6 ms·

> An interesting example is one of her two videos on transgenderism. It had an absolutely appalling both-sidesing intro that literally called people who crazy w

by grebel 3y ago

> An interesting example is one of her two videos on transgenderism. It had an absolutely appalling both-sidesing intro that literally called people who crazy who are just concerned about suicide rates among trans people. This was what she actually said in the introduction to that video: "Should transgender teens transition? This rather personal question occupies a prominent place in the American culture war. One the one side you have people claiming that it’s a socially contagious fad among the brainwashed woke who want to mutilate your innocent children. On the other side there are those saying that it’s saving the lives of minorities who’ve been forced to stay in the closet for too long. And then there are normal people, like you and I, who think both sides are crazy and could someone please summarise the facts in simple words, which is what I’m here for. So what’s going on?" What's objectionable about that? Sounds quite fair to me.

phyzome 3y ago
« saving the lives of minorities who’ve been forced to stay in the closet for too long » I mean, this is literally true, and doesn't sound crazy at all. Why is she saying that normal people think it's crazy? That's not the vibe I get from the general population, who are broadly in support of gender-affirming care. There's a relatively small, very loud contingent on the "mutilating the children" side of things and yeah, some of them sound a little crazy to me (although I suspect most are just uninformed or confused -- or using trans people as a political football, and know exactly what they're doing.) Most people either a) don't give a shit or b) have empathy for people who experience gender dysphoria. This is classic both-sides-ism, equating two things as "equally wrong" or "equally right" that are pretty obviously on different footings.
- grebel 3y ago
  If one scratches the surface of the "saving lives" claim to see what assumptions and beliefs this is based on, it very quickly gets just as crazy as the other side, if not more so.
dzhiurgis 3y ago
If you are from very polarised place then just about everyone is called crazy because opinions are approaching boolean type.
s1gnp0st 3y ago
The only thing objectionable is the soi-disant left making a religion of erasing gender-nonconforming people with medical interventions that don't work.
- howinteresting 3y ago
  https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-randomized-trial-shows-trans https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-randomized-trial-show...
  - s1gnp0st 3y ago
    N=31, okay. By work, I mean the surgical procedures do not produce body parts that reliably perform the intended function. In one case, the hole closes. In the other, the arm-sausage rots off. This comment section is full of people afraid of their HR departments, not people considering the actual outcome of the procedures.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      Better to remain silent, etc.
howinteresting 3y ago
"On the other side there are those saying that it’s saving the lives of minorities who’ve been forced to stay in the closet for too long. And then there are normal people, like you and I, who think both sides are crazy" I think this fragment speaks for itself. It is not "crazy" to care about suicide rates or suicidal ideation. It is "crazy" to not care about that.
- grebel 3y ago
  That first sentence is quite euphemistic though. There's a lot more to both sides that she quietly implies (by reference to "normal people" finding it "crazy") but doesn't outright mention.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    The difference between the two sides is that one is correct and the other is not, and that what "normal" (uninformed lay) people think is not really relevant. edit: Your response has no actual content in it.
    - grebel 3y ago
      Funnily enough, that's what those on the other side say too. No matter what the topic, those at either end of strongly polarised collections of views do tend to believe that they are correct and everyone else is wrong and informed.
      - howinteresting 3y ago
        Thanks, Captain Obvious. The fact that both sides think they're correct has absolutely no bearing on who is actually correct. For that we must turn to evidence. The evidence in favor of trans healthcare and identities is overwhelming, and the evidence presented by the other side is laced with non-evidenced religious beliefs like "someone being cis and unhappy is a better outcome for society than someone being trans and happy".

by grebel 3y ago

phyzome 3y ago

« saving the lives of minorities who’ve been forced to stay in the closet for too long » I mean, this is literally true, and doesn't sound crazy at all. Why is she saying that normal people think it's crazy? That's not the vibe I get from the general population, who are broadly in support of gender-affirming care. There's a relatively small, very loud contingent on the "mutilating the children" side of things and yeah, some of them sound a little crazy to me (although I suspect most are just uninformed or confused -- or using trans people as a political football, and know exactly what they're doing.) Most people either a) don't give a shit or b) have empathy for people who experience gender dysphoria. This is classic both-sides-ism, equating two things as "equally wrong" or "equally right" that are pretty obviously on different footings.

grebel 3y ago
If one scratches the surface of the "saving lives" claim to see what assumptions and beliefs this is based on, it very quickly gets just as crazy as the other side, if not more so.

dzhiurgis 3y ago

If you are from very polarised place then just about everyone is called crazy because opinions are approaching boolean type.

s1gnp0st 3y ago

The only thing objectionable is the soi-disant left making a religion of erasing gender-nonconforming people with medical interventions that don't work.

howinteresting 3y ago
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-randomized-trial-shows-trans https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/new-randomized-trial-show...
- s1gnp0st 3y ago
  N=31, okay. By work, I mean the surgical procedures do not produce body parts that reliably perform the intended function. In one case, the hole closes. In the other, the arm-sausage rots off. This comment section is full of people afraid of their HR departments, not people considering the actual outcome of the procedures.
  - howinteresting 3y ago
    Better to remain silent, etc.

howinteresting 3y ago

"On the other side there are those saying that it’s saving the lives of minorities who’ve been forced to stay in the closet for too long. And then there are normal people, like you and I, who think both sides are crazy" I think this fragment speaks for itself. It is not "crazy" to care about suicide rates or suicidal ideation. It is "crazy" to not care about that.

grebel 3y ago
That first sentence is quite euphemistic though. There's a lot more to both sides that she quietly implies (by reference to "normal people" finding it "crazy") but doesn't outright mention.
- howinteresting 3y ago
  The difference between the two sides is that one is correct and the other is not, and that what "normal" (uninformed lay) people think is not really relevant. edit: Your response has no actual content in it.
  - grebel 3y ago
    Funnily enough, that's what those on the other side say too. No matter what the topic, those at either end of strongly polarised collections of views do tend to believe that they are correct and everyone else is wrong and informed.
    - howinteresting 3y ago
      Thanks, Captain Obvious. The fact that both sides think they're correct has absolutely no bearing on who is actually correct. For that we must turn to evidence. The evidence in favor of trans healthcare and identities is overwhelming, and the evidence presented by the other side is laced with non-evidenced religious beliefs like "someone being cis and unhappy is a better outcome for society than someone being trans and happy".