Is being Transgender a choice?

[AgnosticBoy]

I'm of the opinion that gender expression is a result of social conditioning. I know I used the word "choice" in the title, but that's only because people tend to associate behavior that can be changed or conditioned as being a "choice" (borrowing from the debate on born this way vs. choice).

In this thread, I want to focus on being transgender. Based on my above opinion, I also believe that being transgender is also a result of social conditioning (i.e. childhood experiences, what they learn from society, etc). If I'm right then I think that the recent focus on transgenderism in the media, in Hollywood, in schools, could lead some children to become transgender. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I also bring these points up because when some parents complain about their kids learning about transgenderism in school, the reaction is that it won't impact (some say "groom" ) the child into becoming transgender. If my view is correct, I think the pro-trans crowd should acknowledge that it can potentially influence children AND there's nothing wrong with that.

For Debate
1. Is being transgender a result of social conditioning?
2. Edit: Removed. Teaching kids about gender identity can be a separate thread.

[oldbadger]

If that is your response, then all I can say is that you obviously didn't watch the clip and you appear to be so blinkered by this gender ideology that you have no idea what I actually do and do not support.

I watched the clip, about two show hosts supporting a comedian's opinion and book which insists that there are only two sexes.

If that's what you support then you've been deceiving me, haven't you! You don't support anything about transgenderism or people at all.

Is that right? If not, why did you stick up that video?

[oldbadger]

Since I've never cited activist websites to support an ad hominem argument in this (or any other) thread, this quip is rather foolish.

But, more to the point, it makes your position look desperate. I just pointed out to you that medical professionals in your own country are moving away from the position you hold out of concerns that administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children is both unsafe and clinically ineffective in improving long-term mental health. When you're ready to engage that fact and my questions in good faith, rather than offering lame retorts, let me know.

Our NHS tells us this:-
Treatment for children and young people. If your child is under 18 and may have gender dysphoria, they'll usually be referred to the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. GIDS has 2 main clinics in London and Leeds.

We don't wave young people away, but treat them with careful consideration.
That our professionals have been very concerned about mental health issues after administering puberty blockers and other medications makes great sense.

But apart from that it seems that you can join me in supporting Transgenderism........ if so then that's fine.

I'm a retired commercial detective so I couldn't offer any professional opinion about all this. What do/did you do for a living?

[oldbadger]

Now you pretend to know my needs? How odd. Being back from vacation was me letting you know why it took days to reply to you. That is all, but continue to read in to things as you see fit, seems pair for the course.

Oh dear......... try to smile, CB.
Smiling is good for you.

Dear oldbadger, the actual question asked of you was: "Would you like to criminalize speech? For example, purposely using the wrong pronoun because a person is a jerk and wants to be a jerk. Would you seek to control and dominate such a persons speech?"
Notice how this is a yes/no question, now readers, read oldbadger's reply in the quote above and ask yourself if the question was answered. It wasn't, but he did inform me about laws in his country that I couldn't care less about.

But at present I only support incitement and provocation laws, which can include some hate speech.
If you deliberately want to insult your neighbour so then can't help you....... beyond my help.

I have asked you for an example of anybody being convicted of using offensive speech against another in any way, and so far you've failed to do that.
False!
Copy/paste: So this neighbor, that continues to call me Mr., when I identify as a Mrs. (in this scenario), should she be fined or put in the clank? (I can't wait to read this dance coming)."

OMG, please see the old lady example. I bolded it above for you. I would also like to discourage you from seeking to control and dominate peoples lives by seeking to dominate and control their speech. However, continue to as you will of course, as I think it is important in a society for the said people to know who around them would seek to control others. Just like it is important for societies to be able to identify who the jerks are IMO. Being able to offend is important, even if discouraged.

You're having trouble with your comprehension today, it seems.
So you have not found an example of any conviction, have you?
I want to see any occasions when anybody has been CONVICTED of any crime for a nasty neighbour deliberately calling somebody by a pronoun that upsets them.
Your 'example' was dreamed up in your head.

[boatsnguitars]

Would you want all your Health decisions made by a committee? By a general rule, as opposed to your specific case?

That poses a false dichotomy. What I want is an individual doctor addressing my specific case within the general guidelines and standards set by my state's medical board, since those guidelines and standards serve as guardrails to protect me and other patients from serious harm. That is, of course, how medicine is currently practiced, and for very good reasons.

So, again: Every European country that has undertaken a systematic review of the relevant literature as part of a formal evidence-based medical assessment has concluded that there is a lack of evidence for both the safety and clinical effectiveness of hormone treatments for gender dysphoria. In direct response to this, those countries have all sharply curtailed administering puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children under 18.

Given that data, do you think it is reasonable for people to express concerns about the fact that these treatments are still being administered to children as young as 12 in many parts of the United States, Canada, and other countries? (Let me be clear: I'm not asking whether you agree with those people. I'm simply asking whether you think it's reasonable for them to express concern.)

Yes, that is fair. As I read about it, it appears they are simply changing the rules for people under 12, but then provide all the support a person would need after that, including surgery.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohe ... ng-minors/

[brunumb]

If that's what you support then you've been deceiving me, haven't you! You don't support anything about transgenderism or people at all.

I don't support insanity.

There are only two sexes. That is the truth. Some people want to be the opposite of their biological sex and live their lives accordingly. Fine. That does not mean that they can actually change their sex. That we are turning society upside down to accommodate the feelings of a few people is absolutely absurd. In that sense I deride this epidemic driven by the unwarranted elevation of the status of people claiming to be transgender. People have even become obsessive over them. It makes no sense. Just look at the politician in the clip below at 4:50. Is that normal, rational behaviour? Non-binary is also meaningless, but we have to acknowledge this insanity or suffer severe penalties. Society has gone crazy. Perhaps the video below offers some insight into what has happened. I genuinely fear for the future and hope to be gone rather than live in the sort of world that you are promoting.

[Clownboat]

But at present I only support incitement and provocation laws, which can include some hate speech.

So if my elderly neighbor continues to call me Mr. and I have informed them that I am a Mrs., would my neighbor possibly be convicted of incitement or provocation if you had your way?
What I'm asking is (you may have seen this before): "Would you like to criminalize speech? For example, purposely using the wrong pronoun because a person is a jerk and wants to be a jerk.
That you support incitement and provocation laws doesn't answer this question as you could consider such actions as provocative or not. You seem unwilling to clarify.

If you deliberately want to insult your neighbour so then can't help you....... beyond my help.

The phrasing above is poor, so to clarify... My hypothetical elderly neighbor that wont respect my preferred pronouns, would you seek to restrict her speech or would you not?

You're having trouble with your comprehension today, it seems.
So you have not found an example of any conviction, have you?

I haven't looked and will not do your work for you. If you are interested about convictions, then look to see if what you are curious about has happened or not.

You are purposely being obtuse it seems. You have been asked numerous times if you would like to criminalize speech, specifically purposely using the wrong pronouns. We even have the elderly neighbor example. I can't hold your hand any better than that.

Rather than address the actual questions, you would prefer to know if people have been convicted of such a thing. To that I say, do your own work.

I want to see any occasions when anybody has been CONVICTED of any crime for a nasty neighbour deliberately calling somebody by a pronoun that upsets them.

Then look for one! Don't be lazy and ask me to look for you.
As I have said from the beginning, I am checking for consistency because you said you are against dominating and controlling others. I then had to wonder if being against controlling others included people using the wrong pronouns on purpose. I think it is becoming obvious as to why you seek to avoid answering that question.

Your 'example' was dreamed up in your head.

Yup! I do not have an elderly neighbor addressing me with the wrong pronouns, but if I did, would you support law enforcement getting involved or not?

I feel like I'm herding cats here.

[oldbadger]

If that's what you support then you've been deceiving me, haven't you! You don't support anything about transgenderism or people at all.

I don't support insanity.

There are only two sexes.

And there we have it, you were not just arguing about young people and transgender issues but the whole of transgenderism.

You could have told is all that, straight off!

Oh well, the truth will out eventually, I suppose.

[Purple Knight]

I actually believe in freedom. In other words, people are people and should get to make their own choices, regardless of what other people think about what their age, cognitive ability, race, sex, or other qualities mean for their ability to make their own choices.

Do you also advocate for people taking sole responsibility for their choices, particularly when things subsequently go pear shaped?

It has to go hand-in-hand. Either you let people make their choices and suffer fully for them, or you have some sort of protection.

I'm okay with either tbh. What is driving me up the wall on this issue is people preaching that they (as an extension of the popular position) get to draw these huge squiggly lines around the category of people who may make their own decisions, and the people they leave out never come into the matter at all. The idea that "we're talking about this, not that" is an insane level of dodging the issue, when we're talking about what rights people ought to get, under the banner of equality.

I prefer a world where people make their decisions and what comes to them, comes. But with this populace who will rush to disadvantage themselves for being responsible, sacrificing what they earned to help the person who is "unfortunate" it simply won't work. They see druggos and criminals as victims of circumstances, while seeing minimum wage earners who show up to their jobs every day and can't make ends meet, as lazy and undeserving of what they have. They also don't recognise that capitalism is a zero-sum game, and if they don't understand that when they give charity to people who got poor by wasting, setting a baseline above what minimum wage makes, that it drives up the price of goods beyond what the working poor can pay. They think they can give poor people a little more cushion than bare minimum and it won't have an effect on anyone else.

So I want the world of personal responsibility but I don't think it can work with a sub IQ 120 populace. I think we probably need some safety nets but that doesn't mean I'm ideologically in favour of them. I'm not.

[Purple Knight]

I didn't ask about whether any extant individual ought to get damages, though I do ask you to assume that at least some detransitioners who feel misled are not simply lying. I am asking whether you think there should be a process to seek damages, and if the award of damages could ever be correct, in your opinion. Or, if you think that these steps that are in place, adequately ensure that if they are followed, the child is not misled and does not deserve any compensation.

I didn't ask about specific cases. I'm essentially asking if you will think the courts are in error if they start giving out damages, saying the child was misled, even though these steps were followed.

I believe in Civil Courts hearing about any and all cases of damage caused to anybody by any causes. So of course I believe that there should be a process to seek damages. Then its up to the Courts to find for or against each case on its own merits.

But in the USA the amounts of damages awarded by Courts can be ridiculously unbelievably high.

I agree and that's kind of my point here. You have one set of laws - criminal laws - which is what you are technically allowed and not allowed to do. Then you have suing, which is more representative of what you are actually allowed to do, but other than precedent, is totally improvised and off-the-cuff. Ultimately you can't stop detransitioners from having legitimate regrets about what they might have been led into as children, and since most people believe children are not competent to make those sorts of decisions, those most people will sit on juries and affect the landscape of what may and may not actually be practiced in medicine.

So if you want transgender kids to continue to have access to care, there's nothing for it but being for indemnity for the people giving them that care. In other words, all those forms they signed have to hold, even if they argue that they didn't really consent or understand.

Yes, but it goes along with my thought that to have a fair society, we must treat everyone in that society as competent, even if they're not,

I've never heard anything like that before. You yourself have abilities and disabilities, same as I do...... I seek help for situations where I am unable to act for myself. I get specialists to help me in all kinds of situations, and health is certainly one of those areas.

Well, you should seek help and advice in areas where someone else has the expertise, but you don't have to. The experts all say smoking is bad for you, a terrible choice, nothing to be gained by it. But you know what? In a free society you can choose to ignore that advice and do the dumb thing anyway. So, if that freedom of making your own choices should extend to kids, then it should extend to kids. Let them smoke if they want to.

My support of the Left in the trans issue is entirely contingent of the Left's support of real social freedom for everyone, not just trans people. And it's not spiteful. It's because I think equality comes first. I will never say, well, that's a real right so it is better some people have it than none. So if there's some right the Left wants for trans people, or gay people, but they won't extend it to everyone else, I'd rather no one has it and if I can't trust the Left to fight for it for everyone, I'll just be fighting against it. When the perfect becomes the enemy of the good, I simply have to fight the perfect.

because having a class of legal subhumans who don't get to make their own decisions is simply a worse dragon to bear than letting people who really aren't competent to make their own decisions, make them anyway. In the latter case, people can learn they are incompetent and start asking for advice. In the former case, people can just use "I know better" to oppress, and I think many children do get oppressed by their parents this way.

Are you a parent? If not, wait until you are and then see if you'll let your children make any decisions that they want to.

So I think children should be allowed to emancipate themselves at any age. If they ask to be free of their parents' authority, they ought to have that. And they ought to be able to do whatever they like to their own bodies.

Wow! Wait until you are a parent.........

Were you ever a child who had oppressive parents? If not, wait until you are and see if you're still in favour of letting parents decide for their children. Unless you are inside of the issue with a first-person perspective, from the perspective of the person whose natural vested interest is my position, you can't have an opinion. See how that sounds? Imagine if those who were never victims of crimes couldn't help decide policy on crime, or punishment. Imagine if non-slave-owners were not allowed an opinion on slave emancipation.

It's almost like the Left is being intentionally inconsistent to drum up opposition to their cause. I have never seen anyone I have known personally, who was not ideologically taunted in this manner ("Trans people should have this right, but see, it's a special right that only applies to these people in this case, and it's not for anyone else,") be opposed to anything trans. Trans is popular right now, so the ideological case for freedom and against parental authority is made. But for other issues, the same people making that case will fall back on the wall of illogical group support for parental authority, leading people to wonder why they should support trans rights, when those rights are not extended where it is not popular to extend them.

I actually believe in freedom. In other words, people are people and should get to make their own choices, regardless of what other people think about what their age, cognitive ability, race, sex, or other qualities mean for their ability to make their own choices. But I'm the only one. So far as I know. Prove me wrong.

I cannot prove you wrong, because I don't know anybody who is entirely free to do anything that they like. We have rules and laws to live by and we take away people's freedom almost completely if they bust those.

So maybe it's important, when we imagine rights people ought to have, that they don't, to apply those rights beyond what is popular right this second, otherwise we get unfair laws and an inequal society.

[brunumb]

If that's what you support then you've been deceiving me, haven't you! You don't support anything about transgenderism or people at all.

I don't support insanity.

There are only two sexes.

And there we have it, you were not just arguing about young people and transgender issues but the whole of transgenderism.

You could have told is all that, straight off!

Oh well, the truth will out eventually, I suppose.

Nope. Your blinkered view only allows you to see things from the perspective of the ideology you have consumed. I would never treat anyone unfairly on the basis of their sexuality. That does not been that I must adopt false science or be bullied into accepting lies in order to satisfy unwarranted demands based on the beliefs of others.