They are like the bisexuals of the 1990s: they signal their uniqueness to get prestige without making any commitments.

What was “prestigious” about being a “homo” in the 90s? What is prestigious about being trans today? They are overwhelmingly hated all over the world for who they are, the push against that hate has been met with extreme scepticism by a lot of people.

Even in the US, THE example of “the progressive west”, the last president has claimed that if he becomes president again, he will go after all transgender healthcare…

Also, what are you implying when you say “without making any commitments”? Isn’t one of the right’s main criticisms that the changes are too permanent/not reversable? Shouldn’t you be happy that they “aren’t commiting”?

So… To me, when anyone starts taking such hormones to lactate and presents this to a child, they are not doing it as an actual woman, but they are doing it as a person who is deeply troubled…

Yeah as I have said, I have my concerns with this as well. The only thing I find a bit strange is that your concerns are about “it not being natural” which to me, is just a weird justification for anything.

And if I was a male who was lactating due to a medical condition, I would not offer it to my own baby.

And I’m not saying you should (unless maybe you are in that desert scenario or something like that). I’m just saying it’s not as “unnatural” as you might think, or rather nature can be pretty fucked up and weird in it’s own right.

Not only would it take me entirely out of my comfort zone, it wouldn’t be healthy for the baby.

Right and to me, the first one is not very important. It’s the second one that should be important, no?

But this is pure, disembodied reason thinking purely along Cause>Effect lines without the proper context of healthy human living, culture, and norms.

And this is exactly where I believe our main difference in thinking comes from.

You talk of “proper healthy human living”, “proper culture” and “proper norms” or of human behavior being “unnatural”. To me, humans have abandoned nature thousands of years ago. And in the past 100 - 200 years, we have also start to abandon virtually all traditional social norms, social structures, hierarchies, customs, culture and norms, etc.

And some people say they want to go back to “traditional society”, but first, I don’t thinkt that’s possible, and second, many just want to go back in some specific cases, but keep the rest of the progress they like, which certainly doesn’t work.

At the very least, I think that’s clearly the direction we are heading towards. Young people will keep on questioning and opposing older traditions, norms and customs, I believe simply because the world they grow up in is different to the one their parents grew up in. And I don’t think this is happening for artificial reasons as some want to claim, I believe it’s the extreme impact that our technological and scientific progress has caused, it would be unreasonable to see everything in our world radically transform, but to expect that specific customs and traditions stay the same…

I have seen that a lot of the people who voted against us were not just mistaken, but extreme in their views.

I think it’s pretty silly when people say “we are banning the nazis” when they are talking about you. I mean many do it to provoke you and piss you off while they know you are not actual nazis, but still, it’s pretty silly. But at the same time, I don’t really know how to address it, it’s just how people on the internet seem to act and you people certainly like to provoke, so you almost have to expect a reaction.

But I also actually think that guys getting their hatred out in stupid internet posts is OK. Maybe even helpful.

I don’t see how it helps anyone.It certainly doesn’t help with finding any practical solutions to any problem, it certainly doesn’t help in making the internet less toxic and it certainly doesn’t help with finding any kind of compromise or common ground between the camps. All it does is making people act more and more extreme and unappologetic on both sides.

I think anyone who is willing to start using violence for political reasons is already insane.

Yeah a lot of people say that, but EVERYONE is using violence for political reasons. The left is, the right is, and the center is using violence against both the right and the left to keep the status quo. But of course, there are different levels of violence and I think we can both agree that using random and extreme acts of violence is not only insanse, but also impratical. But I also think that at the end of the day, it’s a consequence of people being desperate and hopeless.

There’s nothing I can do to help them. They are at timebomb who will go off for some strange social or religious reason if not for a political one; they are attracted to anything that justifies a violent outburst.

Here I agree with you. But I know that fantasising all day long about violence and “finally getting revenge” while blaming “the opposite side for everything” will certainly not help. And this goes for both right wingers who are fantasysing about lining up and shooting all the trans people/leftists/sjw’s as well as all the extreme lefties who fantasise about “bringing out the guilitine” and executing all the rich people, racists and right wingers.

I think free speech is never dangerous, so I am not into censorship.

I’m not into censorship either, but I think we have a different definition of censorship. To me, moderation does not restrict free speech. One could even argue that moderation makes free speech possible.