Continuation Transwomen are not women - part XI

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

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.

You're avoiding the fundamental question of whether or not transgender people should be required to be medically assessed and diagnosed in order to be "officially transgender". And they should not be required to do that in any progressive society. Just as homosexual people should not be required to be assessed & diagnosed.

You're doing what denialists always do: avoiding the first-order issue (whether transgender people should be compelled to get an official diagnosis), and instead jumping straight to the second-order question about women's spaces. In reality, the first-order issue is (rightly) assessed without recourse to the second-order matters. Everyone knows that these second-order issues exist, and that they need careful consideration.

In the real world, the adults know (rightly) that the matter of whether (for example) trans women should be allowed to use women's communal bathrooms is entirely irrelevant to the matter of whether transgender people should be compelled to get an official medical diagnosis before they're allowed to identify as transgender.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

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.

Ohhhh I think you'll find that they are. Are you in denial of this as well?

And are you still unaware that "my position" is not merely my position? That it's the position which is held by the entire mainstream medical establishment? That it's also the position which is held by increasing numbers of progressive legislatured all over the liberalised democratic world?

Nice to know that I lack any insight though

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You're avoiding the fundamental question of whether or not transgender people should be required to be medically assessed and diagnosed in order to be "officially transgender".

There is no need for anyone to be officially assessed as anything unless they want something they would not otherwise be entitled to without that assessment.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

The reality, however, is that there IS such a thing as transgender identity.

What exactly is this thing beyond an avowal thereof? You've claimed at #109 that it is a feeling of wanting to conform to the gender norms of the opposite sex but (as I already mentioned) that sort of gender nonconformity is a feature of effeminate gays and butch lesbians as well.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And that when someone presents as transgender, they're not just "saying that": they have a deep-seated - and medically-endorsed - identity of their trans gender.

You keep equivocating between the medically-endorsed part (gender dysphoria) and the concept of gender identity.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I don't know why you're trying to quote me out of context to try to make a different point, but...

If you trace back that series of replies, it goes back to #109. There are links in the quote blocks which make this process fairly simple.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And I see you've added in a handy statement of transgender-identity denial

Here you are confusing denialism with a request for clarification.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

The experts know that there is "something more to transgender identity tha[n] self-identification", and they are perfectly "clear on what that should be taken to mean".

Okay, let's go with their expert definition of transgender identity. I cannot find it in the DSM-5 but presumably you have other sources.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Ohhhh I think you'll find that they are. Are you in denial of this as well?

And are you still unaware that "my position" is not merely my position? That it's the position which is held by the entire mainstream medical establishment? That it's also the position which is held by increasing numbers of progressive legislatured all over the liberalised democratic world?

Nice to know that I lack any insight though

No, I think you will find that religious fundamentalists (like gender identity fundamentalists) tend to like gender stereotypes and believe that men and women are defined in relation to them, whereas gender critical perspectives tend to say that being a man or woman are just words referring to sex and should not carry any implications of a need for gender conformity. HTH.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

There is no need for anyone to be officially assessed as anything unless they want something they would not otherwise be entitled to without that assessment.

Is this you saying that transgender people should not be allowed to (for example) use communal changing areas that are aligned to their trans gender... until and unless they have been officially diagnosed as transgender and have a certificate to prove it?

I suspect that this is what you mean. And if so, I'm afraid you're wrong, and you're fundamentally prejudiced on this issue.


Anyhoooo, back to actual "work work". All this pointing out bigotry and intolerance isn't going to pay the bills.......

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

*sigh*

Do you think gay people should not be able/allowed to "self-ID" as gay?

For what purpose?

That's where the whole accommodations thing matters. If a person wants access to female spaces, then self ID is a problem because it allows male predators, regardless of actual trans status, to claim that status to gain access. It is a system ripe for abuse.

I know of no way to abuse self-ID for homosexuality. Straight predators don't prey on gay people, so pretending to be gay to access gay spaces doesn't make sense. Hell, gay spaces in general don't specifically exclude straight people, they just don't cater to their preferences.

Self-ID is fine if there's no harm that can derive from misidentification. It's a problem when harm can derive from misidentification. Trans access to female-specific spaces is an opportunity for harm. I can think of no equivalent opportunity for harm from gay identity. Can you?

Quote:

The issue of masquerading and potential offending is a second-order question

No, it isn't. It's of primary importance.

Quote:

(and it's one that requires attention, for sure)

But not from you.

Quote:

but it doesn't affect the fundamental point that transgender people should not be forced to be medically examined to validate their identity.

Medical examination isn't the only alternative to self ID.

Quote:

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).

Legislators don't know this stuff any better than you or me. And they listen to activists as much as, if not more, than actual medical experts. And many medical experts aren't weighing in on stuff like self ID because it's not actually a medical issue.

Quote:

I trust in the current viewpoint of mainstream medical science and medical practice

I don't trust that you know what that current viewpoint even is. At every opportunity so far, you've shown serious misunderstandings.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

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.

**coughGaysInTheMilitarycough**

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

**coughGaysInTheMilitarycough**

We did away with that. What's your point? Do you want to bring it back? Is anyone else really clamoring to bring it back? Is there an actual influential lobbying effort to bring it back?

ETA: and yes, actually that example DOES demonstrate how ridiculous self ID can be. By saying you were gay, anyone could drop out of the military at any time.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But on that point (as I also said in a previous post), it's very interesting and instructive to ...

Yes, I think that was your penultimate post.

[Matthew Best]

I know LJ puts a great deal of store in being in alignment with the medical establishment on this, and presumably other matters.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in DSM-II in 1968. In 1973, the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder, but replaced it with "sexual orientation disturbance." It did not fall out of DSM entirely until 1987.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I was in disagreement with the DSM for pretty much the entirety of that period. Turns out I was right, and they were wrong.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We did away with that. What's your point?

How many old saws would you like? History rhymes. History repeats itself. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. etc. etc.

We've been here over and over again. It all ends up the same. A marginalized group starts to gain acceptance in society. People who are against that acceptance latch on to scary scenarios, some real, some imagined, that will absolutely destroy something sacred in society. We go through that nonsense a few times, the sacred thing survives, and finally we hit a tipping point where the group is largely accepted in society and people opposed are ignored as backwards or old fashioned.

My point is that we're well past the tipping point for gays. We're in an earlier stage for accepting trans gender people. Earlier in this thread I rough estimated the tipping point to be about 10-20 years out, but that's assuming the internet doesn't speed that process up significantly.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

How many old saws would you like? History rhymes. History repeats itself. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. etc. etc.

Unless you're proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely, then this isn't a parallel at all.

Are you proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely? Do you think that would be an improvement?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Unless you're proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely, then this isn't a parallel at all.

Are you proposing to do away with sex segregation entirely? Do you think that would be an improvement?

You're not paying attention. I was answering a specific question about the process of gay acceptance.

And, I hate to tell you, but sex segregation is already gone. It's gender segregation. Remember that whole "trans people who can pass are already in their preferred bathrooms" discussion we just had? The "old system" you thought worked so well? That's gender segregation, not sex segregation.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You're not paying attention. I was answering a specific question about the process of gay acceptance.

Nobody here is arguing against trans acceptance, as in treating trans people with decency. The problem is self ID. Self ID is not sustainable. You can either segregate on the basis of something more substantive than self declaration (as we should in the case of, say, women's prisons), or you can just not segregate at all (as we now do with gays in the military).

Quote:

And, I hate to tell you, but sex segregation is already gone. It's gender segregation.

Sex segregation is justifiable. Gender segregation is an incoherent mess, because gender itself is at the moment an incoherent mess. The substitution of the latter for the former is what's led to self ID, which is not sustainable.

Quote:

Remember that whole "trans people who can pass are already in their preferred bathrooms" discussion we just had? The "old system" you thought worked so well? That's gender segregation, not sex segregation.

No. That's sex segregation with limited exceptions.

You cannot limit exceptions to gender segregation, because the categories aren't even coherently definable.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Nobody here is arguing against trans acceptance, as in treating trans people with decency. The problem is self ID. Self ID is not sustainable.

Great. Then what's the solution that allows trans women use the women's restroom even if they can not 100% pass?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. That's sex segregation with limited exceptions.

Go on. Finish the sentence. ...with limited exceptions for _____?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Great. Then what's the solution that allows trans women use the women's restroom even if they can not 100% pass?

Why don't you start by asking the women who are impacted by this? A number of them have discussed this at length already.

And it's not just about passing 100%. That's a vast oversimplification of how things used to work. 30 years ago, most trans people were getting sex change operations. Almost none of them passed 100%, but that was OK. They made an effort to look female and act female, and that effort mattered, even when people could tell they were trans. Women didn't feel threatened by post-op trans women who acted appropriately.

But the rules have changed. Many trans women aren't post op, and will never be post op. Many of them don't make much effort to look female or act female. And they expose penises to females. The cohort of trans people has fundamentally changed, and that's part of the current problem. I don't think it's a coincidence that the cohort changed in tandem with the rise of self ID. Under the current circumstances, self ID is making things worse.

You asked about what exceptions to allow. I think it's actually pretty simple. Allow exceptions that females feel comfortable with.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why don't you start by asking the women who are impacted by this?

...and I assume you also mean the trans women? As it also impacts them?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You asked about what exceptions to allow. I think it's actually pretty simple. Allow exceptions that females feel comfortable with.

I see. And what are trans women expected to do?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I see. And what are trans women expected to do?

Make females comfortable with their presence. For some, this may be a big ask. For others, it's going to seem like the obvious thing to do anyways.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...actually that example DOES demonstrate how ridiculous self ID can be. By saying you were gay, anyone could drop out of the military at any time.

In case anyone is wondering, this actually did happen.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I see. And what are trans women expected to do?

The same thing literally everyone is expected to do in a society with other people in it, sometimes wind up in situations that aren't 100% comfortable for or tailored to them and just live with it.

And before you hit the "You're a transphobe and history will judge you" shortcut key on your keyboard actually stop and think about what you are saying, read what I'm actually saying, and actually respond to it.

You're treating transpeople going to the bathroom they are comfortable in as some sort of 100% guaranteed human right, but cis-women being uncomfortable with trans-people as something they obviously have to get over.

WHICH IS IT? Is "a comfortable bathroom experience" something a person gets to demand or not? Because it can't something SOME people get to demand and others don't.

Why do transpeople deserve a more comfortable bathroom experience than cispeople? This is not an idle or unreasonable question.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Why do transpeople deserve a more comfortable bathroom experience than cispeople? This is not an idle or unreasonable question.

Because they're higher on the progressive stack.

I wish that were only a flippant answer, but I fear it's not.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Make females comfortable with their presence. For some, this may be a big ask. For others, it's going to seem like the obvious thing to do anyways.

Do you see how that doesn’t answer my question in the slightest?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

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

No, but we have to make rules that take them into account, otherwise we end up with rapists being incarcerated in women's prisons. Self-ID is not nearly enough in those cases. Do you disagree?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology yesterday issued this:

https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press-...vascular-Risks

which says that "People with gender dysphoria taking hormone replacements as part of gender affirmation therapy face a substantially increased risk of serious cardiac events, including stroke, heart attack and pulmonary embolism"

In fact, "seven times the risk of ischemic stroke..., nearly six times the risk of ST elevation myocardial infarction (the most serious type of heart attack) and nearly five times the risk of pulmonary embolism..., compared with people with gender dysphoria who had never used hormone replacements."

It's not surprising.

I watched a Royal Institute lecture a while back about the evolution of male and female:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En26p6GvtHw&t=0s

The lecturer made the point that sexual dimorphism is of course highest in the reproductive organs (for obvious reasons, I would think), but that it is also very high in the somatic organs as well. Humans, and indeed almost all sexually reproductive species, show minimal to dimorphism in their brains.

Males and females don't just have different sex organs. Our bodies have evolved to function differently across a whole host of systems. We aren't just androgynous bodies with plug and play genitals and boobs. We're evolved differently throughout our entire musculoskeletal system, or internal organs, all of it.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes, and? The whole point is that there is currently insufficient evidence either way wrt the optimal approach to transgender identity in minors. Because the historic data set is simply too small and too recent to allow for any meaningful statistical analysis.

Here's where I end up scratching my head. You concede that there is a lack of evidence involved... and yet you also support a process of medical intervention which is 100% guaranteed to have irreversible effects, and hormonal interventions where there are known severe risks which are life altering.

Why would you support an approach which will cause irreversible harm, when there is no evidence to suggest that it provides lasting mental health benefits?

Why would you trade a healthy body for an unknown impact on mental state?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

You could always google it to find out, you know? Took me about 14 seconds:

https://www.aap.org/en/news-room/aap...ren-and-teens/

Your link does not support your claim at all.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

On the other hand, it is transphobic to place a blanket ban on all trans women from competing in all women's sports, and it is transphobic to place a blanket prohibition on all trans woman prisoners from being allowed to serve their time in the women's estate.

Can I ask a different question, from a different point of view?

Do you consider it sexist to place a blanket ban on males competing in female sports?

Do you consider it sexist to place a blanket ban on males serving their time in prison in female estates?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well that's just silly, because 1) I'm clearly using shorthand for "the validity of transgender identity" (the context makes that perfectly clear); and 2) even without that obvious contextual inference, one can still safely conclude that holding a position along the lines of "transwomen are mentally ill men LARPing at being women" (and others in the same vein) is fundamentally in opposition to transgender identity. Transphobia and transgender-identity denialism is in obvious opposition to transgender identity.

This all sounds suspiciously similar to another transgender-identity-denialism "argument" around the phrase "transgender people exist".

LondonJohn, I want to ask a very direct, very simple question.

Do you believe that if a person born male expresses a transgender identity, that they are transformed into a female?

Do you believe that transwomen are females?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Eh? Seriously?

Ok.....

Suppose somebody assigned female at birth (we'll call this person Jane, and assume that he hasn't yet transitioned and changed his name) has got to the age of 26 and has realised that he has transgender identity, that he identifies as the gender "man". This causes Jane a debilitating internal conflict concerning the risks/implications of transition: what would his parents think if he told them about his transgender identity? What would his friends say? What would his employer say (he's a teacher)? This conflict is known as gender dysphoria. Jane can - and should - seek diagnosis and treatment for his gender dysphoria - in his case, the treatment/therapy should very probably centre upon helping him become comfortable in his trans gender, including any medical or surgical treatments that are appropriate for him, and helping him to transition.

Suppose now that another person assigned female at birth (we'll call this person Zara, and assume that he hasn't yet transitioned and changed his name) gets to the age of 26 and has realised that he has transgender identity, that he identifies as the gender "man". In Zara's case however, upon realising he is a trans man, he has experienced no feelings of internal conflict between his natal gender and his trans gender. He feels entirely happy and comfortable with the prospect of inhabiting his trans gender, and doesn't worry about what family/friends/employer might think or say. He visits gender identity clinicians - but not for diagnosis/treatment of gender dysphoria (because he doesn't suffer from gender dysphoria). He goes because those clinicians can potentially help him (should he require their help) with medication and/or surgery as part of his transition.

Zara's case is what transgender identity in the absence of gender dysphoria means, and why it deserves accommodation.

You are not using the clinical criteria of gender dysphoria. You are framing it entirely in terms of social acceptance, and the person's distress around the perceptions and reactions of other people. But that's not what gender dysphoria is, according to the DSM-5.

The criteria for gender dysphoria according to DSM-5 is distress about the incongruence between one's gender identity and one's sex. The distress isn't about how other people might react to their gender identity, it's very explicitly and clearly about distress caused by the incongruence of their mental image of themselves and the reality of their sexed body.

Please try answering Zig's question again, this time with reference to what a diagnosis of gender dysphoria actually is based on.

Given the DSM description and criteria for gender dysphoria... what would it mean for someone to have a transgender identity without gender dysphoria?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Firstly, my own government strongly supports the validity of transgender identity. And my own legislature has introduced various pieces of legislation which a) recognises the validity of transgender identity and b) provides rights and protections for transgender people. The efficacy reviews to which you refer are nothing more than a process of optimising the way transgender people are treated and protected. None of it is remotely about questioning the fundamental validity of transgender identity.

You use language like this, and claim that this language is in alignment with the views of your own government.

But your own government has now shut down both Tavistock and GIDs, and has moved to prohibit or severely limit the usage of gender affirmation for minors.

Are you of the opinion that a government can "recognize the validity of transgender identity" while simultaneously closing down services for support of those identities and severely restricting access to gender affirming medical procedures? Why is that not a contradiction in your view?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

But minors are presenting with gender dysphoria (or, in some cases, purely transgender identity) every day.

In complete seriousness and respect... what's the difference?

What is a "purely transgender identity" in the absence of gender dysphoria?
What is gender dysphoria in the absence of transgender identity?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

A note on so-called "compelled speech":

Many - perhaps most - anti-transgender-identity groups/individuals declare that it's outrageous that they should be "compelled" to refer to trans men as "he" or "him". And as such, they also declare that they will be taking a stand on this issue and refuse to "succumb to compelled speech".

But these people/groups strangely fail to realise that their (deliberately inflammatory) definition of "compelled speech" already occurs right across society in various forms.

For example, if one were to deliberately misgender a weak effeminate cis man by referring to him as "she" and "her", that would potentially cause precisely the same trouble as if one were to deliberately misgender (say) a trans man by referring to him as "she" and "her". And there are countless other examples. In this comparative scenario, a person could invoke the same rhetoric as transgender identity denialists: "Why should I be compelled to refer to this weak effeminate man as "he" and "him"? I refuse to be ordered to use those pronouns; I'll continue to refer to this person as "she" and "her", OK?"

You are conflating gender and sex.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

WHICH IS IT? Is "a comfortable bathroom experience" something a person gets to demand or not? Because it can't something SOME people get to demand and others don't.

Wow. I mean, that's the question I'm asking, too. What're the odds?

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Why do transpeople deserve a more comfortable bathroom experience than cispeople? This is not an idle or unreasonable question.

I never said that they do. I'm advocating for equality here. The reason I keep pushing a trans perspective is because it otherwise being almost completely ignored.

When there is a trans man in the men's restroom. I do my best to make him feel comfortable by behaving the way I with every other man: I ignore him completely and go about my business, because it's a freakin' bathroom.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes. Everybody - including the clinicians working in this particular area - understands that the evidence base is currently weak.

But you yourself repeatedly insist that the science is settled. You've used the claim that the science is settled as a hammer with which to whack your interlocutors in this thread.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Brainster

No, but we have to make rules that take them into account, otherwise we end up with rapists being incarcerated in women's prisons. Self-ID is not nearly enough in those cases. Do you disagree?

Okay, what do you suggest?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Maybe talking to trans people might provide a valuable perspective.

Similarly, talking to desisters and detransitioners might provide a valuable perspective as to the dangers and risks involved.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Maybe talking to trans people might provide a valuable perspective.

Yeah we tried that once here and the actual transgender person had a completely different argument from all the "Listen I can speak for the transgender people, I've lived among them, I'm the trans-whisperer" people.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Dismember

Some trans people are strongly opposed to the current “gender affirming care” model(s) being implemented in the US/Canada/Australia.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trans...or-of-evidence

Good article. One of the quotes is this:

Quote:

Aaron Kimberly, a female-to-male transsexual, mental health clinician, and founder and executive director of GDA, is concerned that radical transgender activism is causing more hostility towards people with gender dysphoria throughout society — not more acceptance.

And I complete agree with that. Is suspect nearly all of the gender critical people in this thread agree. This movement is doing harm to females, and to homosexuals, and also to people suffering from gender dysphoria. It is causing *less* acceptance.

We used to be quite willing to accommodate the occasional transsexual. Even though most people could easily discern their actual sex, we were compassionate and considerate and willing to grand exceptions. This ideology is ruining everything for all of those groups of people.

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Long term follow-up studies that include tracking of the mental and physical health of transitioners, detranstioners, and desisters.