TERFs crash London Pride

kellyb said:
Did you see the study about how 64% of transkids are "desisters"?
Click to expand...


The articles I posted addressed that, hence the reason that extensive therapy is required. You're not saying anything new here, and again, you're arguing against a straw man if your own creation.
 
luchog said:
The articles I posted addressed that, hence the reason that extensive therapy is required. You're not saying anything new here, and again, you're arguing against a straw man if your own creation.
Click to expand...

The only thing I saw that addressed that was the debunking of the notion that it's 80% of transkids who are "desisters"...nothing addressing the 50-64% who actually are, unless I'm missing something.

eta:
And I'm not arguing a straw man, because you made the claim that "Studies indicate that gender identity, like sexual preference, is fixed at a very young age." The evidence does NOT exactly show that. There's at best a tiny amount of preliminary evidence that might end up being useful for predicting which kids are persisters vs desisters.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
The only thing I saw that addressed that was the debunking of the notion that it's 80% of transkids who are "desisters"...nothing addressing the 50-64% who actually are, unless I'm missing something.

eta:
And I'm not arguing a straw man, because you made the claim that "Studies indicate that gender identity, like sexual preference, is fixed at a very young age." The evidence does NOT exactly show that. There's at best a tiny amount of preliminary evidence that might end up being useful for predicting which kids are persisters vs desisters.
Click to expand...
I think you are on very shaky ground to consider "desisters" as defined above no longer consider themselves trans.
 
Darat said:
I think you are on very shaky ground to consider "desisters" as defined above no longer consider themselves trans.
Click to expand...

The assumption used above ("drop out of the clinic, must have just "gotten over" being trans") is questionable, but "no longer gender dysphoric" is generally the meaning of the word.

See:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...dy-of-Girls-With-Gender-Identity-Disorder.pdf
Regarding the persistence of gender dysphoria from the childhood
assessment to the follow-up, the present study found that the
vast majority of the girls showed desistance: 88% of the girls did
not report distress about their gender identity at follow-up. The
high rate of desistance appears to differ quite markedly from the
findings of other follow-up studies of adolescent girls and adult
women with GID (in which the baseline assessment is in adolescence
or adulthood). In these studies, the rate of GID persistence
appears to be, at minimum, around 70% (Cohen-Kettenis & van
Goozen, 1997; Smith, van Goozen, Kuiper, & Cohen-Kettenis,
2005). In a comparative developmental perspective, then, there
appears to be important variation in GID persistence between
childhood and adolescence/young adulthood.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
The assumption used above ("drop out of the clinic, must have just "gotten over" being trans") is questionable, but "no longer gender dysphoric" is generally the meaning of the word.

See:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...dy-of-Girls-With-Gender-Identity-Disorder.pdf
Click to expand...


Which is not even remotely the same as no longer being trans. Under that definition, I'm would likely be considered a "desister", as I have no intention on getting SRS, and don't really consider myself dysphoric. But I am still definitely trans.

Sounds like that particular study is not only way too limited in their sample size, but has some questionable assumptions and methodologies as well. Can't be arsed to dig through it right now, but does it account for familial and social pressures to conform to the cis mainstream? What about those who drop out because they can no longer afford therapy? What about all those trans teens who have never been able to afford to start therapy? Also, according to the title it appears to focus on biological females, do those same results hold up with biological males?

Too many unanswered questions here that can have a huge impact on the study's validity.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
The only thing I saw that addressed that was the debunking of the notion that it's 80% of transkids who are "desisters"...nothing addressing the 50-64% who actually are, unless I'm missing something.

eta:
And I'm not arguing a straw man, because you made the claim that "Studies indicate that gender identity, like sexual preference, is fixed at a very young age." The evidence does NOT exactly show that. There's at best a tiny amount of preliminary evidence that might end up being useful for predicting which kids are persisters vs desisters.
Click to expand...

It seems like the very existence of "desisters", regardless of how many there are, is evidence against the notion that kids are being talked into gender reassignment. That those years worth of therapy is doing its job in weeding out the ones who are not absolutely certain they want to do this.

Why are we talking about this?
 
Mycroft said:
It seems like the very existence of "desisters", regardless of how many there are, is evidence against the notion that kids are being talked into gender reassignment. That those years worth of therapy is doing its job in weeding out the ones who are not absolutely certain they want to do this.

Why are we talking about this?
Click to expand...

At this point we're talking about if it's true that "Studies indicate that gender identity, like sexual preference, is fixed at a very young age."
 
luchog said:
Which is not even remotely the same as no longer being trans. Under that definition, I'm would likely be considered a "desister", as I have no intention on getting SRS, and don't really consider myself dysphoric. But I am still definitely trans.

Sounds like that particular study is not only way too limited in their sample size, but has some questionable assumptions and methodologies as well. Can't be arsed to dig through it right now, but does it account for familial and social pressures to conform to the cis mainstream? What about those who drop out because they can no longer afford therapy? What about all those trans teens who have never been able to afford to start therapy? Also, according to the title it appears to focus on biological females, do those same results hold up with biological males?

Too many unanswered questions here that can have a huge impact on the study's validity.
Click to expand...

Well, absolutely all of the research is both small and new, and potentially flawed in numerous ways.

Re: if the females in the study are still trans, when the researchers say they "did not report distress about their gender identity at follow-up", I'd be surprised if that included having socially transitioned to self and social identification as a "boy", but just sans the desire for SR meds and surgery. Unless, of course, they were just hiding it, which is possible.

My sense is that we all need more data to know what's actually going on here with any of it, when you're talking about gender stereotype non-conforming kids as a group.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yep that is why it is important to have trans men compete with women, as seen in texas wrestling.

Does letting cis women who fail various tests at womanhood compete in women's sports destroy them or not? How strict does the biological definition of woman need to be for sports?
Click to expand...

It's not possible to change one's sex.

What is your non-strict definition of the word "woman"?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Given the access a child has these day to information, information relatively uncensored I suspect many learn about what they are a lot younger than even say a child 15 years ago would have done.
Click to expand...

They will find a lot of disinformation (transactivist propaganda) online telling them, that because they are uncomfortable with their "gender", then they must be transgender and their difficulties can be easily resolved by medical "science". It's rubbish; predation, really. Child abuse. The same disinformation is being pumped into schools. That is different from learning factual information about who they really are - i.e. young people being crushed into ill-fitting boxes in a world distorted by arbitrary, power-based gender stereotypes.

Nowadays, it is predominantly young women, rather than young men, who are coming to believe that they are "transgender". Is that a biological phenomenon? Or is it more likely socio-political?

Men’s cross-dressing and feminism now and then- by Sheila Jeffreys:

My new book on the history of lesbian feminism, The Lesbian Revolution: lesbian feminism in the UK 1970-1990, is published on 22 August. It documents the breadth and scope of the lesbian feminist culture, theory, practice and community that we created and shows how this has all been disappeared from history. It demonstrates many differences between the historical context at that time and that of today in which a new generation of lesbians are striving to recreate a lesbian feminist movement. One difference is the existence today of an influential men’s cross-dressing rights movement which enforces men’s access to lesbians wherever we seek to meet or network. Back in the 1970s there were men who cross-dressed and tried to enter lesbian spaces, but these were very few in number. They were isolated individuals such as the man who attended the 1973 West Coast Lesbian Conference in Los Angeles and created hugely damaging divisions. Robin Morgan gave a speech against what she called ‘the obscenity of male transvestism’ at the conference in honour of his presence. In London too, there were just one or two of these men who sought to enter women’s spaces and they were overwhelmingly opposed. The term ‘transgender’ had not been adopted at the time. These men were called transvestites or cross-dressers if they did not have penectomies and transsexuals if they did.

They were unable to divert or prevent lesbian organising at that time not just because there were only one or two, but because they did not have a political movement or ideology to support them. It was not until the 1990s that some male cross-dressers were able to use the Internet to organise internationally and create a unified set of political demands for the right to act out their proclivities in public, under the rubric of ‘gender identity’ or ‘gender expression’. Today gay rights organisations, governments, the UN, political parties, education and medical systems support these men’s rights. The queer ideology which supports them has been taught to generations of young people in universities so that they now assemble to chant and jostle at any feminist meetings they have not been able to get cancelled. This is a very different context in which to recreate lesbian feminism.

In the 1970s cross-dressing was an entirely male and adult hobby. None of us (lesbian feminists) knew of any lesbians who were taking hormones or embarking on surgery to impersonate men. Children were not being transgendered at all. Rather than this behaviour being supported by a global ideology, as it is now, which argues that gender is essential and everybody has to have one and get medical treatment if theirs goes astray, the problem was limited to the weird antics of a few men. Knowing this history is important because it undermines the notion that transgenderism is something essential rather than a very recent political and historical construction. At that time, feminist organising was overwhelmingly and uncontroversially women only. In London, lesbians and feminists opposed the entry of cross-dressing men to women’s discos, meetings, marches and conferences on the straightforward grounds that they were clearly men.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Outside of fairytales, transwomen are men in all situations.
Click to expand...

You say that as though you're declaring some existential truth, as opposed to just militantly supporting one of potentially several different definitions of the word "man".
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
You say that as though you're declaring some existential truth, as opposed to just militantly supporting one of potentially several different definitions of the word "man".
Click to expand...

It's a biological, scientific truth.

What's your definition of the word "woman"?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
It's a biological, scientific truth.

What's your definition of the word "woman"?
Click to expand...

In medical science, when someone is transgender, that will be noted specifically with the necessary details. And yes, in biology "male" and female" exist as distinct, and gender outside of sex is irrelevant.

One definition of woman is adult human female. Another could be something like "a person of intersex, male or female sex who chooses to disclose themselves as having the status and occupying the social space of an adult human female."
 
kellyb said:
In medical science, when someone is transgender, that will be noted specifically with the necessary details.
Click to expand...

What does this mean, in relation to one's sex?

And yes, in biology "male" and female" exist as distinct, and gender outside of sex is irrelevant.

One definition of woman is adult human female. Another could be something like "a person of intersex, male or female sex who chooses to disclose themselves as having the status and occupying the social space of an adult human female."
Click to expand...

Your second, "could" definition is vacuous. Status and social space (i.e. which gender stereotype you act out and in) are social constructs (roles) and, as you state, have nothing to do with whether you are male or female, except by mutable social definition. The gender-defined characteristics we perform don't affect what sex we are. However good a man is at mimicking the traditional mannerisms and behaviors of women's political subordination, he still won't be a woman.

Being born intersex is irrelevant to the claim that a biological man (born male) can supposedly turn into a biological woman (female).
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
What does this mean, in relation to one's sex?
Click to expand...

It means the doctor/researcher will note sex as well as gender presentation and sexual reassignment medications and/or surgery if transgender.

Your second, "could" definition is vacuous. Status and social space (i.e. which gender stereotype you act out and in) are social constructs (roles) and, as you state, have nothing to do with whether you are male or female, except by mutable social definition. The gender-defined characteristics we perform don't affect what sex we are. However good a man is at mimicking the traditional mannerisms and behaviors of women's political subordination, he still won't be a woman.
Click to expand...

You're back to simply asserting one of many potential definitions of the word woman again.

Being born intersex is irrelevant to the claim that a biological man (born male) can supposedly turn into a biological woman (female).
Click to expand...

You're mixing up the biological definitions/nature of male and female with the sociological nature of the concepts of man and woman there, again as though you're proclaiming some existential truth, when really you're simply being dogmatic about what you want to be the "real", "true", and only definitions of the words man and woman.

I honestly don't see the point of these vocabulary wars. The same debate happens over what the "real" "true" definition of the word racism is, and it seems to counterproductive for all involved there, too.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
..snip...

Being born intersex is irrelevant to the claim that a biological man (born male) can supposedly turn into a biological woman (female).
Click to expand...

That is of course a strawman, as no one in this thread is making that claim nor arguing that.

Why did you add the word "biological" in the above sentence?
 
kellyb said:
Another could be something like "a person of intersex, male or female sex who chooses to disclose themselves as having the status and occupying the social space of an adult human female."
Click to expand...

If that person is intersex or male then what they're occupying clearly isn't the status and social space of a female. And if anyone of any sex can occupy any social space then what does "social space of a female" mean? You've basically just gone with the circular "a woman is anyone who says they're a woman" but changed the wording slightly.

So yes, it is true that there are many possible alternative definitions for woman. Some circular, some self-contradictory, some meaningless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom