Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[TomB]

Not sure if this is on topic here or in the moderated thread or in the locked thread, but I’ve been meaning to ask you folks about three related court cases.

Foote v. Ludlow School Committee
Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School
Regino v. CUSD

What they all have in common are school districts which sought to facilitate the social transition of young students without informing parents of the child’s intent to transition. I expect that all three cases will ultimately be dismissed or settled, basically for the reasons given here towards the top of page 17.

Legal complexities and jurisdictional differences aside, all three cases raise the question of how far a school should go in helping a minor child to transition when the parents or legal guardians have not yet been informed and—quite probably—medical specialists have not had the opportunity to assess the child for dysphoria. We probably already agree that the school should not be providing puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones or gender affirming surgeries, but there is plenty of room for argument and shades of gray as to the process of social transition (e.g. pronouns, teams, locker rooms, etc.) and non-medical interventions such as binding and tucking.

Okay then, what say you all? How far should schools go?

I haven't read the details of the cases, but here's my take:

For the most part schools should be neutral. That is to say that they should be just as supportive as to any other student. As long as they follow general, gender non-specific dress codes, and behave civilly, I don't think they need to inform parents. Nor do I think they need to provide gender counseling. Basically, if a child appears to have issues, they should refer them to a professional just as they would with ADHD, etc. It's not their job to diagnose, nor second guess a diagnosis.

Basically, take the kid at face value.

It gets a little more complicated with bathrooms and locker rooms. I tend to lean towards providing private spaces to those who desire them, but otherwise keeping the facilities the same sex. At least until better designs centered around individual privacy are in place.

As far as discussing transgenderism...I think it's appropriate in health class to discuss that it exists, and that it's OK. Just like homosexuality. Information and support is not recruitment.

 

[Samson]

No doubt there are parents who would be quite supportive in every state, and others who would be much less so. Out of curiosity, though, why refer to youth transition as a tragedy?

I am one of the voters on the other thread to ban puberty blockers, and their very existence is obviously a massive confusion for youth.
I consider most medication of any sort outside the lifestyle appeasing ones like blood pressure pills, antacids etc to be party to over diagnosis syndrome.
Tragedy is the wrong word of course for most people, but I don't deal with these matters easily in my own mind. I guess I am grateful to the universe that my own son and daughter are happy in the healthy bodies they were born in.
My brother wished to be a woman, and later in life took to cross dressing and took hormones to develop breasts. This seemed to work OK for him alongside his day and night activities, he was a semi professional snooker player and teacher.
He remains the only person I have ever known to wish that way, but it allowed me to be quite certain it is a real thing.
At school there was no discussion at all about trans gender matters when I struggled through.

Above all I consider it a tragedy that society trains adults to medicate and stunt children, and to remove healthy breasts, forearms and penises from children.

 

[LondonJohn]

My statements deny that a person having an identity that is transgender actually makes them the opposite sex in any rational or meaningful sense.

Your pro-trans-identity is tantamount to handing over control of the armed forces to anyone who says they identify as Napoleon, because their identity cannot be denied.

Still confusing gender with biological sex, I see.

(And once more: mainstream medicine considers transgender identity to be a valid lived condition; mainstream medicine considers identifying as Napoleon to be a mental illness.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to removie incivility

)

 

[LondonJohn]

I just finished. She does a much better job of comparing the gay panic from decades ago with the trans panic of today than I ever have in these threads.

Yes. There are, very clearly, striking parallels between the two.

And I suspect that in some 20-30 years from now, most people will wonder - in exactly the same way most people wonder today wrt the vocal minority who held those "gay people are sexual perverts and predators with a mental illness" views back then - just how anyone could have sincerely adopted such a point of view about transgender people and transgender identity.

Plus of course we can add into the mix the exactly similar sort of handwaving away (or complete ignoring of, or complete ignorance of) the DSM reclassification of both conditions.

 

[Matthew Best]

Still confusing gender with biological sex, I see.

I don't see how. She said she denies "that a person having an identity that is transgender actually makes them the opposite sex" - that's not confusing gender and sex, is it?

 

[Samson]

Another poll might help.

Are Trans rights the same as Gay rights and the usual mishmash of questions.
Be careful constructing it or be accused of all the usual malice

 

[lionking]

I don't see how. She said she denies "that a person having an identity that is transgender actually makes them the opposite sex" - that's not confusing gender and sex, is it?

Of course. But LJ is in a state of denial.

 

[Samson]

Here is a perplexing article.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/3008...ven-trans-man-shocked-by-question-at-pharmacy

This is the best trans man achieving the goal of seeming to be a man, but starting as a biological woman, I have seen.

There may be some agenda but I know only what is in the link.

 

[lionking]

Here is a perplexing article.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/3008...ven-trans-man-shocked-by-question-at-pharmacy

This is the best trans man achieving the goal of seeming to be a man, but starting as a biological woman, I have seen.

There may be some agenda but I know only what is in the link.

Nothing perplexing at all. The staff member was out of order.

 

[smartcooky]

Still confusing gender with biological sex, I see.

(And once more: mainstream medicine considers transgender identity to be a valid lived condition; mainstream medicine considers identifying as Napoleon to be a mental illness.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove moderated content

Yes. There are, very clearly, striking parallels between the two.

And I suspect that in some 20-30 years from now, most people will wonder - in exactly the same way most people wonder today wrt the vocal minority who held those "gay people are sexual perverts and predators with a mental illness" views back then - just how anyone could have sincerely adopted such a point of view about transgender people and transgender identity.

Plus of course we can add into the mix the exactly similar sort of handwaving away (or complete ignoring of, or complete ignorance of) the DSM reclassification of both conditions.

You position makes about as much sense as this...

 

[Samson]

Nothing perplexing at all. The staff member was out of order.

Yes of course if a genuine woman becomes man.
There is the case of Silverstein in Canada, where it seems obvious he was using the theater of trans inclusion to make a point in power lifting.

 

[smartcooky]

Another poll might help.

Are Trans rights the same as Gay rights and the usual mishmash of questions.
Be careful constructing it or be accused of all the usual malice

No!

Gay rights impact on no-one other than those involved. If two men (or two women) want to be in a loving relationship it is the business of no-one but themselves. Their relationship has no impact on anyone else.

Trans rights do directly impact on others. If trans-people want to invade the safe spaces of actual women, that violates the rights of third parties. I find nothing strange about women not wanting people with penises in their toilets.

I promise you, if I was a woman, and a trans-woman walked into the toilets while I'm there, he would be instructed to leave immediately, and if he failed to do so, would get a face full of mace! He could count on it!

 

[Samson]

Nothing perplexing at all. The staff member was out of order.

No!

Gay rights impact on no-one other than those involved. If two men (or two women) want to be in a loving relationship it is the business of no-one but themselves. Their relationship has no impact on anyone else.

Trans rights do directly impact on others. If trans-people want to invade the safe spaces of actual women, that violates the rights of third parties. I find nothing strange about women not wanting people with penises in their toilets.

I promise you, if I was a woman, and a trans-woman walked into the toilets while I'm there, he would be instructed to leave immediately, and if he failed to do so, would get a face full of mace! He could count on it!

I agree, but if there is a good emanating from a forum like this, it will be to find a path where LondonJohn and you come to a common place.
I find the puberty blocking thread poll useful for example.
Partly because I try.to imagine backwards the existence of puberty blockers when my brother was at school.

Eta II did not mean to quote LK in this,

 

[smartcooky]

I agree, but if there is a good emanating from a forum like this, it will be to find a path where LondonJohn and you come to a common place.I find the puberty blocking thread poll useful for example.
Partly because I try.to imagine backwards the existence of puberty blockers when my brother was at school.

Eta II did not mean to quote LK in this,

He and I will never come to any common ground so long as he supports the notion that a person with a penis should have the right to walk into a toilet or changing room where my daughter or grand-daughter are. I have equipped them to deal with it should they find themselves in such a situation

We will also never come to any common ground so long as he supports the idea of trans-women competing against actual women in women's sports at ANY level, from primary school to Golden Oldies.

 

[Elaedith]

Yes. There are, very clearly, striking parallels between the two.

And I suspect that in some 20-30 years from now, most people will wonder - in exactly the same way most people wonder today wrt the vocal minority who held those "gay people are sexual perverts and predators with a mental illness" views back then - just how anyone could have sincerely adopted such a point of view about transgender people and transgender identity.

Plus of course we can add into the mix the exactly similar sort of handwaving away (or complete ignoring of, or complete ignorance of) the DSM reclassification of both conditions.

Nobody here has 'handwaved away' the 'DSM reclassification of both conditions'. You have frequently misrepresented this by claiming that when gender identity disorder was renamed gender dysphoria in DSM5, this 'declassified transgender identity as being a disorder'. You have also pretended that moving the condition into a chapter on it's own was part of this 'declassification'.

These claims are false. The requirement of dysphoria for clinical diagnosis was added to the criteria for GID (along with many other conditions including paraphilias) decades earlier as part of a general revision of how psychological disorder is defined (nothing should be considered a disorder unless it causes distress, impairment, or harm to others). The separation of three classes of condition into separate chapters has nothing to do with 'declassification as disorders'. All of this has been explained repeatedly with citations and direct quotes from the working group that did the revisions. You have continuously ignored this and continued to repeat false claims. This is not a matter of opinion. You are repeatedly making demonstrably false statements.

There was never a time when 'transgender identity' was a disorder. There was a short time in between the introduction of gender identity disorder to DSM-III and the adding of the 'distress or impairment' criterion to multiple diagnoses in DSM-IIIR, when there was not a specific separate dysphoria requirement for GID. But at that time, the concept of 'transgender identity' did not exist. Gender was used largely as a synonym for sex, and GID was seen as being unhappy with one's sex. The diagnostic criteria were also different and focused a lot more on anatomical dysphoria or unhappiness with one's sexual characteristics (at least for childhood GID) rather than identity (Zucker, 2009).

Activists use the change of name from GID to GD in DSM5 to pretend that 'transgender identity used to be a disorder' and draw false parallels between homosexuality and transgender identity for political purposes. In other words, they want people to believe that this is the new gay rights, and that the underlying basis of the political push is the same.

The basis of modern transactivism is actually sex denialism, based on postmodern ideas which says that all categories, including biological sex, are artificial social constructions devised to maintain the interests of those who have power, are constructed through language, and will go away if we change language and policy to pretend they don't exist. Saying that people must be compelled to believe in non-scientific philosophical ideas about sex and gender or face social and occupational destruction doesn't tend to go down so well, however. Pretending that those who disagree are 'just like people who thought homosexuality is a mental illness' works a lot better, hence the lies about declassification.

 

[Elaedith]

I'm guessing ContraPoints repeated the nonsense about 'transgender identity' being declassified as a disorder in DSM5. Can anyone confirm this, or do I need to watch this video?

 

[angrysoba]

No!

Gay rights impact on no-one other than those involved. If two men (or two women) want to be in a loving relationship it is the business of no-one but themselves. Their relationship has no impact on anyone else.

I dunno.

I am sure these arguments have been, and probably still are made (albeit not in polite society these days):

1. I don't want to share a changing room with a pooftah!
2. Backs to the wall, lads!
3. Don't drop the soap!
4. Imagine what they want to do with our children? Would you want them being a teacher in your child's school?

Trans rights do directly impact on others. If trans-people want to invade the safe spaces of actual women, that violates the rights of third parties. I find nothing strange about women not wanting people with penises in their toilets.

I promise you, if I was a woman, and a trans-woman walked into the toilets while I'm there, he would be instructed to leave immediately, and if he failed to do so, would get a face full of mace! He could count on it!

Do trans people "want to invade" the "safe spaces of actual women"?

Seems like a pretty loaded framing.

 

[angrysoba]

Nobody here has 'handwaved away' the 'DSM reclassification of both conditions'. You have frequently misrepresented this by claiming that when gender identity disorder was renamed gender dysphoria in DSM5, this 'declassified transgender identity as being a disorder'. You have also pretended that moving the condition into a chapter on it's own was part of this 'declassification'.

These claims are false. The requirement of dysphoria for clinical diagnosis was added to the criteria for GID (along with many other conditions including paraphilias) decades earlier as part of a general revision of how psychological disorder is defined (nothing should be considered a disorder unless it causes distress, impairment, or harm to others). The separation of three classes of condition into separate chapters has nothing to do with 'declassification as disorders'. All of this has been explained repeatedly with citations and direct quotes from the working group that did the revisions. You have continuously ignored this and continued to repeat false claims. This is not a matter of opinion. You are repeatedly making demonstrably false statements.

There was never a time when 'transgender identity' was a disorder. There was a short time in between the introduction of gender identity disorder to DSM-III and the adding of the 'distress or impairment' criterion to multiple diagnoses in DSM-IIIR, when there was not a specific separate dysphoria requirement for GID. But at that time, the concept of 'transgender identity' did not exist. Gender was used largely as a synonym for sex, and GID was seen as being unhappy with one's sex. The diagnostic criteria were also different and focused a lot more on anatomical dysphoria or unhappiness with one's sexual characteristics (at least for childhood GID) rather than identity (Zucker, 2009).

Activists use the change of name from GID to GD in DSM5 to pretend that 'transgender identity used to be a disorder' and draw false parallels between homosexuality and transgender identity for political purposes. In other words, they want people to believe that this is the new gay rights, and that the underlying basis of the political push is the same.

The basis of modern transactivism is actually sex denialism, based on postmodern ideas which says that all categories, including biological sex, are artificial social constructions devised to maintain the interests of those who have power, are constructed through language, and will go away if we change language and policy to pretend they don't exist. Saying that people must be compelled to believe in non-scientific philosophical ideas about sex and gender or face social and occupational destruction doesn't tend to go down so well, however. Pretending that those who disagree are 'just like people who thought homosexuality is a mental illness' works a lot better, hence the lies about declassification.

No doubt that much of that is true among certain activists.

However, it does seem to me that regardless of explanation, some people do seem to be extremely compelled to consider themselves of the opposite sex.

Would you agree that at the very least, this form of transgenderism is a real phenomenon?

 

[Elaedith]

No doubt that much of that is true among certain activists.

However, it does seem to me that regardless of explanation, some people do seem to be extremely compelled to consider themselves of the opposite sex.

Would you agree that at the very least, this form of transgenderism is a real phenomenon?

If somebody develops a strong feeling that they are, or should be of the opposite sex, and this causes distress or functional impairment, this is a meaningful definition of gender dysphoria. It is a real condition, but poorly understood, and is not a unitary phenomenon. That is, there are almost certainly different types with different underling mechanisms, and in the types that have been studied the longest (especially in males) it appears that there are at least two types that relate to sexual orientation. That is, early onset, which appears in childhood and is strongly correlated with being both gender non-conforming and same-sex attracted, and late onset, which occurs in males who are attracted to women and often have a history of erotic cross-dressing, but no other history of dysphoria or gender non-conformity before puberty.

Those in the latter category have traditionally tended to transition rather late, after having a family, but are often aggressive in pushing for childhood medical transition, which would leave those in the former category infertile.

Then there is the more recent type that occurs in adolescents and more often in females and has only happened since the promotion of gender identity ideology in social media. This type is still not well understood.

None of this has anything to do with modern trans activism, which has replaced everything that was known and understood about gender dysphoria based on actual evidence, with ideological ideas that sex is a social construct and can be replaced with subjective gender identity in science, law and policy. Modern activism would not accept a definition of gender dysphoria as being unhappy with one's sex or wanting to be the other sex, because this is inconsistent with sex denialism.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm guessing ContraPoints repeated the nonsense about 'transgender identity' being declassified as a disorder in DSM5. Can anyone confirm this, or do I need to watch this video?

I don’t remember her mentioning it. If she did, it was barely a mention. I do remember a reference to homosexuality being reclassified.

That said, I think you should watch the video.