"I think this whole debate ... is hard to solve when people aren't on the fundamental same page about the existence of a trans identity and the fact that it is a valid identity."
"that no amount of evidence will satisfy people who fundamentally reject the idea that transgender identities are valid."
That kind of language is itself part of the problem. Being transgender is not any "identity" or anything else that gives room to breathe for any of the soft science's "Big Ideas!" nonsense on stilts -- being transgender is just an atypical result of human biology. It occurs per person at a rate, when it happens it happens -- it's not even a "bad thing" . . . how people accept or reject people who are transgender can be a bad thing.
"The implications of this realization should reshape how we talk about these issues. When politicians claim they're just trying to protect children from experimental treatments, we should understand that they're really trying to eliminate transgender children from existence. When activists claim they're concerned about research quality, we should recognize that they're actually trying to prevent research that might support transgender people's rights. When media outlets claim they're just asking tough questions about medical protocols, we should see that they're often providing cover for eliminationist political movements."
Always. Always! ALWAYS! Tell the gender critical ideologues in public to their face that they are child abusers and how they are, make them own and defend it -- because they can't. They want force some boys to have and grow up with breasts and periods, and, force some girls to have and grow up with beards and deep voices. These are the monsters they are.
I mean, I don't expect journalism to learn its lesson after this alone, but I do value the insights and the realization that there is no compromise. Trans rights are human rights. Full stop.
A comment here reminded me of the staggering quantities of sheer narcissism needed to keep this "debate" going. "Oh, I just learned of the existence of trans people sometime in the Summer of 2024, everybody stop doing what you're doing until I can be brought up to speed, with the understanding that 'brought up to speed' doesn't mean I will be making any effort to learn what trans kids and their parents and doctors have been doing all these years, also please make it all extra-entertaining, I lose interest easily."
While Ms. Molloy is absolutely correct about the genocidal intent behind the assault on transsexuals, and I salute her courage for exposing it, she fails to recognize it as a symptom of the extent to which the U.S. is already a de facto Christonazi theocracy. In historical fact, our capitalist masters began the Republic's transformation to an officially Christian dominion when they forced the phrase "under God" onto the "Pledge of Allegiance" in 1954.
It is also irrefutable historical truth that -- at least since the Edict of Milan in 313 CE -- Christianity has been our oppressors' most reliable mechanism for perpetuating zero-tolerance patriarchal hatefulness as official state policies. Among these -- often elevated to genocidal intensity -- are not only transphobia but white male supremacy, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, homophobia, ableism and misogyny --including the terminal misogyny of ecocidal hatred for our Mother Earth. Evident both as deliberate toxification of the planet to permanent Precambrian lifelessness and in slogans that bubbled to the surface of the Christian cultural cesspool in the early 1970s (e.g., "Organic Is Satanic" and "Environmental Means 'Of The Devil'"), patriarchy's ecocidal misogyny reveals its core as a cosmic death cult and the source of Christianity's quest for the "End-Times."
Project 25 exemplifies these theocratic dogmas as the credo of those by whom we are now subjugated. Thanks to the U.S. Moronic Majority, they control the most powerful doomsday machine in our species' history. Any effort to convince them of transgender rights -- or for that matter, to recognize any rights beyond absolute Christian white male supremacist privilege -- is as dead as their doctrines made Nikki Kuhnhausen, for whom google. And until we recognize we are in fact at war – that our enemy fanatically fights to undo each and every one of our species' progressive achievements -- we will continue our tragic history of ruinous defeats.
The following question is from a person who attempts to read substacks of all shades of opinion on controversial issues to make sure that I understand the arguments and not exist in an echo chamber reinforcing my at times perhaps uninformed beliefs and inclinations. Who are the anti trans activists who you are referencing as being necessary to oppose rather than inform and debate? I am someone who is willing to accept that some individuals exist who are convinced that their gender does not coincide with their biologically assigned sex at birth. But I certainly believe that there should be restrictions on the nature of “gender affirming care “ available to minors that involves irreversible body mutilation. Does that make me a hater that in reality wants to disappear trans individuals. Or to use the most obvious example that encapsulates the concerns of the majority of Americans, to accept individuals with trans identities do I have to accept that trans females should be allowed to compete with and share locker facilities with biological girls and women or can I posit that trans athletes should have the choice to either compete with individuals of their biological sex or in a separate category for trans athletes? Thst is, that gender and biological sex are not identical.
I am concerned that the activists and extremists on BOTH. sides of this debate are purposely are obfuscating the complications of the topic and using emotionally language in order to maximize the probability that they can achieve total victory according to their definition.
"Who are the anti trans activists who you are referencing as being necessary to oppose rather than inform and debate?" <-- She names two groups of them. The Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation. Did you miss that? I can name another, the American College of Pediatricians.
"But I certainly believe that there should be restrictions on the nature of “gender affirming care “ available to minors that involves irreversible body mutilation." <-- OK, why do you think it is even possible any known set of "restrictions" -- called a standard of care -- which is better than the WPATH standards of care exists? In other words, why do you think those "restrictions" do not already exist? If you admit they already exist, why do you thin kthey do not work very, very well? ( because, they do )
"to accept individuals with trans identities do I have to accept that trans females should be allowed to compete with and share locker facilities with biological girls and women" <-- Yes, because you have no evidence whatsoever justifying any exclusion to the contrary.
"Thst is, that gender and biological sex are not identical. " <-- It is because gender and visible sex are not always identical, that there are transgender people at the biological occurrence rate we are born.
"I am concerned that the activists and extremists on BOTH. sides of this debate are purposely are obfuscating the complications of the topic and using emotionally language in order to maximize the probability that they can achieve total victory according to their definition. " <-- There is one side of this conflict which has ginned up all complications by propaganda, the "gender critical" ideologues. This is why you will be unable to find any actual facts backing up any of your concerns.
What transgender people want is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and we deserve that by right and should have all of that, totally. Our having that comes at the actual expense of no one.
Here's a problem: You acting like you're the first person to think of these questions about the wellbeing of children, as if doctors and parents have not already been struggling with these questions for DECADES. Maybe make a good-faith effort to learn about what's already being done by people who are professionals, who have trained their whole lives to respond to questions like this, and then get back to us, OK?
"that no amount of evidence will satisfy people who fundamentally reject the idea that transgender identities are valid."
That kind of language is itself part of the problem. Being transgender is not any "identity" or anything else that gives room to breathe for any of the soft science's "Big Ideas!" nonsense on stilts -- being transgender is just an atypical result of human biology. It occurs per person at a rate, when it happens it happens -- it's not even a "bad thing" . . . how people accept or reject people who are transgender can be a bad thing.
This!!!! It makes me both mad and sad that the anti-trans movement’s goal is to eliminate trans people. They do not listen to valid medical evidence.
"The implications of this realization should reshape how we talk about these issues. When politicians claim they're just trying to protect children from experimental treatments, we should understand that they're really trying to eliminate transgender children from existence. When activists claim they're concerned about research quality, we should recognize that they're actually trying to prevent research that might support transgender people's rights. When media outlets claim they're just asking tough questions about medical protocols, we should see that they're often providing cover for eliminationist political movements."
Always. Always! ALWAYS! Tell the gender critical ideologues in public to their face that they are child abusers and how they are, make them own and defend it -- because they can't. They want force some boys to have and grow up with breasts and periods, and, force some girls to have and grow up with beards and deep voices. These are the monsters they are.
I mean, I don't expect journalism to learn its lesson after this alone, but I do value the insights and the realization that there is no compromise. Trans rights are human rights. Full stop.
It’s impossible to have a meaningful exchange of ideas when one party refuses to act in good faith. End of discussion!
And in this case the gender critical are not acting at all in good faith.
A comment here reminded me of the staggering quantities of sheer narcissism needed to keep this "debate" going. "Oh, I just learned of the existence of trans people sometime in the Summer of 2024, everybody stop doing what you're doing until I can be brought up to speed, with the understanding that 'brought up to speed' doesn't mean I will be making any effort to learn what trans kids and their parents and doctors have been doing all these years, also please make it all extra-entertaining, I lose interest easily."
While Ms. Molloy is absolutely correct about the genocidal intent behind the assault on transsexuals, and I salute her courage for exposing it, she fails to recognize it as a symptom of the extent to which the U.S. is already a de facto Christonazi theocracy. In historical fact, our capitalist masters began the Republic's transformation to an officially Christian dominion when they forced the phrase "under God" onto the "Pledge of Allegiance" in 1954.
It is also irrefutable historical truth that -- at least since the Edict of Milan in 313 CE -- Christianity has been our oppressors' most reliable mechanism for perpetuating zero-tolerance patriarchal hatefulness as official state policies. Among these -- often elevated to genocidal intensity -- are not only transphobia but white male supremacy, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, homophobia, ableism and misogyny --including the terminal misogyny of ecocidal hatred for our Mother Earth. Evident both as deliberate toxification of the planet to permanent Precambrian lifelessness and in slogans that bubbled to the surface of the Christian cultural cesspool in the early 1970s (e.g., "Organic Is Satanic" and "Environmental Means 'Of The Devil'"), patriarchy's ecocidal misogyny reveals its core as a cosmic death cult and the source of Christianity's quest for the "End-Times."
Project 25 exemplifies these theocratic dogmas as the credo of those by whom we are now subjugated. Thanks to the U.S. Moronic Majority, they control the most powerful doomsday machine in our species' history. Any effort to convince them of transgender rights -- or for that matter, to recognize any rights beyond absolute Christian white male supremacist privilege -- is as dead as their doctrines made Nikki Kuhnhausen, for whom google. And until we recognize we are in fact at war – that our enemy fanatically fights to undo each and every one of our species' progressive achievements -- we will continue our tragic history of ruinous defeats.
The following question is from a person who attempts to read substacks of all shades of opinion on controversial issues to make sure that I understand the arguments and not exist in an echo chamber reinforcing my at times perhaps uninformed beliefs and inclinations. Who are the anti trans activists who you are referencing as being necessary to oppose rather than inform and debate? I am someone who is willing to accept that some individuals exist who are convinced that their gender does not coincide with their biologically assigned sex at birth. But I certainly believe that there should be restrictions on the nature of “gender affirming care “ available to minors that involves irreversible body mutilation. Does that make me a hater that in reality wants to disappear trans individuals. Or to use the most obvious example that encapsulates the concerns of the majority of Americans, to accept individuals with trans identities do I have to accept that trans females should be allowed to compete with and share locker facilities with biological girls and women or can I posit that trans athletes should have the choice to either compete with individuals of their biological sex or in a separate category for trans athletes? Thst is, that gender and biological sex are not identical.
I am concerned that the activists and extremists on BOTH. sides of this debate are purposely are obfuscating the complications of the topic and using emotionally language in order to maximize the probability that they can achieve total victory according to their definition.
"Who are the anti trans activists who you are referencing as being necessary to oppose rather than inform and debate?" <-- She names two groups of them. The Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation. Did you miss that? I can name another, the American College of Pediatricians.
"But I certainly believe that there should be restrictions on the nature of “gender affirming care “ available to minors that involves irreversible body mutilation." <-- OK, why do you think it is even possible any known set of "restrictions" -- called a standard of care -- which is better than the WPATH standards of care exists? In other words, why do you think those "restrictions" do not already exist? If you admit they already exist, why do you thin kthey do not work very, very well? ( because, they do )
"to accept individuals with trans identities do I have to accept that trans females should be allowed to compete with and share locker facilities with biological girls and women" <-- Yes, because you have no evidence whatsoever justifying any exclusion to the contrary.
"Thst is, that gender and biological sex are not identical. " <-- It is because gender and visible sex are not always identical, that there are transgender people at the biological occurrence rate we are born.
"I am concerned that the activists and extremists on BOTH. sides of this debate are purposely are obfuscating the complications of the topic and using emotionally language in order to maximize the probability that they can achieve total victory according to their definition. " <-- There is one side of this conflict which has ginned up all complications by propaganda, the "gender critical" ideologues. This is why you will be unable to find any actual facts backing up any of your concerns.
What transgender people want is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and we deserve that by right and should have all of that, totally. Our having that comes at the actual expense of no one.
Here's a problem: You acting like you're the first person to think of these questions about the wellbeing of children, as if doctors and parents have not already been struggling with these questions for DECADES. Maybe make a good-faith effort to learn about what's already being done by people who are professionals, who have trained their whole lives to respond to questions like this, and then get back to us, OK?