Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Rolfe]

It's puzzling why the trans advocates are so vehement against recognising ROGD. Anyone who works with secondary school pupils can tell you it's a real thing. I know one of them myself and my neighbour who has a son in sixth form says he reports several in his year at school. (He actually said to his mother, "I think I'm the only person in the class who's actually straight.")

It seems to be related to the religious belief that gender identity is an innate part of the person and they always know they're trans (even the ones who transition in their sixties after being married and having several kids). If ROGD is a social contagion then the implication is that at least some people who insist that they're trans aren't "really trans", and we can't admit that.

It's the same thing as the resistance to talking about detransitioners. Someone was sure they were trans to the point of having hormones and surgery, then they realised they weren't. (Most of these people seem to fit the ROGD category, but not all.) The best they can come up with is "there are hardly any of them" (which is tricky because more are coming out of the woodwork all the time) and "they weren't really trans."

Well that last point is probably true, but as many of the detransitioners have said, they were really really convinced they were trans at the time. Nobody could have been more sure than they were. But acknowledging that some people who say they're trans, and really believe they're trans, turn out not to be "really trans" is very tricky, because the whole schtick relies on "believe the person is who they say they are, they are the experts, they know, and any attempt to get them to examine their feelings is evil conversion therapy."

If there are people who are not "really trans" who present in exactly the same way as the supposed "really trans" it's pretty awkward for the entire "affirm everyone as their true selves the moment they mention it" brigade.

 

[shuttlt]

It's puzzling why the trans advocates are so vehement against recognising ROGD. Anyone who works with secondary school pupils can tell you it's a real thing. I know one of them myself and my neighbour who has a son in sixth form says he reports several in his year at school. (He actually said to his mother, "I think I'm the only person in the class who's actually straight.")

It seems to be related to the religious belief that gender identity is an innate part of the person and they always know they're trans (even the ones who transition in their sixties after being married and having several kids). If ROGD is a social contagion then the implication is that at least some people who insist that they're trans aren't "really trans", and we can't admit that.

It's the same thing as the resistance to talking about detransitioners. Someone was sure they were trans to the point of having hormones and surgery, then they realised they weren't. (Most of these people seem to fit the ROGD category, but not all.) The best they can come up with is "there are hardly any of them" (which is tricky because more are coming out of the woodwork all the time) and "they weren't really trans."

Well that last point is probably true, but as many of the detransitioners have said, they were really really convinced they were trans at the time. Nobody could have been more sure than they were. But acknowledging that some people who say they're trans, and really believe they're trans, turn out not to be "really trans" is very tricky, because the whole schtick relies on "believe the person is who they say they are, they are the experts, they know, and any attempt to get them to examine their feelings is evil conversion therapy."

If there are people who are not "really trans" who present in exactly the same way as the supposed "really trans" it's pretty awkward for the entire "affirm everyone as their true selves the moment they mention it" brigade.

I have two answers to this question. The first is that they have an activist, revolutionary mentality. Acknowledging such things would complicate their demands, and lead into discussions of the difficulties and side effects of implementing their demands, so they don't want to acknowledge these things.

The second comes from a bunch of Isaiah Berlin reading I've been doing and is in some senses just a potential explanation for how one could rationalise the first answer. Until the Romantic movement, there was an idea that all questions had a true answer, that was in principle discoverable. What is "the good", what is the ideal system of government.... all these things had a correct answer. If they did not, there was something wrong with the question, if we couldn't agree on an answer, then perhaps we weren't clever enough. Further, it was supposed that all such correct answers necessarily were consistent with one another. I agree with Berlin that this idea is sitting as an assumption behind a great many other beliefs.

If one takes the idea that "trans-women are women" as true, or some notion of individual self identity as a true good, then necessarily there is a way of integrating that into all other true claims, and all other goods without contradiction or conflict. It becomes an implementation problem. If there are problems, it is because other false beliefs are standing in the way. Perhaps trans-women have been socialised to be men, and hence are sexually assaulting women. We need to correct the process whereby they are being socialised in this way rather than denying the truth that trans-women are women.

 

[Brainster]

It's puzzling why the trans advocates are so vehement against recognising ROGD.

In addition to the other points mentioned, there is certainly power that comes from claiming to represent 2.4% of society that does not come from claiming to represent .24% of society or .024% of society. If ROGD becomes EDT (Eventual Desisted Transition), there are going to be a lot fewer trans people in the world over the next decade or so.

 

[Elaedith]

And another.

The New Study On Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria Published In “Pediatrics” Is Genuinely Worthless

I was going to quote a bit but it's pretty long and it also references the critiques I linked to above. Then it goes on to reference more anomalies and criticisms. He does not miss and hit the wall.

He does have some interesting observations about the author of the study though.

Other stuff in the article suggests that the journal Paediatrics has been entirely captured by the trans agenda.

Another point that jumped out was Turban et al.'s attempt to defend the methodology with the statement that 'several studies have found that TGD youth are likely to understand “sex” to be sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity, due to the foundational salience of these characteristics to their identities' with three citations offered in support.

According to Singal, none of these citations supports the claim or is even relevant to it (I had a quick check that this appears to be the case). The claim appears to be an outright fabrication.... "unless Turban and his team have other studies up their sleeves that they failed to cite, “several studies have found that TGD youth are likely to understand ‘sex’ to be sex assigned at birth rather than gender identity” appears to be a wholly made-up claim. In a top-flight medical journal!"

Given that their policy on endorsing the gender affirmation approach was 'supported' by citations that did not mention gender identity, I suppose one should not be surprised.

 

[Rolfe]

Not only that, Singal had quotes from Turban in the past where he acknowledged that simply asking a trans-identified person their "sex" could get you either their actual sex or their new identity, whatever.

 

[Ziggurat]

According to Singal, none of these citations supports the claim or is even relevant to it (I had a quick check that this appears to be the case).

We've seen that from the AAP before. Earlier in the thread, this paper was used to argue in favor of puberty blockers. And one if its claims, which it used citations to support, was that puberty blockers are reversible.

I went through the citations and found that none of the references actually supported that claim. What's more, there were far more problems with that paper than I had uncovered, including other glaring citation problems. So this is sort of becoming a pattern with the AAP, and not just with Turban.

 

[lionking]

We've seen that from the AAP before. Earlier in the thread, this paper was used to argue in favor of puberty blockers. And one if its claims, which it used citations to support, was that puberty blockers are reversible.

I went through the citations and found that none of the references actually supported that claim. What's more, there were far more problems with that paper than I had uncovered, including other glaring citation problems. So this is sort of becoming a pattern with the AAP, and not just with Turban.

The NHS says that puberty blockers are not reversible (apologies if this has been posted previously):

https://www.transgendertrend.com/nhs-no-longer-puberty-blockers-reversible/

An interesting quote from the article:

The Tavistock GIDS is saying that the effects of blockers are physically reversible yet the NHS is now saying that this is not known.

Perhaps Tavistock and the AAP are LondonJohn’s much vaunted but never named “medical experts”.

 

[LondonJohn]

1) Misrepresenting "it's not yet known whether..." as "says...are not";

+

2) LondonJohn's comments on experts refer to (and have only ever referred to) the overall validity of transgender identity - in both adults and adolescents;

=

intellectual dishonesty.

 

[LondonJohn]

And incidentally, on that second point of misrepresentation, I've previously explicitly stated that mistakes have been made in the treatment of young people with (apparent) gender dysphoria. I've also explicitly stated that in my opinion - and, for that matter, in the opinion of legislators and medical experts - there is simply no easy answer to the approach for treating young people: if you fail to provide appropriate therapies (including pharmacological therapies) to some young people who identify as transgender, you risk causing real psychological damage into adulthood; but on the other hand, if you provide what you feel are appropriate therapies (including pharmacological therapies) to young people who present with transgender identity but who subsequently disavow that identity, you also risk doing real psychological damage in the future.

It's of no surprise whatsoever to me, of course, that certain constituencies focus exclusively on only one part of this dilemma in order to (they think) bolster their argument.

 

[lionking]

1) Misrepresenting "it's not yet known whether..." as "says...are not".

A distinction without meaning. If it is unknown that puberty blockers are not known to cause damage, who would advocate to use them?

Well Tavistock did.

Is Tavistock one of your expert medical authorities? Because they were and the UK government was listening to them. Were you?

 

[Ziggurat]

2) LondonJohn's comments on experts refer to (and have only ever referred to) the overall validity of transgender identity - in both adults and adolescents;

You keep using this word. It doesn't mean anything here.

 

[theprestige]

I'm also not at all convinced that any experts have actually opined on the validity of transgender identity. If they have, I'd very much like to see LJ's citations, and the context in which they're using the word.

 

[Elaedith]

I'm also not at all convinced that any experts have actually opined on the validity of transgender identity. If they have, I'd very much like to see LJ's citations, and the context in which they're using the word.

Our friend Dr Jack Turban has declared all gender identities to be valid, including those that change over time. So there!

 

[smartcooky]

And incidentally, on that second point of misrepresentation, I've previously explicitly stated that mistakes have been made in the treatment of young people with (apparent) gender dysphoria. I've also explicitly stated that in my opinion - and, for that matter, in the opinion of legislators and medical experts - there is simply no easy answer to the approach for treating young people: if you fail to provide appropriate therapies (including pharmacological therapies) to some young people who identify as transgender, you risk causing real psychological damage into adulthood; but on the other hand, if you provide what you feel are appropriate therapies (including pharmacological therapies) to young people who present with transgender identity but who subsequently disavow that identity, you also risk doing real psychological damage in the future.

It's of no surprise whatsoever to me, of course, that certain constituencies focus exclusively on only one part of this dilemma in order to (they think) bolster their argument.

None of this has any bearing the main issue at hand, which is, why any if this should unfairly impact on people who are not involved, or who are directly, negatively impacted by these people? If people have gender identity issues, it ought to be their own problem - one that should not impact on the rights of others.

I am quite sure that the vast majority of women do not want anatomical males coming into their ablutions and other safe spaces, and I see no compelling reason why they should be forced to accept this. Similarly, the vast majority of women involved in sports where biological males have a physiological advantage, do not want to be competing against biological males, and again, I see no compelling reason why they should be forced to accept this.

 

[Lithrael]

Amen to that - more or less. Though somewhat moot on exactly what ARE the facts of the matter.

It's a clear and quite "brute" fact that some 33% of humans are able to produce ova on a regular basis - habitually, so to speak - and that some 33% of humans are similarly able to produce sperm on a regular basis - habitually, so to speak. The balance in the third group not being able to produce either on any basis at all. But the first two groups are, at least in humans, mutually exclusive.

A further similarly "brutish" fact is that most of those competing in what are called "women's sports" have at least a substantially large degree of "family resemblance" to the first group while Lia Thomas has a substantially large degree of "family resemblance" to the second group while having almost diddly-squat in way of any resemblance at all to the first - homeopathic concoctions probably have a greater resemblance to the starters of entirely different compounds.

What is rather moot is what we shall CALL those groups. But the calling is something of red herring. The fundamental question seems to be whether women's sports are to be for the exclusive "enjoyment" of the first group or whether some of the second group can encroach upon the territory of the first group.

Too many people don't seem to realize that words are abstractions, that they're labels that denote properties and categories, that they're often just "maps" to territories - not much in the way of territories themselves. Whole lotta reification goin' on ...

I pretty broadly agree with this. Still favor the idea of some degree of boundary fuzziness though. I feel like there should be a way to exclude or handicap your Lia Thomases out of competition with those they absolutely don’t ‘resemble’ as you put it. Whether it’s actually possible without sapping too much out of it is another question.

 

[d4m10n]

Similarly, the vast majority of women involved in sports where biological males have a physiological advantage, do not want to be competing against biological males, and again, I see no compelling reason why they should be forced to accept this.

Came across a specific implementation of this policy recently; our best friends had to fill out an affidavit for their daughter to compete.

This isn't the exact one (different school district) but it's close enough for the sake of internet discussion:

https://twitter.com/erintothemax/status/1552734760891449344

It is entirely unclear to me why the parents should have to fill this out this form every goddamn year, given that "sex at birth" is a fixed event in the past. That said, are there other objections?

 

[Brainster]

Came across a specific implementation of this policy recently; our best friends had to fill out an affidavit for their daughter to compete.

This isn't the exact one (different school district) but it's close enough for the sake of internet discussion:

https://twitter.com/erintothemax/status/1552734760891449344

It is entirely unclear to me why the parents should have to fill this out this form every goddamn year, given that "sex at birth" is a fixed event in the past. That said, are there other objections?

It has to be filled out every year because they may have been lying the previous year and now we've got them. Seriously, it's just a form that covers the high school and that is the only reason why it exists.

On the yellowed, there's an optimist!

 

[Ziggurat]

It is entirely unclear to me why the parents should have to fill this out this form every goddamn year, given that "sex at birth" is a fixed event in the past.

My guess is that it's to simplify things for school administrators. They don't have to sort through the forms they have at the end of the year and see which ones to carry over (some students return, some leave/graduate), they just shelve (or even throw out) everything at the end of the school year and start fresh at the beginning of the next one.

Of course, that's just shifting the burden onto the parents and students rather than producing any net savings in work, but bureaucrats do that sort of stuff all the time.

 

[theprestige]

Our friend Dr Jack Turban has declared all gender identities to be valid, including those that change over time. So there!

It's going to be super embarrassing for LJ if it turns out his argument has been founded on philosophical validity this whole time.

Or is it? I suppose in the end, human rights are a philosophical question more than anything else.

 

[shuttlt]

It's going to be super embarrassing for LJ if it turns out his argument has been founded on philosophical validity this whole time.

Or is it? I suppose in the end, human rights are a philosophical question more than anything else.

Practically theological.