• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Plenty of rights didn't exist until they did.

(Arguably, all of them, for those of us who don't subscribe to natural rightsWP.)

The right to have the taxpayers fund top surgery (to take just one example) is ultimately about perception, to include self-perception.
Click to expand...

Language matters. Call it what it is, don't gloss over it with panacea terms like "top surgery". It's either artificial breast implants or it's mastectomy. It's not "bottom surgery" it's either a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty (usually with orchiectomy).
 
d4m10n said:
You can require national health / private health insurance providers to pay for surgeries, though.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting question of whether this is a right or a privilege.

Do non-trans people have a right to force taxpayers to fund their breast implants? Do non-trans people have a right to force taxpayers to pay for voluntary mastectomies without a pressing medical need?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Language matters. Call it what it is, don't gloss over it with panacea terms like "top surgery". It's either artificial breast implants or it's mastectomy. It's not "bottom surgery" it's either a phalloplasty or a vaginoplasty (usually with orchiectomy).
Click to expand...
This is something of a distraction from the question of whether people might have a legal right to receive such treatment, paid for by those who fund national health services.

Emily's Cat said:
Here's an interesting question of whether this is a right or a privilege.
Click to expand...
It is a right if the legislature or the courts says it is. That's how rights work.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
This is something of a distraction from the question of whether people might have a legal right to receive such treatment, paid for by those who fund national health services.

It is a right if the legislature or the courts says it is. That's how rights work.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is

1) not on the basis of self-id, definitely not
2) perhaps with a clinical diagnosis from a competent and responsible clinician who has controlled for influencing factors and determined that physical transition is the most appropriate treatment for severe gender dysphoria.

Nobody else gets to have cosmetic procedures paid for by the public. I'm willing to consider potentially allowing it for a gatekept diagnosis. But it's worth noting that in my view I'm extending a privilege even on that. No matter how bad the mental distress of being unhappy with our bodies or our looks, other people do not have a right to cosmetic treatment. And the mental anguish of having a bad nose or small boobs or whatever else is NOT considered 'medically necessary', and those cosmetic treatments are treated as voluntary.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Here's an interesting question of whether this is a right or a privilege.

Do non-trans people have a right to force taxpayers to fund their breast implants? Do non-trans people have a right to force taxpayers to pay for voluntary mastectomies without a pressing medical need?
Click to expand...

The nature of "rights" is a topic for philosophy.

What he is talking about is a legal right, which is basically a legal entitlement. I have a "right" to social security payments, because the law says I have that right.

This is distinguished from "natural rights", which are rights that people have due to their nature, regardless of whether the government allows people to freely exercise those rights.
 
d4m10n said:
Of course we could talk about "rights" in a cultural sense, like the right not to be excluded from sexual partnership with (female) lesbians.

...but I'd say that's really too much of a stretch to seriously entertain.
Click to expand...

Closely related to this, Stonewall in the UK is campaigning for:

Sex by deception: Stonewall will support calls for a judicial review to clarify prosecution policy and guidance, and amend it where necessary with due regard to the trans person’s right to privacy.
Click to expand...

ie avoid prosecution where transpeople have not disclosed their sex.
 
"The Loudoun County School Board has agreed to a permanent injunction prohibiting it from retaliating against Leesburg Elementary School teacher Tanner Cross, the teacher who got suspended for speaking out against the pro-transgender Policy 8040."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lo...cher-who-spoke-out-against-transgender-policy

"I’m a teacher, but I serve God first, and I will not affirm that a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because it’s against my religion .... and it’s sinning against our God," he said.
Click to expand...

Not being religious myself I don't know what he's talking about here. Is there something in the Bibble about gender fluidity being an abomination in the sight of the lord?
 
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Translation: Don't lie with a male if they have a vagina.
 
Matthew Best said:
Trans women should not have to reduce testosterone, say new IOC guidelines.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...to-reduce-testosterone-say-new-ioc-guidelines

The new IOC framework, which replaces its 2015 guidelines, also concludes there should be no presumption that trans women have an automatic advantage over natal women – a controversial view that reverses the IOC’s previous position.
Click to expand...

Obviously, there's not enough information in the article to be sure, but it looks to me like the IOC is punting, and sending the rules back to athletic federations, which seems like a fairly good idea to me.

The rules for weightlifting, track and field, and synchronized swimming don't all have to be the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom