Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Emily's Cat]

Thanks for proving my point. I meant exactly this.

That's not at all what you posted though. Nor is it what's implied by your language.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yep, "trying"! *rueful half-smile*

(Ignore this entire post of mine, if you're looking for serious content! My other post though, immediately preceding the one you've quoted, and that actually bears on the sports thing in response to lionking's comment, about the nuanced nature of sports categories, that's only very simplistically and very approximately addressed by dividing into two broad categories for men and women, that I did mean seriously.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it's debatable whether trans-affirming care is purely elective in the case of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

It's still not medically necessary. Hormones and surgeries used to affirm gender identity are not treating a medical condition.

The argument used is that if you don't give a trans person the cosmetic interventions that they want, they will kill themselves. The medical procedures are being used to stave off a threat of suicide.

I'm of the opinion that if a person is suicidal... treat the suicidality. Giving someone boob implants is not treating their suicidality.

 

[Chanakya]

Pound for pound, male athletes are stronger, faster, and more enduring than their female counterparts. Putting male and female athletes in the same weight class doesn't solve the fairness and safety issues inherent in co-ed sports.

I have yet to see a scenario in which transmen are sufficiently like women to justify transcending sex segregation on the basis of fiat self-ID.

Rather than trying to deconstruct the entire concept and institution of competitive sports, I think it makes more sense - it is much more direct and meaningful - to try to deconstruct the premise that fiat gender self-ID should or even could justify transcending sex segregation.

There can be no justice for women, in trans-inclusionist public policy, until people acknowledge the good reasons why some things are sex-segregated, and seriously question whether fiat self-ID is the right way forward for anyone.

Yes, but like I said, it's probably still less fair for a very well endowed male competing against a much lesser endowed male (whatever kind of attribute applies, in whatever sport), than when you compare males and females with roughly similar attributes.

If we bring this down to sports, then all this does is point to how very nuanced the question is. That nuance is indeed addressed in some sports, by having weight categories, sure. But not so in others.

So yeah, if the spotlight falls on sports, then it highlights the fact that a very nuanced question is being sought to addressed by very simplistic and somewhat arbitrary categorization into men and women. That is what needs to change, if this issue is at all to be addressed. The trans question only opens up this so-far unaddressed question.

On the other hand, if we limit the discussion only to the trans issue, then I kind of agree, that acknowledging the nuanced nature of the question is fine, but what is the answer? To take away what little fairness there is, by confounding the men-women divide, and without at the same time introducing a more nuanced answer to the nuanced question, clearly that achieves nothing. I guess I agree, letting in transwomen on to women's categories isn't fair, if that's all you want to look at, sure. (From my rather one-dimensional POV, as far as the trans question. Many others here have advanced fairly complex arguments here, quoting all kinds of studies and stuff. Not really familiar with much of that, and for all I know they may have a point. Still, where I stand, I agree with you there --- while also pointing out that, when it comes to the sports thing, the real question is rather broader, and far more nuanced.)

 

[Ziggurat]

You realize your problem is patronizing doctors and not trans people here, right?

You realize that doctors respond to pressure from trans activists, right?

I'm not sure what you're expressing here besides sour grapes that some trans people are actually managing to get decent care, which is absolutely a lot harder than you're implying.

How exactly do you determine what counts as "decent care"? Is it merely whatever care the patient requests?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You realize that doctors respond to pressure from trans activists, right?

Are you suggesting that trans activists are pressuring doctors to tell younger cis women they must prioritize their fertility over receiving life improving medical care?

 

[Ziggurat]

Not even one? I mean, there's more than one person currently in prison right now for hate crimes against trans people.

Are they participating in this thread? I suspect not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you suggesting that trans activists are pressuring doctors to tell younger cis women they must prioritize their fertility over receiving life improving medical care?

I'm suggesting that trans activists have made access to medical procedures too easy for those seeking medical transition.

Emily pointed to a disparity in treatment availability. You have jumped to the conclusion that trans patients are being treated correctly, and non-trans patients are not, but nothing about what she said actually implies that.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm suggesting that trans activists have made access to medical procedures too easy for those seeking medical transition.

Emily pointed to a disparity in treatment availability. You have jumped to the conclusion that trans patients are being treated correctly, and non-trans patients are not, but nothing about what she said actually implies that.

EC's position would not be improved by trans patients getting less care, that's my point. Her problem is entirely with condescending doctors, not their other patients.

 

[theprestige]

It's still not medically necessary. Hormones and surgeries used to affirm gender identity are not treating a medical condition.

I consider mental health conditions to be a subset of medical conditions.

The argument used is that if you don't give a trans person the cosmetic interventions that they want, they will kill themselves. The medical procedures are being used to stave off a threat of suicide.

I'm of the opinion that if a person is suicidal... treat the suicidality. Giving someone boob implants is not treating their suicidality.

It might be, though. This debate would be a lot different if it were actually about diagnosing mental illness and prescribing the best known treatments for the illness in question. Maybe that's surgery. Maybe that's hormones. Maybe that's social transition. We don't know, because TRAs very much want the question of mental health and its ethical treatment to be taken off the table.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Dumb question//

Anyone got a dollar figure on any of this, just for context. How much would it (in general) cost to "transition" someone in prison?

 

[theprestige]

Yes, but like I said, it's probably still less fair for a very well endowed male competing against a much lesser endowed male (whatever kind of attribute applies, in whatever sport), than when you compare males and females with roughly similar attributes.

If we bring this down to sports, then all this does is point to how very nuanced the question is. That nuance is indeed addressed in some sports, by having weight categories, sure. But not so in others.

So yeah, if the spotlight falls on sports, then it highlights the fact that a very nuanced question is being sought to addressed by very simplistic and somewhat arbitrary categorization into men and women. That is what needs to change, if this issue is at all to be addressed. The trans question only opens up this so-far unaddressed question.

On the other hand, if we limit the discussion only to the trans issue, then I kind of agree, that acknowledging the nuanced nature of the question is fine, but what is the answer? To take away what little fairness there is, by confounding the men-women divide, and without at the same time introducing a more nuanced answer to the nuanced question, clearly that achieves nothing. I guess I agree, letting in transwomen on to women's categories isn't fair, if that's all you want to look at, sure. (From my rather one-dimensional POV, as far as the trans question. Many others here have advanced fairly complex arguments here, quoting all kinds of studies and stuff. Not really familiar with much of that, and for all I know they may have a point. Still, where I stand, I agree with you there --- while also pointing out that, when it comes to the sports thing, the real question is rather broader, and far more nuanced.)

There's nothing arbitrary about segregating sports, prisons, and certain other things on the basis of sex. If that's where you're at in your thinking, I'll wait until you've made some progress before engaging again.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

//Dumb question//

Anyone got a dollar figure on any of this, just for context. How much would it (in general) cost to "transition" someone in prison?

I'm guessing hormone supplements are pretty cheap, surgical procedures very much not so.

 

[Ziggurat]

EC's position would not be improved by trans patients getting less care, that's my point. Her problem is entirely with condescending doctors, not their other patients.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

There are reasons that doctors don't fast track these procedures in normal patients. That provides sub-optimal outcomes in some cases like EC's, but that doesn't invalidate the principle, nor is EC even arguing that it should. Permanently removing fertility is a big ******* deal, and doctors are right to treat it as such and try to make sure that patients really are OK with doing that.

Except that they don't do that for trans patients. Why? You have not provided any reason for why that's good practice.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

There are reasons that doctors don't fast track these procedures in normal patients. That provides sub-optimal outcomes in some cases like EC's, but that doesn't invalidate the principle, nor is EC even arguing that it should. Permanently removing fertility is a big ******* deal, and doctors are right to treat it as such and try to make sure that patients really are OK with doing that.

Except that they don't do that for trans patients. Why? You have not provided any reason for why that's good practice.

It's not that cis women aren't getting these procedures quickly, its that they are often being outright denied in order to preserve their ability to have children, whether that's something they want or not.

It's a very common complaint that young women have difficulty finding doctors that will perform tubal ligation at all.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

[Chanakya]

There's nothing arbitrary about segregating sports, prisons, and certain other things on the basis of sex. If that's where you're at in your thinking, I'll wait until you've made some progress before engaging again.

The flattening of the very nuanced issue that is sports categories into the male-female binary is arbitrary. Not unreasonable, for that degree of flattening; but to fix on that degree of simplification is what is arbitrary.

Not sure why you're bringing in prisons and "certain other things". I made it very clear, I thought, that I was referring to sports and only to sports.

 

[smartcooky]

It's a very common complaint that young women have difficulty finding doctors that will perform tubal ligation at all.

And rightly so.... "primum non nocere" forms part of the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors swear to. It means "First, do no harm"


The procedure (tubal ligation) is irreversible and it does harm. I'm not surprised that many doctors would refuse to perform this procedure on young women.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What "harm?"

 

[smartcooky]

What "harm?"

"The simplest definition of harm in healthcare is a negative effect, whether or not it is evident to the patient."

Medically unnecessary surgical procedures are "harm" by definition. A tubal ligation is a negative effect - removing a woman's ability to conceive. Most doctors I know would absolutely require their patient to undergo some sort of psychological evaluation prior to proceeding with the surgery. This is a bell that cannot be un-ringed.

 

[Paul2]

It's not that cis women aren't getting these procedures quickly, its that they are often being outright denied in order to preserve their ability to have children, whether that's something they want or not.

EC's point is about the discrepancy, not the absolute time it takes for her versus transitions. That's why she used the relative term "easier."