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

[xjx388]

I wonder what kind of data you’d get if you asked a cohort of the kids’ classmates for their evaluations of the situation. Some kids seem to be really good at pinging their classmates’ tendencies. Anecdotally, none of the trans people I knew before deciding to transition pinged as gay, to me, beforehand. One did strike me as a bit nonconforming, but not any more than I am.

I had a GF in high school who thought I was cute but also thought I was gay. I showed her, lol!

I think you’d get very distorted data.

 

[Collin237]

I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious.

Sullivan is sometimes a bit obnoxious, but they don't strike me as being either transphobic nor misogynistic.

It's what he said about himself.

In our current culture, this somewhat complicated stance is anathema. For some trans activists, especially the younger more thoroughly woke ones, I am simply evil, beset by phobias, and determined to persecute and kill trans people, or seek their genocide. I wish this were a caricature of their views, but it isn’t. For some radical feminists, my empathy for trans women, and concern for their welfare, is regarded as a function of my misogyny and hatred of women, often wrapped up in some anti-gay, misandrist bile. I wish I were exaggerating here as well. The proportion of people in this debate who seem psychologically unstable, emotionally volatile and personally vicious seems larger than usual.

 

[LondonJohn]

I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious.

Sullivan is sometimes a bit obnoxious, but they don't strike me as being either transphobic nor misogynistic.

Re-read the article - those are his own words: this is what he claims certain trangender-rights groups consider him to be. It's quite a common literary device (though often not an intellectually-honest one: it's far from uncommon for the writer to hyperbolise/magnify/distort his/her critics' criticism of him/her, in order to sound reasonable by comparison*).

Apart from his muddled conflation of sex and gender, this particular passage is (IMO) very revealing about his skewed PoV (my bolding):

The woke establishment — all major corporations, the federal government, the universities, all cultural institutions, the mainstream media and now the medical authorities

It's extremely interesting to me that he counts mainstream medicine as one party on his list of "the woke establishment". And it's not the first time I've come across this: it's been directly and indirectly claimed within this very thread. To me, either he doesn't understand what the word "woke" means (and he's clearly using in in pejorative sense here - which in itself is also interesting), or he is accusing the world's expert clinicians, psychiatrists, & psychologists of being either bamboozled, misled or mis-judgemental in the way they now understand transgender identity. Which (again, IMO) is a pretty breath-taking dismissal of the actual scientific experts in this field: the individuals and associations who have carefully studied this issue for decades now, and who have interacted with thousands and thousands of transgender people.

He also seems to be either unaware or uncaring that the US Federal Government - who also sit on his naughty list of "the woke establishment" (and I bet it's the first time the Federal Govt of the US has been accused of being woke...) - is having its policy goals guided significantly by current mainstream medical thinking (as are increasing numbers of other World governments). Which is just as it should be. (Unless, that is, one disagrees with the experts and the policy.).

But yeah.... other than that......


* ie: "For speaking out in favour of XYZ, I've been accused of being [insert suitably-extreme accusation here] by my opponents"....

 

[Meadmaker]

I read the essay by Sullivan, and I don't see anything in it that ought to even be considered controversial.

It's extremely interesting to me that he counts mainstream medicine as one party on his list of "the woke establishment". And it's not the first time I've come across this: it's been directly and indirectly claimed within this very thread. To me, either he doesn't understand what the word "woke" means (and he's clearly using in in pejorative sense here - which in itself is also interesting), or he is accusing the world's expert clinicians, psychiatrists, & psychologists of being either bamboozled, misled or mis-judgemental in the way they now understand transgender identity. Which (again, IMO) is a pretty breath-taking dismissal of the actual scientific experts in this field: the individuals and associations who have carefully studied this issue for decades now, and who have interacted with thousands and thousands of transgender people.

I think the issue is that there is a limit of medical expertise so that even the experts are not all that expert.

I haven't contributed to some of the recent scientific discussions because I don't have any real information to contribute, but I think that the large number of detransitioners suggest that there's a lot to learn, and that mainstream medicine, as it exists today, might not have much expertise to offer. Science should be judged by results, and when one of the results is that patients come to regret an irreversible treatment, that doesn't speak well for the science that led that treatment to be prescribed.

Moreover, sometimes the "leading experts" are really just the most prominent voices, and sometimes the people who have the biggest stake in a particular outcome. I'm sure that the Tavistock clinic was just overflowing with the best experts available.

In psychological realms, this is even more likely to be the case. Sigmund Freud was a leading expert. Indeed, that doesn't begin to even describe his level of reputation. However, expert or no expert, a lot of things he said, and which formed the basis for a lot of treatment, were just plain wrong.

Finally, medical expertise isn't the same as social policy. A medical expert might be able to describe the experience of living a transgender existence, but they can't answer the question of whether they ought to compete in the female sports division. That question is not one where there expertise is applicable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Moreover, sometimes the "leading experts" are really just the most prominent voices, and sometimes the people who have the biggest stake in a particular outcome. I'm sure that the Tavistock clinic was just overflowing with the best experts available.

In psychological realms, this is even more likely to be the case. Sigmund Freud was a leading expert. Indeed, that doesn't begin to even describe his level of reputation. However, expert or no expert, a lot of things he said, and which formed the basis for a lot of treatment, were just plain wrong.

"Wrong" doesn't even begin to describe some of what's gone on in psychology. In terms of the whole transgender issue, are you familiar with John Money? He basically forced gender reassignment on a child. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what he did to that child, which later resulted in that child's tragic suicide. The only word to adequately describe Money's actions is evil. And he did it all under the guise of research, with the stamp of authority.

The dirty little secret of psychology is that a lot of severely pathological people get drawn to the field. Perhaps they want to master their own pathologies, perhaps they want power over others, I don't know. But it happens.

 

[Aber]

It's extremely interesting to me that he counts mainstream medicine as one party on his list of "the woke establishment".

Maybe it's just the ones who introduced the concept of "chestfeeding".

 

[Collin237]

Finally, medical expertise isn't the same as social policy. A medical expert might be able to describe the experience of living a transgender existence, but they can't answer the question of whether they ought to compete in the female sports division. That question is not one where there expertise is applicable.

To understand the patient's description. Big difference. Through all the steps, psychological and chemical and whatever, leading up to a transition, it should not hinge on anything profound whether the transition should be finalized. To a doctor well-trained in empathy, the portents of success or failure should be obvious.

Understanding the experience of a trans person, as well as potential teammates in both male and female divisions, should also be able to solve the problem for each trans person involved, separately.

Expertise cannot determine social policy. But that's only because the answer to that has already been obvious for a long time. The only good policy is no policy. Each case has to be determined on its own, without any policy interfering.

 

[Matthew Best]

I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or serious.

Sullivan is sometimes a bit obnoxious, but they don't strike me as being either transphobic nor misogynistic.

I was just demonstrating that I actually read the article.

 

[Matthew Best]

Re-read the article - those are his own words: this is what he claims certain trangender-rights groups consider him to be.

You're half right. This is what he claims certain transgender rights groups and certain trans-exclusive radical feminists consider him to be. You missed the second group there.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's what he said about himself.

Not exactly... He says that's what other people say about him.

 

[d4m10n]

Thankfully, it's not an issue at the professional level because World Rugby banned transgender players only a month ago...

I just came across an episode of the Science of Sport Podcast explaining this process in some detail:

https://twitter.com/scienceofsport/status/1323999693798580226

At ~33:45 or so, they finally come around to the key question:
"Does the lowering of testosterone take away the biological differences that necessitated separation in the first place?"

(Surprised if we haven't quite covered this ground before, but I did take a break for a bit so perhaps I missed it.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's extremely interesting to me that he counts mainstream medicine as one party on his list of "the woke establishment". And it's not the first time I've come across this: it's been directly and indirectly claimed within this very thread. To me, either he doesn't understand what the word "woke" means (and he's clearly using in in pejorative sense here - which in itself is also interesting), or he is accusing the world's expert clinicians, psychiatrists, & psychologists of being either bamboozled, misled or mis-judgemental in the way they now understand transgender identity.

It's what's been claimed by:
* People who have detransitioned and who feel that the doctors who set them on the transition path did so either in error or negligently - Keira Bell as an example
* Parents who are observing that their children are being fast-tracked to medicalization and that comorbidities are being ignored and other mental health issues of their children aren't being appropriately treated - the article I linked regarding ROGD among male children contains several examples.
* Clinicians who feel that they are being pressured by their management and by lobbyists to conform to affirmation only and that efforts to dig deeper and disambiguate gender dysphoria as an effect of an underlying trauma or disorder from gender dysphoria as an innate cognitive disconnect between mental perception and sexed body - for example, the MANY doctors and therapists who left Tavistock and GIDS

Bear in mind that "medical experts" of the past supported conversion therapy for homosexuality, repressed memories of childhood molestation, and ritual satanic abuse. Sometimes the opinions of "medical experts" should be questioned.

 

[Collin237]

It's what's been claimed by:
* People who have detransitioned and who feel that the doctors who set them on the transition path did so either in error or negligently - Keira Bell as an example
* Parents who are observing that their children are being fast-tracked to medicalization and that comorbidities are being ignored and other mental health issues of their children aren't being appropriately treated - the article I linked regarding ROGD among male children contains several examples.
* Clinicians who feel that they are being pressured by their management and by lobbyists to conform to affirmation only and that efforts to dig deeper and disambiguate gender dysphoria as an effect of an underlying trauma or disorder from gender dysphoria as an innate cognitive disconnect between mental perception and sexed body - for example, the MANY doctors and therapists who left Tavistock and GIDS

Bear in mind that "medical experts" of the past supported conversion therapy for homosexuality, repressed memories of childhood molestation, and ritual satanic abuse. Sometimes the opinions of "medical experts" should be questioned.

We're not denying that people's lives are ruined by medical malpractice. We're not denying that many doctors are falsely called experts. What we're objecting to is calling it "woke". That word can mean a lot of things, some of them good. Using a partly good word to describe evil, is a monstrous misdirection.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's what's been claimed by:
* People who have detransitioned and who feel that the doctors who set them on the transition path did so either in error or negligently - Keira Bell as an example
* Parents who are observing that their children are being fast-tracked to medicalization and that comorbidities are being ignored and other mental health issues of their children aren't being appropriately treated - the article I linked regarding ROGD among male children contains several examples.
* Clinicians who feel that they are being pressured by their management and by lobbyists to conform to affirmation only and that efforts to dig deeper and disambiguate gender dysphoria as an effect of an underlying trauma or disorder from gender dysphoria as an innate cognitive disconnect between mental perception and sexed body - for example, the MANY doctors and therapists who left Tavistock and GIDS

Bear in mind that "medical experts" of the past supported conversion therapy for homosexuality, repressed memories of childhood molestation, and ritual satanic abuse. Sometimes the opinions of "medical experts" should be questioned.

If I can add my two cents, a "medical expert" ought to be a person who develops or executes successful procedures that treat conditions. The expert ought to be the one that has successful outcomes for patients.

I think that is at least somewhat in doubt in this case. While the treatment works for some people, it fails a lot, as well, and the experts don't seem very good at successfully identifying the cases where it will succeed. That makes their expertise questionable.

 

[Meadmaker]

One thing I want to clarify about my previous post is that there is no serious dispute about the existence of people who have a gender identity that is not in line with their biological sex, or about the existence of gender dysphoria. On that part, I think there is a broad consensus.

The place where the expertise is lacking is in what to do about it, and how to be certain that treatment will have a positive outcome for an individual.

This came up in relation to Andrew Sullivan's article, and I think that what Sullivan says in that article is, or at least ought to be, noncontroversial.

 

[Ziggurat]

Expertise cannot determine social policy. But that's only because the answer to that has already been obvious for a long time. The only good policy is no policy. Each case has to be determined on its own, without any policy interfering.

Sorry, but no. This is bloody stupid, and rests on a fundamental misconception.

The problem isn't that expertise can't determine a policy, but only deal with it on a case-by-case basis. The problem is that expertise doesn't determine values. And there is a conflict of values here. I'm not talking religious values or anything like that. I mean that there are multiple parties with competing interests. Any solution is a tradeoff between these parties' interests. Different solutions produce different losses and gains for these parties. Which of these tradeoffs is preferable isn't a matter of expertise, it's a matter of values. That cannot be determined even on a case-by-case basis by any amount of expertise.

As to the need for policy, well, if you don't have a policy to settle this (and it need not be national, it can be at a much lower level), then you won't get any consistency in decisions even within groups that should be consistent, because you will need multiple decision-makers, and they won't share values. And that inconsistency will end up being worse. It's OK if, say, track and field has different policies than swimming. But if you have inconsistent policy within one league, that's going to mess things up.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Penis inspection day kiddos, drop your drawers for the kind doctor

"A dispute regarding a student's sex shall be resolved by the student's school or institution by requesting that the student provide a health examination and consent form... signed by the student's personal health care provider which must verify the student's biological sex."

https://twitter.com/lukeoneil47/status/1382706325424111622

I repeat myself, but if you think the assault on civil rights is going to be contained to only targeting trans kids, you're mistaken. These bigoted laws are not about protecting girls, and none of these ghouls are going to care about the collateral damage done in their crusade to demonize trans people.

 

[Ziggurat]

Penis inspection day kiddos, drop your drawers for the kind doctor



https://twitter.com/lukeoneil47/status/1382706325424111622

I repeat myself, but if you think the assault on civil rights is going to be contained to only targeting trans kids, you're mistaken. These bigoted laws are not about protecting girls, and none of these ghouls are going to care about the collateral damage done in their crusade to demonize trans people.

If your health care provider doesn't know the biological sex of your child or is unwilling to attest to it, you've got problems, and need to choose a better health care provider.

 

[Olmstead]

Penis inspection day kiddos, drop your drawers for the kind doctor



https://twitter.com/lukeoneil47/status/1382706325424111622

I repeat myself, but if you think the assault on civil rights is going to be contained to only targeting trans kids, you're mistaken. These bigoted laws are not about protecting girls, and none of these ghouls are going to care about the collateral damage done in their crusade to demonize trans people.

It's a weird law.

Why would a child's sex ever be in dispute anyway? As in, what's the scenario in which a child doesn't have their sex on file for medical reasons.

 

[Elaedith]

I'm sure that the Tavistock clinic was just overflowing with the best experts available.

Such a shame a few of them were on the 'wrong side of history'.