Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[TurkeysGhost]

ACLU and Texas were in court today arguing over a temporary restraining order of enforcement of the anti-trans law pending resolution of the broader constitutional questions of the case.

Ruling on the temporary restraining order is expected today:

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1499060694930579457?cxt=HHwWgoCzoc_w3c0pAAAA

 

[Emily's Cat]

I disagree.

The reason I say that is that none of the people in question have been diagnosed as AGP. The armchair diagnoses are based on two things: sexual attraction to females and aggression.

...


AGP is a paraphilia for seeing oneself as a woman, particularly in a sexual situation.

AGP is a paraphilia expressed as sexual arousal at the image of oneself as a female, and/or sexual arousal at other people treating them as a female - which includes being aroused at being allowed into female-only spaces and transgressing sex-based boundaries.

The armchair diagnosis is also, by the way, based on the absolute craptons of self-declared transgender males writing copious screeds about how arousing it is to wear female clothing, and how hard their ejaculations are when they masturbate in female clothing and undergarments, how hot and sexually exciting it is to be in female restrooms, and how they can't help rubbing one out while they're in there, how sexually thrilling it is be in a cubicle next to a female who is changing their tampon and how hard it makes them.

Also supported by the shocking volume of self-taken videos of males in feminine-ish clothing masturbating in female spaces and then uploading them to porn sites.

My overarching point here, is that I think Blanchard has things backward.
I think AGP is a logical symptom of dysphoria/trans-ness rathere than the cause.

And I think it's perfectly logical that a dysphoric person envisioning themselves in a matching body is going to feel aroused. Because the fantasy of having said body would include having a body that would be capable of experiencing sexuality in the way they believe they are meant to experience sexuality.

I hate to take examples from fiction, but I'm reminded of a scene in the first book of the Thomas Covenant series. (High fantasy series I read in junior high.) The main character is a leper who has lost his sexual function due to his leprosy. In the story he is transferred to a magical realm and is suddenly healed. Having his vitality suddenly restored, he rapes the girl who is with him. (Which is out of character for him otherwise.)

I know that's an ugly scene from fiction and you are wondering: "WTH does this have to do with the topic?" My point is that I think what Doinaldson illustrates in that scene is the psychological response to gaining "correct" psychological function. Not that it would trigger assault or anything so dramatic. Just that gaining that function in and of itself is arousing.

The arousal you describe can also be attributed to envisioning themselves in a body where, like Covenant, they have gained the sexual function that was previously absent.

Covenant wasn't aroused by having the ability to be aroused. They were aroused by Lena. One can argue that the unexpected physical manifestation of arousal overloaded their ability to control themself, but it's still not true to say that Covenant was aroused by being able to be aroused.


With respect to Dysphoria and AGP... Dysphoria is NOT a cause. A large part of why it was reclassified in DSM5 is that it is a common symptom that can be related to multiple different causes, including a deep-seated psychological disconnect from one's sexed body. AGP, on the other hand, IS a cause of dysphoria. AGP is a primary diagnosis of a mental health disorder under the category of paraphilias, specifically related to transvestic fetishism.

AGP can cause dysphoria, although a great many males with AGP are content to feed their paraphilia with simply cross-dressing and don't experience dysphoria at all.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain what possible benefit there could be to prevent anyone going through normal puberty.

• It "bakes in" the conviction that the child needs to take wrong-sex hormones and (usually) have surgery to create a facsimile of the opposite sex. It takes away the off-ramp for the majority who would normally give up the idea during or after puberty.
• It pretty much guarantees that once the patient has gone through the full process that they will be permanently infertile, will be unable to experience sexual arousal and will be unable to orgasm.
• It carries significant risk of skeletal damage due to interference with bone mineralisation.
• It is known to have an adverse effect on cognition, decreasing IQ by around 2 to 4 points.

What are the supposed benefits that accrue from this that supposedly outweigh these harms? That some people manage to live with at least some of these problems, when they occurred spontaneously and couldn't be avoided, doesn't seem like much of a rationale for creating such problems on purpose, especially when there appears to be no benefit to put on the other side of the equation.

Blocking puberty vastly increases the number of people who will become medical patients for life, by sweeping up all those whose gender discomfort would resolve with puberty. It then takes away from all the patients the option to have an adult life with a body which is capable of sexual arousal and orgasm, and to have mature sex cells that might in some way allow them to have children in the future.

What on earth is the point? Where is the upside?

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps it barked when you were sleeping.

Go on, then. Find me some description of people being denied medical treatment because they don't pass screening criteria. Seriously, I would feel more comfortable if I could find some indication that screening was actually going on.

People may live quietly for a while after rejection, clinics may not be able to reach them anymore for follow-up studies. But talk to some people at a transgender community event, and you'll find quite a few who have tried -- and failed -- to get treatment.

The only reasons I've seen so far are a lack of funding, ie, they can't get their insurance to cover it. But that's not the same thing as a provider saying they aren't a suitable candidate. How often are people rejected as being unsuitable? What are the criteria for doing so? Does it even happen?

Who even knows?

 

[theprestige]

Psychologists are people who studied psychology. Hypnotherapists are people who set up a pseudo-scientific practice, not necessarily with any qualifications. Some psychologists may also be hypnotherapists, but that does not make them the same thing.

Perhaps it barked when you were sleeping.

If you have never heard that, you may not have been listening. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

People may live quietly for a while after rejection, clinics may not be able to reach them anymore for follow-up studies. But talk to some people at a transgender community event, and you'll find quite a few who have tried -- and failed -- to get treatment.

The request is that evidence be presented. You dismissing the failures to present evidence doesn't really solve the problem that evidence isn't being presented.

What medical transitioning should be prescribed for minors, and why?

The consistent refusal to answer this question and provide evidence in support of that answer, is indeed evidence of an absence of such answers and supporting evidence. It's not proof that no such answers or evidence exists, but how else do you explain your refusal to present them?

They exist, but you don't have them to present? (In which case, how do you know they exist?)

They exist and you have them, but you refuse to present them for some reason? (What reason?)

 

[Meadmaker]

I disagree.

The reason I say that is that none of the people in question have been diagnosed as AGP. The armchair diagnoses are based on two things: sexual attraction to females and aggression.

Well, that's true, but those two things are, in fact, found commonly in AGP males.

What I said before, the thing that you disagreed with, is that I cannot say that the claims are proven, but the evidence is much greater than zero.

A lot of times on this board, and in the world at large, people say "There is no evidence", when what they mean is either "It is not proven" or "I have rejected all the evidence I have seen." In this case, I will agree that the assertions are unproven. However, noting that some of the most prominent and vocal transgender people share traits with AGP males is, in fact, evidence. It's not proof. It's evidence.

And I think it's perfectly logical that a dysphoric person envisioning themselves in a matching body is going to feel aroused. Because the fantasy of having said body would include having a body that would be capable of experiencing sexuality in the way they believe they are meant to experience sexuality.

I don't know if you read the interview I linked to, but one of Blanchar's examples of an arousal situation he had encountered was a sexual fantasy about sitting with a bunch of women, knitting.

I'm not sure how that's a logical outgrowth of gender dysphoria, unless there's AGP involved.

 

[Rolfe]

I would have thought the people who are so keen on preventing children from going through puberty (by chemically castrating them) would at least know what benefits they believe the procedure has for these children.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would have thought the people who are so keen on preventing children from going through puberty (by chemically castrating them) would at least know what benefits they believe the procedure has for these children.

Owning the transphobes, apparently.

 

[Rolfe]

To be clear, I am not suggesting that people should not be allowed to transition. (What they are allowed to do after that is of course a separate aspect of the debate.) I am asking what benefits there are to stopping puberty, as opposed to beginning transition once puberty is complete.

There are clearly substantial harms, and I would have thought that lack of the ability to become sexually aroused and to orgasm was a pretty significant one even if infertility can be brushed aside as "well, lots of people live with infertility, so it doesn't matter if we sterilise these people".

So what are the benefits? Why are people so invested in doing this? So far we've got "but these children are suffering and we have to do something." No, we don't, not if what we do is going to do more harm than good. And especially if we can't actually name one benefit.

 

[Ziggurat]

So what are the benefits?

For MtF, they will look more like the opposite sex if they do not go through puberty.

For FtM, I'm not sure they even get that benefit. Possibly more male-like facial features, but it can also stunt growth, and women already start out shorter than men so... not necessarily better looking. They get the benefit of avoiding the "male gaze" that girls suffer through when they develop breasts. Not having experienced this myself, I cannot judge how significant this may be, or perhaps more accurately, how significant it may seem in the moment, but I do know that it is at best a transitory benefit, not a permanent one.

I'm not convinced these benefits are worth the costs. There are significant known costs, some of which you have described, and possibly more unknown long term costs.

Why are people so invested in doing this?

I can't come up with anything better than "owning the transphobes". I doubt this is the real explanation, I'm sure it's more complex than that, but I don't get it either.

 

[Rolfe]

To give away any chance of being sexually aroused or having an orgasm, to give away fertility, to give away several IQ points, to miss out on the adult maturation of your brain, to risk osteopenia, bone pain and fractures, all for the cosmetic benefit of being able to look a bit more feminine while clothed, doesn't seem like much of a trade.

We've all seen Blaire White and other men who transitioned as adults achieve reasonable cosmetic results. These men have also retained the ability to become sexually aroused and orgasm, even if they have genital surgery. They have retained the choice to retain their male organs if they prefer that. They have a much better surgical result if they do go for genital surgery, as there will be enough tissue there for the surgeon to work with.

How can anyone possibly declare that a slightly better superficial cosmetic result is worth all that?

And as you say, that's only for the males. Females don't get that. They lose fertility, they lose sexual feeling, they lose cognitive capacity, they lose their adult brain maturity, and for what? If anything a worse cosmetic result, because there is a chance they will stop growing and be shorter than they would even have been as women, a big disadvantage when trying to pass as a man in later life.

There is nothing worth having there for anyone.

 

[Earthborn]

I would have thought the people who are so keen on preventing children from going through puberty (by chemically castrating them) would at least know what benefits they believe the procedure has for these children.

The benefit for the very small percentage of children for whom it is possible to determine before puberty (through intensive counselling) that they are very unlikely to ever identify with their biological sex, of preventing them from going through puberty is... not having to go through puberty that changes their body away from what is inline with their identity. Puberty is difficult for most kids, but especially hard for transkids.

You might as well ask what the benefit of pain relief is... The benefit is relieving pain!

 

[Rolfe]

The benefit for the very small percentage of children for whom it is possible to determine before puberty (through intensive counselling) that they are very unlikely to ever identify with their biological sex, of preventing them from going through puberty is... not having to go through puberty that changes their body away from what is inline with their identity. Puberty is difficult for most kids, but especially hard for transkids.

You might as well ask what the benefit of pain relief is... The benefit is relieving pain!

Have you really not read anything of what I wrote?

First, this intensive counselling isn't happening, as several people have pointed out to you. We're in a culture of "the child is the only expert in its own identity, listen to the child."

Second, it is not possible to determine which children are the small proportion of this cohort who will never change their minds. In the past, when children were not chemically castrated before they had a chance to reach cognitive maturity, it was frequently observed that even the most persistent and insistent children would grow out of the whole idea as their outlook changed with maturity.

Puberty is hard for most children, as you say. But it's an essential step to becoming an adult human being. Being an adult human being with mature germ cells that are capable of contributing to offspring, being an adult human being who is able to experience sexual arousal and orgasm, being an adult human being with properly mineralised bones and growth plates that have closed properly, and being an adult human being with mature cognitive function achieving the maximum possible intellectual capacity.

To take away all that potential because "puberty is hard" is not a kindness to anyone.

ETA: And to pick up on your point about the benefit being for the "very small percentage" who will not change your mind, recognise that current policy is imposing these harms on all children who present as gender nonconforming, including the majority who would have changed their minds if their cognitive capacity had been allowed to mature normally.

 

[Earthborn]

What medical transitioning should be prescribed for minors, and why?

It very much depends on the individual and at what age they seek treatment. They need counselling that doesn't dismiss them out of hand. If their gender identity seems stable and clear they should be allowed to socially transition, otherwise they should be allowed to explore it a for a bit. They should not be made to endure what they clearly do not want. If it is not yet clear what they want, they should wait and experience their development until they do.

 

[Ziggurat]

You might as well ask what the benefit of pain relief is... The benefit is relieving pain!

That benefit must be weighed against the costs. There is a reason we don't prescribe morphine for headaches, despite being a wonderful pain reliever.

 

[Ziggurat]

It very much depends on the individual and at what age they seek treatment. They need counselling that doesn't dismiss them out of hand. If their gender identity seems stable and clear they should be allowed to socially transition, otherwise they should be allowed to explore it a for a bit.

The controversy here isn't about allowing children with stable and clear gender dysphoria to socially transition.

They should not be made to endure what they clearly do not want.

Children should frequently be made to endure what they clearly do not want. It's a necessary part of growing up.

 

[Rolfe]

It very much depends on the individual and at what age they seek treatment. They need counselling that doesn't dismiss them out of hand. If their gender identity seems stable and clear they should be allowed to socially transition, otherwise they should be allowed to explore it a for a bit. They should not be made to endure what they clearly do not want. If it is not yet clear what they want, they should wait and experience their development until they do.

You really don't understand this, do you?

Yes they need counselling, and dismissing a child's discomfort out of hand is not good counselling. However, this idea that a gender identity can be diagnosed as "stable" in a prepubescent child is fantasy. Even the most insistent, persistent children have changed their mind in the days when they were allowed to reach cognitive maturity. (In contrast, some who didn't appear especially "stable" seem to have gone on to confirm a trans identity as adults.)

It is never clear what a pre-pubescent child wants, in this respect. They have no idea how they'll feel as adults. They don't understand how they'll feel about being infertile, they don't understand what it will be never to experience sexual arousal and orgasm, and they don't understand what the loss of IQ points and indeed adult cognition mean. Adults who should be explaining this to them and counselling with these harms in mind are, frankly, abrogating their responsibility to these children.

 

[Earthborn]

In the past, when children were not chemically castrated before they had a chance to reach cognitive maturity, it was frequently observed that even the most persistent and insistent children would grow out of the whole idea as their outlook changed with maturity.

In previous threads I have already pointed out that the study you base this conclusion on do not support this argument.
1 - The study is done on children who do get intensive counselling.
2 - A majority of children do "grow out it", but not the most persistent ones.
3 - The children who were "chemically castrated" were selected from the most persistent ones.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Children should frequently be made to endure what they clearly do not want. It's a necessary part of growing up.

Except for the ones that off themselves.

 

[Rolfe]

The controversy here isn't about allowing children with stable and clear gender dysphoria to socially transition.

Well, that's a disputed area. It appears that a meaningful social transition is one of the things that locks children into the trans pathway and removes the off ramp. Letting children wear what they like and play with (and who) they like is all fine. But changing pronouns and referring to them as the opposite sex has its downsides.

Children should frequently be made to endure what they clearly do not want. It's a necessary part of growing up.

That is the point that so many of those keen on castrating children seem to be missing.