Transphobia is just repackaged homophobia

[hammerofglass]

I mean, other than the voting one I think those limits should all be eliminated or at least reduced to sixteen. I don't know anyone IRL who obeyed them, especially 21 for alcohol. Just a waste of everyone's time to keep them in place.

You do realize, that this is also an arguement to abolish a lot of laws like, say, traffic or environmental laws, right? Laws are there to enforce a desired state (defined by the law), not a statement of fact. The breach of laws, doesn't justify their abolishment, it's a justification to improve enforcement.

If those laws are enforced evenly to everyone I don't see the connection. It's the rules for some but not for others I have a problem with.

[hammerofglass]

I may get skewered but, that last line is my personal concern. Getting your gender changed is not like putting on a new jacket. If someone is too young to vote, too young to drink, and too young to fight for your country. How then are they old enough to make a life altering decision this big?

I think my one line in the sand is wait till you are 18 and an adult.

Did you not know if you were a boy or a girl before 18?

Did I have the right to smoke a cigarette?

You want to unlock life altering choices at a young age why pick and choose? If they are too young to make that kind of decision they are too young. If they are not then they are not on any of them. You can't just say 'this particular issue is important to me so make an exception'.

I mean, other than the voting one I think those limits should all be eliminated or at least reduced to sixteen. I don't know anyone IRL who obeyed them, especially 21 for alcohol. Just a waste of everyone's time to keep them in place.

<Raises Hand> I did not smoke till 19 and in the Air Force. Did not drink till 21, and in the Air Force. Never fired a gun till 18 and, yes in the Air Force.

Now I am curious why you feel voting should wait but other things should be at 16?

Wait, why 18 for guns? Isn't the rule for those still twelve for a hunting license? I've seen scaled down .22s for six year olds to learn on, although that's pushing it even for me (learned at 10).

Good point, voting should be 16. That was inconstent.

[Nealithi]

Wait, why 18 for guns? Isn't the rule for those still twelve for a hunting license? I've seen scaled down .22s for six year olds to learn on, although that's pushing it even for me (learned at 10).

Good point, voting should be 16. That was inconstent.

Guns was not a legal thing. I had no use for a gun, nor did my parents. So it did not come up till I was in basic training.

Now that you are consistent, why 16? What makes this number more appropriate that the other?

[hammerofglass]

Wait, why 18 for guns? Isn't the rule for those still twelve for a hunting license? I've seen scaled down .22s for six year olds to learn on, although that's pushing it even for me (learned at 10).

Good point, voting should be 16. That was inconstent.

Guns was not a legal thing. I had no use for a gun, nor did my parents. So it did not come up till I was in basic training.

Now that you are consistent, why 16? What makes this number more appropriate that the other?

They're all arbitrary numbers with no connection to actual maturity level beyond the whims of whoever wrote which law, so might as well standardize at the lowest in current use if we're not going to get rid of them altogether.

If we set things to when I personally think someone is a mature adult they'd all be set at 33, which is beyond silly as an actual rule.

[Nealithi]

Wait, why 18 for guns? Isn't the rule for those still twelve for a hunting license? I've seen scaled down .22s for six year olds to learn on, although that's pushing it even for me (learned at 10).

Good point, voting should be 16. That was inconstent.

Guns was not a legal thing. I had no use for a gun, nor did my parents. So it did not come up till I was in basic training.

Now that you are consistent, why 16? What makes this number more appropriate that the other?

They're all arbitrary numbers with no connection to actual maturity level beyond the whims of whoever wrote which law, so might as well standardize at the lowest in current use if we're not going to get rid of them altogether.

If we set things to when I personally think someone is a mature adult they'd all be set at 33, which is beyond silly as an actual rule.

23 is not beyond silly. Silly was someone honestly and earnestly saying that teen pregnancy falls off dramatically at 25.
I think a legal adult should have all adult privileges at the same time they get all adult responsibilities. Now 16 is not expected to work a full time job nor maintain their own domicile. But at 18 they are. Hence where my line would be. And yes I would say lower the drinking age to 18.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

So, here's the thing.

1. At most ages, for children, transitioning amounts to a change of name, outfit, and haircut.
2. If children truly are too young to know what gender they are, then logically all children should be put on puberty blockers until they turn 18, because puberty does something irreversable to your body.
3. What's more likely the case is that people just believe children are too young to know their trans, but somehow not too young to know they are cis. Which brings me back to the "repackaged homophobia" angle. People would claim that children were "Too young to know" when they expressed that they were gay, or bisexual, or ace, but nobody ever claims the children are too young to know they are straight.
4. Even if kids were getting sex reassignment surgery, which they aren't, that surgery has a lower regret rate than friggin knee surgery.

[hammerofglass]

So back to original topic: I'm about a quarter of the way into Judith Butler's "Who's Afraid of Gender" and that's the main thing it's about. The gross oversimplification from the preface is that the people saying these things have gay rights, trans rights, feminism, and race mixing/birthrates/"Great Replacement" all mushed into one evil boogeyman in their head of "gender ideology" which is considered too hazardous to actually know anything about lest you be infected with dangerous ideas, so they don't really make a distinction.

Lot more to it obviously, it's 350 pages long and information dense.

[ProfessorDetective]

So back to original topic: I'm about a quarter of the way into Judith Butler's "Who's Afraid of Gender" and that's the main thing it's about. The gross oversimplification from the preface is that the people saying these things have gay rights, trans rights, feminism, and race mixing/birthrates/"Great Replacement" all mushed into one evil boogeyman in their head of "gender ideology" which is considered too hazardous to actually know anything about lest you be infected with dangerous ideas, so they don't really make a distinction.

Lot more to it obviously, it's 350 pages long and information dense.

So, "heresy", in the Warhammer sense.

[hammerofglass]

So back to original topic: I'm about a quarter of the way into Judith Butler's "Who's Afraid of Gender" and that's the main thing it's about. The gross oversimplification from the preface is that the people saying these things have gay rights, trans rights, feminism, and race mixing/birthrates/"Great Replacement" all mushed into one evil boogeyman in their head of "gender ideology" which is considered too hazardous to actually know anything about lest you be infected with dangerous ideas, so they don't really make a distinction.

Lot more to it obviously, it's 350 pages long and information dense.

So, "heresy", in the Warhammer sense.

I mean a lot of it is coming from the Vatican and Evangelical networks, so that's pretty on the nose.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]