Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Emily's Cat]

I would like to return to this.

I wonder why smartcooky would instantly decide that were he a woman he would go all Charlotte Bronson on any transwoman walking into a toilet.

First of all, wouldn't they be likely to be using a cubicle?

Second, would smartcooky always be able to tell?

Thirdly, what about transmen? If a transman walked into the women's toilets (therefore a biological woman) would smartcooky mace them as well or would smartcooky know that the transmen (Elliot Page, say, or Buck Angel) were biological women?

Would it make a difference if it was perfectly legal for a transwoman to walk into a toilet, regardless of how you felt about those laws?

I wonder why the need to flaunt these violent fantasies?

Some people have a better understanding of the reality that females face, the frequency of sexual harassment, assaults, and transgression that females are subjected to.

Some males acknowledge and admit that lots of males really, really, really want to see females who are naked - even if those females don't want them to. Some males are aware of the discrepancy in physicality, and the risk that males present to females on average.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I think transphobia, similar to homophobia and xenophobia includes an "ick!" factor.

People often display extreme revulsion in a way that is still socially acceptable (for the most part) when it comes to transgender individuals in ways that it is far less so with gay people and foreigners.

Some people do. Most of the people who get smeared as "transphobes" do not. Most of the people who get smeared aren't at all transphobic, but they do wish to retain female-specific spaces that are separated on the basis of the material reality of sex, not on the subjective and unverifiable basis of internal gender identity.

Most of the people who get smeared as transphobes don't have any animosity or revulsion toward transgender people... but they (we) do commit the cardinal sin of (accurately) acknowledging that transwomen are male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Reading the Title IX proposed amendments, with its recognition of the importance of fairness in sports, the only likely exemption from a ban on transwomen in female sports will be at elementary school level, subject to the views of the courts.

I suspect LJ doesn't consider that to be a "real world" decision. It seems that UK, Sweden, Finland, etc. are not part of the "real world" when it comes to LJ's claims.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm going to go on saying that there's no such thing as
- prepubescent children who are provably and enduringly transgender,
- in any way that requires trans-affirming care,
- including not requiring accommodations with sex segregation.

Someone like Jazz Jennings would no doubt say they fit all three criteria, hence the need for blockers followed by hormones and surgeries.

 

[Hercules56]

Your view is wrong, and will never, ever be implemented. The people in charge are busy sorting all of this out at the moment: outside of elite and sub-elite competition, and outside those contact sports where there is a reasonable risk of injury to cis girls/women, trans people (men and women) will be participating in the category corresponding to their trans gender. Because trans people deserve the right to participate in sport, and they obviously deserve to have their trans gender respected.

If trans women start dominating in womens sports a lot of people will start asking if they indeed have an unfair advantage. It will be a fair question.

 

[Elaedith]

Someone like Jazz Jennings would no doubt say they fit all three criteria, hence the need for blockers followed by hormones and surgeries.

I think the key word there is 'provably'. It does appear that if children have a history of early and persistent gender dysphoria and this does not resolve with puberty, then it is likely to continue to persist. The problem is that without any random control studies to allocate such children to medical affirmation versus alternatives, we don't really know how good current approaches are at identifying those who will persist.

Even if we could show that most people who medically transition as children have long-term satisfaction with their transition (which hasn't been shown yet due to lack of systematic follow-up) it doesn't say what would have happened if they had gone through puberty.

 

[theprestige]

Someone like Jazz Jennings would no doubt say they fit all three criteria, hence the need for blockers followed by hormones and surgeries.

My point is that people who say this kind of thing, including people like Jazz Jennings, are wrong. What's yours?

 

[d4m10n]

I think the key word there is 'provably'. It does appear that if children have a history of early and persistent gender dysphoria and this does not resolve with puberty, then it is likely to continue to persist. The problem is that without any random control studies to allocate such children to medical affirmation versus alternatives, we don't really know how good current approaches are at identifying those who will persist.

Fair enough, if that's what theprestige is actually driving at. It could as easily be flipped to say that young patients who present with persistent gender dysphoria cannot provably be expected to desist rather than persist. I think we can estimate a lower bound here, however, if we limit ourselves to patients who show up to be treated in a specific time and place:

Of the remaining 128 cases, 12 cases (9.4%) met criteria for GD emerging in adolescence, were actively requesting medical interventions at outset of assessment and ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions and/or no longer felt that their gender identity was incongruent with their biological sex.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._presenting_with_gender_identity_difficulties

I expect the true number would be higher than 10% because of the relatively short span of the psychosocial assessment phase prior to beginning treatment.

 

[Elaedith]

Fair enough, if that's what theprestige is actually driving at. It could as easily be flipped to say that young patients who present with persistent gender dysphoria cannot provably be expected to desist rather than persist. I think we can estimate a lower bound here, however, if we limit ourselves to patients who show up to be treated in a specific time and place:
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._presenting_with_gender_identity_difficulties

I expect the true number would be higher than 10% because of the relatively short span of the psychosocial assessment phase prior to beginning treatment.

That appears to be a paper about GD emerging in adolescence (not emerging in prepubescent children). GD that emerges for the first time in adolescence is almost certainly a different phenomenon again. But the current practice is gender affirmation. Most adolescents who identify for the first time as trans after puberty are embedded within an affirmative peer community. I don't think there is currently a good understanding of this phenomenon and what factors affect persistence of GD or trans identity.

I was referring to the fact that most cases of early onset (before puberty) desisted at puberty if not affirmed or transitioned (the watchful waiting approach). So we don't know if the persistence in those who go on PBs is due to very good selection of the minority who would have persisted anyway, or blocking the natural resolution of GD.

 

[d4m10n]

That appears to be a paper about GD emerging in adolescence (not emerging in prepubescent children).

Fair enough, but my point is that we can study rates of desistence and persistence in any given age cohort over any given span of time.

If we choose not to do so, that doesn't say what is provable in theory so much as what we're willing to prove.

My point is that people who say this kind of thing, including people like Jazz Jennings, are wrong.

On what evidential basis can you claim to know how Jazz would have turned out?

 

[Elaedith]

A planned screening and discussion of this film and the University of Edinburgh had to be abadoned after disruption by activists who prevented people from entering the venue. It has been rescheduled for 26th April.

And the screening scheduled for today was cancelled again because protesters physically blocked all entrances to the venue.

 

[theprestige]

On what evidential basis can you claim to know how Jazz would have turned out?

You've got the wrong end of the stick. On what evidential basis do Jazz's parents claim to know they discovered in their child a disorder to be treated, rather than a condition to be induced?

In all the years of this thread, I have seen no evidence presented by TRAs that convinces me that the social construct of gender is scrutable to a four year-old. Or scrutable to anyone, really. And I've seen no evidence presented that body dysmorphia or gender dysphoria are anything other than wishful thinking by the adults in a child's life.

 

[d4m10n]

You've got the wrong end of the stick. On what evidential basis do Jazz's parents claim to know they discovered in their child a disorder to be treated, rather than a condition to be induced?

Presumably on the basis that doctors told them it was a condition to be treated. As non-specialists they chose to trust the medical establishment regarding diagnosis and treatment.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[theprestige]

Presumably on the basis that doctors told them it was a condition to be treated. As non-specialists they chose to trust the medical establishment regarding diagnosis and treatment.

And we now have good evidence that the medical establishment has been talking out its ass for years, when it comes to prepubescent transgenderism.

 

[d4m10n]

And we now have good evidence that the medical establishment has been talking out its ass for years, when it comes to prepubescent transgenderism.

That does not mean that no one is demonstrably and enduringly transgender, it means that the establishment hasn't yet conducted the right experiments to determine the sensitivity and specificity of their testing regimes.

We do know that some patients exhibit persistent and consistent cross-sex identification from a very young age. We can debate about what ought to be done (i.e. align body with mind or vice-versa) but I don't think we can deny that these kids actually do exist.

In all the years of this thread, I have seen no evidence presented by TRAs that convinces me that the social construct of gender is scrutable to a four year-old. Or scrutable to anyone, really.

This thread is ultimately about people who want to change sex rather than gender. They wouldn't be satisfied with being treated like the opposite sex if that didn't follow from their body habitus.

 

[theprestige]

I deny that these kids exist in a way that is useful or indeed even scrutable to trans-rights activism.

This thread would have developed a lot differently, if it were actually about prepubescent children with transgender conditions that were both medically diagnosable and medically treatable. But it's not. It's about the other thing. It's about misogynists exploiting the polite fiction of fiat self-ID and the trojan horses of BIPOC and LGBQ rights to harass, abuse, and replace women.

The moment one of the TRAs participating in this thread wants to talk about established medical facts about transgender/transsexual conditions in prepubescent children, we can revisit the subject of who has what evidence to support which claims. But until that day... I call hogwash.

 

[angrysoba]

Don't fall into this game, please. Yes, technically, all words are "made up", but can we leave solipsistic shenanigans out of it?

You know perfectly well what was meant. Words represent concepts, and those concepts are generally agreed upon by the people using those words. In some cases, the words are transformed to jargon - topic specific variations from a commonly-used meaning. For example, "hypothesis" in colloquial terms is synonymous to the terms speculation; as scientific jargon, however, it means a testable idea that is capable of falsification - that is there exists a means by which to reject the the proposed idea.

In this case, however, we're not even dealing with jargon. We're dealing with humpty-dumpty-ism. This is a case where people make up special meanings of a word that are specific to them, which are not being used in a technical sense, and which contradict the common understanding of the term. But the people using humpty-dumpty language have a strong tendency to insist that their invented special meaning is what everyone else "really means" when they use the term.

No. I think the idea of “transphobia” is well understood even by people who claim it is a “made-up word”. I think it is a perfectly word that has analogues with homophobia and xenophobia. Today most educated people will say that they understand what is meant by them and also deny that they are homophobic or xenophobic, yet some of them are the ones “playing the game” of “but what does this made-up word even mean? I cannot comprehend how I could be afraid of trans people”.

And yet the same person gets a pass from you for spouting the term “Cultural Marxist” which is just a catch-all term for hating liberalism and progressivism.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. I think the idea of “transphobia” is well understood even by people who claim it is a “made-up word”. I think it is a perfectly word that has analogues with homophobia and xenophobia. Today most educated people will say that they understand what is meant by them and also deny that they are homophobic or xenophobic, yet some of them are the ones “playing the game” of “but what does this made-up word even mean? I cannot comprehend how I could be afraid of trans people”.

And yet the same person gets a pass from you for spouting the term “Cultural Marxist” which is just a catch-all term for hating liberalism and progressivism.

Not a free pass. I just don't respond to emotive bombastic language with emotiver and bombasticer language.

 

[angrysoba]

Some people have a better understanding of the reality that females face, the frequency of sexual harassment, assaults, and transgression that females are subjected to.

Some males acknowledge and admit that lots of males really, really, really want to see females who are naked - even if those females don't want them to. Some males are aware of the discrepancy in physicality, and the risk that males present to females on average.

Perfect example of the motte-and-bailey that Contrapoints was talking about. You failed to address ANY of the questions I asked smartcooky and instead of directly supporting the claim he made which was….

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!

you shift the argument to pointing out pretty uncontroversial statements about how women face threats from violent rapists and are physically less strong (on average) than men.

That is not in dispute and I am not making policy recommendations when it comes to transwomen in toilets.

What I am concerned about, nonetheless, is the proud boast about how presumably ANY trans-woman entering a woman’s toilet SHOULD be maced.

Do you agree with this as stated? Or do you think maybe there is more nuance to the question than this?

 

[angrysoba]

Not a free pass. I just don't respond to emotive bombastic language with emotiver and bombasticer language.

There is nothing emotive or bombastic about what I am saying. I am asking if you understand the word “transphobia” and if not then do you understand homophobia or xenophobia?