I remember being at school and there were boys who didn't like fighting, liked music lessons, and hated football.

They were sometimes called 'sissies'. Now they'd be considered trans.

You're naming people who transitioned as adults though Nicky and the research is specifically talking about children/adolescents. In my experience (of having a teenage child in early high school) it does seem to be correct... my daughter's school is very EDI-minded and supportive of kids discovering themselves, my daughter has had several friends who have experimented with gender (all female-to-male, which is far more common) and in fact at one point more than half of the girls she knew from primary school were identifying as male - I think a pretty clear example of social contagion, but obviously semi-anecdotal. Anyway... after roughly 18 to 24 months, the vast majority have cycled through various descriptors and new names only to settle back on their original natal gender and original name. At this point she has one female-to-male identifying friend and knows 2 or 3 others out of the whole year group (at one point there were 25+) which seems like a "realistic" proportion of the population who have genuinely found something in it, while the rest experimented but ultimately found they'd been most comfortable as they were.

IMO it's pretty clear from that that it's healthy to let kids and adolescents EXPERIMENT with identity - as we always have - but that (being blunt) adults should be loosely supportive but basically stay out of it. The problems arise when an adult social framework is applied to teens and pre-teens which is completely inappropriate. Too much affirmation is as bad as none at all. It forces these kids into a corner and into a decision they're nowhere near ready to make for themselves. The goal, surely, should be normalisation of experimentation - not celebration of it. It's vital to be sure that people are taking action for their own internal sense of self, and not for external validation. I'm hesitant to say "for attention" because "attention-seeking" has such negative connotations. I don't mean it in a negative way. It's perfectly understandable that kids who have felt marginalised or ignored would seek attention and validation from both adults and peers.

:oh: I hated football and I love music! And I certainly didn't like physically fighting.

Thankfully I was built like a brick sh*thouse from a young age so if push came to shove (excuse the pun) I didn't have to worry about being called names :joker:.

No, they wouldn’t be

So in a different thread, Oliver said contra points had been cancelled. I had no idea who this person was, so I YT'd them.

Turns out she's a trans woman who makes vids. I watched this vid of hers last night that I think actually provides a perspective that a lot of the forum could do with watching - she points out some of the problems with the trans community - talks about the twitter mob, but also provides a perspective on some of the bigotry issues that I've previously mentioned myself. It's an hour and a half, so prob a bit too long for a lot of folks, but it's there if you want to watch it.

Even if in some cases trans-identification isn't a phase, kids should never be allowed to medically transition. As SB said, experimenting with names and styling is one thing, but going down a medical path should never be an option for children.

I knew I was attracted to other guys when I was fairly young, but no-one would argue this means I could consent to sex. So why should children who "identify" as what they're not be put on life changing -elective and basically cosmetic- medication?

I'll watch that later, thanks [emoji106]

Us smokers are the most discriminated against group right now.

Contra :love:

She's also done a video on Cancelling :joker: She's been cancelled a few times by the psycho mob, but thankfully always bounces back.

There's a reason that cancelling is a myth though - public opinion is roughly divided into three camps... two at each extreme who would like to "ban and cancel" and a big lump in the middle that doesn't care enough to be bothered either way). People "get cancelled" but all it does is increase their popularity with the other extreme whilst making no difference to the chunk in the middle. It's just a transfer, not a cancelling.

You can see clear examples of it with someone like Pier Morgan of course. The more he's hated from one end the more he's adored by the other, and he leans into it becoming ever-more deliberately sided with that mindset, and the cycle repeats.

I didn't say I believed in cancel culture to be fair. I think the Contra post above is the first time in ages I've even used those words; and even then as the multiple times Contra has had the hatemob on her doorstep it hasn't resulted in any loss of platform for her, it can't even be called that.

They never really resulted in a transference though, she just lost a few of her more psychotic fans for not being Pure enough.

Sad but true

It was ok when we emasculated young males, and their self worth (I'm not going full Tate :laugh:) by calling them sissies, but a thing that has been totally made up is even more depressing.

:laugh:

This place is comedy gold.

If only we could go back to the days where kids can call other kids *****, what a scary time to be alive!

Some children will be horrible to any child who is different and weak - same today as its always been

probably now its more online

:clap1:

Id imagine that the 8000 in Neems article - the parents would share very similar things....

I saw something that touched on this ..

It said that whilst many of the physical changes were somewhat reversible.. any changes to the brain were permanent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I think it would depend how long they're on the hormone treatment, as after a while the effects would be permanent ... especially things like the voice changing and other physical stuff.
But if surgery has been involved, then sorry there's literally no reversing that ...no matter what anyone says .

I watched the Contra video - I agree that it's a good watch with a view to building a balanced view on some of these issues. I think it's far from being a balanced view in itself but I think that's somewhat inevitable and I think she is (probably) aware of that limitation on some level (but overlooks it quite a bit throughout). But yes, a good watch for some understanding of that specific perspective, I absolutely agree about the need for understanding that the "hateful people online" are mostly hurt/confused/angry/already embroiled in aggressive backlash from all sides (I can't remember exactly how she phrases it).

I honestly think mass social media is the absolute worst place to be having these sorts of discussions, for multiple reasons. Even smaller "community" forums like arr TiBB are (usually) better. We have our moments, anyway.

Contra has won me over on a few topics; I'll never agree with children transitioning, or transwomen in women's sports or spaces; but she makes a convincing argument for acknowledging (or at least humouring) nonbinary identities.

Though I prefer her videos on non-trans issues.

I haven't watched it through yet but she does come across as a reasonable person. Obviously has biases though (as most of us do) I can see why she thinks the way she does about the JK Rowling stuff as a trans woman however as a woman I see it differently, especially as a woman who has always been invested in women's rights. I still find it hard to understand why people thing it's more likely that JK Rowling has an anti trans agenda rather than a pro women's rights agenda (especially as she's a victim of domestic abuse herself)

The problem I found throughout the video, in simple terms, was that she too often takes a premise as accepted and builds a long argument on that premise ... but without making an argument for the premise. The root of logical debate is working a problem back until you reach an agreed premise and I think she jumps the gun on what's agreed.

In terms of "NB identities" for example, to even start down the route of validity you have to be at a place of agreement that the gender binary is real, that it's meaningful, and that the "problem" isn't the initial societal gender expectations and stereotypes. If you counter that that's effectively what NB identities are about... you also have to have the agreed premise that non-traditional gender presentations necessitate categorising and labelling.

My observation is actually that it's a late-millenial/early GenZ phenomenon, the later GenZ's and especially Gen Alpha kids seem to be moving past the rigitidy into a looser "I am what I am" territory that I personally think is likely to be a far healthier and less conflicted mindset.

Exactly plus the changes in the brain/s sounds horrific !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Fair reflection - I found some parts I agreed with, some I disagreed with, and some parts I didn't really feel werre necessary or she was qualified to even attempt - such as the psychoanalysing, but I think the fact she was fair, had issues with both sides (obviously those objections were not 50:50), is what would potentially make it a good watch for the people on this forum.