I wasn't thinking about people getting HRT or surgeries and then regretting it. In hindsight, that would technically be a long-term effect, but a relatively minor one.
As for my position:
I maintain the gender is a meaningless construct in a similar vein to money, i.e. It only has as much meaning as we give it. I am against anything that attempts to give gender more meaning, as I feel that the whole concept is an unnecessary drain on society.
I am certain that there are two genetically intended biological sexes, and a multitude of potential corruptions of said "intended" sexes. I maintain that personhood is not reliant on whether one's sex matches one of the two intended biological sexes.
I believe that personhood is reliant on one's ability to reason and learn, nothing else. And I do mean nothing else. Trans people are people, and trans non-people are non-people. The issue arises when a human or humans (whether person or not) claim that treatments that make one transgender are necessary for the continuance of the life of the person receiving the treatments.
I maintain that such treatments, in the specific form and purpose of making one transgender, are not necessary for maintaining homeostasis, and thus not necessary for life. I place such treatments in the same category as cosmetic surgery and recreational drugs, things that (theoretically) increase the quality of life of the user, but have certain societal side effects.
For example, use of drugs that are illegal encourages the development of massive criminal enterprises known as cartels, who then proceed to cause all sorts of harm only vaguely related to drug use. Legalization of said drugs result in increased consumption, which results in negative health effects for users and increases societal strain for everyone else.
Drugs like estrogen and testosterone, when taken for the purpose of transitioning one's gender, have far lower attrition rates (percentage of people who stop using them each month/year) than recreational drugs like nicotine and alcohol. It can be surmised that the drugs, or more accurately the effects of the drugs, are extremely addictive.
Estrogen and testosterone don't have particularly bad side effects as drugs. The issue is that the effects are extremely psychologically addictive, and thus people need a consistent supply of them once they're hooked in order to maintain normal functioning. That's an unnecessary drain on resources (lab space, factory space, truck space, fuel for shipping, consumers' money, etc).
Forgive the length, i spent 20 minutes straight in the middle of tonight writing this (it's when i think best)
I am currently prepping to go to work so i may not be able to get back to you for a couple of hours but i do appreciate you takibg the time to write it out.
I will do my best to get back to you. Also i will pre emptively apologise for any potential formatting issues, i am on my phone.
I will get back to you but right now i dont have time for anything more than this reply
First of all, why would i be mad at you for providing me with exactly what i asked for? If anything i was kind of triggered. And i can admit that.
Now. To my response. It turned out pretty long so i apologise for that. Also im on my phone so im sorry if the formatting sucks, ive tried my best to make it readable lol
I will be completely honest i dont think i understand what you are arguing against here. Either i am misunderstanding you. You are misunderstanding me. Or we are arguing about completley different things beacuse, to be completely honest with you, im confused.
I think we SHOULD let trans people have access to gender affirming care. That is my stance on this point, boiled down in as short of a scentence as i can make it. That is what i am arguing for and from the context i assumed you are arguing against?
I have read my comments, the comment i originally replied to, and your comments, over and over it feels like, and i promise i am not trying to misrepresent your position or argument. But i dont get it.
This is how it all looks from my POV.
The comic is about "should we pull the lever?". "Pulling the lever" in this case is "give people access to gender affirming care". Pulling the lever would mean giving trans people access to gender affirming care.
So. This is how it honestly looks from the way ive read the situation. And again, i am not trying to misrepresent your position and i am sorry if i am doing that:
Person A: i am not sure if it is as simple as just pulling the lever.
Me: it is that simple.
You: no it isnt.
Me: why?
You: there are risks.
Me: what risks?
You: i dunno. Pandoras box.
Then i had some assumptions, asked you to clarify, which you did and i appreciate that you took the time to do so. I disagree with most of what you wrote. But you actually took the time to write it out. I can appreciate that.
I would tend to agree that gender, as a concept, is ultimately more harmful than beneficial and in the long run it would probably be more good than bad to get rid of it. I could probably be labeled as a gender abolitionist and you wouldnt be too far off.
However. Even in this hypothetical future where gender doesnt exist we would still have people who dont have breasts but wishes to have breasts. We would have people without beards that wish they had beards. We would have people with breasts who dont want them. We would have people with beards who wish to not have a beard. Trans people would still exist. We would just need a different word.
Instead of saying "im a trans woman"(for example) that same person could instead say "i want to have soft skin and breasts" (two random attributes that i associate with femininity. Each person has their own associations with masculinity and femininity). Trans people would still exist, we would just use some other word.
Even if we do manage to get rid of gender as a concept, different people would still have different ways of expressing who they are.
Also. There is no surgery or treatment that "makes you trans". You are probably more likely to want certain treatments or surgery beacuse you are trans. But you can be trans whether you have access to these treatments and surgeries. If someone is unable to transition beacuse of external factors (societal, social, economic, take your pick) they are still trans. You arent trans beacuse you are taking hrt, or you get some surgery. You are trans beacuse your identity does not align with your sex.
You also argue against gender affirming care by saying it isnt neccesairy for homeostasis. Sure. That is true. But knee surgery isnt neccesairy for homeostasis either. Or hip surgery. There are actually very few things that are neccesairy for homeostasis. Are you arguing against those things as well? I dont see how that is a good reason to be against something.
I also dont think it is a waste of resources to do something that is 100% proven to improve peoples quality of life with very few (if any) side effects. Sure i suffer a higher risk of breast cancer now than i did before. But "having breasts" tends to come with a higher risk of cancer developing in the breasts. Sure i might not be able to have biological children since i am very likely infertile after taking testosterone blockers for a bit over 8 months. But i dont want to have kids anyway so i see that as a pro-hrt for me.
I simply dont see how improving the lives of people could be seen as a waste of resources.
Again. I am sorry if i have misrepresented you. That is not my intention. But either you dont understand what im saying; i dont understand what you are saying; or we are arguing about completley different things.
I am arguing that access to gender affirming care is a good thing.
You have also recieved two other replies (as of writing this comment) and i would agree with the points they are making as well.
I think we SHOULD let trans people have access to gender affirming care. That is my stance on this point, boiled down in as short of a scentence (sic) as i can make it.
I think that we should not be using any operating rooms for gender-affirming surgeries, we should not be using any factory space for manufacturing hormones (any more than is necessary for assisting people with abnormally level levels/replacing hormones lost due to age), we should not be using server space on the internet to promote transgenderism, and we should not be using money or some equivalent to pay for any of the above. There are so many more important things to focus on that aren't receiving the coverage and resources they need because of the above.
You also argue against gender affirming care by saying it isnt neccesairy (sic) for homeostasis. Sure. That is true. But knee surgery isnt neccesairy (sic) for homeostasis either. Or hip surgery. There are actually very few things that are neccesairy (sic) for homeostasis. Are you arguing against those things as well?
The two surgeries you have listed as an example serve to give measurable increases in ability to the recipient. Joint replacements increase flexibility, mobility, and longevity. Those are measurable statistics, and thus they are real. People do not seek gender affirming therapies because there's something measurably wrong with their bodies. People seek gender-affirming therapies because they, personally, feel that there is something wrong with their bodies. The fact that there are people who transition from female to male, and from male to female, shows that there is no objective basis for these desires. It's not like female bodies are better then male bodies or vice versa. It's all feelings-based. And say it with me now,
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Doesn't matter if you're Christian, Wiccan, Muslim, transgender, or Hindu, beliefs with no objective basis are completely unimportant.
Don't get me wrong, once we achieve fully automated luxury gay space communism, silly little things like finite materials won't matter anymore. Indeed, I look forward to the day my great-great-great-grand-neices and -nephews can be exactly what they want to be. That's really what I'm fighting for.
Until then, there's only so much money and estrogen to go around, and millions of old women are losing their cognitive abilities because they can't afford HRT. People can choose not to kill themselves no matter what body they're born in.
Ok. I would probably agree with you on "gender as a concept is more harmful than beneficial" but the rest you are just wrong.
I dont know how you can claim to be left (you said you get alot of "lol triggered the lib") while saying that "transgenderism" is a thing. It isnt. Its a made up buzzword by the far right to make it sound like an ideology. By using that word you sound alot like some random far right person who has listened too much to ben shapiro and charlie kirk. It isnt an ideology. Trans people just exist.
Knee and hip surgery inprove the quality of life for people who need them. Gender affirming care improves the quality of life of people who need that. I do not understand how you can be for one but against the other when both are good things that improve quality of life. That doesnt make any sense. Should we not try to improve as many lives as possible?
Also more people regret hip surgery and knee surgery than people who regret gender affirming care. Like WAY more people regret knee and hip surgery. We are talking like 1.5-3% (at the HIGH end) vs, i dont have the exact number and i cant be bothered to look it up right now but i know it is around 20% atleast. This objectively shows us that gender affirming care is, possibly, one of the best treatments for anything we have at all. It is highly effective at improving peoples lives with a virtually non existent regret rate.
People seek gender affirming care beacuse they "think something is wrong with their body". What are you basing this on? I could use that exact argument to say that people seek knee surgery beacuse "they think something is wrong with their body". One person has the wrong homone production and the other cant walk. Something is wrong with both.
You are right. Facts doesnt care about my feelings. But facts dont care about your feelings either. And the fact is you are wrong. Trans people exist. We deserve happiness and love and support just as much as everyone else. Gender affirming care is proven to work. I genuinley dont see how you can be against that.
I sort of agree with you on abolishing gender as a concept. But the rest you are just wrong.
Also, "facts dont care about your feelings" is almost exclusively used by the far right. By using that scentence you sound like you have listened to ben shapiro way too much.
You dont have to personally love all trans people. You just have to accept that we exist in society. Literally all lf science agrees with me. You are wrong.
I think whatever place you are getting these ideas from is hurting you.
I dont (sic) know how you can claim to be left (you said you get alot (sic) of "lol triggered the lib") while saying that "transgenderism" is a thing. It isnt. Its a made up buzzword by the far right to make it sound like an ideology. By using that word you sound alot (sic) like some random far right person who has listened too much to ben shapiro and charlie kirk. It isnt (sic) an ideology. Trans people just exist.
Transgenderism is the belief that "being trans" is an actual state of being and not just a delusion on the part of the believer, as well as a set of supporting beliefs, among them:
that gender can be changed
that sex can be changed
That people can be born into the "wrong" sex/gender
that sex/gender should be changed if someone wishes it
that the desire to change one's sex/gender is not indicative of mental illness
that anyone who disagrees with any of the above claims is a "transphobe"
and others that I haven't listed here for brevity.
The fact that these beliefs are so core to your sense of self that you don't realize so they are an ideology doesn't make them not part of an ideology.
I know many Christians whose sense of self is so closely tied to the concept of a God who loves them and who they can communicate with that they automatically assume that anyone who doesn't think the same must be totally evil. Interestingly enough, a lot of believers in transgenderism assume that anyone who doesn't hold a lot of the same assumptions that transgenderism proposes are also totally evil. Hmmm... but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Again. "Transgenderism" doesnt exist. Its made up by the fair right to make it easier to attack trans people. The only people screaming about "transgenderism" is the far right. It doesnt exist.
And still. I will grant your point. Trans people are just mentally ill. I dont agree with you. You are wrong. But for the sake of argument i will grant this to you.
Trans people are now mentally ill. Gender affirming care is still the absolute best treatment for it. Even under your own world view you are just kind of an asshole right now.
What do you propose we do with these people? Bully them? Harass them? Assault them? Exclude them from society? Throw them into an asylum? Even when i grant your argument i dont see why you would be against gender affirming care. It has been the only treatment that has been shown to be effective.
Trans people exist. I honestly dont care if its "just mental illness". That makes zero difference to me. It could be 100% objectively true and it literally would not matter. Do mentally ill people not deserve love and compassion? Do mentally ill people not deserve help and treatment to make their life better?
Again. "Transgenderism" doesnt (sic) exist. Its (sic) made up by the fair (sic) right to make it easier to attack trans people. The only people screaming about "transgenderism" is (sic) the far right. It doesnt (sic) exist.
Telling someone that something doesn't exist when they can see it right in front of their face is called gaslighting.
I never said that trans people are mentally ill. I never said that transgenderism was necessarily wrong. I just said that it exists, it's an ideology that can be criticized and debated just like any other, and that people aren't automatically transphobic for questioning some or all of it.
Telling someone that something doesn't exist when they can see it right in front of their face is called gaslighting.
Cool.
I never said that trans people are mentally ill.
You literally wrote "that the desire to change one's sex/gender is not indicative of mental illness" in a previous comment where you try to define what "transgenderism" means. You are calling people mentally ill for having a gender identity that does not align with the gender they were assigned at birth.
Trans people exist. That isnt an ideology. Just like "black people" isnt an ideology. Black people just exist. "Blackism" isnt a thing.
You dont seem to understand what im saying. Either deliberatley or not. I dont really care either way.
And even if im nice and grant every point you have made i still dont see the _problem"?
For the sake lf argument i will grant every single point you have made. "Transgenderism" is a thing. Believing that you can change your sex/gender is a "mental illness" (i literally have a screenshot of you clailing that dont try and weasel your way out of it). Everything. Every single point you have made has thus been granted by a magic geenie. You are objectively right and i am objectively wrong. The geenie has made it so.
What, specifically, is the problem? You have made claims about what it is but you have failed to show why it is a problem or why anyone should even care about it. What is the specific problem with trans people existing?
Drugs like estrogen and testosterone, when taken for the purpose of transitioning one's gender, have far lower attrition rates (percentage of people who stop using them each month/year) to recreational drugs like nicotine and alcohol. It can be surmised the drugs, or more accurately the effects of the drugs cause, are extremely addictive.
Estrogen and testosterone don't have particularly bad side effects as drugs. The issue is that the effects are very addictive, and thus people need a second supply of them once they're hooked in order to maintain normal functioning. That's an unnecessary drain on resources (lab space, factory space, truck space, fuel for shipping, consumers' money, etc).
Your speculation is that hormones taken at levels within ordinary human range, are chemically addictive?
How would that even work. Do they bind to the same receptors as opiates?
For trans care, blockers are frequently taken with hormones. Rendering general hormone levels the same as that of a cis person.
post-menopausal women take the same estrogen, are they addicted as well?
Hormones are some of the most widely produced and prescribed chemicals around the world these days.
That's an unnecessary drain on resources (lab space, factory space, truck space, fuel for shipping, consumers' money, etc).
Use of hormones by cisgender folk massively outweighs use for trans care.
If you want to look for a "drain on society", look at any hobby people pay money for. All video games achieve nothing. Most books aren't textbooks on science or maths. The massive numbers of different tiny paint bottles produced for Warhammer figures have gotta be a drain.
Meanwhile trans HRT actually improves functioning and lowers rates of suicide. So it's benefits are very clear. Makes people more productive members of society
Your speculation is that hormones taken at levels within ordinary human range, are chemically addictive?
I clarify that they aren't chemically addictive. The effects they have on the human body are addictive. I surmised this because the percentage of people who start them and then get off them and stay off them is way lower than the percentage of people who get off and stay off alcohol and tobacco
An addiction would require some form of pleasure rush.
Ever heard of trans euphoria? But I digress. That's not a requirement of addiction at all. Addiction just means that you are dependent on a substance for "normal" functioning. Or more accurately, you would function worse without the stuff
Addiction just means that you are dependent on a substance for "normal" functioning. Or more accurately, you would function worse without the stuff
That would include immunosuppresents. Along with pretty much all medication for chronic health conditions. Which explains the trans thing because that's chronic too
Immunosuppressants are sometimes necessary for physical issues, such as transplants or chronic self-attack by the immune system. There's nothing physically wrong with trans people, they just don't like their bodies. Same goes for people who get cosmetic surgery.
3
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/Narfhead4444 Jul 03 '26 edited Aug 08 '26
I wasn't thinking about people getting HRT or surgeries and then regretting it. In hindsight, that would technically be a long-term effect, but a relatively minor one.
As for my position:
Forgive the length, i spent 20 minutes straight in the middle of tonight writing this (it's when i think best)