Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[LondonJohn]

The extremists ARE setting the agenda! That's the problem. Your call to "be reasonable" is pointless, because those of us on the critical side of this discussion are already reasonable.
With only teensy variations, the critical side's position is:

• Dress, accessorize, and behave however makes you happy, we want no barriers at all for purely social aspects of presentation.
• To obtain *legal* recognition of the opposite sex requires:
  • Diagnosis for persistent and unmitigatable dysphoria that is not caused by autogynephia
  • Treatment for comorbid conditions that might be causing dysphoria as an effect rather than a cause
  • Two years or so of therapy and counseling, which includes how to fit in with the opposite sex, respect their boundaries, and avoid causing problems
• Legal recognition should be a requirement for access to single-sex services... but those services still have the right to refuse if the presence of an opposite sex person would inhibit their ability to perform their primary objectives
• Access to some single-sex provisions may require genital surgery to access

It's a fairly common sense approach - do whatever you like when it comes to clothing and behavior, we don't care. But if you're entering single-sex spaces, there needs to be some respect and common sense involved. We might have varying degrees of understanding for what constitutes common sense in which situations, but I think all of us on the critical side are of the opinion that if people are naked in a single-sex space, then having the opposite sex genitalia visible is a big problem.

So at the end of the day, nobody in this thread is arguing for an "extremist" critical view.

On the other hand... the advocates are absolutely arguing for an extremist view of self-identification, no diagnosis or treatment, and access to all single-sex services on the basis of nothing more than magic words.

So don't pretend like you're occupying some eminently reasonable middle ground, and everyone else is an "extremist". It's insulting.

I see......

Would you like me to point you towards the many, many occasions within these threads when you, and several other "gender-critical" commentators here, have been a very long way indeed from "reasonable"? For example, the occasions when you and others have mocked the very concept of transgender identity (perhaps you prefer to forget the embarrassing "mew/miaow" pronoun stuff or whatever it was you precisely wrote)? Or the many occasions when some of your fellow travellers have attacked transgender identity as some sort of malevolent LARP exercise? Or the many occasions where you and others have deliberately engaged in "Reefer Madness"-style domesday soothsaying in an attempt to marginalise transgender people?

But yeah... you're the "reasonable" ones. Right.

 

[Meadmaker]

I see......

Would you like me to point you towards the many, many occasions within these threads when you, and several other "gender-critical" commentators here, have been a very long way indeed from "reasonable"? For example, the occasions when you and others have mocked the very concept of transgender identity (perhaps you prefer to forget the embarrassing "mew/miaow" pronoun stuff or whatever it was you precisely wrote)? Or the many occasions when some of your fellow travellers have attacked transgender identity as some sort of malevolent LARP exercise? Or the many occasions where you and others have deliberately engaged in "Reefer Madness"-style domesday soothsaying in an attempt to marginalise transgender people?

But yeah... you're the "reasonable" ones. Right.

You seem to be talking about tone of voice, or stridency, or intensity of feelings. That's all very well, if a bit personal, but I think when we are talking about something being "extreme" or "extremist", we should look at positions held.

As best I can tell, the sort of "party line" on trans rights activism is that if you declare yourself to be a woman or a man, then you are, in fact, a woman or a man, and should be treated as such. You should have all access to all female spaces, unrestricted, if you declare yourself to be woman. You should be able to play in women's sports. Some, like you, make an exception for "elite" sports, recognizing, I think, that spectators really aren't interested in watching Lia Thomas win another race, but anything less than elite sports has to accept cross-sex competitors.

Also, this is a civil right, not just policies. Private companies cannot violate these policies if they provide commercial services to paying customers. (See: WI Spa)

Medical treatment to help these men and women have bodies that more suit their image should be available on demand, with little or no consultation. Tehre's some debate about age and parental consent in there. SuburbanTurkey said by 16 they ought to be able to make their own decisions. With parental consent, it can go much lower.

I think those policies are a fair description of what the trans rights activists wants and, more importantly, they are already government policy in many places, including large parts of the US.

So, my question is how could you get more extreme than that? There's noplace to go farther left. Men can have babies. Spas have to take biological males. Intact males can be on girls' teams. We have met the extremists, and they are us, at least by policy.

So when Darat says we shouldn't let the extremists set the agenda, it seems to me we already have.

 

[The Atheist]

Another commentary, this time from somone who is Gay...

https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/walking-the-transgender-movement-away-from-the-extremists/

Bravo!

Nailed in every aspect.

Will be ignored, of course.

 

[Rolfe]

Just saying.

 

[shuttlt]

So, my question is how could you get more extreme than that? There's noplace to go farther left. Men can have babies. Spas have to take biological males. Intact males can be on girls' teams. We have met the extremists, and they are us, at least by policy..

If we map this onto arguments that have been put forward regarding abortion on this forum, the trans-activist position is centrist and moderate because the extreme positions would be compulsory transitions and a complete ban on transitions. The rational middle in that analysis is transition for whoever wants it.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Bravo!

Nailed in every aspect.

Will be ignored, of course.

Ironic, considering this exact article was already referenced in this thread.

It's grimly amusing watching these "moderate" trans panic mongers act in horror as these red states throw all queer people, not just the hated trans people, under the bus. They never wanted all gay people to be accused of "groomers" after all, they just wanted to whip up a little bit of narrowly focused moral panic about trans people. Who could have foreseen such an outcome?

After a brief flurry of outrage, both Herzog and Sullivan have seemed to settled on the "it's trans people's fault for making reactionaries hit them" line of victim blaming.



https://twitter.com/kittypurrzog/status/1511081167927185409?cxt=HHwWgsCokZ6UuPgpAAAA

Anyway, nothing will be learned and both will resume adding fuel to the "Wokeness is a dire threat" bonfire that surely will never have any collateral damage.

Yes, the TERFs and other "liberal" transphobes, in response to transphobia escaping its boundary fence and growing into huge and nasty moral panic about all queer people (big shocker there), have resorted to "it's our fault for making the fascists hit us".

You can't order a la carte from the reactionary right menu. Enjoy sticking it to the trans people, but you have to accept all the gay bashing, misogyny, and insane puritanical sex panics as part of the deal. Florida and Texas well on their way to being the anti-trans utopia the TERFs have been begging for, just be sure not to have a miscarriage or you might end up being convicted of murder.

 

[lionking]

Ironic, considering this exact article was already referenced in this thread.



Yes, the TERFs and other "liberal" transphobes, in response to transphobia escaping its boundary fence and growing into huge and nasty moral panic about all queer people (big shocker there), have resorted to "it's our fault for making the fascists hit us".

You can't order a la carte from the reactionary right menu. Enjoy sticking it to the trans people, but you have to accept all the gay bashing, misogyny, and insane puritanical sex panics as part of the deal. Florida and Texas well on their way to being the anti-trans utopia the TERFs have been begging for, just be sure not to have a miscarriage or you might end up being convicted of murder.

Good you acknowledge this is happening. Next we will see you acknowledge that all the misogyny animus is coming from the trans activist side. No? I’m not surprised.

 

[Rolfe]

I just read on Twitter that Norway, one of the wokest countries on the planet, has just now put strict curbs on the provision of puberty blockers to children in their early teens. More and more authorities are starting to realise the serious harm being done to children by these things.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I just read on Twitter that Norway, one of the wokest countries on the planet, has just now put strict curbs on the provision of puberty blockers to children in their early teens. More and more authorities are starting to realise the serious harm being done to children by these things.

Good! Strict curbs are definitely needed.

 

[Ziggurat]

You can't order a la carte from the reactionary right menu.

Can you order a la carte from the radical left menu? Asking for a friend.

 

[shuttlt]

Can you order a la carte from the radical left menu? Asking for a friend.

You can order what you like, you just have to wait forever for it to arrive and then just as you see it coming you get sent to gulag.

 

[Meadmaker]

Can you order a la carte from the radical left menu? Asking for a friend.

I think this question describes the state of America today.

Rather than looking at positions and doing what makes sense and/or what aligns with personal values, people have adopted a side and the only think they care about is attacking the other side. "A la carte" ordering, i.e. actually looking at positions and making up your mind based on the issue itself, is seen as treasonous.



I heard a few minutes of Dan Bongino (sp?) yesterday on the radio. He took over Rush Limbaugh's spot on our local radio station after Rush died.

He was talking in general about the crazy left, and trans issues made up a lot of that. In particular, he mentioned an address made in which a Democrat talked about Republican overreach on abortion and transgender rights and how Democrats should really emphasize this because voters would really punish the Republicans at the polls this November.

Dan was practically gleeful. "Yes, Democrats! You must emphasize trans rights in your compaigns! It's very important. That is absolutely the way to win in November. I urge you all to emphasize it as much as you can!" (That is not an actual quote, but the sentiment is not exaggerated.)

Oh, well. I'll continue to judge each issue independently, as much as possible. I support a lot of "the left's" positions, and I think that people with penises should avoid the girls' locker room. I don't see any contradiction there.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I think this question describes the state of America today.

Rather than looking at positions and doing what makes sense and/or what aligns with personal values, people have adopted a side and the only think they care about is attacking the other side. "A la carte" ordering, i.e. actually looking at positions and making up your mind based on the issue itself, is seen as treasonous.



I heard a few minutes of Dan Bongino (sp?) yesterday on the radio. He took over Rush Limbaugh's spot on our local radio station after Rush died.

He was talking in general about the crazy left, and trans issues made up a lot of that. In particular, he mentioned an address made in which a Democrat talked about Republican overreach on abortion and transgender rights and how Democrats should really emphasize this because voters would really punish the Republicans at the polls this November.

Dan was practically gleeful. "Yes, Democrats! You must emphasize trans rights in your compaigns! It's very important. That is absolutely the way to win in November. I urge you all to emphasize it as much as you can!" (That is not an actual quote, but the sentiment is not exaggerated.)

Oh, well. I'll continue to judge each issue independently, as much as possible. I support a lot of "the left's" positions, and I think that people with penises should avoid the girls' locker room. I don't see any contradiction there.

It's fine to judge issues independently, but you have to be willfully blind to not notice a certain confluence of anti-rights policies, at least in the US, when it comes to anti-trans politics.

Context is important, no matter how inconvenient that might be. And in this case, the context shows that reactionary animus is the driving factor for these anti-trans/anti-gay positions and the desire to re-criminalize abortion.

ETA: Nobody in good faith could look at the totality of circumstances and not conclude that this is primarily driven by animus rather than any good intention.

 

[shuttlt]

I think this question describes the state of America today.

Rather than looking at positions and doing what makes sense and/or what aligns with personal values, people have adopted a side and the only think they care about is attacking the other side. "A la carte" ordering, i.e. actually looking at positions and making up your mind based on the issue itself, is seen as treasonous.



I heard a few minutes of Dan Bongino (sp?) yesterday on the radio. He took over Rush Limbaugh's spot on our local radio station after Rush died.

He was talking in general about the crazy left, and trans issues made up a lot of that. In particular, he mentioned an address made in which a Democrat talked about Republican overreach on abortion and transgender rights and how Democrats should really emphasize this because voters would really punish the Republicans at the polls this November.

Dan was practically gleeful. "Yes, Democrats! You must emphasize trans rights in your compaigns! It's very important. That is absolutely the way to win in November. I urge you all to emphasize it as much as you can!" (That is not an actual quote, but the sentiment is not exaggerated.)

Oh, well. I'll continue to judge each issue independently, as much as possible. I support a lot of "the left's" positions, and I think that people with penises should avoid the girls' locker room. I don't see any contradiction there.

One explanation I have heard is that, when you get into the orbit of power, things begin to function like a royal court.... like Versailles.... only infinitely more complex and magnificent because there is so much more concentrated power and wealth that at the high point of Versailles.

At court you have factions vying for attention and influence. Each faction has patrons and those patrons have interests that those factions have to cater to. Each faction has policy positions that they attempt to advance and their value to their patrons and the other members of the court is their ability to use their influence and connections to get those policies implemented.

In the context of a royal court.... there is no room for a free-floating individual, or for individuals to pick and choose their policies like dilettante because by supporting policy X you undermine your patrons and stab in the back all the people who have helped you climb the ladder to aid those patrons, and anybody who assisted you in the expectation of getting something from those patrons.

 

[shuttlt]

ETA: Nobody in good faith could look at the totality of circumstances and not conclude that this is primarily driven by animus rather than any good intention.

I think this is your basic mistake. The first part of your post was good and I think the root of the disagreement is more in those basic assumptions about the world.

ETA: I personally feel sorry for trans people. The suicide rates, difficulty dating and all the rest are no joke. Feeling sorry for people isn't enough though. Some problems are very difficult to fix, and some fixes make other things worse, and some people can not be saved.

 

[Meadmaker]

ETA: Nobody in good faith could look at the totality of circumstances and not conclude that this is primarily driven by animus rather than any good intention.

I don't trust your judgement on this issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some problems are very difficult to fix, and some fixes make other things worse, and some people can not be saved.

https://despair.com/products/government

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's an article today from NBC News about treatment for minors:

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out...al-treatments-transgender-youth-get-rcna25556

Here's an excerpt on puberty blockers:

Some kids stay on them for several years. One possible side effect: They may cause a decrease in bone density that reverses when the drugs are stopped.

That's the only reference to side effects.



No doubt they will offer a correction shortly, when they realize their mistake.

 

[Rolfe]

Front page of the Times.

Sajid Javid inquiry into gender treatment for children

Vulnerable children are wrongly being given gender hormone treatment by the NHS, Sajid Javid believes, as he prepares to launch an urgent inquiry. The health secretary thinks the system is “failing children” and is planning an overhaul of how health service staff deal with under-18s who question their gender identity. Javid is understood to have likened political sensitivities over gender dysphoria to the fears of racism in Rotherham over grooming gangs.

Javid is said to be particularly alarmed by her (Hilary Cass's) finding that some non-specialist staff felt “under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach” to transitioning and that other mental health issues were “overshadowed” when gender was raised.

“This has been a growing issue for years and it’s clear we’re not taking this seriously enough,” an ally of the health secretary said. “If you look at Hilary Cass’s interim report, the findings are deeply concerning and it’s clear from that report that we’re failing children.”

The ally said services should have a holistic view of what might be causing problems for that child: a mental health issue, bullying or sexual abuse. "That overly affirmative approach where people just accept what a child says, almost automatically, and then start talking about things like puberty blockers — that's not in the interest of the child at all."

I note that LondonJohn frequently relies on argument from authority on this issue, asserting that medical professionals and lawmakers have determined puberty blockers to be safe and effective, even life-saving, and that there is no question of over-prescription or inappropriate prescription.

I wonder how he will react to this.

 

[Meadmaker]

Front page of the Times.

Sajid Javid inquiry into gender treatment for children




I note that LondonJohn frequently relies on argument from authority on this issue, asserting that medical professionals and lawmakers have determined puberty blockers to be safe and effective, even life-saving, and that there is no question of over-prescription or inappropriate prescription.

I wonder how he will react to this.

Regardless of what we forumites think about it, I think what is actually happening is that people are looking at the science behind puberty blockers, and saying that we need to put the brakes on it. When Norway and Alabama are on the same page, there's something going on that needs some attention.