Continuation Transwomen are not women - part XI

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

That was not the point I was making and you know it. My point was "it happens" your's was "how can it be imagined?"

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by lionking

That was not the point I was making and you know it. My point was "it happens" your's was "how can it be imagined?"

Well, what of it? Do we punish all trans people because of a few?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Well, what of it? Do we punish all trans people because of a few?

We punish all cis men because of a few, if keeping them out of female spaces counts as punishment. I don't think it really is, though.

Self ID is ripe for exploitation by predators. As a means of granting access to female spaces, it is incredibly dangerous. And the danger isn't just hypothetical, we have already seen examples. We can expect to see more as self ID expands. I don't know why that's hard for you to grasp, or why you think people who object to it are somehow bigoted.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I mean, how could it not be?



So much to unpack, there.

And yet you've failed miserably to unpack any of it.

Quote:

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?

Did I mention a trans woman?
No, I did not. Which is entirely the point and the problem with self-ID.

Quote:

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.

None of that is relevant at all to the problems that self-ID opens up.

Your anecdote simply illustrates that you completely miss the point. If a woman sees a person whom they perceive to be a man flagrantly naked in the women's locker room, and they complain, they risk being branded as a transphobic bigot.

In your world it is a hate crime for a woman to complain about a man in the women's locker room. To be clear, I am not misgendering a trans-woman here. I am talking about a person who to all appearance is a man.

Here is a case which illustrates the point. To be clear, this was a cis-man illustrating that staff are powerless to keep him out of the women's locker room. It's not relative to trans people, but it is relative to self-id:

Quote:

Around 5:30 p.m. on Feb. 8, a man wearing board shorts entered the women's locker room at Evans Pool and took of his shirt, according to Seattle Parks and Recreation.

Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said "the law has changed and I have a right to be here."

As far as policy to protect everyone, Seattle Parks spokesman David Takami says they're still working on the issue. Right now, there's no specific protocol for how someone should demonstrate their gender in order to access a bathroom. Employees just rely on verbal identification or physical appearance, and this man offered neither.

Quote:

No one was arrested in this case and police weren't called, even though the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...room/80501904/

What method would you suggest that staff may use to validate someone's self-ID in order to keep cis-men out of the women's locker room?

ETA: this person did claim to be trans, but exhibited behavior that you seem to be unable to imagine a trans-woman doing:

Quote:

A Greene County mother said she was "upset" and "shaken" after a confrontation inside the women's locker room at the Y.

According to a police report, the woman was at the YMCA with her two teenage daughters, a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old.

The woman said she saw "a completely naked man" who was "facing away from his locker" and "completely exposed to the rest of the locker area."

According to the police report, when confronted, the woman said, "She asked him if he was a woman, to which the man replied that he was."

The woman also said the director of the YMCA told her they couldn't keep men out of the women's locker room.

https://www.wlwt.com/article/womens-...ersy/42737131#

Is this a trans-woman or a cis-man taking advantage of the rules?
How can you tell the difference?

Think about it from a problem solving approach rather than from a political approach. Because it's nor really a political question.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We punish all cis men because of a few, if keeping them out of female spaces counts as punishment. I don't think it really is, though.

Trans men and cis men use the men’the bathroom. Cis women use the women’s bathroom. Where are trans women supposed to go?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Self ID is ripe for exploitation by predators. As a means of granting access to female spaces, it is incredibly dangerous. And the danger isn't just hypothetical, we have already seen examples. We can expect to see more as self ID expands. I don't know why that's hard for you to grasp, or why you think people who object to it are somehow bigoted.

I recognize that trans women also human beings who sometimes need to pee. Odds are, most of them have been using the women’s bathroom for years and nobody knew or cared. This moral panic is similar to the gay moral panic of the late 20th century. Given time, it will likely seem just as silly.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Well, what of it? Do we punish all trans people because of a few?

The point is not to punish anyone.
The point is to recognize that self-ID creates loopholes that can be exploited and consider ways to close those loopholes.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Trans men and cis men use the men’the bathroom. Cis women use the women’s bathroom. Where are trans women supposed to go?


I recognize that trans women also human beings who sometimes need to pee. Odds are, most of them have been using the women’s bathroom for years and nobody knew or cared. This moral panic is similar to the gay moral panic of the late 20th century. Given time, it will likely seem just as silly.

Sorry, but this is a simplistic one-dimensional viewpoint.

Of course trans-women need a place to pee. No one wants to deny them that. The problem is that the proposed means effectively eliminates the segregated spaces that some (most?) women in our society feel they need in order to feel safe.

You are suggesting that we should remove the feeling of safety from cis-women in order to give trans-women a place where they can feel safe.

And since it's repeatedly ignored, I will again point out that it is cis-men not necessarily trans-women that cis-women feel they are being put at risk from.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Trans men and cis men use the men’the bathroom. Cis women use the women’s bathroom. Where are trans women supposed to go?

Who counts as a trans woman?

If it’s just self ID, then there is no meaningful distinction between cis men and trans women. So if you don’t want cis men in the women’s bathroom, then self ID isn’t going to work.

Quote:

I recognize that trans women also human beings who sometimes need to pee. Odds are, most of them have been using the women’s bathroom for years and nobody knew or cared.

I don’t think you understand the implications of what you are saying.

If nobody knew, then they didn’t have to rely on self ID. Passing means that other people are IDing you as that sex. People didn’t care because predators couldn’t easily exploit the accommodations allowed to trans people, because you had to pass, at least to a significant degree, to be afforded that accommodation. That was a huge barrier for predators. But now that barrier is being torn down with self ID. And you really can’t understand how that changes things?

Quote:

This moral panic is similar to the gay moral panic of the late 20th century. Given time, it will likely seem just as silly.

No. Given time, people will realize that self ID is an insane basis on which to grant access to sex segregated spaces. As you acknowledged, the old system worked. We don’t need self ID to accommodate trans people.

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

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).

Your wishful thinnking does you no credit.

[Nessie]

Adam Graham, the man pretending to be a woman, is given an extended prison sentence of 8 years and another 3 on licence, for the rapes he committed.

https://www.judiciary.scot/home/sent...-v-isla-bryson

It is a shame the Judges sentencing maintained the fiction he is a she, by only using his pretend female name and avoiding any use of pronouns.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. Given time, people will realize that self ID is an insane basis on which to grant access to sex segregated spaces. As you acknowledged, the old system worked. We don’t need self ID to accommodate trans people.

The “old system” worked so long as trans gender people could pass without notice. As I mentioned above, sometimes cis women can’t even pass as cis women if the culture warrior bathroom guardian is misogynistic enough.

Okay. So. What do you suggest? What is the solution to this problem? Government licensed gender ID cards issued to every child when they start going to school, that are required to enter bathrooms and locker rooms?

[Lplus]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The “old system” worked so long as trans gender people could pass without notice. As I mentioned above, sometimes cis women can’t even pass as cis women if the culture warrior bathroom guardian is misogynistic enough.

Okay. So. What do you suggest? What is the solution to this problem? Government licensed gender ID cards issued to every child when they start going to school, that are required to enter bathrooms and locker rooms?

The old system worked - and the self ID came along - and now the system doesn't work...

Hmmm, what a puzzle..

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The “old system” worked so long as trans gender people could pass without notice. As I mentioned above, sometimes cis women can’t even pass as cis women if the culture warrior bathroom guardian is misogynistic enough.

Okay. So. What do you suggest? What is the solution to this problem? Government licensed gender ID cards issued to every child when they start going to school, that are required to enter bathrooms and locker rooms?

You seem to be taking a stance of, "We must do something. Self ID is something. We must do self ID."

If you don't like the old system, then wanting it to change is fine. But self ID is worse than the old system. Come up with something better if you don't like the old system.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Are you unaware that being gay is entirely a state of mind?

I'm aware that gay people aren't imposing any obligations on or demanding accommodations from me, so I don't really care who is or isn't gay. I never need to make a determination about whether someone is or isn't.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Lplus

The old system worked - and the self ID came along - and now the system doesn't work...

Hmmm, what a puzzle..

The "old system" only worked because trans people were largely closeted about being trans and it never worked for trans kids. That system is never going to survive in a society that has greater acceptance of trans people. As I said, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

So, what would you suggest moving forward?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

I'd also like to see some reliable confirmation about the (alleged) behaviour of Lia Thomas in the changing room......

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who counts as a trans woman?

If it’s just self ID, then there is no meaningful distinction between cis men and trans women. So if you don’t want cis men in the women’s bathroom, then self ID isn’t going to work.



I don’t think you understand the implications of what you are saying.

If nobody knew, then they didn’t have to rely on self ID. Passing means that other people are IDing you as that sex. People didn’t care because predators couldn’t easily exploit the accommodations allowed to trans people, because you had to pass, at least to a significant degree, to be afforded that accommodation. That was a huge barrier for predators. But now that barrier is being torn down with self ID. And you really can’t understand how that changes things?



No. Given time, people will realize that self ID is an insane basis on which to grant access to sex segregated spaces. As you acknowledged, the old system worked. We don’t need self ID to accommodate trans people.

Cis men can go into women's bathrooms any time they like. And they've been able to do so since time immemorial. Those cis men are degenerate.

And, by the way, if either a trans woman or a cis man starts waving their genitals around deliberately in a women's bathroom/changing area, that's ample grounds for investigation and possibly criminal charges.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Lplus

Your wishful thinnking does you no credit.

That's a very strong counter-argument. I'm impressed!

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Adam Graham, the man pretending to be a woman, is given an extended prison sentence of 8 years and another 3 on licence, for the rapes he committed.

https://www.judiciary.scot/home/sent...-v-isla-bryson

It is a shame the Judges sentencing maintained the fiction he is a she, by only using his pretend female name and avoiding any use of pronouns.

Erm... she's a trans woman. A trans woman who - absolutely correctly and justly - will be placed into a men's prison instead of a women's prison.

As I said before: trans women prisoners who have any history of violent/sexual crimes against cis women should never be considered for placement in women's prisons. This is a crystal clear situation where proportionate actions override the notion that trans women deserve to be housed in women's prisons.

Be in no doubt, however, that trans women prisoners who have no history of violent/sexual crimes against cis women, and who pass a safety assessment, WILL continue (correctly) to be placed in the women's estate. And they will be carefully monitored with the women's estate - if there are any (credible, supportable) instances of miscreant/offending behaviour towards cis women prisoners, the trans woman will be rehoused in a men's prison and receive other penalties.

Evidence shows, incidentally, that even when one or more trans woman prisoners are placed in a given women's prison, cis women prisoners are hugely more at risk of violent/sexual offending from other cis women prisoners than from trans women prisoners.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm aware that gay people aren't imposing any obligations on or demanding accommodations from me, so I don't really care who is or isn't gay. I never need to make a determination about whether someone is or isn't.

That's entirely immaterial to the question of whether or not transgender identity is a valid condition (ie it is not a mental health disorder).

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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?

In some places online what you just wrote would be considered "transmedicalism" and you would be deemed a bigot. The current paradigm is that you don't need dysphoria to be trans. So you have a population of people that under self-id would be considered trans but they don't experience that sort of self-consciousness because their body does fit them.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You seem to be taking a stance of, "We must do something. Self ID is something. We must do self ID."

If you don't like the old system, then wanting it to change is fine. But self ID is worse than the old system. Come up with something better if you don't like the old system.

The old system largely was self ID coupled with a necessity to be able to pass. Those who couldn't pass sufficiently did not fare well in an anti-LGBT world, including beatings and death, or else they had to deny pretend to not be trans at all. Since then, some progress was made to legally change names and genders, but when it comes down to who walks into what bathroom, no one ever verified anything other than who could sufficiently hide their trans status. A passing trans woman who walks into the women's bathroom is self identifying as a woman.

The fear of trans women is so great that even a cis woman can sometimes not sufficiently pass as a woman.

The only change is that society has become increasingly accepting of trans people. The consequences of a trans person not passing have started to decrease, so trans people can come more out of the closet.

Since you attempted to guess at my position, allow me to do the same. You seem to be taking the stance of, "Everything was good when trans people hid who they are. Trans people should be forced back into the closet."

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The old system largely was self ID coupled with a necessity to be able to pass.

No. Again, if you're passing, then other people are ID'ing you as that sex. That's very different than a government gender ID, but it's also completely different than self ID.

Quote:

The only change is that society has become increasingly accepting of trans people.

No. The imposition of self ID is also a major change, and it is a DIFFERENT change than general acceptance of trans people, though it has been coincident with that.

Quote:

The consequences of a trans person not passing have started to decrease, so trans people can come more out of the closet.

I'm sure that's true. But predators have also started coming out of the closet, and are taking advantage of self ID.

Quote:

Since you attempted to guess at my position, allow me to do the same. You seem to be taking the stance of, "Everything was good when trans people hid who they are. Trans people should be forced back into the closet."

No, not everything was good. But we've made it worse, not better.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The "old system" only worked because trans people were largely closeted about being trans and it never worked for trans kids. That system is never going to survive in a society that has greater acceptance of trans people. As I said, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

So, what would you suggest moving forward?

It's interesting isn't it that the transgender-identity denialists expend all their energy on condemning transgender people and the rights/protections afforded to them.... without offering any coherent alternative.

As an example, I've lost count of the number of times I've asked how these denialists think transgender people should be accommodated at, say, municipal swimming baths with men's/women's/disabled communal changing facilities. I asked the denialists to consider the position of a trans woman; I gave all the available options: should the trans woman:

1) Use the women's changing room
2) Use the men's changing room
3) Use the disabled changing room
4) Be barred from all changing rooms, and have to change in their car etc
5) Not be allowed to use the swimming baths altogether?

The usual "answer" is either (2) or (3). And of course there's vehement opposition to (1). But the denialists answering (2) or (3) seem unable to see the inherent injustice and denialism behind compelling trans women to use either the men's changing room or the disabled changing room if they want to visit the swimming baths.

Of course, if a person holds the reactionary, antiscientific, bigoted view that there's actually no such thing as a trans woman (or trans man....), and that trans women are actually either just cis men LARPing at being women or they are all sexual deviants trying to get into cis women's spaces in order to offend.... then it's easy for that person to come to (what they believe is) the obvious solution: all trans women are men, and therefore they must use the men's changing rooms.

Fortunately though, that person is wrong.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm aware that gay people aren't imposing any obligations on or demanding accommodations from me, so I don't really care who is or isn't gay. I never need to make a determination about whether someone is or isn't.

Weird, that's not what what conservatives were saying during the gay moral panic. Gays being gay out in public were imposing their homosexuality on straight people. Gays were converting straight kids into gays. Same sex marriage was going to ruin the very institution of marriage.

Now, during the trans moral panic, trans people are imposing their pronouns on cis people. Knowledge of trans people in schools is converting cis kids into trans. Trans people being treated as their gender is going to destroy the very idea of gender.

As I've mentioned before, I've known several trans people. I've never had to change my behavior around any of them, even in the restroom.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

That's entirely immaterial to the question of whether or not transgender identity is a valid condition (ie it is not a mental health disorder).

"Valid lived condition" is meaningless. And you don't have any clue about what gender dysphoria even is, so you can't even figure out when a transgender person does or does not have dysphoria.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Wildy

In some places online what you just wrote would be considered "transmedicalism" and you would be deemed a bigot. The current paradigm is that you don't need dysphoria to be trans. So you have a population of people that under self-id would be considered trans but they don't experience that sort of self-consciousness because their body does fit them.

For any given transgender person, there's a substantial difference between a) not having suffered gender dysphoria before or after their transition, and b) having no self-consciousness around displaying parts of their body (genitals for all trans people, breasts for trans men) which are incongruent with their trans gender.

And in any case, as I said a few posts back, if any trans woman or cis man is deliberately waving his penis around in a women's changing room, then action can and should be taken against that person. I mean, if a cis man was doing that in a men's changing room, action could/should also be taken against that person.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Why aside from that?

Because of what was being claimed at #109. Here it is again:

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.

The implication here is that there is something more to transgender identity than self-identification, but we are not yet clear on what that should be taken to mean. As I noted with the example of butch lesbians who tend towards masculinity, gender non-conformity does not make one trans.

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Do you often verify your friends' gender purity?

I've no idea what this should be taken to mean. If people want to be masculine or feminine it's none of my business.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"Valid lived condition" is meaningless. And you don't have any clue about what gender dysphoria even is, so you can't even figure out when a transgender person does or does not have dysphoria.

I've already explained what "valid lived condition" means, more than several times. It's not my problem that you don't understand it. The people who matter understand it just fine.

And I do understand what gender dysphoria is, thanks.

I'm entirely comfortable to be on the right side of this argument. Do you ever experience any disquiet that your own beliefs on this matter are in stark, direct contradiction with the entire mainstream medical establishment? If it were me, I most certainly would. But that's just me.....

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The fear of trans women is so great ...

It's not fear of trans women, it's fear of cis men pretending to be trans women in order to get access to our safe places. Yes they could just barge in before, but women could at least protest to the management or other, decent, men with a reasonable chance of getting them ejected. The fear of being branded a bigot is making that increasingly difficult, as incidents that have been reported on this thread make clear.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Weird, that's not what what conservatives were saying during the gay moral panic.

Why the **** would I give a **** what conservatives were saying during the gay moral panic? I never said any of that stuff.

Quote:

Now, during the trans moral panic,

There is indeed a moral panic going on, but it's not the one you think. It's the one that's pushing kids to transition because they have a hard time fitting in, can't accept their homosexuality, or are uncomfortable with puberty. And the panic is the supposed threat of suicide.

Quote:

As I've mentioned before, I've known several trans people. I've never had to change my behavior around any of them, even in the restroom.

First off, it's not going to be the trans people you know that are going to be the problem here.

Second, you personally haven't had to worry about any of this because you're a male. You aren't vulnerable to sexual predators in general, and sexual predators who do target males aren't at an advantage by claiming trans status. So of course this doesn't impact you.

But it impacts females.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I've already explained what "valid lived condition" means, more than several times.

And it's been bull **** every time.

Quote:

And I do understand what gender dysphoria is, thanks.

No, you clearly don't. You think that people without gender dysphoria get sex change operations.

Quote:

Do you ever experience any disquiet that your own beliefs on this matter are in stark, direct contradiction with the entire mainstream medical establishment?

You don't know what the mainstream medical establishment says either. You falsely take statements specifically about gender dysphoria and interpret them to be about your own definition of "transgender identity" when they are not.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And in any case, as I said a few posts back, if any trans woman or cis man is deliberately waving his penis around in a women's changing room, then action can and should be taken against that person. I mean, if a cis man was doing that in a men's changing room, action could/should also be taken against that person.

This only makes sense with a very literal, nay emphatic, interpretation of "waving". If we take it to mean just walking around with a penis clearly visible, then that happens all the time in men's changing rooms, and action will not be taken against a person doing that.

The hard line trans advocate position is that trans women should be allowed to do that in women's changing rooms too. If you think otherwise, welcome to being a transphobe.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

My post (the one you quoted) was explicitly directed at countering the notion that transgender identity is nothing more than someone announcing "I am transgender".

Under self ID, that's all it is.

Nobody is claiming that there can't be more to it. But it doesn't matter if there can be more to it if the rules we have to abide by only require self ID.

Quote:

In other words, that there's no such thing as genuine transgender identity, that it's merely people saying they're transgender.

That's literally all self ID is. Merely say it, and you are.

Are you catching on yet that self ID isn't actually a good thing?

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I've already explained what "valid lived condition" means, more than several times. It's not my problem that you don't understand it. The people who matter understand it just fine.

No, what you have done is use a motte and bailey fallacy. When asked to define 'valid' you state 'not a disorder or product of a disorder'. But what you really mean is that being a man or woman is based on self-identity rather than sex. You can't come up with any rational argument for why people should be coerced to accept redefinitions of 'man' and 'woman', and you can't come up with a coherent definition that isn't circular or based on stereotypes. Unable to defend this, you retreat to the motte of pretending that those who disagree with defining these words (and the regressive and unscientific ideology behind it) are claiming trans identity is a mental illness because we don't accept the bailey meaning of valid ('literally true').

We can actually see through this, you know.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. Again, if you're passing, then other people are ID'ing you as that sex.

Are you suggesting we judge a book by its cover? Because I've already pointed out how that doesn't work either.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. The imposition of self ID is also a major change, and it is a DIFFERENT change than general acceptance of trans people, though it has been coincident with that.

It's really not. The ask is that the stereotypes of what women look like needs to updated, even for cis-women.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Under self ID, that's all it is.

Nobody is claiming that there can't be more to it. But it doesn't matter if there can be more to it if the rules we have to abide by only require self ID.



That's literally all self ID is. Merely say it, and you are.

Are you catching on yet that self ID isn't actually a good thing?

*sigh*

Do you think gay people should not be able/allowed to "self-ID" as gay? Do you think they should have to be clinically assessed and diagnosed as gay before they're allowed to declare themselves "authentically gay"?

Precisely the same applies to transgender people. And transgender people should not have to go through some sort of clinical assessment & diagnosis before they can be "confirmed" as transgender. End of.

The issue of masquerading and potential offending is a second-order question (and it's one that requires attention, for sure), but it doesn't affect the fundamental point that transgender people should not be forced to be medically examined to validate their identity.

I dunno.... maybe you could/should ask the adults in mainstream medicine and progressive legislatures who understand this issue (and who understand the risks and unintended outcomes perfectly well also), who are introducing self-ID reforms around the world. They know and understand this issue far, far better than you (and me, for that matter).

I trust in the current viewpoint of mainstream medical science and medical practice, and I'm extremely comfortable to be on the same side as them. Are you comfortable with your point of view, and with the identity of the institutions which share your point of view?

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

*sigh*

Do you think gay people should not be able/allowed to "self-ID" as gay? Do you think they should have to be clinically assessed and diagnosed as gay before they're allowed to declare themselves "authentically gay"?

When activists seriously propose replacing sex segregation with sexual orientation segregation (everyone attracted to males goes to one place and everyone attracted to females the other) we can start considering potential problems with people self IDing as gay.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Obviously it is not a counter argument since you produced no argument.

I see. But do you feel uncomfortable being on the wrong side of the argument though? Do you feel uncomfortable that the entirety of mainstream medicine and increasing numbers of progressive lawmakers are on my side, while on your side sit extreme right-wing institutions/personalities and deeply unpleasant fundamentalist religious organisations?

I know if it were me, that would be more than enough for me to be doing a good deal of navel-gazing and self-interrogation. Personally, I'd be deeply uncomfortable being on that side of this argument. But, as I said earlier, that's just me I guess......

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I see. But do you feel uncomfortable being on the wrong side of the argument though? Do you feel uncomfortable that the entirety of mainstream medicine and increasing numbers of progressive lawmakers are on my side, while on your side sit extreme right-wing institutions/personalities and deeply unpleasant fundamentalist religious organisations?

I know if it were me, that would be more than enough for me to be doing a good deal of navel-gazing and self-interrogation. Personally, I'd be deeply uncomfortable being on that side of this argument. But, as I said earlier, that's just me I guess......

No 'extreme right-wing institutions/personalities and deeply unpleasant fundamentalist religious organisation' are on 'my side'.

Your position (that people should be defined as men or women by conformity to gender stereotypes, and encouraged to think that they might need to alter their bodies to 'match'), is just the flip to that of religious fundamentalists and conservatives, while the gender critical position is the polar opposite. This has been pointed out many times. You just lack any insight.