Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Emily's Cat]

"Transgender women tend to have brain structures that resemble cisgender women, rather than cisgender men."

I'm guessing that you haven't read back through prior pages of this thread. Given its length, that is quite a reasonable decision.

On this note, however, the science involved is misleading. It's a case of a statistically significant difference in the means of a very few brain attributes... while glossing over the fact that the statistically significant differences are 1) immaterial in their difference, 2) extremely few attributes out of an organ with thousands and thousands of attributes, and 3) not predictive.

We had a long discussion several pages back about the difference between a statistical difference in means for a bimodal distribution, in the context of whether the means themselves are materially different relative to the standard deviations of the distributions. Your own links were clear that the differences measured, while technically statistically different, are not predictive.

As an example... if you take someone who is 5'8", and you know nothing else about them at all, can you tell whether they're a male or a female? No, you can't, because 5'8" is well within the standard deviation of height for both males and females. The overlap in the distributions of height between males and females is significant. In total, the distribution of height for humans is weekly bimodal across sex.

Conversely, if you take someone who's shoe size is W8 (US), they're very likely to be female, because foot size is strongly bimodal across sex. While it's not perfect, it's reasonably predictable. The overlap in the distribution of foot sizes between adult males and adult females is small relative to their standard deviation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I did indeed.

And what I provided was links to a plenty of evidence showing that there are now good scientific data informing the conclusion that a) gender dysphoria is a genuine condition (as opposed to being the product of a mental disorder), and that therefore b) properly-diagnosed transgender people have the right to be identified as their new gender.

Two points here.

1) Mental disorders ARE real genuine conditions. My sister is bipolar, and it is most definitely both a mental disorder and a genuine condition. My spouse is AHDH, and it is both a mental disorder and a genuine condition.

2) There's only minimal push-back in this thread regarding properly-diagnosed transgender people. The push-back has very largely been against self-identification alone as sufficient for people to be treated as their identified gender, especially in cases where there is a conflict in rights and security for women.

 

[theprestige]

Fair enough! You do you. Good luck!
I'm not into dictating these sorts of things....until they carry some dutiful expectation for me specific to it.

What you describe seems to encompass all kinds of persons, not just 'transgenders' but the fluid, the cross-dressers, and the 'switchers' or, for the young, the pressured-but-after puberty norm.

It encompasses everyone except the cis-normatives. Everyone else gets to choose a balance that fits them.

 

[LondonJohn]

Two points here.

1) Mental disorders ARE real genuine conditions. My sister is bipolar, and it is most definitely both a mental disorder and a genuine condition. My spouse is AHDH, and it is both a mental disorder and a genuine condition.

No - I've already addressed this.

I am not saying that mental disorders are not genuine conditions. I am saying that beliefs which are the product of mental disorders are not (usually) valid beliefs.

And I used the following example to illustrate what I mean:

Delusional disorders are genuine conditions.

But if someone with a delusional disorder believes (sincerely) that he is the incarnation of King Henry VIII, then that belief (which is the product of a genuine disorder) is not a valid belief.

2) There's only minimal push-back in this thread regarding properly-diagnosed transgender people. The push-back has very largely been against self-identification alone as sufficient for people to be treated as their identified gender, especially in cases where there is a conflict in rights and security for women.

Are you sure about this? Because I don't believe that your understanding on this is correct.

And as far as I can tell, nobody has been making out that they are specifically talking about people who just decide to self-identify as transgender (ie without any medical assessment or diagnosis).

Because I can be pretty much completely certain that, for example, those of us within this thread who are arguing on the "side" of transgender issues would not hesitate to agree in a heartbeat that what we're arguing in no way relates to instances of mere self-identification. In fact, I can remember off the top of my head several recent posts I've made (in respect of the "transgender people in changing rooms" issue) in which I've explicitly stated that I'm explicitly NOT talking about scenarios in which (eg) a man decides he's going to self-identify as a trans woman, and that this then confers upon him the right to enter and use the women's changing facilities.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You really don't understand anything about gender dysphoria, yet you just immediately dismiss it anyway. Very well, i'll indulge you.

I don't dismiss it. I am quite certain that gender dysphoria exists.

Because I have never viewed myself as male, I never liked the fact that I was born with a penis and testicles. I have become more tolerable of it than other trans women, and therefore can somewhat live with it, but I still had moments when I wanted to cut it off and just be done with it (and then I thought about the inevitable pain and stopped myself.)

When you say you never viewed yourself as male... what does that mean to you? What are the thoughts or behaviors or perceptions that make you feel like a woman? What does the term woman mean to you?

And had two separate points in my life where my disgust over my body not aligning with my gender became so great that I took a bottle of pills and tried to off myself like so many trans teens try to do due to transphobic attitudes they encounter. Luckily I didn't succeed, like so many of us ultimately do. But i'm still part of the 40% of transpeople who have attempted it.

My life would be easier with a vagina at this point because my penis has become even more of a hindrance now as a woman. I don't have the function or interest in using it anyway, and it is a deal-breaker for a lot of guys now that I feel comfortable enough to actually start dating. But i'm also poor and have extreme anxiety about any kind of surgery.

I'm sorry that you've had such anxiety and distress, I truly am. I understand that gender dysphoria can be very emotionally stressful and cause severe discontent, and I would never wish that pain on anyone. I can likewise understand a reticence to have surgery for any reason at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't remember everything they have said in this entire thread, especially since It's been going on for a while, but they haven't said anything I disagree with as far as I know. And I appreciate those allies, even though you dismiss them because of their gender.

I don't dismiss them because of their gender. I tune them out because, frankly, I'm really, really tired of men telling women how to be women, and dictating what needs to be important to women, and otherwise dismissing the concerns and inequities that women face as being less important than someone else's feelings.

You mentioned earlier that you acknowledge that you weren't raised as a female, and that there are significant portions of the female experience that you know you lack. This is one of them.

It is incredibly common for men, in general, to dismiss the concerns and needs of women. Women's worries and issues are "not a big deal" and it's nothing to get upset about - women just overreact. It's incredibly common for women to be talked over, to have their views and suggestions discounted, and to find themselves being silenced or ignored in favor of the voices of men.

You want me to treat you like a woman, and I'll be happy to for the great majority of situations. But it does also require that you don't act like a man and demean me or my concerns. Don't dismiss my view and my experience. Don't insist that your desires are more important than my needs and my concerns. In other words... please stop treating me like men treat women. Treat me like women treat women.

You say that you are a woman, full stop. As much of a woman as any other female. I respectfully request that you put some effort into understanding the perspective of women, and the experience of women, and the lack of equality of women. Especially before insisting that we give up our progress and our security so that you feel more self-actualized.

And cullennz's has been using "blokes" to refer to us as well, so i'm glad you found a new way to misgender us if you want to.

I'm not 100% sure about cullennz's usage, but I think you might be misreading him. You're definitely misreading me if you think I've misgendered you or anyone. I consider it courtesy and basic human decency, and I believe I've been pretty damned consistent throughout this thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't dismiss it. I am quite certain that gender dysphoria exists.

But are you certain that it exists as a medical condition, or strictly as a medical disorder?*

When you say you never viewed yourself as male... what does that mean to you? What are the thoughts or behaviors or perceptions that make you feel like a woman? What does the term woman mean to you?

I suspect that this is one of the lines of investigation that the medical professionals took as part of their assessment and diagnosis of Boudicca90. But of course it's entirely up to her as to whether she chooses to expand upon this in any response.

I'm sorry that you've had such anxiety and distress, I truly am. I understand that gender dysphoria can be very emotionally stressful and cause severe discontent, and I would never wish that pain on anyone. I can likewise understand a reticence to have surgery for any reason at all.

I can entirely understand that someone could/would be saddened and empathetic over these sorts of distressing details (and frankly, one would have to be pretty devoid of basic humanity not to....). But sympathy/empathy is a different matter from whether a) you are sympathetic/empathetic towards someone who, in your view, is suffering from issues related to a valid medical condition, or b) you are sympathetic/empathetic towards someone who, in your view, is suffering from the product of a mental disorder.


* Incidentally, one of the key criteria in assessing whether something is a "disorder" or a "condition" is this: a disorder is capable of - and worthy of - being medically treated, and it's appropriate to talk in terms of a "cure"; a condition is not any of those things.

Thus in the modern enlightened age, one is able to talk about treating or curing things such as delusional disorders or body dysphoria; but one is not able to talk about treating or curing gender dysphoria (or, for example, homosexuality...).

 

[LondonJohn]

Interestingly, this one seems to border on suggesting that homosexuality isn't a thing, it's actually all gender incongruence...


This article points to several areas of study going on surrounding gender dysphoria, but doesn't note anything as being conclusive.


This one, again, points to things still under investigation. The exception, the one item that gets specific scientific notice, is about sexual behavior. It's actually the same study referenced in your first link, and goes much further to explaining homosexuality than explaining gender dysphoria.



I'll note that this opinion piece pretty much relies on the "not all women have periods" argument to come to the (errant) conclusion that there's no such thing as the lived experience of being a woman. This is really pretty much like saying that because not all black men have run-ins with the police or face discrimination, well, there's no such thing as the lived experience of black people in the US. I think we would all agree that such a sentiment is tripe.

Oh, I forgot momentarily to respond to this one. Sorry.

As a blanket response, I'd say this: none of the evidence shows conclusively that gender dysphoria is an authentic, lived condition. But the summation of the evidence leads to this ultimate conclusion: the balance of medical/scientific understanding necessitates that gender dysphoria is indeed an authentic, lived condition. And in matters such as this, medicine does not require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" - indeed, owing to the nature of the issue, it's very unlikely that this level of proof could ever be reached.

And, as I've also pointed out (and I don't think it's an illogical/improper circular argument), the summation of the evidence has clearly led global medical experts, pan-national health bodies, and various national governments (including, I believe, your own) to reclassify gender dysphoria.

 

[p0lka]

Just don't see much difference between some bloke who thinks they don't look manly enough with body dysphoria; which is a disorder and some bloke who thinks they should look more feminine.

But the gender one got changed from a disorder.

After my kid(adult) started using oestrogen hormones to go a particular way, I did think possibly that maybe the lack of testosterone might be a cause?

Maybe some of the gender confusion is caused by a lack of the relevant hormones they should have, I thought.

Maybe anyone who wants to take hormones to do the switch, should first take the hormones that correspond to their present selves (oestrogen or testosterone) before they make the decision, I thought.

I would love to see what results if people who are saying they're a different gender, get treated with hormones that correspond to their sex first, then they decide.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But are you certain that it exists as a medical condition, or strictly as a medical disorder?*

I am undecided, and I'm also not a doctor.

I suspect that this is one of the lines of investigation that the medical professionals took as part of their assessment and diagnosis of Boudicca90. But of course it's entirely up to her as to whether she chooses to expand upon this in any response.

I'm sure they did... but somehow nobody seems to be able to explain what it means.

I can entirely understand that someone could/would be saddened and empathetic over these sorts of distressing details (and frankly, one would have to be pretty devoid of basic humanity not to....). But sympathy/empathy is a different matter from whether a) you are sympathetic/empathetic towards someone who, in your view, is suffering from issues related to a valid medical condition, or b) you are sympathetic/empathetic towards someone who, in your view, is suffering from the product of a mental disorder.

I don't follow the distinction you're making here. Even with your description of condition versus disorder, this doesn't make sense to me. Mental disorders ARE valid medical conditions. I have a family full of variety medical conditions, including mental disorders. I have sympathy for the distress of another person, regardless of the cause of that distress.

I think it's more useful to consider how far my sympathy extends. Does it extend to courtesy and reasonable treatment to alleviate their distress? Most likely, yes. Does it extend to reducing the rights and safety of other people, or regressing on the progress toward rights that others have made? Gets a bit dicey, we're going to need to have some discussions about that. Does it extend to me altering my perception of objective reality in order to accommodate their condition? That's probably a no.

I'm epileptic, and sensitive to sounds. Fire alarms are horrible things for me, and I have a real likelihood of going into a seizure on the way down the stairs during a fire drill at work. I have a real valid medical condition. But I don't think that my condition is sufficient to argue that the building should get rid of fire alarms.

I am perfectly happy to treat a transgender person as their identified gender in the majority of situations. I'll use the appropriate pronouns, I'll ignore the five-o'clock shadow, and I'll generally interact with them as they wish to be treated. It gets hairier when we start talking about sex-segregated spaces and services, prisons, scholarships, and other things that are supposed to help advance equality for women, and which transwomen are asking to have the same access to. For some of those services, maybe, for others, I want concessions from them as well. For example, testosterone limits to play in women's sports. And full surgical transition if you want to be in the female prison ward, or if you want to apply for women's scholarships. I don't think it's unreasonable, and most of what I want has been very much in alignment with Boudicca's perspective.

Where we end up differing is in the claim that a transwoman is as much of a woman as a natal women, in every meaningful sense of the word "woman". It's in the insistence that I perceive transwomen as women, based only on their claim that they *are* women. Biological and anatomical sex differences are real, and meaningful. I cannot wish away my perception of them, no matter how much I might sympathize with someone else's distress. Social discrimination and inequities are a real thing, and I can't just pretend that the lived experience of women is meaningless.

I especially can't do any of that when transwomen have yet to provide any explanation of what the word "woman" actually means other than how they identify.

 

[d4m10n]

What do women have in common with transwomen that they don't have in common with the human race as a whole? Nothing that doesn't depend on regressive gender stereotypes. There doesn't have to be anything women and transwomen have in common that men lack, and I don't really see that there is. Unless, as I said, you get into regressive gender stereotypes.

This is the orthodox answer according to second wave feminism, to be sure, but I'm trying to get the intersectionalist perspective from someone who ought to know.

I don't think it's second wave feminism or anything of the sort. It's reality.

With all respect, every orthodox believer tells me their beliefs are one with reality.

There is nothing anatomical or biological that women have in common with transwomen, except those things that are common to all humans.

Putting aside the usual physiological effects of HRT?

There is almost nothing experiential that women have in common with most transwomen, except those things that are common to all human.

I'd've assumed many (most?) men tend to treat feminine-presenting folks somewhat less deferentially than those whom they see as masculine or manly, but haven't yet seen a study which included anyone other than cisgender subjects.

There is nothing inherent in the formation of our brains that is common between women and transwomen except those things that are common to all humans.

I've no idea whether this is true or false, but at least a few posts upthread linked to studies tending not to confirm it. I'd say it warrants further study.

But absent considerable intervention, there is nothing inherent that is common between women and transwomen that are not also common between women and men.

What would you say to those who claim gender identity^WP is a distinct, stable, measurable psychological characteristic which nearly everyone has?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't follow the distinction you're making here. Even with your description of condition versus disorder, this doesn't make sense to me. Mental disorders ARE valid medical conditions. I have a family full of variety medical conditions, including mental disorders. I have sympathy for the distress of another person, regardless of the cause of that distress.

Literally on my way to bed/sleep.

But as a reminder from my earlier post:

I am not saying that mental disorders are not genuine conditions. I am saying that beliefs which are the product of mental disorders are not (usually) valid beliefs.

And I used the following example to illustrate what I mean:

Delusional disorders are genuine conditions.

But if someone with a delusional disorder believes (sincerely) that he is the incarnation of King Henry VIII, then that belief (which is the product of a genuine disorder) is not a valid belief.

 

[LondonJohn]

Though perhaps an additional clause to add to the bottom of those other ones would help further:

Gender dysmorphia is a genuine condition. But it's not a disorder. So if someone with gender dysmorphia holds the belief that they occupy a different gender from the one they had at birth.... then that belief (which is not the product of a disorder) must be considered a valid belief.

 

[Boudicca90]

I don't dismiss them because of their gender. I tune them out because, frankly, I'm really, really tired of men telling women how to be women, and dictating what needs to be important to women, and otherwise dismissing the concerns and inequities that women face as being less important than someone else's feelings.

You mentioned earlier that you acknowledge that you weren't raised as a female, and that there are significant portions of the female experience that you know you lack. This is one of them.

It is incredibly common for men, in general, to dismiss the concerns and needs of women. Women's worries and issues are "not a big deal" and it's nothing to get upset about - women just overreact. It's incredibly common for women to be talked over, to have their views and suggestions discounted, and to find themselves being silenced or ignored in favor of the voices of men.

You want me to treat you like a woman, and I'll be happy to for the great majority of situations. But it does also require that you don't act like a man and demean me or my concerns. Don't dismiss my view and my experience. Don't insist that your desires are more important than my needs and my concerns. In other words... please stop treating me like men treat women. Treat me like women treat women.

You say that you are a woman, full stop. As much of a woman as any other female. I respectfully request that you put some effort into understanding the perspective of women, and the experience of women, and the lack of equality of women. Especially before insisting that we give up our progress and our security so that you feel more self-actualized.


I'm not 100% sure about cullennz's usage, but I think you might be misreading him. You're definitely misreading me if you think I've misgendered you or anyone. I consider it courtesy and basic human decency, and I believe I've been pretty damned consistent throughout this thread.

Why should I when you won't do the same? It's not about understanding the perspective of women, it's about "knowing our place" essentially and not demanding too many rights, or at least up to a point where our rights make you uncomfortable.

You ARE overreacting, your concerns ARE overblown. It's not about you being a woman and me being a man (in your eyes), it's about you being bigoted to anybody that doesn't fit your narrow definition of what a woman is.

You, like the other TERFs in this thread, will always see us as men and will always use that against us like this. And I don't have to justify myself to you or anybody else here who are demanding to determine how much of a woman I am. Remember? "Well, harsh as it sounds... yes. It is real women versus men who want to be women. I know that's not kind, and it's not gender affirming, but it is reality." Sure, you aren't misgendering us, we are just men who want to be women and your tolerance depends on how well we can "fool you"

 

[Aber]

It's not about you being a woman and me being a man (in your eyes), it's about you being bigoted to anybody that doesn't fit your narrow definition of what a woman is.

It doesn't help that several times in this thread you have been respectfully asked to explain what you mean by feeling like a woman. If you cannot (or will not) articulate your perspective on gender identity, then serious discussion gets harder.

 

[Boudicca90]

It doesn't help that several times in this thread you have been respectfully asked to explain what you mean by feeling like a woman. If you cannot (or will not) articulate your perspective on gender identity, then serious discussion gets harder.

I don't answer that question anymore.

I used to, at least to the best of my ability. This is a process for me too. But it was never good enough for the person who asks it of me. Or they think I am clinging to stereotypes of female behavior, or that i'm not woman enough for them based on what they believe women should be like.

So I just don't answer it, because like I said, I don't have to justify myself to anyone here.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't answer that question anymore.

I used to, at least to the best of my ability. This is a process for me too. But it was never good enough for the person who asks it of me. Or they think I am clinging to stereotypes of female behavior, or that i'm not woman enough for them based on what they believe women should be like.

So I just don't answer it, because like I said, I don't have to justify myself to anyone here.

It doesn't really leave much room for discussion, though. The topic at hand is whether or not trans women are women. If you're unwilling to discuss what "woman" means to you, there's really not much left to discuss.

If you simply want to assert that trans women are women, without explaining what that actually means, that's not a discussion, it's just an assertion.

 

[JihadJane]

And that is the impasse we have, your own prejudices.

Despite trying to come off as more caring and understanding than posters like Rolfe and JihadJane, you ultimately share their views and their willingness to discriminate against us because of them. When we spoke before, I thought there was some hope that having a personal connection to someone who is transgender would help you to understand us better and become more accepting, but I was clearly wrong.

We will never be women to you, instead we just have to "fool you" well enough for you to be ignorant of our presence enough to tolerate us. There will never be a compromise with someone with that view, because we will always be invaders in your eyes.

I am a woman, just like you. You may not consider me to be so, but the government does and that is far more important. We have been with you already for a long time, and we are not going away.

No you're not. That's a lie. You are biologically male. That means you are different to biological women. Reality matters.

A male teenage athlete competing against teenage girls in sport will always be an invader, however sincerely these boys believe they are girls. The same goes for transwomen who occupy political positions set aside for women. They are occupiers. Transwomen who demand access to women's DV refuges are seeking to invade women's space. etc etc... but all that matters, apparently, is that we are caring and understanding and pretend sex doesn't matter.

Discriminating against transwomen to protect sex-segregated spaces and services is legal in the UK, and rightly so. Sex is a protected characteristic in UK law. Women are fighting to preserve these rights. Transwomen will stop being invaders in women's eyes when they stop behaving like invaders.


BTW, I have personal connections with transgender people. They are old-fashioned transexuals who, while presenting as "women", know they are still male and don't claim to be women just like other women. In the transactivist community these people are sometimes called truscum.

 

[JihadJane]

I suspect you might already know that I wasn't making an absolutist comparison - but rather that I was setting up a thought message that was purely concerning social attitudes. Some of my ensuing posts to that one tried more explicitly to explain this to those within this thread who - through no fault of their own, quite obviously - had misunderstood/misrepresented the actual meaning of what I'd written...


ETA: for reference, here is the sentence that I was addressing:

"If women and/or girls don't want someone with a penis in their female changing room, towel or not, there is no respectful way of for that person to be in their sex-segregated space. The respectful thing to do would be to KEEP OUT."

To which I responded:

"It would of course be remiss and unfair of me to reproduce that final paragraph of yours, but to substitute "white people" for "women and/or girls", "black people" for "someone with a penis", and "race" for "sex", and transfer the setting to (say) Alabama in the 1950s. But nevertheless..."

You still haven't said what thoughts you were aiming to provoke with your statement pretending not be a statement.

Uh-huh. Body dysphoria is indeed a REAL disorder (or, more accurately, it's the product of a real disorder). I don't know quite whether you think anyone actually disputes this.

But it has now been determined by several globally-important organisations, and by many major governments - based upon scientific data and expert opinion - that gender dysphoria is a genuine medical condition in itself. Not a disorder, nor the product of a disorder.

How would you classify Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Not as a "genuine medical condition"?

(And, incidentally, mainstream medical thinking to this effect is precisely why gender reassignment surgeons are not required to consider the "do no harm" maxim - in the way that, for example, surgeons would be required to do if someone with body dysphoria wanted their leg to be amputated. The (e.g.) removal of the male genitals of a trans woman who has been properly assessed and diagnosed (provided, of course, that this is what the trans woman wants) is the treatment of a valid medical condition, as opposed to being the treatment of an illusory belief that is itself the product of a mental disorder)

It takes a brave leap of faith to claim that anyone can be properly assessed and diagnosed by the highly politicised, ideologically captured transing medical industry.

Medical conditions can trigger illusionary beliefs. Medical invention, by drugs and/or surgery, while extremely profitable, frequently results in either zero amelioration of dysphoria or makes gender dysphoria worse.

 

[LondonJohn]

Again, I don't think I'm equipped to argue against these sorts of positions.....