Let's not forget that a majority of systemic human rights abuse happens to children in the global south.

So, there's an added layer of racism there if they think medical care for trans kids in Europe and America is worthy of more attention than kids being trafficked.

If someone is trying to convince you to "think of the children" to justify transphobia, but they're silent about the decades of documented abuses still happening ... It's not about keeping children safe.

Transphobes who harp on about "trans-ing" kids - about damage to their physical, reproductive and mental health - are usually silent about:

- Child labour in mines and on farms
- Sex trafficking
- Children in sweatshops
- The troubled teen industry
- Abuse of power in religious institutions

- if they are betting on your sense of moral duty to our society's most vulnerable people, in order to convince you that disagreeing with then means you're harming those people ...

Ask yourself: are they this vocal about the documented, proven institutions and systems that really are harming kids?

The more one has their sense of ethics used as an entry point for an insidious, dangerous argument, the closer they get to the edge of that conspiracy theory pit.

If someone is telling you that trans people/a trans agenda/gender affirming medical care all exists to harm children -

really believe they are championing the protection of children via their transphobia.

Any argument that would otherwise seem outlandish or wrong is worth considering if viewed through a lens that makes it look like it matches your morals.

I wonder if formerly non-bigoted people - like I want to believe Roisin Murphy once was - people with maybe a stronger protective instinct towards children and vulnerable people...

It seems like these kinds of people have these instincts mutated by influential people, to the point where they

- her art, her past interviews, the places she's performed at all indicate to me that this transphobia is a relatively new thing for her.

It worries me how quickly someone's ethics can be squashed by conspiracy and how contagious bigotry can be.

What causes such a sharp turn?

because I don't want to believe that someone's whose art I supported and immersed myself in can be in their right mind and say everything she has.

Regardless - it doesn't undo the pain of the thousands of people she's hurt.

It does have me thinking, like, it really seems like a total 180

Is this just the same old human society shit - just augmented and accelerated by the internet?

I remember feeling enriched and broadened by the internet a mere decade ago. But now it's suffocating and oppressive

Am I going to be denied job opportunities in the future because I'm not a tightly-branded persona?

If I can't be summarised by a few keywords and tags, will I be too difficult to slot nicely into a team?

Am I a slob who can't take care of myself (and thus others) because I don't have Botox?

I know, I should go out and touch grass and talk to real people etc

But - the internet is not an impenetrable bubble, floating around with its contents isolated from the real world. At least not anymore.

It's been leaking and getting everything messy.

And I mean "engagement" as opposed to "reaction".

Creating and receiving content that asks you to sit down with it and digest it - not immediately throw out a first impression and keep scrolling.

What I mean is, when people's personal social media content is mostly shopping hauls and "lifestyle" content, that's seen as okay.

But if you want to engage with or unpack anything, and you're *not*, say, a video essayist - it's like, you're doing too much, I think?

I fear I'm "navel-gazing".

Being perceived is stressful. I worry that I'm expected to be a "brand". I'm supposed to be *consumable* and *marketable*, but I'm not meant to engage or contribute.

I think that may have been one of his most selfish moments in the whole show

Okay yes agree!