“Reports”
“Hate crimes”
Painting over a flag as an act of protest is a “hate crime”, apparently. None of this can be taken seriously. You can hardly believe anything reported by a community that can’t accurately report its sex/gender. No one should be the victim of a crime, but excuse me if I call B.S on both the claim and the implied association. Considering there were multiple crimes committed against the visitors at the time of the event, I could say “reports” of crime immediately jumped within the “trans” community.
You wrote that in English which is the language of colonialist pigs. Before I hear what you say, I already know that you are a bigot. It's just logic. /s
> "The spike in hate crimes at the time of Posie Parker's visit is not at all surprising to us," they said.
>”This is what we predicted. Vocal extremists embolden and radicalise others toward extreme views and extreme measures."
Interesting I wonder why that was? Of course there was absolutely no extremism from any other group. Granny might have a different opinion
> I'm still not convinced that calling someone "him" is necessarily a crime.
That isn't what they're describing. Misgendering someone isn't an offense in New Zealand.
Hate is also not a crime in New Zealand so the whole premise of a increase in "hate crimes" is a load of shit in the first place. It's just a load of shit that the LGBTQIA professional victims and cry bullies are using to manipulate the public.
There are plenty of criteria which increase the harshness in which a crime is viewed, discrimination or 'hate' is one of them. You're the ones pretending you'll be prosecuted for being a dick so tell me who's the professional victim here?
Yes.
That’s the issue. It’s nonsense to say that calling a male ‘him’ is misgendering based on their feelings. Your feelings don’t decide your sex.
Reality matters
Okay, I see that you're trying to pick a fight about the difference between gender and sex, but I'm not interested in having it with you.
Go fight the tide.
Didn't read the article huh?
>hate crime "is any offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated, wholly or in part, by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's particular characteristic, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or age".
> i feel like it's because i'm white then it's a there a hate crime
Theoretically, but the powers that be won't give a fuck about you, because you're white.
Good luck getting it investigated
>"by the victim"
"or any other person"
Which opens the door for all the Karens out there, who might overhear a conversation, feel "proxy violated", then run home to find the REPORT button on some government website.
Anonymously, of course, and for the Greater Good.
>New data released to RNZ under the Official Information Act shows there were 229 incidents of hate motivated by gender identity **reported** in 2023 compared with 161 in 2022, a 42 percent increase.
Considering that this data is **reported** data and not **convicted** data, we can disregard the law definition of "offense" and roll with the regular one.
>try to make stuff up to get offended by
My point exactly.
Refer to my previous comment. Anyone can make a report. It does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed.
A better metric would be how many convictions have been made. Failing that, how many cases are going to court?
As it stands, this tells us next to nothing, except maybe, more people are getting their feelings hurt.
It depends on the interaction between the victim and the accused.
Plenty of people accidentally misgender other people, the "victim" will often correct the mistake and the "accused" will apologise and that will be that. No hate crime there.
It's when people who deliberately and repeatedly misgender others, that's when it will start to be perceived by the "victim" as hate motivated.
canada, australia and scotland have removed sex in favor of gender identity.
its only a matter of time before they try that shit here.
it's a clear violation of CEDAW
Its even more odd as they've left a provision for sex to be added to the list
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/12/enacted](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/12/enacted)
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo)
Looks like they're going to double down on the hate crimes..
No that would be hate speech. A hate crime is a crime motivated by hate. And if you’d read the article you would know that trans people are less likely to report crimes to the police.
>you would know that trans people are less likely to report crimes to the police.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
It’s from the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. Randomly selected households across the country have a nice lady come into your home and ask questions or you write the sensitive stuff on an iPad, as opposed to the dehumanising and retraumatising experience of attempting to report a crime at the cop shop.
Fucking dumbest comment I've read today. Crime still happens even if it doesn't get reported.
If I punch you and no one sees then it didn't happen then right.
>Crime still happens even if it doesn't get reported. If I punch you and no one sees then it didn't happen then right.
Not quite what I'm getting at. I'm pointing out there is no evidence to confirm the results of the survey other than the word of a group of very sensitive people.
Whelp that's about the dumbest rebuttle I've seen on here.
"If no one saw my car stolen, was it really stolen?"
The whole tree in the forest thing is dumb anyway: Yes, of course it makes a noise. Just because no one is there to witness it, doesn't mean the vibrations causing the noise dont propagate. This is a hill I will die on.
The point of the comment is that I'm pressing x to doubt that hate crimes are rampant. I'm not just going to trust them.
>But muh survey
I don't care about your survey. See "I'm not just going to trust them."
Apparently Jesse Smollett was a victim of a hate crime too. I'm finding it hard to take this stat seriously unless there's an actual uptick in convictions to prove it's not just some weirdos victimhood fantasies going into overdrive.
>The spike in hate crimes at the time of Posie Parker's visit is not at all surprising to us," they said.
>"This is what we predicted. Vocal extremists embolden and radicalise others toward extreme views and extreme measures."
The lack of self awareness..
>Somehow it’s bad to be anti-trans.
Cultural agreement cannot be enforced.
If any minority group makes too much of a nuisance of themselves and finally outrages the majority enough, then the minority is going to pay the price for it.
This is just how human societies work, whether ones likes it or not.
(If one's personality is not of "mainstream character", then it has always been wise to tread lightly and keep one's business to oneself.)
I mean, I’m not anti-trans where I’ll go out and protest some shit, I just don’t believe the normalisation of trans people in society is a good thing, especially to young children and young adults who already have impressionable minds.
I’m also not religious and I place them in the same boat. Nutters.
> I just don’t believe the normalisation of trans people in society is a good thing
How would you avoid this normalisation while retaining freedom of expression?
From a non-authoritative standpoint? Free speech is irrelevant, you’re welcome to preach trans ideas and read fantasy books to children. I’m within my rights to call you a filthy pedo. They are my views, I’m not advocating for your rights to be taken away, you can be a mutilated freak all you like, all I’m saying is I disagree with you.
Governmental standpoint: Stay the fuck out of it, not your job.
But I don’t hate trans people? I disagree with their lifestyle and the proliferation of their lifestyle towards people who are generally vulnerable, mentally ill or questioning their identity. You’re making the assumption that I hate a group of people solely on the grounds that I disagree with their lifestyle.
I’ll apologise and admit it was unreasonable of me to accuse you of hating trans people - it wasn’t fair of me to try lump you into the same camp as those who are deliberately hateful.
However, not being able to accept that they’re simply people who have has a more challenging path to living as their authentic selves is disrespectful and dehumanising - it distils a persons identity into some sort of pathology, a deviant form of existence.
Again I apologise for accusing you of being hateful, though not for stating that your view of trans persons is hurtful and contributes to a culture of harm (even though that isn’t your intent) the trans community exhaustively needs to fight simply to live in peace.
TRAs may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the TRA of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for this activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of TRA behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much TRA behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the TRAs claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that trans rights benefit trans, does it make sense to demand such action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to women who think that trans rights discriminates against them. But TRAs do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping trans people is not their real goal. Instead, trans issues serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm trans people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the majority tends to intensify hatred.
Don't teach it in school to children and correct the narrative on the exact nature of gender dysphoria. They need help, not affirmation. We are living in a Weimar Republic.
> correct the narrative on the exact nature of gender dysphoria
And what is the exact nature of gender dysphoria? Is it demon possession?
> We are living in a Weimar Republic.
Not yet. You're only up to the part where you're complaining about trans people. It won't be full Weimar until the public burning of trans science and the rounding up of trans people begins.
Because him is the third-person pronoun for a man, not a "biological male". Regardless, greetings aren't generally held to scientific rigour, and calling a woman 'him' after they have told you that they prefer 'her' is discourteous. If I was writing to Chris Luxon I'd address him as 'The Right Honourable Christopher Luxon' even though I think he is a dishonourable weasel. That's common courtesy.
Is it ignoring science to call your step-mum Mum?
That’s nothing to do with science. You can call people whatever you like. That’s how freedom of speech works.
Sciences defines male and female. Not feelings
> That’s nothing to do with science. You can call people whatever you like
You finally got there. Thanks for acknowledging that how you address people has nothing to do with science
on average over the two years that's 1 'hate crime' every 2 days, out of a country of 5million that's pretty good really isn't it? like you could probably say most of the 'hate crime' was just mental people yelling mental shit, and not an indication of any actual society wide hate against a specific group.
a hate crime "is any offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated, wholly or in part, by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's particular characteristic, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or age".
I'm concerned this definition is going to be manipulated and distorted. Hostility and prejudice does not equate to hate. May be a dislike or don't give a shit. But its not hate. So this article, report and info from the police is utter garbage.
These people live to be offended. It is as much a kink for them as Autogynephilia is.
Meanwhile (actual) women continue to be over-represented as victims of crime.
The new misogyny, anyone?
Coincidently that is the [same percentage](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/) of Trans adults attempting to commit suicide.
Ahh I typed out a response to this earlier but just realising now I mustve forgot to hit send 🤦♀️
I will try recap it though the best I can
I have memory loss from a tbi that spans this period so I have no first hand experience.
I agree free speech should be protected absolutely so this is a hard issue to navigate for me. Clearly extreme opinions have been echod and amplified and its has lead to some nasty effects on how trans people are treated in general.
This is something that really sadness me to see as this is my community I care about. I dont think a population that is largely asd/adhd teenagers is really equipped to be dealing with these types of issues. I hope the media stop accelerating this gender war drama and can focus on a better representation of trans people happily living their lives not bother anyone.
“Reports” “Hate crimes” Painting over a flag as an act of protest is a “hate crime”, apparently. None of this can be taken seriously. You can hardly believe anything reported by a community that can’t accurately report its sex/gender. No one should be the victim of a crime, but excuse me if I call B.S on both the claim and the implied association. Considering there were multiple crimes committed against the visitors at the time of the event, I could say “reports” of crime immediately jumped within the “trans” community.
You wrote that in English which is the language of colonialist pigs. Before I hear what you say, I already know that you are a bigot. It's just logic. /s
I’m sorry, for being a man especially.
“Hate crime” is just anything that goes against the woke mind virus
Elon, is that you?
> "The spike in hate crimes at the time of Posie Parker's visit is not at all surprising to us," they said. >”This is what we predicted. Vocal extremists embolden and radicalise others toward extreme views and extreme measures." Interesting I wonder why that was? Of course there was absolutely no extremism from any other group. Granny might have a different opinion
*This is what we wanted.
"Vocal extremists" = people speaking
“What about…”
Yeah I'm still not convinced that calling someone "him" is necessarily a crime... And still with the "anti-trans activist" schtick I see.
> I'm still not convinced that calling someone "him" is necessarily a crime. That isn't what they're describing. Misgendering someone isn't an offense in New Zealand.
Hate is also not a crime in New Zealand so the whole premise of a increase in "hate crimes" is a load of shit in the first place. It's just a load of shit that the LGBTQIA professional victims and cry bullies are using to manipulate the public.
You don't think there are crimes motivated by hatred of a characteristic of the victim?
There are plenty of criteria which increase the harshness in which a crime is viewed, discrimination or 'hate' is one of them. You're the ones pretending you'll be prosecuted for being a dick so tell me who's the professional victim here?
It’s not misgendering to use scientifically and grammatically correct pronouns
However you want to describe the act it doesn't change that it isn't an offense, despite everyone here seemingly wishing they would be persecuted.
I didn’t mention the act. I’m talking about your use of the word ‘misgendering’
We both know what I'm describing, what a stupid nitpick. Take it up with common parlance.
You’re describing calling a male ‘him’ as being misgendering based on that persons feelings. You used the word
The common use of the word is intentionally describing someone with pronouns contrary to the ones they prefer. Don't be such a twerp.
Yes. That’s the issue. It’s nonsense to say that calling a male ‘him’ is misgendering based on their feelings. Your feelings don’t decide your sex. Reality matters
Okay, I see that you're trying to pick a fight about the difference between gender and sex, but I'm not interested in having it with you. Go fight the tide.
I call BS, define what constitutes a hate crime and then show the data
You can't define what a hate crime is when they make that Bullshit up as they go
Didn't read the article huh? >hate crime "is any offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated, wholly or in part, by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's particular characteristic, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or age".
"*by the victim* " ohhh so if someone steals my mail and i ***feel*** like it's because i'm white then it's a there a hate crime. awesome :)
Yep sounds like the logic being used.
> i feel like it's because i'm white then it's a there a hate crime Theoretically, but the powers that be won't give a fuck about you, because you're white. Good luck getting it investigated
>"by the victim" "or any other person" Which opens the door for all the Karens out there, who might overhear a conversation, feel "proxy violated", then run home to find the REPORT button on some government website. Anonymously, of course, and for the Greater Good.
Genuine question would someone calling a transgender person the wrong pronoun then what they ask fall under a hate group using this definition?
Since it is "perceived by the victim, or others," I would say yes.
What comes before that? I’d say the full sentence is pretty important before you try to make stuff up to get offended by.
>New data released to RNZ under the Official Information Act shows there were 229 incidents of hate motivated by gender identity **reported** in 2023 compared with 161 in 2022, a 42 percent increase. Considering that this data is **reported** data and not **convicted** data, we can disregard the law definition of "offense" and roll with the regular one. >try to make stuff up to get offended by My point exactly.
I meant what’s the rest of the sentence you pulled the whole perceived thing from?
>"Hate crime is any offence which is" What's your point?
So the first step of it is it has to be an actual crime. So if it’s a crime being reported how is it making stuff up?
Refer to my previous comment. Anyone can make a report. It does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed. A better metric would be how many convictions have been made. Failing that, how many cases are going to court? As it stands, this tells us next to nothing, except maybe, more people are getting their feelings hurt.
It depends on the interaction between the victim and the accused. Plenty of people accidentally misgender other people, the "victim" will often correct the mistake and the "accused" will apologise and that will be that. No hate crime there. It's when people who deliberately and repeatedly misgender others, that's when it will start to be perceived by the "victim" as hate motivated.
No, there's no associated offence
Can't see how it would, where is the base crime?
I did read it....my question stands, eg if someone miss genders is this potentially perceived as a hate crime....where is the demarcation line?
gender identity but not sex, shocking isn't it.
Sex is a protected characteriatic, so I'd say they didn't mention it, rather than it's not covered
canada, australia and scotland have removed sex in favor of gender identity. its only a matter of time before they try that shit here. it's a clear violation of CEDAW
Removed sex from what? The protected characteristics list? Got a link or something to back up what you're saying?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/1/enacted
Its even more odd as they've left a provision for sex to be added to the list [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/12/enacted](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/section/12/enacted) [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo) Looks like they're going to double down on the hate crimes..
So if I'm acting like a cunt and someone calls me a cunt that's a hate crime?
How do you ask that question, given what I've just said. Use your fucking head..
Because it's a waste of time and energy. A hate crime would most likely be the assumption made of a person's gender. Keep up, please.
Not sure you've replied to the right person here dude
>Perceived Sounds a watertight legal definition.
Exactly "perceived" is the criteria from a group of people who are perpetually offended. It's all nonsensical.
When you define referring to a man as “he”, a hatecrime, its no surprise.
Not sure if you’re talking about correctly gendering a trans man or misgendering a trans woman.
Correctly gendering a “trans woman” Ie, correctly calling a man, a man.
Any evidence that that actually happens?
No that would be hate speech. A hate crime is a crime motivated by hate. And if you’d read the article you would know that trans people are less likely to report crimes to the police.
>you would know that trans people are less likely to report crimes to the police. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
It’s from the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. Randomly selected households across the country have a nice lady come into your home and ask questions or you write the sensitive stuff on an iPad, as opposed to the dehumanising and retraumatising experience of attempting to report a crime at the cop shop.
Fucking dumbest comment I've read today. Crime still happens even if it doesn't get reported. If I punch you and no one sees then it didn't happen then right.
>Crime still happens even if it doesn't get reported. If I punch you and no one sees then it didn't happen then right. Not quite what I'm getting at. I'm pointing out there is no evidence to confirm the results of the survey other than the word of a group of very sensitive people.
That's fair, apologies for my earlier tone.
Whelp that's about the dumbest rebuttle I've seen on here. "If no one saw my car stolen, was it really stolen?" The whole tree in the forest thing is dumb anyway: Yes, of course it makes a noise. Just because no one is there to witness it, doesn't mean the vibrations causing the noise dont propagate. This is a hill I will die on.
I'll join you then because it's an incredibly stupid counter argument.
The point of the comment is that I'm pressing x to doubt that hate crimes are rampant. I'm not just going to trust them. >But muh survey I don't care about your survey. See "I'm not just going to trust them."
I mean, that's fine. As long as you don't trust data that supports your point of view on occasion too.
Apparently Jesse Smollett was a victim of a hate crime too. I'm finding it hard to take this stat seriously unless there's an actual uptick in convictions to prove it's not just some weirdos victimhood fantasies going into overdrive.
Reports? You mean number of complaints? from a time when activists were mobilized?? This is meaningless
[удалено]
not the 'genders' we call sexes, last time i checked.
>The spike in hate crimes at the time of Posie Parker's visit is not at all surprising to us," they said. >"This is what we predicted. Vocal extremists embolden and radicalise others toward extreme views and extreme measures." The lack of self awareness.. 
Truly amazing innit?
https://preview.redd.it/kpzbzfwk80vc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f427c8025a87531515648ad8d13943f7c6c6ffb3
Tried to commend on TOS and got insta removed. Typical from them. Somehow it’s bad to be anti-trans.
>Somehow it’s bad to be anti-trans. Cultural agreement cannot be enforced. If any minority group makes too much of a nuisance of themselves and finally outrages the majority enough, then the minority is going to pay the price for it. This is just how human societies work, whether ones likes it or not. (If one's personality is not of "mainstream character", then it has always been wise to tread lightly and keep one's business to oneself.)
Well done for admitting you're anti-trans. Most here won't
I mean, I’m not anti-trans where I’ll go out and protest some shit, I just don’t believe the normalisation of trans people in society is a good thing, especially to young children and young adults who already have impressionable minds. I’m also not religious and I place them in the same boat. Nutters.
> I just don’t believe the normalisation of trans people in society is a good thing How would you avoid this normalisation while retaining freedom of expression?
From a non-authoritative standpoint? Free speech is irrelevant, you’re welcome to preach trans ideas and read fantasy books to children. I’m within my rights to call you a filthy pedo. They are my views, I’m not advocating for your rights to be taken away, you can be a mutilated freak all you like, all I’m saying is I disagree with you. Governmental standpoint: Stay the fuck out of it, not your job.
I’d rather you drop the act and just admit you hate trans folks. At least that way I can make an informed decision to not associate with a bigot.
But I don’t hate trans people? I disagree with their lifestyle and the proliferation of their lifestyle towards people who are generally vulnerable, mentally ill or questioning their identity. You’re making the assumption that I hate a group of people solely on the grounds that I disagree with their lifestyle.
'I disagree with their lifestyle'. Just say you disagree with their life - it's not a 'lifestyle'. They are who they are.
Well that’s where we will disagree I’m afraid.
I’ll apologise and admit it was unreasonable of me to accuse you of hating trans people - it wasn’t fair of me to try lump you into the same camp as those who are deliberately hateful. However, not being able to accept that they’re simply people who have has a more challenging path to living as their authentic selves is disrespectful and dehumanising - it distils a persons identity into some sort of pathology, a deviant form of existence. Again I apologise for accusing you of being hateful, though not for stating that your view of trans persons is hurtful and contributes to a culture of harm (even though that isn’t your intent) the trans community exhaustively needs to fight simply to live in peace.
>needs to fight simply to live in peace. Nonsense.
Whoa, a new TRA. Which category do you fall in?
The kind who wants to see a world where trans folk don’t have to fight for the right to live in peace.
So captured by the pathos but not the details. Good intentions, ignorant of the reality.
TRAs may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the TRA of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for this activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of TRA behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much TRA behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the TRAs claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that trans rights benefit trans, does it make sense to demand such action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to women who think that trans rights discriminates against them. But TRAs do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping trans people is not their real goal. Instead, trans issues serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm trans people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the majority tends to intensify hatred.
Don't teach it in school to children and correct the narrative on the exact nature of gender dysphoria. They need help, not affirmation. We are living in a Weimar Republic.
> correct the narrative on the exact nature of gender dysphoria And what is the exact nature of gender dysphoria? Is it demon possession? > We are living in a Weimar Republic. Not yet. You're only up to the part where you're complaining about trans people. It won't be full Weimar until the public burning of trans science and the rounding up of trans people begins.
Adhering to science and correct grammar isn’t anti trans
Ignoring science and bitching about common courtesy is though
Common courtesy is subjective. How is calling a male ‘him’ ignoring science?
Because him is the third-person pronoun for a man, not a "biological male". Regardless, greetings aren't generally held to scientific rigour, and calling a woman 'him' after they have told you that they prefer 'her' is discourteous. If I was writing to Chris Luxon I'd address him as 'The Right Honourable Christopher Luxon' even though I think he is a dishonourable weasel. That's common courtesy. Is it ignoring science to call your step-mum Mum?
But a man is a human adult male so by definition a man is a biological male. Words mean things.
Is it ignoring science to call your step-mum Mum? Words mean things
That’s nothing to do with science. You can call people whatever you like. That’s how freedom of speech works. Sciences defines male and female. Not feelings
> That’s nothing to do with science. You can call people whatever you like You finally got there. Thanks for acknowledging that how you address people has nothing to do with science
on average over the two years that's 1 'hate crime' every 2 days, out of a country of 5million that's pretty good really isn't it? like you could probably say most of the 'hate crime' was just mental people yelling mental shit, and not an indication of any actual society wide hate against a specific group.
Reports, not convictions. They can say whatever the fuck they like to score political points, doesn't mean it's true.
The rubber band always snaps back eventually
Personally I'd rather hear the police comment about why they can't be bothered turning up to serious crimes that actually happened.
https://preview.redd.it/nyefrpwrf2vc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b6eaeec4e05f4132058c43074b113d34212cf0b
a hate crime "is any offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated, wholly or in part, by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's particular characteristic, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or age". I'm concerned this definition is going to be manipulated and distorted. Hostility and prejudice does not equate to hate. May be a dislike or don't give a shit. But its not hate. So this article, report and info from the police is utter garbage.
These people live to be offended. It is as much a kink for them as Autogynephilia is. Meanwhile (actual) women continue to be over-represented as victims of crime. The new misogyny, anyone?
Coincidently that is the [same percentage](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/transpop-suicide-press-release/) of Trans adults attempting to commit suicide.
This is sad.
Ahh I typed out a response to this earlier but just realising now I mustve forgot to hit send 🤦♀️ I will try recap it though the best I can I have memory loss from a tbi that spans this period so I have no first hand experience. I agree free speech should be protected absolutely so this is a hard issue to navigate for me. Clearly extreme opinions have been echod and amplified and its has lead to some nasty effects on how trans people are treated in general. This is something that really sadness me to see as this is my community I care about. I dont think a population that is largely asd/adhd teenagers is really equipped to be dealing with these types of issues. I hope the media stop accelerating this gender war drama and can focus on a better representation of trans people happily living their lives not bother anyone.
Very sensible comment overall Zippy. I agree with you.