Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[caveman1917]

You're lying.

Oh, ok. I know you are trying to just make a point, but it's the wrong point. It's just a straw man. You are arguing against a point that you think someone is making, but no one is.

Talking. Producing sequences of words. Heck, I'll even go as far as talking surprisingly coherently. But arguing? As in, making an actual - let alone proper - argument? No that one goes too far.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Seriously, an 80-year old man says

"I'm afraid I'm not that interested in trans folks
I just hope they're happy and that people treat them kindly"

and this has people's knickers in a twist?

Yea this is as silly as when the first lady clearly sent the message that she didn't care about child separation policies and why should you. Apathy is of course a totally neutral position.

I mean I want gays to be happy but give them rights that is a step I am not interested in taking. Totally neutral apathetic position nothing anyone could take issue with.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Doesn't affect me either way. I just don't want to be asked to pay for it.

I think it should be elective treatment to be paid for by the individual who desires it, not something provided by taxpayers.

Just like uterine cancer. It does not effect me therefor I shouldn't be expected to pay for it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Biologically, men are men, and women are women, and we don't have the technology to change that reality. Sterilization won't do it, so I don't see why it's made a mandatory part of the process.

Because like castration it changes their sex to neuter. Hence why Lance Armstrong is not a man. Nice and simple bright line tests instead of all that murky well this but sometimes that crap you have trying to shoehorn everyone into two sexes.

I mean no one ever called a steer a bull.

So forced sterilization simplifies the whole gender and sex not aligning. People can have what ever gender they want when their sex is neuter.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Yea this is as silly as when the first lady clearly sent the message that she didn't care about child separation policies and why should you. Apathy is of course a totally neutral position.

I mean I want gays to be happy but give them rights that is a step I am not interested in taking. Totally neutral apathetic position nothing anyone could take issue with.

Sure, other than literally every aspect of your example being completely different, that's exactly the same!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sure, other than literally every aspect of your example being completely different, that's exactly the same!

Anytime you express such sentiments about an oppressed group it does not come off exactly well.

I get it you think as a response to police killings saying "I don't care about the black community, but I wish them well and happiness". Yep nothing problematic about that. It is standing aside so that the harm can continue while washing your hands of it.

 

[Aber]

UK court case on prescription of puberty blockers to under 18s - generally taking a restrictive view, and probably being appealed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/children-who-want-puberty-blockers-must-understand-effects-high-court-rules

A child under 16 may only consent to the use of medication intended to suppress puberty where he or she is competent to understand the nature of the treatment. That includes an understanding of the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life changing consequences for a child. There will be enormous difficulties in a child under 16 understanding and weighing up this information and deciding whether to consent to the use of puberty blocking medication. It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.

In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. Given the longterm consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

 

[JihadJane]

UK court case on prescription of puberty blockers to under 18s - generally taking a restrictive view, and probably being appealed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/01/children-who-want-puberty-blockers-must-understand-effects-high-court-rules



https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

On what grounds could an appeal be launched?

 

[The Atheist]

On what grounds could an appeal be launched?

Someone's made up human right might be harmed.

 

[cullennz]

Because like castration it changes their sex to neuter. Hence why Lance Armstrong is not a man. Nice and simple bright line tests instead of all that murky well this but sometimes that crap you have trying to shoehorn everyone into two sexes.

I mean no one ever called a steer a bull.

So forced sterilization simplifies the whole gender and sex not aligning. People can have what ever gender they want when their sex is neuter.

People can be what ever gender they want whether they are male or female, and being sterilised doesn't make someone sex neutral.

 

[ponderingturtle]

People can be what ever gender they want whether they are male or female, and being sterilised doesn't make someone sex neutral.

They can not perform a reproductive role, why get hung up on sex at that point? It means we don't need to worry about assigning sex to intersex people for example, as the complicated cases are sterile so irrelevant. It is nice simple and based entirely on biology.

And you really think there is no difference between a bull and a steer?

It seems that only telling trans people that you need to focus on their sex instead of gender in making determinations against their wishes is ok for people but not cis people?

 

[cullennz]

They can not perform a reproductive role, why get hung up on sex at that point? It means we don't need to worry about assigning sex to intersex people for example, as the complicated cases are sterile so irrelevant. It is nice simple and based entirely on biology.

And you really think there is no difference between a bull and a steer?

It seems that only telling trans people that you need to focus on their sex instead of gender in making determinations against their wishes is ok for people but not cis people?

Might be nice and simple to you, but that doesn't mean you get the right to determine a male or female is no longer a male or female just because though they have the body of someone who can reproduce, because due to medical reasons they can't.

Just because it gives some tiny minority group the warm fuzzies.

You are claiming that there are no women over the age of about 70.

I disagree with this.

Bull - adult male of the species Bos taurus

Steer - a young male of the cattle family that has had its sex organs removed

 

[ponderingturtle]

Might be nice and simple to you, but that doesn't mean you get the right to determine a male or female is no longer a male or female just because though they have the body of someone who can reproduce, because due to medical reasons they can't.

You seem confused on this point, they don't have the body of someone who can reproduce. Why is this a such a big deal that you ignore basic biological facts? This is to make things nice and easy and bring hard science into this whole thing. That is what people are so on about

 

[cullennz]

You seem confused on this point, they don't have the body of someone who can reproduce. Why is this a such a big deal that you ignore basic biological facts? This is to make things nice and easy and bring hard science into this whole thing. That is what people are so on about

Yes they do.

It only works by your way of thinking is the only qualifier of sex is the ability to reproduce. Which is a bit silly.

So you are saying anyone who hasn't reached puberty is sex neutral

As I said you think female grandmothers over the age of about 70 can no longer say they are female

I tell you what. If your Gran is still around tell her you refuse to accept she is female and is just a "thing" and let us know what she says.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I guess that at least the more enlightened of us should be grateful that the world's actual experts in the matter, together with many progressive national legislatures, understand that there's a distinction between sex and gender, and that gender dysphoria is a real, lived condition which requires recognition and protection.

And I'd have thought that critical thinkers would - if for nothing else but the DSM4 classification - be of the same mindset. How wrong I turned out to be

How's that windmill?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Let's break this down, shall we?

Distinction between sex and gender? Yes. Sex is a verifiable thing which everyone understands. Gender is a bit harder to pin down in some of the edge cases, but for most people, including most transgenders, we get what it is, and there's no real dispute about it. So, critical thinkers agree.

Gender dysphoria is a real, lived, condition? There is absolutely zero claims otherwise in these threads. Critical thinkers agree.

Gender dysphoria requires recognition? So far so good. Critical thinkers agree.
Gender dysphoria requires protection? I'm not sure what "protect gender dysphoria" means, but everyone here opposes any rule or law that would make it illegal or punish gender dysphoria. Critical thinkers agree.

So, all the critical thinkers here agree with you on every count. You weren't wrong.

Unless, of course, you also expected critical thinkers to go along with different, unstated, assumptions. Unless you mean that "recognized" and "protected" mean something other than their literal meanings.

I'm going to push back on that one. Many of the activists are of the opinion that it shouldn't need any medical recognition at all, and that a self-diagnosis is all that should be required.

Critical thinkers, on the other hand, tend to think that a medical diagnosis should be part of the whole deal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If someone has the all consuming need to be what they aren't they will make it happen. If not possible where they are, there are other places with subcultures to assist with every detail.

Rural Bible belt Mexico doesn't like trans, barely tolerates homosexual. México City has entire areas with those subcultures in big numbers.

If Juan needs to be Juanita to avoid suicide by all means get out of the bible belt and get to Mex City.

He certainly isn't going to change any minds back home despite superficial support.
It goes both ways, if one must escape the immoral decadence of the big city go into the bible belt as deep as you need to to find happiness.
I met someone that did that recently.

Don't put it on society to universally love every abberation of normal no matter how weird it is in that place.
It won't happen because people don't like weird. Even the most tolerant folks have arbitrary limits where something crossed the line and is just wrong.
Laws can prevent others doing damages to the odd, but not make anyone accept them.

I doubt this wins any votes for tact... but it's a very good point. Especially the last sentence.

I think that's where a fair bit of the conflict on this topic comes up. I think everyone who has participated in this thread is fully supportive of the first clause: laws should prevent other people doing damage to any group of people. I feel like some of the more avid activists want the latter though, and think that the law should force people to be accepting.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm petitioning my local sports centre to have a gay guy banned from the men's changing rooms. He told me once in casual conversation that he was an active gay man, and I know I've seen him looking in the direction of some of the men - and even boys! - as they were undressing. I think it's unacceptable that hetero men should have to put up with a gay man being in their presence as they undress (and probably getting some level of sexual arousal while doing so). And who knows: maybe on a quiet afternoon, he might be sharing the changing room with just one young adolescent. This guy is very well-built, and I have no doubt that if he so wanted, he could physically restrain the adolescent and commit some sort of sexual assault. I'm sure the sports centre management will find my argument sane and convincing (but I'll damn well be taking things all the way to the Supreme Court if they're stupid enough to refuse my request).

I see the strawman is winning the battle against your windmill.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Meanwhile, in the real world - another young woman whose sporting aspirations are being crushed by blokes who can't beat blokes, so have suddenly decided they're women.

Good video. Really good points about any objection getting one labelled a bigot, and that reinforcing the "be seen not heard" social aspect of conditioning females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

On what grounds could an appeal be launched?

The right of parents so woke that they're downright insomniacs to let children who are too young to legally give consent in any contract or even to consent to sex decide that they want to make permanent, life-altering, and dangerous changes to their not-yet-grown bodies?