Youtube comments of Snuzzle (@Snuzzled).
-
4600
-
1900
-
1500
-
1300
-
858
-
530
-
234
-
214
-
212
-
204
-
189
-
185
-
173
-
169
-
165
-
145
-
130
-
129
-
126
-
117
-
99
-
This is their entire business model. They make it incredibly lucrative for drivers, and incredibly cheap for riders, at the beginning. When Uber first came in to my city, I was constantly getting pushed offers for 50 percent off rides or $5 off the next three rides, and rides were already very cheap. I could take a five mile trip for five bucks, not including tip. It was easy to tip well, and I would take ubers occasionally when the bus was being unreliable or if I just didn't feel like walking.
Now? Uber is charging $30 minimum for a five mile ride, surge pricing is even more. I never get any offers for any amount of discount, so I only use them if it's an absolute emergency.
But the problem is, they were so cheap for so long that a lot of taxi companies have gone under. And a lot of users are used to uber/lyft now anyway and wouldn't even know how to get a taxi if they even wanted to.
They lost money for a while, but they're gaining it back in spades. Their plan has paid off: they basically planned to lose money at the beginning to drive away competition and hook users on their service, and now we aren't left with much else.
Same thing with Doordash and Uber Eats. I never get promos on my accounts anymore, and fees keep going up and up. They are well established, so they don't have to compete anymore. So they are comfortable jacking up the prices.
98
-
85
-
82
-
81
-
79
-
79
-
66
-
58
-
54
-
53
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
30
-
30
-
28
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
@nickthepostpunk5766 Autogynephilia is a proposed typology wherein a person is aroused by the thought of themselves as a woman. The original paper by Blanchard was only studied in trans women, but was never compared to cis women. This was a mistake, as it meant that it was never shown to be something unique to trans women. And when cis women were held to the same standards, of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93 percent of cis women were autogynephilic according to a 2009 study
One cannot declare that a condition is unique to a certain group without testing other groups, right?
The relevance is, that if cis women are overwhelmingly autogynephilic, then it's just a natural part of women's sexuality. And therefore, it shouldn't be shocking or seen as a negative that trans women also experience this. It's not a condition, it's just human sexuality.
Some children who are referred to gender clinics are simply gay. Those children do not get diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The criteria for gender dysphoria diagnosis in youth is extremely strict. Autism and "difficult family backgrounds" have nothing whatsoever to do with gender incongruence. Stating such is a bit like the old myth that being gay is caused by lack of a father figure in a young boy's life, or a smothering mother.
Gender clinics, as I said, are very thorough in ensuring that medical steps are right for a patient before allowing them to happen. That's why the regret rate for medical transition remains the lowest of any medical procedure, at less than two percent.
23
-
22
-
@paulhammond6978 It's an oft-cited statistic by transphobes: that there was a 400 percent increase in afab adolescents being referred to NHS gender clinics. But it's important to note a few things here. First, it wasn't that long ago that the general society at large didn't even know trans men or afab trans people existed; this significantly impacts these people's ability to communicate their experiences and reality to the adults in their life, or even to understand that they're trans in the first place.
Second, being referred to the clinic does not mean the patient will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
Third, gender non-conforming behavior is much more socially acceptable among perceived girls than perceived boys. A girl who wants a short haircut, eschews dresses, plays with "boy things," etc, is far more likely to have adults just shrug it off than a boy who wants to grow out his hair, wears makeup, wants to wear a dress, etc. This ability to help alleviate social dysphoria to a degree can help explain why fewer afab adolescents see an immediate need to transition. There's much more wiggle room to say "Well, I can tolerate this, for now. Maybe forever. We'll see."
20
-
20
-
20
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@saje239 So, according to you, if we cut out all the fluff and repetition (1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are just the same point slightly reworded) "gender ideology" is the belief that trans people exist as the gender they say they are.
Then, would anti-trans beliefs not also be an ideology? The belief that sex should supercede gender, that birth sex is somehow an objective truth that has nothing at all to do with what superficial genitals the doctor observes, that biological sex isn't a spectrum, etc.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@CostlyMussel 391 1) You can reject the premise all you like, but your feelings don't affect the objective reality that we do, in fact, exist.
2) Again, merely telling kids that these people exist does not inevitably lead them to have "an identity crisis." I was told all my life that trans people didn't exist, and yet I am trans. Identity does not work that way.
A boy who likes to wear dresses can still be a boy in dresses. That does not conflict with trans people at all.
There's nothing wrong with exploring your gender, just like there's nothing wrong with exploring any other facet of your identity. Most people who explore their gender will turn out to be cis. We know this is the case from multiple studies.
You cannot make a child believe they are another gender merely by telling them it is an option. Again, that is not how identity works.
3) Sure, some might. But believe it or not, autistic kids aren't stupid. They do know, very strongly, what they do and don't like. They're the least likely to follow trends and that's why they don't fit in. They tend not to follow social norms that they don't like, or don't understand (eg, small talk, eye contact, beauty standards like makeup because of sensory issues, etc).
4
-
@markrussell3428 Gender can be fluid. For most people, it isn't though. Sěxuality can also be fluid and is also a social construct, but it's equally very real.
Transgender identity never was a "confusion related to the binary." And plenty of people who aren't trans have all those characteristics you just mentioned, naturally or surgically. Did you know nearly every gender affirming surgery was originally created for cis people, and then merely tailored to the unique anatomy of trans people?
The reason we don't "affirm" eating disorders is that harms the person, physically and emotionally. Would you agree it would make an anorexic feel better or worse to tell them "You're right, you're fat, fattie"? However, we know that affirming a person's gender helps their emotional and mental health, and not doing so hurts both of those things. The only possible argument you could make is "physical harm" but is it "harm" for someone to modify their body in a way you don't like if they are happy about it? An anorexic losing too much weight will kìll them; their organs will shut down. A trans person getting top surgery is just.... a trans person who has less brěast tissue than they did before. (And most of them retain their nìpples, lol)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@whayes3rd 1. Yes, there is no known biological marker for gender. Gender is an identity, it has nothing to do with your physical anatomy.
1b. Men and women can do whatever they want. This includes trans men and trans women, as wl as cis men and cis women. It doesn't define them as a person, it's simply their gender. What does it mean to "feel" left handed? How do you know your favorite color? Can you describe to me why you are the gender you are without using anatomical terms or language? How do you know?
2. It's true that brain scans have shown more similarities between the brains of trans and cis women than trans women and cis men, however they're not a reliable indicator of transness because brains are a spectrum. You cannot look at a brain scan in a vacuum and say "yup, that's a woman's brain." The scan results are interesting, but they're just one piece of a bigger puzzle.
3. Gender identity can be fluid, but for most people it isn't. Just like sexuality can be fluid, but most people are either straight or gay or bi/pan or ace, and that doesn't ever change.
4. Gender dysphoria is a specific type of "not feeling right." There are a litany of mental health disorders associated with "not feeling right" but mental health professionals have diagnostic criteria to identify which one it is. For example, is it depression? Or bipolar? Or maybe it's just stress? It could also be a vitamin deficiency, or a thyroid condition. There are numerous conditions that can seem similar to a layperson, but that's where the professionals come in and help.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@cgpcgp3239 @cgpcgp3239 Gender: c.1300, "kind, sort, class," from O. Fr. gendre (12c., Mod. Fr. genre), from stem of L. genus (gen. generis) "race, stock, family; kind, rank, order; species," also (male or female) "sex" (see genus) and used to translate Aristotle's Greek grammatical term genos. The grammatical sense is attested in English from late 14c.; the man-or-woman from early 15c. Sex came to mean "sexual intercourse" in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and meaning "genitalia" is attested from 1938. "Sex appeal" attested by 1904. It is around this time that gender became more meaning physical sex rather than man/woman boy/girl.
So, no. You are wrong, and will continue to be wrong.
Gender being separate from sex was happening as early as the 1940s, perhaps earlier (we lost quite a lot of literature from the largest transgender institute in the 1930s in Germany...) This idea that so-called "gender ideology" or in other words "trans people exist" is younger than Taylor Swift is nonsense.
Gender is a social construct. That's a fact. Guess what? So is the category of sex because humans created those two boxes. So of course most humans fit into one of those two boxes, because we made the boxes to fit what we saw. If we decided to categorize every human into "blue eyes" and "brown eyes" we'd find that, hey, pretty much every human fits into those boxes too! It doesn't mean very much except that we made the boxes so we decided the rules.
That's all Abigail means when she said sex is changeable through medical intervention. Many, though of course not all, of the characteristics that determine which box a person goes in can be changed. When someone fits most of the characteristics of one box, and only some of the characteristics of the other, which box ought they to go in?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A) No one is claiming one's gender identity is determined by biological sex, but I bet you'd be incredibly distressed if you suddenly began developing sex characteristics of the opposite of what you have.
Puberty blockers are not "risky" and they're used for more than chemical castration on adults. On minors, we've been using them for decades to safely delay puberty. Your deliberately inflammatory sentence is the same as saying "Dihydrogen monoxide is a byproduct of nuclear power production and inhaling just a tablespoon is enough to kill you!" Yes, it is, and it's also water.
Who thinks "all it takes to be a woman is some lipstick"? Who is claiming this? Do you think people are going through these surgeries and procedures because they genuinely improve their lives? Again, if you woke up tomorrow with the other sex's characteristics.... would you just shrug, and continue to go about your life as you did before, completely unbothered?
B) No, that doesn't mean that trans kids have a mental disorder. Also, you should know, we tried "curing" trans people in the way you suggest for decades. That's what we did before we started saying "Hey, why don't we just try letting them live as the gender they keep saying they are?" because guess what? You can't change someone's gender. There is no psychotherapy that works. Because there's no psychological issue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Correct. You don't need dysphoria to be trans. One's gender is not defined by how miserable one is or is not.
I don't think you've ever actually visited r/lgbt. The actual detrans rate is about 1 percent, not 0.001 percent, and I frequently see that mentioned. Why do you gotta lie to make the other side look bad? Does your assertion not stand on its own? Also, you cannot "indoctrinate" children into, or out of, being trans, no matter how hard people keep trying the latter.
If by "make it so there are more trans people around," you mean "try to ensure fewer trans people unalive" then of course everyone should support that. If you mean "try to make more people believe there trans," no, no one would do that. Trans people know how much it sucks to try to live as a gender you're not, that's why we come out. We don't need to make more people trans, we need more cis allies.
I wonder why most trans people are left wing? 🤔 It couldn't be because conservatives continually try to take away our rights, demonize us, and tell us we're horrible people just for existing. Nah. There must be some other reason.
Who is "gaslighting children into doubting their identity"? Mate, all that is happening is kids are being told that trans people exist. If that makes your kid doubt their identity....
Neural plasticity doesn't mean you can make kids be another gender. Check out what happened to David Reimer.
Kids being taken away from parents who are denying them medical care, performing at-home conversion therapy, and emotionally abusing their kids? How horrible, right? /s
I wish trans people had even ten percent as much power as you think we do.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ryanthomas9306 Fun fact! You can actually look up his salary! Thanks to the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act in Ontario, the salaries of those who work in the public sector and make more than 100k/yr are free and public information. If we look at 2014 (the year before Zucker was fired), we can see he was making roughly $125,000/yr. The settlement was reached in 2018. That's three years, or roughly $376,500 in lost wages. Zucker was awarded $400,000 in damages, $11,000 in interest, and $175,000 in legal fees. Not $500,000 in pure damages. I can quote the actual legal settlement document if you like, but it's easy enough to find online.
So, that's roughly equal to his three years lost wages in damages (376k vs 400k, he may be factoring in raises or inflation to make up the difference or maybe he just likes round numbers). Interest on said wages, 11k, or 2.75 percent. Then his legal fees. The bulk is lost wages though.
Additionally, as part of the settlement, CAMH was required to put out an apology for 30 days, which essentially stated their wrongdoings were firing Zucker without letting him review the report before hand (Zucker himself states he was fired an hour before the report went public, this was indeed one of his grievances) and stated that there were "some errors" in it, including an untrue accusation that Zucker called a patient "a hairy little vermin." The apology explicitly states that the report was not commenting on his clinical practice as a whole. He was, in fact, performing conversion therapy, and the clinic was shut down when conversion therapy was banned. That is true and verifiable.
So yeah. They recomped his lost wages and legal costs and apologized for mishandling it. That's all. Which I know, because unlike you, I looked into it instead of just making random guesses about his wage lol.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Trans identified boys" is an anti-trans term to mean trans girls. Do not pretend your language is more neutral, or more common.
Gender is not a choice, an idea, a mental state, or a deep mysterious "true self". It is an identity, like every other identity (and yes, sex categories are a social construct). Sex is assigned at birth, it cannot be observed because it is a category. You can observe sex traits, like genitals, but the category itself cannot be observed because it is an abstract concept.
Sex is a bimodial distribution, since you cheerfully admit that not everyone falls into the two sex categories. Binary means only two, period, ever, no exceptions, not even rare ones. That is what binary means, since you care about objective definitions so much. There is never a 3 or 9 in binary code. There is 1, and 0, period.
No one is trying to replace sex with gender. They exist as independent categories that typically overlap, but do not always. Like you said! Rare exceptions :)
There is no more such a thing as "transgender ideology" today as there was "the gay agenda" in the 90s. Times change, the target of bigotry changes, but the ideas never do. You say trans ideology, I hear "gay agenda." You say trans identified boys, I hear "same sex attraction struggles." You say erasure of sex, I hear "erasure of the sanctity of marriage." It's all the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@captaintorch1238 None of that is true. If you take a child off puberty blockers, puberty proceeds as normal. We know this because we have used them for close to 40 years to treat precocious puberty.
Also, I agree it would be wrong to give transition medical treatment to a three year old. That never happens. Puberty doesn't even begin until 9 or 10, so why would anyone give puberty blockers to a 3 year old? Blockers are not given until tanner stage 2 of puberty, which typically occurs around age 11 to 13, and only when the child shows extreme and debilitating distress around the changes that are happening to their body. These medications are not given lightly.
For many children, yes, dysphoria does go away once puberty starts, BUT we also know that if dysphoria persists into puberty, it almost always (as in, over 95 percent of cases) persists through adulthood and the rest of their life. That's why we don't give blockers or HRT or surgery before puberty.
1
-
1
-
@albertfralinger2711 That doesn't answer my question. What concerns do you consider reasonable? For example, I consider it reasonable to take children to see professional doctors if they're experiencing distress or discomfort about their gender and that it's reasonable the doctor may give them blockers or hrt at appropriate ages (eg, a six year old would only socially transition, a 16 year old may receive hrt). Some others consider that very unreasonable, despite the fact that we know these treatments are safe and effective, and very few people regret medical transition.
I consider it reasonable that trans women can compete in most sports with cis women after having been on testosterone suppressants for at least one to three years, depending on the sport, because we know that the advantages amab bodies have all comes from testosterone, and we know that this time period is sufficient to remove samesaid advantages. Others consider that unreasonable, despite the studies and real world evidence we have that trans women are not being overrepresented in women's sports achievements or records.
So again, I ask you, what do you consider "reasonable concerns"? It's ok to have concerns if you don't have knowledge. But then you ought to gain more knowledge to either assuage or validate your concerns. Then they're no longer concerns, either way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zachburskey8868 @Zach Burskey I'm going to ignore the attempt to be inflammatory, and focus on your arguments.
1. Precocious puberty isn't life threatening, it does impact a child's mental health though. It's linked to greater anxiety, social issues, substance abuse, etc. Sort of like untreated gender dysphoria. I am sure there is a good reason you didn't mention that, though, and focused on the cancers.
I don't know what lobotomy has to do with schizophrenia, or anything we are discussing here. Surely you don't think lobotomy is comparable to the potential for lower bone density due to late onset of puberty?
2. No, it isn't.
"Using puberty blockers can make your bones weaker while you are taking them. The medical term for this is “decreased bone density.” Your bones may get stronger when you stop taking puberty blockers or start taking hormone therapy." And "Puberty blockers do not cause permanent changes to the body." Source: oregon health and science university
3. Why did you put "trans" in quotes? Trans kids exist. Anyway, you're correct that pubertal changes are irreversible, which is why we use puberty blockers to give kids more time. All you've said here only supports my point, so thank you for that!
1
-
1
-
@runawaymindrambles I do agree that most of the issues people have with medical treatment of trans youth stems from lack of information. And I also agree that everyone has the best interest of the kids at heart, but the problem is when people act on lack of information or misinformation, which hurts the kids. Look at the other person in this thread Zach, who is making wild and baseless claims not supported by the actual sources he's citing. I'm sure he does think he's doing the right thing, but the problem is he doesn't even think trans kids exist, which is going to cause untold suffering on those very real trans kids who can't get the medical treatment they really need.
Puberty blockers allow kids to take it slow and have the time they need to grow, mature, and think. It allows their doctor and psychological team more time to evaluate the child and ensure they're making the right choice. It allows the family more time to discuss things with each other, and with the child, and get used to this new path of the child's life. And the only downside is a later puberty may cause slightly lower bone density. If you were to ask any trans adult if they could trade a slightly higher risk of bone fracture to avoid having had to go through the wrong puberty, nearly all of us would say yes, in a heartbeat yes. But people aren't listening to trans people, or to trans children, or to the medical experts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisarussell2496 Yes, a 300% mortality rate. The surgeon, Robert Liston, was performing an amputation on a patient's leg. He accidentally sliced his assistant's finger. The patient and the assistant both succumbed to sepsis, and a spectator died of shock.
Amputation is certainly not solving no problem. Oh, you mean gender affirming surgeries? You're wrong about those too; they have overwhelmingly positive impacts on the patients' quality of life and significantly lessen gender dysphoria. Moreover, they're the only treatment that works to resolve the dysphoria so well.
We treat many psychiatric conditions with surgery. For example, deep brain stimulation surgically implants electrodes into the brain to treat severe and debilitating depression or OCD.
To state that these are "healthy body parts" is a bit subjective, don't you think? If a person has JJ cup breasts, they could be very healthy. However, they are also causing her back pain and significantly impacting her mental health due to their size. Still healthy? Most doctors would have no problem agreeing that surgical reduction is the best course for her. In cases of gynecomastia, cis men grow very healthy breast tissue due to underlying intersex conditions or hormone imbalance. Again, the tissue is healthy. Yet, no one would bat an eye at him removing it. Yet for trans men, somehow, it's different? They don't have the right to their own bodily autonomy to alter it in a way that improves their mental health without negative physical side effects? That's a human rights violation: bodily autonomy?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CJ-wh3zy Asking the question is legitimate, but he didn't ask it in a legitimate way. It's fine to ask questions, gather data, and try to use these things to form your world view. Matt Walsh went in with a preconceived notion (that trans people aren't the gender they say they are) and then worked backwards from there to justify that. For example, when he shows the interviews with the gender studies experts, he chops them up into pieces, at one point even fading in and out to give the viewer the impression that it's a long and complicated answer that doesn't mean anything.
But if that's the case, why not leave that whole answer in so we can decide for ourselves? Why cut it out? Because he doesn't want us to hear it. He doesn't want us to say "Huh, that makes sense."
A documentary just exploring what it means to be a woman would not be transphobic, but that's not what Matt Walsh made. He made a propoganda piece trying to affirm his world view, that trans people are delusional and harmful, and that's transphobic.
1
-
@CJ-wh3zy Here is the thing, though. You agree that, when he set out to make the video, he had a preconceived notion, yes? Would it also be fair, then, to state that his audience also had a preconceived notion going in to the film?
Why, then, would it not be a better idea to leave in more of the answers that challenge that notion, if the object of the piece was truly to explore what a woman is, and what it means to different people? I think you're being a little disengenuous if you can't admit that he chose to portray the pro-trans side in a decidedly negative light.
The people "just got up and left" because of the way he was deliberately phrasing his statements and questions. You may not be aware, but he was actually intentionally deceitful with the way he got a lot of these people in to be interviewed. When he was looking for people on the pro-trans side, he set up a website for a fake organization called the Gender Unity Project, with the actual people behind the project hidden under layers upon layers of registered agents and fake names (the person who contacted Eli Erlick, for example, used her first and middle name, because if you Google her first and last name it immediately comes up that she works with Matt Walsh.)
Matt Walsh also, quote, in his own words, "declare(d) an all out war on gender ideology" in regards to the creation of this film. You don't think that's transphobic?
These people were told, if we go by the email that Eli got, that the film would be quote "an independent documentary" "exploring the real lives of people in the lgbtqia+ community, and to shed some light on the topics of gender identity, and gender fluidity." I think a reasonable person would agree that is not an accurate description of the film that was produced. It sounds very neutral, positive even, and I believe you did agree that Matt Walsh's opinion of trans people is not neutral, and the film is not neutral. When these people realized that they were not being interviewed in good faith, they left.
In one case, the person was a medical professional, and she simply asked Matt to stop using inflammatory phrases like I believe it was "giving drugs to children" (it's been a while since I've watched the thing, and I don't plan on watching it again so I don't recall the exact quote) and he refused. So she left.
I agree that bias in creating an informative documentary is inevitable, but that doesn't mean that it can't be handled in a responsible way. When you know you are walking into a topic with a bias, you have even more responsibility to ensure you're not misrepresentating the other side (which I'd argue Matt did intentionally), and to ensuring your facts are correct (which his were not, not even close; he asserts that phalloplasty has a 67 percent complication rate when the reality is it is about thirty percent for both cis and trans men).
Matt is not shy about stating exactly what he believes, directly inside the film. Quote: "You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys." He then calls it "vile nonsense" and "poison."
Is it really not transphobic to call trans people "deranged predators"?
1
-
@CJ-wh3zy You're seriously saying it's normal for people to misrepresent a film's purpose and hide the true makers when seeking out folks to interview for a film? That.... seems very unlikely and if that's true, it needs to change. Shady practices shouldn't be the norm. People typically have to disclose things such as the book's title, author, and publisher when interviewing someone for a book. Why is the same not true for a movie?
I don't think it's morally ok to basically trick people into a film with a false pretense, and then point to the fact that they left when they realized what the film was actually about as a "win". Not saying you did this, but a lot of Matt Walsh fans definitely feel quite pleased with themselves when they saw the interviewers get up and leave, as though they simply couldn't answer Matt's simple questions. However, in context, I think it's pretty clear that's not the reason they left. These people should have been given the opportunity to give honest consent, and they got mad when they found out they weren't. That's understandable and reasonable.
If no pro-trans people agree to be in his film when he honestly told them what it is about, well, that says a lot. He could still use quotes from pro-trans people, their articles, their research documents, etc. It wouldn't necessarily make the film more one sided by not being able to interview them in person. He used one trans teen boy's top surgery photos in his film (without the boy's consent, by the way) as well as clips from multiple trans peoples' tiktok and YouTube videos. And while it's true that these people put their videos online, and it may be legally fair use, I'm not sure, it shows that he's not shy about bringing people into the conversation without having them personally there to be interviewed.
The words I would use to describe puberty blockers, aside from "puberty blockers," is medication, or more specifically a GnRH agonist. Hormone agonist, perhaps, for short, as that's what they do. I might use the brand name, Lupron. I wouldn't say "I'm having my morning drugs" when I drink my morning cup of coffee, even though caffeine is a drug and a stimulant. I'm glad you can agree that Matt was using deliberately emotive language there.
As far as a way we can talk, I'm not sure. I don't really use other social media like Twitter. YouTube doesn't really have a direct message system as far as I know.
I do want to thank you for listening and keeping an open mind. For what it's worth, if you want some more accurate data (though again, it will have a decidedly pro trans bias) I can recommend Cass Eris' channel. She did a wonderful breakdown on Abigail Shrier's book about trans youth, and you'll find a lot of the same statistics and papers Matt Walsh used. There's really a common theme with a lot of these anti-trans folks using the same data points over and over, so the nice part about that is that when someone brings actual data to the table it handily addresses dozens of videos and articles at once. Cass is a cognitive psychologist so she has the educational background necessary to really go in depth into the papers and break them down into layperson speech.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Their issue was assuming consumer behavior wouldn't change when the cost of a movie drastically changed via their plan. They saw that consumers were viewing movies as a treat, doing so rarely and making an evening of it: going out to eat, shopping, and seeing a movie all in one night. But the reason we were doing that was because it was so expensive that we couldn't afford to do otherwise.
When the cost suddenly changed to $120/yr, no matter how many movies we saw, of course consumer behavior would change. It suddenly became cheaper to treat movies like an everyday frivolous thing, and the old behavior of treating ourselves to a meal out and a shopping trip at the same time as a whole thing, became prohibitively expensive. Most people simply can't afford to go out to eat every day, but all of a sudden we could afford to see a movie every day. In fact, the more movies we saw, the more affordable each movie became. Only a fool wouldn't see how much this would influence consumer behavior.
It would be like seeing that people rent luxury cars for things like proms and weddings, and saying "Well, people do all these other things when they rent a luxury car!" Then making a subscription service where you could rent a brand new luxury car as much as you wanted, for just $100 a month, and assuming they'd do so rarely and spend a lot of money when they do. Of course they wouldn't! Of course people would be renting a Benz to drive down to Mcdonald's! Why wouldn't they?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CostlyMussel 391 The kids with precocious puberty. The sěxual function of those kids is not impaired by puberty blockers. Gender dysphoria is a different condition, but what is the physical reason why it would have a different outcome on those patients when the manner of use is the same?
You're still not citing sources or specifying complaints.
"Girls who claim to be boys" so trans boys. Just say trans boys. And that's probably true, but not necessarily. If all they're getting is keyhole, that keeps all the ducts intact. Any surgery on the breast, including minor reduction and augmentation, has the potential to impair breastfeeding. I'm going to gently suggest that if you think the breast is "always completely removed" you don't actually know much about the surgery or various methods used. Look up "keyhole technique" and "periareolar technique." Look up "lollipop technique." These are all methods which leave the nipple stalk intact, and the former two are very conservative techniques. Keyhole doesn't even remove any skin, it just removes tissue and sews the skin back up.
Excess estrogen is not what causes gynecomastia, and it certainly has nothing to do with "being raised to be weak." It's typically caused by normal fluctuations in testosterone during puberty, and most often resolves by late puberty. However, many teen boys seek surgery to resolve it earlier because it's impacting their self esteem. Yes, I see no reason why it wouldn't have been happening to teens for the entirety of human life, just like we've always had humans with poor eyesight.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CostlyMussel 391 I did in another comment chain, remember? "The gender identity typically associated with, but not exclusive to, female humans."
Again, if I search Google, my results will be wildly different from yours. Why can't you just say them here?
A 15 year old boy likely won't care much about breastfeeding either. And even if the teen was a girl, which they're not, not everyone wants to have kids, not everyone wants to nurse them, not everyone can nurse them if they wanted to, and deciding which medical decisions female humans can make about their bodies because "what if you want kids later" is the epitome of paternalism.
1
-
1
-
@CostlyMussel 391 Woman is the gender identity typically associated with female humans. I cannot describe it because it means different things to different people, but clearly it exists because many people feel very strongly that they are or are not a woman. Can you describe the color blue? Like, just because something is intangible and we don't have the language to describe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I am unable to find any studies showing puberty blockers increase risk of stroke. Estrogen therapy can increase risk of stroke, but that's a known risk for anyone taking exogenous estrogen, including teens and women on hormonal birth control. That's why they tell you not to smoke if you take hormonal bc. Joint pain and bone issues are commonly associated with late onset puberty, not puberty blockers themselves (Association Between Age at Puberty and Bone Accrual From 10 to 25 Years of Age
Ahmed Elhakeem, PhD1,2; Monika Frysz, PhD3; Kate Tilling, PhD1,2; et al, 2019). Muscle loss is typical with pubertal suppression, and from what I can find goes back to normal after onset of either natal or HRT puberty, especially in trans boys and others experiencing testosterone puberty.
The point of my third paragraph was that children know what gender they are but at young ages may be confused about what makes them a boy or a girl. I'm not saying being a girl means having long hair and frankly, that seems to be a deliberately bad faith interpretation of my statement as I made it quite clear that that's what a four year old thinks
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lukaslambs5780 The thing is, you think you don't have biases against trans people, but you also just admitted to a bias. You believe that trans women, and "anyone who went through a male puberty," will always and forever have an advantage over folks who did not, when the science does not bear this out. It has been shown that after just a few years on testosterone suppressants, trans women have no statistical athletic advantage over cis women.
Furthermore, we know that black cis women have denser bones than white cis men. So bone density can't really be a factor, otherwise we would be seeing black cis women showing an advantage in athletics, and not only do we not see that but we really don't want to go down that road because we've been there before; it's racist.
Look at all the factors you listed. Height? We don't segregate sports based on height. Muscle fibers? People with more fast twitch already gravitate towards sports where they excel with them, and they're not as cleanly cut down sex lines as you may think. Hemoglobin? Not only does this not matter in sports, but again, it does change on HRT. Reaction times? That's muscle fibers again! Heart size? That's height again! Bigger bodies need a bigger heart. You're bringing up things that either don't matter, do change, or aren't neatly split based on estrogenic vs androgenic puberty.... because of your bias.
That's the dangerous thing about biases. It's so hard to see them when you're mired in one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zachman5150 lmao wait, your citation for those figures is the Zucker paper? No wonder I could not find it, you got the numbers all wrong.
First, there wasn't 20 years between the initial presentation at the clinic and desistence, the children were a mean of 7 at the start and a mean of 20 at the end, meaning there were thirteen years in between.
Second, there wasn't a desistence rate of 88 percent, it was 88 percent didn't identify as trans at the end but initially only 63 percent met the criteria for gender identity disorder (which didn't require one to identify as another gender in 1989, when the children were initially presented to the clinic). That's a desistence rate of 80 percent, not 88 percent.
Third, like I said, this study began with a clinical diagnosis that's over thirty years out of date. Gender dysphoria in youth now requires one to identify as another gender. It did not in 1989.
Finally, the study showed that 63 percent were either gay or bi, not 93 percent.
Anything else? 🎤
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly I can't say I've noticed this phenomenon. Not all the videos on my feed are of interest to me, but at least I can understand where they came from. I, like a lot of people, have recently looked up a few things about Baldur's Gate 3. And now I'm seeing more BG3 content on my feed.
I keep up on news about World of Warcraft, and follow some of the big name players. I frequently see Asmongold (a popular WOW youtuber) recommended in my feed, but I don't enjoy his content. I understand why it's there, though
Everything in my feed, while not necessarily of interest to me, at least makes sense why it's there. I'm not getting completely random recommendations, like how to milk goats, or something.
I do enjoy content about the inner workings of YouTube, so your video here was of interest to me too. I like to watch the Spiffing Brit and how he completely breaks the YouTube algorithm, so I suspect that's why your video got recommended to me.
I do subscribe to YouTube red, if that matters. They may be using a different algorithm for paid users, to ensure we don't get frustrated with the service and stop paying?
Also, idk if this is just for red members too, but at the top of my feed are keyword bubbles so I can narrow things down like you said, based on my recent viewing. Like if I really want to only listen to my creepypastas, I can click the bubble that says "creepypastas" and it'll only show me videos in that genre. It'll usually have things like creepypastas, world of warcraft, gaming, crafting, and stuff like that for me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@herbertwest1419 I agree that many people have ideologically motivated definitions of child abuse. For example, in "Irreversible Damage," several of the parents report having to dig and dig and dig online to find any sort of material supporting their belief that allowing a trans child to transition is child abuse. I would call that ideological when all those other major sources disagree with the parent, and they have to go out of their way to find anyone who agrees.
I've never seen the trans community be dismissive of detrans people, though I've oft heard it said. The fact is, transition has the most successful rate of satisfaction of pretty much any medical treatment for any condition, and yet people hyper focus on the tiny number of folks who it wasn't right for. Let's even say it's 3 percent, which is about three times the rate most studies suggest. Are you asserting that all of these people not only aren't trans anymore (which isn't true, many people detransition temporarily due to social pressure, financial reason, discrimination, or just being unsure) but also that they regret their transition so much they wish they never had? Because even out of the small amount of people who detransition, only a small amount of them did so because they realized they weren't trans. And of that small amount who realized they weren't trans, most of them feel their transition was either helpful in discovering who they were, or a mix of harmful and helpful. Only about a quarter feel like it was solely harmful and wish they hadn't done it. We're talking vanishingly small amounts of people. Yes, those people are real and their experience matters, but it would be like bringing up the amount of people whose planes crash every time someone goes on vacation. Like yeah, it's a risk, but it's a tiny one, and we have a lot of protections in place to ensure it happens to the smallest amount of people possible. Why focus on it?
You seem to be saying that minorities are destined to be oppressed. I don't agree. Billionaires are also a minority, way more of a minority than trans people, and they're obscenely powerful. Being a minority alone does not an oppressed class make. Likewise, women make up the majority of the world population and yet are a marginalized class. Women are also not overwhelmingly extreme left.
I have no idea what point you're making with violent crime victims wanting to ban adult content.
If us wanting equal rights is where you put your foot down and say "enough is enough" then, no we haven't made our point about being here and queer.
I agree that anyone can and should experiment with their gender, in the same way that anyone can and should experiment with their sęxuality, and any other facet of their identity. And most kids and teens do, to varying extents. Try things on, see what sticks, discard things that don't. That's part of growing up. Stifling it only delays the process and harms people. Since you can't make someone be another gender, there's no harm in exploring it. A boy will always come out a boy after exploring his gender. The only people "confused" by this seem to be hand-wringing adults who don't understand that. People are and were already being hurt by not telling them that these options exist and are ok. There's no "what if" there, we know the cost of hiding this from people.
There is no "trans ideology." There is just tbe fact that trans people exist, and it's good to let us exist. Just like there's no "gay agenda". It's a made up buzzword to fear monger about a marginalized group. Xenogender doesn't mean "anything or nothing at all." It means "any genders that aren't associated with the traditional man and woman." Nobody is telling people they can identify as cats, please don't drag this down with attack helicopter jokes.
"Cis" isn't an initialism, there is no need to capitalize it. You can just say cis allyship. What is unrealistic and unlimited about "please just let us have the same rights as cis people"? What is extreme and revolutionary about "sometimes people are assigned a gender based on their body and that doesn't fit them"? Do you realize this paragraph could be seamlessly transposed to be said by any majority group, about any marginalized group, at any point in history? It was "revolutionary" to see Black folks as equal to white folks. It was "extreme" to give women the vote and the right to have property of their own. It was "utopian" to let gay people marry their parters. Schoolbooks had to be rewritten! They couldn't say things like "everyone must have his own pencil" anymore.
No, conservatives shouldn't be obsessed with trans kids. You've proven, in fact, that you are very loudly uninformed about thr entirety of the topic whatsoever.
1
-
1