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

[Collin237]

I am genuinely curious how that would work. Can you elucidate on how it feels to have a body part that you do not actually have?

I seem to remember that when I was very young I had night-terrors in which I seemed to have two penises. But it's too distant a memory to explain it even to myself.

The point is that it's entirely possible to discuss things that are really experienced but don't really exist, without committing to any philosophy of it. If that can be accepted, then real concerns, such as locker rooms or prisons, can remain sex-based without a contradiction.

 

[Sherkeu]

Firstly, it sounds like you're still unaware that transgender people don't actually have a choice about their identity.

Perhaps you missed my reply the other day #1258 asking if you agree with the current 'transgender umbrella' which includes other non-conforming or gender-fluid non-cis and cis identities (cross-dressers) as 'transgender', without any dysphoria and no plans to transition.

Are all of these varied gender expressions included when you say 'transgender people'?

 

[theprestige]

Transgender people a) should have civil rights which are as close to equality as possible with cisgender people

Cisgender people do not have the right to use sex-segregated spaces of their choice. Therefore, transgender people should also not have the right to use sex-segregated spaces of their choice.

I would be willing to reconsider this, if presented with good evidence that giving them a choice of sex-segregated spaces is a medical necessity.

 

[Roboramma]

Transgender people a) should have civil rights which are as close to equality as possible with cisgender people; and b) should be provided with adequate protection against discrimination (over a wide spectrum).

Cool. I think we all agree about that.

Which specific rights do you think are being denied to transgender people?

 

[Collin237]

I mean..... I don't even know where to start with this one.


As a clue though, consider the following:

1) It would (very obviously) be improper to make gay people marry people of the opposite sex if they wanted any sort of legal or religious union with anyone else.

2) Your claim above would be tantamount to a claim that it would be "anti-hetero" to "insist" that heterosexual people marry someone of the opposite sex if they wanted any sort of legal or religious union. Which it is not.

Point (2) is irrelevant and illogical in the consideration of (1), and in whether or not the protagonists in (1) are being denied civil rights.

That might be a fair analogy for places like spas. But the places usually referred to as "private spaces", such as bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, rape shelters, etc. are not places of sexuality. They're places for the lack of sexuality.

 

[Collin237]

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Find a better excuse.

I like Bike.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

Gender affirmation in the context of standards of care of gender dysphoric children, as contrasted with watchful waiting, specifically means no-questions-asked straight to social & medical transition. It's used in North America and Australia (on highly dubious grounds). That Arkansas bill isn't either of them though, as watchful waiting doesn't mean a prohibition on puberty blockers. Hence why, if that is indeed what the bill says, I'm sure ST won't have any problems refuting the science it appeals to.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Gender affirmation in the context of standards of care of gender dysphoric children, as contrasted with watchful waiting, specifically means no-questions-asked straight to social & medical transition. It's used in North America and Australia (on highly dubious grounds). That Arkansas bill isn't either of them though, as watchful waiting doesn't mean a prohibition on puberty blockers. Hence why, if that is indeed what the bill says, I'm sure ST won't have any problems refuting the science it appeals to.

It is what the bill says. If passed into law, anyone under 18 will not be able to access this care, no matter what their doctors indicate is the best treatment option available. It also criminalizes these doctors from even referring them to other doctors (presumably out of state) that might be able to provide this care.

Keen eye readers of the bill noted that it makes no provision for minors who have already medically transitioned, meaning their continuing medical care will be terminated by the stroke of a pen.

I can't find original press releases, but USA today claims the major medical associations have spoken out against the bill:

The American Psychological Association and American Medical Association have publicly opposed the bill. The American Academy of Pediatrics also spoke out against the bill.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/29/arkansas-passes-bill-banning-treatments-transgender-youth/7056120002/

 

[caveman1917]

It is what the bill says. If passed into law, anyone under 18 will not be able to access this care, no matter what their doctors indicate is the best treatment option available. It also criminalizes these doctors from even referring them to other doctors (presumably out of state) that might be able to provide this care.

Keen eye readers of the bill noted that it makes no provision for minors who have already medically transitioned, meaning their continuing medical care will be terminated by the stroke of a pen.

I can't find original press releases, but USA today claims the major medical associations have spoken out against the bill:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/03/29/arkansas-passes-bill-banning-treatments-transgender-youth/7056120002/

Then why refuse to engage with the science being appealed to in the bill? As far as I see it, going by the information presented: Should the bill be shot down? Yes. Should the AAP get their asses sued off by the Keira Bells they've been creating in pushing gender affirmation while misrepresenting the evidence? Also yes.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Then why refuse to engage with the science being appealed to in the bill? As far as I see it, going by the information presented: Should the bill be shot down? Yes. Should the AAP get their asses sued off by the Keira Bells they've been creating in pushing gender affirmation while misrepresenting the evidence? Also yes.

There's only so many hours in the day, and I'm not a doctor. Sometimes on matters of expertise, you have to rely on experts. Like the AMA.

The existence of negative outcomes from medical treatment is not evidence to support that such treatments should be criminalized. There's always risk vs reward when it comes to medical intervention, something doctors spend a lot of effort trying to assess. Cherry picking a few ghastly cases to support a total prohibition of treatment is not sound science.

I see no reason to treat a bunch of reactionary freaks in the state legislature as more reliable on these matters than medical professionals. Reputation matters.

 

[caveman1917]

The existence of negative outcomes from medical treatment is not evidence to support that such treatments should be criminalized. There's always risk vs reward when it comes to medical intervention.

Assuming this is about my comment regarding people suing the AAP. If the medical treatment was chosen against the available evidence and was promoted by misrepresenting said evidence, then as far as I see it they're more than free to sue their asses off.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Well since you've preemptively called it mythical, no amount of argument or evidence will convince you.

I don't know why you'd think what happened 30 or 50 years ago is necessary identical to what's happening now in the age of the internet, but as I said earlier it's foolish to ask ideologues to keep more than one idea in their head at once.

 

[Belz...]

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

Will the bigotry never end??!!!!

 

[caveman1917]

but as I said earlier it's foolish to ask ideologues to keep more than one idea in their head at once.

Unless those ideas contradict each other, then they're perfectly capable of it.

 

[Belz...]

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 doesn't follow at all.

 

[Belz...]

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".

You need to adjust your reading comprehension.

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.

I can't help but notice you didn't answer his question. Instead you are trying to subtly imply that he's ignoring reality without basing that on an actual argument.

 

[Belz...]

Unless those ideas contradict each other, then they're perfectly capable of it.

No they're not, and this discussion is a perfect example: they think that it's impossible to disagree on any aspect of the topic without entirely disagreeing on the topic.

 

[Belz...]

And since we already actually know that (in their opinion) the changing room issue is effectively non-negotiable - that transmen should be made to use the women's changing rooms (and vice-versa) - we get to the final inference:

No one has stated or implied that it's non-negociable except you. You seem to want to view everything as absolutes.

You keep saying this kind of stuff and it keeps being false.

See what I mean about ideologues and keeping more than one thought in your head? Just because we disagree WITH YOU on this specific aspect of the discussion means in no way that anyone here is anti-trans. There is just no way around this.

And since you want to talk about the civil rights era, imagine if someone said that black people should not only get equal rights, but should each get a million dollars in reparations from the US federal government. Would not agreeing with that last suggestion make someone anti-black? No, and it doesn't have anything to do with whether the suggestion is unreasonable.

 

[caveman1917]

No they're not

Sure they are, ideologues contradict themselves all the time, which requires holding multiple contradictory ideas in one's head.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think anyone is trying to erase a group but there are certainly many disagreements on what criteria is considered "authentically" transgender. The recent definitions are much more inclusive.

That's a big part of the discussion, yes.

Many clinically dysphoric transgenders are now switching to identifying as transex or transsexual to make it clear that their goal is a medical transition to living 100% as the opposite of their assigned sex at birth.

Not to start a discussion, but I really dislike the use of 'assign', here. Sex is objective, there is no 'assignment' needed.

The fact remains that most policies today are written to address rights for a broad range of gender-identities including those who have no diagnosis of dyphoria, no desire to transition, and are perfectly fine with the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.

Which is to say -- because as we've argued one doesn't know how it feels to be a different gender, nor does being a gender come with feelings that we can determine ourselves -- people who are indistinguishable from cis-folk.