If your go-to argument is to evoke an emotional response, I can’t trust you to have a discussion in good faith.
faith
Well, now that you mention it...
It's a common tactic of narcissists to elicit empathy
If your* go-to argument
Voice typing. Fixed!
Realistically, the "hush" should be "you're disowned"
You'd be fuckin surprised actually, some of these people will support their own family while condemning others for doing the same thing. Dick Cheney has a daughter who he is supposedly very close to who is publicly lesbian, married to a woman and he himself supported their marriage and attended. He then turns around and supports banning gay marriage. I may be under informed on this situation but it's baffling to me.
It becomes less baffling when you realize they are of the mindset that the ones making the laws are inherently different and the laws don't apply. That they're making those laws "for their own good"(meaning the people not lawmakers).
It's confusing, and essentially cognitive dissonance, but it's definitely there.
The worst part is that they really do feel this way. They really do feel that our very presence hurts them somehow. So despite all the excitement saying otherwise, they project that feeling of offended-ness onto everyone else and say they just want to protect people.
To give you some idea just how long this has been going on...
same with "fighting terrorism" or "spreading democracy"
sometimeseven democrats fall for these.When I spread democracy, I do it for Super Earth!
“sometimes” = all the time
fixed it
Sometimes?
I really don't want to come off the wrong way saying this, but I don't think this comic works the way we want it to. Republicans fucking love the slippery slope fallacy. When they read this they are like "Exactly! It keeps getting worse!"
That is true. It is hard to reason with them.
Is anybody else bothered by the fact that the '00s are missing on this? It establishes a pattern of every 2 decades, with '60s and '80s, then skips the '00s, before giving us the '20s.
We don't need the '00s they were fired. Think of the children!
The noughties were too naughty.
The 00's panel would be identical to the 80's panel, so they cut it for brevity sake.
I was thinking it'd be the "a-rabs".
This comic actually points to the issue, a good portion of people rightly believe that if a 6 year old says they are trans its not because they are actually trans but are being brainwashed to say a thing.
I'm genuinely curious at the downvotes to you here, do people really think a 6 year old would know they're trans?
I have no issues with what someone wants to do with their body but to the above question do people believe this?
I will preface this by saying that six years old is not an appropriate age to undergo any sort of transition, and to say that it is is beginning the conversation in bad faith, so to start, what is the actual average age of those undergoing gender affirming care? Why use an example that is clearly outside of the threshold that is the norm?
I'm not an expert, but thinking about it rationally, sure we have a few ways to start to know. Is it possible for a person to be aware that early? Idk, but I suppose I'd try to start answering that question by listening to :
-
Trans children who are now adults and can recall their experiences.
-
Researchers and child development experts who specialize in child development, gender disphoria, and work with such children.
Both groups that are either ignored or not permitted to speak, by conservatives.
Why do they spend their legislative time blocking science? Banning books? Forbidding phrases?
Because they have no intention of listening to evidence. They wanted to suppress in every era of history and nothing has changed. They're still sore about being wrong about gays not all being demented perverts (and the wider public finally realizing this truth.) Which was the death of their efforts to paint them as pedophiles.
What is infuriating is that the playbook hasn't even changed, every group they didn't like : immigrants, blacks, gays, jews, all the same types of claims : "They'll take your job/property/wife/children/way-of-life, blah blah. Be afraid! Vote for candidate fear!"
In short, whether or not a child of any age can know is something they don't want to know. Knowing and facing the information could undermine their preconceived notions of what transgender means as a concept. So, whether or not a child can know is information that must be suppressed. Otherwise they may lose some portion of the public that still believes all transgender people are demented child molesters.
..which as an idea that is easy to disapprove or verify. If there was proof it would have been presented, but it doesn't exist which is why the claims are nebulous and emotional, conservative claims tend to be nebulous and emotional because the people who follow them don't understand thresholds for evidence and rationally following the scientific process. More democrats do, because this method of thought is part of university curriculums. How to root-cause a problem and see past bullshit, this is a core part of solving large, complex problems, and also allows you to see how transparent those conservatives' emotional calls to action actually are.
So, sure. We know some, and we could know more. But my question to you, do you believe that conservatives are in good-faith exploring this question and intending to change their behaviors based on the outcome? Or, are they doing something else? Observe them and think about it.
Does a conservative, in good faith, want to know if a child if that age can be gender disphoric? What would they realistically do if this was proven to them? Change their stance? Like they did on.. climate change, election outcomes, gay people, black people...? Given above examples we know clearly what they would do. Suppress, deny, deflect.
But, you can still want to know. Pursue this question and do your best to answer it, ignoring people who don't have expertise in children and child development, and ask what the views of respected scientific institutions are on this matter.
Your opinion matters, it's the only thing that ever has, or in short, you're asking the right questions, just be sure to go to good faith experts, and not bad faith politicians, for the answers.
A lot of text to say, "I don't know, but I know conservatives don't want to know, and I know where to start in order to get a good faith, non-emotional answer. Hopefully you do too."
-
They do and its a problem. They strawman the issue or call it "gender affirming care", but there is an issue. The big problem is not if we should treat children with gender dysphoria, its that we indoctrinating little kids and then say that we want to start medicating them and treating them for something that they dont have.
