Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[The Atheist]

Otherwise there's far less use for an ultrasound, or amniocentesis.

The ultrasound is standard practice to check for spina bifida. We never went as far as amnio - Down Syndrome is less of a problem than spina bifida, and even though the last pregnancy was well in the wrong age range, we had no intention of going down that path.

I suppose in some cases it might provide information vital for the life of the mother, but if abortion for any reason is unacceptable I don't see why that would make a difference.

I was giving my personal opinion - I'm not really too fussed what other people think. It's when they try to take action to prevent women from deciding for themselves I start to object, and that's not an issue here.

 

[Earthborn]

This tweet suggests to me that he doesn't understand sex in the larger sense, is in denial, or is being disingenuous for rhetorical purposes.

Or you don't understand him.

There are incredibly rare cases where what gonad/gamete type the individual might have made is unclear, both these people are not relevant to a definition of sex (since they are not going to reproduce, which is the function of sex).

Maybe they are not relevant to the definition of biological sex at a species level, but they are relevant when you are trying to determine the biological sex of people on an individual level.

Do you write a paper suggesting that this species has >2 sexes?

No, I would write a paper that this species has 2 sexes, but that in some individual critters their sex may be unclear/undefined. In other words: fuzzy.

It's a poor word choice - it's an observation, "assignment" makes it sound random.

To many of the individuals involved, it certainly seems random. And it is not merely an observation, often surgery is involved.

there were/are unfortunate decisions made for some people with DSDs.

... long before they could even consent, it should be noted.

But I see no evidence that DSDs have anything to do with trans-people.

There are obvious parallels in the ways their lives unfold. And there have been many attempts to use intersex individuals to try to study how "gender identity" develops.

 

[Minoosh]

The ultrasound is standard practice to check for spina bifida. We never went as far as amnio - Down Syndrome is less of a problem than spina bifida, and even though the last pregnancy was well in the wrong age range, we had no intention of going down that path.

I commend you for getting as far as talking about it before the ultrasound. A friend of mine did not marry the great female love of his life because he knew he'd want to abort a Down's fetus and she knew she wouldn't.

Other than spina bifida there are other neural tube defects that are potentially even more problematic. The idea of a babies born mostly without brains is just atavistically horrifying to me. Some women go through with birth but accept only comfort care for the infant and they die quickly. Whether the longer-lived ones suffer, I don't know.

 

[TomB]

Let's take that question a step further. Suppose you could genetically test the fetus for this hypothetical gene. Given that life is harder for trans people, would it be ethical for parents to abort a fetus because it had that gene?

I actually think my original question was more interesting. On the surface the questions appear to be a matter of degree, but they are not.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Or you don't understand him.

He's not very clear, so that's possible. He sounds more angry than coherent on the subject. TBH, I'm not sure he knows what he means or can speak rationally on this. The quote you linked to says: the notion of “biological sex” as a fixed binary that exists in contemporary political and legal discourse was invented to regulate trans people out of categories.

Maybe he means gender identity rather than sex, but then that seems to be undefinable and based on stereotypes (which I think are harmful). But if he means gender, he should say that.

but they are relevant when you are trying to determine the biological sex of people on an individual level.

Note - it's an individuals that reproduce and ultimately make-up species (& species sometimes actually do have fuzzy boundaries

No, I would write a paper that this species has 2 sexes, but that in some individual critters their sex may be unclear/undefined. In other words: fuzzy.

And the reviewers would not buy that conclusion. You're conflating normal variation with a deleterious mutation. Again, we can now almost always discern which of the two sex pathways has been perturbed. Moreover, It's not a requirement that each individual has a sex. It sounds like you are talking about sexual identity or need a different word for what you're talking about.

There is a binary at core of mammalian reproduction: one oocyte and one sperm pronucleus are required for development. That is a binary, and how I (& many biologists who work in relevant areas) would define the two sexes. Non-functional variants are irrelevant to that definition.

To many of the individuals involved, it certainly seems random. And it is not merely an observation, often surgery is involved.
... long before they could even consent, it should be noted.

There are obvious parallels in the ways their lives unfold. And there have been many attempts to use intersex individuals to try to study how "gender identity" develops.

I agree that the situations those with DSDs was (occasionally still is) handled poorly (particularly genetic males - "easier to dig a hole than make a pole").

That being said, the observation of newborn sex is not controversial >99% of the time & has not been demonstrated to have anything to do with trans people. E.g. if trans-people had malfunctions in some form of steroid hormone synthesis (as in CAH, the most common spectrum of DSDs- & note that CAH can be fatal) or a major part of sex-determination, we'd know about it.

I understand the temptation, but I don't think it's right to conflate DSDs - which have known mutations and typically result in infertility and often other issues - with people who feel their secondary sex characteristics do not match their brain/gender identity. For that matter, even lumping DSDs together is a stretch.

What would you think if a trans-susceptibility genetic variant was identified in a gene associated with multiple mental illnesses?

 

[Ziggurat]

Personally, I wouldn't seek to terminate on those grounds, but that's because I know the kid would be born into a loving house where they would have support.

You didn’t actually answer my question. I didn’t ask what you personally would do, I asked if you thought it was ethical. You didn’t say.

 

[Ziggurat]

I actually think my original question was more interesting. On the surface the questions appear to be a matter of degree, but they are not.

Interest is subjective, but you are correct that they are not different simply by matters of degree. My version tangles the transgender issue with another hot button topic, and that combination is what makes it interesting to me.

 

[Chanakya]

You didn’t actually answer my question. I didn’t ask what you personally would do, I asked if you thought it was ethical. You didn’t say.

I wasn't the one you asked, I wasn't even part of the conversation, but still, if I may:

Personally I'd say No. To abort a child simply because they'd likely turn out trans is something I'd never consider.

That said, ultimately the choice rests with the parents, and more specifically with the mother. If some woman wanted to abort a child because it would end up trans, or even because it would be a female and she wants a male, or a male and she wants a female -- or for any other reason that, irrespective of how I felt about it, she herself felt strongly enough about: then to me it is an open and shut case, with zero ambiguity or confusion or even nuance: as long as it's not actually against the law, the mother's wishes take precedence over any and every other thing.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wasn't the one you asked

Consider it a general question to all and sundry.

Personally I'd say No. To abort a child simply because they'd likely turn out trans is something I'd never consider.

Is that because it's unethical, though?

as long as it's not actually against the law, the mother's wishes take precedence over any and every other thing.

But that's not the question either. Not everything that is legal is ethical, and considering something to be unethical doesn't mean that you want to make it illegal. Saying someone is legally entitled to do something doesn't mean that it is ethical for them to.

So is it ethical?

 

[8enotto]

If or when it becomes possible to detect birth defects and possible future illness in a future human being it also means one can prepare for what comes.

Not every probable problematic child would be an insufferable burden.

Picking and choosing the best options for the parents seems a good idea. Offering the others to other parents that can deal with potential issues isn't a bad thing.
Many families have special needs kids now and do quite well doing the best they can.

I could only accept the elimination of those that had no chance of a decent life. But I doubt I could do the decisions case for case.

 

[Chanakya]

...Is that because it's unethical, though?

I see what you mean.

I guess no, that's not an ethical choice, it's just a matter of, ultimately, preference.

But that's not the question either. Not everything that is legal is ethical, and considering something to be unethical doesn't mean that you want to make it illegal. Saying someone is legally entitled to do something doesn't mean that it is ethical for them to.

So is it ethical?

In this case, the answer's a straightforward Yes.

If a woman wants to carry (or not carry) to birth a child she knows will be trans, then to acquisce to and facilitate her wishes in the matter, is something unequivocally ethical (IMO).

Her choice would be my* choice, and yes, it would be a choice based on ethics. (Whether the woman's choice is ethical, in either sense of the word 'ethical', is a question only the woman can answer.)


* "My", as in anyone other than that woman herself: be it partner, or friend, or counselor, or the one/s setting down the law, etc. (And yes, one can think of more complex but extraneous situations where others may play an ethical part in that choice as consequence of those extraneous situations, sure. But otherwise the question seems straightforward.)

 

[Louden Wilde]

If a woman wants to carry (or not carry) to birth a child she knows will be trans, then to acquisce to and facilitate her wishes in the matter, is something unequivocally ethical (IMO)...
(And yes, one can think of more complex but extraneous situations where others may play an ethical part in that choice as consequence of those extraneous situations, sure. But otherwise the question seems straightforward.)

Here's perhaps another complexity. The MZ twin studies suggest it (being trans) is an interplay between genetics and environment. Do you (ethically) tell the child they have that gene variant? If so, at what age?

 

[Chanakya]

Welcome to the forum, Louden Wilde. Pleasure reading your very well informed, 'solid' posts. (Although TBF I found myself disagreeing with some of the conclusions and opinions you draw from your facts. But, not knowing nearly as much about the trans issue as even most of the non-experts commenting here, I'll just see how the conversation pans out.)

Here's perhaps another complexity. The MZ twin studies suggest it (being trans) is an interplay between genetics and environment. Do you (ethically) tell the child they have that gene variant? If so, at what age?

Very interesting question!

I myself really wouldn't know, not knowing what the probability of the child ending up with a trans identity might be, or how much the knowing itself might affect the development/evolution/formation of that trans identity, but that apart, I suppose there are arguments to be made for both sides: simply watching how the child turns out (while supporting them fully, either way), as well as telling them as soon as they're old enough to understand (which is when?).

As someone who does know, very well, what they're talking about, would you like to put out some answers to those questions yourself, or at least opinions, even if tentative?

 

[Minoosh]

It is almost like I might as well not bothered typing the word western

Eastern vs. Western is a social construct.

I know what you’re saying, honestly. But NZ is East if you go by maps/globes.

 

[Minoosh]

The ultrasound is standard practice to check for spina bifida. We never went as far as amnio - Down Syndrome is less of a problem than spina bifida, and even though the last pregnancy was well in the wrong age range, we had no intention of going down that path.

Amnio is what screens at the genetic level, though. There are trisomies more severe than Down’s, and more problematic than intersex.

A family’s ability to provide for a special-needs infant is IMO part of the PRIVATE decision.

Amino may be standard of care in the US; I’m not sure. It adds another social dimension beyond ultrasound screening, and arguably a further ethical dilemma.

 

[Tippit]

I completely agree that all those things you mention were significantly influenced by Sanger. But eugenics had little influence on those things as aspects of feminism beyond Sanger. Sanger's eugenics had little influence on feminism even if Sanger did.

First, I would point you to this NIH study:

Disparities in Abortion Rates: A Public Health Approach

It claims:

In 2008, the abortion rate for non-Hispanic White women was 12 abortions per 1000 reproductive-age women, compared with 29 per 1000 for Hispanic women, and 40 per 1000 for non-Hispanic Black women.2 Disparities in abortion rates also exist by socioeconomic status (SES), with women with incomes less than 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL) having an abortion rate of 52 abortions per 1000 reproductive-age women, compared with a rate of 9 per 1000 among those with incomes greater than 200% FPL. In analyses assessing both income and race/ethnicity, both are independently associated with abortion rates.

As you can see, the abortion rate in 2008 for black women was about 233% higher than for white women. I can understand why feminists would prefer not to lay the blame for these statistics on themselves and place them squarely on Sanger, but the reality is that feminists, as well as anyone who promotes abortion is at least partially responsible. It's unclear to me whether these stats are the direct result of some unwritten eugenics policy, but the outcomes seem to be the essence of negative eugenics - limiting people with certain traits from reproducing.

You're free to expand on Steinem's CIA connection.

To be honest, I haven't done much research about Steinem, I was just aware that she has a credible connection to the Central Intelligence Agency. I am aware that the CIA has a history of and is in the business of sponsoring coups around the world and creating social and political instability for the benefit of elites, so I find it problematic that such a prominent activist who allegedly represents the emancipation of 50% of the population is connected to an organization that has a vested interest in dividing people. What are we in 2020 other than deeply divided?

 

[dann]

My stance on immigration doesn't mean that I don't care about Muslim women, it means that I care about western culture (and western women, specifically) more than I do Muslim women.

Which just confirms that you don't care about Muslim women at all, but if oppression of Muslim women can be used by you to defend anti-immigration laws, you don't mind pretending.

I hope that Muslim culture evolves to become less misogynistic, and indeed less misanthropic, but I also hope western culture evolves to become less pathologically tolerant than it currently is as well.

Oppression bad, but 'pathological tolerance' even worse. Never let your sentiments stand in the way of keeping out Muslim women fleeing from misogynistic oppression while you're hoping that absolute monarchy will magically disappear ... by April?!

 

[Minoosh]

You didn’t actually answer my question. I didn’t ask what you personally would do, I asked if you thought it was ethical. You didn’t say.

And I perceived that what he and his kids' mom decided answered the question of what was ethical under their own framework. Spina bifida, abort. Down's, or hypothetical trans gene? Forgoing amnio is itself a commitment not to abort under those circumstances, so no, he wasn't going to go there. How do I know he was following his own ethical framework? Because of the actions he took, and didn't take, and that he's at peace with.

 

[Minoosh]

Oppression bad, but 'pathological tolerance' even worse. Never let your sentiments stand in the way of keeping out Muslim women fleeing from misogynistic oppression while you're hoping that absolute monarchy will magically disappear ... by April?!

Are case-by-case determinations of asylum claims pathologically tolerant?

It seems to me Tippit is saying tolerant is "better," but that it can go too far. He claims to prefer Western values; Western values would look at and judge individual claims. He may be talking about commitments to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees or similar schemes - undertaken in cooperation to our Western European allies. But I really shouldn't speak for him.

The belief seems to be that many immigrants reject "Western values," or even seek to destroy them. Not that a lot of evidence is offered.

The idea that Muslim women wearing headscarves are signaling a commitment to continued subjugation of women? Expressing ties to your first culture while becoming American strikes me as completely innocuous, like still listening to ranchero music or watching the World Cup. Or going to mosque. In theory religious freedom is a core Western value, but perhaps not in practice.

 

[Paul2]

I can understand why feminists would prefer not to lay the blame for these statistics on themselves and place them squarely on Sanger, but the reality is that feminists, as well as anyone who promotes abortion is at least partially responsible.

I don't see any partial responsibility given precisely what you just said. If giving people the choice of an abortion is proper in an of itself, then problems in how that plays out are the result of other factors, so that's where the responsibility lies - with those other factors.

It's unclear to me whether these stats are the direct result of some unwritten eugenics policy, but the outcomes seem to be the essence of negative eugenics - limiting people with certain traits from reproducing.

You have to actually provide evidence for that, and until then, the null hypothesis says that we assume there is no cause and effect. And, correlating the mere presence of the use of abortion by people of color with some hypothesized eugenics policy is insufficient to conclude that it was caused by some eugenics policy which hasn't even been established to exist.

To be honest, I haven't done much research about Steinem, I was just aware that she has a credible connection to the Central Intelligence Agency. I am aware that the CIA has a history of and is in the business of sponsoring coups around the world and creating social and political instability for the benefit of elites, so I find it problematic that such a prominent activist who allegedly represents the emancipation of 50% of the population is connected to an organization that has a vested interest in dividing people. What are we in 2020 other than deeply divided?

The vagueness of "credible connection" is mere rhetoric that gives the reader room to imagine all sorts of nefariousness. But, again, until you have actual evidence of some nefariousness, all you have is innuendo. You actually have to find evidence linking some "credible connection to the CIA" with the CIA's well-documented sponsorship of coups and the like.

Until then, there is nothing "problematic" at all, unless you want to criticize Steinem for merely being associated with the CIA, which is a reasonable position, but what does this have to do with eugenics that there is actual evidence for, and not just some hypothesis?

Please don't take my skepticism in the fact of mere correlation and mere hypothesis for concluding that that must be all there is. Produce the evidence and I'm all ears and will change my mind. And, there certainly is enough there to investigate, for sure.