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

[Emily's Cat]

To what end and what point?

We've established what the actual debate is, but one side is still playing nothing but word games.

Emily Cat doesn't want people with penises in the restroom with her. Arguing the definition of "woman" or "female" or the price of tea in China is just semantics you know what definition SHE IS USING. You don't have to agree with her definition to argue against her actual point.

But you won't do that. You keep dragging it back to "How do we define women?" How she is using "woman" is clear. And again you don't have to agree with her definition to stop pretending she isn't using it.

To be fair, I'm not even using the term "woman" any more. I've started using exclusively male and female, and in many cases being extremely specific that I'm talking about people with penises versus people with vulvas. Given the very explicit and clear terminology that I've been using for quite some time now, there is no room for a good-faith misunderstanding.

"People with penises" includes cisgender males, pre-op transwomen, and post-op transmen. "People with vulvas" includes cisgender females, pre-op transmen, and post-op transwomen.

Where exceptions to that generality are relevant, I've even been clear about those. For example, in the case of incarceration, I make an exception to the "people with penises" definition, and would allow post-op transmen to be placed in the female ward. I make that exception for the benefit and safety of transmen, because regardless of their gender identity, they are still biologically female, and are still smaller and weaker than biological males, and therefore substantially more vulnerable to violence and sexual assault than biological males. Additionally, the medically-created penile structures that transmen possess are not exact analogs to biological penises. They do not ejaculate sperm, and hence are incapable of impregnating a female prisoner against their will. They also do not tumesce on their own, but require external assistance to become rigid. Thus, despite having a penis-like appendage, transmen represent considerably less of a risk to cisgender females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

North Carolina getting in on the trans-bashing action:


The NC bill would criminalize any doctor that provides trans affirming medications or surgeries to any person under the age of 21. It also mandates that all state employees notify parents of any child's "gender nonconformity".



https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/n-c-bill-would-ban-treatment-trans-people-under-21-n1263146

https://ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v0.pdf

Seems that the right wing bigots in this country are dusting off the anti-abortion and anti-gay playbook of years gone by, attacking doctors and outing children to their potentially bigoted parents.

That's even worse than the Arkansas version.

I think setting the age at 21 is absurd. 18 is the legal age of majority in the US, the age at which a person can enter into legally binding contracts.

Additionally, I do think that there should be allowable exceptions for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones prior to age 18, but that they should require parental consent and should meet very stringent clinical criteria.

I think it's reasonable to tighten up criteria around puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones across the board, I think there's an enormous risk of negative outcomes that cause more harm than good. I also think it's reasonable to disallow surgical intervention until the person is a legal adult. Personally, I'd lean toward "until sexual maturity is complete", but that's an imprecise definition and would be difficult to adhere to.

On the other hand, there are some children who have persistently and without pause indicated significant dysphoria from prior to the onset of puberty. In cases where significantly stringent criteria are met, I do think it's probably in the best interest of the child to administer blockers or hormones at the onset of puberty. But I would want doctors across the board to err on the side of allowing natural puberty to commence. I'd rather, in this specific case, have more false negatives than false positives. The harm from false positives is considerable.

 

[Meadmaker]

On the other hand, if a teacher believes that one of their students is suffering from some kind of dysphoria, of course they shouldn't be keeping their observations to themselves. They need to notify the parents, just like for an other medical condition they suspect has gone unnoticed.

Especially if the teacher's intention is to encourage or support a gender transition in the child. That's definitely something that the teacher should not be deciding for themselves. That needs to be a decision made by the parents. Withholding that information from the parents, especially to help transition the child without the parents' consent, would be extremely unethical. There really shouldn't need to be a law spelling that out, but here we are.

I understand the motivation. The bill just takes it to a bit of an extreme.


I think of it as an example of our broken political system. In a better world, there would be a variety of opinions, some "right wing" and some "left wing". (Those labels are even worse on this issue than for most issues.) Some would be more strident and extreme than others. However, recognizing some medical problems and people with real issues, legislators would sit down and try to get a bill passed, and the only way to carve out a majority would be to find 51% somewhere in the middle, with each side compromising.

Unfortunately, in our world, that won't get you votes. Now, the more likely way to get to 51% in the legislature is start from one extreme, and see far toward the center you have to go to get enough people on board, while applying intense pressure to anyone in your party, threatening to throw them out in the primary if they deviate from the party line.

Short of just outlawing all sex/gender transition medical treatments, I can't imagine a more extreme bill than this one.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is it transphobic to say that prepubescent kids shouldn't transition? What am I missing, here?

Apparently, yes. Or so I've been told several times.

What really gets under my skin is that several of the allies in this thread have made it clear that they're okay with say... gay minors undergoing medical 'treatment' that converts them into a straight person of the opposite 'gender'... but they oppose psychotherapy and counseling aimed at allowing a minor to become ameliorated to their body as 'conversion therapy'.

It's the weirdest sort of hyper-progressive homophobia I've seen.

 

[xjx388]

You asked "Is it transphobic to say that prepubescent kids shouldn't transition?", which means "Is it transphobic to say that prepubescent kids shouldn't be allowed to express their gender in the way they feel comfortable with?"
It is telling Jimmy: "No, you are not allowed to be a girl. You must conform to gender norms." That is transphobic.

If you asked "Is it transphobic to say extreme caution should be used before prescribing puberty blockers to prepubescent children?" or "Is it transphobic to say that prepubescent children shouldn't get sex change surgery?" the answer would be "no, of course not."

If social transitioning or gender affirmation is contributing to the persistence of a condition which might otherwise not persist beyond puberty, then it seems to me that social transitioning/gender affirmation might not be appropriate treatments. Medical interventions, such as puberty blockers or chest surgery, may be especially problematic. To point out that a medical intervention or treatment approach may be problematic and thus, inappropriate, is not bigoted.

I don't believe anyone has suggested that we tell kids, "You must conform to gender norms." But perhaps there's a less extreme approach than social transitioning/puberty blockers? Like, why not just tell the kid, "It's ok to feel how you feel," and then not really put too much emphasis on what young children say? Just let them be unless the gender dysphoria warrants more attention. And then don't just jump to medical interventions. Maybe let nature take it's course, provide supportive counseling/coping strategies and see how the case develops?

It cannot be "transphobic" to want the best possible outcome for children who express gender confusion. It has not been established that transitioning/blockers give us the best outcomes.

I'll put it another way. You said it wouldn't be ok to give therapy aimed at changing a child's identity. What if social transitioning/puberty blockers are doing just that?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Outing a trans kid to the wrong parents could easily be a one way ticket to some "troubled teen" camp where the queer is abused out of them. Some are still operated in the US, but increasingly these camps are operating outside the country as the practice comes under increasing scrutiny stateside.

Okay, yes, it *could* be. Does this actually happen?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It definitely is not as big a deal as some transphobes make it out to be when arguing "prepubescent kids shouldn't transition".

I'd like some clarity here. I do not believe any poster in this thread has expressed any objection at all to social transition alone. Even the most radfemmiest of our posters is totally on board with smashing gender roles. Males should be allowed to use traditionally female names, and wear dresses and pink hair bows if they wish. Females should be allowed to adopt traditionally male names, exclusively wear trousers, and take up woodshop.

Please exercise some good-faith explicitness, and frame your comments as "prepubescent kids shouldn't medically transition". And even then, many of us think that some exceptions should be allowed.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay, yes, it *could* be. Does this actually happen?

Increasingly less so in the US. Reporting of the deaths and rampant abuse that occur in these camps is resulting in many of them closing.

These schools still operate overseas, and child abduction services exist to spirit away children to these abuse factories to "fix" their behavior.

Life and Death in a Troubled Teen Boot Camp
A tragic accident exposes the dangers of an out-of-control billion-dollar industry

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/life-and-death-in-a-troubled-teen-boot-camp-31639/

 

[Emily's Cat]

Arkansas legislature has overridden the governor's veto. The bill makes it illegal for children to receive trans affirming medical care in the state and is expected to take effect in July.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/arkansas-lawmakers-enact-transgender-youth-treatment-ban-n1263197



Arkansas lawmakers will have blood on their hands if this clearly bigoted law survives legal challenge.

I am disappointed. I'd like to see an amendment added to that allowing some exceptions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree with that, but this bill really would require a teacher to notify parents if the teacher observed gender nonconforming behavior.

That's....nuts.

It's idiotic, and incredibly frustrating.

So now, we end up stuck between enforcing gender conformity which presents social barriers on one side of the aisle... and enforcing gender conformity which presents social barriers on the other side of the aisle as well. They go about it in different ways, but both of them result in the same regressive enforcement of sex-based stereotypes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It would be pretty unlikely a teacher can determine that from a child's behaviour on its own, and even more unlikely it is something that the parents hadn't noticed. But there may be cases where a child wants to talk to their teacher in private about sexuality or gender issues without the parents knowing. This law makes it illegal for a teacher to be someone children can trust.

It's likely a response to the approach taken by Canada. In CA, if a child is gender non-conforming at school, the teacher can refer the child to a gender specialist, and can even get them into preliminary counseling without the parent's knowledge at all. Teachers can arrange for children to go to the doctor, and in some cases even begin puberty blockers, without informing the parents.

I think it's a swing to far for NC, but I also think that Canada's approach is downright stupid.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe anyone has suggested that we tell kids, "You must conform to gender norms." But perhaps there's a less extreme approach than social transitioning/puberty blockers? Like, why not just tell the kid, "It's ok to feel how you feel," and then not really put too much emphasis on what young children say? Just let them be unless the gender dysphoria warrants more attention. And then don't just jump to medical interventions. Maybe let nature take it's course, provide supportive counseling/coping strategies and see how the case develops?

That sounds very reasonab--- I mean, transphobic!!!

It cannot be "transphobic" to want the best possible outcome for children who express gender confusion.

It's because you don't understand what "transphobic" means. It doesn't mean "afraid of trans people" or "against trans people" or any variation thereof. It means "disagrees with trans activists".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Increasingly less so in the US. Reporting of the deaths and rampant abuse that occur in these camps is resulting in many of them closing.

These schools still operate overseas, and child abduction services exist to spirit away children to these abuse factories to "fix" their behavior.



https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/life-and-death-in-a-troubled-teen-boot-camp-31639/

I'm not seeing that this is really relevant to your specific claim. Yes, the whole "troubled teen abduction" approach exists, and I completely agree that they are a horrible, abusive, and thoroughly inappropriate thing across the board.

But you addressed this as if it were parents sending potentially transgender kids to camps specifically aimed at abusing the 'queerness' out of them. That doesn't seem to be what you've linked to.

Are there camps that intentionally try to enforce biological sex over gender identity?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not seeing that this is really relevant to your specific claim. Yes, the whole "troubled teen abduction" approach exists, and I completely agree that they are a horrible, abusive, and thoroughly inappropriate thing across the board.

But you addressed this as if it were parents sending potentially transgender kids to camps specifically aimed at abusing the 'queerness' out of them. That doesn't seem to be what you've linked to.

Are there camps that intentionally try to enforce biological sex over gender identity?

gay conversion camps are a subset of these. These camps are merely the most extreme example of "conversion therapy", which is still very much a threat for pretty much any queer kid with bigoted parents.

Conversion therapy is still legal in North Carolina.

 

[Dismember]

So it's a bit like nothing, then?

To me, it still seems like a psychologically powerful move that might be difficult to reverse or back out of.

A lot of detransitioners say that they reluctantly went forward with cross-sex hormones and in some cases even progressed to surgery because after years of having their peers, teachers, parents — their whole community, essentially— calling them by a name they chose (as a young, confused kid) and treating them like the opposite sex, sometimes having people praise them as brave and courageous and publicly support their (social) transition, they were ashamed of their doubts and didn’t want to let everyone down or draw negative attention to themselves.

It absolutely makes sense to me that the affirmation itself and the (social) transition could very well solidify a child’s belief that they are in the “wrong” body, and even if they do change their mind or have doubts, could make it very difficult for them to backtrack.

If social transition among kids becomes commonplace, to where kids can transition back and forth without much public commentary, and change their mind without feeling any particular pressure or feeling like it will generate unwanted attention, perhaps then it would truly be “reversible”. And we might be moving in that direction. But for now, as far as I can tell, it’s not so simple.

 

[Belz...]

To me, it still seems like a psychologically powerful move that might be difficult to reverse or back out of.

A lot of detransitioners say that they reluctantly went forward with cross-sex hormones and in some cases even progressed to surgery because after years of having their peers, teachers, parents — their whole community, essentially— calling them by a name they chose (as a young, confused kid) and treating them like the opposite sex, sometimes having people praise them as brave and courageous and publicly support their (social) transition, they were ashamed of their doubts and didn’t want to let everyone down or draw negative attention to themselves.

It absolutely makes sense to me that the affirmation itself and the (social) transition could very well solidify a child’s belief that they are in the “wrong” body, and even if they do change their mind or have doubts, could make it very difficult for them to backtrack.

If social transition among kids becomes commonplace, to where kids can transition back and forth without much public commentary, and change their mind without feeling any particular pressure or feeling like it will generate unwanted attention, perhaps then it would truly be “reversible”. And we might be moving in that direction. But for now, as far as I can tell, it’s not so simple.

That's a very good point.

Do we know what the proportion of such detransitioners is?

 

[Emily's Cat]

gay conversion camps are a subset of these. These camps are merely the most extreme example of "conversion therapy", which is still very much a threat for pretty much any queer kid with bigoted parents.

Conversion therapy is still legal in North Carolina.

Ick. I didn't know they were still legal anywhere. Would a parent send a child to a gay conversion camp, if the child's gender dysphoria would result in them being a straight person of the opposite sex?

That was one of the complaints from many of the clinicians at Tavistock in the UK - that the "affirmation only" approach for transgender children was being used as conversion therapy for children that were homosexual. Earthborn's comment from earlier in this thread kind of echoes that. They said something along the lines of "transitioning minors is no big deal because the worst case is that instead of having a kid grow up to be a happy gay man, they end up with the kid growing up to be a happy straight woman". That comment almost made my eyebrows jump off of my face.

 

[xjx388]

Everyone agrees that "gender" is a social construct. It's a set of expectations society has based on the person's sex. I think everyone in this thread also agrees that "gender roles" are antiquated and need to be thrown out. We further agree, mostly, that people -even kids- should be allowed to express themselves in ways that they are most comfortable with, without judgement. Let a boy wear a dress or play, wear make-up, play with feminine toys if they want to.

I'm thinking of other social roles that kids fall into. Kids can "identify" as goths, preps, jocks, etc. Some of those roles are socially normative and others aren't. We don't say those people have dysphoria and we just let them "be" those things for the most part. Most parents realize that fighting those less normative "identities" causes nothing but conflict. And for the most part, those "identites" don't really persist into adulthood; they are a phase. So a kid who wants to wear and do things that are not gender normative should just be allowed to do that.

So, thinking about it more and more, I'm having trouble with the idea of "gender dysphoria." It's not about gender at all, not really. By linking it to the idea of "gender as a social construct," I think we are putting too many people under the purview of medicine. Wanting to express themselves in whatever gender role shouldn't be any more of a problem than wanting to express themselves as a goth or whatever.

No, I think the real issue is with people who feel like they were born in the wrong body. It has nothing to do with gender roles. They were born into a male biological body, but their brain tells them they should have been born as a biological female. Call it "Biological Sex Identity Disorder." I think that issue is actually extremely rare.

I guess what I'm saying is that we are medicalizing normality. It's normal for kids to try on different roles and identities and gender is no different. That's not a medical issue. The only real medical issue is when someone actually sees themselves as the opposite sex. When someone sees their genitals and they look wrong to them and they want the genitals of their "proper" sex.

Sorry, just trying to think things through . . .

 

[Emily's Cat]

To me, it still seems like a psychologically powerful move that might be difficult to reverse or back out of.

A lot of detransitioners say that they reluctantly went forward with cross-sex hormones and in some cases even progressed to surgery because after years of having their peers, teachers, parents — their whole community, essentially— calling them by a name they chose (as a young, confused kid) and treating them like the opposite sex, sometimes having people praise them as brave and courageous and publicly support their (social) transition, they were ashamed of their doubts and didn’t want to let everyone down or draw negative attention to themselves.

It absolutely makes sense to me that the affirmation itself and the (social) transition could very well solidify a child’s belief that they are in the “wrong” body, and even if they do change their mind or have doubts, could make it very difficult for them to backtrack.

If social transition among kids becomes commonplace, to where kids can transition back and forth without much public commentary, and change their mind without feeling any particular pressure or feeling like it will generate unwanted attention, perhaps then it would truly be “reversible”. And we might be moving in that direction. But for now, as far as I can tell, it’s not so simple.

What I would very much like to see with children expressing gender confusion or non-conformity is 1) support for their expressive preferences regarding dress and behavior along with 2) affirmation that it is perfectly acceptable for males to engage in stereotypically "girly" things and vice versa.

I'd love to see the focus shifted to bringing down gender and sex-based stereotypes... which not denying the reality of biological sex.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We can't talk or agree on anything because one side is just going to keep beating the language to death until it means nothing so they can say "See I'm right, I've defined it as so."

That's why I keep begging one side to state their opinions without just defining them over and over, but for some reason they either can't or won't do that.