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

[Emily's Cat]

No.

I am saying what is true of biological sex is formally independent from anything the law says at all. The law does not discover natural truths. That's not what it's for. It can only make social arrangements around sex...and that's gender.

I am not talking about what distinctions the law can make. I am saying the law itself, as it pertains to sex, can only ever be a set of norms about what sex should entail in a social setting. That's gender. It's not sex. If you want to know something about a behavorial aspect of reproductive phenotype, ask a biologist or ethologist or some other relevant specialist. Definitely do not ask the law.

"Well, okay, I suppose we'll let people who cook and clean and take care of babies and wear dresses vote too. We've previously considered all of those people who do "womanly things" to be near-property subservient to the decisions made by their job-having/pants-wearing/in-charge people. But yeah, I suppose we can let the people who align with the social expectation of cooking/cleaning/baby-caring can vote and own property too.

And this has nothing at all to do with their sex, obviously."

 

[mumblethrax]

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

It's your claim. It's your homework, not mine. Give me a link and I'll read it. "The evidence is somewhere in a thousand-page garbage fire" is not evidence.

Sure. But the fact that it won't happen every time doesn't mean it's not happening at all.

If it's not happening every time, then it's obviously not an entitlement. What else needs to be said? People are once again imagining that saying "I'm trans!" magically means that no other considerations can be made. That's not true in general, and it's especially not true in prison.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Alternatively... what other mental health conditions are generally treated with cosmetic surgery?

The Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of '98 requires insurance plans that cover mastectomies to also pay for cosmetic breast reconstruction, which is not necessary to combat any disease or condition.

The entire justification of the law is a repudiation that all cosmetic surgeries are not medically necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Health_and_Cancer_Rights_Act

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"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.

Multiple states have proposed laws banning this care from adults as old as 26. Don't pretend this is only a position held by irrelevant nobodies, criminalizing trans affirming care universally is a goal held by many, many right wingers.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You've already said that it's possible to do this. Not my field, I don't care.

I note that you have elected to not answer. You're the one asserting that sex is bimodal because of "measurements" of "phenotypes". Obviously you must have something in mind. I'm not expecting you to be expert-level in your response... but I do expect that you be able to provide at least some things that you would measure, that would contribute to your asserted distribution.

I reject your premise altogether. But I'm willing to skip over the premise and discuss the remainder of your assertion on its own merits.

If you can't provide even some reasonable explanations that would support your assertion, then your position holds no water. You're doing nothing more than assuming that some answer exists somewhere, thought up by someone else. And from that assumption, you then conclude that your assertion must be true.

 

[theprestige]

Of course it would be bad. Rubberstamping any and all requests would be insane.

Why? Why do you think it would be insane to house male convicts with females, at their request?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then it shows your bias.

It shows my experience.

If you have experienced loads of lesbians who give zero ***** about the entirety of the females that they spend their time ogling, and who view the value of females as being attributable solely to whether or not those females are sexy enough to titillate them, feel free to share your own experiences.

 

[lobosrul5]

"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.

Seems to be mainstream in Florida.

A recent Florida law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) bans gender-affirming care for minors, but it also sets up significant barriers for transgender adults to get needed treatment — and puts the providers who care for them at significant risk of losing their licenses.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4050524-trans-adults-scramble-for-care-under-new-florida-law/

ETA: Yet unlike bans on gender-affirming health care in other states, the Florida law mandates adults sign an informed consent form approved by a state medical board appointed by the governor. The form doesn’t exist yet.

Ohh thats clever of them. Don't make it illegal to get care, just make it impossible.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

It shows my experience.

If you have experienced loads of lesbians who give zero ***** about the entirety of the females that they spend their time ogling, and who view the value of females as being attributable solely to whether or not those females are sexy enough to titillate them, feel free to share your own experiences.

Learning new things everyday. There are no womanizing lesbians. Neato

 

[Ziggurat]

Multiple states have proposed laws banning this care from adults as old as 26.

There's an ambiguity in English between past tense of "propose" and possessive "have" (with "proposed" as an adjective), and I'm not positive which one you mean. In the former case, states don't propose laws, individual legislators do. In the latter case, possession of a proposed law means basically nothing. Completely ridiculous stuff with no chance of passage gets proposed all the time, that says basically nothing about popular support for the idea.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There's an ambiguity in English between past tense of "propose" and possessive "have" (with "proposed" as an adjective), and I'm not positive which one you mean. In the former case, states don't propose laws, individual legislators do. In the latter case, possession of a proposed law means basically nothing. Completely ridiculous stuff with no chance of passage gets proposed all the time, that says basically nothing about popular support for the idea.

Do you think that, on our current course, such laws are unlikely to pass?

I suppose only time will tell.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It seems remarkably patriarchal and patronising to decide women shouldn't have agency regarding their own bodies and in particular their reproductive system. I can see a surgeon wanting to be sure someone understands what they are asking for, and ensuring they know what the consequences will be but in the end that type of call should be left to a woman and not be imposed on them by society.

I'm going to take a different view. I appreciate your stance on this. But I think this gets a little bit more complicated.

First off, most of the arguments around reproductive autonomy for females is focused on access to safe legal abortions. And while abortions are still invasive procedures, they're not at all the same as tubal ligation or hysterectomy. They don't require any actual cutting of the skin or organs, nor do they generally include anesthesia. If they're early in the pregnancy, they don't even need sedation. Abortions also don't leave the female sterile and unable to conceive or carry a fetus (extremely rare exceptions, of course). So while it's not "reversible" for the specific fetus being terminated, it's not a life-long physical impact, and it has no permanent effects.

To the extent that tubal ligation and hysterectomy do require anesthesia and actual surgery, they should fall under somewhat different guidelines. There are considerably different risks, as well as impacts. I don't think that an adult female should be denied those procedures because "they might change their mind"... but there can certainly be clinical considerations that make it unwise, or introduce risks that surgeons are unwilling to take.

Those procedures should be subjected to the same clinical guidelines and considerations as any other surgery that is not directly life-saving. Knee and hip replacements, thumb surgery to remove arthritis, spinal fusion, etc. All of those should be subject to good medical guidelines... but "you might change your mind" isn't one of them.

The problem with current medical approaches for tubal ligation and hysterectomy is that there's a lot of emphasis put on "you might change your mind" even when the female in question has already had children, or has a well-established intent to not have children (like me at 35).

At the end of the day, when it comes to medical intervention, "Because I really, really want it and it will make me happy" isn't sufficient reason for a doctor to agree to a procedure. On the other hand "You might change your mind" shouldn't be sufficient reason to deny a procedure to a well-informed adult either.

 

[mumblethrax]

How so? What physical condition is being alleviated by the surgery? What deleterious physical condition is being treated?

Why would there be a physical condition?

Alternatively... what other mental health conditions are generally treated with cosmetic surgery?

How should I know? It's either indicated or it isn't.

For what it's worth, I doubt very much that Owen would have ever received gender confirmation surgery.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The idea that hostility causes mental distress is not limited to trans people and not really that hard to comprehend.

Mentally stable people aren't thrown into suicidal despondency when someone doesn't adopt their special-use language.

You frame it as "hostility". It's not though. It's not hostile to prefer objective reality over someone's subjective and unverifiable beliefs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm glad you're the final arbiter of what kind of hostile and bullying remarks qualify.

As opposed to you being the final arbiter of what constitutes hostile and bullying in the first place?

That's the problem. You keep taking statements that are objective and reasonable, and then you just apply denigrating labels to them. As if somehow, by you labeling them "evil" it actually transforms them into evil.

It's very inquisitional logic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Although EC's doctor refusing to perform surgery when she is FORTY NINE is quite bizarre.

My doctor hasn't outright refused. But the hesitation is still incredibly annoying and frankly pisses me off. At my age, with the fibroid that tried to kill me growing back, I expected it to be a slam-dunk.

 

[mumblethrax]

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.

I don't even know what a 'scientific immutable fact' is supposed to mean. This is mostly gibberish, but if you mean the fact itself is immutable, you are taking a non-scientific worldview.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I, for one, encourage the anti-trans activists to focus on how nature never makes a mistake and doctors should deny patients the care they desire based on their own assessment on the value of fertility or whatever. A winning message sure to convince the masses.

Somehow I'm not convinced that you "encourage" people that you admittedly hate and display invective and hostility toward on a regular basis to make an irrational, unreasonable, and ridiculous argument that has zero bearing on their actual views.

Nothing quite like the emotional high of just assuming you're righteously justified in your hatred toward those you've deemed to be sinners.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unless we're planning on enslaving doctors, no medical profession should be forced to perform a procedure or prescribe medication if they feel the treatment would be harmful / unethical.

Fully agree.

I would add a corollary to this though. No doctor should be allowed to withhold procedures or medications on the basis of their religious beliefs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Who is "nobody" in this context? In this thread or more broadly?

Because generally speaking, there's lots of people who think that adults should not get the care they want, no matter how carefully they consider the issue. Hell, many of them are using political power to make such care for adults illegal.

And since none of them are participating in this thread... you're yelling into the abyss.