Not at all, you're right. But consider that in a few years you might also think back fondly to this time, burning the midnight oil when you were still young and energetic, providing you're in a happier place by then. So find a way to find a place more suited to what you would like out of life. Usually it is easier to change from a workaholic style place to a more chilled out firm, rather than vice versa.

Can't both be true? That the medical establishment is perhaps giving out drugs too readily nowadays to kids who are too young, while also accepting that some young trans people might benefit from more care?

Suicides appear to be real and not a lie (though research on both sides will always have a difficult time isolating causes and correlation, much like the link you shared also):

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/

Thanks for your considered response and links. If someome from the 'other camp' has a considered non trollish response trying to find common ground, let's hear it.

> You cannot be accusing me of hate and ignorance and policing my tone when you cannot honestly say youve considered and read any of the literature ive brought up in this exchange before forming an opinion.

Moderating tone and stopping toxicity is actually one of the main points of moderation, so thank you for making your point in a more balanced manner. It would help the strength of the 'Terf' side if the more vocal ones on Twitter stopped assuming that all people disagreeing with them must be woman-haters or 'religious' crazy cult people, as it would behove the twitter trans activists from bashing terfs as transphobes or out of touch.

There are probably more things both sides agree on than disagree on.

That's why tone and the way you say should be important to mods, not just what you say - because the real harm both sides cause is to stop debate, because it gets replaced with ad hominem personal attacks where facts don't matter anymore.

Didn't intend to wade in this deep but no one ever said in this thread that trans people NEVER commit violence, just that it's often over-exaggerated for rhetorical reasons by their opponents. What the trans community seems to be objecting to is that every time the toilet access issue is brought up, for instance, they might be confronted with the case of a possible trans person committing a crime against women in a toilet, which is often invoked as a spectre. Of course it happens but it's obviously relatively rare amongst literally millions of assaults, just as Florida Men are real too amongst millions of Floridans (didn't know about that reason for that, that's interesting).

It's possible to empathise that some women might feel discomfort with the toilet issue, which is a little complicated, and not saying it doesn't happen, but then the question also arises of how many times do trans women get violently or sexually assaulted in men's toilets and should we compare harms in order to decide whose claim is more 'valid' or who 'wins'? And should feminists stand with or support trans women who get assaulted in men's toilets? Should they do so if they perceive this to increase risk to themselves? Is this a legitimate fear that is statistically backed or more of a spectre? Does it compare at all to the risk of being assaulted in a bathroom by a non-trans man, which happens all the time too presumably?
Surely any assault in a bathroom by anyone against a woman, whether trans or born woman, is one too many, and it might seem likely there's some natural middle ground there between the camps but ironically this is one of the biggest dog whistle topics that everyone feels most strongly and gets toxic about.

Gendered prisons is, of course, a similarly fraught issue though you wouldn't deny that trans women also face violence in men's prisons, right?

Likewise, many trans people would presumably be critical on gender reassignment surgeries at too young an age too, and no one is denying that there are cases when it goes wrong and real damage is done. Likewise no one is denying that completely suppressing the existence of gender fluidity in children or denying medical advice to them can lead to a higher risk of suicide, for instance. But that is something for the medical and psychological establishments to work out a bit and for more research to be done on (and yes, some research already exists which suggests in some places the pendulum has swung too far). But hopefully that will sort itself out with time.

The problem with your posts are not your arguments but your tone, such as your last paragraph. Everyone understand that you have legitimate reasons to be angry but you're trying to constantly 'win' an argument where wanting to 'win' on such issues seems to carry with it a 'loss' to trans people, (falsely) trying to make this into a zero-sum game.

Do you accept that trans people too, much like women, face violence, harrassment and discrimination? Do you think something should be done to protect that community? Do you have any practical suggestions on a middle ground or compromise that would protect both communities' rights and concerns?

Or do you believe being trans is a 'made up thing' and trans women are men who don't need any additional protection. If that's the case, there is perhaps very little common ground to be found or won in this, in which case it's better to stop talking... But judging by your engagement and research on the issue, you have thought about more practical solutions.

In the interest of elevating discourse in this thread above political side shows and trolls, haven't read the article due to paywall but wasn't the previous SCBA dispensation very publicly political and pro-government, as is the BCI for the most part? Makes sense to argue that a more oppositional SCBA might not be a bad thing in a democracy where the constitution is arguably under pressure, which is what the first paragraph is saying.

What exactly is wrong with that? Kian might have written the same in an editorial. Serious answers only please, trolls will (likely) be moderated.

Simple: your comment is still up, and you get the troll tag, which you wanted in the first place when bringing up the moderation topic again. Just screaming about freedom of speech and repeatedly playing the censored victim card is not intelligent discourse and is boring and uninteresting for most readers except the most meta readers and some edgelords.

Please stay on topic, don't be a bore, and be helpful, kind and polite. It's not too much to ask. If you can't take that or make your points less antagonistically please do leave or start a more toxic echochamber yourself where you can rail against all bad things that upset you.

Moderation is there to make LI more respectful, not to give every political operative with an opinion or person itching for a fight a platform.

At the risk of being condescending, please don't read stuff like reduxx. Any bot or incel activist could literally start a website carrying nothing but Baby Reindeer female stalker news stories (and scraping the US press alone there'll be enough crazy Florida people daily alone to make this easy) and if you read this for a month it might make anyone think women are crazy and victims of female stalkers are everywhere. Or do so about Florida Man (who is obviously provably crazy) https://floridaman.com/

IMHO that's part of the problem with this debate - the media and echochambers in this can be so one-sided and motivated to stir outrage and get clicks or online clout about their cause they actually hinder reasoned debate.

And comparing and tallying up of harms gets us nowhere helpful.

Thanks both sides for, at least in part, your apparent efforts in trying to keep keep the tone of this conversation civil and mostly semi-polite and factual though. It is appreciated.

It's neither for me nor this thread to defend the Wire, and that's not what the moderation or criticism of you is about. It's about the tone and quality of discourse. You could have phrased all your points in a non trollish manner. Instead you sought to make it about culture wars with dog whistles and provocation, which implies you were not interested in a debate about the media ecosystem but just practising selective outrage yourself, which you ironically accused 'the other side' of.

While a nominally legal topic, please do not take the trollbait and continue unnecessarily with this thread, there's been enough words spilled over this here: https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/357360-can-we-have-an-open-respectful-conversation-about-the-concept-of-being-non-binary

Again the argument is disingenuous when the majority of media by revenue and readership has become commercially and editorially a propaganda extension of the government. By your metric independent 'liberal' media can not publish softball interviews with the opposition without getting cancelled? What kind of media ecosystem would you prefer? Do you think there's any role for the Wire in a healthy democracy? Do they ever do legitimate journalism? And, all actual and not rhetorical questions, are there any non-corporate news sources that you deem allowable?

Talk about journalistic integrity and demanding liberal outrage in this context seems to be a figleaf, rather than a genuine interest in discussing the fourth estate.