Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Earthborn]

I've argued for this on occasion with respect to changing rooms and bathrooms in particular. Not particularly well received, IIRC.

Maybe include more trans and/or non-binary people in the people you ask.

"Best Medical Practice" can't be obviously sacrosanct and unquestionable when the "Accepted Best Medical Practice" for all of this would have been declaring it a mental disorder within many of the people in this discussion's lifetimes.

The latest change in the DSM was in 2013. I don't think too many 7 year olds are on this forum.

It's always presented as being transgender would still be something exist in a world where the physical, biological sexes where treated 100% identically.

In a perfectly non-gendered society, there would likely still be people who are uncomfortable with some parts of their body.

Transgenderism is being treated as a recognised medical condition with specific treatment steps recommended

As per DSM5, having a transgender identity is no longer considered medical condition but an ordinary variation of identity, but gender dysphoria is. They are no longer considered to be the same thing.
There are no specific treatment steps for being transgender, except the ones to reduce one's gender dysphoria by reducing the incongruence between gender identity and biological sex.

Treating transgender people as the other gender (even via just not treating the genders differently in the first place) isn't enough, you have to literally think of them as the other gender.

Treating transgender people as the other gender is fine. Not treating genders differently is even better. Literally thinking of a trans person as the other gender is only necessary if they are your significant other and their target gender is the only gender that fits your sexual preference.

When deciding leave for pregnancy and childcare.

Some of us live in countries where those regulations have been made entirely gender neutral.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually people on this thread have argued that gender dysphoria isn't a real thing while others try to be more clever and insinuate that it can't be a real thing because there is no such thing as 'essence of woman' for it even to be a real thing.

Umm... no. Just no. Nobody has argued it isn't a thing. We all acknowledge that it is a real thing that some people have.

Nobody has argue that it can't be a real thing because there is no ephemeral "essence of woman", because the existence of a metaphysical "essence of woman" is irrelevant to a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis based on the patient's severe distress and anxiety regarding their internal feeling of self as it relates to their biological sex. It is NOT a diagnosis that a male person is really a female with the wrong equipment. It is not medical doctors claiming that transwomen are women, it's transwomen and their allies claiming this as an objective fact.

And they are making this claim without being able to provide any definition of what "woman" means.

If a person has a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, I will happily agree that they have the condition of gender dysphoria. That diagnosis does not magically convert a male person into a female person.

If a person has self-diagnosed as having gender dysphoria, I will provisionally consider that they *might* have the condition of gender dysphoria. That internal impression of self does not magically convert a male person into a female person.

In either of those cases, I'm comfortable treating that person socially as a woman most of the time, and contingent on their own behavior and presentation. In neither of those cases am I willing to allow that person's mental impression of their internal state to override my protected status as a biological female.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Possibly. But most people on this thread seem to agree that there are differences between the experiences of being a woman and a man in the current society.

What does that mean in the context of "living as the opposite sex"

 

[Emily's Cat]

If we don't disagree what was the point of your previous post? Other than to just say 'yes i agree'

Because he doesn't agree. This was YOUR claim (brackets mine):

Is there any other area of medicine where it's legitimate for non-experts to just argue that they don't accept condition X [gender dysphoria] is really a thing? Because quite a few of the arguments on this thread seem to come down to just exactly that.

 

[Paul2]

It is ALL mockery. Trying to couch your bigotry in "logic" doesn't work, sorry.

The reductio is objectively a possibility, and that's all I ever made it out to be, a possibility. E.C.'s scenario fits everything a reductio needs to be, so how can that be bigotry? That it fits everything mockery needs to be, too, doesn't make it bigotry, it makes it a question as to which is which, when it fits both. So how is that bigotry, too? That is not a rhetorical question, I'm hoping I get a substantive reply.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

We'r talking about whether self-ID should be the sole basis for getting access to sex-segregated safe spaces.

Then we are talking past each other because I have said several times that self-ID is a discussion on legal process and access to sex-segregated spaces is a separate one. I'm willing to admit I don't know every law in every territory so if you have a specific one in mind then we can look at it and find out what the actual law says. I speak with 100% confidence on the matter here where I live when I say that the two things are completely, totally, utterly unrelated.

I wish to allow transwomen access to women's shelters. I wish to deny access to abusive cismen who want to access women's shelters so that they can find their victim and continue to abuse her (and find other women who might be similarly at risk of victimization).

Making self-ID the sole standard for access does not grant my wish.

I also wish for someone who advocates for self-ID as the sole standard to propose a solution to the above dilemma. But I don't see that wish getting granted, either. Maybe you can be my fairy godmother* in this?

---
*Fairy godfather? Does it matter? Is there anything wrong with a dude being a godmother if he wants?

Again, that's not a matter for Self-ID. I don't see how the issue is changed by requiring getting a medical diagnosis.

I'm sure there will be methods to deal with people behaving inappropriately in these safe spaces. How would they deal with an abusive cis-woman who had intent to cause harm to one of the other occupants of the safe-space?

If excluding trans people is the only way to ensure the safety of women in these spaces then so be it, but that can be done separate to self-id and I'm not entirely convinced that 'just ban trans people' is the result of having actually looked at other options and ruled them out.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We certainly disagree on whether anyone here has argued that gender dysphoria isn't an actual condition. We also appear to disagree on whether anyone has been arguing for treatments other than transition, in this forum.

To be fair, I have argued against transition for minors, and I believe a few other people have as well.

I also am of the (non-medical) opinion that transition should be a last approach when the person cannot become comfortable with their own body. Transition requires irreversible manipulation of the body. There is no other diagnosis on the planet where the first choice of treatment is "let's permanently alter your body when there's nothing physically wrong with it!".

I have no objection to transition when it is the best option. For example, in Boudicca's case, she shared that she had several years of counseling and therapy prior to deciding to pursue transition. She didn't *start* with irreversible changes.

On the other hand, my niece (who was born male) self-diagnosed as gender dysphoric without any input from a psychologist, and was able to begin testosterone suppression and estrogen therapy on the basis of her claim to feel like a woman inside. I'll support her, she's family, but I also think it's an incredible miscarriage of medicine to allow someone to voluntarily alter their body in ways that have long-lasting effects and dangers... on the basis of them diagnosing themselves with a condition.

 

[Meadmaker]

In fairness if that's the bar then all attempts to argue by any method seem to be pretty futile. Certainly using facts and logic have failed to convince anyone here.

Logic.

In all seriousness, I haven't seen much of it from you and what could generally be called "your side". I've seen bare assertion, bad analogies, name calling, and circular definitions.

I see "transwomen are women therefore they should have the rights and privileges of women, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot, just like the bigots who wanted to not share bathrooms with black people." (No one has said exactly that, but I wanted to get all four of the things I mentioned into one sentence.)

I also see occasional straw men, and I predict I will see some more, shortly.

I guess I'm wondering where you think you have offered a logical argument that has been rejected. To me, all of your arguments seem to boil down to "Trans-women are women......therefore......" That's not really a logical argument.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Doesn't the self-declaration depend on, and flow from and after, the internal experience, though?

ETA: at least, authentically and sincerely?

Yes but wasn't the question about how to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic presentations?

If you go to the doctor and say 'i feel depressed. I have no interest in anything. I want to sleep all the time. i feel listless. I've started drinking too much and put on a bit of weight' the doctor is going to diagnose depression. The doctor has no way of knowing if any of that self-declaration is true.

Absent any reason to think you might be faking it they are going to take you at your word on what you say.

 

[Meadmaker]

I should add, one place where I have seen some semblance of logic is the "transgenderism is caused by a natural difference in brains" lines of argument. That could form the basis of a logical argument, but I've rarely seen it used that way.

What I'm really wondering is where you think my thoughts are illogical. I think facilities that involve disrobing among strangers should be segregated by sex, not anything related to stereotypical gender behavior or mannerisms. I think sports should be segregated by sex. Where is the flaw in my logic?


(And, personally, I'm willing to compromise a little bit, but others are not, and I don't consider their position illogical.)

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's not a lie. Self-id essentially eliminates any meaningful measure of sex or gender.

You insist it's a legal process - which is true. But you also insist that it applies only to transpeople. This is where you seem to be missing the problem with self-id, so let me spell this out via illustration.

Imagine that a male person, Pat, goes to the legal office and changes their legal gender to F. This legal change does NOT require that Pat has undergone any counseling or treatment, and does not require that Pat have a diagnosis. It is entirely at Pat's personal discretion. More to the point - any questioning of Pat's claim of being a woman is considered highly offensive and is tantamount to hate speech.

Legally, that person is now entitled to be treated like a woman in every instance. Pat now has the legal right to enter female changing rooms and sex-segregated spaces without challenge; failure to allow Pat into those spaces is legally considered discrimination. Pat has the legal right to enter female-designated domestic violence and rape shelters. Pat has the right to apply for and receive female-designated scholarships and grants, and to be counted as female for short-lists and diversity quotas.

Now for the tricky part: Pat is 6'2", 200 lbs, heavily muscled, with large hands and feet. Pat has a deep voice, a prominent adam's apple, and dress and presents as a traditional man. Pat wears male clothing, and is very comfortable peeing alongside the road when the need arises. Pat has taken no hormones, and has had no surgeries, and does not intend to do either of those things, because Pat claims that he does not have physical gender dysphoria, but rather has social gender dysphoria, although Pat does not have a diagnosis for that self-claimed medical condition. Pat is a physically intact specimen of very stereotypical male anatomy. Pat is sexually attracted to females.

Is Pat a cisman or a transwoman?

If Pat goes to a doctor and gets a certificate is he a transwoman now? And will you accept Pat getting access to women's safe spaces?

Because if the answer isn't Yes, then it's not Self-ID you have a problem with

 

[Emily's Cat]

Anyway, I always understood "queer" to be an umbrella term for everything other than "cis-straight normie", and also a catch-all term for everything that hadn't yet gotten its own distinct jargon. "I'm not exactly gay, I'm not exactly bi, I'm not exactly asexual... but I am definitely some kind of queer." I have no idea if EC is right about the distinction of "queer (lesbian)" getting subsumed into the general mish-mash of "queer (other)". It's an interesting claim, though. I'll keep an eye out for evidence of it.

It's trivially easy to find transwomen using the phrase "queer women" when discussing lesbians, and to find lesbians objecting to that usage.

 

[Cavemonster]

To be fair, I have argued against transition for minors, and I believe a few other people have as well.

I also am of the (non-medical) opinion that transition should be a last approach when the person cannot become comfortable with their own body. Transition requires irreversible manipulation of the body. There is no other diagnosis on the planet where the first choice of treatment is "let's permanently alter your body when there's nothing physically wrong with it!".

I have no objection to transition when it is the best option. For example, in Boudicca's case, she shared that she had several years of counseling and therapy prior to deciding to pursue transition. She didn't *start* with irreversible changes.

On the other hand, my niece (who was born male) self-diagnosed as gender dysphoric without any input from a psychologist, and was able to begin testosterone suppression and estrogen therapy on the basis of her claim to feel like a woman inside. I'll support her, she's family, but I also think it's an incredible miscarriage of medicine to allow someone to voluntarily alter their body in ways that have long-lasting effects and dangers... on the basis of them diagnosing themselves with a condition.

I'm curious where your niece lives and how old she is. The way you describe her process seems not to align with standard practice as I've seen it described for at least the US.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If the medical profession says that chronic pain is a thing... why on earth would anybody object to allowing people to self-diagnose as having chronic pain, without the requirement of them seeing a doctor? Why would anyone object to people who self-diagnose being entitled to opiate prescriptions at their discretion, without the oversight or treatment of a medical professional?

Waiting to see the usual 'this analogy is completely stupid' people pile in now.... no.... nothing? Colour me shocked

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am Scottish. I identify as Scottish. if there is a special activity going on for Scottish people I would feel like I belong in that group.

I am German. I identify as Scottish. If there is a special activity going on for Scottish people I would feel like I belong in that group.

 

[Paul2]

Yes but wasn't the question about how to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic presentations?

Let's review what the question was:

No, self-declaration is not the foundation. As you describe it here, self-experience is the foundation of the condition. These are not the same thing. The difference matters.

Unless a doctor has access to your self-experience (they don't) then self-declaration is certainly the foundation of the diagnosis.

Doesn't the self-declaration depend on, and flow from and after, the internal experience, though?

ETA: at least, authentically and sincerely?

The question IS whether the foundation is self-declaration or self-experience. My comment about authenticity and sincerity was only to limit the scenarios to the advantage of the patient, not to deal with any question about the patient's authenticity or sincerity. One might question that later.

If a patient is authentic and sincere, then self-declaration follows the self-experience.

If you go to the doctor and say 'i feel depressed. I have no interest in anything. I want to sleep all the time. i feel listless. I've started drinking too much and put on a bit of weight' the doctor is going to diagnose depression. The doctor has no way of knowing if any of that self-declaration is true.

Absent any reason to think you might be faking it they are going to take you at your word on what you say.

Agreed. But it's always a cost/benefit ratio. If the result of taking a patient's word for it is merely, for instance, a prescription, that might be one thing, but if the result would be surgery and/or hormones, one might dig a little deeper. My vague memory is that doctors do dig deeper in the case of someone potentially transitioning, but I have no references at hand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Making false legal declarations can have legal consequences.

What would constitute a false declaration of gender?

 

[Earthborn]

Legally, that person is now entitled to be treated like a woman in every instance.

Only the instances where legal gender is a factor.

Pat now has the legal right to enter female changing rooms and sex-segregated spaces without challenge;

Only if those spaces require people to show id cards to be allowed in, which they do not.

failure to allow Pat into those spaces is legally considered discrimination.

Unlikely. It is more likely that failure to allow a feminine presenting trans person who did not (yet) change her legal gender into those spaces is legally considered discrimination.

Pat has the legal right to enter female-designated domestic violence and rape shelters.

Only the people running those shelters agree Pat needs the help, and think their shelter is the best place to help Pat.

Pat has the right to apply for and receive female-designated scholarships and grants

Only if the people giving out those scholarships and grants award them purely based on legal gender, which they don't.

and to be counted as female for short-lists and diversity quotas.

Depends on who writes them and for what purpose.

Is Pat a cisman or a transwoman?

The fact that Pat now has to live with F on their passport that doesn't match their presentation, I think you could say that in some way Pat is now a bit of a transman.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

What I'm really wondering is where you think my thoughts are illogical. I think facilities that involve disrobing among strangers should be segregated by sex, not anything related to stereotypical gender behavior or mannerisms. I think sports should be segregated by sex. Where is the flaw in my logic?

Not being funny but you haven't presented any logic here. You have presented your conclusions.

Now it may well be that you have well thought out and reasoned paths to these conclusions but when people just post the conclusions it looks a lot more like they are just asserting what they feel comfortable believing.

Feel free to disagree with me and pick holes in my arguments as much as you like but I take issue with your insinuation that me and 'my side' aren't making coherent arguments while 'your side' is. I've tried repeatedly to pin people down on specifics but they just jump off to another topic. We can't even agree on straightforward facts like what Self ID even is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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'

Or.. you know... convicted rapists self-identify as women and get transferred to the female ward of the prison where they proceed to assault and rape female prisoners.