This is fantastic! Very good points, very thoughtful and well-reasoned. It is a shame that it is unlikely that the people who most need to read this ever will.

I do think, however, that all three bolded points that you raise, as stated, are ones that are reasonable to discuss as well. I fully agree that if you're going to discuss some aspect of trans-affirming health care (e.g. puberty blockers) on their own merits, with trans people, you'd better at least conditionally accept some basic premises.

But premises themselves should be open to question at some point or they aren't premises so much as articles of faith. These aren't the kind of premises that need to be foundational to our entire epistemology or morality; they're derived from other things. Of course having to support them over and over and over and never getting anywhere else is exhausting. But being honestly questioned shouldn't be viewed as threatening--it's an opportunity to check assumptions, and to share knowledge with each other. There is, unfortunately, a lot of posturing and grandstanding masquerading as questioning, where there is zero interest in learning or resolving anything. But the existence of (and depressingly high frequency of) such things should not prevent actual discussion of premises in the appropriate context.

The problem with the three premises as stated--though I think I understand in each case what you're trying to get at--is that the straightforward and obvious response to at least the principles behind them, if not the actual statement, is, in at least in two of the three cases, an obvious "No, absolutely definitely no!"

Unfortunately, things are more complicated than the points indicate, and if someone actually is uncomfortable about, say, puberty blockers for children, it's very unlikely that they're going to be aligned on the precise context and interpretation of the statements that you made that makes them reasonable to entertain instead of obvious rubbish. So I don't think this is actually a good place to start a debate. I do think anyone who wants to talk about these issues should be able to think about what you've said and try to understand the points anyway, but I think we also would need to be forgiving of those who are starting far enough away so they can't get there.

And this is one of the biggest problems for trans rights that I see: supporters rapidly lose the ability to talk to everyone else, and the stronger the support, the less comprehensible and relatable they become. And it's not because people are inherently so opposed to the position. It's mostly a problem with jargon and slogans that feel right only when viewed from the proper perspective.

So, taking the three points as phrased--and I'm not going to be terribly gentle here because I think it's important for the issues to be really clear, because I think stuff like this hinders understanding of and empathy for trans people:

1. Are trans people real

Um, yes? They exist? How is this a question? (Again--I understand what you're getting at, but this is not accessible language. You're making a complex point about the equivalence between an internal conception of identity and some sort of objective or societal affirmation thereof, but it's coming out as an undeniable but uninformative statement of fact.)

and valid

What does it even mean for a person to be valid? Is a sociopath "valid"? Is a white supremacist "valid"? What about a dentist? A narcissist? Liz Cheney? Ed Sheeran? The homeless guy screaming obscenities and spitting on passers-by? A transphobe? Lassie?

I mean, Lassie is, technically, a dog, and also fictional, but in the movies and T.V. show, Lassie is often the most human character around. She sure feels like a valid person to me.

Again, I think I understand what you're getting at, but it's not phrased in an accessible way.

or are they suffering from some psychological problem

If taken at face-value, this is tremendously offensive to anyone who actually has a psychological problem, making it sound like because they are struggling with some aspect of their mental health, they're not a real and valid person. Toxic, much? I thought we as a society were trying to de-stigmatize mental health issues, hm?

Even if transgender identity were a psychological problem, are you implying that we could be needlessly cruel or indifferently unaccommodating to trans people? I certainly hope (and expect) not!

Anyway, what ever happened to having respect for the intrinsic value of all people and promoting the dignity of all people?

2. Should trans adults get to decide for themselves what sex [...] they are?

Hang on, isn't "sex" the innate biological aspect of things? Isn't the entire point of the category of "sex" as opposed to "gender" that while the latter is cultural and therefore a matter of decision, the former is not?

Why ask "should" when it isn't a matter of decision? Should adults get to decide for themselves if they're 6'4" tall (or 4'11")? Should adults get to decide for themselves if they have seasonal allergies? Well ideally obviously yes, if deciding made it so, but that isn't a very helpful observation, is it?

This seems to be code for a more complex and nuanced position. If you think through all of it, in fact, it seems extremely close to assuming the consequent when it comes to discussions of puberty blockers for children, because the closest you can practically get to being able to choose your sex as an adult is to be on puberty blockers until you're chronologically an adult.

So your opening position for even being able to debate trans youth health care is to not merely fully endorse one of the more controversial parts of it, but to advocate for its near-universal application. How is that, at that point, even a debate?

I suspect you didn't actually quite mean it this way, but this is the implication of what you said.

3. Should we have to acknowledge who people say they are, if it conflicts with our own understanding or beliefs about biology and the world?

"Hi, I'm Tom Cruise, the High President of Atlantis and America."

It would be polite to acknowledge that "President Cruise" is speaking to us. Maybe we will humor, but not accept, his description of how people in Atlantis reproduce by budding rather than sexually. If he starts demanding $20 in "taxation", however, we are entitled to refuse, and if he starts a "federal law enforcement action" to try to steal it from us, we are entitled to resist, escape, and/or call the actual police.

Furthermore, "I'm a virulent transphobe who is going to 'maintain the viability of the human race' through opposing every form of trans rights there is," can also be what someone says they are. I would acknowledge this, reject the position, and do my part in ensuring they don't end up in a position of significant power while they retain that outlook.

So I'm pretty sure you don't believe the phrase as written even remotely. You probably mean something much much more limited in scope, but it's not what you said.

-------------

I very much agree with and support the idea behind having some minimal preconditions to be able to discuss certain issues. If you deny that viruses exist, you're not equipped to discuss Covid vaccination policies; if you deny that Jews have a right to exist anywhere in the world, let alone Israel, you're not equipped to discuss the Palestinian situation; if you deny that the January 6th attack in the United States was perpetrated by Trump supporters, you're not equipped to discuss security of federal offices following an election. There's a minimum level of knowledge and compassion necessary to deserve a seat at the table; vicious trolls belong under bridges, not in negotiations.

I also think it's absolutely correct that people have a tendency to warp their view of reality to make sure their worldview isn't challenged in any meaningful way.

I think it's quite right that there are some people--hopefully not too many, but gosh, are they loud and hard to ignore sometimes--who want to have people to hate and to feel superior to.

And I agree with your points about how to engage productively and ethically--so much so that I'm going to reproduce them here:

You have to know what you are talking about.

And in order to do that, you have to listen receptively.

And in order to do that, you have to be willing to change your mind.

Absolutely, and well stated!

But I don't think your three bolded, twice-stated points are good ones to deliver "to people who object to trans youth accessing puberty blockers".

Those points are written from the perspective of a supporter, using the lingo of supporters, and posted on a site where I'm sure you know very well there are lots of supporters. And it sure doesn't signal--despite your offer for people to try--that you're actually willing to change your mind at all, because that's the kind of language that you use to plant a flag in the ground, not discuss territorial boundaries. Maybe you're implicitly pointing out that people who want puberty blockers for their trans children are unwilling to have any of their views challenged, so if you're going to talk to them at all, you have to accept pretty much the whole viewpoint. But I don't think that's what you meant either.

It's still a fantastic post.

The content is almost perfect as long as the title doesn't actually say who your audience is (rather, the target audience is "people who object to people-who-object-to-trans-youth-accessing-puberty-blockers" and the title says who the mock-audience is).

But I don't think it's a very good way to actually invite thoughtful discussion because the core points are phrased using inspiring but jargony and divisive language.