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

[Ziggurat]

What "harm?"

It permanently eliminates fertility.

 

[Darat]

Females are just going to get abused and raped anyway. Let's go ahead and remove all potential obstacles to abuse or rape.

You do know that addresses nothing to do with any post I've ever made?

 

[Darat]

Because this is the first time (in this sort of thing in this sort of context) where the disagreement is this... definitional. (Sorry hard to put into words.)

There wasn't AS MUCH (yes there was some, nobody @ me) debate about what women were during Suffrage or what black people were doing Civil Rights or what gay people were during the Gay Rights movement.

This is the first time where AS MUCH of the argument has been on the level of "respect means agreeing with me about a definitional thing."

That leaves less room for a middle ground. Not no room, but less.

Mainly "I disagree with what you are saying but still respect you" has been nearly fully taken off the table.

No it hasn't been taken off the table, it's just unfortunately social interaction these days is forced by our technology to be confrontational. This means the minority of extremists get disproportionate attention. There are still plenty of people who seek comprise, seek to find accommodations.

 

[Darat]

Did you know it's easier for a male to get a prescription for estrogen due to being transgender than it is for a female to get a prescription for estrogen to combat the deleterious health impacts of menopause?



It's easier for a young female to get a hysterectomy in the name of gender affirmation than it is for a female with endometriosis or fibroids to get a hysterectomy in order to save them pain and negative health outcomes. The young female is automatically affirmed... but we older females are told we can't get a hysterectomy because we might change our minds and want kids. That's what I was told at 34, after a uterine fibroid hemorrhaged and nearly killed me. When I talked to my doc recently about a hysterectomy because the fibroid is growing back and I'm also 49 and not ever going to have kids... I was told we'd have to give it some thought and see if it's in my best interests and whether insurance will authorize it... but my 18 year old relative is going in for a complete hysterectomy and removal of their ovaries in about a month because it's "gender affirming necessary care".

Evidence?

 

[Darat]

I suspect you're trying to be funny... but I can't help but notice that you've reduced females down to being nothing more than eye candy for male enjoyment.

Not only men like to look at "eye candy", or do lesbians not count?

 

[mumblethrax]

Make a plot of fruit in children's lunchboxes. There are 2 apples, 3 grapes, 4 bananas, and 5 cherries. Because the data is non-ordinal categorical data, you can put them on the x-axis in whatever order you want - the ordering is arbitrary and meaningless.

Correct.

If you place them on the x-axis as cherries, grapes, apples, bananas... it will look like you have a bimodal distribution.

No, it will look like you don't. Because there's only one mode (cherries). Because there is no ordering, there is no possibility of noticing two distinct groups. So bimodal can mean nothing other than...two modes.

If the entire type of distribution changes when you rearrange the variables, it's not bimodal.

The distribution doesn't change, precisely because the order is meaningless.

If I have a bar graph of countries by population, switching China and the US does not change anything. Due to the unordered nature of the data, there is no ordered relationship in the visualization.

It's actually a good parallel to this whole thread. Just because something visually looks like the same shape as a bimodal distribution doesn't mean it actually is a bimodal distribution.

The look of the visualization is not the reason it's (roughly) bimodal. You can plot Male, Female, Other, and it would still be.

Because it has, roughly, two modes.

 

[mumblethrax]

Make a plot of fruit in children's lunchboxes. There are 2 apples, 3 grapes, 4 bananas, and 5 cherries. Because the data is non-ordinal categorical data, you can put them on the x-axis in whatever order you want - the ordering is arbitrary and meaningless.

Correct.

If you place them on the x-axis as cherries, grapes, apples, bananas... it will look like you have a bimodal distribution.

No, it will look like you don't. There's only one mode (cherries). Because there is no ordering, there is no possibility of noticing two distinct groups. So bimodal can mean nothing other than...two modes.

If the entire type of distribution changes when you rearrange the variables, it's not bimodal.

The distribution doesn't change, precisely because the order is meaningless.

If I have a bar graph of countries by population, switching China and the US does not change anything. Due to the unordered nature of the data, there is no order (beyond an arbitrary one) being communicated in the visualization.

It's actually a good parallel to this whole thread. Just because something visually looks like the same shape as a bimodal distribution doesn't mean it actually is a bimodal distribution.

The look of the visualization is not the reason it's (roughly) bimodal. You can plot Male, Female, Other, and it would still be.

Because it has (roughly) two modes.

 

[Darat]

Do prisoners have a right to state-funded cosmetic surgery?

In the UK prisoners have the same rights to medical treatment as anyone else. If the cosmetic surgery they are seeking is one that is covered by the NHSs then they would have a right to it. Generally the NHSs do not cover elective cosmetic surgery, so you won't get a facelift but you will get cosmetic surgery such as skin grafts for an injury even if it isn't necessary in terms of your health. Since treatment for gender dysphoria is covered by our NHSs a prisoner would be able to access these treatments. I find it hard to think of a reason why a citizen in prison shouldn't receive the appropriate medical care all us citizens are entitled to.

 

[lobosrul5]

In the UK prisoners have the same rights to medical treatment as anyone else. If the cosmetic surgery they are seeking is one that is covered by the NHSs then they would have a right to it. Generally the NHSs do not cover elective cosmetic surgery, so you won't get a facelift but you will get cosmetic surgery such as skin grafts for an injury even if it isn't necessary in terms of your health. Since treatment for gender dysphoria is covered by our NHSs a prisoner would be able to access these treatments. I find it hard to think of a reason why a citizen in prison shouldn't receive the appropriate medical care all us citizens are entitled to.

You have to remember that in the USA we are not entitled to free health care. So it can kind of smart that what a prisoner can get for free, you may have to pay well into the 6 figures for.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Sure, it's less fair. But that doesn't make mixed-sex competitions on the basis of weight alone actually fair. For consideration, 14 year old males - who are far from fully grown and developed - routinely demolish professional female athletes who have put years of effort into devoted training.

A male and a female of the same height and weight are still essentially unequal. Males have larger lung capacity, larger hearts, more fast-twitch muscle fibers, and denser muscles. A male of the same weight as a female will simply have more muscle than the female does. And depending on the sport in question, the different angle of the femur and the pelvic tilt make a difference too, as does the slightly different attachment points through the shoulders. Those affect running speed (and gait) as well as throwing and punching force.

Females aren't just "smaller males". We're built differently in a LOT of ways.

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.)

Honestly, the male/female divide in sports overshadows all of the other nuanced differences by so much that they almost disappear. For the sports where something other than sex is a material divider in performance, age or weight classes already exist.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Not directly.

Doctors ALREADY under-diagnoses and mistreat female patients. We already get our complaints ignored when it comes to pain and discomfort. I nearly died because my doctors didn't take my complaints seriously - and one of those was a female doctor. My mother ended up having to have part of their colon resectioned, because doctors repeatedly ignored her complaints of severe pain when having sex or defecating - they already knew my mom had endometriosis... but they kept brushing off their complaints until the endo had fused their colon to the back side of their uterus before they did anything.

It's not trans activists directly telling doctors what to do. It's trans activist organizations having a massive role in DEI stuff, framing the entire thing as "the civil rights issue of our generation" and having a massive influence on WHO. It's also the fact that if doctors don't support the desires of transgender people in today's environment, they're likely to get publicly lambasted for doing their jobs the right way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

My position is that the current environment of "affirm or lose your job" ends up prioritizing treatment of transgender identified individuals (even if it's not a clinically sound treatment in the first place), and that this furthers the divide in equitable treatment that females are subjected to.

 

[Samson]

"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.

Yes and I am on a steep learning curve how dangerous it has become.

Just popped up while typing

https://twitter.com/ElonMuskAOC/status/1670152671796383745?t=JI3LxwlhoVlGnfOlrgSDzg&s=19

 

[Emily's Cat]

//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?

https://www.hmpgloballearningnetwork.com/site/frmc/article/transgender-patients-calculating-actual-cost

Back of the envelope:

Estrogen + Spironalactone = ~$150 per month (injections of estrogen are highly preferred by most transgender identified males)
Boob implants = ~$10,000
Facial Feminization = ~$20,000
Penectomy, Orchiectomy, Vaginoplasty = ~$50,000

Let's assume a 10 year sentence for the hormones... and we're talking about just under $100,000. And that's for mid-range costs on the surgeries.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

$150 a month for a prisoner, for something that is voluntary and cosmetic.

Honestly, if the person had already transitioned prior to going to prison, I wouldn't object to the prison continuing their pre-existing hormone therapy.

The rest of it? No. Not unless they want to start covering breast enhancement/reduction and facial cosmetic surgeries for the "mental health" of all other prisoners too.

 

[Samson]

My position is that the current environment of "affirm or lose your job" ends up prioritizing treatment of transgender identified individuals (even if it's not a clinically sound treatment in the first place), and that this furthers the divide in equitable treatment that females are subjected to.

That is schematically exactly what happened in the 14 year old vs teacher case. It is unfortunate fundamental religion played a part, but still shows how the pied piper is operating in New Zealand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's not arbitrary though. There are extremely good and well known reasons for it.

Partly it's so that female have an opportunity to play sports AT ALL. And it's also because females are not just "small males".

FFS, we're not just "males with an innie". We're not a deviation from the ideal of the male body! There are a LOT of differences in our bodies - and those differences directly affect athletic ability.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

What "harm?"

There's always the risk of injury or secondary infection from ANY surgery. There's also an increased risk of ectopic pregnancy for females who have had tubal ligation versus those who have not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You do know that addresses nothing to do with any post I've ever made?

That ends up being the implicit argument whenever someone brings up the risk of abuse and rape being higher from people the female personally knows, especially from family... in the context of weakening safeguards outside of the home.

Maybe that's not what you personally intended... but the arguments are paired so often, it's hard not to assume that's where it leads.


This is kind of like if we were in a thread about the risk of child sexual abuse from carers at day cares and the need to maintain existing high standards of background checks and safeguarding practices... and someone drops in to inform everyone that most CSA victims are abused by their parents or close relatives.

Yes, it's true... and it's also irrelevant. Unless that person is arguing that we shouldn't bother with safeguarding practices altogether... in which case baby, bathwater, and the tub as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Evidence?

I'm not giving you my or my mother's medical records.