Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Rolfe]

Somehow I doubt they are "the same" policies.

Is Sweden seeking to lock up parents of trans children for seeking out medical care that was, until very recently, considered best practices and perfectly legal?

There's very clearly a post-hoc element of the radical reinterpretation of existing Texas law that cannot be explained in any other way than intentional capriciousness. It's willful obtuseness to pretend otherwise.

I could just as easily ask why you refuse to meaningfully engage with the obvious political and animus driven elements of the trans debate.

One reason might be that the political issues are very different in different countries, and posters on this forum come from all over the globe.

If you want to focus on the US political handling of the issue, why not start a thread for that purpose in the US Politics subforum? Because all you're doing here is muddying the water. Sweden has decided that it is a crucial part of human development that everyone should go through natural puberty and that the risks of puberty blockers far outweigh any possible benefits. I don't think they are being influenced by American republicans.

The rest of us would like to discuss this, unimpeded by narrow-minded American political takes.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

One reason might be that the political issues are very different in different countries, and posters on this forum come from all over the globe.

If you want to focus on the US political handling of the issue, why not start a thread for that purpose in the US Politics subforum? Because all you're doing here is muddying the water. Sweden has decided that it is a crucial part of human development that everyone should go through natural puberty and that the risks of puberty blockers far outweigh any possible benefits. I don't think they are being influenced by American republicans.

The rest of us would like to discuss this, unimpeded by narrow-minded American political takes.

If you think my comments are OT, complain to the mods. The way I see it, the political context is as much relevant to the discussion as anything, if not more so.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you think my comments are OT, complain to the mods. The way I see it, the political context is as much relevant to the discussion as anything, if not more so.

The problem isn't so much that you commented on the politics. The problem is that you not only demand others do the same, but you won't address anything else.

One suspects you're trying to change the topic because you lost on the merits of prepubescent medical intervention.

 

[Meadmaker]

Having asked SuburbanTurkey to avoid politics, I will immediately break my own suggestion. I mentioned President Trump. I want to relate that to something I let go past, but has been on my mind.

Rolfe was decrying the lack of skepticism on the skeptics board when it came to this issue. I get what she is saying, but, actually, there's an interesting phenomenon going on here. On this one issue, the conversation is very much split between "left" and "right", between "pro trans" and "anti trans". If anything, "right" is more prominent, to the point that LondonJohn once called this place an echo chamber against trans rights.

Well I have certainly called ISF an echo chamber before, but always on left wing issues. This place is pretty darned left leaning. Conservatives don't get much support here, but on this one issue, that's not the case. Why?

In truth, I think that's not really what's going on. I put "left" and "right" in quotes because this issue isn't truly a left or right issue. There's something about this issue that causes skeptics and critical thinkers to say, "Whoa.....are you really saying....?"

I think something similar is happening in the USA, and possibly other democracies. We're very liberal, but this issue is just an issue too far. Here at ISF, we aren't the sorts likely to change our votes on this issue. There is no way in hell I would ever vote for Donald Trump. However, I'm a pretty staunch Democrat. It would take more than the trans issues to get me to say that the GOP is better. However, I think what is happening is that there are a small number of people for whom that isn't true. They aren't raving right wingers. In fact, they're pretty liberal, but when they see a fifteen year old girl saying, "After I took off my pants, I heard a deep voice behind me, turned around, and saw someone wearing women's underwear, but I could tell that there was a penis underneath.", they start saying, "Huh? What? That doesn't sound right to me." And when they hear that the government tells that girl that she is the one in the wrong, and if she doesn't like it she'll have to wait in the hall, they start thinking that maybe there is something wrong with the government. And they might have opinions about all sorts of other great issues of the day, but they don't give it much thought. However, when they find out there's a guy in women's underwear in their daughter's locker room, and when they ask, they are told, "No, that's a girl. Penises don't matter.", then they start thinking, "This has really gone too far."

Because they're haters. I guess.

 

[Meadmaker]

I could just as easily ask why you refuse to meaningfully engage with the obvious political and animus driven elements of the trans debate.

And I could easily answer. It's not interesting to me, and it's marginally on topic.

(And as my post before this one shows, it's not that I'm totally uninterested. It's just not my focus.)

 

[Meadmaker]

If you think my comments are OT, complain to the mods. The way I see it, the political context is as much relevant to the discussion as anything, if not more so.

But that's my point. The way you see it it is highly relevant because you see everything through a political lens.

Take off the partisan glasses and you might see it differently. Focus on the issue itself, instead of the "context". It might give you some insight into why your team sometimes loses an election.

 

[Rolfe]

It's hugely political here too. Today is the day that the Scottish government has introduced its bill to allow anyone to self-declare their sex, no questions asked, anyone who questions this or even remarks on it is an evil transphobe and probably guilty of a hate crime. Twitter is raging about it, women are organising, and there's a big protest on next week.

I have left the political party of which I was a member for nearly 30 years partly over this issue, and I have also stopped voting for them. As Myriad says, this is one of these "hey, what? no, you're going to far, no I can't support this" issues that both left and right-leaning voters can have the same reaction to.

I could come on to this thread and post reams about the evil Scottish government's tactics in ignoring and demonising women and taking "advice" only from the people they pay to give them advice, and refusing a priori even to recognise any lobby group that isn't "trans inclusive". I'm as furious about this as ST is about the politics in his country. But the political aspects are different, and I don't expect people here to sit through my ravings about our political capture by the trans lobby. I'd far rather discuss the actual issues.

(They actually used the "they're going to rape you anyway so it makes no difference if we let them into your protected spaces" line, in the actual parliament. I mean I'm raging, but you probably don't want me raging all over this thread.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 used to be denied in the past, but that's no longer what's going on. In particular, people were denied when the doctor determined that their desire to transition was rooted in a paraphilia.

 

[Emily's Cat]

... "well, lots of people live with infertility, so it doesn't matter if we sterilise these people"...

The "logic" involved in that response made me laugh so much.

Seriously: Lots of people live without legs, so it doesn't matter if we start amputating healthy legs!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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!

***IF*** your outlined approach were what was actually occurring, there'd be a crap ton less objection to it.

But... since that is NOT what is actually happening, how about you address what *is* instead of what you think *ought* to be?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Except for the ones that off themselves.

Ooh, it's about time for the fearmongering emotional rhetoric about suicide to show up.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Especially in young children, who don't already have a full understanding of the immutable nature of sex. By changing their name and referring to them as the opposite sex, they end up actually *believing* that they are the opposite sex, and that, for example, a confused young female can grow up to be a literal male.

There have been some recent preliminary efforts by cognitive and child psychologist on this front, suggesting that this parent-instilled confusion can result in creating severe dysphoria in puberty.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh yes. Also homophobia. There are plenty of cases where parents have confessed to relief that they can have a "normal" daughter rather than a gay son. And quite a lot of them seem to be the classic "right-wing Christian" demographic, funnily enough.

I don't know why people are surprised by the inherent homophobia in a fair number of transitions. It's the standard in Iran, as well as some other countries. It's illegal to be gay, and can result in execution. Or... you can transition to the opposite sex (complete with surgery provided by the state that also happens to sterilize them) and be "straight".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unfortunatly, most of the opposition to transgender issues comes from more rigidly gendered places, and from people who insist on more rigid gender norms.

Absolute propaganda hogwash.

Most of the opposition to 1) self ID, 2) medical transition of children, and 3) the violation of female boundaries by males come from PROGRESSIVE AND LIBERAL FEMINISTS.

And most of those do NOT insist on gender norms of any sort. In fact, most of us view the current trans lobby as trying to reinforce gender norms that disproportionately harm females!

For the love of all things good, stop blindly parroting the manufactured talking points of this lobby. Go actually look at the arguments and the principles of the feminists who are opposing this insanity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah yes, the insane bizarro world conspiracy where oppressed minorities are actually wielding incredible influence.

Sweden is now "insane bizarro world conspiracy" in ST's mind.

We've really lost all critical thinking here. Far too many people are operating on the principle of "If it disagrees with my belief, then it is evil/wrong/conspiracy/[insert other label as appropriate"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Now I feel like I wasted my time writing that last post.

I don't think you wasted your time. It was a nice summary for those of us who have looked at the debunking some time ago but forgotten all the details. It's also likely useful to the lurkers who aren't invested enough to click the link and wade through the details.

I appreciated your post

 

[Emily's Cat]

What an unpleasant - but telling - thing to say. No surprise though.

So... no argument, no discussion, just ad hominem by insinuation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes. Then you can forward it to the group of the world's medical experts who've already decided that transgender identity is a valid condition and that gender dysmorphia is not a mental health aberration; and then to the dozens of the world's progressive governments who - after consultation with experts and careful consideration - also consider transgender identity to be valid.

I'm sure they'll be pleased to have the opportunity to get a "critical thinking" check from a bunch of nobodies on the interwebs.

Fallacy.

Appeal to (imagined) authority.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I guess the APA is also "ideological" rather than evidence-based too, huh? (In your opinion)

They sure as hell were when they supported treatment based on "repressed memories".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. 'Transgender identity' (without dysphoria) has never been considered a mental disorder, including prior to DSM5. I have no idea what 'gender dysmorphia' is. 'Valid condition' is meaningless gobbledegook. The idea that 'transgender identity' used to be considered a disorder, but then that changed with DSM-5 due to some amazing (but never specified) scientific advance, is a lie constructed by activists to draw false parallels with the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder. Repeating this lie, as you have persistently done even after it being corrected multiple times with evidence, is a sign that you do not care at all about the truth of your statements, so I have no idea why anybody should take your opinions seriously.

London John has been corrected on this so many times now that I've lost count.

But for the lurkers:

Gender Dysphoria (not dysmorphia) was RECLASSIFED in DSM5. It was removed from the category related to sexual disorders, and is no longer considered a sexual deviancy. This was, by DSM's own evaluation, done to recognize that gender-related issues are not necessarily sexual in nature as well as to reduce stigma associated with a diagnosis seen as a sexual deviancy. It was also reclassified as not being a disorder, but rather a symptom. This was done because there are many potential issues which can express as gender dysphoria, and treatment of the symptom of dysphoria should be based on the underlying cause.

Also for the lurkers:

Autogynephilia (AGP) remains a diagnosis in the sexual disorders category of DSM5, specifically as a sub-diagnosis under transvestic fetishism in the section on sexual paraphilias. AGP can manifest gender dysphoria as a symptom, but AGP frequently is present with no gender dysphoria at all.






Which does raise some questions with respect to the trans rights advocates campaigning really hard that a person can be 'transgender' without any gender dysphoria at all.