The problem is TF's post, and indeed any surface-level reasonable post in this thread, is implicitly problematic for three reasons.
Firstly, the premise demonstrated by the OP is anti-scientific and offensive, and it has received less critique than people providing the actual science and providing the lived experiences. This does not help inspire good faith on yet another "let's argue with LGBTQ folks about their lives" thread. This thread does not exist in a vacuum. Please do not pretend it does.
If you want to go down the "anecdotal" route then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go down the "what do you (whoever) even know" route, because an appeal to authority is necessary at this stage.
Secondly, TF's post buys into the inherent fallacy that people who for any reason aren't trans are being encouraged to be trans. This is one of the core (made-up) points in "gender critical" rhetoric. If TF cannot see that it is, or see how actual transphobes latch onto theoretically reasonable concerns to create a boogeyman, then he hasn't done enough reading. Plain and simple. For those wanting the salient quote, here it is:
At which point I have to ask: why? Why speak from a position of alleged concern but apparently have no in-depth knowledge of the actual situation in the UK? Why act surprised or put out when people make unfavourable comparisons?
Once again I have to point out: this thread doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a prominent Q&A thread that obviously isn't being used by members who obviously have questions to ask. And we've seen in this thread already people who "don't care" about actual factual evidence provided, or other answers given. So if someone considers themselves reasonable, and in good faith, it might be worth going the extra mile to actually differentiate themselves from such.
And no, using a lot of words to do something isn't it. If trans folk are reacting poorly to your concerns, the onus is on you to understand why. The fact that they overlap with transphobic rhetoric is a pretty obvious one - again, assuming reading of the subject.
Firstly, the premise demonstrated by the OP is anti-scientific and offensive, and it has received less critique than people providing the actual science and providing the lived experiences. This does not help inspire good faith on yet another "let's argue with LGBTQ folks about their lives" thread. This thread does not exist in a vacuum. Please do not pretend it does.
If you want to go down the "anecdotal" route then I'm afraid I'm going to have to go down the "what do you (whoever) even know" route, because an appeal to authority is necessary at this stage.
Secondly, TF's post buys into the inherent fallacy that people who for any reason aren't trans are being encouraged to be trans. This is one of the core (made-up) points in "gender critical" rhetoric. If TF cannot see that it is, or see how actual transphobes latch onto theoretically reasonable concerns to create a boogeyman, then he hasn't done enough reading. Plain and simple. For those wanting the salient quote, here it is:
Thirdly, he suggests caution as though the default isn't already so. This again suggests a lack of reading.If we cannot, then, reliably predict which children or adolescents exhibiting these behaviours will permanently transition as adults, we cannot reliably identify which of them it may appropriate to facilitate or encourage to pursue transition as children or adolescents.
At which point I have to ask: why? Why speak from a position of alleged concern but apparently have no in-depth knowledge of the actual situation in the UK? Why act surprised or put out when people make unfavourable comparisons?
Once again I have to point out: this thread doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a prominent Q&A thread that obviously isn't being used by members who obviously have questions to ask. And we've seen in this thread already people who "don't care" about actual factual evidence provided, or other answers given. So if someone considers themselves reasonable, and in good faith, it might be worth going the extra mile to actually differentiate themselves from such.
And no, using a lot of words to do something isn't it. If trans folk are reacting poorly to your concerns, the onus is on you to understand why. The fact that they overlap with transphobic rhetoric is a pretty obvious one - again, assuming reading of the subject.
Last edited: