Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

I've never seen any reliable data that contradict this.

Gender dysphoria is not one thing

I think you're reversing the burden of proof. This is an agenda paper with sparse and incomplete citations. Have you looked at the actual research they refer to? Is it as reliable as they make it seem?

 

[Rolfe]

An agenda paper by a psychologist who has spent decades "treating" such patients, and researching the condition. Yes, I have read several of his papers. I don't actually agree with his agenda, which frequently prioritises what he sees as the needs of his patients over the comfort and safety of women, but I haven't seen anything to contradict his assessment of the underlying causes of transgenderism.

 

[Elaedith]

I think you're reversing the burden of proof. This is an agenda paper with sparse and incomplete citations. Have you looked at the actual research they refer to? Is it as reliable as they make it seem?

Here is a paper with more citations that you might be interested in:

What Many Transgender Activists Don't Want You to Know: and why you should know it anyway

I don't have any strong opinion myself about whether all transwomen fall into these categories or how many are in each because I haven't looked into the research in detail. It definitely appears to me that those who would be likely be classed as AGP (males who are gynephilic, and tend to transition later in life) are over-represented amongst the most aggressive activists (compared to transmen and transwomen who are androphilic) and that they have a strong motivation to push the narrative that there is only one cause of transgender identity and gender dysphoria.

My impression is that these concepts need more research to refine them, but given what happened to Bailey researchers tend to avoid the area.

 

[Rolfe]

There's been a push to deny that AGP is an issue by "proving" that it is normal for women to display AGP and therefore a man with AGP is just behaving like a typical woman. That is the "research" you can drive a coach and horses through.

Basically they asked all the wrong questions (accidentally on purpose), and no, women do not get sexually aroused by putting their clothes on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Klingsor exists, obviously.

They only work on species with suitable anatomy. They're usually just used on calves. There's legislation about age limits and the use of local anaesthetic, but basically using them on any beast past puberty is a mug's game. And yes, it takes a fair bit of wrist strength which I don't have.

Vets generally do open castrations with a knife, it's a hell of a lot neater. These things are more for farmers' use. Rubber rings are commoner though I think.

I seem to remember reading some weird story about someone in America who was running some sort of amateur castration service for this sort of mad fetishist and they were using a Burdizzo. I think they were lucky nobody died before they were stopped.

Ages ago I recall watching an episode of "Dirty Jobs" involving castrating young sheep (I think). IIRC, the common practice was to wrap a rubber band around the lamb's testicles, depriving them of blood, and eventually they would die and fall off. the farmer in the episode thought that was a cruel approach, having observed that the lambs would behave as if in pain for the couple of weeks it took for the testicles to atrophy. Their approach on that farm was to make a small incision, reach in, and simply pull the internal testes out and snip them, then let the lambs go on about their day. The lambs seemed more surprised by the procedure than pained.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Dysphoria is a quite specific disorder. It means having a distorted perception of yourself. For example, an anorexic person looking in the mirror and seeing someone hugely obese, or someone with a perfectly ordinary face believing their nose or jaw or whatever is exceedingly deformed and hideous.

That's dysmorphia, not dysphoria. The former is a distorted perception, the latter an emotional response to perception even though the perception is largely accurate.

Caveat that there is some research demonstrating activation of the part of the brain responsible for perception in a way substantially similar to anorexia and other dysmorphias, but the research was limited specifically to HSTS males with a long-term persistent gender identity disorder, and who were pre-transition. So not necessarily true for all people who would call themselves transgender.

 

[Rolfe]

Ages ago I recall watching an episode of "Dirty Jobs" involving castrating young sheep (I think). IIRC, the common practice was to wrap a rubber band around the lamb's testicles, depriving them of blood, and eventually they would die and fall off. the farmer in the episode thought that was a cruel approach, having observed that the lambs would behave as if in pain for the couple of weeks it took for the testicles to atrophy. Their approach on that farm was to make a small incision, reach in, and simply pull the internal testes out and snip them, then let the lambs go on about their day. The lambs seemed more surprised by the procedure than pained.

I used to lecture about all this in animal welfare classes. In my opinion the law that allows castration without anaesthetic sets the age limits far too high for most procedures in most species. Personally I would mandate local anaesthesia no matter the age.

I don't much care for the rubber band thing either, but most people say the lambs only appear in pain for a couple of hours. Personally, I think a couple of hours is too long.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think first of all, something is only 'mental illness' if it causes distress to the person suffering.

I think "or to other people" needs to be in there. Most serial killers aren't really distressed by the people with psychopathy. I'm willing to bet that people with NPD aren't really all that distressed either... but everyone who has to deal with them is!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Her first premise falls flat on its face for a start, 'single sex schools' supposedly proves the rule there is male and female and cannot be adjusted for.

What now? Are you arguing that male and female do not exist?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a lot of what I see here. More 'How can we stop trans' and less' how do we fix the issues'.

I suppose that rather depends on which issues you are thinking of, and whether or not we all consider them issues in the first place.

For example... the "issue" of male-bodied athletes who identify as transwomen wishing to play on female sports teams isn't something I think needs to be fixed at all. They are male, their internal identity is irrelevant to the reality of their body and their evolutionary development as males. They are ineligible to participate in female-only sports. The only "issue" is that they want to, and I don't think their desire outweighs the desire of the other female participants.

Similarly, the "issue" of which prison a fully intact male-bodied sex offender should be placed in is simply not an issue at all in my view.

Now, if you want to talk about the issue of transgender people being denied access to co-ed housing on the basis of their presentation, that's something different. Or the issue of what mental health services are appropriate, and how to ensure timely and effective access to them. There are lots of issues out there, but we almost all agree on those.

The place we don't agree is on whether or not a person's internal feeling about themselves should override the reality of sex in terms of rights, law, and public policy, and what we should do when those feelings place a person in conflict with the rights of other people on the basis of their sex.

There is, however, almost no hate involved in this discussion... unless you are under the impression that females refusing to kowtow to the desires of males is "hate". In which case... that's an altogether different topic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is an interesting thread, and I actually agree with many of the issues raised.

I'm probably over-reacting to much of the negativity towards the Transgendered because I'm trying to overcome my own biases, because I simply do not understand the trans gendered. I want women to be safe in their own spaces, but I also feel that trans-women should also be supported, but I don't know where that balance should be.

Perhaps too many men are jumping on the 'today I'm a woman!' that others are blindly supporting and encouraging that is causing many issues?

Very possibly. I'll also point out that the majority of us in this thread don't have a problem with transgendered people - we have a problem with activists and policy proposals that negatively impact female humans. I have transgendered family and friends IRL, as well as several that I follow and like on social media.

The single largest conflict is with respect to self-declaration providing entitlements. It's not a small conflict, and it has produced actual observable harm in reality already.

 

[d4m10n]

(Personally I believe that when it comes to matters of public policy, men and women are the same species, have the same capacity to feel empathy and reason abstractly, and have equal standing to debate policy for things that predominantly affect the other sex...)

Two or three points I'd like to make here:

1) Restrooms and changing rooms needn't be a matter of public policy at any level. So long as the proprietors and customers follow generally agreed upon rules (as a matter of custom rather than law or regulation) then the marketplace will sort out the variations and edge cases. In a free market, the folks at Wi Spa would have been legally empowered to say no to Darren Merager, for example, whereas in California they were not. So long as I'm talking up the free market approach, World Rugby is in a better position to address women's rugby than, say, any legislature at any level, in part because they are accountable to their fan base rather than political activists who don't actually value sport.

2) I don't quite buy into the equal standing thing either. In the first couple iterations of this thread I was constantly learning things about women's spaces which I never would've known from frequenting men's spaces. Evidently men and women don't just have different bodies, they have somewhat different norms in private as well. There are several reasons why women might want to preserve their spaces "as is" that might not even occur to someone who's never visited those spaces. I'm not saying men should shut up (this is a discussion forum, after all) but we might want to defer to the people who really understand what's at stake if those spaces were to become unisex.

 

[shuttlt]

Two or three points I'd like to make here:

1) Restrooms and changing rooms needn't be a matter of public policy at any level. So long as the proprietors and customers follow generally agreed upon rules (as a matter of custom rather than law or regulation) then the marketplace will sort out the variations and edge cases. In a free market, the folks at Wi Spa would have been legally empowered to say no to Darren Merager, for example, whereas in California they were not. So long as I'm talking up the free market approach, World Rugby is in a better position to address women's rugby than, say, any legislature at any level, in part because they are accountable to their fan base rather than political activists who don't actually value sport.

Are either Wi Spa or World Rugby immune to the degree you imply from the influence of activists? Activists have forced many people and organisations to back down and apologise who didn't do anything illegal. World Rugby will presumably be looking to get sponsorship deals and funding from organisations that are acutely sensitive to this kind of thing.

2) I don't quite buy into the equal standing thing either. In the first couple iterations of this thread I was constantly learning things about women's spaces which I never would've known from frequenting men's spaces. Evidently men and women don't just have different bodies, they have somewhat different norms in private as well. There are several reasons why women might want to preserve their spaces "as is" that might not even occur to someone who's never visited those spaces. I'm not saying men should shut up (this is a discussion forum, after all) but we might want to defer to the people who really understand what's at stake if those spaces were to become unisex.

Given the social importance of such spaces for women, isn't that also an argument for including trans women?

 

[theprestige]

Two or three points I'd like to make here:

1) Restrooms and changing rooms needn't be a matter of public policy at any level. So long as the proprietors and customers follow generally agreed upon rules (as a matter of custom rather than law or regulation) then the marketplace will sort out the variations and edge cases. In a free market, the folks at Wi Spa would have been legally empowered to say no to Darren Merager, for example, whereas in California they were not. So long as I'm talking up the free market approach, World Rugby is in a better position to address women's rugby than, say, any legislature at any level, in part because they are accountable to their fan base rather than political activists who don't actually value sport.

I disagree here public restrooms have to be a matter of public policy by definition. Further, there are already government policies about public access to private restrooms. Still further, even if public policy for restrooms is to grant all gatekeeping authority to private owners, that still needs to be articulated in regulation or statute.

2) I don't quite buy into the equal standing thing either. In the first couple iterations of this thread I was constantly learning things about women's spaces which I never would've known from frequenting men's spaces. Evidently men and women don't just have different bodies, they have somewhat different norms in private as well. There are several reasons why women might want to preserve their spaces "as is" that might not even occur to someone who's never visited those spaces. I'm not saying men should shut up (this is a discussion forum, after all) but we might want to defer to the people who really understand what's at stake if those spaces were to become unisex.

My view is that women can easily explain, and men can easily understand, what's at stake. It should not be the case that women can say, "let us decide, you wouldn't understand or care, so keep out of it, we don't have to justify our positions to you". If women have special insight here, they can and should explain it to the men, so that we can understand the position and make our own informed choices about what policies to advocate and vote for.

For which to vote.

Anyway, mainly I reject the implied principle of "it's a woman thing; you wouldn't understand and there's no point trying to explain it".

 

[theprestige]

Given the social importance of such spaces for women, isn't that also an argument for including trans women?

It is indeed. It would actually be quite nice to continue the public policy part of the debate on such a pragmatic basis, considering clearly articulated concrete goods that must be weighed against each other in the interest of the common welfare.

 

[shuttlt]

It is indeed. It would actually be quite nice to continue the public policy part of the debate on such a pragmatic basis, considering clearly articulated concrete goods that must be weighed against each other in the interest of the common welfare.

What do you mean by concrete? Are the most important goods concrete?

 

[d4m10n]

I disagree here public restrooms have to be a matter of public policy by definition.

Not at all. It is entirely possible for the federal, state, county, and municipal governments to leave such things to the discretion of those who design, construct and run businesses such as restaurants and gyms.

Further, there are already government policies about public access to private restrooms.

This is an argument from status quo bias^WP.

Still further, even if public policy for restrooms is to grant all gatekeeping authority to private owners, that still needs to be articulated in regulation or statute.

Nope. Just repeal the bits which force the private owners to integrate the sexes (CA) or strictly separate them (TX).

My view is that women can easily explain, and men can easily understand, what's at stake.

Nine iterations of this thread have disabused me of my belief in the highlighted fragment.

It should not be the case that women can say, "let us decide, you wouldn't understand or care, so keep out of it, we don't have to justify our positions to you".

Of course they can say it, but I agree that we shouldn't buy it as an argument. That's not really what I'm getting at here; suitably situated men might well understand and care, given enough time and effort. Most men, though, won't intuitively understand (for example) why sexual modesty matters more to the sex which carries all the burdens and risks of pregnancy.

If women have special insight here, they can and should explain it to the men, so that we can understand the position and make our own informed choices about what policies to advocate and vote for.

You are assuming once again that these public spaces need to be regulated via law & policy rather than allowing private owners to do their own market research and set their own parameters.

Some spaces (e.g. jails, penitentiaries, Air Force bases) will have to be governed by law and policy. Others should be allowed to freely experiment with various possible solutions and empirically discover how to maximize social utility in their own communities.

Anyway, mainly I reject the implied principle of "it's a woman thing; you wouldn't understand and there's no point trying to explain it".

I don't think there no point, I've quite enjoyed hearing the explanations myself.

 

[theprestige]

Not at all. It is entirely possible for the federal, state, county, and municipal governments to leave such things to the discretion of those who design, construct and run businesses such as restaurants and gyms.

You're missing my point: public restrooms exist. These are restrooms built and maintained by the government at taxpayer expense. By definition, the policies governing the use of these restrooms is public policy.

 

[theprestige]

What do you mean by concrete? Are the most important goods concrete?

I mean specific and well-defined. I have no opinion about the most important goods. I would, however, like from time to time discuss with trans-activists trade-offs between specific and well-defined goods. Like the good of women feeling comfortable in a sex-segregated safe space for women, versus the good of transwomen having access to unique and important social spaces for women.

For all the handwaving and vitriol from SuburtanTurkey and others, the trans-activists in this thread seem very reluctant to get into pragmatic real-world questions and answers about trans access. They won't even really acknowledge the harm to women from pro-trans policies, as something that needs to be addressed in their advocacy.

 

[shuttlt]

I mean specific and well-defined. I have no opinion about the most important goods. I would, however, like from time to time discuss with trans-activists trade-offs between specific and well-defined goods. Like the good of women feeling comfortable in a sex-segregated safe space for women, versus the good of transwomen having access to unique and important social spaces for women.

For all the handwaving and vitriol from SuburtanTurkey and others, the trans-activists in this thread seem very reluctant to get into pragmatic real-world questions and answers about trans access. They won't even really acknowledge the harm to women from pro-trans policies, as something that needs to be addressed in their advocacy.

The issue you have is that you have all sorts of assumptions baked in to this. It's like a post I commented on in the prostitution thread that now lies in AAH.... they make a bunch of assumptions. They assume in a hand waving way that harms can be mitigated. They also assume that given time, people can be retrained to regard trans-women as women to the point where lesbians and straight men are attracted to women with penises. While they minimise how radical what they are aiming at here is, you are clearly only going to be able to judge their success after decades.

My impression is that the TERFs are concerned about more immediate harms, do not believe that the utopia that the trans-activists promise is achievable, and think that irreparable harms will be done in failing to achieve it. All this is irrelevant under the assumptions of the trans-activists. The disagreement is ideological and philosophical. To slightly misstate a saying of Robert Conquest, "everyone is conservative about what he loves best". The TERFs are taking a conservative position, while the transactivists are progressive in their assumptions.

This is yet another battle of world views rather than an argument about harms and goods. That is why the conversation never goes anywhere and can't go anywhere. A discussion of such concrete goods can't resolve anything. Of course the trans-activists don't want to talk about the harms or how long it might take for the goods to appear, strategically, why would they want to discuss that? None the less, the harms and goods, even if they were discussed, are not what the disagreement is actually about.