And yet she is a black lawyer, despite of all the assumed systemic oppression. Maybe she knows more about the actual challenges of black people than the CRT theoreticians?
That it's possible in an oppressive and hateful environment that someone managed to get a job title?
When I was a child, I had multiple field trips to a plantation in Louisiana. We didn't live very far away, so it was a convenient spot to go when our history teachers wanted to take us somewhere. And on the three separate trips I took, from the time I was a first grader to the time I was a junior in high school, not once did we ever visit the slave cabins, nor did the tour guides or teachers ever discuss the living conditions of the slaves or the fact that there were dozens of dead black heads on pikes outside of the entrance after the outcome of a slave rebellion. No, the tour guides talked about the artwork and the owners and the types of crops that grew.
It turns out we've been covering up the sins of our ancestors for generations, and it's part of the reason people like you are so stone-cold ignorant on the issue. Because if you're going to teach history, you should fucking TEACH HISTORY, not the whitewashed version that excludes all the naughty bits that make your ancestors look bad.
I'd hazard a guess that black lady lawyers and CRT theoreticians such as, say, Kimberlé Crenshaw know something about the actual challenges of black people in the USofA and likely teach that and a bit about the history of black law in the USofA.
What with CRT being a university level course and all.
Are you arguing that we should take the word of of, say, black people as being more valid in this debate? Because if so, I'm not at all sure that most black people would vote on this issue the way you seem to suspect they would. The reality is that this is one person's opinion. It's not more valid than mine simply because she's black and I'm small town Wisconsin. Nor is it more valid than the voice of the white liberal. Nor even the voice of the black liberal for that matter.
In short, your bringing up her race, is completely irrelevant to the validity or invalidity of the arguments presented. (Which are pretty much boilerplate by the way. As conservatives, and liberals for that matter, we all really need new material if this is the best we can do.)
You just assume most black people would feel oppressed? And how would you disentangle that opinion from them being taught they are oppressed in school?
Would you say it absolutely doesn't matter how black people feel about it? Wouldn't that make the whole subject somewhat ridiculous?
And of course a black lawyer is a data point against the claims of systemic oppression.
Ah, so we've arrived at the truth: you don't actually understand the concepts being discussed, so you reject them out of hand to avoid contending with your own lack of knowledge in a social space that highly values deep and wide competencies.
I promise you, if you dedicate yourself to good-faith study, you will discover the essence of what people are talking about when they talk about "systemic" forces at play in the world.
Note that I am referring specifically to systemic forces because this encompasses the sum total of all causal influences on all elements of the system writ large. Systemic oppression is merely one half of a dichotomy, the other half being systemic privilege. Every sub-population within a general population can be evaluated along this 1D quantitative axis of "net-oppressed" vs "net-privileged". Some may be exactly balanced at the origin on this axis, but it would be simply absurd to assert that every sub-population is on average net-zero on that scale -- the probability of that happening is "almost surely zero". Ergo, some groups are more oppressed than others. Further, our constructed systems are not so complex that causation is unknowable. The civilization that humanity has built has relatively direct cause-effect relationships, largely due to its artificiality. So it stands to reason that we can determine that a) some groups are more oppressed than others, and b) the reasons for that net-oppression of a given group can be determined as functions of the components of the system they inhabit. Does this help clarify things?
No, puberty blockers are not 100% reversible and they are not harmless, either. Surgeries are not rare, either - at least it is debatable what should be considered "rare".
Risks are comparative, moral panic is not and ignores this. Banning something because it is not 100% harmless is just not something that is done without extra considerations, such as a moralizing. E.g. Pain killers cause significantly more societal harm than puberty blockers but are still widely available.
As to the real risks, time and again it has been shown that the comparative risks of a) receiving puberty blockers vs b) growing up a gender you do not feel you are, strongly points to puberty blockers being a significant net benefit. Those taking puberty blockers rarely regret it; whereas those growing up a gender they do not identify with mostly regret it are are significantly more prone to abuse, mental health issues and suicide.
Kids get fed mountains of acetaminophen every year. Why do you suppose that acetaminophen packages have prominent warnings about not exceeding dosages?
It's because acetaminophen is extremely hepatotoxic at levels not very far above the recommended dosages.
> Hepatic injury and subsequent hepatic failure due to both intentional and non-intentional overdose of acetaminophen (APAP) has affected patients for decades, and [...] remains a global issue; in the United States, in particular, it accounts for more than 50% of overdose-related acute liver failure and approximately 20% of the liver transplant cases.
I would assert that acetaminophen is far more likely to be dangerous to far more children than puberty blockers and yet I don't see any moral panic over children's Tylenol.
So a miniscule number, and one where the best approach to reducing it further is to encourage the use of puberty blockers to prevent getting to the stage where it is the best option until they are better able to give consent.
And yet you're arguing for denying them the option that'd reduce the demand for these surgeries.
It "might be said" but that makes no sense to anyone who knew firmly what their gender identity was from early childhood. The norm is around 4 years of age. It also makes no sense given that dysphoria does disappear for a portion of patients irrespective of which hormones they're on. As well as for those on puberty blockers. The entire point of puberty blockers is allow for delaying the decision on going on hormones or surgery as long as needed for the patient to be able to make an informed choice.
And of course a lot of the kids given hormones will end up getting surgery, because their dysphoria is highly unlikely to resolve itself with or without hormones and for those whose dysphoria does not resolve surgery will be the best option for many - hence the very low regret rates.
And hence the drive to get puberty blockers to delay the need to decide on either.
You're buying into a hysteria founded on ignoring the actual and immoral harm being inflicted on trans youth by those seeking to deny them care in order to try to pretend they mostly don't exist. It's at best deeply misguided, at worst deeply bigoted.
The dysphoria actually dissolves in most cases, not just in a few cases. And the hormone blockers allegedly also prevent the dysphoria from dissolving in many cases.Hormone blockers also have severe side effects, even possible sterilisation.
Since most people end up not actually being trans, more people are now hurt by pushing transitioning as the solution for everything.
And you absolutely can not deny that it is being pushed.
Not taking the word of a random web comment who makes extraordinary claims with no evidence is not any denial at all, in fact. It's working wonderfully, and will continue to do so for many generations.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for ideological battle. Regardless of what you're battling for, that's not allowed here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
They did not propose mutilating surgeries to people throughout history. Also trans people existing does not mean there can't be a mass hysteria of kids being told to transition on shoddy scientific evidence.
They did not propose surgeries because no way of doing so were available until relatively recently.
And your claim of a hysteria of kids being told to transition closely mirrors the claim of kids being pressured into satanic rituals and similar. It's similarly fear driven and bigoted.
Many gay people now say the trans thing is the new conversion therapy for gay people, as they try to convince a lot of them that they are actually another gender.
This is also what whistleblowers at the Tavistock clinic in the UK spoke of, and is part of the reason why the UK's and other countries' health authorities are putting a halt to the affirmation model for children who are questioning gender identity.
The lack of good surgery options does not mean they don't help. If anything the fact that regret rates for transition is well below the regret rates for other cosmetic surgery should be a strong indication that if you actually care about patient wellbeing, it's the other kinds of cosmetic surgery you ought to be focusing on.
Citations? If you look into the actual studies, the picture may not be so clear cut. For example a lot if results actually only taje older people into account (who transitioned when they were older).
What analogy do you see to the satanic cult thing? Children were told they had been abused, and many caregivers were being sentenced. Who is being told what in the trans hype? Children are falsely being told they are not trans? Then they falsely believe they are not trans and accuse their doctors? Or how does the analogy work?
Meanwhile, finding actual studies of regret of cosmetic surgery is much harder, because nobody cares or want to stop people from getting boob jobs unless they're trans. So we're stuck with poor quality surveys like this one [1] claiming 65% regret, this one done for a group with a profit motive [2] claiming 65% regret.
For reconstruction after breast cancer, it's not "so bad", with this actual study [3] finding "only" ca 20% moderate to strong regret for even reconstruction, and another ~28% expressing mild regret.
Even for non-cosmetic surgery, such as e.g. hip replacements etc., it's hard to find regret rates as low as for sex reassignment.
The first study is a survey of surgeons, which seems rather useless. What warrants the assumptions that they would learn about the long term outcomes of their surgeries?
The second claims to have looked into several studies, which might include ones like the first one. Would be nice to have an actually useful direct study, especially for young people.
As for cosmetic surgery, you brought that up. I don't think it is as worrying, as many of them are reversible, and they don't sterilize the recipients. Somebody regretting to get a nose job is hardly in the same category as someone regretting they cut off their penis.
So is the mass hysteria now the belief that there is a mass hysteria against trans people, or the belief that there is a mass hysteria of kids being pushed to transition?
People who claim that modern industrial tech and advancements have not benefited society is arguing that they are not being disproportionately benefited.
Industrial automation did create the 2hr weeks - only that it's the people who paid capital and and invested in their creation that got those 2hr weeks.
But everybody else got the benefit as the general access and availability of many more goods and services than otherwise would've been possible.
But having a lot of easy to access food certainly does. Or what about clean water, or electricity? Or cheap transport? When has there been in the past, before the advent of industrial automation and technology, that people could just travel on a whim somewhere more than a day's walk away?
Just because some symbol of luxury like the iphone is what you think of as "more stuff", doesn't mean it is. "more stuff" is _everything_, and while it does include the iphone, it also includes the cheap phone that makes it possible to communicate almost for free with almost anyone close or far.
The tickle down has been happening for the past 70 years, and the regular people have been benefiting so much that it looks normal now. I would use the analogy of boiling a frog, but somehow this doesn't quite suit.
>The tickle down has been happening for the past 70 years, and the regular people have been benefiting so much that it looks normal now.
This is just not true based on the data. The rich eat well - but food insecurity is still RAMPANT because of greed.
Food is less healthy now than ever and the majority of the population is malnourished - that is to say eating the wrong thing - despite us having enough capacity to produce quality food for everyone.
Food deserts ensure that the poorest people get the worst food.
Because they don't have as much money as other areas so people follow the money with where they provide services
>tend to lack education, including knowledge about healthy foods
This is also true and again structural - see above. Poor areas don't get school funding because school funding is based on county property taxes and thus, do more poorly than rich areas
It literally all boils down to structural inequality
Because they quality is so bad and the prices are so cheap.
Having lived in these areas for most of my life I can tell you it's often only specific low quality chains (Church's, Grannys, Jack in the Box etc...) or these "chicken wing/chinese food" shops that basically just fry up the worst meat and slather it in sugar sauce.
I recall in high school, peers of mine would simply eat a bag of Doritos for lunch - as even the classes like Home-economics were largely just holding cells for teenagers until graduation.
I'm not denying any of these improvements but there is also evidence that walking with this constant distraction and being bombarded by social media / news is bad for mental health and our ability to focus.
Because what would've been my self-sufficient tribe that needed nothing more than food, socialization, and shelter has been obliterated by various, human-made forces, and I now have to try and fill in the void by spending money.
Partly the social void via digital communication, and partly ancillary emotions generated by having something nice that makes my sisyphean pursuit just a little bit easier.
If I was able to live a life where I could see my friends and family, and be a part of a community, without any threat of that way of life being destroyed, I would not be working a job in a first world country.
Nor would I be stuffing my metaphorical and physical face with: entertainment, food, various media like video games, etc. Good company is enough to stay entertained for hours -- and it's free; but past a certain age becomes annoyingly more difficult to find as people get loaded on responsibilities, and time-commitments, and other things they believe are prudent for their "success."
I'm an extreme extrovert. My biggest gripe with capitalism is that it's alienated and killed the souls of all the people around me -- and now I have to spend copious amounts of money just to try and fill that void.
How about moving to Amish county? You always have a choice. Just don't expect to find there a social utopia where "everybody is free and everybody has at least 6 slaves", people are the same everywhere, with iPhones or not.
Yeah it’s like saying that if only we all had 800 hammers we’d all live like kings. Technology does not automatically make life better, only different. Better is a value judgement.
Why is the premise that a "better life" is one where we work fewer hours per week? Surely there are other dimensions on which to measure quality of life. Or maybe you'd prefer to live in Medeival Times? After all, you'd work fewer hours per week! Sure you might die at the age of 35, have your leg gruesomely amputated due to sepsis, or be burned at the stake for suggesting the earth spins around the Sun. But think of all the free time!
> Serfs in medieval Europe had very little free time. They were required to work long hours, usually from sunrise to sunset, and often had to work on Sundays and other holy days as well. Their work consisted of farming tasks such as plowing, planting, harvesting, and tending to livestock. In addition to their agricultural work, serfs were also required to perform labor for their lords, such as building and maintaining structures, repairing roads, and providing military service.
> Plowing and harvesting were backbreaking toil, but the peasant enjoyed anywhere from eight weeks to half the year off. The Church, mindful of how to keep a population from rebelling, enforced frequent mandatory holidays ... In fact, economist Juliet Shor found that during periods of particularly high wages, such as 14th-century England, peasants might put in no more than 150 days a year.
Oh, interesting. Isn't it only off from farming? I thought that's where making roads and dying in wars came in. But it's also true they had to have at least some free time to mate.
People are ditching their phones which to me proves their value isn't universal and probably isn't that great of a benefit to anyone other than business.
Yeah that must be why he published the algorithm, to strengthen his grip on public opinion, and exploit the open source community to further his path to world domination.
