Simple objective reality. Nobody is diagnosing boys as trans or having gender dysphoria simply because they play with Barbies. People in a certain bubble may believe it's happening, but in the real world it takes a lot more than "plays with barbies" to get that diagnosis.
What makes you think anyone can have access to objective reality? What makes you think a first assertion holds more weight than a second? What makes you think bubbles are not a thing? What makes you think certain phrases don't immediately betray how little someone knows about people outside of their bubble?
I know enough people outside of the heteronormative experience to know that nothing about playing with Barbies pushes people toward being trans. It's reminiscent of the classic "violent games make kids violent" line. That's not the case at all -- rather violent kids are attracted more to violent games. The causality is completely incorrect and displays an obvious naivete paired with a pre-existing ideological bias.
>What makes you think anyone can have access to objective reality?
Because independent people agree, when independent sources of data agree on something, that means the thing they are agreeing on is (plausibly) larger than them, and that's what we call 'reality'.
>What makes you think a first assertion holds more weight than a second?
I don't.
>What makes you think bubbles are not a thing?
That's literally the opposite of what I said.
>I know enough people outside of the heteronormative experience to know that nothing about playing with Barbies pushes people toward being trans.
Cool, but you're missing the point that nobody claims that playing with Barbies, by itself, makes people trans. But rather what's being claimed is that certain people push the people who play Barbies into being trans, which is an entirely different thing.
>obvious naivete paired with a pre-existing ideological bias
You say this as if you don't have an obviously ample supply of those yourself.
Your right. Obviously we can't be sure birds are real, because some people say (without evidence) bird's aren't real and how can we say we have a better grasp of objective reality than them? Obviously, based on their absurd and evidence-less claims, we should forever question if birds are actually flying creatures and not government drones, regardless of our own experiences with birds and information provided by people who study birds for a living.
But by all means, provide me one documented case of a biological male being diagnosed with gender dysphoria by an actual medical professional based on nothing but the fact he plays with Barbies and burst my "bubble".
The comparison to birds is bizarre because they are a public phenomena that anyone can see and study, gender transitions aren't.
>our own experiences with birds
Which is none in the case of gender transitions, or very little for some people. But certainly nowhere near the experience of an average person with birds.
>information provided by people who study birds for a living
Which is not reliable in the case of gender transitions, because those who "study them for a living" have proven themselves to be unreliable and value-laden communicators who either has an ideology to push or are too timid to challenge those who do have an ideology to push. Don't forget the substantial material incentive for diagnosing people with gender dysphoria (months and possibly years of consultation and medical appointments, services and products), if ornithologists were similarly ideological and have reasons to benefit from denying that birds are drones, I would be skeptical of their claims too, until I see lots of birds and study them myself at any rate.
>provide me one documented case of a biological male being diagnosed with gender dysphoria
Diagnosis is medical data that is mostly non-public, so this is an impossible demand for rigor. And yet, here's[1] the next best thing, a celebrated psychologist with a long career in sex and gender research, editor for several journals, slandered and fired because activists are outraged he tries to encourage gender-non-conforming kids to be comfortable in their assigned gender instead of transitioning them immediately. So anybody who doesn't diagnose a barbie-playing boy with dysphoria and transition them is at risk of being slandered and fired no matter what their contribution or position is. I consider this pretty solid evidence for the original claim.
It's hilarious that the first "answer" to the Quora question "How do you stop a boy from playing with dolls?" is a targeted ad saying "Ad by Amazon Web Services (AWS): AWS is how. AWS removes the complexity of building, training, and deploying machine learning models at any scale." ;)
