No it's a sign of the nature of modern social media algorithms and the wealthy wanting to make sure blue collar white folks are more pissed about trans people than price fixing algorithms that are hiking up their rent prices.
I'm not sure these are analogous. An anorexic person causes demonstrable harm to themselves and risks death if left untreated. We have a social compact that says we don't let humans kill themselves if we can prevent it and that's what anorexia intervention accomplishes. By contrast, what harm is a transgender person doing to themselves by living as they feel they must? As far as I can see, the only "harm" they incur as a result of transitioning is social scorn from a subset of people whose opposition cannot be overcome. To hear transgender people tell it, the pain experienced by not transitioning, often due to external social pressure, is much more severe than anything they might face once they're "out".
The goal is to alleviate unnecessary suffering. Imagine we have the technology to make an anorexic person look the way they perceive to be "correct" with minimal health risks? Would you be against this therapy? If so, why? The suffering is gone. The negative behaviors and outcomes associated with the pathology are gone. The condition still exists, but it is rendered harmless. In an ideal world we would just "cure" people of whatever mental disalignment or pathology they have, but this is not an ideal world. This is not to say that transition is correct for everyone. It's a very serious decision that should be handled with the utmost care by both the patient and doctors. But it is a legitimate therapy and those trying to legislate it (and those who undergo it) out of society need to **** off and stay out of people's private lives.
It's true - the potential consequences of the two are different. An anorexic person's actions (starvation) can lead to their own death which is not directly analogous to gender dysphoria... but, otherwise, when speaking about the cause of a problem and its treatments, wouldn't they be the same? And, although gender dysphoria doesn't result in a person's own starvation, that doesn't mean that it's harmless. In both examples, a person obsessively peruses something that will always be unobtainable. That's bad.
The harm in transgenderism in terms of to one's self is all social factors. Stuff like being afraid to go to a public restroom because you might get harassed with a smartphone camera shoved up your face because someone is accusing you of being a pervert. That is the stuff that harms trans people. Imagine living your entire life where the basic feeling of needing to go pee in public brings in a massive amount of social anxiety.
I was saying that someone can be transgendered without taking hormones or having gender changing surgery. If you want to talk about sports league rules, they are evolving. There are some leagues where you only have to claim another gender (it has happened in weightlifting), and there are others where you have to be on hormone treatment. I know for example in swimming there were some events you don't have to be on steroids, Thomas for example lost to another transgendered swimmer not on any treatments at all. I am not aware of any leagues that require actual gender reassignment surgery - Thomas still has male genitalia I believe. My wider point wasn't about just sports - I am only saying that in the trans community, one can not take hormones and not have gender reassignment surgery and still be transgendered. I have several transgendered friends that are not planning on having any medical intervention but still identify as trans women. Gender fluid is related to trans, but it isn't them same thing, and while they often are aligned for fighting for rights - they are quite different. Also, it isn't clear, but if you are stating that someone that identifies as trans and doesn't intend to go through surgery or treatment - isn't equal to someone in the trans community that does undergo treatment - then we will disagree. They both are considered transgendered and they both are considered equal. Are you comparing the concept of marriage to sex and gender? Sexuality, being a woman in this case is a FAR bigger deal than the concept of marriage. The way people are treated by society, in this case a patriarchy, how they bond, how they see the world is based on the sex that they are born. The basic rights of passage are unique for being a woman. Would you feel the same way if a white person decided that they were black or African American and that they needed to be called African American and referred to as African American and that they needed to change the basic meaning and definition of African American because a small group of white people decided that they related more with being African American? Of course you wouldn't, because it is an incredible degree of entitlement, to tell another oppressed group of people, a large group in this case that their shared cultures and experiences are not unique to them - to tell a group that their experiences are negotiable. That does not mean that transgendered women cannot live as women, or that they don't deserve protections (they do) or that they should be discriminated against (they shouldn't).... they should be treated with the same respect as people as everyone else ---- however a lot of the rhetoric from the LGBTQ+ community is absurd.... and that is also the case from the far right as well. Again when you have elected politicians saying this about trans people and passing laws against trans people in the 21st C I wouldn’t call that entitlement. Yeah - no. I have never said that transgendered people are mutants - indeed I have never said that transgendered people are mentally ill. I have repeatedly said that transpeople are PEOPLE and deserve to be treated with decency and respect and the protections of law. I have spoke out against the laws in Florida, and said that trans people should be acknowledged and be treated the same as everyone else. So either I do not articulate myself well or you are not understanding what I am saying. Saying that trans-women are not females is a fact, it doesn't mean they are mentally ill or mutants. Gender is not scientifically based (for the most part), in fact a lot of feminists don't even like the gender stereotypes that are being embraced by some trans women because they have traditionally been used by men to oppress women and are not consistent with the realities of most women. If trans-women want to adopt femininity or the like, I haven't heard many women have an issue with that. It becomes an issue when there is entitlement, and the belief that after living in a patriarchy, as a male and living in entitlement - that you can become a female - it isn't possible, and it is incredibly entitled to believe that is fair or even possible and it isn't supported by science. That is a culture and an experience they will never have as it isn't possible - they can be trans-women but they will never be females.
It seems like you're injecting social externalities into what's "unobtainable." Biologically, a trans person will never fully be what they want. Hormone therapy and surgery can help, but there will still be physical and social influences from the time they spent as the other gender (this is why I'm on @Nook 's side when it comes to someone like Lia Thomas; ignoring the biological effects of her time growing up as a male is post-modern wishful thinking). Unlike the anorexic who must be brought out of a dark psychological place with treatment, regarding gender dysphoria as an illness that must be suppressed keeps the transgender person in their dark place. That doesn't seem like "treatment" especially when the objection to their stated desire to live as another gender is rooted in religious dogma or social distaste. I've yet to see any type of medical study or report that says people with gender dysphoria live healthier, happier lives if they're prevented from transitioning. It doesn't seem like this should be hard to find, if positive outcomes are what matter, since it was the default approach towards the gender dysphoric for decades. The "What is a woman?" crowd doesn't seem like they'll be satisfied with any level of transgender acceptance, but I don't think they want to be. This is why using absolutist words like "unobtainable" that, although technically true, conveys harmful social pressure upon people with gender dysphoria. It's like telling a short kid who plays basketball "You'll never be in the NBA, so why bother playing at all?" Setting the standard upon an absolutist pedestal deliberately sets the other person up for discouragement and failure. There's something that feels disingenuous about this. It reminds me a lot of how homosexuals used to be deemed "mentally ill" and were "treated" in institutions for something that wasn't actually a medical condition. Their very being was ran afoul of social norms, religious beliefs, etc. and was considered to be a psychological abnormality. We now know (and should have always known without these aforementioned externalities) that homosexuals were asking for the same thing that transgender people are asking for now: the freedom to live their lives as their nature demands and to be afforded the same dignity we grant others when it comes to their innate selves. To impose upon them otherwise is a violation of individual liberty.
Ya sorry man but when you say a trans person is entitled because they want to belong to a sports competition that isn't some special deviated one for a small group of people (a dedicated trans league) then you are biting into right wing bigotry. These people have anxiety attacks the.kkment they feel the need to pee in a public setting because they know there is a solid chance they might get harassed for the wrong decision of which public restroom to chose. Calling the desire of basic acceptance as entitlement is disgusting. Lol really disgusting. **** that.
Thoughts? First, the comparison is off..... being anorexic without treatment results in death. A male living as a woman does not result in death. Is there gender-dysphoria? Yes, but there are a LOT of disorders, and I don't hear anyone really complaining about them - and it doesn't make someone a deviant or deserving of being shunned or treated poorly. Gender is a social construct, it always has been - it isn't the same as sex.
Would I care? Yeah - Two of the three most important people in the world to me are female........ and 3 of the top 10 most important people in the world to me are transgendered or suffer from gender struggles (one is non-binary and two are trans).
And how does that justify saying a group that gets social anxiety from the mere feeling of needing to pee outside their residence is entitled?
This is true, and is certainly a limit of the analogy; however, not all untreated anorexic people die from their actions (though death is possible). There are potential negative health impacts to an anorexic person starving themselves. A gender dysphoric person may pursue surgeries or drugs that could also have serious negative health impacts to them. So the analogy is not an exact fit here, but it has similarities. I don't think people should be shunned or treated poorly because they have a mental disorder (anorexia or gender dysphoria). But, aside from the anorexia/death difference, I haven't heard any other points about analogous differences between anorexia and gender dysphoria. This is not true. The separation of "gender" and "sex" definitions was first proposed by John Money in medical journal articles in the 1950's.
Because it is entitled to believe that an entire culture (women) that has existed for many thousands of years (as an oppressed group) needs to unconditionally change their basic definition of being to satisfy a small group of people? It has nothing to do with whether someone has social anxiety. I haven't even said that trans-gendered women shouldn't use a woman's bathroom - so it isn't really even relevant.... You make a lot of assumptions and leaps.
Why did I bring up that transgender people have anxiety over basic stuff like going to a public restroom? Was it because I believe you believe it's acceptable to harras them? No. So address why I brought it up. It's called context. Calling a group of people entitled when something as basic as going to a restroom can instigate harassment towards them is absurd. When basic day to day living is a social anxiety cluster **** where every single movement from you is judged by society where 50 percent of the population believe you are perverts for merely existing, calling that group entitled is asinine. It's absolutely bat ****. Now please tell me of a single woman experiencing that type of anxiety and distress for basically existing because of trans activism.
