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

[d4m10n]

It has nothing to say on people identifying as Attila the Hun either, I suspect.

Okay so now that we've put psychiatry to the side, what counts as "valid" or not?

 

[LondonJohn]

No, race is not a physical construct. It is a social construct; a way society classifies people based on irrelevant physical characteristics.

Eh? I did state that it's given rise to that social element, but it still ultimately goes all the way back, I'm afraid, to physical appearance and skin colour.

A 40-year-old black Harvard professor picking up some milk in the supermarket is liable to be treated in a racist manner - by the white store detective - just as much/little as a 40-year-old unemployed black man from an inner-city black ghetto who's just been released from his latest lengthy spell in prison. And both of them are liable to be treated differently from the 40-year-old white factory worker.

The racism is on account of their skin colour. Yes (as I said) there are complex social and emotional constructs linked to what the white store detective thinks about "black man" and "white man" respectively. But if all three of the people in my example exhibited the same (or sufficiently similar) physical presentations, the store detective would have no basis upon which to discriminate between them.

I think you mean to say "gender identity" instead of "gender", but you are wrong either way. "Gender identity" is not a psychiatric condition. It is just an identity.

No, I did mean "gender". "Gender identity" is merely the gender with which a person identifies. And it's gender which is the fundamental element, not gender identity.

And yes, it is a psychiatric condition. It's part of a person's psychiatric makeup which is to do with who/what they view themselves to be, and how they identify internally. When you say "it's just an identity", well.... an identity has to reside somewhere or be generated from somewhere. And that somewhere is deep within the person's psyche, the person's consciousness, the person's sense of being. All of which are part of the psychiatric makeup of that person.

Remember also that psychiatry is the practice of assessing & understanding a person's mental and mental-heath condition. Obviously a lot of what psychiatrists do is to assess & identify mental health disorders, and try to treat or accommodate them. But it's also their role to understand which psychiatric conditions are - and are not - disorders.

 

[theprestige]

To LJ's credit, I can totally see governments deciding these things based on the reasoning and evidence he's presented so far.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay so now that we've put psychiatry to the side, what counts as "valid" or not?

It's not within my pay grade to make that decision.

It's the role/job of those with the relevant expertise and experience to make that decision.

Which is exactly what they've recently done wrt transgender identity.

 

[LondonJohn]

To LJ's credit, I can totally see governments deciding these things based on the reasoning and evidence he's presented so far.

Well that's very generous of you, and good to know. I guess we'll all just have to see the direction in which governments (and legislatures, importantly) are going to move in the real world, won't we?

*hand to ear* What's that, we are already seeing the direction in which many such governments and legislatures are moving?

 

[theprestige]

It's not within my pay grade to make that decision.

It's the role/job of those with the relevant expertise and experience to make that decision.

Which is exactly what they've recently done wrt transgender identity.

Of course it's within your pay grade. You're a citizen in a democracy. Sooner or later, you have to make up your own mind and vote your conscience. Your elected representatives represent you. Don't abdicate your responsibility in this.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course it's within your pay grade. You're a citizen in a democracy. Sooner or later, you have to make up your own mind and vote your conscience. Your elected representatives represent you. Don't abdicate your responsibility in this.

LOL

Tell me, theprestige: where there are communal gender-assigned changing rooms in places such as gyms or swimming baths..... which changing room should a transman use (or be made to use)? And why?

 

[d4m10n]

Which is exactly what they've recently done wrt transgender identity.

All they've done for non-binary transgender identifying persons without clinically significant distress is to stay out of their way. Which is cool, but doesn't tell us much.

 

[Elaedith]

You are confusing "gender" with "gender identity". Two very different things.

I'm aware that gender is usually described as consisting of gender identity and gender expression, but gender identity is then usually defined (in a somewhat circular way) as having a particular gender or being a particular gender. One cannot be born with an innate sense or predisposition to have or be something that is socially constructed or fluid. In contrast, the consensus is that sexual orientation probably begins to develop before birth and that it is largely immutable in most people.

Of course, there may also be biological influences on gender typical or atypical traits and behaviors, but that isn't generally what activists are arguing since they usually seem to reject any biologically-based sex differences (while at the same time implying gender 'identity' is somehow innate). This is in line with the influence of postmodern theory that places subjective identity above objective fact.

"Gender" is socially constructed and fluid. It consists of social attitudes and stereotypes.

"Gender identity" is a deeply personal sense of self that is not socially constructed, but in some cases fluid.

Of course 'gender identity' is socially constructed, or at least constructed through interaction between innate characteristics and social reinforcements and responses. Gender nonconformity may be innate, but 'gender identity' (as postulated by activists) is an entirely constructed interpretation. The idea that it is innate and immutable is a political ploy to draw spurious analogies with sexual orientation.

Children develop their "gender identity" at an early age as they develop a sense of self, sometimes clearly in one direction or another, sometimes it can shift during childhood.

Children learn to label themselves descriptively as a boy or a girl at an early age as part of developing a self-concept, which is all that the term 'gender identity' originally meant in developmental psychology (there is a strange history regarding the Reimer case, but it is largely an obfuscation). There is no evidence that these labels represent any deep sense of 'gender identity'. At this stage, children have no idea of any distinction between sex and gender, and a poor understanding of the nature of sex classification. Young children, for example, can think that being a boy or a girl is determined by appearance or behaviour, so that a boy who starts playing with dolls is now a girl or a girl who cuts her hair short is now a boy. To argue that children can have a 'stable gender identity' at that stage is absurd. Of course, children's identification labels do remain stable in the majority of cases because they do in fact identify themselves as their actual sex and this is not contradicted.

Their 'trans' identity must be conditionally affirmed.

'Trans identity' is an interpretation imposed on children by adults. Young children can be very gender non-conforming which may be innate, and can develop gender dysphoria. 'Trans identity' is a conclusion or outcome, the likelihood of which is increased by social reinforcement. The affirmation-only approach is entirely activist-driven and political, and simply takes the body of evidence from conversion therapy for sexual orientation (which is entirely different in nature) and (mis)applies it to gender identity.

In some cases, their "gender identity" is so stable that they can begin social transitioning before puberty.

Social transition consolidates gender identity and increases the likelihood that cross-sex identification will persist. Without affirmation the majority of children desist from gender dysphoria and accept their natal sex during puberty. Every study on this topic ever conducted has shown this. Activists have tried to label these studies as 'discredited' (as usual) but their superficial arguments have been debunked by Zucker (2018), Cantor (2017) and others.


As Cantor (2017) states "Despite coming from a variety of countries and from a variety of labs, using a variety of methods, all spanning four decades, every single study without exception has come to the identical conclusion. This is not a matter of scientists disagreeing with one another over relative strengths and weaknesses across a set of conflicting reports. The disagreement is not even some people advocating for one set of studies with other people advocating for a different set of studies: Rather, activists are rejecting the unanimous conclusion of every single study ever conducted on the question in favour of a conclusion supported by not one"

Children who show early, strong and persistent dysphoria are more likely to persist and ultimately end up transitioning but there is no test that reliably identifies that a particular child will definitely persist.

 

[theprestige]

LOL

Tell me, theprestige: where there are communal gender-assigned changing rooms in places such as gyms or swimming baths..... which changing room should a transman use (or be made to use)? And why?

The women's room. Because they're a woman. Obviously.

 

[Earthborn]

Eh? I did state that it's given rise to that social element, but it still ultimately goes all the way back, I'm afraid, to physical appearance and skin colour.

Only if "race" is socially constructed as a difference in physical appearance and skin colour. Many racists though, consider Jews and Slavs as separate races to white people. In Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis were considered different races.

No, I did mean "gender". "Gender identity" is merely the gender with which a person identifies. And it's gender which is the fundamental element, not gender identity.

Then you are using the term "gender" in a way I am not familiar with. Can you explain what definition you are using?

It's part of a person's psychiatric makeup

Psychological makeup.

But it's also their role to understand which psychiatric conditions are - and are not - disorders.

Psychiatric conditions are by definition disorders, as psychiatry deals with disordered psychological conditions.

 

[Paul2]

Trans-rights activists do not claim that gender or sex is binary, and do not argue that there should be segregation based on either; but that if there is to be segregation, it should be based on gender presentation. As D4m10n succinctly put it: "Use the room where you'll raise the fewest eyebrows."
Gender is a spectrum, and it is only linked to sex in so far as societal attitudes associate it to sex. Sex is biological, and nothing in biology is a perfect binary; though mammalian sex differentiation is certainly as close to a perfect binary as any biological system can possibly be. There should not be segregation; I thought the issue of segregation was settled in the early 1960s. If thinking that makes me a radical, I'm proud to be a radical.

One complicating factor is the timing of when an eyebrow might be raised: when first entering and outward appearance is considered, or after disrobing and genitals might be viewed? Two entirely different reactions may ensue. And, the strongest complication would occur when outward appearance causes no eyebrows to raise, but one's genitals do, because one is already in the changing room with certain expectations that are the basis for whether one's eyebrows will be raised or not.

 

[Earthborn]

Of course 'gender identity' is socially constructed, or at least constructed through interaction between innate characteristics and social reinforcements and responses. Gender nonconformity may be innate, but 'gender identity' (as postulated by activists) is an entirely constructed interpretation.

"Gender nonconformity" is not innate, as it has to do with conforming to socially constructed gender norms. There is no such thing as an innate wearing of skirts.

Children learn to label themselves descriptively as a boy or a girl at an early age as part of developing a self-concept, which is all that the term 'gender identity' originally meant in developmental psychology

Which is what it still means, as far as I see.

The affirmation-only approach is entirely activist-driven and political,

Which is why I wrote conditionally affirmed. An affirmation-only approach is not a useful approach any more than a non-affirmation approach.

Social transition consolidates gender identity and increases the likelihood that cross-sex identification will persist. Without affirmation the majority of children desist from gender dysphoria and accept their natal sex during puberty. Every study on this topic ever conducted has shown this.

Except apparently the studies you link to; the biggest and most recent studies mentioned in that list haven't studied what happens "without affirmation" but with children actively being treated for their GID, some of whom with affirmation of their cross-gender identity, and some of them while socially transitioning.

You can't support the claim "if you don't do anything, most of them will grow out of it" by pointing to studies in which the ones most likely not to grow out of it are actively being treated.

Activists have tried to label these studies as 'discredited' (as usual) but their superficial arguments have been debunked by Zucker (2018), Cantor (2017) and others.

Quote from the article's conclusion:

Importantly, these results should not be exaggerated in the other direction either: The correct answer is neither 0% nor 100%. Although the majority of transgender kids desist, it is not a large majority. A very substantial proportion do indeed want to transition as they get older, and we need to ensure they receive the support they will need.

Rather than "debunking" it is confirming what trans-activists already knew.

Children who show early, strong and persistent dysphoria are more likely to persist and ultimately end up transitioning but there is no test that reliably identifies that a particular child will definitely persist.

... except following them for a while to see whether they persist.

 

[LondonJohn]

Only if "race" is socially constructed as a difference in physical appearance and skin colour. Many racists though, consider Jews and Slavs as separate races to white people. In Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis were considered different races.

But it doesn't detract from the central point: you have to have some way of accurately identifying* those in the race that you hate (as well as having some reason - real or imagined - for hating them). Sure - and I've already agreed with this - underpinning something like anti-black racism is a whole set of "justifications", all of which are either wholly wrong or grotesquely magnified for the hatred and discrimination. But it's the person's visual appearance** which is the identifier for racism to manifest itself.

Then you are using the term "gender" in a way I am not familiar with. Can you explain what definition you are using?

This should hopefully help (it contains the UK Government's definition, which is the same as my definition):

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

Psychological makeup.Psychiatric conditions are by definition disorders, as psychiatry deals with disordered psychological conditions.

But my point was precisely that psychiatrists no longer assess transgender identity as a disorder. And that, by definition, means that it is not a disorder.



* With Nazi Germany and the Jews, for example, they checked family records (together with clothing choices, profession, where they lived, etc) to accurately identify Jews, and they then made those whom they'd identified wear an identifying patch (typically a Star of David) on their clothing, in order to enable instant visual identification of a Jew.

With other ethnic groups who fought each other, it was usually down to either where you lived, what your name was, or how you dressed, which was the identification factor.


** Though studies have also shown that, for example, candidates for job positions experience negative outcomes related to racism if they have a name which is most typical amongst the black community (eg DeShawn or La'Veon)


(Btw it looks to me like this is all getting a little "off-piste" now, so I'll return to the safety of the prepared slopes...)

 

[Earthborn]

One complicating factor is the timing of when an eyebrow might be raised: when first entering and outward appearance is considered, or after disrobing and genitals might be viewed? Two entirely different reactions may ensue. And, the strongest complication would occur when outward appearance causes no eyebrows to raise, but one's genitals do, because one is already in the changing room with certain expectations that are the basis for whether one's eyebrows will be raised or not.

There are tricks to hide one's genitals even when disrobing in the view of others cannot be avoided. Transgender individuals who wouldn't raise an eyebrow when entering, very likely have mastered that art. Which is why the suggestion by some that transmen should use the women's changing room is so unhelpful; no one will ever notice that they are not (biological) men.

 

[Roboramma]

A non-black person identifying as black is not a valid human condition.

Evidence?

 

[Roboramma]

It's not within my pay grade to make that decision.

It's the role/job of those with the relevant expertise and experience to make that decision.

Which is exactly what they've recently done wrt transgender identity.

Um, you did make that decision. You claimed X isn't valid. Now you're saying it's not in your pay grade to say whether X is valid or not?

 

[Myriad]

Are you a female*? (I genuinely don't know).

*snip*

I addressed my questions to women because I want answers from women based on women's experiences.

 

[Belz...]

I can imagine a difference with gender identity compared to attack helicopter identity. The interaction between the brain and the body regarding sex is quite obviously complicated in any number of ways - developmentally before and after birth, mediations by culture and upbringing, etc. - so it's easy to imagine some particular configuration of the interplay between nature and nurture in which one's gender identity doesn't match one's sex.

It's vastly harder to imagine the same for attack helicopter identity.

If people can imagine that they are a completely different person, and some identify as cats or a different ethnicity, I don't se why they couldn't identify as inanimate objects.

Because race is, first and foremost, a physical construct (yes, clearly there is a big intangible "lived" construct layered on top of that, but it ultimately all leads back to physical presentation).

On the other hand, gender is in no way a physical construct. It's entirely a psychiatric lived condition.

Again: that is going by a recent and far from universally-accepted definition of gender. You need to convince people to use that definition before you can build an argument from it.

I think you mean to say "gender identity" instead of "gender", but you are wrong either way. "Gender identity" is not a psychiatric condition. It is just an identity.

Well that's the issue, isn't it? If what someone identifies as is the absolute determinant of what they are and should be treated as, we have no basis for denying otherkin or attack-helicopter-people the very same considerations.

 

[LondonJohn]

I addressed my questions to women because I want answers from women based on women's experiences.

So your answer to my question is (presumably) "no".

And you had replied to the post of mine which explicitly said this (my highlights for emphasis):

By the way, it would have been interesting perhaps if at least one of the females within this thread had even dipped their toe into thinking about whether there might be any way in which transgender people would be able to use the changing rooms correlating to their gender, while addressing potential safety or privacy issues related to this. But.... not one peep. Instead: nothing but total obstructionism. That's certainly food for thought.

I'd call that irony.