Yes it is. The argument is that people having a moral panic over kids getting gender affirming care (which they erroneously believe to be bottom surgery, that’s another can of worms), which is shown to be safe and effective, are not having the same moral panic (and even are likely to be the same demographic enabling this behaviour) over actual, proven to be a disaster for your health activities, shows that all these people are simply transphobes.
I am trying, but I literally cannot think of a way to be more direct here.
The transphobe’s hypocrisy is being used here as evidence of their lack of sincerity. i.e., they’re conning people. They are conmen. Liars and cheats who believe whatever they have to to convince people to hate the gays too. They will constantly contradict themselves because they don’t care about consistency. The irrational fear that they feel is the only consistent position they hold. And so, they don’t care about children’s causes because they aren’t motivated by children’s causes.
I know that you already know this; I’m not trying to be condescending. What I think is that you are, like, debate-tricking yourself into disagreeing with something really easily understood by most people.
We are just talking about two different things. I took the first response to the top level comment to be saying the top level comment was transphobic. Which I was disagreeing with
As one of those children, have you witnessed fetishising of people who have had puberty blockers? Or is that class of predator rare and without influence?
Yeah I’m reading this and I’m like “I’m actually very much against both of these examples……” the sports shit with kids in general is insane and it’s just to help them stand out for capitalism reasons, which is also why mainstream people don’t see anything wrong with it, capitalism has footed the bill of normalizing genuinely bad things like turning kids sports from a fun way to make friends to a literal job with overbearing schedules and physically inappropriate levels of activity for young bodies and joints.
You’re supposed to not agree with these (mostly). The point is people who are against gender affirming care usually aren’t against them. They’ll make the argument it’s about “protecting the children” when it benefits them, but they’re really just reactionary conservatives who want to maintain the status quo. The status quo supports the two things in the OP, but is against gender affirming care, despite gender affirming care having large upsides and the other not as much.
Hey, just a heads up that admitting you are a minor online isn’t a good idea for lots of reasons, and that a number of lemmy instances will ban you for it (as they’re officially 16 or 18+ by instance rules) rather than accepting having to deal with all the various complicated laws about handling the data of underage users.
I was one of those children, Einstein. Think about how old I would have to be to be one of the overly medicated ADHD kids when that mostly happened in the 90s and early 2000s.
Maybe don’t assume and give someone a lecture when it’s not your place to do so in the first place. Maybe you can go fuck yourself instead of trying to psychoanalyze someone you don’t even know and thinking that them being offended by it is proof of your superiority.
Also, scroll up and maybe you’ll see us talking about giving meth to children, aka Ritalin for ADHD. Maybe read the whole conversation.
Yes, there is discussion about ADHD, but none of that is part of this particular comment chain. It’s not tough to go “show context” all the way up to the top level comment in this thread, and it’s not anywhere between here and there. The only context in this thread is overmedication of children, and ADHD is not the only situation where that happens.
And as far as “lecturing” goes? You blew up over a single sentence. It’s a run on, so we can call it three sentences, whatever.
Also, I didn’t “psychoanalyze” you until you aggressively brought your own neurodivergence into the mix. Spoiler alert: I’m also one of those 90s-00s overmedicated ADHD kids. I’m calling out your personal lacking in emotional regulation because I have personal experience with it as well, and it’s obvious as shit.
Let me just be blunt: I don’t owe you shit. You don’t like it, stop responding. Maybe next time don’t try to police someone else and then get annoyed when they tell you to fuck off.
It’s not your job or responsibility and acting like you can is what makes me think you’re a douche and treat you accordingly. You want out of this? Go away.
Yes it is. The argument is that people having a moral panic over kids getting gender affirming care (which they erroneously believe to be bottom surgery, that’s another can of worms), which is shown to be safe and effective, are not having the same moral panic (and even are likely to be the same demographic enabling this behaviour) over actual, proven to be a disaster for your health activities, shows that all these people are simply transphobes.
It’s not transphobic to recognize a bad argument against trans hate. There are plenty of good arguments against it
Where transhobes do and do not direct their attention betrays their motivations.
Their motivations are very important.
The OP comment is not anti-transitioning, nor pro-child-meth.
could you be more cryptic?
I am trying, but I literally cannot think of a way to be more direct here.
The transphobe’s hypocrisy is being used here as evidence of their lack of sincerity. i.e., they’re conning people. They are conmen. Liars and cheats who believe whatever they have to to convince people to hate the gays too. They will constantly contradict themselves because they don’t care about consistency. The irrational fear that they feel is the only consistent position they hold. And so, they don’t care about children’s causes because they aren’t motivated by children’s causes.
I know that you already know this; I’m not trying to be condescending. What I think is that you are, like, debate-tricking yourself into disagreeing with something really easily understood by most people.
We are just talking about two different things. I took the first response to the top level comment to be saying the top level comment was transphobic. Which I was disagreeing with
I suppose. I mean, I was reacting to the suggestion that it was indeed a bad argument.
For what it’s worth, I do only see themoonisacheese saying that anti-transitioners are being transphobic.
Except it’s a strawman. Plenty of people are upset about over medication of children. As one of those children, kindly STFU and don’t speak for us.
As one of those children, have you witnessed fetishising of people who have had puberty blockers? Or is that class of predator rare and without influence?
Yeah I’m reading this and I’m like “I’m actually very much against both of these examples……” the sports shit with kids in general is insane and it’s just to help them stand out for capitalism reasons, which is also why mainstream people don’t see anything wrong with it, capitalism has footed the bill of normalizing genuinely bad things like turning kids sports from a fun way to make friends to a literal job with overbearing schedules and physically inappropriate levels of activity for young bodies and joints.
You’re supposed to not agree with these (mostly). The point is people who are against gender affirming care usually aren’t against them. They’ll make the argument it’s about “protecting the children” when it benefits them, but they’re really just reactionary conservatives who want to maintain the status quo. The status quo supports the two things in the OP, but is against gender affirming care, despite gender affirming care having large upsides and the other not as much.
Hey, just a heads up that admitting you are a minor online isn’t a good idea for lots of reasons, and that a number of lemmy instances will ban you for it (as they’re officially 16 or 18+ by instance rules) rather than accepting having to deal with all the various complicated laws about handling the data of underage users.
I was one of those children, Einstein. Think about how old I would have to be to be one of the overly medicated ADHD kids when that mostly happened in the 90s and early 2000s.
Get your white knight ass out of here.
Don’t come at me for missing context you didn’t include. You said nothing about the over medication of ADHD in your comment.
It’s right there. You can check it.
I’m sorry they didn’t hold you back enough for you to learn proper communication or emotional regulation. That must be tough.
Maybe don’t assume and give someone a lecture when it’s not your place to do so in the first place. Maybe you can go fuck yourself instead of trying to psychoanalyze someone you don’t even know and thinking that them being offended by it is proof of your superiority.
Also, scroll up and maybe you’ll see us talking about giving meth to children, aka Ritalin for ADHD. Maybe read the whole conversation.
Yes, there is discussion about ADHD, but none of that is part of this particular comment chain. It’s not tough to go “show context” all the way up to the top level comment in this thread, and it’s not anywhere between here and there. The only context in this thread is overmedication of children, and ADHD is not the only situation where that happens.
And as far as “lecturing” goes? You blew up over a single sentence. It’s a run on, so we can call it three sentences, whatever.
Also, I didn’t “psychoanalyze” you until you aggressively brought your own neurodivergence into the mix. Spoiler alert: I’m also one of those 90s-00s overmedicated ADHD kids. I’m calling out your personal lacking in emotional regulation because I have personal experience with it as well, and it’s obvious as shit.
Let me just be blunt: I don’t owe you shit. You don’t like it, stop responding. Maybe next time don’t try to police someone else and then get annoyed when they tell you to fuck off.
It’s not your job or responsibility and acting like you can is what makes me think you’re a douche and treat you accordingly. You want out of this? Go away.
…holy waffle tweet moment batman