Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[theprestige]

Texas Governor directs state agencies to begin investigating adults who provide trans children with gender affirming care for potential child abuse charges.

Sounds about right. The only people providing gender affirming care to minors should be certified medical professionals in a clinical setting with the informed consent of the parents. Just like with any other medical treatment of minors.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Sounds about right. The only people providing gender affirming care to minors should be certified medical professionals in a clinical setting with the informed consent of the parents. Just like with any other medical treatment of minors.

You could read the article rather than make snarky/pedantic comments like this.

The Governor and AG are threatening to criminally prosecute parents who allow their trans children to access gender affirming care prescribed by doctors

 

[TomB]

Texas Governor directs state agencies to begin investigating adults who provide trans children with gender affirming care for potential child abuse charges.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/23/greg-abbott-gender-affirming-care-child-abuse-directive/

Remains unclear how many local prosecutors will be willing to arrest parents for providing medical care for their trans children, though some have already publicly stated they will not.

Just to get it out of the way, I completely disagree with the governor and (presumably) the attorney general. (I haven't read the laws, so I'm not sure if his interpretation of the laws is correct, in which case they need changed, or if he is adding his own bias into the reading.)

For those for whom transition is the correct treatment, getting the treatment as early as possible is, obviously, beneficial. For those for whom it is not the correct treatment, it is detrimental. We can find anecdotes on both cases. I don't think that's particularly controversial or worth debating. The real issue is that the diagnostics are not perfect. I think everyone should want better diagnostic tools that both identifies those needing treatment early and prevents false positives that result in inappropriate treatments.

Anyway, back to my comment on what ST posted.

Posting cases where politicians make bad policy doesn't really advance the subject of discussion. Nor does posting cases where politicians make good policy. It's kind of a sideline reflection of the debate that is happening here. "Texas makes stupid anti-trans law" doesn't provide data that relates to "should trans-women be able to...<insert variable here>." Nor does California passing a law allowing self ID provide data to that question.

As evidence to this, I'll refer to the types of things LJ and ST post. LJ's posts often cite the government stances as support for the pro-trans movement. He backs this up by citing the access the politicians who made that policy have to better information and experts than we have. ST, on the other hand, points to cases where politicians make anti-trans laws. But the politicians who make these policies also have access to the same level of experts and information as the ones who made pro-trans policies.

Just to be clear, this is true of both sides. Government does bad stories are hardly uncommon. Sometimes people on both sides of an issue can even agree that a policy is bad. Politicians are not sages examining evidence to come to wise conclusions on how we should live. They are contestants doing whatever they think will help win the popularity contest. This is true of both ST's politicians and LJ's.

So Texas governor is an evil twit. News at eleven.

It doesn't really inform the issues we've been talking about here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Just to get it out of the way, I completely disagree with the governor and (presumably) the attorney general. (I haven't read the laws, so I'm not sure if his interpretation of the laws is correct, in which case they need changed, or if he is adding his own bias into the reading.)

For those for whom transition is the correct treatment, getting the treatment as early as possible is, obviously, beneficial. For those for whom it is not the correct treatment, it is detrimental. We can find anecdotes on both cases. I don't think that's particularly controversial or worth debating. The real issue is that the diagnostics are not perfect. I think everyone should want better diagnostic tools that both identifies those needing treatment early and prevents false positives that result in inappropriate treatments.

Anyway, back to my comment on what ST posted.

Posting cases where politicians make bad policy doesn't really advance the subject of discussion. Nor does posting cases where politicians make good policy. It's kind of a sideline reflection of the debate that is happening here. "Texas makes stupid anti-trans law" doesn't provide data that relates to "should trans-women be able to...<insert variable here>." Nor does California passing a law allowing self ID provide data to that question.

As evidence to this, I'll refer to the types of things LJ and ST post. LJ's posts often cite the government stances as support for the pro-trans movement. He backs this up by citing the access the politicians who made that policy have to better information and experts than we have. ST, on the other hand, points to cases where politicians make anti-trans laws. But the politicians who make these policies also have access to the same level of experts and information as the ones who made pro-trans policies.

Just to be clear, this is true of both sides. Government does bad stories are hardly uncommon. Sometimes people on both sides of an issue can even agree that a policy is bad. Politicians are not sages examining evidence to come to wise conclusions on how we should live. They are contestants doing whatever they think will help win the popularity contest. This is true of both ST's politicians and LJ's.

So Texas governor is an evil twit. News at eleven.

It doesn't really inform the issues we've been talking about here.

I am generally under the impression that mods want all things trans related posted here. Maybe that's not the case anymore as this is no longer a moderated topic/thread.

I would agree that news items about anti-trans laws aren't really on topic for the specific topic posted by the OP, but I am generally under the impression the scope of this thread has drifted by this 8th version.

If you think it's OT report it.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am generally under the impression that mods want all things trans related posted here. Maybe that's not the case anymore as this is no longer a moderated topic/thread.

I would agree that news items about anti-trans laws aren't really on topic for the specific topic posted by the OP, but I am generally under the impression the scope of this thread has drifted by this 8th version.

If you think it's OT report it.

I don't think TomB was saying the post was off topic, just that it doesn't advance the discussion. Two different things.

Meanwhile, I generally agree with TomB on what he said. I would comment more, but WaPo is paywalled, so I couldn't read the article, (Yes, it's an easy paywall, and I could get around it, but I won't. I probably will search for an article from a different source that I can read.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think TomB was saying the post was off topic, just that it doesn't advance the discussion. Two different things.

Meanwhile, I generally agree with TomB on what he said. I would comment more, but WaPo is paywalled, so I couldn't read the article, (Yes, it's an easy paywall, and I could get around it, but I won't. I probably will search for an article from a different source that I can read.)

Yes, I get that.

My point is that Texas passing anti-trans laws is a social issue worth discussing in itself, especially in the context of all the sweeping attacks on civil rights that the right wing in this country are trying to pass.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ok. I did a bit more reading, including the actual opinion provided by the Texas AG that triggered Abbott's action, and it does appear at a quick glance to be every bit as bad as SuburbanTurkey described it.

I think this action, and the reaction to it, really demonstrate the horrible state of political discourse in America today.

Let's start with some reality.

For those for whom transition is the correct treatment, getting the treatment as early as possible is, obviously, beneficial. For those for whom it is not the correct treatment, it is detrimental. We can find anecdotes on both cases. I don't think that's particularly controversial or worth debating. The real issue is that the diagnostics are not perfect. I think everyone should want better diagnostic tools that both identifies those needing treatment early and prevents false positives that result in inappropriate treatments.

That's reality.


Sadly, reality is politically inconvenient. So, what we actually end up is with people from one side saying that all "gender affirming treatment" is good, and anything at all that makes it difficult is literally threatening the lives of children. Meanwhile, Abbott is saying that it's all bad, and that people who practice medicine within accepted, albeit controversial, guidelines should be treated as criminals.

On top of it, you have another issue of a governor attempting to pass legislation, failing, and so simply decreeing that the law is already in place anyway. I hate it when that happens, and it happens far too often.

It's a pretty bad situation.

 

[Ziggurat]

For those for whom transition is the correct treatment, getting the treatment as early as possible is, obviously, beneficial.

I don't think that's actually obvious at all. Early medical intervention creates outcomes which are cosmetically closer to the other sex. But that's only one factor among multiple ones, and it's not obvious to me that it's the most important one, or that the costs and risks are really worth it. Long term medical consequences of pre-pubescent sex change is basically unknown at this point.

 

[Lithrael]

You imagine wrongly, I suspect. I mean, it's your imagination, so go ahead and imagine whatever the heck you want, I guess. But I think it would be nice if you were at least aware that you - a male - is busy dictating what you "imagine" a female would feel about being beaten out of a spot in a female team by a male.

This is like a 25 year old opining that they imagine that the 12 year old beaten out of a spot on the youth team would feel exactly the same losing that position to a 25 year old as they would feel about losing that spot to another 12 year old.

If it helps I imagine the same thing and I’m a girl (tm)

ETA some actual engagement with the thread, I broadly agree with tomb and meadmaker re those last few posts.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Ok. I did a bit more reading, including the actual opinion provided by the Texas AG that triggered Abbott's action, and it does appear at a quick glance to be every bit as bad as SuburbanTurkey described it.

I think this action, and the reaction to it, really demonstrate the horrible state of political discourse in America today.

Let's start with some reality.




That's reality.


Sadly, reality is politically inconvenient. So, what we actually end up is with people from one side saying that all "gender affirming treatment" is good, and anything at all that makes it difficult is literally threatening the lives of children. Meanwhile, Abbott is saying that it's all bad, and that people who practice medicine within accepted, albeit controversial, guidelines should be treated as criminals.

On top of it, you have another issue of a governor attempting to pass legislation, failing, and so simply decreeing that the law is already in place anyway. I hate it when that happens, and it happens far too often.

It's a pretty bad situation.

It's probably good context to remember from time to time that there is a significant amount of anti-trans animus operating in this (and other) countries in positions of high power.

School sports and where trans people can compete is a tricky question in which even I remain largely undecided, but it's important to keep in mind that for many political actors, this is simply a wedge issue meant to drum up anti-trans bigotry. What we're seeing in Texas, the use of state oppression in the most intimate facets of life, was always the goal.

The attack on civil rights by Christian Nationalists will not end with trans people. They're coming for everyone's civil rights to enforce their preferred social conformity.

 

[lomiller]

For instance, short people have a natural disadvantage at basketball precisely because they are short, and the game favors height (in general).

Then why have womens sports at all? If what you say is true just have everyone compete in one big division.

For instance, short people have a natural disadvantage at basketball precisely because they are short, and the game favors height (in general).

There have been basketball leagues with height restrictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Basketball_League

In youth sports age groups also functionally group people by height as younger age groups have lower average height.

If it helps I imagine the same thing and I’m a girl (tm)

ETA some actual engagement with the thread, I broadly agree with tomb and meadmaker re those last few posts.

If 25 year olds were allowed to compete it's incredibly unlikely a 12 year old would even show up to tryouts. They probably wouldn't feel bad about not making the team because they would know going in they had no chance. Many, however, would feel incredibly sad that they don't even get the opportunity to play their favorite sport at all because there isn't an age appropriate league.

 

[LondonJohn]

Just to get it out of the way, I completely disagree with the governor and (presumably) the attorney general. (I haven't read the laws, so I'm not sure if his interpretation of the laws is correct, in which case they need changed, or if he is adding his own bias into the reading.)

For those for whom transition is the correct treatment, getting the treatment as early as possible is, obviously, beneficial. For those for whom it is not the correct treatment, it is detrimental. We can find anecdotes on both cases. I don't think that's particularly controversial or worth debating. The real issue is that the diagnostics are not perfect. I think everyone should want better diagnostic tools that both identifies those needing treatment early and prevents false positives that result in inappropriate treatments.

Anyway, back to my comment on what ST posted.

Posting cases where politicians make bad policy doesn't really advance the subject of discussion. Nor does posting cases where politicians make good policy. It's kind of a sideline reflection of the debate that is happening here. "Texas makes stupid anti-trans law" doesn't provide data that relates to "should trans-women be able to...<insert variable here>." Nor does California passing a law allowing self ID provide data to that question.

As evidence to this, I'll refer to the types of things LJ and ST post. LJ's posts often cite the government stances as support for the pro-trans movement. He backs this up by citing the access the politicians who made that policy have to better information and experts than we have. ST, on the other hand, points to cases where politicians make anti-trans laws. But the politicians who make these policies also have access to the same level of experts and information as the ones who made pro-trans policies.

Just to be clear, this is true of both sides. Government does bad stories are hardly uncommon. Sometimes people on both sides of an issue can even agree that a policy is bad. Politicians are not sages examining evidence to come to wise conclusions on how we should live. They are contestants doing whatever they think will help win the popularity contest. This is true of both ST's politicians and LJ's.

So Texas governor is an evil twit. News at eleven.

It doesn't really inform the issues we've been talking about here.

You seem to be weighing those two different political philosophies more-or-less equally.

But in reality, it takes a lot more insight and careful understanding - not to mention a modicum of courage - to propose and pass progressive legislation in an area such as the one under discussion here. In my opinion, governments and legislatures only progress this sort of path if/when they feel they have all the evidence they need to support such a move - especially since in a democracy these are the sorts of issues where mass-public attitudes typically lag (just as, say, in the case of civil rights or gay rights)

By contrast, the politically-safer/less-well-informed route is via reactionary thinking. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" (and the term "broke" there is very much in the eye of the beholder). All politicians in all jurisdictions know that right now, across the whole of the electorate, support for transgender rights is either "meh" or actively opposed. Because most of the general public currently view transgender identity as fundamentally invalid. They don't (on the whole) want to see transgender people actively discriminated against, but they sure as hell don't want to see transgender people gain gender-based rights. And when it comes to the subject of children and YAs with gender dysphoria, public opposition ratchets up a few notches further ("We don't need our children being brainwashed into believing they're transgender, and being helped to affirm that belief" and so on).


Personally, I know which is the safe/lazy/"playing to the electorate" position for lawmakers to adopt. And which is the higher-risk/evidence-based/"courage of their convictions" position.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh and I haven't even mentioned the invidious effect of conservative religious faith on policy-making in this sort of area. Especially, of course, in the US Bible Belt states.

 

[Elaedith]

Sweden releases its new guidelines for treatment of minors with gender dysphoria.

"The guidelines assert that based on current evidence, the risks of hormonal interventions outweigh the possible benefits. Thus, these interventions (often referred to as "gender-affirming care") will not be available outside of research settings, except as "last-resort."

 

[Meadmaker]

Sweden releases its new guidelines for treatment of minors with gender dysphoria.

"The guidelines assert that based on current evidence, the risks of hormonal interventions outweigh the possible benefits. Thus, these interventions (often referred to as "gender-affirming care") will not be available outside of research settings, except as "last-resort."

No doubt Sweden is suffering from the invidious effect of conservative religious faith.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So Texas governor is an evil twit. News at eleven.

Yep. Dumb policy, bad approach. Downright idiotic.

Let's move on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think that's actually obvious at all. Early medical intervention creates outcomes which are cosmetically closer to the other sex. But that's only one factor among multiple ones, and it's not obvious to me that it's the most important one, or that the costs and risks are really worth it. Long term medical consequences of pre-pubescent sex change is basically unknown at this point.

I agree with Tom to a degree - for children who have exhibited persistent and stable dysphoria from early childhood, I don't think that cross-sex hormones during puberty are something that should be banned.

I also, however, think that it is cosmetic in effect. And I also think that the risks and the impacts of it are something that the overwhelming majority of people under the age of about 25 aren't really equipped to fully understand. I'm content to let it stand at 18, because that's legal adult.

Some of the consequences of applying cross-sex hormones from the onset of puberty are a lack of sexual function and highly likely sterility. Without sex-appropriate hormones, things necessary for sexual function don't occur.

In females, lack of estrogen *at the appropriate time period in their development* means no breast development, which also results in lack of sexual stimulation from breasts and the inability to create milk. Testosterone in higher-than normal-range levels also destroys ova. Taken at the onset of puberty it can quickly destroy all of a female's eggs, leaving them sterile. It also causes vaginal atrophy (even for post-pubertal females), which can cause pain and damage during sex... assuming they ever even develop a libido.

In males, lack of testosterone at the appropriate time results in the penis failing to elongate, and the testicles failing to descend. That also means that the testes are unlikely to be capable of producing sperm. The penis will not develop sexual sensation, leading to both a lack of libido and an inability to experience sexual pleasure. If a male who has taken cross-sex hormones throughout puberty stops taking them after the time-frame for puberty has ended... they do NOT experience a male puberty. The window has closed. So for example, if a male starts estrogen and testosterone blockers at say 12, when puberty first begins, and continues to do so until 19, then even if they stop taking those drugs... their bodies will NOT develop male attributes. They are unlikely to EVER be able to produce the high testosterone levels necessary to produce sperm, and they will be left with a child-sized penis and undescended testicles.

So... If a child has severe and persistent and stable dysphoria from an early age, that *might* be a decision that parents feel is appropriate to make for the mental health of that specific child. But in doing so, those parents need to be aware of the consequences of that decision. Because it is NOT without costs.

 

[d4m10n]

Dumb policy, bad approach.

For every interesting policy question we can always take one of two approaches:

1. Frankly state one's own preferred solution (perhaps leading to difficult questions)
2. Make fun of the worst ideas on the opposing team (ROFLOL look at those rubes)

The latter approach is like candy, tempting and enjoyable but not exactly filling or nutritious.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If it helps I imagine the same thing and I’m a girl (tm)

Why do you think it would help that some very few females agree with it? Do you think that your agreement invalidates the way other females view it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

For every interesting policy question we can always take one of two approaches:

1. Frankly state one's own preferred solution (perhaps leading to difficult questions)
2. Make fun of the worst ideas on the opposing team (ROFLOL look at those rubes)

The latter approach is like candy, tempting and enjoyable but not exactly filling or nutritious.

I think I've presented my views on transgender medical treatment for children a few times already.