This is not a gotcha, I don’t know why people think this is a gotcha. RFK was assigned male at birth. The anti trans people are not exhibiting hypocrisy here, because their view is simply (if translated into the correct parlance): “People should not receive hormone replacement therapy that is contrary to the gender they were assigned at birth”.
It’s not a cool view of them to have, but there’s no hypocrisy there, especially not to them. So when your far right trans fearing relative says they hate HRT, and you say “but RFK!1!1!1”, don’t expect it to go anywhere, not because they’re an unreasonable jerk (although they probably are that, too) - but because it’s legitimately not a good argument, because it does not exemplify any contradiction in their beliefs.
This entire piece of news being presented this way is nothing but choir-preaching, and displays a serious misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the other side. The debate will never move anywhere if we remain too proud to understand our opponent’s arguments and instead delight in tearing down strawmen.
It does blatantly show that a large chunk of their stated reasons for opposing HRT (“there are no studies, we don’t know if it’s safe”, etc) are – generously – bad-faith, indefensible trash.
There’s no finding common ground with bad-faith arguments because there’s definitionally no debate there, just bigotry that you can cave to, or not. Let’s not.
because their view is simply (if translated into the correct parlance): “People should not receive hormone replacement therapy that is contrary to the gender they were assigned at birth”.
Anecdotally, I have never once heard anyone express this opinion. It’s always been hard no on any form of gender affirming care, hrt is evil, that sort of thing.
While this is CLEARLY their actual beliefs, it’s not their stated view.
Similar to “the only moral abortion is my abortion” hypocrisy.
Anecdotally, I have never once heard anyone express this opinion. It’s always been hard no on any form of gender affirming care, hrt is evil, that sort of thing.
There is no connection to them between gender affirming care and male HRT. I have yet to see anyone conceded that any ground at all on gender affirming care like hrt. They have a medical condition that needs treatment. It is not gender affirming care to them even if it is in reality. The rejection of reality allows this to be their actual beliefs.
A lot of their arguments boil down to appeals to nature. The same people who think trans kids should be forced to undergo their natal puberties have no problem altering the natural order when it comes to their own healthcare. It’s unnatural for elderly men to not have low T levels.
Hard disagree. The anti-trans crowd overlaps with the general right wing, where low T beta male removed is a common insult.
I agree that transphobic bigots do not have a consistent world view. Still, appealing to hypocrisy may have some effect, because this crowd exhibits a dichotomy where they outwardly hate people who can’t produce their own hormones “naturally” (be they trans or cis), yet themselves often seek out such products (just look at the popularity of testosterone boosting supplements).
This is not a gotcha, I don’t know why people think this is a gotcha. RFK was assigned male at birth. The anti trans people are not exhibiting hypocrisy here, because their view is simply (if translated into the correct parlance): “People should not receive hormone replacement therapy that is contrary to the gender they were assigned at birth”.
It’s not a cool view of them to have, but there’s no hypocrisy there, especially not to them. So when your far right trans fearing relative says they hate HRT, and you say “but RFK!1!1!1”, don’t expect it to go anywhere, not because they’re an unreasonable jerk (although they probably are that, too) - but because it’s legitimately not a good argument, because it does not exemplify any contradiction in their beliefs.
This entire piece of news being presented this way is nothing but choir-preaching, and displays a serious misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the other side. The debate will never move anywhere if we remain too proud to understand our opponent’s arguments and instead delight in tearing down strawmen.
Sorry, no, hard disagree.
It does blatantly show that a large chunk of their stated reasons for opposing HRT (“there are no studies, we don’t know if it’s safe”, etc) are – generously – bad-faith, indefensible trash.
There’s no finding common ground with bad-faith arguments because there’s definitionally no debate there, just bigotry that you can cave to, or not. Let’s not.
Anecdotally, I have never once heard anyone express this opinion. It’s always been hard no on any form of gender affirming care, hrt is evil, that sort of thing.
While this is CLEARLY their actual beliefs, it’s not their stated view.
Similar to “the only moral abortion is my abortion” hypocrisy.
There is no connection to them between gender affirming care and male HRT. I have yet to see anyone conceded that any ground at all on gender affirming care like hrt. They have a medical condition that needs treatment. It is not gender affirming care to them even if it is in reality. The rejection of reality allows this to be their actual beliefs.
A lot of their arguments boil down to appeals to nature. The same people who think trans kids should be forced to undergo their natal puberties have no problem altering the natural order when it comes to their own healthcare. It’s unnatural for elderly men to not have low T levels.
Hard disagree. The anti-trans crowd overlaps with the general right wing, where low T beta male removed is a common insult.
I agree that transphobic bigots do not have a consistent world view. Still, appealing to hypocrisy may have some effect, because this crowd exhibits a dichotomy where they outwardly hate people who can’t produce their own hormones “naturally” (be they trans or cis), yet themselves often seek out such products (just look at the popularity of testosterone boosting supplements).