this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
67 points (92.4% liked)
Asklemmy
49798 readers
450 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If we're talking about Lemmy rather than wider society then;
Inb4; I'm broadly in support of trans people and trans rights/equality but I think there are three small snagging issues
That people who identify as a women but who went through puberty as a male shouldn't be competing in women's sports. I think it's a basic issue of fairness and that it ultimately disincentives people born female from entering a career in sports competitions.
That there is a serious debate to be had about trans people in women's changing rooms. I know it is a very nuanced and sensitive topic and I don't pretend that I have the answer, but I don't think it is as simple as "I identify as X so I'll use X changing room". I'd like to make it clear that I don't think this is a "sneaky perv" issue but rather a debate about spaces that should possibly be reserved for people born as female.
That no permanent changes should be made to the bodies of children. If you're not old enough to get a tattoo, piercing, drink, smoke etc. Then you're not old enough to make an extremely important decision that will effect you for the rest of your life.
That last one always frustrates me to read. Nobody would make the same argument for an invasive tumour removal operation. Gender dysphoria is a life threatening condition, and if an expert is convinced that early permanent intervention is required, then it should be performed. Transitioning is not in the same category as a piercing or a tattoo. It's a life saving treatment.
This is not to say that such drastic measures should be taken lightly. It seems to be generally avoidable.
I would argue that if you had a tumor at age ten then waiting until 18 may not be possible, but you could wait until you're 18 to make permanent changes to your body as part of a transition. Although I accept that gender dysphoria can be extremely challenging to mental health, I don't think it's equatable to dying from cancer.
There are many things children can do to transition up to the point they are an adult and fully responsible for themselves that are wholly reversible. I personally think that's where the line should be drawn.
I do understand however that it's an extremely nuanced subject and I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert. I can only speak from personal experience that I wouldn't want to be held to account for many of the things I said, the beliefs I had and the opinions that I held when I was a child (I don't even want to be held to account for some of those things as an adult, but that's life, after you're considered an adult, it's on you).
It's not always possible to wait until 18. I do agree that reversible treatments tend to be enough until the time is right, but don't want to completely prevent early permanent treatment if the medical professionals think it's necessary.