Deceive us? I think your bigotry is showing a bit Max.
And assuming you’re not their physician, why are you looking in detail at thousands of people’s medical records anyway?
How many are non binary? How many identify as a different gender than they present as, but have not taken medical steps, or are in therapy as first steps? How many present one way at certain aspects of their lives but are not “out” ?
Max honestly your post on this is odd. You are a few years out of college working in a clinic. There is no appropriate reason for you in any role you would have to know who is and is not trans let alone what genitalia a patient has. It is private information.
I can state that in our fairly busy pediatric practice the number of teens willing to identify as their preferred gender, requesting to be called a preferred name and appreciating the request for preferred pronoun is up. I am sure they were there before but not yet confident enough in the reactions of others. No they have not had surgery yet.
Some support knows about the name change and the preferred pronoun is shared so they can be addressed appropriately but support staff is not privy to more nor should be.
And this is getting silly. This is an ATMB thread and there’s people who professionally study the demographics on this.
Responding out of order because I guess it does seem a little odd. I was there when the single trans patient came in. This is a solo practice, only one physician for all those years. He remarked that it was the only trans patient he remembers treating.
We have electronic records, which I oversee as part of my job duties. I can do a search by gender or other trait, and since 2015 we record both gender and sex (and other demographic information). I was there during the transition where we went through all charts within the past seven years to update new demographics for the system.
Some nurses have worked here longer than I, for decades. One in particular is very good at remembering information about patients (like, it’s kind of freaky, she can remember how many kids they had ten years ago). They only remember the one transgender patient as well.
Now, we don’t always do ROS/Exam of the genitourinary but in almost all of the cases it’s in the record from a previous MD if not ourselves. Especially how PCPs are paid now, they like to do a comprehensive exam. If the last visit isn’t a comprehensive exam you bet their record software just copies the fields from the most recent comprehensive exam. And with all the Medicare Advantage and Medicaid providers we need the PCP referral (including that note) before we can get paid.
~Max
There’s honestly no way to tell unless you’re doing a genital exam for some people. My insurance says female, my social security says female. I went to the hospital for extreme pain the other day and had to explain to 6-7 different hospital staff (intake people, nurses, PAs) that I was trans because they kept trying to blame it on my period or being pregnant. This is despite them pulling my record from another hospital I had some appointments at that had a note that I was AMAB.
Hell, when I went in to a hospital for literally facial feminization surgery, despite having the sex as “M” on my record at that point, and was in a hospital gown, the intake nurse doing my IV was convinced I was cis. How do I know? He kept insisting I take a pregnancy test. I was extremely confused.
Any new offices I go in? Psychiatrists? Physicians? Neurologists? Whatever? As far as they know I’m a cis woman unless the fact I’m trans is particularly relevant (it almost never is). Again, I can tell because they ask about my period or pregnancies or other things that assume I have working ovaries. I hadn’t had any exams since I was a child, so my records never really transferred over. And, honestly, most record systems are so dated or incompatible the sex assigned at birth is often a note instead of a field (which sometimes doesn’t transfer, or isn’t thoroughly read by staff), or failed to populate altogether even if the system technically has support for it.
It’s an example, you could also substitute it for a woman reading “this alleged rape victim is a liar” or a trans person reading “there’s no such thing as transgender.” The point is once someone reads this type of comment on this message board and that comment is sanctioned, for a lot of people it’s going to color their view of the board as a whole and make the entire thing seem unwelcome to them, even if they try to compartmentalize and just focus on topics where they don’t think this kind of stuff is going to come up.
Also “immigrants breed like rabbits” is offensive if for no other reason than that it perpetuates the “Great Replacement” canard. If you’re using it with friends and there’s mutually understood context of self-deprecation or just in good fun, I have no problem with that (other people may), but this is an anonymous message board where it gets trotted out in a serious argument where it has no function but to insinuate that immigrants are inferior, and propagate a canard about them. Even in the context of friends/family, if someone made a comment like that and someone who heard said they found it offensive, I really hope you would discourage your friends from offending that person in the future.
By ignoring the people who don’t want us to fight ignorance because even being aware that others are fighting ignorance causes them distress.
I didn’t write that the biggots should be paid attention to. If a poster wants to hone their arguments against the ignorant, we shouldn’t have a rule that allows you to prevent them from doing so.
Also, if you think I’m wrong, JAQing != making an argument or countering mine.
I know it’s the standard language at the moment; but nevertheless I think “offended” is the wrong word for what I feel. I might feel “offended” if I invited somebody to dinner, and they came over and criticized the cooking and my choice of home decor. I might feel “offended” if somebody called me a fool. What I feel when I read bigoted posts is anger.
The extent of the anger depends on the posts, I say in an attempt to ward off anyone coming in and trying to picture me as going into an uncontrollable rage because somebody said for the 317th time ‘but whyyyy shouldn’t I tell women not to wear short skirts in public?’ Even if what they say is ‘Jews have no right to exist’ the anger is controllable. Been controlling it all of my life now, since early enough in childhood that I don’t remember my first realization that there are people who say such things.
What the anger is based on, as anger in humans very often is, is fear: both for myself and for others. It doesn’t generally feel like fear; but that’s where it’s coming from. And that fear is based both on knowledge of plain historical fact, and on knowledge of obvious current events.
I’ve told you already in this thread why unchallenged bigotry makes me feel unsafe, and makes me feel that others are unsafe. Others have done so also. I really don’t see what the problem is with getting this information into your head; but obviously there is such a problem. A culture that allows bigoted speech to become commonly accepted allows the ideas behind such speech to become commonly accepted; and, once the ideas become commonly enough accepted, such societies then very often put them into practice.
No, you haven’t seen young children formulate such notions all on their own. Any child old enough to express such complex notions has heard them, and seen them in body language, from other people in the society. Infants and toddlers absorb all sorts of things from those around them, including things that they aren’t deliberately taught.
Having said that: you’re nevertheless correct that there is some inherited tendency towards tribalism and fear of the “other” – just as there’s also an inherited tendency towards attraction to the “other”, almost certainly for genetic reasons and quite possibly also because other people may know something really useful that one’s own group doesn’t. Family, friends, and societies as a whole encourage some tendencies in children and discourage others. We do this all the time. There’s a natural tendency to hit people who aren’t doing what one likes. Because it’s natural doesn’t mean that one should encourage people to go around recommending that children be encouraged to hit everyone who doesn’t obey them.
And of course “telling everybody that the question is settled won’t eradicate bigotry.” This is a continuing battle and will be a continuing battle until and unless we manage to evolve into a different species. But allowing people to argue for it uncontested not only won’t eradicate it, it encourages it. Bigotry needs to be argued against and/or suppressed. Some situations call for arguing against, others for suppression, and non-bigoted people can indeed disagree as to which situation is which; including as to which situation is which on this board. But claiming that suppression is never useful doesn’t seem to me to be at all supported by the evidence.
I would personally be fine with such things being moderated as well; at any rate, in the form of people saying them themselves. Requiring people to condemn a particular comedy act seems to me to be another sort of matter. I’m not likely to watch the whole act in order to understand the context, and I’m not likely to condemn the act without understanding the context.
Of course it’s a contradiction. I don’t follow the contortions you must be going through to try to convince yourself that it isn’t.
I wish people who don’t respect women would change their minds. I don’t wish they’d all disappear. That’s not at all the same thing. If I start wishing for them to be removed from the face of the earth, or all be hauled off and shut up some place Away, then yes I would be wishing them harm.
In addition, you’re trying to compare holding a noxious opinion to simply existing as the person who one is. Those are not the same thing.
Further in addition: of course white nationalists want, at minimum, to force black people to move against their will. They want an all-white nation, they haven’t got one, the black people don’t want to leave. The only way to get what they want is either to force the black people (and most likely lots of others) to move against their will, or to kill them.
It occurs to me that you may be confusing ‘wishing harm’ with ‘wanting to take sadistic glee in watching pain.’ It’s prefectly possible to wish harm on somebody and not want to look at the process. But the fact that many (not all) of the people who wish harm don’t want to look at the process and wouldn’t enjoy doing so if they did see it doesn’t mean that they’re not wishing harm. It just means that they want the harm – like the people they’re wishing it on – to happen out of their sight.
I think that discussions of understanding the issues could continue, even without allowing discussion of whether rights should be “allowed”. And I suspect that many of those who are still ignorant to the point of not recognizing the reality of trans people, but who are ignorant from lack of exposure rather than from willful refusal of information, would learn from those threads.
There’s a difference between ‘can people explain to me the process of deciding whether a child is transgender?’ and ‘parents shouldn’t ever help a child transition, they’re just pushing their politics on their kids’. If I’m understanding correctly (please correct me if I’m wrong), the objection isn’t to threads of the first sort. If somebody posted ‘I don’t understand why my Orthodox inlaws won’t eat in my house, I had the pork on the far end of the table’, I wouldn’t take that as bigotry, I’d take it as honest ignorance.
I do think that’s part of the problem in this discussion. Moral goods do often conflict. Genuine rights do also often conflict. Acknowledging that that’s part of the problem is important. But walking away from such conflicts doesn’t solve them.
(DSeid, I don’t think your post said that it did; but that seems to be some of the advice being given elsewhere in the thread.)
It won’t. But it’ll stop the bigot from using this space to persuade others to become bigots.
The bigot can, of course, find other places to do so. But the more places that say flat out ‘that’s not an opinion worth seriously considering’, the fewer people will start thinking ‘everybody’s saying this, and hardly anybody’s contradicting them, there’s probably something in it.’
If the current mods and admins are in disagreement, either between each other or within their own minds; and/or if they’re having difficulty deciding how to proceed; and/or if they’re trying to deal with the problem DSeid identified about the conflict of rights/moral goods: then I think that consulting with an obstinate set of people with strong ideological differences is a very good idea.
I agree that whatever the mods do, somebody’s not going to be happy. But I’d rather the mods try to decide this based on as much information as possible, and I’m glad they seem to be trying not to decide from a position of ignorance about why people are upset.
No. They can’t. They really can’t.
They can wish, I suppose, that everybody on the planet had been the same skin color in the first place. (In which case, barring some other change in human character, I expect there’d be people arguing about height, or amount of nose hair, or whether all those people who carry the milk-digesting gene should disappear, or something of the sort.)
But they can’t want to take the current existing situation and want all the black people in, say, the USA to disappear without wanting any harm to come to them. That’s like saying they want to have a thousand new single-family houses built in what’s now woods but they don’t want any trees to be cut down.
I understand that you want to think your friends are nice people. I understand that your friends think they’re nice people. I understand that, in many other ways, they may indeed be nice people. I understand that they don’t want to take their kids to a lynching party and teach them to laugh at the person being lynched.
But they still want to do something that would, in its essence, cause massive harm. And that really does not become OK just because they want to think that it’s OK.
And their thinking that it would be OK increases the risk that it’ll happen. Not to mention the harm that’s being done, right now, by the attitude that it ought to happen.
You “should” only post in threads you get something out of posting in. If others want to argue with the nutjobs, let them argue with the nutjobs. If that causes someone so much discomfort that they can’t bare even knowing that the conversation exists, that’s a problem that may be reparable with proper medical intervention.
Except this isn’t happening here.
And you know this how?
Max S., I’m going to try one more time, and then I’m going to give up on you. You claim you’re trying to learn, and you point out that learning and teaching are hard. They certainly can be. I was a teacher for many years. I know how hard learning can be. So I’m going to take this very slowly, and I hope you’ll push your expectations aside and really focus on what I’m saying.
I am saying allowing bigots who, to use your term, argue in bad faith, to post their bad faith questions is wrong. It gives them the platform they’re seeking. Call it an accessory after the crime.
YOU seem to be saying that you have to give such people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they really don’t know! Maybe they mean well! And you seem to be saying "Let’s let them have their say, even though they may be bad faith bigots (For the sake of argument, I"m going along with your shaky assumption that there are a significant number of good faith bigots.), because gosh, maybe bad faith bigots can be talked into changing their ways! Is that accurate?
My question to you: how do you determine ANYONE is arguing in bad faith if you bend over backwards, as you are wont to do, to give them the benefit of the doubt?
Answer that, please, and we’ll move on to the next simple step.
Threads of the first sort are information sharing. They are not GD and if put into GD should be moved. Posting a comment questioning if a parent should help a child transition in that thread is a threadshitting hijack that should be warned in its tracks. Dropping them into other GD threads is also offensive hijacking and should be met with a warning not a note.
The question for this specific subject is whether or not there is still any place in GD for discussions with those who believe that a person’s gender is the gender of their birth or who view transgender as a psychiatric abnormality.
Given that more than half of all Americans believe that there are only two possible gender identities, man and woman, that roughly equal numbers support and oppose bathroom bills that require people use bathrooms consistent with the gender of their birth, are these subjects that should be handled as “settled”, especially as GD is pretty clearly labelled as a place in which debate on sensitive subjects may occur and a thread on the subject will be clearly labelled as something to avoid if one feels one wants to?
These are subjects that significant numbers of Americans have been changing their minds about over the past few years. Solid direct explicit rebuttals and real life experiences shared in face of bigoted stereotypes put forth have been part of that. Maybe not leading to epiphanies for the bigots, but helping educate others mightily.
If it is to be allowed at all, how should it be constrained to avoid those who JAQ it, or clearly ignore answers in favor of repeating the same questions without caring about the response, or who otherwise argue in bad faith?
I prefer the non-absolutist solutions. One possibility is a single thread for that sort of discussion in GD. Others opened are shut down and redirected there, which would bump that thread. That thread gets very tight moderation for best posting practices for all participants but some tolerance for experiencing offense would be required as unavoidable in that discussion.
Does that hit the balance well enough?
I wouldn’t give it an open thread for discussion. The idea crossed my mind but in the end it’s just as toxic as randomly started threads every fews months. The rules should state the banned topic with a heavily cited description of the “decided” argument with a well cited “dissent” section. All mod admonitions on the topic would link to that. End of the fucking discussion.
One caveat, otherwise I’m good with the general idea:
I’d prefer if that thread also had a relaxation around the insult rules. Not full-on Pit “motherfucker”-style insults flung willy-nilly, but if there *were *such a GD thread, I should be able to call someone expressing transphobic ideas a transphobe without sanction. No dancing around, transparent “the first sentence in the second paragraph of the post you just made has some transphobic language, my good sir!” bullshit. Same for the racist thread and the homophobic thread and the antisemitic thread and the misogynist thread.
OK, two caveats - And they should be called “The Transphobic Thread” and “The Racist Thread” and “The Homophobic Thread” and “The Antisemitic Thread” and “The Misogynist Thread”…
Like I said. As toxic as allowing the normal threads.
And like I said, if done, with tight moderation for good posting practices.
Why, that would only be the case if transphobia, racism, homophobia, misogyny, antisemitism etc were inherently, irredeemably toxic and not up for debate by any fundamentally decent community…
It’s asking way too much of the moderators. No way I can get on board.