Please mind your language and how you put your arguments across - this thread has long veered from wanting an open and respectful conversation (though it could have been worse and thank you all for trying).

Tldr: both sides believe they are morally correct and on the right side of history and can show harm that's being / been done by policies but can't agree on several issues which historically have no easy answers. Now the argument, as expected, is rotating on which side is suffering more, who is historically and at present getting censored more by which part of the media, and calling the other sides arguments 'crap'. This is not productive.

Unfortunately in this thread there has been little talk of substantively what policies or compromises could exist that accept both camps' concerns.

Sharing things like that website is not helpful to be honest. No one denies that trans people sometimes commit crimes - all people do. But a website about every crime and dog whistle headline about trans people is not journalism or anything more than fear mongering that is not helpful.

Imagine a website that is exclusively populated with headlines about crimes committed by X ethnicity, religion, immigrants or sexual orientation? A doomscrolling website with headlines of all crimes committed by gay people or women in the world? A website that only carries crimes or violence committed against trans people now or historically?

Consuming such media is not part of a healthy media diet and does not lead to constructive debate and constructive outcomes but only to embittering and hardening lines between both camps.

That said, no solution here other than, thank you all participants in this thread for trying to engage but sadly it seems to have run its course in the present format.

One substantial reason:

"Where's the liberal outrage here for unbiased and independent journalism? Why should any viewer consider the content or the narratives platformed on The Wire as gospel truth and not INDI Alliance election propaganda?"

The post is clearly disingenuous. 'Liberal outrage' is intended as trollish. For some reason the response decided to not engage with the subject, which was a lawyer / politician talking about stuff that could be of interest to lawyers.

Instead the post went ad hominem on The Wire, which while not perfect and definitely having an ideological slant in nowadays' polarised environment, is still for the most part doing real jorunalism.

Please deal with the facts and arguments, not political mudslinging.

Those links seem a little biased. The anti-semitism claim is seemingly more complicated than implied as fact - good summary here, and represents arguments on both sides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

Regarding sexism, that's not backed up by either source, and case could be made he was not modern-day progressive: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ca.collapse/feminist-questions.htm

Similar regarding racism, there are strong rebuttals online: https://jacobin.com/2022/05/marx-race-antisemitism-history-andrew-sullivan-enlightenment

Please assume the best of the poster and if it was a troll, then ignore it - no one reasonable actually believes any of that nonsense to be true. But if being charitable, the point of the post was a misguided attempt that calling an entire group mentally ill can be triggering and upsetting, especially if the evidence and science and cause and effect relating to trans people is complicated.

These are valid questions to ask. The problem is that usually those questions are asked without also acknowledging that many more cases exist that aren't as fringe or problematic where having strong trans support systems actually saves lives and prevents mental illness.

At some point this becomes a contest of which side causes or suffers more harm, and most societies seem to be struggling to cope with formulating compromises.

And the more extreme fringes of neither side seem to accept those concerns, and public debate then often becomes hostile, as this thread too seems to have become.

Nothing significant has been censored here beyond trying to stop this thread veering into transphobia by implying trans people are mentally ill, please do not imply otherwise.

But you've said what you need to and while you and others on both sides have made a few thought provoking points, and there are serious issues surround open discourse and debate around how society and policy and the medical profession should deal with it, this thread kinda proves why it's so hard: it often seems to come down to us vs them, from both camps, and anger.

Are there no commonalities between both camps, if we ignore the more extreme fringes of both, and can agree on mutual respect, acceptance and kindness? It might not solve all the issues but that does leave a lot of space in between.

You're right, this is not going anywhere and getting ridiculous... Was trying to rebut your claim that only things that could be externally seen are 'real', which taking your argument similarly would mean homosexuality is imagined unless it's expressed in some behaviour by someone.

The claims you make regarding mental illness are clearly not something that can be adequately discussed here, if your basic argument is that being trans is always a mental illness or caused by mental illness.

We can't answer here what OPs friends are going through, nor can we generalise that all trans people are like OPs friends, or that OPs account is even a fair one. So let's park this discussion, it seems to have run it's course and you've had your say and is unfortunately not constructive anymore.

Thanks for letting us know -you're right, the search seems to have broken, sorry about that. We'll get that looked into and hopefully fixed soon. In the meantime, as suggested below, please search via external engines:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Alegallyindia.com%2Fconvos%2F+

As written, that post is obviously hate speech but that seems to be the rhetorical point rather than intended as mysogyny - ie, written in the style of OP but replacing the word trans with women?

So if it is hate speech when written about women, why is it not when said about trans people?

Unless I'm misunderstanding their intent here...

Do you have evidence for that claim of a 'drastic decline'? Until 2017 at least, the Hindu population in Pakistan had been growing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan

Interesting question, why did India adopt democracy? Is that an Indian or 'Hindu' quality? And, controversially, would India have done so if it hadn't been for British occupation and repression, as well as post-enlightenment 'Western-style' education and ideas of some of its revolutionary leaders?

Is the fact that Russia as a dictatorship is nominally a Christian state relevant? Or that China is a anti-religious? Religion is only one aspect of power and history and accident, it's rarely the totality as you seem to imply.

Your last paragraph is not an example of bona fide, and most of your arguments are straw men, so would argue as moderator that this thread has run its course and you're trolling now.

Just like homosexuality, fluid genders, transgenderism and transexualism exists in animals too: https://daily.jstor.org/transgender-proclivities-in-animals/

And if homosexuality can be proven by external behaviour, so can any other 'queer' external expression, whether that goes to surgery or lifestyle or your fashion or haircuts.

Anorexia might be tempting to compare and might seem to share some similarities on its face, but for one, it literally kills people. But someone getting liposuction or other plastic surgery because they might erroneously feel they're fat or want to be a supermodel does not attract society's judgment or your opprobrium? So why would any surgery or such beliefs that have to do with gender or genitals?

Finally, yes, social sanction already exists for not being kind, so most people try not to be dicks to each other. So please be kind and don't rail about moderation or categorically deny the existence of trans as a 'thing', which sounds like a dog whistle and something that is potentially unkind and cruel to people you might not know. You can do better if you want to genuinely engage on the issues and have genuine questions, rather than wanting to prove only your opinion is valid.

There is evidence of the accounts of people. Do you disbelieve someone who is gay, for instance, until you get a brain scan that proves they are gay?

Agree this is a complex issue, but so is the mind and so are humans. There may be debate to be had about how the medical establishment and society should deal with this on a policy level, but if you start by denying the reality of the experience of all trans people, this is not a bona fide basis to the discussion.

Please keep on topic and on good faith.

Opinions are fine but not when they veer close to hate speech. Try replacing the category in question with 'gay', 'women', 'mental illness', 'Hindus', etc in your sentences.

Yes, there are debates to be had but do not have those debates while completely denying the lived and documented reality of many in such absolute terms, and accept that your anecdotal experience may not be the totality of what's out the there either.

In short, try to be kind. That's not about freedom of speech, it's about fostering genuine debate and making LI a more pleasant place.

Thank you for this feedback on the usability, that's really valuable and interesting!

We didn't realise that there was a difference in the the comments section when signed in vs as a guest from the homepage (I presume?). Will see whether we can reproduce this!

Is there a specific screenreader software you would recommend to use on Windows, Mac or Linux for reproducing the website usability issues, or are they all fairly similar in capability and any of them would work?

Haha, have now published the non-abusive pun: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/356703-blind-student-studying-law-hit-me-with-your-questions#comment-356929

That said, the mods have generally done a great job on this thread, you missed nothing interesting, and thank you to all readers for asking interesting questions and to OP for the amazingly patient and insightful responses.

Thank you also for your feedback on the screenreader UX issues. We'll see if we can reproduce and fix this.

Thank you so much, a great idea, really looking forward!

LI has one question - is the convos section of LI accessible and well useable on screen readers or other assistive software? Any quick fixes or big problems you have encountered in navigating that we could improve or look into? Very grateful for any of ideas or tips!

We think debate and discourse of opposing views can be good and valuable, even on political stuff, as long as the arguments are bona fide honestly held and intended as an intellectual exchange, rather than just chest thumping, trolling or dog whistles. Unfortunately most political chat falls into the latter categories... :(