Atheist declares there are only two sexes

[Soloist]

Just clarifying what I meant in the last post because my wife thought it sounded confusing. There are a lot of people who identify as Mennonite or Anabaptist and very few of them are on Mennonet. There are a lot of people who post there, and that’s only a subset of the population. Vast majority are female.
Feel free to post any specific study not just a survey of studies and we can dissect it and you can see why it’s flawed and why it eliminates desisted or detransitioned. Even the transgender official survey that people go off of for data requires you to identify as LGBTQ of some kind or it eliminates you. There is systemic concealment through study design and a great deal of hate if the desisted or detrans go public.
Most of these people dislike Matt Walsh, and are not Republican. Most of them are not Christian.

[Ken]

https://old.reddit.com/r/detrans/

Ken, go educate yourself with the other side for once. read a few pages of posts. Keep in mind how many Mennonites actually there are and who actually post here in perspective of detrans for scale...

Warning, this contains very graphic content and is not suitable for children and will likely be flagged on many filters.

So I went and looked. It's a bunch of anonymous reddit stuff. I'm puzzled as to what relevance you think any of it has to this discussion.

Connect the dots. What argument are you actually making?

[Soloist]

So I went and looked. It's a bunch of anonymous reddit stuff. I'm puzzled as to what relevance you think any of it has to this discussion.

Connect the dots. What argument are you actually making?

Having two threads on very similar topics is confusing. I think it was meant to be posted in the other discussion. Either way I would think it’s relevance is obvious.

[Ken]

So I went and looked. It's a bunch of anonymous reddit stuff. I'm puzzled as to what relevance you think any of it has to this discussion.

Connect the dots. What argument are you actually making?

Having two threads on very similar topics is confusing. I think it was meant to be posted in the other discussion. Either way I would think it’s relevance is obvious.

It isn't obvious to me. Spell it out. You can do so on the other thread if you want.

My point over on the other thread was that there should be a very high threshold or standard involved if we are going to ask the government to violate people's personal freedom, parental rights, and medial autonomy. Do you think the fact that there some anonymous people posting regrets about their own personal decisions on some obscure corner of reddit somehow meets that threshold?

Is that a good basis for government action? If I found a reddit forum where some anonymous people who caught COVID are posting regrets about their decision not to get vaccinated, would you consider that a compelling argument for the government to impose mandatory vaccine requirements?

[Josh]

Who said government action is required? I’d be happy to go back to 1995 and have the medical profession itself be the gatekeeper.

[Ken]

Who said government action is required? I’d be happy to go back to 1995 and have the medical profession itself be the gatekeeper.

The medical profession still is the gatekeeper. No child gets surgery without the involvement of various medical gatekeepers. Which is why it is exceedingly rare. So I guess we are in agreement and there is nothing to see here.

[HondurasKeiser]

There are a lot of things I don't want my government intervening in such as faith, artistic expression, freedom of movement, freedom of association, child rearing, choice of profession, etc. etc. And I put deeply personal questions of sexual or gender identity into that same category. I don't see it as any of the government's business.

Then why bring the government into the discussion at all?

Because as you well know, there are many people including many here believe that it is the government's business.

Point us to a comment from someone here that explicitly calls for government involvement in the issue.

[Ken]

Point us to a comment from someone here that explicitly calls for government involvement in the issue.

Here's one

[HondurasKeiser]

She wrote: "human laws are not adequate to respond."

Coupled with the last 2 lines which seem to tack in the other direction I wouldn't call that particularly explicit...but sure, "many here believe it is the government's business."

[Ken]

She wrote: "human laws are not adequate to respond."

Coupled with the last 2 lines which seem to tack in the other direction I wouldn't call that particularly explicit...but sure, "many here believe it is the government's business."

I took her to be applauding and supporting Idaho's ban on transgender care rather than criticizing it. But I guess we could do a poll and find out what people's positions actually are on this topic:

Do you support the efforts of state legislatures to restrict or prohibit transgender care?
Do you oppose the efforts of state legislatures to restrict or prohibit transgender care?

Based on the thrust of comments here I am assuming more people fall into the former camp than the latter. But I certainly could be wrong.