• 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.
Upchurch said:
I see. And what are trans women expected to do?
Click to expand...

The same thing literally everyone is expected to do in a society with other people in it, sometimes wind up in situations that aren't 100% comfortable for or tailored to them and just live with it.

And before you hit the "You're a transphobe and history will judge you" shortcut key on your keyboard actually stop and think about what you are saying, read what I'm actually saying, and actually respond to it.

You're treating transpeople going to the bathroom they are comfortable in as some sort of 100% guaranteed human right, but cis-women being uncomfortable with trans-people as something they obviously have to get over.

WHICH IS IT? Is "a comfortable bathroom experience" something a person gets to demand or not? Because it can't something SOME people get to demand and others don't.

Why do transpeople deserve a more comfortable bathroom experience than cispeople? This is not an idle or unreasonable question.
 
Upchurch said:
Do you think they are all ********?
Click to expand...

No, but we have to make rules that take them into account, otherwise we end up with rapists being incarcerated in women's prisons. Self-ID is not nearly enough in those cases. Do you disagree?
 
Matthew Best said:
Meanwhile, the American College of Cardiology yesterday issued this:

https://www.acc.org/About-ACC/Press...nder-Dysphoria-May-Raise-Cardiovascular-Risks

which says that "People with gender dysphoria taking hormone replacements as part of gender affirmation therapy face a substantially increased risk of serious cardiac events, including stroke, heart attack and pulmonary embolism"

In fact, "seven times the risk of ischemic stroke..., nearly six times the risk of ST elevation myocardial infarction (the most serious type of heart attack) and nearly five times the risk of pulmonary embolism..., compared with people with gender dysphoria who had never used hormone replacements."
Click to expand...

It's not surprising.

I watched a Royal Institute lecture a while back about the evolution of male and female:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En26p6GvtHw&t=0s

The lecturer made the point that sexual dimorphism is of course highest in the reproductive organs (for obvious reasons, I would think), but that it is also very high in the somatic organs as well. Humans, and indeed almost all sexually reproductive species, show minimal to dimorphism in their brains.

Males and females don't just have different sex organs. Our bodies have evolved to function differently across a whole host of systems. We aren't just androgynous bodies with plug and play genitals and boobs. We're evolved differently throughout our entire musculoskeletal system, or internal organs, all of it.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, and? The whole point is that there is currently insufficient evidence either way wrt the optimal approach to transgender identity in minors. Because the historic data set is simply too small and too recent to allow for any meaningful statistical analysis.
Click to expand...

Here's where I end up scratching my head. You concede that there is a lack of evidence involved... and yet you also support a process of medical intervention which is 100% guaranteed to have irreversible effects, and hormonal interventions where there are known severe risks which are life altering.

Why would you support an approach which will cause irreversible harm, when there is no evidence to suggest that it provides lasting mental health benefits?

Why would you trade a healthy body for an unknown impact on mental state?
 
LondonJohn said:
On the other hand, it is transphobic to place a blanket ban on all trans women from competing in all women's sports, and 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...

Can I ask a different question, from a different point of view?

Do you consider it sexist to place a blanket ban on males competing in female sports?

Do you consider it sexist to place a blanket ban on males serving their time in prison in female estates?
 
LondonJohn said:
Well that's just silly, because 1) I'm clearly using shorthand for "the validity of transgender identity" (the context makes that perfectly clear); and 2) even without that obvious contextual inference, one can still safely conclude that holding a position along the lines of "transwomen are mentally ill men LARPing at being women" (and others in the same vein) is fundamentally in opposition to transgender identity. Transphobia and transgender-identity denialism is in obvious opposition to transgender identity.

This all sounds suspiciously similar to another transgender-identity-denialism "argument" around the phrase "transgender people exist".
Click to expand...

LondonJohn, I want to ask a very direct, very simple question.

Do you believe that if a person born male expresses a transgender identity, that they are transformed into a female?

Do you believe that transwomen are females?
 
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...

You are not using the clinical criteria of gender dysphoria. You are framing it entirely in terms of social acceptance, and the person's distress around the perceptions and reactions of other people. But that's not what gender dysphoria is, according to the DSM-5.

The criteria for gender dysphoria according to DSM-5 is distress about the incongruence between one's gender identity and one's sex. The distress isn't about how other people might react to their gender identity, it's very explicitly and clearly about distress caused by the incongruence of their mental image of themselves and the reality of their sexed body.

Please try answering Zig's question again, this time with reference to what a diagnosis of gender dysphoria actually is based on.

Given the DSM description and criteria for gender dysphoria... what would it mean for someone to have a transgender identity without gender dysphoria?
 
LondonJohn said:
Firstly, my own government strongly supports the validity of transgender identity. And my own legislature has introduced various pieces of legislation which a) recognises the validity of transgender identity and b) provides rights and protections for transgender people. The efficacy reviews to which you refer are nothing more than a process of optimising the way transgender people are treated and protected. None of it is remotely about questioning the fundamental validity of transgender identity.
Click to expand...

You use language like this, and claim that this language is in alignment with the views of your own government.

But your own government has now shut down both Tavistock and GIDs, and has moved to prohibit or severely limit the usage of gender affirmation for minors.

Are you of the opinion that a government can "recognize the validity of transgender identity" while simultaneously closing down services for support of those identities and severely restricting access to gender affirming medical procedures? Why is that not a contradiction in your view?
 
LondonJohn said:
But minors are presenting with gender dysphoria (or, in some cases, purely transgender identity) every day.
Click to expand...

In complete seriousness and respect... what's the difference?

What is a "purely transgender identity" in the absence of gender dysphoria?
What is gender dysphoria in the absence of transgender identity?
 
LondonJohn said:
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?"
Click to expand...

You are conflating gender and sex.
 
JoeMorgue said:
WHICH IS IT? Is "a comfortable bathroom experience" something a person gets to demand or not? Because it can't something SOME people get to demand and others don't.
Click to expand...
Wow. I mean, that's the question I'm asking, too. What're the odds?

JoeMorgue said:
Why do transpeople deserve a more comfortable bathroom experience than cispeople? This is not an idle or unreasonable question.
Click to expand...
I never said that they do. I'm advocating for equality here. The reason I keep pushing a trans perspective is because it otherwise being almost completely ignored.

When there is a trans man in the men's restroom. I do my best to make him feel comfortable by behaving the way I with every other man: I ignore him completely and go about my business, because it's a freakin' bathroom.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes. Everybody - including the clinicians working in this particular area - understands that the evidence base is currently weak.
Click to expand...

:confused: But you yourself repeatedly insist that the science is settled. You've used the claim that the science is settled as a hammer with which to whack your interlocutors in this thread.
 
Upchurch said:
Maybe talking to trans people might provide a valuable perspective.
Click to expand...

Yeah we tried that once here and the actual transgender person had a completely different argument from all the "Listen I can speak for the transgender people, I've lived among them, I'm the trans-whisperer" people.
 
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...

Good article. One of the quotes is this:
Aaron Kimberly, a female-to-male transsexual, mental health clinician, and founder and executive director of GDA, is concerned that radical transgender activism is causing more hostility towards people with gender dysphoria throughout society — not more acceptance.
Click to expand...
And I complete agree with that. Is suspect nearly all of the gender critical people in this thread agree. This movement is doing harm to females, and to homosexuals, and also to people suffering from gender dysphoria. It is causing *less* acceptance.

We used to be quite willing to accommodate the occasional transsexual. Even though most people could easily discern their actual sex, we were compassionate and considerate and willing to grand exceptions. This ideology is ruining everything for all of those groups of people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom