I'd say it's about 50-50 (41-59?) on those.
This isn’t 1955 and you don’t need to meet in a secret underground bar to be openly gay. Lesbians meet other lesbians just by doing things they like (because gay people are more likely to have similar interests to each other because they’re more likely to be gender non conforming). Is everyone on here so socially inept you only know how to find other gay people at the LGBT community center? Of course it’d be full of troons, they all have autism and don’t know how to meet people normally.
Unfortunately, by doing things they like, they're still more likely to be fucked by probability than by another lesbian. "Manly interests" are not a monolith and don't necessarily intersect or even involve other people, plus there's age and personality. Homosexuals may not need a physical community center, but they need a community.
Isn't pimozide something that will fuck you up regardless? I'd be a lot more supportive of someone transitioning to female than be almost literally lobotomized.
It's a pretty powerful antipsychotic, but I suspect there hasn't been a lot of research on it since its effectiveness seems to be about on-par with other similar drugs.
Some would argue that a lobotomy would constitute an improvement. By the way, one cannot "transition to female" because changing one's biological sex is impossible. You can shave a cat, glue feathers on it and call it a chicken if you like, but it's still a cat. Even if the cat thinks it's a chicken, even if doctors agree that the cat has "species dysphoria", even if the government gives it a piece of paper saying "species: chicken", even if a panel of judges say "yes, this is legally a chicken!", even if every human being on planet Earth stamps their feet and screams "IT'S A CHICKEN YOU BIGOT!!!" - it's still a cat.
Transsexuality in one form or another seems to be a recognizable part of human behavior across a wide spectrum of cultures dating back seemingly to the age of the Sumerians. It's not at all like that, and a lobotomy would not at all be superior to transitioning to female. "Transitioning to female" usually means "take on the female social role" (there are significant cases in the 19th and 20th century of transmen - women transitioning to male - and it wasn't just to serve in the army or whatever doing it for that exact reason). It's a recognized psychiatric phenomenon and if your solution is "use antipsychotics" or "let's lobotomize" the same logic can, and was, applied to homosexuals in the 20th century as well.
They tend to see any descriptions of male sexual violence (or male violence in general) as TERF rhetoric. And they’re probably losing it over the author rightfully pointing out that the victim was assaulted because she was a female child. They’re presuming that an acknowledgement of gendered violence is the erasure of abuse against trans women/young boys. It’s nonsense.
There's stopping playing pretend and accepting that you never will be a woman.
I still don't see what they're getting mad over. It's just lunacy at this point.
That's where you lost the argument. Women passing as men to serve in armies and do other men's only tasks were very rarely "transitioning". They were at most crossdressing and disguising themselves in order to bypass social restrictions in what they could do. Once they left those male-only spaces, the overwhelming majority of these women identified themselves as women and very often moved on to marry men and have children. They usually wore men's clothes and adopted men's mannerisms and often said they were "as good" as men (which in itself was a scandalous claim in the past), but once the jig was up they weren't trying to convince anyone that they weren't women. Instead, they usually argued that the restrictions placed against women were unwarranted. Consider them not as transgender transitioning, but as proto-feminists challenging gender roles.
