[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[theprestige]

Also it seems we have just experienced our own little policy capture event.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You can't treat "mental health experts say this" as a sacroscent God when the exact same mental health community would have called what you are arguing a mental disease 10, 15, 20 years ago.

"Mental Health Experts" can't only be experts when they agree with you.

Especially since we all damn well know that if the mental health communities swings back toward treating some versions of this as something to be treated the trans side isn't going to go "Oh okay I guess we have to accept that since it comes from the mental health experts."

 

[Darat]

As ever discussion about forum moderation is off topic in this thread. If you wish to comment about forum moderation please do so in the correct place, which is the Forum Management section.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Treating people with BIID as mentally ill is nothing new either.

But okay, sure, have it your way.

Resolved:
- There is no medical need to accommodate a transgender person's gender identity in public life.
- There is no medical need to acknowledge or use a transgender person's preferred pronouns.
- There is no medical need to transition children.
- Transgenderism is not a medical condition that needs treatment of any kind; certainly not fundamental changes in public policy as part of such "treatment".

Happy now?

I would generally agree with you that trans rights is not, at the foundational level, a medical issue. It's a human rights issue.

Some might treat trans people as mentally ill and decide that accommodating them might be the right thing to do as a form of medical treatment, but that's certainly not how I would justify the need for trans rights.

I don't really see that kind of rationale being used when it comes to the relevant legal battles. For example, the language of the Bostock decision relies on heavily on anti-discrimination law specifically in regards to "sex", not the ADA. The relevant current of thought is that trans rights are human rights, not that they are mentally ill people that need accommodation.

Trying to medicalize the issue seems like a red herring.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think, being rational, most people here would acknowlege the fact that body dysphoria is a real and serious condition and that transitioning treatments seem to work for the most part. And, being rational, most people probably also readily accept the fact people suffering from it have been victims of most hideous persecutions and violence - and many still are all over the world. And, bit more daringly, I'm sure for the most part people here do accept that gender and biological sex are both meaningful and separate concepts. A certain respect and sensitivity probably would not be anti-rational or anti-sceptic, or would it?

Being rational, can you explain why Selina Soule ought to be described as a bigot, and why anyone who agrees with her ought to be described as a bigot, unless the person agreeing is a female poster in this thread, in which case they ought to be described as a TERF?

For reference: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13396199#post13396199

And, being rational, could we acknowledge that body modesty is a real thing and that a woman who does not want to take off her clothes in the presence of a person with a fully functional set of male sex organs might be acting out of some motivation other than hatred or bigotry?

Oh. I hope "male sex organs" isn't hate speech. I am referring to a penis that is fully capable of insertion into a vagina, and delivering sperm which might result in pregnancy.

I'm only interested in rational explanations here. Surely, being rational, we can all agree that these are legitimate concerns and that those expressing those concerns should not be subjected to name calling and attacks, should they? Being rational and all?

 

[llwyd]

A certain respect and civility are what we all practice on this subject in our daily lives. I know I do, anyway. But we can't have a rational debate about definitions and public policy if we're constrained from factual statements by a slavish devotion to "respect and sensitivity".

Well, sorry, but this sounds rather ingenious - yes, there are parts of the counter-argument that obviously are based on empirically observable facts about biological sex. But even those can be referred to in polite and respectful manner. And then there are facts about gender dysphoria and the disgusting, primitive and ignorant hounding and persecuction of people inflicted by it - and the equally undeniable fact that transitioning seems to be a rather effective treatment. In addition there is the also the undeniable fact that gender is a legitimate concept clearly distinct of the biological nature of sex. Anyhow, I just simply don't like the levity and light heartedness here about transpeople in the context of a great social and historical tragedy - this age old brutal persecution of a powerless minority.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Being persecuted doesn't make you factually correct.

Nobody here is advocating transgender people be harassed or persecuted. And I personally have not engaged in the "hardy har attack helicopter" jokes.

But that doesn't change the fact that you can't have a discussion where one side is trying to define disagreement as a personal attack.

We stopped burning witches at Salem. And we did that without having to accept that witches exist.

*Yes I know pedants know of them were actually burned...

 

[llwyd]

Being persecuted doesn't make you factually correct.

Nobody here is advocating transgender people be harassed or persecuted. And I personally have not engaged in the "hardy har attack helicopter" jokes.

But that doesn't change the fact that you can't have a discussion where one side is trying to define disagreement as a personal attack.

I think you can have a discussion without being hostile and making juvenile jokes about things that have a really grim historical context. I myself think that self-identification is not nearly enough in many respects (though in some it is). If that makes me defined by some as "transphobic", so be it. I still am not and I behave like it, debate like it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think you can have a discussion without being hostile and making juvenile jokes about things that have a really grim historical context. I myself think that self-identification is not enough in many respects (though in some it is). If that makes me defined by some as "transphobic", so be it. I still am not and I behave like it, debate like it.

Which could be helped if we could keep this conversation in the realm of actual objective actions instead of internal thoughts.

Again the whole "But which gender do you internally define me as?" is, as far as I'm concerned, barely worth a minor bit of context but the transgender side has largely succeeded in making that the whole point.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, sorry, but this sounds rather ingenious - yes, there are parts of the counter-argument that obviously are based on empirically observable facts about biological sex. But even those can be referred to in polite and respectful manner. And then there are facts about gender dysphoria and the disgusting, primitive and ignorant hounding and persecuction of people inflicted by it - and the equally undeniable fact that transitioning seems to be a rather effective treatment. In addition there is the also the undeniable fact that gender is a legitimate concept clearly distinct of the biological nature of sex. Anyhow, I just simply don't like the levity and light heartedness here about transpeople in the context of a great social and historical tragedy - this age old brutal persecution of a powerless minority.

It's tempting to quibble about which of those undeniable facts are actually undeniable. Yes, there is an aspect of undeniability about certain aspects of the transgender condition, but some people carry it well beyond the undeniable part.

However, instead, I will focus on one aspect," the equally undeniable fact that transitioning seems to be a rather effective treatment."

I could quibble on this, by discussing how effective it is, and whether it is effective in all cases where it is tried, but that's not the point. Let's put that aside for a moment. The problem with your statement is that in the modern world, the trans rights activists say that transition is unnecessary. Never mind that it is effective, a person should not need to pursue this rather effective treatment. Doing so, or not, is their choice. However, we are told, it does not matter whether they pursue this effective treatment. They must be treated as the gender they identify with in any and all circumstances, and the only way to know that they identify with that gender is to ask them, and anyone who disagrees is a hateful bigot.

Being rational, I say that's not very rational.

 

[Boudicca90]

Homosexuality used to be in the DSM. Treating queer people as mentally ill is nothing new.

Yep. I continually make comparisons to homosexuality because it is accurate. Especially having been gay and having to also deal with all the same arguments before transitioning.

Luckily the DSM has been moving away from treating transgenderism as a mental illness and the medical community is seeing it for what it is: a valid lived experience.

 

[Boudicca90]

And I hope you understand that your blanket labels on me, and others, were also quite offensive (though I do get over things rather quick and I carry on).

When my kid was still an infant, our hippy cowboy-boot-wearing pediatrician gave me some very wise words from his 30yr experience.

1. Don't feed your kid those goldfish crackers. It's junk food.
2. Don't label your whole child for things they have done...label the ACTION they did and address that specifically.

So my daughter is never a 'smart kid' or 'disrespectful child'...it is always, "that was a very smart answer you gave", or "what you said was disrespectful". And she gets feedback on why...good or bad and always honest.

It's important to make that distinction.

In your case you do seem to at least be trying to understand where I'm coming from, unlike others in this thread. So I do apologize.

 

[Paul2]

Hypothesis: A position that argues for a limitation of trans rights, insofar as it is an attempt to balance competing interests between trans people and others, is not bigoted nor motivated by fear, hatred, etc.

Feel free to substitute some other group or identity for "trans" in the above statement to test it out.

 

[llwyd]

It's tempting to quibble about which of those undeniable facts are actually undeniable. Yes, there is an aspect of undeniability about certain aspects of the transgender condition, but some people carry it well beyond the undeniable part.

However, instead, I will focus on one aspect," the equally undeniable fact that transitioning seems to be a rather effective treatment."

I could quibble on this, by discussing how effective it is, and whether it is effective in all cases where it is tried, but that's not the point. Let's put that aside for a moment. The problem with your statement is that in the modern world, the trans rights activists say that transition is unnecessary. Never mind that it is effective, a person should not need to pursue this rather effective treatment. Doing so, or not, is their choice. However, we are told, it does not matter whether they pursue this effective treatment. They must be treated as the gender they identify with in any and all circumstances, and the only way to know that they identify with that gender is to ask them, and anyone who disagrees is a hateful bigot.

Being rational, I say that's hogwash.

Well, when I say transitioning seems to be rather effective, I refer to the studies I have seen. I am totally open to the argument that transitioning is not effective - I would just need links to credible studies arguing this. You are welcome to supply them. Then you say that trans activists are saying that transitioning is not necessary, and I guess that's true for the most part. And it also appears quite true that many or most of these activists tend to define all criticism as bigotry. I just fail to see how that relates to my argument that regardless of all this and in view of the disgusting and primitive persecution of gender dysphoric people this issue should be addressed respectfully and politely.

 

[Boudicca90]

Well, when I say transitioning seems to be rather effective, I refer to the studies I have seen. I am totally open to the argument that transitioning is not effective - I would just need links to credible studies arguing this. You are welcome to supply them. Then you say that trans activists are saying that transitioning is not necessary, and I guess that's true for the most part. And it also appears quite true that many or most of these activists tend to define all criticism as bigotry. I just fail to see how that relates to my argument that regardless of all this and in view of the disgusting and primitive persecution of gender dysphoric people this issue should be addressed respectfully and politely.

Transitioning is very effective, for people who need it. Not everybody does, or not everybody feels very aspect of medically/surgically transitioning is right for them.

We shouldn't be pushing trans people into any specific direction or model of being transgender if it isn't the right thing to do for that particular person.

A good example is non-binary trans people who may not want to go all the way. My best friend recently came out as non-binary and they have plans to have top surgery to remove their breasts and to microdose testosterone for a more masculine look, but they don't consider themselves male. And that is perfectly okay and valid.

 

[d4m10n]

Luckily the DSM has been moving away from treating transgenderism as a mental illness and the medical community is seeing it for what it is: a valid lived experience.

Are there any other "valid lived experiences" which may require major surgery to properly address?

(What even is an invalid lived experience, anyhow?)

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, when I say transitioning seems to be rather effective, I refer to the studies I have seen. I am totally open to the argument that transitioning is not effective -

I'm not inclined to search back through the archives or find things on google right at the moment. During the long course of this thread many studies have been brought up about persistence of mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, suicides and suicidal behavior, after transitioning. Is it "effective?...Define effective. It has positive outcomes in many cases, and it is not a panacea for people complaining of gender dysphoria.

A hot topic more recently in this thread is whether adolescents are being pushed in the direction of transition in cases where it is not appropriate. I will not rehash those arguments at this time. They are quite recent in the thread if you are interested.

I just fail to see how that relates to my argument that regardless of all this and in view of the disgusting and primitive persecution of gender dysphoric people this issue should be addressed respectfully and politely.

A reference to the "disgusting and primitive persecution" that other people have performed at other times is just an appeal to emotion.


Of course this issue, and every other issue, should be addressed respectfully and politely. With rare exceptions, it has been, so whatever argument you are making is not applicable except in a few cases.

 

[Emily's Cat]

My physical body is female, I am simply pointing out it wasn't always like that.

In what way is your physical body female? Do you believe that a female body means boobs and nothing else?

This is an absurd statement.

 

[Earthborn]

And, being rational, could we acknowledge that body modesty is a real thing and that a woman who does not want to take off her clothes in the presence of a person with a fully functional set of male sex organs might be acting out of some motivation other than hatred or bigotry?

Body modesty is a real thing, and a person who does not want to take off their clothes in the presence of another person might be acting out of some motivation other than hatred or bigotry and should not be expected to take off their clothes in the presence of another person.

See how easy these problems resolve themselves, if you just stop thinking about them in gendered terms?

Oh. I hope "male sex organs" isn't hate speech.

It isn't.

I am referring to a penis that is fully capable of insertion into a vagina, and delivering sperm which might result in pregnancy.

That is an awfully specific definition of "male sex organ" which excludes many males' sex organs and also rules out many transwomens' sex organs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

ETA: I re-read this, and it comes across as an argument against you specifically, which is not my intent. I understand your post as it was intended, and I appreciate the attempt at some degree of reconciliation. I am, however, frustrated overall with the behavior in this thread, and tired of being the target of insult. Additionally, some of the assumptions in your post are not accurate. Please understand that my response is a general response to the content of your post, not opposition to you.

I think, being rational, most people here would acknowlege the fact that body dysphoria is a real and serious condition and that transitioning treatments seem to work for the most part.

Gender dysphoria is a real mental health condition, and in serious cases, transition is the appropriate avenue of treatment.

On the other hand, the activist position is that transgender status is divorced from gender dysphoria. A person can self-declare themselves to be trans with no diagnosis, no dysphoria at all. So we're not really focused on people with a solid diagnosis and transition as the final step in trying to address their disorder. We're talking about a declaration of an ephemeral internal identity that is unverifiable and completely subjective... but which places obligations on the rest of society.

Additionally, more recent research indicates that self-identified transgender people do NOT achieve significant reductions in stress, anxiety, and suicidal ideation from transitioning. If they begin transitioning as pubescent or younger children, there is no measurable alleviation of the condition from transitioning.

So yes - genuine severe dysphoria can be alleviated by transitioning. But no - because the majority of people now claiming transgender status and pushing policy agendas have no diagnosis and no dysphoria, and transition does not alleviate their nonexistent symptoms.

And, being rational, most people probably also readily accept the fact people suffering from it have been victims of most hideous persecutions and violence - and many still are all over the world.

Mmmm... not so much. The statistics referenced for the abuse and violence suffered by transgender people are based on data that includes a very large cluster of transgender sex-workers in Brazil. Once that cluster is removed, the rates of violence and death experienced by transgender people in English speaking countries are lower than the rates experienced by the population as a whole, and significantly lower than the rates experienced by females. The degree of persecution in the civilized world is very, very small.

Additionally, there are several parts of the world (much of the middle east, and Iran in particular) where homosexuality is punishable by death, and where women are massively abused and oppressed, but where transgender status is completely acceptable to the culture, and indeed, treatment and surgery for it is paid for by the public.

And, bit more daringly, I'm sure for the most part people here do accept that gender and biological sex are both meaningful and separate concepts. A certain respect and sensitivity probably would not be anti-rational or anti-sceptic, or would it?

Aye, there's the rub. Some people in this thread do NOT draw a distinction between social gender expression and biological sex. And those same people frequently insist that biological sex is not meaningful and is irrelevant - especially as it pertains to females.

There has been a considerable amount of patience and sensitivity... but it's been going in only one direction.

At this point, we've reached a position where using the accurate but non-preferred is considered a transgression... but where repeatedly denigrating other posters as bigots, transphobes, TERFs, delusional, paranoid, and hysterical is considered acceptable.

Frankly, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of this lack of common decency.