Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Rolfe]

I don't actually care what transgender people want. They are a small minority and should not expect the world to rearrange itself to accommodate them, particularly when the accommodations they demand significantly disadvantage another, much larger group.

They're entitled to express the problems that they have and ask for some arrangements to be made to address these, but they do not get to dictate what these arrangements should be. They need to be told that single-sex provisions are sacrosanct, and some other solution needs to be discussed.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not personal safety concerns that are keeping transwomen out of mens' locker rooms.

No, but that's their first excuse. Oh I can't go there because I'll be beaten up. No, you almost certainly won't be.

Then when they're offered a separate facility for trans people only they say I won't go there because that's discrimination. If pressed, they declare that forcing them to use a separate facility will out them as trans. We're supposed to ignore that the person saying this is an obvious man in a bad wig and too-bright lipstick.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah I never understood the people who thought a separate venue for transwomen was ever going to be acceptable.

But I think the safety argument comes up mainly in regards to prisons and professional sports. Not to stereotype, but I think those venues in particular may tend to have high concentrations of hypermasculinity and toxic masculinity. Odball or effeminate men are more likely to get bullied and assaulted in those contexts, I think.

So while a transwoman is probably at little to no risk of getting beaten up in the locker room of his 24-hour Fitness, he might be at greater risk in cell block A.

Also, I should think their first excuse is that they're not men.

 

[Ziggurat]

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)*.

Repeating this won't make it any more convincing. You can't actually back up this claim, and you can't address the myriad criticisms of it.

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.

Irony abounds.

First off, "transgender identity", if it only consists of self ID, quite obviously is unscientific. By design, it's impossible to falsify, and that's basically the sine qua non of something unscientific. If "transgender identity" consists of something besides self ID (and apparently it's not gender dysphoria), then I don't recall you ever saying what that was. Gender dysphoria isn't unscientific, but that is a disorder, and it does deserve diagnosis and treatment.

Second, the "actual experts" seem to be doing a whole lot of stuff with no real evidence to support it. Basically whenever I try to look under the hood to see what evidence supports some claim, there's nothing, like that whole "puberty blockers are fully reversible" thing. The emperor has no clothes, we've looked behind the Wizard's curtain.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah I never understood the people who thought a separate venue for transwomen was ever going to be acceptable.

But I think the safety argument comes up mainly in regards to prisons and professional sports. Not to stereotype, but I think those venues in particular may tend to have high concentrations of hypermasculinity and toxic masculinity. Odball or effeminate men are more likely to get bullied and assaulted in those contexts, I think.

So while a transwoman is probably at little to no risk of getting beaten up in the locker room of his 24-hour Fitness, he might be at greater risk in cell block A.

Also, I should think their first excuse is that they're not men.

This is why I say, I don't care. I don't care what their reasons are, these reasons are not sufficient to justify destroying women's rights. I'm happy if someone finds a solution for them that will work, but I don't think that's my job. Women's job is to close the door of our own spaces firmly and let those on the outside work something out.

 

[Stout]

Yeah I never understood the people who thought a separate venue for transwomen was ever going to be acceptable.

But I think the safety argument comes up mainly in regards to prisons and professional sports. Not to stereotype, but I think those venues in particular may tend to have high concentrations of hypermasculinity and toxic masculinity. Odball or effeminate men are more likely to get bullied and assaulted in those contexts, I think.

So while a transwoman is probably at little to no risk of getting beaten up in the locker room of his 24-hour Fitness, he might be at greater risk in cell block A.

Also, I should think their first excuse is that they're not men.

The third space is an old (1990s) idea in response to the safety concerns previously mentioned. There was thought it would work at the expense of the facilities who might be required to provide these spaces but it was pretty much agreed upon that this was a solution that was fair and equitable to all.

This whole woman can have a penis is a fairly recent idea with these activists entering women's spaces and exposing themselves, presumably to educate the great unwashed that there's a new reality afoot and you better get used to it...or maybe they just get off on it.

 

[Rolfe]

There's a reason why they protest so strongly that the concept of autogynaephilia has been "discredited". These guys are pretty much all AGP and their one aim in life is to gain access to women's groups, women's company and women's single-sex spaces. And it has to be all of them. It's not enough that there is a "women's" facility that is trans-inclusive that they can go to or use, there must not be a co-existing women-only facility that excludes them. If anyone tries to set one up they will issue legal challenges and organise protests and commit vandalism and violence and issue death threats until the women-only facility either capitulates to them or closes its doors.

At the same time however they do like to have trans-only events whenever they fancy.

 

[Rolfe]

Your midnight check-in on the petition reports 77,506 signatures, so 206 new signatures today. That's an unusually quiet day and some way short of the target for only the second time this month.

The new magic number is 284.7.

 

[LondonJohn]

Repeating this won't make it any more convincing. You can't actually back up this claim, and you can't address the myriad criticisms of it.



Irony abounds.

First off, "transgender identity", if it only consists of self ID, quite obviously is unscientific. By design, it's impossible to falsify, and that's basically the sine qua non of something unscientific. If "transgender identity" consists of something besides self ID (and apparently it's not gender dysphoria), then I don't recall you ever saying what that was. Gender dysphoria isn't unscientific, but that is a disorder, and it does deserve diagnosis and treatment.

Second, the "actual experts" seem to be doing a whole lot of stuff with no real evidence to support it. Basically whenever I try to look under the hood to see what evidence supports some claim, there's nothing, like that whole "puberty blockers are fully reversible" thing. The emperor has no clothes, we've looked behind the Wizard's curtain.

Take it up with the American Psychiatric Association and its global affiliate organisations, not with me. They're the experts who now validate transgender identity (which, for the difficult children at the back, means that they no longer consider transgender identity to be a mental health disorder in and of itself).

Incidentally, the APA (and affiliate bodies) did exactly the same thing wrt homosexuality in 1973:

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/12/23/...le-the-debate-still-on-the-apa-ruling-on.html

In 1973, for the first time, the world's experts no longer considered homosexuality to be a mental health disorder in its own right.

Now, I can pretty much guarantee you that in the 1970s there were plenty of "critical thinkers" who "knew" they knew better than the experts. They "knew" that homosexuality was a sexual deviancy and a mental health illness requiring diagnosis and treatment. They too would have trumpeted that the APA's declaration - that homosexuality was a valid lived condition and not a mental health disorder - was "unfalsifiable" and "unscientific".

I wonder how that one ended up, and who ended up on the right side side of history.....? (Hint: it wasn't the bigots)

 

[Rolfe]

Trans law is "magic key" for predators

A legal expert has warned Scotland’s controversial gender laws will provide men “who cross-dress for erotic purposes” with a “magic certificate” to access women’s spaces. In evidence to MPs, Naomi Cunningham, a barrister who specialises in gender reassignment discrimination, said the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill “radically changes the eligibility criteria”.

Cunningham, who works for London law firm Outer Temple Chambers, said the more liberal Scottish regime — which removes the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and cuts the waiting period to three months — would open the floodgates for “erotic cross dressers” and predatory men to get a gender recognition certificate (GRC) to become a woman legally. She said the flaws in the bill were highlighted by the rapist Isla Bryson, 31, whose case forced Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister, to ban trans women with a history of violence against female victims from women’s prisons. Cunningham warned that the rapist would have firmer grounds to sue for being moved to a male wing if she had a GRC. She called the GRC a “magic certificate” and “a key” to grant dangerous males access to women’s spaces.

She spoke at the House of Commons women and equalities committee on Tuesday as MPs heard evidence about the UK government’s decision to block the Scottish bill becoming law, on the grounds it posed a danger to women. Cunningham said: “The mental picture when that legislation was passed was of someone who would not cause any upset in a women-only changing room, toilet, ward or prison, because everyone would just accept he was a woman. Events of the last few days should have made it vivid to everybody that that is not the cohort we are dealing with now. The trans umbrella is now taken to include people . . . who cross-dress for erotic purposes.”

Interestingly she also highlighted the issue with the beauty course and said straight out that this was a huge problem because if Graham had had a GRC then the course would not have been able to prevent him from being in a space where young women were undressing by invoking the EA exemptions, nor from being partnered with a young woman to get very close to apply makeup.

Yeah but "valid lived condition".

Even if there was anything in this "valid lived condition" nonsense - as opposed to a gang of raving autogynaephile fetishists using the concessions granted to benefit a tiny number of men who were assumed to be highly motivated to behave modestly and unobtrusively - there should be no automatic presumption that the interests of such people should be prioritised at the expense of the huge downsides we're seeing.

 

[LondonJohn]

Trans law is "magic key" for predators




Interestingly she also highlighted the issue with the beauty course and said straight out that this was a huge problem because if Graham had had a GRC then the course would not have been able to prevent him from being in a space where young women were undressing by invoking the EA exemptions, nor from being partnered with a young woman to get very close to apply makeup.

Yeah but "valid lived condition".

Even if there was anything in this "valid lived condition" nonsense - as opposed to a gang of raving autogynaephile fetishists using the concessions granted to allow a tiny number of men who were assumed to be highly motivated to behave modestly and unobtrusively - there should be no automatic presumption that the interests of such people should be prioritised at the expense of the huge downsides we're seeing.

Are you sure you're remaining objective and rational about all this...?

 

[novaphile]

Are you sure you're remaining objective and rational about all this...?

Says the purveyor of "valid lived condition"

 

[Rolfe]

Like that's all he takes from that.

 

[d4m10n]

Take it up with the American Psychiatric Association and its global affiliate organisations, not with me.

Where exactly did these professional organizations comment on transgender identity in the absence of a diagnostic category such as gender dysphoria? I am somewhat skeptical as to whether you are correctly paraphrasing what they wrote.

 

[Ziggurat]

Take it up with the American Psychiatric Association and its global affiliate organisations, not with me. They're the experts who now validate transgender identity (which, for the difficult children at the back, means that they no longer consider transgender identity to be a mental health disorder in and of itself).

What does "in and of itself" even mean? Seriously, what is transgenderism in the absence of dysphoria? Yes, yes, I know it's a thing. But what is that thing? And more importantly, why the hell does it deserve any accommodation?

As for your deference to the APA, why do you put such faith in an institution that by your own admission got it wrong before? Why are you so sure that they're getting it right now? Seems like special pleading to me.

For my part, I don't think a rational position needs to appeal to experts. It can be argued on its own merits. You seem curiously incapable of doing that, though. No, that's a lie, there's nothing curious about it.

Incidentally, the APA (and affiliate bodies) did exactly the same thing wrt homosexuality in 1973:

Transgenderism (with or without dysphoria) isn't comparable to sexuality. And what the transgender rights movement is asking for now isn't comparable to what the gay rights movement asked for.

 

[Ziggurat]

Where exactly did these professional organizations comment on transgender identity in the absence of a diagnostic category such as gender dysphoria? I am somewhat skeptical as to whether you are correctly paraphrasing what they wrote.

It's pretty much guaranteed that he isn't.

 

[Dismember]

Second, the "actual experts" seem to be doing a whole lot of stuff with no real evidence to support it. Basically whenever I try to look under the hood to see what evidence supports some claim, there's nothing, like that whole "puberty blockers are fully reversible" thing. The emperor has no clothes, we've looked behind the Wizard's curtain.

On that note, Jesse Singal’s latest: On Scientific Transparency, Researcher Degrees Of Freedom, And That NEJM Study On Youth Gender Medicine

[…] Even here, there’s apparent cherry-picking. In both the protocol document and the NEJM paper, the authors mention administering the TCS. But they don’t report the full results anywhere in the NEJM paper — instead, they report on only one of the scale’s two subscales, Appearance Congruence (again, we know they have the full data because they provided some of it in their baseline measures paper).

This means the researchers had three bites at the apple: They could analyze the changes over time on the full scale, and then each of the two subscales. They report on only one of these three results, and this nets them what they describe in the paper as their strongest finding: Over the course of their two years on hormones, the average kid in the study improved about one point on this five-point subscale.

The researchers then build a significant chunk of their paper around this finding, going so far as to say they hypothesized that appearance congruence would be important — which, to me, reads as though they hypothesized it all along, when I’m not seeing any evidence they did. Rather, they hypothesized something pretty different in their protocol document, and then they changed that hypothesis without explaining why. (I also think this finding about appearance congruence is far less impressive than the researchers are making it out to be, but I’ll leave that for Part 2.)
[…]

 

[theprestige]

For my part, I don't think a rational position needs to appeal to experts. It can be argued on its own merits.

The worst part is, he's not even appealing to experts. He says he is, but either they're not experts, or their positions don't support his claims, or they're already known to be wrong about the question.

 

[Elaedith]

On that note, Jesse Singal’s latest: On Scientific Transparency, Researcher Degrees Of Freedom, And That NEJM Study On Youth Gender Medicine

Yes, very interesting analysis. I haven't had time to read through all of it yet. Apparently lots of variables mentioned in the pre-registration went missing in the paper (although it's not clear if they might be published later). Singal is very good on issues of replication and problems with hypothesis testing.

It is depressing that his work is so much better than the rubbish articles on 'Science Based Medicine', which are published riddled with errors and lapped up by the faithful without question, although the links often outright contradict the claims they are supposed to support. And Singal is not even a doctor or academic.

 

[Matthew Best]

I assume Jesse Singal isn't an adult, or certainly not "an adult in the room".