Anonymous #2 1w

i could see this

1

Anonymous #1 1w

A lot of the problems today arise from the blurring of the distinction between the genders. It goes against thousands of years of evolution to just disregard gender roles

0

Anonymous #3 1w

gender roles are not evolutionary, they are social constructs. what defines masculinity or femininity today is not the same as 50 years ago, 200 years ago, or 10,000 years ago. if you want to talk about sex? maybe a different conversation

0

Anonymous #4 1w

As for a political take I was having a hard time thinking about it, but I (cis man) think kids should be allowed to take HRT. I can back this up.

0

Anonymous #5 1w

why surgeries at 21 and not 18

1

Anonymous #4 1w

yeah that’s pretty accurate i think

1

Anonymous #7 1w

(Basically nobody is in charge because everyone is in charge)

1

Anonymous #7 1w

and how does that manifest itself practically

1

Anonymous #3 1w

A lot of the problems today come from the fact that gender roles have changed from bad to worse in the last 50 years. 50 years ago the most masculine figures were characters like Superman, and masculinity was about who you could protect. Now it’s UFC fighters or boxers, and most people see masculinity about being who you can abuse or control.

4

Anonymous #3 1w

Similarly femininity hasn’t gotten better either, and the girlboss movement has led to an increase in hyper individualism particularly in women.

4

Anonymous #4 1w

I can kinda see the argument for black people but indigenous people had already been shafted pretty badly at that point. Assuming a British led US territory still manifests destiny I can’t see why it would be any better for them.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

We tried that already though

1

Anonymous #1 1w

It depends partly on how British policy would manifest. Because in the short term, the American revolution was partly driven by a British ban on settlement past the Appalachian mountains, something the British instituted to appease allied tribes. And during the Plains Wars, leaders like Black Elk said Canada was generally better for native people than the U.S. was.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

That’s not to say Canada was good, but compared to the USA it tended to be better. And I suppose it’s also a question of if western expansion would have happened in a British colonial society, and without competition with the USA would there even be as much of a drive for Britain to expand their territory as thy did in Canada?

1

Anonymous #4 1w

And if you compare US states with neighboring Canadian provinces, those provinces often have a larger indigenous population.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

The only problem is when black people fought for the English or even moved to England after the war many faced discrimination and hate. I feel that the British really wanted Black people just as cannon fodder for future wars.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Practically it could only ever happen on the small scale, you’ll never have a full country run under that system because it’s impossible (I also believe that smaller communities>large nation states)

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Brain development

5

Anonymous #5 1w

the age of majority is irrelevant?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s quite arbitrary yes

1

Anonymous OP 1w

18 is pretty much just draft age atp, you can’t get brain altering drugs like alcohol, weed, nicotine until 21

1

Anonymous #8 1w

Regarding treatment of black people there’s pluses and minuses. On the one hand, abolition didn’t happen in the northern states until American independence. On the other hand, Britain adopted a very anti-slavery attitude starting in the 1800s. IMO it’s easier to argue things would be better for native people than black people. And there’s also the question of if British abolitionism would be as strong if they retained the American colonies

1

Anonymous #5 1w

i see

1

Anonymous #4 1w

But with the general British abolitionist movement, I feel like the anti-slavery attitudes would probably at least be stronger in the United States if they didn’t gain independence. But who knows, maybe British abolitionism would cause the southern states to secede in a weird revolutionary-civil war combination.

1

Anonymous #5 1w

If you know trans people, they will tell you their lives would be dramatically improved if they had been allowed to transition as a child. It seems very odd to me that ppl see no hrt for children as the compromise when like… that means forcing trans kids to undergo a puberty they don’t want.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

There are also trans people who regret their operations by the time they get older. That’s part of the reason I encourage more support for our trans friends in society. To help them feel less out of place in the world. But, massive changes like this have unintended consequences. It’s about mitigating those primarily

6

Anonymous #5 1w

Gender affirming surgeries have an extremely low regret rate relative to other elective surgeries. Now in terms of HRT, what this would be doing is forcing the majority of trans people to undergo a puberty they dont want and will regret, out of the fear that a small minority will have an HRT puberty that they may regret. It’s harming the vast majority out of the fear that some people will make a mistake.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

HRT shouldn’t be for adolescents either imo

1

Anonymous #5 1w

I don’t think adolescents should have surgery, but they should be allowed hrt. The alternative is either forcing trans kids to undergo a natural puberty which will harm them for the rest of their lives, or prevent them from having a puberty with their peers by only letting them use puberty blockers. This assumes that a natural puberty is the state of no harm, but if you know trans people it’s extremely harmful for them.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

I see what you’re saying. I need to understand this aspect better in order to make a more informed decision. Thanks for your insight my friend :)

1

Anonymous #4 1w

Like think about it. The fear here is that some kids will take HRT and later regret it, because they underwent a puberty that causes them not to match their gender identity. Banning hrt for kids just…forces *all* trans people to undergo a harmful puberty, not just the small minority of non-trans people who might be mistaken.

1

Anonymous #4 1w

No yeah your point of “assuming natural puberty is neutral is wrong” resonated well

1

Anonymous #5 1w

Oh wow it’s really mature of you to actually hear me out on this topic and consider what I had to say :) I don’t think I would have come to the position I have if I wasn’t in a very trans social circle. Listening to trans people and their experiences helped me get a more informed position.

1