Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Rolfe]

This is moderately priceless. The Sun interviewed Adam Graham at the time when he was being "Annie Bryson", and has some interesting photos of his appearance then. (Face still covered by a wig, but a long brown one.) He was making a fuss because BT hadn't changed his name on his phone bill, and wanted £5,000 compensation for the "serious emotional effect" this had had on him. BT offered an apology and £140, but that wasn't enough for him.

The interview was carried out late last year in association with the pushing through of the GRR bill in the Scottish parliament. Reading between the lines, it seems as if the Sun was looking for someone who supported the passing of the bill. Graham said that his treatment simply wasn't good enough. Nicola Sturgeon isn't serious about trans rights. She needs to get her finger out. I've written to her but she ignored me.

Then...

Bryson, of Clydebank, asked for the headline in her story — which was never published — to be: “Bravest heart in Scotland”.

While looking into her gender ID gripe our reporter discovered she was facing serious charges under the name Adam Graham.

Oops.

 

[theprestige]

Oof.

And it looks like Adam Graham's case will be a tough nut for LJ to crack.

"... wanted £5,000 compensation for the "serious emotional effect" this had".

So this fellow is suffering some distress, and is therefore not enjoying a valid lived condition. Rather, he needs proper medical care for whatever is causing his distress.

 

[TomB]

Do you also believe that, in order for society to consider a person to be homosexual, the person requires diagnosis and treatment?

To be clear, you are advocating for exceptions to long standing societal rules and customs based around sex segregation. It is an exception because no one has changed sex. Exceptions require justification.

(Alternatively, there are those who are arguing to retroactively redefine instances of segregation to be based on gender rather than sex. I'm not addressing that here.)

A rather large part of the justification for this need has been that not doing so triggers dysphoria. In other words, for people with dysphoria affirmation allows them a better life. In other words, transition is a form of treatment for dysphoria. Treatment implies diagnosis.

I think you can get at least some measure of sympathy for that approach, even if implementation is not agreed upon.

But you are now asking to make the same accommodation for people who do not experience dysphoria. You are basically asking for no criteria for the segregation at all.

Segregation without a criteria is meaningless. You would be better off arguing against segregation entirely.

What you are advocating for is that the names on the bathroom and locker room doors are simply suggestions. Anyone can use whichever room they want (because the criteria is unverifiable and thus unenforceable).

Instead, you rely on people to get in the appropriate line based on social norms and good will. It may be true that the vast majority will do so, because most people adhere to social norms. (That's why they are social norms.) But there will be a subset who will ignore them. People who are not trans, but are willing to play the role of trans to get into spaces. These may include some doing it as a lark or for convenience, but it also involves some who will do so for harmful reasons. (Not meaning to imply that doing so for a lark is not harmful.)

Rules and laws exist as a framework to define undesired behavior and enforce desired behavior. Sex segregation exists either to provide fairness, enforce socially mandated modesty, or to provide for safety. Without a way to determine who meets the criteria for segregation, this is entirely undermined.

If the purpose of segregation is to reduce the frequency of things like voyeurism, sexual assault and rape, then undermining sex segregation defeats the purpose even if the perpetrators are prosecuted because the intent is to discourage the crime and thus the need for prosecution.

I would love to find a way to accommodate those who legitimately need or benefit from accommodation. But there has to be a reliable way to filter out those who do not. By accommodation, I am not referring to pronouns and discrimination. I'm referring specifically to sex segregation.

 

[Elaedith]

(Alternatively, there are those who are arguing to retroactively redefine instances of segregation to be based on gender rather than sex. I'm not addressing that here.)

I think this is now openly the main aim. They are not advocating for exemptions to be made (although they imply this when it sounds better). There is no way to make exceptions when there is no way to distinguish somebody with a trans identity from anybody else of their sex.

In fact, activists tend to talk as though this is already taken for granted. Part of this is going behind the scenes to replace sex with gender in lists of official characteristics. When somebody compares excluding a transwoman from a female space with racism or homophobia, what they are doing is pretending that the space is actually segregated by 'gender' and that being male is no more relevant to being a woman than is being black or being gay. It's just that up until now, we thought all women were female and only recently realised that some are male.

The basis of this is sex denialism. The ideology is that sex is no more 'real' than socially constructed ideas about gender, because all knowledge is just constructed to meet the needs of those with power. So if some people are disadvantaged by sex segregation, sex must have been constructed to oppress those people. I think some have jumped on the bandwagon of sex denialism because they are either hoodwinked into thinking it is based on some sort of scientific discovery, or because they think it's ok to subordinate science to ideology if your intentions are good.

However, for others sex denialism and having the power to force it on everyone without needing to debate or provide evidence is the primary goal, and trans people are just a means to an end. For them the more distressed and vulnerable trans people there are, the better, because it increases their power and opportunities for grift.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you also believe that, in order for society to consider a person to be homosexual, the person requires diagnosis and treatment?

Society doesn't need to "consider" anyone homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter), because it's perfectly acceptable to simply leave that as a private matter that society doesn't need to involve itself with.

 

[Sherkeu]

Society doesn't need to "consider" anyone homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter), because it's perfectly acceptable to simply leave that as a private matter that society doesn't need to involve itself with.

LJ's argument falls on its head when you consider that he previously admitted that transwomen have to go through 'risk assessment' as inmates to decide if they go to the women's or men's prison. They might be lying, but that they should still be treated as their identity in the male prison. How can this be?!! These are women, right?

This is something that 100% does not happen for natal female inmates. If they are a risk to females, they are never moved to a male prison.
LJ is agreeing here that transwomen are NOT women.
The goalpost have moved for him as now transwomen in prison are not always women. In fact, they are not women most of the time.

If transwomen were treated 'just like women', they'd all be housed with females (and I supposed a few 'women' like themselves.) But they are not, and LJ agrees with this. Baby steps seen for LJ - just have to ignore all the hateful name-calling.


*sorry for all the quotes. i just didnt want the post to keep repeating penis, and such things.

 

[theprestige]

Do you also believe that, in order for society to consider a person to be homosexual, the person requires diagnosis and treatment?

I believe that we should stick to the topic.

I believe that people who assert a trans identity without associated distress should be entitled to the exact same treatment as homosexuals: The entitlement to be left in peace to pursue their interests with other informed and consenting adults. The entitlement to not be discriminated against in employment and housing because of their gender identification.

I believe that people who assert a trans identity with associated distress should be diagnosed on the basis of their distress, and given the best medical treatment we know of, consistent with their diagnosis. And I believe this about people who report distress related to the following:

* preferred pronouns

* surgical alteration

* hormone treatment

* access to sex-segregated spaces and categories

Anyone who requires an accommodation in one or more of these areas, for the sake of their mental or emotional health, requires diagnosis and treatment. Otherwise they will fall into self-destructive and anti-social behavior patterns, in an effort to "self-medicate". Allowing this state of affairs is unjust to them and to everyone around them. Promoting this state of affairs is unethical, immoral, inhumane, and essentially depraved. That's what I believe.

 

[Sherkeu]

Anyone who requires an accommodation in one or more of these areas, for the sake of their mental or emotional health, requires diagnosis and treatment. Otherwise they will fall into self-destructive and anti-social behavior patterns, in an effort to "self-medicate". Allowing this state of affairs is unjust to them and to everyone around them. Promoting this state of affairs is unethical, immoral, inhumane, and essentially depraved. That's what I believe.

This is precisely the argument brought by the ACLU in 2018 for the first ever transfer of a transwoman to a women's facility in Massachusetts:

(ACLU opposition to motion to dismiss):
Her complaint properly alleges claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Federal Rehabilitation Act (“FRA”), the United States Constitution (Equal Protection and Due Process) and 42 U.S.C § 1983 for redress of, inter alia, Defendants’ refusal to properly place her in the women’s correctional facility and for denials of repeated requests for reasonable accommodations necessary in light of, and for treatment of, her medical condition.

This person lived as a woman 100% of the time for many years, yet retained male genitalia. Non-violent crime. Which is fine, if it had stopped there. But we know now it did not.

The ACLU page now shows fights against bills in state court they say are 'attacking transgender' persons for self-id, rights to surgeries, youth getting affirmation treatment (including medical treatments) etc....

 

[d4m10n]

The ACLU page now shows fights against bills in state court they say are 'attacking transgender' persons for self-id, rights to surgeries, youth getting affirmation treatment (including medical treatments) etc....

One of the curious aspects of this particular sociopolitical conflict is that most people agree there is an age that is too young to consent to irreversible treatments (e.g. testosterone for females) but there is about 5-10 years difference in where conservatives and progressives generally would put that age line.

 

[theprestige]

This is precisely the argument brought by the ACLU in 2018 for the first ever transfer of a transwoman to a women's facility in Massachusetts:



This person lived as a woman 100% of the time for many years, yet retained male genitalia. Non-violent crime. Which is fine, if it had stopped there. But we know now it did not.

The ACLU page now shows fights against bills in state court they say are 'attacking transgender' persons for self-id, rights to surgeries, youth getting affirmation treatment (including medical treatments) etc....

I wonder what medical science, if any, the ACLU appealed to, in making its argument.

ETA: I see from the table of contents that the ACLU is at least alleging a case of gender dysphoria, and not LJ's "valid lived condition" of trans identity without distress. So I think I am at least on solid ground here, regarding LJ's objection to actually inquiring about a trans-identifying person's mental health and need for treatment.

ETA: I suppose they could be making a "reasonable accommodation" argument. It seems their medical argument is merely an argument that he suffers from a bona fide disability. They seem to avoid arguing that the condition can be treated by housing in a sex-segregated facility.

 

[Sherkeu]

I wonder what medical science, if any, the ACLU appealed to, in making its argument.

ETA: I see from the table of contents that the ACLU is at least alleging a case of gender dysphoria, and not LJ's "valid lived condition" of trans identity without distress. So I think I am at least on solid ground here, regarding LJ's objection to actually inquiring about a trans-identifying person's mental health and need for treatment.

ETA: I suppose they could be making a "reasonable accommodation" argument. It seems their medical argument is merely an argument that he suffers from a bona fide disability. They seem to avoid arguing that the condition can be treated by housing in a sex-segregated facility.

Yes. Cant be done.
They argue that the only accommodation fitting for Gender Dysphoria is in the Women's prison. Staying among men is traumatic and open to abuses by inmates. Solitary is cruel. So, moving to the women's prison is the only reasonable solution. (and in this case, it is not unreasonable)

As for the medical argument, I think some of their 'facts' are dubious. Such as:

Ms. Doe will show that her Gender Dysphoria is both a physical and mental impairment limiting her major life activities. Gender Dysphoria is a “physiological … condition . . . affecting . . . the endocrine system” because it is caused by an atypical interaction of sex hormones and the brain and, as a result, a person with Gender Dysphoria is born with circulating hormones inconsistent with their gender identity.
...she requires lifelong treatment for Gender Dysphoria, including the administration of female hormones, which leaves her incapable of reproduction.

The citation to support these is simply the various laws on disability that limits major life activites. Where they seem to "quote" medical science, the notes do not refer to what they are quoting.

 

[theprestige]

Yes. Cant be done.
They argue that the only accommodation fitting for Gender Dysphoria in the Women's prison. Staying among men is traumatic and open to abuses by inmates. Solitary is cruel. So, moving to the women's prison is the only reasonable solution. (and it this case, it is not unreasonable)

As for the medical argument, I think some of their 'facts' are dubious. Such as:


The citation to support these is simply the various laws on disability that limits major life activites. Where they seem to "quote" medical science, the notes do not refer to what they are quoting.

The depressing thing is that if we didn't examine documents like these closely, we might actually fall for LJ's canard that there's "adults" out there applying real medical science to these questions. After all, this is a formal court document, submitted by the ACLU, with citations!

Now I'm wondering what would be worse: If trans-activism is uniquely bad in this way, or if the ACLU is similarly dishonest about a wide range of serious social issues.

 

[Rolfe]

Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 77,300 signatures, so 297 new signatures today. Still relatively quiet, but comfortably above target.

The new magic number is 283.7.

 

[LondonJohn]

The depressing thing is that if we didn't examine documents like these closely, we might actually fall for LJ's canard that there's "adults" out there applying real medical science to these questions. After all, this is a formal court document, submitted by the ACLU, with citations!

Now I'm wondering what would be worse: If trans-activism is uniquely bad in this way, or if the ACLU is similarly dishonest about a wide range of serious social issues.

Erm... LJ is doing no more (and no less) than pointing out the fact that mainstream medicine now considers transgender identity to be a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder)*.


What's perhaps troubling in a so-called critical thinking forum is the number of so-called "critical thinkers" who either a) don't know this fact, or who b) do know this fact but who try to ignore/rationalise/misrepresent it in their "arguments". Consequently, it's embarrassingly noteworthy when "critical thinkers" try to argue that they know better than the actual experts, that they know the very notion of transgender identity is some sort of unscientific woo, and that they know what transgender people actually require/deserve is diagnosis and treatment.

Fortunately, the actual medical experts and legislatures (yep: the "adults in the room" in this context) understand the situation correctly and appropriately. The non-adults are perfectly at liberty to get all righteous and angry in toxic threads in backwater internet forums, or indeed in the carnival-barking town square for morons and extremists that is Twitter. Thankfully, the adults know otherwise, and the adults know better.


* Y'know: the exact same way as mainstream medicine, some 40 years earlier, decided that homosexuality was a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder).

 

[d4m10n]

Y'know: the exact same way as mainstream medicine, some 40 years earlier, decided that homosexuality was a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder).

Except for the key difference that homosexuality was completely removed from the DSM, whereas the core diagnosis of gender dysphoria has only ever been refined. This has all been explained upthread.

ETA: As to whether mainstream medicine has commented on "transgender identity" apart from gender dysphoria it's not obvious why medical experts would comment on something that is not now and never has been medicalized, or when they did actually do so.

 

[Sherkeu]

* Y'know: the exact same way as mainstream medicine, some 40 years earlier, decided that homosexuality was a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder).

Being gay is seen in nature.
Transgenderism is also seen in nature with the mainstream science saying:

(JSTOR)

Snakes, lizards, beetles, fish, and birds, to name a few, all exhibit “transgender” behaviors in which males imitate females to gain advantages, including reduced competition, better access to territory, and improved mating opportunities.
Most of the examples of what researchers call deceptive sex signaling in animals are of males posing as females. The reverse—females that imitate males—is a much rarer phenomenon.

Is this really safe for human females to be in sex-segregated spaces with such instictive pretenders though? I think it warrants a pause to think about it a bit more as the results as it affects human females are less than stellar so far.

Perhaps male humans are super unique in that none of the strategies of the animal kingdom apply as they do almost everything else, and despite what mainstream scientists say. These are the experts, after all.

 

[lionking]

Erm... LJ is doing no more (and no less) than pointing out the fact that mainstream medicine now considers transgender identity to be a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder)*.


What's perhaps troubling in a so-called critical thinking forum is the number of so-called "critical thinkers" who either a) don't know this fact, or who b) do know this fact but who try to ignore/rationalise/misrepresent it in their "arguments". Consequently, it's embarrassingly noteworthy when "critical thinkers" try to argue that they know better than the actual experts, that they know the very notion of transgender identity is some sort of unscientific woo, and that they know what transgender people actually require/deserve is diagnosis and treatment.

Fortunately, the actual medical experts and legislatures (yep: the "adults in the room" in this context) understand the situation correctly and appropriately. The non-adults are perfectly at liberty to get all righteous and angry in toxic threads in backwater internet forums, or indeed in the carnival-barking town square for morons and extremists that is Twitter. Thankfully, the adults know otherwise, and the adults know better.


* Y'know: the exact same way as mainstream medicine, some 40 years earlier, decided that homosexuality was a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder).

Like the “experts” who drafted and then approved the incomprehensible, error ridden and illogical guidelines for the SPS on how to deal with transwomen prisoners who want to serve time in women’s prisons (linked above)? Did you actually read it?

Pull the other one.

 

[Rolfe]

Like the "experts" who judged that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito murdered Meredith Kercher? Just saying. It's something we see more commonly in the miscarriage of justice threads, and I'm sure you'll agree with me Lionking when I say it happens too frequently that people simply assume the judge or jury must infallibly be right and there will never be a U-turn. Sometimes critical thinkers realise they made a mistake and change their minds, and then there are those who, while sometimes they start off on the right side by sheer accident, will never look critically at their own biases even when they're blatantly obviously wrong.

Not sure if that makes any sense, I'm up too late.

 

[theprestige]

Erm... LJ is doing no more (and no less) than pointing out the fact that mainstream medicine now considers transgender identity to be a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder)*.


What's perhaps troubling in a so-called critical thinking forum is the number of so-called "critical thinkers" who either a) don't know this fact, or who b) do know this fact but who try to ignore/rationalise/misrepresent it in their "arguments". Consequently, it's embarrassingly noteworthy when "critical thinkers" try to argue that they know better than the actual experts, that they know the very notion of transgender identity is some sort of unscientific woo, and that they know what transgender people actually require/deserve is diagnosis and treatment.

Fortunately, the actual medical experts and legislatures (yep: the "adults in the room" in this context) understand the situation correctly and appropriately. The non-adults are perfectly at liberty to get all righteous and angry in toxic threads in backwater internet forums, or indeed in the carnival-barking town square for morons and extremists that is Twitter. Thankfully, the adults know otherwise, and the adults know better.


* Y'know: the exact same way as mainstream medicine, some 40 years earlier, decided that homosexuality was a valid condition (as opposed to a mental health disorder).

Honestly the only real point of contention I have right now is with the idea that self-ID should be the basis for transcending sex segregation. I don't think it should be. If you agree with me on that point, then we probably also agree on everything else that really matters. If you don't agree with me on that point, then let's address that disagreement head-on.

So.

Do you agree that self-ID should not be the basis for transcending sex segregation?

 

[Rolfe]

Tonight's recommended reading list.

A Message to Those Recently Opining on a Risk to Women Prisoners
This is fall-down funny but I can't quote any of it because there isn't a single sentence that wouldn't give the autocensor a coronary.

Sturgeon's prisons u-turn is too little, too late

Trans prisoners will be treated differently, Sturgeon admits

Female prisoners share shower facilities with trans offenders who are still 'anatomically male', MSP says
This one is a blast from the past - three years ago, when covid was a word we barely knew - and shows how concern about this has been repeatedly shut down by Scotland's First Feminist.