The text explicitly does not view it as unironically good. I would argue that a core message of the text is that coercive gender assignment is bad even if you personally benefitted from it.

Well, did you vote for Trump because of that?

Again, what evidence do you have to support that this is actually happening in significant numbers?

Dems changing a policy position on trans people wouldn't affect people being annoying on the Internet though. Harris also didn't really champion trans issues all that much. How would changing the position, one that doesn't seem to hurt them at all in the data, help them electorally?

The party elite genuinely resent that they have to do anything but make empty promises and put the interests of capital above all else. Hope and (progressive) change was the message that won big in 2008, and they still scapegoat every member of the party who has a similar message now.

Can you provide any evidence that throwing trans people under the bus will help Dems or that supporting them hurts Dems? Beshear in Kentucky won by 5 points in 2023 and is very pro-trans, and Trump won the state by 30. How do you account for that?

Why are Dems courting conservative voters when they could be courting people with material issues and offer solutions? Stop trying to win a second Republican primary and offer people an alternative. Just try animating your actual base for once instead of trying to threaten them into voting anyway.

I think it's another example of the usual instinct "my pet position was right!" They blame support for trans people because they secretly didn't want to support us in the first place. "We should have gone further to the right" is almost certainly the same thing. Zero evidence afaik to support either

The paper Trapped in the Wrong Theory by TM Bettcher digs into this. I think it's more about how to describe transness to cis people rather than better understand our own experience, but I found it useful for my own understanding. I would recommend it if you've never read it.

My uncertainty was bugging me so I found research: transfemscience.org/articles/shb...
TLDR while we don't have a lot of data on SHBG w/ high E HRT, pregnancy data suggests you probably are never going to have levels high enough to cause a backfire. So there's no risk with SHBG specifically

My understanding is it's what your body makes to regulate sex hormones. If your body thinks there's too much E, it ups SHBG to reduce the amount actually getting where you want it to go. I think the risk is specifically of an overcorrection and too much SHBG gets produced.

I started at 2.5 mg at 40 mg/mL every 10 days, and have worked my way down to 0.1 mg every week based on blood tests since my serum E was too high consistently. Everybody is different and too much E is absolutely a thing since it can cause you sex hormone-binding globulin to spike.

I used to work in a Florida PD's office, and it was appalling. They put you on a payment plan that's nonnegotiable and if you fail to pay, they suspend your license. Frequently people came back through because they couldn't make payments but drove anyway to get to work only to get a DWLS. No way out

Sorry, policing was a poor word choice in context. I've had shitty judgemental takes about other trans people in the past, and now practice a form of radical acceptance to avoid making similar mistakes. Criticizing another essayist's framing on a large platform is certainly not policing though.

I respect the work you do and are thankful you do it. @sjshancoxli.bsky.social already said what I wanted to. I wrestle with how much we should police our own wrt saying things that can be used against us, but generally come down on the Should Not side unless they're actively selling us out.