Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
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...

Sorry, my mistake.

I'm in Wales, also often assumed to be part of England.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Meanwhile, any comments on the act being scrapped?
Click to expand...


It's not being scrapped. Some of the proposed revisions to the act are apparently (according to the leaks) being scrapped. Other revisions to the act are apparently (according to the leaks) being implemented.
 
JihadJane said:
Why, then, do people with gender dysphoria "need" (and get) medication and surgery? Should this supposedly now unnecessary treatment be stopped?
Click to expand...



To some transgender people (not all, of course), aspects of their physical appearance are integral to their sense of identity. For them, surgical and/or medical intervention is their choice.

If, for example, a trans woman only feels comfortable in their trans identity by having their penis and scrotum removed and having other medical interventions to reduce/eliminate facial hair and promote the growth of breasts.... then in a very real sense their prior appearance (ie penis and scrotum, facial hair, no breasts) can be viewed as a disorder. And the medical community wholeheartedly supports this viewpoint.

So yes, in some cases of gender dysphoria and transgender identity (not all, though), the situation arises where medical and/or surgical intervention is considered - by mainstream medicine - to be both desirable and necessary. And yes, in those cases, the presence of those relevant sex-related body parts can be considered a disorder if left as is.
 
cullennz said:
Or at least was for a very very long time till the PC took over
Click to expand...


But........ is not now.


(Interesting categorisation of the likes of the global community of mental health experts who drew up DSM-5 as "the PC (Brigade?)" though...)
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Not so keen on all this JAQ'ing.
Click to expand...
I'm not JAQing around, my questions go to (are trying to get to) essential aspects of your position in order to clarify your position, if only in my own mind.

LondonJohn said:
1) an undesirable aberration which should be considered the valid target for treatment or a cure.
Click to expand...
I think I see why you thought I was JAQing around, because I got a bit confused about where my 1. question was going, and I see that now given your response. Not an issue any more.

LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I routinely defer to the experts, but it wouldn't make sense if there wasn't conformity between the identity and the social definition of a gender, given that there's not going to be conformity between the identity and some biological reality, and there has to be conformity between the identity and something in order to even say that one's identity is X. X can't just be a word, it has to be defined as something; otherwise, you might as well literally say, "My identity is X."

I would respect a lay person not weighing in on this and letting the experts address this, if that's where you are.
LondonJohn said:
3) Yes. And this is the prevailing expert opinion.
Click to expand...
Then we have the issue I noted directly above.

LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't think my questions are challenging expert conclusions in the sense of saying they are wrong, but merely in the sense of looking at them critically by asking probing questions, etc.
 
Paul2 said:
I'm not JAQing around, my questions go to (are trying to get to) essential aspects of your position in order to clarify your position, if only in my own mind.

I think I see why you thought I was JAQing around, because I got a bit confused about where my 1. question was going, and I see that now given your response. Not an issue any more.

I routinely defer to the experts, but it wouldn't make sense if there wasn't conformity between the identity and the social definition of a gender, given that there's not going to be conformity between the identity and some biological reality, and there has to be conformity between the identity and something in order to even say that one's identity is X. X can't just be a word, it has to be defined as something; otherwise, you might as well literally say, "My identity is X."

I would respect a lay person not weighing in on this and letting the experts address this, if that's where you are.
Then we have the issue I noted directly above.

I don't think my questions are challenging expert conclusions in the sense of saying they are wrong, but merely in the sense of looking at them critically by asking probing questions, etc.
Click to expand...


Fair enough - it's just that I've been subjected to quite a lot of *question-asking* within this thread in the recent past (some of which have been more-or-less identical to some of the questions you asked). So thanks for your response.

Look: to me, this is an extremely difficult topic for any "lay" person to understand sufficiently to hold a fully-informed opinion. We can become informed up to a point, but beyond that point - and into the very area of value judgement upon which the issue has validity or not - I don't think we're in a position to adjudicate.

And in that sort of scenario, I don't think it's at all an unsceptical approach to lean heavily on the conclusions of those with experience and expertise, provided that a) there is a strong and stable consensus from those experts, and b) those bodies have sufficient authority and repute. To me, those responsible for constructing DSM-5 (for example) pass those tests with ease. So I consider it reasonable to take their conclusions as a strong starting point on this subject. And since I haven't yet encountered any body (any body, that is, which even comes close to meeting those criteria) which has a dissenting view, I feel reasonably confident in my own belief.

As another example, it's impossible for a lay heterosexual person to make the ultimate adjudication as to whether homosexuality is a valid condition in itself, or whether it's the product of a mental disorder or deviancy. That's a question that only the experts can (even hope to) adjudicate. And it's essentially purely on account of that expert adjudication that society and law now consider homosexual people to have a real condition rather than being the victims of a disorder or deviancy.


I suppose that in some ways, it could be compared to quantum mechanics. Even though I studied electronics engineering at uni, there was no way I was qualified to make any adjudication on whether prevailing scientific beliefs about quantum theory were valid or not. That adjudication was made deep within the minds of the World's best particle physicists - and to this day, certain elements of prevailing quantum theory cannot be proven experimentally, or even observed as a second-order outcome. Were this to be a thread about quantum theory, I'd want to see some pretty damn good arguments against the prevailing norm if I were to consider changing my view from that of the current consensus :)
 
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...

I f you posted a change that has come in the past year, I missed it. This is an active thread with a lot of posts. Some things get missed. I was working off the definition of disorder you gave.

Also from Psychology Today (updated 2/23/19):
Gender dysphoria in adults and children is considered a disorder if the person also experiences significant distress or impairment in major areas of life as a result of the incongruence. Identifying with a gender different from the one that was assigned is no longer considered a mental disorder in itself.
Click to expand...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/gender-dysphoria

That's based on DSM-5 as it refers to the former GID in DSM-4.
 
TomB said:
I f you posted a change that has come in the past year, I missed it. This is an active thread with a lot of posts. Some things get missed. I was working off the definition of disorder you gave.

Also from Psychology Today (updated 2/23/19):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/gender-dysphoria

That's based on DSM-5 as it refers to the former GID in DSM-4.
Click to expand...

Yes. As I already said earlier, the requirement for clinically significant distress and impairment of functioning are virtually the defining features of a psychological disorder (notwithstanding the fact that there is no perfect definition of a psychological disorder because there is no set of features that applies to every single diagnosis). Distress and dysfunction are the most useful criteria.

The diagnosis was changed as part of the overall restructure of the entire DSM in 2013 where the chapter structure was revised. GD was moved out of the sexual disorders and paraphilias chapters where it didn't fit, as part of this restructuring. It was renamed to remove the word 'disorder' so as to reduce stigma attached to the diagnosis, and to focus on the dysphoria rather than the identity as the basis for the diagnosis. This was in a context where activists lobbied hard to get it removed altogether (the working group was chaired by Zucker, who infuriated activists - they later managed to get him sacked on false charges). It was retained because a diagnosis that involves distress and dysfunction requires treatment.
 
LondonJohn said:
But........ is not now.


(Interesting categorisation of the likes of the global community of mental health experts who drew up DSM-5 as "the PC (Brigade?)" though...)
Click to expand...

I get your point, and for the record, I don't consider the working group the PC brigade or anything like it. But I see statements similar to this in a lot:

Gender Dysphoria, while being a new addition to DSM-5, is the new term for Gender Identity Disorder. In order to prevent stigma guarantee clinical care for people who perceive and believe they are a different sex than their designated gender, the new term was introduced (American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013). The DSM-5 diagnostic measures for gender dysphoria include tough and unrelenting cross-gender classification that go further than a need for an alleged cultural benefit.
Click to expand...
https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/gender-dysphoria-dsm--5-302.85-(f64.9)

There is often reference to two pressures being considered beyond the accurate classification of a phenomenon. This first, referenced above, is a desire to remove the stigma of mental illness. The second, which goes in a sort of opposite direction, is a pressure to keep a diagnosis of some sort of issue for which treatment is needed. This is to avoid treatments like SRS from being classified as unnecessary or cosmetic in nature. Otherwise health services or insurance may not cover the procedures.

So yes, the working group did consider social forces outside of strictly psychology in their classifications. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. But, as someone who works in the sciences, I have to say that the idea that science is insulated from the political climate is a bit naive. (I'm not going to expand on that, though, as it would involve dragging in the private opinions and experiences of some colleagues without their permission. Also it's a bit of a derail.)
 
TomB said:
I f you posted a change that has come in the past year, I missed it. This is an active thread with a lot of posts. Some things get missed. I was working off the definition of disorder you gave.

Also from Psychology Today (updated 2/23/19):

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/gender-dysphoria

That's based on DSM-5 as it refers to the former GID in DSM-4.
Click to expand...



Ah yes. But it's not considered a disorder purely on account of it being present. A clinical diagnosis of gender dysphoria is not a diagnosis of a disorder, per se.

Yes, if having the condition results in distress to the person concerned, then it is considered a disorder - but only in a second-order sense (I posted something directly related to this a short place upthread, wrt medical and surgical interventions).
 
TomB said:
I get your point, and for the record, I don't consider the working group the PC brigade or anything like it. But I see statements similar to this in a lot:


https://www.theravive.com/therapedia/gender-dysphoria-dsm--5-302.85-(f64.9)

There is often reference to two pressures being considered beyond the accurate classification of a phenomenon. This first, referenced above, is a desire to remove the stigma of mental illness. The second, which goes in a sort of opposite direction, is a pressure to keep a diagnosis of some sort of issue for which treatment is needed. This is to avoid treatments like SRS from being classified as unnecessary or cosmetic in nature. Otherwise health services or insurance may not cover the procedures.

So yes, the working group did consider social forces outside of strictly psychology in their classifications. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. But, as someone who works in the sciences, I have to say that the idea that science is insulated from the political climate is a bit naive. (I'm not going to expand on that, though, as it would involve dragging in the private opinions and experiences of some colleagues without their permission. Also it's a bit of a derail.)
Click to expand...


Oh I'd totally agree. And especially where science and medicine operate close to a boundary with social sciences.

Again, I'd suggest that the reclassification of homosexuality through the 50s/60s is a useful comparator. There were clearly political and sociological elements at play there - in fact, those factors were almost-certainly more pressing in that case than in gender dysphoria.

I'm under no illusion that all the debates and discussions that took place within these representative expert bodies (and their consultative constituencies) were not difficult, challenging and dissent-free. But I still think that the final outcome of those debated is clearly the optimal starting point for any lay belief. Not necessarily the end point though, by any means.
 
Earthborn said:
No, even if she was living in England or Wales, and even if her identity papers still said M instead of F, it is still illegal discrimination to deny her access to most women's facilities.
Click to expand...

According to links posted above self-identification will no longer be the deciding factor. Which is what I and many others see as a critical issue. Is this or is it not true? If it’s true, it is a mighty blow to many TRAs.
 
Earthborn said:
No, even if she was living in England or Wales, and even if her identity papers still said M instead of F, it is still illegal discrimination to deny her access to most women's facilities.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

It would have saved that embarrassing "gotcha" fail if more care had been taken with obtaining the correct information :D
 
lionking said:
According to links posted above self-identification will no longer be the deciding factor. Which is what I and many others see as a critical issue. Is this or is it not true? If it’s true, it is a mighty blow to many TRAs.
Click to expand...


That appears to be correct (but which was leaked some time ago anyhow).

But that was not caveman1917's claim: rather, he was making the (incorrect) claim that today's leaks meant that no trans women would have the right to access women's facilities


Personally, I don't think I'm in favour of self-identification (even where that self-identification is only ratified upon sworn statements etc*). I think that it's right that identification should only follow clinical assessment and diagnosis by an appropriate doctor.



* And note that the proposals were never - as was represented or implied at various points within this thread - that a man could just rock up at a facility and self-identify as female for the purposes of using the women's changing room: the person would only have been able to self-identify with that legal documentation.
 
LondonJohn said:
Personally, I don't think I'm in favour of self-identification (even where that self-identification is only ratified upon sworn statements etc*). I think that it's right that identification should only follow clinical assessment and diagnosis by an appropriate doctor.
Click to expand...

Bit TERFy, IMO. Prepare to be called out and shamed as a transmedicalist. ;)
 
lionking said:
According to links posted above self-identification will no longer be the deciding factor.
Click to expand...
The proposed law that was rejected was only about changing one's M or F on one's identity papers. It is something that is already possible, the law would only make it a bit easier.

This law has absolutely nothing to do with transgender access to sex/gender segregated spaces. That is regulated by anti-discrimination law which explicitly states that it is illegal to deny trans people access to the space the identify with unless it can be proven there are good reasons for doing so. What letter is next to sex on their ID card is irrelevant.

In the often mentioned example of a locker room in which people have to get completely naked and teenage girls might have to share the room with a masculine looking trans woman whipping out their penis, I think it can be reasonable argued that there is a good reason it is not discriminatory under this law to disallow the latter person into the room. F or M on their birth certificate makes no difference.

But I repeat again: a little privacy for everyone, is that too much to ask?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom