Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[Sherkeu]

"6.1 times as likely to die from non-natural causes as cis women'

Could that be largely from being assaulted/murdered?

Mostly (as in almost ALL) assault and homicide are MTF, via sex work and drug trade issues, and harmed by other males.

Look up how many 'Trans Day of Remembrance" were black MtF 'male with penis' sex workers, every year they have had that day. Just go look. Or search for a few posts I made over the course of these threads about this 'gaslighting' media narrative.

FtM 'females with ovaries'' do not seem to have this issue at all, no matter drugs or race, or any other thing. So it seems to be an issue with MALE violence.

 

[Sherkeu]

A charitable reading requires only that we avoid interpreting any given premise in a way that makes it immediately self-contradictory and utterly vacuous of meaning; we should be striving to interpret it in a way that could actually be evaluated as either true or false.

A charitable reading in this particular case requires only that we come up with a version of "gender identity" doesn't lead to vicious recursion when defining either sex or gender. ACLU are not alone in making this difficult, basically any dictionary of social justice has this problem along with (last I checked) Wikipedia. That said, I think what the gender rights activists are really saying is that all people have an inborn sense of which sex (female/male) they would feel most comfortable being / being seen as / seeing themselves as and which gender (woman/man) they would feel most comfortable being treated as in those rare but highly charged and salient situations when we treat women and men differently. This inward sense is called "gender identity" even though it (by hypothesis) exists wholly independently from all observable outward signs of social gender or biological sex.

I'm not asking anyone to assent to any of the four statements excerpted at post #985 but I am claiming that they a straightforward statement of the ideology on offer here. In another thread, I might provide a concise statement of early Xn belief from the Council of Nicaea for roughly parallel reasons.

Since I've known these people for decades, I've at least a working theory of what changed and when and how. Since you don't believe they are actually being sincere, you would not find it compelling.

You tell me. By contrast, I'd be surprised if Laurel Hubbard, Lia Thomas, Rachel McKinnon and that whole lot were deliberately and dishonestly exploiting gender ideology rather than just going along with a particular set of ideas prevailing at the time.

For this analogy to work, there would need to be a material payoff to modern gender ideology resembling the millions of unpaid manhours which inured to the propertied elite in slave societies like Virginia.

I'm just going to quote all of this to say as a blanket statement that you do not need material rewards to adapt to a trend. Just social or 'moral' ones. And I put it in quotes because those are the things you do to be 'nice' or to 'go along' with what others think is 'nice'.

I see it ALL over the place in this so-called Skeptics board. What a joke it has become. Gaslit automotons, almost to a man. (Good readers, take note that not all of us are like this.)

I actually saw a forum post for fact-checkers.. I just laughed to myself because sometimes there have been only 2 or 3 of us out of dozens trying to get to the facts and there is zero reflection when they are so obviously proved wrong.

 

[Puppycow]

"6.1 times as likely to die from non-natural causes as cis women'

Could that be largely from being assaulted/murdered?

No, it's largely from the 6.8 times higher suicide rate.

They also divided the mortality risk into different subgroups, including cardiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and non-natural causes including suicides.
. . .

Finally, the suicide rate was 6.8 times higher for transgender women.​

The article is largely silent on rates of being assaulted/murdered, from which I infer that those rates do not largely differ from the general population. Otherwise there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been mentioned right at the very top.

Here is the article:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213858721001856

Cause-specific mortality in transgender women was high for cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, HIV-related disease, and suicide.​

Three diseases associated with the lifestyle and suicide. That's it.

Cause-specific death in transgender men was high for non-natural causes of death.

In transgender men who received testosterone treatment, an increased risk of myocardial infarctions was described.⁵​

They don't really go into any detail about what they mean by "non-natural causes of death" but they do mention that this category includes deaths by suicide, so I would guess that is the most likely component of that. They do mention it specifically for transgender women but not for transgender men.

 

[Orphia Nay]

No, it's largely from the 6.8 times higher suicide rate.

They also divided the mortality risk into different subgroups, including cardiovascular disease, infection, cancer, and non-natural causes including suicides.
. . .

Finally, the suicide rate was 6.8 times higher for transgender women.​

The article is largely silent on rates of being assaulted/murdered, from which I infer that those rates do not largely differ from the general population. Otherwise there is no doubt in my mind that it would have been mentioned right at the very top.

Here is the article:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213858721001856

Cause-specific mortality in transgender women was high for cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, HIV-related disease, and suicide.​

Three diseases associated with the lifestyle and suicide. That's it.

Cause-specific death in transgender men was high for non-natural causes of death.

In transgender men who received testosterone treatment, an increased risk of myocardial infarctions was described.⁵​

They don't really go into any detail about what they mean by "non-natural causes of death" but they do mention that this category includes deaths by suicide, so I would guess that is the most likely component of that. They do mention it specifically for transgender women but not for transgender men.

I’ve lost the pdf I had of the study, but in a table they separated suicides from other non-natural causes, and those were high, too, though not as high as the suicides.

I’d imagine that men would assault/kill trans women for various reasons including in sex transactions.

 

[Samson]

In my continuing search to have an open mind this podcast came by.

I enjoyed it, North Carolina and San Francisco are the interested states. Maybe everyone knows this guybut not me.
He says that the white matter Grey matter variance between sexes may have a random cluster effect to generate true trans. That is my brief configuration.

About an hour, I kind of enjoyed it.

https://www.youtube.com/live/dGBYYcH7CS8?si=pNo_kL0MBIEc4Rdi

 

[Puppycow]

I’d imagine that men would assault/kill trans women for various reasons including in sex transactions.

Perhaps, but odds are that none of the study participants would be murdered during the study period.

There were slightly fewer than 5,000 subjects in the study. In total, they were followed for less than 60,000 person-years. The homicide rate in the Netherlands appears to be roughly 1 per 100,000 population per year. So you would need a 100,000 person-year study just to maybe get one (unless it turns out to be significantly higher than the background), and that still wouldn't be enough to be statistically meaningful. OK, if you found that 10 were killed, you could probably say with some confidence that this is highly improbable to be merely a random coincidence. But I doubt that's what they found, or they would have mentioned it in their results.

 

[Nessie]

After not including women in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, the SNP now propose that women be included with trans-women in the proposed new misogyny laws.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo

There is a remarkable reluctance by the SNP to accept women as a specific group, let alone a group who have suffered prejudice and violence that needs to be combatted.

I think that is because men are reluctant to accept they are the major cause of that prejudice and violence, in particular men from backgrounds such as the present First Minister, where culturally women are second class citizens.

 

[Samson]

After not including women in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, the SNP now propose that women be included with trans-women in the proposed new misogyny laws.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo

There is a remarkable reluctance by the SNP to accept women as a specific group, let alone a group who have suffered prejudice and violence that needs to be combatted.

I think that is because men are reluctant to accept they are the major cause of that prejudice and violence, in particular men from backgrounds such as the present First Minister, where culturally women are second class citizens.

Who would ever have thought that.
To put an Islamist in charge of a culture that produces great writers like Walter Scott, Chris Brookmyre and so on is the sickest joke that wokeism could design.

 

[d4m10n]

Doctors and pharmaceutical companies hawking gender transition care and drugs is one helluva "material payoff"...

Fair enough, and this might partially explain why profit-based healthcare systems in the U.S. were so easily and thoroughly captured by a trend which started off in the parts of the world where healthcare is almost entirely socialized. My impression of the Cass review is that the Tavistock was mostly yielding to public demand rather than driving it once the meme got loose (in online support groups for GNC youth) that puberty blockers were on offer for those who said the right things.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The whole "is it a fad" thing seems like a red herring in either direction for me. Things aren't morally/logically right or wrong because of that.

 

[Ziggurat]

The whole "is it a fad" thing seems like a red herring in either direction for me. Things aren't morally/logically right or wrong because of that.

There doesn't have to be a connection, but I think it very much is relevant in this case. One of the central arguments for transition treatments is that transgender identity isn't a mutable characteristic, that it's inherent and stable. Take that away, and one of the primary justifications for transition treatment goes away too. If this is a fad, that makes transgender identity being inherent and immutable much less likely to be true.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes but that's the kind of nuance that we need to discuss AFTER more core, fundamental question are answered or at least addressed at all on any level.

Of course the whole "Why would anyone just choose to do that?" question is absurd, human nature is full of "I just want to be different" types in both positive and negative contexts. This idea that we need to pin a, for lack of a better term motive, on transgenders is silly. "People like to feel different" is answer enough.

 

[Elaedith]

Fair enough, and this might partially explain why profit-based healthcare systems in the U.S. were so easily and thoroughly captured by a trend which started off in the parts of the world where healthcare is almost entirely socialized. My impression of the Cass review is that the Tavistock was mostly yielding to public demand rather than driving it once the meme got loose (in online support groups for GNC youth) that puberty blockers were on offer for those who said the right things.

I'm not sure where you are saying the trend to medical transition of minors started? The original research was conducted in the Netherlands, but it was very different in approach and focused on very careful screening to use puberty blockers only with children thought certain to want to transition in the future. The idea of using hormonal suppression to 'buy time' for children to decide whether to transition was not part of the original protocol, nor was medical transitioning of adolescents without any history of early-onset gender dysphoria. My impression was that these trends started in the US.

 

[Matthew Best]

Who would ever have thought that.
To put an Islamist in charge of a culture that produces great writers like Walter Scott, Chris Brookmyre and so on is the sickest joke that wokeism could design.

There's an Islamist in charge of Scottish culture?

I think I would have heard about that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again, just to poke the bear, if all it takes to be a transwoman is to "identity" as one what's the point?

(At some point a clear linguistic/argumentative distinction between trans people who want to make actual biological changes to their bodies and the "I declare myself the other sex" types is gonna become necessary but since burying everything under "it's a complicated spectrum" is one side's only argument I don't see that happening.")

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not sure where you are saying the trend to medical transition of minors started? The original research was conducted in the Netherlands, but it was very different in approach and focused on very careful screening to use puberty blockers only with children thought certain to want to transition in the future.

The report doesn't quite say when clinical practice diverged from the Dutch model, but it was likely after 2007 when Norman Spack "established a clinic in Boston, USA modelled on the Dutch protocol and began prescribing puberty blockers from early puberty" but before Ehrensaft published this 2017 paper describing three distinct approaches which are quoted on page 70.

(Incidentally but interestingly, Ehrensaft also took a trust the children approach to outlandish claims of Satanic ritual abuse.)

The idea of using hormonal suppression to 'buy time' for children to decide whether to transition was not part of the original protocol, nor was medical transitioning of adolescents without any history of early-onset gender dysphoria. My impression was that these trends started in the US.

My impression was that "time to think" originated in the UK, but I got that impression from the Barnes book which wasn't really covering developments in the U.S.

ETA: I was wrong about the UK. Looks like the idea of buying time actually goes all the way back to the Dutch pioneers of puberty blockade in 2008:

Second, pubertal suppression may give adolescents, together with the attending health professional, more time to explore their gender identity, without the distress of the developing secondary sex characteristics.​

Their approach remains distinct from the affirmative one, however, for other reasons.

 

[Elaedith]

The report doesn't quite say when clinical practice diverged from the Dutch model, but it was likely after 2007 when Norman Spack "established a clinic in Boston, USA modelled on the Dutch protocol and began prescribing puberty blockers from early puberty" but before Ehrensaft published this 2017 paper describing three distinct approaches which are quoted on page 70.

(Incidentally but interestingly, Ehrensaft also took a trust the children approach to outlandish claims of Satanic ritual abuse.)

My impression was that "time to think" originated in the UK, but I got that impression from the Barnes book which wasn't really covering developments in the U.S.

ETA: I was wrong about the UK. Looks like the idea of buying time actually goes all the way back to the Dutch pioneers of puberty blockade in 2008:

Second, pubertal suppression may give adolescents, together with the attending health professional, more time to explore their gender identity, without the distress of the developing secondary sex characteristics.​

Their approach remains distinct from the affirmative one, however, for other reasons.

I didn't realise they first suggested it, but it's not really surprising they would do so in a paper considering the pros and cons of puberty blockade. I still have the feeling that it was in the US that this idea took off, however.

One difference in the Dutch approach was that medical transition was only supposed to be initiated in children who had persistent gender dysphoria despite not being socially transitioned (they advocated watchful waiting).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay but if "Self identity" is a sacrosanct and unquestionable how to we determine that?

Again the absolute core question that is the maypole we are dancing around is can a person self identify as a specific sex and be wrong in anyway we can objectively 3rd party determine? If not what are we even talking about and where can any of this go?

We're polishing the edge before we've even formed the shape.

 

[Ziggurat]

And again, just to poke the bear, if all it takes to be a transwoman is to "identity" as one what's the point?

The point is to allow predators to circumvent safeguards.

If you're talking about what the intellectual justification, well, there isn't really one. Self ID is incompatible with sex segregation. But those advocating for self ID don't actually want to do away with sex segregation. The closest they ever get to an intellectual justification is that people with gender dysphoria have it hard and so we should try and make things as easy as possible for them. But that's not really enough on its own to justify self ID.

(At some point a clear linguistic/argumentative distinction between trans people who want to make actual biological changes to their bodies and the "I declare myself the other sex" types is gonna become necessary but since burying everything under "it's a complicated spectrum" is one side's only argument I don't see that happening.")

We really should go back to the distinction between transsexuals and transvestites. It was far more accurate than the current language.

 

[d4m10n]

[C]an a person self identify as a specific sex and be wrong...?

No, not according to the basic tenets of gender identity theory and intersectional social justice. If someone claims they are (or merely ought to be or ought to have been) female, we are morally obligated to treat them as female, even if everything about their appearance and demeanor makes that approach feel counterintuitive to the over 20s who weren't weaned on these ideas.