Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Meadmaker]

There is much less nuance with the way trans people are branded as mentally ill. How many people here see the treatment as the wrong treatment and the very expression of identity as mental illness. What we would treat is the dysphoria through changing the physiology and not the identity. Working on the identify side of the equation should raise many moral, ethical and human existential questions.

As an illustrative but not an expansive prescriptive analogy, Alex DeLarge was to some degree killed in A Clockwork Orange. So was Alan Turing for a time then literally.

(Obligatory Ay, analagies)

But, how many people see "the treatment" as wrong?

That's an impossible question to answer. Most of us here thing surgical or hormonal treatment as sometimes appropriate. I don't know if anyone disagrees. "Social transition" can also be appropriate. There is no, one, "treatment".

I think all of us on the trans-exclusive side of the fence would say, thought, that the treatment doesn't turn you into the opposite sex, and we would say that society at large is not required to treat people as the opposite sex when they are objectively not the opposite sex.

We are also largely agreed that the "gender affirming" treatments are severely overprescribed, and are harmful to many of the recipients. (Which puts us in line with Sweden. If you find yourself arguing against Swedish health care experts, with the same talking points used in social media, you need to take a hard look at yourself.)

And explaining exactly when they ought to be treated as the opposite sex, even when we know they aren't, is a complicated subject and there is much less agreement among us trans-exclusive folks on that question, but that doesn't seem like a topic you are interested in pursuing.

 

[Sideroxylon]

(Obligatory Ay, analagies)

But, how many people see "the treatment" as wrong?

That's an impossible question to answer. Most of us here thing surgical or hormonal treatment as sometimes appropriate. I don't know if anyone disagrees. "Social transition" can also be appropriate. There is no, one, "treatment".

I think all of us on the trans-exclusive side of the fence would say, thought, that the treatment doesn't turn you into the opposite sex, and we would say that society at large is not required to treat people as the opposite sex when they are objectively not the opposite sex.

We are also largely agreed that the "gender affirming" treatments are severely overprescribed, and are harmful to many of the recipients. (Which puts us in line with Sweden. If you find yourself arguing against Swedish health care experts, with the same talking points used in social media, you need to take a hard look at yourself.)

And explaining exactly when they ought to be treated as the opposite sex, even when we know they aren't, is a complicated subject and there is much less agreement among us trans-exclusive folks on that question, but that doesn't seem like a topic you are interested in pursuing.

Was the 90% the last stat you had keistered?

 

[Sideroxylon]

So much depends on definitions, and the trans-inclusive supporters tend not to really like to be pinned down on something so insignificant as the meaning of words.
For example, you say that people are now more aware of the gender/sex distinction. I'm certainly aware that people want to make such a distinction, but I'm not sure the distinction is meaningful. To be sure of it, I would have to have a definition. Some people insist that "gender" is a very real thing that is an inherent characteristic of a human being, while others think it's a societally invented construct.

In the end, I come back to the same square one as you do. Who needs it?

And, it doesn't really have much to do with my position when it comes to public policy. Where there are distinctions that are important between males and females, sex should be the deciding factor. In places where those distinctions don't matter, society shouldn't make distinctions.

When it comes to public policy, it really is all about sports and toilets.

ETA: After typing the above, my news feed had a story about Ukraine. The important distinction between males and females there is kind of in the same direction as "sports", but much, much, more important.

* Tend not to be naive realists about language.

 

[Rolfe]

Cycling event. Two categories, "thunder" and "lightining". Cutting through the waffle, the criteria were that men and women without made-up identities were compelled to compete in their respective classes. Men and women with made-up identities were requested to perform in the class that most aligned with their "physical performance".

This seems like an attempt to organise sex-specific categories without actually saying so, just sort of hinting to the made-up-identity brigade that they should enter in their proper sex class.

It didn't work. Two men with identity issues entered the category intended for women and took first and second place. The bit I like about the podium photo is that the woman who actually (should have) won accepted her third-place medal with her baby in her arms. Quick-thinking bit of class there.

ETA: It gets better. The men who took the top two awards in the category intended for women are both currently registered with British Cycling as male.

 

[Meadmaker]

Was the 90% the last stat you had keistered?

Typical non-response.

I tried to answer your question. You hurl insults. It's all normal.

 

[Dani]

And, it doesn't really have much to do with my position when it comes to public policy. Where there are distinctions that are important between males and females, sex should be the deciding factor. In places where those distinctions don't matter, society shouldn't make distinctions.

This is pretty much my conclusion so far.

I don't see any other workable and consistent way of approaching it.

 

[Rolfe]

Here's the podium photo of what should have been the women's cycle race.

[imgw=500]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FUWun-aXEAA9_BP?format=jpg&name=large[/imgw]

Wid thon no gie yie the dry boak?

 

[Elaedith]

There is much less nuance with the way trans people are branded as mentally ill. How many people here see the treatment as the wrong treatment and the very expression of identity as mental illness? What we would treat is the dysphoria through changing the physiology and not the identity. Working on the identify side of the equation should raise many moral, ethical and human existential questions.

As an illustrative but not an expansive prescriptive analogy, Alex DeLarge was to some degree killed in A Clockwork Orange. So was Alan Turing for a time then literally.

Are you saying Alan Turing should have been medically transitioned so that his physiology 'matched' the sexual orientation that he identified with, rather than the one 'assigned to him at birth' on the basis of his sex?

That is the appropriate analogy to changing the physiology of somebody to 'match' their gender identity.

If a adolescent was distressed because they felt that their sexual orientation differs from the one 'assigned on the basis of their sex', and a therapist suggested fixing that by medically transitioning sex characteristics (to appear the opposite sex) to fit their sexuality, it would be considered outrageous homophobia. The appropriate response would be to say that it's ok to be same-sex attracted, it doesn't mean they aren't a man/woman, and to offer therapy to help accept their sex if needed.

Yet in the case of somebody being distressed because they feel that the gender they identify with doesn't match the one assigned to them on the basis of their sex (which is just a fancy way to say that somebody's personality doesn't match sex stereotypes), I suspect you would say the opposite, and brand attempts to help them accept their sex as conversion therapy.

Encouraging somebody to accept their sex cannot be conversion therapy for gender identity if gender and sex are separate. If you are going to say this comparison is not appropriate because there is no conflict between sex and a sexual orientation. but there is a conflict between sex and gender identity, then you are just acknowledging that these concepts are not structurally analogous and cannot be treated the same way.

Of course, in many cases people with severe and persistent dysphoria are unhappy with their sex, not with 'the gender assigned to them', which is just a made-up ideologically-motivated explanation. That is why they want to change sex characteristics and why this seems to help some people.

Transitioning medically or even socially because one is gender non-conforming makes no sense and enforces gender conformity, just as transitioning gay people would enforce sexuality conformity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The harm from psychosis isn't subjective. That some kinds of harm (such as from homosexuality) are subjective doesn't mean all forms of harm are.

Nor the harm to oneself and others from bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizophrenia.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The issue here is that people here are in disagreement with the mental health professionals on what constitutes the best treatment and people living a good life in treatment in the gender they feel comfort in,

1) Mental health professionals are in disagreement o what constitutes the best treatment
2) Recent research from Finland, Sweden, and UJ indicate that a large number of people who undergo affirmation-only treatment do NOT live a good life after transition, and continue to experience considerable psychological distress

as continuing to exhibiting a psychosis that they would treat otherwise.

3) What the hell is this supposed to mean?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is an interesting and relevant thread which includes discussion of circular definitions and the fallacy of appealling to borderline cases and anomalies - apparently actually called "the fallacy of the beard". I also like the "coastline paradox".

https://twitter.com/wokal_distance/status/1532588890397327361

Oh, nicely presented!

 

[Emily's Cat]

And explaining exactly when they ought to be treated as the opposite sex, even when we know they aren't, is a complicated subject and there is much less agreement among us trans-exclusive folks on that question, but that doesn't seem like a topic you are interested in pursuing.

I'd also add that most of us Gender Criticals were previously quite willing to make accommodations on a case-by-case basis as the need presented itself. But we keep being told that we cannot make case-by-case decisions, that we *MUST* grant accommodation and access to *ANY* male who claims a gendery feel, and if we do not do so, we are transphobic bigots.

And when we're forced to choose between all or none, well, my answer is none.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Was the 90% the last stat you had keistered?

* Tend not to be naive realists about language.

Way to avoid actually engaging, and instead fall back on derision and insult. Yay you!

 

[Robin]

Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?

If not then sorry to interrupt but the two people who were pushing this theory were insistent I come over.here if I wanted to know more about it.

Yes, maybe they were just yanking my chain (so to speak) but they seemed very sincere.

 

[theprestige]

Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?

If not then sorry to interrupt but the two people who were pushing this theory were insistent I come over.here if I wanted to know more about it.

Yes, maybe they were just yanking my chain (so to speak) but they seemed very sincere.

For avoidance of doubt, please quote the specific question you want answered. Not a rephrase or reframe, but the actual question itself as it was posed in the other thread.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Typical non-response.

I tried to answer your question. You hurl insults. It's all normal.

Stop fopping around on your high horse. I merely responded in kind.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Way to avoid actually engaging, and instead fall back on derision and insult. Yay you!

Return for effort equation drops below zero the threshold.

 

[Meadmaker]

Stop fopping around on your high horse. I merely responded in kind.

That's.....an interesting assertion. I will have to let others judge whether it's accurate.


ETA: For reference:

(Obligatory Ay, analagies)

But, how many people see "the treatment" as wrong?

That's an impossible question to answer. Most of us here thing surgical or hormonal treatment as sometimes appropriate. I don't know if anyone disagrees. "Social transition" can also be appropriate. There is no, one, "treatment".

I think all of us on the trans-exclusive side of the fence would say, thought, that the treatment doesn't turn you into the opposite sex, and we would say that society at large is not required to treat people as the opposite sex when they are objectively not the opposite sex.

We are also largely agreed that the "gender affirming" treatments are severely overprescribed, and are harmful to many of the recipients. (Which puts us in line with Sweden. If you find yourself arguing against Swedish health care experts, with the same talking points used in social media, you need to take a hard look at yourself.)

And explaining exactly when they ought to be treated as the opposite sex, even when we know they aren't, is a complicated subject and there is much less agreement among us trans-exclusive folks on that question, but that doesn't seem like a topic you are interested in pursuing.

Was the 90% the last stat you had keistered?

 

[Meadmaker]

Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?

That's a new one.

For my answer, I would respond much as I did to Dani. Give me a definition, and maybe I can answer, but definitions are kind of sparse in this neighborhood. They are sought far more than they are provided.

Maybe more context would make it make more sense, but I'm puzzled given just the stuff you have there.

 

[d4m10n]

Someone in another thread told me that gender identity is largely a matter of which public toilet you choose, that if you knew to choose the men's toilet then you knew you were a man

It didn't make a lot of sense to me but he/she said he couldn't clarify it or answer any questions about it and that thread and that I should ask about it in this thread.

Anyone know anything about this?

There are relatively few situations when one is forced to choose between gender roles, i.e. the set of "behaviors...generally considered acceptable, appropriate, or desirable" for males or the set considered acceptable for females. Upthread we've discussed various sports leagues, changing rooms, sleeper cars, swimming or spa facilities, clothing stores, etc. but the situation which comes up most often in everyday life would have to be public toilets.