• 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.
d4m10n said:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36156703/
Click to expand...

They measured reported satisfaction three months after surgery.

Three. Months.

That’s WORTHLESS. Three months isn’t nearly enough time to actually evaluate the effects of a permanent removal of part of your body. I also don’t see any comparison in there between patients who were given mastectomies as minors and those who were delayed until adulthood.

But this kind of superficial short term data is the norm for medical treatment of transgender patients. There is very little good data out there.
 
d4m10n said:
Calling it "cosmetic" makes it sound like it is not the standard of care being prescribed by a team of doctors to treat a condition with well-defined diagnostic criteria. If the doctors and the parents and the patient all agree with the treatment plan, I don't see why the legislature should make patients drive to Illinois for this particular treatment.
Click to expand...


Indeed.

Plus, "cosmetic" automatically implies discretionary and somewhat superficial*... whereas in the case of transgender identity, medically-appropriate surgical (or medical, for that matter) intervention is not viewed as discretionary - it's viewed as necessary and therapeutic in nature.

And maybe it's worth reiterating (again) that transgender identity is nowadays considered a valid condition by the entirety of mainstream medicine** - which is precisely why treatments/therapies to affirm transgender identity (provided they are agreed by both the transgender person and the clinicians treating them) are considered medically-suitable, necessary, and restorative in terms of the overall health of the person concerned.


* And I mean "superficial" in the emotion/consciousness sense, rather than the physical sense (some cosmetic surgery procedures are pretty brutal and short-term injurious in the physical sense).

** As opposed to a mental health disorder.
 
LondonJohn said:
Indeed.

Plus, "cosmetic" automatically implies discretionary and somewhat superficial*... whereas in the case of transgender identity, medically-appropriate surgical (or medical, for that matter) intervention is not viewed as discretionary - it's viewed as necessary and therapeutic in nature.

And maybe it's worth reiterating (again) that transgender identity is nowadays considered a valid condition by the entirety of mainstream medicine** - which is precisely why treatments/therapies to affirm transgender identity (provided they are agreed by both the transgender person and the clinicians treating them) are considered medically-suitable, necessary, and restorative in terms of the overall health of the person concerned.
Click to expand...

But LJ, isn't it true that - in the UK at least - gender-affirming medical treatments like hormones and surgery are only indicated for people with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria? This is certainly true in the NHS, and as far as I've been able to find out it seems to also be true for private clinics in the UK.

By your logic above, then, transgender identity is only considered "valid" by the mainstream medical community if it's accompanied by a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, because only then will a person be offered gender-affirming medical treatments. A person who considered themselves trans but didn't suffer from gender dysphoria wouldn't be able to access those treatments (not, at least, via mainstream medicine).
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I also don’t see any comparison in there between patients who were given mastectomies as minors and those who were delayed until adulthood.
Click to expand...
Fair point. That would require a much longer (preferably prospective and longitudinal) study.

Ziggurat said:
There is very little good data out there.
Click to expand...
Do you think a reasonable solution to this lack of data is to legally forbid gathering any more?
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Do you think a reasonable solution to this lack of data is to legally forbid gathering any more?
Click to expand...

Under the current circumstances, yes. I think the medical establishment has demonstrated an inability to police itself on the topic, and the harm is likely to be larger than the benefit.

As data comes in, perhaps the medical establishment will be able to demonstrate that there is a benefit to doing these things early, and moreover they know how to accurately screen who will benefit and who will not. This ban is only for one state, so that will pose little impediment to the medical establishment conducting such research. I am not optimistic that they will do so any time soon. Nor in fact do I expect there to be much benefit. It is possible that I will be proven wrong, but even if I am, caution at this stage is more than justified.
 
TomB said:
I think the interesting point that Damien's posts bring up is the inconsistency and arbitrariness of the age-based definitions of adult.

10 may contract for life insurance. (This seems weird.)
16 to drive a car.
16 for sex.
18 to vote.
18 to join the army.
18 can enter into binding contracts or sign a lease.
19 is the age of majority. (One of three states higher than 18.)
19 for medical decisions.
(Cross the border to Iowa, and that last goes down to 18.)
21 to buy tobacco.
21 to Drink.

Partly from: https://www.findlaw.com/state/nebraska-law/nebraska-legal-ages-laws.html#:~:text=Nebraska%20Legal%20Ages%20Laws%20at%20a%20Glance%20Nebraska,being%20declared%20an%20adult%20in%20Nebraska%20is%20marriage.
Click to expand...
And in different countries never mind different states those ages differ. Here in the UK we can drink at 18 and here in Scotland voting for Scottish elections is allowed at 16. Always found it odd that you could buy a gun before you could buy a pint in the USA. Though, given your propensity to shoot one another I suppose we wouldn't want people drunk in charge of firearms
 
Ziggurat said:
Under the current circumstances, yes. I think the medical establishment has demonstrated an inability to police itself on the topic, and the harm is likely to be larger than the benefit.
Click to expand...
Based on which studies?

Ziggurat said:
As data comes in, perhaps the medical establishment will be able to demonstrate that there is a benefit to doing these things early, and moreover they know how to accurately screen who will benefit and who will not.
Click to expand...
As data come in from jurisdictions which do not follow the lead of these eight states.

Ziggurat said:
This ban is only for one state, so that will pose little impediment to the medical establishment conducting such research.
Click to expand...
We're looking at up to one or two dozen states hoping to ban cross sex hormones and/or mastectomies in the near term.
 
d4m10n said:
Based on which studies?

As data come in from jurisdictions which do not follow the lead of these eight states.

We're looking at up to one or two dozen states hoping to ban cross sex hormones and/or mastectomies in the near term.
Click to expand...
I see the term best practice medical care has been purloined by these fanatics who convert healthy bodies into something other.
 
Matthew Best said:
USA Powerlifting has lost a lawsuit brought by a trans woman who claimed that she was discriminated against by being denied the opportunity to compete in women's events. USA Powerlifting will now have to change their rules and allow transwomen to compete in the women's division - within the next two weeks.

https://nypost.com/2023/03/04/usa-powerlifting-to-allow-trans-athletes-to-compete-after-losing-suit/
Click to expand...
Think this is the judgement - https://www.genderjustice.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/62-cv-21-211.pdf

Not read it yet so don't know on what grounds the judgement was made. Anyone gone through it?

ETA: started to read it - one thing to note is that this is a summary judgement, so the court won't have weighed the evidence from both sides.
 
Last edited:
It's a very interesting judgement, the court does not make a judgement that the USAPL can't have a policy that would mean trans women couldn't compete in the women competitions just that the USAPL shot itself in the foot in this case by having its president in an email saying “[w]e do not allow male to female transgender athletes at all. Full stop.” in a summary judgement that pretty much set the inevitable result in stone.

The important paragraph regarding if they can have a policy that discriminates against trans women is this one:

To reiterate, USAPL has engaged in unfair discriminatory practices by denying Cooper the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of sexual orientation and because of sex. Genuine issues of material fact remain whether section 363A.24 subdivision 2 exempts USAPL from liability for public accommodation discrimination under section 363A.11 subdivision 1(a)(1) because of sex. Section 363A.24 does not exempt USAPL for public accommodation discrimination liability because of sexual orientation. USAPL has engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice in a trade or business by discriminating against Cooper in the basic terms, conditions, or performance of the contract existing between USAPL and Cooper because of Cooper’s sex and sexual orientation. USAPL is not exempted from liability for such discrimination “because of a legitimate business purpose.”
Click to expand...

There does appear to be an issue peculiar to Minnesota and that is how they have defined sex and sexual orientation in anti-discrimination legislation and how its courts have judged on that. A transperson "trans" actually falls under "sexual orientation" so even though there is an exception/exemption for "single sex segregation" in limited circumstances that only applies to the "sex" part of the anti-discrimination legislation, there is nothing defined that allows an exemption for "sexual orientation". I can understand how this came about when they were drafting the legislation so it looks like they are going to have to amend the legislation either to remove "trans" being defined under the "sexual orientation" anti-discrimination aspect or add a specific exemption for transfolk to be excluded from the allowed single sex segregation.
 
Darat said:
Think this is the judgement -
Not read it yet so don't know on what grounds the judgement was made. Anyone gone through it?
Click to expand...

Skimmed it.

It seems the relevant laws consider discrimination on grounds of sex, and sexual orientation separately. Sexual orientation includes transgender issues. There is also an exemption for sex discrimination (but not sexual orientation) in sporting events.

So the conclusion is that a female can be legally banned from a male only golf tournament (previous case), but a transwomen cannot be banned from female events.

Sexual orientation defined as:
means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological maleness or femaleness.
Click to expand...

The wording of the exemption allowing sex discrimination in sporting events:
restricting membership on an athletic team or in a program or event to participants of one sex if the restriction is necessary to preserve the unique character of the team, program, or event and it would not substantially reduce comparable athletic opportunities for the other sex
Click to expand...

The judgement notes that fairness in competition is not included here, and that offering open and female classes would not prevent a transwomen claiming discrimination if they were excluded from the female class.

The detail of the laws differ from the UK which separates sexual orientation and gender reassignment as protected classes, and allow single sex exemptions (although whether this biological or legal sex is currently unclear).
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
There does appear to be an issue peculiar to Minnesota and that is how they have defined sex and sexual orientation in anti-discrimination legislation and how its courts have judged on that. A transperson "trans" actually falls under "sexual orientation" so even though there is an exception/exemption for "single sex segregation" in limited circumstances that only applies to the "sex" part of the anti-discrimination legislation, there is nothing defined that allows an exemption for "sexual orientation". I can understand how this came about when they were drafting the legislation so it looks like they are going to have to amend the legislation either to remove "trans" being defined under the "sexual orientation" anti-discrimination aspect or add a specific exemption for transfolk to be excluded from the allowed single sex segregation.
Click to expand...

Not convinced about the bolded bit; note the campaign slogan "No LGB without the T".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom