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

[Earthborn]

Most of these studies were conducted when 'watchful waiting' was the standard treatment. The later ones included some with affirmation or social transition.

All of these studies were conducted when 'watchful waiting' was the standard treatment, as that is still the standard treatment. 'Watchful waiting' does not exclude affirmation and social transition.

I said 'if not affirmed' the majority of children do not remain dysphoric.

And that is not a conclusion you can draw from these studies, because there is no group of children with severe genderdysforia who are denied affirmation.

Incidentally, the finding that childhood transition predicted persistence is not simply a confound of children who were more gender atypical being selected for transition. Transition independently predicted persistence in a multivariate regression where the ratings of gender atypicality and gender variant behaviours were also predictors (hence controlled for statistically). In fact, these measures were no long significant predictors when entered into the regression, while transition remained a significant predictor of persistence.

Perhaps you should point out where in the study it says that, because all I can find about such a claim is that "future prospective studies ... may shed some light on this question". And specifically mentions that it should not mean children should not transition: "clinical management of children with GD in general should not be aimed to block gender-variant behaviors."

Following them 'for a while' is not sufficient. Puberty is associated with resolution of dysphoria in most children. There are many reasons to suppose that the process of undergoing puberty is responsible for this. Social transition before puberty increases the distress and dysphoria associated with the onset of puberty, and blocking puberty is associated with almost 100% persistence and progression to medical transition.

None of the studies you linked to show this, or even attempt to study this.

 

[Belz...]

And while I am well aware that they do not represent all transgender people by any means, they are exceedingly vocal and have a very large social media presence... and they are being tolerated by the trans movement in general. All in all, there is a very loud, vocal, and active portion of the trans movement that are transparently misogynistic and anti-woman.

I don't think most trans activists are trans. I think most are cis people trying to be as woke as possible so as to avoid being labeled a transphobe themselves.

 

[Belz...]

The brain is the most important component of sexuality, but also the organ in which the difference is least significant. Having a brain with a gender opposite the rest of the body is considered by society as an affront to Western Civilization's obsession with putting every topic into one or the other side of a "war" between science and religion.

A male should be able to identify as having a brain that seems to be female, and the rest of the body that is male. But Western-influenced society insists they make further claims -- and then punishes them for it.

But do trans men have a 'female' brain? I think that's an oversimplification. I don't think we know the causes of the condition.

 

[Belz...]

This is truly the thread that keeps on giving, isn't it?

Fortunately, you and I are, with regard to this issue, a) on the right side of morality and decency, and b) destined to be on the right side of history. No matter the increasingly-desperate rationalisations and negations of anyone else.

For pete's sake, get over yourself. What's with looking down on everyone from your pedestal, there? Is it such a capital moral issue to agree on definitions? We've already established that most people agree with you on the important, fundamental stuff re trans people. Sheesh.

There is no 'right side' to morality and decency since it's entirely subjective. As for being on the 'right side' of history i.e. the future conforming to your ideas, that doesn't mean you were right, either.

 

[Meadmaker]

After finishing an important project a bit early, I'm ending my self-imposed exile a couple of days before my original plan.

When a topic goes on and on for a long time, and the same things keep being said over and over, I try to take the habit of saying the same old thing, but in a different way. It's all really about trying to figure out the other people's position in more depth. How would they react to this or that? So, I'm going to take a different approach, at least for a bit.

I was one of the people who pressed for definitions for a while. Now I'm going to go to the other side. After all, as some recent posts of mine noted, definitions don't change reality. If I say that someone "is a man", what I am saying is that I have a particular definition of "man". What I say doesn't change the person one whit.

Therefore, I am going to adopt the approved newspeak definitions, at least for now, at this time and place. So....

Sex and gender are two different things. Sex refers to a person's reproductive biology. Gender is a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity;

I will use "man", "woman", "masculine" and "feminine", in relation to gender. "Male" and "female" will be used in relation to sex. So, based on those definitions, the thread title doesn't work. Transwomen are women, by those definitions.


Ok. So, having done that, now what? What are the implications? If everyone were to adopt those definitions, would we need to change laws, policies, or behavior? If I want to have my actions and my policy recommendations consistent with my newly adopted definitions, would I have to advocate any change to the status quo?

At this point I will interject something. What I would really like is to engage in some sort of Socratic dialog where I ask a series of leading questions, or get asked those in turn, that eventually helps clarify a position or reveal a truth. Forums don't work all that well for that sort of thing, though. It can be made to work, but the people in the discussion have to agree to some rules, and I don't see that happening, so I will sometimes just ask questions, but if those questions are rhetorical, do something to give people a moment to think, and then provide my own answer. I'm also looking for other people's answers, but I won't wait for them.

Therefore, my answer to my question.

There is one very obvious step that ought to be taken if we, as a society, were to all adopt the definitions that I will be using in the thread, in which "man" is gender based, and "male" sex based.

For women's sports leagues, also girls' leagues, they should immediately be renamed "female" sports leagues. So instead of the WNBA, we should have the FNBA. There will be no girls' track team. There will be a females' track team.

This should be extremely obvious and non-controversial. The reason for the existence of the segregated leagues is the observation that merely being male conveys a very strong performance advantage in athletics. It doesn't make anyone "more athletic", but it gives some people of equal athleticism greater performance. i.e. given a male and female of equal relative physical fitness, the male will outperform the female. This advantage is a result of sex, not gender. Being a man does not make a person stronger, but being a male does. The advantage is so extreme that a very athletic female cannot generally win against a rather unimpressive male competitor.

By changing the names of the leagues to use "female", instead of "girls" or "women's" we will end the issue of misgendering completely. Transwomen will be able to compete against their fellow males without having to pretend to be men. Their valid gender identities can be affirmed by acknowledging who they really are. They are women, and male, so they can wear appropriate women's uniforms while competing in the male division. Problem solved.


Locker rooms are a bit more problematic, because there are a lot of social issues involved. It will surprise no one to hear that I also think locker rooms should be labelled and used by females and males instead of men and women, but I admit that in the case of locker rooms, there is considerable room for disagreement and the answer is not as obvious. I'll save the discussion for a future time. I'm hoping that if we can at least get agreement on the sports case, where the issues are rather clear and obvious, that it might help us at least spell out the issues more clearly on the changing room issue.

 

[Belz...]

By changing the names of the leagues to use "female", instead of "girls" or "women's" we will end the issue of misgendering completely. Transwomen will be able to compete against their fellow males without having to pretend to be men. Their valid gender identities can be affirmed by acknowledging who they really are. They are women, and male, so they can wear appropriate women's uniforms while competing in the male division. Problem solved.

In English, maybe. But some language either have a single word to mean both "man" and "male", and some, like French, find the use of male and female to refer to humans to be offensive.

 

[Earthborn]

All of those inclinations are gender non-conforming, and I would say that they were innate.

Perhaps those inclinations are innate, but they are not innately gender non-conforming. That depends on what the "idiotic stereotypes" of one's society are.

On the other hand, there is a not insignificant, and growing, group of transgender people who feel entitled to share their genitals with the other people in the room, and who feel it is their right to expose themselves in such a way.

I am not convinced that this is a sizeable group, or that it is significantly growing. Most transgender people would rarely feel comfortable being in the nude at all, and most other people increasingly want private changing stalls.

On the other hand:

• Self-declaration of prisoners is now getting male-bodied inmates transferred and housed in shared cells with females. In multiple cases, those male-bodied self-declared transwoman have sexually assaulted and raped the female prisoners with whom they were housed.

Yes, that is obviously ridiculous. Respecting a person's gender identity is important, but it is not the only thing that is important. For the safety of inmates and prison staff, shared cells are a terrible idea anyway.

• Self-declaration of gender identity is allowing male-raised people, with the experiences of a male in society, to take women's positions in business and politics, and to "speak for" women for the purpose of equality.

Transwomen do not take women's positions in any significant numbers. Due to sex discrimination, it is far more likely biological males lose their positions if they transition to female.

• Male-born people, with male-raise experiences, are receiving awards and recognitions for women... honors that are intended to increase the equality of women in the world and address existing disadvantages.

That is up to whoever gives those awards to decide.

But there is ample evidence of them. There are entire gamuts of porn targeting them:

A few points:
Porn is not realistic.
Sexual fantasies do not necessarily reflect what sexual experiences a person wishes to have.
If a person has to struggle with something as physical as their sexual feelings, with a bodily characteristics they experience as not fully their own, sexuality gets weird.
Femininity is unfortunately still largely defined in negative terms, such as weakness and submissiveness. Segregationist policies that are supposedly designed to protect women, but ultimately subjugate them, don't help.

 

[Meadmaker]

In English, maybe. But some language either have a single word to mean both "man" and "male", and some, like French, find the use of male and female to refer to humans to be offensive.

In English as it existed just a few years ago, the same thing would be true. However, if language doesn't fit reality, language should change, n'est-ce pas?

The newspeak definitions reflect the reality that gender and sex are different, and the archaic language constructs that failed to recognize the difference should be modified in the light of recent scientific discoveries. The English language changes, and so should the others.



By the way, I'm only being partially facetious there. I'm speaking in an overly pompous manner, putting on the persona of a pretentious woke person, but there is a legitimate point underneath. Our language, as it existed recently, really didn't have a word for "transwoman" or "gender identity", or any of the controversial terms in the debate. That really is a deficiency of language, and so something really ought to change.

My exercise in adopting the preferred trans activist variations is partly to illustrate something. Reality will not change if we use different words to describe it. So, I will, at least temporarily, adopt the "progressive" language, but not necessarily the progressive positions, and see where it leads.

 

[theprestige]

https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1376649059096788999

ACLU indicates they will sue the state should the governor sign this anti-trans bill into law. Surely the first of many bigoted anti-trans bills to pass in red states as trans people become the punching bag for conservative culture warriors.

Gay bashing is so last decade, trans bashing is the new hotness.

Ironically, that bill appeals to medical and scientific fact, as the basis for its legislation. Unfortunately it doesn't include any citations. On the other hand, this makes it a perfect example of governments deciding these things based on the same kinds of arguments LJ has been making in this thread.

PDF: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=/Bills/2021R/Public/HB1570.pdf

ETA: I'm calling it intentionally dishonest to link to a tweet, instead of providing the actual bill for rational debate.

 

[Matthew Best]

By changing the names of the leagues to use "female", instead of "girls" or "women's" we will end the issue of misgendering completely. Transwomen will be able to compete against their fellow males without having to pretend to be men. Their valid gender identities can be affirmed by acknowledging who they really are. They are women, and male, so they can wear appropriate women's uniforms while competing in the male division. Problem solved.

For this to be problem solved, you'd need to show that trans women don't mind being called "male" and trans men don't mind being called "female".

 

[theprestige]

For this to be problem solved, you'd need to show that trans women don't mind being called "male" and trans men don't mind being called "female".

Probably can't be done. Every trans scenario presented so far seems to boil down to being fundamentally at odds with one's actual sex. Dysphoria? At odds with one's sex. Autogynaephilia? At odds with one's sex. Take away the sex-discomfort, and you don't have transmen, you have tomboys. Which is totally okay, and already such a mainstream thing that the term itself is somewhat archaic.

If a transwoman didn't mind being called male, she wouldn't be a transwoman.

 

[Meadmaker]

For this to be problem solved, you'd need to show that trans women don't mind being called "male" and trans men don't mind being called "female".

Well if we go to what people "mind", we'll never solve any problem. Lots of people mind all sorts of different things.


Using the preferred definitions that I have adopted and that others have used in this discussion, trans men are female, whether they mind it or not.

By renaming the sports leagues to "female" instead of "girls", we would solve the misgendering problem. Males would race against males, making it explicit that it does not matter whether those males are boys or those males are girls. The attire chosen by the athletes could be stereotypically masculine or stereotypically feminine. Presumably the girls would choose the stereotypically feminine clothes, in order to affirm their feminine gender identity, but I think it should be their choice.

And in this case, I am not being facetious at all. I really do believe that gender identities are "valid lived conditions", and I really do believe that people should be able to present however they want. However, the athletic advantage enjoyed by males comes from their sex, not from their gender. We should emphasize that in the way that we organize our sports programs, including the names of those programs.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ironically, that bill appeals to medical and scientific fact, as the basis for its legislation. Unfortunately it doesn't include any citations. On the other hand, this makes it a perfect example of governments deciding these things based on the same kinds of arguments LJ has been making in this thread.

PDF: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/FTPDocument?path=/Bills/2021R/Public/HB1570.pdf

ETA: I'm calling it intentionally dishonest to link to a tweet, instead of providing the actual bill for rational debate.

What's dishonest about it? if signed into law, it will be illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to receive trans affirming medical care, be that hormonal or surgical treatment. The ACLU's reading of the text of the law is correct.

 

[xjx388]

The brain is the most important component of sexuality, but also the organ in which the difference is least significant. Having a brain with a gender opposite the rest of the body is considered by society as an affront to Western Civilization's obsession with putting every topic into one or the other side of a "war" between science and religion.

A male should be able to identify as having a brain that seems to be female, and the rest of the body that is male. But Western-influenced society insists they make further claims -- and then punishes them for it.

Then why can't a white person identify as a black person when the physical differences are even less significant?

Further, why doesn't a black identity make someone black? Why is the physical so important in the case of race but not in gender?

 

[theprestige]

What's dishonest about it? if signed into law, it will be illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to receive trans affirming medical care, be that hormonal or surgical treatment. The ACLU's reading of the text of the law is correct.

The bill also lays out its reasoning for this, based on fairly straightforward scientific and medical observations. This is exactly the kind of government decision-making process that LJ prescribes, and that the ACLU tweet (and you) ignore. I'm less interested in whether you think the ACLU's reading of the law is correct, and more interested in whether you think the legislature's reading of the science is correct.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The bill also lays out its reasoning for this, based on fairly straightforward scientific and medical observations. This is exactly the kind of government decision-making process that LJ prescribes, and that the ACLU tweet (and you) ignore. I'm less interested in whether you think the ACLU's reading of the law is correct, and more interested in whether you think the legislature's reading of the science is correct.

The ACLU is probably more interested in whether it's lawful, being a legal advocacy group.

 

[caveman1917]

The ACLU is probably more interested in whether it's lawful, being a legal advocacy group.

And this forum is probably more interested in whether the science is correct, being a skeptics forum.

 

[theprestige]

Then why can't a white person identify as a black person when the physical differences are even less significant?

Further, why doesn't a black identity make someone black? Why is the physical so important in the case of race but not in gender?

It's hilarious, but also creepy, how regressive trans-activism actually is.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And this forum is probably more interested in whether the science is correct, being a skeptics forum.

Maybe if this were the medical sub forum.

Whether or not this clearly bigoted law is unconstitutional is very much a pertinent issue, both for the ACLU and a skeptics forum.

 

[theprestige]

The ACLU is probably more interested in whether it's lawful, being a legal advocacy group.

If the ACLU is still unsure about the constitutionality of regulating medical treatment for minors, then they're probably not qualified to be an authority on this or any other question of lawfulness.