Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[d4m10n]

Let's give people with Cotard's syndrome death benefit payouts based on affirmation!

So long as we don't give them organ transplants.

 

[Vixen]

Comments Vixen?

"In relation to the 97 sexual assaults in the female establishments between 1st Jan 2016 and 31st Dec 2019, 7 were incidents where prisoners who identify as transgender were involved. And of the 7 incidents, 6 were assaults where a transgender prisoner was the assailant or suspected assailant. In the 7th incident, the transgender prisoner had ‘active involvement’, which means they didn’t necessarily start the assault." ibid


Seven out of 97 assaults in women's prisons were transgender women, one acting in presumed self defence.

Bearing in mind sex crimes are predicated on the Victorian view that only men have 'sexuality' the crime of unwanted touching that applies to men may just be be ignored when a female does the same.

 

[Vixen]

Just looking at this article on the same site:

'Nick was at his third birthday party when he realised he was a boy in a girl’s body. “I had a butterfly cake. I vividly remember looking at the cake and thinking, ‘I don’t like the look of this. It’s all pink and girlie.”'

Oh dear. Doesn't the headline, 'are we letting our kids go too far' signal to you that the NZ Herald is little better than the SUN or the DAILY MAIL? Full of hate-mongering and fear-stirring.

 

[lionking]

"In relation to the 97 sexual assaults in the female establishments between 1st Jan 2016 and 31st Dec 2019, 7 were incidents where prisoners who identify as transgender were involved. And of the 7 incidents, 6 were assaults where a transgender prisoner was the assailant or suspected assailant. In the 7th incident, the transgender prisoner had ‘active involvement’, which means they didn’t necessarily start the assault." ibid


Seven out of 97 assaults in women's prisons were transgender women, one acting in presumed self defence.

Bearing in mind sex crimes are predicated on the Victorian view that only men have 'sexuality' the crime of unwanted touching that applies to men may just be be ignored when a female does the same.

Yes, no surprise you will avoid proper evidence.

 

[d4m10n]

Apropos of which, y'all might be interested in an oldish essay at Quillette by philosopher Michael Robillard, this passage in particular:
https://archive.ph/4e2n0

There are some excellent quotes in that piece, such as this paragraph from the Stanford Encyclopedia for Philosophy:

Many feminists have historically disagreed and have endorsed the sex/gender distinction. Provisionally: ‘sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features); ‘gender’ denotes women and men depending on social factors (social role, position, behaviour or identity). The main feminist motivation for making this distinction was to counter biological determinism or the view that biology is destiny.

And this bit from the WHO:

Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

These approaches contrast sharply with the new one from the ACLU:

Every individual’s sex is multifaceted and comprised of many distinct biologically-influenced characteristics, including, but not limited to, chromosomal makeup, hormones, internal and external reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, and gender identity. Where there is a divergence between these characteristics, gender identity is the most important and determinative factor. Therefore, someone’s sex or gender is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

tl;dr - Second wave feminism taught us to separate sex and gender so as to help liberate women who were oppressed on account of sex, third wave intersectionalism teaches us to reintegrate sex and gender, with gender identity as the primary factor.

 

[xjx388]

This thread is not for contentious discussion of strict biological definitions of male/female. I have moved such posts to AAH. If you wish to start a new thread on that subject, feel free to do so. Just keep such discussion out of here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: xjx388

 

[ponderingturtle]

This thread is not for contentious discussion of strict biological definitions of male/female. I have moved such posts to AAH. If you wish to start a new thread on that subject, feel free to do so. Just keep such discussion out of here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: xjx388

Edited by xjx388: 

Edited for Rule 11 - Response to a mod box in thread.

 

[d4m10n]

For those interested in pursuing strict definitions of male/female I've started a new thread over here.

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually I think mainstream medicine and progressive governments have failed in their ethical duty when it comes to extreme body modification surgery. And to transgender-affirming care.

But please, tell me the medical distinction between believing you have the wrong sex and believing you have the wrong number of legs.

Gender. Not sex. You don't have the right to impose your own definitions of terms.

And as for your question, perhaps you'd be better off directing it towards the actual experts in the relevant medical fields, who have by now determined that 1) transgender identity is a valid condition, while 2) believing one has the wrong number of legs is a psychiatric disorder.

Do you really never pause for thought, and wonder to yourself why the World's most expert clinicians and scientists - who have vastly more collective knowledge, experience and exposure to transgender people than you or I or anyone in this weird little thread - have reached conclusions that are so radically different from yours? Do you really believe that you know better than them?

 

[d4m10n]

2) believing one has the wrong number of legs is a psychiatric disorder.

Is this true even in the absence of clinically significant emotional distress associated with that belief?

 

[theprestige]

Gender. Not sex. You don't have the right to impose your own definitions of terms.

It's not about my right, it's about my desire to communicate clearly.

ETA: But okay, sure. Gender, whatever.

Other than claiming to identify as a woman, what objective qualities does a transwoman have in common with women, that she does not also have in common with men?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The false premise is that there is either male or female and ne'er the twain shall meet. That is arguable, of course, but Braverman doesn't even recognise that it is open to debate and has not been settled.

Which brings me back to...

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

You seem to be asserting that there is something other than male and female in the human species, or that male and female aren't distinct categories in some way.

To which I say: Absolute ********.

 

[Elaedith]

Gender. Not sex. You don't have the right to impose your own definitions of terms.

'Believing you have the wrong gender' is nonsensical to anyone who has engaged in any critical thinking on the matter. If gender is socially constructed and assigned on the basis of sex, then a person who doesn't identify with gender constructs stereotypically associated with their sex is simply a gender-nonconforming person. You do not need to change your sex characteristics because you reject sex stereotypes. That is like saying that a person with a sexual orientation that doesn't match the orientation expected on the basis of their sex needs to transition their sex characteristics. The only reason to change your sex characteristics is that you are unhappy with your sex. This was always understood prior to clinical research and treatment on gender dysphoria being corrupted by ideology.

On the other hand, if somebody does not have dysphoria and does not want to change their sex characteristics, declaring them to be transgender because they are gender non-conforming is purely ideological and reflects the influence of postmodern gender theory and language changes imposed by this, which have nothing to do with science.

And as for your question, perhaps you'd be better off directing it towards the actual experts in the relevant medical fields, who have by now determined that 1) transgender identity is a valid condition, while 2) believing one has the wrong number of legs is a psychiatric disorder.

Do you really never pause for thought, and wonder to yourself why the World's most expert clinicians and scientists - who have vastly more collective knowledge, experience and exposure to transgender people than you or I or anyone in this weird little thread - have reached conclusions that are so radically different from yours? Do you really believe that you know better than them?

This is laughable from somebody who has repeatedly asserted that he knows better than professionals.

I mean, look at this gem in response to my linking to this tweet from Dr Cantor where he states 'In science, validity is determined by the objective evidence, not essays like “What gender dysphoria means to me':

I fear that Dr Cantor may need to revisit his understanding around the identification and diagnosis of many different types of mental health conditions (and, for that matter, many different types of mental health disorders).

Here you are explicitly implying that you know more about the identification and diagnosis of mental health conditions than a prominent clinical psychologist with expertise in diagnosing and treating gender dysphoria and an extensive publication record.

 

[Elaedith]

Is this true even in the absence of clinically significant emotional distress associated with that belief?

Body Integrity Disorder is not a diagnosis in the DSM. It is in the ICD-11.

You can see that distress and dysfunction are part of the definition.

Rest assured that transabled activists are working on being able to self-identify as disabled.

 

[The Atheist]

Other than claiming to identify as a woman, what objective qualities does a transwoman have in common with women, that she does not also have in common with men?

That's the wrong way to look at it.

They have nothing in common with women at all. They have the wrong chromosomes, no female organs, internal or external (the simulacrums of vaginas and breasts they acquire are not female), their brains, physical development; everything is male.

Trans women don't have things in common with men, they are men.

They are also most welcome to claim to be women and take hormones that will give them the appearance of women. They're also most welcome to have equality with other genders and be protected from discrimination.

They're just not welcome to tell women what to do, share changing rooms, bathrooms, saunas or prisons with women.

I've been saying since the start - we built facilities for disabled people decades ago, now build some for the differently-gendered. Problem solved, and I'm dismissing their desire to be considered women to the extent that a beauty technician is called transphobic for not wanting to wax some bloke in a dress' dick.

'Believing you have the wrong gender' is nonsensical to anyone who has engaged in any critical thinking on the matter. If gender is socially constructed and assigned on the basis of sex, then a person who doesn't identify with gender constructs stereotypically associated with their sex is simply a gender-nonconforming person.

Beautifully put!

 

[theprestige]

That's the wrong way to look at it.

They have nothing in common with women at all. They have the wrong chromosomes, no female organs, internal or external (the simulacrums of vaginas and breasts they acquire are not female), their brains, physical development; everything is male.

Trans women don't have things in common with men, they are men.

They are also most welcome to claim to be women and take hormones that will give them the appearance of women. They're also most welcome to have equality with other genders and be protected from discrimination.

They're just not welcome to tell women what to do, share changing rooms, bathrooms, saunas or prisons with women.

I've been saying since the start - we built facilities for disabled people decades ago, now build some for the differently-gendered. Problem solved, and I'm dismissing their desire to be considered women to the extent that a beauty technician is called transphobic for not wanting to wax some bloke in a dress' dick.



Beautifully put!

I'm trying desperately to establish some sort of baseline agreement, while avoiding obvious risks like "they have arms and legs like women do lol".

ETA: The whole case for trans access hinges on the un-evidenced, largely un-argued claim that transwomen share some essential property with women. Several years into this, we still have no idea what that property is supposed to be.

 

[Steersman]

Gender. Not sex. You don't have the right to impose your own definitions of terms. ....

So you're saying then that sex is different from gender? How so?

But if that's the case then how come those with gender recognition certificates are apparently using them to claim rights that are supposedly allocated only for those of a particular sex?

Looks to be some bait-and-switch happening there. A classic motte and bailey operation: sneaky "suggestion" that, for example, "female" as a gender and as a sex are the same kettle of fish and then when challenged say, "Oh no, of course sex and gender are entirely different":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Outright frauds ...

"male" and "female" as genders are pretty much meaningless - no there there.

 

[d4m10n]

The whole case for trans access hinges on the un-evidenced, largely un-argued claim that transwomen share some essential property with women. Several years into this, we still have no idea what that property is supposed to be.

But we do know it rhymes with "bender bidentity."



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Elaedith]

Body Integrity Disorder is not a diagnosis in the DSM. It is in the ICD-11.

You can see that distress and dysfunction are part of the definition.

Rest assured that transabled activists are working on being able to self-identify as disabled.

Got mixed up with the name here as I was tired when I wrote it. It's actually now called Body Integrity Dysphoria, not body integrity disorder. Formerly body identity integrity disorder.

Activists have already got the name changed to remove the word 'disorder' and replace it with dysphoria, as they did with gender dysphoria (this doesn't mean it's been 'declassified as a disorder', of course).

And yes, since dysphoria is required for diagnosis, believing that you have the wrong number of legs would not be classified as a disorder if not accompanied by dysphoria. Therefore, believing that one has the wrong number of legs, without dysphoria, would be a 'valid lived condition' according to LJ's 'logic', Apparently, this means one does have the wrong number of legs (since LJ's 'logic' appears to assert that a strong inner sense about one's identity, if not a disorder or product of a disorder, cannot be false or subject to alternative interpretations).

 

[Ziggurat]

And as for your question, perhaps you'd be better off directing it towards the actual experts in the relevant medical fields, who have by now determined that 1) transgender identity is a valid condition

They have made no such determination, because "valid condition" doesn't mean anything. That's your own definition. You have also conflated transgender identity with gender dysphoria. Plenty of transgender people don't want surgical modification of their bodies. But those who do, well, how exactly is that different than people who want to surgically remove a limb? No answer has been forthcoming.

Do you really never pause for thought, and wonder to yourself why the World's most expert clinicians and scientists - who have vastly more collective knowledge, experience and exposure to transgender people than you or I or anyone in this weird little thread - have reached conclusions that are so radically different from yours? Do you really believe that you know better than them?

First off, you have consistently misrepresented the opinions of experts. You portray the issue as if there's a consensus when there really isn't. Second, some of the experts you have appealed to have demonstrated that they are not reliable or honest (for example, that whole mess with the AAP and their claim that puberty blockers are reversible). And lastly, there's a history of supposed experts in this field committing unspeakable horrors, driven by a radical ideology about sex that they tried to paint a scientific veneer over but which never actually had the rigor they pretended. Some "experts" today clearly suffer from the same biases, even if they don't perform such extreme experiments.