←back to thread

693 points macawfish | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
al_borland ◴[] No.44544145[source]
All these ID check laws are out of hand. Parents are expecting the government, and random websites, to raise their kids. Why would anyone trust some random blog with their ID?

If these laws move forward (and I don’t think they should), there needs to be a way to authenticate as over 18 without sending picture of your ID off to random 3rd parties, or giving actual personal details. I don’t want to give this data, and websites shouldn’t want to shoulder the responsibility for it.

It seems like this could work much like Apple Pay, just without the payment. A prompt comes up, I use some biometric authentication on my phone, and it sends a signal to the browser that I’m 18+. Apple has been adding state IDs into the Wallet, this seems like it could fall right in line. The same thing could be used for buying alcohol at U-Scan checkout.

People should also be able to set their browser/computer to auto-send this for single-user devices, where it is all transparent to the user. I don’t have kids and no one else’s uses my devices. Why should I need to jump through hoops?

replies(36): >>44544207 #>>44544209 #>>44544223 #>>44544253 #>>44544375 #>>44544403 #>>44544619 #>>44544667 #>>44544797 #>>44544809 #>>44544821 #>>44544865 #>>44544875 #>>44544926 #>>44545322 #>>44545574 #>>44545686 #>>44545750 #>>44545798 #>>44545986 #>>44546467 #>>44546488 #>>44546759 #>>44546827 #>>44547088 #>>44547591 #>>44547777 #>>44547788 #>>44547799 #>>44547881 #>>44548019 #>>44548400 #>>44548482 #>>44548740 #>>44549467 #>>44560104 #
VBprogrammer ◴[] No.44545322[source]
The slippery slope from here to banning under 18s looking at websites discussing suicidal thoughts, transgender issues, homosexually and onto anything some group of middle age mothers decide isn't appropriate seems dangerously anti-fallacitical.
replies(10): >>44545586 #>>44545590 #>>44545647 #>>44546175 #>>44546345 #>>44546880 #>>44547031 #>>44547319 #>>44547627 #>>44548721 #
cmilton ◴[] No.44545647[source]
While I completely understand the slippery slope concept, we ban all kinds of things for under 18s based on morals. Why couldn't these be any different? How else does a society decide as a whole what they are for or against. Obviously, there should be limits.
replies(4): >>44545805 #>>44546491 #>>44548089 #>>44548622 #
afavour ◴[] No.44545805[source]
The question is always “whose morals”. I think society as a whole is in agreement that minors are better off without access to pornography, for example. But the arrangement OP is outlining is one where a minority are able to force their morality on a broader population that doesn’t agree with it.
replies(3): >>44545909 #>>44548858 #>>44564597 #
lelanthran ◴[] No.44545909[source]
You might be wrong there. While the majority does not oppose homosexual relationships they are against affirmative transgender treatments for minors.
replies(3): >>44545985 #>>44546048 #>>44546539 #
kennywinker ◴[] No.44545985[source]
Yes, but since when do we allow the majority to dictate what healthcare options are available?

The mode for treating trans kids is puberty blockers until they’re 18 and then they can choose their own treatment - but that pathway is being blocked by more and more laws and fear mongering about kids being transitioned against their will

replies(3): >>44546052 #>>44546103 #>>44546402 #
bobalob[dead post] ◴[] No.44546052{6}[source]
[flagged]
wredcoll ◴[] No.44546193{7}[source]
> Many later detransition

[Citation needed]

replies(2): >>44546269 #>>44546443 #
Manuel_D ◴[] No.44546443{8}[source]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039393/

All the studies among gender dysphoric children who are not prescribed puberty blockers show desistence rates over 70%

There are studies that show very low desistence rates - many in the single digits. But those are studies among children that are given puberty blockers.

replies(1): >>44547317 #
heavyset_go ◴[] No.44547317{9}[source]
You're citing a paper the Alliance for Defending Freedom regularly uses[1] to support the conspiracy theory that doctors are "turning gay kids trans". The study itself uses criteria for gender dysphoria that's been outdated for decades.

Here's what more reliable studies from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the largest professional group of pediatricians in the country, say[2]:

> Gender Identity 5 Years After Social Transition

> We found that an average of 5 years after their initial social transition, 7.3% of youth had retransitioned at least once. At the end of this period, most youth identified as binary transgender youth (94%), including 1.3% who retransitioned to another identity before returning to their binary transgender identity. A total of 2.5% of youth identified as cisgender and 3.5% as nonbinary. Later cisgender identities were more common among youth whose initial social transition occurred before age 6 years; their retransitions often occurred before age 10 years.

[1] https://downloads.regulations.gov/ED-2022-OCR-0143-141953/at...

[2] https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e20210...

replies(2): >>44547430 #>>44558621 #
Manuel_D ◴[] No.44547430{10}[source]
> The study itself uses criteria for gender dysphoria that's been outdated for decades.

The study uses the DSM-III and DSM-IV criteria for gender incongruence disorder, or GID, now referred to as gender dysphoria. The sample ranges from 1989 to 2002 and those were the contemporary iterations of the DSM. The DSM-V wasn't published until 2013. At most the criteria is outdated by one decade, not "several decades". Furthermore, the author of the study would later write the criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM-V. The criteria are not particularly different, and the author of the study I linked has stated in interviews that most of the sample would meet the criteria for gender dysphoria under the DSM-V (which, again, he wrote so this opinion should carry some weight). In short, the idea that if the psychologists had used the DSM-V the results would be substantially different is not likely.

And this isn't just one study that found low rates of persistence:

> In Green (47), the percentage of persisters was 2% (total n = 44; Mean age at follow-up, 19 years; range, 14–24); in Wallien and Cohen-Kettenis (52), the percentage of persisters was 20.3% (total n = 59; Mean age at follow-up, 19.4 years; range, 16–28); and in Steensma et al. (51), the percentage of persisters was 29.1% (total n = 79; Mean age at follow-up, 16.1 years; range, 15–19). Across all studies, the percentage of persisters was 17.4% (total N = 235), with a range from 0 to 29.1%.3

Are all these other studies finding low rates of persistence also tainted in some way?

The study you linked is among a group that were treated with an affirming model of care, where cross sex gender identity is actively encouraged, and a sizeable chunk of the sample were put on puberty blockers. This comports with what I have written: when gender dysphoric children are met with an affirming model of care and given gender affirming care, very few of them desist in their cross-sex gender identity. When they given a neutral, observational model of care not not prescribed puberty blockers, the majority of them desist. The study you linked just reinforces the former but does nothing to disprove the latter.

replies(1): >>44547487 #
1. heavyset_go ◴[] No.44547487{11}[source]
Doctors denying someone's sexual orientation or gender identity is not "neutral", it's akin to attitudes and methods used in conversion therapy.

Look, if you want to debate your theory of contagious trans-ness, you should be open about that from the get-go.

replies(1): >>44547596 #
2. Manuel_D ◴[] No.44547596[source]
Attempting to equate watchful waiting with conversion therapy is a bad faith attempt to discredit the evidence that without active affirmation, most gender dysphoria patients desist after going through natal puberty.

What are you going on about "contagious trans-ness"? Gender dysphoria isn't spread by a bacterial or viral infection. I have no idea what you mean by "contagious". The second sentence reads like a total non-sequitur.