Should misinformation be banned from the major platforms?

[Daedalus X]

For this topic misinformation is any information that promotes needle hesitancy or anti authoritarian approved information.

Here is an example of misinformation that can't be posted to YouTube, twitter, Facebook or any mainline medium. Is this good public policy?



This is a MUST WATCH.

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/viewing/

[Jose Fly]

You keep extrapolating things I've said far beyond anything I actually did say. How on earth do you get from a comment that 8 years are too young to understand adult sexuality and gender issues (trans, homosexual, etc.) and should not be exposed to it any detailed way, with forcing LGBTQ people back into the closet? They can stay in the closet, come out of the closet, go to gay bars, change their sex, etc. all they want. My point is that presenting their lifestyles in explicit detail to little kinds before they are old enough to understand any of is wrong. I could care less what adult trans or LGBTQ people do, as long as they don't try to indoctrinate little kids with this stuff before they can possibly understand what it all means.

Of course not. But if the teacher decides to try and convince the class of 8 year olds that they should all become gay because the teacher is gay, that is a problem.

So the main thing you're concerned about is adults (e.g., teachers) telling elementary aged kids something like "I'm gay, it's great and you all should be gay too"? Well, on that we agree....teachers should not be doing that.

Drag queens can do anything they want in appropriate places and in front of appropriate audiences (ie. other adults). I said nothing about banning all drag queens or drag performances (or trans, or LGBQT) in general ... just keep it away from little kids and wait until they are old enough to understand things better relating to sexual activity, gender identity, etc. Once they are adults ... they can do whatever they want.

Why can't kids see drag queens? I've been to a few drag shows and there was nothing at all sexual about them. The performers simply donned elaborate costumes and put on a stage show (lip-synching or singing, and dancing). Of course there are some drag shows that are sexually explicit, just like there are some non-drag sing/dance shows that are sexually explicit, but even on those I feel that since it's perfectly legal for a parent or guardian to take a kid to an R-rated movie, it should be the same for live shows. I personally wouldn't, but that's my right as a parent. Someone else might feel different.

Take for example "drag queen story hour" at a library, where drag queens read stories to kids. Do you think that should be banned? If so, why?

Don't allow adult level discussions on sexual activity with little kids in general groups of random kids (eg. to an entire class of them in a school) and encourage them to gravitate towards a certain lifestyle. If they ask questions then answer them and explain, but don't have a (for example) lesbian teacher explicitly push that approach to her kids because she sees it as the best lifestyle choice. This kind of thing happens all the time.

It does? Do you have some examples?

Do you or did you actually raise any kids to see firsthand how they interpret things at 5, 8. 10 years old?

Sure did. My kids are all in their 20's now. Since we have LGBTQ relatives, my wife and I were pretty open with our kids about what all that means, even when they were quite young. Never caused any sort of problem at all. They'd usually just respond with "Huh. Okay." and then go back to what they were doing. It's only when adults make a huge stink about it all that kids give it any more attention than that.

[Jose Fly]

Given how impressionable kids are, and how they look at adults as authority figures, why get into the details of transgenderism or LGBTQ stuff with them?

That seems to be the thrust of their strategy. It's hard not to believe that there are pedophiles somewhere in the hierarchy propelling this agenda. We now have them recategorised as MAPs, minor attracted persons, and they have their own flag where the colours of the stripes have special significance. The ideologically captured can't see beyond their need to feel that they are doing good and allegedly helping all these people.

Once everyone is in step and towing the line, how far will their control extend? We are losing our freedom of speech by being compelled to warp our language to conform to the emotional needs of a tiny percentage of the population. We face fines, imprisonment, loss of our jobs and even our children for misgendering or not using the pronouns demanded or refusing to go along with surgical transition procedures. These are the great crimes of the day. All for transgenderism which is purely a state of the mind with no foundation in reality. One can only hope that truth and sanity will prevail.

Hint: If you can't discuss LGBTQs without bringing up pedophiles, a nefarious "agenda", and the terrible fate it will bring upon society.....you're a bigot.

[historia]

Moreover, Sweden and the other Nordic countries present an obvious counter example to your totalizing explanation that societal attitudes can somehow account for all the data here

Huh? I never said social attitudes "accounts for all the data".

Let's consider the context for my comment here:

When it seems like suddenly there are thousands of trans folk, it's no surprise some think becoming trans is just a fad . . .

What it basically boils down to is some people telling trans folks that they are lying . . .

It might be worth noting here that psychological studies since the 1970s have shown that the vast majority of people who experience gender dysphoria eventually grow out of that condition as they become adults.

Moreover, historically, gender dysphoria has been predominantly seen in boys. But in recent years we've seen a big uptick in the number of teenage girls seeking treatment, with the ratios of boys to girls essentially flipping.

I don't think anyone is saying these kids are simply "lying" or that this is just a "fad." But you don't need to be a whistle blower at a transgender clinic to recognize that the sharp increase and shifting demographics of these numbers may be due, in part, to social contagion, especially when they coincide with the rise of social media. And that is where I think concerns about ideology comes into the equation.

Or it could be that now that it's more socially acceptable, more people are comfortable coming out.

While that might explain a general increase in numbers, it doesn't explain the shift in demographics -- especially when teenage girls are known to be more susceptible to social contagion -- or the other issues raised in the Reed article above. So that hypothesis doesn't fully explain the available data.

Sure it does, you just have to think about it a bit. If girls are so susceptible to societal pressure and trends, then non-gender conforming girls would suppress their identities while living in a society that oppresses and persecutes such people. As those societal pressures ease and being out becomes more acceptable, more girls will come out.

The fact that the vast majority of adolescents grow out of gender dysphoria by the time they become adults means that they aren't, in fact, "suppressing their identity," since gender dysphoria is not an identity. The Reed article also notes several comorbidities and concerning signs of social contagion among the girls seeking treatment that your hypothesis, by itself, doesn't explain.

First of all, her article is just anecdotes, not actual data. Second, the comorbidities she mentions are things like depression, anxiety, and eating disorders which as we covered before is explained by them living in a society that sees them as inherently flawed, up to and including seeing them as evil pedophiles ("groomers"). It's called "minority stress theory".

At each turn in our discussion you've:

(a) offered social attitudes as the sole hypothesis to explain (1) the sharp increase in adolescents expressing some type of gender dysphoria and (2) the prevalence of comorbidities in this population -- which together constitute "the data" I'm referring to in my comment above;

(b) provided no qualifiers whatsoever to indicate you think either hypothesis only accounts for some of that data, and

(c) tried to counter my objections that these hypotheses by themselves don't fully explain the data.

It seems to me that if someone says "X explains Y," then they are implicitly saying "X explains all of Y," especially when doing so in the face of objections that X doesn't fully explain Y. If that was not your intention above, may I suggest in the future using a well-placed qualifier or two. Because, if you had said at the outset that you think social attitudes may partially explain some of this data, we wouldn't have had the above exchange.

And I never said that "all evangelicals" are engaging in anti-LGBTQ hate

Again, I just have to note the conspicuous lack of any qualifiers whatsoever in your prior accusations toward Evangelicals. If someone was on here saying "LOL, atheists don't share concerns" I have little doubt you would recognize that as a sweeping (and likely prejudiced) accusation against atheists as a whole -- and rightfully so.

To be clear, I don't mind people making generalizations. If, say, 99.98% (to pick a number more or less at random) of atheists or Evangelicals are doing something, then saying "X is Y" or "X do Y" is perfectly appropriate. But, that is unsupported here. And, ultimately, the concerns being raised by atheists in this thread have nothing to do with Evangelical Christians, so this was a fallacious argument from the outset.

Let's turn now back to the actual data.

[historia]

Across the various studies I'm referencing here, published over the past 50 years, on average 80% of the participants saw their gender dysphoria desist by adulthood.

The largest of those studies, already referenced by brunumb in post #206, is also described in this article by Devita Singh, et al., "A Follow-Up Study of Boys with Gender Identity Disorder," in Frontiers in Psychiatry vol. 12 (2021), where 87% of the participants saw their gender dysphoria desist.

As you can see from the Yale paper I link to below and the comments at the "sexology" site, there are some significant issues with those papers, including lumping of gender non-conforming people with transgender people. Since GNC folks are not transgender to begin with, including them with trans people in (alleged) studies about persistence of transgenderism is a massive error. That sort of fundamental error might be understandable in the studies from 30-50 years ago, but not in the more recent ones.

Wait, the "comments" on the sexology site? I find it a bit ironic that, in the same post where you tried to hand-wave away a whistleblower account from the Washington University gender clinic as just something that "someone on the internet said," you also referenced as part of your rebuttal here what anonymous people in the comments section of a blog post had to say. We might note that Cantor, the scientist who runs the sexology site, found their whole "GNC vs. trans" criticism to be ill-founded.

But, let's focus on the stronger part of this objection, which is the report from Boulware, et al., which you've dubbed the "Yale paper."

The Yale School of Medicine wrote an article

More precisely, as the article itself says: "This report reflects the academic work of individual Yale faculty and does not represent the views of Yale University, Yale Law School, or Yale School of Medicine."

I strongly suggest you read the entire article, including the parts that directly address your earlier citations and claims about persistence of transgenderism.

I did. Let's start with the section you quoted:

But the Steensma study was not designed to (and the lead author has acknowledged) does not provide a basis for calculating what percentage of prepubertal children diagnosed with gender dysphoria persist with that diagnosis into adolescence.

Fair enough. But you'll note that this is not the study that brunumb and I had highlighted above. Rather, we both pointed to the one from Singh as having the greatest relevance to this topic, given its size and recentness. In fact, if we simply removed the Steensma study from Cantor's list, the average percentage of desisters across the (remaining) studies would actually go up.

The Yale report does note that, if we apply more stringent diagnostic criteria here -- so that we only focus on those participants with the most severe conditions -- then, of course, the percentage of desisters among that smaller group would be less. That is entirely to be expected, as we might reasonably assume that kids with more acute feelings of gender-related stress would be the ones most likely to have their gender dysphoria persist into adulthood.

Moreover, the report tries to argue that those experiencing some type of gender dysphoria for the first time in adolescence -- which accounts for most of the recent uptick -- may have different outcomes from participants in these earlier studies. But the only evidence the authors give for this claim is the large percentage of adolescents in gender clinics who go on to take cross-sex hormones, which doesn't tell us anything about whether they would have desisted without that intervention. Indeed, the overriding concern here is that the 'gender-affirming care' model now in use in the U.S. and a (decreasing) number of other countries is not neutral, and may actually be leading vulnerable young people and their parents down a path of unnecessary medical treatments and procedures.

On that point: while the authors of this Yale report insist that there is strong evidence for the effectiveness of the hormone treatments they are giving to minors, recent systematic reviews of the relevant literature conducted by national-level health organizations in Sweden, Great Britain (the only one in English), Finland, and Norway have all independently reached the conclusion that the evidence base for the effectiveness of these treatments is quite weak, that there are serious concerns about their potential long-term harm, and that the risks may outweigh the benefits. Which is why those countries have all stopped providing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors outside of clinical research trials.

It seems, then, this Yale report is a bit misleading on a few fronts and, at any rate, doesn't really impact the overall point I'm making here: It's likely that a large majority of children and adolescence now claiming to be trans would not persist in those feelings into adulthood. And so any sweeping, unqualified assertions here that these kids are somehow suppressing an inherent and immutable gender identity is simply unfounded.

[Reed's] observations are consistent with, for example, the systematic review of evidence that the Swedish medical board undertook to inform their recent decision to stop hormone treatments and surgeries for gender dysphoric minors (see this English summary).

The board noted the shifting demographics of those seeking treatment, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the increasing number of detransitioners as raising serious concerns about the causes of this recent, sharp uptick in adolescents seeking treatment for gender dysphoria.

The SEGM is a not a recognized scientific organization and has been referred to as an anti-trans, anti-LGTQ political group that deliberately misrepresents other people's work to push a rather hateful agenda.

Sorry, but this is a bit of a red herring.

What I'm citing here is the report issued by the medical board in Sweden. They have their own official English summary, if you would prefer to read that instead. The board notes the shifting demographics of those seeking treatment, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the increasing number of detransitioners as raising serious concerns about the causes of this recent, sharp uptick in adolescents seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. But I repeat myself.

We should also take into consideration here a similar report out of the U.K. It, too, confirms much of what Reed observed at the Washington University clinic, including the fact that many in this new cohort of patients are "neurodiverse" (read: autistic), that there are concerns about the quality and appropriateness of referrals from therapists, and importantly for our consideration of the impact of 'gender ideology' on all this:

Primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters.

So, regardless of what you think about the Reed article, these reports out of Europe independently provide evidence that factors other than some innate incongruence in one's perceived gender identity -- such as social contagion -- may be influencing an increasing number of troubled kids (and young girls in particular) to identify as trans.

It seems to me you're rushing to these (actually somewhat conflicting) societal explanations too quickly, especially when medical boards in an increasingly number of countries in Europe (and now also in the United States) simply don't find that hypothesis sufficient to explain the data.

The scientists you've cited describe it as a bit of a mystery that requires further research. That seems reasonable to me.

If that's where you landed after our discussion, it seems we're actually closer to agreement now than when we started.

It seems very much on topic, then, to discuss how this so-called 'gender ideology' may be impacting the way an increasing number of adolescents self-diagnose their mental health problems. It's equally on topic to talk about how this ideology may be impacting the way some therapists and medical professionals are treating those children. It's also on topic to talk about how this ideology may be impacting the way some institutions are treating the entrance of biological males into previously women-only spaces.

These are all issues of public concern, and so worthy of public debate.

I'd venture that not a single one of us is at all qualified to debate those issues or even discuss them from a scientifically informed standpoint. I'm a biologist and I know better. It'd be like an endocrinologist trying to debate my work...they'd have no clue and reading a couple of websites is hardly sufficient.

If participants on this site only discussed topics they had expertise in, there'd be little to no debates.

But, more importantly, my point is not that we can fully resolve all of these questions on this forum -- that rarely happens in any discussion here. Rather, I'm countering what I took as earlier attempts by some participants here to dismiss out-of-hand concerns about the role of social contagion and ideology in all of this. It seems to me there is enough evidence to give warrant to those concerns and space to that hypothesis in our debate.

[brunumb]

If you can't discuss LGBTQs without bringing up pedophiles, a nefarious "agenda", and the terrible fate it will bring upon society.....you're a bigot.

If you can't refute any of the science or the arguments against the transgender ideology, it's so much easier to just wave your hand and make accusations of phobia and bigotry. Stock in trade strategy of the trans activists. And, no, you haven't.

To be honest, I have no idea what the agenda might be. What is happening with all this gender ideology is not natural. Ordinary people seem to be going along with the idea that it is necessary to indoctrinate kids with all sorts of sexual ideas well before it is necessary or appropriate. Kink seems to have risen to the surface. I am fearful of what the future holds in store. This clip with Jordan Peterson may give some food for thought.

[Jose Fly]

It seems to me that if someone says "X explains Y," then they are implicitly saying "X explains all of Y," especially when doing so in the face of objections that X doesn't fully explain Y. If that was not your intention above, may I suggest in the future using a well-placed qualifier or two.

Suggestion noted.

To be clear, I don't mind people making generalizations.

Okay.

[Jose Fly]

Wait, the "comments" on the sexology site?

Yes, the problem they picked up was also noticed by others.

I find it a bit ironic that, in the same post where you tried to hand-wave away a whistleblower account from the Washington University gender clinic as just something that "someone on the internet said,"

Because that's precisely what that article was....anecdotes from a single person.

you also referenced as part of your rebuttal here what anonymous people in the comments section of a blog post had to say. We might note that Cantor, the scientist who runs the sexology site, found their whole "GNC vs. trans" criticism to be ill-founded.

I'm sure he did, but in his comment (comments are okay now, right) he didn't provide a specific citation.

Fair enough. But you'll note that this is not the study that brunumb and I had highlighted above. Rather, we both pointed to the one from Singh as having the greatest relevance to this topic, given its size and recentness. In fact, if we simply removed the Steensma study from Cantor's list, the average percentage of desisters across the (remaining) studies would actually go up.

According to the Swedish report you cited, it's an unknown...

"According to the SBU, it is not possible to assess how common it is for young people to later change their perception of their gender identity or to discontinue a gender-affirming treatment."

So it seems the question is rather complicated with significant nuances (e.g., children vs. adolescents, people receiving treatment vs. those not, GNC vs transgender) and requires further research.

The Yale report does note that, if we apply more stringent diagnostic criteria here -- so that we only focus on those participants with the most severe conditions -- then, of course, the percentage of desisters among that smaller group would be less.

There's quite a bit more to it than that. In Section 2c they state....

"Actual scientific evidence on the course of gender dysphoria emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between prepubertal children and adolescents. The evidence suggests that the course of dysphoria is more diverse for prepubertal children, and so it is critical to recognize them as a distinct population from adolescents. By referring to “children,” the AG Opinion creates the misimpression that most or all children and teens diagnosed with dysphoria will cease identifying with the gender not assigned at birth. This is false.

The evidence suggests that the vast majority of adolescents who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria will persist in their gender identity and will benefit from gender-affirming medical care.63 In a Dutch study, among 70 adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria and treated with puberty-suppressing hormones, 100% opted to continue with gender-affirming treatment.64 A recent U.S. study found a consistent pattern. Following a large cohort of U.S. young people who reported some evidence of gender dysphoria but had not yet been formally diagnosed, the study found that adolescents were far more likely than prepubertal children to go on to a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria and to receive gender-affirming treatment.65"

Moreover, the report tries to argue that those experiencing some type of gender dysphoria for the first time in adolescence -- which accounts for most of the recent uptick -- may have different outcomes from participants in these earlier studies. But the only evidence the authors give for this claim is the large percentage of adolescents in gender clinics who go on to take cross-sex hormones, which doesn't tell us anything about whether they would have desisted without that intervention.

That's not correct. The citation they give (Wagner et al) noted that adolescents were more likely to "continue to formal diagnosis" of gender dysphoria than pre-pubescent children. It wasn't about who did or didn't get hormone treatment.

Indeed, the overriding concern here is that the 'gender-affirming care' model now in use in the U.S. and a (decreasing) number of other countries is not neutral, and may actually be leading vulnerable young people and their parents down a path of unnecessary medical treatments and procedures.

On that point: while the authors of this Yale report insist that there is strong evidence for the effectiveness of the hormone treatments they are giving to minors, recent systematic reviews of the relevant literature conducted by national-level health organizations in Sweden, Great Britain (the only one in English), Finland, and Norway have all independently reached the conclusion that the evidence base for the effectiveness of these treatments is quite weak, that there are serious concerns about their potential long-term harm, and that the risks may outweigh the benefits. Which is why those countries have all stopped providing puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors outside of clinical research trials.

As I stated earlier, I'm quite content to allow the relevant medical community to figure out the best course. Even the Swedish summary you linked to simply states that more research needs to be done and gender-affirming care should be offered when needed, including hormonal treatments and surgeries. They basically reflect the Yale article in that they recommend hormonal treatments and surgeries only be provided in specific circumstances, which can only be identified via consistent and thorough medical and psychological care.

That all seems reasonable to me.

It seems, then, this Yale report is a bit misleading on a few fronts

I don't see that at all.

It's likely that a large majority of children and adolescence now claiming to be trans would not persist in those feelings into adulthood. And so any sweeping, unqualified assertions here that these kids are somehow suppressing an inherent and immutable gender identity is simply unfounded.

As your own source noted, it's currently not possible to reach that conclusion: "According to the SBU, it is not possible to assess how common it is for young people to later change their perception of their gender identity or to discontinue a gender-affirming treatment"

Sorry, but this is a bit of a red herring.

Nope, it's not a "red herring" to point out that a source you cited is not a recognized medical group and is instead a conservative political group that has a history of misrepresenting research.

What I'm citing here is the report issued by the medical board in Sweden. They have their own official English summary, if you would prefer to read that instead. The board notes the shifting demographics of those seeking treatment, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the increasing number of detransitioners as raising serious concerns about the causes of this recent, sharp uptick in adolescents seeking treatment for gender dysphoria. But I repeat myself.

As they recommend, more research is needed.

We should also take into consideration here a similar report out of the U.K. It, too, confirms much of what Reed observed at the Washington University clinic, including the fact that many in this new cohort of patients are "neurodiverse" (read: autistic), that there are concerns about the quality and appropriateness of referrals from therapists, and importantly for our consideration of the impact of 'gender ideology' on all this:

Um, the site says "Unfortunately, the available evidence was not deemed strong enough to form the basis of a policy position."

So again the consistent position among the experts is "more research is needed".

So, regardless of what you think about the Reed article, these reports out of Europe independently provide evidence that factors other than some innate incongruence in one's perceived gender identity -- such as social contagion -- may be influencing an increasing number of troubled kids (and young girls in particular) to identify as trans.

Not really. At most they say more research is needed. The Swedish summary you cited states...

"The uncertainty resulting from the lack of clarity about the causes, that the number of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria has continued to rise since the publication of the guidelines in 2015, particularly in the 13 to 17 age group and especially among people whose registered sex at birth is female."

So the experts you cite are not willing to jump to your conclusions and instead describe the situation as uncertain and lacking clarity.

It seems very much on topic, then, to discuss how this so-called 'gender ideology' may be impacting the way an increasing number of adolescents self-diagnose their mental health problems. It's equally on topic to talk about how this ideology may be impacting the way some therapists and medical professionals are treating those children. It's also on topic to talk about how this ideology may be impacting the way some institutions are treating the entrance of biological males into previously women-only spaces.

These are all issues of public concern, and so worthy of public debate.

But neither one of us is the slightest bit qualified to debate those issues. Heck, I'm a biologist and I know better. I know firsthand how frustrating it can be to see people who know little to nothing about my work try and debate it.

Further, this isn't an issue that's a matter of public debate. Decisions on individual diagnoses and treatments should be between the patient, their physician(s), and family. Random people on internet boards, random people off the street, and politicians should have no say in any of it.

If participants on this site only discussed topics they had expertise in, there'd be little to no debates.

But, more importantly, my point is not that we can fully resolve all of these questions on this forum -- that rarely happens in any discussion here. Rather, I'm countering what I took as earlier attempts by some participants here to dismiss out-of-hand concerns about the role of social contagion and ideology in all of this. It seems to me there is enough evidence to give warrant to those concerns and space to that hypothesis in our debate.

It's called "humility". As I said earlier, I'm content to allow the relevant medical professionals to figure this out, and for patients, their families, and their doctors to make their own decisions about what's best for them. It's absolutely not my place to force my way in and demand a seat at the table.

[boatsnguitars]

If you can't discuss LGBTQs without bringing up pedophiles, a nefarious "agenda", and the terrible fate it will bring upon society.....you're a bigot.

If you can't refute any of the science or the arguments against the transgender ideology, it's so much easier to just wave your hand and make accusations of phobia and bigotry. Stock in trade strategy of the trans activists. And, no, you haven't.

To be honest, I have no idea what the agenda might be. What is happening with all this gender ideology is not natural. Ordinary people seem to be going along with the idea that it is necessary to indoctrinate kids with all sorts of sexual ideas well before it is necessary or appropriate. Kink seems to have risen to the surface. I am fearful of what the future holds in store. This clip with Jordan Peterson may give some food for thought.

Jordan Peterson: What dumb people think smart is. No offense, but Brunumb, I think you can find better people to follow than Peterson.

As for "not natural" - that's not true. Androgyny, Intersex, Gay, etc. have always been a part of our world. Some cultures have celebrated them. You simply are locked into rigid thinking that your cultural upbringing is the norm and theirs isn't. This is the Conservative mindset: you presume the Status Quo is the way it ought to be.

[oldbadger]

Oh Dear........! Prejudices and bigotries about LGBT people....how very sad.
We have got a Carolina Drake Duck that is gay, or maybe transgender; during some years it will scratch a depression, gather up golf balls that happen to be laying about to then push into the depression and then sit the 'nest' for about a month before leaving it all, and it has no interest in treading its mate (who then seeks the affections of a mandarin drake).

Nature is full of LGBT lives, and we need to walk in to a world free of hated and bigotry such as some extreme Christianity can show.

[brunumb]

As for "not natural" - that's not true. Androgyny, Intersex, Gay, etc. have always been a part of our world. Some cultures have celebrated them. You simply are locked into rigid thinking that your cultural upbringing is the norm and theirs isn't. This is the Conservative mindset: you presume the Status Quo is the way it ought to be.

You misrepresent what I said:
"What is happening with all this gender ideology is not natural. Ordinary people seem to be going along with the idea that it is necessary to indoctrinate kids with all sorts of sexual ideas well before it is necessary or appropriate. Kink seems to have risen to the surface. "

All the things you mention occur naturally and I have no problem with that side of things at all. What is not natural is the notion that sex is not binary and that one can simply change from one sex to another. The science is in on that! Gender fluidity and being non-binary make no sense at all and the ideas are being promoted by people who have simply jumped on the gender ideology bandwagon and are spouting meaningless jargon. Aggressive activists have made headway through fear and intimidation, not through reasoned argument. Transitioning minors is equivalent to child abuse and is not what gender affirming care should involve. People may believe that they are being kind and thoughtful, but in the long run it will be the worst thing they could have done.