Continuation Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Emily's Cat]

Thread continued from http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=361690

Posted By:sarge

Originally Posted by Abooga

Well, the Spanish government seems to have given the final ok to our own gender reform law, "La Ley Trans". As far as I understand, (news outlets are not giving much detail) you can self-id and it just requires a simple declaration, no medical certificates or any other kind, then there is a waiting time of "up to 3 months", then a second declaration, then another wait of "up to one month" and done. In previous drafts there were some provisions of possible fines if the declaration was deemed false, I'm not sure if it's like that still.

I didn't think it would pass. There have been many important feminist voices against. At the beginning these voices were ignored and shut down with accusations of transphobia etc. , following a familiar pattern, but lately these gender critical voices were appearing quite visibly in mainstream media...
We'll see how it goes. Spanish laws give many benefits to women so this loophole will presumably be exploited. Still, laws here are usually drafted in an ambiguous way and then judges create some jurisprudence one way or the other, perhaps they will try to close the loophole that way.

Next year general elections will take place so this law might not last. We shall see...

Oh, please keep us in the loop on how it's working, what challenges are presented, and how it evolves!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

No, that wasn't the matter at hand here.

The matter at hand was to do with some sort of "perceived virtue" rating of transwomen, predicated on how masculine their face might look and how much they might or might not have been perceived as female as younger people before transitioning.

Apparently - according to the viewpoint of at least two posters - transwomen who either have masculine-looking faces or who were unlikely to have been perceived as females in childhood..... are less worthy of being held up for appreciation of the job they do, compared with transwomen who have feminine-looking faces or who were mistaken for females when they were younger.

Your interpretation is incorrect. A transgender identified male who grew up as a male with all of the social benefits that accrue to males - particularly in the realm of science - is inappropriate to be held up for appreciation as a female above the achievements of females.

They have overcome none of the barriers to advancement that females face, because they have never had to face those barriers at all.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

I saw one supportive one, but that's what it looks like to me also.

I noticed they have now blocked replies. I've seen this happen many times. Obviously they were expecting a different reaction.

Either there is overwhelming hatred for transwomen out there, or this move was a significant balls up on the part of an organisation ostensibly intending to big up women.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That fact that they are male makes it inappropriate. The fact that they are obviously and unquestionably male makes it offensive.

I see. That's a very interesting way to look at it.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly . . . . It looks to me as if every single reply to the tweet is highly critical of the action in question. Is that right? I might not have scrolled all of them. Seems very odd but I'm not too familiar with twitter and the dynamics of pile-ons and suchlike.

Ah yes, there's a very good reason for that. See, what has happened is that the anti-transgender-identity community on Twitter has organised a mass pile-on. If you care to scroll the Twitter feeds of pretty much every anti-transgender-identity commentator (oh, I mean "gender-critical commentator" (I don't mean that)), from the highest profile to the rank and file, you'll see clearly that they've retweeted about this story exponentially and encouraged - both explicitly and implicitly - the pile-on.

In fact, the only reason I even came across this story in the first place was because it suddenly began featuring all over the twitter profiles of the "usual-suspect" anti-transgender-identity people. There appears to be a pretty dedicated and zealous band who maintain a constant scouring presence on social media and other media sources, looking specifically for stories such as this (very obscure) one. And any time anyone finds a story like this, it's quickly socialised round the like-minded group. The primary goal of this appears to be the need to set up retaliatory pile-ons. It's all rather strange and sad, in my view.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

I'm not sure I'm reading this correctly . . . . It looks to me as if every single reply to the tweet is highly critical of the action in question. Is that right? I might not have scrolled all of them. Seems very odd but I'm not too familiar with twitter and the dynamics of pile-ons and suchlike.

Huge number of views and relatively few likes. Note that many of the antagonistic replies have more likes than the original tweet; this is called getting ratioed and indicates a very unpopular or particularly stupid tweet.

[d4m10n]

Good read from Matt Y. formerly of Vox

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...76881434189825

Quote:

Importantly, because youth gender dysphoria treatment is an off-label use of drugs that were originally created to treat precocious puberty, the big clinical trials that were conducted for FDA approval don’t really speak to the issue at hand in a clear way. Again, this is not some special feature of gender-affirming care or the fault of anyone in the trans community. But it’s also not a fever dream of the reactionary right. A structural feature of American health regulation is that the FDA sets a very high bar for approving drugs but a very light regulatory bar for their off-label use. Pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to organize new clinical trials because their medication is already being used for this purpose and the market is growing.

Seems to me that the taboo on these discussions is beginning to erode, here on this side of the pond. It is no longer sufficient to call someone phobic or bigoted and thereby shut down the discussion.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Ah yes, there's a very good reason for that. [. . . ]

Ah thanks. Any reason why the progressive consensus who are nice inclusive people didn't nip that nastiness in the bud? I would have thought that would be easy since there are so many more of them.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Good read from Matt Y. formerly of Vox

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...76881434189825



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Unusual for me not a single point of disagreement with the author.

Would like him expand on some aspects - for example the ".... But the structural commonality among their points is that affirmation of an equal right to human dignity does not determine a unique answer to all of these questions." I think that could be teased out more and make explicit the wider issue caused by there not being a "single principle" answer to the many questions raised when we try to ensure all are treated with dignity and how we should be wary of those pushing a single answer i.e. the extremism in the "transwomen are woman" and "transwomen are men" camps.

[Darat]

Unfortunately when the continuation thread was created it didn't inherit the [Moderated] thread attribute so posts made - (UK time) after 11:17 AM 17th Feb and up to this post were not subject to mod team approval before being made visible.

Posted By:Darat

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Ah thanks. Any reason why the progressive consensus who are nice inclusive people didn't nip that nastiness in the bud? I would have thought that would be easy since there are so many more of them.

I should have thought that was fairly easy to understand (on top of many other factors, there's the obvious matter of timing: this obscure article was discovered, socialised and "replied to" by hundreds of anti-transgender-identity activists before most normal people even knew of its existence....)

Allowing this reply through because of what happened when the continuation thread was created (see the INFO box above) but lets now leave how Twitter views etc. can be influenced for a different thread.

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:Darat

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Darat

I think that could be teased out more and make explicit the wider issue caused by there not being a "single principle" answer to the many questions raised when we try to ensure all are treated with dignity and how we should be wary of those pushing a single answer i.e. the extremism in the "transwomen are woman" and "transwomen are men" camps.

Agreed. Each issue needs to be taken separately and carefully rather than assuming in advance that gender needs to take priority over sex or vice-versa.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I see. That's a very interesting way to look at it.

I don't think it's all that interesting.

Imagine if you will, that during African American History month, organizations were to hold up Rachel Dolezal for approbation of the achievements black people have made.

Do you think that would be appropriate? Dolezal is a white person, who has a black identity. They identify as black, but they are factually white. Throughout their childhood, they did not face the barriers that black people face, and they benefited from the privileges accorded to white people.

But Dolezal at least managed to pass as black somewhat. Or at least as mixed, so perhaps they have faced some degree of race-based discrimination that they've overcome.

I think most people would consider it inappropriate to honor Dolezal as a black person for AAHM. I think it's reasonable that most people find it inappropriate.

Now imagine that it's Margot Robbie who is being held up and applauded during African American History Month, being lauded for the advancement they have made as a trans-black person.

Robbie is obviously not black. They've never passed as black, and any current attempts to seem black would very likely be viewed as "blackface". To honor Robbie and showcase their achievements as "black achievements" during AAHM would not just be inappropriate, it would be offensive.

Consider the message that would be implied in that act of honoring an obviously and unquestionably white person during AAHM, on the basis of them identifying as black. They've never faced anti-black racist discrimination. They've never experienced the systemic disparities that black people face. They've had all of the advantages of growing up white in a system and culture that still has a considerable amount of racism.

The underlying message in the choice to hold up a white person for accolades during AAHM is that black people are of so little worth that the organization thinks white people make better black people than black people do.

[LondonJohn]

An insightful* satire in The Onion, referencing the recent anti-transgender-identity stance of the New York Times:

https://www.theonion.com/it-is-journ...-of-1850126997


Maybe it will prompt the NYT editorial board to pause and think. History suggests otherwise, of course.


* and one that fits into the category of "it'd be funny if it wasn't so close to the bone"....

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

An insightful* satire in The Onion, referencing the recent anti-transgender-identity stance of the New York Times:

https://www.theonion.com/it-is-journ...-of-1850126997

The NYT doesn't have an anti-transgender-identity stance.

Quote:

* and one that fits into the category of "it'd be funny if it wasn't so close to the bone"....

The reason it's not funny has nothing to do with cutting too close to the bone. The reason it's not funny is because it's badly written, completely predictable, and incredibly boring. This is "applause" comedy, not actual humor.

[attempt5001]

Quote:

I think that the risk of exploitation and loopholes, and the attendant risk associated with them ought to be considered as well.

When this thread first started out, I took a position of not caring about bathrooms at all, and thinking that most locker rooms and showers that were public and for adult use should be available as long as everyone behaved. I didn't think that allowing young males into the locker rooms of school aged females was appropriate, nor vice versa. And I thought prisons should require complete surgical alteration.

I've moved away from that over time... because they have all been exploited and abused over and over again. Repeatedly it is females who get the short end of the stick, who are subjected to a male presence where one is neither expected nor desired. Over and over we have seen unaltered males who feel justified exposing their genitals to females who do not wish to see them, including children. We've seen the entire middle school swim team being told that it was the *right* of the male-bodied transgender person to be naked in the shower during their swim practice, and that if they didn't like it they could all go use the lifeguard's shower one at a time. We've seen females being told that they're bigots for having *noticed* the semi-erect penis of the male in the female-only area of the sauna. We've seen female athletes lose team positions, records, and awards because a male-bodied person claimed that on the basis of their internal and unverifiable gender identity. We've seen female prisoners given no choice in the matter, having to share a cell with a male inmate who developed a newfound gender identity while incarcerated. We've seen female inmates raped by transgender identified males who were granted right of choice in their incarceration. We watched a 26 year old male rapist get placed in a female juvenile detention center, because of his claimed gender identity.

I wish that some practical compromise were possible. But as long as self-id is on the table, that cannot happen. Self-id grants rights to any and all males, and it overrides the rights of females. It completely obliterates the entire concept of consent and sexual barriers for females.

As long as self-id is on the table, no compromise is possible. We've already been shown that it will be exploited, and that females will be harmed as a result.

Hi EC. I'm trying to reply to your comment from the last chapter of this thread. Not sure if I'm doing that correctly.

I really do appreciate the points you raised and understand what you mean. There are some really terrible potential consequences here and they certainly aren't just hypothetical. I guess when I talk about balance, I am also trying to consider the potential and real benefits as well, such as trans people facing less stigma and violence and a potential societal shift towards increased awareness of and compassion with respect to challenges people face with gender ideology and constructs. I have limited perspective and experience with this first hand and often use this thread to try to understand where the crux of the tension and challenge lies as I try to consider it, and allow my perspective to broaden and mature a little if possible. Thank you for sharing the perspectives and outcomes that resonate the most strongly with you.

[attempt5001]

Quote:

Yes. And the overwhelming majority of recognition goes to ciswomen.

Besides which, your viewpoint appears to discount both a) the potential barriers that transwomen/transgirls might face in pursuing STEM studies/careers, and b) the point in her life at which this particular person might have transitioned to being a transwoman.

Responding to point b) first. My question about whether this person had been perceived to be a man or a women (or a girl or a boy) throughout her life was precisely to try to understand if she had, in fact, grown up and progressed in her career while facing and overcoming the potential challenges that are faced by women, which is the primary reason efforts are made to celebrate their successes. So, rather than discounting this, it was a specific effort to understand and appreciate this aspect, if applicable.

Re: point a) I do not think someone perceived as male, even if trans, would face the challenges that women have faced in STEM. I do not discount that they may have their own, unique challenges, but to me, that is a different discussion than celebrating women who have had success in STEM. If you feel differently, I am happy to read and consider your perspective.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Darat

Unusual for me not a single point of disagreement with the author.

Would like him expand on some aspects - for example the ".... But the structural commonality among their points is that affirmation of an equal right to human dignity does not determine a unique answer to all of these questions." I think that could be teased out more and make explicit the wider issue caused by there not being a "single principle" answer to the many questions raised when we try to ensure all are treated with dignity and how we should be wary of those pushing a single answer i.e. the extremism in the "transwomen are woman" and "transwomen are men" camps.

Exactly.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The NYT doesn't have an anti-transgender-identity stance.



The reason it's not funny has nothing to do with cutting too close to the bone. The reason it's not funny is because it's badly written, completely predictable, and incredibly boring. This is "applause" comedy, not actual humor.

1) What do you think prompted The Onion to publish this satire? Who/what do you think it's satirising? (Hint: NYT)

2) It was amusing, right on the money, and a fine piece of satire which justifiably lampooned its target by holding its target's viewpoint up to the light - just like most of what The Onion does. I completely understand why some would like to think otherwise though.

[d4m10n]

"Good journalism is about finding those stories, even when they don’t exist."

Thankfully people like Chloe Cole are just figments of satirical imagination.

[Matthew Best]

Here's the NYT on what it's like to be trans:

https://archive.ph/RVqsA

You can see how much their anti-transgender stance comes through in that piece, can't you.

[Graham2001]

I've found a commentary by Jerry Coyne on the current situation regarding the NYT and it makes for an interesting read. One thing of note is that he quotes a letter that's doing the rounds from the Times Executive Editor (James Kahn) in which Kahn (allegedly) takes a firm line with trans-activists within the newspaper.


https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/...ans-activists/

[Aber]

BBC story referring to Hannah Barnes' book on the Tavistock

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64683917

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Aber

BBC story referring to Hannah Barnes' book on the Tavistock

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64683917

And it's the Observer's book of the week (review by Rachel Cooke).

[LondonJohn]

As a handy aide-memoire, here is a list of mainstream medical institutions operating within the USA which actively support transgender identity and the affirmation of transgender people (in alphabetical order):

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Dermatology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College Health Association
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American Counseling Association
American Heart Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Plastic Surgeons
Endocrine Society
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Pediatric Endocrine Society
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
World Medical Association
World Professional Association for Transgender Health


And here is a list of US-operating mainstream medical institutions which oppose transgender identity and the affirmation of transgender people (in alphabetical order):



**tumbleweed**



This is interesting and educative, I think.

[Aber]

https://www.itv.com/news/central/202...station-toiletAn example of the issues arise with self ID

[lionking]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

As a handy aide-memoire, here is a list of mainstream medical institutions operating within the USA which actively support transgender identity and the affirmation of transgender people (in alphabetical order):

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Dermatology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American College Health Association
American College of Nurse-Midwives
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American Counseling Association
American Heart Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Student Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Plastic Surgeons
Endocrine Society
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Commission on Correctional Health Care
Pediatric Endocrine Society
Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
World Medical Association
World Professional Association for Transgender Health


And here is a list of US-operating mainstream medical institutions which oppose transgender identity and the affirmation of transgender people (in alphabetical order):



**tumbleweed**



This is interesting and educative, I think.

Source? Lists without any attribution are worth dismissing.

[LondonJohn]

For those who might not be aware, Spain is the latest country to have enacted progressive legislation regarding self-ID for transgender people:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64666356

As Spain's equalities minister Irene Montero (a ciswoman, note) rightly said in parliament:

Quote:

"trans people are not sick people, they are just people".

The vote passed by a very large majority - 191 to 60. And of course it goes without saying that many of those 191 were ciswomen. I'm guessing that those women are neither "captured" nor "handmaids" nor "misogynistic".

Germany and The Netherlands are both likely to pass similar legislation later this year, with more countries to follow. All of which is excellent, progressive news. It does seem interesting that increasing numbers of liberal, centrist or left-wing legislatures around the world are (proportionately) enshrining transgender rights in law.... while the only countries/jurisdictions which are not in favour of basic transgender rights appear to be those where reactionary right-wing political groups (many of which are also heavily permeated by religious dogma) hold the balance of power.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

here is a list of mainstream medical institutions operating within the USA which actively support transgender identity and the affirmation of transgender people.

Yeah I support those too.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by lionking

Source? Lists without any attribution are worth dismissing.

I mean, it would be awfully strange if I just pulled a list like that out of my fundament, wouldn't it?

But anyhow:

https://transhealthproject.org/resou...on-statements/

And you can double-check this against each individual organisation, if you should feel so inclined. It's pretty simple to check the position of each of these institutions.


Here's some additional relevant information:

https://www.glaad.org/blog/medical-a...discriminatory


It's factually correct to state that every significant public-health-related entity is positively affirmative of transgender identity. That's important and revealing.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Yeah I support those too.

What counts as a failure to support the "affirmation of transgender people" for our purposes here? For example, if someone were to say that Lia Thomas does not legitimately hold the women's 200-yard freestyle record in the Ivy League (on account of the unfair advantages granted her by the experience of male puberty) would that be considered disaffirming?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I mean, it would be awfully strange if I just pulled a list like that out of my fundament, wouldn't it?

But anyhow:

https://transhealthproject.org/resou...on-statements/

From your source:

Originally Posted by TLDEF

Leading medical groups recognize the medical necessity of treatments for gender dysphoria and endorse such treatments.

Gender dysphoria is a disorder. That's why it requires treatments.

Oops.

No statement here about what to do with the "valid lived identities" of trans people without gender dysphoria, and whether or not they need medical treatment. Also nothing in here about the myriad other trans issues we've discussed.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What counts as a failure to support the "affirmation of transgender people" for our purposes here?

I think that depends on who you ask. Each of the organisations listed in the post above may have a different interpretation, with maybe some core basics.

Quote:

if someone were to say that Lia Thomas does not legitimately hold the women's 200-yard freestyle record in the Ivy League (on account of the unfair advantages granted her by the experience of male puberty) would that be considered disaffirming?

I don't see anything about inclusion in women's swimming leagues in the position statements on transgender issues linked in post 30. So one would have to quiz them specifically (unless I missed it)

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I mean, it would be awfully strange if I just pulled a list like that out of my fundament, wouldn't it?

But anyhow:

https://transhealthproject.org/resou...on-statements/

And you can double-check this against each individual organisation, if you should feel so inclined. It's pretty simple to check the position of each of these institutions.


Here's some additional relevant information:

https://www.glaad.org/blog/medical-a...discriminatory


It's factually correct to state that every significant public-health-related entity is positively affirmative of transgender identity. That's important and revealing.

No, it’s factually correct to state that US medical organisations are heavily promoting medical transition for gender dysphoria, including for minors.
What is informative and revealing is to look at the actual evidence based behind recommendations.

For example, the fact that a fact-check of the AAP's position statement on gender affirmation for children and adolescents shows that none of the citations provided support the claims made, and many outright contradict the claims. Which has, of course, already been discussed on previous versions of this thread.

This is supported by Cantor’s analysis and is easily verified.
Transgender and Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents: Fact-Checking of AAP Policy (ohchr.org)

For example, and AAP claims that conversion therapy for gender identity in minors is demonstrated to be harmful, citing six sources. Cantor (pp2-4) goes through each of these citations in turn and shows that the ones discussing conversion therapy do not mention gender identity, and the ones that do mention gender identity do not mention conversion therapy. The exception is one source that covers both sexual orientation and ‘gender discordance’, but in that case the AAP completely misrepresents the claims made. This was a publication by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), which recommended watchful waiting and took a neutral position on endorsing medical treatment for childhood dysphoria due to lack of evidence. The AAP misrepresented the AACAP by implying they endorsed affirmation, and that they rejected conversion therapy for gender identity, when they only discussed it in relation to sexual orientation. The concept of conversion therapy for gender identity has no definition and makes no sense because most children with gender dysphoria spontaneously re-identify as their natal sex at puberty if not affirmed and transitioned.

The AAP also claimed that delaying any form of transition before puberty is ‘arbitrary’, but the sources cited to support this actually state clearly that puberty is a pivotal point for desistence of gender dysphoria. Again the citations do not support the claims. The AAP document implies that previous studies showing most children desist after puberty are flawed, but provides no evidence. All of the criticisms of these studies by activists have been addressed, but these rebuttals are never cited.

As Cantor (p6)states

"In its policy statement, AAP told neither the truth nor the whole truth, committing sins both of commission and of omission, asserting claims easily falsified by anyone caring to do any fact-checking at all."

".... AAP’s statement is a systematic exclusion and misrepresentation of entire literatures. Not only did AAP fail to provide compelling evidence, it
failed to provide the evidence at all. Indeed, AAP’s recommendations are despite the existing evidence"

Also informative is that countries such as Sweden and Finland (and of course the UK) have now abandoned WPATH’s standards of care for treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. Every country that has conducted an independent review of the evidence for these treatments has changed course. The US is now an outlier in this.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

From your source:



Gender dysphoria is a disorder. That's why it requires treatments.

Oops.

No statement here about what to do with the "valid lived identities" of trans people without gender dysphoria, and whether or not they need medical treatment. Also nothing in here about the myriad other trans issues we've discussed.

Oops indeed.

We have covered this misunderstanding many, many times already. Gender dysphoria is indeed a mental health disorder (although of course DSM5 puts it in a separate class to most other disorders, for obvious reasons). It's experienced by some - but not all - people with transgender identity. It's to do with the internal struggle, usually pre-transition, which some transgender people experience around the conflict between their trans gender and the gender that matches their sex assigned at birth (along with associated anxieties over things such as how their trans gender might be viewed by the likes of family, friends, employers etc, or how society at large views transgender identity).

But that, obviously, is a completely different (though consequential) condition from transgender identity itself. Which is now viewed by mainstream medicine and medical science as NOT a mental health disorder. All of the medical institutions in my list subscribe unequivocally to that understanding.

Now, transgender identity denialists would say that on top of gender dysphoria being a mental health disorder, transgender identity itself is a mental health disorder. Such people believe that there's no such thing as valid transgender identity: that all those "claiming" transgender identity are actually mentally ill. Such people subscribe to the theory that the core matter of transgender identity is an illness requiring diagnosis and remedial/"curative" treatment.

However mainstream medicine (including all of the institutions in my list), while believing that gender dysphoria requires diagnosis and treatment, believes in the affirmation model for transgender identity: in other words, if a person presents to a medical professional with gender dysphoria, and once that disorder has been diagnosed, the correct treatment in most cases is 1) an affirmation of the person's transgender identity and 2) therapeutic treatments to help the person resolve the conflict between their transgender identity and the gender matching their sex assigned at birth.

And to date, no significant institution/body in any liberal democracy (nor any supranatural body, eg the WHO) has either questioned the validity of transgender identity or questioned the efficacy/validity of the affirmative model (which, of course, necessarily implies a belief in the validity of transgender identity itself).

I for one feel extremely comfortable sharing my stance on transgender identity with a) the organisations which determined the validity of transgender identity and b) all the medical institutions - with no dissent - which also believe in the validity of transgender identity (and thus the affirmation approach to treating gender dysphoria). I'm more than content to align with the science and with the extremely strong medical consensus.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

What counts as a failure to support the "affirmation of transgender people" for our purposes here? For example, if someone were to say that Lia Thomas does not legitimately hold the women's 200-yard freestyle record in the Ivy League (on account of the unfair advantages granted her by the experience of male puberty) would that be considered disaffirming?

It appears that you are posing a completely unrelated question here.

Lia Thomas (for example) is a transwoman. Mainstream medicine considers her to be a woman. The question around whether (and under which circumstances) transwomen should be allowed to compete in men's sports, or whether (and under which circumstances) transwomen should be granted access to certain women's spaces (eg prisons, bathroom facilities) is an entirely different matter from any question about the validity of transgender identity itself.

But no, it is not disaffirming to exclude certain transwomen from certain classes of women's activities (eg sports), and nor is it disaffirming to exclude certain transwomen from certain women's spaces (eg bathrooms).

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

I don't see anything about inclusion in women's swimming leagues in the position statements on transgender issues linked in post 30.

That's basically what I'm getting at here. OP was about inclusion in a competition for female weightlifters, but the position statements of medical associations give us no guidance on that. Same goes for other single-sex services, spaces, and leagues.



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Aber]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

The question around whether (and under which circumstances) transwomen should be allowed to compete in men's sports,

I don't think that you would get many objections to that...

[Samson]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

It appears that you are posing a completely unrelated question here.

Lia Thomas (for example) is a transwoman. Mainstream medicine considers her to be a woman. The question around whether (and under which circumstances) transwomen should be allowed to compete in men's sports, or whether (and under which circumstances) transwomen should be granted access to certain women's spaces (eg prisons, bathroom facilities) is an entirely different matter from any question about the validity of transgender identity itself.

But no, it is not disaffirming to exclude certain transwomen from certain classes of women's activities (eg sports), and nor is it disaffirming to exclude certain transwomen from certain women's spaces (eg bathrooms).

So trans women are not women?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Oops indeed.

We have covered this misunderstanding many, many times already. Gender dysphoria is indeed a mental health disorder (although of course DSM5 puts it in a separate class to most other disorders, for obvious reasons). It's experienced by some - but not all - people with transgender identity. It's to do with the internal struggle, usually pre-transition, which some transgender people experience around the conflict between their trans gender and the gender that matches their sex assigned at birth (along with associated anxieties over things such as how their trans gender might be viewed by the likes of family, friends, employers etc, or how society at large views transgender identity).

But that, obviously, is a completely different (though consequential) condition from transgender identity itself. Which is now viewed by mainstream medicine and medical science as NOT a mental health disorder. All of the medical institutions in my list subscribe unequivocally to that understanding.

Now, transgender identity denialists would say that on top of gender dysphoria being a mental health disorder, transgender identity itself is a mental health disorder. Such people believe that there's no such thing as valid transgender identity: that all those "claiming" transgender identity are actually mentally ill. Such people subscribe to the theory that the core matter of transgender identity is an illness requiring diagnosis and remedial/"curative" treatment.

However mainstream medicine (including all of the institutions in my list), while believing that gender dysphoria requires diagnosis and treatment, believes in the affirmation model for transgender identity: in other words, if a person presents to a medical professional with gender dysphoria, and once that disorder has been diagnosed, the correct treatment in most cases is 1) an affirmation of the person's transgender identity and 2) therapeutic treatments to help the person resolve the conflict between their transgender identity and the gender matching their sex assigned at birth.

And to date, no significant institution/body in any liberal democracy (nor any supranatural body, eg the WHO) has either questioned the validity of transgender identity or questioned the efficacy/validity of the affirmative model (which, of course, necessarily implies a belief in the validity of transgender identity itself).

I for one feel extremely comfortable sharing my stance on transgender identity with a) the organisations which determined the validity of transgender identity and b) all the medical institutions - with no dissent - which also believe in the validity of transgender identity (and thus the affirmation approach to treating gender dysphoria). I'm more than content to align with the science and with the extremely strong medical consensus.

The highlighted is how Tavistock operated. And yet……

Any comments on Tavistock, once the most significant medical authority on the treatment of transgender people?