Such brave kids. What an amazing thing to do! I hope it had the desired effect, although I'm sure the bigots will find some way to spin it. I can't ever comment on anything related to this hate...
Such brave kids. What an amazing thing to do! I hope it had the desired effect, although I'm sure the bigots will find some way to spin it.
I can't ever comment on anything related to this hate group without mentioning that I am bisexual and they do not represent me. Their name is basically slander.
They're right-wing funded astroturfers. The only people they represent are their bigoted selves, and the moneyed political interests trying to use them to divide and conquer, and push through...
They're right-wing funded astroturfers. The only people they represent are their bigoted selves, and the moneyed political interests trying to use them to divide and conquer, and push through anti-trans legislation. Fuck them, and kudos to these teens.
it would be really scary to mix into the midst of a group of people who are only gathered to hate on you, to perform an action that will oust you, and all the while there isn't any sort of police...
it would be really scary to mix into the midst of a group of people who are only gathered to hate on you, to perform an action that will oust you, and all the while there isn't any sort of police or protective presence to make sure you walk out of that confrontation safely.
just before a talk on the “dangers” of medical transition.
clearly they're not there to talk about LGB issues at all. terrible people.
They don't need to. All they have to say is "Our message is so strong 'they' released a plague of locusts to shut us up." That's not even spin really, because it's what the trans activists...
I'm sure the bigots will find some way to spin it.
They don't need to. All they have to say is "Our message is so strong 'they' released a plague of locusts to shut us up." That's not even spin really, because it's what the trans activists actually wanted to achieve. And the result is everyone in their circles is paying attention to them and they attract a few undecideds.
EDIT: Per request, I have no investment in the issue of trans rights. I am a member of no trans rights or anti trans rights group or org. It's my personal view that you can choose to adopt any name, identity, and commonly accepted pronoun you want.
And more power to the activists. Bigots get what they deserve and what they deserve isn't civility, kindness, deference, or even being ignored. Not saying you said this but I am personally quite...
And more power to the activists. Bigots get what they deserve and what they deserve isn't civility, kindness, deference, or even being ignored.
Not saying you said this but I am personally quite tired of the "aren't we being a little mean to the bigots?" sentiment I see often
Some people will bend over backwards to say that no action against a hate group that wants to strip you of your legal rights is justified. Vulnerable minorities are obligated to accept the boots...
Some people will bend over backwards to say that no action against a hate group that wants to strip you of your legal rights is justified. Vulnerable minorities are obligated to accept the boots in their faces with grace until the majority feels bad enough to do something about it.
I'd just love it if comments about protests not working had to include a little note about how invested the commenter is in whether or not they will work - especially if they're invested in them...
I'd just love it if comments about protests not working had to include a little note about how invested the commenter is in whether or not they will work - especially if they're invested in them not working.
I don't think this is the heroic feat the article makes it out to be. Disrupting a conference with the intention of it being canceled, using thousands of live insects to prevent talks from being...
I don't think this is the heroic feat the article makes it out to be. Disrupting a conference with the intention of it being canceled, using thousands of live insects to prevent talks from being hosted... because the conference does not align with the activists' views? Would an article titled "anti-trans activists release 6,000 crickets at trans conference" be written in the same positive light? No, it would be rightfully condemned - as should also be done in this case.
The group released approximately 6,000 crickets [...] just before a talk on the “dangers” of medical transition [...]
Why is "dangers" in quotation marks? There are very real dangers involved with medical transition - surgery and hormones. Subreddits about trans surgery have people posting and looking for reviews on surgery doctors - because the surgeries performed on people who want to transition are complex. Not every surgery goes well, and not every issue can be rectified with follow-up surgeries.
Trivializing these dangers by putting it in quotation marks shows that - in my opinion - the article is written from the point of view where anything not strictly positive about trans surgeries is instantly negative and transphobic. This type of surgery and process calls for an especially transparent and open nature of sharing and discussing information and outcomes, since it is not something you can undo.
This ends up hurting people who are looking into transitioning when they are only exposed to positive anecdotes and feedback about transitioning - as attempts to talk about anything else (such as this conference and talk) are targeted - cancelled - and the people responsible hailed as heroes in articles like these.
If LGB Alliance was actually interested in having good faith discussions about gender affirming care and the potential issues involved in transition surgery, I might agree with you. But they are...
If LGB Alliance was actually interested in having good faith discussions about gender affirming care and the potential issues involved in transition surgery, I might agree with you. But they are not. They are a pro-conversion therapy, strictly "biological sex", anti-trans hate group that has lobbied in opposition to conversion therapy bans, and virtually all laws that further trans rights in any form. You're defending an utterly indefensible hate group that is merely masquerading as an LGB (minus the T) rights advocacy group.
I want to make it very clear that I don't defend or support the group that organised the event, as I'm not familiar with it. Rereading my comment, I don't see how I'm defending the group behind...
I want to make it very clear that I don't defend or support the group that organised the event, as I'm not familiar with it. Rereading my comment, I don't see how I'm defending the group behind the conference?
My main point stands as - very boiled down - you should not dump live insects on listeners of a conference you don't like or disagree with, especially regarding a very important topic. My comment was just looking at the action combined with the way the article handwaved the dangers of medically transitioning.
(To make it very clear again - I'm not at all defending the group's actions or stances, I did not look them up prior to commenting. Please do not think I'm supporting them simply because I disagree with the action these activists took.)
Before you condemn activists who oppose a group, especially here in ~lgbt, you really should spend at least a few minutes learning who that group actually is first. This is not a group dedicated...
Exemplary
Before you condemn activists who oppose a group, especially here in ~lgbt, you really should spend at least a few minutes learning who that group actually is first. This is not a group dedicated to rationally discussing "important topics" regarding transgender health issues. They don't believe that gender identity is even real, and they regularly harass trans people and even drag queens on social media, calling them "transexuals", "men in dresses", "male lesbians", and "cross dressers". Their CEO even does it.
But scariest of all, they lobby against trans rights in all forms, and are rather successful at it, at least in the UK where they have close ties with several Conservative MPs and the former PM, Liz Truss. They seek trans erasure from society by making it virtually impossible to transition, or get legal recognition for gender identity changes. In short, they are a hate group, plain and simple. And the comparisons of them to the KKK and neo-Nazis that others made in this topic are not actually that far off the mark.
What if they are exclusively spreading misinformation about the very important topic? The article did not do that. It only appeared that way to you because of your unfamiliarity with this group....
especially regarding a very important topic.
What if they are exclusively spreading misinformation about the very important topic?
the article handwaved the dangers of medically transitioning.
The article did not do that. It only appeared that way to you because of your unfamiliarity with this group. They were not at all referring to the dangers inherent in any medical treatment that should be considered and mitigated where possible, as those would not be discussed at that conference. They were referring to non-existent dangers that LGB Alliance believes are good reason to ban medical transition entirely.
It's like if someone was making fun of the "dangers" that Flat Earthers tout when speaking about sailing around the world. The joker isn't saying that sailing around the world isn't dangerous, they're saying that the idea of falling off the side is funny and can be dismissed without comment due to an extreme and easily apparent lack of evidence.
No, for the same reason that black teens disteupting a KKK meeting would not be covered in the same light as a meeting of the NAACP being disrupted by racist white teens. This group's positions...
Would an article titled "anti-trans activists release 6,000 crickets at trans conference" be written in the same positive light? No, it would be rightfully condemned - as should also be done in this case.
No, for the same reason that black teens disteupting a KKK meeting would not be covered in the same light as a meeting of the NAACP being disrupted by racist white teens. This group's positions are abhorrent.
This group is not talking about the dangers that you're talking about. They aren't discussing the bwst ways to find good doctors or what methods are safest. The reason "dangers" is in quotes is because the dangers they are talking about are not real. That is not to say that there aren't real dangers - those exist with any surgery - but the ones they are talking about are not real. Dangers like girls being forced to transition because they act a little tomboyish. They don't want affirming surgeries to be safer, they want them to stop happening.
It really seems like you are just extremely unfamiliar with this group. They are called the "LGB Alliance" because they want to "drop the T". They don't believe that being trans is real or that trans people should be able to participate in society. They are not interested in helping trans people.
Caelan Conrad has a pretty inflammatory channel generally but this is one of their more serious and to the point videos, if you'd like to know more about this group.
Edit: The video starts with an examination of the role that trans people have played in the pursuit of gay rights over the past century and the importance of liberation versus assimilation. It's interesting but not directly relevant to the group being discussed. If you don't want the history and just want to learn about LGB Alliance, skip to 1:27:50. There's a lot more information about the group in their 3 part series on the Gender Critical movement, but that's really long and extremely heartbreaking.
I'll edit this comment to be more comprehensive (I should sleep and I can't watch the video now), but I wanted to thank you for being the only one who considered that I could just unfamiliar with...
I'll edit this comment to be more comprehensive (I should sleep and I can't watch the video now), but I wanted to thank you for being the only one who considered that I could just unfamiliar with the group (you're right!). I do not support or defend them ot their stances at all, I simply didn't look them up and wrote my comment based on the activists' action and the way the article dismissed transition dangers.
Honestly I'm a bit surprised people are jumping at me for supporting the group when it was not at all what I intended or even wrote. :-/ I suppose not explicitly denouncing them is being interpreted as support?
This is probably the crux of the issue. Because you did not know about the group, you assumed good-faith. You assumed they would talk about real dangers. Therefore, when the article dismissed the...
the way the article dismissed transition dangers.
This is probably the crux of the issue. Because you did not know about the group, you assumed good-faith. You assumed they would talk about real dangers. Therefore, when the article dismissed the dangers they planned to talk about, you assumed the article was dismissing real dangers. This group does not act in good faith. They were never going to talk about real dangers, they were going to talk about fake ones. The article treated those dangers with exactly the gravity that they are due, which is none.
Because you believed real dangers were being dismissed, you had reasonable concerns. Even a horrible group should be allowed to talk about real danger, right? You wouldn't walk into a burning building just because the person who pulled the fire alarm is a Nazi. But since no real danger was goi g ti be discussed, nothing of value was lost by this disruption, so your entire comment was just, I'm sorry to be blunt, wrong. It was missing critical context.
The issue is not that you didn't explicitly denounce them, its that you did explicitly say that they had something worthwhile to say, which they do not.
it's a'ight, we can't all be up on all the latest bits of who's using the cover of a legit group to do a bunch of shady awful nonsense. You didn't know, and you gave the group a fair "oh hold on"...
it's a'ight, we can't all be up on all the latest bits of who's using the cover of a legit group to do a bunch of shady awful nonsense. You didn't know, and you gave the group a fair "oh hold on" evaluation -- that's exactly why this specific group is hiding behind the LGB name, and why others like "focus on the family" or "Home School Legal Defense Association" or those dumb deceptive legislature acts have names that sound positive. Kudos to you for admitting to not be familiar, and great job @GenuinelyCrooked for assuming the best and explaining the issue in a cool headed manner. Sorry you got "jumped", but hopefully you'll extend the same good-faith to other members who didn't know you were genuinely asking, and perhaps speaking from a place of sensitivity, reacted assuming you were a troll.
You received a strong negative push back on the internet because the behavior you exhibited is unfortunately common rhetoric for people who are transphobic, queerphobic, racist, sexist, etc. to...
Honestly I'm a bit surprised people are jumping at me for supporting the group when it was not at all what I intended or even wrote. :-/ I suppose not explicitly denouncing them is being interpreted as support?
You received a strong negative push back on the internet because the behavior you exhibited is unfortunately common rhetoric for people who are transphobic, queerphobic, racist, sexist, etc. to employ. It's colloquially known as "just asking questions" or JAQ for short, and it's a bad-faith approach to debate where people's only purpose is to cast doubt on someone else's argument or points they are making, often by open-hand waving away replies and raising amorphous concerns about issues which can seem legit or real in the abstract but fall apart upon close consideration.
For example, the statement that these surgeries are dangerous is objectively true. But it's also true that driving your car is extremely dangerous. In fact, driving your car is objectively more dangerous than undergoing any of these surgeries (anywhere from 10 to 500x more likely to be killed by a car than bottom surgery), yet these two are not often compared. In fact, when comparing common surgeries that people are likely to undergo in their lives, there are plenty of surgeries which happen reasonably regularly (certainly more often than gender affirming surgeries), such as heart valve replacements, which have much higher mortality rates and the overall mortality from gender affirming procedures in non-trans healthcare is higher too, because more cis people have gender affirming procedures than trans. Perhaps most importantly, however, is just how life saving gender affirming care can be for trans individuals which have shockingly high suicide rates and how those rates plummet when people get access to the care they need. More than 40% of adult transgender people have attempted suicide, and these numbers drop to normal levels when you look at people who got access to medical care. Even an extremely dangerous surgery would still reduce the overall mortality rate for individuals who were planning on killing themselves, a point often overlooked and dismissed by those not familiar with healthcare for transgender individuals.
To continue this point, you also talk about the worry of people researching these procedures because they are interested in transitioning and how they may be exposed only to positive anecdotes. As someone who has regularly spent time in and moderated spaces where these discussions happen, it is absolutely not all roses and flowers - many people share their negative outcomes and experiences and I cannot imagine someone entering any of these spaces and not running across these comments. In the abstract you make a good point, but you do not have the experience or knowledge to make this point and if you had spent more time in the community, or with experts, you'd realize quickly that this is simply not the case. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the fact that you cannot get these surgeries without talking with a surgeon, and there are ethical requirements when it comes to surgery boards in most countries, which involve talking about the potential issues and this is an extremely regular part of discussions that happen when one consults with a surgeon.
To be clear, I don't mean for any of this to sound like an attack on you. My hope is that by sharing this explanation and walking you through some of the details of why people could perceive this negatively can help you to understand where the push back comes from. In general, I'd suggest that for issues in which you don't have experience or know people directly affected by this issue and have talked in depth with them, to be cautious about sharing your thoughts online as some of your concerns may have been thoroughly discussed already by the groups which you are concerned about. Doing a little bit of research before making a comment can make it much more obvious as to whether you're unintentionally contributing to a pervasive problem (the stigmatization of minority groups) or contributing to an ongoing conversation. For what it's worth, I'm glad you are concerned about the health and safety of trans people.
Suppose this were a neo-Nazi or KKK meeting. And to make the analogy closer to reality, suppose it was in a universe where neo-Nazis/the KKK had significant public support in the US, to the point...
I don't think this is the heroic feat the article makes it out to be. Disrupting a conference with the intention of it being canceled, using thousands of live insects to prevent talks from being hosted... because the conference does not align with the activists' views?
Suppose this were a neo-Nazi or KKK meeting. And to make the analogy closer to reality, suppose it was in a universe where neo-Nazis/the KKK had significant public support in the US, to the point where they dominated many state governments and had substantial representation in Congress. How would you feel about this stunt in that climate?
Not the person you're replying to, but I know what my reaction would be: to ask, "How does this help good overcome evil?" Personally, I'd be afraid that pulling a stunt to disrupt the meeting has...
Not the person you're replying to, but I know what my reaction would be: to ask, "How does this help good overcome evil?"
Personally, I'd be afraid that pulling a stunt to disrupt the meeting has a lot of potential downsides without a whole lot of upside. I'm not saying they were wrong to protest, or that every action in life has to have an attached cost/benefit analysis. What I'm saying is that I'm trying to do a cost/benefit analysis because that's my habit, and I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a long-term benefit.
Maybe I'm underestimating the value of raising social awareness? Or maybe I'm overly pessimistic about propagandists twisting the stunt into an argument for the other side?
The strongest argument I can come up with for the stunt is that it sends a message—"We will not be silenced"—where doing something that could get you in trouble is an integral part of the message.
As the teens involved are the ones directly impacted by the harm done by this group, I'm more than happy to let them take the lead. All action does not have to be methodologically perfect to be...
As the teens involved are the ones directly impacted by the harm done by this group, I'm more than happy to let them take the lead. All action does not have to be methodologically perfect to be worth doing.
if someone joins the Klan because they're driven out of town and they feel bad for them, that person was already sympathetic to the Klan.
There's also dangers with hormonal birth control. There's dangers with basically everything we do. There's dangers with NOT transitioning. Let people decide for themselves. The science seems to...
There's also dangers with hormonal birth control. There's dangers with basically everything we do.
There's dangers with NOT transitioning.
Not every surgery goes well, and not every issue can be rectified with follow-up surgeries.
Let people decide for themselves. The science seems to say this is safer and more effective than forcing people to conform to gender ideologies.
It’s a heroic feat because those who have been voiceless in all this discussion and questioning of trans kids gave themselves a voice: the trans kids themselves. This is the best of protest.
It’s a heroic feat because those who have been voiceless in all this discussion and questioning of trans kids gave themselves a voice: the trans kids themselves. This is the best of protest.
You have since been educated about this group so I'm reading this now with that knowledge. Imagine saying this now, about the far right marches or the Klan or any other hate group. Because...
This ends up hurting people who are looking into transitioning when they are only exposed to positive anecdotes and feedback about transitioning - as attempts to talk about anything else (such as this conference and talk) are targeted - cancelled - and the people responsible hailed as heroes in articles like these.
You have since been educated about this group so I'm reading this now with that knowledge. Imagine saying this now, about the far right marches or the Klan or any other hate group. Because shouldn't we hear them and their reasonable beliefs out?
Also, transition surgery has a lower regret rate than knee replacement so, I would love to see all this energy there.
Unless you are utterly unfamiliar with the things the "LGB Alliance" advocates for and the rhetoric it uses, this comment is absolutely vile. The LGB Alliance exists to strip trans people of our...
Unless you are utterly unfamiliar with the things the "LGB Alliance" advocates for and the rhetoric it uses, this comment is absolutely vile. The LGB Alliance exists to strip trans people of our legal rights. They are a hate group. They're not having a good faith discussion about the pros and cons of medical transition and any potential complications thereof (those discussions do happen in trans spaces, for what it's worth). The LGB Alliance want to ban medical transition, and their goal is the elimination of trans people.
EDIT: Not deleting any of my initial comment for transparency, but I can see from your other comments that you were indeed unfamiliar with the LGB Alliance. That's honestly really reassuring to me, as I don't want Tildes to be a place where people who would honestly support them feel comfortable commenting in ~lgbt. I would recommend in the future looking up information about any group that claims to address trans issues critically (especially if they claim to focus on "the dangers" in any way -- those who know much about medical transition in the UK and Europe more widely know there's if anything far too many safeguards when it comes to the actual medical risks), as it generally becomes extremely clear that they are anti-trans hate groups upon reading what they actually believe and stand for. For instance, the LGB Alliance has done no shortage of political activism that reveals their true colors. Hate groups like this deliberately try to get uninformed people to ignorantly defend them without realizing the full depths of what they advocate for.
I just want to point out that this is a narrative spun by anti-trans groups, which is partly why it isn't taken seriously. In reality trans communities do talk about the risks and dangers. For...
This ends up hurting people who are looking into transitioning when they are only exposed to positive anecdotes and feedback about transitioning
I just want to point out that this is a narrative spun by anti-trans groups, which is partly why it isn't taken seriously. In reality trans communities do talk about the risks and dangers.
For example if you went to the trans surgeries subreddit you'll find plenty of images, discussion, and venting about failures and mistakes, as well as a lot of people expressing fears and giving advice on how to prepare for messy recoveries.
Such brave kids. What an amazing thing to do! I hope it had the desired effect, although I'm sure the bigots will find some way to spin it.
I can't ever comment on anything related to this hate group without mentioning that I am bisexual and they do not represent me. Their name is basically slander.
They're right-wing funded astroturfers. The only people they represent are their bigoted selves, and the moneyed political interests trying to use them to divide and conquer, and push through anti-trans legislation. Fuck them, and kudos to these teens.
it would be really scary to mix into the midst of a group of people who are only gathered to hate on you, to perform an action that will oust you, and all the while there isn't any sort of police or protective presence to make sure you walk out of that confrontation safely.
clearly they're not there to talk about LGB issues at all. terrible people.
They don't need to. All they have to say is "Our message is so strong 'they' released a plague of locusts to shut us up." That's not even spin really, because it's what the trans activists actually wanted to achieve. And the result is everyone in their circles is paying attention to them and they attract a few undecideds.
EDIT: Per request, I have no investment in the issue of trans rights. I am a member of no trans rights or anti trans rights group or org. It's my personal view that you can choose to adopt any name, identity, and commonly accepted pronoun you want.
And more power to the activists. Bigots get what they deserve and what they deserve isn't civility, kindness, deference, or even being ignored.
Not saying you said this but I am personally quite tired of the "aren't we being a little mean to the bigots?" sentiment I see often
What's the alternative, though? This group has had a lot pf successes in making life significantly and unnecessarily harder for trans people.
Some people will bend over backwards to say that no action against a hate group that wants to strip you of your legal rights is justified. Vulnerable minorities are obligated to accept the boots in their faces with grace until the majority feels bad enough to do something about it.
I'd just love it if comments about protests not working had to include a little note about how invested the commenter is in whether or not they will work - especially if they're invested in them not working.
Absolutely agreed there.
I don't think this is the heroic feat the article makes it out to be. Disrupting a conference with the intention of it being canceled, using thousands of live insects to prevent talks from being hosted... because the conference does not align with the activists' views? Would an article titled "anti-trans activists release 6,000 crickets at trans conference" be written in the same positive light? No, it would be rightfully condemned - as should also be done in this case.
Why is "dangers" in quotation marks? There are very real dangers involved with medical transition - surgery and hormones. Subreddits about trans surgery have people posting and looking for reviews on surgery doctors - because the surgeries performed on people who want to transition are complex. Not every surgery goes well, and not every issue can be rectified with follow-up surgeries.
Trivializing these dangers by putting it in quotation marks shows that - in my opinion - the article is written from the point of view where anything not strictly positive about trans surgeries is instantly negative and transphobic. This type of surgery and process calls for an especially transparent and open nature of sharing and discussing information and outcomes, since it is not something you can undo.
This ends up hurting people who are looking into transitioning when they are only exposed to positive anecdotes and feedback about transitioning - as attempts to talk about anything else (such as this conference and talk) are targeted - cancelled - and the people responsible hailed as heroes in articles like these.
If LGB Alliance was actually interested in having good faith discussions about gender affirming care and the potential issues involved in transition surgery, I might agree with you. But they are not. They are a pro-conversion therapy, strictly "biological sex", anti-trans hate group that has lobbied in opposition to conversion therapy bans, and virtually all laws that further trans rights in any form. You're defending an utterly indefensible hate group that is merely masquerading as an LGB (minus the T) rights advocacy group.
I want to make it very clear that I don't defend or support the group that organised the event, as I'm not familiar with it. Rereading my comment, I don't see how I'm defending the group behind the conference?
My main point stands as - very boiled down - you should not dump live insects on listeners of a conference you don't like or disagree with, especially regarding a very important topic. My comment was just looking at the action combined with the way the article handwaved the dangers of medically transitioning.
(To make it very clear again - I'm not at all defending the group's actions or stances, I did not look them up prior to commenting. Please do not think I'm supporting them simply because I disagree with the action these activists took.)
Before you condemn activists who oppose a group, especially here in ~lgbt, you really should spend at least a few minutes learning who that group actually is first. This is not a group dedicated to rationally discussing "important topics" regarding transgender health issues. They don't believe that gender identity is even real, and they regularly harass trans people and even drag queens on social media, calling them "transexuals", "men in dresses", "male lesbians", and "cross dressers". Their CEO even does it.
But scariest of all, they lobby against trans rights in all forms, and are rather successful at it, at least in the UK where they have close ties with several Conservative MPs and the former PM, Liz Truss. They seek trans erasure from society by making it virtually impossible to transition, or get legal recognition for gender identity changes. In short, they are a hate group, plain and simple. And the comparisons of them to the KKK and neo-Nazis that others made in this topic are not actually that far off the mark.
What if they are exclusively spreading misinformation about the very important topic?
The article did not do that. It only appeared that way to you because of your unfamiliarity with this group. They were not at all referring to the dangers inherent in any medical treatment that should be considered and mitigated where possible, as those would not be discussed at that conference. They were referring to non-existent dangers that LGB Alliance believes are good reason to ban medical transition entirely.
It's like if someone was making fun of the "dangers" that Flat Earthers tout when speaking about sailing around the world. The joker isn't saying that sailing around the world isn't dangerous, they're saying that the idea of falling off the side is funny and can be dismissed without comment due to an extreme and easily apparent lack of evidence.
No, for the same reason that black teens disteupting a KKK meeting would not be covered in the same light as a meeting of the NAACP being disrupted by racist white teens. This group's positions are abhorrent.
This group is not talking about the dangers that you're talking about. They aren't discussing the bwst ways to find good doctors or what methods are safest. The reason "dangers" is in quotes is because the dangers they are talking about are not real. That is not to say that there aren't real dangers - those exist with any surgery - but the ones they are talking about are not real. Dangers like girls being forced to transition because they act a little tomboyish. They don't want affirming surgeries to be safer, they want them to stop happening.
It really seems like you are just extremely unfamiliar with this group. They are called the "LGB Alliance" because they want to "drop the T". They don't believe that being trans is real or that trans people should be able to participate in society. They are not interested in helping trans people.
Caelan Conrad has a pretty inflammatory channel generally but this is one of their more serious and to the point videos, if you'd like to know more about this group.
Edit: The video starts with an examination of the role that trans people have played in the pursuit of gay rights over the past century and the importance of liberation versus assimilation. It's interesting but not directly relevant to the group being discussed. If you don't want the history and just want to learn about LGB Alliance, skip to 1:27:50. There's a lot more information about the group in their 3 part series on the Gender Critical movement, but that's really long and extremely heartbreaking.
I'll edit this comment to be more comprehensive (I should sleep and I can't watch the video now), but I wanted to thank you for being the only one who considered that I could just unfamiliar with the group (you're right!). I do not support or defend them ot their stances at all, I simply didn't look them up and wrote my comment based on the activists' action and the way the article dismissed transition dangers.
Honestly I'm a bit surprised people are jumping at me for supporting the group when it was not at all what I intended or even wrote. :-/ I suppose not explicitly denouncing them is being interpreted as support?
This is probably the crux of the issue. Because you did not know about the group, you assumed good-faith. You assumed they would talk about real dangers. Therefore, when the article dismissed the dangers they planned to talk about, you assumed the article was dismissing real dangers. This group does not act in good faith. They were never going to talk about real dangers, they were going to talk about fake ones. The article treated those dangers with exactly the gravity that they are due, which is none.
Because you believed real dangers were being dismissed, you had reasonable concerns. Even a horrible group should be allowed to talk about real danger, right? You wouldn't walk into a burning building just because the person who pulled the fire alarm is a Nazi. But since no real danger was goi g ti be discussed, nothing of value was lost by this disruption, so your entire comment was just, I'm sorry to be blunt, wrong. It was missing critical context.
The issue is not that you didn't explicitly denounce them, its that you did explicitly say that they had something worthwhile to say, which they do not.
Honestly the fact that the "LGB" group was discussing transition at all should raise multiple red flags.
it's a'ight, we can't all be up on all the latest bits of who's using the cover of a legit group to do a bunch of shady awful nonsense. You didn't know, and you gave the group a fair "oh hold on" evaluation -- that's exactly why this specific group is hiding behind the LGB name, and why others like "focus on the family" or "Home School Legal Defense Association" or those dumb deceptive legislature acts have names that sound positive. Kudos to you for admitting to not be familiar, and great job @GenuinelyCrooked for assuming the best and explaining the issue in a cool headed manner. Sorry you got "jumped", but hopefully you'll extend the same good-faith to other members who didn't know you were genuinely asking, and perhaps speaking from a place of sensitivity, reacted assuming you were a troll.
You received a strong negative push back on the internet because the behavior you exhibited is unfortunately common rhetoric for people who are transphobic, queerphobic, racist, sexist, etc. to employ. It's colloquially known as "just asking questions" or JAQ for short, and it's a bad-faith approach to debate where people's only purpose is to cast doubt on someone else's argument or points they are making, often by open-hand waving away replies and raising amorphous concerns about issues which can seem legit or real in the abstract but fall apart upon close consideration.
For example, the statement that these surgeries are dangerous is objectively true. But it's also true that driving your car is extremely dangerous. In fact, driving your car is objectively more dangerous than undergoing any of these surgeries (anywhere from 10 to 500x more likely to be killed by a car than bottom surgery), yet these two are not often compared. In fact, when comparing common surgeries that people are likely to undergo in their lives, there are plenty of surgeries which happen reasonably regularly (certainly more often than gender affirming surgeries), such as heart valve replacements, which have much higher mortality rates and the overall mortality from gender affirming procedures in non-trans healthcare is higher too, because more cis people have gender affirming procedures than trans. Perhaps most importantly, however, is just how life saving gender affirming care can be for trans individuals which have shockingly high suicide rates and how those rates plummet when people get access to the care they need. More than 40% of adult transgender people have attempted suicide, and these numbers drop to normal levels when you look at people who got access to medical care. Even an extremely dangerous surgery would still reduce the overall mortality rate for individuals who were planning on killing themselves, a point often overlooked and dismissed by those not familiar with healthcare for transgender individuals.
To continue this point, you also talk about the worry of people researching these procedures because they are interested in transitioning and how they may be exposed only to positive anecdotes. As someone who has regularly spent time in and moderated spaces where these discussions happen, it is absolutely not all roses and flowers - many people share their negative outcomes and experiences and I cannot imagine someone entering any of these spaces and not running across these comments. In the abstract you make a good point, but you do not have the experience or knowledge to make this point and if you had spent more time in the community, or with experts, you'd realize quickly that this is simply not the case. Perhaps more importantly, however, is the fact that you cannot get these surgeries without talking with a surgeon, and there are ethical requirements when it comes to surgery boards in most countries, which involve talking about the potential issues and this is an extremely regular part of discussions that happen when one consults with a surgeon.
To be clear, I don't mean for any of this to sound like an attack on you. My hope is that by sharing this explanation and walking you through some of the details of why people could perceive this negatively can help you to understand where the push back comes from. In general, I'd suggest that for issues in which you don't have experience or know people directly affected by this issue and have talked in depth with them, to be cautious about sharing your thoughts online as some of your concerns may have been thoroughly discussed already by the groups which you are concerned about. Doing a little bit of research before making a comment can make it much more obvious as to whether you're unintentionally contributing to a pervasive problem (the stigmatization of minority groups) or contributing to an ongoing conversation. For what it's worth, I'm glad you are concerned about the health and safety of trans people.
There are dangers to surgery. Full stop.
LBG Alliance is not an activist group any more than White Power Skinheads are.
Suppose this were a neo-Nazi or KKK meeting. And to make the analogy closer to reality, suppose it was in a universe where neo-Nazis/the KKK had significant public support in the US, to the point where they dominated many state governments and had substantial representation in Congress. How would you feel about this stunt in that climate?
See also: is it OK to punch a Nazi?
Not the person you're replying to, but I know what my reaction would be: to ask, "How does this help good overcome evil?"
Personally, I'd be afraid that pulling a stunt to disrupt the meeting has a lot of potential downsides without a whole lot of upside. I'm not saying they were wrong to protest, or that every action in life has to have an attached cost/benefit analysis. What I'm saying is that I'm trying to do a cost/benefit analysis because that's my habit, and I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a long-term benefit.
Maybe I'm underestimating the value of raising social awareness? Or maybe I'm overly pessimistic about propagandists twisting the stunt into an argument for the other side?
The strongest argument I can come up with for the stunt is that it sends a message—"We will not be silenced"—where doing something that could get you in trouble is an integral part of the message.
As the teens involved are the ones directly impacted by the harm done by this group, I'm more than happy to let them take the lead. All action does not have to be methodologically perfect to be worth doing.
if someone joins the Klan because they're driven out of town and they feel bad for them, that person was already sympathetic to the Klan.
There's also dangers with hormonal birth control. There's dangers with basically everything we do.
There's dangers with NOT transitioning.
Let people decide for themselves. The science seems to say this is safer and more effective than forcing people to conform to gender ideologies.
It’s a heroic feat because those who have been voiceless in all this discussion and questioning of trans kids gave themselves a voice: the trans kids themselves. This is the best of protest.
You have since been educated about this group so I'm reading this now with that knowledge. Imagine saying this now, about the far right marches or the Klan or any other hate group. Because shouldn't we hear them and their reasonable beliefs out?
Also, transition surgery has a lower regret rate than knee replacement so, I would love to see all this energy there.
Unless you are utterly unfamiliar with the things the "LGB Alliance" advocates for and the rhetoric it uses, this comment is absolutely vile. The LGB Alliance exists to strip trans people of our legal rights. They are a hate group. They're not having a good faith discussion about the pros and cons of medical transition and any potential complications thereof (those discussions do happen in trans spaces, for what it's worth). The LGB Alliance want to ban medical transition, and their goal is the elimination of trans people.
EDIT: Not deleting any of my initial comment for transparency, but I can see from your other comments that you were indeed unfamiliar with the LGB Alliance. That's honestly really reassuring to me, as I don't want Tildes to be a place where people who would honestly support them feel comfortable commenting in ~lgbt. I would recommend in the future looking up information about any group that claims to address trans issues critically (especially if they claim to focus on "the dangers" in any way -- those who know much about medical transition in the UK and Europe more widely know there's if anything far too many safeguards when it comes to the actual medical risks), as it generally becomes extremely clear that they are anti-trans hate groups upon reading what they actually believe and stand for. For instance, the LGB Alliance has done no shortage of political activism that reveals their true colors. Hate groups like this deliberately try to get uninformed people to ignorantly defend them without realizing the full depths of what they advocate for.
I just want to point out that this is a narrative spun by anti-trans groups, which is partly why it isn't taken seriously. In reality trans communities do talk about the risks and dangers.
For example if you went to the trans surgeries subreddit you'll find plenty of images, discussion, and venting about failures and mistakes, as well as a lot of people expressing fears and giving advice on how to prepare for messy recoveries.