No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I'm going to get all sorts of fun responses for trying to empathize with those with whom I disagree (instead of just writing "dumb bigots") but here goes:
First, remember that even gay marriage is fairly new to America, it's been around for less time than the MCU.
There are a lot of folks who almost have mental whiplash, gay marriage went from illegal to "you could get fired for being vocally uncomfortable about it" in fairly quick order.
Now, to make things even more wild for those folks, mainstream culture is pretty insistent that gender isn't even a thing anymore. Add in some pretty wild news stories/videos*, worries for their kids and the notion that the Left refuses to say there might be any issues whatsoever and you can kinda see where a backlash could crop up.
This aligns with what I have heard from folks I know in that world. Fear motivated by exaggerating one off and isolated incidents. The information silos in the conservative world (especially news) is frightening.
Talk to any random person on the street and they don't fucking care about identity politics.
Extremists are not the mainstream no matter how much they shout about it.
No, most people aren't going out of their way to hurt trans people, but those loud extremists are creating a negative connotation in some people's minds. That's no different from racism.
Extremists on both sides are a problem, so when you say "those loud extremists" a reasonable person would have no idea who you're talking about. I think you're correct in either instance, but I doubt that's what you where going for.
Oh. My bad. I thought a reasonable person would assume I meant the loud extremists that match the topic of this post.
There's a reason conservatives campaign against "woke." And most conservatives I know socially called the election a win against woke, even if they couldn't exactly name a woke policy that Harris proposed.
Harris explicitly didn't play identity politics, and I applaud her for it. I think the left is starting to realise even people who agree with them dislike being told what to think ... one can dream right.
I like your dream and fully agree on Harris.
Sadly (though I am admittedly a pessimist and would love to be wrong) I think the Left elites/party brass are coming to that realization on identity politics. But I dont think mainstream/cultural Left is and unfortunately, I think Right and centre Right curious voters view the political and cultural Left as the same.
You were doing reasonably well, until you diverted to pure transphobia in the last paragraph
The listing of the news/videos they may have seen?
Not the list, but the way you described them, as if these were things that actually happen...
This is part of the thing. If we on the Left can't have an honest discussion about things that do happen, then it is incredibly hard for anyone not already "on side" to take us seriously.
This is a tricky issue, trans women in men's prisons are also at risk. But to straight up deny these things happen and deny the existence of non transphobic concerns, well, that's hard to take seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SJYdXj7Kac&ab_channel=WilsonB9000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Mouncey
Murder was hyperbole, probably inappropriate. But damn, she is just so much bigger than her entire team and everyone on the opposition in all of those clips. (She also dominates in Aussie rules football.)
The whole article is discomforting and worth reading. But, while WPATH (what is supposed to, and claims to be and independent science based organization) was creating their guidelines: "But an email in October 2020 from WPATH figures, including its incoming president at the time, Walter Bouman, to the working group on guidelines, made clear what sort of science WPATH did (and did not) want published. Research must be “thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense,” it stated. Mr Bouman and one other coauthor of that email have been named to a World Health Organisation advisory board tasked with developing best practices for transgender medicine."
Again, I'm generally on board with trans rights etc but to say there aren't issues just makes it that much harder to take us at face value.
"Also at risk"
The fact that you equate cherry picked single instance anecdotes as comparable to entrenched violence and discrimination against trans folk as being somehow comparable is the part that makes it transphobia.
It was, yeah. Despite her "murdering" the opposition, from the very article you linked, Australia finished 5th.
There are 7 players on a handball team. She scored 23 goals across 6 games, for an average of just under 4 goals per game (3.83 to be specific).
The total goals scored by Australia in those games was 160, which works out to an average of 3.81 per Australian player across those 6 games. Her "murdering" of her opponents consisted of having a 0.02% higher average than her team mates.
The fact that you parrot lines like "murdering" and look at videos designed to make it look open and shut, whilst not bothering to investigate the reality of the situation is what makes it transphobic.
An article posted on the economist, who has Helen Joyce, a vocally transphobic journalist as one of their senior staff. Linking to an article that has been mostly circulated on various transphobic websites, calling out WPATH for being biased and getting in the way of evidence based research? Whilst defending the Cass review, which has been widely called out by many international medical bodies for its own bias and inconsistent approach to evidence.
The fact that you're worried about WPATH as the real issue here is telling...
You are misunderstanding.
Most reasonable, casual folks, who aren't up on who Helen Joyce is or other trans poli sco lore, these are all fairly reasonable takes. The Economist is generally regarded as one of the most reputable papers around and for good reason.
I've also not presented my beliefs, just "here's some pretty mainstream concerns." I made that pretty clear in my opening statement (and pointed out that pretty much this exactly would happen.)
You've clearly encountered these arguments before (definitely didn't watch the video which is fucking sympathetic). I'm not making these arguments.
I'm saying that reasonable people, who read one of the most reputable papers in the world can in fact have reservations on some trans issues. I can disagree with them but it's not just bigotry.
Yes, they're designed to seem that way.
Which is why I earlier stated that my issue wasn't with listing them, but specifically, the way you presented them.
You used the word "murdering" to describe a transgender woman playing sports with other women, despite her playing at a level comparable to them.
You absolutely presented your beliefs.
Oh come off it. Watch the video, she's a damn head taller than almost everyone she's playing against and God knows how many ppunds heavier.
If we don't want to be the crazy side we have to come to terms with arguments about issues, even important ones, not being only good or evil.
I went through the numbers to highlight her performance is on par with the rest of her team, and you still think that I'm being unreasonable
As I said, you presented your position quite clearly, which is why I called you out
I don't think you're unreasonable, you have more context than myself and any other casual North American sports fan who (shockingly!) hasn't learned the points per game rates of Aussie rules footie. BUT, for most who have a casual understanding of sports, seeing someone a foot taller than their competition makes us go "huh, that seems wild."
As we do when reading one of the most reputable papers in the world raising concerns about transgender health science methodology.
(For what it's worth, in my personal experience of playing mid level co-ed rec league sports in a large liberal city for awhile, I've played against a few teams, mostly their trans player was the best woman on their team and by not a small margin. We don't give a shit because, like I said, mid level co-ed rec league sports.)
The fact you feel compelled to "call out" someone trying to sincerely answer a reasonable question kinda speaks volumes.
Yeah, that's why you linked to transphobic hit pieces and described trans women in sports with hugely emotionally loaded terms
Because you're reasonable
As I said from the beginning, your comment was fine unti you let some of your more transphobic opinions out in the final paragraph. That paragraph was not "reasonable"
If you're at the point where you're calling articles in ond of the most reputable papers on Earth "transphobic hit pieces", you need go re-evaluate.
Edit: there's a reason trump always screams about the crooked media for their crime of factual reporting.
U are literally denying objective reality at best it weakens ur arguments at worse it makes u look like a grifter.
Bruh check out the guys post history, read their comment history, they arent exactly a trans ally
I don't recall posting about trans anything, can you refresh my memory?
Edit: Oh, it's you! Are you making this assumption because I disagree with you and condemn the advocating of violence on republicans and democrats?!?
Which I don't get because they're all about rape as a jail punishment
Can we compromise? No trans people in sports and trans people have their own unique prison or cell block and young teens can take puberty blockers and estrogen so they don't need to try to pay 150,000 in facial feminization plastic surgery at 18 or 19, money of which they can only get quickly from sex work and not going to school? Sound like a good compromise?
I don't know what the answers are!
A lot of this stuff is mostly at the state level which seems almost reasonable.
I imagine the big actual fight on this would come down to when are parents able to over-ride their kids wishes and vice versa. It's a shitty battle for trans kids; if you don't let them access medicine early, it puts them on a brutal path as you pointed out. But I also can't imagine conservatives would be chill letting their kids alter their sex at such a young age. (From the parents' perspective, what if this is just some teenage drama with lifelong repercussions?)
We don't let kids get tattoos (and thank Christ for that, otherwise I'd probably have Wolverine fighting the Zerg on my chest or something) this seems bigger.
I dunno, like most real world issues, it's tricky. And at the fun intersection of children and a rapidly changing perspective of gender, well damn, there are going to be some ugly fights.
I just don't think it's as much of a random fad for kids as conservatives worry.
the analogy of "oh i want a cool new weird haircut/strange tattoo" = same as getting hormones and genital altering surgery seems incorrect to me
kids are not that stupid at that age and gender is mostly hardwired. i just don't think kids of that age would take it trivially
many trans kids exhibit extreme opposite gender behavior from very early ages. I am not talking about boys liking pink or not liking trucks, i am talking about boys crying because they can't wear dresses and hating the male parts of their body. There is something that happens to some XY or XX brains in utero that causes the default brain wiring that causes certain behavior to be the opposite of what it normally is. This shouldn't be that unfathomable. There are animals that contain DNA from before certain evolutions (like tailless animals having tail DNA) and it's just turned off. The idea that epigenetics, prenatal hormone levels, and endocrine disruptors can't alter sexual identity development isn't really supported by data, and even though the exact way transgenderism occurs isn't fully understood, it's not caused by some evil Satanic vodoo or a liberal Hollywood plot.
The only reason why this isn't accepted as true is an anti-science mentality caused by religion, and your response is biased by religion or conformity whether you realize it or not.
I agree. And the science might as well!
But I think Conservatives look at recent research, especially anything touching social sciences, as the product of what they view as an extremely liberal academic elite. Admittedly, I am similarly skeptical of most reports and analyses by the Heritage foundation and the like even when they share their methodology.
A charitable version of the conservative parent viewpoint might be something like "if my kid is genuinely trans, of course I'll support them. But I am a parent and know best about how to protect them, even if it is from themselves."
At the end of the day, I think a lot of conservative parents are opposed to the idea that government, or experts, or whomever could over-rule them about their own kids. Especially on a subject about which they probably feel somewhat uncomfortable.
I also don't think religion is a requirement for close mindedness, though there is significant overlap.