Something like less than 1% of trans people regret transition, and of those half of them regret it because of social costs, i.e., bigotry from transphobes, and another big chunk regret that they transitioned as binary when they were in fact non-binary or vice versa. Fundamental to your argument is the idea that we should not trust trans people about their lives or their feelings. It’s bigotry.
Whether you’re aware of it or not, your argument is disingenuous, unscientific, gaslighting propaganda pushed by bigots, and it has the direct result of harming trans people.
> Something like less than 1% of trans people regret transition
Sure, but most of the contention by far is around kids and teenagers who are kinda sorta thinking that this "trans" thing they keep hearing about in their social milieu might perhaps apply to them, and statistics align with the (eminently reasonable) expectation of higher regret rates in that restricted subgroup. It's not a simple problem, there are very real issues involved.
Could you ping me to where you see those numbers? I know data is tough to come by but the sorts of numbers I see, as someone who doesn’t follow this topic closely, are much higher:
> Such “desistance” appears to be common. At least half a dozen medical studies show that between 61% and 98% of children presenting with gender-related distress were reconciled to their natal sex before adulthood. However, all these studies looked at children with early-onset dysphoria.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. “Gender critical” people (they are not feminists) regularly harass trans people, including kids, to the point of suicide. They lobby for discriminatory legislation that makes life-saving medical care difficult or impossible to access for trans people. They are instrumental in spreading bewilderingly unscientific anti-trans propaganda with the deliberate effect of harming and demonizing trans people, with the predictable effect of inspiring more hate crimes. They organize in order to harass and abuse trans people out of employment and housing. They just straight up lie. And if you were to peruse that subreddit, you’d also see them regularly joke about lying to AFAB trans people in order to exploit them for sex because those were the “hot butches” in a way that was incredibly hateful and, honestly, pretty rapey.
These people are abusers and bigots. They’re no different than any other hate group, except that they often use the language of victimhood to cloak their primary mode of social aggression. (This is the mode of aggression that it is most acceptable for AFAB people to express, so they get really, really good at it. It has a lot in common with the dynamics of emotional abuse, and, for lack of a better term, mean girling (which is, especially after adolescence, a particularly effective form of abuse)).
So you have no idea what you’re talking about, but based on your other comments in this thread — you genuinely seem to think homosexuality is a modern invention? And that it came out of some sort of predatory behavior? — it seems this is a willful ignorance that accommodates the hate and disgust you already feel for certain minorities.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are modern inventions, yes - they first show up in the discourse of 19th c. psychology. And no, rape culture was never the province of "certain minorities", in fact it was quite widespread among those we would now (retrospectively!) identify as heterosexual. The primacy of sexual consent and of romantic, egalitarian relationships are very modern developments.
The words themselves are modern inventions, reflecting the western medicalization of the concepts, which in turn reflected bigotry — declaring something an “illness” is a great way to get people on board with eradicating it. But gay people and gay relationships existed in pretty much every society for which we have records, long before the British decided to coin a new word. (And in fact, so did trans people.)
A rose by any other name smells just as sweet, etc.
> reflected bigotry — declaring something an “illness” is a great way to get people on board with eradicating it
It's quite true that homosexuality used to be viewed like that. And yet, strange as it might seem, even that was a significant step forward from earlier perceptions of MSM which essentially were reminiscent of the Graeco-Roman model. Obviously these perceptions were also colored by bigotry, but we can see parallel changes in the discourse among male gays themselves.
Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You keep referencing talking points from ahistorical views of two societies as though they represent the entire world. I suppose to you, they do? You might be better served by reading about the world at large. Off the top of my head, Japan provides an interesting case study in views of homosexuality (and bisexuality) pre- and post- western influence.
Seriously? The older term for homosexuality in Japan literally translates as "the way of nqbyrfprag oblf" (I ROT13'd the last two words as they're IMHO likely to trigger trauma, offense, or both trauma and offense.) Some "case study" indeed! (Needless to say, the modern, Western-informed outlook now common in Japan could not be more different - but that supports my earlier point.)
Reminds me of Terry Pratchett’s Going Postal. spoiler warning
The MC is a conman, given new life and a job resuscitating the postal service after a corporation has taken over and gutted the Clacks (in-world version of the Telegraph). The MC meets the financial architect who masterminded the takeover of the Clacks and is struck with immediate recognition: this guy is just like him, only infinitely better at it. He plays three card Monty with entire companies, and the trail of destruction he leaves in his wake is massive.
If you do it with enough money, it’s not a crime anymore, it’s just business.
I would add that this can be extremely challenging (and possibly triggering) for people who had traumatic childhoods. In those cases it is best to start with loving compassion towards a beloved pet, for example — something simpler, that is not so emotionally charged.
Either way the metta instruction I’ve encountered has often failed because it failed to emphasize the sensation of emotion. It’s not lying there thinking about how much you love something. It’s thinking of the thing or person you love and trying to locate the specific sensation in your body, and then grow it.
Many people mistake ritual dissociation for meditation, which can be really really harmful.
Repeated tragedies, pain and abuse can make you lose most or even all empathy. Even as an adult.
I have some back now, but nothing like I used to be.
Someone at work was very sad the other day, and I actually felt a little bad for them. First time in several years I felt anything at all. Hopefully get more back.
I bet you will. Try to be kind to yourself as it happens. My experience is that it can be very painful — like when your leg falls asleep and then you suddenly get circulation back, but for emotions — but worth it.
Of note is the claim that Apple deliberately sabotaged his app as a negotiation tactic for the purposes of acquisition.
IANAL, but this seems bad. Even if it’s legally permissible, it’s the sort of outrage that’s both easily understood by non-technical people and hits a kind primal reflexive outrage against unfairness.
In addition, I’ve heard of this with other FAANG companies (notably Amazon). They’d likely all be vulnerable to these arguments. Proving such abuses of power might prove more difficult, though.
I feel it’s also important to remember that while apple is a monopolistic entity of great power, with billions at its disposal, it is also made up of many smaller teams, comprising of individuals who act politically, often in their own interests, to curry favour.
Loyalty, trading favours, gaining intel, earning a promotion, because I like them. Pick a reason. It doesn’t have to have much, or anything, to do with Apples strategy, or legal position. And it certainly has nothing to do with the cost of an acquisition, and the billions they have in the bank. Those details are irrelevant to the individuals involved.
It doesn’t have to be a grand conspiracy, it can be much simpler than that.
This sounds more like, “what can the xxx team do to help”, or “Jimmy from the review team said he’d throw one our way, say no more ;)”
Hallway talk and face to face meetings. Put it in an email, and it’s dangerous, only a fool would do so, and they all know that..
I have no evidence either way. Not claiming I’m right.
Yeah I think this is how things often happen. Just people being people, and using the tools available to them to get what they want. It’s the monopoly power behind it that makes it so damaging.
He didn’t present any evidence of his conspiracy theory though.
I would be willing to bet actual money that his imagined conspiracy theory didn’t exist, and that two things happened simultaneously, but without relation: scam apps existed, and Apple tried to buy him.
The notion that Apple would engage in widespread conspiracy to save a million bucks strikes me as bizarre.
Did you read the article? The claim is that Apple delayed and denied app approval while trying to acquire the app, while approving the scam apps and approving other apps that incorporated his tech.
ETA: I find the dismissive reference to “conspiracy theories” to be a little weird. It’s not as though there isn’t a rich history of abuse of monopoly power, including restricting access to market. It’s unclear why FAANG companies would be uniquely immune to such temptations.
> It’s unclear why FAANG companies would be uniquely immune to such temptations.
The risk/reward makes it seem absurdly unlikely that Apple actually did this.
1. Approving scam apps hurts Apple.
2. Approving scam apps in order to screw with a competitor hurts Apple, and would need a widespread conspiracy within the company to do it successfully.
3. There is plenty of money to be made in attacking Apple either directly through a settlement, or indirectly.
I think RileyJames’ comment provided a clear and realistic hypothesis of how Apple might come to abuse its monopoly power in this way without the sort of reasoning you assume, but it’s also probably relevant to note that Apple got caught conspiring with five major publishers to fix ebook prices largely because they had a private dinner where one of the publishing CEOs took literal notes on their conspiracy to fix prices. (Yes, really.)
Apple has been really dumb about antitrust law before. It’s not unrealistic to think they’d be dumb again. It’s not even dumb if you’ve been doing it routinely for years and only suffered consequences once or twice. Which I don’t think is unique to Apple — I think all the FAANG companies have gotten very accustomed to being able to do essentially whatever they want as long as they pay a minor fine every few years.
> Apple has been really dumb about antitrust law before. It’s not unrealistic to think they’d be dumb again. It’s not even dumb if you’ve been doing it routinely for years and only suffered consequences once or twice.
This logic might have held 5 years ago but doesn’t hold now. All the large tech companies are under heavy scrutiny and there are multiple anti-trust cases in play. The US administration appears to be anti-trust friendly, and there are hostile companies deliberately backing as many anti-trust actions as they can against Apple.
It makes no sense to imagine they would play into this for a minor discount on purchasing a trivial app.
It’s just as likely likely that a lawyer and an angry developer think it’s worth seeking a settlement in the current climate.
I agree there are hypotheses by which they could have done this but it’s bullshit to assume they must have done this.
I’m curious about why you talk about Apple as though it’s a monolithic entity making coherent decisions. Tim Cook doesn’t need to have signed off on his himself as part of a grand strategy for it to have happened, and indeed the only evidence we do have available indicates that monopoly abuse of power is a tactic Apple has deliberately used before. Even if this is, as RileyJames posits, just the head of one team asking another for a favor in pursuit of an acquisition, it speaks to the corporate culture at Apple. Regardless, given the balance of actual evidence, it seems more absurd to extend the benefit of the doubt to the corporation that has abused market power in the past.
And while I don’t know if this was deliberate or a mistake, I think the more interesting point is that even if it was a mistake it demonstrates the danger of monopoly. The problem is structural. When a company has the market dominance of the FAANG companies, abuse is inevitable.
> the only evidence we do have available indicates that monopoly abuse of power is a tactic Apple has deliberately used before.
Yes, they fell foul of anti-trust law in Ebook pricing.
> Even if this is, as RileyJames posits, just the head of one team asking another for a favor in pursuit of an acquisition,
That’s just a made up explanation. It’s not ‘evidence’.
> it speaks to the corporate culture at Apple.
There is no evidence for this at all.
Remember, it’s just something a commenter made up. It’s not information about Apple, so it can’t ‘speak to Apple’s culture’.
> Regardless, given the balance of actual evidence, it seems more absurd to extend the benefit of the doubt to the corporation that has abused market power in the past.
At least you are clear about what you are actually saying:
You are going to assume Apple is guilty of this because they violated antitrust law over ebook pricing*, and that is your only evidence.
