Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Rolfe]

0.02% of the population - "Wah, normal language as it has been used for thousands of years makes me feel uncomfortable, change it!"
Woke officialdom - "Certainly, we grovel for having offended you."
Everybody else - "This new language makes us feel very uncomfortable."
Woke officialdom - "Suck it up, TERF."

 

[Emily's Cat]

But only some people:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/05...bortion-bill-replaces-word-woman-with-person/

(Link is to an article about Senate Democrats' pro-abortion bill, in which they replaced "woman" with "person", because, ya know, pregnant men.)

Some of that language is way too nebulous. For example:

Although Schumer insisted abortion is a “woman’s right,” the legislation states that its purpose is to “protect a person’s ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy.”

“Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government to interfere with a person’s ability to terminate a pregnancy,” the bill explains, “to diminish or in any way negatively affect a person’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, or to displace any other remedy for violations of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.”

Then take a step back and realize that a person(s) (legislators) are employing their "right" to determine whether or not to continue or end a (different person's) pregnancy.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here's the kind of article that I find thoroughly annoying:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...rming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/

Summary: Gender affirming care is good.

Reasoning: Mental health outcomes are better.

So, Rolfe et. al. have posted in here about cognitive development and failure to achieve full height. Anything in the article? Nope. There is a brief discussion about bone mineral density, but they concluded that maybe trans kids don't play enough sports, and that was the real cause. And what about the observation that 80% of people who experience gender dysphoria in early pubescence actually stop as they get older? There's problems with those studies, but the author doesn't feel compelled to present competing data, just to dismiss the other data.

I'm open to arguments about sex denying care. I'll go where the data leads. However, the data I've seen is that it makes people short and stupid. Unless someone convinces me that that's wrong, I'm not going to think twice about the subject. I think that makes puberty blockers bad.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's the kind of article that I find thoroughly annoying:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...rming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/

Here's what stuck out for me:

So when Fleming sees what authorities in Texas, Alabama, Florida and other states are doing to bar transgender teens and children from receiving gender-affirming medical care, it infuriates them. And they are worried for their children, ages 12 and 14, both of whom are agender—a identity on the transgender spectrum that is neither masculine nor feminine.​

BOTH their kids are agender? Sorry, but that's a huge ******* red flag right there. Rates of transgenderism are very low. Having two children BOTH being transgender should be a statistical unicorn.

Unless there's an environmental factor. Unless something about their upbringing encouraged them to become transgender. And now here's where I'm going to say something that may upset people, but which I think anyone looking at the situation honestly should acknowledge. Nobody should want their children to be transgender. That statement has **** all to do with any moral judgment against the condition, and everything to do with the fact that, as trans advocates themselves repeatedly point out, life is harder for transgender people. If you are a parent, and you could choose whether your child was transgender or not, I think you're a monster if you choose for them to be transgender, because their life will be far harder as a result. And that's just cruel to the child.

And it looks to me like, wittingly or not, that is precisely what these parents have done. I don't think their children are a statistical unicorn. I think they were raised in an environment which convinced them to take this path.

To quote again from the article:

“I’m just so excited to see them being able to present themselves in a way that makes them happy,” Fleming says. “They are living their best life regardless of what others think, and that’s a privilege that I did not get to have as a younger person.”​

They are happy right now because they're getting parental approval, which young children seek. These kids are not living their best life regardless of what others think. They are living the life their parents chose for them, and their parents chose those lives because of their own past difficulties. It's like a weird gender version of the kids who grow up to be lawyers or doctors because that's what their parents wished they could be.

 

[Rolfe]

I've said it before, finding out that your kid believes him or herself to be transgender should be like finding out they have type 1 diabetes. Of course you still love them and you'll do anything for them and take them to all the medical appointments and make sure they get their medication (actual hormone replacement therapy!), but you know they're looking at a life of constant medicalisation, increased risks of all sorts of diseases, and a shortened lifespan. There's nothing you can do to prevent a child developing type 1 diabetes or to head it off if you see the early signs, but if there was, don't you think you would want to do that, at least try it? Not celebrate it and talk about "living their best life".

I read something once about a woman who was looking after several children who were not her own biological children. I don't remember if it was fostering or adoption. Well, all of them were trans, or all but one or something like that. And she was doing the whole celebratory thing, coming-out parties and stunning and brave. And the authorities didn't seem to see any red flags at all.

These transactivists who scream bigotry at thoughtful therapists, saying "they're behaving as if being trans is an undesirable outcome!" really miss the point. Of course it's an undesirable outcome, just as having type 1 diabetes is an undesirable outcome. If it happens then you deal with it and try to make the best of it, but it's not something anyone should want to happen, either for themselves or for anyone else.

 

[TomB]

Here's what stuck out for me:

So when Fleming sees what authorities in Texas, Alabama, Florida and other states are doing to bar transgender teens and children from receiving gender-affirming medical care, it infuriates them. And they are worried for their children, ages 12 and 14, both of whom are agender—a identity on the transgender spectrum that is neither masculine nor feminine.​

BOTH their kids are agender? Sorry, but that's a huge ******* red flag right there. Rates of transgenderism are very low. Having two children BOTH being transgender should be a statistical unicorn.

Unless there's an environmental factor. Unless something about their upbringing encouraged them to become transgender. And now here's where I'm going to say something that may upset people, but which I think anyone looking at the situation honestly should acknowledge. Nobody should want their children to be transgender. That statement has **** all to do with any moral judgment against the condition, and everything to do with the fact that, as trans advocates themselves repeatedly point out, life is harder for transgender people. If you are a parent, and you could choose whether your child was transgender or not, I think you're a monster if you choose for them to be transgender, because their life will be far harder as a result. And that's just cruel to the child.

I just started reading the article, and I haven't caught up with the thread, but it's already glaringly obvious that you either completely missed or arbitrarily dismissed the other "glaringly obvious" possibility: genetics.

One parent has gender issues. Yes, their kid's issues could be derived from the environment. But they could also be derived from genetics. What I'm saying is that the statistical likelihood of a rare genetic condition in the general population is not even remotely the same as the statistical likelihood of that condition for relatives...especially offspring...of people with that condition.

Essentially, your back of the envelope statistical analysis doesn't apply in the way you think it does.

Now, we don't, as far as I know, know a lot about what makes one transgender. I've read that there are a few "candidate genes," and that twin studies suggest that there is a heritable (genetic) component. However, genetics are probably not the only factor involved. It is likely a combination of both genetics and environment. If you are genetically predispositioned to alcoholism you are more likely to become an alcoholic in an environment where alcohol is common than in one where it is not. This may be the same thing. The subjects kids may have inherited the genes and also happened to grow up in an environment where the expression of those genes was not discouraged, or even actively accepted and encouraged.

My point is simply that the red flag is not the red flag you think it is from a statistical or biological perspective.

 

[Ziggurat]

I just started reading the article, and I haven't caught up with the thread, but it's already glaringly obvious that you either completely missed or arbitrarily dismissed the other "glaringly obvious" possibility: genetics.

I disagree. First, the link is weak. Genetics may contribute, but they aren't the dominant factor. Second, I think it's also telling that both kinds are "agender". That's the least commital form of being "on the spectrum". The kids can satisfy their parents with minimal effort. Third is the young age of both kids. I suspect both have been "agender" for quite some time. "Kelly" strikes me as very much the sort of person who thinks that genders are "assigned at birth" and decided to "not choose" until the kids themselves were old enough to choose.

But the sort of symptoms that distinguish true transgenderism from simple gender role nonconformity (which isn't the same thing at all, and I suspect is responsible for a lot of kids getting pushed into the label of transgender when they aren't) can't really manifest until after puberty. Look at what "Kelly" even put forth as a defining symptom: distress at having facial hair. Even supposing a genetic factor shared between parent and BOTH children which manifests the same way in both, neither child should be experiencing that pre-puberty.

 

[TomB]

Regarding the scientific American article.

First, it addresses the assertion that kids with transgender issues grow out of it:

And while some critics point to decade-old study and older studies suggesting very few young people persist in transgender identity into late adolescence and adulthood, Forcier says the data are “misleading and not accurate.” A recent review detailed methodological problems with some of these studies. New research in 17,151 people who had ever socially transitioned found that 86.9 percent persisted in their gender identity. Of the 2,242 people who reported that they reverted to living as the gender associated with the sex they were assigned at birth, just 15.9 percent said they did so because of internal factors such as questioning their experienced gender but also because of fear, mental health issues and suicide attempts. The rest reported the cause was social, economic and familial stigma and discrimination. A third reported that they ceased living openly as a trans person because doing so was “just too hard for me.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/

Second, it does spend some time talking about issues with puberty blockers.
I did a search for papers regarding the effects on brain development. Everything I found (that did not come from an activist group) indicated that evidence is inconclusive at this time and that more research is needed. Which is probably why they only talked about the more definite side effects. Or most of them.

For reference, here's a list from St. Louis Children's Hospital:

What Are the Side Effects of Puberty Blockers?

While puberty blockers are generally considered safe, they have some side effects. Not everyone experiences the following, but some people do.

Possible long-term side effects of puberty blockers

Lower bone density. To protect against this, we work to make sure every patient gets enough exercise, calcium and vitamin D, which can help keep bones healthy and strong. We also closely monitor patients’ bone density.
Delayed growth plate closure, leading to slightly taller adult height.
Less development of genital tissue, which may limit options for gender affirming surgery (bottom surgery) later in life.
Other possible long-term side effects that are not yet known.

Possible short-term side effects of puberty blockers

Headache, fatigue, insomnia and muscle aches.
Changes in weight, mood or breast tissue.
Spotting or irregular periods (in menstruating patients whose periods are not completely suppressed by puberty blockers).

For children who want to delay or prevent unwanted physical changes, the mental health benefits of puberty blockers may outweigh these risks.

https://www.stlouischildrens.org/conditions-treatments/transgender-center/puberty-blockers

The article mentions that many different medical organizations have written guidelines for the use of blockers. Mostly it talks about the ones from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society. The use of blockers is only recommended for a maximum of two years and not to start until puberty has already started:

AAP and Endocrine Society guidelines call for developmentally appropriate care, and that means no puberty blockers or hormones until young people are already undergoing puberty for their sex assigned at birth. For one thing, “there are no hormonal differences among prepubertal children,” says Joshua Safer, executive director of the Mount Sinai Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery in New York City and co-author of the Endocrine Society’s guidelines. Those guidelines provide the option of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRHas), which block the release of sex hormones, once young people are already into the second of five puberty stages—marked by breast budding and pubic hair. These are offered only if a teen is not ready to make decisions about puberty. Access to gender-affirming hormones and potential access to gender-affirming surgery is available at age 16—and then, in the case of transmasculine youth, only mastectomy, also known as top surgery. The Endocrine Society does not recommend genital surgery for minors.

So they do not recommend long term or early use. Nor do they recommend guiding children in one direction or another. (I'll note here, that doctors and parents are human and therefore are likely to encourage, intentionally or not, one direction or another with the intent of being supportive. Neutrality is hard.)

 

[TomB]

I disagree. First, the link is weak. Genetics may contribute, but they aren't the dominant factor. Second, I think it's also telling that both kinds are "agender". That's the least commital form of being "on the spectrum". The kids can satisfy their parents with minimal effort. Third is the young age of both kids. I suspect both have been "agender" for quite some time. "Kelly" strikes me as very much the sort of person who thinks that genders are "assigned at birth" and decided to "not choose" until the kids themselves were old enough to choose.

Evidence? My research shows that the roles of various factors are inconclusive at this time. Scientists do not know what the dominant factors are and neither do you. It's not good to assert opinions as fact. I know, we all do it. It's a human trait.

But the sort of symptoms that distinguish true transgenderism from simple gender role nonconformity (which isn't the same thing at all, and I suspect is responsible for a lot of kids getting pushed into the label of transgender when they aren't) can't really manifest until after puberty. Look at what "Kelly" even put forth as a defining symptom: distress at having facial hair. Even supposing a genetic factor shared between parent and BOTH children which manifests the same way in both, neither child should be experiencing that pre-puberty.

We don't actually know much about Kelly or her kids. Her story was an anecdote used as an introduction to the story. For all we know, Kelly is using the term "agender" to avoid pushing her kids in a direction she thinks they have a leaning towards. There's not really enough information to really tell what's happening here.

Similarly, a few days ago I heard a program on NPR which started with an anecdote of a family. The parents (not trans) had two children. The older expressed trans-issues, but, while supportive, the parents decided not to do puberty blockers and hormone therapy, instead deciding that the child should wait until adulthood. That child ended up committing suicide. The younger child also presented as transgender like it's (not sure of sex/gender) sibling. This time they elected go with the blockers/hormones. That child is, according to the intro, happy and healthy.

But these are anecdotes to lead into a larger story. They are not in themselves meant to be guiding evidence. They are more insights into the lives of people who face these issues directly.

 

[Aber]

Regarding the scientific American article.

“The gender-affirming approach is not some railroad of people to hormones and surgery,” Safer says. “It is talking and watching and being conservative.”

Not consistent with the evidence of the Bell case in the UK, and a recent publication ( https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/doi/10.1542/peds.2021-056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition) showing very high persistence rates following early social transition - 96% retained transgender identity after 5 years.

Scientific American has a track record of taking a side on this issue.

 

[Rolfe]

Talking and watching and waiting is deemed transphobic of course, and they're trying to make it illegal.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The Buffalo shooter's manifesto was boilerplate "great replacement" claptrap, but was somewhat novel in folding in anti-trans rhetoric. Claims made that transing children is some small part of the Jewish plot to eradicate the white race. Not any surprise that anti-trans rhetoric would be alongside all the other bigotries in a mass-murderer's manifesto, but it's notable how seamlessly it integrates into the typical fascist propaganda.

ETA: Meadmaker, I don't think this counts as one of my predicted "groomer" inspired killings. Despite the anti-trans rhetoric, the shooter seemed primarily focused on murdering black people. The mention of it in the manifesto is indicative that the violent right is paying a lot of dangerous attention to the issue though. Time will tell.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh for crying out loud.

 

[Ziggurat]

Crazy people latch on to legitimate complaints. This doesn't make legitimate complaints crazy.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Crazy people latch on to legitimate complaints. This doesn't make legitimate complaints crazy.

What legitimate complaint is that? That the Jews are transing kids as a plot to control the population?

 

[Ziggurat]

What legitimate complaint is that? That the Jews are transing kids as a plot to control the population?

No. God, can you not try to poison the well? The legitimate complaint is that there are problematic trans activists, and kids are sometimes getting pushed into identifying as trans.

 

[Meadmaker]

ETA: Meadmaker, I don't think this counts as one of my predicted "groomer" inspired killings. Despite the anti-trans rhetoric, the shooter seemed primarily focused on murdering black people. The mention of it in the manifesto is indicative that the violent right is paying a lot of dangerous attention to the issue though. Time will tell.

I would have to agree. I'm fairly confident that crazy white supremacists will mostly be anti-trans as well.

However, what Ziggurat said. The fact that right wingers, including crazy ones, are anti-trans doesn't really say anything about who ought to use which locker room. The various trans issues need to be evaluated on their own merits.

I know you don't agree with that in practice. You see things through a political lens so when right wingers take a stance, you are influenced to take the opposite stance.


Edited: Removed misinformation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Speaking of violence, I think the attack on Dave Chappelle is an example of politically motivated violence that is more directly related to transgender issues. One incident isn't all that important, but it is something worth paying attention to and looking for other examples. I'm opposed to politically motivated violence in all but the most extreme cases. By "extreme" I mean literal revolution in cases where there is no other way to change the poltical reality. I don't think there is anything about the transgender issue that justifies any sort of violence.

Maybe I missed something, was the person who rushed Chapelle on stage motivated by his prior anti-trans comments?

I know Chapelle made a crappy joke afterwards at the expense of trans people, but I'm not actually seeing the connection.

 

[Meadmaker]

Maybe I missed something, was the person who rushed Chapelle on stage motivated by his prior anti-trans comments?

I know Chapelle made a crappy joke afterwards at the expense of trans people, but I'm not actually seeing the connection.

Edited: Removed misinformation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I didn't pay attention closely. I read that the assailant was attacking him because of Chappelle's previous allegedly anti-trans humor. I hope I'm not guilty of passing on rumors.

You are doing exactly that.