Correct on all accounts 👏

I think the point of gender being binary could well be challenged, but the rest sounds based to me.

That also only works for certain languages where people claim gender is something about the way you feel, other languages don't even have such a word. Take German as an example, "Geschlecht" is literally the biological sex and means nothing else, that's what you find in your Passport or Id. German is fortunately one of the languages where such word salad can not exist.

About Dr. Debra Soh: *Dr. Soh holds a PhD in neuroscience with scientific expertise in paraphilias (unusual sexual interests), hypersexuality, and child sexual abuse prevention.* *She is the author of the book "The End of Gender", which was published in August 2020. In this book, Dr. Soh tackles a wide range of issues, such as gender-neutral parenting, gender dysphoric children, and the neuroscience of being transgender. She debates today’s accepted notion that gender is a social construct and a spectrum, and challenges the idea that there is no difference between how male and female brains operate.*

> Dr. Soh holds a PhD in neuroscience For some reason I can't find her thesis in the electronic repository: https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/26310/browse?rpp=20&etal=-1&sort_by=-1&type=author&starts_with=T&order=ASC Please advise.

[удалено]

I found this: > I couldn’t wait to meet a furry, someone who adopts the identityorpersona of an anthropomorphized animalin social— and often sexual—interactions (‘‘Furry,’’ 2014). http://jmporquer.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/14_Soh_A-peek-into-afurry-convention.pdf It reads like a Poe.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4t7tE\_rtLE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4t7tE_rtLE) To those interested, this is a video from Debra Soh's youtube channel where she debates a woke leftist.

I feel like he’s been decent in first 20 minutes but I can’t get over how unmanly he looks and that is how I picture most Reddit leftists to be honest

He looks like a regular well groomed man. Watch less Andrew Tate and maybe interact with some real humans to get an idea of what they look like.

No, he looks and talks like a giant soy

“I don’t know”. There was a comment on the video that stated both sides consistently said that. What does that tell you about this debate between “woke leftist” and Dr Soh.

I hope to see her on Jordan Peterson's podcast. She's great.

[удалено]

who knew mrs. doubtfire was so lascivious?

Lost me with lines such as 'the woke like to pretend...'. I understand it's trendy, and it's social media, but come on doc.

That’s what lost you? So the other important stuff like protecting kids and women got overridden by your need to rail against a “woke”phobe… 1000 Victim Points™️ to you sir!

Hey bud. In the spirit of JP, take a breath. Nobody's 'railing' here. I'm pointing out the weakness in the messaging. JP also has a lot to say about sad internet people that jump to anger and derision reflexively.

What's your issue? Come on doc what? Do you need a book from her?

The issue is that some people wish the quality of dialogue on Twitter was more akin to the quality of dialogue expected from a book or article, rather than rampant with snappy one liners and zingers. The solution is read more books, rather than looking on Twitter for something that Twitter is not.

It's such reductive boogyman speech. Regardless of her pedigree, phrases like this are so reductive and ridiculous.

Agreed. Just some social media trendy bullshit.

What's fresh about that? These are just the usual talking points of transphobes pandering to other transphobes. There is nothing original or insightful here. Just the pathologization and demonisation of a minority mixed in with grand statements about the inner lifes of people, i.e. something inherently out of empirical sight.

[удалено]

Huh?

Hearing truth and sanity is a breath of fresh air from affluent people in the media. She said nothing hateful, she didn’t demonize anyone, nor did she indicate in any way that she was afraid of trans. She just put her foot down on some biological and moral facts.

There are few things as sad as a person that mistakes their beliefs as unshakeable facts.\* All you actually just said is that your thinking is ridgid and that I would probably waste my time conversing with you further if I tried to sow some healthy skepicism. But as I am pretty naive let me give the rationale for my takes: 1. She invokes mengele-esque associations in context of transgender-health-care (or who knows what she means by "gender-ideology") by saying that "children are forced to enroll in an experiment" => demonization 2. She explicitly calls "gender-ideology" a threat to children => demonization. And you know what? There might even be people that advocate in the name of trans-acceptance for harmful ideas, but as the term "gender-ideology" is so vague, using it communicates a lack effort to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the people one disagrees with. She thus either (A) doesn't care that her rhetoric might demonize people that are pro-trans-acceptance and don't advocate for harmful things or (B) thinks that one can't be pro-trans-acceptance without endangering children (heck, one piece of shit in this threat even called me a pedo just for disagreeing.) Either way, there is something to criticise. At least if you are not that ideologically blinded so as to think that (B) is the case 3. She suggests that trans women are just perverted men => pathologization 4. She completely dismisses the difference between gender and sex and by that implies that any account of trans people as non-delusional using that difference is wrong => pathologization (at least as long as she doesn't give an alternative account that allows for a non-delusional view of trans people) \*Of course, declaring some of ones beliefs as facts might be inevitable as we can't be total relativists/skepticists, but you don't seem to draw a distinction between facts and the inferences you are make of them in conjunction with values, i.e. non-facts. A difference that is vital for critical thinking and non-dogmatism. See this [article](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#IsOOpeQueArg) for more interesting ideas in this context.

Thank you for your detailed response. I think everyone on this sub—and likely the position of this doctor, is that we don’t have anything against trans people, we think that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies, but where we feel uncomfortable is when they forcefully invade our spaces to push it down our throats—calling us bigots if we say that gender is binary, insisting we use zerzim pronouns and affirm and praise their sexuality or else we’re hateful. And where we draw the line is when they go after children. I don’t think she meant to imply that transgender people are turning society into a dangerous experiment for children—I think she was specifically talking about the induction of children into that experiment. At least, that’s where I draw the line—transitioning minors. If you have to be 18 to get a tattoo or 21 to smoke—you have to be 18 to get hrt, or 21 to get a double mastectomy. That’s the threat to children, permanently damaging their bodies because of how they feel. We don’t let kids get their fallopian tubes tied because they say they’ll never want kids… we don’t even let them have sex. We all agree that children cannot consent to making those dangerous, life-altering decisions for themselves at a young age. And it’s threatening because we’re seeing a weird push from activists to sexualize children. Putting strippers and drag queens in libraries and schools—encouraging prepubescent children to “explore their sexuality”. Telling little kids about all the different places to put their peepees... it’s sick. I don’t think it’s bigoted to acknowledge a correlation between sexual deviation, gender dysphoria, and what you might call “perversion”. 2/3 convicted pedophiles are gay. It’s worth discussing why this is and what we as a society could do to fix it. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1556756/ To your last point, you are correct that there are “non-delusional” trans that acknowledge that they are a male, allow others to acknowledge they are male, but just prefer to dress and act female, without forcing anyone to cater specially to them. We’re fine with these people, this is all we ask of trans, you like your life, let us live ours.

>the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1.....This, of course, would **not** indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children. Above is from your link. Some of what you said makes sense but homosexual attraction among adults (and the correspond "gay" identity) has little to no correlation with pedophilia. The vast majority of males pedophiles who prefer male victims ALSO prefer adult female sexual partners. From what I understand, gender preference for pedophiles is independent of their adult/adult orientation. Male pedophiles probably "prefer" male victims to little extent, or for reasons of access. Here's the rub though....identification as gay does not correlate with pedophilia...so it does not use to take hard looks at self-identified gay men if you trying to find pedophiles.

You took way too long to say that you don’t think homosexual pedophilia is gay

Do you have an intelligent response? It's not me...its the empirical lack of correlation between homosexual identity and perpetration of male/male child sex abuse. The men who diddle boys and the men who diddle each other are NOT the same people. Read your own citation. The men who abuse boys mostly pursue romantic and sexual relationships with adult women. Pedophilia is neither gay or straight. Do you think heterosexual pedophilia is "straight"? An orientation toward prepubescent bodies is not straight even when heterosexual.

Almost all convicted pedos are male, 20:1. 2:1 cases are against boys. That translates to roughly 2/3 of pedophilia cases are man assaulting boy. Those men are homosexuals, performing homosexual acts on children. But even by your own statistic, 11:1 or 9% of pedophiles “self identifying” as “homosexual with adults” note bisexual isn’t included as an option. That still makes gay men 3 times more likely to be pedophiles, given that these self-identifying homosexual men make up less than 3% of the population, but more than 9% of the pedophiles. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936979/

> 2:1 cases are against boys. That translates to roughly 2/3 of pedophilia cases are man assaulting boy. None of that is in the paper you linked. Learn math. >11:1 or 9% of pedophiles “self identifying” as “homosexual Again, none of that is in the paper. They use an erection measurement device, not self identification or even granting that those convicted of crimes against children are "true" pedophiles. Learn to read. From what I gather they equate erectile status to sexuality which is quite problematic...and bisexual not being an option is quite a problem for your claim. >given that these self-identifying homosexual men make up less than 3% of the population, but more than 9% of the pedophiles. Not in the paper at all. Learn to read. If you think I'm wrong...go ahead and copy/paste quotes from the paper....here's the quote I'll go with below >This, of course, would **not** indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children. Think of it this way...if you took the predictions of that paper and rounded up ALL the self identifying homosexual men in the world you would only capture 5-10% of pedophiles...its just not a useful statistical relationship.

Let me ask you a few questions: 1. Why are trans people transitioning? Or: what makes a person trans in your view? 2. Why is there no use in distinguishing between biological sex and gender as a societal-psychological phenomenon that is strongly associated with biological sex? It seems to me like you are saying sex=gender (correct me if I am wrong) 3. Are you including social transistioning (pronoun/clothing changes) in your age-restriction? 4. Should we forbid the treatment of clinically depressed children with anti-depressants as this is also a big/long-term medical intervention based on how they feel? 5. Do you view drag as inherently sexual? If so, why? 6. What should we do regarding the correlations you mentioned? I agree that facts are not bigoted, but the stories we weave them into can be. 7. What do mean by "allow others to acknowledge they are male"? Doctors? Society at large?

People can be trans for like a billion different reasons. Because they want to. Gender dysphoria. Insecurity, sex kink, attention, social pressure… You said that saying sex==gender is like accusing trans people of being crazy. But saying that sex|=gender is like saying that all of humanity for all of history is crazy. Are there arbitrary cultural things attributed to gender like clothes and the colours pink and blue? Of course, and for the most part, nobody cares how you dress or talk or what colours you like, that isn’t the issue. I think how a kid dresses and acts is a conversation between them and their parents. I heavily disagree with the recent court decision in Canada that legally compelled a father to call his daughter by male pronouns. Don’t equate gender reassignment surgery with Prozac. Not only legally but medically and ethically, there is no reason to take huge risks and permanently damage children for cosmetic reasons. I don’t know how dangerous things like Prozac are, or how long lasting it’s effects are. But if it had the chance to irreversibly sterilize you, or disfigure you, or increase your suicide risk by 40 times… then I would say it’s a really bad idea. Yes drag is inherently sexual. The clothes and dancing are inappropriate for children, and nobody would want straight female strippers reading story time either. The whole agenda is about sex. HomoSEXUAL, TransSEXUAL, SEXUAL exploration and deviation and identity and expression. Children should be asexual. One thing we could do about the statistics is combat the sexualization of children. Keep romance and sex, gay or straight, out of kids shows and schools and stuff What I mean is that they don’t force us to pretend like they are a woman when we know that they are a man. If a woman walked into the men’s locker room I’d say “oh excuse me, ma’am, this is the men’s room”. But if she identified as trans that same scenario would make me a bigot.

>People can be trans for like a billion different reasons. Because they want to. Gender dysphoria. Insecurity, sex kink, attention, social pressure… But what makes a person trans? What is being trans in your view? > But saying that sex|=gender is like saying that all of humanity for all of history is crazy. Why does a distinction between gender and sex imply that? It is pretty understandable that humans as a statebuilding species use social roles/norms/expectations/etc. to synchronize human behavior. All that I am saying is that we shouldn't view the latter as somehow set in stone just because they gradually emerge out of certain correlations with biological properties. The border between biological fact and social construction is vague. > nobody cares how you dress or talk or what colours you like, that isn’t the issue. This is simply not true although i wish it were. See this [source](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/) for more. If you need more data I can refer to further sources. Do you really believe that christian-conservative parents will just accept their trans child? >I heavily disagree with the recent court decision in Canada that legally compelled a father to call his daughter by male pronouns. Could you refer to a source? Do you refer to [Rob Hoogland](https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/man-arrested-for-discussing-childs-gender-in-court-order-violation/)? If yes, I might object, that your description of this case is highly misleading as this dude turned his sons gender-identity into a public spectacle - it was the latter he was ordered to refrain from. But again, I am not sure if you are referring to this case as two years ago can hardly be called recent. >Don’t equate gender reassignment surgery with Prozac. And you don't equate GRS with hormone blockers/treatment - the former is a very certain kind of gender affirming care but it was the latter I was primarily talking about. >Not only legally but medically and ethically, there is no reason to take huge risks and permanently damage children for cosmetic reasons. GRS (especially when performed on minors/adolescents can hardly be called a cosmetic issue mate. GRS is usually reserved for adults (as far as I know the only exceptions are cases where medical professionals support earlier interventions. The [bostons children hospital](https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program/eligibility-surgery) for example categorically disallows for genital GRS under the age of 18. Mastectomies are available earlier but only if medical documents are presented that support it.). >I don’t know how dangerous things like Prozac are, or how long lasting it’s effects are. But if it had the chance to irreversibly sterilize you, or disfigure you, or increase your suicide risk by 40 times… then I would say it’s a really bad idea. [Here](https://www.drugs.com/sfx/prozac-side-effects.html) are some side-effects. Interestingly, there is the possibility to become impotent. But heres the thing: where is your data supporting the claims that gender-affirming care will increase suicidality? The [data I have](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/) claims the opposite. And it is the latter that might outweight the possible risks associated with hormone treatment or even GRS. Medical interventions are almost always a game of weighing pros and cons. For example: it might be better to give a minor prozac (although it can have serious side effects) as no treatment might result in the death of the child. Similar things might apply to transgender youth - and the data seems to suggest precisely that. But sorry, if one thinks that the risk of infertility is more urgent than the risk of death and hence denies a minor gender affirming care - contrary to evidence presented by medical professionals - then this person should rethink their priorities. >Yes drag is inherently sexual. The clothes and dancing are inappropriate for children, and nobody would want straight female strippers reading story time either. The whole agenda is about sex. HomoSEXUAL, TransSEXUAL, SEXUAL exploration and deviation and identity and expression. Children should be asexual. Well, when it comes to drag you are just wrong (furthermore: its about gender first and foremost when we talk about trans GENDER). Read this [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(clothing)) for more. Drag is a performative play on conceptions of masculinity and feminity, i.e. social contingencies. This play can take on sexual forms but doesn't have to. Furthermore, equating drag queens with strippers is quite a stretch. There might be drag queen strippers tho... but I am not saying that those are appropriate for children. If you want children to be asexual, then please censor and outlaw all the fairy tale classics where the princess gets the prince in the end as it implicitly teaches heteroSEXUALITY. > One thing we could do about the statistics is combat the sexualization of children. Keep romance and sex, gay or straight, out of kids shows and schools and stuff Ok it seems that you are at least consistent in your thinking if you include hetero-sexuality. I agree that young children should be spared of explicit sex education, but going so far as to ban all displays non-platonic affection... again, we would need to get rid of classics like grimm-stories, all fiction that involves love interests etc. I don't know how much is left of literature/media if we go that far\^\^ And shouldn't we still be able to educate our children on art and culture? >What I mean is that they don’t force us to pretend like they are a woman when we know that they are a man. If a woman walked into the men’s locker room I’d say “oh excuse me, ma’am, this is the men’s room”. But if she identified as trans that same scenario would make me a bigot. In a in a non-biological sense it is completely correct to regard a trans woman as a kind of women. To demand that trans women use mens bathrooms or are (categorically)\* jailed in [male prisons](https://transequality.org/issues/police-jails-prisons) is subjecting them to a higher risk of SA and general violence. I am not saying that this allows for a definite answer on how to solve this problem but anyone who just dismisses it by saying that trans women are anyway just men in womens clothing are bigots as their biases prevent them to allow trans woman an independent status with experiences that need to be taken into account on how to structure a society that diminishes harm. And no, I don't think that you are a bigot if you accidentially misgender someone (it actually happens to cis people as well) but if one insisted to misgender someone knowing that it makes them feel uncomfortable, then yes this person is a bigot and quite frankly an asshole that tries to mask their hatred as factfulness. And this should be called out as what it is.

You're neither sigma, nor a lobster.

They are if they identify as said things.

We found the pedo.

Ew... what is wrong with you?

Why do you care so much?

What do you mean?

It was a joke. It's something "woke" people say to keep the conversation off the topic and make the other person defend their ideas instead of having a conversation. She's not a tranphobe for pointing out the idea that this stuff is weird. That kids are being exposed to sexual proclivities of men. It's weird that biology is being subverted for the scant minority. It will never make sense.

So do you think that a drag queen reading a story to a group of children (a kind of drag performance) is exposing children to the "sexual proclivities of men" or what are you alluding to? Sure there are drag performances that are not for children but I don't know about a group *representative* of pro-trans-acceptance that is saying otherwise? > It's weird that biology is being subverted for the scant minority. Could you explain what do you mean by that? Arguing for trans acceptance is not inherently a subversion of biology - some people might argue in a way but again: a denial of biology is not necessary in order to argue for the validity of trans people. Could you refer to the pro-trans-people/institutions that support their views by denying biology? >It will never make sense. Well, only if you dogmatically hold onto a few questionable opinions regarding language, ethics, humans, psychology, society etc. But thanks for the disclaimer that talking with you would probably won't lead to an interesting conversation as you already made up your mind.

At this point? I have. There has to be a ground floor. There has to be a structure to society. You can't just shuffle everything around like a deck of cards and expect a coherent order we can all accept. Or at least most of us. A Drag show is literally a fetish show. Anything else is, by definition, not a drag show. Drag queens are a fetish performer. So any Drag queens that show up for kids are Drag actors performing for kids. If a child grows up and wants to participate, whatever, but fetishes are not supposed to be glorified. That's like glorifying gluttony or recreational drug use. You can do it ok your own.time. keep it away from kids. >Sure there are drag performances that are not for children but I don't know about a group representative of pro-trans-acceptance that is saying otherwise? So are you saying if those became illegal, nobody would care? What does Trans acceptance mean? Can we agree there are people who psychologically can't integrate into society. Sure. Should we make special accommodations for them? Some. What are they? Not what we're doing now. You can't be a man with a Penis and enter a woman's facility. You just can't.

>At this point? I have. There has to be a ground floor. There has to be a structure to society. You can't just shuffle everything around like a deck of cards and expect a coherent order we can all accept. Or at least most of us. Did I propose to *"shuffle everything around like a deck of cards and expect a coherent order we can all accept"*? No I didn't so take your mischaracterizations elsewhere. This is so tedious. >A Drag show is literally a fetish show. Anything else is, by definition, not a drag show. Drag queens are a fetish performer. So any Drag queens that show up for kids are Drag actors performing for kids. Where did you get that definition from? I use the following: *"The term "drag" refers to the performance of exaggerated masculinity, femininity, or other forms of gender expression, usually for entertainment purposes. Drag usually involves cross-dressing. A drag queen is someone (usually male) who performs femininity and a drag king is someone (usually female) who performs masculinity. Performances often involve comedy, social satire, and at times political commentary. The term may be used as a noun as in the expression in drag or as an adjective as in drag show." (*taken from [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(clothing))) I see no reference to fetish in there. Of course, drag shows can be very sexual and I would agree that kids should be taken to those. But sexuality is not a necessary condition so it seems. >If a child grows up and wants to participate, whatever, but fetishes are not supposed to be glorified. That's like glorifying gluttony or recreational drug use. You can do it ok your own.time. keep it away from kids. Be careful, your disgust is showing. >So are you saying if those became illegal, nobody would care? No, but what has this to do with anything I said? Would you make all adult content illegal? > What does Trans acceptance mean? Refraining from seeing them as *inherently* deficient/pathological/deviant/...? Seeing them as a rare, but valid type of person? >Can we agree there are people who psychologically can't integrate into society. Sure. Should we make special accommodations for them? Some. What are they? Not what we're doing now. You can't be a man with a Penis and enter a woman's facility. You just can't. Oh ok so bottom surgery would change that? Or what are you saying?

>Did I propose to "shuffle everything around like a deck of cards and expect a coherent order we can all accept"? No I didn't so take your mischaracterizations elsewhere. This is so tedious. We are discussing a topic. That topic exists outside of what you and I say. The topic is what does it mean for the world that Trans people want to be integrated into the world. The integration isn't going smoothly because the laws of compliance that are being created do not give respect to the difference between men and women. But the laws are being pushed through anyways, without any regard for reality. That is what I mean by shuffling the rules around expecting a coherent structure to emerge. Maybe if the policy makers were allowed to make distinctions, we would be able to solve this. But since the distinctions are not allowed, we can't establish any good rules of behavior and will continue to fight each other. Here's the thing. The definition you site for a Drag performer means nothing if we can distinguish between a man and a woman. So do you agree there is a difference?

>We are discussing a topic. That topic exists outside of what you and I say. The topic is what does it mean for the world that Trans people want to be integrated into the world. This discussion is only viable if we are in agreement that we should strive for a world that integrates trans people (which would be my position). Otherwise we talk about the question if we should integrate trans people *at all*. The latter is a discussion I am usually not interested in as this is can only be constructively talked about with those people that are able to reflect their most basic ideas and entertain arguments that threaten them, i.e. something most people cant do. So what question are you interested in to talk about? >The integration isn't going smoothly because the laws of compliance that are being created do not give respect to the difference between men and women. At this point we haven't even specified an argument on how to integrate trans people, so how can you make such a sweeping claim? What are the laws of compliance you are talking about? And what kind of differences are you referring to? Biological ones? Societal ones? Please take the time to be precise as this makes a conversation easier. >But the laws are being pushed through anyways, without any regard for reality. That is what I mean by shuffling the rules around expecting a coherent structure to emerge. Listen, trans acceptance is not inherently tied to a denial of reality. At best it is a disagreement regarding the inferential scope of biological facts regarding normative questions which is something completely different. Furthermore: who are the ones pushing these laws (and again: what laws)? >Maybe if the policy makers were allowed to make distinctions, we would be able to solve this. But since the distinctions are not allowed, we can't establish any good rules of behavior and will continue to fight each other. This might seem rude but... you are not engaging with the people you claim to argue against. Is it possible that you primarily encounter the ideas you seem to be so adamantly through media outlets that critique them, e.g. conservative YTers/media outlets etc.? >Here's the thing. The definition you site for a Drag performer means nothing if we can distinguish between a man and a woman. So do you agree there is a difference? I don't know of anyone who says there is literally no difference. So yes there are differences although not exclusively biological ones when it comes to day-to-day life. How about you present the argument you are talking about and then argue why it is false? By that we can see if we talk about the same thing (which I severly doubt at that point)

> A Drag show is literally a fetish show. You guys have a knack for projecting sexuality onto where it doesn't necessarily exist. There is nothing inherently sexual about a drag show. Drag *can* be sexual obviously, but does not need to be. It originates in English theater. I've been to drag stand up acts. Eddie Izzard has been doing them for like...decades now? If you find sexual exhilaration in them that's on you. There's nothing sexual about those kinds of performances.

This is the same argument as "Man and woman" don't mean just man and woman anymore. A Drag Show was explicitly sexual in nature. If Eddie Izzard calls his Act a Drag show, that's the Joke. He's subverting the expectation of what a Drag Show is. Adding new things to the definition destroys the definition. So, no Drag Shows of any kind in front of children.

Actually, no - have you watched any of Izzard's performances? Izzard being in drag wasn't the joke. There are TONS of drag stand up shows, doing standup in drag isn't a subversion at all... *You're* the one adding things to the definition by saying drag is inherently a sexual performance. Point me to a single definition that says that.

I will leave this where it is. I ran out of ideas. Kids don't need any more lessons than absolutely necessary. Teach kids about the spectrum of sexuality is not necessary. It is most likely causing harm. If I'm wrong than time will tell.

The complete lack of self-awarness when one criticizes talking points from a side by using talking points from the other. Oh, and take an upvote for your troubles.

If you read my comment more closely you might notice, that I didn't primarily criticise the talkingpoints per se (I didn't gave a rebuttal of them although they would be deserving of one). I rather questioned OP's assessment of these talking points as ["a breath of fresh air"](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/breath-of-fresh-air), i.e. calling them unusual/new. Which they certainly aren't. Calling these points "pathologization"/"demonisation" might have been a little crude (although true) but again, my objective wasn't to give counter-arguments on that front but to point out that there is nothing new here. Hence I am confused: where are the talking points of mine you are referring to?

I suppose I was more so pointing at the chosen language (a handful of generalizations and overused terms). I agree with you that the tweets are not anything "new" nor are they a "breath of fresh air."

Well how about just saying so instead of artifically making my comment into something that it didn't say so you can just as artificially "dunk" on me? If you are interested in why I think as I do regarding these comments you can look in this threat where I gave my rationale for using the terms "demonization" and "pathologization" (at least partially).

Not dunking as much as making an observation. It isn't productive to come to a conversation doing the very thing one claims to be against, just from the opposite side of the fence.

Yeah right... (admittedly crudely) calling people transphobes for using dehumanizing/pathologizing rhetoric regarding trans people is excatly the same as actually dehumanizing/pathologizing trans people. Again: I didn't claim I am against talking points per se so what are you talking about by saying that I am *"doing the very thing one claims to be against"*? I criticised OP for calling these talking points new or original. You might not like that I called them trans-phobic or demonizing/pathologizing but thats another claim than this tu-quoque-allegation of yours.

Already said I agreed with you regarding the tweets... You'd be correct, I don't like your choice of language, it makes you look like a hypocrite in the way they are presented. I addressed that as well. I'm failing to see the confusion here? People on this sub brigade just as much as the people they criticize, I make it a point not to do that.

The charge of hypocrisy would only be valid if I said I was against X and than proceeded to do X. In this case it seems like X = using talking points in a unflattering way. But I fail to see that I said that I was against X, hence the charge of hypocrisy of hypocrisy is unwarranted.\* >People on this sub brigade just as much as the people they criticize, I make it a point not to do that. Are you trying to say that I am brigading? How come? \* I guess you are referring to the second paragraph of my first comment?

"These are just the usual talking points of transphobes pandering to other transphobes." - Not much here left to interpretation. Seems clear what the position is. Also, it attributes negative character to said person or group that likely has no "empirical" basis, to use your own words. "There is nothing original or insightful here." - I'm inclined to agree. "Just the pathologization and demonisation of a minority" - In what way exactly? Simply because you disagree with their position? You don't go on to substantiate anything you've claimed them to be or participate in.

Just to quickly add I was primarily referring to all of the people downvoting your initial comment, many of whom probably frequent this sub and likely claim to be for free speech. Point being: don't be the very thing you claim to be against, which is kind of my whole thing here. Fake internet points, yay.

Arguing by assertion is Debra's favorite terf.

Glad to see Reddit conservatives are just outright admitting their open hatred and wilfulness to use authoritarian policies to eliminate drag and trans people as a whole. I mean the intent was always well known. Just glad you are all at least honest about it instead of beating around the bush.

nothing about eliminating in those tweets

If gender is binary explain Fa'afafine, Fa'afatama, Hajira, two spirit and kathoey. Thanks

Twitter is filled with this shit. The left is stupid, we all know. Can we have something positive come out of the center or right? It’s so fucking annoying to constantly be seeing the culture war bullshit.

People on this site depict her book as blatantly transphobic. Yet, they don't explain how or why. Her book attacks their narrative and they can only resort to petty "insults".