[Continuation] Transwomen are not women - part XI - Page 3

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 07:12 AM

Also how does any of this apply to something that is 100% internally self defined?

How, even conceptually do we put something like the double blind or falsifiability or other similar concepts into this discussion?

Again one side is defining itself as "Pure self determination is the only standard" which is as close to defining yourself as correct by fiat as you can get.

I've asked multiple times in this and other threads can a person go "I identify as Gender X" and be wrong. If not this whole thing becomes real meaningless real fast.

d4m10n · 27th February 2023, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Well for those two quotes, sceptical would mean the barred trans woman wasn't being validated as a trans woman.

Validation in the sense of being treated by others as a woman (hereafter: TWAW) requires that the sports bans be dismantled and replaced by a more affirmative regime, such as the IOC's previous decision to ~~pretend~~ affirm that two years of hormone replacement is sufficient to level the playing field in all salient respects. To say it is okay to treat cis women and trans women differently in non-medical social settings such as locker rooms, leagues, and single-sex bathing ponds is to fail at providing social validation (AFIACT, YMMV).

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've asked multiple times in this and other threads can a person go "I identify as Gender X" and be wrong.

There are an ever expanding number of genders, any of which may be affirmed as a matter of personal self-identification, all of which are valid.

Elaedith · 27th February 2023, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Trans people, who have gone through affirmative care, wouldn’t know if their care was beneficial to them? How else does one collect data?

Ideally the same way as one evaluates any other therapy for a psychological condition. However, evaluating interventions where the benefit is primarily psychological wellbeing is inherently difficult. In medical treatment the placebo effect is defined as a psychological effect, making it hard to define and distinguish placebo effects when the benefit sought is psychological.

It's acknowledged that therapies intended to alleviate psychological distress are subject to very strong placebo effects, meaning that people will tend to report a benefit of virtually any type of intervention when compared (typically) to those on a no-treatment waiting list. Ideally a new intervention would be compared to existing best practice using a randomised control design and systematic follow-up. Outcome measures would be as objective as possible and involve multiple measures. The study and intended analyses would be pre-registered and all outcomes reported.

Ron Obvious · 27th February 2023, 11:33 AM

Is this the only area in psychiatry where the recommended treatment would be to pretend to really be something/someone you're objectively not, and to demand everyone else go along with it? Sounds insane on the face of it, doesn't it?

I'm not going to bother listing the countless (sincere) delusions people may have that have been spotted in the wild, but I can't think of a parallel. As far as I know Gender Dysphoria is unique. Even surgery on people with body dysphoria is considered medical malpractice last time I checked.

What a strange world we live in.

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

Is this the only area in psychiatry where the recommended treatment would be to pretend to really be something/someone you're objectively not, and to demand everyone else go along with it? Sounds insane on the face of it, doesn't it?

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again.

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

That is not an accurate comparison because sexual attraction could at least define and show what it is and what objective difference it made.

If a guy goes "I only have sex with women, am married to a woman, am only sexually attracted to women, have only ever been in romantic relationships with women, have only ever had sex with women, only intend to every have sex with women, but I personally identify myself personal in my own personal identity that I personally identity my personal identity with as being a gay man" we would be allowed to go "Okay something isn't adding up here." without the level of vitriol we're getting here.

Again to use my previous criteria. The statement "I'm gay" is at least somewhat objective. You can say "I'm gay" and be "wrong" (for lack of a better term.)

The transgender debate leans too heavily on "subjective" and "identity" and even those concepts can't be totally removed any objective real world context.

"I'm a woman" has to relate to some kind of actual objective differences that manifests in the real world or again this whole discussion gets pointless real quick.

Ron Obvious · 27th February 2023, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again.

I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not.

But I'm sure the discussion is old hat and unlikely to be productive so I will drop it. I just think it's weird and don't believe anybody really believes it when they say "Trans-women ARE women" but nevertheless feel obligated to repeat that slogan.

There's a strong element of the emperor's new clothes about this whole phenomenon.

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again.

Yes, absolutely this.

As I wrote previously in this thread: when DSM decided to declassify homosexuality/bisexuality in the 1970s, there were, nevertheless, undoubtedly people who were adamant and strident in their own belief that a) homosexuality/bisexuality was an undesirable sexual deviancy and a mental health disorder, and b) they were on the right side of both science and history.

And I imagine that had internet forums been around at that time, there would have been a hard core of posters zealously preaching this doctrine. And what's more, those people would have taken angry umbrage if anyone attacked their views as being reactionary, antiscientific and bigoted.

Of course, with the benefit of history and education since those times, pretty much everybody* can now see how disgusting and wrong were those who denied the validity of homosexuality. I have little doubt that things will go very similarly in the case of transgender identity.

* Everybody except, perhaps, fundamental Christian organisations and hard-right-wing groups.... both of which - interestingly enough - are actively in league with the bigoted groups currently preaching a doctrine of transgender identity denialism. What goes around comes around, I guess.....

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 01:20 PM

Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration."

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

That is not an accurate comparison because sexual attraction could at least define and show what it is and what objective difference it made.

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not.

I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population.

I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years.

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not.

But I'm sure the discussion is old hat and unlikely to be productive so I will drop it. I just think it's weird and don't believe anybody really believes it when they say "Trans-women ARE women" but nevertheless feel obligated to repeat that slogan.

There's a strong element of the emperor's new clothes about this whole phenomenon.

When you say that sexual attraction is a "personal preference", what do you mean by that? Because, in the absence of clarification, those words tend to imply that people can choose whether to be gay or not. However, I think the overwhelming majority of gay people would be clear that they never had any choice in the matter: they simply were innately gay. Indeed, this is further reinforced by the fact that a significant proportion of gay people went through considerable internal struggles to come out as gay: many such people tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle to try to "conform", before they couldn't live a lie any longer.

And in exactly the same way, the overwhelming majority of transgender people will tell you that their transgender identity is not a "choice" - it's simply their innate identity. In fact, the disorder of gender dysphoria is essentially wholly predicated on the notion that transgender identity is not a "choice".

The rest of your post is pretty abhorrent and transphobic, so I'll ignore it.

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population.

I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years.

A reasonable question was asked.

Pointing your finger and going "HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU!" is not an answer, nor does it actually address anything said.

Ron Obvious · 27th February 2023, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

When you say that sexual attraction is a "personal preference", what do you mean by that? Because, in the absence of clarification, those words tend to imply that people can choose whether to be gay or not. However, I think the overwhelming majority of gay people would be clear that they never had any choice in the matter: they simply were innately gay.

True, but how much choice did you really have about your favourite colour or your favourite food?

I think it is comparable enough. Sorry if the word 'preference' doesn't cover the spectrum.

Lplus · 27th February 2023, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration."

Indeed:

Your sex is what you physically are, your gender is what you feel you are, and your sexual orientation is which sex turns you on.

Two involve physical evidence, the third is purely an internal state of mind.

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

A reasonable argument was made.

Pointing your finger and going "HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU!" is not an answer.

I'm not pointing my finger at anyone and I'm sorry if I've upset you.

Your particular argument is relying just as much on a subjective understanding of reality as people who identify as trans. You are relying on a societal norm that is in the process of shifting, especially among younger generations.

As I said, you're right for now.

Right now, there are kids who are growing up with trans and gender-fluid kids in their classes. They are not developing the same stigmas that older generations have. My kids, for example, consider gay, trans, and gender-fluid kids more than just "okay". They're friends. By the time they grow up and are having kids of their own, that will probably be when the societal tipping point happens. Maybe a bit after that.

I think the historical parallels are super obvious. The Dobbs decision aside, we always trend towards greater freedoms over time. More suffrage. Less segregation. More inclusion. Sure, people fight against those things, but they always lose eventually.

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population.

I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years.

Yes.

I think an awful lot of the bigotry around both homosexuality and transgender identity has a pretty simple explanation: many (even most) people who are not homosexual, and/or who are not transgender, cannot see these issues through anything but their own personal lens:

It's very easy (though lazy, incorrect, and bigoted) for somebody who is not transgender themselves to form their beliefs along the lines of "I'm not transgender, and I consider myself normal; this informs me that transgender identity is, by definition, not normal; this in turn informs me that transgender people must be either mentally ill or liars" (and the same thought process lies behind bigoted anti-homosexuality viewpoints).

Fortunately in the case of homosexuality, through a process of education and acceptance - plus the undeniable point that many of the anti-gay bigots literally died off - there's now widespread acceptance of homosexuality as normal (and not a mental health disorder) and healthy. I have little doubt that the same will happen in the case of transgender identity, and I suspect you're right wrt the timeframe.

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Your particular argument is relying just as much on a subjective understanding of reality as people who identify as trans.

Well jeez if only I've spent like 10 threads now begging anyone to maybe define it beyond "Because I say so."

My not understanding what anyone is actually saying isn't entirely my fault.

"You don't understand it's the subjective identity" yeah I heard you and everyone else the first 500 times. That's terms are meaningless.

You're just rewording "Because I say so." over and over.

At this point might as well just call being trans a "qualia."

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 02:21 PM

All the "Okay but this was said about the previous minority group so therefore I'm right' argument do not work.

Again, and I'm not dropping this. Gays and women and blacks and disabled people can all articulate what is different about them in a way that matters. The history of civil rights is not a mush-mouthed "I say I'm different, case closed."

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Lplus

Indeed:

Your sex is what you physically are, your gender is what you feel you are, and your sexual orientation is which sex turns you on.

Two involve physical evidence, the third is purely an internal state of mind.

What?

Are you unaware that being gay is entirely a state of mind? That the "visible" consequences (showing romantic love to someone of the same sex, having sexual interactions with someone of the same sex, etc) are merely manifestations of that state of mind?

Your attempts to differentiate transgender identity as somehow different, on the basis that "there's no physical evidence of it", is both risibly unpleasant and incorrect. And it's this sort of reactionary, bigoted thinking which is such a barrier for transgender people. Fortunately the experts in the mainstream medical community, plus progressive legislatures around the world, understand that your "arguments" about the validity of transgender identity are flat wrong.

And more fortunately still - though it's still sad, and a very poor reflection on certain sectors in society - the viewpoint you represent will a) rightly die out within the next decade or two, and b) be looked upon in time with a sense of wonderment and abhorrence: "Did people really use to think that way about transgender identity??" (just as has happened wrt societal views about homosexuality).

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 02:29 PM

"It's bigoted to expect a difference to actually be a difference" isn't the argument you think it is.

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Well jeez if only I've spent like 10 threads now begging anyone to maybe define it beyond "Because I say so."

Define what?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

My not understanding what anyone is actually saying isn't entirely my fault.

"You don't understand it's the subjective identity" yeah I heard you and everyone else the first 500 times. That's terms are meaningless.

I don't believe I said "subjective identity".

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You're just rewording "Because I say so." over and over.

I promise you, I'm not.

I'm saying "because they say so." Where "they" are the kids who have a much better handle this situation than we do, just like my generation had a much better handle on homosexuality than my parents did and they had a better handle on racism than their parents.

The only scenario where trans and gender-fluid get forcibly shoved back into the closet is an athoritarian scenario and that could only last for so long.

JoeMorgue · 27th February 2023, 02:35 PM

Again I'm not being unreasonable, bigoted, or any other nasty term for simply expecting what we are talking about to be defined beyond that of a purely personally defined internal identity.

Samson · 27th February 2023, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Obvious

True, but how much choice did you really have about your favourite colour or your favourite food?

I think it is comparable enough. Sorry if the word 'preference' doesn't cover the spectrum.

I am certain you can cultivate tastes for food and colour in a way you can never cultivate a sexual preference.
Also I do believe that men who wish they were women can never change that. The difference is gay can be done safely, trans it seems can never be done safely.

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again I'm not being unreasonable, bigoted, or any other nasty term for simply expecting what we are talking about to be defined beyond that of a purely personally defined internal identity.

Agreed. I would only ask why you need something defined beyond socially defined terms?

I disagree that the any of the terms we are talking about are purely personally defined. There is no question that the terms are in transition (pun intended), but as Thor said, all words are made up.

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

All the "Okay but this was said about the previous minority group so therefore I'm right' argument do not work.

Again, and I'm not dropping this. Gays and women and blacks and disabled people can all articulate what is different about them in a way that matters. The history of civil rights is not a mush-mouthed "I say I'm different, case closed."

This is simply wrong, I'm afraid.

Firstly, of course it's instructive to look at the way society has considered other minority groups in the past. And homosexuality is probably the best indicator in this respect, because (IMO) very similar dynamics apply as to transgender identity: both are conditions that narrow-minded people with reactionary, bigoted viewpoints can (and do) denigrate and deny along the lines of "I'm not homosexual/transgender, and I know I'm normal, so homosexuality/transgender identity must therefore be abnormal, and anyone claiming to be homosexual/transgender must therefore be either lying (perhaps for material advantage) or mentally ill".

And it's both interesting and highly instructive that a) pretty much the same dynamic is happening wrt transgender identity as happened a few decades ago to homosexuality; b) homosexuality is (fortunately) now considered by the vast majority to be valid rather than deviant; and c) the very same groups which have been steadfast in their opposition to homosexuality (hard-line religious institutions, hard-right politicians and opinion-formers, etc) are also in the vanguard of opposition to acceptance/full accomodation of those with transgender identity.

Secondly, I again take issue with this idea about "articulating what's different about them in a way that matters", and the suggestion that transgender identity cannot do this and therefore somehow doesn't "deserve" to be looked at in the same way as homosexuality/civil rights/women's rights. This sounds to me like an extremely narrow-minded and intolerant view of transgender identity, and one that's borne of a fundamental lack of understanding.

Fortunately (once again), the whole of mainstream medical science and medical practice, plus virtually every progressive law-making body around the world, doesn't assess transgender identity in the way that you choose to do. I look forward to your PoV on transgender identity dying out, and ultimately being looked upon with a rightful sense of incredulity and abhorrence.

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"It's bigoted to expect a difference to actually be a difference" isn't the argument you think it is.

Would you be able to explain what you mean here? It currently makes very little sense to me.

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration."

You do realise (or maybe you don't?) that it's entirely possible to be, for example, a gay man who never actually expresses his homosexuality in any observable manifestation (ie he never develops a romantic togetherness with another man, nor has any kind of sexual activity with another man, etc)?

By your criteria, since this man is homosexual by "purely internal self-declaration", does this somehow invalidate his homosexual identity?

Elaedith · 27th February 2023, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You do realise (or maybe you don't?) that it's entirely possible to be, for example, a gay man who never actually expresses his homosexuality in any observable manifestation (ie he never develops a romantic togetherness with another man, nor has any kind of sexual activity with another man, etc)?

By your criteria, since this man is homosexual by "purely internal self-declaration", does this somehow invalidate his homosexual identity?

As has already been pointed out (many times) sexual orientation has a clear, non-circular definition. Relying on somebody's word that this definition applies to them is not the same as making a circular definition based on identity.

If the definition of a gay person is 'anybody who identifies as a gay person' then a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex can be a gay person, and the definition is meaningless.

LondonJohn · 27th February 2023, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Elaedith

As has already been pointed out (many times) sexual orientation has a clear, non-circular definition. Relying on somebody's word that this definition applies to them is not the same as making a circular definition based on identity.

If the definition of a gay person is 'anybody who identifies as a gay person' then a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex can be a gay person, and the definition is meaningless.

Your clear implication here is that (in your opinion) there's nothing more to transgender identity than declaring that one has transgender identity.

But of course that's simply flat wrong. As has already been pointed out (many times), most societies have deeply-entrenched sets of gender roles/expectations/attitudes/behaviours. And as such, when (for example) someone assigned female/woman at birth comes to realise that they do not internally inhabit society's version of "woman", and that instead they internally identify as society's version of "man".... this is how/why they come to have transgender identity. It's not a circular definition, and it's not a meaningless definition.

You don't have to take my word for it of course. There's plenty of reliable literature around which lucidly shows a) what transgender identity is and how it manifests itself, and b) how/why it is now treated within the entirety of mainstream medicine (both medical science and medical practice) as valid in its own right.

I know I've pointed this out many times.... but do you seriously never pause to think about why the whole of mainstream medicine treats transgender identity as valid and fully worthy (usually) of affirmation* (and any therapies/treatments that would help with affirmation for each different transgender person), while at the same time, mainstream medicine treats (for example) someone claiming to identify as a dolphin/Napoleon/attack helicopter as a mentally ill person requiring diagnosis and conversion therapy?

* For adults presenting with transgender identity, that is - clinicians already know well that the situation is much more complex when it comes to minors.

d4m10n · 27th February 2023, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

As has already been pointed out (many times), most societies have deeply-entrenched sets of gender roles/expectations/attitudes/behaviours. And as such, when (for example) someone assigned female/woman at birth comes to realise that they do not internally inhabit society's version of "woman", and that instead they internally identify as society's version of "man".... this is how/why they come to have transgender identity.

I've met more than a few butch lesbians who reject femininity in favor of the virtues and styles traditionally ascribed to masculinity. They swagger, wear a fair bit of flannel and denim, fix up stuff around the house, and even change their own oil. What makes them different than what you've described above, aside from self-identification?

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

I've met more than a few butch lesbians who reject femininity in favor of the virtues and styles traditionally ascribed to masculinity. They swagger, wear a fair bit of flannel and denim, fix up stuff around the house, and even change their own oil. What makes them different than what you've described above, aside from self-identification?

I have a former band mate who i wouldn't call "butch", per se, bit some idiot at a bar tried to prevent her from using the women's restroom.

The difference? She doesn't identify as male, I'm guessing?

Elaedith · 27th February 2023, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Your clear implication here is that (in your opinion) there's nothing more to transgender identity than declaring that one has transgender identity.

But of course that's simply flat wrong. As has already been pointed out (many times), most societies have deeply-entrenched sets of gender roles/expectations/attitudes/behaviours. And as such, when (for example) someone assigned female/woman at birth comes to realise that they do not internally inhabit society's version of "woman", and that instead they internally identify as society's version of "man".... this is how/why they come to have transgender identity. It's not a circular definition, and it's not a meaningless definition.

As has been pointed out many times, the only way you can avoid the circular, meaningless definition is to re-define 'woman' and 'man' as identification with gender stereotypes, which is sexist and regressive. It is just the flip side of saying that a woman who isn't feminine enough isn't a real woman.

And whenever this is pointed out, activists insist that there is some distinction between a women who is gender non-conforming and a transman, but can't explain what, and it reverts back to the circular and meaningless identity definition. The reason they can't say what is because they cannot acknowledge that the difference is whether or not somebody is unhappy with their sex, due to sex denialism. They would rather induce dysphoria in children and adolescents by putting them on a pathway to thinking their body is wrong if they don't identify with a gender stereotype.

On top of that, we have had decades of people fighting for the right for anyone to reject gender stereotypes and choose whatever roles and behaviours suit their personality, IOW, to be themselves. Yet suddenly we have people pretending that up until now we thought all males were happy to conform to the 'man' stereotype, and all females were happy to conform to the 'woman' stereotype, and anybody who didn't was mentally ill, but now we realise they aren't mentally ill, but can't be themselves unless they get a label, socially constructed identity, flag, special words, affirmation from everybody else, and possibly invasive medical treatment.

Ridiculous.

d4m10n · 27th February 2023, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

She doesn't identify as male, I'm guessing?

"...aside from self-identification?"

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by d4m10n

"...aside from self-identification?"

Why aside from that? What's wrong with self-Identification?

Do you often verify your friends' gender purity?

TomB · 27th February 2023, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Why aside from that? What's wrong with self-Identification?

Do you often verify your friends' gender purity?

It's not about "gender purity." Self-ID makes enforcement of segregated spaces difficult. A woman or a girl sees a person walking around the women's locker room with their penis exposed. Looks like a man. But if she complains that a man is in the women's room, she is a bigot.

Effectively, it opens segregated spaces to the opposite sex with no recourse.

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by TomB

It's not about "gender purity."

I mean, how could it not be?

Originally Posted by TomB

Self-ID makes enforcement of segregated spaces difficult. A woman or a girl sees a person walking around the women's locker room with their penis exposed. Looks like a man. But if she complains that a man is in the women's room, she is a bigot.

So much to unpack, there. Are you imagining a trans woman whipping around the one feature that she's the most self-conscious about because it is a constant reminder of how her body doesn't fit her?

I highly recommend spending some time with transgender people. Maybe read a book written by a trans person.

ETA: FWIW, I've been in an organization with a trans man for a little over 2 decades and we've been in the men's room at the same time. He transitioned way before I knew him, but he still grabs a stall when changing or otherwise attending to his business. I can't think of him as anything other than a man and a pretty damn good sax player.

lionking · 27th February 2023, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I mean, how could it not be?

So much to unpack, there. Are you imagining a trans woman whipping around the one feature that she's the most self-conscious about because it is a constant reminder of how her body doesn't fit her?

Are you saying it doesn’t happen? High profile transwoman swimmer Lia Thomas’ behaviour was complained about by teammates about for this very reason The response to the complaint? The teamsmates were told they would be expelled from the team because they complained.

And if transwomen are so self conscious about their penises, very, very few are making attempts to either remove them of otherwise hide them. There have been many links in this thread about self ID’d transwomen exposing their penises.

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Are you saying it doesn’t happen? High profile transwoman swimmer Lia Thomas’ behaviour was complained about by teammates about for this very reason The response to the complaint? The teamsmates were told they would be expelled from the team because they complained.

I never said there were no ******** in the world.

Originally Posted by lionking

And if transwomen are so self conscious about their penises, very, very few are making attempts to either remove them of otherwise hide them. There have been many links in this thread about self ID’d transwomen exposing their penises.

That’s a non sequitur. Just because you have links to some sensational stories, it does not follow that “very, very few are making attempts” to present as their gender.

What I’m suggesting is that this thread about transgender people is missing perspectives and voices from transgender people.

lionking · 27th February 2023, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I never said there were no ******** in the world.

No you didn't. You did ask how it could be imagined that trans women could be exposing their penises. Very easily I would say.

Upchurch · 27th February 2023, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

No you didn't. You did ask how it could be imagined that trans women could be exposing their penises. Very easily I would say.

Do you think they are all ********?

27th February 2023, 07:12 AM	#81
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	Also how does any of this apply to something that is 100% internally self defined? How, even conceptually do we put something like the double blind or falsifiability or other similar concepts into this discussion? Again one side is defining itself as "Pure self determination is the only standard" which is as close to defining yourself as correct by fiat as you can get. I've asked multiple times in this and other threads can a person go "I identify as Gender X" and be wrong. If not this whole thing becomes real meaningless real fast.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. Last edited by JoeMorgue; 27th February 2023 at 07:17 AM.

27th February 2023, 10:03 AM	#82
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,908	Originally Posted by Francesca R Well for those two quotes, sceptical would mean the barred trans woman wasn't being validated as a trans woman. Validation in the sense of being treated by others as a woman (hereafter: TWAW) requires that the sports bans be dismantled and replaced by a more affirmative regime, such as the IOC's previous decision to ~~pretend~~ affirm that two years of hormone replacement is sufficient to level the playing field in all salient respects. To say it is okay to treat cis women and trans women differently in non-medical social settings such as locker rooms, leagues, and single-sex bathing ponds is to fail at providing social validation (AFIACT, YMMV). Originally Posted by JoeMorgue I've asked multiple times in this and other threads can a person go "I identify as Gender X" and be wrong. There are an ever expanding number of genders, any of which may be affirmed as a matter of personal self-identification, all of which are valid.
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 27th February 2023 at 10:08 AM.

27th February 2023, 10:31 AM	#83
Elaedith Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,486	Originally Posted by Upchurch Trans people, who have gone through affirmative care, wouldn’t know if their care was beneficial to them? How else does one collect data? Ideally the same way as one evaluates any other therapy for a psychological condition. However, evaluating interventions where the benefit is primarily psychological wellbeing is inherently difficult. In medical treatment the placebo effect is defined as a psychological effect, making it hard to define and distinguish placebo effects when the benefit sought is psychological. It's acknowledged that therapies intended to alleviate psychological distress are subject to very strong placebo effects, meaning that people will tend to report a benefit of virtually any type of intervention when compared (typically) to those on a no-treatment waiting list. Ideally a new intervention would be compared to existing best practice using a randomised control design and systematic follow-up. Outcome measures would be as objective as possible and involve multiple measures. The study and intended analyses would be pre-registered and all outcomes reported.
Elaedith Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,486	__________________ "The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - Salman Rushdie.

27th February 2023, 11:33 AM	#84
Ron Obvious Muse Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 992	Is this the only area in psychiatry where the recommended treatment would be to pretend to really be something/someone you're objectively not, and to demand everyone else go along with it? Sounds insane on the face of it, doesn't it? I'm not going to bother listing the countless (sincere) delusions people may have that have been spotted in the wild, but I can't think of a parallel. As far as I know Gender Dysphoria is unique. Even surgery on people with body dysphoria is considered medical malpractice last time I checked. What a strange world we live in.
Ron Obvious Muse Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 992	__________________ "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell

27th February 2023, 11:52 AM	#85
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,758	Originally Posted by Ron Obvious Is this the only area in psychiatry where the recommended treatment would be to pretend to really be something/someone you're objectively not, and to demand everyone else go along with it? Sounds insane on the face of it, doesn't it? Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago. I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th February 2023, 12:14 PM	#86
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	Originally Posted by Upchurch Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago. That is not an accurate comparison because sexual attraction could at least define and show what it is and what objective difference it made. If a guy goes "I only have sex with women, am married to a woman, am only sexually attracted to women, have only ever been in romantic relationships with women, have only ever had sex with women, only intend to every have sex with women, but I personally identify myself personal in my own personal identity that I personally identity my personal identity with as being a gay man" we would be allowed to go "Okay something isn't adding up here." without the level of vitriol we're getting here. Again to use my previous criteria. The statement "I'm gay" is at least somewhat objective. You can say "I'm gay" and be "wrong" (for lack of a better term.) The transgender debate leans too heavily on "subjective" and "identity" and even those concepts can't be totally removed any objective real world context. "I'm a woman" has to relate to some kind of actual objective differences that manifests in the real world or again this whole discussion gets pointless real quick.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. Last edited by JoeMorgue; 27th February 2023 at 12:21 PM.

27th February 2023, 12:19 PM	#87
Ron Obvious Muse Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 992	Originally Posted by Upchurch Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago. I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again. I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not. But I'm sure the discussion is old hat and unlikely to be productive so I will drop it. I just think it's weird and don't believe anybody really believes it when they say "Trans-women ARE women" but nevertheless feel obligated to repeat that slogan. There's a strong element of the emperor's new clothes about this whole phenomenon.
Ron Obvious Muse Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 992	__________________ "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell

27th February 2023, 01:15 PM	#88
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by Upchurch Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago. I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again. Yes, absolutely this. As I wrote previously in this thread: when DSM decided to declassify homosexuality/bisexuality in the 1970s, there were, nevertheless, undoubtedly people who were adamant and strident in their own belief that a) homosexuality/bisexuality was an undesirable sexual deviancy and a mental health disorder, and b) they were on the right side of both science and history. And I imagine that had internet forums been around at that time, there would have been a hard core of posters zealously preaching this doctrine. And what's more, those people would have taken angry umbrage if anyone attacked their views as being reactionary, antiscientific and bigoted. Of course, with the benefit of history and education since those times, pretty much everybody* can now see how disgusting and wrong were those who denied the validity of homosexuality. I have little doubt that things will go very similarly in the case of transgender identity. * Everybody except, perhaps, fundamental Christian organisations and hard-right-wing groups.... both of which - interestingly enough - are actively in league with the bigoted groups currently preaching a doctrine of transgender identity denialism. What goes around comes around, I guess.....
	Last edited by LondonJohn; 27th February 2023 at 02:47 PM.

27th February 2023, 01:20 PM	#89
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration."
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

27th February 2023, 01:26 PM	#90
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,758	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue That is not an accurate comparison because sexual attraction could at least define and show what it is and what objective difference it made. Originally Posted by Ron Obvious I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not. I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population. I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th February 2023, 01:27 PM	#91
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by Ron Obvious I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not. But I'm sure the discussion is old hat and unlikely to be productive so I will drop it. I just think it's weird and don't believe anybody really believes it when they say "Trans-women ARE women" but nevertheless feel obligated to repeat that slogan. There's a strong element of the emperor's new clothes about this whole phenomenon. When you say that sexual attraction is a "personal preference", what do you mean by that? Because, in the absence of clarification, those words tend to imply that people can choose whether to be gay or not. However, I think the overwhelming majority of gay people would be clear that they never had any choice in the matter: they simply were *innately* gay. Indeed, this is further reinforced by the fact that a significant proportion of gay people went through considerable internal struggles to come out as gay: many such people tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle to try to "conform", before they couldn't live a lie any longer. And in exactly the same way, the overwhelming majority of transgender people will tell you that their transgender identity is not a "choice" - it's simply their innate identity. In fact, the disorder of gender dysphoria is essentially wholly predicated on the notion that transgender identity is not a "choice". The rest of your post is pretty abhorrent and transphobic, so I'll ignore it.

27th February 2023, 01:33 PM	#92
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	Originally Posted by Upchurch I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population. I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years. A reasonable question was asked. Pointing your finger and going "HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU!" is not an answer, nor does it actually address anything said.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. Last edited by JoeMorgue; 27th February 2023 at 01:41 PM.

27th February 2023, 01:39 PM	#93
Ron Obvious Muse Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 992	Originally Posted by LondonJohn When you say that sexual attraction is a "personal preference", what do you mean by that? Because, in the absence of clarification, those words tend to imply that people can choose whether to be gay or not. However, I think the overwhelming majority of gay people would be clear that they never had any choice in the matter: they simply were *innately* gay. True, but how much choice did you really have about your favourite colour or your favourite food? I think it is comparable enough. Sorry if the word 'preference' doesn't cover the spectrum.
Ron Obvious Muse Join Date: Mar 2019 Posts: 992	__________________ "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell

27th February 2023, 01:51 PM	#94
Lplus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 1,720	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration." Indeed: Your sex is what you physically are, your gender is what you feel you are, and your sexual orientation is which sex turns you on. Two involve physical evidence, the third is purely an internal state of mind.
Lplus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 1,720

27th February 2023, 02:12 PM	#95
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,758	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue A reasonable argument was made. Pointing your finger and going "HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU!" is not an answer. I'm not pointing my finger at anyone and I'm sorry if I've upset you. Your particular argument is relying just as much on a subjective understanding of reality as people who identify as trans. You are relying on a societal norm that is in the process of shifting, especially among younger generations. As I said, you're right for now. Right now, there are kids who are growing up with trans and gender-fluid kids in their classes. They are not developing the same stigmas that older generations have. My kids, for example, consider gay, trans, and gender-fluid kids more than just "okay". They're friends. By the time they grow up and are having kids of their own, that will probably be when the societal tipping point happens. Maybe a bit after that. I think the historical parallels are super obvious. The Dobbs decision aside, we always trend towards greater freedoms over time. More suffrage. Less segregation. More inclusion. Sure, people fight against those things, but they always lose eventually.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th February 2023, 02:16 PM	#96
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by Upchurch I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population. I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years. Yes. I think an awful lot of the bigotry around both homosexuality and transgender identity has a pretty simple explanation: many (even most) people who are not homosexual, and/or who are not transgender, cannot see these issues through anything but their own personal lens: It's very easy (though lazy, incorrect, and bigoted) for somebody who is not transgender themselves to form their beliefs along the lines of "I'm not transgender, and I consider myself normal; this informs me that transgender identity is, by definition, not normal; this in turn informs me that transgender people must be either mentally ill or liars" (and the same thought process lies behind bigoted anti-homosexuality viewpoints). Fortunately in the case of homosexuality, through a process of education and acceptance - plus the undeniable point that many of the anti-gay bigots literally died off - there's now widespread acceptance of homosexuality as normal (and not a mental health disorder) and healthy. I have little doubt that the same will happen in the case of transgender identity, and I suspect you're right wrt the timeframe.

27th February 2023, 02:17 PM	#97
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	Originally Posted by Upchurch Your particular argument is relying just as much on a subjective understanding of reality as people who identify as trans. Well jeez if only I've spent like 10 threads now begging anyone to maybe define it beyond "Because I say so." My not understanding what anyone is actually saying isn't entirely my fault. "You don't understand it's the subjective identity" yeah I heard you and everyone else the first 500 times. That's terms are meaningless. You're just rewording "Because I say so." over and over. At this point might as well just call being trans a "qualia."
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

27th February 2023, 02:21 PM	#98
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	All the "Okay but this was said about the previous minority group so therefore I'm right' argument do not work. Again, and I'm not dropping this. Gays and women and blacks and disabled people can all articulate what is different about them in a way that matters. The history of civil rights is not a mush-mouthed "I say I'm different, case closed."
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

27th February 2023, 02:25 PM	#99
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by Lplus Indeed: Your sex is what you physically are, your gender is what you feel you are, and your sexual orientation is which sex turns you on. Two involve physical evidence, the third is purely an internal state of mind. What? Are you unaware that being gay is entirely a state of mind? That the "visible" consequences (showing romantic love to someone of the same sex, having sexual interactions with someone of the same sex, etc) are merely manifestations of that state of mind? Your attempts to differentiate transgender identity as somehow different, on the basis that "there's no physical evidence of it", is both risibly unpleasant and incorrect. And it's this sort of reactionary, bigoted thinking which is such a barrier for transgender people. Fortunately the experts in the mainstream medical community, plus progressive legislatures around the world, understand that your "arguments" about the validity of transgender identity are flat wrong. And more fortunately still - though it's still sad, and a very poor reflection on certain sectors in society - the viewpoint you represent will a) rightly die out within the next decade or two, and b) be looked upon in time with a sense of wonderment and abhorrence: "Did people really* use to think that way about transgender identity??*" (just as has happened wrt societal views about homosexuality).
	Last edited by LondonJohn; 27th February 2023 at 02:54 PM.

27th February 2023, 02:29 PM	#100
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	"It's bigoted to expect a difference to actually be a difference" isn't the argument you think it is.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

27th February 2023, 02:34 PM	#101
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,758	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Well jeez if only I've spent like 10 threads now begging anyone to maybe define it beyond "Because I say so." Define what? Originally Posted by JoeMorgue My not understanding what anyone is actually saying isn't entirely my fault. "You don't understand it's the subjective identity" yeah I heard you and everyone else the first 500 times. That's terms are meaningless. I don't believe I said "subjective identity". Originally Posted by JoeMorgue You're just rewording "Because I say so." over and over. I promise you, I'm not. I'm saying "because they say so." Where "they" are the kids who have a much better handle this situation than we do, just like my generation had a much better handle on homosexuality than my parents did and they had a better handle on racism than their parents. The only scenario where trans and gender-fluid get forcibly shoved back into the closet is an athoritarian scenario and that could only last for so long.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th February 2023, 02:35 PM	#102
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	Again I'm not being unreasonable, bigoted, or any other nasty term for simply expecting what we are talking about to be defined beyond that of a purely personally defined internal identity.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

27th February 2023, 02:38 PM	#103
Samson Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 10,724	Originally Posted by Ron Obvious True, but how much choice did you really have about your favourite colour or your favourite food? I think it is comparable enough. Sorry if the word 'preference' doesn't cover the spectrum. I am certain you can cultivate tastes for food and colour in a way you can never cultivate a sexual preference. Also I do believe that men who wish they were women can never change that. The difference is gay can be done safely, trans it seems can never be done safely.

27th February 2023, 02:44 PM	#104
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,758	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Again I'm not being unreasonable, bigoted, or any other nasty term for simply expecting what we are talking about to be defined beyond that of a purely personally defined internal identity. Agreed. I would only ask why you need something defined beyond socially defined terms? I disagree that the any of the terms we are talking about are purely personally defined. There is no question that the terms are in transition (pun intended), but as Thor said, all words are made up.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th February 2023, 02:44 PM	#105
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue All the "Okay but this was said about the previous minority group so therefore I'm right' argument do not work. Again, and I'm not dropping this. Gays and women and blacks and disabled people can all articulate what is different about them in a way that matters. The history of civil rights is not a mush-mouthed "I say I'm different, case closed." This is simply wrong, I'm afraid. Firstly, of course it's instructive to look at the way society has considered other minority groups in the past. And homosexuality is probably the best indicator in this respect, because (IMO) very similar dynamics apply as to transgender identity: both are conditions that narrow-minded people with reactionary, bigoted viewpoints can (and do) denigrate and deny along the lines of "I'm not homosexual/transgender, and I know I'm normal, so homosexuality/transgender identity must therefore be abnormal, and anyone claiming to be homosexual/transgender must therefore be either lying (perhaps for material advantage) or mentally ill". And it's both interesting and highly instructive that a) pretty much the same dynamic is happening wrt transgender identity as happened a few decades ago to homosexuality; b) homosexuality is (fortunately) now considered by the vast majority to be valid rather than deviant; and c) the very same groups which have been steadfast in their opposition to homosexuality (hard-line religious institutions, hard-right politicians and opinion-formers, etc) are also in the vanguard of opposition to acceptance/full accomodation of those with transgender identity. Secondly, I again take issue with this idea about "articulating what's different about them in a way that matters", and the suggestion that transgender identity cannot do this and therefore somehow doesn't "deserve" to be looked at in the same way as homosexuality/civil rights/women's rights. This sounds to me like an extremely narrow-minded and intolerant view of transgender identity, and one that's borne of a fundamental lack of understanding. Fortunately (once again), the whole of mainstream medical science and medical practice, plus virtually every progressive law-making body around the world, doesn't assess transgender identity in the way that you choose to do. I look forward to your PoV on transgender identity dying out, and ultimately being looked upon with a rightful sense of incredulity and abhorrence.

27th February 2023, 02:46 PM	#106
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue "It's bigoted to expect a difference to actually be a difference" isn't the argument you think it is. Would you be able to explain what you mean here? It currently makes very little sense to me.

27th February 2023, 02:52 PM	#107
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration." You do realise (or maybe you don't?) that it's entirely possible to be, for example, a gay man who never actually expresses his homosexuality in any observable manifestation (ie he never develops a romantic togetherness with another man, nor has any kind of sexual activity with another man, etc)? By your criteria, since this man is homosexual by "purely internal self-declaration", does this somehow invalidate his homosexual identity?

27th February 2023, 03:01 PM	#108
Elaedith Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,486	Originally Posted by LondonJohn You do realise (or maybe you don't?) that it's entirely possible to be, for example, a gay man who never actually expresses his homosexuality in any observable manifestation (ie he never develops a romantic togetherness with another man, nor has any kind of sexual activity with another man, etc)? By your criteria, since this man is homosexual by "purely internal self-declaration", does this somehow invalidate his homosexual identity? As has already been pointed out (many times) sexual orientation has a clear, non-circular definition. Relying on somebody's word that this definition applies to them is not the same as making a circular definition based on identity. If the definition of a gay person is 'anybody who identifies as a gay person' then a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex can be a gay person, and the definition is meaningless.
Elaedith Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,486	__________________ "The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - Salman Rushdie.

27th February 2023, 03:25 PM	#109
LondonJohn Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 20,425	Originally Posted by Elaedith As has already been pointed out (many times) sexual orientation has a clear, non-circular definition. Relying on somebody's word that this definition applies to them is not the same as making a circular definition based on identity. If the definition of a gay person is 'anybody who identifies as a gay person' then a person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex can be a gay person, and the definition is meaningless. Your clear implication here is that (in your opinion) there's nothing more to transgender identity than declaring that one has transgender identity. But of course that's simply flat wrong. As has already been pointed out (many times), most societies have deeply-entrenched sets of gender roles/expectations/attitudes/behaviours. And as such, when (for example) someone assigned female/woman at birth comes to realise that they do not internally inhabit society's version of "woman", and that instead they internally identify as society's version of "man".... this is how/why they come to have transgender identity. It's not a circular definition, and it's not a meaningless definition. You don't have to take my word for it of course. There's plenty of reliable literature around which lucidly shows a) what transgender identity is and how it manifests itself, and b) how/why it is now treated within the entirety of mainstream medicine (both medical science and medical practice) as valid in its own right. I know I've pointed this out many times.... but do you seriously never pause to think about why the whole of mainstream medicine treats transgender identity as valid and fully worthy (usually) of affirmation* (and any therapies/treatments that would help with affirmation for each different transgender person), while at the same time, mainstream medicine treats (for example) someone claiming to identify as a dolphin/Napoleon/attack helicopter as a mentally ill person requiring diagnosis and conversion therapy? * For adults presenting with transgender identity, that is - clinicians already know well that the situation is much more complex when it comes to minors.

27th February 2023, 03:52 PM	#110
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,908	Originally Posted by LondonJohn As has already been pointed out (many times), most societies have deeply-entrenched sets of gender roles/expectations/attitudes/behaviours. And as such, when (for example) someone assigned female/woman at birth comes to realise that they do not internally inhabit society's version of "woman", and that instead they internally identify as society's version of "man".... this is how/why they come to have transgender identity. I've met more than a few butch lesbians who reject femininity in favor of the virtues and styles traditionally ascribed to masculinity. They swagger, wear a fair bit of flannel and denim, fix up stuff around the house, and even change their own oil. What makes them different than what you've described above, aside from self-identification?
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it. Last edited by d4m10n; 27th February 2023 at 03:56 PM.

27th February 2023, 04:09 PM	#111
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,758	Originally Posted by d4m10n I've met more than a few butch lesbians who reject femininity in favor of the virtues and styles traditionally ascribed to masculinity. They swagger, wear a fair bit of flannel and denim, fix up stuff around the house, and even change their own oil. What makes them different than what you've described above, aside from self-identification? I have a former band mate who i wouldn't call "butch", per se, bit some idiot at a bar tried to prevent her from using the women's restroom. The difference? She doesn't identify as male, I'm guessing?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th February 2023, 04:20 PM	#112
Elaedith Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,486	Originally Posted by LondonJohn Your clear implication here is that (in your opinion) there's nothing more to transgender identity than declaring that one has transgender identity. But of course that's simply flat wrong. As has already been pointed out (many times), most societies have deeply-entrenched sets of gender roles/expectations/attitudes/behaviours. And as such, when (for example) someone assigned female/woman at birth comes to realise that they do not internally inhabit society's version of "woman", and that instead they internally identify as society's version of "man".... this is how/why they come to have transgender identity. It's not a circular definition, and it's not a meaningless definition. As has been pointed out many times, the only way you can avoid the circular, meaningless definition is to re-define 'woman' and 'man' as identification with gender stereotypes, which is sexist and regressive. It is just the flip side of saying that a woman who isn't feminine enough isn't a real woman. And whenever this is pointed out, activists insist that there is some distinction between a women who is gender non-conforming and a transman, but can't explain what, and it reverts back to the circular and meaningless identity definition. The reason they can't say what is because they cannot acknowledge that the difference is whether or not somebody is unhappy with their sex, due to sex denialism. They would rather induce dysphoria in children and adolescents by putting them on a pathway to thinking their body is wrong if they don't identify with a gender stereotype. On top of that, we have had decades of people fighting for the right for anyone to reject gender stereotypes and choose whatever roles and behaviours suit their personality, IOW, to be themselves. Yet suddenly we have people pretending that up until now we thought all males were happy to conform to the 'man' stereotype, and all females were happy to conform to the 'woman' stereotype, and anybody who didn't was mentally ill, but now we realise they aren't mentally ill, but can't be themselves unless they get a label, socially constructed identity, flag, special words, affirmation from everybody else, and possibly invasive medical treatment. Ridiculous.
Elaedith Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,486	__________________ "The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - Salman Rushdie.

27th February 2023, 05:28 PM	#113
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 10,908	Originally Posted by Upchurch She doesn't identify as male, I'm guessing? "...aside from self-identification?"
	__________________ Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

27th February 2023, 05:34 PM	#114
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,758	Originally Posted by d4m10n "...aside from self-identification?" Why aside from that? What's wrong with self-Identification? Do you often verify your friends' gender purity?
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

27th February 2023, 06:02 PM	#115
TomB Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,565	Originally Posted by Upchurch Why aside from that? What's wrong with self-Identification? Do you often verify your friends' gender purity? It's not about "gender purity." Self-ID makes enforcement of segregated spaces difficult. A woman or a girl sees a person walking around the women's locker room with their penis exposed. Looks like a man. But if she complains that a man is in the women's room, she is a bigot. Effectively, it opens segregated spaces to the opposite sex with no recourse.
TomB Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,565