Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[d4m10n]

And.... you might, once again, want to consider the bit immediately below, where I explicitly explain that while you can measure (a) - the validity of same-sex sexual desires - you cannot measure (b) - the underlying reasons why homosexuals hold such desires (which, as I point out, is the only important thing when trying to consider the underlying psychosexual reasons behind homosexuality)

Given that we all agree (a) is objectively measurable ("valid" seems a bit morally loaded) that just leaves (b) to discuss. Can you explain which of the two hypotheses are true and why?

 

[Emily's Cat]

But....

..... there's also objectively no way of falsifying - or, for that matter, proving - the (now-discredited) model of homosexuality which holds that:

a) homosexual people have genuine sexual desires for other people of their same sex,

but that

b) those sexual desires are the product of a mental disorder (rather than being a genuine, valid condition in themselves)


You can empirically measure (a) - thought it's actually irrelevant.

What you cannot measure empirically is (b) - which is the only measure that counts.

I still don't think it's a reasonable comparison. It fails at item a. We can objectively observe and measure attraction and arousal, irrespective of whether that arousal is believed to be socially acceptable or deviant (which is why it was classed as a disorder, it was viewed at the time as a sexual deviance).

On the other hand, we cannot measure or observe a transperson's feeling of being the opposite sex inside their head.

We can observe the distress, and we can treat the distress. But we cannot objectively determine that the transgender person who feels like a woman actually does feel like a woman, or in fact shares any commonalities with a female that aren't otherwise shared by all humans.

Yes, there have been some brain scans that have specifically compared the brains of males and females. And in those brains, they find differences that are 100% correlated with body size OR are immaterial, non-determinative, non-predictive differences that allow them to say that transwomen have brains that are kind of like the brains of females. They gloss over the fact that they're observing differences in a very few aspects of the brain, which are immaterial relative to the observable differences between individuals across the entire brain. They also gloss over the fact that the few areas that are known to be sex-differentiated, and where the brains of transwomen/men actually are more like cismen/women, those are areas of the brain that are directly associated with sexual behavior - and hence are far more indicative of homosexuality than of transgenderness. They also don't compare the brains of homosexual individuals as part of their controls. So at the end of the day, the identified "differences" in brains are so immaterial that they have no utility.

No body can look at an anonymous brain and determine whether it's a man's brain or a woman's brain. They can't even ascribe it a probability based on actual science.

 

[LondonJohn]

Given that we all agree (a) is objectively measurable ("valid" seems a bit morally loaded) that just leaves (b) to discuss. Can you explain which of the two hypotheses are true and why?

Erm..... firstly, by measuring it objectively, you can thus determine objectively whether it's a valid (ie genuine or true) desire, or an invalid (ie "pretend" or false) desire. Or anywhere towards either end of that spread (it'd be impossible to fall in the middle, for reasons which should be obvious).


But to answer the second part of your question:

I'd repeat up front that this is impossible to measure empirically. Therefore, it's impossible ever to be able to say that one or other hypothesis is "true" (you probably ought to know that). So it has to be measured by making a consideration of the individual and collective psyches of people who have sexual desires for others of the same sex, and coming to a "best guess" judgement.

And I'm not qualified to make that judgement myself. However, what I am qualified to do is to examine the work and the conclusions of those who are qualified to make that judgement: the world's experts in psychosexual medicine.

And I see that it has for many decades now been the settled position of the experts that same-sex sexual desires are an authentic condition, rather than being the product of a mental disorder. I also observe that every modern liberal democracy also now views (and legislates for) homosexuals under that definition. So this informs me as to the belief that I hold on the matter.


Anyway, why do you ask? Do you think that homosexuality is the product of a mental disorder?



Incidentally, an interesting thought experiment is to take paragraphs 2-5 of what I've just written above, and to substitute "belief in inhabiting a gender other than that which corresponds to their biological sex" for "same-sex sexual desires", and "transgender people" for "homosexuals".

And in turn, this might go at least part of the way to demonstrating my own rationale for considering the nature and provenance of transgenderism - using the exact same methodology which I've used for considering the nature & provenance of homosexuality.

Then again, going by recent events, I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.

 

[d4m10n]

Seems like you're trying to say that either:

1) "Sexual desires for other people of their same sex...are the product of a mental disorder"

*or*

2) "Sexual desires for other people of their same sex...[are] a genuine, valid condition in themselves"

These are ultimately value judgments, though. The AMA will give one answer, the Islamic world (by and large) has another perspective. I would argue that the liberal perspective is better than the traditional one (rooted in Abrahamic monotheism) but this is largely because I personally reject the moral framework of divine command theory.

Do you think that homosexuality is the product of a mental disorder?

No, but what counts as a "disorder" is socially constructed within the moral framework of the relevant medical association. It varies based on time and place. You're basically arguing that whatever the experts think is good here and now is indeed good.

 

[Robin]

Is heterosexuality a genuine valid condition?

Is monosexuality a disorder or a disability?

 

[LondonJohn]

I still don't think it's a reasonable comparison. It fails at item a. We can objectively observe and measure attraction and arousal, irrespective of whether that arousal is believed to be socially acceptable or deviant (which is why it was classed as a disorder, it was viewed at the time as a sexual deviance).

On the other hand, we cannot measure or observe a transperson's feeling of being the opposite sex inside their head.

We can observe the distress, and we can treat the distress. But we cannot objectively determine that the transgender person who feels like a woman actually does feel like a woman, or in fact shares any commonalities with a female that aren't otherwise shared by all humans.

Yes, there have been some brain scans that have specifically compared the brains of males and females. And in those brains, they find differences that are 100% correlated with body size OR are immaterial, non-determinative, non-predictive differences that allow them to say that transwomen have brains that are kind of like the brains of females. They gloss over the fact that they're observing differences in a very few aspects of the brain, which are immaterial relative to the observable differences between individuals across the entire brain. They also gloss over the fact that the few areas that are known to be sex-differentiated, and where the brains of transwomen/men actually are more like cismen/women, those are areas of the brain that are directly associated with sexual behavior - and hence are far more indicative of homosexuality than of transgenderness. They also don't compare the brains of homosexual individuals as part of their controls. So at the end of the day, the identified "differences" in brains are so immaterial that they have no utility.

No body can look at an anonymous brain and determine whether it's a man's brain or a woman's brain. They can't even ascribe it a probability based on actual science.

You say "we". But this is not our assessment to make, in a first-order sense. It's an assessment for the people who have proven expertise and experience in this area to make. In this instance, it's for the World's leading psychosexual mental health experts to make.

And make it they have.

So then the questions that the likes of you and I should be asking are these:

1) On what basis did the World's experts make their judgement?

2) Have they now made a settled judgement, or is this a "work in progress"?

3) How definitive were they in their judgement?

4) Did their judgement involve, in the recent past, a reversal of a previous judgement (as opposed to "rubber stamping" the existing conclusions), and if so, what was it that convinced them to reverse their judgement?

5) If the answer to the first part of the previous question was "yes", should that change the way we view their new conclusions (on the basis that it's generally harder and more controversial to reverse a judgement than to confirm an existing judgement, and that therefore it takes a particularly strong belief to occasion such a reversal)?

6) Is it appropriate or sceptical for someone who is not trained, skilled or experienced in the qualities necessary for making this judgement... to defer to the judgement of those who do possess these qualitites?



For me, the answers to these questions are:

1) Their combined and cumulative experience and expertise in the psychotherapy of transgender people;

2) Yes

3) Definitive

4) Yes; and the weight of their combined/cumulative experience and expertise

5) Yes

6) Yes

 

[LondonJohn]

Is heterosexuality a genuine valid condition?

Is monosexuality a disorder or a disability?

1) Yes

2) No


What a strange contribution.

 

[TomB]

1) Yes. Competitive sports. For biological and sociological reasons which have been discussed at length already and which I won't bother to re-hash again right now.

2) Yes. Gender. For biological and sociological reasons which have *not* been discussed at length, but have been discussed in brief, and which I might go on to develop here but I'm not making any promises.

LOL, I guess I should have included some givers or definitions. I assume that you define gender as an intrinsically linked extension of sex?

What if I were to replace "gender" with "sociological role" and "sex" with "tangible biological differences?"

 

[LondonJohn]

Seems like you're trying to say that either:

1) "Sexual desires for other people of their same sex...are the product of a mental disorder"

*or*

2) "Sexual desires for other people of their same sex...[are] a genuine, valid condition in themselves"

These are ultimately value judgments, though. The AMA will give one answer, the Islamic world (by and large) has another perspective. I would argue that the liberal perspective is better than the traditional one (rooted in Abrahamic monotheism) but this is largely because I personally reject the moral framework of divine command theory.



No, but what counts as a "disorder" is socially constructed within the moral framework of the relevant medical association. It varies based on time and place. You're basically arguing that whatever the experts think is good here and now is indeed good.

To cut straight to the chase....

...do you have a better way to make that judgement for yourself, on matters such as this which are impossible to quantify or measure objectively, and which by definition have to come down to a judgement call (which itself obviously ought to be based on expertise and experience in the relevant area)?

If so, I'd love to hear it...


(We could start with a simple "yes" or "no" answer, if you prefer)

 

[Emily's Cat]

You say "we". But this is not our assessment to make, in a first-order sense. It's an assessment for the people who have proven expertise and experience in this area to make. In this instance, it's for the World's leading psychosexual mental health experts to make.

You completely missed my point. Or ignored it. Not sure which.

Also, this is a very odd appeal to an authority that has proven to be inconsistent and wrong many times throughout history.

 

[Robin]

And I see that it has for many decades now been the settled position of the experts that same-sex sexual desires are an authentic condition, rather than being the product of a mental disorder. I also observe that every modern liberal democracy also now views (and legislates for) homosexuals under that definition. So this informs me as to the belief that I hold on the matter.

I think you have this the wrong way round. The idea that homosexuality was a disorder was never based on science, rather it was based on scientists having a prevailing prejudice.

Once the mores of society began to change scientists simply abandoned the junk science that said homosexuality was a disorder.

You make it sound as though scientists did some science resulting in the discovery that homosexuality was not a disorder and society changed as a result.

 

[d4m10n]

...do you have a better way to make that judgement for yourself, on matters such as this which are impossible to quantify or measure objectively, and which by definition have to come down to a judgement call (which itself obviously ought to be based on expertise and experience in the relevant area)?

Sure thing.

The main impetus for Bentham's obsession with sexual freedom was his society's harsh persecution of homosexual men. Since about 1700, the increasing permissiveness towards what was seen as "natural" sex had led to a sharpened abhorrence across the western world of supposedly "unnatural" acts. Throughout Bentham's lifetime, homosexuals were regularly executed in England, or had their lives ruined by the pillory, exile or public disgrace. He was appalled at this horrible prejudice. Sodomy, he argued, was not just harmless but evidently pleasurable to its participants. The mere fact that the custom was abhorrent to the majority of the community no more justified the persecution of sodomites than it did the killing of Jews, heretics, smokers, or people who ate oysters – "to destroy a man there should certainly be some better reason than mere dislike to his Taste, let that dislike be ever so strong".

Utilitarian moral philosophy came to (what we would call) the best conclusion some 150 years ahead of the relevant medical associations.

You make it sound as though scientists did some science resulting in the discovery that homosexuality was not a disorder and society changed as a result.

Exactly, and this is precisely the opposite of what really happened.

 

[Robin]

6) Is it appropriate or sceptical for someone who is not trained, skilled or experienced in the qualities necessary for making this judgement... to defer to the judgement of those who do possess these qualitites?

A few years ago the New York Times published an article in which a scientist said that, based on decades or research, that there was no such thing as a male bisexual.

So, do you think it is appropriate for me, a male bisexual, to defer to the judgement of those scientists and their decades of research?

 

[Robin]

As a follow-up, do you think any of those scientists could give me any sort of clue about how I might go about finding out if I am a man or a woman, should I ever become interested in that question?

 

[LondonJohn]

You completely missed my point. Or ignored it. Not sure which.

Perhaps you could tell me how/why you think I did?

Because I don't think I did at all.

You were pointing out that the fundamental decision to be made wrt transgenderism - whether transgender identity is a valid, authentic lived condition, or whether it's the product of a disorder - is an impossible question to answer experimentally in an empirical manner.

I agree entlrely with this.

But your argument appears to me to be essentially along these lines:

If we cannot objectively prove or measure the answer with empirical data, it's therefore impossible to conclude that transgender identity is an authentic, valid condition. And that therefore transgenderism should continue to be regarded as the product of a disorder.


My response to that is fivefold:

1) The World's experts in the relevant field have made the judgement that transgender identity is a valid condition in its own right (as opposed to being the product of any kind of mental disorder).

2) The World's experts must, therefore, have assessed certain criteria as the basis for coming to that judgement; and they must by definition have agreed that those criteria - in conjunction with the product of their combined expertise and experience - gave them the authority and justification for coming to that judgement.

3) This is not a judgement that the likes of you and I can ever hope to be able to make on our own with any credibility or reliability.

4) I therefore think that by far the best (the most reliable and credible) means of informing our own personal judgement on this issue is to start from the premise of the judgement of the World's experts in the relevant field.

5) If there are other reliable & credible factors or opinions to be considered - especially, of course, if they tend to contradict or counterbalance the opinions of the World's experts, then these of course also need to be considered. I'm not aware of any, though.

 

[theprestige]

LOL, I guess I should have included some givers or definitions. I assume that you define gender as an intrinsically linked extension of sex?

Not quite the term I'd use, but pretty much, yeah.

What if I were to replace "gender" with "sociological role" and "sex" with "tangible biological differences?"

Then I'd say it depends on the role.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh incidentally:

For those who consider transgender identity not to be an authentic lived condition (as opposed to being the product of some form of mental disorder), exactly the same problem arises:

On what basis can one come to that judgement? One cannot measure empirically whether gender identity is or is not the product of a mental disorder, after all. Or is one coming to that judgement purely (or even primarily) on the basis that this is how transgender identity "was always viewed, up until recently"...?

 

[d4m10n]

One cannot measure empirically whether gender identity is or is not the product of a mental disorder, after all. Or is one coming to that judgement purely (or even primarily) on the basis that this is how transgender identity "was always viewed, up until recently"...?

You're putting an awful lot of weight on this phrase without saying what it is or makes it any different than an "authentic lived condition," AFAICT. There is nothing inauthentic about having a mental disorder, IMO. People who have disorders live with them, authentically.

 

[Robin]

Oh incidentally:

For those who consider transgender identity not to be an authentic lived condition (as opposed to being the product of some form of mental disorder), exactly the same problem arises:

On what basis can one come to that judgement? One cannot measure empirically whether gender identity is or is not the product of a mental disorder, after all. Or is one coming to that judgement purely (or even primarily) on the basis that this is how transgender identity "was always viewed, up until recently"...?

The thing is, I have absolutely no idea what a gender identity might be, or how I would.go about finding out.

So how can I decide if it is or isn't a valid.

 

[TomB]

I'm in agreement with all of this.

And incidentally - as I've stated before - I also believe that those competitive sports* in which anatomy and/or physiology play a competitive factor** should be sex-segregated. I know that this is not Boudicca90's position, though I'm not sure whether or not there's any difference of opinion on this matter within either the transgender community or those lobbying for transgender rights. I do however believe it very highly likely that the bodies administering all of the relevant sports will - sooner or later - instigate measures to exclude transgender competitors.


* Though only for mid-level (eg local region, state) and high-level (national, international) sports - outside of these levels of competion, I believe transgender people should be encouraged to compete in sports with their trans gender, and that they should be welcomed and accepted for it.
** As I've already argued: I believe it to be obvious that someone who has, for example, gone through childhood and adolescence as a cis male has already developed, on average, a comparatively advantageous (compared with female cis women) anatomy - bone size, bone strength, bone density - and physiology - heart size and strength, lung size and strength, muscle mass/nature/strength). And none of these biological areas of competitive advantage will be significantly altered by any form of gender transition.

I apologize, because this is going to be long. Bear with me.

I'll start off with saying that for young children (perhaps until near puberty) there is no reason to segregate at all as their physical development at that point doesn't bring too many issues.

My daughter didn't start sports until 7th grade (age 12 for those outside the US). She started Volleyball and softball at that time. She played two years of Volleyball in middle school, three years of park district softball, two years of high school (Sophomore and Junior), and two years of club softball (Graduated as a Junior). She also did two years of competitive cheer-leading (Freshman and sophomore years).

Now, the star player on her 7th and 8th grade volleyball teams was a girl who was taller than the rest. She also played basketball and went on to play for Ohio State in college. In junior high, I'm pretty sure she would have outplayed anyone on the boys team. At that point she had an advantage in height and strength. But by high school, those same boys had overtaken her. She would not have made the men's basketball team at either high school in town.

But she was considered the top female basketball player in the area and one of the top players in the state.

High school sports are not low level social activities. They are very serious and they are what feed into the high level sports in college and the pros.

Similarly, if softball were not sex segregated, neither my daughter nor any other player on her team (several of whom played in college) would have made the high school team. The next thirteen boys who didn't make the cut for baseball would have. (The sports are different, but similar enough to cross over.) This is all in the age range of 14-18.

It's not just the batting. When my daughter was 18, I watched one of her then boyfriends slow pitch games. This was essentially a beer league with guys of, shall we say, questionable fitness. My daughter was an excellent fielder with great wheels. But these guys playing casually had speed in the outfield that ran circles around the fasted of the girls even in the higher level travel teams I saw. Their skills left something to be desired, but physically...no contest.

My point is that the advantage is HUGE between males and females. In principle I have no problem with a trans-woman competing with the girls, but I think the parity/lack of advantage needs to be demonstrated, preferable in individual case judgements by the various leagues. I don't think a one size fit all standard is fair to anyone, but it sure is easier to write into a rule.

Also, around here, volleyball is huge. For girls. There are no boys' clubs male teams in high school or nearby universities. But there was a boy who wanted to play. So the prominent local club took him and made an agreement with the other clubs with some conditions on how he could play. He could only play back row, where his advantages were lesser (height is less desirable in the back row) and I think he could not play libero. It's wasn't a transgender situation, but it's an example of an accommodation made for an individual case.