• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
If severe mental health problems is considered a good reason to deny blockers, that strikes me as a fairly significant confounding variable even when sample sizes are ample.
Click to expand...

Yes, WPATH guidelines state that mental health problems should be controlled before commencing hormonal interventions (although there is evidence that not all clinics, especially in the US, do this consistently). No study has used random assignment to medical versus psychotherapy intervention. If there is a comparison group it's usually a group that weren't given blockers/hormones even if they were seeking them, and there is often a lack of information about the reason.

The selective attrition is particularly striking in the Tordoff study though.
 
Elaedith said:
No study has used random assignment to medical versus psychotherapy intervention.
Click to expand...
And no study ever will, until we get past the idea that anything other than affirmation is abuse.

Which is tragic, because it would be incredibly useful to know whether it is generally better to adjust the body to fit the brain or the other way round.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Which is tragic, because it would be incredibly useful to know whether it is generally better to adjust the body to fit the brain or the other way round.
Click to expand...
Or, I unhasten to add, whether there are specific circumstances which suggest one form of therapy will be more efficacious for a particular patient.
 
LondonJohn said:
Oh and in the spirit of having one's cake and eating it:

If there is a growing understanding that psychiatry is indeed more verifiable than it ever was.... well that's just adding more weight to the current prevalent opinion in psychiatry around transgender identity.

Either way, I'm happy
Click to expand...

Except that it isn't, because (as stated in the quote from Cantor that you ignored), gender identity is unlike other psychological constructs, in that the other constructs have objective markers.

Here is the quote in case you missed it
'"The declaration defines gender identity as an inner sense. The phrase is increasingly popular, but neither “inner sense” nor any similar phrase is scientifically valid. In science, a valid construct must be both objectively measurable and falsifiable. The concept of an “inner sense” is neither. If claims of one’s inner sense represented scientifically meaningful evidence, then science would have evidence of people’s past life experiences. To base decisions on subjective and unfalsifiable accounts is to fail to provide evidence-based medicine. Gender identity is unlike emotions, which are associated with physiological changes such as heartrate and brain activity. Gender identity is unlike sexual orientation, which is associated with objectively ascertained evidence, including brain anatomy. Gender Dysphoria is unlike disorders of sexual development (DSD’s, also called “intersex conditions”), again in that DSDs are objectively verifiable with physical measures, whereas gender identity is not. DSDs include, for example, genetic disorders which prevent a person’s body from responding to testosterone, a disease called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.9 Still more unlike gender identity, the physical nature of such disorders allows many of them to be detected before birth, whereas gender identity has no such feature."
 
Last edited:
Came across this blast from the past today

https://twitter.com/TatsuyaIshida9/status/1313796435066843136

190d4a76516c2031746b6e76e6a02106.jpg
 
Last edited:
Okay, so let's say transgender ID without a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is a "valid lived identity".

Then what, LondonJohn?

Obviously it means self-ID is the de facto standard. We can't ask transwomen to seek a diagnosis for something that isn't a mental disorder in the first place.

It also means, obviously, that there is no practical way to distinguish bad actors from "valid" transwomen. Whatever rights and privileges we grant to transwomen, in terms of public policy, we must grant them based exclusively on a man's saying they identify as a woman.

So how far do you think those rights and privileges should extend? Preferred pronouns seems like an obvious step. Also not discriminating against men who choose to code as women in their dress, appearance, and mannerisms.

Do you make a distinction between gender norms and sex segregation? Do you draw the line for transgender accommodation short of sex segregation? Or do you believe transgender self-ID should extend into sex segregated spaces as well?

Do you believe gender self-ID should be sufficient for access to...

... women's restrooms?

... women's locker rooms?

... women's sports leagues?

... women's prisons?

... women's milestones and records in history books?

I believe these are challenging but straightforward questions, that should have similarly straightforward answers. Answers of the form, "yes, and here's why..." and "no, but consider..." and "yes in general, as long as..." Etc. Not quite simple yes or no answers, but certainly answers that can open/summarize with as simple yes or no followed by more nuanced explanations.

No need for dodges, dismissals, handwaving appeals to un-cited authorities, or other general incivility. Just your straightforward thoughts on the policy conundrums indicated above, brought about by the principle of trans inclusion based on self-ID alone.

What do you say, LondonJohn?
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
You are correct. Nobody has made a medical or scientific study of the validity of transgender identity. In fact, if somebody uses the term 'validity of transgender identity', that is enough to know that their position is not based on science. Science-oriented researchers and clinicians do not use terms such as 'validity' unless they are talking about scientific validity. As Dr Cantor said in a quote I posted earlier, 'validity' in a scientific sense means something is objectively measurable and falsifiable. Not only is 'gender identity' currently not either of these things, those promoting gender identity ideology are attracted by the fact that the concept is unfalsifiable (people who promote pseudoscience are attracted by ideas that are unfalsifiable because it means that they can't be shown to be wrong, which they think is a virtue). You do not hear the term 'validity of identity' in any science-based area of medicine or clinical psychology. The use of such terms is a sign of subordination of science to ideology.
Click to expand...

It's much like difference in the use of the word 'critical' in 'critical thinking' and 'critical theory'. Both words ('valid' and 'critical') have been appropriated and used in contexts where their meaning becomes, shall we say, somewhat elastic.
 
Vixen said:
It affects your transgender/transexual work colleague who when confronted at the Ladies or Gents toilets is told, 'You can't come in here' and there is nothing he or she can do about it. How is that different from stopping women at the door of the boardroom and saying, men only?
Click to expand...

If the board room actually was "men only" then it wouldn't be any different.

However the board room is supposed to be not sex segregated, and the lavatories are supposed to be sex segregated.

And as has been pointed out, most trans right activists are certainly not pushing for toilets not to be sex segregated, they want to preserve sex segregation.
 
And also nobody here is arguing against trans access to board rooms (just, perhaps, against trans recognition as "first woman in board room" or "one of the few women in board room").
 
theprestige said:
Do you believe gender self-ID should be sufficient for access to...women's restrooms?
Click to expand...
I would defer to the females for whom those rooms are designed. As a producer of small, motile gametes, it's really not my place to say what should happen here. To quote an archaic 90's meme "No Uterus, No Opinion."

theprestige said:
Do you believe gender self-ID should be sufficient for access to...women's locker rooms?
Click to expand...
See above.

theprestige said:
Do you believe gender self-ID should be sufficient for access to...women's sports leagues?
Click to expand...
There are sound and objective reasons rooted in fairness and safety to allow sports leagues to choose to segregate by physical characteristics such as sex, age, weight, and height. I would oppose laws and lawsuits to the contrary.

theprestige said:
Do you believe gender self-ID should be sufficient for access to...women's prisons?
Click to expand...
There are sound reasons to segregate by sex in carceral settings, one of the most obvious of which is that newborns deserve the chance to be born to non-incarcerated persons.

theprestige said:
Do you believe gender self-ID should be sufficient for access to...women's milestones and records in history books?
Click to expand...
Maybe, or maybe not. Which milestones?

ETA: I know these questions weren't for me, I just wanted to show that it's not that hard to answer them in a sentence or two. :p
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Obviously it means self-ID is the de facto standard. We can't ask transwomen to seek a diagnosis for something that isn't a mental disorder in the first place.

It also means, obviously, that there is no practical way to distinguish bad actors from "valid" transwomen. Whatever rights and privileges we grant to transwomen, in terms of public policy, we must grant them based exclusively on a man's saying they identify as a woman.
Click to expand...


d4m10n said:
I would defer to the females for whom those rooms are designed. As a producer of small, motile gametes, it's really not my place to say what should happen here. To quote an archaic 90's meme "No Uterus, No Opinion."

See above.

There are sound and objective reasons rooted in fairness and safety to allow sports leagues to choose to segregate by physical characteristics such as sex, age, weight, and height. I would oppose laws and lawsuits to the contrary.

There are sound reasons to segregate by sex in carceral settings, one of the most obvious of which is that newborns deserve the chance to be born to non-incarcerated persons.

Maybe, or maybe not. Which milestones?

ETA: I know these questions weren't for me, I just wanted to show that it's not that hard to answer them in a sentence or two. :p
Click to expand...


Were you really answering that on the basis of absolutely any man who wants to access these spaces and categories may do so at will?

Because that was the question.

The position outlined in the question carried the clear implication that, de facto, all women's single-sex spaces, provisions and categories are abolished - or, although not abolished on paper, that specific subset of men who want to access women's spaces may do so freely, as of right, and nobody may prevent them.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Were you really answering that on the basis of absolutely any man who wants to access these spaces and categories may do so at will?
Click to expand...
Not for the first two questions, no.

As I said, I'd defer to those for whom those spaces were designed.

If they want self-i.d. that's fine.

If they don't, that's fine.

Doesn't affect me either way, and I cannot think of anything more feminist than allowing females to choose for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Giving your opinion doesn't mean you're denying others the right to their opinion, or indeed maintaining that your opinion should over-rule theirs.

The question was, what's your opinion. And given that women aren't a homogeneous group and you'll find any opinion you can dream up espoused by at least one or two, then inquiring as to which opinion you yourself tend to align with doesn't seem unreasonable.
 
Rolfe said:
The question was, what's your opinion.
Click to expand...
My opinion is that I should weigh in on usage of the men's facilities, since I'm relatively familiar with the function, culture, and purposes thereof, and refrain from weighing in on the other facilities. :cool:

I also don't care to weigh in on who should feel welcome at gay or lesbian bars, since neither of them are my scene (though I've been dragged along on occasion).
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Why would anyone want people for whom those spaces were not created to weigh in on how they should be used?
Click to expand...
I am over-egging this to make what I understand to be Rolfe's point:

"Do you agree with what Hitler did?"

"Well that's a question for Jewish folks, I would be loth to offer my view, I think it's only appropriate that I stay out of this, that's surely the more progressive way to respond"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom