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.
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 iseveryone in their circles is paying attention to them and they attract a few undecideds.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 iseveryone in their circles is paying attention to them and they attract a few undecideds.
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.
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.
There are dangers to surgery. Full stop.
LBG Alliance is not an activist group any more than White Power Skinheads are.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.