Quantcast
At what point is this child abuse? Trans kids.

Forums - Politics Discussion - At what point is this child abuse? Trans kids.

Encouraging prepubescent gender transformation is...

A good thing. Not child abuse. 10 15.15%
 
A bad thing. Child abuse. 39 59.09%
 
Depends on the situation. (In comments) 17 25.76%
 
Total:66
o_O.Q said:

"People with XX chromosome sometimes have penises.  

People with penises sometimes have female parts.  

So chromosomes, and penises don't work 100% of the time. "

some people are blind do we then have to stop calling eyes organs used for seeing?

categories are never 100% perfect, no biologist would ever make that argument, but that doesn't mean that we just throw away categories as a result, never mind the fact that you aren't going to stop people fro categorising things automatically anyway

Who is calling for throwing away the categories?  

I know very few people that are calling to throw away categories.  It's about understanding that the categories aren't as easy to define as people grew up understanding.  

o_O.Q said:

"How do you distinguish gender? "

sex organs/appearance as everyone does

-What about people that choose to change their appearance?  

-What about people that naturally don't have distinctive features that we correlate with sex/gender?

-What about people with both sex organs?  

o_O.Q said:

"I prefer letting people decide for themselves.  "

are you a feminist?

What does it matter?



Around the Network
Hiku said:
o_O.Q said:

"And I told you that pointing at two different phrases, ignoring their meaning or context"

if i ignored their meaning or context how did you come to clarify what you said multiple times?

obviously you made the clarifications in response to arguments i made about your posts

I made the clarification because you inexplicably interpreted it as "has nothing to do with their identity" when I said no such thing.

I should not have had to explain that.

o_O.Q said:
if i make two phrases like "john went south for the winter" and then i said "john did not go south for the winter" are you really trying to argue that people would reasonably expect that the contradiction here has to be spelled out?

That's an inaccurate analogy.
I used different terms for the sentences in question. "Is not the same as", "some people are asexual" and "is not a factor".

But that wasn't even what you were caught up on, as you pointed out the 'irony' in my sentence well before I had even used the term "factor".
In fact, before I had even said "I did not say it has nothing to do with."

Just because I clarified that in my original post "I did not say it "has nothing to do with it"", that does not mean that I claimed the opposite.
It simply means I did not say what you claim I said.

The whole "nothing to do with their identity" was your idea. I simply said that this did not come from my mouth.

All I said at that point was that Sexuality is not the same as identity, and then gave asexual people as an example.

What was ironic about the comment?

To refresh your memory, this was our entire exchange on the subject, before you claimed it was ironic:

Me: "Identity is not the same as sexuality. Some people are asexual for example."
You: "do those people identify as asexual?"
Me: "They don't have to. But asexual people exist."
You:"my point is that you are identifying them as asexual then claiming that their sexuality has nothing to do with their identity... doesn't that strike you as ironic?"

The bolded part is the false claim you made.
Which leads me to this:

o_O.Q said:

"At no point did I say 'has nothing to do with their identity'. That's something you made up."

"And in the case of some asexual people, sexuality is not a factor."

are you kidding me? can you logically explain how its not essentially the same thing?

Yes, and in more than one way. One I already described above.
Saying that I never claimed "it has nothing to do with" does not mean I claim the opposite, nor that I took a stance on it one way or the other.

The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms.
Something I was careful to avoid at that point, which is why I said "Not the same as". So you replying with "has nothing to do with" was in stark contrast to how I worded my sentence. I had to make that clear.

Secondly, when I later (after you already pointed out some irony I've yet to see explained) used the term "is not a factor" I was also trying to avoid "has nothing to do with their identity".
Partially because some asexual people do have a sexual drive, but also because even for the ones who don't, it can be quite debatable to claim that it's absence has nothing to do with their identity, as I have a personal friend who struggles a lot with existential issues, partially because of the absence of his sexuality. So I would say it does affect his view on his own identity.

The reason I brought up asexual people is because their sexuality and its effect on their identity can vary more than between 'normal people'.

o_O.Q said:

"Part of the reason why we have moderators is because we expect that people won't always discuss things reasonably and maturely. And they don't."

i worded that badly this was my intent

So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.

o_O.Q said:

"If you want numbers for your mod history, you can check them yourself under My Profile. Should say something like Moderation History in the top right corner."

according to my moderation history i've been banned 10 times

3 times for sig length

1 time for thread derailment

5 times for flaming

1 time for trolling

i have been on this site now for over eight years... do you really think its fair to characterise someone with an average of 1 ban for trolling every eight years as a bad user?

why didn't you post my history to begin with so we could have an actual discussion based on facts and figures? if i wanted to now i could even go and plot a graph or something

I did not post the specific details because it's our policy to try to keep those in PM, or in the moderator topic.

I'll just reiterate two things.
Like I said before, bans are not the only relevant moderations we look at. Warnings are as well. Bans generally come as a result of multiple warnings. So they're not inherently different in nature. You can be warned over something more severe than what you end up being banned for.

Secondly, when I go through someone's mod notes, and there is a scroll bar even though I'm viewing it in full page mode, that's usually not a good indication for me personally. Of course, things like being warned for sig length I consider fairly irrelevant to cases where there may be trolling, flaming, etc.

o_O.Q said:

oh sorry that's true here are some more

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9000918

"You claim that these parents are pushing their children, however in both examples you provided, it appears that the children are the ones who are being allowed to lead and express their own identities in the way they see fit."

on the one hand sundin is advocating for men to be allowed to change their identity to women if they want to, but sundin in the past has advocated for feminists issues... both values obviously conflict since feminism is largely predicated on a delineation between men and women do you agree?

He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out. Not that they were a man, and then changed to a woman.

I guess I'll touch on what I meant by "how what that poster said is not the same thing you described" now, since you gave me examples that predate your comment.

What Sundin is saying here is what he perceives to already be true. Not a "difference that he is fighting to reduce."
He thinks that this is how it is. That some women are born in male bodies, and vice versa.

However, I can understand why you might phrase it that way, so on the idea that you were trying to flamebait a particular large group with your comment, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that that was not your intention.

But let me also explain why your comment may be perceived that way by others.

When you say "fighting to reduce differences", people are going to think about actual differences between men and women that people are fighting to reduce.
One very common thing that may come to mind when reading your comment is something like the difference in average wages between men and women, within the same line of work. And people are fighting to reduce those differences. Literally.

So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people.

So when you call people out like that in the future, try to be mindful of the words you chose. And if you are referring to someone specific, it's good if you can cite them. Especially if you have a history of stirring the pot when it comes to a group of people.

"The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms."

to say something is not a factor for something is an absolute statement but i was wrong to not specify that you were not referring to all asexual people

"Partially because some asexual people do have a sexual drive"

this doesn't make any sense to me, asexuality is literally defined as the absense of sex drive wouldn't that simply be a case of low libido?

"So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say."

possibly because you're trying to read ill intent in my posts that has never existed

to correct my mistake earlier my point was that we have moderators on forums to ensure that people behave despite hoping that people will behave themselves without intervention from moderators

"He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out."

fair enough and how would feminists be able to distinguish as a result who is a woman and who is a man if we simply determine this based on what they claim to be? i'm saying its contradictory because feminist rhetoric in other contexts seeks to paint men and women as being radically different from each other such as the idea of sexualisation, rape culture, violence etc etc etc

"What Sundin is saying here is what he perceives to already be true. Not a "difference that he is fighting to reduce.""

in this context i'm saying there is a fight to reduce differences because the notion is essentially that the only thing that determines who is man and who is woman is the declaration of the individual person, which obviously is throwing away a lot of the other factors that have been used to distinguish between the two

'He thinks that this is how it is. That some women are born in male bodies, and vice versa."

fair enough, am i not allowed to think that this is nonsense and disagree with him?

how does this work mechanically btw? is the claim being made that these people have a soul or a spirit that is gendered?

"So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people."

even if i can validate my argument and demonstrate what i'm referring to?



the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

"People with XX chromosome sometimes have penises.  

People with penises sometimes have female parts.  

So chromosomes, and penises don't work 100% of the time. "

some people are blind do we then have to stop calling eyes organs used for seeing?

categories are never 100% perfect, no biologist would ever make that argument, but that doesn't mean that we just throw away categories as a result, never mind the fact that you aren't going to stop people fro categorising things automatically anyway

Who is calling for throwing away the categories?  

I know very few people that are calling to throw away categories.  It's about understanding that the categories aren't as easy to define as people grew up understanding.  

o_O.Q said:

"How do you distinguish gender? "

sex organs/appearance as everyone does

-What about people that choose to change their appearance?  

-What about people that naturally don't have distinctive features that we correlate with sex/gender?

-What about people with both sex organs?  

o_O.Q said:

"I prefer letting people decide for themselves.  "

are you a feminist?

What does it matter?

"Who is calling for throwing away the categories?  "

ok since you believe "man" and "woman" are still valid categories, how do you identify men and women?

"It's about understanding that the categories aren't as easy to define as people grew up understanding.  "

but that's not true, people have always known that reproduction is not a perfect process and occasionally abnormalities occur

"What about people that choose to change their appearance?  

-What about people that naturally don't have distinctive features that we correlate with sex/gender?

-What about people with both sex organs?  "

i treat those situations the same as i do when i see the girl with eight limbs or the guy covered in bark like growths all over his body - exceptions which does not mean that they do not deserve respect but that they do not fit into the typical characteristics we use identify a particular group

that's what people have done from the dawn of mankind

"What does it matter?"

i suppose i'm just curious about how feminism could still function when at any time someone can simply choose to identify as the other gender



o_O.Q said:

"The reason I felt the need to clarify this to you, aside from the fact that I did not say it, is because there you are dealing in absolute terms."

to say something is not a factor for something is an absolute statement but i was wrong to not specify that you were not referring to all asexual people

It is an absolute term, and that's why I said "Something I was careful to avoid at that point."
Because at that point it was about my original comment and your interpretation of it. Which only said "is not the same as", but you took as "has nothing to do with".

Later on I mentioned "for some it is not a factor". Wasn't related to my original sentence, which I worded the way I did so that it wouldn't be limited to an absolute claim one way or another, or rule things out.

o_O.Q said:

"Partially because some asexual people do have a sexual drive"

this doesn't make any sense to me, asexuality is literally defined as the absense of sex drive wouldn't that simply be a case of low libido?

That's just what I read, without looking up any in depth explanation. 
"Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction to others, or low or absent interest in or desire for sexual activity.[1][2][3]"

Apparently there are different scales/degrees of asexuality. Though that wasn't really important, but rather how the absence of sexual desire can be argued as having a significant impact on someone's identity. So that's why I didn't want to make a claim like that. I rather say that it varies from person to person. Perhaps there are people who feel "it has nothing to do with their identity". I wouldn't argue against the idea, but I also I can't be certain of it.

You didn't tell me why you found my original comment ironic though?
Was that just based on something you misunderstood, or am I missing something?

o_O.Q said:

"So you're saying that because moderators exist, you don't expect anyone to react badly to something that may otherwise provoke a negative response?
I'm still not sure what you're trying to say."

possibly because you're trying to read ill intent in my posts that has never existed

to correct my mistake earlier my point was that we have moderators on forums to ensure that people behave despite hoping that people will behave themselves without intervention from moderators

Right.

But what I asked you was this:
"Am I supposed to believe that your're not aware that your comment will probably exclusively provoke angry responses or arguments, because they find your comparison unfair?"

To which you replied:
"no i expect people who discuss these issues to be mature enough to discuss the ideas at hand reasonably, i mean i think everyone here has that expectation otherwise you wouldn't be a moderator would you?"

I wouldn't be a moderator unless everyone here is expected to discuss these issues maturely?
The only sense I could make out of that statement was that you think everyone on the forum, me included, is expected to act maturely and discuss things reasonably, and that's why people become moderators. Because there's a preconceived notion that they are well behaved by default.

But it's really because we don't expect everyone to act maturely that we have moderators.

Anyway, my question was essentially; are you not aware that calling out/ridiculing people can incite angry responses or arguments, if they find what you said an inaccurate portrayal.
You said no, but based on your latest comment, you do know that it can happen, and that's why I was looking into your comment, and asking you about it.

Not sure what to make of that.
But like I said, after talking to you I don't think your original comment was as nefarious as it originally looked, so you're not in trouble over that.

o_O.Q said:

"He's saying that the child in question was always female. Or always considered themselves female, once they figured things out."

fair enough and how would feminists be able to distinguish as a result who is a woman and who is a man if we simply determine this based on what they claim to be? i'm saying its contradictory because feminist rhetoric in other contexts seeks to paint men and women as being radically different from each other such as the idea of sexualisation, rape culture, violence etc etc etc

"What Sundin is saying here is what he perceives to already be true. Not a "difference that he is fighting to reduce.""

in this context i'm saying there is a fight to reduce differences because the notion is essentially that the only thing that determines who is man and who is woman is the declaration of the individual person, which obviously is throwing away a lot of the other factors that have been used to distinguish between the two

'He thinks that this is how it is. That some women are born in male bodies, and vice versa."

fair enough, am i not allowed to think that this is nonsense and disagree with him?

how does this work mechanically btw? is the claim being made that these people have a soul or a spirit that is gendered?

I'll potentially get back to you on this later.
I just wanted to prioritize assessing what your intention was with your original comment, and also explaining to you why people may take it the wrong way.

o_O.Q said:

"So you could easily be reported by someone for trying to instigate unnecessary arguments with a group of people."

even if i can validate my argument and demonstrate what i'm referring to?

It would be dependent on who is reviewing it. How much patience they have, how well you present your case, how well they're able to understand it, and also if they believe you.

I think it's safest to just to avoid getting in that position to begin with. Trying to start unnecessary arguments with groups, by saying something that will upset them is something we often get reported, and often leads to moderation. So just try to think about that when you call people out, if it looks like your post can be perceived that way. Confusion can easily be avoided by citing some of the specific people you may be referring to.

Last edited by Hiku - on 19 May 2019

Bringing this back from the dead because my kid is now at a point where I think some relevant things are occurring and I'm curious how those that think trans kids are being abused (not in the way most would assume) would deal with a couple simple scenarios that I think fall within "letting a kid decide their gender for themselves".

So while at the renaissance fair (not my idea, my wife gets to drag me once a year) my 3 and a half year old son saw a girl wearing some faerie wings purchased at the fair. When he commented on them I asked if he would like some, he said yes. I ignored it a couple times (like I do anything he asks me to buy to make sure he actually remembers and cares) but he was adamant so we went to get him some faerie wings and he chose pink. Now my three year old son is wearing pink faerie wings around the fair, and later at home. To me, this is part of letting a kid decide who they want to be without pushing them one way or another which is what I advocated for throughout this thread. My question is, what would someone who disagreed with my view do in this scenario. Do you tell the three year old "no you're a boy and gender expectations dictate that you don't wear pink faerie wings"? Or perhaps this is a small gender transgression that you'd overlook, but what would draw the line into something you wouldn't allow?

edit: forgot to mention, I brought this topic back from the dead because the one I made that I probably would've put this into was locked. Felt like making an entire thread around the question was a bit much so here we are. 



...

Around the Network

Please for the love of God get out of between each others legs. If someone says they want to be a women or man, then who the hell cares. Seriously. No one is hurting you and you don't own everyone elses perception. Back in the day, people where trying to stop mixed races from having sex. They were just so offended that people where doing what they wanted. Its not in your purview to micromanage what people do with their lives or themselves. Live your own life.  No one is encouraging underage sex change surgery. 



Lemme say I haven't read the whole thread yet(cause I don't have time) but.. while I understand this is very unusual, and historically parents don't do this.

But how is this different from parents pushing a gender to a child simply based on their genitalia? We have evolved enough today that we know the genitalia is not a definitive ruling of gender. If the child wants to dress like the other sex, do we forbid it? I don't have children, and probably will not have them. But this is a legit question. I know trans people, and from talking to them, I know that a "normal" upbringing for a trans child is torturous and miserable. Is that not enough, for you to hear the child?

I don't claim to know what's right, but it is a legit thing to question.



CosmicSex said:

Please for the love of God get out of between each others legs. If someone says they want to be a women or man, then who the hell cares. Seriously. No one is hurting you and you don't own everyone elses perception. Back in the day, people where trying to stop mixed races from having sex. They were just so offended that people where doing what they wanted. Its not in your purview to micromanage what people do with their lives or themselves. Live your own life.  No one is encouraging underage sex change surgery. 

"No one is hurting you and you don't own everyone elses perception."

so why do trans people own my perception?

why do you think I do not have the right to not perceive a trans person as their preferred gender if they do not appear to be that gender?

"Back in the day, people where trying to stop mixed races from having sex."

this is about as relevant as me saying back in the day people were trying to stop people from having sex with sheep, which is to say its not relevant at all

"They were just so offended that people where doing what they wanted."

this is not the problem, the problem is people dictating to OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN PERCEPTION OF REALITY

"Its not in your purview to micromanage what people do with their lives or themselves."

that I will do with my own perception of reality despite whatever delusional utopian ideology is in vogue



o_O.Q said:
CosmicSex said:

Please for the love of God get out of between each others legs. If someone says they want to be a women or man, then who the hell cares. Seriously. No one is hurting you and you don't own everyone elses perception. Back in the day, people where trying to stop mixed races from having sex. They were just so offended that people where doing what they wanted. Its not in your purview to micromanage what people do with their lives or themselves. Live your own life.  No one is encouraging underage sex change surgery. 

"No one is hurting you and you don't own everyone elses perception."

so why do trans people own my perception?

why do you think I do not have the right to not perceive a trans person as their preferred gender if they do not appear to be that gender?

"Back in the day, people where trying to stop mixed races from having sex."

this is about as relevant as me saying back in the day people were trying to stop people from having sex with sheep, which is to say its not relevant at all

"They were just so offended that people where doing what they wanted."

this is not the problem, the problem is people dictating to OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN PERCEPTION OF REALITY

"Its not in your purview to micromanage what people do with their lives or themselves."

that I will do with my own perception of reality despite whatever delusional utopian ideology is in vogue

"so why do trans people own my perception?"

I just said that you don't own their perception.  Why would they own yours?  What?

"this is about as relevant as me saying back in the day people were trying to stop people from having sex with sheep"

Comparing mixed race sex to bestiality  Don't be a sick f*ck.  Why did you even take it there?

"the problem is people dictating to OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN PERCEPTION OF REALITY"

Wrong.  NO ONE is telling you what to do.  They are only telling you how they fell and perceive themselves.  You just can't handle it.  

Example:  This is how I feel about myself and this is how I want to live my life

You: You are messing with my perception of you!  How dare you.  Live like I SAID you should!

Just back off.  You are trying to turn yourself into a victim because they wont comply with what you want. 

"that I will do with my own perception of reality despite whatever delusional utopian ideology is in vogue"

You don't know where you end and other people begin. 



CosmicSex said:
o_O.Q said:

"No one is hurting you and you don't own everyone elses perception."

so why do trans people own my perception?

why do you think I do not have the right to not perceive a trans person as their preferred gender if they do not appear to be that gender?

"Back in the day, people where trying to stop mixed races from having sex."

this is about as relevant as me saying back in the day people were trying to stop people from having sex with sheep, which is to say its not relevant at all

"They were just so offended that people where doing what they wanted."

this is not the problem, the problem is people dictating to OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN PERCEPTION OF REALITY

"Its not in your purview to micromanage what people do with their lives or themselves."

that I will do with my own perception of reality despite whatever delusional utopian ideology is in vogue

"so why do trans people own my perception?"

I just said that you don't own their perception.  Why would they own yours?  What?

"this is about as relevant as me saying back in the day people were trying to stop people from having sex with sheep"

Comparing mixed race sex to bestiality  Don't be a sick f*ck.  Why did you even take it there?

"the problem is people dictating to OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN PERCEPTION OF REALITY"

Wrong.  NO ONE is telling you what to do.  They are only telling you how they fell and perceive themselves.  You just can't handle it.  

Example:  This is how I feel about myself and this is how I want to live my life

You: You are messing with my perception of you!  How dare you.  Live like I SAID you should!

Just back off.  You are trying to turn yourself into a victim because they wont comply with what you want. 

"that I will do with my own perception of reality despite whatever delusional utopian ideology is in vogue"

You don't know where you end and other people begin. 

"I just said that you don't own their perception.  Why would they own yours?  What?"

you're saying that the trans person gets to dictate to me what my perception of them should be are you not?

"Comparing mixed race sex to bestiality  Don't be a sick f*ck.  Why did you even take it there?"

I didn't compare the two i'm simply saying that what you said was irrelevant

"They are only telling you how they fell and perceive themselves.  You just can't handle it."

ok let say this guy 

demands that women perceive him as attractive even though clearly he is not, should those women be forced to change their perception of him?

"This is how I feel about myself and this is how I want to live my life"

I'd say that's great, live your life, I don't have issues with people changing their bodies, or going on hormones or whatever, that has nothing to do with me


"You are trying to turn yourself into a victim because they wont comply with what you want. "

huh? what I want? but I don't want anything in this situation, all I want is the right to my own perception of reality

"You don't know where you end and other people begin. "

can you elaborate on what you are trying to say here?


User was moderated for this post.

- Hiku

Last edited by Hiku - on 07 September 2019