Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[anewaname]

I don't place good odds on trump getting the nomination because some big donors will no longer accept him, but he will damage potential front-runners like DeSantis by making them look indecisive and weak.

That effect will be compounded if trump rejects the nominee and someone funds trumpers to don their maga-gear and mock the nominee.

[Frumple]

2008 called, it misses you.

Second largest bank failure in US history happened today as Silicon Valley Bank, 16th largest bank in the country, went bust under a bank run.

From what I've seen of chatter, the current outlook is that the effect might not be as bad as the Washington Mutual collapse, as SVB was apparently fairly specialized in tech related venture capital specifically (consequentially, only something like 7% of its holdings were FDIC insured, oh dear) but, well. Lot of people are probably not having happy fun times, right now.

[McTraveller]

It reminds me of the adage “If you owe the bank $100 you have a problem; if you owe the bank $100 million the bank has a problem.”

It’s a sobering reminder that if you deposit money in a bank, you are effectively the bank’s creditor.  This collapse happened because the bank wasn’t able to pay back its creditors.

It’s also a reminder that high returns are indeed in exchange for higher risk…

[Frumple]

It’s also a reminder that high returns are indeed in exchange for higher risk…

Part of the amusing(?) thing about this is a lot of what bit this bank was low yield investments, shit that was only viable due to the artificially low interest rates. They apparently got screwed largely because they made a lot of low return gambles and then the things (completely unsurprisingly, from what I understand of it, though the exact timing of it was uncertain) that was making that short-term reasonable changed.

This doesn't seem to have been a "high returns are high risk" thing so much as a "don't make bets reliant on variables that can shift rapidly if you can't afford to lose lots of them simultaneously".

[EuchreJack]

At least I won't have to hear any more ZipRecruiter ads...

[hector13]

It reminds me of the adage “If you owe the bank $100 you have a problem; if you owe the bank $100 million the bank has a problem.”

It’s a sobering reminder that if you deposit money in a bank, you are effectively the bank’s creditor.  This collapse happened because the bank wasn’t able to pay back its creditors.

It’s also a reminder that high returns are indeed in exchange for higher risk…

I believe it’s “if you owe the bank $100 it’s your problem, if you owe the bank $100 million, it’s the bank’s problem.”

But you need to say it like Sean Bean.

[Schmaven]

It reminds me of the adage “If you owe the bank $100 you have a problem; if you owe the bank $100 million the bank has a problem.”

It’s a sobering reminder that if you deposit money in a bank, you are effectively the bank’s creditor.  This collapse happened because the bank wasn’t able to pay back its creditors.

It’s also a reminder that high returns are indeed in exchange for higher risk…

I believe it’s “if you owe the bank $100 it’s your problem, if you owe the bank $100 million, it’s the bank’s problem.”

But you need to say it like Sean Bean.

That's sort of like another saying he's read, something along the lines of,
"If you don't watch the news, you're uninformed. 
And if you do watch the news, you're misinformed." 
- Possibly from Mark Twain originally

[Rolan7]

(moved here because the Trans Question is political, and hotly contested right now in the USA)

I'd like to point out that Strongpoint is arguing for access to HRT, and so is moderately [slur] on-side despite all the words we've exchanged.

Death before detransition.  Literally.
I can't do it again- the decade and a half as a scared adult, repressing, or the couple months where my hormones didn't work.  F'ing castor oil.

I can't do it again.  I won't.
All the changes to my sex, they're just gravy.
I lived a half-life until I started hormones.  So, so late.

Somehow missed this the first time around, and noticed only after rereading.

I miss that time, where I thought we were just having an abstract conversation about sociology.

I am most definitely not against access to HRT for adults. If someone I care about would ask me if should they do HRT or not, my advice would be strong no (not going to give a breakdown why because it is a very wrong place to do for obvious reasons) but my opinion is irrelevant because A) it is not my decision. B) They know what they need for their mental health far better than I do.

I support your right to an opinion, of course.  The disinformation on this issue is fierce and well-funded and I don't blame anyone for listening to it.

One could imagine a well-funded lobby pushing transition, but they'd have to imagine (and oh buddy, they do).  The advocacy position is for the same freedom you're describing.  The opposition is trying to criminalize trans adults.

Not just kids.  Even now, they are coming after adults like me in Tennessee and my own state of Slightly-Less-Worst Carolina.

Body autonomy is an important right and any mentally healthy adult person should not be denied using it. I find it especially idiotic when people are denied routine cosmetic surgeries like breast-size reduction or changing their face to a more masculine\feminine. More serious stuff like... cutting off body parts is something close to my limits of body autonomy but within it.

Again this would be great... except that you have limits on it.  That's not respecting bodily autonomy, it's permitting them a certain range of actions.

If someone wants a unicorn horn, you're welcome to think they shouldn't.  But arguing that they shouldn't have the right is very different.  I hate to quibble, but there's a fundamental difference between freedom and a long leash.

But this isn't a unicorn horn, they're natural hormones which are present in EVERY human body to some degree.

But the story is very different when we talk about children. They are not mentally stable enough to make such decisions. Furthermore, to know that they don't want to be of the same gender as their sex, they need to have experience of being the same gender as their sex.

Do you say you suffered? I totally believe you. Problem is that your personal experience should not be a basis of a policy. Doing it without proper care will result in the suffering of other people. Society should minimize  Stories of people who transitioned and then changed their minds and went for detransitioning are also not happy and fluffy.

Teenagers are... stupid unexperienced.  Maybe that boy who thinks he is trans. is just a gay, maybe that girl thinks she is a trans because she finds existing gender roles idiotic and wants to dress like a man and not bother with makeup. Or maybe that teenager wants to be like a celebrity they follow on Tik Tok. Or maybe that young person went too hard into politics way earlier than they should and was convinced that being straight white and cisgender is lame and close to something to be ashamed of. Or...

No, I don't trust children to make such decisions. Not at all. They feel discomfort growing as a gender they dislike. Well, growing up is always uncomfortable, we can't shield young people from all possible discomfort.

I agree that we shouldn't make policy based on feelings.
In my opinion we should default to liberty, and step in to protect people when science justifies doing so.  People will make bad decisions, influenced by their peers and role models.  They will also make good decisions.  We have to weigh the results, with a bias towards personal freedom.

Allowing social transition is a freebie, or should be: It saves lives and costs nothing.  I think we're on the same page there.

Allowing hormone therapy clearly helps people.  It also helps kids.  In a perfect world, no one (trans or otherwise) would have to suffer a wrong puberty.
We don't live in that world.

My position is the compromise position:  We can't allow tweens full bodily autonomy.  It's too risky, and we don't have enough understanding yet (thanks to fascists- literally Nazis then others- destroying and blocking research).

We can't even allow a tween and their guardians to make a joint healthcare decision for affirming hormone therapy.  I guess.  It's a balance- we would save 9 trans people from a fucking nightmare puberty with PERMANENT HARM, but 1 cis person would suffer similarly until they desisted.

What we can do is pause puberty.  Liars will constantly claim that these blockers are "untested", by which they mean "off-label", by which they mean they worked just fine on cis kids for decades but they hate trans kids and want them to die.
...
I think younger-me would have been deliriously happy to accept this compromise.  I can't speak for the current generations growing up, though, who might be a little bit more radical than me.  They're clamoring for more freedom than what I'm arguing for, and I have to say I sympathize.

Before I approve any medical transitional steps for children, I need ways to prove that someone is trans BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. And I fail to see such methodology.

Imagine the opposite: Before I deny a child access to hormones, I must know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they're cis.

JK.  This is the actual equivalent argument:  "I will force every child to take hormones unless I know they're cis."
See how vile, how authoritarian, that is?

"It's different, being cis is normal!" - Being trans is normal, as is being homosexual or red-haired or intersex or left-handed.
etc.
Again: Death before detransition.  That's just a fact.  But this time I have a taste of life to fight for.

[Strongpoint]

Rolan7, Thank you for spending your time on such a detailed reply, I value an opportunity to learn your perspective.

Again this would be great... except that you have limits on it.  That's not respecting bodily autonomy, it's permitting them a certain range of actions.

Yes, I have limits on it. Even for adults.
Should we allow suicide? I am not talking about euthanasia for terminally ill (which I wholeheartedly support) but for no good reason.

What about some person coming to a doctor and saying something like "according to my religious beliefs, I should cut off my arm and sacrifice it to my God, please, help me to do it."?

What we can do is pause puberty.  Liars will constantly claim that these blockers are "untested", by which they mean "off-label", by which they mean they worked just fine on cis kids for decades but they hate trans kids and want them to die.

Well, this is not my position. Puberty blockers are mostly safe medically, side effects (like bone density) are minor.
My position is simple. Puberty clarifies gender. Hormones influence gender. A person needs to experience puberty to really know their gender. Yes, it is uncomfortable. 

And, BTW, I am not sure that it "gives time to decide", it looks like a cheat "we can't take hormones legally now so we'll just delay this to 18". I'd love to see statistics on what % of children taking blockers who went cis or trans in the end but I failed to find one.

Oh and please, don't tell me that lagging behind your peers in physical development isn't traumatic in itself and won't make a child bullying target in the real world.

BUT. Saying all that, I don't have a case for banning puberty blockers. Me disliking something doesn't mean that this something should be banned. And indeed it is a compromise

Imagine the opposite: Before I deny a child access to hormones, I must know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they're cis.

JK.  This is the actual equivalent argument:  "I will force every child to take hormones unless I know they're cis."
See how vile, how authoritarian, that is?

"It's different, being cis is normal!" - Being trans is normal, as is being homosexual or red-haired or intersex or left-handed.

Being trans is rare, being trans and not showing any signs of it during childhood is even rarer. So I'd say that in most cases we can say that a child is cisgender beyond reasonable doubt.

As for normal... The question isn't if it is normal to be trans or cis. The question is it normal when the body produces hormones that match sex and no outside source of hormones is present? Yes, it is normal, which, in my opinion, makes a hypothetical of forcing hormones not equivalent. 

[Lord Shonus]

What you're not getting is that going through male puberty is irreversible, and makes it very hard to transition later. It is also very, very common to only figure it out yourself later in life - people who even have the opportunity to consider blockers while they figure it out are lucky.

Also, there's no real downside to them.

[McTraveller]

This is veering off politics, but I have some concerns with the assertion that

Puberty clarifies gender. Hormones influence gender. A person needs to experience puberty to really know their gender. Yes, it is uncomfortable. 

Mostly it seems like am ill-formed argument: if you can't know your gender until you go through puberty, but if you take hormones to change your physiology, how did you know you got it right?  Or is it saying that you only "really know your gender" if, after going through puberty, you are (or aren't) comfortable in your new post-puberty skin?

In that case, I suppose that's still an argument against HRT, or blockers, because you can't know ahead of time, you can only suspect confirm after-the-fact.  Generally, society has said "don't intervene unless you know intervening is better than not intervening", so statistically, not intervening is the better choice (for society, not necessarily the individual) here.

At least, that's some arguments anyway....

All I know is that I went through puberty decades ago, and I still don't really know what it means to "be a man" socially; I only have a firm grasp on what it means physically.  All the other "gender" stuff I do truly believe is social.

Mostly I think modern society is just making too big a deal about it, causing people to spend inordinate amounts of time thinking about it, so we start wondering "what if I 'got' my gender wrong?"  and suffering FOMO and the like....

[Strongpoint]

As I said in the LGBTQ+ thread, the word gender is blurry... Far too many conflicting definitions are flying around.

My preferred definition? Gender is a biological phenomenon formed as a part of sexual dimorphism, evolved set of behavioral patterns (including an inner sense of being of particular gender) which usually matches sex.

What many other people tend to call gender, I call gender roles(or stereotypes), which are social constructs somewhat based on biological reality but mostly caused by factors like the natural division of labor between sexes or men desire to keep women as property and keep them under control.

If gender is a social construct, then why do transgender people even exist? Why child who was told by society that s(he) is a (s)he, suddenly identifies as s(he)? If gender is a social construct, why it doesn't change as easily as other social constructs like religion? If gender is a social construct, does it mean that one can intentionally raise a child as a transgender with a high % of reliability? Does it mean that we'll get a higher % of true transgenders because they are more present in the media?

If we accept that sexual orientation is biological in nature, that people are born with it why something way more powerful, something that influences way more than who you want to fuck is suddenly a social construct?

[Maximum Spin]

All I know is that I went through puberty decades ago, and I still don't really know what it means to "be a man" socially

It doesn't mean anything. I was raised without social gender roles and nobody I know in real life believes in them. There's no special set of things that only a man (or woman) can do or that a man (or woman) must do. No action or appearance or behavior is "masculine" or "feminine". There's just no such thing, they are empty words with no referents.

[McTraveller]

I suppose to bring it back to Ameripol:  I guess this is the US, where you know what's best for yourself regarding vaccines, but don't know what's best for yourself regarding sexual preference and presentation (or vice-versa).

I guess one freedom we still hold sacred, is the freedom to be inconsistent at best, or more realistically a hypocrite...

 

[nenjin]

All I know is that I went through puberty decades ago, and I still don't really know what it means to "be a man" socially

It doesn't mean anything. I was raised without social gender roles and nobody I know in real life believes in them. There's no special set of things that only a man (or woman) can do or that a man (or woman) must do. No action or appearance or behavior is "masculine" or "feminine". There's just no such thing, they are empty words with no referents.

Except giving birth and fertilizing for birth. That's not a "must do" but it's the one thing you can say make up gender roles.