Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Loren Pechtel]

by someone who hates the LGBT community.

As someone who doesn't hate the queers,
There's a bunch of stuff I don't think underage people are in a position to choose, however much they might want it(at the moment).
Sex and babies is one. Sacrificing schooling for a job is another. Sex change body mods is a third.
Tom

Is there anybody on here supporting sex change mods for minors? I don't think so.

The OP regards a new Mississippi law banning surgeries and cross-sex hormones on children. If we could agree that we don’t do this to children, that’d be great.

And it's illegal to look at a moose from an airplane in Alaska.

Spoiler

The problem isn't that they are banning surgery and cross-sex hormones, but that they're blocking all care, including puberty blockers. The Alaska law actually prohibits spotting game from the air--looking at a moose for purpose of hunting/guiding hunters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes. They should, especially when the way that they are offered to do it, under their own request, following a long period of counseling, is still reversible.

What exactly do you think is reversible?

Puberty blockers.

Puberty blockers are not reversible. If they're used for an extremely short time period, say around 3 months, the effects are minimal. But they're not reversible.

You drop them, puberty takes place as it would have.

 

[Jarhyn]

So? Tomboys are tomboys. Masculine desires doesn't mean they wish to be male.

Yes. Exactly. That’s why transgenderism shouldn’t be pushed on children.

And it's not being pushed. That's trans-panic crap from the QOP. They consider any mention of it to be pushing it--the idea that you can stamp it out by making it socially unacceptable.

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition. It's the same as society's acceptance of homosexuality doesn't make anyone gay or lesbian--it only brings some out of the closet.

Exactly. I don't care if men and women live in the same prison. I do care if people who have a tendency to exert force over one another are forced to live such that those on steroids are mixed with those not on steroids, and I do care if those who have the power to rape someone unto their pregnancy has access to people they can rape unto pregnancy.

Some people are afraid of using language precisely, and I think the fear of that springs primarily from the dishonest application of the debate.

Sometimes life is complicated and sometimes official language has to be very precise to handle it.

You can tell right off who is being unreasonable in the debate though, by who rejects the compromise.

In one extreme you have nutters who say, and it is oh so nutty to say, that people should just be able to say "Yeh, house me up with the women, baby, I'll be a 'woman', too".

On the other side you have people who want to pretend that they have any concern about those folks, who would instead use their existence (despite their rarity) to attack trans people.

Between these two sides is a compromise where neither side gets exactly what they want and the rest of us get to watch criminals be confined to the extent of their bodily faith in their declarations (do they cleave to their testicles, or from them?), And the folks in good faith are accepted across the boundary.

Some small subset of people who become eunuchs, falsely claiming to be women, will have done so for stupid reasons, and more sex offenders who win Darwin awards are a huge entertainment value are doing everyone a favor by removing the majority of hormonal drive towards the behavior is a winning my book.

If they attack people after that, then we can put them in a high security facility for violent offenders, which we do have around the country, and country's around the world have for their own nations.

 

[Oleg]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your "Of prisoners born with penises, about .1% are trans." claim appears to be a reference to Ministry of Justice data reporting 129 transwomen out of 78781 men in prison, or .16%. That means .16% of prisoners born with penises are known by the Ministry of Justice to be trans. Has it never occurred to you that there might possibly be some prisoners in the British penal system who are trans, but who have refrained from announcing that fact?!? Do you seriously imagine the Ministry of Justice obtained that 129 figure by some sort of anonymized survey similar to what the academic psychologists who came up with your "1%-ish" figure presumably used? They're obviously counting only the specific individuals they happen to have found out are trans.

I agree his data is garbage. However, your data shows his point: those with penises that transition are less likely to commit crime than those who don't. It's just nowhere near as big a difference as he says.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So? Tomboys are tomboys. Masculine desires doesn't mean they wish to be male. You're trying to bin everybody into "male" or "female", reality is nuanced. It's only the ones with major mismatches that actually want to change.

I have no idea what 'masculine desires' are, except perhaps with regards to sex?

Doing things that are more typically male actions rather than female actions. Typical tomboys. That doesn't make them want to be males.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

Does the knowledge of homosexuality make you want to have sex with men?

 

[Toni]

So? Tomboys are tomboys. Masculine desires doesn't mean they wish to be male. You're trying to bin everybody into "male" or "female", reality is nuanced. It's only the ones with major mismatches that actually want to change.

Well, unfortunately evolution is immune to wishes. NOBODY gets a choice in what sex they want to be - that's determined at the point the sperm breaches the egg wall, and is solidified very early in pregnancy.

Additionally, everybody IS male or female. There are only two sexes. How someone wants to dress and act, what kinds of social roles they're interested in is irrelevant when it comes to sex.

Humans cannot actually change sex. Calling it a "sex change" is a euphemism, it's figurative language to describe attain the surface-level facsimile of being the opposite sex. There is no way to literally change sex.

It is demonstrably untrue that everybody is male or female. While quite rare, there ARE individuals with both male and female sexual characteristics. There are even one or two documented cases of these individuals reproducing.

So? Tomboys are tomboys. Masculine desires doesn't mean they wish to be male. You're trying to bin everybody into "male" or "female", reality is nuanced. It's only the ones with major mismatches that actually want to change.

I have no idea what 'masculine desires' are, except perhaps with regards to sex?

Doing things that are more typically male actions rather than female actions. Typical tomboys. That doesn't make them want to be males.

what are ‘male’ actions?

 

[Bomb#20]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

Does the knowledge of homosexuality make you want to have sex with men?

That's armchair science. This is an empirical question; but it's one that's very difficult to get reliable data on. There are any number of anecdotal reports from parents that their adolescent daughters showed no sign of being trans until one of the other girls in their cliques decided she was a boy, and then the first trans child's friends started deciding they were too. But of course the "social contagion" hypothesis and the "me-too movement" hypothesis are both consistent with the parents' observation, and there's no obvious way to tease them apart: "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" is a real phenomenon; but closeted children keeping secrets from their parents until a friend gives them the courage to come out is a real phenomenon too. So when a group of girls come down with so-called "Rapid onset gender dysphoria" together, what actually happened? Progressives will inevitably argue that their parents were oblivious to signs that the girls were dysphoric all along, or else they deliberately hid it from their parents, while conservatives will inevitably argue that it's because children are easily influenced by their peer group's notions of what's cool. But the truth is surely sometimes it's one, and sometimes it's the other. People are all individuals.

 

[Bomb#20]

I agree his data is garbage. However, your data shows his point: those with penises that transition are less likely to commit crime than those who don't. It's just nowhere near as big a difference as he says.

I take it you're referring to the 0.8 figure in Table S1, i.e., that post-op M-to-F transsexuals are 20% less likely to commit crimes than control-group men. Check out the 95% confidence interval -- the ratio could be anywhere from 0.5 to 1.2. Moreover, those figures are "Adjusted for immigrant status and psychiatric morbidity". The unadjusted column shows post-op M-to-F transsexuals are 20% more likely to commit crimes. The chart doesn't show how much of that discrepancy is because of immigrant status (i.e., immigrants are more likely to commit crimes and transsexuals are more likely to migrate internationally), and how much is because of other mental health conditions positively correlated with transsexualism. The point is, the sample sizes are too small to avoid having quite a bit of slop in the ratios. The real ratio is probably somewhere between 0.5 and 1.7; we can't really be more precise than that without more data.

In contrast, the numbers in Table S2 comparing post-op M-to-F transsexuals with control-group women are quite definitive -- the 95% confidence range is they're 4.1 to 11.7 times more likely to commit crimes than cis-women. We can quibble about whether removing the testicles and the testosterone and giving them estrogen gives people who were born male a slightly reduced or a slightly increased or an unchanged male-typical criminality pattern, but it sure as heck does not give them a female-typical criminality pattern.

 

[bilby]

You can rip the wings off of a fly, so that your specific individual fly doesn't have wings any more. But that doesn't make your fly into not-a-fly,

Yes, it does. If you rip the wings off a fly, it becomes a walk.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

Does the knowledge of homosexuality make you want to have sex with men?

That's armchair science. This is an empirical question; but it's one that's very difficult to get reliable data on. There are any number of anecdotal reports from parents that their adolescent daughters showed no sign of being trans until one of the other girls in their cliques decided she was a boy, and then the first trans child's friends started deciding they were too. But of course the "social contagion" hypothesis and the "me-too movement" hypothesis are both consistent with the parents' observation, and there's no obvious way to tease them apart: "Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" is a real phenomenon; but closeted children keeping secrets from their parents until a friend gives them the courage to come out is a real phenomenon too. So when a group of girls come down with so-called "Rapid onset gender dysphoria" together, what actually happened? Progressives will inevitably argue that their parents were oblivious to signs that the girls were dysphoric all along, or else they deliberately hid it from their parents, while conservatives will inevitably argue that it's because children are easily influenced by their peer group's notions of what's cool. But the truth is surely sometimes it's one, and sometimes it's the other. People are all individuals.

There are a number of answers to the "me too" phenomena and most of them involve a fairly standard process: discussion with professionals who have seen exactly this phenomena before. Those professionals have a great many sessions with those who claim they are trans and then within 2-4 months start blockers and put their puberty on hold, try actuating on what they say they feel, and then usually give up because it's a lot of work to pretend something like that when it isn't really who they are.

...Just like there are some people who decide they like hats and wear hats for a month or two, and then there are people who really like hats and will punch your lights out and kick you in the head if you try to take their hat off their head.

The point of blockers, one of the things this law bans, is to allow kids to actually think about it for longer, so that the permanent and immediately oncoming changes to their body as a result of these decisions are not made lightly, or on impulse, because this, unlike a hat, is a decision that if made lightly and allowed to go too far, is very costly and painful and only imperfectly repairable.

Of course, it is equally costly, painful, and imperfectly repairable if ANY mistakes on direction are made, even mistakes caused by allowing the biological default.

Currently, the balance is on "way too many expensive defaults".

Once again we can discover who speaks in bad faith by looking at what people talk about around the issue: one side is clearly calling to ban blockers, and then defends this call by talking about preventing cutting, despite blockers preventing cutting; the other side talks about blockers: safe, reliable, works as advertised, causes no significant permanent changes when used as advertised for short term puberty prevention.

Obviously, education could help greatly on the matter but recent laws addressing sex ed are banning teaching LGBT issues.

How do you tell the difference? You fucking talk to them, take everyone seriously, give them the time to figure themselves out, and let them access the medications that allow that.

Humans grow and develop mentally to adulthood (those who ever do...) without needing a sexualizing puberty at all. The puberty part can happen any time before 30, really, and with education on hormones and their effects given the knowledge that ultimately, the choice is up to the taker, they will form their own strong opinions on what they want in a time before social cliquing encourages mimicry.

The scary part is to those who are dead set on grandkids, and the idea that they may not get that in the way they envision. Anything to prevent that fate, right? That's what people really fear: difficult children who don't give the parents what they want out of the relationship. Problem is, expecting things like that out of relationships is the core driver of abuse.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes. Exactly. That’s why transgenderism shouldn’t be pushed on children.

And it's not being pushed. That's trans-panic crap from the QOP.

That's a sweeping generalization. Just because it doesn't happen at the rate the Republicans claim doesn't mean it's not happening at all. Each situation has its own dynamic. Some people process their own homophobia by convincing themselves the reason a boy likes boys is because he's really a girl. It reportedly happens a lot in Iran; why would Americans be magically immune from the same "trans the gay away" sort of thinking?

There are a number of answers to the "me too" phenomena and most of them involve a fairly standard process: discussion with professionals who have seen exactly this phenomena before. Those professionals have a great many sessions with those who claim they are trans and then within 2-4 months start blockers and put their puberty on hold...

That's a sweeping generalization too. Do you remember how long the professional spent with Emily's niece before prescribing hormone therapy?

https://iidb.org/threads/mississipp...onds-w-hold-my-beer.27109/page-2#post-1085321

There is entirely too much one-size-fits-all thinking in the way we as a society tend to approach trans issues.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is well established that our kinesthetic senses are the result of particular brain formations, and the shape of the brain absolutely impacts behavior, qualia, and the behavioral outcome of hormones

PHRENOLOGY FOR THE WIN!

I think Jarhyn was talking about microscopic variations at the neuron level of the sort Sigma linked a paper on, not large-scale shape.

 

[Elixir]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

Your sensitivities must be rather delicate. What is your interest in transition, exactly? I mean, if it’s not too personal of course.
I just don’t see it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

Your sensitivities must be rather delicate. What is your interest in transition, exactly? I mean, if it’s not too personal of course.
I just don’t see it.

Exactly. The social acceptance of homosexuality doesn't give me the slightest desire to have sex with another man. The social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give me the slightest desire to be a woman. You be you, I only care when it reaches the point your actions harm someone who did not consent.

 

[Jarhyn]

It is well established that our kinesthetic senses are the result of particular brain formations, and the shape of the brain absolutely impacts behavior, qualia, and the behavioral outcome of hormones

PHRENOLOGY FOR THE WIN!

I think Jarhyn was talking about microscopic variations at the neuron level of the sort Sigma linked a paper on, not large-scale shape.

Duh.

Which again goes back to "bad faith". I actually pointed out my reference to Sigma's link, referencing sigma, the person who linked it.

I say "neurology" she says "phrenology". I say "blockers", she says "cutting". It's tiresome, like picking pies out the pasture every day knowing the bull's still gonna shit.

I'm intimately familiar by the difference of output generated by subtle differences in the connections and geometry of such networks. It can be the logical difference between an AND and a NOT in a grammar structure, and the point is that biology is set up as described to make it incredibly easy for it to be hooked up to all kinds of pathways to differentiation like that, where it doesn't take a big pile of effort (chemical production) to signal events in development.

Small changes that have large "downrange" impacts are the bread and butter of biological differentiation.

We have someone arguing about differences between "sexes" and attempting to avoid all conversation of why differentiation happens, and what is differentiating, when, and how, and how that impacts the person so differentiated.

 

[Oleg]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

Your sensitivities must be rather delicate. What is your interest in transition, exactly? I mean, if it’s not too personal of course.
I just don’t see it.

You must not have children. They are incredibly impressionable. If a parent, adult, or peer lies to them, that their ackwardness or quirks means they're in the wrong body, or that they can change their birth sex, the child will not know it is a lie. And irreparable harm may result.

A Desister’s Tale

How many trans-identified children “desist”? That is, how many identify as transgender for a time, and then eventually stop doing so, prior to medical intervention (as distinct from detransitioners, who return to identifying with their natal sex after undergoing some form of medical transition)...

quillette.com

In one 2021 study published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, for instance, 88 percent of boys with gender dysphoria were found to have desisted by their teens or adulthood (and more than 63 percent were same-sex attracted). These results are consistent with established research;

Indeed, several studies show that nearly all children on puberty blockers go on to cross-sex hormones.

Why do detransitioners exist, anyway? And why do trans activists scorn them?



But why are you so interested in a child's sexuality? Indeed, why is any adult interested in a child's sexuality? Leave the kids alone.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is well established that our kinesthetic senses are the result of particular brain formations, and the shape of the brain absolutely impacts behavior, qualia, and the behavioral outcome of hormones

PHRENOLOGY FOR THE WIN!

I think Jarhyn was talking about microscopic variations at the neuron level of the sort Sigma linked a paper on, not large-scale shape.

Duh.

Which again goes back to "bad faith". I actually pointed out my reference to Sigma's link, referencing sigma, the person who linked it.

Not in the post she was replying to, you didn't.

I say "neurology" she says "phrenology".

Not in the post she was replying to, you didn't.

It is not reasonable for you to expect everyone else to read all of your long, hard to follow, frequently ungrammatical, and usually badly reasoned screeds, and figure out all the relationships among them. Do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by your own poor writing. Your brain is bad at modeling other people's brains. Take that into account before acting on your impulse to accuse them of bad faith.

I say "blockers", she says "cutting".

Other people are talking about cutting, and other people are cutting. Emily is allowed to react to that. Not everything is about you.

 

[Bomb#20]

If you aren't trans you're not going to have any interest in transition.

How can you be so naive?

Your sensitivities must be rather delicate. What is your interest in transition, exactly? I mean, if it’s not too personal of course.
I just don’t see it.

Exactly. The social acceptance of homosexuality doesn't give me the slightest desire to have sex with another man. The social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give me the slightest desire to be a woman.

The social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give you the slightest desire to be a woman. Therefore the social acceptance of transgenderism doesn't give some socially excluded adolescent girl the slightest desire to be a boy? One's own tendencies are not necessarily a reliable predictor of other people's tendencies.