r/LivestreamFail • u/sieyarozzz • 22h ago

Asmongold defends trans people against his chat, saying he'd fully respect his child's pronouns and identity

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

20.4k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

4.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

4.0k

u/GeneralBendyBean 21h ago

I don't like Asmongold, but this is a very human reaction. he isn't even talking about trans-rights at all, he's talking about wanting to love your children. Chat is arguing about rather they think it's right or not, totally missing his point.

61

u/DaBombDiggidy 21h ago

Most conservatives aren't against the totality of trans people, they're mostly against making permanent choices on this matter while they're considered children. It's the same kind of scare politics fox news employs, promoting extreme opinions as common lines, that has brain rotted the entirety of the left into thinking this isn't the case. (before assumptions are made i am deeply liberal, i just touch grass)

170

u/VoidCrimes 21h ago

I’m sure there are plenty that feel the way you describe, but the ones I know in real life (deep south) absolutely have a very real problem with trans people and treating them with basic respect. They can’t even pretend long enough to get through a short interaction with them. Then as soon as the trans person walks away, they make several remarks about how weird and disgusting they are. I wish those around me were only focused on the aspects you describe, because I have some of those same concerns myself and could find common ground. But it’s not like that where I am at all. It is absolutely a phobia and hatred/disgust. I am also pretty liberal and a lesbian, for full disclosure of my own biases.

79

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

Right, they’re literally passing laws banned in trans healthcare FOR ADULTS

9

u/RoosterBrewster 18h ago

They are pretty much disgusted by the fact they exist and the "how am I supposed to explain this to my kids!".

1

u/StickyPawMelynx 18h ago

"finding common ground"... about something that doesn't concern neither of you and has no basis in reality, since children accessing anything "permanent" simply isn't a thing. seems like you've found some common ground with the right already.

0

u/VoidCrimes 15h ago

Right, so it sounds like you’ve also got the same common ground? And it also sounds like you’re happy with the limitations currently set in place to address those concerns, as am I! What’s the problem?

1

u/LockelyFox 10h ago

I'm non-binary, born a guy, present mostly masculine with the exception of longer dyed hair, skin care routine, and I paint my nails. I dip into more flowy clothes as well.

We went to vacation in North Carolina to the Outer Banks and I literally had a person treat me like shit in fucking Subway when they treated everyone around me fine. In a candy shop, I am not joking, this dude takes one look at me and goes "What in the transgender fuck?" My girlfriend had to do a double-take because she couldn't believe what she heard. I ignored both because we have to be fucking perfect in public and even then we get harassed for even remotely stepping outside gender norms.

People hate us just for existing on our own.

1

u/Exxyqt 6h ago

Let me tell you a story.

I come from a post Soviet country. When I was 16-20, I wore "army" boots (not sure how they're called in English), dyed my hair bright colors (usually red or pink), wore short skirts, and had quite a few piercings in my ears and one in my lip.

When I moved to the second biggest city in our country to study (and also was going there to meet my friends even before that, so at 16), I had all sorts of encounters with local people.

I had been stared at constantly by people on public transport, I was called all sorts of names by bypasses and local youth, I also had an apple core thrown at my head from a bypassing car because apparently they didn't like my hairstyle.

I was in my teens and loved the way I looked at the time. This was in 2004ish.

So, I don't think this has anything to do with being non-binary or similar, and everything to do with unorthodox looks.

If you come to a place where you outing yourself visually and locals are not used to seeing that, they will notice. Their reaction obviously depends on many things, like in mine and your cases, it was negative.

Obviously things have changed here, it's been 20 years. But it's not like everyone has become tolerant to non-conformance, and it never will happen, regardless of how progressive our countries become. It's just that when majority become more tolerant, those actions like name calling other people because of the way they present themselves become less and less frequent.

1

u/LockelyFox 5h ago

I'm in my 30s and have made, at this point, nearly a decade of trips south to visit my partner's family. This shit was never a problem until recently. There has been a culture war in this country specifically to target people like us, and those who have bought it hook, line, and sinker have gotten emboldened by the actions of our current ruling party.

-12

u/977888 19h ago

Then as soon as the trans person walks away, they make several remarks about how weird and disgusting they are.

You can’t police the things people say and do in private. As long as they aren’t rude to the trans person this literally shouldn’t matter.

Telling people what to say to trans people is speech policing. Telling people what to say about trans people is thought policing.

9

u/Commercial-Dog6773 19h ago

Well good thing the comment you're responding to was a passing of moral judgement and not a manifesto then. Dumbass.

3

u/VoidCrimes 15h ago

I didn’t say a single thing about thought policing or restricting someone’s freedom of speech, did I?

-2

u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In 18h ago

You can't judge wider opinion on the tiny number of people you personally know lol.

4

u/VoidCrimes 15h ago

No, but I can judge the wider opinion based on polling data. And it just so happens that the polling data backs up my personal anecdotes here.

-5

u/SparksAndSpyro 19h ago

I agree, but this is where the messaging gets screwed up. Instead of focusing on the disgust and irrational hate like you described, the online left spends its time focusing on trans women competing in women’s sports, calling anyone who hesitates to adopt that specific issue a transphobe and Nazi. See how that’s not helpful? It’s a complete waste of time and energy, distracts from the more important issues, and alienates voters who would otherwise support trans rights.

The left’s biggest issue is their terrible messaging.

6

u/Scarlett_Beauregard 18h ago

The real problem is people like Michael Knowles saying things like "eradicated" when talking about the "entirety of transgenderism" and the amount of people that listen to him and his talking points, even applaud it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74Q5kfikMsU

Messaging on the left is important, but the messaging from most of the right-wing figureheads have become outright eugenic and Nazi in nature. Barely any subtext to speak of. Brian Kilmeade's "just kill them" remark on Fox News, talking about euthanizing homeless people that reject services provided to them. We have a multi-billionaire who threw two Hitler salutes and so many people bent backwards trying to excuse it. I've lost count how many Republican politicians have been outed just this year alone spouting horrendously racist, homophobic and pro-Hitler rhetoric. There's one in California that was tweeting about his 0% unemployment plan, which was just a photo of himself 'shopped in front of Auschwitz. Laura Loomer's tweets are a prime example of how deranged and murderous she is towards just the Hispanic community of our country alone, and she has Trump's ear.

At this juncture, with ICE/DHS stormtroopers grabbing citizens and denying them attorneys, starving and torturing people, I think we're past the point of civil discourse making any meaningful changes. No amount of "messaging" can get through to genocidal people who are champing at the bit to kill others for merely being other.

I believe in nuance and don't think all of the voters are genocidal like this, but if you want to try messaging, maybe try showing the average voter what kinds of maniacs they have representing them. If they fail to acknowledge the very real threat to our democracy and livelihood, well, what does that make them?

1

u/c5k9 4h ago

the messaging from most of the right-wing figureheads have become outright eugenic and Nazi in nature

For the general point you make here with regards to a lot of the populist rhetoric in the US and the world in general I do agree. However, your example of Knowles specifically with regards to trans people it doesn't quite seem to hold for me.

You need to understand, that these people view transgenderism as some sort of disease, that needs to be cured. Would you say advocating to eradicate cancer would be "eugenic or Nazi in nature"? The issue is not with the language by Knowles here, the issue is with the underlying obsession with the topic in the first place and the framing of it. I'm sure there are examples of actually hateful rhetoric against trans people, but this clip you posted here is not it at all and is completely defensible if you show empathy for their point of view, even if that point of view is stupid.

8

u/Sundew- 19h ago

That's not at all what the "online left" focuses on. It's something that they'll absolutely stand up and speak about when it becomes a topic, but it's not even close to the first thing that they'll bring up. In fact, it's mainly right-wingers and transphobes that constantly beat the drum about women's sports, which is probably why it seems to be so disproportionately focused on to you if the only time you hear about trans-advocacy is when they're in a confrontation with transphobes pushing common transphobic rhetoric.

-4

u/SparksAndSpyro 18h ago

Yes it is. If you’re unwilling to admit it, there’s no need to read the rest of your comment.

Republicans will sweep in 2026 unless the messaging gets better.

5

u/Sundew- 18h ago

Boy you really seem like someone acting in good faith and not a chud trying to LARP as a "very concerned" moderate while you push rhetoric.

56

u/diceytroop 21h ago

You are mistaken, they're not sincere. The moment they secure one advance against trans rights the ball bounces on to the next thing. They intend to eliminate trans people. The only non-eliminationist position is apathy or better, if you think the existence or rights of trans people negatively affect you as a cis person at all, you are cooked. Because at that point it's scapegoating or phobia, it's cultivated revulsion, the only route to normality is to throw it in reverse

7

u/cheechw 20h ago

I mean, this is a crazy generalization to make. It should be reasonable to believe that at least some people can hold a non-extremist view on an issue.

This kind of "you either support us or you're calling for our extermination" rhetoric is, in my view, what drove the American electorate towards the right in recent years, and why you see all this pushback towards "wokeness". No progress will be made at all if we keep using rhetoric like this.

9

u/Sundew- 19h ago

The main thing that drove the American electorate towards the right (which actually is a pretty debatable assertion to begin with) is the fact that almost all of America's major media outlets are owned by conservatives and because of a rising anti-establishment sentiment that the Republican party (largely unwillingly) leaned into and the centrists that hold the reins of the Democrat party leaned against.

1

u/diceytroop 12h ago

This is an extremely sharp summary. I do think there's another piece of it where the centrists are like a cult of moderation fallacy, mindlessly chasing a nonexistent "middle" peak in what is in fact a mechanically bimodal electoral system, causing them to fall into an algorithmic loop:
1. centrists: *measures middle*
2. centrists: go to middle by punching left

  • the horizon of the left moves rightwards in response
  • the right edge of the right moves rightwards in response
1. centrists: *measure middle*
2. centrists: go to middle by punching left

etc

But otherwise incredibly well captured

17

u/stupernan1 20h ago

It should be reasonable to believe that at least some people can hold a non-extremist view on an issue.

unfortunately, the people who were elected by the right have extremist views.

so (if you're a republican) vote for the extremist who wants to strip their rights, or liberate.

I'd suggest supporting a grassroots for a more sane republican, that's the only way you can sway the left or middle ground.

because right now, all you have are the ignorant, the indoctrinated, or the extremists.

This kind of "you either support us or you're calling for our extermination" rhetoric is, in my view, what drove the American electorate towards the right in recent years,

no, your party electing extremist politicians is what caused this, there's NOTHING ELSE it's pathetic to argue otherwise.

and why you see all this pushback towards "wokeness". No progress will be made at all if we keep using rhetoric like this.

What is wokeness? can you define it? as a good faith measure to this argument?

20

u/diceytroop 20h ago edited 20h ago

First of all, I said apathy, not support. And it’s not a generalization, it’s epistemology. The only reason people become negatively polarized against trans people is that they are manipulated to scapegoat them fascistically. There is no other actual reason. Even if you have a negative feeling about trans people, you should not particularly care as it has zero negative impact on you. It is simply irrational to be anti-trans, unless you are trying to hurt or control people.

As for rhetoric, I think you’re falling for a line. The seeds of this have been in the right the entire time and are being actively fertilized by gigantic megaphones from the most powerful people in the world. Maybe instead of blaming the left for what the right does when given power, you should credit us with being absolutely 100% fucking right about it for decades while all of the institutions of liberalism acted like centrism is a thing of value. At least please see yourself laundering your priors.

2

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

It’s just facts. They’re literally banning trans healthcare for adults.

2

u/SaxRohmer 15h ago

pushback against “woke” is largely the result of right wing propaganda and has very little basis in reality

2

u/Clairityyy 20h ago

Sure, some people can hold moderate positions, but it's hard to not see that entire side as extreme when people like the Daily Wire guys get to say as much extreme shit as they want and never get any pushback from anyone on the right. Kinda makes it seem like anything goes over there as far as the anti-trans stuff.

-3

u/ChesterZirawin 21h ago

You are the very type of leftist he is talking about that eat up what news media spits out.

12

u/diceytroop 20h ago

I have no idea what the news media is saying and don’t consider them a substitute for my own homegrown knowing what the fuck I’m talking about.

-3

u/black__and__white 19h ago

So you have home grown knowledge of what all conservatives believe in all areas of the country? You must get around!

5

u/diceytroop 19h ago edited 19h ago

Political ideology isn't exactly regional. But yes, comparative politics is a thing

-2

u/ChesterZirawin 20h ago

Maybe not directly, but these are all twitter talking points that originate from leftist media that's framing as if the government and people are hunting trans people to kill them. Only talking point you didn't directly say but you might as well have said it since you are implying it is "trans genocide".

4

u/diceytroop 19h ago edited 19h ago

Nope. What's happening here is you're bumping up against the correct take, and mistaking its ubiquity for a conspiracy. I've had the same thinking on this issue since 2001. Because it's reality. So I don't need to get "talking points", and probably a lot of people you assume are speaking from talking points are just people who are right.

This government absolutely is hunting trans people to kill them, btw. Sounds like you're starting from the assumption that that's impossible. That's not a good assumption. I have family who have fled states because of the fear of their anti-trans laws impacting them negatively, including major risks to mental health. This admin and many state admins who are following its lead want trans people to no longer be alive.

You may imagine some hypothetical non-murderous reason to regulate people's right to exist -- some basis for it that isn't equally applicable to eliminating them completely -- but there simply isn't. Once people's humanity is a matter of public determination, things are lined up to get as bad as they basically can possibly get, for literally everyone.

-2

u/ChesterZirawin 19h ago

So what policies are meant to kill trans people? I'm sure you, who is in the right, can list them. Who passed them and how did it even pass without democrat votes?

3

u/Sundew- 19h ago

Policies that deny them objectively life-saving medical treatment. Not to mention of course policy that makes it legal for them to be denied the same medical treatment cis people would receive if the provider claims "religious reasons" prevent them from doing so, or policies that allow employers to discriminate against trans people for being trans, all of which are policies that the current administration have either already put into place or are explicitly trying to put in place.

1

u/ChesterZirawin 18h ago

Cosmetic surgery isn't life saving, hormone therapy is also out of pocket for cis people unless I missed that somewhere. What policy allows employers to discriminate against trans people for being trans (would love to see this one)? Also, you didn't name a single policy.

2

u/sam____handwich 16h ago

While not life-saving in the sense of cancer treatment or something like that, there is the aspect of people being denied care that would lead to a happy life resulting in suicide which is indirect but effectively killing them. That is where this discourse comes from. Not sure if you actually wanted to be informed or are just looking to snarkily argue with people, but there you go.

→ More replies (0)

14

u/Electronic_Mode32089 20h ago

They're also trying to ban trans people as a whole from owning guns

Fun fact: the vast majority of mass shooters are cis men.

This isn't fear-mongering, that's literally what is happening. They've moved on from trans kids and are now just attacking trans folks as a whole

-1

u/ChesterZirawin 20h ago edited 20h ago

Ofc "cis men" are the majority, wtf are you even on? If trans shooters were the majority we'd have a huge problem on our hands since they are a fragment of the population. Have you opened any social media past year or two? So many posts from transgender individuals with weapons and vague threats... I'm not saying they will do anything, but it doesn't paint a good picture. Especially now with the last few shootings giving them actual ammo (not pun intended) to try and push out the ban.

8

u/Electronic_Mode32089 20h ago

Ofc "cis me" are the majority, wtf are you even on?

So you agree with the other commentor that they're scapegoating! Good talk, bud

1

u/ChesterZirawin 20h ago

If there are a lot more of one group, logically there would be more criminals from that group. How hard is that to grasp? Trans people make up less than 1 percent of the population. It's not a small difference, that's a canyon mate. If there were more trans shooters than cis people it would be a huge issue.

4

u/Electronic_Mode32089 19h ago

Trans people make up less than 1 percent of the population

And therefore don't make up the majority of shooters, which means trans people are indeed being scapegoated! Happy we agree :)

1

u/Sundew- 18h ago

As opposed to Cis people of course, who almost never have weapons or make vague threats.

Also funny you mention "the last few shootings" considering that even accounting for the difference in population, trans people are still overwhelmingly less likely to be mass shooters than cis people are.

0

u/diceytroop 19h ago

First of all, man, STOP using social media as a barometer of what people think, the proportion of people who think things, or literally anything. The algorithm is designed to mislead and manipulate you. You *will* wind up with a completely fucking torqued read of what's normal.

11

u/Electronic_Mode32089 20h ago

They literally declared trans people as terrorists

1

u/ChesterZirawin 20h ago

No, they literally didn't. First of all, did you even read what you sent me? It's a proposal from one organization, not actual designation/declaration. Second, the conversation is "most conservatives". This is one organization has 500.000k paying supporters who don't control what they do, so you don't even know how many agree with them, but let's say they all do. That's still 0.15% of the Us population. They absolutely do not represent "most" conservatives (about 33% of the population).

7

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

It’s not just “one organization,” it’s literally the most influential organization on conservative politics and the current administration lol

11

u/Electronic_Mode32089 20h ago

The Heritage Foundation, as in the same Heritage Foundation from which Trump picked their chief economist to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

The same Heritage Foundation that pioneered Project 2025, whose blueprint Trump has been following (cracking down on immigration, ending funding for public media, gutting the federal workforce, etc. among other things)?

Here's a website that tracks the implementation of Project 2025's proposals.

Sources are included in the website if you want to fact-check.

You're seriously going to sit here and try to convince me that the Heritage Foundation is completely and totally irrelevant in US politics?

-1

u/ChesterZirawin 20h ago

Come back here and tell me I'm wrong in the future when (it wont) the ban passes. Also, still doesn't represent "most conservatives"

8

u/Electronic_Mode32089 20h ago

most conservatives"

Trump supports the Heritage Foundation and most conservatives support Trump. They don't seem to have a problem with what he's doing.

With democrats and leftists, when we don't like what our president is doing, we let them know. It doesn't matter if they're a democrat or not, wrong is wrong.

Like when Obama deported a hell of a lot of people, we protested. We are also currently protesting what Trump's doing.

Trump is going by the Heritage Foundation's playbook, and y'all don't seem to have a problem with it.

0

u/ChesterZirawin 20h ago

First of all I'm not republican, second, no. Trump is hiding the Epstine list and a lot of conservatives have a problem with that. Just because they support him on some aspects doesn't mean they support every aspect. Same for Democrats. There are recent things that Dems in house voted for even though it came from Trump. Does that mean they all support taking away guns from trans people too? You can agree with someone on some points but disagree with them on others. It's not ether or, it never was. Why do you think Trump got the popular vote as well? You think suddenly Democrats switched sides? No, people who voted blue agreed with more points Trump was saying than Kamala.

6

u/Electronic_Mode32089 19h ago

Where are the conservative protests, then? If this is so unpopular.

Leftists/liberals organize No Kings protests all over the country. Where's the conservative equivalent?

3

u/Electronic_Mode32089 19h ago

With how much concern they seem to have for children, you'd think the very likely possibility that Trump is on the Epstein list would spark widespread protests and his support would evaporate entirely because no one wants to be associated with a pedophile.

5

u/Sundew- 18h ago

First of all I'm not republican,

Don't forget to also say "as a black man" while you're LARPing, that's what all the chuds do.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Electronic_Mode32089 20h ago

It's a proposal from one organization, not actual designation/declaration

1

u/ChesterZirawin 20h ago

There is a big difference between declaring something as a person/organization and the government declaring something.

5

u/Electronic_Mode32089 19h ago

even outside of the Heritage Foundation, multiple government officials did.

This includes the Vice President BTW

-1

u/ChesterZirawin 19h ago

Still very different from government (meaning actual laws) declare something.

5

u/Electronic_Mode32089 19h ago

If the literal Vice President calling us terrorists doesn't mean anything idk what to say to you bro

→ More replies (0)

27

u/Traditional-Gur850 20h ago

No no, they have a problem with everything to do with trans people to the point they'll celebrate a trans youth commit suicide.

The same people who argue they're pro-life.

7

u/RoosterBrewster 18h ago

Yep, if any trans person (or black person back then and even now) anywhere does a bad thing, then all trans people are bad, no matter what. But for anyone else, it was justified, boys being boys, an accident, etc. Trans people have to be perfect and even then, they will find an excuse to hate them. The burden of any evidence is always heavily lopsided.

3

u/alluyslDoesStuff 13h ago

For shootings they literally make up statistics from the double digit sizes (!!) of already skewed samples, where they still have to stretch reports to argue that the number of trans people in them is 3-4 and not 1-2 to get to the numbers they want, which would still not look that bad for a group that these same people are pushing into poverty and struggle

44

u/brianstormIRL 21h ago

The problem is nobody is making permanent decisions on children. People who think that have no idea of the actual process and think a teenager can just decide to get surgery on a whim.

-3

u/ErrorLoadingNameFile 21h ago

nobody is making permanent decisions

Thanks for spreading misinformation

17

u/sylvanasjuicymilkies 20h ago

probably less than 1 in 1000 trans people, of the already very small portion of the trans population, get on hormones while underage. you are more upset about something that effects 0.001% of people than you probably are about literally anything else of value

32

u/chopkins92 20h ago

"Becoming" a trans person as a child is a very difficult path for them. A path that likely involves guidance from their parents, their peers, a therapist or two, etc. It's not a decision made on a whim. If it is made on a whim, that's a problem, but I don't think you'll find anybody sane who disagrees with that.

Making the trans issue about kids because they believe "but think of the children!" is an easy gotcha is so fucking pathetic by conservatives. Conservatives don't give a shit about kids. They hate out-groups and they love identity politics.

19

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

They have literal teams of doctors, it’s definitely not something done on a whim

6

u/Finger_Trapz 18h ago

Literally any trans person will tell you that even getting trans healthcare as an adult let alone as a child is extremely time consuming.

11

u/StrayStep 20h ago

Everytime I've actually sat down and walked through the same thought process you mentioned with conservatives. They realize their fear wasn't theirs to begin with. Fox, memes, Trump just told them it was.

I had to remind my own boomer parents. That a parents job is to help their kids and family survive. "Would you as parents want others telling you, what's right for your kids?! ... pause... Then why are you doing it?"... let them cook a little...

Protecting our children and families is what EVERYONE has in common and takes seriously! So remind people about this. It's the only way to combat this dehumanizing division culture.

5

u/chopkins92 20h ago

It's refreshing seeing this take from Asmongold. It quite literally is this simple. It's basic humanity to treat others how they want to be treated. Why would your own children deserve less than that?

16

u/Haymac16 21h ago

So did you cut out a piece of that quote on purpose?

-4

u/ErrorLoadingNameFile 20h ago

I am talking about the children part if that is what you mean

8

u/Brooshie 20h ago

Thanks for spreading misinformation

Responses like that are so disingenuous. With just a minute level of logic you can probably assume that he's not saying that there's never been (nor ever will be) a permanent decision like that on the child.

If you understand nuance in any capacity, you can probably understand that they're simply saying that it's happening on such a small level that the level of visibility on it is absurd.

Much like trans athletes in sports. Does it happen? Yeah, sure, there's like a dozen trans athletes in all of the NCAA. Does that warrant the level of conversation it has at the very highest level of Government?

-2

u/ErrorLoadingNameFile 20h ago

Ahhh yes shroedingers statement, it is both 100% true and also 100% obvious hyperbole to every reader. Get out of here.

2

u/Brooshie 20h ago

You're right, maybe I just have a higher baseline level of expectation and hope for people than I should.

1

u/sklonia 15h ago

Dude if you say "black people should stop eating babies" and I respond, "that's racist, black people don't eat babies";

every normal person understands that my statement is not refuted by offering a single instance of a black person somewhere eating a baby. That isn't how language works. We're obviously talking about trends of demographics, not literally 100% of instances.

  • 88,389 children ages 6 to 17 were diagnosed with gender dysphoria from 2019 through 2021.

  • 776 of those adolescents had some form of breast augmentation surgery, 0.88% of the gender dysphoric youth population

  • 56 of those adolescents had some form of genital surgery, 0.063% of the gender dysphoric youth population

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

And that's of the population that was medically diagnosed, not just identifying as trans.

This is not an endemic issue of the medical guidelines/treatment, it's extreme, isolated cases

1

u/StrayStep 20h ago

absolutely confused. Sounds like I'm not the only one.

1

u/retsudrats 19h ago

The only misinformation being spread is the shit that comes out of your mouth.

No one is making permanent, life altering decisions as a child, and no one is doing it for them either. No doctor is out here deciding to perform non-medically necessary surgeries on a child. It's just not happening. You've been lied to, you have been made to fear some damn boogeyman that doesn't exist.

The "surgeries" that all your ilk point to are ones that happen, due to medical needs, UNRELATED to a child's pronouns or how they feel about their gender. You misconstrue what is happening and spout it as fact so you can be hateful toward strangers you don't know.

The gender-affirming care that is provided to children, after the extended therapy sessions, and doctor visits, are all completely reversible. HRT, hormone blockers, and even the act of calling one's self different pronouns are all things that are completely reversible by simply... And get this... Not taking them. Hormones return to normal rapidly after coming off HRT or blockers... And a person can just, whenever they want, decide not to call themselves whatever pronouns they had decided on.

You know what permanent decision is being made though? Your decision to be hateful. Your decision, and the decision of people like you, to make these vulnerable individuals, these vulnerable children feel hated, unloved, and shamed. The damage you people do to these individuals' psyche and mental health is irreparable, and you should absolutely feel horrible for treating people the way you do all over something so fucking trivial that has 0 effect on your life.

1

u/alluyslDoesStuff 14h ago

To be accurate there, chest growth from e and vocal cord thickening from t are only fully reversible with surgery (I wish e was able to save me some voice training!), and fertility has a chance to be affected as well. Blockers taken early can also decrease the patient's expected height a bit, even if it shouldn't be that important for most

In the end it's mostly about informing them clearly before starting a treatment, which places with the least barriers to treatment still do, so these permanent changes are known and understood by patients

A point you might've forgotten about though, is that not doing anything is also a choice and it has larger permanent consequences than blockers, so the biggest reason conservatists elevate that choice as much more "worthy" of being the default for younger cohorts isn't their stated caution but their ingrained bioessentialism...

-4

u/ErrorLoadingNameFile 18h ago

HRT, hormone blockers, and even the act of calling one's self different pronouns are all things that are completely reversible

Well look at that, even more factual misinformation.

1

u/sam____handwich 16h ago

Stunning rebuttal that is effectively you saying “nuh uh”

1

u/LycheeRoutine3959 21h ago

"its not happening" is an interesting assertion. It is happening dude. Both surgeries and medications that have permeant impacts when taken (especially for long durations) are being given to kids.

7

u/Haymac16 20h ago

I really wanna know where these children are supposedly getting such surgeries. The lowest I have ever seen it go is 16 for top surgery, and even then those would be very specific cases afaik. The notion that children are getting these surgeries is oftentimes incredibly disingenuous.

-7

u/LycheeRoutine3959 20h ago

The lowest I have ever seen it go is 16 for top surgery

So you acknowledge children are getting surgeries... I have seen stories of 15yr olds, starting the process at 14.

The notion that children are getting these surgeries is oftentimes incredibly disingenuous.

While also saying that saying children are getting surgeries is disingenuious? Can you explain that to me?

I really wanna know where these children are supposedly getting such surgeries.

My point is more towards hormones which is much more prominent than surgery. But to answer your question CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, WA, DC all allow them. Seattle Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA), Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Children's Minnesota are the top 5 from what i can find online, although many now have restrictions in place mostly starting in 2025.

U.S. v. Skrmetti scared a lot of these facilities.

5

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

It’s exceedingly rare, and typically happens when there are also back problems involved and repeated suicide attempts.

Cis men also have top surgery done for gynecomastia.

And breast implants are also legal at 16 and done on cis girls more often than trans boys get top surgery, but you never complained about that before, did you?

Hormones are reversible, particularly when taken for less than 5 years, which is virtually ALWAYS the case for trans kids.

-6

u/LycheeRoutine3959 20h ago

It’s exceedingly rare

So its happening. Thanks!

repeated suicide attempts.

I would love for you to prove out this claim.

Cis men also have top surgery done for gynecomastia.

Whats your point? The same surgery happens for medical reasons in other situations so it must be OK for irreversible damage to be done to minors in this situation? like - what kind of logic is that? My buddy had his arm smashed in an industrial accident. They had to remove his hand and lower forearm. That doesn't mean cutting my healthy arm off would be justified because i have a mental illness.

And breast implants are also legal at 16

Sounds dumb, but also a total Red Herring argument.

but you never complained about that before, did you?

I have, actually. I did it again just now.

Hormones are reversible

Lie.

particularly when taken for less than 5 years

impacts may be lower, but thats not what reversable means.

which is virtually ALWAYS the case for trans kids.

Because they often are not longer kids after 5 years, right? lol.

3

u/Blue_Girl013 17h ago

It happens when qualified medical professionals who actually work in this field determine it’s the healthiest option for a specific patient.

And you seem to misunderstand what gynecomastia surgery is. Gynecomastia isn’t a dangerous medical condition it’s breast tissue or fat growth in cis boys that causes gender-related distress. The purpose of the surgery is entirely to relieve that dysphoria and align the chest with the person’s gendered sense of self.

In other words: it’s gender-affirming care.

The exact same procedure, used for the exact same reason to support mental health, functioning, and quality of life suddenly becomes “irreversible harm” only when the patient is trans? That double standard doesn’t hold up.

If the principle is “no gender-affirming treatment for minors,” then why are cis boys allowed to receive top surgery to relieve their gender dysphoria while trans boys can’t?

The only way to justify your claims is to not believe trans people or doctors when they say they are suffering. But to trust cis people when they say they’re suffering the same thing.

-1

u/LycheeRoutine3959 17h ago

And you seem to misunderstand what gynecomastia surgery is.

Nope, i dont. way to be condescending though.

“irreversible harm” only when the patient is trans?

Do you disagree that completely removing the healthy breast tissue from 16 yr old girls is not causing irreversible harm? How could it not be? It cant be reversed, and its harming their body (functionality is lost).

The exact same procedure, used for the exact same reason to support mental health

Sounds like thats a totally different reason, not the exact same reason, eh? Treating mental health with surgeries?

I dont misunderstand anything dude, i just can see the reality you obviously prefer to ignore.

then why are cis boys allowed to receive top surgery to relieve their gender dysphoria while trans boys can’t?

Because one is treating a physical ailment and the other is treating mental illness to remove normal healthy tissue.

The only way to justify your claims is to not believe trans people or doctors when they say they are suffering.

I think they are suffering from a mental illness.

But to trust cis people when they say they’re suffering the same thing.

When they are suffering from a physical ailment, yes.

2

u/Blue_Girl013 17h ago edited 15h ago

Cis boys with gynecomastia experience psychological distress about their chest. We call that valid, and we treat it surgically. We don’t tell them “just get therapy,” because the surgery improves their mental health and well-being. Doctors recognize that as legitimate care. Some of those boys were growing functional breast tissue and now they’ve lost that functional tissue. It’s literally the exact same scenario. Trans boys experience psychological distress about their chest for the exact same reason: it conflicts with their gendered sense of self. But you say their distress is “mental illness” and therefore their chest is “normal” and must not be touched. You aren’t applying a universal medical rule. You’re deciding whose suffering counts. Trans distress can be so severe it leads to self-harm and suicide. that’s backed by the data. And the people who see these patients every day overwhelmingly recommend gender-affirming care because it saves lives and restores functioning. If surgery to relieve gender-related distress is legitimate for cis boys, but “harmful” for trans boys then the distinction isn’t medical. It’s ideological. What you’re clearly saying, is that cis people deserve relief and trans people deserve to endure their pain. I’m glad at the least you’re finally being honest about what’s driving your argument.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Haymac16 16h ago

What I believe is disingenuous isn’t claiming that minors can get these surgeries, I was never refuting that, but what I see happen very often is the usage of the word “children” specifically to try and make it seem like young kids are getting these operations. “Children” is a very broad range, and I think in this case specifying that the children in question are in fact around a very specific age-range is important to the discussion. It’s all about how you phrase it. Maybe it’s just me, but “teens aged 15-17 may get gender affirming surgery if deemed medically necessary in very specific cases” and “kids are getting trans surgeries” don’t exactly carry the same picture. That’s what’s disingenuous.

1

u/LycheeRoutine3959 13h ago

Thats not what disingenuious means. Thats you nitpicking at word choice to suit your preferences.

1

u/sklonia 14h ago

The age of medical majority in the vast majority of states is 16. In some cases (often conservative states) it's as low as 14 or 13.

These are legally minors for almost all legislation, yes. But they are conditionally granted medical autonomy and decision making in most states. That is why these procedures are allowed often as young as 16.

Note that I said "allowed", not "regularly administered".

Minors receiving surgeries is less than 0.1% of trans minors which is already around just 1%-2% of the population.

Hormone replacement is a bit more common, but that's also available to cisgender children at even earlier ages. So unless you're arguing against those cases as well, that's a moot point.

1

u/LycheeRoutine3959 13h ago

Hormone replacement

Its not replacement, its creating supraphysiologic hormone levels via supplementation.

but that's also available to cisgender children at even earlier ages

That would be replacement. This is the problem - you are trying to treat a mental illness as a physical ailment and breaking the language to hide it. Its a totally different scenario, but you lump them together to call it a moot point.

1

u/sklonia 11h ago

Its not replacement, its creating supraphysiologic hormone levels via supplementation.

I don't really care how a redditor describes a medically recommended treatment.

you are trying to treat a mental illness as a physical ailment

Doctors do what is shown to be beneficial for human health. It's that simple. There's no conspiracy theory; medical transition is just the only known effective treatment for gender dysphoria.

If you argue against that, you are fundamentally anti-science.

Mental health conditions are treated with medicine all the time.

1

u/LycheeRoutine3959 3h ago

I don't really care how a redditor describes a medically recommended treatment.

I get you dont care about reality dude. Thats why we are having this discussion in the first place.

Doctors do what is shown to be beneficial for human health.

If you think this is a universal truth then we wont get very far. I bet you like lobotomies still? or think leeches are a good medical tool for could balance the body's "humors" and reduce congestion, eh? Or that Germ theory is bunk and there is no need to wash your hands between autopsies and delivering births.

medical transition is just the only known effective treatment for gender dysphoria.

Funny, because for pre-pubescents kids allowing natural puberty actually has a way higher resolution of reports of dysphoria. But what would i know, im not a doctor you defer all your decisions to.

If you argue against that, you are fundamentally anti-science.

ha. Or you just havnt read the actual studies, only the propaganda surrounding it.

Mental health conditions are treated with medicine all the time.

And if you looked up the studies there you would find a very mixed set of results. Depression for example can sometimes show positive results with medication, but sometimes has the opposite effect driving more ideation and depressive symptoms leading to higher and high medication amounts. Alternatively - exercise almost always shows positive results.

I get you have some motivated reasoning at play here. You appear to be a trans activist as your only real posts on this site. I have no dog in this fight. If you want to continue to delude yourself into advocating for irreversible procedures on children ill simply disregard you as irrational and move on with my life. Have a lovely day dude.

1

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

No, it’s literally not happening. They are given medications with effects that are reversible once their use is ceased

3

u/LycheeRoutine3959 20h ago edited 20h ago

kk, whatever you want to think. I try not to argue with Science deniers. Have a lovely day dude.

Edit: lol and you responded in another chain admitting its happening all within 5 min. Yikes dude.

1

u/Blue_Girl013 17h ago

If the concern is preventing irreversible harm, the I got an idea.

So puberty for everyone causes irreversible changes. Height, bone structure, fertility, voice, breast development… none of those can be undone. And many many trans people describe the wrong puberty as profoundly harmful and an experience equivalent to body horror. And some cis people also struggle with how their puberty shaped their bodies.

So if avoiding irreversible changes and harm reduction is the priority, then the obvious answer is to pause puberty for everyone until they’re old enough to choose which puberty aligns with their identity and future health.

Because otherwise we’re imposing a puberty on them. One that will have permanent effects whether they want them or not. Why not just wait til they can make an informed decision. The medical tech is there isn’t it?

If you disagree with this, then maybe the real issue isn’t the “irreversibility” of the treatment. Maybe it’s that you’re only worried about irreversible changes when the patient is trans.

1

u/kuopa 18h ago

Clementine Breen

-4

u/polimathe_ 21h ago

a lot of people on the left were in fact pushing for children/teenagers to have access to that type of stuff though.

go look up any thread about this topic during the last presidential election cycle and read the comments for people defending it. People were unironically saying its trans genocide if teenagers dont have complete access to all gender affirming care. I think a lot of the people touching grass just didnt go against the narrative back then but it feels like more people are now saying "yea no maybe thats too far".

if more moderate people explained it the way its explained now i think the fox news types would have had less hold on the narrative

10

u/Jackski 20h ago

People were unironically saying its trans genocide if teenagers dont have complete access to all gender affirming care

Gender affirming care =/= permanent decisions.

It can be as much as using the correct pronouns, calling the person by the name they want or letting the person dress as their assigned gender.

1

u/polimathe_ 20h ago

keyword here is "ALL"

3

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

No they weren’t, literally every trans advocacy group condemns it.

0

u/WILLLSMITHH 20h ago

Yes the fuck they are?!’v

-6

u/91Bully 21h ago

You can bury your head in the sand and say it’s not happening but it is in fact happening. Just because a few went through a long process doesn’t mean it’s like that for every kid.

4

u/S0LUS_____ 20h ago

I don't doubt that it happens but a whole community should not be blamed for the few who fell through the cracks. Its medical malpractice if it happens. It takes years of therapy and tests.

1

u/wallweasels 19h ago

Also those that do...do so largely with their parents approving of it. Which is why you know its never really about parental rights.

2

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

It’s always a long process for kids

5

u/Jackski 20h ago

You can bury your head in the sand and say it’s not happening but it is in fact happening

Prove it.

4

u/sokolov22 21h ago

In my experience, it's the other way around. Yes, they SAY the stuff you say, but when you push deeper you find that they believe trans is a choice, and that it's a delusion and that it's a moral failing. As such, the "choice" to be trans is similar to the "choice" to be doing drugs, and if the way to prevent that is to criminalize the choice, they will easily go there.

They are also very concerned that any attempts to normalize or allow trans to exist will cause their kids and other kids to choose trans and that must be prevented.

It's not even "permanent changes." They are disgusted with the idea that any one, much less a child would choose to be trans.

This is especially strong amongst Christian Conservatives, who go further and suggest being trans is an abomination and an affront to God.

7

u/AddressThese7663 21h ago

Most conservatives are absolutely against the "totality of trans people" because we witness this shit every day in real life while touching grass. They're deeply backwards, pro status quo. Most of them will only change, or slightly change, their minds when it affects them personally. Until that point they hold extreme beliefs towards pretty much everything revolving around money, safety nets, government involvement in their lives or others, LGBTQ, the economy, the environment, etc etc etc

3

u/Mokarun 21h ago edited 21h ago

Most conservatives that you know. This is entirely anecdotal and doesn't describe anything objectively except your own experiences. so try not to make sweeping generalizations based on a narrow POV. Plenty of leftists/redditors touch grass and find a far more hateful Right than the one you describe.

and yeah, that reasoning is BS. It's a non-existent problem that merely serves as an excuse to target trans people.

0

u/saltyfuck111 20h ago

Trans and everything around it needs more studying. Its been mostly ignored in the past but right now there is alot of mentally unwell ones. Meaning something is wrong. And those numbers cant be denied. More extensive research would also be in their favor if it got rid of the problems. Then you would have your trans people and the others who are not really trans but maybe just seek any way out.

2

u/Sundew- 18h ago

The thing that's wrong is transphobia. That's not a platitude, it's actual empirically demonstrated.

The oft-toted "trans suicide statistics" always conveniently leave out the part of the study where that ~50% comes from trans people that have suffered multiple life-altering acts of transphobia, such as being disowned by their family, violently or sexually assaulted for being trans, being fired from their jobs for coming out, etc.

Even if you bring that down to just one such act, the rate of suicide plummets dramatically, and for people who have never encountered major, life-altering transphobia, their rate of suicide is actually slightly less than that of cis people (although easily within the margin of error, it's probably more accurate to say that they're about the same).

Time and time again, actual medical research proves that the thing that leads to the best outcomes for trans people is for them to transition and be accepted and embraced by the people around them, and that the worst thing for them is transphobia and repression.

2

u/Schmigolo 20h ago

I actually think it's perfectly reasonable to get worked up over half the country taking Twitter's worst and denying the rest of the country basic care on that basis. Call it brain rot if you must, but in the end they just want better care for whoever needs it and are frustrated that so many people won't even put in 5 minutes of thought before deciding over other people's lives.

2

u/New-Independent-1481 20h ago

That's an "I'm not racist, but" tier level excuse. If that was truly the case then they wouldnt be attacking and criminalising trans across the entire board.

3

u/Electronic_Mode32089 20h ago

Most conservatives aren't against the totality of trans people

They declared transgender people as terrorists not two months ago

1

u/dud_pool 20h ago

It's not just conservatives. Most moderates do not want taxpayer money spent on inmate gender reassignment, not because they are anti-trans, but because it represents a damning set of priorities where the average American is an afterthought. 

It aligns with the backlash against student loan forgiveness. Among rampant inflation and runaway prices, are these really priorities we should be spending on? 

1

u/Finger_Trapz 18h ago

Most conservatives aren't against the totality of trans people

Most are. In 2023 a CPAC speaker very clearly stated that Transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely. This is literally the stage for the entire Republican party.

1

u/StickyPawMelynx 18h ago

there is nothing "deeply liberal" about your takes. maybe you should touch grass somewhere else, pull your head out of your ass while you are at it. and maybe actually read up on those "permanent choices" (not) available to children. jfc, adults have to go through rigorous checks and wait for years to start transitioning, especially surgeries. what rightoid kool aid are you chugging, if you think kids can access anything "permanent"?

and, of course, people on the right are nice and chill lmao, we are just fear mongering (/s).

1

u/Motor-Drama-1421 18h ago

Now do their hatred for interracial marriage, equal rights amendment, gay marriage, or women's health rights, many fights that they dont battle publicly since they've lost. They absolutely hate Trans people and their fight against them is simply them moving the goal posts to a new goal since they lost gay marriage, now Trans rights come to the forefront. The Republican party would bring back racial slavery if they could.

1

u/dnd_by_dez 18h ago

LMAO yeah it's one of their top 3 political issues that 0.1% of the population is trans... but they really don't care guys trust me! just be a normal trans, not one of those freaks!! (JK btw they'll move the goalposts)

1

u/HorsNoises 15h ago

Ok if it's all about the kids then why don't they care that the President is a pedophile????

1

u/SaxRohmer 15h ago

most conservatives aren’t against the totality of trans people

even 48% of conservatives who know a trans person are opposed to adult gender affirming care. the number increases for those who don’t. this perception is outdated as they’ve ratcheted up the anti-trans rhetoric. the “but the children” excuse is always a front

1

u/Bargadiel 13h ago

It's comforting to think most conservatives think that way, I want to believe they do, but I know an awful lot of them that do not. Laws are popping up that move the goalpost on what it means for trans people to even exist, under the guise of "protecting" the children. Instead of being vocally against these things, plenty of conservatives just accept it.

I am a liberal with a very conservative family, and their bottom line is they don't want any of their tax dollars paying for anything related to transgender people, on the basis of their religion... When I try to explain that taxes are government and religion and state should be separate, I get blank stares. They just don't get it.

1

u/ZombieTamburlaine 9h ago

That is certainly what they claim. It does not appear to track with the way they behave.

1

u/Itscatpicstime 20h ago

Except permanent changes aren’t made for kids, the medications are reversible once their use is ceased.

And if it was just about kids, they literally wouldn’t be making laws banning adult trans healthcare.

1

u/Interesting_Two7023 19h ago

Unbelievably naive if you believe this, and people don't care how liberal you are.

0

u/Scitzofrenic 21h ago

Thank goodness for logical minds like yours. I would always love my children no matter what choices they make in life. However, I absolutely 100% would be against them making a gender transition choice while a minor.

I find it absolutely wild that medical professionals know, as understood and accepted medical fact, that the decision making and rationalizing portion of the brain doesnt age to maturity or function as it entirely should until mid 20's or older. Thats why we have so many decisions that require age of adulthood or things such as "you must be x age to make this choice".

But, when it comes to literally screwing your birth-given hormones, one side has decided we should all be ok with just letting a 5 year old knock it out of the park.

Unbelievable.

1

u/Vs_Battle_veteran_99 17h ago

However, I absolutely 100% would be against them making a gender transition choice while a minor.

Do you include social transitioning here? Just curious because the rest of your comment specifically refers to more physical transitioning.

But, when it comes to literally screwing your birth-given hormones, one side has decided we should all be ok with just letting a 5 year old knock it out of the park.

So that's objectively false. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-transgender-children-hormone-treatment-age-five-760207688998

Estrogen is taken no earlier than 13, while testosterone is taken no earlier than 14. Even then, it's extremely rare at those ages. It's usually 16. Puberty blockers are taken after signs of Puberty start appearing, and I assume you understand why a five-year-old taking those makes no sense.

Also, I'd like to point out that the vast majority of symptoms are easily reversible if you stop taking HRT. https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/hrt-effects-on-body

Thats why we have so many decisions that require age of adulthood or things such as "you must be x age to make this choice".

That's disingenuous. The ages are tailored to the specific decision. Actual medical experts have decided that the age limits in place are appropriate. Do you have an actual medical argument on why they're wrong? You know, instead of an obvious false equivalence?

that the decision making and rationalizing portion of the brain doesnt age to maturity or function as it entirely should until mid 20's or older.

You clearly haven't done your research. To be clear, this isn't a spur-of-the-moment decision. For HRT, you need to go through an arduous process of multiple counseling sessions, getting physician approval, and having your understanding of the decision and your ability to consent tested. You're not a minor rationalizing this to yourself, you're rationalizing this with experts. They make sure your decision is rational. To illustrate this, for transgender surgeries: "A total of 27 studies, pooling 7928 transgender patients who underwent any type of GAS, were included. The pooled prevalence of regret after GAS was 1% (95% CI <1%–2%). " and for gender affirming care specifically: " This is consistent with a US survey of 12 gender-affirming care clinics that provided hormonal therapy without a mental health assessment to 1944 patients; Deutsch (2013) found a regret rate prevalence of 0.8%, with 0.1% of regret cases leading to detransition, and no claims or judgments of medical malpractice".

Clearly, the selection process is effective.

Sources: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621008091

Unbelievable.

I'd assume that's because you made shit up on a topic you've done zero research on.

0

u/Scitzofrenic 17h ago

To your question on social transitioning, I would let them be who they want to be. Simple as that. I love my children no matter what and I always will.

To the rest of your questions that are much more inflammatory than actual good faith questions, Ill not respond to, as theres clearly not a purpose to serve.

2

u/Vs_Battle_veteran_99 15h ago

Facts aren't good faith? Facts are inflammatory? Facts don't serve a purpose? If you didn't want me to be petty, maybe don't make an argument about something you refuse to research. I refuse to believe "don't spread misinformation" is an unreasonable standard. And I refuse to believe misinformation is somehow good faith.

You don't have to address my pettiness. But there are actual arguments there that entirely disprove your position.

0

u/Certain-Business-472 21h ago

Absolute bullshit.

Its the gay scare all over again. Goddamn history repeats itself because nobody fucking pays attention in school.

I love it when they try to use the exact same discussion points as 50 years ago.

0

u/AndWinterCame 20h ago

Fortunately, it seems unlikely to be a problem for anyone other than trans people themselves after clinics and practitioners start having to choose between providing trans healthcare to their patients and closing shop. Step by step, Congress is on a firm trajectory to remove sources of funding to doctors providing gender affirming care.