Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean if the alternative is complete lawlessness, then I suppose I do want digital borders. AMA.
How old are you?
[dead]
Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
521–530 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#522I can't take a post seriously when it uses AI images. How do I know the rest of the content isn't AI slop?
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#523So, while I agree that this feels foreign and wrong to me as someone who has experienced "The Internet" for so long, I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works. I'm asking this in good faith. Given that: 1. The Internet is not an optional subscription service today the way it was in 1995. Every kid and adult has 1,000 opportunities to get online including on the multiple devices…
> I can't help but wonder if we can separate that from how the offline world works.
From a different angle: many people went into the web in disagreement with how the physical world is managed.
Those who were good at politics also tried to improve the offline rules, but not everyone can.
From that POV, opposing the application of irl biggotery into the online world isn't some illogical or whimsical move. They tried to make a better world for the likes of them, and in a way you're using the success of the platform to explain why they're not welcome anymore.
I'd be sympathetic to your logic if it was for the betterment of the online world, but IMHO it surely isn't and we're looking at bullies expanding irl power to crush other platforms as well.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
I come from a small town and know many conservative Christians. They are pushing for this. Like you said, it is easier to blame external sources than to accept you need to do better as parent.
Many of them are. I just don’t see any reason to say “I disagree with the conservative Christians pushing this” rather than “I disagree with the people who support this.” There are secular folks who also support such legislation. It hints at a generalized animus towards religion and likely in particular towards Christianity, kind of like Fox News boomers complaining Obama wouldn’t say “radical Islamic terrorism”.
I understand what you're saying but when you have Trump and his cohorts fake praying in the oval office with the support of conservative Christians who abandon all of Jesus' teachings of love and compassion and embrace Trump's hate, you might understand why people take a specific issue with that.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#525Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Blocking puberty until eighteen is a harmful intervention in itself For a trans kid, going thru the wrong puberty is harmful. The best thing would be hormones at puberty. But given issues around informed consent, puberty blockers are a valid compromise. Calling them harmful without considering the harm of the alternative is not honest.
Puberty is a stage of natural maturation of the body. There is only one, as per your sex, and you can't go through the wrong one. The puberty of the opposite sex is not an option.
This conception of the "wrong puberty" as something that needs to be blocked is as absurd as all that "born in the wrong body" ideological nonsense.
Most importantly, children can't meaningfully consent to having their sexual function permanently damaged.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.
Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available? The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will
"Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. The core issue at hand is that absent puberty blockers, somewhere between 60-80% do not persist with a cross-sex gender identity after going through their natal puberty. Psychologists attempted to predict which patients would persist in a cross sex gender identity and which would not, but they were never able to do so.
When patients are given puberty blockers, desistence rates are miniscule, in the single digits. Proponents of hormonal intervention insist that this is proof that doctors are selecting kids that would persist in a cross sex gender absent blockers. But that's hard to reconcile with psychologists previous failures to predict persistence. While they're billed as giving "time to think", it's pretty much impossible to deny that blockers are causing patients who would have desisted in their cross sex gender identity if they went through their natal puberty.
It's not just conservative American States that are changing course on blockers for children: Finland, Sweden, the UK, Italy, Denmark, and Norway have all stopped prescription of blockers in children. Plenty of other countries never allowed it in the first place.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Blocking puberty until eighteen is a harmful intervention in itself For a trans kid, going thru the wrong puberty is harmful. The best thing would be hormones at puberty. But given issues around informed consent, puberty blockers are a valid compromise. Calling them harmful without considering the harm of the alternative is not honest.
[flagged]
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#528Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Many later detransition [Citation needed]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039393/
All the studies among gender dysphoric children who are not prescribed puberty blockers show desistence rates over 70%
There are studies that show very low desistence rates - many in the single digits. But those are studies among children that are given puberty blockers.
Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online
#530All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID? If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and…
These are Authoritarian Christo-fascists. They do not care. They will demonize everyone involved in anything related to online sex. They are coming for the sex workers, and all of porn too - they stated they would do this in "Project 2025". "Think of the children" is how they justify it.