Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[JoeMorgue]

Also how does any of this apply to something that is 100% internally self defined?

How, even conceptually do we put something like the double blind or falsifiability or other similar concepts into this discussion?

Again one side is defining itself as "Pure self determination is the only standard" which is as close to defining yourself as correct by fiat as you can get.

I've asked multiple times in this and other threads can a person go "I identify as Gender X" and be wrong. If not this whole thing becomes real meaningless real fast.

 

[d4m10n]

Well for those two quotes, sceptical would mean the barred trans woman wasn't being validated as a trans woman.

Validation in the sense of being treated by others as a woman (hereafter: TWAW) requires that the sports bans be dismantled and replaced by a more affirmative regime, such as the IOC's previous decision to pretend affirm that two years of hormone replacement is sufficient to level the playing field in all salient respects. To say it is okay to treat cis women and trans women differently in non-medical social settings such as locker rooms, leagues, and single-sex bathing ponds is to fail at providing social validation (AFIACT, YMMV).

I've asked multiple times in this and other threads can a person go "I identify as Gender X" and be wrong.

There are an ever expanding number of genders, any of which may be affirmed as a matter of personal self-identification, all of which are valid.

 

[Elaedith]

Trans people, who have gone through affirmative care, wouldn’t know if their care was beneficial to them? How else does one collect data?

Ideally the same way as one evaluates any other therapy for a psychological condition. However, evaluating interventions where the benefit is primarily psychological wellbeing is inherently difficult. In medical treatment the placebo effect is defined as a psychological effect, making it hard to define and distinguish placebo effects when the benefit sought is psychological.

It's acknowledged that therapies intended to alleviate psychological distress are subject to very strong placebo effects, meaning that people will tend to report a benefit of virtually any type of intervention when compared (typically) to those on a no-treatment waiting list. Ideally a new intervention would be compared to existing best practice using a randomised control design and systematic follow-up. Outcome measures would be as objective as possible and involve multiple measures. The study and intended analyses would be pre-registered and all outcomes reported.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Is this the only area in psychiatry where the recommended treatment would be to pretend to really be something/someone you're objectively not, and to demand everyone else go along with it? Sounds insane on the face of it, doesn't it?

I'm not going to bother listing the countless (sincere) delusions people may have that have been spotted in the wild, but I can't think of a parallel. As far as I know Gender Dysphoria is unique. Even surgery on people with body dysphoria is considered medical malpractice last time I checked.

What a strange world we live in.

 

[Upchurch]

Is this the only area in psychiatry where the recommended treatment would be to pretend to really be something/someone you're objectively not, and to demand everyone else go along with it? Sounds insane on the face of it, doesn't it?

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

That is not an accurate comparison because sexual attraction could at least define and show what it is and what objective difference it made.

If a guy goes "I only have sex with women, am married to a woman, am only sexually attracted to women, have only ever been in romantic relationships with women, have only ever had sex with women, only intend to every have sex with women, but I personally identify myself personal in my own personal identity that I personally identity my personal identity with as being a gay man" we would be allowed to go "Okay something isn't adding up here." without the level of vitriol we're getting here.

Again to use my previous criteria. The statement "I'm gay" is at least somewhat objective. You can say "I'm gay" and be "wrong" (for lack of a better term.)

The transgender debate leans too heavily on "subjective" and "identity" and even those concepts can't be totally removed any objective real world context.

"I'm a woman" has to relate to some kind of actual objective differences that manifests in the real world or again this whole discussion gets pointless real quick.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again.

I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not.

But I'm sure the discussion is old hat and unlikely to be productive so I will drop it. I just think it's weird and don't believe anybody really believes it when they say "Trans-women ARE women" but nevertheless feel obligated to repeat that slogan.

There's a strong element of the emperor's new clothes about this whole phenomenon.

 

[LondonJohn]

Being sexually attracted to people of the same gender was considered something that objectively could not happen, a mental illness, and something that did not happen in nature. I remember having that discussion on this boards years and years ago.

I'm sure there's special pleading why this is different from that, but history rhymes and here are those same arguments all over again.

Yes, absolutely this.

As I wrote previously in this thread: when DSM decided to declassify homosexuality/bisexuality in the 1970s, there were, nevertheless, undoubtedly people who were adamant and strident in their own belief that a) homosexuality/bisexuality was an undesirable sexual deviancy and a mental health disorder, and b) they were on the right side of both science and history.

And I imagine that had internet forums been around at that time, there would have been a hard core of posters zealously preaching this doctrine. And what's more, those people would have taken angry umbrage if anyone attacked their views as being reactionary, antiscientific and bigoted.

Of course, with the benefit of history and education since those times, pretty much everybody* can now see how disgusting and wrong were those who denied the validity of homosexuality. I have little doubt that things will go very similarly in the case of transgender identity.


* Everybody except, perhaps, fundamental Christian organisations and hard-right-wing groups.... both of which - interestingly enough - are actively in league with the bigoted groups currently preaching a doctrine of transgender identity denialism. What goes around comes around, I guess.....

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration."

 

[Upchurch]

That is not an accurate comparison because sexual attraction could at least define and show what it is and what objective difference it made.

I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not.

I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population.

I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years.

 

[LondonJohn]

I really don't think that's comparable. Sexual attraction is a personal preference, like the kind of food you like to eat, or your favourite colour, and manifests itself in personal behaviour rather than demands to be perceived as something you're objectively not.

But I'm sure the discussion is old hat and unlikely to be productive so I will drop it. I just think it's weird and don't believe anybody really believes it when they say "Trans-women ARE women" but nevertheless feel obligated to repeat that slogan.

There's a strong element of the emperor's new clothes about this whole phenomenon.

When you say that sexual attraction is a "personal preference", what do you mean by that? Because, in the absence of clarification, those words tend to imply that people can choose whether to be gay or not. However, I think the overwhelming majority of gay people would be clear that they never had any choice in the matter: they simply were innately gay. Indeed, this is further reinforced by the fact that a significant proportion of gay people went through considerable internal struggles to come out as gay: many such people tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle to try to "conform", before they couldn't live a lie any longer.

And in exactly the same way, the overwhelming majority of transgender people will tell you that their transgender identity is not a "choice" - it's simply their innate identity. In fact, the disorder of gender dysphoria is essentially wholly predicated on the notion that transgender identity is not a "choice".

The rest of your post is pretty abhorrent and transphobic, so I'll ignore it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population.

I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years.

A reasonable question was asked.

Pointing your finger and going "HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU!" is not an answer, nor does it actually address anything said.

 

[Ron Obvious]

When you say that sexual attraction is a "personal preference", what do you mean by that? Because, in the absence of clarification, those words tend to imply that people can choose whether to be gay or not. However, I think the overwhelming majority of gay people would be clear that they never had any choice in the matter: they simply were innately gay.

True, but how much choice did you really have about your favourite colour or your favourite food?

I think it is comparable enough. Sorry if the word 'preference' doesn't cover the spectrum.

 

[Lplus]

Again gay men and BDSM enthusiasts and every other comparison doesn't work because those groups have criteria beyond "purely internal self declaration."

Indeed:

Your sex is what you physically are, your gender is what you feel you are, and your sexual orientation is which sex turns you on.

Two involve physical evidence, the third is purely an internal state of mind.

 

[Upchurch]

A reasonable argument was made.

Pointing your finger and going "HISTORY WILL JUDGE YOU!" is not an answer.

I'm not pointing my finger at anyone and I'm sorry if I've upset you.

Your particular argument is relying just as much on a subjective understanding of reality as people who identify as trans. You are relying on a societal norm that is in the process of shifting, especially among younger generations.

As I said, you're right for now.

Right now, there are kids who are growing up with trans and gender-fluid kids in their classes. They are not developing the same stigmas that older generations have. My kids, for example, consider gay, trans, and gender-fluid kids more than just "okay". They're friends. By the time they grow up and are having kids of their own, that will probably be when the societal tipping point happens. Maybe a bit after that.

I think the historical parallels are super obvious. The Dobbs decision aside, we always trend towards greater freedoms over time. More suffrage. Less segregation. More inclusion. Sure, people fight against those things, but they always lose eventually.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know, I know. There is no comparison to the arguments of how homosexuality is a genetic impossibility because gays can't procreate with one another and continue their genetic lineage. That is, of course, until research showed that there is, in fact, an improved survival rate at the community level for straight people to have gay offspring, who grow up to produce resources for the community but don't expand the population.

I'm sure you're right. There is no way history could repeat itself on what people can or can not be based on a limited and possibly misinformed understanding. I concede your point for at least another 10-20 years.

Yes.

I think an awful lot of the bigotry around both homosexuality and transgender identity has a pretty simple explanation: many (even most) people who are not homosexual, and/or who are not transgender, cannot see these issues through anything but their own personal lens:

It's very easy (though lazy, incorrect, and bigoted) for somebody who is not transgender themselves to form their beliefs along the lines of "I'm not transgender, and I consider myself normal; this informs me that transgender identity is, by definition, not normal; this in turn informs me that transgender people must be either mentally ill or liars" (and the same thought process lies behind bigoted anti-homosexuality viewpoints).

Fortunately in the case of homosexuality, through a process of education and acceptance - plus the undeniable point that many of the anti-gay bigots literally died off - there's now widespread acceptance of homosexuality as normal (and not a mental health disorder) and healthy. I have little doubt that the same will happen in the case of transgender identity, and I suspect you're right wrt the timeframe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Your particular argument is relying just as much on a subjective understanding of reality as people who identify as trans.

Well jeez if only I've spent like 10 threads now begging anyone to maybe define it beyond "Because I say so."

My not understanding what anyone is actually saying isn't entirely my fault.

"You don't understand it's the subjective identity" yeah I heard you and everyone else the first 500 times. That's terms are meaningless.

You're just rewording "Because I say so." over and over.

At this point might as well just call being trans a "qualia."

 

[JoeMorgue]

All the "Okay but this was said about the previous minority group so therefore I'm right' argument do not work.

Again, and I'm not dropping this. Gays and women and blacks and disabled people can all articulate what is different about them in a way that matters. The history of civil rights is not a mush-mouthed "I say I'm different, case closed."

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed:

Your sex is what you physically are, your gender is what you feel you are, and your sexual orientation is which sex turns you on.

Two involve physical evidence, the third is purely an internal state of mind.

What?

Are you unaware that being gay is entirely a state of mind? That the "visible" consequences (showing romantic love to someone of the same sex, having sexual interactions with someone of the same sex, etc) are merely manifestations of that state of mind?

Your attempts to differentiate transgender identity as somehow different, on the basis that "there's no physical evidence of it", is both risibly unpleasant and incorrect. And it's this sort of reactionary, bigoted thinking which is such a barrier for transgender people. Fortunately the experts in the mainstream medical community, plus progressive legislatures around the world, understand that your "arguments" about the validity of transgender identity are flat wrong.

And more fortunately still - though it's still sad, and a very poor reflection on certain sectors in society - the viewpoint you represent will a) rightly die out within the next decade or two, and b) be looked upon in time with a sense of wonderment and abhorrence: "Did people really use to think that way about transgender identity??" (just as has happened wrt societal views about homosexuality).

 

[JoeMorgue]

"It's bigoted to expect a difference to actually be a difference" isn't the argument you think it is.