Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

ellsberg.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#601

Post by heavyset_go »

Manuel_D wrote: post #526
kennywinker wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nev…

The effects of puberty prevent people who are trans from living as their gender identities. Why bother when you'll need $400k in surgery post-puberty just for a chance to maybe look your gender?

If you ask trans people, "it's too late to live as my gender" is a common sentiment. You even see it in the gay community, where gay/bi people who come to acceptance of their sexualities late in life, feel like it's "too late" to live with that identity, and choose to continue to live and identify as straight people.

Hence the option for puberty blockers.

Turns out trans people will opt to go through the puberty that matches their gender if the opportunity arises, just as more people come out gay/bi/etc at an earlier age now that the opportunity arose.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#602

Post by ddq »

lelanthran wrote: post #573
LexiMax wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> transgender treatments The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors?

> The grandparent post didn't say "transgender treatments" they said "transgender issues." You don't think that transgender treatments is a transgender issue? If you think it is then my response is perfectly on-topic. > Do you believe that the mere concept of questioning your gender identity or expression is something that should be kept from the minds of minors? Depending on your jurisdiction, there are messages you…

[flagged]

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#603

Post by Manuel_D »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #598
Manuel_D wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 nev…

> "Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. That is an extremely generous interpretation. I think you're giving way too much credit to the average person that uses that argument. Also I really have to wonder how much of that desistance is giving up versus actually being satisfied.

What do you mean by "giving up"? These patients have the opportunity to transition later in life. Patients were followed up with for 10+ years, well past puberty and into adulthood. The minority that persisted transitioned as adults.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#604

Post by DangitBobby »

tayo42 wrote: post #535
cmilton wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.

What content are you thinking of that is banned for under 18? Idk if I can think of anything besides porn.

R rated movies for one.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#605

Post by yoyohello13 »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #422
frogperson wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Thank you for that, I've been looking for a decent pre-AI/Non-wikipedia summary like that. Unsurprisingly but depressingly, at least 13 out of 14 points are a perfect match.

Well, jury is still out on #14…

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#606

Post by bastawhiz »

al_borland wrote: post #10

All 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…

> there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18

No there doesn't. Why is the burden on ME (as a site owner) to do literally anything at all? The burden should be on parents to control their childrens' Internet use. Install a robust content blocker or don't give them Internet access.

Am I, a site owner, supposed to work with every asinine state and national system for making this attestation system work? How do I know the person behind the keyboard is actually the person whose age is being verified (and not one of their parents')? And as a citizen and consumer, why do I have to go out of my way to get some kind of digital identification that proves my age?

Why does this have to stop at porn? The logical next step is that legislators and parents will demand that sites will block folks from accessing blasphemous content. Or that you need to prove that you're not a resident of a particular state in order to access medical facts about abortion (because if you're looking it up, you obviously intend to get one or help someone get one)?

I don't want people to know how old I am or am not. Or where I live or don't live, or my sexual orientation, or anything else about me. I don't want to have to know any of these things about people who visit my website. And frankly, the idea that I am the one who is responsible for this and not the extreme minority of folks who want to keep certain content away from their kids or whatever is wild.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#607

Post by Manuel_D »

heavyset_go wrote: post #601
Manuel_D wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 nev…

The effects of puberty prevent people who are trans from living as their gender identities. Why bother when you'll need $400k in surgery post-puberty just for a chance to maybe look your gender? If you ask trans people, "it's too late to live as my gender" is a common sentiment. You even see it in the gay community, where gay/bi people who come to acceptance of their sexualities late in life, feel like it's "too late…

People can, and do, transition as adults. Natal puberty clearly does not prevent all people from transitioning. Effectively 100% of trans people prior to about 2010 transitioned as adults.

Same thing with gay people, as per your example. I'm sure some do remain closeted their entire lives. But plenty of them come out as gay later in life.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#608

Post by boroboro4 »

alon_honig wrote: post #591

I think people are putting far too much of an ideological lens on this ruling. As a "matter of law" this seems like the right decision. The supreme court is not a board of dictators making societal decisions based on their flavor of the day. Their job is too see if the ruling is consistent with all other laws we have and the normal function of a modern society. Pushing the envelope one way or another is not their job…

This would be all correct if we didn’t have one particular set of laws above the others – the constitution. And it is unclear if rights guaranteed by constitution (freedom of speech in this case) aren’t infringed by this particular law. There is no such thing here as “if they passed a law let it be”. It can be true if they passed the constitution amendment but they obviously didn’t.

Now we can talk about real issue here - how correct the trade off the court is taking between freedom of speech infringement and this law. And as you can see in original post - author there thinks this trade off was taken wrongly by the court. I, personally, think the same.

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#609

Post by heavyset_go »

bobalob wrote: post #450
kennywinker wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

Many? You mean less than 1%[1]?

> Overall, 33% underwent transmasculine procedures and 67% transfemenine procedures. The prevalence of regret among patients undergoing transmasculine and transfemenine surgeries was

That's less than the regret rate for life saving surgeries lol

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/

Re: Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

#610

Post by cryptonector »

Tadpole9181 wrote: post #502
Aerroon wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet that in practice, at scale, these zero knowledge proofs end up being a lot more than zero. Not to mention that you're almost certainly going to have to tie this stuff to specific accounts that will then forever and ever keep your habits collected. One day somebody enterprising is going to add all that data together too.

VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis (based on packet size and timestamps) and there's almost no cure. Mullvad is the only VPN I know of that has a mode that normalizes all packets to the same size (going into the VPN) and sends fake packets that don't get sent as real traffic. But that's only obfuscation and, at low traffic or high bandwidth (videos) or with sufficient heuristics,…

> VPNs and zero knowledge proof systems are vulnerable to traffic analysis (based on packet size and timestamps) and there's almost no cure.

All comms are subject to traffic analysis except surreptitious, covert channels (which can't be covert if the implementations are widely available).

Post reply on HN