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

[xjx388]

Call me anything you like just don't call me late for dinner.

I'm guess I'm still a pretty dedicated tomboy, however archaic that term is, still with the frogs and the dirt and the jeans and the turning over of rocks. I'm still sort of uncomfortable in a dress and still a little bit tickled if I get misgendered in public. But I'm still also definitely a woman and pretty feminist. And also very supportive of all the trans stuff and of everyone who is still workinng on figuring out the best approaches for everyone. It's messy and it's emotional. But I don't have any problem with both hoping that women exactly like me can continue making progress in getting a bigger share of the social and professional pie (and sure, fancy shoe collecting ladies too), and also feeling like trans women are not the enemy in that particular struggle in general.

I can't bring myself to be worried about the nasty, overreaching trans contingent until I meet one, even one, in real life. There's lots of vile people to be found on the internet. Are they out there in the real world in numbers that make me sit up and pay attention? Well, I meet real actual racists and misogynists and yeah, transphobes, all the damn time. Sllightly fewer people bigoted against gay folks (the ones I run into have mostly switched over to complaining about people with tattoos? Not sure what that's about). I've met exactly one angry socialist and one angry black identity type guy.

I've met none gross trans people.

Well, you don't exactly have to meet them. What do you think about the push to have trans women compete in woman's sports, for example? That's something happening in the real world right now that affects biological females like you.

 

[caveman1917]

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/arkansas-passes-bill-ban-gender-affirming-care-trans-youth-n1262412

That's a newspaper article, not a scientific source. But yes, North-America and Australia use the gender-affirming approach, the rest of the world uses the watchful waiting approach. You know, hence the lack of consensus as opposed to your claim.

Is there any medical authority that supports universal prohibition of trans affirming care for minors?

Not that I know of, why? Oh, I see, you're trying to strawman it... No, the different approaches of care are not "gender affirming" vs "universal prohibition of trans affirming care" but "gender affirming" vs "watchful waiting." As for medical authorities supporting watchful waiting, the Amsterdam center that pioneered the approach has written some papers about it (you could probably find them if you look for it).

 

[Collin237]

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?

You can't find your own race by yourself; the closest you can get to that is looking in a mirror.

However, you can find your own gender simply by meditating on how it feels to have certain body parts.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not that I know of, why? Oh, I see, you're trying to strawman it... No, the different approaches of care are not "gender affirming" vs "universal prohibition of trans affirming care" but "gender affirming" vs "watchful waiting." As for medical authorities supporting watchful waiting, the Amsterdam center that pioneered the approach has written some papers about it (you could probably find them if you look for it).

How is this a strawman? The AR state law is a total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors. Besides their own cherry-picked rationale, is there any respected medical association in this country that supports such an extremist stance?

 

[Ziggurat]

How is this a strawman? The AR state law is a total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors.

No, it isn't. You are equating "trans affirming care" with medical intervention, and these are not synonymous.

 

[Collin237]

That's not true. Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, and many others aren't "beliefs". They may frequently present as exaggerated or false perceptions, with significant separation from reality, but they aren't properly referred to as "beliefs".

"Mental health" doctors consider such things in terms of beliefs. And no, it doesn't make sense. That's the problem with them.

What evidence, from which doctors?

You're asking me? You were the one who said there was a conflict between different kinds of doctors.

 

[caveman1917]

How is this a strawman?

You claimed that gender affirmation is the medical consensus. I pointed out that there is no medical consensus and most places use watchful waiting instead. You then request a medical authority supporting the total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors, the strawman is that watchful waiting isn't the same as "total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors." I suppose it's also a form of a false dilemma if you prefer.

The AR state law is a total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors. Besides their own cherry-picked rationale, is there any respected medical association in this country that supports such an extremist stance?

I don't know nor do I particularly care as I don't live in "this country" and don't really care about its laws. As far as the science goes, that which is universal across borders, I haven't looked into the specific law or its rationale but I do know that it's simply false to claim that there is a medical consensus on standard of care, let alone that this consensus consists of the gender affirmation approach.

 

[Collin237]

So... mind-body duality and the supremacy of a gendered soul then? Claiming that brains are "gendered" separately from the sex of the body is pretty much woo.

Exactly what I meant about the Western obsession. You're the one trying to shoehorn religion into this.

 

[theprestige]

You claimed that gender affirmation is the medical consensus. I pointed out that there is no medical consensus and most places use watchful waiting instead. You then request a medical authority supporting the total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors, the strawman is that watchful waiting isn't the same as "total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors." I suppose it's also a form of a false dilemma if you prefer.



I don't know nor do I particularly care as I don't live in "this country" and don't really care about its laws. As far as the science goes, that which is universal across borders, I haven't looked into the specific law or its rationale but I do know that it's simply false to claim that there is a medical consensus on standard of care, let alone that this consensus consists of the gender affirmation approach.

This particular bill* includes legislative findings that there are substantial medical risks associated with transitioning minors, and then concludes from this that the state should prohibit the practice. Absent in the bill is any discussion of mitigating factors or exceptions where the expected benefit outweighs the risk. I guess that counts as "cherry picking"?

Regardless, the way I see it, the burden is on LJ, ST, and other trans-activists to:
- either acknowledge the risks or debunk them; and
- if acknowledging the risks, provide credible scientific support for the existence of exceptions where the procedures should be carried out in spite of the risks.

Obviously if the risks are debunked, then the bill should be scrapped.

On the other hand, if the risks are real, then the bill should probably be amended to provide for legal exceptions where medically necessary (assuming such medical necessity actually exists).

---
*PDF linked on previous page of this thread; let me know if you want me to link it again.

 

[Belz...]

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?

P'tet bien, mais je pense qu'on parle autant d'une idéologie que de la réalité.

 

[Meadmaker]

P'tet bien, mais je pense qu'on parle autant d'une idéologie que de la réalité.

Indeed.

ETA: And I think that will become even more obvious shortly, but that depends on how these conversations go.

 

[Distracted1]

FYI, a lot of adult female humans also find it offensive. Female is an adjective, describing a sexed entity. I'm not "a female", I'm "a female human". The use of sex-based terms as nouns is something frequently done with livestock, where their agency and their feelings about it are irrelevant. Frequently, we, as arrogant humans, don't even give those animals the agency to select their own mates, but make the choice for them and force it upon them.

I'm not breeding stock, nor are any other human beings.

I tolerate it out of necessity in this discussion, but only because the appropriate term for a female human has been appropriated and redefined in a way that removes any meaning from it. I cannot now refer to myself and other female humans in a respectful manner without also being forced to include in that group male humans who have adopted the term for themselves.

Which is the point of controlling the language.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

Indeed. We need only change it from a "girls'" sport to a "minor aged female human being" sport and all will be well.

 

[Meadmaker]

Indeed. We need only change it from a "girls'" sport to a "minor aged female human being" sport and all will be well.

Sounds perfect.


At least, from an accuracy standpoint. No one gets misgendered, and no one with the innate advantage of maleness competes against genetically disadvantaged athletes. It's a bit awkward, but I'm sure we would get used to it.


I said I wasn't being facetious, but I suppose I need to make sure it's not a serious suggestion in the sense that there is active support for this and I'll be writing to my legislature saying they should do it. What I mean is that I am serious that doing so would solve all of the problems that people complain about with respect to sports. It is logically consistent with the views that are supported in this thread. The reasons we are told that males must be allowed to compete in girls' sports is that they are girls, and we should not misgender them. Ok. Very well. They are girls. So, we need to make sure it's understood that there is a sports division for people who are female, because it is being female that puts those people at a disadvantage. Girls who are male can compete in the male division. That ought to solve the problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You claimed that gender affirmation is the medical consensus. I pointed out that there is no medical consensus and most places use watchful waiting instead. You then request a medical authority supporting the total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors, the strawman is that watchful waiting isn't the same as "total prohibition of trans affirming care for minors." I suppose it's also a form of a false dilemma if you prefer.



I don't know nor do I particularly care as I don't live in "this country" and don't really care about its laws. As far as the science goes, that which is universal across borders, I haven't looked into the specific law or its rationale but I do know that it's simply false to claim that there is a medical consensus on standard of care, let alone that this consensus consists of the gender affirmation approach.

The watchful waiting method, which sometimes involves prescribing puberty blockers to allow these children more time to make a decision, would be forbidden by the AR law.

The AR law prohibits any hormonal intervention, full stop, including puberty blockers that might allow a patient, their parents, and their doctors to take the time to make an informed decision. That's not watchful waiting, and even by your own claim it is out of step with the international consensus on standard of care.

The “watchful waiting” model was designed by the members of the interdisciplinary team at the Amsterdam Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, VU University Medical Center, under the leadership of Dr Peggy Cohen-Kettenis. Borrowing from the medical use of GnRH agonists for children exhibiting precocious puberty, the Netherlands team is responsible for introducing the use of puberty blockers for gender purposes, to put a pause on pubertal growth and allow more time for a youth to explore their gender and consolidate their adolescent gender identity, with the future possibility of cross-sex hormone therapy to align their bodies with their affirmed gender identity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5448699/#:~:text=The%20watchful%20waiting%20model&text=If%20a%20child's%20cross%2Dgender,best%20interests%20of%20the%20child.

 

[Belz...]

No it's general. At least it's supposed to be.

Well, you were clearly wrong, yes? Obviously, if it's not in the science subforum, then facts don't really matter.

 

[Belz...]

It's entirely possible for rational people to disagree with some of the policies that are being asked for, while still supporting many others, and still feeling sympathy for those dealing with such a condition.

Cat, you're asking ideologues to keep THREE thoughts in their heads at once. That's not possible.

 

[theprestige]

Well, you were clearly wrong, yes? Obviously, if it's not in the science subforum, then facts don't really matter.

That explains why LJ has been so adamant about not actually citing the science behind the government policies. He doesn't want to get carded for derailing the thread. We should probably be careful: Keep demanding scientific evidence, and this thread is going to go back on moderated status before you can say, "xe/xer/xey".

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm not interested in the cherry picking of science by reactionary freaks.

You're just interested in cherry picking of science by progressives?

 

[Belz...]

And here comes my personal bias: Why the **** aren't they worried about being labeled misogynists?

Ah, see, this is because of the hierarchy of oppression, more politically-correctly called "intersectionality". See, women are oppressed, always, but black people are MORE oppressed, also always. So if you're a woman AND black that's like bar-bar-bar at the casino, except that it means you're oppressed more than black men or white women, and so are worth more. But homosexuals are even MORE oppressed, and trans and nonbinaries and whatnot are the MOSTEST oppressed, permanently and by definition. That's why women aren't on the radar when discussing trans people because although the latter are only 0.3% of the population and the former >50%, women are just three rungs up the ladder of oppression, so they don't matter. They only matter in relation to men.

I wish I was making this up.