Hacker News Reader

Comment by mise_en_place | Hacker News Reader

That's arguing with bad faith and framing the argument incorrectly IMO. Nobody is " against trans " people, whatever that means. Many are against children joining that lifestyle, which may result in irreparable harm to the child.

As an adult, I am on androgen replacement therapy but I am also very careful with it, regularly checking my labs to make sure I don't torch my liver in the process. I can make informed decisions about it because I've read the research and understand the risks. A child or even a teenager doesn't understand the risks of taking hormones. Not fully anyway, as the brain doesn't fully develop until 25 or so.

View on HN

> Nobody is " against trans " people, whatever that means.

Have you ever been on twitter? It will take you a couple of minutes to find people who think that's unnatural, sinful, should be forbidden, they're mentally ill, they're sexual predators by default. I know there are some more moderate ideas, but people completely against do exist.

You're putting in the same bag many complaints, some of which irrational and unproven (sexual predators) and some valid arguments, rooted in philosophical or religious beliefs (unnatural, mental illness).

Moreover, everyone knows twitter is not exactly the place with the healthiest representative sample of mankind...

The claim wasn't that it was a common, healthy, or well researched opinion. Just that it exists, unlike what the parent wrote.

> . Nobody is " against trans " people, whatever that means

What it means is “actively seeking to eliminate trans people, including by the simple expedient of killing them by means such as prohibiting care that is proven to greatly reduce suicidality in, especially, young trans people.”

And lots of people—indeed, entire state governments in the US—are “against trans people”.

> “actively seeking to eliminate trans people,

Put it such extreme and dishonest way, reducing sugar in food it an attempt to eliminate obese people... No , the attribute is not the object.

> indeed, entire state governments in the US—are “against trans people”.

So you deny the rights of a community of people to decide what they deem legal or illegal ? All this for the personal benefit of a (literal) couple of people ?

Should they also be carried in Ferraris to their treatment place?

> So you deny the rights of a community of people to decide what they deem legal or illegal ?

That’s irrelevant. Whether a community has a right to pass laws based on the fact that they are against trans people is not the issue. Whether people are. manifestly against trans people is the issue (and they very clearly are.)

>So you deny the rights of a community of people to decide what they deem legal or illegal ? All this for the personal benefit of a (literal) couple of people

By that logic if said community is for incest, pedophilia and extremely violent and barbarian punishment, the country has to allow it?

> So you deny the rights of a community of people to decide what they deem legal or illegal ? All this for the personal benefit of a (literal) couple of people ?

I hate to invoke Godwin, but just because a society decides to outlaw belonging to a certain minority doesn't make it right. The NSDAP's Anti-Jew laws were also passed in parliament, but still those laws were very obviously wrong.

Many societies over the course of history have decided that slavery should be legal. Some still do today. I absolutely deny those communities' moral right to this decision (though I can't do much about the practical right).

> That's arguing with bad faith and framing the argument incorrectly IMO. Nobody is " against trans " people

I don't know how you can say that unironically when places like my current state (Texas) have been doing everything in their power to be against trans people. These lifestyle arguments remind me a lot of the exact same stuff people said about anyone gay, that they thought it caused irreparable harm and spread disease.

Some aspects of subcultures within people who identify as gay end up spreading disease, in certain contexts. Why is monkeypox so prevalent now? Did the virus decide to hop continents?

The reason why monkeypox is so prevalent right now is because the way it spreads isn't limited to gay sex, despite what the mangled messaging around says. It spreads by any sort of close contact (including bedding and clothing), and there have been many straight individuals turned away from testing because they weren't deemed 'at risk' despite them having all of the classical signs of monkeypox. So it ends up spreading among crowds like swingers and what not most publicly, while privately it spreads among the more traditional crowds that end up not getting tested.

So I'm going to call it, you are using textbook neonazi argumentation. Never admitting that you are actually ideologically opposed to certain people (LGBT, black, brown...) but making up bogus "medical" arguments.

Going through natal puberty causes irreparable harm to children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com