Drag Story time

[Melissa Louise]

Just now, Meriwether said:

A woman is someone with xx chromosomes.

A woman is a female person who has reached maturity - her femaleness is related to the pathway along which she developed - in a way typical of humans who release large gametes.

(Sometimes chromosomes are slightly more complex than xx)

Everyone actually know what a woman is. 

A male who lives 'as a woman's, whatever that means, is a transwoman. Everyone also knows this. 

Knowing it doesn't mean you are a fascist egging on the genocide. 

 

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

15 minutes ago, Idalou said:

Except I clearly remember threads where you and other non-Americans bashed someone here, telling him he could not understand because he was not an Australian. I don't think you titled your threads to ask that, either. And while you do not like that poster, it was always framed as you can have no say because you are not one of us, lol

What the heck? Are you 12?  'Bashed'?  Popping you onto ignore too. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Melissa Louise
I was too nice to start with

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, KSera said:

Also, I guess this should be expected for me, but I’ve been getting it from both sides on this thread. At the same time that apparently my position that drag shouldn’t be banned but I think it’s fine to discuss drag is being criticized as leading to these laws I disagree with, I’ve also defended it quite strongly in a number of posts from other people who wanted to insist the libraries are hosting sexualized entertainment for children. 

 

 

 

You've been abundantly clear that your sympathies lie with trans and gender diverse people. Nothing you've said should lead you to get grief from anyone. 

[SanDiegoMom]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

It really is that simple for me. I don’t want non-physicians dictating care for anyone, ever.

The problem isn't simple though, as the AMA is not actually following evidenced based medicine in allowing - specifically - puberty blockers in minors, and generally in prioritizing medical and surgical care over mental health counseling for gender dypshoric patients.  Listening to detransitioners is painful when they recount the lack of guardrails they experienced in their search for health care.  That is also why a US centric approach is foolish.  Other countries are ahead of us in trans health care, first in what they offered (puberty blockers originated with the Dutch) and what they are now curtailing/modifying. 

So if the medical establishment is not following best practices, or they are deferring to the Standards of Care 8 put out about Wpath (which at this point are questionable at best- they literally took out all the chapter on ethics, took out minimum age suggestions for medical interventions, and have a chapter on the EUNUCH identity ffs), then courts are stepping in to curtail.  It is absolutely not ideal.  The medical establishment SHOULD be paying attention to the literature and to what is going on in other countries. But they aren't.  

Red states passing bans on minors transitioning follows other progressive socialized countries.  They are also passing ridiculous bans on drag and attempting to make gender affirming care criminalized.  These things are not equal. 

 

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

The problem isn't simple though, as the AMA is not actually following evidenced based medicine in allowing - specifically - puberty blockers in minors, and generally in prioritizing medical and surgical care over mental health counseling for gender dypshoric patients.  Listening to detransitioners is painful when they recount the lack of guardrails they experienced in their search for health care.  That is also why a US centric approach is foolish.  Other countries are ahead of us in trans health care, first in what they offered (puberty blockers originated with the Dutch) and what they are now curtailing/modifying. 

So if the medical establishment is not following best practices, or they are deferring to the Standards of Care 8 put out about Wpath (which at this point are questionable at best- they literally took out all the chapter on ethics, took out minimum age suggestions for medical interventions, and have a chapter on the EUNUCH identity ffs), then courts are stepping in to curtail.  It is absolutely not ideal.  The medical establishment SHOULD be paying attention to the literature and to what is going on in other countries. But they aren't.  

Red states passing bans on minors transitioning follows other progressive socialized countries.  They are also passing ridiculous bans on drag and attempting to make gender affirming care criminalized.  These things are not equal. 

 

This problem as you see it isn’t solved through legislative interference. It puts everyone at risk to have legislators involved in medical decision-making. ‘Everybody’s doing it’ doesn’t make the lemmings following along look any less like blinking idiots. 

[SanDiegoMom]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

This problem as you see it isn’t solved through legislative interference. It puts everyone at risk to have legislators involved in medical decision-making. ‘Everybody’s doing it’ doesn’t make the lemmings following along look any less like blinking idiots. 

That's not what I said at all.  

 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, SanDiegoMom said:

That's not what I said at all.  

 

Help me understand how  normalizing/welcoming legislative interference in medical decision making is a net gain?

[livetoread]

1 minute ago, SanDiegoMom said:

Red states passing bans on minors transitioning follows other progressive socialized countries.  They are also passing ridiculous bans on drag and attempting to make gender affirming care criminalized.  These things are not equal. 

 

For me, the why matters. Progressive countries are generally trying to figure out and follow best practices because they care about lgbt people and want to do right by them. I know that's a sweeping statement and I know there are exceptions within those countries, but overall most of the power in those countries resides with those who aren't trying to make lgbt people disappear.

When Florida bans gender treatment for minors it isn't because they are trying to figure out and follow best practices. It's because they want all lgbt people to disappear. They don't want to take them out and shoot them but they want to live in a public sphere where lgbt people don't exist. They see lgbt people as a threat to "decent society" and they want society to limit the public existence of lgbt people as much as possible. Plus, they have the power to work towards that. They aren't fringe - they are the ones running things.

So even if they accidentally stumble on something that might be a good thing - limiting gender treatment of minors to medical trials - (and I'm not sure the banning red states even allow medical trials) it's all in the context of very bad things, at least in my opinion., Shrugging when they accidentally do the possibly good thing makes little sense to me when the power resides with those who are trying hard to do bad things - not best practices.

[SanDiegoMom]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

Help me understand how  normalizing/welcoming legislative interference in medical decision making is a net gain?

You can check out the lawsuits that are coming from detransitioners who were rushed into medical transition at ages 13, 14, 15 by doctors following "gender affirming care" and whose diagnoses of autism, adhd, bpd, childhood or sexual trauma were missed.  These lawsuits are being brought because the AMA is ignoring the fact that there is very low evidence supporting medical transitions for minors.  Why are they ignoring it? I don't know, maybe bc they aren't a monolith and get things wrong sometimes (see lobotomies).   This isn't a new thing.  It took the courts to step in during the Opioid epidemic as well.  

[SanDiegoMom]

3 minutes ago, livetoread said:

For me, the why matters. Progressive countries are generally trying to figure out and follow best practices because they care about lgbt people and want to do right by them. I know that's a sweeping statement and I know there are exceptions within those countries, but overall most of the power in those countries resides with those who aren't trying to make lgbt people disappear.

When Florida bans gender treatment for minors it isn't because they are trying to figure out and follow best practices. It's because they want all lgbt people to disappear. They don't want to take them out and shoot them but they want to live in a public sphere where lgbt people don't exist. They see lgbt people as a threat to "decent society" and they want society to limit the public existence of lgbt people as much as possible. Plus, they have the power to work towards that. They aren't fringe - they are the ones running things.

So even if they accidentally stumble on something that might be a good thing - limiting gender treatment of minors to medical trials - (and I'm not sure the banning red states even allow medical trials) it's all in the context of very bad things, at least in my opinion., Shrugging when they accidentally do the possibly good thing makes little sense to me when the power resides with those who are trying hard to do bad things - not best practices.

Pushing back on laws the are good because they are done for a wrong reason seems short sighted to me.  Politicians will come and go, public opinions will wax and wane, but robust laws will stand and bad laws will not. 

But some feminists hold their noses and work with the Christian Right on this issue, and others refuse.  They are both personal choices and I don't judge either. 

[Melissa Louise]

9 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

Pushing back on laws the are good because they are done for a wrong reason seems short sighted to me.  Politicians will come and go, public opinions will wax and wane, but robust laws will stand and bad laws will not. 

But some feminists hold their noses and work with the Christian Right on this issue, and others refuse.  They are both personal choices and I don't judge either. 

 I do judge - I think working with the Christian right is short sighted, at best. At worst ? It means selling out on  reproductive health care. 

[Terabith]

And when you ban puberty blockers or hormones for trans kids, girls with debilitating periods can’t get birth control pills and kids with precocious puberty cannot get blockers.  Unintended consequences are huge. Legislation and medical treatment shouldn’t go together.  

[Heartstrings]

12 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

shing back on laws the are good because they are done for a wrong reason seems short sighted to me.

Putting kids in foster care because their parents allow them to *socially* transition as children, is not a “good law”.   

[SanDiegoMom]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

Putting kids in foster care because their parents allow them to *socially* transition as children, is not a “good law”.   

And that is a different law than banning medical and surgical transition for minors.  Media lumps these all together as anti trans laws but that's on them.  It's up to the voters to use critical thinking in what they support or reject. They aren't the same. 

[SanDiegoMom]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

And when you ban puberty blockers or hormones for trans kids, girls with debilitating periods can’t get birth control pills and kids with precocious puberty cannot get blockers.  Unintended consequences are huge. Legislation and medical treatment shouldn’t go together.  

And that is not the fault of the law, unless it is badly written, in which case it should't stand.  A medical diagnosis of precocious puberty is different than gender dysphoria, and saying a specific drug should be used for one thing and not the other is not unheard of as far as I know.  

[livetoread]

1 minute ago, SanDiegoMom said:

Pushing back on laws the are good because they are done for a wrong reason seems short sighted to me. 

I guess we're getting away from the drag topic, but so be it.

It's not settled in my mind that laws banning any medical treatment for minors are a good thing. I would be happier with a pause while lots of medical trials are going on that can screen kids and follow them. I think we went too far in the direction of treating minors medically too quickly and that's not a good thing, but it's also not a good thing that minors cannot get any medical treatment, even in trials, because being trans is a bad thing. Kids are internalizing that - that I can't transition because people in power think I'm bad. They know why the bans are happening, and it's not because the legislators care about best practices and outcomes for kids struggling with gender identity issues.

If kids knew they had options in the future in the context of a society that cares for them regardless of gender identity and wants what's best for them, I think some pressure would be off to do something *right now*. Providers wouldn't see themselves as warriors in a culture war and kids wouldn't feel as much pressure to take sides as well. I imagine, but don't know for sure, that this is true for the progressive countries revisiting minor transitioning.

There are two problems as I see it. One is that we are treating minors medically too quickly and with not enough screening. I agree that this is happening and that it is a problem. I say that as someone with some direct experience in this area both in my nuclear family and with friends. This hurts some kids and helps others.

The other is that we live in a society where there are many places that don't want trans people to exist and would like to outlaw any transitioning for anyone or at least shame them back into not living in the public sphere as themselves. This also hurts many kids and adults who struggle with gender identity and helps some who are prevented from making medical choices that they regret later. 

So which is the bigger problem and how do we legislate accordingly?

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Nah, I just don’t see how  drag anything impacts me in any material way, see the fixation on it as an extension of the bigoted, right wing hysteria sweeping the land, and want no parts of it

Agree, agree completely.  It doesn’t impact me in any material way either. Yet we’re both participating in this discussion, you as well as me, and I think that’s totally okay. 

26 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

This problem as you see it isn’t solved through legislative interference. It puts everyone at risk to have legislators involved in medical decision-making. ‘Everybody’s doing it’ doesn’t make the lemmings following along look any less like blinking idiots. 

Exactly! We’re agreeing again.  And actually, this may not hold true for all countries and I would need to look it up for each one, but most of the ones I am aware of that have reversed their previous course on puberty blockers for minors have had various medical boards make that decision based on mounting evidence, not the government legislative process. It’s been so politicized here that no one can make a decision on this on the medical basis currently in this political climate.  

21 minutes ago, livetoread said:

For me, the why matters. Progressive countries are generally trying to figure out and follow best practices because they care about lgbt people and want to do right by them. I know that's a sweeping statement and I know there are exceptions within those countries, but overall most of the power in those countries resides with those who aren't trying to make lgbt people disappear.

When Florida bans gender treatment for minors it isn't because they are trying to figure out and follow best practices. It's because they want all lgbt people to disappear. They don't want to take them out and shoot them but they want to live in a public sphere where lgbt people don't exist. They see lgbt people as a threat to "decent society" and they want society to limit the public existence of lgbt people as much as possible. Plus, they have the power to work towards that. They aren't fringe - they are the ones running things.

So even if they accidentally stumble on something that might be a good thing - limiting gender treatment of minors to medical trials - (and I'm not sure the banning red states even allow medical trials) it's all in the context of very bad things, at least in my opinion., Shrugging when they accidentally do the possibly good thing makes little sense to me when the power resides with those who are trying hard to do bad things - not best practices.

Sorry for the long quote, but I had to QFT. You hit the nail on the head.

4 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

 I do judge - I think working with the Christian right is short sighted, at best. 

Wholeheartedly agree (which is funny and sad for me to have to say as a Christian). But yes. I see some of these organizations and they’re publishing in far right wing media sources and I think it’s super shortsighted and has only served to make it harder for people to look objectively at the actual research. I know I’m certainly not going to click on one of those links to read it. I have to stick to what’s published in peer reviewed journals and trust worthy, credible news sources. 

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Focusing on legal aspects makes sense, though, unlike focusing on whether thoughts around drag make someone an irredeemable bigot.

DQST is just such a weirdly odd insertion into what is  being called a genocide. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

At the very least.

It bothers me anyone here would defend a man who feels it is okay to enter a private space designated for little girls to use the restroom and to shower.  And then insinuate you are a bigot for thinking it's wrong.  I am glad the situation got de-escalated, but I'm sure that won't be the last time that person tries pulling such a stunt.  I really wonder why a man would insist on using that facility.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

If we’re defining women by their stature, the presence/absence of breasts, childbearing ability, facial/body hair etc., yeah, you’re gonna set A LOT of women up for abuse/harassment.

It's already happening. News recently was of a right wing couple freaking out at a track meet because a girl with short hair was competing. They claimed she must be a boy, or a trans girl. She was not. But that didn't keep her from hearing that, and the chaos that ensued. 

1 hour ago, Meriwether said:

A woman is someone with xx chromosomes.

Somehow I doubt that those who are adament about which bathroom people use would be okay with someone who has XX chromosomes but identifies as male, has a long beard, no breasts, deep voice, wears men's clothes, and perhaps even has had bottom surgery, using the women's shower room. So it really isn't just about chromosomes. 

6 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

And that is not the fault of the law, unless it is badly written, in which case it should't stand.  A medical diagnosis of precocious puberty is different than gender dysphoria, and saying a specific drug should be used for one thing and not the other is not unheard of as far as I know.  

Actually, generally it is perfectly legal to use a drug off label for all sorts of uses. Recently we have passed laws in many states saying certain drugs can't be used for abortion, and it didn't work out very well, as in practice pharmacists are unsure of what the drug is being used for and wary of legal repercussions are refusing to fill medications for women that need them, regardless of the reasons they need them. The law can be fairly clear and still produce the de facto effect of banning the medication for anyone, even for legal uses, because doctors and more often pharmacies are not willing to chance it. 

[KSera]

13 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

And that is not the fault of the law, unless it is badly written, in which case it should't stand.  A medical diagnosis of precocious puberty is different than gender dysphoria, and saying a specific drug should be used for one thing and not the other is not unheard of as far as I know.  

These are all examples that have direct correlates with a lot of the reproductive healthcare examples. Legislation surrounding specific medical treatments in this way just doesn’t go well. 
 

 

6 minutes ago, livetoread said:

I think we went too far in the direction of treating minors medically too quickly and that's not a good thing, but it's also not a good thing that minors cannot get any medical treatment, even in trials, because being trans is a bad thing. Kids are internalizing that - that I can't transition because people in power think I'm bad. They know why the bans are happening, and it's not because the legislators care about best practices and outcomes for kids struggling with gender identity issues.

Your whole post was really good, but particularly QFT this part. Kids are the ones losing all the way around in this political climate.

[ktgrok]

As for why a drag queen might want to use the female designated restrooms/etc...I'm assuming because they don't feel safe in the mens restrooms/etc. Because frankly, they probably aren't. 

I think it the scenario listed it was handled appropriately, and that we need more gender free spaces for those that are truly not safe in the gendered ones. 

[Ting Tang]

15 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

As for why a drag queen might want to use the female designated restrooms/etc...I'm assuming because they don't feel safe in the mens restrooms/etc. Because frankly, they probably aren't. 

I think it the scenario listed it was handled appropriately, and that we need more gender free spaces for those that are truly not safe in the gendered ones. 

I'm assuming a lot, but this is a homeschool children's camp, so the bathroom and showering/bathing facility really ought to be reserved for those little girls.  They deserve protection, too.  Maybe a little girl doesn't want to be seen in her skivvies by a man in drag.   I'm really not okay with a strange grown man having more protection than a little girl.  

If you show up to a children's camp in a cone-shaped golden bra, tutu, and high heels----you may garner some negative attention.  Whereas a nightclub might be a more appropriate venue for that presentation.  At the beginning of the conversation, there seemed to be agreement that presentation to children IS different than presentation to adults, but here we see that's not always the case.  Unless you're all okay with desensitizing your kids to overtly sexual and adult entertainment.  

It does seem the answer is to have a single room for people to use if they don't feel safe in either space.  I can agree with this.  

Edited June 19, 2023 by Ting Tang

[bolt.]

12 minutes ago, Terabith said:

And when you ban puberty blockers or hormones for trans kids, girls with debilitating periods can’t get birth control pills and kids with precocious puberty cannot get blockers.  Unintended consequences are huge. Legislation and medical treatment shouldn’t go together.  

A place like the UK seems capable of writing medical legislation (or NHS policy, at least) that is nuanced enough to account for multiple uses of multiple drugs.

In the NHS case, the new protocol is about how gender distress in minors, specifically, will be treated by medical practitioners. It's not at all about how/why the various drugs sometimes used in that context will or won't be used in other contexts. Their use in other contexts, for other conditions, will continue as usual, under the regulations that have governed those uses up to this point.

[Heartstrings]

21 minutes ago, livetoread said:

and helps some who are prevented from making medical choices that they regret later. 

Trying to prevent people from experiencing regret through legislation is just bad practice.  How many woman aren’t allowed to get their tubes tied because of fear of them regretting it.  People regret all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.   De-transitioners are loud, but they are a small percentage of trans people.  We would never agree to ban homeschooling because of the loud segment that regrets their experience.  

Edited June 19, 2023 by Heartstrings

[KSera]

7 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

De-transitioners are loud

Honestly, most are not. Most don’t want to call attention to themself for that. I still agree with you on legislation not being the way to handle that, but given what research is showing, I think it’s unkind to dismiss their experiences. As it is, they frequently get death threats and shunned by what used to be their communities. 

[freesia]

7 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

Trying to prevent people from experiencing regret through legislation is just bad practice.  How many woman aren’t allowed to get their tubes tied because of fear of them regretting it.  People regret all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons.   De-transitioners are loud, but they are a small percentage of trans people.  We would never agree to ban homeschooling because of the loud segment that regrets their experience.  

But we are talking about children. We protect them all the time with legal protection to guard against the fact that their brain is not fully developed—statutory rape laws, child marriage, movie ratings.  Doubt it’s legal to tie the tubes of. a 15 year old, for example. 

[EKS]

34 minutes ago, livetoread said:

Kids are internalizing that - that I can't transition because people in power think I'm bad.

If this is what they are internalizing then they aren't understanding the issues properly.  

[ktgrok]

23 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

I'm assuming a lot, but this is a homeschool children's camp, so the bathroom and showering/bathing facility really ought to be reserved for those little girls.  They deserve protection, too.  Maybe a little girl doesn't want to be seen in her skivvies by a man in drag.   I'm really not okay with a strange grown man having more protection than a little girl.  

If you show up to a children's camp in a cone-shaped golden bra, tutu, and high heels----you may garner some negative attention.  Whereas a nightclub might be a more appropriate venue for that presentation.  At the beginning of the conversation, there seemed to be agreement that presentation to children IS different than presentation to adults, but here we see that's not always the case.  Unless you're all okay with desensitizing your kids to overtly sexual and adult entertainment.  

It does seem the answer is to have a single room for people to use if they don't feel safe in either space.  I can agree with this.  

Oh, I'm not saying it was a good idea for the person to use the women's changing area. I was just responding to the question of "why" the person may have done so. In the absence of a gender neutral or private area, they had to choose between the mens's or women's and often times I think the women's space is chosen out of fear of the mens' space. Often people postulate that the women's space is chosen for neafarious reasons, but I'd bet most often it is out of fear for personal safety. 

21 minutes ago, bolt. said:

A place like the UK seems capable of writing medical legislation (or NHS policy, at least) that is nuanced enough to account for multiple uses of multiple drugs.

In the NHS case, the new protocol is about how gender distress in minors, specifically, will be treated by medical practitioners. It's not at all about how/why the various drugs sometimes used in that context will or won't be used in other contexts. Their use in other contexts, for other conditions, will continue as usual, under the regulations that have governed those uses up to this point.

Perhaps the UK has a less litigious society, or less severe penalties for pharmacists dispensing things wrongly, etc?

[ktgrok]

meanwhile, the US, nazis are showing up at Drag events to make threats. 

[Sneezyone]

1 hour ago, SanDiegoMom said:

You can check out the lawsuits that are coming from detransitioners who were rushed into medical transition at ages 13, 14, 15 by doctors following "gender affirming care" and whose diagnoses of autism, adhd, bpd, childhood or sexual trauma were missed.  These lawsuits are being brought because the AMA is ignoring the fact that there is very low evidence supporting medical transitions for minors.  Why are they ignoring it? I don't know, maybe bc they aren't a monolith and get things wrong sometimes (see lobotomies).   This isn't a new thing.  It took the courts to step in during the Opioid epidemic as well.  

We already have medical malpractice laws. 

[ktgrok]

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

If this is what they are internalizing then they aren't understanding the issues properly.  

Plenty of people passing restrictions on transitioning, bathroom use, etc DO think trans people are bad. DeSantis is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart and his sincere love for trans kids. 

[Heartstrings]

20 minutes ago, freesia said:

But we are talking about children. We protect them all the time with legal protection to guard against the fact that their brain is not fully developed—statutory rape laws, child marriage, movie ratings.  Doubt it’s legal to tie the tubes of. a 15 year old, for example. 

In my state a 15 year old can get married but can’t use puberty blockers, so there’s that.  They can also get a boob job but not top surgery, even though both could be described as “gender affirming”.
 

Teenagers also do things they regret later.  Some regret birth control, or choosing up give up children for adoption, or getting married at 14 or 15.

Parents also get to make all kinds of decisions for children.   Circumcision for example? Forgoing medical treatments for Illnesses that leads to death or disabilities?   Joining religious cults and using only wisdom booklets for education. Sending their kids to wilderness camps or de transition camps.
 

But we’re only legislating against the puberty blockers?  

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Heartstrings

[ktgrok]

I'm reading that puberty blockers can be given with the parent's consent to minors in the UK, and that after age 16 they can take cross gender hormones. So, not the same at all as the legislation here. 

Edit - never mind, the newest info took longer to find. I guess now the NHS won't provide them outside of research fcilities, but now I'm wondering if that is the same as saying they are illegal? Like, can a parent access them for their minor child outside the country, pay privately, etc? Saying the NHS won't do it is different than making it illegal, right? And even the clinics themselves can prescribe them outside of research settings on a case by case basis. That's a LOT MORE NUANCED THAT THE USA LAWS. What Florida and other places are doing, criminalizing trans affirming care, is NOT what western Europe is doing. 

EDIT AGAIN: Seems it is NOT illegal, and yes, parents can get them elsewhere, although it is discouraged. "The health service’s decision does not prevent children and their families from obtaining puberty blockers elsewhere, but that will be “strongly discouraged,” the NHS said."

https://apnews.com/article/uk-transgender-puberty-blockers-abd9145484006fea23de6b4656c937da

Edited June 19, 2023 by ktgrok

[Ting Tang]

4 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Oh, I'm not saying it was a good idea for the person to use the women's changing area. I was just responding to the question of "why" the person may have done so. In the absence of a gender neutral or private area, they had to choose between the mens's or women's and often times I think the women's space is chosen out of fear of the mens' space. Often people postulate that the women's space is chosen for neafarious reasons, but I'd bet most often it is out of fear for personal safety. 

Perhaps the UK has a less litigious society, or less severe penalties for pharmacists dispensing things wrongly, etc?

Ok, I gotcha.  Yes, that part makes sense.  I understand it is expensive, but I do think a lot of places should take this into consideration.  A lot of people who are not even part of the LGBTQ community would benefit as well.  I will also make the statement I do feel kids are sexualized in a lot of ways that have nothing to do with drag queens, and that's not cool with me, either.  

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, Ting Tang said:

Ok, I gotcha.  Yes, that part makes sense.  I understand it is expensive, but I do think a lot of places should take this into consideration.  A lot of people who are not even part of the LGBTQ community would benefit as well.  I will also make the statement I do feel kids are sexualized in a lot of ways that have nothing to do with drag queens, and that's not cool with me, either.  

They could build mens rooms with a bit of privacy too.  They’re all peeing in toilets at home, why do they “need” urinals at the WalMart?  And why can’t they be in stalls? Why do we make men expose themselves publicly to use the bathroom?  It’s so weird if you stop and think about it for a bit.  The fair grounds near me just have a literal trough in the middle of the mens room.  Come on!   
 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Heartstrings

[EKS]

11 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Plenty of people passing restrictions on transitioning, bathroom use, etc DO think trans people are bad. DeSantis is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart and his sincere love for trans kids. 

My comment was about the medical transition of minors.  

[Ting Tang]

Just now, Heartstrings said:

They could build mens rooms with a bit of privacy too.  They’re all peeing in toilets at home, why do they “need” urinals at the WalMart?  And why can’t they be in stalls? Why do we make men expose themselves publicly to use the bathroom?  It’s so weird if you stop an think for a bit.  The fair grounds near me just have a literal trough in the middle of the mens room.  Come on!   

Yeah, we are not living in Roman times!  I had a gym teacher in middle school who decided when we needed to shower after class.  We didn't get to make the decision.  It made me feel so uncomfortable I tried to shower with a towel.  

I really cannot comment on the medical side of children questioning their genders.  I am not educated enough.  I am inclined to say it is a private matter and that what is best for one child might not be best for another.  Also, I don't like government telling me they know what's best for my kid, so I do understand the upset of parents who have kids going through this.  😞

[Terabith]

Something I don’t think is hardly ever acknowledged:  anti trans laws push people to do more extreme changes faster than they might otherwise because they’re afraid if they don’t do it now, their rights to do so later will be taken away. This isn’t at all irrational, and people who might otherwise have just socially transitioned are deciding to have surgery or start taking hormones so they might be grandfathered in. 

[ktgrok]

9 minutes ago, EKS said:

My comment was about the medical transition of minors.  

Right. And the people making the laws about who can and can't transition DO often think that trans people are bad. So I fully can get why a minor would think that is why they can't transition. 

[EKS]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Right. And the people making the laws about who can and can't transition DO often think that trans people are bad. So I fully can get why a minor would think that is why they can't transition.

If minors are unable to grasp the complexity of the issues involved with regard to medical transition (and social transition, for that matter), then perhaps they shouldn't be making decisions regarding such things.

[SanDiegoMom]

26 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Oh, I'm not saying it was a good idea for the person to use the women's changing area. I was just responding to the question of "why" the person may have done so. In the absence of a gender neutral or private area, they had to choose between the mens's or women's and often times I think the women's space is chosen out of fear of the mens' space. Often people postulate that the women's space is chosen for neafarious reasons, but I'd bet most often it is out of fear for personal safety. 

 

There are charitable reasons that are the ones most talked about, amongst the shouts of inclusivity and "be kind".  No one wants to talk about the very real phenomenom of men being Autogynephiles.  Yet it is a thing, it has been studied starting I think 50 years ago, and it accounts for some (not all!) of the pushing in on women's spaces.  Showing up to a homeschool camp in a revealing tutu and cone shaped top immediately sets off alarm bells in my mind as this person possibly being an inappropriate and boundary pushing AGP.  I wouldn't treat them differently, but I would be grateful for social norms to protect women's spaces.

Trans is not one thing, and acknowledging that does not make someone a bigot.  

[Heartstrings]

15 minutes ago, EKS said:

My comment was about the medical transition of minors.  

Are any states actually passing small “c” conservative bills that are targeted at only that 1 thing? Because I’m not seeing any.  They all add other things, like restrictions on social transitions, or restrictions on what trans adults can do, putting kids in foster care, arresting people who go out of state for treatment.  Over reach is the name of the game.  

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, EKS said:

If minors are unable to grasp the complexity of the issues involved with regard to medical transition (and social transition, for that matter), then perhaps they shouldn't be making decisions regarding such things.

it doesn't show a lack of understanding for a child in a state with people who think trans anything is bad to come to the conclusion that the reason they can't transition is because people think transitioning is bad. It shows a good understanding. 

 

[KSera]

40 minutes ago, EKS said:

If this is what they are internalizing then they aren't understanding the issues properly.  

We’re talking about kids. The kids are supposed to understand these nuanced issues when clearly even adults are largely unable to? I think this is on the adults, and making kids feel like they are bad and people don’t like or care about them is bad. This is also some of the harm of genocide language though. Kids are hearing that as well and internalizing that they are the objects of a current genocide and that’s not a helpful message for already struggling kids either. 

36 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

We already have medical malpractice laws. 

Currently that has only applied in a minority of cases. Not adhering to the most current research typically doesn’t fall under malpractice. Heck, look how long OBs have been consistently practicing behind the times. It seems almost more the rule than the exception for medicine to take awhile to catch up to best practice. 

[Heartstrings]

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

it doesn't show a lack of understanding for a child in a state with people who think trans anything is bad to come to the conclusion that the reason they can't transition is because people think transitioning is bad. It shows a good understanding. 

 

And the parents are the ones ultimately making decisions and are surely capable of holding all of the complexities in their head, just as we trust them to do in myriad other circumstances with sometimes permanent consequences.  

[livetoread]

1 hour ago, EKS said:

If this is what they are internalizing then they aren't understanding the issues properly.  

Really disagree with you there. They may not grasp all the subtle complexities of the various positions, but they get the overall gist of the intent behind the laws quite clearly.

[SanDiegoMom]

24 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

it doesn't show a lack of understanding for a child in a state with people who think trans anything is bad to come to the conclusion that the reason they can't transition is because people think transitioning is bad. It shows a good understanding. 

 

This quote is from a butch lesbian's post she wrote for Gender Dysphoria Alliance .  I will link to the whole post below: 

"I don’t doubt that sometimes medical transition is helpful for people. It’s not my place to say they can’t or shouldn’t. But let’s not sell this like it’s a Disney park ride. The marketing of everything trans is ridiculously misleading. Don’t put sparkles and rainbows over real pain as though that helps at all. It’s insulting. 

If we really want to help these kids, we need to make it easier for lesbian kids. Butch kids. All gender non-conforming kids. The quirky and awkward kids. Kids who feel they don’t fit it. Let’s get better at working with parents and preserving families. Be honest about what medical transition is really about. No one really changes biological sex and these procedures are really hard to go through. Why are we putting all of our resources into escaping brutality rather than eliminating brutality? We’re cutting up our bodies because our lived reality is worse. Why do we celebrate that?"

 

https://www.genderdysphoriaalliance.com/post/when-we-were-butch

 

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

"We’re cutting up our bodies because our lived reality is worse. Why do we celebrate that?"

😢 There is so much to unpack in these two sentences. People aren't ready to unpack it, but lots of girls and women are living it (I say girls and women because it increasingly appears both the initiating factors and the outcomes of transition are different for people born male, and the current mental health situation in general is different and significantly worse for young people born female). There is a lot of pain out there right now.

[EKS]

51 minutes ago, KSera said:

We’re talking about kids. The kids are supposed to understand these nuanced issues when clearly even adults are largely unable to?

Correct.

It stuns me how willfully blind adults seem to be about the complexity of these issues. 

As a gender non-conforming adult, as a former child who had significant gender dysphoria, and as an adult who still does to some extent, I am BEYOND GRATEFUL that the message I got growing up in the 1970s was this: "The reality is that you are a female, but you can live in the world however you want" and that there was no pressure to "pick" an identity because the facts of the matter spoke for themselves.

Edited June 19, 2023 by EKS

[Heartstrings]

5 minutes ago, EKS said:

Correct.

It stuns me how willfully blind adults seem to be about the complexity of these issues. 

As a gender non-conforming adult, as a former child who had significant gender dysphoria, and as an adult who still does to some extent, I am BEYOND GRATEFUL that the message I got growing up in the 1970s was this: "The reality is that you are a female, but you can live in the world however you want" and that there was no pressure to "pick" an identity because the facts of the matter spoke for themselves.

A lot of these laws are making that harder though.  They are making “non confirming” MORE difficult than it is for trans people who “pass”.   The laws really reinforce very gendered stereotypes.  

[KSera]

4 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Where is the evidence that the bolded has worked/is working? Look around for Pete’s sake. It’s not as though these discussions have led to any nuanced anything, just ever more extreme restrictions.

We’re not largely having nuanced discussions in the US, though. We may manage to have them here on TWTM sometimes, but this is unusual. I maintain the extreme place we’re finding ourselves owes more to the lack of nuance than the presence of it.