People are saying. Believe me.
Fuck you.
Gee, its almost as if older generations grew up being told they were wrong, and learned to deny what they feel or contributed to the appalling suicide rate recorded for transfolk.
I have a transgender child, and their doctor is one of the leading pediatric experts in the country on transgender youth. I can assure you from personal experience that the statement that “no-one even asking the question, ‘hey is this maybe overdiagnosed’” is flat false. Experts are indeed asking that question, and many of them are indeed holding back on treatment until more is known about these trends.
Not everyone in the medical community feels that way, of course. Call it a schism if you want. But here’s the thing – it’s possible to acknowledge that there is an unexplained rise in transgenderism among certain demographic groups while still supporting transgender rights.
You’ve identified an actual thing that exists, and then you’ve extrapolated from that, without evidence, that transgenderism therefore isn’t real. You’ve then extrapolated a policy position from your conjecture, which is that since transgenderism isn’t real, people claiming to be transgender shouldn’t be allowed in their preferred spaces.
That’s what we’re all saying you’re being shitty for. Fifty years from now, researchers will look back on this period with an increased understanding of both actual transgenderism and whatever it is that’s causing this phenomenon whereby teens might think they’re transgender when they’re not. But in that future, transgender people will still exist, and they will (hopefully) be allowed to use their preferred spaces. And you’ll have been wrong.
First, you say that someone’s internal perception of a gender-identity mismatch is “just a feeling,” and you dismiss it on those grounds, with the unstated implication that it should properly be understood as a manifestation of mental illness or something.
But then in this statement we learn that you decided there was a problem with how things were going not for any scientific reasons but because they felt wrong to you.
I find this to be a curious and noteworthy discontinuity.
It’s very possible to both over and under diagnose something. Something can be over diagnosed because it’s the new disorder that suddenly everyone thinks they (or their patients) have and at the same time be under diagnosed because other people (and other doctors) avoid diagnosing people with the new fad disorder.
Very common with ADD 20ish years ago. Tons and tons of kids that didn’t have it got diagnosed and medicated. OTOH, lots of kids that did have it went undiagnosed because parents didn’t want their kids medicated (or even labeled as having ADD) or doctors that, for one reason or another, were hesitant to diagnose it.
And also, just adding on in agreement, be under diagnosed because they don’t have the resources for basic medical care.
True.
And to reiterate (or maybe iterate for the first time), my point was that just because something is over diagnosed does not mean that there aren’t still people out there that haven’t been diagnosed.
So, regarding this statement: “But the rocketing rates of transitioning with no-one even asking the question “hey, is this maybe overdiagnosed?””, even if the answer is ‘yes, it’s over diagnosed’ you can’t automatically follow that up with ‘then we need to stop diagnosing people with it’.
Over and under diagnosed aren’t mutually exclusive.
I wrote a whole bunch, countering point by point, but it’s not really relevant to the thread, so I’m just going to put a quick summation of my thoughts on this subtopic here. If we want to go into it further, we can find a new thread, Pit or GD rules, I don’t mind either.
People all have unprovable beliefs. Personally, I believe that people are inherently good, and that they only do bad things due to environment or situation. I acknowledge that I have no more evidence of that than someone has when they claim that they know how god feels about sex and gender.
I don’t really see how describing the beliefs of theists as absurd or in an absurd manner is any different than describing those of ufologists, cryptozoologists, flat earthers, Scientologists, or MAGAs who believe that the election was stolen as being absurd. It is not hate speech to describe how one sees the beliefs of others, even if those who hold those beliefs find it insulting.
Some, probably most, theists are like the cryptozoologists, they believe things I think to be absurd, but they are pretty harmless. At worst, they will cordially invite you to join them in the rituals they have developed around their beliefs. Sometimes those activities and rituals can be enjoyable even for a non-believer.
However, some theists are like the MAGAs who believe the Big Lie. They not only want you to believe what they believe, they want to change how we live our lives in order to conform to their beliefs. They want to punish you for not believing as they do.
If the world were just made of the first type of theists, I don’t think anyone would mind at all. Unfortunately, it is not, and the latter type are having a severe and detrimental effect on our country and world.
If you want to get angry at someone, get angry at the theists that claim to speak for you, not at the people who may occasionally speak vaguely or carelessly when complaining about the actions of those theists in such a way that you can find a way to take offense. That only ends up providing cover to those theists who do want to impose their beliefs on others.
Well, that ended up being longer than my original post, but less confrontational and hopefully more compromising. If you still want to go at it, I do still have that original post, and we can go to a new pit thread with it.
Trust me, they disgust me a lot.
But I dislike bigotry, and have very little patience with it. I don’t subscribe to the “you need to be tolerant of my intolerance” mindset.
And it’s that bigotry that truly gives cover to them.
This argument is identical to that made by people who blamed all Muslims for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks done in the name of Islam. That pissed me off too.
Bigotry is bad. Period.
I’d say it’s much closer to the argument currently being made by Muslims in Iran about whether or not the morality police can pick them up off the street for dressing inappropriately.
In order to be identical, I’d have to be blaming all theists for imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. I am not doing that, therefore, your claim that it is identical is false, and even a claim that is is similar is specious.
I assume you would never say anything bad about Trump, as he is the deity that the MAGAs worship, and by your logic, saying anything bad about Trump would be bigotry.
LOL, no. Bigotry isn’t disliking a person for things they’ve done and said. 
And yet there are people arguing this point. When somebody says “I am a woman” there are people saying “No, you’re not. You’re a man who’s confused.”
This much ignorance, after all that has been presented to you, just has to be deliberate.
And bigotry is not ridiculing the beliefs of others either. You were the one that was claiming that it was.
That’s not what was happening here. I don’t care about religion being mocked. What happened is that behavior of theists was being described (in a bullshit; ignorant way no less). There’s a difference between mocking beliefs and mocking people who have those beliefs.
It’s the difference between, say, attacking the Catholic Church for covering for pedophiles, and saying everyone involved with the Catholic Church is one.
The behavior of theists that seek to impose their beliefs on others was being described.
But, I suppose your entire point can be summed up as #notalltheists?
I assume you’ve never mocked a MAGA?
I don’t see anyone making blanket accusations as you seem to be implying. So a better analogy would be someone complaining about the Catholic Church for covering for pedophiles, and others chiming in that they are offended for being called a pedophile.
Sure, I mean, bigotry is assuming everyone is the same for some superficial reason. They way they dress, look, speak, where they live, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
Absolutely, for falling for BS. Now, if I assume they’re all mullet-wearing trailer park residents that dress in American flag shirts and red hats, I’m being a bigot.
If someone says religion is BS that’s fine. I don’t even mind if someone thinks I’m gullible for it. If someone starts ascribing some stereotypical behavior to me that doesn’t have fuck all to do with being a theist, I’m going to have a problem with it.
How quickly you forget what started this whole tangent; the description of how theists behave (singing once a week, begging for favors). I mean, a person could say anyone without religion has no soul, moral foundation, or ethical background. And I’d push back on that too, it’s also bigoted bullshit with no basis in reality, based on a narrow ignorant anger against something you don’t understand. I certainly wouldn’t make that argument (and I’d even go so far as to say that too many people use religion as a moral crutch)
No, this is a common misunderstanding. Opposing bigotry does not mean you have to accept everything. There are people and things in the world that are wrong and you’re free to point that out, including by making jokes about them.
So discriminating against somebody for being black is wrong. Discriminating against somebody for being Jewish is wrong. Discriminating against somebody for being a woman is wrong. Discriminating against somebody for being gay is wrong. Discriminating against somebody for being trans is wrong. There is nothing wrong with being any of these things so it’s wrong to target somebody because of them.
But discriminating against somebody for being a criminal is okay. Discriminating against somebody for being a pedophile is okay. Discriminating against somebody for being a Nazi is okay. And discriminating against somebody for being a Trump supporter is okay. Being these things is wrong so they don’t deserve respect.