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

[Ziggurat]

There is no evidence for this. It is impossible to draw this conclusion from the available evidence, as the children in these studies are unlikely to have received puberty blockers unless they were deemed highly likely to persist.

Yes, it's possible that the selection process is really good, and that skews the numbers. But we don't know that either.

But even more worryingly, we've got basically no idea what the long-term health consequences are for preventing puberty. This is an off-label use. We really don't know if this is even safe to do. Obviously it's not killing patients quickly, but who the hell knows if it's going to cause serious complications in 30 or 40 years. We're screwing around with deep biological processes which we only have a very rudimentary understanding of.

 

[caveman1917]

Yes, it's possible that the selection process is really good, and that skews the numbers. But we don't know that either.

The prior explanation would be that the separation method is random and the high persistence rate of the puberty blockers group is due to, well, blocking puberty being blocking the very event that initiates desistence in the "confused gay kids" majority subgroup of the cohort. Either way, I'm really interested in the data on the group not being prescribed puberty blockers, since the efficacy of the separation method should reflect in a changed outcome distribution in that group independent of whether the administration of puberty blockers sets a persistence outcome or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

As I said...

One of the problems I have with the highlighted bit is that the mistakes cause irreversible and irrevocable harm to the patients - harm that didn't *need* to occur in the first place. Doctors prescribed off-label use of drugs in untested ways, with virtually no safeguards to ensure that they were following and monitoring the progress, without consideration to the harm that could occur to children who were otherwise physically healthy. They performed completely unnecessary surgery to remove perfectly healthy and functional organs and flesh. And they did those things in preference to spending the time needed to ascertain that the dysphoria could not be alleviated in a different, non-invasive way.

The mistakes came from doctors using children as guinea pigs in ways that left them permanently medicalized and in many cases sterile.

I personally think that there's a difference between 'unavoidable mistakes' and 'negligent malpractice'.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Or no ideas at all, merely aphorisms and slogans.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Imagine there were studies that proved that a majority of COVID patients recover without needing a ventilator, and people used that evidence to argue that ventilators are therefore unnecessary and should be banned.

Does your view shift any if the argue was based on ventilators being handed out like candy to anyone with a sniffle, and where ventilators showed inconsistent outcomes for people with COVID, wherein a great many of the patients on ventilators did NOT get better at all, and only a very small minority of them showed improvement? And where the use of ventilators was tied to long-term permanent damage to the patients who used them, and resulted in a great many of those patients developing chronic conditions ? And where the use of ventilators was entirely experimental?

 

[caveman1917]

Does your view shift any if the argue was based on ventilators being handed out like candy to anyone with a sniffle, and where ventilators showed inconsistent outcomes for people with COVID, wherein a great many of the patients on ventilators did NOT get better at all, and only a very small minority of them showed improvement? And where the use of ventilators was tied to long-term permanent damage to the patients who used them, and resulted in a great many of those patients developing chronic conditions ? And where the use of ventilators was entirely experimental?

Not to mention where the inappropriate use of ventilators, as would be the majority of cases if the selection method of patients isn't effective, would change an expected homosexual outcome to an expected heterosexual one. You know, with all the talk about conversion therapy and stuff. Although, of course, the core issue here is not analogies to ventilators but Earthborn needing to show evidence that the selection method used in prescribing puberty blockers is in fact effectively discriminating the subgroups.

 

[Sherkeu]

Sherkeu: "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.

Agreed. I am using the language they use to describe themselves.

It always sounds to me as if the doctors/parents made some mistake or had a better option, but it serves to avoid the statement "I was born a male/female" which many believe to be wholly inaccurate (or even offensive as we have seen here in this thread).

They do, however, commonly use FtM and MtF to describe a transition...so it's not entirely consistent.

 

[LondonJohn]

Woah, woah. Back up a bit.

What you are saying here is in stark contradiction with trans-activist claims regarding what gender identity is i.e. that it is entirely based on how a person feels, which can absolutely, in many instances, be a matter of choice, or counscious action.

It sounds like what a transphobe would say!!

I have read many accounts of transgender people and their transgender identities. And I can't remember any account which differs much from the following type of narrative (represented here as a transwoman for simplicity):

"When I reached X years of age, I began to realise that I didn't see myself as a boy/man, but that I was actually a girl/woman. Everybody saw me as a boy/man and treated me as such, but I knew that I was different...."

And so on. These people didn't choose to be transgender. It was something deep in their psyche which (somehow) did the choosing for them. It was, in a real sense, forced upon them. Many of them struggled to come to terms with it (= gender dysphoria). To consider it to be a matter of discretionary choice - which also implies that they could equally have chosen not to be transgender - is (IMO) incorrect,

 

[d4m10n]

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

Until the decision in Glenn v. Brumby^WP it was legal throughout the 11^th circuit to fire an employee based on their transgender status. So far as I can tell (please help me out, legal folks) this practice remains legal throughout the rest of the United States, except when specifically barred by local or state laws.

 

[Meadmaker]

Until the decision in Glenn v. Brumby^WP it was legal throughout the 11^th circuit to fire an employee based on their transgender status. So far as I can tell (please help me out, legal folks) this practice remains legal throughout the rest of the United States, except when specifically barred by local or state laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._...sgender people from employment discrimination.

 

[d4m10n]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._...sgender people from employment discrimination.

I stand corrected. No idea how I spaced on this.

 

[theprestige]

Until the decision in Glenn v. Brumby^WP it was legal throughout the 11^th circuit to fire an employee based on their transgender status. So far as I can tell (please help me out, legal folks) this practice remains legal throughout the rest of the United States, except when specifically barred by local or state laws.

There are two interesting things about this right:

The first is that I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement here that trans folks have the right to freedom from discrimination in employment.

The second is that this is a right that extends to pretty much everybody. Everyone, regardless of how they gender-identify, and regardless of what that means to themselves or anyone else, has the same exact right. I'm a man who says I'm a woman? That should have zero bearing on my employment. I'm a man who says I'm a man but likes to dress as a woman? That should also have zero bearing on my employment.

For the purposes of this right, it doesn't matter if you self-ID, get a diagnosis, or just go cis-normative: Everyone should be equal under the law, as far as employment rights are concerned.

But there are other rights, such as the right to a sex-segregated space or community, that are very much restricted to certain demographics. Men do not have the right to join a women's basketball league, for example.

So if we're talking about the right to be treated the same as everyone else, regardless of gender identity, then this is basically a solved problem. It's definitely a solved problem as far as the folks here in this thread are concerned. We all agree on this right. And it seems like the laws are catching up and solving this problem in law as well.

But if we're talking about the right to be treated differently, because of gender identity... Well.

Are we talking about that? It seems we should be talking about that. It's probably the only thing we should be talking about. So let's talk about it.

LondonJohn, Suburban Turkey, Earthborn - what say you?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have read many accounts of transgender people and their transgender identities. And I can't remember any account which differs much from the following type of narrative (represented here as a transwoman for simplicity):

"When I reached X years of age, I began to realise that I didn't see myself as a boy/man, but that I was actually a girl/woman. Everybody saw me as a boy/man and treated me as such, but I knew that I was different...."

And so on. These people didn't choose to be transgender. It was something deep in their psyche which (somehow) did the choosing for them. It was, in a real sense, forced upon them. Many of them struggled to come to terms with it (= gender dysphoria). To consider it to be a matter of discretionary choice - which also implies that they could equally have chosen not to be transgender - is (IMO) incorrect,

If that's your assumption... where do detranstioners fit into it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

For discussion...

Feminist declaration on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the fourth World Conference on Women

Put out by ILGA (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association)... Whose member organizations in N. America do not contain any feminist organizations, and are largely driven by organizations pushing trans ideology.

So, a feminist declaration, out out for the World Conference on Women, by non-feminists.

Summary from Feminist Legal (read or not at your choice)

The "declaration" persistently includes gender non-conforming in with women and girls throughout. It also wedges in a lot of anti-capitalist and economic stuff, in a bit of a gish-gallop approach.

Of particular note are the passages under Item 14:

Respect the rights of all individuals to exercise autonomy over their lives, including their sexualities, identities and bodies, desires and pleasures free from all types of discrimination, coercion and violence, and fully realize sexual and reproductive rights, and ensure bodily autonomy, integrity and sovereignty, by taking the following actions:

a. Eliminate all laws and policies that punish or criminalize same-sex intimacy, gender affirmation, abortion, HIV transmission non-disclosure and exposure, or that limit the exercise of bodily autonomy, including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents, people with disabilities or other groups to provide consent to sex or sexual and reproductive health services or laws authorizing non-consensual abortion, sterilization, or contraceptive use;

...

g. End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms;

 

[TomB]

The burden of evidence is that the method chosen to deem an individual highly likely to persist, and hence prescribe puberty blockers, is indeed effective at separating those who are likely to persist from those who are not. Can you show such evidence? As far as I know, none such exists. It would show up as the group not receiving puberty blockers having about 100% desistance rate as opposed to the prior probability of about 80%.

Why do you say this?

That seems like a rather high expectation. How did you choose that as a standard?

 

[caveman1917]

Why do you say this?

That seems like a rather high expectation. How did you choose that as a standard?

Because it was more meant as an example in pointing out how the answer could be determined by looking at that group, rather than as a precise prediction. Of course, the actual value may be different and would require actually doing some statistical calculations depending on exactly what sample is being looked at, but I was trying to be quick in making the general point. In my later post I was more precise about it:

the efficacy of the separation method should reflect in a changed outcome distribution in that group

But yes, you're entirely correct that the "about 100%" figure is, in and of itself, pulled out of nowhere.

 

[TomB]

Sherkeu: "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."



Agreed. I am using the language they use to describe themselves.

It always sounds to me as if the doctors/parents made some mistake or had a better option, but it serves to avoid the statement "I was born a male/female" which many believe to be wholly inaccurate (or even offensive as we have seen here in this thread).
They do, however, commonly use FtM and MtF to describe a transition...so it's not entirely consistent.

I'm not sure this view is representative of the trans community at large, however. Most of the trans people whose youtube channels I've watched are very aware that their sex does not match their gender, and seem to have no problem stating this. They seem very aware of the objective physical reality of their bodies. Remember, the voices that get the most attention are going to be those that say the most radical things.

Now, the "assigned at birth" language, I agree is not accurate. It is, however, the current lingo and not really that big of a deal.

 

[LondonJohn]

If that's your assumption... where do detranstioners fit into it?

There's this (valid) thing called gender fluidity

 

[xjx388]

I have read many accounts of transgender people and their transgender identities. And I can't remember any account which differs much from the following type of narrative (represented here as a transwoman for simplicity):

"When I reached X years of age, I began to realise that I didn't see myself as a boy/man, but that I was actually a girl/woman. Everybody saw me as a boy/man and treated me as such, but I knew that I was different...."

And so on. These people didn't choose to be transgender. It was something deep in their psyche which (somehow) did the choosing for them. It was, in a real sense, forced upon them. Many of them struggled to come to terms with it (= gender dysphoria). To consider it to be a matter of discretionary choice - which also implies that they could equally have chosen not to be transgender - is (IMO) incorrect,

How do you know it's deep in their psyche and that it's not a choice? Gender is not like sexual orientation. Couldn't gender, being a more superficial thing than sexual orientation, be more superficial in the psyche? Maybe not an outright choice, but a learned thing?

I'm probably not stating this well . . .

If I sat here and thought about it -really, really tried- there's no way that I can find men sexually attractive. Even though society is way more open to homosexuality, I just can't ever see myself being attracted to men. Not even in my childhood can I say that I ever had any stirring of such attraction. My sexual orientation is deep in my psyche, hardwired into my brain, so to speak. It's way more nature than nurture.

If I sat here and thought about it, I can easily see that I tick off boxes in both male and female gender roles. If I'm honest with myself, I'm a bit effeminate, I'm emotional, I'm not the breadwinner, I'm not strong, etc etc etc. My gender does not fit either role very well. As I child, I enjoyed playing with the girls and their toys just as much as I enjoyed playing boy stuff. There's a picture of me wearing my mom's wig and playing with her make-up, though I don't remember. If I had done this kind of thinking much younger, if the society I grew up in were more like it is now, if my parents and peers had been more affirming of my feminine side . . . Whatever the case, maybe I would have come to a conclusion that I am non-binary or a trans female that likes women? IOW, maybe gender identity is a sociological phenomenon more than it is a psychological phenomenon. It's not hardwired, it's wired as you grow up and become aware of the idea of gender roles and you face pressure to conform or support in your non-conformity. It's much more nurture than nature.

Those questions aren't answered yet. Not at all.

 

[d4m10n]

Of note, today:

https://www.facebook.com/101078858635318/posts/169397718470098/