Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[theprestige]

I'd like to see a good summary of what constitutes "mainstream transactivism" nowadays. From what I've seen at the ACLU website, the basic idea is that trans women belong in all places where cis women do, to include restrooms and locker rooms along with sports leagues.

I doubt anyone is going to agree on what's mainstream. I for one have zero interest in trying to get any kind of consensus. Anyone who wants to play "no true mainstream TRA" is on their own.

Personally I'll accept any TRA position that has been made into public policy, is being considered by policymakers, or has the endorsement of such organizations as the ACLU, as mainstream.

 

[theprestige]

I see where this is going. The ACLU is apparently the gold standard for defining all the lobbies it endorses. If everyone had just been up front about that instead of leaving all the newcomers floundering among the contradictory mess of actual lobbies trying to figure out which one is the target of everyone's ire, it would have been a lot simpler.

Lobbying groups and their efforts have been discussed at length. Particularly by Rolfe, who has been following policy changes in her native Scotland, and is reasonably well informed on the subject. Others have also contributed.

Newcomers who read the thread shouldn't be floundering at this point.

 

[Aber]

I see where this is going. The ACLU is apparently the gold standard for defining all the lobbies it endorses. If everyone had just been up front about that instead of leaving all the newcomers floundering among the contradictory mess of actual lobbies trying to figure out which one is the target of everyone's ire, it would have been a lot simpler.

You posted:

The people actually working to establish rights for transgender people are the radical centrists.

OK, so who do you believe to be "radical centrists"?

 

[Meadmaker]

I see where this is going.

I doubt it.

The point is that everyone arguing for trans rights is pretty much arguing the same thing, and D4m10n threw out the ACLU as an example of a group that was not specifically founded as a trans rights group, but was recognizable to most Americans. That's it. There is absolutely no point to arguing anything about the ACLU.

Everyone arguing for trans rights says that societal treatment of trans individuals should be based on their gender identity rather than their biological sex. All organizations arguing for trans rights believe it should be very easy to declare yourself to be the opposite gender. They all agree that physical transition is not a required element. That's a medical decision in the hands of the individual in conjunction with a doctor, but it is not a required element for a person to live as their gender identity, and is not a prerequisite to having society recognize them as their internally perceived gender. (I first typed "preferred gender", but I erased it because that's not politically correct. It suggests that gender identity is a choice.)

Some supporters of trans rights quibble on some details, but the organizations who back such things generally avoid being committal on areas of controversy like that. For example, should transwomen be allowed in the women's section of sporting events? They all agree that they ought to be, but they might quibble on whether a given event ought to be allowed to set standards for physical transition, such as specifying testosterone levels. So most advocacy organizations emphasize the right to participate, and leave a few questions unanswered. As another example, some might differ on "gender recognition certificates" or how to get ones drivers license and/or birth certificate modified, but they all agree that it should be possible to do so, and with minimal effort.

Also, trans rights advocacy groups, like other political organizations, might back a particular piece of legislation even though it only goes partway to their goal. An organization might advocate legislation that allows people to start using a girls' locker room after consultation and an appropriate diagnosis from a qualified physician. As soon as it passes, they'll start lobbying for a new, better, bill that makes it easier for the person to socially transition and be recognized.

So, all this argument about the ACLU is utterly useless. it was just an example. The point is that the goal of the trans rights organizations, all of them, is to allow people to announce what gender they are, and have society recognize that gender, with the least possible restrictions.

 

[Elaedith]

There are a bunch of studies showing that about 80% of transgender youth grow up to be cisgender homosexuals, I could go look for them if you want although a quick google search should find them. Whether that means that transgenderism is a possible outcome of homosexuality, or that homosexuality is a possible outcome of transgenderism, or that there is some other unknown factor influencing both is hard to tell, but that there is a strong association between transgenderism and homosexuality is clear. You can just take a look at the studies you've been linking to as well, homosexuality is vastly overrepresented in the transgender population (something like 80% of transgenders being homosexual, as opposed to like 5% in the general population). This (the vast majority of transgenders being homosexual) combined with there already being known biological markers for homosexuality (both in brain scans and twin studies), complicates studies into biological markers for transgenderism. Hence the need to control for it.

I knew Cantor had discussed this somewhere and I found it in the video interview below (starting around 35.30 he discusses the relationship between gender dysphoria and sexual orientation, also mentions AGP and other issues). He is saying that most probably homosexuality and transsexuality/transgenderism (at least in males) are very closely linked, and there are unlikely to be a sizable or possibly even detectable neural markers distinguishing them, because the push to transition is likely to depend at least partly on social factors. However, heterosexual males who develop dysphoria and want to transition due to a paraphilia are a completely different group, and there are neural differences from other heterosexual males.

 

[Collin237]

You posted:



OK, so who do you believe to be "radical centrists"?

At this point, it seems to me that nobody is.

 

[Collin237]

The point is that everyone arguing for trans rights is pretty much arguing the same thing, and D4m10n threw out the ACLU as an example of a group that was not specifically founded as a trans rights group, but was recognizable to most Americans. That's it. There is absolutely no point to arguing anything about the ACLU.

Okay.

(I first typed "preferred gender", but I erased it because that's not politically correct. It suggests that gender identity is a choice.)

From what I've seen, it's not that simple. The question of how one can be declaring a gender but not choosing it, is in some cases answered by apparent TRAs by suggesting maybe it is a choice.

https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/developing-gender-dysphoria/

https://clareflourish.wordpress.com...m-autogynephilia-late-onset-gender-dysphoria/

I don't know how she squares that circle.

 

[theprestige]

At this point, it seems to me that nobody is.

Somebody is working for trans rights. If only the radical centrists are doing it, and nobody is a radical centrist, then where is all this trans rights policy coming from?

 

[Collin237]

Somebody is working for trans rights. If only the radical centrists are doing it, and nobody is a radical centrist, then where is all this trans rights policy coming from?

At this point, it all looks like tokenism to me.

 

[Rolfe]

Collin will probably assert that this is a Poe. I can assure you it isn't, these people are serious and have the ear of policy-makers.

Edinburgh Action for Trans Health Manifesto

There will be no clinics, and no authorities. We will conduct our own research, and experiment with our own bodies. We will heal and grow together. We will accumulate knowledge and share it freely and accessibly. We demand nothing less than the total abolition of the clinic, of psychiatry, and of the medical-industrial complex. We demand an end to capitalist & colonialist “medicine”.

We demand hormones & blockers are made available over-the-counter and by free prescription upon request. We need free, universal access to safe hormones & blockers at any age, the opportunity to decide our own doses, and universally accessible information on the safety & efficacy of different regimens. We are already taking hormones in this way, so this demand is simply that the danger of doing so is effectively mitigated.

We demand that all therapies that can be are made available at drop-ins, with self-referral for any therapy or procedure for which drop-in is unsuitable.

We demand anonymous blood tests, both postal & at drop-in endocrinology clinics, where we can seek the advice of a consultant if we wish.

We demand the freedom to alter our bodies without justification. We demand an end to all surgical prerequisites - nobody should have to prove life experience,health or have to be taking hormones in order to exercise bodily autonomy. We demand that these surgeries can be highly customised to meet our individual & unique needs. We demand the right to multiple surgeries, including reversal of previous surgeries if desired, so that we do not have to fear regret. We demand the free & timely provision of genital surgeries, additive & reductive chest surgeries, hysterectomies and orchiectomies, tracheal & vocal surgeries, facial surgeries, lipoplasty, contouring & microdermabrasion, surgical hair removal & transplantation, and any other possible procedure to meet our needs as we express them.

We demand resources for hair removal anywhere on our bodies, and the option of local anesthetic during these procedures.
We demand voice coaching that does not coerce us to alter our voices in ways we do not express a need for, but respects our accents and our right to express ourselves however we desire.

I find the concept of a fully reversible orchiectomy (castration) quite intriguing.

 

[Collin237]

Collin will probably assert that this is a Poe.

If only! I've seen lots of things like this, on many topics. Scary ****!

 

[Aber]

So, all this argument about the ACLU is utterly useless. it was just an example. The point is that the goal of the trans rights organizations, all of them, is to allow people to announce what gender they are, and have society recognize that gender, with the least possible restrictions.

It does raise the question why all this effort is not put into just broadening the bounds of "acceptable behaviours": tell men that they can wear a dress and makeup without anybody criticising them?

 

[Collin237]

It does raise the question why all this effort is not put into just broadening the bounds of "acceptable behaviours": tell men that they can wear a dress and makeup without anybody criticising them?

That only works for things outside of one's body. Someone who has gender dysphoria, as an actual body dysphoria, is not going to feel much better just changing their behavior.

Perhaps, at least in some cases, the trans rights debate is a proxy war between Physicalists and Cartesian Dualists?

 

[d4m10n]

It does raise the question why all this effort is not put into just broadening the bounds of "acceptable behaviours": tell men that they can wear a dress and makeup without anybody criticising them?

The matters most under contention aren't really about that (AFAICT) but about being accepted in formerly sex-segregated spaces (e.g. women's rugby locker rooms) based on gender rather than sex.

 

[Thermal]

Just peeking into this voluminous thread again...

You guys work out the question "what is a woman?" yet? Really doesn't seem that tough after years and five digits of posts.

A woman is an adult human biological female. Is that in contention?

Gender is what you subjectively and internally identify as. Is that in contention?

Gender disphoria is a misnomer, since it is internally subjective. You can't choose to identify "wrong". It's sex disphoria. Is that in contention?

I mean, if some just change the definitions to mean whatever else they want, this goes on forever, yes?

 

[theprestige]

Just peeking into this voluminous thread again...

You guys work out the question "what is a woman?" yet? Really doesn't seem that tough after years and five digits of posts.

A woman is an adult human biological female. Is that in contention?

Gender is what you subjectively and internally identify as. Is that in contention?

Gender disphoria is a misnomer, since it is internally subjective. You can't choose to identify "wrong". It's sex disphoria. Is that in contention?

I mean, if some just change the definitions to mean whatever else they want, this goes on forever, yes?

Actually right now we're mostly just exploring how deep Collin's "nobody is fighting for trans rights" rabbit hole actually goes.

Right now he's trying to resolve the paradox between "trans rights activism is good" and "trans rights activism is extremely toxic and irrational" by handwaving all the successful extremely toxic and irrational activism as either nonexistent, or else an anti-trans conspiracy.

So we'll see how it goes.

 

[TomB]

This is the last time I'm going to post on this. It is not my mission to defend anyone's research. These links were not provided to support an assertion, they were provided to answer theprestige's question if a possible hypothesis I presented had any basis in science. The answer is, yes, it does and those studies demonstrate that, regardless of any flaws they may have.

Yes, but if the effect re transgender disappears after controlling for homosexuality then the result isn't valid for transgender. It's like finding a correlation between people wearing shorts and people eating ice cream. Sure, the correlation is there, but it's not like wearing shorts causes someone to eat ice cream or vice versa, it's just that both wearing shorts and eating ice cream are correlated with it being a hot day.

There was one such study with that flaw, but that's not the flaw I'm talking about. The flaw I'm talking about is taking a group of male transgender homosexuals and comparing them with a group of male cisgender heterosexuals, and then ascribing the difference to transgender whereas the difference could be explained by sexual orientation. Basically the flaw is using an improper control group that differs on more than the variable being investigated.

This would, presumably, apply to the study on the androgen receptors.
The groups were sorted by trans/not-trans directly. The gene types were measured directly. Therefore there would be a statistically significant correlation between trans and the receptor types.

Homosexuality also having a correlation would not be an interference.

If by selecting trans-people the result is an over-representation of homosexuals, that suggests that homosexuality and transgenderism are linked. Which does not eliminate the correlation.

However, I agree that the research is not conclusive. One of the limitations of population studies is that it is impossible to control for all variables. Other variables could be hair color, eye color, geographical origin of ancestors, and any number of things. Homosexuality is just a single one.

It may also be that, if there is a gene (or set of genes) that predisposes trans-gender, it is not the one for the androgen receptor variant, but a linked gene. (Gene 1 does not cause trait A, but is highly correlated to Trait A because it is located on the chromosome in close proximity to Gene 2, which does cause trait A.

And for further clarification: the existence of flaws does not debunk or discredit a study. It just points out that more work is needed before conclusive conclusions can be drawn. (Often, you will see this pointed out in the papers themselves.)

True, but that doesn't mean the issue of homosexuality as a confounding factor isn't present there either. Suppose we have a group of 100 transgenders with twins. We find an 80% concordance for their twins. Now suppose we control for homosexuality, that 80 of them are homosexual and 20 are heterosexual. All 80 homosexual ones are concordant with their twins and all 20 heterosexual ones are discordant with their twins. Then the correct interpretation is not that a biological basis for transgenderism is found but one for homosexuality.

Not quite. First, you are correct that the results would suggest a biological basis for homosexuality. But the results would also suggest a biological basis for transgenderism within the group of homosexual transgender people. In other words, such a result would suggest that homosexual transgenderism and heterosexual transgenderism are not the same thing. (Which, kind of falls within the general scope of Blanchard's ideas, I think.)

If, on the other hand, it turns out that 65 of the homosexual ones are concordant and 15 of the heterosexual ones, then the correct interpretation is indeed that a biological basis for transgenderism has been found. However we can not distinguish between these possibilities unless the study explicitly controls for sexual orientation.

Partial agreement: Controlling for sexuality may allow for finer resolution of the results: Does this apply for trans-genderism overall, or just for homosexual transgender people or just for heterosexual transgender people?

But in neither case does the correlation disappear.

There are a bunch of studies showing that about 80% of transgender youth grow up to be cisgender homosexuals, I could go look for them if you want although a quick google search should find them. Whether that means that transgenderism is a possible outcome of homosexuality, or that homosexuality is a possible outcome of transgenderism, or that there is some other unknown factor influencing both is hard to tell, but that there is a strong association between transgenderism and homosexuality is clear. You can just take a look at the studies you've been linking to as well, homosexuality is vastly overrepresented in the transgender population (something like 80% of transgenders being homosexual, as opposed to like 5% in the general population). This (the vast majority of transgenders being homosexual) combined with there already being known biological markers for homosexuality (both in brain scans and twin studies), complicates studies into biological markers for transgenderism. Hence the need to control for it.

Given the subjectivity of the diagnosis criteria, it's kind of hard to say who is/was transgender and who was mis-diagnosed as transgender.

 

[Collin237]

Actually right now we're mostly just exploring how deep Collin's "nobody is fighting for trans rights" rabbit hole actually goes.

Right now he's trying to resolve the paradox between "trans rights activism is good" and "trans rights activism is extremely toxic and irrational" by handwaving all the successful extremely toxic and irrational activism as either nonexistent, or else an anti-trans conspiracy.

So we'll see how it goes.

You just admitted that you're playing games with me.

 

[d4m10n]

A woman is an adult human biological female. Is that in contention?

When the New York Times reports on black trans women, it's a fair bet that they aren't using the definition you suggest here. When the ACLU argues that "[e]xcluding women who are trans hurts all women" they obviously aren't using the definition you suggest here.

 

[Thermal]

You just admitted that you're playing games with me.

Or he thinks you appear to be playing games and he is giving benefit of the doubt in letting you flesh it out, which he sees going nowhere.