←back to thread

Supreme Court's ruling practically wipes out free speech for sex writing online

(ellsberg.substack.com)
693 points macawfish | 4 comments | 12 Jul 25 18:14 UTC | HN request time: 1.185s | source
Show context
al_borland ◴[12 Jul 25 18:53 UTC] 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 ◴[12 Jul 25 21:26 UTC] 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 ◴[12 Jul 25 22:13 UTC] 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 ◴[12 Jul 25 22:40 UTC] 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 ◴[12 Jul 25 22:55 UTC] 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 ◴[12 Jul 25 23:08 UTC] 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 #
Manuel_D ◴[13 Jul 25 00:23 UTC] No.44546402[source]▶
"Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers. The core issue at hand is that absent puberty blockers, somewhere between 60-80% do not persist with a cross-sex gender identity after going through their natal puberty. Psychologists attempted to predict which patients would persist in a cross sex gender identity and which would not, but they were never able to do so.

When patients are given puberty blockers, desistence rates are miniscule, in the single digits. Proponents of hormonal intervention insist that this is proof that doctors are selecting kids that would persist in a cross sex gender absent blockers. But that's hard to reconcile with psychologists previous failures to predict persistence. While they're billed as giving "time to think", it's pretty much impossible to deny that blockers are causing patients who would have desisted in their cross sex gender identity if they went through their natal puberty.

It's not just conservative American States that are changing course on blockers for children: Finland, Sweden, the UK, Italy, Denmark, and Norway have all stopped prescription of blockers in children. Plenty of other countries never allowed it in the first place.

replies(3): >>44546690 #>>44547010 #>>44547037 #
Dylan16807 ◴[13 Jul 25 02:32 UTC] No.44547010[source]▶
> "Transitioned against their will" is a very crude way of articulating the tradeoffs of prescribing puberty blockers.

That is an extremely generous interpretation. I think you're giving way too much credit to the average person that uses that argument.

Also I really have to wonder how much of that desistance is giving up versus actually being satisfied.

replies(1): >>44547043 #
Manuel_D ◴[13 Jul 25 02:38 UTC] No.44547043[source]▶
What do you mean by "giving up"? These patients have the opportunity to transition later in life. Patients were followed up with for 10+ years, well past puberty and into adulthood. The minority that persisted transitioned as adults.
replies(1): >>44547074 #
Dylan16807 ◴[13 Jul 25 02:43 UTC] No.44547074[source]▶
The initial puberty is never going to be undone. If they'd rather live with it now that it happened, then it's great that they're probably not undergoing heavy dysphoria but that doesn't mean it's zero or that this was the best outcome.
replies(2): >>44547157 #>>44548469 #
Manuel_D ◴[13 Jul 25 03:06 UTC] No.44547157[source]▶
Given the disparity in life outcomes between trans people and cis people, the idea that the desisters would have been better off transitioning is quite the bold speculation.
replies(2): >>44547639 #>>44548308 #
kennywinker ◴[13 Jul 25 07:39 UTC] No.44548308[source]▶
Seems like you’re saying “society treats trans people badly, so we should prevent people from transitioning”

Coulda said the same about homosexuality ~30 years ago. It’s a bad reason then, it’s a bad reason now.

replies(2): >>44551121 #>>44558425 #
Manuel_D ◴[13 Jul 25 15:31 UTC] No.44551121[source]▶
Again, these people are not prevented from transitioning. A minority, about 20%, do transition as adults. The rest no longer harbor desire to live as a different gender.
replies(1): >>44554616 #
seethedeaduu ◴[13 Jul 25 23:05 UTC] No.44554616[source]▶
People have explained to you previously why this claim is false, yet you keep repeating it over and over. You are counting kids with GNC behavior who never talked about transitioning themselves stopping said GNC behavior. You are also counting kids who end up repressing (some of which end up transitioning with worse outcomes years down the line). You already know this.
replies(2): >>44554768 #>>44559921 #
Manuel_D ◴[13 Jul 25 23:30 UTC] No.44554768[source]▶
Neither of the two things you asserted are true.

> You are counting kids with GNC behavior who never talked about transitioning themselves stopping said GNC behavior.

These children met the criteria for GID in the contemporary iteration of the DSM. The author of the study I linked would go on to write the criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM-V. The idea that we'd see a substantially different rate of desistence if the DSM-V was used is not likely: the author of the study has stated that most of the children would have met the criteria for gender dysphoria under the DSM-V.

> You are also counting kids who end up repressing (some of which end up transitioning with worse outcomes years down the line)

The study followed up with patients for an average of over 10 years. Do you have any actual evidence that a significant portion of desisters in this study transitioned later in life? Or are you just stating this without evidence?

People have not offered a good explanation why these rates of desistence are false. They either insist that the criteria used was wrong, or baselessly claim that desisters are repressing a desire to transition.

replies(2): >>44557165 #>>44558515 #
seethedeaduu ◴[14 Jul 25 10:46 UTC] No.44558515[source]▶
We have been saying that the DSM is a joke for years, and that you can't diagnose someone of being trans just by ticking boxes, the only way to go about it is self identification. So yeah sure, they used the DSM to diagnose and then perform conversion therapy on GNC children who never necessarily claimed to be trans, and from that they inferred that most trans kids end up "becoming cis".

> Do you have any actual evidence that a significant portion of desisters in this study transitioned later in life?

I don't have enough funds to perform such a research, maybe there exists such a paper but I have not looked for it. In general trans topics are woefully underfunded. But I know enough people that ended up desisting either due to conversion therapy or due to shame and lack of support from their family, and transitioned years afterwards (5-15+ years) after living shitty and depressing empty lives pretending to be cis.

replies(1): >>44561504 #
Manuel_D ◴[14 Jul 25 15:44 UTC] No.44561504[source]▶
For the third time, the children in the study met the same criteria that would be used to approve a child for puberty blockers. Why do you keep insisting that these children "never necessarily claimed to be trans"? Whatever "claiming to be trans" is supposed to mean, the important thing is that the study used the same criteria that would be used to approve a child for puberty blockers.

> But I know enough people that ended up desisting either due to conversion therapy or due to shame and lack of support from their family, and transitioned years afterwards (5-15+ years) after living shitty and depressing empty lives pretending to be cis.

This is called "anecdote". As I said, the claim that a sizeable chunk of desisters transition later in life is being made without evidence.

And again, with a mean followup time of over 10 years, most of the people who transitioned 5-15 years later would be counted as persisters, not desisters.

replies(1): >>44562444 #
1. seethedeaduu ◴[14 Jul 25 16:59 UTC] No.44562444[source]▶
And again, we have been saying that these criteria are stupid. You can't diagnose someone as trans unwillingly, and then be surprised that they decided to not transition. Teenagers who start hormones or blockers do so because they ask for it, because they identify themselves as trans.

> This is called "anecdote"

When you are lacking proper research all you are going to get are anecdotes. Let's not put our heads in the sand.

> with a mean followup time of over 10 years, most of the people who transitioned 5-15 years later would be counted as persisters, not desisters.

10-15 years means that you are 25-30 if you came out at 15. At that point people often self-medicate with hrt and nobody ends up knowing. The mean age of 10 years is because they tracked younger children, if you came out at 7 its unlikely that you will transition at 17 with unsupportive parents, especially back then.

replies(1): >>44564025 #
2. Manuel_D ◴[14 Jul 25 19:04 UTC] No.44564025[source]▶
No, "trans kids" don't get prescribed blockers just because they ask for it. Does a child just say one day "I'm a girl" (or boy) and then get handed blockers as they head out the door?

Of course not. There is an assessment period. They are assessed for gender dysphoria, and if diagnosed they may be prescribed puberty blockers to treat their gender dysphoria. And what is the criteria for diagnosing a patient with gender dysphoria? Whether or not you think the criteria in the DSM are effective, at the end of the day these are the criteria that would be used to approve puberty blockers. If you think these criteria erroneously include kids who aren't "trans kids" then we're approving puberty blockers for patients who aren't "trans kids".

Of course a longer follow up time is strictly better, but it's not valid to simply fill in a gap in data with whatever better suits your worldview. If a study measuring rates of detransition follows up with patients for 10 years, then patients that detransition after 10 years would not be counted. Is it valid to point to a couple anecdotes of detransition, and then claim that the study's finding are false because there's loads of people who detransitioned after 10 years? Of course not. But that's the same flawed criticism you're making here.

replies(1): >>44568477 #
3. seethedeaduu ◴[15 Jul 25 06:38 UTC] No.44568477[source]▶
> "trans kids"

Why the scarequotes? For the record I don't think I have used these two words together, but I obviously do think that kids can be trans just like anyone else, is that even debatable?

> don't get prescribed blockers

I am quoting here out of context but correct, there is no point in puberty blockers before the "natural" puberty.

> There is an assessment period. They are assessed for gender dysphoria, and if diagnosed they may be prescribed puberty blockers to treat their gender dysphoria

Sure, and we have been saying that these criteria are unscientific, inaccurate, and based on social stereotype.

> at the end of the day these are the criteria that would be used to approve puberty blockers

The difference being that teenagers who don't explicitly seek them because they don't consider themselves as trans are never considered for undergoing puberty blockers. All that study shows is what we have been saying all the time about the DSM.

> If you think these criteria erroneously include kids who aren't "trans kids" then we're approving puberty blockers for patients who aren't "trans kids".

No, because teenagers who don't consider themselves trans do not seek puberty blockers and are therefore never considered for them. The main distinguisher between trans and nontrans people is their self identification.

> Of course a longer follow up time is strictly better, but it's not valid to simply fill in a gap in data with whatever better suits your worldview. There certainly seems to be a pattern.

I don't think it's surprising or debatable that trans people who undergo conversion therapy or grow up in oppressive/conservative environments often end up repressing.

replies(1): >>44574147 #
4. Manuel_D ◴[15 Jul 25 18:10 UTC] No.44574147{3}[source]▶
For, what, the fifth time the sample in the study did express cross sex gender identity. They were trans kids, to use your terminology. A patient can't desist from a cross sex gender identity if they never expressed one in the first place. Pointing out that these patients didn't seek blockers is nonsensical since blockers weren't an option at the time. The fact of the matter is that the desisters in this study:

1. Expressed a cross-sex gender identity. They were trans kids, as you choose to term it.

2. Met the assessment criteria that would be used to approve a patient for blockers.

Yes, the desisters in the study would most likely be prescribed blockers if they went to a gender clinic that prioritized affirmation.

> The difference being that teenagers who don't explicitly seek them because they don't consider themselves as trans are never considered for undergoing puberty blockers

Again, these patients did express a cross-sex gender identity, or "consider themselves as trans" to use your language. If they never did, then they can't desist from a cross sex gender identity if they never expressed one in the first place.

> No, because teenagers who don't consider themselves trans do not seek puberty blockers and are therefore never considered for them. The main distinguisher between trans and nontrans people is their self identification.

To re-use your terminology, studies found that ~80% of the children who considered themselves trans stop considering themselves trans and become comfortable and no longer experience gender dysphoria in their cis gender after natal puberty. It seems like the root of the problem is the lack of understanding that the children in the study did "consider themselves trans", as you choose to put it.

If all you're going to do is continue to erroneously claim that the patients in this study weren't expressing a cross sex gender identity ("consider themselves trans"), or baselessly claim that the desisters are actually just repressing a trans identity then there's no value in continuing this.