Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
The word "disorder" is doing much of the heavy lifting in many of your posts, LJ.

Suppose the experts in society A label ephebophiliaWP a disorder, but the experts in society B do not. Suppose further that we've some reason to suspect both sets of experts have been influenced to some extent by their respective broader social norms, which have changed over time. Are the people in society B correct to say that ephebophila is "valid in and of itself" because they place trust in their experts?

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



Eh? We are getting deeply into semantics now. And of course the word "disorder" crops up a lot: the entire underlying argument essentially rests or falls on the question of whether gender dysphoria should be considered a disorder (or product of a disorder) or not.

But to put it simply: the experts in my society label gender dysphoria and transgender identity as valid conditions and not as disorders (or the products of a disorder).

And, for that matter, I'm not currently aware of any suitably-legitimate expert body in any other society (where "society" effectively comprises all modern liberal democracies) which currently affirms those things to be disorders.

So I am minded to believe that a) the experts in my society are far, far more qualified and experienced that I am to make these categorisations; b) I don't see any suitably-legitimate bodies currently saying otherwise; c) I can follow the reasoning of the experts in my society sufficiently; therefore d) I too hold the (not unshakeable) belief that these things are valid conditions and not disorders (or the product of a disorder).
 
LondonJohn said:
No. Not at all. And I've never said or implied that.

My claim is no more or less than this:

1) A premise has been proposed that it cannot be right for cis women to be (potentially) placed at higher risk as a direct consequence of the introduction of certain transgender rights.

2) I showed a counterexample where a group of people were (potentially) placed at higher risk as a direct consequence of the introduction of other civil rights (here: black rights).

3) I am saying that (2), IMO, demonstrates that the "cannot be right" part of (1) is not a logical truism.


So... I'm NOT saying: just because something similar happened wrt the introduction of black rights, this necessarily means that transgender rights legislation should be introduced even though it puts another group at higher potential risk.

I'm purely claiming falsification of the premise that it should never be allowed to happen.

(Or, to put it another way: if transgender rights legislation were proposed, and if as a consequence some women were to be placed into a position of potential increased risk, it wouldn't (IMO) be logically sound to claim that this consequence should - by definition - affect the viability of the proposed legislation)


I hope I've explained this more completely here now.
Click to expand...

Great, thank you, sorry I mis-interpreted where you were going.

If we change the premise from "cannot be right" to "is not right," would that change anything for you?
 
LondonJohn said:
I think they mean "a condition which is valid in and of itself (as opposed to a disorder, or the product of a disorder), which is real (as opposed to imaginary - within the psyche of the person concerned), and which is lived (meaning it manifests itself in the way that the person concerned identifies their existence and conducts their life)".


What do you think those words mean?
Click to expand...

Nothing much. It's vague and meaningless. You seem to believe that there is some essential "realness" inherent in gender dysphoria but can't even elaborate what that is supposed to mean.
 
Paul2 said:
1. Can you define "disorder" as you mean it?

2. Assuming there need be no biological basis for trans identity, does there need to be some conformity between what is in the person's psyche and social definitions of gender for trans identity?

3. If there need be no conformity, then wouldn't trans identity be within the psyche of the person concerned?
Click to expand...


Not so keen on all this JAQ'ing.

But

1) an undesirable aberration which should be considered the valid target for treatment or a cure.

2) The experts in the field - who know far better than I (or you) - believe that they understand human psyche sufficiently to validate transgender identity.

3) Yes. And this is the prevailing expert opinion.


I'll reiterate: global expert bodies who comprise/represent the collective expertise and experience of the world's best have obviously considered these and many other questions extensively, in the course of reaching their conclusions. I defer heavily (but not necessarily entirely) to their expertise and experience. I don't (currently) see any argument that's persuading me otherwise.

Bedtime now in UK.


(And it might perhaps be an idea to put those questions to - for example - the committee and consultative population which drew up DSM-5: they ought to be able to tell you what they believe, and why they believe it)
 
Olmstead said:
Nothing much. It's vague and meaningless. You seem to believe that there is some essential "realness" inherent in gender dysphoria but can't even elaborate what that is supposed to mean.
Click to expand...



Because it's ultimately a psychiatric condition.

Can you, for example, tell me how one can define the "realness" of sexual desires for others of the same sex? Can you tell me how it's possible to tell whether the possession of sexual desire for others of the same sex is a) a valid, real condition, or b) the product of a mental disorder?

Once again: there are experts who are far more qualified than me or you whose job it is to make these sorts of assessments. They are the same variety of experts as those who determined that same-sex sexual attraction is a valid condition rather than the product of a psychosexual disorder (how did they DO that?!). And they've similarly now determined that gender dysphoria is a valid condition rather tha the product of a psychosexual disorder.
 
LondonJohn said:
Because it's ultimately a psychiatric condition.

Can you, for example, tell me how one can define the "realness" of sexual desires for others of the same sex? Can you tell me how it's possible to tell whether the possession of sexual desire for others of the same sex is a) a valid, real condition, or b) the product of a mental disorder?

Once again: there are experts who are far more qualified than me or you whose job it is to make these sorts of assessments. They are the same variety of experts as those who determined that same-sex sexual attraction is a valid condition rather than the product of a psychosexual disorder (how did they DO that?!). And they've similarly now determined that gender dysphoria is a valid condition rather tha the product of a psychosexual disorder.
Click to expand...

Disorder is just a word used for conditions that are considered socially unacceptable and/or harmful to the person with the condition. There isn't some great dividing line in the brain.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I think it's only a magic word in one camp. In the other camp it has a well-supported and very clear definition: an adult human female. Woman is to Mare as Man is to Stallion. Woman is to Cow as Man is to Bull. Woman is to Doe as Man is to Buck.

Or perhaps you were trying to be magnanimous?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be anything. And my statement has nothing at all to do with what the definition is or is not.

And I don't mean "magic word" to be a bad thing. It simply means that both sides have given the word a lot of power.

The word has strong meaning for biological women such as yourself. I can't really define all the things it represents to you, but I do know from reading your posts that you link it inextricably to your biological sex and all the things that go along with that. It is, if you will, sacred ground that you are not willing to concede.

Trans-women have also given the word a lot of power over their lives and self image. You may challenge their legitimacy in doing so, but it has happened. they have invested built their own language around an identity under that name that includes them. And there are female "allies" that have helped them with that. They are not willing to retreat from the term either.

I'm not about to sit in judgment on language. I'm trying to look past the words to the concepts they represent. I'm just pointing out that this is an obstacle that gets in the way of discussion of practical issues on how to live lives.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, I realise all of this. But realistically, we are never going to get to a situation where gender is described as (say) Type A (the gender typical of women/females) and Type B (the gender typical of men/males), thus enabling us to define transgender people as (say) men/males who are Trans-A.

I completely agree that such a system would be the closest to ideal as is probably possible. I also completely agree that a) the words "woman" and "female" are loaded with personal and societal meaning and b) are synonymous in general usage.

But

If transgender identity is going to gain recognition, then society may have to (slightly) adjust the way in which it defines certain terms*. In addition, even if these new "Type A" and "Type B" genders were to be used, it still wouldn't get us past certain issues: e.g. (some) women would still argue "how can this man possibly claim the identity of a Type A gender - only females/women know properly what it's like to be Type A"
Click to expand...

I think you realize that I'm only using Type A and Type B as placeholders to avoid the contentious terms. I'm not proposing those (or any ) terms be adapted.

And you are correct that females/women will always contend that they have significant experiences that aren't shared by trans women. And they are right. For us males, I don't think our biology and reproductive system shapes our lives and interaction with the world to the degree that women's do. The weight of the human reproductive system rests squarely on females. That not only includes a fluxing hormone cycle, but also the spectre of pregnancy, miscarriage, breastfeeding, and probably a thousand other things I don't understand. Because I'm male. (Not the gender, the sex.)

When you redefine "woman" as independent of sex, you strip out a whole lot of meaning. But that doesn't mean that they would not accept a term of commonality that reflects where their experiences overlap.


* And we change the definition of words/terms fairly frequently in English. For example, 150 years ago "terrific" strictly and solely meant "causing or inducing terror".....
Click to expand...
Yes, language evolves. I think it does so naturally as usages change. I'm not aware of a previous concerted effort to deliberately change a definition, but I'm not a linguist. However, I don't know why you would be surprised if there was resistance to the idea of changing the definition of a word that has so much vested meaning for so many people. Regardless of if the definition evolves or not, I think its unfair to paint people as bigoted for objecting to it.

You think that if a scientist in 2020 (or 1980 for that matter) put forward a hypothesis that homosexuality is in fact the product of a mental disorder.... this would be accepted academically (or in society in general) as a reasoned and un-noteworthy hypothesis??
Click to expand...
You mean something like this:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna
or this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4545255/

I realize that they don't attribute homosexuality as something to change, but they do explore the possibility of something occurring genetically or in development that causes the condition.



But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether identity/behavioural beliefs are either a) valid lived conditions in their own right, or b) disorders or the product of a disorder.
Click to expand...
I don't think they are caused by a disorder. But I think it may sometimes indirectly result in a disorder.
Calling something a disorder (or the product of one) necessarily implies two things: 1) that thing is an unwelcome aberration from the "norm", and 2) medicine has a valid claim for trying to either treat or "cure" that thing.

Schizophrenia is a disorder. It is an unwelcome aberration, and once diagnosed it's usually treated with various types of medical intervention - with the aim of minimising or even eradicating the disorder.

And this is exactly how transgenderism (and homosexuality, for that matter) used to be viewed - both by mainstream medicine/science/social-science and by society in general.

But not - thankfully - nowadays.
Click to expand...

Would dysphoria be a disorder?
Caused by the condition of being transgender? Or rather by the condition of the internal sense of self not matching the physical self?
Which is treated by transitioning?

So being trans is the treatment for the disorder resulting from the condition?
 
Pretty sure it is categorized as a disorder.

Nothing to be ashamed of like all the others though.
 
It seems that I'm writing responses to requests, and then those responses are being partially or completely ignored.

One more time:

Gender dysphoria is not now considered by mainstream medicine to be a disorder.

Trans identity is not a disorder.

"Disorder" means an undesirable aberration from the norm, which ought to be treated if possible.


smh
 
LondonJohn said:
It seems that I'm writing responses to requests, and then those responses are being partially or completely ignored.

One more time:

Gender dysphoria is not now considered by mainstream medicine to be a disorder.

Trans identity is not a disorder.

"Disorder" means an undesirable aberration from the norm, which ought to be treated if possible.


smh
Click to expand...
Apologies as I might be wrong and dont mind if I am but think you will find it is
 
LondonJohn said:
It seems that I'm writing responses to requests, and then those responses are being partially or completely ignored.

One more time:

Gender dysphoria is not now considered by mainstream medicine to be a disorder.

Trans identity is not a disorder.

"Disorder" means an undesirable aberration from the norm, which ought to be treated if possible.


smh
Click to expand...


Why, then, do people with gender dysphoria "need" (and get) medication and surgery? Should this supposedly now unnecessary treatment be stopped?
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
Hooray!

Today, in the UK, Gender Recognition Act reform has been scrapped. Read why this is good news for women and girls.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/grascrapped
Click to expand...

Wow. Perhaps now people will now stop saying "the UK has recognised self-identified transgender people, so everyone else should".

Probably not though.

And just to repeat points I've already made, I, and almost people, do not object to transgenderism per se. Live your life etc. Be a furry if you want, makes no difference to me. It's only when people born men start to demand access to toilets, locker rooms, shelters and sports previously dedicated to people born women purely by self-identification, where kickback happens.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Not in the UK. In England and Wales. (Why do people in England always say something that's happened in England has happened in the UK?)

Those of us in Scotland are still fighting on.
Click to expand...

The statement was accurate, but it could have been more precise. Anything that happens in Scotland happens in the UK, not everything that happens in the UK happens in Scotland.
 
Darat said:
The statement was accurate, but it could have been more precise. Anything that happens in Scotland happens in the UK, not everything that happens in the UK happens in Scotland.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, any comments on the act being scrapped?
 
Darat said:
The statement was accurate, but it could have been more precise. Anything that happens in Scotland happens in the UK, not everything that happens in the UK happens in Scotland.
Click to expand...


It was inaccurate. "A part of the UK" is not the same as "the UK".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom