Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[LondonJohn]

Speaking of which, it might be nice to have a recommended book list for all things trans and/or terfy.

Here are a few recommends from me:

• Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality by Helen Joyce
• Material Girls by Kathleen Stock
• Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose
  

I've also read Debra Soh and Abigail Shrier, but do not really recommend them.

Interested to see whether the pro-TWAW folks have any books in mind.

DSMV

 

[theprestige]

DSMV

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition?

You ever wonder why the medical community would include gender dysphoria on a list of disorders to be diagnosed?

 

[d4m10n]

DSMV

I'm at least 90% sure that you haven't read the relevant chapter of the DSM-5, because if you had done so you would know that it makes no mention of whether and when any given "identity is now considered valid." About the most one can say is that identity itself is no longer clinically pathologized, as it allegedly was in the previous DSM.

In my copy of the manual, the chapter starts on page 451. I'd be happy to type out a paragraph or so here, if it would help you clarify any of your claims about experts and validity.

 

[Francesca R]

Here are a few recommends from me:

Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality by Helen Joyce [ . . . ]

This book's critics are probably going to agree that it is all things TERFy (gender critical) but surely not all things trans. And probably for your others which I have not read.

The opposite appreciation probably applies to books like."The Trans Issue" by Shon Faye which I think is good but is equivalently oppositely polar. As a pair that one and Joyce's might be worth recommending but actually I wouldn't.

Interested to see whether the pro-TWAW folks have any books in mind.

. . . the outcome of the above being that you need two sets of books to attempt to understand the issues, and that's not very useful either because neither of them ever meet in the middle.

 

[d4m10n]

. . . the outcome of the above being that you need two sets of books to attempt to understand the issues, and that's not very useful either because neither of them ever meet in the middle.

I'd say it's at least kind of useful to have both sets of books. Assuming they address some of the same claims, that is.

And now for something completely different:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1562494300377608193

 

[Rolfe]

Two quotes stand out from replies in that thread.

Sad that the Twitter didn't allow The Telegraph the space to include that Alix is 54 when talking about the 'premature' end of Alix's 'career' competing in a physical and close contact sport against 20-something girls.

Young women's sport is not a retirement plan for men who want a second chance at glory.

 

[theprestige]

One thing that surprised me is how absolutely "unreconstructed" all the replies are. Nobody is accepting the premise of Alix's "valid lived identity". The terms "male" and "female" are consistently used to denote binary sex. I was not expecting such unanimity of backlash from the Telegraph's followers on Twitter.

Is the Telegraph supposed to be some sort of right-wing propaganda outlet, that only attracts deplorables and never reports fair and balanced news?

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, to that last question.

 

[shuttlt]

One thing that surprised me is how absolutely "unreconstructed" all the replies are. Nobody is accepting the premise of Alix's "valid lived identity". The terms "male" and "female" are consistently used to denote binary sex. I was not expecting such unanimity of backlash from the Telegraph's followers on Twitter.

Is the Telegraph supposed to be some sort of right-wing propaganda outlet, that only attracts deplorables and never reports fair and balanced news?

My opinion on this may be little different to Rolfe's. I don't think the Telegraph is as unreconstructed as it's readers, though it certainly isn't The Guardian. Generally, the sorts of people who write for newspapers these days have been through university humanities departments, and so will have that gloss over them.... and their owners will be some flavour of internationalised money. Ultimately the Telegraph is owned by the Barclay brothers, or the surviving one at least. All newspapers are propaganda for something, or somebody and are propagandising to some particular segment of society.

 

[theprestige]

Ah. Well, either way, I figure the groundhog has seen its shadow, and we're in for another six weeks of well-poisoning and ad homs.

 

[shuttlt]

Ah. Well, either way, I figure the groundhog has seen its shadow, and we're in for another six weeks of well-poisoning and ad homs.

Psssst. There is no groundhog. That's just what they want you to think. This goes right to the top!

 

[theprestige]

Psssst. There is no groundhog. That's just what they want you to think. This goes right to the top!

Hey now! "Groundhog" is that emu's valid lived condition.

 

[shuttlt]

Hey now! "Groundhog" is that emu's valid lived condition.

There are no valid lived conditions. All are invalid. None shall be saved.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm at least 90% sure that you haven't read the relevant chapter of the DSM-5, because if you had done so you would know that it makes no mention of whether and when any given "identity is now considered valid." About the most one can say is that identity itself is no longer clinically pathologized, as it allegedly was in the previous DSM.

In my copy of the manual, the chapter starts on page 451. I'd be happy to type out a paragraph or so here, if it would help you clarify any of your claims about experts and validity.

Oh I've read it thanks, and I know exactly what it says and what it means.

Perhaps if I put it this way, it might be easier to comprehend:

1) The APA continues to consider that a biological female who identifies as an attack helicopter (or as a dog, or as the late Eleanor Roosevelt) is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

2) The APA no longer considers that a biological female who identifies as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

3) The necessary outcome of (2) above is that the APA now considers transgender identity to be a valid condition.


You can continue trying to dance on the head of pin forever, for all I care (I don't care). As I said before, I couldn't care less (or, confusingly, I could care less - if you're an American) about the views of many in this tawdry little echo chamber of barely-disguised anti-transgender views. I care about real-world outcomes, real-world policies, real-world events. Fortunately, the real world is increasingly getting it right, and many/most participants in this thread are getting it bang wrong (even though, ironically, they appear to believe they're getting it right ahahaha).

 

[theprestige]

2) The APA no longer considers that a biological female who identifies as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

You are mistaken. The APA has in fact included gender dysphoria in its diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.

More from the APA about this mental disorder, which it clearly recognizes as such:

https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

That APA webpage even references the DSMV.

 

[Elaedith]

Oh I've read it thanks, and I know exactly what it says and what it means.

Perhaps if I put it this way, it might be easier to comprehend:

1) The APA continues to consider that a biological female who identifies as an attack helicopter (or as a dog, or as the late Eleanor Roosevelt) is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

There are no psychiatric disorders where identifying as a specific thing is diagnostic of disorder. Identifying as something *might* be a symptom of a disorder (such as schizophrenia) depending on the nature of the identification and the presence of other symptoms.

2) The APA no longer considers that a biological female who identifies as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

The APA has never considered that a biological female who identifies as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

The APA also lacks the required authority to decide that words such as 'woman' and 'man' should be re-defined to refer to 'gender' rather than sex.

3) The necessary outcome of (2) above is that the APA now considers transgender identity to be a valid condition.

This is arrant nonsense. Firstly, as above 'identifying as a gender' has never been considered a disorder, so the word 'now' is meaningless.

Secondly, 'valid lived condition' is meaningless dross. You can identify as a being occupied by a body thetan (scientology), a being with a soul that leaves the body and travels (astral projection) or a being with an aura or a chakra. None of these identifications are necessarily disorders or products of disorders. Nor does that mean that any of these things are literally true.

 

[Francesca R]

Is the Telegraph supposed to be some sort of right-wing propaganda outlet, that only attracts deplorables and never reports fair and balanced news?

Wasn't that Fox's strap line for ages until they lost the nerve to claim such a risible thing?

Anyway as you seem to suspect the two outlets are quite comparable in an opposite sides of the pond way

 

[JoeMorgue]

Years, threads, and pages of this and everything about being transgender requires us to have conditions put on being one of the genders that I thought we were supposed to be trying to get rid of.

 

[Rolfe]

A lot of these trans-identifying men seem to be vulnerable and often somewhere on the autism spectrum - and I don't mean the "high-functioning" part as this poor soul fondly believes he is. To me it looks like an attempt at a coping mechanism to fit into a world where they're conscious that they don't fit. I don't know whether it's the "stunning and brave" egoboo they're looking for, or whether it's easier to act a part consciously than to try to act being themselves, or if it's just a way to get into lesbians' knickers. (He has a husband but he's looking to date women.)

https://twitter.com/hshLauraJ/status/1562836374289391617

I don't want to mock because I think it's sad, but is the present "affirm everyone, stunning and brave!" approach really helping such people?

 

[theprestige]

You are mistaken. The APA has in fact included gender dysphoria in its diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.

More from the APA about this mental disorder, which it clearly recognizes as such:

https://psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria

That APA webpage even references the DSMV.

There are no psychiatric disorders where identifying as a specific thing is diagnostic of disorder. Identifying as something *might* be a symptom of a disorder (such as schizophrenia) depending on the nature of the identification and the presence of other symptoms.

The APA has never considered that a biological female who identifies as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

The APA also lacks the required authority to decide that words such as 'woman' and 'man' should be re-defined to refer to 'gender' rather than sex.

This is arrant nonsense. Firstly, as above 'identifying as a gender' has never been considered a disorder, so the word 'now' is meaningless.

Secondly, 'valid lived condition' is meaningless dross. You can identify as a being occupied by a body thetan (scientology), a being with a soul that leaves the body and travels (astral projection) or a being with an aura or a chakra. None of these identifications are necessarily disorders or products of disorders. Nor does that mean that any of these things are literally true.

Heh. I see Elaedith and I are attacking both sides of LJ's equivocation.

On the one side, there's trans identity as a symptom of a mental disorder. On that side, it should be treated as a mental disorder, not as a human right that should be catered to.

On the other side, there's trans identity not as a symptom of a mental disorder. On that side, it's just cosplay, and still not a human right that should be catered to.