For fetus viability : I do agree that the future may change this, but I think for now this criteria works pretty well. We're even usually more conservative than the actual viability (delay in France in 14 weeks).
⠀
⠀
As for trans rights, I agree some questions are legitimate, but I do think it's useful to know who asks them, for two reasons…
For fetus viability : I do agree that the future may change this, but I think for now this criteria works pretty well. We're even usually more conservative than the actual viability (delay in France in 14 weeks).
⠀
⠀
As for trans rights, I agree some questions are legitimate, but I do think it's useful to know who asks them, for two reasons :
⠀
- Knowing they have a larger agenda and history of discrimination questions their honesty not only in the data they present (if they even bother to do that), but also in the way they frame the questions.
⠀
- The mere fact of talking about these questions further their agenda. Should we not talk about them just because of that ? No, but we have to be wary of what it creates. I think a good way of doing that is not only to be evidence-based (of course), but also to balance that with other trans rights questions where their stances are just unreasonable, and to put them into context.
My worry is that someone reading about it and not being very knowledgeable on the topic might fixate on specific issues (purposefully put forward by the right as an ideological trojan horse) and forget about all the other more simple questions.
⠀
For example, the right is straight up prohibiting discussing the topic in school, they have a weird fixation on drag shows (and conflating that with trans rights because they don't know what they're talking about), and should we talk about the recent misgendering and harrasment of Imane Khelif ?
⠀
And even when they're talking about topics where we should indeed look at the evidence, they're routinely dishonest about the topic.
⠀
1. Changing rooms :
If they were really honest about minimizing harm, they wouldn't be supporting policies to exclude trans women from women's rooms. Because we have two choices :
- Trans women in men's bathroom : very likely to lead to more sexual assault of trans women
- Trans women in women's bathroom : would you care to share your data point ? I couldn't find it. Although if there's only one data point (when there's many reporting higher rate of sexual assault against trans women), I think the most reasonable stance in absence of more data is to support trans women in women's rooms.
⠀
There could be the solution of a third room, but that's probably not realistic, and also feels segregatory, as it would out trans people. Also I've never seen the right defend that. Probably because they don't really care about people's safety from sexual assault. They just weaponize that to exclude trans people. Otherwise they would talk about trans women being assaulted.
⠀
2. Sports :
This is a more complicated issue I agree. I don't have an opinion on this as I don't know how much it influences the result, depending on the sport, the precise process of transition, etc.
I haven't looked at the data yet. Do you have date showing it's a very common issue ?
⠀
Because it doesn't feel like there are a ton of trans women suddenly taking over women's sports. As far as I know there has been no case of a trans woman getting an olympic medal this year (despite the right losing their shit about Imane Khelif).
And Hergie Bacyadan is a trans man but competed with women in the Olympics (because he didn't undergo any gender affirming care if I understand well), and didn't win a medal anyway.
⠀
I'm only focusing on the Olympics (but after all they're supposed to be the best of the best), but it doesn't look like it's a huge problem.
⠀
Is it a question ? Yes.
Is the right suddenly really interested in women's sports to further their anti-trans agenda ? Evidently.
⠀
3. Child transition
Generally the right uses a pretend will to protect children to further their agenda, but I don't think it stands to scrutiny.
⠀
The right presents gender affirming care in the younger population as "they're mutilating children", but in reality :
- genital surgery is never performed before age 18
- hormone therapy is rarely started before at least late adolescence, and after extensive evaluation (and is partially reversible)
- puberty blockers might be prescribed, which is good because they're reversible
- social transition may also happen, which is reversible too
Plus I think you agree we should listen to professionnals on medical issues. And the consensus seems to be gender-affirming care is overwhelmingly a good thing, even in kids :
So my stance on this is pretty simple (and as you can see largely supported by data) : the reality is way milder than the right pretends, and I trust mental health professionnals more than very very biased politicians to make individual decisions on kids health.
Basically : biological men and women have visible differences in the brain, and one of them is the size of a region call the "bed nucleus of the stria terminalis". It's bigger in male than females. Study shows that trans people have a region the size of their perceived gender (even without undergoing hormone therapy, so it's not a consequence but a cause, or at least correlated to a cause).
⠀
To me that's a very important piece of information. The right focuses a lot on saying trans kids are just influenced by the media, and are basically denying the reality of transidentity, but the science shows there's a biological origin to it. So to me, considering the data we have, the most obvious conclusion conclusion is trans people, including kids, should receive gender-affirming care adapted to their age and mental health, under the supervision of trained professionnals.
That's NOT what the right are supporting. They're not "asking questions", they're straight up forbidding it. They're basically killing children by doing that, as we've seen before.
⠀
⠀
So to summarize : every time I dig into these supposed issues, I find that it's either anecdotal, or that the scientific consensus is pretty clear, and (surprise surprise) not agreeing with the right.
And it's very obvious to me the right is hijacking the public debate with these supposed "reasonable stances" that are mostly baseless, because they know they sound reasonable at first glance.
I find myself in complete agreement with everything you wrote. That worries me a bit (because I like to think of myself as moderate even though I have clearly become left-leaning) but also gives me comfort. Thank you for taking the time to provide such clear arguments. I thought you might like to know that someone read and appreciated them.
Thanks, it does feel good that someone beside Tomas read my lengthy comments ^^
I have learned to stop putting a label on my political leaning. The overton window widened so much in the past few years that nothing makes sense anymore. Also it varies wildly depending on countries and issues.
I use to think myself as a moderate too, but the center has disappointed a lot. I'm french, and Macron was supposed to be exactly aligned with my politics, until he took a sharp turn right 2 years into his first mandate. I do think a lot of politicians pretending to be in the center are just traditional right (aka not complete lunatics). They had to relabel because the right parties became more and more conservative, but they're still rightwing.
For individuals it's different, but I have to agree with people to the left of me when they say centrists are generally just right-wing, because in many cases, I think authentic centrists are scammed by the right and then start to lean right (or maybe they were already leaning right). I've seen that happen many times, and I'm glad I escaped from it. That's also why I'm so vocal about it.
I don't think my political stance is represented by a party at all, so I generally define myself by my stance on some precise points. And if it's time to vote, any form of support to discriminations is a deal breaker for me, as it's a core value of mine. So I end up voting for the left, even though they sometimes say stupid shit (but anyway all politicians say stupid shit).
I think there's also a fundamental difference between the left and the right :
- the right, by definition, wants to keep things as they are (conservatives) or even go back to what they were (reactionaries). There are not many ways to do that, so they agree on most things.
- the left, on the contrary, want to change things. And there are infinite ways of changing things. Having only two significant parties in the US kinda masks that, but in most of the western world at least, there are many left parties, with different stances on different things, and different priorities. In the US I think they mostly constitute different camps within the Dems.
But they do form strong alliances when needed, as we've recently seen in the french elections (the left alliance ended up first in the elections, even though they're far from having the majority).
In any case, leaning left doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. I do agree with basically everything the left says about systemic oppression, but I also think communism is stupid, and I think the government should be strong in certain areas and even some public services should be state-owned, while also thinking the state should generally be weaker and less prone to make laws for absolutely every tiny detail of everything.
The problem with the label "moderate" is people often think it means "being kind in the middle about everything", when for me it means most "I agree with the people some call ultra woke on some issues, and I agree with the center right on others". That's why I can't identify with it any more. I'm half "fuck nazis" and half "capitalism is mostly good", that doesn't make me politically friendly to many people xD
Well stated (as expected)! Again, Laurent, I find nothing to disagree with about your stance and your experience seems to mirror mine in many ways. Since I mostly find myself debating friends on the extremes (my liberal friends think I'm conservative and my conservative friends think I'm liberal), it would be nice to occasionally converse with someone who seems to share my core values and perspectives. Please consider reaching out to my first and last name @ the-most-popular-free-email-service-run-by-a-search-engine-turned-major-international-conglomerate.com. Thanks!
I read them too Laurent - and share Bruce's admiration for them. You talk a lot of sense, thankyou.
I really like Tomas' blog, and I think he can be a champion for critical thinking with a wide reach. So it is vital that he is challenged with feedback like yours. It'll make him even better than he already is.
It is sometimes more of a pleasure and an experience to read the comments on a serious blog - this was one of those instances, so thanks to you both for a really good debate.
For fetus viability : I do agree that the future may change this, but I think for now this criteria works pretty well. We're even usually more conservative than the actual viability (delay in France in 14 weeks).
⠀
⠀
As for trans rights, I agree some questions are legitimate, but I do think it's useful to know who asks them, for two reasons :
⠀
- Knowing they have a larger agenda and history of discrimination questions their honesty not only in the data they present (if they even bother to do that), but also in the way they frame the questions.
⠀
- The mere fact of talking about these questions further their agenda. Should we not talk about them just because of that ? No, but we have to be wary of what it creates. I think a good way of doing that is not only to be evidence-based (of course), but also to balance that with other trans rights questions where their stances are just unreasonable, and to put them into context.
My worry is that someone reading about it and not being very knowledgeable on the topic might fixate on specific issues (purposefully put forward by the right as an ideological trojan horse) and forget about all the other more simple questions.
⠀
For example, the right is straight up prohibiting discussing the topic in school, they have a weird fixation on drag shows (and conflating that with trans rights because they don't know what they're talking about), and should we talk about the recent misgendering and harrasment of Imane Khelif ?
⠀
And even when they're talking about topics where we should indeed look at the evidence, they're routinely dishonest about the topic.
⠀
1. Changing rooms :
If they were really honest about minimizing harm, they wouldn't be supporting policies to exclude trans women from women's rooms. Because we have two choices :
- Trans women in men's bathroom : very likely to lead to more sexual assault of trans women
- Trans women in women's bathroom : would you care to share your data point ? I couldn't find it. Although if there's only one data point (when there's many reporting higher rate of sexual assault against trans women), I think the most reasonable stance in absence of more data is to support trans women in women's rooms.
⠀
There could be the solution of a third room, but that's probably not realistic, and also feels segregatory, as it would out trans people. Also I've never seen the right defend that. Probably because they don't really care about people's safety from sexual assault. They just weaponize that to exclude trans people. Otherwise they would talk about trans women being assaulted.
⠀
2. Sports :
This is a more complicated issue I agree. I don't have an opinion on this as I don't know how much it influences the result, depending on the sport, the precise process of transition, etc.
I haven't looked at the data yet. Do you have date showing it's a very common issue ?
⠀
Because it doesn't feel like there are a ton of trans women suddenly taking over women's sports. As far as I know there has been no case of a trans woman getting an olympic medal this year (despite the right losing their shit about Imane Khelif).
And Hergie Bacyadan is a trans man but competed with women in the Olympics (because he didn't undergo any gender affirming care if I understand well), and didn't win a medal anyway.
⠀
I'm only focusing on the Olympics (but after all they're supposed to be the best of the best), but it doesn't look like it's a huge problem.
⠀
Is it a question ? Yes.
Is the right suddenly really interested in women's sports to further their anti-trans agenda ? Evidently.
⠀
3. Child transition
Generally the right uses a pretend will to protect children to further their agenda, but I don't think it stands to scrutiny.
⠀
The right presents gender affirming care in the younger population as "they're mutilating children", but in reality :
- genital surgery is never performed before age 18
- hormone therapy is rarely started before at least late adolescence, and after extensive evaluation (and is partially reversible)
- puberty blockers might be prescribed, which is good because they're reversible
- social transition may also happen, which is reversible too
(https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/gender-affirming-care-young-people.pdf)
- it's far from being distributed left and right. Reality is : it's very difficult to access for people who need it. We need more, not less !
https://consensus.app/papers/adolescent-caregiver-perspectives-receiving-sequeria/25ac62f6ffd65e1facf0d3236c46f5e3/?q=gender+affirming+care+children&synthesize=on&copilot=on
https://consensus.app/papers/difficult-find-stressful-navigate-parents-experiences-kidd/22b1217b76a25e6ab55d3d8b99e2412b/?q=gender+affirming+care+children&synthesize=on&copilot=on
Same in the UK : https://consensus.app/papers/like-came-back-experiences-trans-people-families-seeking-carlile/c4c7eb6d9e8d5090ae4f4248a28fe404/?q=gender+affirming+care+children&synthesize=on&copilot=on
So why not wait longer ? Because this is harmful. Not only trans children have a bigger rate of suicide, suicide ideation, self harm, depression, but these rates grow with age (https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/146/4/e20193600/79683/Mental-Health-and-Timing-of-Gender-Affirming-Care). Early intervention is better.
⠀
Plus I think you agree we should listen to professionnals on medical issues. And the consensus seems to be gender-affirming care is overwhelmingly a good thing, even in kids :
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/153/1/e2023064292/196236/Prohibition-of-Gender-Affirming-Care-as-a-Form-of
⠀
So my stance on this is pretty simple (and as you can see largely supported by data) : the reality is way milder than the right pretends, and I trust mental health professionnals more than very very biased politicians to make individual decisions on kids health.
⠀
Also, there's a very important data point to me.
As stated by Pr. Robert Sapolsky in a lecture (relevant clip here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QScpDGqwsQ, full lecture there : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE), it appears there's a biological origin to transidentity (which doesn't surprise me at all, as there seems to be biological markers to sexual preference too).
I believe the study he refers to is this one : https://www.nature.com/articles/378068a0
⠀
Basically : biological men and women have visible differences in the brain, and one of them is the size of a region call the "bed nucleus of the stria terminalis". It's bigger in male than females. Study shows that trans people have a region the size of their perceived gender (even without undergoing hormone therapy, so it's not a consequence but a cause, or at least correlated to a cause).
⠀
To me that's a very important piece of information. The right focuses a lot on saying trans kids are just influenced by the media, and are basically denying the reality of transidentity, but the science shows there's a biological origin to it. So to me, considering the data we have, the most obvious conclusion conclusion is trans people, including kids, should receive gender-affirming care adapted to their age and mental health, under the supervision of trained professionnals.
That's NOT what the right are supporting. They're not "asking questions", they're straight up forbidding it. They're basically killing children by doing that, as we've seen before.
⠀
⠀
So to summarize : every time I dig into these supposed issues, I find that it's either anecdotal, or that the scientific consensus is pretty clear, and (surprise surprise) not agreeing with the right.
And it's very obvious to me the right is hijacking the public debate with these supposed "reasonable stances" that are mostly baseless, because they know they sound reasonable at first glance.
I find myself in complete agreement with everything you wrote. That worries me a bit (because I like to think of myself as moderate even though I have clearly become left-leaning) but also gives me comfort. Thank you for taking the time to provide such clear arguments. I thought you might like to know that someone read and appreciated them.
Thanks, it does feel good that someone beside Tomas read my lengthy comments ^^
I have learned to stop putting a label on my political leaning. The overton window widened so much in the past few years that nothing makes sense anymore. Also it varies wildly depending on countries and issues.
I use to think myself as a moderate too, but the center has disappointed a lot. I'm french, and Macron was supposed to be exactly aligned with my politics, until he took a sharp turn right 2 years into his first mandate. I do think a lot of politicians pretending to be in the center are just traditional right (aka not complete lunatics). They had to relabel because the right parties became more and more conservative, but they're still rightwing.
For individuals it's different, but I have to agree with people to the left of me when they say centrists are generally just right-wing, because in many cases, I think authentic centrists are scammed by the right and then start to lean right (or maybe they were already leaning right). I've seen that happen many times, and I'm glad I escaped from it. That's also why I'm so vocal about it.
I don't think my political stance is represented by a party at all, so I generally define myself by my stance on some precise points. And if it's time to vote, any form of support to discriminations is a deal breaker for me, as it's a core value of mine. So I end up voting for the left, even though they sometimes say stupid shit (but anyway all politicians say stupid shit).
I think there's also a fundamental difference between the left and the right :
- the right, by definition, wants to keep things as they are (conservatives) or even go back to what they were (reactionaries). There are not many ways to do that, so they agree on most things.
- the left, on the contrary, want to change things. And there are infinite ways of changing things. Having only two significant parties in the US kinda masks that, but in most of the western world at least, there are many left parties, with different stances on different things, and different priorities. In the US I think they mostly constitute different camps within the Dems.
But they do form strong alliances when needed, as we've recently seen in the french elections (the left alliance ended up first in the elections, even though they're far from having the majority).
In any case, leaning left doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. I do agree with basically everything the left says about systemic oppression, but I also think communism is stupid, and I think the government should be strong in certain areas and even some public services should be state-owned, while also thinking the state should generally be weaker and less prone to make laws for absolutely every tiny detail of everything.
The problem with the label "moderate" is people often think it means "being kind in the middle about everything", when for me it means most "I agree with the people some call ultra woke on some issues, and I agree with the center right on others". That's why I can't identify with it any more. I'm half "fuck nazis" and half "capitalism is mostly good", that doesn't make me politically friendly to many people xD
Well stated (as expected)! Again, Laurent, I find nothing to disagree with about your stance and your experience seems to mirror mine in many ways. Since I mostly find myself debating friends on the extremes (my liberal friends think I'm conservative and my conservative friends think I'm liberal), it would be nice to occasionally converse with someone who seems to share my core values and perspectives. Please consider reaching out to my first and last name @ the-most-popular-free-email-service-run-by-a-search-engine-turned-major-international-conglomerate.com. Thanks!
- Bruce Hurley
I read them too Laurent - and share Bruce's admiration for them. You talk a lot of sense, thankyou.
I really like Tomas' blog, and I think he can be a champion for critical thinking with a wide reach. So it is vital that he is challenged with feedback like yours. It'll make him even better than he already is.
It is sometimes more of a pleasure and an experience to read the comments on a serious blog - this was one of those instances, so thanks to you both for a really good debate.