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

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Is trans affirming care limited to puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical intervention?

Step back a second please, ST. On the one hand, we've got a whole bunch of transgender adults insisting that being transgender does not in any way require a diagnosis or treatment of any kind at all - that if they choose not to undergo any hormone suppression or cross-sex hormones or surgeries, they're just as 100% genuinely the gender they identify as regardless.

On the other hand, those same people are arguing that disallowing medical intervention for children means that they are being denied gender affirmation.

So which is it? Does gender affirmation *require* access to medicalization? Or can a person affirm their gender without medicalization?

On the gripping hand... nobody is denying minors the ability to socially transition and to have continuing therapy and counseling about their dysphoria, nor from making plans to proceed through full medical transition when they attain majority.

 

[caveman1917]

Other than the one very obvious problem.

Which one?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Where are you getting this? You say this as if it's a known truth, beyond question. But it doesn't at all square with my understanding of psychology and psychiatry, gleaned from friends and family who are both practitioners and patients for a variety of disorders.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Just because you have the emotional range of a teaspoon doesn't mean we all have?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Intersectionalist Winner: Transracial Black-Identifying Traswoman Butch Lesbian with BIID.

Known by rational people as an able-bodied straight white man

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

So do you also believe that "most" white people who've campaigned for black civil rights, and/or "most" heterosexual people who've campaigned for gay rights..... are similarly afflicted by your mythical woke disease?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

No no, I'm sure the ACLU's many lawyers, who by definition are specialists in the areas of law which are related to this matter, have probably misread it. Who knows, perhaps they've even *wilfully* misread it, owing to them being either "over-woke" or interested in publicity for its own sake....

 

[theprestige]

Which one?

Making a compelling argument that it's sometimes medically necessary to provide trans-affirming treatment opens the door for the argument that trans-affirming treatments and other trans-affirming accommodations should be limited to cases of medical necessity, and only when prescribed by a recognized medical professional. Policies based on self-ID would be right out. Policies that require public cooperation in self-care would be right out.

Refuting the Arkansas legislature on scientific grounds would be a matter of winning one battle by risking defeat in the war.

 

[xjx388]

Ok, let's clarify.

Medical care that includes an option of trans affirmation is the standard of care, either outright or as part of a watch and wait approach. The AR law excludes that possibility. Puberty blockers are explicitly forbidden in the law, as well as other standard of care approaches for trans patients.

But gender affirmation, in the medical sense, does not mean "give puberty blockers and/or do surgery." It's a way more holistic approach than that. It's more about supporting the kid's self-esteem and letting them know that there's nothing wrong with them.

The AR law doesn't prohibit gender affirmative care in it's totality, it only prohibits certain hormonal and surgical procedures. In minors.

ETA: I mean c'mon man! We don't even let minors get tattoos!

 

[LondonJohn]

Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean being anti-woman.

Being pro-trans when it's clearly at the expense of women, and to the harm of women, means that it's anti-woman.

Logical inference from this:

Being pro-trans cannot include holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)

 

[theprestige]

So do you also believe that "most" white people who've campaigned for black civil rights, and/or "most" heterosexual people who've campaigned for gay rights..... are similarly afflicted by your mythical woke disease?

I think not. One of the symptoms of wokeitis is an appeal for legitimacy by cargo-cult association with legitimate civil rights activism.

Name one civil right that trans folks are entitled to, that they don't already have by virtue of being folks.

 

[theprestige]

Logical inference from this:

Being pro-trans cannot include holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)

: rolleyes :

I'm not seeing it. Can you walk me through the logic?

 

[LondonJohn]

But gender affirmation, in the medical sense, does not mean "give puberty blockers and/or do surgery." It's a way more holistic approach than that. It's more about supporting the kid's self-esteem and letting them know that there's nothing wrong with them.

The AR law doesn't prohibit gender affirmative care in it's totality, it only prohibits certain hormonal and surgical procedures. In minors.

Nobody is suggesting that "gender affirmation, in the medical sense, does mean "give puberty blockers and/or do surgery.""

Rather, their position is that puberty blockers and/or surgery ought not to be categorically & definitively ruled out. That these things ought at least to be part of the metaphorical "tool-kit" available for clinicians.


NB: as I've stated before within this thread, I personally advocate extremely careful employment of these treatments on under-16s for certain (and under-18s most probably). But if competent clinicians - with (importantly) proper safeguards and checks & balances - do* find that the best course of action is indeed to administer them, they should be available.

I think what we've seen in the UK recently is the (thankful) exposure of the insufficiency of those safeguards and checks & balances. But I also think everyone (including lawmakers and regulatory bodies) needs to remember that this is still a relatively recent area of medicine, and it was always a near-certainty that a) mistakes would be made, and b) there would have to be an open culture of learning from those mistakes and optimising the care on offer to young people with this condition.



* Perhaps one example of this - at the extreme end - might be an instance where clinicians believe that the young person in question is giving credible evidence to indicate that they'd commit suicide if they weren't allowed to undergo some form of medical or surgical transition.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wow. I mean, I expected you to at least put up a pretense of not being sexist.

I'm treating your comments with all the seriousness they deserve. The /s was implied, in case you couldn't tell.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How would that even be reliably measured? How would you go about distinguishing the child's "valid lived experience" from confounding factors like the parents' wishful thinking? Or things like gender stereotype nonconformity?

I wouldn't even try to distinguish their "valid lived experience". Rather, I'd revert to the clinical diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria, represented by persistently expressing identification with the opposite sex and persistently expressing distress and cognitive discord with one's own sex. I'd ball-park (but I'm not an expert) something like the onset being prior to about age 8, and being consistently expressed for at least 3 years.

Specific guidelines might vary, based on input from actual experts. Because even those experts who seriously disagree with the current ideological approach (Cantor, Zucker, Blanchard) all hold the opinion that some people genuinely do experience gender dysphoria from a very young age, and that it is intractable, and for those few who cannot become comfortable in their bodies through therapy and counseling, transition is the only remaining method that presents an option of alleviating their distress, even if it's not always successful.

If the dysphoria has been severe, persistent, and consistent - despite psychotherapy and counseling - I don't see a strong moral argument against excluding them from treatment. But I'd want the criteria to be extremely compelling, and I'd probably want corroborating diagnoses from multiple doctors.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not seeing it. Can you walk me through the logic?

Uhm

Because apparently...

... holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)...

... is "misogynistic" and/or "anti-woman", and/or "sexist".


And since the person behind this claim states that "Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean being anti-woman" and since the person in question has also stated that they are (by their own estimation) pro-trans,

this therefore means by direct inference that the "correct/acceptable" concept of being pro-trans (in this person's eyes) cannot include the holding of a belief that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa).


So apparently it's all good to be pro-trans - and aren't we all pro-trans (or should that perhaps more accurately be: we must avoid giving any indication that we're not pro-trans...) - but only if it's a certain type of pro-trans belief. One which denies something which is pretty central to the very core of what transgender identity means at both a philosophical and practical level.


"Oh yes, of course I'm pro-trans! (Except I want to force transmen to use the women's changing rooms, and vice versa.)"

 

[Emily's Cat]

No no, I'm sure the ACLU's many lawyers, who by definition are specialists in the areas of law which are related to this matter, have probably misread it. Who knows, perhaps they've even *wilfully* misread it, owing to them being either "over-woke" or interested in publicity for its own sake....

I've seen ample evidence that lawyers, while certainly crafty and devious, aren't necessarily either critical thinkers nor particularly ethical. And certainly not above having their own strong biases when they are personally invested in a belief.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think not. One of the symptoms of wokeitis is an appeal for legitimacy by cargo-cult association with legitimate civil rights activism.

Name one civil right that trans folks are entitled to, that they don't already have by virtue of being folks.

The right to not be denied employment or housing on the basis of their gender presentation.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think not. One of the symptoms of wokeitis is an appeal for legitimacy by cargo-cult association with legitimate civil rights activism.

Name one civil right that trans folks are entitled to, that they don't already have by virtue of being folks.

Ah, so you've gone on record here stating that, in your belief, transgender people already have all the civil rights they deserve.

I see.

 

[Meadmaker]

Being pro-trans doesn't necessarily mean being anti-woman.

Being pro-trans when it's clearly at the expense of women, and to the harm of women, means that it's anti-woman.

Logical inference from this:

Being pro-trans cannot include holding the belief (in principle, at the very least) that transmen should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms (and vice-versa)

That's not very logical.

EC's statement says that being pro trans is anti-woman if it is at the expense of women. The pro-trans part is actually logically irrelevant to the conclusion. It's more for emphasis than anything else. She is saying that any position or ideology that is to the harm of woman is anti-woman. That makes sense.

If it happens to be a pro-trans position, it's a pro-trans, anti-woman position, but the two aren't necessarily connected.

So you take that statement, and say that a logical inference from it is that being pro-trans cannot include something.

Where's the logic in that? Emily's Cat didn't say anything about what pro-trans positions can or cannot include. She just said that if they are at the expense of women, they are anti-woman.

Now, moving on to the thing that can't be included, you cite "the belief that trans men trans men should be allowed to use the men's changing rooms."

That example is certainly not one that is at the expense of women. Does it put women in harm's way? Well, we have a vocabulary issue again, so I'm going to slip into my newly adopted language. I think it put's females in harm's way, by placing them into a room where they will be undressed in the presence of a large number of males. That's pretty risky behavior. However, in my opinion, if it is their choice, it should be allowed.

But what about the males? It means that they might be disrobed in a place where they anticipated and had a reasonable expectation that only other males would be present. It doesn't expose the males to harm, but it may very well expose them to discomfort or embarrassment. Therefore, to respect the males' right to privacy, I think that if they expressed the wish to not share a locker room with a female, that wish should be respected.

But that's a side issue, not logically derived from anything Emily's Cat said. It is not a logical inference.

Summary: Your inference from her statement fails, because EC's statement made no commentary at all about what can or cannot be included in pro-trans ideologies or positions.