Erin in the Morning

This was interesting to read but didn't pass the sniff test for me. I strongly believe there are secular trends in sexual and gender identity, and it's worth noting that the trends they discuss — real or spurious — predated the current US administration. At the same time I'm not sure I trusted this data and it seems to be misinterpreted a bit.

First, the surveys in the article are kind of odd and idiosyncratic in terms of samples, and not exactly top of the line in terms of methodology either.

Second, relatedly, the rates of non-cis-hetero endorsement are super high in some of those figures, way higher than makes any sense. The absolute rates themselves are enough to call into question anything that is said about them.

Sure enough, the article mentions that when you apply weighting, the trends disappear:

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/fact-check-no-there-is-not-a-new?ref=skeptic.com

All in all it suggests there's something about these surveys and their participants that is affecting things.

To their credit, the authors of the article mention a lot of their problems. They address the fact that not endorsing gender isn't the same thing as endorsing being trans, and they also cite the weighting issue. But they have this kindy of hand-wavy response to it that isn't really a response. The idea that weights aren't necessary or can be misleading is a ridiculous response in this kind of situation. And who cares if nonbinary-type response rates correlate 0.7 with trans…

I'll take the bait and assume that you're engaging in good faith. I hope you assume the same of me in return.

Trans healthcare is far from a settled science, and there is a lot we don't know yet. Part of the reason for this is how new this is as an area of active research, a history of science on this topic being intentionally quashed[1], and frankly the relative low numbers of trans people in general. This is all despite trans people, like all queer people, exiting in some form or another since the beginning of recorded history[2].

I assume from what you said that you're referencing the Cass Review[3], a review of current literature in the area of trans healthcare, specifically where it pertains to minors. Further review of this publication[4] has shown it to have thrown away a much data, applied inconsistent logical standards to different arguments, and based a number of conclusions on disproven fallacies such as the concept of "social contagion". Yet even then it doesn't actually make the conclusions which you've implied.

To show my biases, I myself am trans and really don't like the Cass Review. It's based on bad science and relies on many misunderstandings, but even then it is *much* more even-handed than those who use it as justification for limiting gender-affirming healthcare like to claim.

Science is awesome, it's how we understand the world around us. Frankly I'd love to understand more about the origins of what makes someone trans, how to achieve better…

Here he is citing the bible quote about stoning gay people, referring to it as "God's perfect law". I guess some people are bending over backwards to interpret this in a non-horrific way. That's fine, I guess. We've got plenty of other reprehensible things he's said. https://xcancel.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306

Here he is using innuendo to suggest we should have "took care of" trans folks like we did in the 1950s and 1960s. https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/we-must-not-posthumously-sanitize

Here he is saying abortion is worse than the holocaust. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/global-trends/us-news-abortion-worse-than-holocaust-charlie-kirks-controversial-views-re-surface-daughter-rape-baby-delivered-after-trump-ally-assassinated/articleshow/123831808.cms

Here he is saying "Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people -- that’s a fact" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-goes-unhinged-racist-rant-prowling-blacks-go-around-fun-go-target-white

Of Jasmine Crockett, he said she was "attempt[ing] to eliminate the white population in this country" https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/charlie-kirk-accuses-rep-jasmine-crockett-being-part-attempt-eliminate-white

Of Dreamers, he said "Those are the men that will go into your communities and break into your homes and rape your women, take your children"…

Another source, that I will quote from: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/kansas-sends-letters-to-trans-people

> The Legislature, the letter notes, "did not include a grace period for updating credentials," and anyone operating a vehicle without a valid credential "may be subject to additional penalties."

> Under Kansas law, driving without a valid license is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine—though first-time offenders are more likely to face a citation and fine. A conviction, however, triggers an automatic 90-day license suspension. If a person drives during that suspension, they face a charge of driving on a suspended license, which carries a mandatory minimum of five days in jail.

And according to this: https://bsky.app/profile/esqueer.net/post/3mfqa4oynxk2p

> Because of the National driver register, since their licenses are suspended, trans folks cannot move to another state and get a new license until they remove the suspension on their existing Kansas license.

> They can't even escape this by moving to another state.

It is fascinating to see how many people are projecting their own best beliefs onto Kirk, while ignoring all his worst ones. It's a reflection of how they see themselves, not of how he was as a man.

Given his comments on the Pelosi attack, it's clear that he didn't believe that people should be safe from violence for their political beliefs. Given his comments on trans people[1], it's clear that he didn't believe that they should be safe from violence for the crime of... Being trans.

He would fail to meet the standards of civility set for this thread, or for this forum.

Politics is a barrier that protects us from political violence. The worst practitioners of it know this, and act to encourage escalation that will obliterate that barrier. So far, they've been rewarded by wealth and power for their efforts.

---

[1] Charlie Kirk has called for "men to handle" trans people "the way they did in the 50s and 60s."

Is this how someone just harmlessly opening up a civil dialogue behaves?

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/this-must-stop-tpusas-charlie-kirk

> There is nothing wrong with any of the comments linked to by him in that thread, in my opinion.

Then there is no meeting of the minds that can be had.

> In my experience, this is always arrived at by some sort of absurd logic that goes "he denies that I am really a woman, and when you do that you make transgender people more like to kill themselves, therefore it is genocide" which is obviously nonsense.

What is happening right now in America is much, much worse than your strawman.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/this-is-what-transgender-eradication

If you are trying to draw a distinction between murder and using rhetoric to encourage stochastic terrorism, criminalizing existing in public, destroying social support systems, blocking access to health care, and in some cases forcible detransition, IMHO you're drawing a distinction without a difference. Both the dog-whistle _and_ the fig leaf fallback position are horrendous injustices.