International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Trans Women are not Women (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325369)

Puppycow 28th February 2019 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12618213)
I should really try to find the figures, but as I understand most people who consider themselves transgender at a young age turn out not to be by the time they are 25.

Interesting. Otoh, I'm sure if you ask transgender adults, especially activists, when they first knew that they were transgender, many of them will say that they knew from a very young age.

Lambchops 28th February 2019 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12618333)
Obviously

But then you think the other side aren't?

It quotes actual studies

Feel free to critique them

The "critique" is in the link I posted. Your source is bullcrap. "The other side" is actual facts on the subject. And facts don't care about your feelings.

Why exactly is it so difficult for you accept the existence of transgender people? You understand that this is not something the "SJW's" have made up, right? You understand that transgender people have been a thing since forever, right? And that they are not going away no matter how many laughable links you supply?

Ask yourself these questions. I'm not interested in the answers you come up with, but you might learn something about yourself.

cullennz 28th February 2019 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lambchops (Post 12618351)
The "critique" is in the link I posted. Your source is bullcrap. "The other side" is actual facts on the subject. And facts don't care about your feelings.

Why exactly is it so difficult for you accept the existence of transgender people? You understand that this is not something the "SJW's" have made up, right? You understand that transgender people have been a thing since forever, right? And that they are not going away no matter how many laughable links you supply?

Ask yourself these questions. I'm not interested in the answers you come up with, but you might learn something about yourself.

I was talking about the studies they reference, as you well know.

And don't try the "Cullennz disagrees kids should have puberty blocked based on the kids "feelings", so he thinks there are no genuine transgenders" ****, as it just makes you and your argument look hysterical and silly

quadraginta 1st March 2019 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12618213)
I should really try to find the figures, but as I understand most people who consider themselves transgender at a young age turn out not to be by the time they are 25.


Yes, you really should.

It would be interesting to see how the pool of subjects was chosen, and what sort of controls were used.

Also how persistent the belief wasand to what age, before they changed their minds.

Counseling can weed out a lot of children who initially might think they may be trans. This is why it is required before more serious interventions are considered.

A more interesting and useful question would be along the lines of how many people who thought they might be transgender at a young age and continued to up to the onset of puberty even after counseling and therapy decided they weren't by age 25.

I suspect the results would not be "most people" anymore.

The way your statement is phrased leaves a lot of room for playing with the numbers.

cullennz 1st March 2019 12:20 AM

From what I have seen she is a range of between 60 something and 90 something % going by the limited studies.

cullennz 1st March 2019 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadraginta (Post 12618360)
Yes, you really should.

It would be interesting to see how the pool of subjects was chosen, and what sort of controls were used.

Also how persistent the belief wasand to what age, before they changed their minds.

Counseling can weed out a lot of children who initially might think they may be trans. This is why it is required before more serious interventions are considered.

A more interesting and useful question would be along the lines of how many people who thought they might be transgender at a young age and continued to up to the onset of puberty even after counseling and therapy decided they weren't by age 25.

I suspect the results would not be "most people" anymore.

The way your statement is phrased leaves a lot of room for playing with the numbers.

The perfect and unfortunately impossible study would involve time travel and seeing how many of the same kids grow out of it with and without puberty blockers.

Because the unknown bit is how much puberty blocking affects the final outcome, and how much bad stuff can happen later on if puberty blocking stops growing out of it normally.

Bit of a hash of a sentence there

Roboramma 1st March 2019 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12618337)
Interesting. Otoh, I'm sure if you ask transgender adults, especially activists, when they first knew that they were transgender, many of them will say that they knew from a very young age.

Sure, those facts are entirely compatible.

It just suggests that while there are many false positives (children initially displaying gender disphoria and then later becoming comfortable with their biological sex), there aren't many false negatives (children not initially displaying gender disphoria, but is presenting itself in adulthood).

This still leaves us with a situation that for any particular child displaying the signs of gender disphoria, they are likely to turn out not to be when they reach adulthood.

Does that mean puberty blockers shouldn't be used? I don't know, but I do think it suggests against transitioning.

I am interested in knowing at what age gender disphoria that is still present tends to be permanent. That's probably the age at which permanent changes should be considered.

Puppycow 1st March 2019 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12618369)
It just suggests that while there are many false positives (children initially displaying gender disphoria and then later becoming comfortable with their biological sex), there aren't many false negatives (children not initially displaying gender disphoria, but is presenting itself in adulthood).

Are people like Caitlyn Jenner a counterexample to that? Or just a case of spending most of her life in the closet about it? I'm definitely aware of some people who were well into adulthood before deciding to transition.

Roboramma 1st March 2019 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadraginta (Post 12618360)
Yes, you really should.

It would be interesting to see how the pool of subjects was chosen, and what sort of controls were used.

This article gives a pretty good run down.

Here's a quote:
Quote:

While the actual percentages vary from study to study, overall, it appears that about 80 percent of kids with gender dysphoria end up feeling okay, in the long run, with the bodies they were born into.

And here's one of the studies being discussed:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...90856713001871

It appears that they were actually looking at persistence from childhood to adolescence, not to adulthood (I said 25, but it seems I was wrong).

Roboramma 1st March 2019 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puppycow (Post 12618376)
Are people like Caitlyn Jenner a counterexample to that? Or just a case of spending most of her life in the closet about it? I'm definitely aware of some people who were well into adulthood before deciding to transition.

Yeah, maybe. I don't think that there's much of an issue with people who didn't present gender dysphoria at a young age but do as adults. I'm certainly not inclined to disbelieve them because they've made the realisation late, though it may be reason for them to take more time in considering their feelings, I guess. I also think that adults should be allowed to make their own decisions, but the issue with children is more difficult and thus it is important to understand whether or not gender dysphoria will persist into adulthood in order to know how it should be approached with respect to children.

The Atheist 1st March 2019 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 12618377)
This article gives a pretty good run down.

Very good link - cheers.

Mycroft 1st March 2019 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12617625)
Putting aside the fact I haven't seen anyone on here claiming they should just be dismissed, I am curious to know what age you feel IS too young to be making irreversible changes to children's bodies, going on what the child says the feel.

It seems to me that choice should be between the child, their family, and their doctors.

Disagree?

theprestige 1st March 2019 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12618980)
It seems to me that choice should be between the child, their family, and their doctors.

Disagree?

I'm agnostic. For now, I'm provisionally taking the null hypothesis for your claim: It should not be a choice between the child, their family, and their doctors.

Can you tell me more about your guiding principles, when and why you make exceptions, etc.?

For example, there are many things that we (as a society) say should *not* be a child's choice. There are two broad sets of guiding principles for this, both with exceptions.

One set of guiding principles is along the lines of, nothing should be a child's choice. And then we make exceptions in some cases, where we allow the child to choose.

The other set of guiding principles is along the lines of, everything should be the child's choice. And then we make exceptions in some cases, where we don't allow the child to choose.

So. Your idea that a child should be allowed to choose their gender, pre-puberty. Does it fall under your guiding principle that children should be allowed to make their own choices, and you can't see a reason to make an exception here? Or is the other way around?

If that's too broad a consideration, we can keep it in the realm of medical choices. It's not hard to find a kid that doesn't want to be jabbed with a needle. Do we let them choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated?

---

It's a similar case with doctors. There are plenty of medical procedures that we don't leave to the doctor's discretion. Late-term abortions of convenience, for example. Euthanasia, for another. Should this procedure be one of them? Why or why not?

---

If you think that as a matter of social policy we should let it be a choice between the child, their family, and their doctors, then it's incumbent upon you to advocate for this policy. Before you seek agreement or disagreement, you should explain why you think this is a good policy. What principles are you basing it on? How does it follow from those prinicples? Is it an exception to a general rule, or an application of that rule? Are you prepared to address the concerns and objections raised by others, based on the same reasoning? Etc.

Ziggurat 1st March 2019 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mycroft (Post 12618980)
It seems to me that choice should be between the child, their family, and their doctors.

Disagree?

As a legal matter, I don't think the state is better positioned to make this decision. But I am concerned that the basis on which the decision is often made may not be fully informed by all the relevant facts. In other words, I don't trust that doctors are helping parents and kids make the right decisions, but I don't trust anyone else with the power to intervene either.

Ron_Tomkins 1st March 2019 03:18 PM

This is why we can't get along, if we can't even agree to each other on what we are.

Darat 1st March 2019 03:32 PM

Sport is a non-state issue, let the various sport bodies and organisations decide for themselves what criteria they wish to use. Some may want to stop trans people competing in a certain segment, others may not. Many of the larger sporting organisations even control what legal substances people who want to compete in that organisation can consume and use, so they are already "force" people to do what they want if they want to compete.

theprestige 1st March 2019 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12619186)
Sport is a non-state issue, let the various sport bodies and organisations decide for themselves what criteria they wish to use. Some may want to stop trans people competing in a certain segment, others may not. Many of the larger sporting organisations even control what legal substances people who want to compete in that organisation can consume and use, so they are already "force" people to do what they want if they want to compete.

Discriminating against people on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or race, however, is a state issue. So sporting organizations can't just say "our business, our rules" and expect the state to stay out of it. Any more than a bakery can do so. That's the real nub of the problem. If the state determines that transsexuals are entitled to certain recognition on the basis of gender, sporting organizations will find themselves right up against a state issue.

Darat 1st March 2019 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12617670)
If you delay puberty until the person turns 18, is it no longer child abuse, because they're no longer a child?

Related issue: Doesn't brain development continue into the mid-twenties? Does delaying puberty delay that process as well? Does a delayed-puberty 20 year old have a 20 year old's brain maturity? Or are they still stuck with the intellectual capacity of a 12 year old?

In my view we don't have the scientific evidence (yet) as to the true lifetime risk of trying to supress the physiological changes that occur through puberty. However we do know that environmental factors can alter the age of the onset of puberty, over a hundred years ago it is estimated the average age of onset of puberty in girls was around 16, it is now in the USA around 10 years of age. We don't fully know why this has happened but it shows there is a great amount of inherant plasticity so it may be we can safely delay it from the average today of 10 to the average of 16 from a hundred years ago without too many side effects. But as I say we don't have good answers yet.

We have to weigh that uncertainty against some things we do know and that is the suffering that trans people relate about going through puberty and their bodies changing in the wrong way (to them). This can be so acute that it increases the risk of suicide and other mental illness.

Whatever decisions parents, children and medical practitioners make it is one that can't be made with certainty that it is the best decision.

Darat 1st March 2019 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619201)
Discriminating against people on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or race, however, is a state issue. So sporting organizations can't just say "our business, our rules" and expect the state to stay out of it. Any more than a bakery can do so. That's the real nub of the problem. If the state determines that transsexuals are entitled to certain recognition on the basis of gender, sporting organizations will find themselves right up against a state issue.

Er yes they can else you wouldn't have men and women in separate competitions, often with different sporting authorities for the different sexes. No idea why we do allow such discrimination but we certainly do.

cullennz 1st March 2019 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619201)
Discriminating against people on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, or race, however, is a state issue. So sporting organizations can't just say "our business, our rules" and expect the state to stay out of it. Any more than a bakery can do so. That's the real nub of the problem. If the state determines that transsexuals are entitled to certain recognition on the basis of gender, sporting organizations will find themselves right up against a state issue.


Um. Yes they can.

Discriminating on gender happens all the time.

theprestige 1st March 2019 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12619205)
Er yes they can else you wouldn't have men and women in separate competitions, often with different sporting authorities for the different sexes. No idea why we do allow such discrimination but we certainly do.

You seem to have missed the conditionals in my post.

theprestige 1st March 2019 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cullennz (Post 12619208)
Um. Yes they can.

Discriminating on gender happens all the time.

And the state is involved. The state is the one that decides what discrimination is permitted and what discrimination is not.

Both you and Darat seem to have badly misunderstood my point. You both seem to think that I'm arguing that because gender discrimination is a state issue, the state must be prohibiting all such discrimination. That's not my argument.

My argument is simply that because gender discrimination is a state issue, sporting organizations don't actually get to decide discrimination questions in a vacuum, and should not assume that they will continue to be free from state regulation regarding discrimination against transsexuals.

theprestige 1st March 2019 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12619205)
No idea why we do allow such discrimination but we certainly do.

Seriously? You've never given much thought to this area of public policy? Not enough to form any kind of idea at all? Not even a provisional one?

I mean, just from reading this thread alone, I've at least some idea of why we do it this way. And this is only one of several threads on this topic in the past few years. How are you still not having any idea about this?

Ziggurat 1st March 2019 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12619186)
Sport is a non-state issue, let the various sport bodies and organisations decide for themselves what criteria they wish to use.

Title IX makes college sports a state issue. And the state is threatening to get involved with the USA Powerlifting organization because of its decision to ban transgender women from competing as women. So itís not a non state issue, even if it should be.

cullennz 1st March 2019 07:01 PM

All good

Lets just go with it.

Hey if blokes want to change and enter female sports like boxing and MMA, who cares.

Sure they will be pulverising women in the age of metoo and maybe a couple of girls will die, but that is just a side issue to the fulfilling the rights of the minority.

Mycroft 1st March 2019 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 12619108)
As a legal matter, I don't think the state is better positioned to make this decision. But I am concerned that the basis on which the decision is often made may not be fully informed by all the relevant facts. In other words, I don't trust that doctors are helping parents and kids make the right decisions, but I don't trust anyone else with the power to intervene either.

It comes down to fear of making the wrong choice. You don't want to transition a child if you feel that child will come to regret that decision. At the same time, that child could just as easily regret putting off the transition, especially if hormonal changes make it much harder to make that transition look natural.

Yes, it's right to be concerned that decisions may not be fully informed, but the job of making sure they are falls on the doctors and parents involved. There is not much you and I can do to help out, and it's certainly unlikely that government could help.

I think on this issue we have to accept that sometimes, despite the best intentions of everyone, sometimes the wrong decision will be made. Hopefully not very often, but you can't rule it out. That shouldn't stop us from doing our best to make the rights decisions.

Mycroft 1st March 2019 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619050)
I'm agnostic. For now, I'm provisionally taking the null hypothesis for your claim: It should not be a choice between the child, their family, and their doctors.

Who, then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619050)
Can you tell me more about your guiding principles, when and why you make exceptions, etc.?

The guiding principle is the choice is made by the people effected by the choice, and that it's nobody else's business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619050)
So. Your idea that a child should be allowed to choose their gender, pre-puberty. Does it fall under your guiding principle that children should be allowed to make their own choices, and you can't see a reason to make an exception here? Or is the other way around?

It's not like you're presenting a choice to the child like milk or juice. These kids raise the issue themselves because they feel they're the wrong gender. That's not the experience of most children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619050)
If that's too broad a consideration, we can keep it in the realm of medical choices. It's not hard to find a kid that doesn't want to be jabbed with a needle. Do we let them choose for themselves whether to get vaccinated?

You're arguing to me as though my position were that the child and the child alone should be making this decision, and that is not correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619050)
If you think that as a matter of social policy we should let it be a choice between the child, their family, and their doctors, then it's incumbent upon you to advocate for this policy.

Which is pretty easy. If you want to include someone in the choice other than family and the doctors, you need to explain who else you want involved and why. I can't think of anyone else who should be involved, certainly not the government.

Darat 2nd March 2019 03:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 12619216)
Seriously? You've never given much thought to this area of public policy? Not enough to form any kind of idea at all? Not even a provisional one?



I mean, just from reading this thread alone, I've at least some idea of why we do it this way. And this is only one of several threads on this topic in the past few years. How are you still not having any idea about this?

Nope. I've never looked into the historic and legislative approach that allows sporting bodies seemingly to be exempt from the general policy of can't discriminate based on sex.

The Atheist 3rd March 2019 01:32 AM

Another retired athlete speaks on the subject:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/47428951

Lambchops 3rd March 2019 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist (Post 12620345)
Another retired athlete speaks on the subject:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/swimming/47428951

How do you feel about trans people who do not participate in sports?

The Atheist 3rd March 2019 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lambchops (Post 12620347)
How do you feel about trans people who do not participate in sports?

100% supportive, and I don't just say that because it's trendy. I started up a gender equality program for employers that helped get some trans workers out of the sex industry and into real jobs a few years ago.

I support their right to use toilets they feel appropriate, despite knowing for certain there are men out there who use it as a front for their perversions, but I cannot support them competing against women who were born women. The physiology is different and no cut & tuck or oestrogen is going to change that.

The Atheist 3rd March 2019 07:21 PM

On a conveniently related note, I just came across a piece on BBC that UK Prisons are opening a transgender unit: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47434730

Chanakya 3rd March 2019 11:32 PM

Instead of using sex/gender as a proxy for innate 'advantages' in order to ensure a level playing field, why not simply either (a) do away with categorizations of this kind ; or (b) sequester people/groups on the actual "advantages" one that directly affect performance? Like they do in golf, or in boxing (of course, boxing also keeps apart men and women, but leaving that aside).

But yeah, doing something like this means radical change across sports, plus this sort of thing might be a nightmare to implement, as far as the details.

Roboramma 3rd March 2019 11:36 PM

Because it would be much more difficult to do and there's no real demand for it.

Chanakya 3rd March 2019 11:43 PM

Like I said, probably too elaborate a 'solution' for the 'problem' at hand.

On the other hand, what other truly fair solution is there to this 'trans' question, as far as sports?

Doing something like this effectively tackles that question, and also unaddressed issues even within the same sex.

But, absolutely, (a) way elaborate, perhaps too elaborate; and (b) making sports too 'fair' may kill the whole thrill in sports (or perhaps not, maybe that's a whole separate debate).

Roboramma 3rd March 2019 11:55 PM

I don’t think it would solve the issue with respect to tans people given that they still wouldn’t be able to compete with biological women.

luchog 5th March 2019 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12619204)
However we do know that environmental factors can alter the age of the onset of puberty, over a hundred years ago it is estimated the average age of onset of puberty in girls was around 16, it is now in the USA around 10 years of age. We don't fully know why this has happened but it shows there is a great amount of inherant plasticity so it may be we can safely delay it from the average today of 10 to the average of 16 from a hundred years ago without too many side effects. But as I say we don't have good answers yet.


As I recall, it's been fairly well-established that nutrition is the primary factor in regulating the on-set and progression of puberty, although the specific mechanisms are not fully understood as yet.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266867/

Belz... 5th March 2019 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chanakya (Post 12621047)
Instead of using sex/gender as a proxy for innate 'advantages' in order to ensure a level playing field, why not simply either (a) do away with categorizations of this kind ; or (b) sequester people/groups on the actual "advantages" one that directly affect performance? Like they do in golf, or in boxing (of course, boxing also keeps apart men and women, but leaving that aside).

But yeah, doing something like this means radical change across sports, plus this sort of thing might be a nightmare to implement, as far as the details.

Not only that, but it would mean that women would be almost entirely excluded from the high-tier tournaments and competitions.

theprestige 5th March 2019 10:32 AM

The more I think about it, the more I think that the only logical endgame is to ban competitive sport.

You can't marginalize women in contests of strength if you don't have contests of strength to begin with. It also completely erases the problem of how to categorize genderfluid athletes.

JoeMorgue 5th March 2019 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 12622531)
Not only that, but it would mean that women would be almost entirely excluded from the high-tier tournaments and competitions.

Let everyone compete. Women are practically gone from all level competition. Sports are sexist.

Split into male and female categories based on physical sex. Sports are transphobic.

Split into male and female categories based on identified gender. Trans athletes dominate female competition, practically non-existent from male competition. Sports are now both sexist and transphobic.

Everybody: "We totally understand that you can't please everybody."
Also everybody: "OMG I can't believe I'm not the one you decided to not please."

Can't win, can't lose, can't quit the game.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.