Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Ron Obvious]

Which makes no difference. Self-Id could be audited as well if you wanted to. Send 5% of applicants at random to be diagnosed by a doctor. It would seem pointless to do it though.

A medical doctor will diagnose the transwoman as a man, as per objective reality. There is no objective test for self-identification of gender other than the say so of the person involved. No different from saying that the locked up delusional who thinks he's Napoleon really IS Napoleon as far as I can see.

Sceptics used to not be such wafflers when it comes to reality I thought.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

ETA: ninja'ed.


The analogy to taxes and social security doesn't work, I think.

(1) There is potential process to confirm your taxes on objective evidence, which is missing from trans self-id.

(2) Your age, however, is also confirmed through a process that goes all the way back to your birth certificate, exceptional cases acknowledged. Age is the crucial determiner for how much SS benefits you get.
But there's no way self-id as trans can be a false legal declaration.
If attention to policy was a zero-sum game on this forum, you'd have a point that we should pay attention to policies that produce the greatest impact. But it's not a zero-sum game. If I break my leg and also suffer a laceration to my arm, my leg might hurt more but that doesn't mean my arm doesn't hurt, too.

1. As I said if you wanted to you can audit self-id. but what would it gain you?

2. It can be, so what? Of course there is a way that self-id can be false. Just demonstrate it to a court. All Self-ID does is take away the requirement to get a doctor to sign off on your declaration. A doctor can only work on your internal feelings and your self-declaration as well.

Not sure where you are going with your zero sum game thing if someone was constantly moaning about the minor laceration on their arm despite the fact they had a broken leg wouldn't you think they might have some kind of issue?

If you object to Self ID then OK, but that objection should be able to be expressed as 'It is important that a doctor validates your gender identity before the government allows you to switch it because.....' if you are objecting to Self ID because you don't accept the whole idea of transpeople then that's a completely separate argument.

 

[theprestige]

Which makes no difference. Self-Id could be audited as well if you wanted to. Send 5% of applicants at random to be diagnosed by a doctor. It would seem pointless to do it though.

If the medical profession says gender dysphoria is a thing and that the treatment for it is to transition, then it seems like 100% of applicants should be sent to a doctor for diagnosis.

Why does it seem pointless to you, to get a diagnosis before beginning treatment?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A medical doctor will diagnose the transwoman as a man, as per objective reality. There is no objective test for self-identification of gender other than the say so of the person involved. No different from saying that the locked up delusional who thinks he's Napoleon really IS Napoleon as far as I can see.

Sceptics used to not be such wafflers when it comes to reality I thought.

Then nobody has ever legally changed their gender in your world? Obvious nonsense.

The current process requires a medical professional to sign off on the transperson's gender identity and the switch happens every day.

Maybe arm yourself with a basic knowledge of reality before you start pontificating on it?

 

[theprestige]

1. As I said if you wanted to you can audit self-id. but what would it gain you?

A clear basis for changing the laws and norms around gender identity, a clear case of medical necessity where applicable, and a clear standard for identifying who needs society's support and help in treating their condition.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If the medical profession says gender dysphoria is a thing and that the treatment for it is to transition, then it seems like 100% of applicants should be sent to a doctor for diagnosis.

Why does it seem pointless to you, to get a diagnosis before beginning treatment?

Many of the people self-ID'ing may already have seen a doctor and been diagnosed. It would seem to me that consulting a professional about any health matters would be wise.

Of course some countries treat health care like a business and run it for profit. That makes good health care out of reach for a lot of people. Even in countries with sane healthcare systems it can still be expensive or time-consuming to get the right approved doctor to give you the right approved paperwork.

Sending someone to have their Self-ID audited before they legally change gender? Not so much of value. Legally changing your gender is not 'beginning treatment' it's tidying up paperwork.

 

[Olmstead]

The diagnosis vs. self-declaration thing is kind of silly. What is the doctor going to say?

"No Sir, you do not have gender dysphoria, you are delusional. I will schedule some therapy that will disabuse you of that notion."

Self-declaration is literally all that matters. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, but it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Then nobody has ever legally changed their gender in your world? Obvious nonsense.

The current process requires a medical professional to sign off on the transperson's gender identity and the switch happens every day.

Maybe arm yourself with a basic knowledge of reality before you start pontificating on it?

Obviously not relevant. I said there is no objective test of gender identity other than the say so of the person involved. It's fine to be polite and use preferred pronouns for transwomen if asked, but the objective reality is that they're not really women and saying they are is delusional.

There's not anything wrong with MY knowledge of reality, but I'm increasingly wondering how many people here appear to have gone off the deep end when it comes to this subject.

Reality is what doesn't go away if you stop believing in it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If you want other people to accept or agree with your self-identity, this necessarily means they will have input into the definition of that identity. We're not talking about how you identify yourself to yourself. We're talking about how you identify yourself to others, and what they should do with that information (if anything).

It matters, but it is not the sole or overriding factor in all cases.

This is going beyond what you asked though. You asked why a person should feel they belong or don't belong in a space or a group. You've moved on now to whether other people accept that identity or behave in the way you want related to that identity. First things first. Self-identity is not defined by others. How others act can reinforce your self-identity or it can weaken it or may have no impact.

Rosa Parks knew her butt belonged on that bus seat, even though the world around her didn't accept it

It depends on the feelings. Opinions are one thing. Feelings that are not consistent with reality are something else - usually a problem that needs to be solved, not a personal reality that should be catered to.

Rosa Parks feelings weren't consistent with reality. Reality changed. When it comes to these matters of belonging then it's all feelings and opinions. That's what societal rules are.

It depends on the special activity, and whether the people organizing it intend it to be exclusive.

If the activity is voting in in Scottish elections, your belonging to the Scottish group has very little to do with your feelings, and very much to do with whether other people actually recognize you as Scottish.

If the people running the Australian government think you're Australian, you not feeling Australian won't exempt you from their sanctions on not voting in Australian elections. Self-identity only goes so far - only as far as the end of your nose, in fact. Beyond that, how other people identify you is going to be a big factor in determining how you interact with society, and how society interacts with you.

In terms of belonging none of this matters. If I don't feel Australian I don't feel Australian. If you tell me I am and I have to vote or I'll get fined then I can decided to vote or not and you can decide to fine me or not but it won't change my sense of belonging one bit.

Clearly.

What I'm not getting is any attempt to answer this question: To what extent is trans-identity a matter of doing whatever you want based on how you perceive yourself, versus doing whatever society allows you to do based on how society perceives you?

Put it another way: Why does Boudicca, a transwoman, believe she doesn't belong in male spaces?

I think I made an attempt to answer the question I believed you were asking about self-identity. This now appears to be a different question but fair enough. The 'put it another way' sounds like a completely different question again though. I'll have a go though.

If you are talking about any identity then I think you have to separate two things - feeling and doing.

I can vote in Australian elections and not feel Australian, right?

The 'put it another way' bit of your question sounds like asking 'Why does Dave not feel Australian even though he was born here and lives here?'

The first part sounds like you are asking 'why does Dave think just because he doesn't feel Australian that gives him the right not to vote?'

The answer to one is going to be "people can feel whatever they want and who are you to tell them it's not valid?" the answer to the other "maybe it does, maybe it doesn't... what's the best way for us as a society to address the fact that no matter how much we insist Dave is Australian he doesn't feel that he is"

Or to put it another way ... if Boudicca says they don't feel that they belong in male spaces then i bet no amount of anyone saying 'yes you do, of course you do' is going to change it. There is then a societal decision on whether the reaction to that is to say 'tough, suck it up' or try to accommodate that.

 

[qayak]

Can you provide a specific example of when it is good public policy to treat women differently from men?

When deciding leave for pregnancy and childcare.

 

[Ziggurat]

The diagnosis vs. self-declaration thing is kind of silly. What is the doctor going to say?

"No Sir, you do not have gender dysphoria, you are delusional. I will schedule some therapy that will disabuse you of that notion."

Self-declaration is literally all that matters. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, but it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Well, no. First off, I don't think there's any competent psychologists who would say that Zuby is genuinely transgender. It's kinda obvious, he's not exactly hiding it, but if self-declaration is the only thing as you claim, then you can't say he's not.

Second, yes, even in the case of honest declarations, sometimes psychologists should say, hold on, maybe something else is going on. For example, have you heard of Walt Heyer? He medically transitioned from male to female, but later came to regret it. He says his transgenderism was driven by sexual abuse he suffered as a child, but which no psychologist treating his transgenderism ever delved into. I'm not claiming that untreated trauma is behind all transgenderism, but it's hard to seriously argue that it isn't behind some of it. And in those cases, no, a good psychologist shouldn't just sign off on a transition without trying to treat that trauma. Similar stuff also happens with some autistic kids. They don't fit in, they don't feel like their peers. Autistic girls may feel more comfortable with the simpler social dynamics of boys than girls, and autistic boys may feel more comfortable with the less aggressive style of girls. Changing genders is sold to them as a solution to their difficulties, but it usually isn't. And a good psychologist should be able to help them through those difficulties without having to resort to drastic and irreversible medical intervention.

So no, self-declaration should literally not be all that matters

 

[Ziggurat]

When deciding leave for pregnancy and childcare.

Pregnancy, obviously. A lot of people would disagree about childcare, though.

 

[Paul2]

1. As I said if you wanted to you can audit self-id. but what would it gain you?

The audit for self-ID can't depend on objective evidence, as self-ID is entirely based on one's internal, subjective experience. A tax audit does depend on objective evidence (there may be judgment calls included, too).

My only point was to challenge your analogy. I'm not arguing for a self-ID audit now.

2. It can be, so what? Of course there is a way that self-id can be false. Just demonstrate it to a court. All Self-ID does is take away the requirement to get a doctor to sign off on your declaration. A doctor can only work on your internal feelings and your self-declaration as well.

Again, Social Security has a way of objectively verifying your age, whereas even a doctor, as you say, only have internal feelings as self-ID.

The lack of objective evidence, because self-ID, by definition, is based on internal, subjective feelings, makes the analogy to taxes and social security invalid.

Not sure where you are going with your zero sum game thing if someone was constantly moaning about the minor laceration on their arm despite the fact they had a broken leg wouldn't you think they might have some kind of issue?

I can receive treatment for my broken leg, but if the treatment for my lacerated arm doesn't make sense, or it keeps bringing up issues that have to be addressed, I may well spend much more time on that than my broken leg, entirely appropriately.

If you object to Self ID then OK,

I'm still learning about it, and part of my learning process is to investigate the issue. Part of investigation is to critically analyze what people say, and that's what I was doing with your analogy.

but that objection should be able to be expressed as 'It is important that a doctor validates your gender identity before the government allows you to switch it because.....

I don't understand the full ramifications of that, which is one reason why I'm on this forum: to learn about it.

' if you are objecting to Self ID because you don't accept the whole idea of transpeople then that's a completely separate argument.

Not accepting the whole idea of trans folk is not my position.

 

[d4m10n]

The current process requires a medical professional to sign off on the transperson's gender identity and the switch happens every day.

Right, but the proposed process aims to take medical professionals out of the legal loop.

Suppose Jane Doe suffers from none of the symptoms of gender dysphoria but wants to live as a man because it seems like men get paid more and talked over less. Under self-i.d. laws, couldn't she just sign the paperwork and move forward as a man?

 

[theprestige]

The diagnosis vs. self-declaration thing is kind of silly. What is the doctor going to say?

"No Sir, you do not have gender dysphoria, you are delusional. I will schedule some therapy that will disabuse you of that notion."

Self-declaration is literally all that matters. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, but it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Which raises the qustion: Is the medical condition of gender dysphoria even real? If there's no science- or observation-based diagnostic criteria that distinguish it from other conditions, does it actually exist in any meaningful way?

If self-declaration is the only standard, and there's no independent basis for thinking it indicates a problem that needs to be solved, then why should transsexuals be entitled to any concessions from the prevailing social norms?

"I'm a woman!"

"That's nice; the men's room is over there."

"No, seriously! I have gender dysphoria and I need accommodations as part of my treatment."

"Medical science has nothing meaningful to say on the subject of gender dysphoria. Unless you have a doctor's note... The men's room is over there."

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The diagnosis vs. self-declaration thing is kind of silly. What is the doctor going to say?

"No Sir, you do not have gender dysphoria, you are delusional. I will schedule some therapy that will disabuse you of that notion."

Self-declaration is literally all that matters. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or bad, but it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I believe there are some doctors who have done that but yes, not many. I generally agree though, it is silly. But most times it's just a cloak to sneak in the real point which is that we can't allow transwomen to be treated as women no matter what.

People misrepresent what Self ID is and what it means and it is completely irrelevant to them anyway.

'OMG some dudes can turn up at a women's changing room and demand access based on saying they identify as women and swing their dicks around. Self ID must be opposed!!!!!'

'So you're OK with that provided they are properly diagnosed as trans by a physician since that's the only change Self ID would make?'

'TRANSWOMEN AREN'T REAL WOMEN!!!!!! OBJECTIVE REALLLITTTEEEEEEE'

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Which raises the qustion: Is the medical condition of gender dysphoria even real?

The people tasked with understanding such things say yes it is.

But we can just throw out the entire field of mental health if it suits you better?

 

[Olmstead]

[...]

So no, self-declaration should literally not be all that matters

I'm not saying it should. My point is:

If you want to be legally recognised as transgender, you will be (this obviously excludes trolls). A visit to the doctor is just an extra step, so it doesn't really make a difference.

I mean, I guess it could weed out really lazy perverts.

 

[theprestige]

Many of the people self-ID'ing may already have seen a doctor and been diagnosed. It would seem to me that consulting a professional about any health matters would be wise.

Of course some countries treat health care like a business and run it for profit. That makes good health care out of reach for a lot of people. Even in countries with sane healthcare systems it can still be expensive or time-consuming to get the right approved doctor to give you the right approved paperwork.

Sending someone to have their Self-ID audited before they legally change gender? Not so much of value. Legally changing your gender is not 'beginning treatment' it's tidying up paperwork.

Not if you have legal entitlements based on your legally-recorded gender.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not saying it should. My point is:

If you want to be legally recognised as transgender, you will be (this obviously excludes trolls). A visit to the doctor is just an extra step, so it doesn't really make a difference.

I mean, I guess it could weed out really lazy perverts.

And that's pretty much what happened with that guy in Canada who changed genders to get better car insurance rates. All he had to do was fill out some paperwork.

But it doesn't work like that everywhere, and it certainly doesn't have to anywhere.