Trans Women are not Women

[d4m10n]

But to "find oneself" transitioning between sexes sounds odd. As if it's something that just happens to a person instead of a conscious intentional decision.

I've little idea what it feels like to experience body dysphoria, much less gender dysphoria, but I cannot imagine the (presumably rather unpleasant) experience is something people are intentionally choosing for themselves.

 

[Puppycow]

I've little idea what it feels like to experience body dysphoria, much less gender dysphoria, but I cannot imagine the (presumably rather unpleasant) experience is something people are intentionally choosing for themselves.

True perhaps, but to transition involves lots of intentional decisions every day from what clothes to wear to what grooming practices to carry out to whether to visit a doctor and take hormones and get surgery and so on.

 

[theprestige]

tl;dr

[imgw=666]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6iOtAxXkAEq1PY.jpg[/imgw]

"Design the world." Now that's a phrase that smacks of hubris.

Hubris aside, it's also not quite right. The problem we're discussing isn't one of "world design". It's one of hearts and minds. Specifically, there are many women who do not wish their world to be co-opted into a design that accommodates transsexuals at the expense of their own accommodations. There is not likely to be any design that will accommodate their desire to have bathrooms and changing rooms that are closed to men regardless of those men's claimed self-identity.

 

[d4m10n]

...transition involves lots of intentional decisions every day from what clothes to wear to what grooming practices to carry out to whether to visit a doctor and take hormones and get surgery and so on.

These are decisions we make every day, which the exception of the highlighted bits. People who reject the imposition of gender as a binary can choose to groom and present in such a way as to cause some degree of confusion in the bathrooms, even if they have not yet been counseled by their doctor to undergo transitioning.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

then any objection to their behaviour is taken as an attack on all trans people.

No, that's wrong. Objecting to inappropriate behaviour is perfectly fine. The problem arises when it BECOMES an attack on trans people by punishing them for the inappropriate behaviour of others.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My preferred solution to this problem would be to reconsider whether we should want to preserve sex- or gender- segregation in a world increasingly peopled by those who find themselves either transitioning between sexes or else purposefully queering the gender binary. Even so-called genderfree women must be mistaken for men on occasion, whenever they refuse to take on the external trappings of womanhood (long hair, dresses, lipstick, etc.).

We are quite a way off that but hopefully at some point people can acknowledge 'it's more complicated than that' on a number of issues including sex and gender and we can start working on solutions that can work for everyone rather than trying to cling on to old ways.

 

[quadraginta]

... Do the objectors want guards at the door of every restroom to check the papers of each person who enters in case they are particularly good at impersonating the opposite sex?

Not the objectors in this thread, is the impression I've got.

The biggest objection Rolfe seems to have raised is that there is a prevailing attitude that no line can be drawn between people who are particularly good at impersonating the opposite sex, people who try to do so and people who pointedly make no attempt at all to try and simply declare they are the opposite sex.

Rolfe's particular objection is to the idea of a law which sanctions someone simply declaring themselves to be trans, along with the fear that this will be abused by male sexual perverts who only want access to women's spaces.

It should be recalled that the model she subscribes to, formulated by Ray Blanchard, does not allow for the idea that there is even such a thing as MtoF transgenderism, that all men who feel such dysphoria fall into one of only two groups, homosexual males, or this invented paraphilia, "autogynephilia", which means a male who derives sexual arousal from imagining themselves to be female (AKA, perverts).

This boils down to, essentially, 'There are no transwomen, and thus no line to be drawn.'

She seems to give some grudging concession to the idea that full bottom surgery is enough to sufficiently disarm a male who is that intent on invading women's spaces to satisfy their paraphilia.

The number of men may well be tiny who fantasize about having a female body and who also get a thrill from women's intimidation by their appearing in women-only spaces, yet if there cannot be any line drawn, then any objection to their behaviour is taken as an attack on all trans people.

This has nothing to do with being trans, and may even be a contraindication. And as you point out, it is a problem which is miniscule (to the degree that it exists at all).

We already have laws in place which would address such inappropriate behavior.

The actual problem is some natal women feeling intimidated. I'm not sure if there is is good short-term solution to this, but I suspect that advocating a viewpoint which basically demonizes transwomen as perverts isn't the best way to begin the search for one.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

...

My preferred solution to this problem would be to reconsider whether we should want to preserve sex- or gender- segregation in a world increasingly peopled by those who find themselves either transitioning between sexes or else purposefully queering the gender binary. Even so-called genderfree women must be mistaken for men on occasion, whenever they refuse to take on the external trappings of womanhood (long hair, dresses, lipstick, etc.).


tl;dr

[imgw=666]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6iOtAxXkAEq1PY.jpg[/imgw]

LoL - so much cringeworthiness on this forum.

 

[d4m10n]

LoL - so much cringeworthiness on this forum.

Emotional appeal is emotional.

 

[Dani]

The (proposed - depending on where you live) new legislation doesn't even require seeing a doctor. You just sign a form, and you're believed.

In Canada I believe you have to get a doctor to sign something but as that journalist woman who became a man despite doing nothing at all but tuck her hair into a baseball cap said, "well she'll have to sign it won't she or else she's a massive bigot." And so it was.

Well, that's certainly problematic if gender has social and legal relevance. It looks like gender can de facto be solely based on a subjective claim with that example.

 

[Belz...]

Emotional appeal is emotional.

And the attached file wasn't an appeal to emotion? That's the whole point here.

 

[d4m10n]

And the attached file wasn't an appeal to emotion? That's the whole point here.

It's a point of sorts, badly made.

I suppose we could say that minimizing cringeworthiness is a moral goal worth maximizing, but seriously?

 

[Ziggurat]

I am not a doctor so I can't tell you about what grounds there are for making or not making a diagnosis specifically but I can tell you that ANY professional worth their salt would not make a diagnosis that they did not believe was true.

That... doesn't really answer the question, if doctors are simply believing their patients.

One set of diagnostic criteria are listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Diagnosis

If a doctor felt a patient did not meet these it would be their professional responsibility to say so.

Sure, but everything on their looks like it comes from the patient's own diagnosis. For example, the APA criteria lists six items. Four of them are a "strong desire", one of them is a "strong conviction", all of which are obviously going to be self-reported by the patient. The only other one, "A significant incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one's sexual characteristics", can be either observed in the case of "expressed gender" or self reported in terms of "experienced gender". In other words, every single criteria can be satisfied by simply taking the patient's word for it. It's essentially still self-diagnosis. How many doctors are going to refuse their patients, even if they're uncertain? That's going to get them labelled transphobic, which could ruin their careers. In general, they may not take that risk, and I can't actually blame them in today's environment.

Also to get a GRC is a process that involves persuading a panel and they are denied sometimes (I don't have the numbers to say how often)

Doesn't apply in the US, nor do I expect they do much screening.

Which if true would make the switch to pure self-ID not worth people getting their pants in a twist about then, right?

That... doesn't help. At all. Yes, if the whole thing was a farce to begin with, and it's still a farce after a switch, then the switch didn't cause the farce. But it's still a farce.

But it's worse than that, because pure self-identification CAN introduce new problems. GRC's are supposed to be permanent. True pure self-identification allows switching on a whim.

It is certainly not the case that self-ID is extending a new set of rights that previously didn't exist with regards things like bathroom access.

Yes, actually it does, because the ability to switch back and forth between claimed genders allows people to pick and choose which rights they want in any given situation.

 

[Puppycow]

In other words, every single criteria can be satisfied by simply taking the patient's word for it.

I think for GID that's all there really is. You can talk to a person and get a sense of whether they seem sincere or not, but that's probably a bit subjective. There are a few cases where they clearly aren't sincere, like the weightlifter who said he would "identify as female" for long enough to break all the women's records and then go back to "identifying as male". But if you want to be sure confident (as much as possible), you could have a long discussion with the patient similar to a therapy session. Doctors are asked to determine if a person accused of a crime is competent to stand trial by evaluating their mental state.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think for GID that's all there really is. You can talk to a person and get a sense of whether they seem sincere or not, but that's probably a bit subjective. There are a few cases where they clearly aren't sincere, like the weightlifter who said he would "identify as female" for long enough to break all the women's records and then go back to "identifying as male". But if you want to be sure confident (as much as possible), you could have a long discussion with the patient similar to a therapy session. Doctors are asked to determine if a person accused of a crime is competent to stand trial by evaluating their mental state.

Professionals are rarely going to take the time to determine this if they're just being asked to say yes or no on a form, and the patient can just go to another one if the first doc/psychologist refuses.

But there's another category of problem patients here besides frauds. There are also people who are sincere in their beliefs, but just wrong. For example, sexual abuse survivors who want to transition as a way to escape their trauma, but who should really be receiving counseling instead. Another category that I don't think has been touched upon much but is of particular concern with children is autistics. They don't fit it, they have all sorts of social problems, and sometimes they get convinced that the source of those problems isn't their autism (which they can't do anything about) but their gender. They aren't lying, but they aren't correct either. Autistic girls can't navigate the increasing social complexity of pubescent girls, and autistic boys can't match the athleticism and aggression of pubescent boys. So they're going into puberty feeling like they don't fit in with their gender (and in a sense they don't), people keep telling them that switching genders will fix all these issues, and it won't. They will still be autistic, they will still have a hard time socializing with either gender. But in this day and age, who is going to tell them that? Who is even going to tell them that the problems of puberty are much less severe in adulthood, even for autistic people, and that they shouldn't mutilate themselves over what may be a passing problem? In fact, in some states doing so is effectively outlawed under "conversion therapy" bans.

 

[Puppycow]

Professionals are rarely going to take the time to determine this if they're just being asked to say yes or no on a form, and the patient can just go to another one if the first doc/psychologist refuses.

But there's another category of problem patients here besides frauds. There are also people who are sincere in their beliefs, but just wrong. For example, sexual abuse survivors who want to transition as a way to escape their trauma, but who should really be receiving counseling instead. Another category that I don't think has been touched upon much but is of particular concern with children is autistics. They don't fit it, they have all sorts of social problems, and sometimes they get convinced that the source of those problems isn't their autism (which they can't do anything about) but their gender. They aren't lying, but they aren't correct either. Autistic girls can't navigate the increasing social complexity of pubescent girls, and autistic boys can't match the athleticism and aggression of pubescent boys. So they're going into puberty feeling like they don't fit in with their gender (and in a sense they don't), people keep telling them that switching genders will fix all these issues, and it won't. They will still be autistic, they will still have a hard time socializing with either gender. But in this day and age, who is going to tell them that? Who is even going to tell them that the problems of puberty are much less severe in adulthood, even for autistic people, and that they shouldn't mutilate themselves over what may be a passing problem? In fact, in some states doing so is effectively outlawed under "conversion therapy" bans.

I think I agree with your second paragraph. This suggests though, that it's important for professionals to actually take the time and steps to diagnose the patient correctly, and not just sign a form because it's easier. It's a matter of how seriously do they take the responsibilities of their job. Could a doctor later be sued for malpractice if they misdiagnose someone with gender dysphoria? There should be some kind of standard procedure to follow at least.

 

[Meadmaker]

We are quite a way off that but hopefully at some point people can acknowledge 'it's more complicated than that' on a number of issues including sex and gender and we can start working on solutions that can work for everyone rather than trying to cling on to old ways.

If by "work for everyone" you mean keeping everyone happy, then I have bad news. It won't happen.

 

[sadhatter]

Now this raises an interesting perspective for me.

Once you take this question beyond the abstract and metaphysical and into the real world, anyone who can "pass" can pass, regardless of objections. Do the objectors want guards at the door of every restroom to check the papers of each person who enters in case they are particularly good at impersonating the opposite sex? If not, will you personally challenge anyone who you think might not belong there? Who is to enforce the restroom laws?

Same people who enforce shoplifting laws.

When someone makes a complaint it is acted upon.

You might as well say "how on earth could we stop all people from not paying to see movies? Do we have someone check tickets constantly during the film. " no, we take a reasonable amount of effort to remedy a problem that likely will not be 100 percent fixed due to the private nature of a restroom.

Are you telling me if asked you could find no solution that would work well enough to appease your average person?

If so your problem solving skills blow.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That... doesn't really answer the question, if doctors are simply believing their patients.

Well, it does answer the question you asked. Perhaps not to your liking. But as I have previously stated that is the case for a lot of, if not every, mental health condition.

How does a doctor know you are depressed? Suffering from anxiety? Because you tell them you are, explain the symptoms and they believe you.

Sure, but everything on their looks like it comes from the patient's own diagnosis. For example, the APA criteria lists six items. Four of them are a "strong desire", one of them is a "strong conviction", all of which are obviously going to be self-reported by the patient. The only other one, "A significant incongruence between one's experienced or expressed gender and one's sexual characteristics", can be either observed in the case of "expressed gender" or self reported in terms of "experienced gender". In other words, every single criteria can be satisfied by simply taking the patient's word for it. It's essentially still self-diagnosis. How many doctors are going to refuse their patients, even if they're uncertain? That's going to get them labelled transphobic, which could ruin their careers. In general, they may not take that risk, and I can't actually blame them in today's environment.

How else could it possibly be? It's not self-diagnosis any more than depression is self-diagnosis.

Doesn't apply in the US, nor do I expect they do much screening.

There's quite a lot of 'expecting' and assuming on your part to get to your conclusion.

[/quote]That... doesn't help. At all. Yes, if the whole thing was a farce to begin with, and it's still a farce after a switch, then the switch didn't cause the farce. But it's still a farce. [/quote]

But it is the point I was making. The whole thing is confused and people are making claims that are untrue. The whole controversy here is about Self-ID and yet it is not Self-ID that causes the problems being raised.

But it's worse than that, because pure self-identification CAN introduce new problems. GRC's are supposed to be permanent. True pure self-identification allows switching on a whim.

And you are adding to the confusion by making claims like this. Switching on a whim is not what is proposed. You are coming up with some new idea and trying to claim it is what is being talked about. It isn't.

Yes, actually it does, because the ability to switch back and forth between claimed genders allows people to pick and choose which rights they want in any given situation.

Which isn't Self-ID as it is proposed. There is no legal process that I am aware of to switch back and forth between genders on a whim.

All of this being the case, do you have an actual objection to Self-ID as it proposed? If so what is it?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Professionals are rarely going to take the time to determine this if they're just being asked to say yes or no on a form, and the patient can just go to another one if the first doc/psychologist refuses.

I can't really speak for the US - it seems the system there is much more transactional but yes, here in the UK, a professional would absolutely be EXPECTED to 100% of the time take the time to determine if what they are being asked to attest to on a legal form is true or not. That's part of what being a professional means.

But there's another category of problem patients here besides frauds. There are also people who are sincere in their beliefs, but just wrong. For example, sexual abuse survivors who want to transition as a way to escape their trauma, but who should really be receiving counseling instead. Another category that I don't think has been touched upon much but is of particular concern with children is autistics. They don't fit it, they have all sorts of social problems, and sometimes they get convinced that the source of those problems isn't their autism (which they can't do anything about) but their gender. They aren't lying, but they aren't correct either. Autistic girls can't navigate the increasing social complexity of pubescent girls, and autistic boys can't match the athleticism and aggression of pubescent boys. So they're going into puberty feeling like they don't fit in with their gender (and in a sense they don't), people keep telling them that switching genders will fix all these issues, and it won't. They will still be autistic, they will still have a hard time socializing with either gender. But in this day and age, who is going to tell them that? Who is even going to tell them that the problems of puberty are much less severe in adulthood, even for autistic people, and that they shouldn't mutilate themselves over what may be a passing problem? In fact, in some states doing so is effectively outlawed under "conversion therapy" bans.

Well this would all be part of the process of treating the condition. If they choose to explore transition then counselling etc is part of that journey.

Your problem seems to be that doctors aren't doing their jobs properly? Do you have evidence that this is the case or just a hunch?