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 have tried to separate the question of whether surgery on healthy children should be prohibited in State law from the question of whether gender (outside linguistics) is false and misleading propaganda (FMP). So above, I focused on the memetic question about FMP, but now let’s return for just a moment to the question of surgery on healthy children.
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.
1787regime 