[Pants-of-dog]

It wouldn't be deceptive or tricky to have a straight forward debate about gender roles like all of the West was doing in the sixties and seventies.

It is deceptive and tricky to say that all of these other genders exist which don't exist and to never put forward any effort into unpacking everything that it entails. It is also a bit odd because no one wants to talk about the depths that biological gender influences physical reality.

For instance, the universality by which men are more likely to be violent criminals or the way in which they dominate the chess world in spite of it being a purely mental sport are very much things worth discussing, and they are also very much things influenced by the biological reality of having testosterone and a masculine mental profile... but no one wants to discuss it, and that is never the talking point.

But you have a point: is it really necessarily fair to say that the media, academia, etc., are being deceptive? What if they are just bad at being objective and this isn't intentional?

In that regard, sure, I am not so heavily committed to the idea of saying that it is all perpetrated through willful deception.

However, to assert that dozens of genders exist without unpacking them or pointing to some real, actual basis seems... like a bad take on reality.

And when people say that this is science, and elites say this is science, and Bill Nye says this is science, I think they are actually being deceptive.

ii. I think traditional gender roles also shifted from generation to generation, but never shifted as extremely as they have now. I think there are natural changes in how we perceive the relationships between men and women, and the role of women within the household.

I also think it is entirely excusable to say that these would have to change a lot because of the fundamental shift in the division of labor.

But these are things that all operate in the male/female basic concept of gender and labor. I think these don't have that much to do with the topic at hand of non-binary.

All of what you have written here is irrelevant.

You claimed that elites in academia and the media were tricking people.

I pointed out that people do not need to be tricked in order to give up outdated traditional gender roles.

None of what you have written addresses my point.

And it doesn't matter to me if you agree, either. It's about restoring people to sanity.l

No, it is about ending discrimination against non binary people.

It is commonly said that conservative Republican people do not act int heir self interest by voting Republican.

No one acts in their self-interest by convincing themselves they're pangender or non-binary.

Actually, people do act in their self interest when they express themselves honestly and accept themselves for who they are.

... But why would this campaign have to be paid for if the bulk of people involved are in agreement? And this is not even an organized campaign.

If you make a gender studies department an LGBTQ related sociology department, what do you think those people are going to do with their free time? And what will result when we have plenty of kids learning these things for decades?

A whole wing of people in society that believe these things.

And, of course, it will also result in well funded PACs and other organizations, right, but that's beyond the point. There's actually a good video from Mass Resist that talks about how the LGBTQ movement has not been grassroots for a long time, and there really is a lot of money involved in it, but that isn't what I am here to say.

I am here only to say that the bias does exist, and that these people do advocate for this because it is what they are ideologically committed to.

There doesn't have to be a meaningful material sacrifice when the bulk of people have been brought onto this over the decades through education.

Are you now dismissing your own argument about how media and academia tricked everyone?

Good. That argument sucked and made no sense.

You are being really obtuse here, POD:

They are deceiving themselves int he same sense that it is said that Christians deceive themselves by convincing themselves of the truth of the Gospels. It's a turn of phrase -- not a complicated discussion about psychological realities.

Great.

You have gone from insulting all non binary people to insulting mem all non binary people, and religious people.

But you still have no argument.

——————————

Sure but then trans people are insisting that they live in the body of the wrong gender and want to live the gender role opposite to their biological sex.

And you really expected people to believe you were ignorant to these fundamental contradictions in non binary, trans and feminist ideas?

How are these contradictions?

—————————

@Godstud @Pants-of-dog

Pull back for a moment and look at what Verve (and I for that matter) are saying.

We do not contend that any INDIVIDUAL who presents him/herself as "binary"

Here is what Gender-Wiki describes as Non-binary:

Have an androgynous (both masculine and feminine) gender identity, such as androgyne.
Have an identity between male and female, such as intergender.
Have a neutral or unrecognized gender identity, such as agender, neutrois, or most xenogenders.
Have multiple gender identities, such as bigender or pangender.
Have a gender identity which varies over time, known as genderfluid.
Have a weak or partial connection to a gender identity, known as demigender.
Are intersex and identify as intersex, know as amalgagender
Have a culturally specific gender identity which exists only within their or their ancestor's culture.

Some states have allowed a "no-gender" response on official documents.

FULL STOP

Is this supposed to be an argument or rebuttal to anything?

Now lets talk about the medical community. The medical community has far harder decisions to make about gender assignment than does a group of people trying to be "inclusive". Lee as a private citizen could, and does, simply say "what's it to me?" Let them be whatever they want to be. BUT....

If any one of those above presents to a medical/mental health professional the situation changes. Using trans people as an example (because POD is incapable of understanding the above it would appear) the practitioner is called upon to make profound medical choices for/with his patient. The powerful drugs required to transition someone from one sex to the other are not over the counter. These drugs not only affect secondary sexual traits but also are powerfully psychoactive drugs too. Giving a woman testosterone without careful medical and psychiatric care can be fatal.

Changing sex assignment in children is particularly disturbing for the practitioner. We see parents presenting children for gender reassignment treatment long before that child can make an informed decision for themselves. And this in the face of the clinical evidence which concludes that most gender dysphoria resolves itself to birth gender by the age of 18 medically untreated.

So for a practitioner the question is not what to "believe". It is what to do. Sometimes 'nothing' is the correct answer. Sometimes 'I don't know' is the correct answer. Always referring the patient to an expert is what to do when the physician is out of his comfort zone. But look at the above. Many of these are so vanishingly rare that there really aren't experts. That is not to say that there are not physicians who will not treat. It is to say that they are treating on a belief or political position and not on good science. For me that is the very definition of a scam.

This thread is based upon the posting of one individual but it is not a bad example. Why? Because all patients presenting with these issues are individuals. One thing is clear. The physicians he was dealing with began treatment without sufficient science on the subject or reliable psychiatric care for this individual. And it led to a train wreck. Of course it did.

So practitioners must not shoot from the hip about this nor should they simply accede to the whims of their patient no matter how passionately they insist. ALL of these individuals should be presumed to have serious underlying psychiatric issues and referred for treatment. That is what the APA says to do. That is what any reasonable practitioner would do. Are these real things or made up? Doesn't matter. It may be "cool" to call yourself an androgyne but is it scientifically supportable? Or is it a treatable mental disorder? To reject the later simply because it is not trendy is unscientific and could lead not only to an unhappy mentally ill patient but could lead others to misdiagnose themselves.

At the end of the day, people are free to call themselves whatever they like. They are free to act out however they like providing that they do not harm themselves or others. But when they bang into the medical community it is the science that takes over and not the politician or some ad hoc support group. There is the very real possibility that any of the above are treatable conditions with the "cure" leading to the patient dropping the very notion that they are "that" and resuming their biologically determined identity. How do we know? Because it happens in the majority of early presentation gender dysphoria. That's how.

Am I supposed to read this?

[Drlee]

Am I supposed to read this?

No. It has big words and adult themes.

[Ter]

After a lengthy post from Verv, who obviously invested time and effort in it,

POD said :

All of what you have written here is irrelevant.

Is this supposed to be an argument or rebuttal to anything?

How are these contradictions?

Am I supposed to read this?

Demeaning, acting superior, ridiculing.
That more or less sums up POD's posting style.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sometimes people use a lot of words to say nothing.

Is there something I missed?

[Zionist Nationalist]

[Drlee]

Is there something I missed?

You say you did not read it and ask us to spoon-feed it to you?

Read it and offer your objections or just ignore it. Do not ask us to chew your food for you.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, thanks.

I am not going to read a long rant that may or may not have an actual argument in it that I have to parse for you. As far as I can tell, it is simply a biased description of what the medical practitioners deal with when presented with non binary people.

I did read the part that you did specifically address to me. It contained no argument or rebuttal at all. In fact, it looked like you accidentally ended a sentence halfway through.

[Drlee]

Careless at best. Intellectually dishonest at worst.

[Pants-of-dog]

Let’s start with the part you specifically addressed to me:

@Godstud @Pants-of-dog

Pull back for a moment and look at what Verve (and I for that matter) are saying.

We do not contend that any INDIVIDUAL who presents him/herself as "binary"

Here is what Gender-Wiki describes as Non-binary:

Have an androgynous (both masculine and feminine) gender identity, such as androgyne.
Have an identity between male and female, such as intergender.
Have a neutral or unrecognized gender identity, such as agender, neutrois, or most xenogenders.
Have multiple gender identities, such as bigender or pangender.
Have a gender identity which varies over time, known as genderfluid.
Have a weak or partial connection to a gender identity, known as demigender.
Are intersex and identify as intersex, know as amalgagender
Have a culturally specific gender identity which exists only within their or their ancestor's culture.

Some states have allowed a "no-gender" response on official documents.

FULL STOP

And even more specifically. This sentence:

“We do not contend that any INDIVIDUAL who presents him/herself as "binary" ”

Did you mean to continue that sentence so that it makes an actual argument or rebuttal?

Other than that, this part of your post contains only a definition and the statement that some states allow some freedom in their paperwork. Neither of these are arguments or rebuttals, so I am assuming that the incomplete sentence was supposed to provide that.

[Zionist Nationalist]

From now I identify as a drone
now Im transdronist
see I have invented a new gender

[Drlee]

And even more specifically. This sentence:

“We do not contend that any INDIVIDUAL who presents him/herself as "binary" ”

Did you mean to continue that sentence so that it makes an actual argument or rebuttal?

Don't make me start correcting your spelling or your grammar. As cartertonian once said, "Leave no chink in your armor."

[Pants-of-dog]

@Drlee

You literally wrote half of a sentence and forgot to include an argument.

[Verv]

All of what you have written here is irrelevant.

You claimed that elites in academia and the media were tricking people.

I pointed out that people do not need to be tricked in order to give up outdated traditional gender roles.

None of what you have written addresses my point.

I think we are at a semantics impasse so I'll drop the semantics.

It's best to say that they are not tricking people because it requires some amount of speculation as to the motives, and it should also be certain to people that there are some who actually believe the narrative themselves. And just like how a lie requires the intentionality to lie, deception requires intentionality unless we are talking about self-deception.

I've actually insisted several times that it is a subtle play about self-deception to refer to this as a scam, and you are unwilling to drop the point but insist on the more narrow definition of what a scam is.

So, I think we should drop the point because you fail to use language here conventionally and insist that I am committing grave errors by not addressing it in more narrow, specific terms.

I'd also point out that I came in to defend the initial usage of "scam" here and to explain that it is a broader definition of it. It is used in a more literary sense than a technical sense.

You are making a mockery of the English language by trying to "win this debate' or whatever through narrowing definitions and focusing on how we are failing to meet some standard within the narrow definition.

No, it is about ending discrimination against non binary people.

No, it's about restoring people to sanity.

(I can respond just as tersely and pointlessly to your points.)

Actually, people do act in their self interest when they express themselves honestly and accept themselves for who they are.

Should someone who is chronically lazy or suffers from intense paranoia simply accept their disordered lifestyle and come up with a complex series of rationalizations for it, and force us all to assent to them point by point?

Are you now dismissing your own argument about how media and academia tricked everyone?

This would go back to a lot of what I just said above.

Great.

You have gone from insulting all non binary people to insulting mem all non binary people, and religious people.

But you still have no argument.

This is doubling down on being obtuse.


You are pretending that I can't talk about a thing abstractly and that I am actually making a new series of statements.

You are impossible to talk with, yet the only leftist here who bothers to actually argue point for point. I'm stuck in a vortex of semantics because of it. But I must continue.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's best to say that they are not tricking people because it requires some amount of speculation as to the motives, and it should also be certain to people that there are some who actually believe the narrative themselves. And just like how a lie requires the intentionality to lie, deception requires intentionality unless we are talking about self-deception.

I've actually insisted several times that it is a subtle play about self-deception to refer to this as a scam, and you are unwilling to drop the point but insist on the more narrow definition of what a scam is.

So, I think we should drop the point because you fail to use language here conventionally and insist that I am committing grave errors by not addressing it in more narrow, specific terms.

I'd also point out that I came in to defend the initial usage of "scam" here and to explain that it is a broader definition of it. It is used in a more literary sense than a technical sense.

You are making a mockery of the English language by trying to "win this debate' or whatever through narrowing definitions and focusing on how we are failing to meet some standard within the narrow definition.

Please stop focusing on vocabulary and defned the argument that there is deception (of any sort, at this point) involved.

No, it's about restoring people to sanity.

(I can respond just as tersely and pointlessly to your points.)

That would be nice, actually.

Anyway, the non binary movement is about ending discrimination. It has nothing to do with changing the mind of die hard conservatives. Some people will never change their minds, and it is a waste of effort to try or care about it.

At that point, it just makes sense to avoid them altogether and just make it impossible or difficult for these guys to impose thier bigotry on others.

The struggle for equality is not about the feelings of the oppressors, but about the freedom of the oppressed,

Should someone who is chronically lazy or suffers from intense paranoia simply accept their disordered lifestyle and come up with a complex series of rationalizations for it, and force us all to assent to them point by point?

Loaded questions are logical fallacies, so I will ignore this.

Do you agree that someone who is a musical genius and loves music would be acting in their self interest if they decided to contradict the wishes of their music-hating family?

This would go back to a lot of what I just said above.

So, yes, you are abandoning the argument that academia and the media trucked everyone.

This is doubling down on being obtuse.

You are pretending that I can't talk about a thing abstractly and that I am actually making a new series of statements.

You are impossible to talk with, yet the only leftist here who bothers to actually argue point for point. I'm stuck in a vortex of semantics because of it. But I must continue.

I do not really care about this.

Every time you try to base an argument on the supposed “fact” that all trans or non binary people are either tricked or deluding themselves, then you are basing your argument on an irrational and transphobic premise.

I then point this out; that your premise is basically transphobia masquerading as a fact.

[Drlee]

"transphobia"

You seem to want to have a debate and then use a technique (hot word) specifically designed to infuriate your opponent and shame him into not debating. That is a fucked up way to win.

The word "transphobia" is meaningless in one sense and just wrong in another. What it does not do is accurately describe hardly anyone's position on this debate.

AND. You continue to speak off topic. Nobody here is talking about trans people. You are simply using this because you are incapable of discussing the subject. Or perhaps because you feel this is a subject your would rather discuss.

This is not about anyones "fear" of trans people. It is not about trans people at all. I disagree with Webster when it includes an unmodified "aversion to" or "Intolerance for" in the definition of a phobia. There are a great many things that we ought to have an aversion for and intolerance of. I could name many.

[Pants-of-dog]

"transphobia"

You seem to want to have a debate and then use a technique (hot word) specifically designed to infuriate your opponent and shame him into not debating. That is a fucked up way to win.

This excuse gets brought out iften when peoole are actually making bigoted statements.

It seems like an atrmept to vilify the person who is pointing out the bigotry, while excusing actual bigotry.

If I said that Christianity was a sham because all Christians are either deluding themselves or are too stupid to realise they are being tricked, would you consider that a reasoned argument or an example of bigotry masquerading as an argument?

The word "transphobia" is meaningless in one sense and just wrong in another. What it does not do is accurately describe hardly anyone's position on this debate.

It means bigotry and discrimination towards trans people.

Saying that ALL trans people are deluded or stupid counts.

AND. You continue to speak off topic. Nobody here is talking about trans people. You are simply using this because you are incapable of discussing the subject. Or perhaps because you feel this is a subject your would rather discuss.

The OP is an article about a man who became a woman and then became neither, and then decided it was a sham and became a favourite of transphobic conservatives.

The prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry faced by trans people is pretty much the same as that affecting non binary people.

If you are going to focus on my supoosed confusion, please note that this “confusion” is shared by everyone including the person mentioned in the OP.

This is not about anyones "fear" of trans people. It is not about trans people at all. I disagree with Webster when it includes an unmodified "aversion to" or "Intolerance for" in the definition of a phobia. There are a great many things that we ought to have an aversion for and intolerance of. I could name many.

If you think transphobia has nothing to do with how these kinds of articles are weaponised against trans people, okay.

I disagree.

[Verv]

Please stop focusing on vocabulary and defned the argument that there is deception (of any sort, at this point) involved.

But then you did not understand my position.

I would not then choose to describe what is going on as deception in the sense of willingly deceiving people except in some very nuanced, unproveable form...

That is to say, my statement would be something like some of the LGBTQ advocates embrace non-binary because it is expeditious but they do not actually believe it meaningfully exists. I am sure some amount believe it exists, but others are cynically using it.

Moreover, it'd also often be used something like a wedge like the Michael Brown incident: it doesn't actually matter to people what the circumstances surrounding Michael Brown's murder is, it is just a wedge for furthering the narrative. And this is how it is with Non-Binary in the context of the current year sexuality debates.

Do you see my point?

Anyway, the non binary movement is about ending discrimination. It has nothing to do with changing the mind of die hard conservatives. Some people will never change their minds, and it is a waste of effort to try or care about it.

At that point, it just makes sense to avoid them altogether and just make it impossible or difficult for these guys to impose thier bigotry on others.

The struggle for equality is not about the feelings of the oppressors, but about the freedom of the oppressed,

So what can you do to show people in the middle that non-binary is a real thing and not just something fabricated by strange people seeking attention -- or people who are legitimately confused?

Why is it something that also has come into existence only now?

And why are people who have participated in coming out and announcing it was a sham?

Loaded questions are logical fallacies, so I will ignore this.

Do you agree that someone who is a musical genius and loves music would be acting in their self interest if they decided to contradict the wishes of their music-hating family?

Right, some loaded questions are false dichotomies.

THis is not a 1:1 comparison.

Genders exist and they exist as we say they are.

Perhaps it would be better... Would a noise musician be right in continuing in his musical pursuit in spite of his Noise music hating family..?

when the point would be that the family hates his music which is only arguably "music."

So, yes, you are abandoning the argument that academia and the media trucked everyone.

No, I am explaining to you that it is used in the literary sense.

Like the way that one would say that "Bush tricked the people into supporting the invasion into Iraq."

In the sense that he literally intended to lie and mislead people and trick them into war, you could make an argument, sure, but the fact is that it would not be very rigorous because we cannot know the intentions of Pres. Bush.

If someone misleads people but they believe their own misled information... are they really tricking people?

Does the missionary who believe very much in Christ trick people into being Christians? No. But theoretically the cynical missionary who is seeking power tricks people into Christianity.

There's a lot of subtelty within language... and language can be used very generally.

We can say that you were tricked into believing X, but it is moreso about referring pejoratively to the means by which you were convinced than the actual intentions... Or to be cynical about the intentions, and to cast doubt on the intentions...

So, somoene is said to be tricked into voting for someone or part of some religious scam. But this is not a deep commentary on the intentions fo the people, and thus it is not a rigorous expression. ;

I do not really care about this.

Every time you try to base an argument on the supposed “fact” that all trans or non binary people are either tricked or deluding themselves, then you are basing your argument on an irrational and transphobic premise.

I then point this out; that your premise is basically transphobia masquerading as a fact.

In an abstract sense, anyone who, without a natural delusion over which the person has no control is taking place in their body that legitimately confuses the person to their identity, is deceiving/deluding themself.

But again, because a person isn't necessarily conscious of the way they are tricking themselves into a series of bad thoughts abotu something (like how a cult member might behave), it is an accurate description of the ultimate reality but not of the conventional reality upon which we rely.

You know what I mean?

Unless you confront these meta-arguments about language you aren't actually discussing anythign with me.

You're just laying some lame accusations about what I am saying and not getting the arguments that are happening.

I see that you have relented in this error a bit.

[Pants-of-dog]

But then you did not understand my position.

I would not then choose to describe what is going on as deception in the sense of willingly deceiving people except in some very nuanced, unproveable form...

So you are abandoning the deception argument. Okay.

That is to say, my statement would be something like some of the LGBTQ advocates embrace non-binary because it is expeditious but they do not actually believe it meaningfully exists. I am sure some amount believe it exists, but others are cynically using it.

Moreover, it'd also often be used something like a wedge like the Michael Brown incident: it doesn't actually matter to people what the circumstances surrounding Michael Brown's murder is, it is just a wedge for furthering the narrative. And this is how it is with Non-Binary in the context of the current year sexuality debates.

Do you see my point?

Since this is unverifiable musings about the nefarious motives of some LGBT people, this is also an unsupportable argument that you will not defend.

Okay.

So what can you do to show people in the middle that non-binary is a real thing and not just something fabricated by strange people seeking attention -- or people who are legitimately confused?

Again, I am not interested in proving that to people.

Why is it something that also has come into existence only now?

It is not. I remember debating over thirty years ago. Perhaps it is something that conservatives are only noticing now because they have been forced to address it on a widespread societal level.

And why are people who have participated in coming out and announcing it was a sham?

There are many possible reasons.

What I would like to know is why conservatives weaponise these few stories of regret against all trans and non binary people.

Right, some loaded questions are false dichotomies.

THis is not a 1:1 comparison.

Genders exist and they exist as we say they are.

Perhaps it would be better... Would a noise musician be right in continuing in his musical pursuit in spite of his Noise music hating family..?

when the point would be that the family hates his music which is only arguably "music."

This is a nearly incomprehensible word salad to me, and I am just going to say this:

Unless the actions can be shown to be self destructive, it is usually in the best interests of people to honestly express themsleves and embrace their identity.

No, I am explaining to you that it is used in the literary sense.

Like the way that one would say that "Bush tricked the people into supporting the invasion into Iraq."

In the sense that he literally intended to lie and mislead people and trick them into war, you could make an argument, sure, but the fact is that it would not be very rigorous because we cannot know the intentions of Pres. Bush.

If someone misleads people but they believe their own misled information... are they really tricking people?

Does the missionary who believe very much in Christ trick people into being Christians? No. But theoretically the cynical missionary who is seeking power tricks people into Christianity.

There's a lot of subtelty within language... and language can be used very generally.

We can say that you were tricked into believing X, but it is moreso about referring pejoratively to the means by which you were convinced than the actual intentions... Or to be cynical about the intentions, and to cast doubt on the intentions...

So, somoene is said to be tricked into voting for someone or part of some religious scam. But this is not a deep commentary on the intentions fo the people, and thus it is not a rigorous expression. ;

Tell you what, why don’t you rewrite your argument in one clear sentence. Go.

In an abstract sense, anyone who, without a natural delusion over which the person has no control is taking place in their body that legitimately confuses the person to their identity, is deceiving/deluding themself.

But again, because a person isn't necessarily conscious of the way they are tricking themselves into a series of bad thoughts abotu something (like how a cult member might behave), it is an accurate description of the ultimate reality but not of the conventional reality upon which we rely.

You know what I mean?

Unless you confront these meta-arguments about language you aren't actually discussing anythign with me.

You're just laying some lame accusations about what I am saying and not getting the arguments that are happening.

I see that you have relented in this error a bit.

If you make transphobic statements, I will call you out on it.

And you made some.

And they suck as an argument.

[Verv]

So you are abandoning the deception argument. Okay.

By incorrectly stating my position, you do not win.

I think you are used to this sort of delusion because of your high volume posts. Most people would drop these things and let you skate by with it, and let you carry on self-deluded as to whether or not you scored a point (a very topical use of the word here, IMO). But, I actually think it's important to answer you on that one.

But please explain why you think I am "abandoning" it.

As you know, the word abandon is often defined along these lines:

v. To withdraw one's support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility; desert: abandon a friend in trouble.
v. To give up by leaving or ceasing to operate or inhabit, especially as a result of danger or other impending threat: abandoned the ship.
v. To surrender one's claim to, right to, or interest in; give up entirely. See Synonyms at relinquish.

I do not see what I am doing as abandoning at all, but as clarifying that there is a difference between the literary use of language and the more narrow, precise form of it.

Indeed, I would not hold this against you so much if you weren't ironically using this word to describe me explaining how I would choose to use a more rigorous expression than deceive if I knew it was going to be so staunchly disputed.

So why don't you tell us why I am abandoning it and show how you can uphold the use of this word in a very narrow, rigorous meaning.

Let's definitely start policing everyone's posts to they are using academic language. That'll surely not be a waste of anyone's time.

Since this is unverifiable musings about the nefarious motives of some LGBT people, this is also an unsupportable argument that you will not defend.

Okay.

I assume some of this would be completely verifiable. Indeed, I imagine that you could produce such a response from a very significant amount of the LGBTQ community re: non-binary, but as it is hardly feasible that I now set out on a question to gather recordings of somewhat important LGBTQ people saying this, why not understand that this is a point that doesn't need to be discussed at length?

I will defend it by insisting that the conclusion is reasonable.

But I cannot provide empirical evidence.

It is not. I remember debating over thirty years ago. Perhaps it is something that conservatives are only noticing now because they have been forced to address it on a widespread societal level.

So you were debating non-binary gender 30 years ago?

I am sure it occurred. I remember, as a boy of 14 or 15, stumbling onto some weird part of the internet where htye talked about the existence of I believe they phrased it alternative genders and they pointed to fantastical genders created in the writings of 19th century fantasy writers and the likes. Of course, some of these were purely fantasy enthusiasts exercising their creativity, though surely some of them were just regular perverts.

I am not sure who would be who as that would also require a lot of research and, I am sure, in many instances, it wouldn't be provable one way or the other.

There are many possible reasons.

What I would like to know is why conservatives weaponise these few stories of regret against all trans and non binary people.

Because the transgender suicide rate, post-op, is not improved, and it remains to be a mental condition that results in insane levels of suicide.

MOreover, we defend the idea that it is an illness because we want to maintain our traditional gender norms.

You might as well be asking why do conservatives insist on persisting to exist...

This is a nearly incomprehensible word salad to me, and I am just going to say this:

Unless the actions can be shown to be self destructive, it is usually in the best interests of people to honestly express themsleves and embrace their identity.

Tell you what, why don’t you rewrite your argument in one clear sentence. Go.

Aw, your error is that you were unaware that Noise music is a recognized musical genre.

Noise music is a category of music that is characterised by the expressive use of noise within a musical context. This type of music tends to challenge the distinction that is made in conventional musical practices between musical and non-musical sound.[1] Noise music includes a wide range of musical styles and sound-based creative practices that feature noise as a primary aspect.

Wikipedia

You see, your error here was in the assumption that I was just talking nonsense. But you should have done a bit of research.

Perhaps the comparison will now be more understandable to you.

If you make transphobic statements, I will call you out on it.

And you made some.

And they suck as an argument.

Yet here you are, without an argument, virtue signaling, and not actually arguing.

When are we going to get some real content out of you?

[Drlee]

So what can you do to show people in the middle that non-binary is a real thing and not just something fabricated by strange people seeking attention -- or people who are legitimately confused?

Exactly. Not everything someone proclaims is a real thing. That is why these issues must be researched by medical professionals. I get that POD wants to sing protest songs with all comers. I get that he relishes in calling anyone who is skeptical of some new disease a bigot. It makes him feel righteous. People like him run the risk of empowering people to do damage to themselves. To have their potentially treatable illnesses go untreated. And hand the bill for this (illness or sophistry) to the tax payers, who for their money, get more people with more uncured misery.