Non-binary identities are valid

[Belz...]

I'll give you a small hint: sexual attraction is based entirely upon biological sex (including presentation which implies a particular biological sex). It has nothing whatsoever per se to do with gender identity.

Wow, that is so wrong that I'm not sure where to start explaining it to you.

You can be sexually attracted to ANYTHING in a person: hair, perfume, voice, way of acting, humour, whatever.

You're absolutely right. You shouldn't care about how a person identifies. You should care about what pronoun you use.

Why? Why should we? To be nice? Sure. To avoid being punished? No way.

Why is this admonition only used for gender? How about any kind of personal identification? Napoleon has already been brought up about this.

 

[Belz...]

As has been pointed out before, it's only bigotry if you continue to misgender someone after being repeatedly asked not to.

You clearly don't know what the word 'bigotry' means.

If someone informs you that they are bisexual or pansexual, and you respond by telling them that you don't believe in the validity of their sexual identity and you refuse to "comply" with their belief system.....

.... does that make you a bigot?



(Hint: yes, it does)

See above.

Makes a change from the "attack helicopter" bollocks, I suppose.

So if someone claims to be an attack helicopter in their heart of hearts, you're under no obligation to humour them... same thing if they claim to be black, or Napoleon, or a fox. Why is gender different?

 

[Belz...]

Gender dysphoria isn't an "explanation" for transgender identity. Quite the opposite: transgender identity is an explanation for gender dysphoria.

How so? It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

 

[d4m10n]

No: DSM-5 much.

...you don't seem to understand what the DSM-5 says...

Bit harsh, but I suspect Hans is correct. Non-binary activists do not claim that the diagnostic criteria in the DSM are a reliable indicator of non-binary identity, and the DSM itself doesn't make any specific claims about non-binary identity.

The closest DSM-5® comes to addressing the topic (AFAIK) is to say that alternative gender identities exist beyond identifying with the norms of either masculinity or femininity. As to what counts as "alternative gender identities" I cannot see any reason to rule out otherkin^WP, or autigender, or literally anything else. Perhaps there are good reasons, but I don't think we'll find them in this edition.

 

[HansMustermann]

1) Do you, or do you not, think it relevant to your... "argument" that - currently - experts in the field consider transgender identity and homosexuality to be valid conditions, but that they currently consider identification as a fox or as an attack helicopter to be invalid and a disorder?

You're still basically talking out the ass, and obviously not even understanding what "condition" is or what the difference between that and "disorder" even is. Hint: as a medical analogy, a "condition" can be something like "lumbalgia" (lower back pain), while "disorder" would be something more like a slipped intervertebral disc.

The latter might or might not be the cause for the former, but it's not making the condition valid or invalid either way. The only difference is that in the case of Gender Dysphoria we officially don't know the cause, so you just get the condition diagnosed. That's it. That's the only difference from most other conditions.

Saying that dysphoria is valid about gender, but invalid about other body shape issues, such as not having cat ears, is just stupid. A dysphoria isn't valid or invalid, it just is. We may know what disorders it's usually a symptom of, or we may have no clue, but that doesn't make the dysphoria invalid.

It's like saying that chronic back pain is a valid condition, but wrist pain isn't, because the latter usually gets the actual cause (e.g., Tenosynovitis) written as a diagnostic, while the former may often be just written as such because we're not sure exactly what caused it. It's literally that stupid.

2) And do you further consider it relevant (or not) that many major world governments - as a direct consequence of current expert assessments - are currently seeking to enshrine transgender rights and gay rights in law, while they are not currently seeking to enshrine "person identifying as a fox" rights or "person identifying as an attack helicopter" in law?

AGAIN, silly: if you want to claim that some experts exist that informed that policy, you get to cite them. As in, exactly what author, paper and study. You don't just get to postulate that some experts exist somewhere that agree with you, just as you don't get to postulate that flying pigs exist.

If you make a claim of the form "X exists" or "Y happened" (the two being trivially equivalent: X being an instance of Y happening), a.k.a., a positive claim, you get the full burden of proof to show it. It's really that elementary and non-negotiable in logic.

3) With both (1) and (2) in mind..... do you still consider (or not) that there's no difference in terms of current scientific or legislative acceptance between:

With both (1) and (2) in mind, all that they show is that you've been talking out the ass about both, so any conclusion being actually true is coincidental at best. Just because you can pull stuff that you don't understand out of the ass, doesn't mean you've supported anything.

4) Do you propose (or not) that current scientific thinking is the best (or indeed the only) basis currently to consider any particular science-based issue (such as whether each of transidentity, homosexuality, or "identification as an attack helicopter" should be considered as real, valid conditions or not)? And if not, what basis do you instead propose? Should it, perhaps, be whatever you personally wish it to be?

I'm not the one disputing THAT, silly. In fact, all you've been doing is the usual idiotic "if you disagree with me, you disagree with SCIENCE" puffing up and trying to sound smart, when the whole objection was that you're not doing anything even remotely scientific there. You don't get to claim science on your side by virtue of just not being... intellectually equipped to even understand the difference between the scientific method and government policy.

 

[HansMustermann]

Gender dysphoria isn't an "explanation" for transgender identity. Quite the opposite: transgender identity is an explanation for gender dysphoria.

Yet your dysfunctional argument has been that identifying as X is valid if the DSM-5 recognizes that kind of dysphoria a condition, and not valid if it doesn't.

If something like 98% of people identifying as another gender don't actually have that dysphoria, then you don't get to use the condition as some kind of argument as to whether it makes that identification valid or not. You don't get to claim that some medical condition being recognized says ANYTHING at all about your current situation, if you DON'T actually have that condition.

Also, if your argument is from the DSM-5 and experts and stuff, then you don't get to just ad-lib your own BS explanations as if they were what the DSM-5 says.

 

[HansMustermann]

How so? It seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Actually, sad to say, there's a world of difference.

A dysphoria basically just means you're really unhappy about something. A dysphoria is basically like an euphoria, except it's the polar opposite.

It can be
- about your gender,
- about your body shape (e.g., girls being unhappy that they don't look like a Barbie doll, or guys thinking there's something wrong with them if they don't look like Conan The Barbarian),
- about your body integrity (literally people wanting to be disabled; like, have perfectly good limbs amputated. And yes, not only it's real, but it's also a recognized condition in the DSM5)
- about your species (also not as rare as our friend would have you think: in fact we currently have a cat-girl pandemic of anime proportions)
Etc.

Edit: fer fork's sake, even being unhappy while trying to quit smoking, i.e., nicotine withdrawal, can qualify as a dysphoria.

An estimated about 5% of the population has SOME dysphoria or another, and the gender dysphoria is one of the rarest. Meaning pretty much there are 1000 people with other dysphorias for every fellow with gender dysphoria.

And not only it's not a synonym for transgender identity, it only affects something like 1% of those identifying as transgender. Conversely, there are a LOT of people who qualify for that diagnostic, but don't actually identify as trans. They're just unhappy about being male or female, and may well wish they were the opposite or neither, but don't think that that actually makes them BE the opposite.

So, yeah, the whole "X is perfectly normal because the DSM-5 recognizes Y" shtick, is as BS as it sounds, when neither of the two sets actually includes the other. Syllogistic logic doesn't work like that.

But anyway, yes, there is a world of difference between the two.

And TBH, that it's managed to confuse otherwise intelligent bystanders into thinking that if you're talking about one, you're obviously talking about the other too, is just sad.

 

[theprestige]

No. "Expectation of behaviour" is better.

"Demand of behavior" or "mandate of behavior" is even better, since there's significant consequences for non compliance.

 

[Distracted1]

There's zero "discussion" to be had around this point: the gender identity pf a person is 100% to do with (and is solely to do with) the consideration of that person. It's in no way whatsoever defined with reference to the way in which others perceive the presentation of that person.

Infants have no gender identity then?
Without the ability to clearly express a preferred pronoun, any use of pronouns must then be "misgendering", no?

 

[theprestige]

2. You still don't seem to understand that it being government policy doesn't make something right or wrong. And it sure as f-word doesn't settle a medical question, if you want to go that route.

Anyone opposed to Brexit, living in the UK, and appealing to government policy as the standard of what is right and what is wrong, is having a really bad Mandella Effect day.

 

[HansMustermann]

Anyone opposed to Brexit, living in the UK, and appealing to government policy as the standard of what is right and what is wrong, is having a really bad Mandella Effect day.

Pretty darn good example, actually. I might steal it.

 

[theprestige]

Pretty darn good example, actually. I might steal it.

Pronouns, please! You might steal them.

 

[Belz...]

Actually, sad to say, there's a world of difference.

I didn't imply that they are synonymous. Rather, taking one to be the explanation of the other, or the other to be the explanation of the one, is the distinction without a difference.

Conversely, there are a LOT of people who qualify for that diagnostic, but don't actually identify as trans.

Well that's part of the issue, isn't it? At one point "transgender" specifically refered to those with gender dysphoria, which is something we can diagnose, while now it's just anyone who decide that they are trans, which is something we can't verify.

 

[Earthborn]

And not only it's not a synonym for transgender identity, it only affects something like 1% of those identifying as transgender. Conversely, there are a LOT of people who qualify for that diagnostic, but don't actually identify as trans.

I'd like to see where you got those figures. The DSM does no longer equate having a transgender identity with gender dysphoria, but makes no claims to how often they occur together in an individual.

They're just unhappy about being male or female, and may well wish they were the opposite or neither, but don't think that that actually makes them BE the opposite.

"Identifying as trans" does not imply that one thinks it makes them be the opposite sex. It means being unhappy being male or female and wishing they were the opposite or neither.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well that's part of the issue, isn't it? At one point "transgender" specifically refered to those with gender dysphoria, which is something we can diagnose, while now it's just anyone who decide that they are trans, which is something we can't verify.

I'm not sure it ever meant that, to be honest. Transsexual/Trannsexualism was first recorded in 1953 (as far as we know), and Gender Dysphoria wasn't even a condition (or at least not called Gender Dysphoria) until as as recently as 2013.

Likely what you've witnessed was the clueless activist BS-bingo exercise that you see in this thread too. Suddenly everything trans- related was justified because OMG, Gender Dysphoria is a recognized condition, creating the impression that yeah, probably every transsexual has that, if that's the thing that validates it.

I mean, the logic doesn't even work otherwise, right? If it's a case of
P1: All Y is are Z.
therefore
C: All X are Z
You kinda assume that there's a P2: "All X are Y" in there, to make that logic work. Because otherwise it's not even a syllogism, much less a valid one.

But nope, that was all an exercise in trying to scream it loud enough that people don't notice the missing proposition

 

[HansMustermann]

I'd like to see where you got those figures.

It's a simple case of comparing the number of people actually identifying as trans (an estimated 0.58% of the population in the USA) vs how many actually have Gender Dysphoria (an estimated 0.005% to 0.014% of people assigned male at birth and 0.002% to 0.003% of people assigned female at birth.) When you multiply the latter with the percentages of such assignments, physically you can't have more than about 2% of the trans actually having GD, even if every single GD case were trans. Which isn't the case, but let's be generous with the assumptions.

It's just simple arithmetic, really.

The DSM does no longer equate having a transgender identity with gender dysphoria, but makes no claims to how often they occur together in an individual.

The DSM-5, which is what we were talking about, never did.

"Identifying as trans" does not imply that one thinks it makes them be the opposite sex. It means being unhappy being male or female and wishing they were the opposite or neither.

Uh, no. Identifying as something, means just that: thinking you're something. That's what identity means. Whether it's about culture, nationality, politics, or any other X, identifying as X means you perceive yourself as one of X.

E.g., if we were talking about Arab identity, it literally means perceiving oneself as an Arab. If we were to talk about Jewish identity, it literally means thinking of oneself as a Jew. If we were talking Black Scottish identity, it literally means perceiving oneself as a black Scot.

That's what identity MEANS.

And you can't just take the "identifying" part out of the equation, when talking about "identifying as".

You can't just tell me that I identify as X, if don't actually identify as that, and I just dislike being Y. E.g., if I happened to dislike being white (for race guilt or other reasons), you can't tell me that that means I identify as black, unless I actually do that identification myself.

 

[LondonJohn]

Infants have no gender identity then?
Without the ability to clearly express a preferred pronoun, any use of pronouns must then be "misgendering", no?

Yea....uhhh.....what??

It's clearly implied - both ethically and legally - that where/when people below certain ages are either a) deemed incapable of making choices or declarations of identity or b) unable to profess informed choices or declarations of identity..... either the parents or the State will make those choices/declarations on the child's behalf.

In the case of gender identity, the sheer statistics - the current relative likelihood of any given young child turning out to be trans rather than cis - effectively ensures that both the parents and the State are obliged to attach the cis gender label to the child. If any parents did otherwise by identifying the child as transgender, I am very confident that the State would step in (so long as the State were able to establish that the child in question was not capable of making an informed declaration to the contrary).


I await the next ridiculous stretching of reality with bated breath

 

[xjx388]

Saying the DSM-V legitimizes anyone’s gender identity is like saying it legitimizes voices in people’s heads.

The DSM doesn’t exist to legitimize anything. It exists to categorize mental health conditions that cause people distress in order to facilitate treatment.

 

[Emily's Cat]

An appropriate analogy only if you are considering someone's genitals, which is still nobody else's business other than that person and any person in a sexually active relationship with them.

I think it might also be relevant if say... that person has the ability to make one pregnant against their will, or to sexually assault one, or represents a risk of nonconsensual voyeurism, or a risk of nonconsensual exhibitionism.

I think this is often a blind spot for (good) men. For (good) men, their genitals really are only relevant when they're interested in having sex with someone else. For women, however, the genitals of (bad) men are often quite relevant to our every day life. The genitals of (bad) men can rape us. And it's often the prompting of the hormone-laden genitals of (bad) men that result in women being sexually assaulted, sexually exploited, and cause those (bad) men to exposé their genitals to us when we did not consent to see them, and for those (bad) men to engage in some remarkably outlandish behavior in order for them to try to get a peek at our genitals without our consent.

As a male of the species, you're privileged to not have to worry about your, or anyone else's genitals almost all the time. As a female of the species, and the victim of sexual assault and attempted rape, other people's genitals frequently have a bit more of an impact on my life.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is true because we as a society removed the stigma of being left-handed. It wasn't so long ago (my father's generation) that left handed kids were still forced in school to write with their right hands.

If we can stop forcing people to write with their non-dominant hand, we can stop forcing them to use the wrong pronouns.

How are you defining "wrong" in this context? Does that same definition of "wrong" extend to other scenarios unrelated to gender?