1) recognize: https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-transgenderism-not-sup... (one example of thousands, I’m sure)

1) legalize: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_Un...

2) I am specifically contesting that assertion. We appear to have a case of violent agreement here. One of the earlier posts suggested that lack of a trans person with 10+ million views is evidence that TT is suppressing content. I contend that the relative unpopularity of trans-related content (only hundreds of thousands or a few million views) is well explained by structural factors and no intervention on TT’s part would be needed to create that outcome. If anything, my experience is that queer and trans content is overrepresented on the platform relative to what you’d expect based on the IRL population/demographics.

Okay well let's limit the conversation to #1, then. Let's start with legal, since it's easier.

---

So, I don't understand what any of what you linked has to do with "legalizing the existence of trans people." Nothing referenced in the wikipedia article is remotely to do with making it illegal to be transgender, and I have never heard an argument advocating for that.

So what is being debated is whether or not transgender individuals should be granted protections on the basis of their gender identity. That is not debating whether or not they should exist, it is debating whether or not an additional legislative layer should be put in place to prevent workplace discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Then there is a debate about birth certificates, about whether or not transgender individuals should be able to have their birth certificate reflect their chosen gender identity, but this is just as much to do with language as anything else. The concept of sex vs gender identity, and the meaning of "gender" as ambiguous between those depending on political faction. Again, this isn't a debate about whether transgender people can legally exist, it's a debate about whether the world should be altered so as to conform to their own perception of themselves.

---

This leads to "recognition." Your definition of "recognition" seems to be "recognized within the exact framing of themselves as they wish to be seen." Let's consider two examples of identity related dysphoria. One is a born biological male who considers his gender identity to be female, and one is a man on a street corner that believes himself to be Jesus Christ. If the rest of society refused to see the man on the corner as Jesus Christ, would you say that this was society not recognizing the existence of the man? Surely not. The acceptance of his existence, and the application of all human rights applied to the individual have nothing to do with whether or not people accept this man on all of the terms of his asserted identity. In regards to transgender individuals, accepting this person's identity often boils down to strict hardline questions, a la "is this person a woman?" Any degree of nuance in the answer to that question is to be understood as society "not recognizing the existence" of transgender people? No. I'm sorry. But a failure to recognize somebody exactly within the framing of their own identity that they put forward is not the same as not accepting their existence. That language is absurd.

I don’t know why you would limit the discussion to #1 when #2 is the only part that is really relevant to the topic at hand.

Assertion 1 is offered as evidence that TT wouldn’t need to actively suppress trans content for it to be unpopular. Perhaps that was unconvincing. I’d say you’re arguing a lot about specifics of terms to weasel out of accepting that some people don’t like trans people. The language argument is particularly weak in the way that arguments about word usage usually are. It is in fact quite common to use the language of “existence” when discussing gender/sex/orientation identity. Whether the physically don’t exist in a country, don’t exist as lgbt people, or don’t count as people at all: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/prominent-leader-chechnya-sa...

Stronger evidence for the claim that some people don’t like or want to accept trans people’s identity: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TERF

Some people would actually murder other people because they say they are trans: https://www.hrc.org/resources/fatal-violence-against-the-tra...

Okay, so if we're talking about murdering people because they are trans, that is what I'm talking about as not allowing them to exist. So let's look at the data. 33 gender-non-conforming people killed in 2021, by August, which we can extrapolate out to 50 for the year.

CDC says 19,000 homicides per year: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

So, 50/19,000 means that 0.26% of murders are to gender-non-conforming people, which is less than the 0.6% of the US population which identifies as transgender. So the murders are literally under represented. And given that the murders are a broader category of gender-non-conforming, vs the 0.6% figure which is a subset that is specifically trans, the degree to which gender-non-conforming people are murdered as compared to the general population is even more under-represented.

So, no, trans people are not being prevented from existing in that capacity in the United States.

Now, in regards to not accepting people's identity, as I've already said...this is a completely different thing. If you take someone like JK Rowling, who is frequently labeled a TERF, then the criteria for "not allowing trans people to exist" is literally predicated on the existence of somebody who says that biological women exist as a valid category that is distinct from trans women. That is what JK Rowling says. She doesn't say trans people don't exist. She doesn't say that trans identities aren't valid, or that she wouldn't treat a trans person by the gender they identify with. She just says that a biological woman is a valid categorization. Now, of course there are people that don't accept that trans people's identities are what they say they are, but again, this also includes a good deal of semantic disagreement.

When a trans woman asserts "I am a woman," and somebody else says "no you're not," there is quite a bit of semantic warfare going on in that disagreement. The trans woman is saying, "I am a woman, which I mean to say that my gender is woman, which I mean to say is that my gender identity is woman, and therefore I am a woman." The critic says "no, you are not a woman, which I mean to say that your sex is not a woman." Again, this is not denying their right to exist, this is functionally a semantic argument. Freedom to exist does not mean that everyone in the society accepts the identity you put forth, and this isn't just limited to gender issues.