Continuation Transwomen are not women - part XI

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I'm not sure you understand the matter at hand here.

That people have magical internal identities that only manifest when they feel like it?

Yeah I don't. How about you come down from the moral high ground long enough to explain to me.

More and more I'm 100% convinced that trans supporters don't actually understand trans people at all because the only respond I've ever gotten from them when I ask them to explain it in their own words is huffiness.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Nothing is falsifiable about homosexuality being considered a valid condition,

True. Because "valid lived condition" is meaningless ******** that you made up.

Quote:

rather than a sexual deviancy and a mental health disorder.

No, that's actually quite easy to test.

Quote:

Do you believe homosexuality is a valid condition,

No, because that's a ******** meaningless term.

Quote:

or do you believe it is a sexual deviancy and a mental health disorder?

Homosexuality is not a disorder. Again, quite easy to test. And also easy to define (which is a necessary precondition to test).

Gender dysphoria is a disorder. Transgender identity without gender dysphoria cannot even be coherently defined, let alone tested.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

But if you say "I'm a transgender Egyptian Pharaoh from the First Dynasty" the transgender part is still obviously correct and true, right?

We went through this a while back with the analogy to fandoms and faiths.

If someone says "I'm a huge Harry Potter fan!" then I'm simply going to believe them, but I'll most likely assume they are familiar with certain basics about what it means to be a Death Eater or a Parseltongue or a Hufflepuff.

If someone says "I've converted to Eastern Orthodoxy after being raised Southern Baptist," then I'm simply going to believe them, but also assume they are familiar with the key doctrinal differences between the two, particularly regarding the nature of atonement and salvation.

By contrast, if someone says "I'm a veteran of Operation Allied Force," then I'm not going to simply believe them, because that is not a statement about their subjective mental states but about serving as part of a particular unit at a specific place and time.

Some statements about self-identity are entirely about one's state of mind (e.g. "I support IRFU during Six Nations!"); other statements of self-identity are about what one has accomplished as part of a group of people (e.g. "I served as Pharaoh during the First Dynasty.") So far as I can tell, statements about one's gender fall in the former category rather than the latter. As such, they can only be wrong in the sense that people sometimes fail to fully apprehend or explain their own mental states.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

In what way is being gay falsifiable, in a differential way to transgender identity?

Sexual arousal is a biological response that can be measured. So you can do a pretty good job at objectively testing someone's sexuality by measuring sexual arousal response to various stimuli.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

But what does that actually entail? What do you have to be doing to count as "living as" a particular gender? Other than using the facilities reserved for that gender?

As a female engineer I have fought against gender stereotyping all my life. I have always preferred to wear trousers (far more comfortable and practical than skirts and dresses), never worn makeup (it mystifies me why anyone would want to smear gunk on their face), put career over family (not difficult as I never had the slightest desire to marry or have children). Some might say I have lived as a man for all my 69 years. Does that make me a trans man? Because I certainly do not identify as one.

As far as I'm concerned, one cannot "live as a woman" without being able to have both the social and the physical experiences of being female. Unless a person is actually subjected to the stereotypes and the social expectations of a particular sex, that social experience is nothing more than an extrapolated fantasy of what males think a female social experience is... and that extrapolation is often incredibly wrong. Largely because males simply don't listen to females in general. As for the physical experience, you've got to actually have the body of a female in order to have that.

The same goes for the males side as well - there is a set of social expectations around males too, and some of them are very confining. They don't present the same barriers to advancement, independence, and participation that females face... but they definitely place limits on males who do not want to advance, who want to be home-makers, who want to care for children.

Females are dissuaded from showing our strength; Males are prohibited from exhibiting any vulnerability.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

Actually, many gender clinicians in the US especially, do now say that even minors should have access to medical transition without having gender dysphoria. For example the guest blogger on 'science-based medicine' who runs a gender affirmation clinic.
Whether or not you would call them reputable is another matter. The same person has twice posted a claim that puberty blockers have been shown to have no effect on brain development, and supported it with a link to an article that actually says we don't know if puberty blockers affect brain development because there are no long-term studies. I would be very interested to know what they are actually telling their patients about risks.

I always find that claim to be baffling and disingenuous. No, we haven't done long-term studies specifically on the effect of hormone-blocking medications... But we already know when puberty fails to trigger, the brain does not fully mature. We know this because Kallman Syndrome is a thing that has been studied, even though it's very rare.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by katy_did

Thanks. Wonder if this is another situation where the US is diverging from Europe - I know the NHS does require a diagnosis of gender dysphoria for any sort of clinical pathway, and I think even private clinics in the UK usually do as well. Having seen some of the gender surgeons in the US advertising their services on TikTok, I'm not wholly surprised they'd provide surgery on demand without a diagnosis (though as you say, whether they count as reputable is another matter!).

We're lagging. We also have that pesky "cosmetic" out, which allows some surgeons to treat patients without any diagnosis.

Whether or not this is ethical is a completely different discussion.

[Aber]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Currently, there's an insufficient body of evidence regarding long-term outcomes of people who presented with transgender identity when they were minors. And therefore, clinicians do not yet have any kind of solid, statistically-supported means of matching optimal treatment/therapy (which essentially means either a) affirmative treatment or b) watch and wait) to each given transgender minor. But as the evidence base grows, clinicians should be able to get closer to identifying the distinction and thus making fewer errors (here, "errors" means either 1) not providing affirmative treatments/therapies as soon as practicable to transgender minors who turn out to have settled transgender identity into adulthood, or 2) providing affirmative treatments/therapies to transgender minors who turn out to have only had transient transgender identity which does not persist into adulthood).

At last you seem to be getting there - this is the argument for no medical interventions (puberty blockers, hormones or surgery) for minors, as the risks are not symmetric.

It is also the argument that social transition should be considered carefully, before any action is taken.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

I'm surprised by your apparent confusion here.

It's really very simple:

Yes, the science is settled with respect to transgender identity being a valid condition (and as such, it is no longer viewed as a mental health disorder or the product/symptom of a mental health disorder).

The issue around minors presenting with gender dysphoria and/or transgender identity is entirely to do with whether those presentations are going to manifest themselves as a deep-seated identity persisting into adulthood, or whether the person is going through a passing phase and turns out not to have transgender identity as they progress into adulthood.

The clear aim of the medical community is to provide minors with the help, support and therapies/treatments which meet their needs and are for the good of their health. The matter at hand is: how do clinicians get as close as possible to assessing whether any given minor sitting in front of them who presents with transgender identity is either a) "genuinely" transgender in the longer term (in which case it's absolutely correct to offer the person affirmative treatment/therapy), or b) merely going through a "phase" of believing they have transgender identity (in which case it would be detrimental in the longer term were affirmative therapies/treatments - especially if they were irreversible or only partially-reversible - to be given to the person).

To reiterate, therefore: the issue over the reality, validity and sincerity of transgender identity is settled - it's agreed by the entirety of mainstream medicine that transgender identity is absolutely not a mental health disorder (as opposed to, for example, identifying as an attack helicopter, which is considered to be a mental health disorder).

And the issue regarding minors has nothing whatsoever to do with the underlying validity of transgender identity. Rather, it's entirely to do with trying to assess whether any given minor who identifies as transgender is going to retain that identity into adulthood - evidence shows that some minors do not. The problem is around trying to best differentiate - for any given minor - which "camp" they should belong within (and therefore which type of treatment/therapy is right for them).

Currently, there's an insufficient body of evidence regarding long-term outcomes of people who presented with transgender identity when they were minors. And therefore, clinicians do not yet have any kind of solid, statistically-supported means of matching optimal treatment/therapy (which essentially means either a) affirmative treatment or b) watch and wait) to each given transgender minor. But as the evidence base grows, clinicians should be able to get closer to identifying the distinction and thus making fewer errors (here, "errors" means either 1) not providing affirmative treatments/therapies as soon as practicable to transgender minors who turn out to have settled transgender identity into adulthood, or 2) providing affirmative treatments/therapies to transgender minors who turn out to have only had transient transgender identity which does not persist into adulthood).

Hope that helps.

Just so you know, the two highlighted phrases are in contradiction.

If "transgender identity is valid" is taken as the absolute that you present it as, then it cannot be transient or a phase.

If it is a phase, then that necessarily means that for at least some people, transgender identity is NOT valid.

If you were to take the position that some transgender identities are persistent aspects of a person's psyche and therefore "valid"... you wouldn't have much argument - every poster in this thread has already acknowledged that some people have very deep-rooted dysphoria that results in a persistent and unremitting identity as the opposite sex. But you don't want to walk back your position, you keep insisting on a fully declarative position.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Obviously I'm not using the term "state of mind" in its colloquial meaning as you've pointed to here.

I'm using it in its meaning of "mental state" - ie a condition which exists within the brain function, as opposed to a physiological non-mental condition.

But I suspect you knew that already.

You are using the phrase in a unique and extremely non-standard fashion. In fact, you're using it in a fashion that is not supported by any dictionary I can find.

Honestly, you're even using "mental state" in a way that is unsupported by any definition I can find.

Both of the phrases you are using refer to psychological aspects, not to neurological aspects. Do you know the difference?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Do you think that homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is not part of a person's innate identity?

I support the view that homosexuality is a neurological aspect of a person's state, not a psychological aspect of their personality.

For some people, it can be an aspect of their personality - their personal identity. But for a lot of people, it's simply the way they are, and it does not significantly drive their view of who they are as a person. It's "what" they are, not "who" they are.

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

And yes, yes I have.

Please, in your own words, explain to us what you believe "identity" means in this context.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Well I suggest you're better off taking this up with APA, and/or any of the other mainstream medical institutions around the world (which is all of the mainstream medical institutions around the world).

I realise that you think you're correct in your understanding of transgender identity. But your understanding is in direct opposition with the entire mainstream medical community.

I know whom I choose to side with.

Not a single one of the organizations you have referenced supports your prescriptive, stereotype-based view of gender. That's something you have extrapolated from inadequate information and spotty understanding.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Wildy

As I was talking about the "attack helicopter" meme

The attack helicopter meme has always been less about transgender identifying people than about the completely inane attempts to coerce society at large to accept an individual's very special, made up terms for themselves. It has a lot less to do with "I identify as a woman/man" and a lot more to do with "I identify as otherkin".

Identifying as something made up is essentially a game. And under the rules of that game, "attack helicopter" is just as valid an identity as "otherkin".

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

No, no it's not. You're entirely failing to consider the person's actual sense of identity.

For example, I am not transgender. I could announce that I was transgender, but that wouldn't automatically mean (per your claim) that I am transgender. Because I'm not transgender.

Whereas when a transgender person announces that they are transgender, they do so because they do have an actual sense of identity which is transgender.

There's a difference between the two.

Mm-hmm. But the POLICIES that you support and push would allow your insincerity to grant you entrance to female-only showers nevertheless.

At the end of the day, your entire argument is dependent upon whether or not other people believe the claim being made. You seem to think that other people would not accept your claim, because you personally know that it is untrue. But "real transgender people" making the claim would be believed, because... ? Because somehow you can read their minds and know for certain that they are sincere?

Honestly, how do you tell whether a given person is being sincere or not?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

No. I could announce "I am an Egyptian Pharoah from the First Dynasty". That doesn't make me an Egyptian Pharaoh from the First Dynasty.

And I'll get their what, eventually? What are they going to give to me?

But somehow if a male person, who is observably male by other people, and who has had all the social experiences of being male, and who has all of the physical experiences of a male body, and who has never had the social experiences nor the physical experiences of being females says "I'm a woman"... then we all have to believe them because LJ says so?

Why?

[crazycat]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

No, no it's not. You're entirely failing to consider the person's actual sense of identity.

For example, I am not transgender. I could announce that I was transgender, but that wouldn't automatically mean (per your claim) that I am transgender. Because I'm not transgender.

Whereas when a transgender person announces that they are transgender, they do so because they do have an actual sense of identity which is transgender.

There's a difference between the two.

And YOU don't realize that there is a 3rd group - people who claim to be trans without having "an actual sense of identity as transgender". Fake transpeople if you will.

Why would a man pretend he is really a transwoman? Read the complaints in this thread. They are mostly about alleged transwomen behaving badly. Their actions show they are not the slightest bit interested in being a female, only having access to females. Self-id is an open door to predatory males to fake being trans.

They are the bad actors that the women here are complaing about. But the trans lobby doesn't seem to care. The trans inclusive posters here seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand what is being complained about.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

To be fair... keeping male prisoners with other male prisoners is problematic. I apologize to all of the good natured males in this thread, but your sex has some problems to work out.

Is it? You say that as if it's a given, but....

Quote:

Also surprisingly, women inmates are more likely to be abused by other inmates than are male inmates, disrupting the long held view that sexual violence in prison is mainly about men assaulting men. In juvenile corrections facilities, female staff are also a much more significant threat than male staff; more than nine in ten juveniles who reported staff sexual victimization were abused by a woman.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...viously-known/

Quote:

The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization
among former state prisoners was 3 times higher
among females (13.7%) than males (4.2%)
When the rate of sexual victimization was limited to
nonconsensual sexual acts including only incidents of
manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration,
the difference between females and males was large. An
estimated 10.5% of females reported such incidents with
other inmates, compared to 2.7% of males.

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrfsp08.pdf

[crazycat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I've been in all male bathrooms, locker rooms, and open floor military barracks my entire life and I haven't seen as many flopping penises as apparently going to see sharing the bathroom with a transperson for 30 seconds.

I genuinely laughed at that. Funny.

But. Have you been deliberately exposed to a stranger's erect penis? (ie flasher). I have. A stranger's flacid penis (also flasher). I have. Have you ever heard in the news that "someone" had installed a hidden camera in a stall in a restroom that you had used? I have.

There are experiences that are different for women than men.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

No, no it's not. You're entirely failing to consider the person's actual sense of identity.

For example, I am not transgender. I could announce that I was transgender, but that wouldn't automatically mean (per your claim) that I am transgender. Because I'm not transgender.

No, it would not make you transgender.
But it would require the rest of us to treat you as if you were transgender, even if we didn't believe you. And thus, we would have to allow you into the women's locker room until you do something flagrant and provable. In other words, you could get away with voyeurism as long as you were reasonably careful and didn't use a camera.

Quote:

Whereas when a transgender person announces that they are transgender, they do so because they do have an actual sense of identity which is transgender.

There's a difference between the two.

Of course there's a difference between the two. But how can a third party tell the difference between a legitimate transgender person and you?

Suppose we all agree that trans women should use the women's locker room. (Something that is not an article of agreement.)
We also agree that you, a cis-male, should not be allowed to use the women's locker room.

How do we keep you out? I guess we could rely on your honesty. And the honesty of good men. But what about the dishonesty of bad men?

You are trying to convince that some males should be allowed into women's spaces, but you can't even give a means to distinguish between some males and all males other than an honor system.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TomB

Of course there's a difference between the two. But how can a third party tell the difference between a legitimate transgender person and you?

Let's see how many conversation loops we can have where people pretend this isn't the question being asked.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Let's see how many conversation loops we can have where people pretend this isn't the question being asked.

I know, right?

[Samson]

Aberrant and dishonest behaviour is locked into evolution, this is simple game theory, there must be frequency sufficient to require the general population to stay alert.
This is central to the work of evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins. Thus London John's system can never be reliable, and there will be cheats and dangerous men in women's rest rooms.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Samson

Aberrant and dishonest behaviour is locked into evolution, this is simple game theory, there must be frequency sufficient to require the general population to stay alert.
This is central to the work of evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins. Thus London John's system can never be reliable, and there will be cheats and dangerous men in women's rest rooms.

Sir this is a Wendy's.

[d4m10n]

Watching Rachel Maddow earlier this week, she brought up the heroic filibuster of LB574, which would effectively outlaw all puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors and 18-y.o.'s in the State of Nebraska. While some clinicians have indeed been overeager to prescribe such drugs, this reactionary approach will not help the profession of medicine strike a scientifically informed balance.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Watching Rachel Maddow earlier this week, she brought up the heroic filibuster of LB574, which would effectively outlaw all puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors and 18-y.o.'s in the State of Nebraska. While some clinicians have indeed been overeager to prescribe such drugs, this reactionary approach will not help the profession of medicine strike a scientifically informed balance.

I'm not sure if the way the medical systems are set up in the US allows for the kind of independent reviews that have been conducted in the UK, Sweden and Finland. Who would conduct such reviews?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

I'm not sure if the way the medical systems are set up in the US allows for the kind of independent reviews that have been conducted in the UK, Sweden and Finland. Who would conduct such reviews?

The professional academic community.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Darat

What percentage?

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that just like Zig's last claims about trans people detransitioning, a "significant" percentage is in the estimated 1-8%. Or less.

These numbers are only "significant" to those who wish to claim all trans people are mentally ill or faking it to get into women's bathrooms and attack them.

[JoeMorgue]

Also what's a person "detransitioning" suppose to prove exactly, at least in the context of what this discussion is about?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Watching Rachel Maddow earlier this week, she brought up the heroic filibuster of LB574, which would effectively outlaw all puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors and 18-y.o.'s in the State of Nebraska. While some clinicians have indeed been overeager to prescribe such drugs, this reactionary approach will not help the profession of medicine strike a scientifically informed balance.

While I generally don't like outright bans... I'm on the fence about this. There are a LOT of things that minors aren't allowed to do. And this is one of those things that has permanent serious side effects.

I'd generally prefer to not need bans, and let this fall under the same guidelines as plastic surgery, where parental consent is required. But... there's significant pressure on parents to support their kids when it comes to gender id stuff, and a lot of censure and repercussions if they don't allow their kid to get it.

Perhaps something more time-bound would make sense. An outright ban on off-label use of puberty blockers, ban on cross-sex hormones and surgeries related to gender affirmation, for a period of 5 years. Maybe some kind of caveat allowing a reconsideration upon thorough clinical review after that?

I don't know. I want to stop all of the mastectomies we're seeing in minors and young people, and I want to completely halt the use of blockers and hormones until puberty is completed... but I would greatly prefer that approach come from clinical guidance than from the government. The problem right now is that even though I think the government doesn't know enough about medicine to make medical decisions... at the moment I don't trust doctors to do their jobs appropriately.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Robin

Also, as far as I have been able to establish, AGP is a myth.

You mean, aside from the fact that it's a specific diagnosis in DSM-5?


ETA: And also a number of high-profile transgender identified males who admit to having the condition, such as Debbie Hayton and Andrea Long Chu?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Also what's a person "detransitioning" suppose to prove exactly, at least in the context of what this discussion is about?

It demonstrates that gender dysphoria is neither innate nor immutable. It lends support to the claim that hormonal and surgical transition is over-prescribed and that other mental health issues are being under-treated.

It certainly lends support to the request that we dramatically reduce the number of minors who are being prescribed puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and double mastectomies as a means of affirming their gender identity, when that gender identity is not shown to be long-term stable and persistent.

The claim by many activists is that gender identity is something people are born with, it is an innate part of their persona, and it cannot ever be changed. They use that claim to push an "affirmation only" approach to gender identity, in which parents, schools, and doctors are expected to always support a minor's claim of being transgender, and to assume that any other mental health issues that minor might be facing are caused by them being transgender, rather than investigating whether it might be the other way around.

Those activists then use their claim of gender identity being innate and immutable to demonize anyone who suggests watchful waiting until the minor attains majority as 'transphobic"... or "wanting to murder kids" or whatever other hyperbolized claptrap comes to mind.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Also what's a person "detransitioning" suppose to prove exactly, at least in the context of what this discussion is about?

Well, if somewhere around 1% of trans people bow to societal pressure and "detrans" then we know for a fact that all trans people are only faking it to get attention and/or get into women's bathrooms. QED.

/bigoted mode


eta: I swear I posted this without seeing the post directly above mine

[JoeMorgue]

The problem is I imagine puberty is the only time some of these kind of hormonal changes can really work.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The problem is I imagine puberty is the only time some of these kind of hormonal changes can really work.

What's the downside of waiting till after puberty?

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

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Well, if somewhere around 1% of trans people bow to societal pressure and "detrans" then we know for a fact that all trans people are only faking it to get attention and/or get into women's bathrooms. QED.

/bigoted mode


eta: I swear I posted this without seeing the post directly above mine

Why are you assuming that people who detransition are doing so due to social pressure? Have you bothered to talk to any of them? Read any of their stories?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The problem is I imagine puberty is the only time some of these kind of hormonal changes can really work.

I imagine the same, about puberty.

I also imagine about puberty that it's a period of significant chemical and physical alteration, with attendant alterations to mental and emotional states. And that therefore it is probably insane to presume to know a prepubescent child's immutable final state of self-identity and self-understanding.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Why are you assuming that people who detransition are doing so due to social pressure? Have you bothered to talk to any of them? Read any of their stories?

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

2) as we already know that many gay people simply pretend not to be gay due to the same societal pressures you and those like you are applying to trans people, it stands to reason that people in the same situation who do the same thing do so for similar if not the same reason. (mikegriffith1 has posted on this forum about having a son who used to be gay, but no longer is, for an example)

3) as we all know your stance on trans people, the stories you're being exposed to are not likely to be representative. Rather, I suspect they're more along the lines of the lifelong Christian activist telling tales of how they "used to be a worldly sinner"...

[JoeMorgue]

Okay. Let's workshop this.

Let's just hit the big ole' "I believe" button. A bunch of people are transitioning and they are gonna regret it in... 10 years.

Okay. And? Then they ****** up and that's on them.

[TomB]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It demonstrates that gender dysphoria is neither innate nor immutable.

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

Quote:

It lends support to the claim that hormonal and surgical transition is over-prescribed and that other mental health issues are being under-treated.

It lends support to the idea that screening of candidates for hormonal treatment is imperfect. I'm unsure what it says about under-treatment of other conditions.

Misdiagnosis in psychology is tricky. There generally aren't empirical blood tests that can guide or confirm diagnoses.

Quote:

It certainly lends support to the request that we dramatically reduce the number of minors who are being prescribed puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and double mastectomies as a means of affirming their gender identity, when that gender identity is not shown to be long-term stable and persistent.

I lends support to the idea that we need better screening tools.

Quote:

The claim by many activists is that gender identity is something people are born with, it is an innate part of their persona, and it cannot ever be changed. They use that claim to push an "affirmation only" approach to gender identity, in which parents, schools, and doctors are expected to always support a minor's claim of being transgender, and to assume that any other mental health issues that minor might be facing are caused by them being transgender, rather than investigating whether it might be the other way around.

What you are referring to is a patient (particularly a young one) who has issues finding out about something that might explain their symptoms and latching onto it. this can lead to misdiagnosis. (Or the reverse sequence.)

Misdiagnosis of this type says nothing about the innateness or mutability of identity. It merely speaks to misinterpretation.

Psychology is complicated.

Quote:

Those activists then use their claim of gender identity being innate and immutable to demonize anyone who suggests watchful waiting until the minor attains majority as 'transphobic"... or "wanting to murder kids" or whatever other hyperbolized claptrap comes to mind.

True.

But the other side also misinterprets what is suggested by detransitioners and other victims of misdiagnosis.

The extremists on both sides inhibit rational discussion and consideration.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay. Let's workshop this.

Let's just hit the big ole' "I believe" button. A bunch of people are transitioning and they are gonna regret it in... 10 years.

Okay. And? Then they ****** up and that's on them.

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