The real focal point should be the moment when a falsehood is propagated by the psychiatric and medical establishment as a truth, to a degree that it becomes accepted universally, and creates a cascading chain of directly observable damage. Ideally then the origin of the lie is obscured so that the lie and the damage cannot be connected.
In the case of sex and gender, and gender fluidity and “gender reassignment” the foundational lie was in a single event, the claim that the gender reassignment at infancy of David Reimer was successful. In 1966 his penis was accidentally severed during circumcision at 22 months (a treatment for phimosis, or extremely tight foreskin) and subsequently his testicles were amputated the advice of Dr John Money who asserted that his gender could be “re-assigned” to female separate from his sex, and all would be well. In 1972 the book “Man and Woman, Boy and Girl” became a college textbook on the subject including the Reimer experiment and lie, setting the stage for a dissemination of the pseudoscience of theoretical multi-focal sex categorization:
1) assigned sex and sex of rearing
2) genital morphology
3) internal reproductive structures
4) hormonal and secondary sex characteristics
5) gonadal sex
6) chromosomal sex
In reality the childhood surgical intervention was a complete failure. Reimer, who had an intact twin brother, halted all intervention after puberty as he went into suicidal depression. At that stage “treatment” included cross-sex hormone therapy, which resulted in feminization and breast development. Reimer then chose to live as a male, going through additional surgery to remove breasts. He became married and had adopted children, but the trauma he was exposed to was too much for both him and his twin brother, who was enlisted in grotesque “gender” behavior therapy as children. In the early 2000’s his brother died of suicide, and David followed not long after.
Dr. Money generally refused to discuss the matter, though it was central to the “theoretical” underpinning of the pseudo-science of gender studies.
The ideas became immediately applied to intersex children, with routine surgical genital mutilation in infancy and early childhood undertaken to “correct” genital structure and “assign” them a gender for life. Protests of the practice began escalating as these mutilated children became adults and demanded the right to choose how they would live and present themselves when adults without forced surgical manipulation.
Th 2000’s of course would be when when clinical psychiatrists, psychologists and practitioners of gender studies, who were first exposed to the lie in their clinical training in the 70’s and 80’s, would be becoming leaders and applying the falsehoods of gender fluidity and separation of gender, sex, and so on to vulnerable populations, including as a logical consequence childhood surgical and chemical interventions to “correct” perceived “imbalance”
So we have in Dr Money/Reimer the model. An unethical researcher experimenting on infants surgically in the late 60’s, propagating the abject failure as a success; training of well-meaning professionals; becoming a unquestioned standard in clinical settings; a wake of pain, despair and suicide; protests by those affected to stop. Slow realization that the process is “experimental”, and that intervention is both unnecessary and damaging.
Until the medical and psychiatric establishment formally rejects the theory, and practice of “gender reassignment” in children, and expunges it from training and literature, and as well “gender studies” acknowledges a foundation of lies, grotesque surgical mutilation and emotional and physical abuse, there is no reason to assert anything else but that the practice, as applied to children, is anything else but sex abuse. Tavistock and it’s shuttering is merely the beginning of the expungement. The issue has to be rejected at its root, in the discredited “theories” of Money and his cohorts.
When a so-called "slippery slope argument" consists of saying that doing X makes Y more likely, I do not think that's any fallacy (eg: automatically invalid); it's just an assertion which could be right or wrong. We've seen that play out in our lives. Calling it a slippery slope "fallacy" in this case is sloppy reasoning at best. (Akin to those who speak of an "arguing from false authority fallacy" implying that we should never consult knowledgeable people, when the actual fallacy is "arguing from *false* authority".
When a "slippery slope argument" asserts that doing X automatically or always leads to Y, it's very likely on shaky grounds. That's a proper thing to question.
Of course, there remains the possibility of a strawman argument in this, by treating the first case (that doing X affects the probability of doing Y) as if the speaker had asserted the second case (that X always leads to Y), so that it's easier to attack then the real assertion.
I would take a less absolutist approach - if there are rational reasons to think that doing X substantially increases the probability of Y and Y is bad, then doing X could be unwise even if in itself it has little or no harm. That's going to be a case by case evaluation; I don't think blanket decisions based on unanchored abstractions are very useful. We need more information before deciding about a specific situation.
As an example, I think that if Black reparations are implemented by Federal or State government, it's pretty near certain that there will be strong pressure for ever more future reparations demanded for other historical wrongs. It's not inevitable, but highly likely. (Of course, the stirring for other reparations are already out there in academic and activist circles, but not yet as mainstream as Black reparations). I believe that in cases like these, there may be a legitimate slipper slope risk, as the current reparations movement constantly cites past reparations for support. Of course, the cited examples like the Japanese internment in WWII, were for smaller numbers of people who were themselves interned and for smaller sums ($20K vs $200K-$5M+). If Black reparations are paid, other groups will want to stretch the concept even further, and demand at least as much money, as the latest "precedent". That's a slippery slope.
As it happens, however, I would tend to agree with the author in regard to something like same sex marriage; I do not see that as strongly leading to today's gender mess. The major themes of "gay marriage" were that LGB people are mostly very similar to heterosexual people and that their unions deserve the same respect as heterosexual unions. There's no need to invoke post modernism, critical theory, or queer theory to make that case (and some of those would spurn the institution of marriage for anybody). Gay marriage was about expanding normalacy to bring in people who want to join in ways that are very compatible (in my view) and cause no institutional damage - rather than about trying to undermine and destroy normalacy (as queer theory advocates).
I do think our culture has made a wrong turn, but it's more about many (particularly within the college educated elites) adopting Critical Social Justice (CSJ) ideology (which seeks to overthrow liberalism), as their guiding light, than about legalizing gay marriage, which fits well with traditional liberalism.
I don't think we need to unravel every liberal initiative (like gay marriage) in order to have a saner society, but there could be some we need to deconstruct. Ah, needing the wisdom to tell which is which.
In reality the trans activists, along with their handmaidens and male supporters, are reacting to the advancement of women and girls. A dude who cross-dresses and chooses cosmetic surgery can do so and that has nothing to do with women and girls, or anyone else for that matter. Those handmaidens include many women who may call themselves feminists but they actually but hate other women and get titillated by forcing their fellow females to accommodate deranged males. Many of those women will also have sexual perversion fantasies and support drag shows in front of children. You stated in reference to bathrooms that "there had never been much of an issue." There have certainly been "issues" with men in enclosed, lonely spaces with women, including in bathrooms. The argument as I understand it is cross-dressing males are uncomfortable and fearful of their safety if going into the men's room, but apparently if a female states the same apprehension about being in a private space with a male, she's a hater. To your statement that "there's never been much of an issue," I personally experienced, decades ago, a deranged male in a dress in the women's bathroom. It's not a "gender" or "identity" bathroom/locker room, it's a private space according to sex. A dress and makeup on a male does not magically transform him into a helpless and non-aggressive being. Regardless of whether or not you believe there are "issues," each and every one of us has a right to privacy. This includes privacy vis-a-vis the opposite sex. I would support the use of taxpayer dollars to make an "identity" bathroom stall at rest stops and some other venues, but the hysterical backlash when some K-12 have done this outs the real agenda, which is not about these males (and the occasional female) and their need for safety. It's about attacking the right of females to physical privacy. I'm reminded of Jock Semple attacking Katherine Switzer for having the audacity to run in the Boston marathon in 1967, Semple being enraged that a female was participating in society, in a marathon. You can bet there were plenty of handmaidens that supported Semple trying to knock that woman back in line. The privacy war against females is just another extension of the sports war. We are going back to the days when there were few restrooms and locker rooms for females because we were expected to stay home and not participate fully in society. Back to the past.
It is hard to know how to fit trans rights into the jigsaw puzzle of other rights when we haven't completed that puzzle as yet. We seem roughly agreed that women need the same rights as men, but haven't quite figured out what that means. Take safety or privacy—since women are the physically weaker sex, and less prone to employ physical aggression or violence than men, their right to safety or privacy might need special safeguards when compared to safety or privacy for men. Consequently it might mean single-sex spaces for them are required, and maybe not needed for males. I'm not female, but I imagine if I were I would be unhappy about males in such a space.
To be practical, it hardly seems fair to sacrifice the rights of 50.3% of the population (United Nations Population Division, 2021) for the sake of 0.33% of the population (Canadian Census 2021). Rights should be universal, I agree, but as we struggle to provide them we are going to have to be pragmatic about not letting a tiny minority trample on a much larger majority.
> I believe that lawsuits for medical malpractice, which violate the NAP, will be much more effective in addressing the wrongful medicalization of children than legislation.
The only problem is that lawsuits are always retroactive whereas hopefully the law might protect children proactively from ever needing a lawsuit. IOW we should surely be guarding our children from these butchers, not just suing them after the fact.
Change will come when there are felt costs for "gender identity." Detransitioner coverage bills are one example. Lawsuits are another. The more expensive it gets to have transition, the more skeptical society will be about "gender identity." I keep saying this would all be over in a year if we could replicate the old mesothelioma class action ads for "iatrogenic harm" and "gender injury law"
After reading this overwritten and nonsensical article which was written by a self-proclaimed "transsexual woman", I'm seriously thinking about canceling my paid subscription to Reality's Last Stand. Reality this ain't.
Some say “slippery slope” in political discourse when they mean “inevitable conclusion.” 2+2=4. Four is not a “slippery slope” from the 2s. Metaphysical or Moral consequence, both in concept and action, isn’t a slippery slope. It simply follows from the premises, even if the first premise denies the conclusion will be reached in the future. So many have said “if you do X, then Y will follow.” And that’s been met with, “But we aren’t arguing for Y! You are only talking about invalid slippery slopes!” The denial is deflection for those fixed on an issue and not on its epistemic and metaphysical grounding. Y will follow, just like 4, by necessity, follows 2+2. We are severely incongruent to deny this even for libertarians and anarchists. If we violate the teleology of sex, gender, and love, that teleology doesn’t evaporate. We just end up resisting it like a stretched rubber band. To then enshrine invalid moral and invalid reasons into law and shame those who respect the teleology only tees up the consequences more quickly and with protections to continue to reach false conclusions that, yes, do harm, if not directly, on broader sociological, philosophical, scientific, relational levels. One can’t deny reality--and protect and celebrate the denial--before reality pushes back with pain and suffering. That is harm. And we are wise to be sober about it.
“Pedophiles rebranding themselves as Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) is not going to work either.”
Ah but when an adult says “If your parents don’t affirm you, I’ll be your parent,” anyone who rightly calls out the red flag gets labeled trans/homophobe by a mob.
I hate it when men like this author blithely dismisses real dangers. Yes this substack can and should present a variety of views but this is gaslighting. Who edited this piece???
"Current attempts to normalize pedophilia are encountering the same opposition as the first time they tried to infiltrate." --this is tragically in error. The trans movement is the best friend the pedophilia normalization movement has, and it's not a slippery slope fallacy. Pedos need to normalize two things: 1) children being manipulated by adults into thinking they are choosing to make decisions about their bodies that children are not in fact equipped to make, and 2) children being trained to keep secrets with other adults, consciously keeping secrets from and telling lies to their parents. The trans movement is in fact making enormous strides at both of these. There is a reason why the monsters at Prostasia and other pro-pedos hate, loathe, and despise everyone who tells the truth on the trans topic. They recognize that the pro-trans movement is the best friend their pro-rape-of-children movement ever had.
A slippery slope fallacy links un-related things. A movement normalizing children "making decisions" about their bodies and keeping secrets with other adults from their parents is directly related to a movement normalizing children "making decisions" about their bodies and keeping secrets with other adults from their parents.
Yeah, your second paragraph is basically the same point the religion–based GCs are making.
It's only a theoretical/technical fallacy. In practice what has happened has been exactly the same as a slippery slope. Guess how many people care about the distinction you're making?
For clarification, gay marriage in the US became established June 2015, less than 8 years ago, but it was established previously many times and many places - I was married in Holland in 1999, which legalized it in 1998. I had my 24th anniversary this year.
I became first aware of the promotion of drugs to block puberty (castrate) children in a conversation with Trans activist Lynn Conway in the year 2000, predating gay marriage by a decade and a half.
I was aware of “Queer Theory” evolving from the (eventually false) research and experimentation on children by Money as far back as 1986-1989, just before I moved to Europe for a decade.
Gay rights are almost completely separate from “gender” activism. Gay rights activism focused on simply recognizing that homosexuality exists, is natural, harms nobody, and should not be punished.
Transsexual activism shifted from certain legal recognitions (long predating gay marriage), to misogynistic and ultimately narcissistic focus on eliminating women as a concept differentiated from men with necessary rights, protections and language specific to their unique capability of motherhood, and unique vulnerability to sexual violence.
The only connection between gays and transsexuals is the common situation of being a “sexual minority” and therefore suffering similar ostracism. Heterosexual and gay lifestyle is more similar than gay and transsexual lifestyle.
The slippery slope may be sexual self expression but more likely will lie in the social construct of childhood. If race and gender are constructs, thus identities, why not developmental stages? If a 14yo can determine gender id and treatment, surely picking a partner is permitted. Right?
"I believe that lawsuits for medical malpractice, which violate the NAP, will be much more effective in addressing the wrongful medicalization of children than legislation. This is because lawsuits remove incentives for doctors to “do harm.” This approach may be particularly effective in states where laws are unlikely to ever change."
I agree we need lawsuits; however, the law has to allow for lawsuits.
Many detransitioners are facing an uphill battle in this regard due to statute of limitations, and due to the law relieving doctors of liability because of the experimental nature of the gender services. The medical practices cover their butts by requiring paperwork/consent forms to be signed, of course. Also judges are not experts in medicine and often defer to the "experts" in the field like the AAP and other organizations that are all captured by gender ideology, and have their boards stacked with activists. And there are activist judges.
Despite all these hurdles, I do still hope more people will have the courage & support to sue; and more law firms will have the courage to take on their cases.
The real focal point should be the moment when a falsehood is propagated by the psychiatric and medical establishment as a truth, to a degree that it becomes accepted universally, and creates a cascading chain of directly observable damage. Ideally then the origin of the lie is obscured so that the lie and the damage cannot be connected.
In the case of sex and gender, and gender fluidity and “gender reassignment” the foundational lie was in a single event, the claim that the gender reassignment at infancy of David Reimer was successful. In 1966 his penis was accidentally severed during circumcision at 22 months (a treatment for phimosis, or extremely tight foreskin) and subsequently his testicles were amputated the advice of Dr John Money who asserted that his gender could be “re-assigned” to female separate from his sex, and all would be well. In 1972 the book “Man and Woman, Boy and Girl” became a college textbook on the subject including the Reimer experiment and lie, setting the stage for a dissemination of the pseudoscience of theoretical multi-focal sex categorization:
1) assigned sex and sex of rearing
2) genital morphology
3) internal reproductive structures
4) hormonal and secondary sex characteristics
5) gonadal sex
6) chromosomal sex
In reality the childhood surgical intervention was a complete failure. Reimer, who had an intact twin brother, halted all intervention after puberty as he went into suicidal depression. At that stage “treatment” included cross-sex hormone therapy, which resulted in feminization and breast development. Reimer then chose to live as a male, going through additional surgery to remove breasts. He became married and had adopted children, but the trauma he was exposed to was too much for both him and his twin brother, who was enlisted in grotesque “gender” behavior therapy as children. In the early 2000’s his brother died of suicide, and David followed not long after.
Dr. Money generally refused to discuss the matter, though it was central to the “theoretical” underpinning of the pseudo-science of gender studies.
The ideas became immediately applied to intersex children, with routine surgical genital mutilation in infancy and early childhood undertaken to “correct” genital structure and “assign” them a gender for life. Protests of the practice began escalating as these mutilated children became adults and demanded the right to choose how they would live and present themselves when adults without forced surgical manipulation.
Th 2000’s of course would be when when clinical psychiatrists, psychologists and practitioners of gender studies, who were first exposed to the lie in their clinical training in the 70’s and 80’s, would be becoming leaders and applying the falsehoods of gender fluidity and separation of gender, sex, and so on to vulnerable populations, including as a logical consequence childhood surgical and chemical interventions to “correct” perceived “imbalance”
So we have in Dr Money/Reimer the model. An unethical researcher experimenting on infants surgically in the late 60’s, propagating the abject failure as a success; training of well-meaning professionals; becoming a unquestioned standard in clinical settings; a wake of pain, despair and suicide; protests by those affected to stop. Slow realization that the process is “experimental”, and that intervention is both unnecessary and damaging.
Until the medical and psychiatric establishment formally rejects the theory, and practice of “gender reassignment” in children, and expunges it from training and literature, and as well “gender studies” acknowledges a foundation of lies, grotesque surgical mutilation and emotional and physical abuse, there is no reason to assert anything else but that the practice, as applied to children, is anything else but sex abuse. Tavistock and it’s shuttering is merely the beginning of the expungement. The issue has to be rejected at its root, in the discredited “theories” of Money and his cohorts.
When a so-called "slippery slope argument" consists of saying that doing X makes Y more likely, I do not think that's any fallacy (eg: automatically invalid); it's just an assertion which could be right or wrong. We've seen that play out in our lives. Calling it a slippery slope "fallacy" in this case is sloppy reasoning at best. (Akin to those who speak of an "arguing from false authority fallacy" implying that we should never consult knowledgeable people, when the actual fallacy is "arguing from *false* authority".
When a "slippery slope argument" asserts that doing X automatically or always leads to Y, it's very likely on shaky grounds. That's a proper thing to question.
Of course, there remains the possibility of a strawman argument in this, by treating the first case (that doing X affects the probability of doing Y) as if the speaker had asserted the second case (that X always leads to Y), so that it's easier to attack then the real assertion.
I would take a less absolutist approach - if there are rational reasons to think that doing X substantially increases the probability of Y and Y is bad, then doing X could be unwise even if in itself it has little or no harm. That's going to be a case by case evaluation; I don't think blanket decisions based on unanchored abstractions are very useful. We need more information before deciding about a specific situation.
As an example, I think that if Black reparations are implemented by Federal or State government, it's pretty near certain that there will be strong pressure for ever more future reparations demanded for other historical wrongs. It's not inevitable, but highly likely. (Of course, the stirring for other reparations are already out there in academic and activist circles, but not yet as mainstream as Black reparations). I believe that in cases like these, there may be a legitimate slipper slope risk, as the current reparations movement constantly cites past reparations for support. Of course, the cited examples like the Japanese internment in WWII, were for smaller numbers of people who were themselves interned and for smaller sums ($20K vs $200K-$5M+). If Black reparations are paid, other groups will want to stretch the concept even further, and demand at least as much money, as the latest "precedent". That's a slippery slope.
As it happens, however, I would tend to agree with the author in regard to something like same sex marriage; I do not see that as strongly leading to today's gender mess. The major themes of "gay marriage" were that LGB people are mostly very similar to heterosexual people and that their unions deserve the same respect as heterosexual unions. There's no need to invoke post modernism, critical theory, or queer theory to make that case (and some of those would spurn the institution of marriage for anybody). Gay marriage was about expanding normalacy to bring in people who want to join in ways that are very compatible (in my view) and cause no institutional damage - rather than about trying to undermine and destroy normalacy (as queer theory advocates).
I do think our culture has made a wrong turn, but it's more about many (particularly within the college educated elites) adopting Critical Social Justice (CSJ) ideology (which seeks to overthrow liberalism), as their guiding light, than about legalizing gay marriage, which fits well with traditional liberalism.
I don't think we need to unravel every liberal initiative (like gay marriage) in order to have a saner society, but there could be some we need to deconstruct. Ah, needing the wisdom to tell which is which.
In reality the trans activists, along with their handmaidens and male supporters, are reacting to the advancement of women and girls. A dude who cross-dresses and chooses cosmetic surgery can do so and that has nothing to do with women and girls, or anyone else for that matter. Those handmaidens include many women who may call themselves feminists but they actually but hate other women and get titillated by forcing their fellow females to accommodate deranged males. Many of those women will also have sexual perversion fantasies and support drag shows in front of children. You stated in reference to bathrooms that "there had never been much of an issue." There have certainly been "issues" with men in enclosed, lonely spaces with women, including in bathrooms. The argument as I understand it is cross-dressing males are uncomfortable and fearful of their safety if going into the men's room, but apparently if a female states the same apprehension about being in a private space with a male, she's a hater. To your statement that "there's never been much of an issue," I personally experienced, decades ago, a deranged male in a dress in the women's bathroom. It's not a "gender" or "identity" bathroom/locker room, it's a private space according to sex. A dress and makeup on a male does not magically transform him into a helpless and non-aggressive being. Regardless of whether or not you believe there are "issues," each and every one of us has a right to privacy. This includes privacy vis-a-vis the opposite sex. I would support the use of taxpayer dollars to make an "identity" bathroom stall at rest stops and some other venues, but the hysterical backlash when some K-12 have done this outs the real agenda, which is not about these males (and the occasional female) and their need for safety. It's about attacking the right of females to physical privacy. I'm reminded of Jock Semple attacking Katherine Switzer for having the audacity to run in the Boston marathon in 1967, Semple being enraged that a female was participating in society, in a marathon. You can bet there were plenty of handmaidens that supported Semple trying to knock that woman back in line. The privacy war against females is just another extension of the sports war. We are going back to the days when there were few restrooms and locker rooms for females because we were expected to stay home and not participate fully in society. Back to the past.
It is hard to know how to fit trans rights into the jigsaw puzzle of other rights when we haven't completed that puzzle as yet. We seem roughly agreed that women need the same rights as men, but haven't quite figured out what that means. Take safety or privacy—since women are the physically weaker sex, and less prone to employ physical aggression or violence than men, their right to safety or privacy might need special safeguards when compared to safety or privacy for men. Consequently it might mean single-sex spaces for them are required, and maybe not needed for males. I'm not female, but I imagine if I were I would be unhappy about males in such a space.
To be practical, it hardly seems fair to sacrifice the rights of 50.3% of the population (United Nations Population Division, 2021) for the sake of 0.33% of the population (Canadian Census 2021). Rights should be universal, I agree, but as we struggle to provide them we are going to have to be pragmatic about not letting a tiny minority trample on a much larger majority.
"Will this lead to something bad?" is a damn good question and one that should be asked when making choices, both in policy and life.
> I believe that lawsuits for medical malpractice, which violate the NAP, will be much more effective in addressing the wrongful medicalization of children than legislation.
The only problem is that lawsuits are always retroactive whereas hopefully the law might protect children proactively from ever needing a lawsuit. IOW we should surely be guarding our children from these butchers, not just suing them after the fact.
Change will come when there are felt costs for "gender identity." Detransitioner coverage bills are one example. Lawsuits are another. The more expensive it gets to have transition, the more skeptical society will be about "gender identity." I keep saying this would all be over in a year if we could replicate the old mesothelioma class action ads for "iatrogenic harm" and "gender injury law"
After reading this overwritten and nonsensical article which was written by a self-proclaimed "transsexual woman", I'm seriously thinking about canceling my paid subscription to Reality's Last Stand. Reality this ain't.
Some say “slippery slope” in political discourse when they mean “inevitable conclusion.” 2+2=4. Four is not a “slippery slope” from the 2s. Metaphysical or Moral consequence, both in concept and action, isn’t a slippery slope. It simply follows from the premises, even if the first premise denies the conclusion will be reached in the future. So many have said “if you do X, then Y will follow.” And that’s been met with, “But we aren’t arguing for Y! You are only talking about invalid slippery slopes!” The denial is deflection for those fixed on an issue and not on its epistemic and metaphysical grounding. Y will follow, just like 4, by necessity, follows 2+2. We are severely incongruent to deny this even for libertarians and anarchists. If we violate the teleology of sex, gender, and love, that teleology doesn’t evaporate. We just end up resisting it like a stretched rubber band. To then enshrine invalid moral and invalid reasons into law and shame those who respect the teleology only tees up the consequences more quickly and with protections to continue to reach false conclusions that, yes, do harm, if not directly, on broader sociological, philosophical, scientific, relational levels. One can’t deny reality--and protect and celebrate the denial--before reality pushes back with pain and suffering. That is harm. And we are wise to be sober about it.
“Pedophiles rebranding themselves as Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs) is not going to work either.”
Ah but when an adult says “If your parents don’t affirm you, I’ll be your parent,” anyone who rightly calls out the red flag gets labeled trans/homophobe by a mob.
I hate it when men like this author blithely dismisses real dangers. Yes this substack can and should present a variety of views but this is gaslighting. Who edited this piece???
"Current attempts to normalize pedophilia are encountering the same opposition as the first time they tried to infiltrate." --this is tragically in error. The trans movement is the best friend the pedophilia normalization movement has, and it's not a slippery slope fallacy. Pedos need to normalize two things: 1) children being manipulated by adults into thinking they are choosing to make decisions about their bodies that children are not in fact equipped to make, and 2) children being trained to keep secrets with other adults, consciously keeping secrets from and telling lies to their parents. The trans movement is in fact making enormous strides at both of these. There is a reason why the monsters at Prostasia and other pro-pedos hate, loathe, and despise everyone who tells the truth on the trans topic. They recognize that the pro-trans movement is the best friend their pro-rape-of-children movement ever had.
A slippery slope fallacy links un-related things. A movement normalizing children "making decisions" about their bodies and keeping secrets with other adults from their parents is directly related to a movement normalizing children "making decisions" about their bodies and keeping secrets with other adults from their parents.
Yeah, your second paragraph is basically the same point the religion–based GCs are making.
It's only a theoretical/technical fallacy. In practice what has happened has been exactly the same as a slippery slope. Guess how many people care about the distinction you're making?
For clarification, gay marriage in the US became established June 2015, less than 8 years ago, but it was established previously many times and many places - I was married in Holland in 1999, which legalized it in 1998. I had my 24th anniversary this year.
I became first aware of the promotion of drugs to block puberty (castrate) children in a conversation with Trans activist Lynn Conway in the year 2000, predating gay marriage by a decade and a half.
I was aware of “Queer Theory” evolving from the (eventually false) research and experimentation on children by Money as far back as 1986-1989, just before I moved to Europe for a decade.
Gay rights are almost completely separate from “gender” activism. Gay rights activism focused on simply recognizing that homosexuality exists, is natural, harms nobody, and should not be punished.
Transsexual activism shifted from certain legal recognitions (long predating gay marriage), to misogynistic and ultimately narcissistic focus on eliminating women as a concept differentiated from men with necessary rights, protections and language specific to their unique capability of motherhood, and unique vulnerability to sexual violence.
The only connection between gays and transsexuals is the common situation of being a “sexual minority” and therefore suffering similar ostracism. Heterosexual and gay lifestyle is more similar than gay and transsexual lifestyle.
https://open.substack.com/pub/twoplustwo/p/i-identify-therefore-i-am-the-illusion provides a better rebuttal than I could. If we declare that everyone must proclaim that obviously impossible things are real on penalty of law, then we have already fallen down the slope.
The slippery slope may be sexual self expression but more likely will lie in the social construct of childhood. If race and gender are constructs, thus identities, why not developmental stages? If a 14yo can determine gender id and treatment, surely picking a partner is permitted. Right?
"I believe that lawsuits for medical malpractice, which violate the NAP, will be much more effective in addressing the wrongful medicalization of children than legislation. This is because lawsuits remove incentives for doctors to “do harm.” This approach may be particularly effective in states where laws are unlikely to ever change."
I agree we need lawsuits; however, the law has to allow for lawsuits.
Many detransitioners are facing an uphill battle in this regard due to statute of limitations, and due to the law relieving doctors of liability because of the experimental nature of the gender services. The medical practices cover their butts by requiring paperwork/consent forms to be signed, of course. Also judges are not experts in medicine and often defer to the "experts" in the field like the AAP and other organizations that are all captured by gender ideology, and have their boards stacked with activists. And there are activist judges.
Despite all these hurdles, I do still hope more people will have the courage & support to sue; and more law firms will have the courage to take on their cases.