MAP Forum

https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking- ... k-csam-bad

Protecting children from sexual exploitation and abuse is something nearly everyone agrees is both important and good. In our highly polarized political moment, however, a divide has opened up between people on the left, who are concerned about the proliferation of technology to sexualize images of children against their will and people on the right who claim the acceptance of transgender people is related to childhood sexual abuse in some way. Giving full weight and consideration to both sides, it quickly becomes clear that those on the left are completely right while there is absolutely no merit to the concerns of those on the right.

It is an undisputed fact that Twitter (also sometimes called X) hosts an AI called Grok, and that Grok has created child pornography when asked. It’s not difficult to understand why this is wrong, as the harmful effects of deepfakes on adult women have been well documented. Subjecting children to the intimidation and disgust of seeing sexualized images of themselves created without their consent is obviously as bad or worse. For those images not based on a photo of a real child, it’s still completely reasonable to believe realistic depictions of abuse can normalize acts of abuse and lead to actual abuse.

The arguments against allowing Grok to create child pornography are straightforward, easy to follow, and based on information about something widely reported and true.

Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I honestly think people are going after Grok because it’s Musk’s, not because it does anything that a lot of other models—or even Photoshop—can’t already do.

And how did we go from “been well documented” for something that’s only been around for a few years to “it’s still completely reasonable” for something that, if it were actually real, would’ve been documented since cave paintings?

And just to be clear, I’m all for minors having the freedom to do what they want, including transitioning. But how can people completely ignore where the right’s concerns are actually coming from? It’s about the fact that psychologists can be wrong when diagnosing a condition. (From what I’ve read, that margin of error seems pretty small—but it’s not zero. So it’s kind of understandable that a group that’s extremely sensitive about protecting minors wouldn’t be okay with even a small margin of error. Especially when that margin might still be larger than the chances of a specific minor being traumatized because they somehow stumbled across a sexualized image of themselves.)

If the essay I cited were a school project, I'd mark it a D-.

Not Forever wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 3:54 am Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I honestly think people are going after Grok because it’s Musk’s, not because it does anything that a lot of other models—or even Photoshop—can’t already do.

And how did we go from “been well documented” for something that’s only been around for a few years to “it’s still completely reasonable” for something that, if it were actually real, would’ve been documented since cave paintings?

And just to be clear, I’m all for minors having the freedom to do what they want, including transitioning. But how can people completely ignore where the right’s concerns are actually coming from? It’s about the fact that psychologists can be wrong when diagnosing a condition. (From what I’ve read, that margin of error seems pretty small—but it’s not zero. So it’s kind of understandable that a group that’s extremely sensitive about protecting minors wouldn’t be okay with even a small margin of error. Especially when that margin might still be larger than the chances of a specific minor being traumatized because they somehow stumbled across a sexualized image of themselves.)

Even when it comes to gender dysphoria being misdiagnosed, the person has to figure out their gender for themselves. Unlike high cholesterol that could be due to any number of causes, gender identity is ultimately self-defined, and the 'concerns' on the right often extend to fully reversible matters like social transition, just pronouns and clothing choices - AKA they want to take away minors' autonomy over their body for things that can be fully changed in a matter of minutes. That, and medicine is changing so rapidly I wouldn't be surprised if detransitioning were much easier in just a couple of years for that small margin who face regrets. I agree though that going after Grok is probably because of Musk - a ketamine addicted billionaire who reposts white nationalist content and defunded child cancer research through DOGE is such a low hanging fruit it's practically on the ground.

Scorchingwilde wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:14 am Even when it comes to gender dysphoria being misdiagnosed, the person has to figure out their gender for themselves. Unlike high cholesterol that could be due to any number of causes, gender identity is ultimately self-defined, and the 'concerns' on the right often extend to fully reversible matters like social transition, just pronouns and clothing choices - AKA they want to take away minors' autonomy over their body for things that can be fully changed in a matter of minutes. That, and medicine is changing so rapidly I wouldn't be surprised if detransitioning were much easier in just a couple of years for that small margin who face regrets. I agree though that going after Grok is probably because of Musk - a ketamine addicted billionaire who reposts white nationalist content and defunded child cancer research through DOGE is such a low hanging fruit it's practically on the ground.

For me, gender is synonymous with sex, and in Western societies it has always been synonymous with sex. Society then built stereotypes on top of that, and in recent times these stereotypes (behavioral, clothing-related, occupational, etc.) have been criticized, but gender has never been seen as something different from sex.

Then some social sciences analyzed society and used the term “gender” to analyze these constructs. They used the same term to analyze other societies as well, and people began to talk about other genders, understood as other social constructs. (Which could include: nuns, priests, children, adolescents, adults—if we want, from this point of view they can all be considered different “genders.” Or at least they could be, if we had a stronger distinction between nuns and women, similar to the one we currently have between adolescents and adults, with different rights, duties, and expectations, seeing them as distinct entities.)

Gender identity dysphoria is yet a third thing, and it concerns distress. This distress can take various forms: not perceiving oneself as belonging to a given gender, not being perceived by others as belonging to a given gender, etc., with varying intensity and things like that.

For me, there is no such thing as “figuring out one’s gender on one’s own,” because for that it’s enough to look between one’s legs. If instead we are talking about a construct, then it will vary from culture to culture, and it is not the individual who decides it, but rather something assigned to them by society (which they can reject, even simply by emigrating). Then there is the third issue, which is dysphoria, but even there it’s not about “figuring it out,” it’s about the distress one feels—and given that living on psychotropic drugs sucks, it is certainly less traumatic to undergo a gender transition.

That said, for me there isn’t even a need for dysphoria for a person to undergo a gender transition: it’s enough that they want to do it. But if, instead, one wants transition to be allowed only for those who have dysphoria, then I think it’s useful to know whether it really is gender dysphoria and not bodily dysphoria, or a misunderstanding, or things like that. (I myself had a problem of this kind. But to be clear, if I had transitioned it would have been solely my responsibility, even if it stemmed from persuasion.) And here the concerns of the political right toward psychologists are well founded.

Given that I believe there are very few people who, like me, would allow a minor to undergo a gender transition (perhaps without dysphoria, paid for with their own money; if the motivations are medical, then funded with public money) simply based on their desire to do so, even if only as a game—after having informed them about the risks, etc., as is done with any medical procedure.

Not Forever wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 7:23 am

Scorchingwilde wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 5:14 am Even when it comes to gender dysphoria being misdiagnosed, the person has to figure out their gender for themselves. Unlike high cholesterol that could be due to any number of causes, gender identity is ultimately self-defined, and the 'concerns' on the right often extend to fully reversible matters like social transition, just pronouns and clothing choices - AKA they want to take away minors' autonomy over their body for things that can be fully changed in a matter of minutes. That, and medicine is changing so rapidly I wouldn't be surprised if detransitioning were much easier in just a couple of years for that small margin who face regrets. I agree though that going after Grok is probably because of Musk - a ketamine addicted billionaire who reposts white nationalist content and defunded child cancer research through DOGE is such a low hanging fruit it's practically on the ground.

For me, gender is synonymous with sex, and in Western societies it has always been synonymous with sex. Society then built stereotypes on top of that, and in recent times these stereotypes (behavioral, clothing-related, occupational, etc.) have been criticized, but gender has never been seen as something different from sex.

Then some social sciences analyzed society and used the term “gender” to analyze these constructs. They used the same term to analyze other societies as well, and people began to talk about other genders, understood as other social constructs. (Which could include: nuns, priests, children, adolescents, adults—if we want, from this point of view they can all be considered different “genders.” Or at least they could be, if we had a stronger distinction between nuns and women, similar to the one we currently have between adolescents and adults, with different rights, duties, and expectations, seeing them as distinct entities.)

Gender identity dysphoria is yet a third thing, and it concerns distress. This distress can take various forms: not perceiving oneself as belonging to a given gender, not being perceived by others as belonging to a given gender, etc., with varying intensity and things like that.

For me, there is no such thing as “figuring out one’s gender on one’s own,” because for that it’s enough to look between one’s legs. If instead we are talking about a construct, then it will vary from culture to culture, and it is not the individual who decides it, but rather something assigned to them by society (which they can reject, even simply by emigrating). Then there is the third issue, which is dysphoria, but even there it’s not about “figuring it out,” it’s about the distress one feels—and given that living on psychotropic drugs sucks, it is certainly less traumatic to undergo a gender transition.

That said, for me there isn’t even a need for dysphoria for a person to undergo a gender transition: it’s enough that they want to do it. But if, instead, one wants transition to be allowed only for those who have dysphoria, then I think it’s useful to know whether it really is gender dysphoria and not bodily dysphoria, or a misunderstanding, or things like that. (I myself had a problem of this kind. But to be clear, if I had transitioned it would have been solely my responsibility, even if it stemmed from persuasion.) And here the concerns of the political right toward psychologists are well founded.

Given that I believe there are very few people who, like me, would allow a minor to undergo a gender transition (perhaps without dysphoria, paid for with their own money; if the motivations are medical, then funded with public money) simply based on their desire to do so, even if only as a game—after having informed them about the risks, etc., as is done with any medical procedure.

But gender being defined as synonymous with sex is also itself a construct. It probably isn't productive to discuss the nuances of gender further here, but I will add there don't even exist psychotropic drugs that can make gender dysphoria lessen as an alternative to transitioning for people with sex dysphoria, or even just social gender dysphoria. I think that desire itself is also reason enough to transition, on that we can agree.

I bring up the examples related to people denying children the ability to change clothes, hair, i.e. gender presentation, only to point out that social conservatives who feign genuine concern over transition regret among minors who receive medical interventions have an ulterior motive related to enforcing gender stereotypes and behaviors. I understand that there are people who have a knee-jerk reaction and immediately concern over any medicine or surgery for children, but the people who have those opinions who've actually thought them over do not have genuine concern for trans minors in their hearts, which is something I can agree with the anti-MAP author of that article about. That's what I suppose I'm trying to get at.

Scorchingwilde wrote: Fri Jan 23, 2026 8:00 pmBut gender being defined as synonymous with sex is also itself a construct. It probably isn't productive to discuss the nuances of gender further here, but I will add there don't even exist psychotropic drugs that can make gender dysphoria lessen as an alternative to transitioning for people with sex dysphoria, or even just social gender dysphoria. I think that desire itself is also reason enough to transition, on that we can agree.

I bring up the examples related to people denying children the ability to change clothes, hair, i.e. gender presentation, only to point out that social conservatives who feign genuine concern over transition regret among minors who receive medical interventions have an ulterior motive related to enforcing gender stereotypes and behaviors. I understand that there are people who have a knee-jerk reaction and immediately concern over any medicine or surgery for children, but the people who have those opinions who've actually thought them over do not have genuine concern for trans minors in their hearts, which is something I can agree with the anti-MAP author of that article about. That's what I suppose I'm trying to get at.

Well, yes and no. Everything starts from the body and from its role in reproduction. The term sex came first, and only later was gender used as a less direct term by recycling it… well, if I’m not mistaken it originally meant lineage/origin or something like that. This isn’t really a construct, but rather the evolution of language—how terms change meaning over time.

Later on, it was decided to label all sets of stereotypes under the term “gender,” which for me was a mistake, because it leads to today’s disputes, which are basically tied to terms and definitions. They’re complaints like “don’t call it a vegan hamburger because hamburger by definition includes meat.”

But I think the modern view of social constructs is different from ancient ones. In the past, there was a need to know what a child would grow up to do. A man is on average stronger, so you train him from childhood to till the land; therefore he needed a different diet and to spend his day differently. (Then again, it’s not true that women didn’t till the land—let’s say it depended on the place.) If you wanted to go to war, you took the males, and things like that.

In short, there was a necessity.
Then, like every society, we built on top of it: we gave it meanings and values, and we kept unnecessary things even when society changed. That brings us to today, where someone with long hair is considered “feminine.” But also because we’re visual animals, so we easily make associations. We therefore see makeup as feminine, heels as feminine, certain clothing styles as feminine. Interests that have biological, social, and other motivations, but since they’re prevalent in one sex they become part of that stereotype. This also exists in other areas, like the categories of emo, punk, and similar subcultures.

And those who step outside their own stereotype end up struggling, because they’re isolated and misunderstood by society.

But this is also why I somewhat dislike today’s attitude when talking about social constructs, because my idea of progress should be to give them less value, not more. “Gender presentation” was supposed to lose importance, not to have the intention of presenting as another gender attributed to anyone who doesn’t fit stereotypes.
The point is not to consider males with long hair as “women/female,” because that reminds me a bit of the mockery aimed at those who deviated from stereotypes, whether aesthetic or sexual.

I apologize if I dwell on one point, even if it’s only secondary, but it’s a topic I’ve been involved with for a while. For various reasons—both because I was pushed toward undergoing a gender transition and because I was mistaken multiple times for a woman despite not being one. I wouldn’t want it, but if we ended up there, so be it, that it became culturally acceptable for those who don’t fit a stereotype to have to go under a doctor’s knife in order to align their body with their personality, effectively returning to not accepting males or females who don’t align with stereotypes.
A bit like, exaggerating, someone responding to a gay person’s coming out by saying: transition genders so you’ll be normal again.

Of course, we’re far from that point, but since I don’t expect any moderation of rhetoric tied to acquired rights, I prefer to prevent rather than cure.

(And here I want to bring back one concept: even if people were to undergo surgery due to social pressure, for me the result of that pressure should still be considered an individual choice. Pressures of all kinds always exist and always will. As long as they aren’t outright blackmail, individual choice is always involved.)