I mean, I do.
But what I'm objecting to is idea that this should be an adversarial affair, where we do not impartially look over the evidence but accept every account of an adverse effect, no matter how implausible or unevidenced, and then wait for someone else to come along to catalog any potential benefits, no matter how implausible or unevidenced. This is obviously not the way to proceed.
The thread runs along libertarian lines. Nothing stops you from doing exactly what you propose, if you believe the thread needs more of that and less of the other thing.
Honestly I was a lot less polarized at the beginning of this discussion. I kinda figured that transwomen were women pretty much across the board. I had some misgivings about certain areas of sex segregation, and I looked forward to seeing the more informed and invested trans-inclusionists address those concerns with the best reasoning and science they could muster.
Instead, though, their response has only deepened my concerns, and led me to the conclusion that there is very little science and reasoning at all, behind the trans-inclusionist view of those concerns.
If you don't like the adversarial mode,
stop being adversarial. If you think we should take a more balanced approach, and you have a more balanced approach in mind,
lead the way. If you have science that says prescribing puberty blockers to prepubescent children diagnosed with gender dysphoria does more good than harm,
cite it.
As far as I know, there is no good science that says that it's helpful to diagnose prepubescent children with gender dysphoria, that it's better to intervene than to let normal puberty progress, and that the long-term benefits of such treatment outweigh the long-term detriments. So for me it's less a matter of being "adversarial" and more a matter of thinking there's only one really rational way to look at it. If you have another rational way to look at it, that would greatly lessen my "adversarial" position on the subject.
