• 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: Transwomen are not women - part XI

Status
Not open for further replies.
A note on so-called "compelled speech":

Many - perhaps most - anti-transgender-identity groups/individuals declare that it's outrageous that they should be "compelled" to refer to trans men as "he" or "him". And as such, they also declare that they will be taking a stand on this issue and refuse to "succumb to compelled speech".

But these people/groups strangely fail to realise that their (deliberately inflammatory) definition of "compelled speech" already occurs right across society in various forms.

For example, if one were to deliberately misgender a weak effeminate cis man by referring to him as "she" and "her", that would potentially cause precisely the same trouble as if one were to deliberately misgender (say) a trans man by referring to him as "she" and "her". And there are countless other examples. In this comparative scenario, a person could invoke the same rhetoric as transgender identity denialists: "Why should I be compelled to refer to this weak effeminate man as "he" and "him"? I refuse to be ordered to use those pronouns; I'll continue to refer to this person as "she" and "her", OK?"
 
LondonJohn said:
As I said: a trans woman rugby player who is not allowed to play in cis women matches doesn't suddenly become "not a trans woman". She is still positively affirmed and validated as a trans woman.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I'm not sure who (in this thread) doesn't actually.

it is transphobic to place a blanket ban on all trans women from competing in all women's sports
Click to expand...
I agree with this too. It is probably a matter for individual sports governing bodies, wouldn't you say?

it is transphobic to place a blanket prohibition on all trans woman prisoners from being allowed to serve their time in the women's estate.
Click to expand...
I'd accept what the government decided, I think you would too. It is possible that in prison environments specifically, a comprehensive prohibition is the most sensible solution. In other female-only settings, that may not be the case (For instance, the metro system in Mexico City and the suburban rail in Mumbai--among others--have women only carriages. That may be fine to admit trans women. Again probably up to the relevant municipalities' transit authorities.)
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes. Everybody - including the clinicians working in this particular area - understands that the evidence base is currently weak.
Click to expand...
Not they don't. Those pushing affirmation and transition insist that the 'science is settled', claim overwhelming evidence, and say there is no disagreement (except people they brand as equivalent to anti-vaxxers and homeopaths). There are quotes to this effect discussed in the article. Did you read it?

But minors are presenting with gender dysphoria (or, in some cases, purely transgender identity) every day. Even in the absence of a reliable evidence set, these minors deserve to be assessed and given appropriate treatment/therapy. Clinicians have to make choices and determinations regarding those minors. They will make some mistakes, for sure. But they are trying to do the correct thing, using all the information and data that's currently available.
Click to expand...
Clinicians are pressured to affirm or risk accusations of transphobia and conversion therapy. There are numerous quotes attesting to this in the sources cited in these threads.

In most instances, their intervention and treatment/therapy is extremely beneficial to the person. In a small subset, the actions of clinicians turns out to be detrimental to the person - either when their denial of affirmatory treatment causes significant distress to the person as they progress towards adulthood, or when their affirmatory treatment causes significant distress to a minor who subsequently wishes to detransition.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that 'In most instances, their intervention and treatment/therapy is extremely beneficial to the person', especially when compared to less invasive approaches, since there are no randomised control trials and no long-term follow ups. That is what is meant by a weak evidence base.

Doing nothing for minors with GD/transgender identity is not an option. Clinicians must make decisions - extremely difficult decisions - and hope that they are doing the right thing by the person.
Click to expand...
Prior to the affirmation-only approach, the treatment was 'watchful waiting' with psychotherapy, not 'doing nothing'. Under this approach, most children spontaneously overcame their dysphoria and re-identified with their natal sex, avoiding the need for medical treatment, and there were no mass suicides.

And as more and more outcome data becomes available, their treatment protocols will evolve accordingly.
Click to expand...
There is no good outcome data happening anytime soon because there are no systematic follow-ups and no randomised control trials.
 
LondonJohn said:
it is transphobic to place a blanket ban on all trans women from competing in all women's sports
Click to expand...

It is misogynistic to allow men to compete in women's sport, with the caveat that it may be OK if you can prove that it does not result in unfair competition.
 
LondonJohn said:
. . . he has transgender identity, that he identifies as the gender "man". This causes Jane a debilitating internal conflict concerning the risks/implications of transition: what would his parents think if he told them about his transgender identity? What would his friends say? What would his employer say (he's a teacher)? This conflict is known as gender dysphoria.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that gender dysphoria is not concern or distress about the social implications of transitioning or having a non-biological gender identity (wrt work, family, etc.), but distress given one's biological sex and one's internal gender identity, both of which have nothing to do with other people.
 
LondonJohn said:
a trans woman rugby player who is not allowed to play in cis women matches doesn't suddenly become "not a trans woman". She is still positively affirmed and validated as a trans woman.
Click to expand...

Francesca R said:
I agree with this. I'm not sure who (in this thread) doesn't actually.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit skeptical myself.

Suppose the trans woman rugby player wasn't excluded solely from the women's locker rooms and rugby leagues, but also from other single-sex spaces and services such as Korean spas and Hampstead Heath bathing ponds. At that point, is she still being socially affirmed and validated?

It was my understanding that a major part of the affirmation process was allowing this trans woman access to all the services and spaces which were formerly reserved for cis women. Is this not so?



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
 
Matthew Best said:
If this is the case, then how can you know that this:



is true?
Click to expand...
First do no harm is the medical oath.
Harm has been done by sin of commission.
Minors should not have their bodies interfered with in order to become something they can never be, women.
It is blindingly obvious to everyone on this thread it seems.
 
Upchurch said:
Maybe talking to trans people might provide a valuable perspective.
Click to expand...

No, you can't evaluate evidence for invasive medical treatment just by asking people how they feel about it, even when the benefit being sought is psychological. In fact, the difficulty in measuring psychological benefits is one of the primary reasons for so much pseudoscience in clinical psychology and allied areas.
It's also why these fields can tend to attract narcissists and grifters, who inflate their egos and build their prestige on the short-term gratitude of satisfied customers.
 
LondonJohn said:
Eh? Seriously?

Ok.....

Suppose somebody assigned female at birth (we'll call this person Jane, and assume that he hasn't yet transitioned and changed his name) has got to the age of 26 and has realised that he has transgender identity, that he identifies as the gender "man". This causes Jane a debilitating internal conflict concerning the risks/implications of transition: what would his parents think if he told them about his transgender identity? What would his friends say? What would his employer say (he's a teacher)? This conflict is known as gender dysphoria. Jane can - and should - seek diagnosis and treatment for his gender dysphoria - in his case, the treatment/therapy should very probably centre upon helping him become comfortable in his trans gender, including any medical or surgical treatments that are appropriate for him, and helping him to transition.

Suppose now that another person assigned female at birth (we'll call this person Zara, and assume that he hasn't yet transitioned and changed his name) gets to the age of 26 and has realised that he has transgender identity, that he identifies as the gender "man". In Zara's case however, upon realising he is a trans man, he has experienced no feelings of internal conflict between his natal gender and his trans gender. He feels entirely happy and comfortable with the prospect of inhabiting his trans gender, and doesn't worry about what family/friends/employer might think or say. He visits gender identity clinicians - but not for diagnosis/treatment of gender dysphoria (because he doesn't suffer from gender dysphoria). He goes because those clinicians can potentially help him (should he require their help) with medication and/or surgery as part of his transition.

Zara's case is what transgender identity in the absence of gender dysphoria means, and why it deserves accommodation.
Click to expand...

I have made a huge error. I completely misunderstood.

I misunderstood how fundamental your misunderstanding of gender dysphoria is. It isn't what you're describing, at all. I really don't want to have to explain it to you in detail, but I'll just point to the real-world consequence of that misunderstanding, and why it invalidates what you're arguing.

It is extremely unethical to medically transition anyone who does not have gender dysphoria, regardless of their "gender identity". Medical transition is expensive, it's risky, it has MASSIVE detrimental side effects, and it is irreversible. It does significant harm. And the ONLY justification for doing that harm is to prevent or alleviate even worse harm. In cases of gender dysphoria, the distress of that dysphoria ==may be worse than the side effects of medical transition, and in such cases medical transition is justified. But if someone does not have gender dysphoria, if they are not experiencing distress, then it's completely unjustified. There is no reason to do harm when no harm is being prevented.

So your entire scenario about a non-dysphoric person undergoing medical transition makes no sense. Plus, of course, you never actually gave any reason for why that person deserves accommodation.
 
Upchurch said:
Maybe talking to trans people might provide a valuable perspective.
Click to expand...

Some trans people are strongly opposed to the current “gender affirming care” model(s) being implemented in the US/Canada/Australia.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/tran...tions-to-reject-ideology-in-favor-of-evidence

“Our healthcare system is failing these young people, as well as people with gender dysphoria, by robbing us of evidence-based information about what our condition is,” the press release states.

“What we are given instead of an evidence-based explanation for gender dysphoria is a postmodernist philosophy that attempts to deny biological realities,” the press release continues. “This is a political maneuver that is at odds with clinical care.”
Click to expand...
 
LondonJohn said:
In addition, the BMJ categorically is not saying that affirmation is wrong for this age group. It's simply saying that in the (current) absence of sufficiently reliable evidence, clinicians should exercise a degree of caution.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't saying that at all. It is discussing the divergence in approach between medical organisations in the US and those in other countries that have commissioned independent reviews of the evidence. The latter have all moved away from the affirmative approach for minors. It also reports on commissioned reviews of the evidence behind the Endocrine Society and WPATH guidelines, conducted by two experts in evidence-based medicine, who found that these guidelines were not evidence-based, especially in relation to minors.
 
Dismember said:
Some trans people are strongly opposed to the current “gender affirming care” model(s) being implemented in the US/Canada/Australia.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/tran...tions-to-reject-ideology-in-favor-of-evidence
Click to expand...
Great article and good comments. One said:

"The goal for treatment is to make the person comfortable in the body they have, not the body they want. "

This common sense treatment idea is apparently banned in 20 states. It may also be the case in NZ now.
 
Thread has been taken off [Moderated] status. Please ensure you post within the Membership Agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Upchurch said:
Trans people, who have gone through affirmative care, wouldn’t know if their care was beneficial to them?
Click to expand...

Haven't you ever heard of placebo? It's incredibly common for people to not know whether a treatment of any sort actually made them better. Gender transition care isn't special in this respect.

How else does one collect data?
Click to expand...

With controlled long term trials that look at as much objective outcome measurements as possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom