That Trans Thread

[Sheldon]

Cite one of those laws for me please, also a few of these "reasoned beliefs", that you think is a barrier to common civility and not deliberately insulting people. 

I am dubious, can you cite any such employment laws for me? 
Again I am dubious, what does "being transitioned" entail in this claim exactly? Though of course even were there evidenced examples, this seems to have no relevance to granting transgender rights that I can see. 

Well we already do this, anti-Semitic or racist remarks are sanctioned in various ways, as are openly sexist epithets, or hate speech against gay people for example, why do want to treat transgender people differently?  

That is another dubious assertion, since the biological sex at birth, must differ from gender identity or there would be nothing to discuss, it's more likely that people who deliberately use someone's biological sex at birth, to persecute someone whose psychological gender differs from this, is labelled hate speech. Again why would one do this, what would one hope to gain, why do you even care? 
Like those poor racists who can no longer use openly racist words and expressions, or homophobic bigots, who can no longer use their religious beliefs to persecute and insult gay people, yes it must be torture for you to be told you can't indulge your prejudice with impunity.  
What a spectacularly stupid claim, we pass laws that do this all the time, and always have. 

That is a massive irony overload, as you seem to be touting the usual straw man claims, while bleating that there is now yet another group of people who you are no longer free to openly indulge in bigotry and prejudice against, poor poor you...
I can only suggest you grow a pair, and accept that espousing hatred and bigotry is not a right, well not in any decent society anyway.

The Cass Review—commissioned by NHS England—found the evidence for puberty blockers and social transition to be “poor” or “low quality”, lacking long-term follow-up, and cautioned that puberty blockers should no longer be routinely offered outside clinical trials

Great, I am all for protecting children, what's your point? 

One judge in the UK’s Re Devin case explicitly blocked puberty blockers for a 12-year-old, citing insufficient clinical consensus and irreversible risks

Administrator Notice
Chuck's links removed throughout this quote.

That seems to be the law protecting a child, by insisting on a more rigorous clinical methodology. Again your point escapes me? 

“Employment law for misgendering?…”

In Lister v New College Swindon, maths teacher Kevin Lister was fired and lost an Employment Tribunal for refusing to use a trans pupil’s chosen name/pronouns—legally upheld as reasonable action in response to his refusal

You claimed one could be sacked for "misgendering" someone even inadvertently, so that was a clumsy and blatant lie, as in this example someone was sacked for deliberately and repeatedly indulging in bigotry, should laws no longer protect against bigotry, racism sexism and homophobia in the workplace then? Or is it just the one demographic you think ought to be discriminated against openly, and with impunity? 

Another case saw a teacher disciplined and later reinstated after challenging aggressive pronoun policies—real-world consequences for refusing compelled affirmation

It must be hell for bigots to have their hate speech censured in this way, cry me a river. Note this was also not an inadvertent slip, as you claimed, and I asserted was dubious, it seems my instincts were spot on. 

The Cass review isn’t hand-waving—it has already halted NHS prescriptions of puberty blockers outside clinical trials, spurred government action to regulate private clinics, and closed the Tavistock clinic amid policy reform

Straw man, well done...

This is not mere “identity politics”—it’s tangible policy and legal change.

We have laws that stop people persecuting others in the workplace yes, I suggest you get used to it. 

In summary, the evidence is real: weakening clinical support, legal penalties, employment consequences.

Openly persecuting others in the work place is likely to get you sacked, who didn't know this? Who on earth thinks this is not a good thing?

You may cry “bigotry!” every time these realities are named—but that’s not discourse—it’s a shell game, shifting attention away from substance.

I think you need to look up bigotry in the dictionary, as those examples are textbook. 

So yes, I’ve provided citations—links to actual tribunals and reviews. And yes, I have thoroughly dismantled your straw-man argument.

I made no straw man arguments, so I think that fallacy might be something else you need to learn the definition of.

[Nay_Sayer]

@Charlie Boy

I'd really love an answer since it seems you're reading headfirst into the toilet.

Is Charlie Boy your legal name?

[Sheldon]

I was considered, and called, a tomboy when I was a kid.

Is that an issue?  Seems to me that others were assigning my gender traits because of the things I did...like fish, play baseball with the neighbor kids, etc.

At no point was my biology questioned but my actions were definitely defined by others based on a set of "rules".

Oh dear, he dreaded tomboy label. I wonder—was the offense truly in the labeling, or in the retrospective interpretation of it?

After all, the term tomboy never denied biology; quite the opposite—it acknowledged a girl acting outside expected norms without claiming she wasn’t a girl. Contrast that with today’s curious fashion of insisting that certain behaviors must mean something about one’s identity, or even one’s sex.

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Of course, I welcome your thoughts—assuming they haven’t been pre-approved by the Gender Compliance Committee.

It is clear you don't know what gender dysphoria means. 

FYI bigots howling about the inherent injustice of them having their imaginary "right to express that bigotry" being curtailed, just makes me laugh so hard it gives me an "ice cream headache". But then I lived through the same empty wailing when they were told they couldn't openly persecute people based on skin colour and ethnicity, or sex, or being gay, or...well you get the picture, the same risible objections are being raised this time, but decent societies moves on, and one less group is being persecuted.

[Fireball]

This is a weak troll. I give it 6/10 and < 1 week to a sock.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Unfortunately, snarkiness is not yet against the rules.  Mores the pity...I'm in the mood to clip some wings...and have the ability to do it.

The wing-clipper arrives—threat implied, wit absent. One would expect a declaration of such potency to be accompanied by something a touch more... formidable?

Still, it’s charming that you believe you’re in a position to intimidate. An emotional twitch dressed up as authority is, at best, a theatrical flourish—at worst, a confession of powerlessness.

But do proceed. If nothing else, it’s always endearing to see someone confuse bluntness for brilliance.

Oh, and let's stick within the rules. I've read them all and I know them inside out. Ready when you are.

For someone who claims to know the rules (and presumably understands what rules are) you seem to break them with a sort of gleeful abandon. Why is that?

Boru

[h4ym4n]

You certainly are an unpleasant entity.

I will not judge someone who feels that they are misgendered because I have never thought those thoughts or felt those feelings.  

I'm just saying that it should not be up to everyone else to decide how a person wants to present themselves, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.  And sensibilities being hurt don't count.

You spend too much time worrying about things that are not your business.

I always wonder why theists are so interested in other peoples sex lives, sounds pervy to me 

Well Jesus did fuck and impregnated his mom to birth himself

[Ahriman]

Is this Charlie guy serious, with the way he talks?

[Rev. Rye]

Your challenge for evidence is noted and appreciated—it is always refreshing when interlocutors invite rigor rather than retreat to insults. Regarding the claim that “liking dolls over trucks” is sometimes treated as sufficient cause for questioning a child’s gender, one might direct you to a veritable library of clinical guidelines, activist literature, and media reports.

For instance, the widely referenced Gender Affirmative Model endorsed by organizations such as the American Psychological Association encourages affirmation of a child’s expressed gender identity with minimal exploration, often based on behaviors or preferences that diverge from traditional gender norms. The now infamous “gender clinics” routinely assess children exhibiting gender nonconforming behavior—doll preference included—sometimes leading to social transition or medical interventions.

A particularly salient example is the “Ashley Treatment” controversy and the debates surrounding early social transition, where parental and professional interventions follow perceived gender nonconformity rather than any intrinsic dysphoria. The BBC’s “Transgender Kids” documentary further illustrates the phenomenon.

As for Johnny the Walrus—a satirical parable, yes—but satire often targets a recognizable reality to provoke thought. Dismissing it outright on the basis of toilet-related headaches might be more revealing about one’s rhetorical flair than the substance of the argument.

Regarding your cinematic jab, one must concede that Kevin Smith’s oeuvre is… divisive. Yet, invoking “Tusk” was less about cinematic praise and more about capturing a certain cultural zeitgeist—an evocative metaphor for fever-dream logic, if you will.

Shall we now proceed with civility and evidence, or is another performance imminent?

The Gender Affirmative Model is not an example of what you're talking about. In fact, the entire point of the GAM is that the childen in question should be allowed to choose gender for themselves, which is the exact opposite of the sort of railroading you think is going on. And social transition, well, the basic point of it is exploring gender. When a child's socially transitioning, it tends to be just down to wearing different clothes, asking to be addressed by a new name and gender, and maybe puberty blockers if they're old enough. Indeed, your own post said it "encourages affirmation of a child’s expressed gender identity" in the part that I bolded.

And "The Ashley Treatment," while it opens up a massive can of worms on its own, there's one fundamental point related to it: removing her uterus and breast buds is NOT, as far as the world knows, in any way related to any transgender-related issues. It's because she was a severely developmentally disabled child in the awkward position of being unable to walk, talk, feed herself, or even move her head AND having precocious puberty. She was a girl going into it, she was a girl going out of it, and nobody claimed otherwise. It is not an example of one of those mythical children who get bottom surgery at a shockingly early age. The youngest I've been able to find ANY trans kid going through bottom surgery is 16.

The reference to Tusk was only there because, frankly, such a bizarre, preposterous, and unique twist makes it and "Johnny Th Walrus" inseparable. And the closest thing to a reality "Johnny" reflects is that time I had a fever dream about getting tried by a Japanese Imperial Court Martial with nobody speaking English and I speaking no Japanese that still made more sense than that story.

As for civility? A position like yours, that would deny a non-negligible percentage of the population of their human rights for things they don't have control over, deserves little of what you'd consider civility. But, that said, at least I'm trying to engage with your arguments and debunk them. If I were really trying to be uncivil, I'd just be spamming your posts with "Post your hog" memes.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Is this Charlie guy serious, with the way he talks?

We get his sort from time to time - someone with a particular axe to grind who hopes to impress us by putting his half-baked ideas into long words delivered in a pretentious, insulting tone.

It never works.

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

Is this Charlie guy serious, with the way he talks?

We get his sort from time to time - someone with a particular axe to grind who hopes to impress us by putting his half-baked ideas into long words delivered in a pretentious, insulting tone.

It never works.

Boru

It worked for me.

Oh, ummm, Seriously.