Continuation Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by TomB

Actually, it does neither, although it does not contradict that assertion.
What it does demonstrate is that misdiagnosis is possible (and perhaps not uncommon) both by the patient and the medical community.

Misdiagnosis isn't possible if you subscribe to self ID.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's not only on them if they weren't properly informed about the risks, or if they were minors who weren't really capable of informed consent because they couldn't understand what they were consenting to. And we've had plenty of cases where we know patients were not properly informed. We know that a lot of supposed professionals are pushing information about risks which isn't backed up by data.

"plenty of cases" =.... 1%? .001%? 3 total in the history of treatment?

"a lot of supposed professionals" pushing information = 1%? 1?

Let's face it, the numbers that anti-trans activists will find alarming (or present to others as alarming) have already been shown to be miniscule. And if they can't even quantify their "significant" or "a lot" or "plenty", then such claims aren't worth anything.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Misdiagnosis isn't possible if you subscribe to self ID.

Huh. I think this is the wrong thread. I actually thought I was in the other thread when I posted my last two responses. Now we have two of the same thread, unless the mods want to move some stuff.

Anyway, regarding what you said: ********.

I know you were trying to be snarky, but I think you are applying the concept of self-id a bit too broadly. In fairness, however, so do some elements of the other side.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There are a LOT of things that minors aren't allowed to do.

Not just minors, though. For reasons which have not been adequately explained, the Nebraska bill includes a small set of people who are legally adults; old enough to vote and register for the draft, but not yet 19.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And this is one of those things that has permanent serious side effects.

Some of the covered treatments have permanent effects by design (e.g. mastectomy) others are intended to be temporary (e.g. puberty blockers).

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'd generally prefer to not need bans, and let this fall under the same guidelines as plastic surgery, where parental consent is required.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

But... there's significant pressure on parents to support their kids when it comes to gender id stuff, and a lot of censure and repercussions if they don't allow their kid to get it.

Making this into a blue state / red state culture war issue isn't going to take the pressure off any parents except the ones already living in red states. The ones living in blue states will feel even more pressure as tribalism gets ratcheted up.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Maybe some kind of caveat allowing a reconsideration upon thorough clinical review after that?

We cannot expect to have scientific reviews of procedures that have been banned, and it is not reasonable to expect red states will reverse their policies based on evidence from clinical trials performed solely in blue states. I mean, red states are not all that into following the science anyhow.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I want to stop all of the mastectomies we're seeing in minors and young people...

Why all of them? That seems like a maximalist solution to a marginal problem, especially when we're talking about non-minors.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I want to completely halt the use of blockers and hormones until puberty is completed...

Blockers are only prescribed to patients in early puberty, though. It sounds like you are confident that they almost always do more harm than good.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I would greatly prefer that approach come from clinical guidance than from the government.

Agreed, but this approach requires the government to stay out of the way and allow clinical trials.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by wareyin

"plenty of cases" =.... 1%? .001%? 3 total in the history of treatment?

"a lot of supposed professionals" pushing information = 1%? 1?

Let's face it, the numbers that anti-trans activists will find alarming (or present to others as alarming) have already been shown to be miniscule. And if they can't even quantify their "significant" or "a lot" or "plenty", then such claims aren't worth anything.

You keep on quoting the lowest possible figure given by Zig. Why? Why not research yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition

Quote:

The number of detransitioners is unknown, with estimates generally ranging from less than 1% to as many as 8%,[26] with some studies reporting a number as high as 30%.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35452119/

Quote:

The 4-year gender-affirming hormone continuation rate was 70.2%

The studies say that more research is needed, but please stop with this 1% ********.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by lionking

You keep on quoting the lowest possible figure given by Zig. Why? Why not research yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition



https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35452119/



The studies say that more research is needed, but please stop with this 1% ********.

Wait, you want me to "research myself" the exact numbers that Zig already provided in the exact same link to the same source, which specifically say the 1%-8% figure I keep repeating?

First of all, the 1% in that post isn't a reference to the percentage of trans people who detrans. It's an attempt to get Zig to quantify his claims.

Secondly, I do get that seeing that 1% number is harmful to your position, but as it is in the small range of estimates, it is not inaccurate. So no, I will not stop using the estimated percentage that both you and Zig have provided.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What's the downside of waiting till after puberty?

From what I understand, it's cosmetic. They won't look as much like the opposite sex as they would if they transitioned before. Which may be significant and important, but I'm not convinced is worth the price, even aside from the question of desistence.

That's the lie though - transitioning before puberty doesn't make you look more like the opposite sex, it keeps you looking like a child.

If a young male takes estrogen during puberty, their hips aren't going to widen, and they don't actually grow true boobs. There voice doesn't drop as much, but they still have an adam's apple. They still have a penis and testicles, they just end up with child-sized, immature penis and testicles. They still grow to the same height they would with testosterone, and have the same sized feet and hands. Those things aren't governed by sex hormones. The best thing they get out of it is that they don't develop male-typical muscle density, and they deposit fat in female-typical body locations. But the exact same thing happens if they take estrogen after puberty has completed.

A young female taking testosterone during puberty doesn't get different muscle attachments or angles for their thigh bones. Their voice won't drop. They're not going to grow to extra height and have giant feet. Sure, they won't develop breast tissue, but they also don't suddenly sprout an outie where they were born with an innie.

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones during puberty don't result in the person more resembling an ADULT of the opposite sex. It only results in them being permanently locked into a child's body.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why all of them? That seems like a maximalist solution to a marginal problem, especially when we're talking about non-minors.

Cutting the tits off of any female who feels uncomfortable in their changing body seems like a bad idea to me.

If you have a solid medical reason to support tit removal for mental health purposes, by all means fill me in.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Blockers are only prescribed to patients in early puberty, though. It sounds like you are confident that they almost always do more harm than good.

I AM confident that they almost always do more harm than good. They have very well known side effects - known enough that when I had to take the exact same medicine as an adult, my doctor was adamant that I needed to have surgery within a three month window, because the risk of damage from the drugs that stopped my hormone production were too large to keep taking it for more than that three month window.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Secondly, I do get that seeing that 1% number is harmful to your position, but as it is in the small range of estimates, it is not inaccurate. So no, I will not stop using the estimated percentage that both you and Zig have provided.

Ignoring the 30% link I posted. But never mind, you have admitted to cherry picking. Thank you.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

1) as the percentage of trans people who detransition is so tiny (1-8% as cited by Zig) and the percentage of people who are trans is also tiny, finding someone who has bowed to the pressure you and those like you have applied to them is like finding a needle in a haystack.

You didn't answer my question, you just doubled down on your initial assumption.

WHY are you assuming that detransitioners detranstion due to social pressure?

Have you actually looked into it? Have you spoken to any of them?

And no, they're not that hard to find if you actually bother to look.
https://post-trans.com/

Then again, if you actual did research into it, you might find yourself having to face your own biases.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Cutting the tits off of any female who feels uncomfortable in their changing body seems like a bad idea to me.

Me too, but that is not what we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If you have a solid medical reason to support tit removal for mental health purposes, by all means fill me in.

Here you go.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Me too, but that is not what we're talking about.

Don't follow your logic; what do you think we are talking about?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Aber

Don't follow your logic; what do you think we are talking about?

There are countless ways to feel uncomfortable in one's changing body, and the majority of these do not include the following diagnostic criteria:

Quote:

• A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
• A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

It is misleading to claim that "any female" who feels uncomfortable in her changing body fits these criteria, given careful professional assessment.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Here you go.

Umm... your link doesn't actually address the question of what mental health benefits mastectomies provide. It describes what gender dysphoria is, and some of the changes made to the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. But diagnosis is different than treatment. In fact, no justification for any specific treatment is provided by your link. I don't mean that as a criticism of the link itself, that's not its purpose. But because that's not its purpose and it doesn't do that, it doesn't in any way address Emily's Cat's question.

And as a bit of a footnote, keep in mind that the DSM isn't a treatment manual either.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It is misleading to claim that "any female" who feels uncomfortable in her changing body fits these criteria, given careful professional assessment.

One of the big problems we're facing is that this isn't a given.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Umm... your link doesn't actually address the question of what mental health benefits mastectomies provide.

No, it provides the diagnosis for which mastectomies are currently considered part of the standard of care. If you want to argue that this is the wrong treatment, feel free to do so, but bear in mind that you are arguing against most medical experts as to what counts as proper treatment for that specific diagnosis.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

No, it provides the diagnosis for which mastectomies are currently considered part of the standard of care. If you want to argue that this is the wrong treatment, feel free to do so, but bear in mind that you are arguing against most medical experts as to what counts as proper treatment for that specific diagnosis.

This is what Emily asked:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If you have a solid medical reason to support tit removal for mental health purposes, by all means fill me in.

So first off, mastectomies were only included as a possible treatment for people within this broad category, it never specifies who it's the right treatment for (because again, the DSM isn't a treatment manual). So even in terms of "proper treatment" your link says basically nothing.

But more importantly for Emily's Cat's question, your response didn't provide any reason to support that treatment. If you want to argue that we should defer to the experts because you assume they must have a reason, then go ahead and say that. But you didn't. You posted that link without comment as if it provided the medical reason Emily asked for, but it doesn't. If your current post accurately conveys your intended message, your previous post with the link did a very bad job conveying that message.

And I'm not trying to argue that it's the wrong treatment. But I don't think that's the appropriate standard. The medical experts should be able to prove that it's the right treatment. Nor do I think it's enough to defer to their expertise, the experts have gotten plenty wrong in the past, sometimes horrifically so (see: lobotomy). So what's the evidence that it's the right treatment? Maybe it's out there somewhere (though so much data on transgender treatment I have seen is underwhelming, to put it mildly), but it's definitely not in your link.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

It is misleading to claim that "any female" who feels uncomfortable in her changing body fits these criteria, given careful professional assessment.

Fantastic, since that's not a claim I made. Good to know we're in agreement with your post being a false inference.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

No, it provides the diagnosis for which mastectomies are currently considered part of the standard of care. If you want to argue that this is the wrong treatment, feel free to do so, but bear in mind that you are arguing against most medical experts as to what counts as proper treatment for that specific diagnosis.

It's the wrong treatment for minors. That's my claim, I'm sticking to it.

My rationale is thus:

• A large portion of the current females presenting with claims of gender dysphoria have come to this conclusion extremely rapidly, many through exposure to peer groups making the same claim or through social media that venerated and lauds gender dysphoria
• Gender dysphoria is massively over diagnosed among youth, especially among females, and sufficient work is not being done to consider confounding mental health conditions - specifically, "gender specialists" aren't bothering to determine whether the dysphoria is an effect of some other issue, versus whether it is the actual root problem
• Most minors haven't got a ******* clue what they're going to want when they're adults. They don't even know what kind of career they're going to want, let alone whether they will want kids, or whether they may wish to breastfeed. Their identities are NOT fixed at this stage of development - FFS a significant element of cognitive development during puberty IS the trying on of different identities and figuring our who we are!
• Boobs don't grow back, humans aren't lizard people.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

My rationale is thus:

• A large portion of the current females presenting with claims of gender dysphoria have come to this conclusion extremely rapidly, many through exposure to peer groups making the same claim or through social media that venerated and lauds gender dysphoria
• Gender dysphoria is massively over diagnosed among youth, especially among females, and sufficient work is not being done to consider confounding mental health conditions - specifically, "gender specialists" aren't bothering to determine whether the dysphoria is an effect of some other issue, versus whether it is the actual root problem
• Most minors haven't got a ******* clue what they're going to want when they're adults. They don't even know what kind of career they're going to want, let alone whether they will want kids, or whether they may wish to breastfeed. Their identities are NOT fixed at this stage of development - FFS a significant element of cognitive development during puberty IS the trying on of different identities and figuring our who we are!

I'll take your third point on board without contention, having been a minor and seen how much people change over time.

Your first point seems quite likely, though we haven't seen any studies on point since the ROGD articles got squelched.

Your second point strikes me as likely (though impossible to prove) but even if only 10% of the patients currently diagnosed will stably exhibit gender dysphoria as an underlying condition throughout their adult lives, it doesn't make sense to implement a 100% ban and require them to seek care out-of-state.

All that said, the evidential base for the highlighted claims strikes me as weak. Total bans will weaken our ability to build one.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I'll take your third point on board without contention, having been a minor and seen how much people change over time.

Your first point seems quite likely, though we haven't seen any studies on point since the ROGD articles got squelched.

Your second point strikes me as likely (though impossible to prove) but even if only 10% of the patients currently diagnosed will stably exhibit gender dysphoria as an underlying condition throughout their adult lives, it doesn't make sense to implement a 100% ban and require them to seek care out-of-state.

All that said, the evidential base for the highlighted claims strikes me as weak. Total bans will weaken our ability to build one.

Regarding your highlighted... how does it makes sense to allow double mastectomies when 90% of them are going to be based on a false diagnosis?

Seriously, you're talking about allowing 10 young females to decide to cut their breasts off... because 1 of them might really, really mean it? Does that actually make sense to you? Especially when that 1 person who really means it, still has the ability to cut their breasts off once they are a legal adult.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Regarding your highlighted... how does it makes sense to allow double mastectomies when 90% of them are going to be based on a false diagnosis?

If the legislature had evidence that the false positive rate is actually 90% then they might be able to justify a blanket ban. They do not have any such evidence (or at least no one here has mentioned it) and such bans will prevent us from performing clinical trials within the jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Seriously, you're talking about allowing 10 young females to decide to cut their breasts off... because 1 of them might really, really mean it? Does that actually make sense to you?

Feminists have an expression: "My body, my choice."

We can agree that below a certain age this expression no longer makes moral sense, but we cannot agree that 18-y.o.'s should be denied this specific choice, if they have been properly diagnosed.

[JoeMorgue]

I mean woman should be able to cut her breasts off if she just wants to, gender dysphoria doesn't even have to come into. I mean breast reduction is already a thing for a multitude of reasons. This is a whole bucket of nothing.

[JoeMorgue]

FYI for some context as to why I'm such a weird 3rd position odd man out in this discussion is largely that.

To over simplify it I think transpeople should be able to do pretty much everything they are asking to do, but not because they are trans just because I wouldn't care anyway.

There is not one single thing I think a transperson should be "able" (speaking legally and social pressure) to do because they are trans that a person should be able to because they want to.

And that just leaves us with this thread, an endless, never ending, never advancing debate about a difference between "person who acts like a certain gender" and "person who identifies as the other gender" which isn't a question it's just pure semantics and categorization.

And that's actually a question I've kind of wanted to ask the trans side there's just never been a really good time in this discussion to ask.

What should trans people be able to do that people who just want to do something the other sex generally does shouldn't?

Should you have to declare yourself trans to crossdress? To use different pronouns? To us a specific bathroom? And I want answer no mush-mouthed vagueness about "well it's complicated in a way that will never be clarified ever."

So real world hypothetical. I'm a biological male in a men's public bathroom. I'm biological woman who identifies as a man comes in. Don't ask how I know just run with it. I don't kick them out of "my" space. Then I biological woman who DOESN'T identify as a man comes in. Again I don't how I would know, sorta both the point and not the point at this juncture but just go with it.

Would be transphobic to NOT ask the biological woman who doesn't identify as a man to leave?

And this isn't a joke or a trap question or a setup for a gotcha. My biggest issue with has always been if you don't treat the biological sexes differently the whole concept of "trans" gives you nothing to do, it's meaningless.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

FYI for some context as to why I'm such a weird 3rd position odd man out in this discussion is largely that.

To over simplify it I think transpeople should be able to do pretty much everything they are asking to do, but not because they are trans just because I wouldn't care anyway.

There is not one single thing I think a transperson should be "able" (speaking legally and social pressure) to do because they are trans that a person should be able to because they want to.

And that just leaves us with this thread, an endless, never ending, never advancing debate about a difference between "person who acts like a certain gender" and "person who identifies as the other gender" which isn't a question it's just pure semantics and categorization.

And that's actually a question I've kind of wanted to ask the trans side there's just never been a really good time in this discussion to ask.

What should trans people be able to do that people who just want to do something the other sex generally does shouldn't?

Should you have to declare yourself trans to crossdress? To use different pronouns? To us a specific bathroom? And I want answer no mush-mouthed vagueness about "well it's complicated in a way that will never be clarified ever."

So real world hypothetical. I'm a biological male in a men's public bathroom. I'm biological woman who identifies as a man comes in. Don't ask how I know just run with it. I don't kick them out of "my" space. Then I biological woman who DOESN'T identify as a man comes in. Again I don't how I would know, sorta both the point and not the point at this juncture but just go with it.

Would be transphobic to NOT ask the biological woman who doesn't identify as a man to leave?

And this isn't a joke or a trap question or a setup for a gotcha. My biggest issue with has always been if you don't treat the biological sexes differently the whole concept of "trans" gives you nothing to do, it's meaningless.

Joe, have you actually read this thread? You make this long post without addressing the fact that (almost always) self ID’d transwomen are insisting on entering women’s private places and institutions, sports, refuges, prisons etc etc and women are sometimes assaulted or otherwise damaged as a result. This is “meaningless”?

Have you looked at any of the many links with concrete examples of women being assaulted and damaged? There’s a lot there.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Should you have to declare yourself trans to crossdress?

No, I don't think so. This is a weird one, though, because I don't think anyone thinks you need to be trans to crossdress. Seems like most people think everyone should be allowed to or no one should be allowed to, I'm not seeing the constituency for "only trans can cross dress".

I'm in the "everyone can cross dress" camp.

Quote:

To use different pronouns?

Except for kings and queens (and people with pretentions to same), nobody actually uses pronouns for themselves. People request that other people use pronouns when referring to that person.

Pronoun preference is a matter of courtesy, it should never be a matter of law. And that applies on both sides, meaning the person making the request and the person deciding to grant the request. I think it's rude to request the use of non-standard pronouns. I think it's also rude to request the use of pronouns that don't match how one presents oneself. So my standard is correlated with trans status, but it's not identical to trans status.

Quote:

To us a specific bathroom?

I'm not really sure about why you're asking the question. The problem doesn't seem to be that males are going into female bathrooms without declaring themselves to be trans. The problem seems to be males who DO declare themselves to be trans, but still present as male, going into female bathrooms. It's not the declaration/non-declaration of trans status that's causing friction.

If you pass as female, use the female bathroom. If you don't, use the male bathroom. Note that passing is a higher standard than presenting.

Quote:

So real world hypothetical. I'm a biological male in a men's public bathroom. I'm biological woman who identifies as a man comes in. Don't ask how I know just run with it. I don't kick them out of "my" space. Then I biological woman who DOESN'T identify as a man comes in. Again I don't how I would know, sorta both the point and not the point at this juncture but just go with it.

Would be transphobic to NOT ask the biological woman who doesn't identify as a man to leave?

In that scenario, you aren't upholding sex segregation. That's not transphobic, but it's also not trans inclusive. It's just... odd.

The trans activist position is that we should maintain sex segregation, but provide an exception for all trans people. The opposing position (which gets labelled as transphobic but that's not quite the right term) is that we should maintain sex segregation but no exceptions should ever be made for trans people. Middle ground positions are that exceptions can be made for trans people who meet certain criteria. And the true transphobe position is that there shouldn't even be any trans people.

The position that we should just abolish sex segregation entirely (and as a side effect make trans status irrelevant) is orthogonal to all of those positions.

Quote:

And this isn't a joke or a trap question or a setup for a gotcha. My biggest issue with has always been if you don't treat the biological sexes differently the whole concept of "trans" gives you nothing to do, it's meaningless.

That's absolutely true. Without sex segregation of some sort, trans status is irrelevant.

But almost nobody wants to do that, including the trans activists. And there would be serious consequences if we did. It's very much a Chesterton's fence.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No, I don't think so. This is a weird one, though, because I don't think anyone thinks you need to be trans to crossdress. Seems like most people think everyone should be allowed to or no one should be allowed to, I'm not seeing the constituency for "only trans can cross dress".

I'm in the "everyone can cross dress" camp.

But that's transface!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I mean woman should be able to cut her breasts off if she just wants to, gender dysphoria doesn't even have to come into.

Minors shouldn't be able to. Hell, we prohibit young children from even piercing their ears, and that's reversible.

The concept of people being too young to do certain things that we have no problem with adults doing is pretty damn standard.

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Brainster

I suggest that it may mean that we will eventually have transgender prisons or at least separate wings. It seems obvious that keeping them with male prisoners is problematic and keeping them with female prisoners is also not a good idea.

I doubt there will ever be separate prisons. Once the predators know they will not be with people possessing vaginas, there will be a dramatic drop in claims of being trans-women.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I mean woman should be able to cut her breasts off if she just wants to, gender dysphoria doesn't even have to come into. I mean breast reduction is already a thing for a multitude of reasons. This is a whole bucket of nothing.

Adults. Adults should be able to. Minors should not.

It's not a whole bucket of nothing for a minor to undergo an entirely voluntary mastectomy.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And that just leaves us with this thread, an endless, never ending, never advancing debate about a difference between "person who acts like a certain gender" and "person who identifies as the other gender" which isn't a question it's just pure semantics and categorization.

That might be your question, but it's not the one we've been wrestling with in this thread. In this thread, it's the distinction between "person who acts like or identifies as a certain gender" versus "person who is a specific sex". It's not about some vague differences in the meaning of "gender", it's about the very real differences between gender identity and biological sex.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Should you have to declare yourself trans to crossdress?

Nobody in this thread gives a damn how a person wants to dress. Everyone can dress however they want, I don't think any of us cares.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

To use different pronouns?

People don't use pronouns about themselves. The discussion is whether or not a person has the privilege to obligate other people to use particular pronouns when speaking about them.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

To us a specific bathroom?

Given that bathrooms are sex-specific spaces, what a person declares about themself is, to me, irrelevant. Sex doesn't change when one says a magic formula. I'll include a minor caveat, which ought to be obvious but somehow never is... If a person passes well enough that they are not identified as being of the wrong sex for that space, then hooray for them, they get to use it and nobody is going to complain because nobody knows. This is followed by a corollary caveat, which I also think ought to be obvious, but somehow isn't... when one whips out genitals that belong to the other sex, they 100% no longer pass. Seriously, if Blair White whips out their donger in the ladies, Blair will no longer pass as a female.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

So real world hypothetical. I'm a biological male in a men's public bathroom. I'm biological woman who identifies as a man comes in. Don't ask how I know just run with it. I don't kick them out of "my" space. Then I biological woman who DOESN'T identify as a man comes in. Again I don't how I would know, sorta both the point and not the point at this juncture but just go with it.

Would be transphobic to NOT ask the biological woman who doesn't identify as a man to leave?

And this isn't a joke or a trap question or a setup for a gotcha. My biggest issue with has always been if you don't treat the biological sexes differently the whole concept of "trans" gives you nothing to do, it's meaningless.

Once again, I will point out that the complementary situations are not equivalent. A female entering a male-only space is voluntarily placing themself at risk. A male entering a female-only space is coercively placing everyone else at risk.

If Daniel walks into the lion's den, Daniel is at risk of injury from the lion. If a lion walks into Daniel's house, Daniel is at risk of injury from the lion.

In neither scenario is this a big concern for the lion.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The trans activist position is that we should maintain sex segregation, but provide an exception for all trans people. The opposing position (which gets labelled as transphobic but that's not quite the right term) is that we should maintain sex segregation but no exceptions should ever be made for trans people. Middle ground positions are that exceptions can be made for trans people who meet certain criteria. And the true transphobe position is that there shouldn't even be any trans people.

To be fair, the "opposing position" was fine with the "middle ground" position, until we were told that there can be no criteria.

If there are no criteria, there can be no exceptions. Because without criteria, there is no sex-separated space in the first place.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Brainster

But that's transface!

OMG, did you happen across that tweet too?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Adults should be able to. Minors should not.

When is someone old enough that we should let them decide instead of substituting the judgment of (conservative) legislators who've never met them or their doctors?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

When is someone old enough that we should let them decide instead of substituting the judgment of (conservative) legislators who've never met them or their doctors?

She just told you. When they become adults, which means at age 18. Same age we allow them to make their own decisions about smoking, having sex, enter into contracts, and countless other issues.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

She just told you. When they become adults, which means at age 18. Same age we allow them to make their own decisions about smoking, having sex, enter into contracts, and countless other issues.

The age is 16 for sex in Nebraska; the bill in question proposes to raise it to 19 for all gender-related medical treatment. This strikes me as a bit, well, paternalistic. Sort of flies in the face of a small-gov't ethos. Also makes me wonder why they didn't pick 18.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

The age is 16 for sex in Nebraska, and the bill proposes to raise it to 19 for gender-related treatments.

Is your argument that it should be 16 for getting a cosmetic mastectomy, not 18?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Is your argument that it should be 16 for getting a cosmetic mastectomy, not 18?

Calling it "cosmetic" makes it sound like it is not the standard of care being prescribed by a team of doctors to treat a condition with well-defined diagnostic criteria. If the doctors and the parents and the patient all agree with the treatment plan, I don't see why the legislature should make patients drive to Illinois for this particular treatment.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Is your argument that it should be 16 for getting a cosmetic mastectomy, not 18?

I think the interesting point that Damien's posts bring up is the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the age-based definitions of adult.

10 may contract for life insurance. (This seems weird.)
16 to drive a car.
16 for sex.
18 to vote.
18 to join the army.
18 can enter into binding contracts or sign a lease.
19 is the age of majority. (One of three states higher than 18.)
19 for medical decisions.
(Cross the border to Iowa, and that last goes down to 18.)
21 to buy tobacco.
21 to Drink.

Partly from: https://www.findlaw.com/state/nebras...is%20marriage.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TomB

19 is the age of majority. (One of three states higher than 18.)

Ah, that explains it.

Originally Posted by TomB

(Cross the border to Iowa, and that last goes down to 18.)

Please substitute Iowa for Illinois in my earlier post.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Calling it "cosmetic" makes it sound like it is not the standard of care being prescribed by a team of doctors to treat a condition with well-defined diagnostic criteria.

Describe it however you want, it's still cosmetic. The breast tissue isn't removed for functional reasons, but because of how it looks.

Quote:

If the doctors and the parents and the patient all agree with the treatment plan, I don't see why the legislature should make patients drive to Illinois for this particular treatment.

If the parents, child, and their partner agree, I don't see why the legislature should make them fly to Japan for the child and partner to have sex.

Sorry, but that's not good enough. We prohibit children from doing lots of things on the basis that they are too young, regardless of what their parents or anyone else thinks. If you want to argue that we shouldn't do it for this, you need to present an argument for when children specifically shod be allowed to do this as children, and not wait. "Standard of care" doesn't suffice, because that standard has not been based on anything solid.