Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Meadmaker]

Also "gender dysphoria" is in the DSM-5. I don't know if they use the word "disorder" to describe it. However, it has symptoms, diagnosis methods, and a code. I think the definitive characteristic of a disorder, from a psychologist's perspective, is whether or not they can be reimbursed by an insurance company for treating it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again (to counter your constant misrepresentation on this matter):

Who is dismissing female rights as unimportant - where, when, and in what way?

Who is framing the safety of females as exaggerated hysterical rantings of females - where, when, and in what way?

Who is insisting that females must give way and subordinate themselves to trans people - where, when, and in what way?

You have done so. As has AGG. And even Boudicca, though to a much lesser extent than either of you.

You have dismissed out of hand statistics related to sexual assaults experienced by females and perpetrated by males, deflecting those statistics as being biased, or not representative or of somehow not applying and not being important. You have dismissed (admittedly small) statistics demonstrating that the pattern of violence associated with testosterone and the social conditioning of males exists within biologically male people who identify as female. You have dismissed the risk of people with penises doing harm to people without penises in relatively secluded areas where people without penises are especially vulnerable and exposed. You've dismissed concerns about the dignity and privacy of females as simply not being important. In fact, you yourself have blatantly said that it's okay if some people (in this case females) have to give up some rights so that other people (in this case biologically male people who identify as women) get access to sex-based rights.

 

[d4m10n]

BIID^WP is definitely a disorder, but we should still allow people who voluntarily amputate their legs to access the wheelchair ramps.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nor is he/she required to be. That's the job of legislators. And the way it should work is this: the experts on gender dysphoria feed their work and their conclusions into the legislative process.

No they don't. The experts on gender dysphoria feed their work to transgender activists organizations with political agendas. Those organizations then select which elements of those clinical findings best support their political agendas, and that is what gets fed to legislature.

And if you look at the groups involved in the proposed changes to the GRA in England & Wales, it did not include any feminist or women's organizations at all... but did include two extremely large and influential TRA groups.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I've been thinking about this point that you have made here and several times upthread, too. May I examine this point a bit?

If gender dysphoria *were* a disorder, what would change in the discussion about trans rights, and why? For instance, if homosexuality were a disorder, would that mean that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry? I'm not sure, for myself, that that would follow. Marriage rights are a matter of civil rights, it doesn't depend on medical evaluations, even if homosexuality were discovered to be a disorder.

Like most things associated with mental health, it's a little fuzzy but I think a disorder is seen as something which is causing harm or distress to the individual who has it and is something that should be 'fixed'.

Anorexia is a disorder. Someone who has anorexia will possibly die if you don't intervene. It certainly will cause them health issues. it's certainly not helpful to the individual to go along with their anorexia. If an anorexic tells you they are fat, the correct response is not 'too right tubby, you could lose a few'

Homosexuality is not a disorder. a homosexual can lead a 100% happy, fulfilled, healthy life without any issues (except for those caused by dicks being dicks to them). It is helpful in that case to validate and endorse that status as homosexual. In fact not doing so is going to be harmful. If a gay man tells you 'i really like sleeping with other men' the correct response is not 'that's cos you've never had a woman, just forget that nonsense and find a nice girl to marry and have kids'

The experts say transgenderism is not a disorder. A transperson can lead a 100% happy fulfilled healthy life without any issues. It is helpful to validate and endorse that status as belonging to their preferred gender. Not doing so is likely to be more harmful for them. In some cases medical intervention is recommended whether it be hormones, surgery or whatever. In others it isn't considered necessary.

Now you are right to say that not everything follows from that. It doesn't mean that transpeople automatically get every right they ask for. But I think it does follow that denying transpeople the ability to be treated as their preferred gender is doing them a harm and therefore needs some reasonable level of justification.

And I think we have seen objections to transrights at every level of that argument

Some here say that no, transgenderism is just delusional nonsense and that males who think they are female need to be told straight that they have penises and are men and that their nonsense shouldn't be entertained. I've even seen people draw a direct analogy to anorexia and thinking they are Napoleon

Some here say ok, we can accept that they are what they are but there is no harm in denying treating them women because they aren't really women. Which seems both internally contradictory and suggestive that at best they lack empathy for the harm done in that case.

Others say 'yes it does do harm but that harm is justified in many/all/some cases'. Then we can have a discussion about where the societal line is drawn - and here this is where we switch from psychology to policy.

I suppose the last position is 'it does harm and that is never justified' but I haven't seen anyone, not even the transwoman, make that case here.

 

[TomB]

You are not properly separating biological sex (which is a scientific and medical absolute*) from gender (which is a social construct, a lived experience/mindset, which is subjective and fluid).

No. You aren't getting it. I'm not talking about biological sex as identity itself. I'm talking about the contribution the effects of biological sex has on identity.

Remember, you just defined gender as:

a social construct, a lived experience/mindset, which is subjective and fluid

Note the highlighted section. What I am saying is that for cis women, biological sex, it's effects and consequences (including associated social pressures) contribute a significant portion to the highlighted portion. Your own definition supports this. Unless you want to say that the effects of biology are an insignificant part of their lived experience?

Now, as a male, can't really speak for exactly how much of their identity is going to be shaped by this. I suspect it is going to vary as we are all individuals.

But neither can you, as a male, say with authority that the contribution of biology (its effects...etc) to a cis woman's identity are insignificant. I would say you are improperly dismissing the effects of biological factors on identity.

If you are going to use "women" as a class of identity where the identities of cis and trans women overlap, please define that overlap and why the term "woman" excludes the biological related portions of lived experiences. And why it must be called "woman" instead of some new term that doesn't represent something else to so many people?

What do you call the portion of identity that results from lived experiences related to biological effects that are apparently not included in the gender identity "woman?"

More to the point, I'm trying to get you to understand the opposing side from your arguments.

Let's perhaps try another analogy

Suppose you and all your friends are Chicago Bears fans. And let's say that the analogue of "sex" is "residence/birthplace", and the analogue of "gender" is "which football team you support".

So if someone (let's call him Bob) is born and raised in Chicago (= "sex"), the high likelihood is that this person will be a fan of the Chicago Bears (= "gender"). The person's birthright is a fixed, factual, immutable truth; while the fandom of the football team is a social condition, a lived experience, and so on.

Now let's take another person: Charlie. Charlie was born and raised in Baltimore. So the automatic presumption is that he will be a Baltimore Ravens fan (as are all of his friends). But Charlie doesn't feel like it's right for him to support the Ravens. He much prefers the football played by the Bears, to the extent that he identifies as a Bears fan.

So Charlie starts travelling to Bears games. He sits in the stands, among the other Bears fans - most of whom will have been born and raised in Chicago.

And the pertinent question is this: is Bob's lived experience of being a Bears fan in any way compromised/de-legitimised/diluted by the fact that sitting next to him in the stand, cheering for the Bears, is Charlie?


*stands back and prepares for (possibly deliberate) misinterpretation of what I've just written, by the usual suspect(s)*



* Except for in an extremely small proportion of people who are not born with a definitive binary sex.

LOL

I suppose we could have a lot of fun with American football analogies on this thread. Especially those involving the Baltimore Ravens....

See, a lot of people in Baltimore are likely to be Indianapolis Colts fans...cuz that's the team they grew up with. But the Colts moved (transitioned?) to Indianapolis.

Which angered a lot of Baltimore fans, some of whom abandoned the Colts.

So after being passed over for an expansion team, Baltimore finally got a team...the Cleveland Browns. The Browns moved (players and all) to Baltimore. But an agreement was made to leave the name "Browns" in Cleveland, so the "Cleveland Browns" now identify as the "Baltimore Ravens."

A few years later, a new expansion team was born and assigned the identity "Cleveland Browns" at birth.



Anyway, I understand your analogy, but I think it's too simplistic to be useful. For example, it doesn't give Chicago fans a reason to object to non-native Chicago fans other than snobbery. (Is that what you think? Do you really think the motivation of the people you are arguing against is some sort of snobbery or dislike of trans people? Because that is a completely different motivation from fears or safety concerns. Rational or not.)

If you used college football bowl games you could get closer, I think:
LSU and Michigan are in a bowl game.
The bowl gives each school an allotment of tickets to sell to their fans.
Johnny is an LSU student, but he is a Michigan fan and he wants to be seated in the Michigan section where he will be more comfortable wearing his Michigan sweatshirt. So he purchases his ticket from the Michigan site.
Mary and her friend Sally are Michigan students. Mary tries to buy tickets for herself and Sally, but the last of Michigan's allotment has been sold, so she can't get the ticket for Sally.

Game day comes, and Sally takes her seat. In the seat next toher is Johnny in his Michigan shirt. But it's a cold day and Johnny grabs a hat. He doesn't have a Michigan hat, but he has an LSU hat. So sally sees someone next to her wearing ambiguous team gear. In talking to Johnny she finds out that he is an LSU student, but bought Michigan tickets because he identifies as a Michigan fan.

Now Sally's upset because an LSU student bought the ticket that should have belonged to her friend as a Michigan student.

Is that a useful analogy? Not really. What Mary/Sally lose by Johnny's actions is not comparable to the gender rights situation. (More material and less abstract.) But at least it takes into account more of the variables than yours did.

Still, neither analogy accurately represents the situation although on their surface both can illustrate aspects of the situation. The situations are too complicated to argue by analogy and much easier to, as The Prestige pointed out simply argue on their own merits.

If we could only agree on terms so we don't talk past each other....

 

[theprestige]

Also "gender dysphoria" is in the DSM-5. I don't know if they use the word "disorder" to describe it. However, it has symptoms, diagnosis methods, and a code. I think the definitive characteristic of a disorder, from a psychologist's perspective, is whether or not they can be reimbursed by an insurance company for treating it.

The authority LondonJohn is appealing to is literally the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

 

[Paul2]

BIID^WP is definitely a disorder, but we should still allow people who voluntarily amputate their legs to access the wheelchair ramps.

What is a disorder, in general?

If a disorder is subjectively defined - that is, defined by the person with the supposed disorder - that is, as something that cause the person distress or a problem - then it is a pretty useless term for this thread.

The only way that the distinction between a disorder and a valid human condition would be relevant for this thread is if there were some objective definition, or at least a definition such that it is obvious that its effects are negative, for everyone (for all practical purposes).

 

[theprestige]

There's a massive difference between a) accommodating people who have mental disorders (and that is indeed a noble endeavour in a civilised society), and b) granting people rights (and then protecting those rights) on the basis of a valid human condition.

I really don't understand the role of the term "valid human condition" in your argument. I get that it's supposed to connote certain shared assumptions that support your claim and encourage my agreement, but I can't figure out what those assumptions are from context.

The way I see it, the mental disorders listed in the DSM-V are all valid human conditions. People really do suffer from them. Treatment and accommodation really are needed for them. The rights granted by disability laws such as the ADA really do apply to them.

But that doesn't seem to be the way you are using the term.

You seem to be making a distinction between mental disorders and valid human conditions. You seem to be saying that gender identity is a valid human condition like homosexual attraction, and not a mental disorder like... gender dysphoria?

Gender dysphoria is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Homosexuality is not. It seems like there may be an axiomatic contradiction in your argument.

 

[TomB]

Nor is he/she required to be. That's the job of legislators. And the way it should work is this: the experts on gender dysphoria feed their work and their conclusions into the legislative process.

It's the job of legislators (eg Parliament in the UK, or Congress in the US) to collate and assess all the relevant evidence - of which, in the case of gender dysphoria, the views of the medical experts will form a very important component - and consequently to create legislation which represents the evidence correctly and cogently.


The climate change debate is a nice comparator here (as a.g.g. has already outlined). It is the settled view of the expert scientists in this field that global warming is both happening and accelerating. The only reason why legislators know this, and are now framing legislation around it, is because the expert scientists told them so.

Now replace "climate change" with "transgender identity", and follow the same logic through the process as outlined above.

As an aside, I work in the climate science field. Though I don't work directly in climatology, opinions in the field are not as uniform as you make out. It's a general consensus, yes, but there is still significant debate about important issues and details. But that's off topic and I'm not in a position to explain those concepts anyway. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

But it would work exactly the same in the case of the issues we are discussing here. The implications for others affected by the changes need to be assessed and addressed. The costs and engineering feasibility of any facilities retrofits to whatever solution is adapted need to be weighed. Alternative solutions need to be considered. Privacy, property, religious and other rights have to be considered. In other words, the scientists say "this is a problem facing this group of people" and are consulted to help evaluate proposed solutions, but they do not themselves make policy.

 

[Paul2]

Now you are right to say that not everything follows from that. It doesn't mean that transpeople automatically get every right they ask for. But I think it does follow that denying transpeople the ability to be treated as their preferred gender is doing them a harm and therefore needs some reasonable level of justification.

My reading of your last sentence is that it is possibly in conflict with your first two sentences. Being treated as their preferred gender might, hypothetically, mean that they get any right that they ask for, because not granting some right can be framed as not treating them as their preferred gender. But see below, perhaps this small point doesn't matter.

And I think we have seen objections to transrights at every level of that argument

One can flatly deny trans rights merely on the basis that they don't deserve them because, perhaps, they have a disorder. But we should distinguish that from the denial of trans rights on the basis that you articulated above, that any one group does not automatically get the rights they claim because sometimes one's groups rights can conflict with others' rights. That type of denial of another' rights - on the basis of trying to balance some rights against another' rights - is much different from the blanket denial on clearly bigoted terms.

And, there can also be disagreement as to whether some proposed denial of ostensible rights is due to blanket bigotry or a reasoned attempt to balance competing interests.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

As an aside, I work in the climate science field. Though I don't work directly in climatology, opinions in the field are not as uniform as you make out. It's a general consensus, yes, but there is still significant debate about important issues and details. But that's off topic and I'm not in a position to explain those concepts anyway. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

But it would work exactly the same in the case of the issues we are discussing here. The implications for others affected by the changes need to be assessed and addressed. The costs and engineering feasibility of any facilities retrofits to whatever solution is adapted need to be weighed. Alternative solutions need to be considered. Privacy, property, religious and other rights have to be considered. In other words, the scientists say "this is a problem facing this group of people" and are consulted to help evaluate proposed solutions, but they do not themselves make policy.

Everyone is in agreement with you here I think. All I am saying is that if you disagree with the experts on their consensus then the proper place for that discussion is with the experts to attempt to move the consensus. the people who have to make the policy have to (or should do, too often they don't) work with what the consensus is.

Instead what we generally see is groups lobbying for their fringe opinions or dissenting views directly with policymakers as if somehow their personal opinion should carry just as much weight in policymaking as the consensus of experts.

You only have to look at the current COVID debacle to see how well that works.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not my authority - as I've stated many times (but possibly you didn't bother to notice).

It's the authority of the world's experts on the subject. And I am more than content to defer to their authority, seeing as the abstractions and specialisations required to make a fully-informed assessment on this sort of matter are really only possessed by those experts (much as only particle physicists have the skills and experience to examine and assess quantum mechanics).

I know you've stated that it's the opinion of the experts many times. What I haven't seen, however, is any reference to experts actually stating the opinion that you say they have. The interpretation of the classification of Gender Dysphoria that you keep providing doesn't align with the actual description of the condition as described in the DSM-V, nor does your interpretation of it being classed as a condition rather than a disorder have any bearing at all on the medical meaning of the term condition. You've made several extrapolations and inferences of both the meaning of the condition itself as well as the implications of the reclassification... and those extrapolations do not seem to be echoed by any of the experts you keep appealing to as authorities.

So... Please provide supporting evidence that 1) your interpretation of both the condition and the meaning of the reclassification are correct and 2) that your interpretation is shared by experts in this field.

On what basis should we accept your authority on this topic, especially seeing as it's in direct contradiction with the views of the actual experts?

I haven't claimed authority. I haven't claimed anything contradictory. You haven't provided the views of "actual experts".

 

[Tomboy]

No. You aren't getting it. I'm not talking about biological sex as identity itself. I'm talking about the contribution the effects of biological sex has on identity.

Just want to say I very much appreciate your posts in this thread. Thank you.

See, a lot of people in Baltimore are likely to be Indianapolis Colts fans...cuz that's the team they grew up with. But the Colts moved (transitioned?) to Indianapolis.

Which angered a lot of Baltimore fans...

As a native of Baltimore and a fan of the original Colts, I appreciate this part of this post, too.

 

[Matthew Best]

Gender Identity Disorder was reclassified as Gender Dysphoria because the writers of DSM-5 wanted to get rid of the stigma attached to GID, not because they had done some amazing scientific work that meant they had a different view of what it involved. Getting rid of the stigma was the stated reason for the reclassification, not some new insight into the condition or, if you will, "disorder" itself.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

My reading of your last sentence is that it is possibly in conflict with your first two sentences. Being treated as their preferred gender might, hypothetically, mean that they get any right that they ask for, because not granting some right can be framed as not treating them as their preferred gender. But see below, perhaps this small point doesn't matter.

It's just an acknowledgement that nobody gets everything they want because there are always going to be practical or societal limitations. That doesn't mean we aren't harming that individual it just means we have taken the societal decision that the harm done is outweighed by a greater good.

Governments harm people every day. Sometimes for their own good, sometimes for the good of others. What I hope for is that they don't harm people unnecessarily.

One can flatly deny trans rights merely on the basis that they don't deserve them because, perhaps, they have a disorder. But we should distinguish that from the denial of trans rights on the basis that you articulated above, that any one group does not automatically get the rights they claim because sometimes one's groups rights can conflict with others' rights. That type of denial of another' rights - on the basis of trying to balance some rights against another' rights - is much different from the blanket denial on clearly bigoted terms.

And, there can also be disagreement as to whether some proposed denial of ostensible rights is due to blanket bigotry or a reasoned attempt to balance competing interests.

Yes, completely agree. But hopefully we also agree that denying rights because of bigotry is a) bad and b) something that HAS been observed to be the case for almost every rights movement in the past. So we need to be careful to guard against it.

Which is why I do often look to two things to guide my judgement... one being a comparison of arguments used with arguments used to deny people rights in the past and the other being hard data.

I realise people don't like their arguments being compared to those of bigots of the past, but if there is a real difference it should be reasonably easy to show that there is a real difference rather than just say 'you know those things aren't the same' or 'dont call me a bigot'

 

[TomB]

Everyone is in agreement with you here I think. All I am saying is that if you disagree with the experts on their consensus then the proper place for that discussion is with the experts to attempt to move the consensus. the people who have to make the policy have to (or should do, too often they don't) work with what the consensus is.

Instead what we generally see is groups lobbying for their fringe opinions or dissenting views directly with policymakers as if somehow their personal opinion should carry just as much weight in policymaking as the consensus of experts.

You only have to look at the current COVID debacle to see how well that works.

Part of the problem I see is that the extremists...actually, I think a better term is absolutists...on both sides of, well, almost any issue, dominate the debate. But absolutists never produce solutions.

I see legitimate truth in the arguments of all sides. The fact that I don't necessarily agree with everything doesn't contradict that.

Then you are a king?
It's you that say I am.
I look for truth and find that I get damned.
But what is truth?
Is truth a changing law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?

-Jesus Christ Superstar, Trial Before Pilate
In some ways, this is like arguing religion. You have zealots who brand others as heretics if they don't completely agree with everything. Absolutist stances lead to crusades. Better to build on the commonalities and learn to live together without necessarily agreeing.

 

[theprestige]

Gender Identity Disorder was reclassified as Gender Dysphoria because the writers of DSM-5 wanted to get rid of the stigma attached to GID, not because they had done some amazing scientific work that meant they had a different view of what it involved. Getting rid of the stigma was the stated reason for the reclassification, not some new insight into the condition or, if you will, "disorder" itself.

I confess that I get very creeped out by the idea of using medical terminology as a tool for social policy, rather than as a tool for technical clarity.

 

[d4m10n]

A transperson can lead a 100% happy fulfilled healthy life without any issues. It is helpful to validate and endorse that status as belonging to their preferred gender. Not doing so is likely to be more harmful for them. In some cases medical intervention is recommended whether it be hormones, surgery or whatever. In others it isn't considered necessary.

Gender dysphoria^WP seems like a whole bag of issues, necessarily including "clinically significant distress." It requires therapy and treatment, unlike homosexuality or, say, uniform fetishism.

 

[Meadmaker]

I really don't understand the role of the term "valid human condition" in your argument. I get that it's supposed to connote certain shared assumptions that support your claim and encourage my agreement, but I can't figure out what those assumptions are from context.

The way I see it, the mental disorders listed in the DSM-V are all valid human conditions. People really do suffer from them. Treatment and accommodation really are needed for them. The rights granted by disability laws such as the ADA really do apply to them.

But that doesn't seem to be the way you are using the term.

You seem to be making a distinction between mental disorders and valid human conditions. You seem to be saying that gender identity is a valid human condition like homosexual attraction, and not a mental disorder like... gender dysphoria?

Gender dysphoria is in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Homosexuality is not. It seems like there may be an axiomatic contradiction in your argument.

I think what's actually happening is that in some writings, people are conflating trangenderism with gender dysphoria. (I've done that myself, so it isn't a one sided thing.) Any sort of dysphoria is a mental disorder. "Transgender identity" isn't the same thing, but as it turns out, the DSM-V doesn't really address exactly what that means. They do, on the other hand, give a definition of "gender identity".

"Gender identity - is a category of social identity and refers to an individual’s identification as male, female or, occasionally, some category other than male or female. It is one’s deeply held core sense of being male, female, some of both or neither, and does not always correspond to biological sex."

So, in the view of the experts (assuming the compilers of DSM-5 are experts), your gender identity is a "deeply held core sense". Is that different from "belief"? It is my opinion that if your argument rests on such fine distinctions, it probably isn't a very strong argument. i.e. "It isn't a belief. It's a deeply held core sense. Therefore.....", whatever follows the "therefore" isn't likely to be accepted on the basis of that argument.