Political Divisions in the U.S. 2022 Midterm Elections

[antaeus]

Are you even reading what you are typing?
You are literally saying that "opportunities, rights, privileges etc" stem from how people define themselves.
Or perhaps you did not choose the best words (?).
I say if we want to live in a world without discrimination we should make sure that "opportunities, rights, privileges etc" are independent of race, sex gender etc.
The solution that the leftists are proposing is not to eliminate discrimination but to allow people to choose their privilege by arbitrarily declaring themselves the sex or gender of their choosing.
That's weaving new problems into a carpet under which to hide the old problems.
I don't need to be a conservative to have a problem with that.
Do I?

Subtle Ad hominem aside... I think you misunderstand progressive attitudes and policies. Progressives are a diverse group, but most seek to allow those people who in previous generations were disenfranchised, equality. Both under the law, and systemically within culture. They see conservatives, particularly religious conservatives as challenging this from a cultural perspective, and by law.

Of course left leaning, progressive, centre-left what ever folks are diverse. You'll find some who are religious, some who are not. Some who are controversial in their statements, some who are not. And they wont get along. You're in danger of treating this diverse group as a monolith. A faulty generalisation. In danger of taking one small group of progressives you've read about, and using them to bludgeon the rest.

It seems to me we are in disagreement regarding the nature of the problem.
No wonder why we are at an impasse regarding the possible solutions.
The problem is not how you define yourself, you can call yourself Barbara Streisand for all I care.
But if I were a film producer should I be obliged to pay you a Barbara Streisand cache?
The left say I should.

I'm not sure you can say we're at an impasse when I haven't stated a position. I have merely wondered whether we're asking the right question.

I.e. What happens when your right to self-identify is infringed by another expressing theirs?

I'd go further. I think you're stuck in a binary left-right axis (based on your faulty assumption that it is only those on the left who have a problem). Which makes you part of the question I am asking. The same question I ask goes in both directions. People of both left and right persuasions have taken on identity characteristics that purposely and intentionally infringe on the right to self-identify of the other. I evidence our friend Hilary Clinton and her 'basket of deplorables' statement. Or Don Jr's "Let's make the liberals cry again"

You can pick any issue in the current spread. Be it abortion or gender identity or religion or what ever. They are conduits for the same conversation. "my core identity is premised on the fact that your core identity is invalid"

[Ältester der Motten]

Therapy for the disabled is all well and good. The issues appear when a minority of hyper-politicised activists start to infiltrate general media, politics and education to push confusing ideas on the majority of people who never had any issues and wouldn't have them if they weren't constantly exposed to these damaging talking points about how man and woman are really just ideas and nothing matters.

If the biological distinction between men and women didn't exist then trans-women wouldn't routinely completely wreck actual women in any sport competition, women would routinely be effective firefighters and soldiers, and men could get pregnant. That's just a small selection of issues where men and women are obviously extremely different. Clearly, the distinction is real, and there's a function to it. If it didn't fulfill an important function, it wouldn't be so nearly universal throughout the entire bloody animal kingdom. If 20% of people kinda don't fulfill all the basic criteria that doesn't change it. They're called outliers for a reason. If sex wasn't real, we wouldn't be talking about outliers. This discussion would've never existed at all. This presumed biologist clearly has a warped view of the matter because of her own ideological indoctrination.

Disabilities are called so because the individual does NOT WORK RIGHT. It is not beneficial to push this way of being onto more people. It has a dramatic effect on the individual and more importantly society.
Simply teach them to respect and empathise with disabled people, and then either those'll be able to outgrow their limitations and by virtue of their own strength become a vital part of society, or they'll be able to carve out their niche existence somewhere at the fringe of society. The fact that humans even make an effort of integrating fundamentally broken people into society at all is very generous (as an Aspie I am very thankful for the generous support I received from all around me). If anyone asks for more than what I outlined, they are like a dog biting the hand of the owner feeding them.

At the moment, intersectionalist political activists are not only content to bite the hand, but also to rabidly tear at it demanding ever more and more and more - and it has a predictable effect. A few years ago LGBT opinion polls in the US historically showed a sinking approval rate for the first time. I have not seen nwer published results since anytime I checked. If you are concerned for the well-being of LGBT people and other minorities, you would be wise to cool down and count your blessings, there are already plenty.

We can already see that the West's relationship with sex is fundamentally broken - either marriages break apart at an alarming rate when people still dare to marry at all, or they just don't get kids at all*. Men and women do not communicate effectively with each other anymore, and they are not aware of the unique strengths and weaknesses of their sexes, and the role they fulfill in society. We don't know each other, and we don't know ourselves. In our awareness of the fundamental truth of the world around and within us, we are little more than toddlers.

The past 50 years of the legacy of the mushroom-addled far-left 60/70s civil rights movement were a whole mistake and nothing got better, the old problems were just superceeded by newer, more existential ones. We can not endure the dissolution of the sexes and their roles any longer. That and many other issues which are tearing Western society apart at the seams, mostly related to individuals and interest groups taking care of themselves first before considering their duty to society, if that happens at all. The success and survival of society comes first, the expression of the individual last**. We do that, or we will fail. At that point it won't even matter anymore if democracy is on the ballot or not (I tried to integrate the topic title, even though the thread is clearly not about that at all - huh?).

*To be fair population shrinkage is observed universally across the industrialised world and needed for sustainability reasons - but if you respond to that by inviting people from other cultures to make your kids for you instead, then it's clearly not about that. Its just naive entitlement.

**Freely paraphrasing Ernst Udet from his autobiography.

[Muizer]

It also seems to me that person A wishes to explore what stance senator Warren is holding toward science and the scientific method.

I would not have gotten that out of the OP in a million years. To me it is obviously a case of someone who considers people having different beliefs a threat to their own (hence fragile and/or fundamentalist) and rates this a bigger problem than the ones Warren listed.
That's the topic I responded to. If instead it's about the role of the scientific method in politics, well that is an interesting topic for sure but one I do not expect a convo here to be very productive

[paleologos]

Apologies to all, I know this is a text wall but I believe I am making legitimate points, so please bear with me.

Subtle Ad hominem aside...

I find this criticism to be unfounded.

...but most seek to allow those people who in previous generations were disenfranchised...

Putting aside the fact that both the "ruggedly individualistic" type of Americans and the classically liberal type of Americans are quite repulsed by the implication that identity minorities should be treated as tribes, one would need to consider the risk such a stance would go against one of the first principles of American nation building: E pluribus unum.
Person's A primary concern seems to be that the US might break up.
I would prefer that discussion in this thread centers around that concern and the degree that it is meaningful.

I think you misunderstand progressive attitudes and policies. Progressives are a diverse group, but most seek to allow those people who in previous generations were disenfranchised, equality. Both under the law, and systemically within culture. They see conservatives, particularly religious conservatives as challenging this from a cultural perspective, and by law.

Of course left leaning, progressive, centre-left what ever folks are diverse. You'll find some who are religious, some who are not. Some who are controversial in their statements, some who are not. And they wont get along. You're in danger of treating this diverse group as a monolith. A faulty generalisation. In danger of taking one small group of progressives you've read about, and using them to bludgeon the rest.

I think it would be very tedious, unwieldy and nonconstructive if I were to type a few pages of disclaimers.
But I did say twice,
First in post #3:

...
The fact that the Democratic Party has given "earth and water" to such people and allowed them to dictate official stances on various matters makes the prospect of them being "in power" quite repulsive to half a nation.
...

And then in post #5:

...
I am concerned that they are losing their ability to function as a nation because both sides have allowed their most extreme elements to dictate party stance and both sides, for the sake of their own argument, refuse to acknowledge the merits in the concerns of the other side and they refuse to even try.
...

In these two separate occasions I acknowledged the diversity of the conflicted groups and I was under the impression the acknowledgements were adequate.
Did you miss that, or do you think I should have emphasized more on the disclaimers?
Because I feel that the accusation of "faulty generalization" is unwarranted.

Perhaps I should have emphasized my opinion that both sides, instead of trying to cancel each other, they should be cancelling the extremists on their own side and purge them from their ranks.
But then the questions would emerge, "who are the extremists" and "how far out there must someone be in order to be considered extreme".
In my opinion these are the questions that both parties should be discussing internally and they are not.

Also, a question that should be discussed is how tolerant each party should be of post modernist attitudes.
So far in this thread I have not expressed any apprehensions regarding the attitudes of the GOP, so I will take this chance now.
I believe that the American conservatives were first in "deploying" post modernist "weaponry" in the political discourse.
The denial of climate science and/or treating it as an opinion (I agree with Person A on this one), the insistence that Iraq possessed WMDs, I remember the statements of Condoleezza Rice on the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 and how in due time an international fact finding committee exposed her with her foot in her mouth, to name but a few.

The most recent example of the insistence that the 2020 presidential elections were stolen is a culmination of a trend that started decades earlier.
It is my belief that Donald Trump did not cause the enamoration of the republicans with post modernism, rather his ascension to power was a result of it.
If I were to guess what would cause an otherwise traditionally reserved part of the American population to go off the rails is that over the years they became gradually more and more resentful of real or perceived acts of disparagement by people of the "leftist intellectual elites".

I'm not sure you can say we're at an impasse when I haven't stated a position.

I seems you are avoiding to address the apprehension I expressed above, but anyway.

I have merely wondered whether we're asking the right question.

I.e. What happens when your right to self-identify is infringed by another expressing theirs?

Why is that the right question?

Let me put it this way:
I know person X don't have a uterus and their phenotype -but not their mannerisms- is what would be expected of a person with an XY pair of sex chromosomes.
I hear them say they are a woman and I do nothing to punish them, I let them be.
But then they insist that I call them a woman and I refuse.
Then they, or someone else on their behalf and for the sake of "compassion", punish me.
Because I did not pay lip service to person X.

Do you see a problem with that?
It should be obvious to you that this has nothing to do with person X's ability to claim to be whatever they want.
It has everything to do with the demand that I accept an arbitrary and authoritarian shift in the meaning of words and the combined demand that I use said words in a prescribed way.
Person X may have the right to call themselves a woman, I am not shocked by that.
But nobody should have the right to declare my refusal to pay lip service to that "hate speech".

It seems to me that certain people labor under the persuasion that their right to self expression is predicated on me -and everyone else- paying lip service to their expression.
I do not accept that: if you can say whatever you want so can I.
The only way we can resolve this is by means of a declaration:
The only true kind of hate speech is the accusation that someone else's speech is "hate speech".
(That's pretty much how the Salem witch trials ended.)

I'd go further. I think you're stuck in a binary left-right axis (based on your faulty assumption that it is only those on the left who have a problem).

I believe this has been answered
And please, do read the original comments of Person A; you will see they read like they are not American and they seem to have a problem with the denial of climate science on the part of the GOP's official stance as well as with the accusation that the 2020 presidential elections were stolen.
Both of which seem very reasonable apprehensions to me.

Which makes you part of the question I am asking. The same question I ask goes in both directions. People of both left and right persuasions have taken on identity characteristics that purposely and intentionally infringe on the right to self-identify of the other.

I have addressed that.

I evidence our friend Hilary Clinton...

A profoundly disagreeable character if there ever was one.

...and her "basket of deplorables" statement.

It certainly did exacerbate the already underway cultural entrenchment of the inhabitants of so called "fluyover" America.

Or Don Jr's "Let's make the liberals cry again"

Ok now, really?
The Clinton woman may be disagreeable but at least she has things to show for herself.
Do we really think of Don Jr as an even remotely consequential character?
I have exactly zero comments on anything he has to say.

You can pick any issue in the current spread. Be it abortion or gender identity or religion or what ever. They are conduits for the same conversation. "my core identity is premised on the fact that your core identity is invalid"

I understand what you mean and I believe this kind of attitude is only prevalent among the least nuanced Americans.
Am I wrong to believe that?
I also believe this attitude is better worded along the line:

I know I am a good person and if you are disparaging me you must be a bad person, so in deciding what position I will hold in any particular issue all I need to know is the position you hold in said issue so that I hold a position contrarian to yours knowing that opposing you puts me on the side of the angels.

But if that is the case, wouldn't the onus be on the more nuanced Americans to be on the moraly generous side and be more inviting to conversation?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not have gotten that out of the OP in a million years.

I don't believe it would take you a million years to read the second comment of Person A.
You just glossed over it instead of actually reading it.
Person A reads to me like genuinely concerned about the denial of climate science on the part of conservatives as well as the arbitrary decision to dispute the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections.

To me it is obviously a case of someone who considers people having different beliefs a threat to their own (hence fragile and/or fundamentalist)...

What exactly makes that obvious?
Again read the the second comment made of Person A.
More specifically, what makes your conclusion more obvious than the conclusion you are projecting?
(Not that you are projecting, but if the shoe fits...)

...and rates this a bigger problem than the ones Warren listed.

If that was the case I would agree.

That's the topic I responded to.

This is nothing more than another bash the left / transsexuals in the pit.

It is sad but expected, if you see yourself as a nail, everyone else begin to look like hammers.

If instead it's about the role of the scientific method in politics, well that is an interesting topic for sure...

Actually it is about how the deliberate disregard of the scientific method in American politics is feeding into a vicious cycle with the post modernist assertion that reality is socially constructed by the dominant forces in a society and therefore the only meaningful endeavor is the pursuit of social dominance.

It started with the least nuanced Americans (on the conservative side) as prior to the Newt Gingrich era the conservatives almost never got a majority in congress.
Post modernism is very seductive, nearly irresistible (I had actually fallen victim to it for a time), if you feel (or have been trained to believe) you are powerless to tilt the conditions within which you have to live your life and in that situation you are being told ("elitesplained") by otherwise unreachable "elites" that your current conditions are the best for you and you are a bad person for resenting them.
Newt Gingrich capitalized on that resentment to great effect for his own career.

But as the numbers of professional social justice warriors swelled, post modernist attitudes began to be increasingly prevalent among grievance groups which were voraciously patronized by race, sex and gender/transgender grievance champions.
There was plenty of resentment to be exploited all over the place and professional politicos even went so far as to farm resentment.

...but one I do not expect a convo here to be very productive.

Name your forum.



@Ältester der Motten:
You have my apologies I did not have the time to give your post the proper attention.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

It is sad but expected, if you see yourself as a nail, everyone else begin to look like hammers.

Except you are a hammer with your talk about slutified women and disgusting "Both sides have fine and extremist people" relativism, although your beloved conservative group A' hardness is only, that group B can live their life free and openly.

And although Mothman is clearly agitating against 60 years of female emancipation and liberalisation of anti-homosexuality and anti-transgender laws as disgusting decline of western civilisation because too few births by evil women, which don't take their natural place, in his opinion and is praising a quote of Ernst Udet, one of Hitlers Nazi general lackeys, you still have this BASH THE LEFT ABNORMAL UNNATURALS-Thread open.

[paleologos]

Except you are a hammer with your talk about slutified women and disgusting "Both sides have fine and extremist people" relativism, although your beloved conservative group A' hardness is only, that group B can live their life free and openly.

And although Mothman is clearly agitating against 60 years of female emancipation and liberalisation of anti-homosexuality and anti-transgender laws as disgusting decline of western civilisation because too few births by evil women, which don't take their natural place, in his opinion and is praising a quote of Ernst Udet, one of Hitlers Nazi general lackeys, you still have this BASH THE LEFT ABNORMAL UNNATURALS-Thread open.

Straw man argument.

[Ältester der Motten]

I feel compelled to clarify some points to make clearer where I stand, although mortician will now be unable to read them. I'll put them in spoilers, to not derail the thread.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1: I was a bit too polemic when I criticised the past 60 years of civil rights movements. In principle the idea that everyone should be able to find their place in society and be a respected member of it is something I wholeheartedly endorse. But the reality is that this is not what we have ended up with, and not even the goal that was chased, though it took me 32 years of my life to realise this. We are in a place where the fulfillment of the individual surpasses any consideration for even the most fundamental needs of society - and yes that clearly includes making enough children to ensure the survival of the group, which should be a no-brainer.

The only reason why this is not a critical point is because there are RIGHT NOW way too many of us on this planet. So for the time being the need for full population replenishment is suspended. But this is a luxury or as I see it a burden we ought to carry, not a human right. Humans are animals and as such are bound by the same rules. One of those is "bear children or die out". And men also bear responsibility here, there are plenty of anti-natalists among them, and too many who shirk their responsibilities to their family out of selfish comfort. The need for kids is just a fundamental fact of life, it's not societal oppression.

2: In the same vein I respect and tolerate LGBT people, as they are quite able to contribute to society in their own way. There is no point in forcing the outliers to be like the norm. It's unnecessary and counterproductive, therefore unreasonable cruelty. But clearly this doesn't mean being gay works for everyone, we'd die out in one generation. Tolerating and respecting the outliers and making them the norm are two different hings.
I am not homophobic or transphobic, but I do oppose QIA+ ideology at every step. Those are different pairs of shoes, even if the previously nonexistent QIA+ folk have successfully usurped the LGBT movement in recent years.
Again... I am talking as an Aspie here. I am an outlier myself, and I have the same experience with suicidal ideation, discrimination and bullying at various stages of my life. But I understand it's up to me to prove my worth to society, as it is with anybody.

3: I did paraphrase Ernst Udet, but he was a soldier, general and man of his time. As a human far without faults, he still exemplified some of the best soldatic virtues and is respected for it across nations, for the handful who know about him. I also quote Churchill sometimes and respect the man, following the same basic logic - of course nowadays that also makes me a white supremacist, I suppose. Fight with the Nazis or fight against them, you are still one step away from being literally HItler. It's getting tiring.
To make it clear: the war ended the right way, it's good that Nazi Germany was defeated because they were absolutely abominable. I am anti-Nazi. Udet however was not involved in the eradication of the civilian population in the East and he was already dead by his own hand before the holocaust even began - as a logistical air force general he would've had no hand in it anyway. So I feel quite comfortable quoting him. He was a misguided man on the wrong side of history, but not evil. The world is not that simple.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Straw man argument.

Ironic from someone who starts a whole thread in bad faith by creating a echo chamber for his own opinion.

[paleologos]

Ironic from someone who starts a whole thread in bad faith by creating a echo chamber for his own opinion.

This is called projection.

Ironic from someone who starts a whole thread in bad faith by creating a echo chamber for his own opinion.

Echo chamber?
At least half the people who have posted here have taken a stance similar to yours.
And at least they did not misrepresent on purpose the opinions expressed by me, they were just not thorough enough to read what I posted.

Ironic from someone who starts a whole thread in bad faith by creating a echo chamber for his own opinion.

What you call "my opinion" is the straw man argument.

@Ältester der Motten:
I have read both your posts.

I am not prepared to take an unequivocal position on the matter of overpopulation.
Nor would I like this issue to be discussed in this thread.

On everything else your posts read way too apologetic.
It's as if you are very much concerned with avoiding being poorly thought of by people who think poorly of everyone who has a different opinion than them.
Unless, of course the different opinion comes from a person who is championing for an allegedly oppressed minority with a demonstrably greater vengeance.

[Coughdrop addict]

How about calling someone black because they want to? Some people have been crucified for that.

As for who cares, I will answer: I do. Because I don't want to have to lie to people and I don't think the current approach of telling Bob that he is a woman in a man's body helps Bob.
People that have psychological issues should be given help, and agreeing with their skewed view of reality isn't help, it's patronizing. I do consider gender dysphoria a form of mental illness. Someone that is bipolar should receive help to control these issues. I don't think we should just go along with their (wrong) opinion just to make them feel better about themselves. We wouldn't be agreeing with Kanye West that Black people are Jews just because he wants to believe it, and I don't think we should be telling Bob that he is a woman just because he wants to believe it.

That in the past 5-10 years it becomes increasingly necessary to explain "No, you should tell your kid that he isn't a cat, not that he is a cat in a boy's body" is one of the reasons progressives are losing so badly to election-stealers.

I promise you that the existence of trans people has no effect on your life whatsoever. You are not going to wake up one day and 'decide' you're trans too, your penis is not going to fall off, and no one is going to question your manliness. They are not going to pass laws requiring you to become trans or gay or anything else either.

I know that the changing world is scary. People were scared in my country about blacks not being slaves or the Irish coming here or women voting or gays marrying. This fear led a lot of people to try to restrict the rights of others through violence and through law. But in the end they failed, life went on, and it turned out none of those things were all that terrible.

And the cat thing? That was a hoax.

[chriscase]

Please remember to constrain your commentary to the content of posts in the thread rather than members' character or other personal traits.

[alhoon]

Therapy for the disabled is all well and good. The issues appear when a minority of hyper-politicised activists start to infiltrate general media, politics and education to push confusing ideas on the majority of people who never had any issues and wouldn't have them if they weren't constantly exposed to these damaging talking points about how man and woman are really just ideas and nothing matters.

I agree. Frankly, in many European cities where there's not a group of screaming pink-haired obnoxious activists annoying everyone, things are much better for the average transexual kid. Discussions on bathroom laws and all happen when needed where needed and people go "Oh. Eh, I disagree. What will we do for a movie?" or "Oh. Hmmm, I agree. Good for them. What will we do for dinner?" and life goes on. I honestly believe things are better for transexual kids and homosexual people there as they can go on with their lives without the scrutiny.

Frankly Germany is such a nation. Whenever I am in Germany, the people on the street do their thing and there are no heated discussions about gay marriage / adoptions or gender issues. Men in academia suffer the oppression of the women silently, and when I was there a few days after gay marriage passed nobody was really making an issue about it. People agreed or disagreed but they didn't care much.

In Netherlands, things were not bad, not as bad as USA, when and I had an interesting, respectful discussion with such a person in TWC. It was that person that mentioned that there's a big line of people wanting to meet specialized doctors because a lot of people think they are transexual while they find out they are actually not, and this complicates things for people that are actually transexual.

@Morticia, unless I am mistaken you are from Germany. Do you know how are things for transexual kids in Germany? No I am not trolling you, nor I am looking for ammo to attack transexual people. My issue is not with transexual people, it's with the "hyper-politicised activists" that Aleister mentioned, or the few "obnoxious purple haired activists" as other wise people (me) call that 2% (they are not more) of the electorate.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@Alhoon: I will look what i find and post after Monday morning meetings.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I'm translating two articles from the Deutsche Ärzteblatt, a newspaper for medical doctors, in two following posts, as this is state of the medical art in Germany how to treat transsexual kids:

"When girls play with cars and boys play with dolls, it is mostly seen as a passing phase and a normal part of child development. The situation is different when girls insist with absolute certainty that they are actually male, and boys are unswervingly convinced that they belong to the female sex, that is, were born in the wrong body. In this case one speaks of trans-identity (see box Terms). It presents the children, but also their parents, relatives, educators and other people in their environment with very special challenges.

Trans identity has long been (and in some cases still is) viewed as a pathological disorder and delusion. Gradually, however, a broader understanding is gaining ground. According to this, trans identity is an innate variant of people's gender identity, in which the gender identity does not match the assigned gender. “The exact causes of different variants of gender identity are not clear. Among other things, hormonal influences in pregnancy and genetic factors probably play a role," say the child and adolescent psychotherapists Sabine Maur and Konstantin Shahshahani from Mainz.
An estimated two to three percent of all children and young people are convinced that they were born in the wrong body. The prevalence is possibly higher, as experts have been observing an increasing use of special outpatient clinics for years, for example.

Persistence is relatively low from childhood to adolescence. Only in about two to 20 percent does the transgender feeling persist in adolescence, while in the majority it disappears with increasing age. The persistence from adolescence to adulthood, on the other hand, is very high. With regard to persistence in childhood, three groups are distinguished:

The majority of children come to terms with their gender-specific physical characteristics and later develop a homosexual or bisexual orientation during puberty.


A small minority also comes to terms with their gender-specific physical characteristics and develops an exclusively heterosexual orientation during puberty.


In the other children, the perceived discrepancy persists and intensifies as the secondary sexual characteristics begin to develop.


Trans identity is expressed in childhood, for example, when children become increasingly aware of the discrepancy between their assigned and perceived gender (this can begin as early as two to three years of age) and distance themselves from their birth gender. For example, they choose a first name that matches their perceived gender and only wants to be addressed with this. They are highly involved in games and activities associated with the opposite sex and prefer opposite-sex playmates. They reject their sex characteristics, want them gone, and want the sex characteristics of the opposite sex instead. It is also characteristic that they try to hair and dress like the opposite sex and have a strong desire to belong to it and to be treated accordingly.

During puberty, not only does the perceived discrepancy and rejection of the assigned sex increase, but also the fear that the assigned sex will become apparent through the development of secondary sex characteristics. Young people therefore try to conceal these characteristics, for example by having girls tie their breasts or boys wearing tight-fitting underwear. At the same time, many young people appear in public as persons of the desired gender.

In addition, young people increasingly want to know what is going on with them. They do research on the Internet, get in touch with like-minded people and find out what options there are for establishing a congruence between their gender identity and their assigned gender. They often already have a very concrete idea in this regard. "Young patients are increasingly expressing a desire for medical gender-correcting measures such as hormone treatment or mastectomy," writes the specialist in psychiatry and psychotherapy, Dr. medical Bernd Meyenburg at the University Hospital in Frankfurt/Main.

Transgender children and young people are confronted with the most varied of reactions from their fellow human beings. Some fellow human beings are open and tolerant, others are indifferent and many are uncomprehending and dismissive; The latter can involve violence, bullying, hostility and discrimination. However, if the family and peers react negatively, this is particularly stressful for transgender children and young people.

The affected children and young people not only suffer from their fellow human beings, but also from their situation. They are often desperate because it is not possible for them to live the identity they want. In addition, they find their body so inappropriate that they develop a great hatred for it. If such social and intrapsychic problems come together, this can have an extremely unfavorable effect on psychological well-being and lead to high levels of dissatisfaction, severe psychological strain and poor school performance. There is also an increased risk of depression, self-harm, self-mutilation, anxiety disorders, social isolation and suicidal tendencies.

The high levels of distress associated with gender dysphoria can be alleviated by three factors: first, understanding and supportive parents and family members, second, various medical steps to reconcile assigned and perceived gender, and third, greater tolerance in society.

Most parents notice when their children misbehave. But since they often don't know the reason and have never heard of trans identity, they cannot explain it and react to it in their own way: Some parents ignore their children's behavior and consider it a phase that will soon pass. Others stay calm, accompany their children on their way and accept them as they are. Still other parents cannot deal with this and use various means to force their children to behave according to their assigned gender; The latter can increase the psychological strain on the children and prevent healthy personality development.

Parents of transgender children are sometimes confronted with the same, sometimes with different tasks and problems as parents of non-transgender children. For example, numerous resistances and prejudices have to be overcome again and again and the children may have to be protected. In addition, parents are faced with constant doubts, they have to make decisions that determine the future of their children and trans identity can become a dominant issue in a family. So that such challenges do not become a permanent burden, it is important that parents deal with their problems and feelings, especially with fears, reservations and worries and, if necessary, seek professional help. In addition, they should obtain detailed information about trans identity, network (e.g. with self-help groups), seek expert advice (e.g. in special consultation hours and advice centres) and always seek dialogue (e.g. with the staff of kindergartens or schools and with parents ).

The alignment of assigned gender and gender identity is graded and age-dependent. The main measures used are: treatment with hormones that block puberty, treatment with hormones of the opposite sex, and sex reassignment surgery. While the effects of anti-puberty therapy are reversible, the effects of other measures are irreversible.

There is evidence that step-by-step treatment in accordance with the guidelines has a positive effect on subjective well-being, psychosocial functioning and symptom burden in adolescents. It has also been shown that adults who have undergone gender reassignment surgery have a positive effect on satisfaction and quality of life. However, there are also young people and adults who have been operated on who want a reverse operation. In order to avoid disappointment and to achieve the best possible treatment results, psychological and psychotherapeutic support during the measures and more research into transgender children and adolescents are essential.

Trans identity is no longer as taboo as it used to be, and some forms of gender identity even seem to be fashionable (e.g. metrosexuality). This is, among other things, thanks to some media that portray transgender people and offer insights into their living environments. However, there are still numerous hurdles that make it difficult for transgender children and young people to show and live their gender identity, for example ignorance, prejudice, certain official and medical requirements and a lack of training and specialization opportunities in the field of trans identity among children and young people. Associations such as Trans-Kinder-Netz e.V. (www.trans-kinder-netz.de) or the German Association for Transsexuality and Intersexuality e.V. (www.dgti.org) have therefore made it their task to remove such hurdles, e.g Example by taking action against stigmatization and exclusion, demanding the depathologization of trans identity and promoting more tolerance and acceptance of gender diversity.

Gender incongruence in childhood and adolescence does not require psychotherapeutic treatment per se, since it is not a mental disorder. However, if it creates relevant suffering in the sense of gender dysphoria, psychotherapeutic treatment may be indicated. Psychotherapeutic support is often experienced as helpful, even if there are no primary, secondary or comorbid disorders. According to Maur and Shahshahani, psychotherapists should accompany the individual experience of gender identity and the rejection of one's own body in a non-judgmental, understanding, approachable and open-ended manner. The goals of the support can be, for example, the promotion of psychosocial development and the reduction of problems and difficulties that arise from the special developmental situation, the clarification of the individual internal and external situation and the confrontation with disappointments. Supporting those affected to feel comfortable with their individual gender identity experience and to deal better with possible stress can also be a therapy goal. In addition, the psychotherapeutic accompaniment serves to advise the caregivers in order to promote their acceptance and support.

In terms of psychotherapeutic support, neither the therapeutic orientation nor the duration of therapy are decisive, but rather that the person concerned is accompanied on their way for a sufficiently long period of time and it can thus be ensured that the desire for gender reassignment is consistent.

by Marion Sonnenmoser

Recommendation of the German Ethics Council

Since the number of transgender children and young people is constantly increasing, the German Ethics Council passed an ad hoc recommendation on February 21st. With this, the interdisciplinary body wants to sensitize the public to the difficult questions of an appropriate social and medical handling of trans identity.

On the one hand, the general right of personality must be observed, which also includes the right to lead a life according to one's own subjectively perceived gender identity and to be recognized in this identity. The child must be heard in all decision-making processes and their ideas and wishes must be taken into account according to their maturity and age.

The Council emphasizes that the therapeutic interaction with the child must be designed in such a way that it is introduced to the decisions that become more consequential with increasing age. Parents and carers should give the child the best possible support. It should not be treated without the consent of the person concerned or even against their will.

The experts emphasize that the benefits and harm of the medical-therapeutic measures must be carefully weighed up in each individual case. This applies in particular because the measures are sometimes controversial in terms of their risks, side effects and consequences. Like the risks, (side) effects and long-term consequences that minors suffer from active medical-therapeutic intervention, those that threaten if measures are not taken must also be taken into account. Especially in view of the contention of individual options for action, those affected and their parents have a right to balanced advice and information. In addition, a destigmatizing approach to dealing with trans identity among children should be promoted. Corresponding offers of psychosocial counseling must be strengthened."

Transidentität bei Kindern und Jugendlichen: Im falschen Körper geboren (aerzteblatt.de)

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Hormonal gender reassignment treatment for gender dysphoria

Background: No data are available on the prevalence of gender incongruence (trans identity) in Germany. Based on estimates from the Netherlands, around 15,000 to 25,000 people could be affected in Germany. The level of suffering and the desire for gender reassignment are often great.


Method: A selective literature search was carried out in PubMed using the search terms "transsexualism", "transgender", "gender incongruence", "gender identity disorder", "gender affirming hormone therapy", "gender dysphoria".


Results: Because of the sometimes irreversible consequences, therapy should only be initiated after careful individual consideration in consensus with the treating psychiatrist/psychotherapist and after detailed explanation by an experienced endocrinologist. Extensive screening for risk factors must be carried out before the start of therapy. The contraindications include (especially untreated) severe thromboembolic pre-existing conditions, hormone-sensitive tumors and uncontrolled chronic pre-existing conditions such as arterial hypertension and epilepsy. Finding individual solutions is also important when there are contraindications. Treatment male-to-female is with 17ß-estradiol or 17ß-estradiol valerate in combination with cyproterone acetate or spironolactone as an antiandrogen, in female-to-male with transdermal or intramuscular testosterone preparations. Clinical and laboratory chemical follow-up controls of the therapy are necessary on a permanent basis, as are gynecological or urological early detection examinations. An increase in quality of life was reported in prospective studies and a meta-analysis (with low data quality). For women-to-men gender incongruent people it is sometimes problematic to be admitted as a patient in a gynecological practice.


Conclusion: Further prospective studies to quantify the risks and positive effects of hormone therapy are desirable. Interactions of hormone preparations with other medications must be considered.

Gender incongruity - also known as transsexuality - occurs when biological sex and perceived gender identity do not match. Transwomen are biologically male people with a female gender identity, and transmen are biologically female people with a male gender identity. For the Netherlands, the prevalence of gender incongruence is estimated at 0.02% to 0.03% (1). No estimates have been published for Germany. Based on the numbers mentioned, it can be assumed that around 15,000 to 25,000 people will be affected. While earlier studies (1, e1, e2) put the gender ratio between trans women and trans men at around 2:1, in recent years at least in Germany an increasing convergence of this ratio (e3) or even a reversal (2) can be observed.


Typically, with the onset of puberty, there is a clear psychological strain (gender dysphoria), which leads to the desire for gender reassignment measures (e4). Compared to the general population, people with gender dysphoria have a higher rate of attempted suicide (9–11%) (3) and a significantly higher rate of completed suicide (1.5–2%) (4). A decrease in mental and physical symptoms and an increase in quality of life after the start of sex reassignment hormone therapy (GAHT) was recorded in a meta-analysis in 2010, albeit with limited data quality (5) and has been confirmed in prospective studies (6, e5). In the follow-up over two years after the start of GAHT, compared to the status before initiation of therapy


a decrease in depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory [BDI] II score trans women −1.41, p<0.001; trans men −1.31, p<0.001)
a reduction in physical discomfort (Body Uneasiness Test [BUT] Index: trans women −0.24, p<0.001; trans men −0.24, p=0.001)
a decrease in gender dysphoria (GIDYQ-AA score: trans women −0.06, p<0.001; trans men −0.05, p=0.001) (6).


Therapy with contrasexual hormones creates identity for those affected. However, due to the significant intervention in the hormonal balance, there is a risk of undesirable effects, especially in the case of uncontrolled or overdosed treatment.


Wiepjes et al. were able to document an increase in newly started GAHT by a factor of 20 over the years 1980–2015 using treatment data from a large Dutch specialist clinic (1). In Germany, too, an increasing number of sufferers has been observed by many practitioners in recent years (personal communication from colleagues from other institutes). Possible contributory causes for this lie in the increasing social acceptance and the significant increase in public and media awareness (e6, e7, e8, e9, e10). Nevertheless, the medical care of those affected is often not optimal, even in Germany (7, 8, e4, e11).


The aim of this article is to convey the current findings and recommendations on gender reassignment hormone therapy as well as special features that need to be taken into account in general practitioner and specialist care.


The study situation on the effects and risks of GAHT – which is also the basis of the guideline (9) first formulated by the Endocrine Society with US and European co-authorship in 2009 and updated in 2017 – can be rated as weak overall. Most of the studies are retrospective data analyses, often with relatively small numbers of cases. There are only a few prospective studies. Randomized, controlled studies are lacking and ultimately difficult to imagine, also for ethical reasons. A German or European guideline for GAHT does not yet exist.

method


A selective literature search was carried out for original publications and review articles that were listed in PubMed up to December 2019. The following search terms were used: “transsexualism”, “transgender”, “gender incongruence”, “gender identity disorder”, “gender affirming hormone therapy”, “gender dysphoria”.


requirements


GAHT quickly leads to significant, sometimes irreversible changes. An indispensable prerequisite for starting therapy is therefore confirmation of the diagnosis and clear, written indications from an experienced psychotherapist or psychiatrist (9, 10, 11, e12). Strict time specifications for the duration of previous psychotherapy do not exist and are not expedient due to the very different conditions and needs of those affected.


A GAHT is possible from the age of about 16 – with the written consent of the legal guardians and provided that the young person is sufficiently mature. Reversible anti-puberty therapy with GnRH analogues (GnRH, gonadotropin-releasing hormone) can be given in younger children and adolescents after the onset of puberty (9). In the case of minors, confirmation of the indication by an independent second therapist is required (9). Before initiating therapy, the patient must be informed in detail about the effects, their course over time, the given limits, and possible undesirable effects (9, 10).

..."

Geschlechtsangleichende Hormontherapie bei Geschlechtsinkongruenz (aerzteblatt.de)

The following organ medical diagnostics before the start of therapy and therapy recommendations for man to woman and woman to man i haven't translated, as they are more medical how to and do not recommendations.

As short summary: You need psychotherapy first and get hormones regularily at the age of 16, in some cases you get reversivble anti-puberty hormones earlier.

The last step for those, which want to go it, is the medical surgery.

And how are things for transexual kids in Germany? They must fear violence but things got slowly better:

From "Die Zeit" about the death of trans man Malte C.:

Transman Malte C., 25, was beaten so badly during a procession on Christopher Street Day last week by Nuradi A., a 20-year-old Chechen with a Russian passport, that he fell unconscious on the pavement and later died in hospital. In the few terrible minutes of the encounter between A. and his victim C., two models of masculinity – the toxic and the civilian – met with brutal force: Nuradi A., former German youth boxing champion, first attacked a group of women who he called " lesbians" – Malte C. intervened, despite physical inferiority: "Is there a problem here?" A week later he was dead. The city of Munster - traditionally Catholic and politically black - flew its flags to half-staff. Queer support has reached the German mainstream.

A few days after the death of the 25-year-old trans man, a 57-year-old trans woman was seriously injured on a tram in Bremen. From a group of youths, one hit her with his fists, ripped off her wig and yelled insults. The fact that the group fled when passers-by intervened shows two things: Toxic masculinity is not particularly brave - and transphobic violence is no longer tolerated by many citizens.

[Muizer]

I don't believe it would take you a million years to read the second comment of Person A.
You just glossed over it instead of actually reading it.
Person A reads to me like genuinely concerned about the denial of climate science on the part of conservatives as well as the arbitrary decision to dispute the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections.

I read it, but the first comment, made in response to this particular vid, makes the sincerity of the second rather questionable. Sounds more like someone who wants to change the topic and resorts to whataboutism to do it.[/QUOTE]

Either way, I am not convinced the comparison of the role of science informing climate politics vs gender politics is legit. The justification for climate policies is protection of society. Same as having an army, promoting health care, the economy etc.. The science itself does not dictate policy though. It's up to us to determine whether to act upon and how, or to ignore it. Now I'm trying to think of an equivalent for the role of biology informing policies about gender or abortion, but I'm having a hard time. You seem to know, though, so perhaps you can fill me in on how you see that.

[Heathen Hammer]

It seems that person B is certainly not a real scientist, since no scientist would say that a certain term is "man-made", since all terms technically are.
The rest of B's rant seems to consist of world salad full of sophistry and mental gymnastics, written by someone who has no expertise in the field, but is desperately trying to pass off as one (hence the brutal misuse of terms).
Overall, we must make a clear distinction between what science is and the contemporary cult of scientism, where we have typically ignorant people that treat science same way they'd treat a religion, in a nature contrary to the very principle of science.
Polarization of science isn't anything knew, sadly public has very short memory, as only half a century ago lobotomy was considered to be a groundbreaking miracle cure, approved by peer-reviewed bodies and the like.

[paleologos]

I read it, but the first comment, made in response to this particular vid, makes the sincerity of the second rather questionable.

We don't need person A's opening remark to make anything questionable, because in our political forums every statement is questionable by default in the sense that the user -or outside person- who made it can be demanded to justify it.
I believe this statement is not controversial and I keep my fingers crossed that we see eye to eye at least on that.

Where your quoted statement above rubs me the wrong way is that you are questioning someone else's sincerity.
If questioning other people's sincerity is fair game then all social grievances can go down the drain and there are some among those that I find saliently legitimate.
I believe the statement above is also non controversial.

Senator Warren took it upon herself to dictate to her flock what issues are on the ballot, though according to the laws of her country -and she ought to know them as a professor of law- what is on the ballot are all the 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 35 of the 100 seats in the Senate.
Still, if she wants to add issues that rile up her half of the voters, it's up to the American citizens to deal with it.
And person A is probably not an American, judging by their second statement.

Sounds more like someone who wants to change the topic and resorts to whataboutism to do it.

That could very well be the case -we are not inside his head- but since we are guessing I would like to contribute an alternative hypothesis.
Person A saw the additional issues offered by senator Warren and raised her an elephant in the room.
What is that elephant?
I think person A's second remark elaborates on that but since you doubt their sincerity all I can do is ask you a question that I believe is very heavy with consequence:
What are the conditions/prerequisites under which you would be willing to concede that person A's concern for the integrity and domestic peace in the USA is genuine?

Is it not meaningful to keep in mind that the side opposing senator Warren also have issues that rile them up? - And that this is obvious?
And if a senator cannot find the courage to say something as simple and basic as what a woman is then how are any issues going to be discussed?
It seems demagogues on both sides already have the answer to such questions:
"Win the majority to get state power and use that power to shove our politics down the other side's throat and the hell with their sensitivities, they don't care about our sensitivities either".

I cannot help thinking that if the demagogues have their way -it seems that's where things are going- then the post modernists will have won in both argument and principle regardless of the electoral outcomes:
All that matters is power, free speech is irrelevant because speech is the way those in power justify the order of things to the subdued.

One more thing for me to address before I move on, is your comment on whataboutism.
Accusing person X of whataboutism reasonably and rightfully applies when:

• Person X is critiqued of wrongdoing,
• and treats the accusation not as a check on their behavior,
• but as an attempt to morally discredit them,
• the motive of the accusers being to create the impression that they have the moral advantage over Person X,
• and ultimately stake the claim that greater political gravitas should be attributed on the accusers because they are "the lesser evil".

That's the idea of whataboutism.
It is typical of actors whose politics are informed by amoralist political philosophies, a consequence of which is the treatment of discourse as nothing more than a political instrument.

I believe I should let you decide for yourself if whataboutism applies to person A as I still don't have an answer to my question:
What are the conditions/prerequisites under which you would be willing to concede that person A's concern for the integrity and domestic peace in the USA is genuine?

Either way, I am not convinced the comparison of the role of science informing climate politics vs gender politics is legit.

There is a demand that the Law of noncontradiction is not violated in debate.
Is that not a legitimate demand?
For democrats science is a good informer of policy making when it comes to climate policy but when it comes to what a woman is then suddenly biology is not good enough.

The Law of noncontradiction is one of the rules of logic.
If logic goes out of the window then discourse is nothing more than an instrument that those in power use to justify the order of things to the subdued.
Then all that matters is power which makes the struggle for more and more power an absolute expediency.
Then the next thing you have is a party who get to a position of power by winning elections and then they stop having elections.
Though person A does not put that is so many words (how could he under a YouTube video?) this is something that can be logically extrapolated.

The justification for climate policies is protection of society.

How does this figure?
How do we know that we need to have a "climate policy" in order to protect society?
Who told us that climate change/warming is a thing?
Were they scientists?
I think they were scientists, do you?

The science itself does not dictate policy though.

Indeed.
I never made the claim that science dictates policy.
Why would you think you need to say this to me?
What science can do is inform policy.
Such as when it informed politicians that the climate is changing due to greenhouse gas emissions.

It's up to us to determine whether to act upon and how, or to ignore it.

Indeed it is.
But people do not agree.
Maybe instead of the majority shoving their policy down the throats of the minority we could talk to each other.
And use logic and science in order to find out what is the best approximation of the truth, then communicate it to the other side and convince them.

Do you think this is going to work if either side use science a-la-carte?
Either science is a legitimate informer of policy making, or it isn't.

How is it that democrats are pro science as an informer of policy making when it comes to climate policy but when it comes to what a woman is then suddenly biology is not good enough?
Why must I make the case that the Law of noncontradiction must not be violated?
Is that not self evident?

Now I'm trying to think of an equivalent for the role of biology informing policies about gender or abortion, but I'm having a hard time. You seem to know, though, so perhaps you can fill me in on how you see that.

Fair enough, I make the choice to believe that there is no irony in this statement and I will endeavor to give you the connections that I think are most obvious.

Gender:
Random example: trans women are people who were assigned male at birth but claim that "they are women trapped in the bodies of men".
If people are going to be demanded by law, under threat of punishment, to pay lip service to that they have every right to demand that hard evidence is presented.
Hard evidence is in bold because it is the operating term here.
You can go look for evidence in many ways but you will need the scientific method in order to make the case that the evidence discovered and presented is indeed hard evidence.

Please, please, please:
Do not treat this as if we are trying to decide whether trans women are real women.
What we are trying to decide is whether we are going to punish those who do not pay lip service to that.



Abortion:
Here is my personal opinion and it is in spoilers because it is gruesome - it's my opinion and I find it gruesome, so you can imagine what reading it would do to the sensitive.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

My personal opinion is that women should be allowed to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
I believe it is a matter of mercy for the baby.
If one's mother would rather snuff them out in the womb instead of holding them in her arms then that baby is better off dead than forcibly placed in the hands of that woman and that woman should have a consummate hysterectomy while she's at it and not be allowed anywhere near children ever again.

But personal annotations aside, there are people who believe that at a certain point during the gestation period, the fetus becomes a viable human being.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Yes it does.

Should that be indeed the case then abortion in the stead of a prematurely induced parturition can be considered a murder and could therefore be outlawed.
But who decides what the case is?
I would nominate the doctors for that.
Because they don't get to be called doctors unless they prove they know their science.



I hope you can appreciate that I have attempted to address all your points the way it becomes an adult.
I did not choose to superficially gloss over the hard ones while lambasting you for the soft ones.
I hope you see my attempt to use logic as best I could.

And I still very much would like an answer from you and from whoever else would volunteer an answer to the question:
What are the conditions/prerequisites under which you would be willing to concede that person A's concern for the integrity and domestic peace in the USA is genuine?

[Muizer]

Senator Warren took it upon herself to dictate to her flock what issues are on the ballot

It is hardly strange for a politician to speak out on they believe are the most important issues at stake in an election.

]Person A saw the additional issues offered by senator Warren and raised her an elephant in the room. ...... Is it not meaningful to keep in mind that the side opposing senator Warren also have issues that rile them up? - And that this is obvious?
And if a senator cannot find the courage to say something as simple and basic as what a woman is then how are any issues going to be discussed?

As far as I can tell, she wasn't asked the question. The only thing we can deduce is that, apparently, the transgender issue was not one of those important issues at stake in election.

What are the conditions/prerequisites under which you would be willing to concede that person A's concern for the integrity and domestic peace in the USA is genuine?

I suppose a certain level of even-handedness and a willingness to compromise, in the understanding that the members of your society are free to make personal choices unless it materially and disproportionately impacts that same freedom of others.

It seems demagogues on both sides already have the answer to such questions:
"Win the majority to get state power and use that power to shove our politics down the other side's throat and the hell with their sensitivities, they don't care about our sensitivities either".

It's actually a lot worse. There are signs that indicate both sides are so alienated they are drifting towards using their democratic mandate to rig the democratic system in their favor. That is always a sure sign of incipient dictatorship. It's how people like Erdogan and Putin used democracy to abolish democracy. The Trumpists are most overtly going down that path, prepping their supporters to reject the system if it works against them, but I wouldn't put it past the democrats to use that very given to criminalise the opposition.

I cannot help thinking that if the demagogues have their way -it seems that's where things are going- then the post modernists will have won in both argument and principle regardless of the electoral outcomes:
All that matters is power, free speech is irrelevant because speech is the way those in power justify the order of things to the subdued.

Is that not always true though? Every set of values, tradition, religion etc. that we have, we have mainly because we are in the daily process of convincing each other that is the 'natural order', and the people most invested in it are those who usually benefit most: the ones at the top with the means to direct public opinion, be it with carrots or sticks. History should teach us that in other places and in other times societies had profoundly different ideas about the 'natural order' though, suggesting there is actually not much of a 'natural order' at all.

P.S. sorry for not addressing every word you wrote. I may well have missed arguments you consider vital. I simply don't have the time to go through it in one sitting.

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm quite curious as to what everyone means when they say "democracy".
Direct democracy of Switzerland? Democracy of Greek city-states of Antiquity?
Or modern "representative democracy", where people only can elect representatives, who are then free of any accountability to their voter and can do whatever they want and typically just do what rich elites want them too? I think it is important to point out that in such systems, population has barely any say, so people doing something "against democracy" in the system that is de-facto oligarchy isn't that much of a big deal, since there wasn't much democracy in it to begin with.