• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trausti said:
You feel that a plastic surgeon should be forced to do a mastectomy on a 13 year-old even if the surgeon feels the procedure unethical?
Click to expand...

I personally would only consider that unethical if the reason for the mastectomy was for non-trans reasons medically necessary reasons. Ie many of her female ancestors died of a young age from breast cancer, and both she and her parents decide that lets just get out ahead of it, and medical science agrees that its an appropriate course of action.

My point is, it is not enslavement if the surgeons employer requires him to perform surgeries in certain situations as a condition of employment. Nor is it enslavement if the USA comes up with laws deciding if and when a medical practioner can refuse treatment.
 
mumblethrax said:
We're talking about prison. In Florida. There will be a bureaucratic process for becoming considered a transgender prisoner, and processes that follow from that.

Nobody's talking about social niceties here.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about public policy about trans identity and sex segregation. Should a male convict be entitled to be housed in a women's prison, and entitled to "gender affirming treatment" at the taxpayer's expense, simply because he says he wants to? If so, why? Because that's a human right? Or because he has a serious mental health issue and will suffer unnecessarily if his demands are not met?

If it's the former, then we can talk about why we think that's a human right, and how we think it should interact with a woman's right to not be housed with men if she doesn't wish it.

If it's the latter, then shouldn't it come with a medical diagnosis and a prescribed course of treatment? Not just in prison but anywhere else a man declares his desire to transcend sex segregation?

ETA: "Nobody's talking about social niceties here." Yes, exactly! Because the social niceties of gender identity are meaningless. Decoupled from sex, gender has no definition, no meaning, no practical application. The only place gender identity actually has any meaning at all - aside from each individual's own unique sense of gender - is when it comes to sex segregation in public policy. (Incidentally, I think that once you settle the public policy about sex segregation, the social niceties will sort themselves out pretty quick.)
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I'm talking about public policy about trans identity and sex segregation. Should a male convict be entitled to be housed in a women's prison, and entitled to "gender affirming treatment" at the taxpayer's expense, simply because he says he wants to? If so, why? Because that's a human right? Or because he has a serious mental health issue and will suffer unnecessarily if his demands are not met?

If it's the former, then we can talk about why we think that's a human right, and how we think it should interact with a woman's right to not be housed with men if she doesn't wish it.

If it's the latter, then shouldn't it come with a medical diagnosis and a prescribed course of treatment? Not just in prison but anywhere else a man declares his desire to transcend sex segregation?
Click to expand...

This seems best understood as our present caste system; or progressive stack. Trans are at the top. They're sacred. They get whatever they want. The ultimate triumph of the patriarchy.
 
theprestige said:
I'm talking about public policy about trans identity and sex segregation. Should a male convict be entitled to be housed in a women's prison, and entitled to "gender affirming treatment" at the taxpayer's expense, simply because he says he wants to?
Click to expand...
No, that would be incredibly myopic. And I don't think that's the case anywhere.

If it's the latter, then shouldn't it come with a medical diagnosis and a prescribed course of treatment? Not just in prison but anywhere else a man declares his desire to transcend sex segregation?
Click to expand...
There are pretty obviously different standards between prisons and the rest of society, unless you want to live in a police state.

Their lives are regulated to a totalitarian degree. Ours aren't.
 
mumblethrax said:
That prisoners have been transferred without any review process whatsoever?
Click to expand...

Oh, the requests might have been reviewed. But they were still approved on the basis of just a claim to being trans. Such cases have been mentioned multiple times upthread.
 
mumblethrax said:
No, that would be incredibly myopic. And I don't think that's the case anywhere.
Click to expand...
What's your argument for why it's myopic? What criteria do you think should be applied, before granting a male convict's request to be housed with females?

I have my own arguments, of course. But you're obviously still new to this debate. I'd like to get a fresh, more trans-inclusionist perspective, if you don't mind.
 
Ziggurat said:
Oh, the requests might have been reviewed. But they were still approved on the basis of just a claim to being trans. Such cases have been mentioned multiple times upthread.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not going to look for that needle in a haystack, and I very much doubt it's true.

There's a hell of a difference between "may request" and "are entitled to" in any case.
 
theprestige said:
What's your argument for why it's myopic? What criteria do you think should be applied, before granting a male convict's request to be housed with females?
Click to expand...
Most obviously, whether it can be done safely. What was the crime the prisoner was convicted of? Does the prison in question have routine contact between inmates? Are there separate facilities? Would the prisoner be required to bunk with other women? What is the prison's overall safety record? How is this prisoner being treated in men's prison (if they're already there)?

Then there will probably need to be an assessment of the likely mental health consequences for denial.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
To my knowledge, the moves to legally restrict medical transition in the US have all been in regards to children, not adults.
Click to expand...

But they are advocating for exactly that.

Some of the most vocal proponents of bans on gender-affirming care have openly stated that the focus on youth was to open the door to further attacks on trans rights and health care. Terry Schilling, president of the conservative American Principles Project, which lobbies and runs ads for Republican candidates, told the New York Times in January that their ultimate goal was to eliminate all transition care, and that focusing on minors was just “going where the consensus was.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is currently tracking 431 anti-LGBTQ2S+ bills that are on the table for the 2023 legislative session in the U.S.

More than 115 of those bills pertain directly to health care for trans people -- largely seeking to ban or restrict access to gender-affirming care.
Click to expand...

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/gender-affirming-care-bans-expanding-access-being-cut-u-s-laws-now-targeting-transgender-adults-1.6331068
 
mumblethrax said:
Well I'm not going to look for that needle in a haystack, and I very much doubt it's true.
Click to expand...

Doubt however much you want to, I'm not in the mood to do your homework for you.

There's a hell of a difference between "may request" and "are entitled to" in any case.
Click to expand...

Sure. But the fact that it won't happen every time doesn't mean it's not happening at all. It is happening. And that's a natural if not inevitable result of self ID. Which is one of the central disputes in this thread. I don't recall if you ever voiced an opinion in favor of or against self ID, but hopefully you can at least understand why some people oppose it.
 
mumblethrax said:
Fair enough.

It doesn't really matter in any case...there's nothing wrong with coining a new sense of a word. Happens all the time. And it needed to happen, because people routinely attributed to sex things non-biological.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with coining a new sense of a word.

There IS something wrong with trying to retroactively apply that newly-coined meaning onto prior uses.
 
mumblethrax said:
The law very obviously mutable, and change is good (although not every instance of change will be).

I mean, do you want us to still have a 12th century understanding of sex? If not, you're going to have concede both these points, on pain of becoming insanely reactionary.
Click to expand...

Your problem with a mutable law is that in this instance you are dealing with the most scientifically immutible facts of all - the biological sex of the human race. Half the human race have penises (call them males eh? )and the other half have vaginas (females even?) The females don't want the males intruding into their private spaces, both figurative and literally, and they don't want to have to compete in sports against opponents that have a built in biological advantage. That WILL NOT change and the law needs to reflect that fundamental fact.
However hard the trans addicts peddle their pseudo scientific twaddle, or even under government fiat, females will not accept penises being waved around in their personal spaces and I for one don't blame them.
Am I insanely reactionary? Nope, I'm sanely reactionary against what I consider to be a monumental scam by the "It's not fair" brigade. "Those poor trans people!, we must make it fair for them even if it means disadvantaging the vast majority of the female population! Those nasty cisgens have had their turn and it's time they learned to buckle under!"
 
TurkeysGhost said:
But they are advocating for exactly that.
Click to expand...

"They"? No, not some nebulous they. You found one group, with a budget of a measly $2 million. That's chump change in US politics, most of it probably going to salaries. Sure, there's a fringe that wants to ban all trans care. You can find fringes for almost any position. It's not a mainstream position even within conservative circles, and isn't likely to become one. And NOBODY in this thread has ever expressed that opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom