Preachers of gender (outside linguistics) bring an argument in favor of gender-affirming surgery for all ages, to the effect that some studies find a low regret rate for this kind of surgery as compared to a number of other types, including body contouring. However, this is not an argument to the effect that gender propaganda is not misleading, nor is it an argument to the effect that gender propaganda is not false. I say that if there is even one person who was under 18 when she received such surgery and who now regrets it, and even one person who received it between the ages of 18 and 30 who now regrets it, then those two people were mislead by gender propaganda, and therefore, it is misleading propaganda.
As for whether it is false propaganda, the frequency argument does not address this at all. It just assumes the conclusion. I argue that gender is false on the grounds that the preachers for it have never brought an operational definition, a procedure to test for it. The same argument applies to gods (including Yaweh) and to the alleged category of “Operating Thetan” for persons. If there is no evidence for the alleged category, it should be regarded as false, because otherwise, all kinds of noise gets to invade communication and make it ineffective.
Now some of the preachers argue that gender-affirming surgery saves lives. If they think that some suicides were related to the gender concept or to whether it was affirmed via surgery, I would like them to explain their grounds for thinking the suicides would have happened had the young victims not been introduced to gender in the first place. Maybe the gender propaganda was the cause. How do we know?
I would like the pro-gender crowd to answer as to whether they think a State has a legitimate interest in limiting the severity with which a parent may abuse a child under 18. Or do they think that parents own their children and have a right to do anything they please to the child?
The preachers of gender accuse anyone who argues against gender of being “anti-trans” or “transphobic”. I would like them to make clear when they wield those terms as to whether they mean by it that I want to do physical harm to another person. I submit that dancing around that question and dogwhistling about it is dishonest and antisemantic. If you are accusing me of advocating harming a person, you should say so in clear, simple, and unambiguous terms, and then point out where in my writing I say or imply that.
Am I angry with antisemantic writers and speakers? Absolutely. In my opinion, it is a form of torture. Obviously it is not as severe a form of torture as tying someone up and cutting or burning them, but even so, it a gratuitous effort to cause mental confusion and distress in the listener/reader. I call on all to speak in straightforward and honest terms.
Read and Learn
I am told that I am illiterate and immature and that I should read about gender. Why should I invest the time? Those who say this to me must have read some of it themselves. Why can’t they recall and regurgitate even the smallest piece of evidence or logic that would give meaning to assigned gender, gender identity, or gender expression? I think they are lying and don’t know, and can’t find it, laid out in a way that makes sense, in the “literature”.
“You don’t want trans people to exist.”
What I might want or not want is irrelevant to the question of whether the gender concept (applied to people) is false and misleading propaganda (FMP). What I might want is irrelevant to the question of whether it is ever OK to subject a healthy child to surgery.
Moreover, “you don’t want trans people to exist” is ambiguous. You have chosen ambiguous language for the purpose of causing mental distress, because you are a congenital torturer. “You don’t want trans people to exist” could mean that I don’t want the term to become meaningful, which I deny, or it could mean that there are living people that I don’t want them to exist anymore, which I also deny, and whoever accuses me of that has the burden of citing a reason to think it. If in fact someone were to provide a meaningful definition of “trans”, that would make my life much simpler, so in fact I ardently desire that.
“Care”
Listen to the words you use. “Care.” Caring about someone is inconsistent with wishing mutilation on them for a social contagion. I’m not saying the law should prohibit a mature adult from having whatever she or he wants done to her or his body. But promoting the contagion to where children and their parents can be influenced by it is harmful. No child should be subjected to a risk of duplicating Chloe Cole’s experience. She was cut in childhood and her wounds were still weeping some time after she had turned 18; I don’t know her latest condition. I hope she survives for a long time and heals enough so as to avoid pain and not leak bodily fluids. You genderites are really evil for what you did to her. And now you say you have never heard her name. Fuck you.
Air Quotes
Sometimes when genderites are reviewing the statements of those who question or deny gender, the former will put up air quotes whenever the latter mention men, women, girls, or boys. This is evil. You have no right to take away our language. Men, women, boys, and girls exist and are valid subjects of conversation. Fuck all Gish imitators in the mouth.
“Trans people exist!”
All people exist. But “trans” is not a term for a category that divides the people into “trans” and “not trans”. If you think it is a term for a category, you should forthrightly say which people qualify. None of you has ever done so. Fuck you.
Turning the Conversation Against the Speaker
No gender advocate speaks honestly. You try to change the subject from the questions about the gender concept to the people arguing against you. That’s a deliberate distraction from the subject we want to bring up with you. You are the bigots here.