Trans Women are not Women

[cullennz]

Also, I think I should go on record as saying I would pay to see a trans only league. In any sport.

I find this slightly hard to believe.

 

[Mycroft]

Often, but not always. Society provides certain benefits for being a woman that a lot of men might like to have access to ...

You see this argument a lot. We can't recognize trans-people as the gender of their choice because if we did, someone might take unfair advantage for something nefarious. In this case it's insurance fraud, often it's about bathroom rights.

The problem I have with the argument is that it's always used to place an additional burden on the trans-person. "We can't allow Tammy to use the women's bathroom because if we do, some man will just say they feel like a woman today and go in there and sexually assault someone."

I propose that it makes more sense to turn that burden around. If someone identifies as trans and you or someone else objects, then it's up to them to say why that person isn't trans.

So if the insurance company doesn't want to recognize the person as a woman who only wants a better rate, that's okay with me. Just as it's okay with me if the book of world records doesn't want to recognize the power-lifting feat of that person who only identified as a woman long enough to lift those weights. Pointing out that they only identified as trans for the few minutes it took to do what they wanted and have never consulted a doctor or attorney seem like perfectly viable reasons not to consider them trans.

 

[Mycroft]

I find this slightly hard to believe.

Football? Check.
Basketball? Check.
Wrestling? Double-check.
Golf? Okay, maybe not, but I can't watch golf anyway.

 

[Ziggurat]

I propose that it makes more sense to turn that burden around. If someone identifies as trans and you or someone else objects, then it's up to them to say why that person isn't trans.

Then why isn't that weightlifter trans? You said he isn't, but what's your basis for that claim?

Regardless of where you want to put the burden of proof, you still need a standard if you want it to be anything other than self-declaration. If it's up to me to prove that someone isn't authentically trans, you still have to have some standard by which you can say, yes, you've proven they aren't authentically trans. Otherwise, there's nothing else except self-declaration. If you want it to be self-declaration and nothing more, then simply say so. There are consequences to that (such as the insurance thing, which isn't fraud because it's all perfectly legal), and you may be OK with those consequences, but they can't be wished away.

So if the insurance company doesn't want to recognize the person as a woman who only wants a better rate, that's okay with me.

It may be OK with you, but it's not OK with the government. The insurance company doesn't have the legal right to refuse recognition in that case.

Pointing out that they only identified as trans for the few minutes it took to do what they wanted and have never consulted a doctor or attorney seem like perfectly viable reasons not to consider them trans.

So is that your standard then? They have to consult a doctor or attorney (the guy in the insurance case did consult a doctor)? It has to be sustained for some period of time? You can make your standard whatever you want it to be, but you have to have one or you can't claim anyone's inauthentic.

 

[Mycroft]

Did you read the linked decision? The mother's opinion on the transition plays no part in the judge's consideration. In fact, the notion that either parent would have insight into the welfare of the child is completely absent. Only the child's desires and the opinions of the doctors are given any weight whatsoever.

Yes, I skimmed the decision. The mother was on board with it. I don't think it would have made it to court if she wasn't.

Moreover, there's a very troubling reliance on the asserted risk of suicide. This is troubling because there are lots of reports that kids are coached to say that they are feeling suicidal or will attempt suicide if they don't get what they want. There seems to be no effort by the court to determine if this risk is real.

Is that really the case? Or is it only an assertion from the anti-Trans crowd?

The fundamental question here is what if the child transitions, then later changes their mind and regrets it for the rest of their lives? That a very real and important consideration. We should try to make sure it's really the best choice for the child.

But another and equally important consideration is what if the child should transition, and that transition is delayed so the opportunity to make it as natural as possible is lost? The child would also regret that for the rest of their lives. That's no less a tragedy as the first scenario.

I'm going to posit that it's inevitable that there will be circumstances where the choice is made the wrong way, and that no matter what policies are put in place that there will be times when there is a result that is regretted. With that in mind, I don't see that delayed transitioning is the less regrettable outcome to the trans-person.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I skimmed the decision. The mother was on board with it. I don't think it would have made it to court if she wasn't.

That appears in the summary of the case. It plays zero part in the reasoning of the judge's decision.

Is that really the case? Or is it only an assertion from the anti-Trans crowd?

From what I can tell, that's sometimes really the case. See my above source. There's no way to tell if it's what happened in this specific case, but the possibility exists.

I'm going to posit that it's inevitable that there will be circumstances where the choice is made the wrong way, and that no matter what policies are put in place that there will be times when there is a result that is regretted. With that in mind, I don't see that delayed transitioning is the less regrettable outcome to the trans-person.

Of course the wrong decision will sometimes be made, regardless of who is empowered to make the decision. And I'm not claiming to have any insight at all into what the right decision should be in this case.

But you claimed that the decision should be made by the parents, doctor, and child. And in this case, it's not. It's being made by the doctor and the child. The court is explicitly ignoring the input of the parents. Seriously, at no point does the court give any weight to whether or not the parents might know what's best for the child.

 

[Mycroft]

Then why isn't that weightlifter trans? You said he isn't, but what's your basis for that claim?

I already answered that. You just didn’t quote that part.

Regardless of where you want to put the burden of proof, you still need a standard if you want it to be anything other than self-declaration.

Alright, sure. But it’s not up to you and me to hash it out. I’m content to leave it to the professionals who study and work with the issue.

It may be OK with you, but it's not OK with the government. The insurance company doesn't have the legal right to refuse recognition in that case.

I’m pretty sure that if the insurance industry can give different rates to women and men, that they can deny giving the rates of one gender to a person of the other gender. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

 

[cullennz]

Football? Check.
Basketball? Check.
Wrestling? Double-check.
Golf? Okay, maybe not, but I can't watch golf anyway.

Chess Boxing (Yes it really is a sport)

Cheese Rolling

Shin Kicking

Horse Dressage

Rhythmic Gymnastics

Bog Snorkelling

The annual watching people play video games thing

?

 

[Mycroft]

But you claimed that the decision should be made by the parents, doctor, and child. And in this case, it's not. It's being made by the doctor and the child. The court is explicitly ignoring the input of the parents. Seriously, at no point does the court give any weight to whether or not the parents might know what's best for the child.

To me it seems that the two parents disagree. I think it's more likely than not that if the mother didn't support the transition that there would never have been a case for the judge to rule on.

Which, in my opinion, means that the parents opinions were considered, only one of them was overruled.

 

[theprestige]

There's a huge difference between a judge saying, "the mother is in favor of this, and that's important to consider" and a judge saying, "the mother is in favor of this, but that isn't relevant".

Or in the judge considering the mother's opinion so irrelevant that they don't even mention it in their ruling. It's hard to argue that the judge took the mother's opinion into account, when they literally don't take it into account.

 

[Ziggurat]

To me it seems that the two parents disagree.

Probably. But the court doesn't care. The court didn't say, given the disagreement between the parents, the doctor's opinion tips the scales. The court says only the doctor's and the child's opinion matters.

I think it's more likely than not that if the mother didn't support the transition that there would never have been a case for the judge to rule on.

Likely in the sense that the mother probably hooked the child up with both the doctor and a lawyer. But that plays no role in the court's reasoning.

 

[Mycroft]

Chess Boxing (Yes it really is a sport)

Cheese Rolling

Shin Kicking

Horse Dressage

Rhythmic Gymnastics

Bog Snorkelling

The annual watching people play video games thing

?

I feel like I must see transgender chess boxing. It's not a thing yet, but it seems inevitable.

Shin kicking?

 

[Ziggurat]

Alright, sure. But it’s not up to you and me to hash it out. I’m content to leave it to the professionals who study and work with the issue.

It very much is for us to decide, since we live in a democracy and people want to use the power of government to enforce the decision.

I’m pretty sure that if the insurance industry can give different rates to women and men, that they can deny giving the rates of one gender to a person of the other gender. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

Canada has an actual standard for what constitutes authentically trans: a legal change in your designated sex. The guy who wanted a better insurance rate satisfied that standard. The insurance company has no grounds to contest it. They have to give him the women's rate, because legally, he is a woman. It's all in the link.

 

[Mycroft]

Probably. But the court doesn't care. The court didn't say, given the disagreement between the parents, the doctor's opinion tips the scales. The court says only the doctor's and the child's opinion matters.



Likely in the sense that the mother probably hooked the child up with both the doctor and a lawyer. But that plays no role in the court's reasoning.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

When the two parents disagree, how do you think the decision should be made?

 

[Mycroft]

It very much is for us to decide, since we live in a democracy and people want to use the power of government to enforce the decision.

So the government should have the right to make a very deeply personal decision?

How do you justify that?

 

[Ziggurat]

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

When the two parents disagree, how do you think the decision should be made?

Once again, the court doesn't care whether the parents agree or disagree. The court doesn't care what the parents think at all. This isn't a case of doctors tipping the balance between the parents, this is a case where only the doctors matter, and the parents are, legally speaking, irrelevant to the decision. Had the court decided that the doctor's opinion tipped the scale between the parents, then that would still align with what you said you wanted (the decision to be between the parents, doctor, and child). But that isn't what happened, at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

So the government should have the right to make a very deeply personal decision?

How do you justify that?

You seem to be confused about what I'm saying. The decision we're talking about is not what gender someone is. The decision we're talking about is what standards should apply to enforced recognition of a gender.

If government stays out of the issue completely, then no standards are necessary, we can all decide for ourselves not only what gender we want to claim, but what gender we will recognize in others.

But government isn't staying out of the issue, and transgender activists don't want it to. Government is forcing people to treat others as being of a specific gender. Since that involves the use of government power (and potentially even violence), and I have a say in how government power is exercised (because I live in a democracy), my opinion is relevant rgarding the standard government uses to decide what gender identity to enforce.

 

[Mycroft]

Once again, the court doesn't care whether the parents agree or disagree. The court doesn't care what the parents think at all. This isn't a case of doctors tipping the balance between the parents, this is a case where only the doctors matter, and the parents are, legally speaking, irrelevant to the decision. Had the court decided that the doctor's opinion tipped the scale between the parents, then that would still align with what you said you wanted (the decision to be between the parents, doctor, and child). But that isn't what happened, at all.

You conclude that this court didn't care, but I don't agree. The case was brought to the court because the parents disagreed, so their disagreement was inherent to the case.

Setting that aside, because we're not going to be able to resolve that disagreement and I don't see any benefit to a drawn out argument over it, how do you think the decisions should be made in cases where the parents disagree?

 

[Mycroft]

You seem to be confused about what I'm saying. The decision we're talking about is not what gender someone is.

Fair enough.

 

[Ziggurat]

You conclude that this court didn't care, but I don't agree. The case was brought to the court because the parents disagreed, so their disagreement was inherent to the case.

Courts replicate their reasoning across cases. The next case might not involve disagreeing parents.

Setting that aside, because we're not going to be able to resolve that disagreement and I don't see any benefit to a drawn out argument over it, how do you think the decisions should be made in cases where the parents disagree?

I'm OK with doctors tipping the balance of a disagreement between parents, because I don't see a better option. But if the case involves parents disagreeing with doctors, I don't think the court should automatically side with the doctors. But that court absolutely would do so.