That Trans Thread

[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.