sadomy” was complicated through history, it was used to show dominance even in societies where homosexuality wasn’t acceptable especially in adulthood - this is an example of a Japanese propaganda poster following the battle of Port Arthur https://imgur.com/a/t9RtebX
In general it seems that same sex sexual activity has more to do than just sexual orientation, it’s far more common in sexually segregated environments wether it being prison or boarding schools.
And it’s just as commonly used to establish an intimate human connection as it is to assert power.
However I don’t particularly see this as related to what we normally call homosexuality which seems have much more to do with proper sexual attraction and sexual mating.
Transgender vs transsexual is an attempt to demedicalise the trans experience; very little, all in all, of what trans people go through is related to the medical process of transitioning. “Transsexualism” is what the doctors called it when focusing solely on the medical aspects, “transgender” is the word we picked for ourselves when we looked at our broader experience.
There’s some more history and a bunch of bigotry involved, but that’s the core of it.
There’s some more history and a bunch of bigotry involved, but that’s the core of it.
They said black people vs. blacks. Not black vs. African American.
Oh, sorry, I honestly had no idea.
Weird that you link to an article about tavi.
1) Trans people hate tavi, and want the contract taken off them.
2) Tavi's child services don't provide access to surgery or cross sex hormones
3) Most of tavi's child patients don't get puberty blockers.
This is an area with considerable disinfo. Most people on HN are woefully unprepared to deal with that, which is why this thread is full of inaccurate info.
1) Trans people hate tavi, and want the contract taken off them.
2) Tavi's child services don't provide access to surgery or cross sex hormones
3) Most of tavi's child patients don't get puberty blockers.
This is an area with considerable disinfo. Most people on HN are woefully unprepared to deal with that, which is why this thread is full of inaccurate info.
I wonder why huge corporations let themselves be dragged into the dark vortex of culture wars. There is nothing to gain in that blood- and vitriol soaked trenches.
Or do they hope to buy themselves lenience from progressive politicians in coming cartel investigations? Will AOC (who famously helped to kill a NY Amazon project) start to love Amazon now that books that 'frame sexual identity as mental illness' are banished from its pages?
Or do they hope to buy themselves lenience from progressive politicians in coming cartel investigations? Will AOC (who famously helped to kill a NY Amazon project) start to love Amazon now that books that 'frame sexual identity as mental illness' are banished from its pages?
GitHub renamed the master branch to main just after they got flack for not canceling their ICE contract.
One of those changes would have cost them real money.
With Amazon they probably want to score some cheap progressive points to paper over those awkward and possibly illegal union busting tactics that threaten their bottom line.
One of those changes would have cost them real money.
With Amazon they probably want to score some cheap progressive points to paper over those awkward and possibly illegal union busting tactics that threaten their bottom line.
This. Big biz does not care about humans (and their rights). Amazon/Tesla behaved illegally against unionization, sell stuff made in countries with little protection for people and nature.
But they put a rainbow logo on and now all is cool.
But they put a rainbow logo on and now all is cool.
I can't say anything about Amazon, but if one looks at a 20 year timeline, there's no company protecting nature more than Tesla.
Regarding worker rights I think that central banks destroying money by printing ,,infinite amount of dollars'' are the ones to blame, companies are generally in a hard position, that's why they can get away with inhuman tactics :(
Regarding worker rights I think that central banks destroying money by printing ,,infinite amount of dollars'' are the ones to blame, companies are generally in a hard position, that's why they can get away with inhuman tactics :(
> Regarding worker rights I think that central banks destroying money by printing ,,infinite amount of dollars'' are the ones to blame, companies are generally in a hard position, that's why they can get away with inhuman tactics :(
Please read either the link below or a book called “the history of money” to know why you’re wrong in this statement. Central banks printing money has saved these workers you speak of.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/06/fiat-curre...
Please read either the link below or a book called “the history of money” to know why you’re wrong in this statement. Central banks printing money has saved these workers you speak of.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/12/06/fiat-curre...
Lithium mining is by no means protecting nature. And couping a country to get cheap access is something Musk openly bragged about:
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/elon-musk-confesses-to-l...
Maybe electric is an eco net positive compared to combustion. But we are yet to find out. And the Tesla solar roofs, where are they? I'm afraid the roofs were merely a way to get good eco PR on the Tesla brand. And doing Tesla with one hand while putting rockets full of fuel on the other makes Mr Musk even more contradicting.
https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/elon-musk-confesses-to-l...
Maybe electric is an eco net positive compared to combustion. But we are yet to find out. And the Tesla solar roofs, where are they? I'm afraid the roofs were merely a way to get good eco PR on the Tesla brand. And doing Tesla with one hand while putting rockets full of fuel on the other makes Mr Musk even more contradicting.
They hope the woke mob will move on to another target. They are not actually spending time censoring books submitted to them
If we put on our cynical hat for a second, they aren't targeting these books because anyone cares about them. The point is to assert that the woke mob have power over Amazon, a powerful company.
Folding to their demands won't do anything useful, the nebulous 'woke' will make progressively more demands. If they can choose what Amazon does and doesn't sell, why stop at books nobody cares about? Keep going until actual resistance is met!
Folding to their demands won't do anything useful, the nebulous 'woke' will make progressively more demands. If they can choose what Amazon does and doesn't sell, why stop at books nobody cares about? Keep going until actual resistance is met!
Was this particular instance in response to a woke mob? The article doesn't mention it. I see it as just as likely to have been initiated by a woke Amazon employee. Although the woke are probably a minority of Amazon employees, they are likely a vocal and organized minority, enough to make the rest scared to try to make a policy that would stop this kind of action.
That is a possible explanation, a tax to be left alone. A protection racket of sorts.
The thing is, classical mob that collects "pizzo" money is vertically structured and can actually promise the payer real safety in exchange for money paid. That is not the case of the Twitter mob, anyone can start a shitstorm against anyone else.
The thing is, classical mob that collects "pizzo" money is vertically structured and can actually promise the payer real safety in exchange for money paid. That is not the case of the Twitter mob, anyone can start a shitstorm against anyone else.
I'm not sure why you believe that this is something which is done upon them. A company the size of Amazon most likely has a significant LGBT community and the liberal leanings of the majority of people who have a higher level of education (presumably the majority of people in decision making positions) takes care of the rest.
I do not really see the connection between having a lot of LGBT employees and this decision. Not every gay person is obliged to have the same opinion on teenage gender dysphoria, whether it is wise to transition someone who is not old enough to drive a car responsibly and whether it is wise to banish books from a bookstore, let alone how the ideal blacklist should look like.
This kind of topics tends to be discussed by tiny, though passionate minorities. I would expect Amazon to have some TERFs, too.
This kind of topics tends to be discussed by tiny, though passionate minorities. I would expect Amazon to have some TERFs, too.
Amazon is in Seattle. We are arguably the most trans-accepting city in the US (source: being a trans person living in Seattle). Trans people are mostly just an accepted part of the community here. And people here are generally not super impressed by the "think of the children!" wedge issue any more than they were impressed with the "OMG trans women in bathrooms!" wedge issue. I'm sure TERFs exist here, but they keep it to themselves, because it's not something to admit to in polite company.
You know gay is only one of the letters you used?
They are not perfect quarters of the pie, though.
There will almost certainly be more gays and lesbians than transsexuals in a random set of thousands of people.
Or do you want to say that the rest of the three letters are expected to have uniform opinions on said matters?
There will almost certainly be more gays and lesbians than transsexuals in a random set of thousands of people.
Or do you want to say that the rest of the three letters are expected to have uniform opinions on said matters?
My point is that the community sort-of isn't representative of the general gay population. It often consists of a specific subtype of activists that share a lot of political opinions and will gatekeep nonconforming individuals out.
Mate if we're misinterpreting things on purpose are you saying that people only have valid opinions if they're the majority?
No I'm not saying that, don't be daft.
No I'm not saying that, don't be daft.
Indeed, gay people often hate trans people (who, as another comment says, mostly want to get on with our fucking lives) as much as anyone else. What’s your point here? Hatred is cool and normal and Amazon should be promoting it?
You are punching at a straw man. No one is saying every gay person has the same opinion on this or any other matter. However, as a community (which is the word I used), they do tend to stand together.
Corporations are made of employees. Even their executives are just employees! Employees, as you might know, are people! They have opinions and preferences of all sorts!
The high-value workers and executives for Amazon are located exclusively in progressive areas. They probably raised a fuss and Amazon didn't want another Tim Bray situation. Given that the corporation loses nothing and gains a degree of loyalty from its employees, it wins.
The high-value workers and executives for Amazon are located exclusively in progressive areas. They probably raised a fuss and Amazon didn't want another Tim Bray situation. Given that the corporation loses nothing and gains a degree of loyalty from its employees, it wins.
"the corporation loses nothing"
Do you believe that? I would say such decisions are far from riskless, they can even jumpstart potential competitors and drag Amazon et al into future antitrust litigations. This kind of power being exercised wantonly tends to attract hostile attention.
"Corporations are made of employees... They have opinions and preferences of all sorts!"
They are, but we do not really know how many employees would prefer X or Y. There wasn't any internal ballot on this topic, AFAIK. It may well be the case of a tail wagging the dog.
Do you believe that? I would say such decisions are far from riskless, they can even jumpstart potential competitors and drag Amazon et al into future antitrust litigations. This kind of power being exercised wantonly tends to attract hostile attention.
"Corporations are made of employees... They have opinions and preferences of all sorts!"
They are, but we do not really know how many employees would prefer X or Y. There wasn't any internal ballot on this topic, AFAIK. It may well be the case of a tail wagging the dog.
Microsoft is here in 2021 as well. IBM, too. But they aren't the powers that they used to be.
Book selling is highly symbolic for Amazon, because they grew out of this niche. Also, banning books has a specific bad taste associated, because that is what authoritarians over the ages have done and liberal people resented such bans.
Book selling is highly symbolic for Amazon, because they grew out of this niche. Also, banning books has a specific bad taste associated, because that is what authoritarians over the ages have done and liberal people resented such bans.
Bans are mostly local affairs. For a shop, if they refuse to carry a certain book, they have effectively banned it from their domain of power, which is what matters.
I know that they once removed 1984 from Kindles due to a copyright issue. Some people noticed even then. But a momentum of interest takes some time to build up. If Amazon starts expanding their blacklists frequently, it will attract more and more attention.
I know that they once removed 1984 from Kindles due to a copyright issue. Some people noticed even then. But a momentum of interest takes some time to build up. If Amazon starts expanding their blacklists frequently, it will attract more and more attention.
They've been doing it for quite a while; RMS pointed out that they retroactively removed 1984 from people's libraries nearly a decade ago. No regulator cared then, no regulator will care now.
Banning books isn't a particularly controversial thing; this isn't even banning them, it's just...not selling them.
Banning books isn't a particularly controversial thing; this isn't even banning them, it's just...not selling them.
> Do you believe that? I would say such decisions are far from riskless, they can even jumpstart potential competitors and drag Amazon et al into future antitrust litigations. This kind of power being exercised wantonly tends to attract hostile attention.
I guarantee you that Amazon is still going to be here in ten years. At most for antitrust, it would have AWS and the core shopping business split up. But that would happen anyway. It's not really wantonly to take an ethical stand, even if the ethical stand is mostly for show, or even if it's outright wrong. Especially not in a field like bookselling, that Amazon has nowhere close to a monopoly in.
> They are, but we do not really know how many employees would prefer X or Y. There wasn't any internal ballot on this topic, AFAIK. It may well be the case of a tail wagging the dog.
We pretty much know for Amazon, though. Its valuable employees are rich people on the coasts. Overwhelmingly, this demographic is pro-LGBT and against getting put in a higher tax bracket. They aren't going to vote against liberalism.
I guarantee you that Amazon is still going to be here in ten years. At most for antitrust, it would have AWS and the core shopping business split up. But that would happen anyway. It's not really wantonly to take an ethical stand, even if the ethical stand is mostly for show, or even if it's outright wrong. Especially not in a field like bookselling, that Amazon has nowhere close to a monopoly in.
> They are, but we do not really know how many employees would prefer X or Y. There wasn't any internal ballot on this topic, AFAIK. It may well be the case of a tail wagging the dog.
We pretty much know for Amazon, though. Its valuable employees are rich people on the coasts. Overwhelmingly, this demographic is pro-LGBT and against getting put in a higher tax bracket. They aren't going to vote against liberalism.
The corporation doesn't get loyalty, they get employees who will keep doing this in the future.
That's loyalty, because it implies the employees are more likely to stick around. Employees that feel their input is valued more often than not do.
Maybe some employees will be less likely to stick around, too.
It is unlikely that every employee gets their input valued. The game of favoritism is older than Amazon, even older than the written word. Usually, a small clique gets to the top and gets their input valued quite a lot - at the expense of everybody else. Some people are more talented in office politics than others.
For the "everybody else", it means either curry favour with the clique or get out.
It is unlikely that every employee gets their input valued. The game of favoritism is older than Amazon, even older than the written word. Usually, a small clique gets to the top and gets their input valued quite a lot - at the expense of everybody else. Some people are more talented in office politics than others.
For the "everybody else", it means either curry favour with the clique or get out.
The minority of conservatives in progressive cities on the West Coast are cheaper to replace than the majority of liberals, though. It's how the market works.
lol you have a twisted view of capitalism if you think it's about abusing workers
How is any of this abusive? It's a scenario where a minority of workers in a geographic area decide they no longer agree with their employer, and voluntarily quit. The market implies it's cheaper to replace them, because they're few, than it is to replace many workers.
Because it's not true. There is a glut of closeted libertarians in silicon valley. You can't just say it's a geographical issue. Pushing workers out the door for their political and moral beliefs is definitely abusive in a supposedly "free" society.
America is definitely not that anymore. What a joke.
America is definitely not that anymore. What a joke.
That's if you assume the majority of employees agree. Most either don't care or are scared to speak out.
Pandering in big tech is nothing new. Apple likes to support minorities, but they completely forget about their slave labor in Asia. As a minority myself, these actions will make sure I keep some distance between me and these companies.
> I wonder why huge corporations let themselves be dragged into the dark vortex of culture wars. There is nothing to gain in that blood- and vitriol soaked trenches
There is plenty of money to make and we all know this is the only thing that matter for corporations.
There is plenty of money to make and we all know this is the only thing that matter for corporations.
> There is plenty of money to make
How exactly?
How exactly?
"Oh wow look at our new car it's so LGBT friendly, inclusive and __empowering__"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLnthpzR1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPLnthpzR1U
I do not doubt that they try, but is there any evidence that this kind of P.R. operations actually helps with sales?
This is where I am skeptical.
This is where I am skeptical.
In terms of stock price nothing is gained, except when pandering to potential ad clickers like Google (apparently conservatives do not click on ads ...).
But the thousands of middle managers with non-technical degrees need to justify their existence. They always need to check some bullet points in their performance evaluations.
This is why you see HR moving to a "new" online HR platform every year and inventing nonsense like 360 degree reviews.
They can claim that they have "done" something!
Same here: This ban will have been discussed for at least a week, so another week is secure for their performance evaluations.
Another benefit of the culture wars is that they can be used to suppress the productive parts of the population. Especially technical people are intimidated easily (not in online comments but in real life), so if the parasites establish a sufficient number of taboos and enforce them, they control the actual workers.
Taboos have been a ruling class tool since the dawn of time.
But the thousands of middle managers with non-technical degrees need to justify their existence. They always need to check some bullet points in their performance evaluations.
This is why you see HR moving to a "new" online HR platform every year and inventing nonsense like 360 degree reviews.
They can claim that they have "done" something!
Same here: This ban will have been discussed for at least a week, so another week is secure for their performance evaluations.
Another benefit of the culture wars is that they can be used to suppress the productive parts of the population. Especially technical people are intimidated easily (not in online comments but in real life), so if the parasites establish a sufficient number of taboos and enforce them, they control the actual workers.
Taboos have been a ruling class tool since the dawn of time.
My, possibly naive, view is that this has nothing to do with the "benefactor" of a policy (transgender people, in this case). It is more about power, politics and influence for the people who institute the policy.
15-20 years ago, working in tech was a good job in the sense that being a mechanical engineer, doctor, or lawyer was a good job.
Today, these are the most powerful, richest, and most influential companies in the world, and people who like power are involving themselves more than they used to.
15-20 years ago, these companies were more meritocratic in a domain knowledge sense: the "nerds" were powerful because they had knowledge and could build stuff.
Nowadays "politicians" (in the corporate sense, people good at office politics) have realized they cannot compete with the nerds who've been building stuff since they were kids, so to get a piece of the pie there's a political fight to redefine what's important.
Now "values" are important instead. Those who have the values have the power and influence.
I'm personally looking to move to a different industry than the tech companies. Some industry with less power and less prestige. Those will attract more interesting people who care about what's important.
15-20 years ago, working in tech was a good job in the sense that being a mechanical engineer, doctor, or lawyer was a good job.
Today, these are the most powerful, richest, and most influential companies in the world, and people who like power are involving themselves more than they used to.
15-20 years ago, these companies were more meritocratic in a domain knowledge sense: the "nerds" were powerful because they had knowledge and could build stuff.
Nowadays "politicians" (in the corporate sense, people good at office politics) have realized they cannot compete with the nerds who've been building stuff since they were kids, so to get a piece of the pie there's a political fight to redefine what's important.
Now "values" are important instead. Those who have the values have the power and influence.
I'm personally looking to move to a different industry than the tech companies. Some industry with less power and less prestige. Those will attract more interesting people who care about what's important.
Call me niave, but what is wrong with conversion therapy in theory?
I get the historic roots of it being linked with anti-gay/LGBT activities and it being problematic about 'fixing' what essentially are healthy sexual functioning (e.g. it's fine to be gay).
But it's not black and white and surely 'some' gay/bi men and women suffer distress and would prefer to be straight.
And likewise for 'trans' children and adults - perhaps there are effective ways to reduce/eliminate gender dysphoria. Do such methods really always have to seem bad.
Note: I am neutral on this / have many gay friends. It's purely from a theoretical perspective.
I get the historic roots of it being linked with anti-gay/LGBT activities and it being problematic about 'fixing' what essentially are healthy sexual functioning (e.g. it's fine to be gay).
But it's not black and white and surely 'some' gay/bi men and women suffer distress and would prefer to be straight.
And likewise for 'trans' children and adults - perhaps there are effective ways to reduce/eliminate gender dysphoria. Do such methods really always have to seem bad.
Note: I am neutral on this / have many gay friends. It's purely from a theoretical perspective.
"In theory" questions are a bit moot if the practice has never worked, and are at least adjacent to "is brainwashing/slavery/... always so bad if the victim thinks its happy with it" from an ethics perspective. Especially if the "in theory" arguments are then used to defend the abusive/broken real world practices, and as an excuse to not fix external causes of distress. I.e. "actually, being gay is ok" as a position of society is way more effective for good outcomes than any attempt at "treatment" ever has been, and the vast majority of arguments along "treatments" are being used to attempt to slow or reverse that development.
It's not been shown to be effective, there's no reason to change it, and it can be harmful to the mental health of LGBTQ+ folks.
That's what the American Psychiatric Association says: "https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-reiter..."
That's what the American Psychiatric Association says: "https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/apa-reiter..."
Conversion therapy basically pseudoscience mixed with a bit of brainwashing and physical violence. I don't believe that is what Amazon is banning here.
Ok. Thanks for all the above answers. I appreciate it.
To add to it, my only thoughts were for people who wanted to be straight /cis gendered but were having very distressing thoughts/feelings that they might be gay/trans. But I realise what I may be describing might better be described as an anxiety disorder and so a seperate point. I'm sure doctors would pick up on this too. Hmmmm ok I'll do some thinking.
To add to it, my only thoughts were for people who wanted to be straight /cis gendered but were having very distressing thoughts/feelings that they might be gay/trans. But I realise what I may be describing might better be described as an anxiety disorder and so a seperate point. I'm sure doctors would pick up on this too. Hmmmm ok I'll do some thinking.
Well, I know both gay and trans people who have survived conversion therapy, but there's a really high incidence of suicide among people who have been through it. Also, the people I know have described literal torture as being part of existing conversion therapy techniques. There is also no evidence of it actually working.
All of these things seem to counsel against conversion therapy being an accepted practice.
All of these things seem to counsel against conversion therapy being an accepted practice.
Every bookstore in history has made decisions about which books to sell and which not. Amazon in this case is just a bookstore and should make a decision, if it’s market power is too big we should split it apart ( an online bookshop is not any kind of regulated utility and should never be one).
Amazon already made the decision a long time ago: all books from A to Z. They are just renegging their position, which is against what it was built for at the beginning.
I wish more would just rally against the concept of mental illness itself. It's such a ridiculous concept and it's exactly moments like these that reveal how it's nothing more than whatever people want it to be. Until we've got mind reading technology most of psychology and psychiatry will remain glorified polling.
[deleted]
You may want to buy the acclaimed books "Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters" and "The end of gender" before Amazon virtually burns them.
> virtually burns them
This is an interesting point, will they "burn" e-books already sold, like they did with "1984" (due to licensing issues)?
This is an interesting point, will they "burn" e-books already sold, like they did with "1984" (due to licensing issues)?
yes, I've got a friend who reads books written by people who hate him so he can understand how to protect himself better and he got pissed when they removed some hateful literature from his kindle. I understood why amazon did it but I didn't really know how to respond to him.
Are we having a discussion about amazon having censorial power, or how amazon should wield this power?
The vast majority of decisions at amazon don't attract media attention. They're just decisions. Sell this. Promote that. Reorder. Don't reorder. If you control 75% of the book market... you are censor-ish. even if these decisions are neutral, they still shape the book business in a censor-like way.
Amazon are sitting in a censorial seat. So are the other, content-centric monopolies like google & facebook. Youtube videos, websites, blogs, books, etc. When you go to produce one of these, you consider: what will google/fb/amzn think? Will it appear in feeds? Will it rank? Will it get an 18+ rating?. What makes or doesn't make that censorship is market share. A "true" censor, censors all the papers. An editor only edits one. If there is only one magazine, magazine censorship is default.
In any case, I find a lot of current anti-censorship discussions off-mark. There appears to be some cultural/moral/normative shifts in boardrooms. Are you unhappy with the power in those boardrooms, or with whatever specific decision got made last tuesday. I get the feeling that the latter is the main one.
The vast majority of decisions at amazon don't attract media attention. They're just decisions. Sell this. Promote that. Reorder. Don't reorder. If you control 75% of the book market... you are censor-ish. even if these decisions are neutral, they still shape the book business in a censor-like way.
Amazon are sitting in a censorial seat. So are the other, content-centric monopolies like google & facebook. Youtube videos, websites, blogs, books, etc. When you go to produce one of these, you consider: what will google/fb/amzn think? Will it appear in feeds? Will it rank? Will it get an 18+ rating?. What makes or doesn't make that censorship is market share. A "true" censor, censors all the papers. An editor only edits one. If there is only one magazine, magazine censorship is default.
In any case, I find a lot of current anti-censorship discussions off-mark. There appears to be some cultural/moral/normative shifts in boardrooms. Are you unhappy with the power in those boardrooms, or with whatever specific decision got made last tuesday. I get the feeling that the latter is the main one.
How fascinating it is to see conservatives being all about the free market until it goes against them. Indeed, Amazon is a private business and they certainly have the right to sell only those items they deem worth of selling. In the same way they decline to sell neo-Nazi paraphernalia, they have the right to refuse to sell anti-LGBTQ+ objects.
A similar, equally-fascinating example is the outrage conservatives express when those other free enterprises called Google and Facebook decline to allow individuals such as the former president on their platforms. Consistency is a bitch.
I fully believe they are a free to do what they want up until they run into illegal anti-competitive practices, but I can still be disappointed that I had to go elsewhere for a book for the first time in around a decade. In my case I read this book because Amazon took the time to remove it. I would not have read it otherwise.
"they certainly have the right"
Expressing disagreement (or even dismay) with a company's decision isn't inconsistent with support for a free market, either.
I came here to learn about the current state of the trans community and learned nothing because of a lot of dissenting information in either direction. This is my attempt to consolidate and learn from facts, feel free to correct things or add to this in the thread.
- A number of folks invoke what they've heard people who call themselves activists say only to get a response from someone saying that's not a real activist. On one hand this is akin to no true Scotsman and on the other I can see the situation that invokes, "that doesn't represent me" as difficult to process. It might be helpful if HN users who are knowledgeable can educate the non-educated on who actual trans activists are so that when the non-educated are hearing a reactionary voice they are able to identify that to themselves and others.
- Russia has a very wide law that patently shuts down any conversation about trans-people and adjacently gay folks as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law
- Some non-zero amount of trans folk do not approve of the Tavistock Center in the NHS (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-to-end-transgender-...). Earlier/easier access to hormone blockers seems to be one complaint, but ill-preparing patients for "immediate and long term consequences" seems to be another which a high court recently ruled on. (https://www.itv.com/news/london/2021-01-20/tavistock-centre-...)
- Hormone blocking seems to be the main course of treatment in children while in therapy (that last part also seems very key). The intent behind this is that a child and their parents can make the choice to transition without having to undo the affects of puberty in the future which are costly and painful. The Mayo Clinic says that the only long term affects with puberty blockers has to do with bone density and fertility. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...)
- Some non-zero amount of kids struggle with gender identity because they're struggling with sexuality in societies that openly struggle with accepting more diverse sexuality (being gay). This points to a need for continued societal growth in order to impact the medical system less.
- The article centers around a book called When Harry Became Sally written by Ryan Anderson who is clearly a religious and conservative voice (https://www.amazon.com/Ryan-T-Anderson/e/B00A0P0MR6?ref=sr_n...)
- A number of folks invoke what they've heard people who call themselves activists say only to get a response from someone saying that's not a real activist. On one hand this is akin to no true Scotsman and on the other I can see the situation that invokes, "that doesn't represent me" as difficult to process. It might be helpful if HN users who are knowledgeable can educate the non-educated on who actual trans activists are so that when the non-educated are hearing a reactionary voice they are able to identify that to themselves and others.
- Russia has a very wide law that patently shuts down any conversation about trans-people and adjacently gay folks as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law
- Some non-zero amount of trans folk do not approve of the Tavistock Center in the NHS (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-to-end-transgender-...). Earlier/easier access to hormone blockers seems to be one complaint, but ill-preparing patients for "immediate and long term consequences" seems to be another which a high court recently ruled on. (https://www.itv.com/news/london/2021-01-20/tavistock-centre-...)
- Hormone blocking seems to be the main course of treatment in children while in therapy (that last part also seems very key). The intent behind this is that a child and their parents can make the choice to transition without having to undo the affects of puberty in the future which are costly and painful. The Mayo Clinic says that the only long term affects with puberty blockers has to do with bone density and fertility. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dyspho...)
- Some non-zero amount of kids struggle with gender identity because they're struggling with sexuality in societies that openly struggle with accepting more diverse sexuality (being gay). This points to a need for continued societal growth in order to impact the medical system less.
- The article centers around a book called When Harry Became Sally written by Ryan Anderson who is clearly a religious and conservative voice (https://www.amazon.com/Ryan-T-Anderson/e/B00A0P0MR6?ref=sr_n...)
You've got quite a lot wrong. That's understandable: the UK press frequently prints misinformation about trans people.
Tavistock and Portman is hated by transphobes simply because it provides healthcare to trans children.
It's hated by trans people for a number of reasons. The wait list is over two years. The care is not very good. (the latest CQC inspection is concerning. It's likely Tavi will lose the contract at some point, we're just waiting to find out when that will be). There is excessive and intrusive psychological screening - that's supposed to be supportive but children often describe it as aggressively denying their transness.. They delay access to puberty blockers.
Here's the CQC report: https://api.cqc.org.uk/public/v1/reports/7ecf93b7-2b14-45ea-...
> Hormone blocking seems to be the main course of treatment in children while in therapy (that last part also seems very key)
No, absolutely not. The vast majority of children with gender incongruence get counselling and psycho-social support. Sometimes the child's gender incongruence subsides. Sometimes it doesn't, and the child is supported to go through a social transition. This doesn't involve any meds, it just means the child "lives as their acquired gender". For a very small number of children this isn't enough, and that tiny number of children go onto puberty blockers. 60 million people in the UK, 13 million age 16 or under. Fewer than 200 children prescribed PBs.
The court case you linked to is being appealed. It's an unusual decision. In England if someone is over 18 they can make their own medical decisions unless they lack capacity to do so. If they're 16 or 17 they can consent to treatment, but cannot decline life-saving medical treatment. If they're under 16 they're checked to see if they're competent to make decisions, and then they can consent to treatment but can't refuse life saving treatment. All of this can happen without the involvement of their parents. If the child can't consent their parents can consent on their behalf.
Tavistock's process was more complex. The child had to have capacity to consent, and had to consent. But also the parent had to consent. And the Tavistock psychiatrists and psychologist had to agree. And, finally, the endocrinologists had to agree. If any one of these parties didn't agree the treatment was blocked.
The court said that this rigorous consent process was not enough. This is more a reflection of how widespread transphobic attitudes are in the UK than it is of medical science.
Tavistock and Portman is hated by transphobes simply because it provides healthcare to trans children.
It's hated by trans people for a number of reasons. The wait list is over two years. The care is not very good. (the latest CQC inspection is concerning. It's likely Tavi will lose the contract at some point, we're just waiting to find out when that will be). There is excessive and intrusive psychological screening - that's supposed to be supportive but children often describe it as aggressively denying their transness.. They delay access to puberty blockers.
Here's the CQC report: https://api.cqc.org.uk/public/v1/reports/7ecf93b7-2b14-45ea-...
> Hormone blocking seems to be the main course of treatment in children while in therapy (that last part also seems very key)
No, absolutely not. The vast majority of children with gender incongruence get counselling and psycho-social support. Sometimes the child's gender incongruence subsides. Sometimes it doesn't, and the child is supported to go through a social transition. This doesn't involve any meds, it just means the child "lives as their acquired gender". For a very small number of children this isn't enough, and that tiny number of children go onto puberty blockers. 60 million people in the UK, 13 million age 16 or under. Fewer than 200 children prescribed PBs.
The court case you linked to is being appealed. It's an unusual decision. In England if someone is over 18 they can make their own medical decisions unless they lack capacity to do so. If they're 16 or 17 they can consent to treatment, but cannot decline life-saving medical treatment. If they're under 16 they're checked to see if they're competent to make decisions, and then they can consent to treatment but can't refuse life saving treatment. All of this can happen without the involvement of their parents. If the child can't consent their parents can consent on their behalf.
Tavistock's process was more complex. The child had to have capacity to consent, and had to consent. But also the parent had to consent. And the Tavistock psychiatrists and psychologist had to agree. And, finally, the endocrinologists had to agree. If any one of these parties didn't agree the treatment was blocked.
The court said that this rigorous consent process was not enough. This is more a reflection of how widespread transphobic attitudes are in the UK than it is of medical science.
[deleted]
So its interesting that books like 'Mein Kampf' are fine and available in 10s of translations but books like above are banned.
One could argue that anyone can get their hands on a (pirated) copy of any books. But with Amazon (or other sellers) at least you have collected data on who reads what, which may become useful to law enforcement, someday.
It tells you a lot about the real battlefield (pun intended).
For all the talk about white supremacy, no one is really concerned about a resurgence of the Nazi movement in America, otherwise they would not let seminal works of the most prominent Nazi freely circulate.
Germany, which has a real (though fringe) neo-Nazi movement, spends a lot of effort on suppressing Nazi symbolism and rooting out neo-Nazis from police and Bundeswehr - which is indicative of the fact that they consider the risk serious.
For all the talk about white supremacy, no one is really concerned about a resurgence of the Nazi movement in America, otherwise they would not let seminal works of the most prominent Nazi freely circulate.
Germany, which has a real (though fringe) neo-Nazi movement, spends a lot of effort on suppressing Nazi symbolism and rooting out neo-Nazis from police and Bundeswehr - which is indicative of the fact that they consider the risk serious.
Know your enemy.
Not for long.
It's hilarious that liberals from SF and NYC will manage to make fascism cool.
It's hilarious that liberals from SF and NYC will manage to make fascism cool.
Hitler is dead as a political force, the argument over who gets to determine what is deviant and what is normal is very much still in play.
I wish I could share your confidence about him being as dead politically as he is physically.
practically no one takes hitler seriously and the handful of counter-examples are marginalized, mentally ill, and socially outcast. but more importantly, hitler's thought is not influential among anyone except to see how he got so far making so many mistakes. hitler's thought is not even influential among self-identified neo-nazis except as a sort of figurehead. I wouldn't expect you to agree with me until you see this for yourself.
It may seem so if the epithet frequently misses its mark, which is inevitable when it's so casually abused.
> hitler's thought is not even influential among self-identified neo-nazis except as a sort of figurehead. I wouldn't expect you to agree with me until you see this for yourself.
Then allow me to surprise you: My first draft was trying to compare the use of Nazi iconography to Che Guevara T-Shirts, I deleted that paragraph because I wasn’t entirely sure what point I was trying to make with the comparison.
Then allow me to surprise you: My first draft was trying to compare the use of Nazi iconography to Che Guevara T-Shirts, I deleted that paragraph because I wasn’t entirely sure what point I was trying to make with the comparison.
This is probably fine because mental illness is an ill-defined category. One hopes they will remain consistent. Unless it gets problematic and then we will just have to be content with inconsistency about things we care about.
Yes, but it's important because the direction of travel is de-pathologisation. Being trans is not a disorder. Trans people sometimes have an underlying condition. In ICD10 that's Gender dysphoria, which is classed as a mental health problem. In ICD11 it'll be gender incongruence, which will be classed as a sexual health problem.
So, internationally agreed science and medicine says that being trans is not a mental health condition.
This matters because people calling it mental illness are often trying to deny access to healthcare. They'll say that transition is complex, and that other things should be tried first. What they mean is transition is bad and that as many people as possible should be prevented from transition and that conversion therapy should be imposed on these people.
So, internationally agreed science and medicine says that being trans is not a mental health condition.
This matters because people calling it mental illness are often trying to deny access to healthcare. They'll say that transition is complex, and that other things should be tried first. What they mean is transition is bad and that as many people as possible should be prevented from transition and that conversion therapy should be imposed on these people.
The "science" here has absolutely been affected by decades of lobbying and coercion.
> In 1973, after intense lobbying by gay and lesbian groups and new scientific information from researchers like Evelyn Hooker and Kinsey, the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder[33] with a vote of 58% of the membership supporting the measure. [0]
I'm not saying that every lobbying effort was wrong - but you have to admit a couple things here:
1. Topics that are surrounded by controversy are way more susceptible the effects of political agendas. [1]
2. Psychology is a soft science. [2] So, it's even more susceptible.
[0] https://lgbt.wikia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
> In 1973, after intense lobbying by gay and lesbian groups and new scientific information from researchers like Evelyn Hooker and Kinsey, the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder[33] with a vote of 58% of the membership supporting the measure. [0]
I'm not saying that every lobbying effort was wrong - but you have to admit a couple things here:
1. Topics that are surrounded by controversy are way more susceptible the effects of political agendas. [1]
2. Psychology is a soft science. [2] So, it's even more susceptible.
[0] https://lgbt.wikia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_psychology
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science
This was already posted yesterday and ended up being an absolute disaster of a thread, filled with many people expressing their conviction that transgender individuals are suffering from a delusion. I really hope dang is paying attention this time, because if this is the kind of discourse Hacker News and by extension, YCombinator considers to be reflective of the beliefs of the community, it says a lot about whether or not trans members are welcome here or at YC at all.
Yes. Anything about trans people on HN is always fucking terrible. Partly because people expect some kind of truthiness from the UK press, and they're unprepared to deal with the levels of misinformation coming from the UK about trans people at the moment.
EDIT: Have you heard of Tildes? It's considerably more friendly for trans people. Send me an email at dan dot bealecocks at gmail dot com and I'll send you an invite. Or email the invite link here: https://docs.tildes.net/contact
EDIT: Have you heard of Tildes? It's considerably more friendly for trans people. Send me an email at dan dot bealecocks at gmail dot com and I'll send you an invite. Or email the invite link here: https://docs.tildes.net/contact
There’s a reason my recent HR training had an entire section on how not to put the company at risk by being open about one’s beliefs about trans people. Fact of the matter is transphobia is the norm and they’d rather us dead than working alongside them.
Surely bravery underlies the punishments or dismissals which reward acting according to society's norms. Or maybe fear drives profits.
Or, y’know, the Government implemented laws which are intended to protect a minority which doesn’t have another option under capitalism.
Come out and say it - “I would prefer you dead than have to work alongside you”.
Come out and say it - “I would prefer you dead than have to work alongside you”.
Stop shouting it from the rooftops and you'll be accepted however you present yourself. That's your option, but you refuse to take that one.
You're continually bashing your sexuality and gender identity politics into people's faces and then complaining that they don't like you. Nobody else does this.
If I work with you, I would prefer to not know about your deeply personal issues at all.
You're continually bashing your sexuality and gender identity politics into people's faces and then complaining that they don't like you. Nobody else does this.
If I work with you, I would prefer to not know about your deeply personal issues at all.
You would know my deeply personal issues only by how I dress. I don’t shout about shit at work, I do my job (better than most could), and still I get harassed.
I wish people did see it as a deeply personal issue and felt embarrassed about bringing it up, or trying to get their fingers into my healthcare as in the rest of this thread.
You cannot have it both ways - attempt to tell me to shut up when defending myself, while trying to tell me you know better than my doctor and me about my healthcare and gender.
I wish people did see it as a deeply personal issue and felt embarrassed about bringing it up, or trying to get their fingers into my healthcare as in the rest of this thread.
You cannot have it both ways - attempt to tell me to shut up when defending myself, while trying to tell me you know better than my doctor and me about my healthcare and gender.
> You would know my deeply personal issues only by how I dress.
That's an easy problem to fix. If dressing a particular way is causing harassment, start dressing differently.
I want to wear sweatpants to work, but nobody finds it acceptable. So you know what I do? I wear khakis now.
> I wish people did see it as a deeply personal issue and felt embarrassed about bringing it up, or trying to get their fingers into my healthcare as in the rest of this thread.
They absolutely wouldn't bring it up if they weren't prompted. Nobody goes around randomly making fun of people without cause because it's not fun to just make stuff up about people that's obviously not true. There has to be some hint of truth to it.
> You cannot have it both ways - attempt to tell me to shut up when defending myself, while trying to tell me you know better than my doctor and me about my healthcare and gender.
There would be nothing to defend against if nobody announced their personal issues by dressing a certain way and talking about it.
People in this thread are here voluntarily. If they don't like what's being said they can go to some other thread and stop talking about the thing that's causing them grief.
That's an easy problem to fix. If dressing a particular way is causing harassment, start dressing differently.
I want to wear sweatpants to work, but nobody finds it acceptable. So you know what I do? I wear khakis now.
> I wish people did see it as a deeply personal issue and felt embarrassed about bringing it up, or trying to get their fingers into my healthcare as in the rest of this thread.
They absolutely wouldn't bring it up if they weren't prompted. Nobody goes around randomly making fun of people without cause because it's not fun to just make stuff up about people that's obviously not true. There has to be some hint of truth to it.
> You cannot have it both ways - attempt to tell me to shut up when defending myself, while trying to tell me you know better than my doctor and me about my healthcare and gender.
There would be nothing to defend against if nobody announced their personal issues by dressing a certain way and talking about it.
People in this thread are here voluntarily. If they don't like what's being said they can go to some other thread and stop talking about the thing that's causing them grief.
I dress the way I do because I am a woman. Sorry you don’t believe me. Do you wanna see my cunt to prove it?
I also have breasts, can’t exactly hide those without causing damage. Visibly disabled folk get harassed at work too, they can’t hide their very personal problem, nor should we be asking them to.
This isn’t relevant in the workplace. I am legally recognised as a woman. If you don’t accept that - politics isn’t acceptable in the workplace, remember?
I also have breasts, can’t exactly hide those without causing damage. Visibly disabled folk get harassed at work too, they can’t hide their very personal problem, nor should we be asking them to.
This isn’t relevant in the workplace. I am legally recognised as a woman. If you don’t accept that - politics isn’t acceptable in the workplace, remember?
If you're a woman then how would I "know [your] deeply personal issues only by how [you] dress"?
I have never seen anyone make fun of people who look like women for dressing like women.
Fat and unattractive people get made fun of and harassed the world over, starting in grade school. A cis woman who doesn't look like a woman is considered unattractive too as you mentioned below.
Honestly it just sounds like unattractive people problems to me. Perhaps we need a movement to protect fat and unattractive people too.
I have never seen anyone make fun of people who look like women for dressing like women.
Fat and unattractive people get made fun of and harassed the world over, starting in grade school. A cis woman who doesn't look like a woman is considered unattractive too as you mentioned below.
Honestly it just sounds like unattractive people problems to me. Perhaps we need a movement to protect fat and unattractive people too.
I have a jawline that doesn’t match what you’d expect, a receding hairline, and very occasionally I fail to shave absolutely perfectly. I have slightly broader shoulders than most women. All things some cis women have to deal with, I might add, which leads to stories like “cis woman assaulted when she tried to use the women’s bathroom”.
Point is - I am legally recognised as a woman. My legal name is a woman’s name. I have tits and a cunt. If you start asking me what my “real name” is, or suggesting to people that I might rape them if we share a bathroom, you’re the one bringing politics into work - I’m complying with the law. I want to be at work less than you do, I don’t have a choice, let me exist.
Being forced to wear men’s clothes, a binder, and be called Kevin would be literally torture - I would die before I did that. It is not at all the same thing as sweatpants or khakis. It’d be blood on your hands.
Point is - I am legally recognised as a woman. My legal name is a woman’s name. I have tits and a cunt. If you start asking me what my “real name” is, or suggesting to people that I might rape them if we share a bathroom, you’re the one bringing politics into work - I’m complying with the law. I want to be at work less than you do, I don’t have a choice, let me exist.
Being forced to wear men’s clothes, a binder, and be called Kevin would be literally torture - I would die before I did that. It is not at all the same thing as sweatpants or khakis. It’d be blood on your hands.
There’s already a movement to protect unattractive women (men generally do not suffer the same sort of gendered harassment, because women are generally not looking at their colleagues at work and being angry that they’re not fuckable) from harassment in workplaces. Has been for, what, the past 50 years. Laws around it too. My HR training covered them. Somehow guys don’t get the message.
Misogyny sucks, transmisogyny is a special breed of that, sadly.
Misogyny sucks, transmisogyny is a special breed of that, sadly.
And if your accusation were in the workplace, you win automatically. Good job seizing the means, I guess.
Yeah, society has some weird fixations. Sex, sexuality and gender are very much taboo topics and anything that can not be put in nice little boxes is considered deviant and obviously bad.
Although I think that may be changing. Since we're slowly (maybe too slowly) transitioning into from a culture that has accepted that fact that reproduction does not have the primacy it once had, we can relax our collective fear of extincting for lack of children and focus our fear and panic where it actually belongs.
Although I think that may be changing. Since we're slowly (maybe too slowly) transitioning into from a culture that has accepted that fact that reproduction does not have the primacy it once had, we can relax our collective fear of extincting for lack of children and focus our fear and panic where it actually belongs.
How does anyone at work know that another person is trans unless they're wearing that fact as a badge of some sort? If you look like one thing or another, people will accept you as that. The smart thing for trans people to do would be to keep it to themselves.
Heck, ugly and fat people have the same sorts of problems. Nobody wants to date them, they regularly get passed over for promotions if a beautiful person is competing and many get depressed to the point of contemplating suicide. [0]
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23576272/
Heck, ugly and fat people have the same sorts of problems. Nobody wants to date them, they regularly get passed over for promotions if a beautiful person is competing and many get depressed to the point of contemplating suicide. [0]
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23576272/
There is a movement to stop any kind of discussion about therapy on gender dysphoria other than transition. Trans activists seek to cast all therapeutic interventions other than transitioning in the same light as conversion therapy.
I think we will deal with the fallout of this activism for decades to come: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/calls-to-end-transgender-...