Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[JayUtah]

I am happy to defend my position in a new thread that is devoted to that topic.

Asked and answered. If you believe the discussion of your examples and analogies that you employ in this thread are somehow off-topic, report the post for moderation. Do not attempt to moderate the thread yourself as an excuse for failing to engage.

I will not participate in a diversion of this thread which is about a very specific and unique issue.

You analogized that issue with an example that I happen to find helpful in exploring where your reasoning of the issue may be unconvincing. Your unwillingness to allow your example to be used to question your reasoning about the issue indicates your unwillingness to discuss the issue at all.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think the important point we can all agree on is that the government should have the authority to control your body, to allow or deny whatever medical procedures we may actually want. The government knows best for everyone.

 

[theprestige]

What's interesting to me is that SCOTUS makes a distinction between medically-necessary hormone treatments for minors, and medically-unnecessary hormone treatments for minors. Does this mean that someone introduced medical evidence at some point in this suit? Did SCOTUS consider such evidence, or was that question assumed to have already been litigated to the Court's satisfaction at a lower level? Is there medical evidence that the Court missed, which, if they had considered it, might have changed the outcome?

 

[JayUtah]

Or breast reduction for cis teen boys who grow breasts.

Yeah, that is within the realm of purely elective.

No, not always. They're always elective in the sense that a patient elects to have them. But the needfulness calculus varies. That's the point I'm using the breast implant analogy to rebut.

I had "cosmetic" surgery as a young teenager to correct my right ear that stuck out farther than my left. It was covered by insurance. Similarly a cisgender boy who has abnormally large breasts may have reduction surgery that is covered by insurance. That is because in the taxonomy of needfulness, those kinds of treatments are considered corrective. They serve little or no medical purposes, but they address a body-image dysphoria that is nevertheless recognized as an important medical concern.

Someone who merely wants larger breasts in order to appear more attractive according to a certain aesthetic may have a hard time convincing an insurer that it is medically advisable: that it is reconstructive or corrective as opposed to cosmetic. And, of course, a minor who wants larger breasts may invoke a different calculus. Someone who loses a breast (for whatever reason) may be suddenly confronted with dysphoria over the difference between what their body looks like and what they feel it should look like. A boy who has female-like breasts (for whatever reason) may suffer similar dysphoria. So then we're back to the perennial debate about what level of dysphoria must be suffered by some in order to satisfy another person's sense of moral rectitude.

As @TragicMonkey seems to have observed, the decision to apply only rational review to Tennessee's state law seems to allow the state to rely on only cursory reasoning to justify their regulation of minors' medical care.

 

[JayUtah]

What's interesting to me is that SCOTUS makes a distinction between medically-necessary hormone treatments for minors, and medically-unnecessary hormone treatments for minors. Does this mean that someone introduced medical evidence at some point in this suit? Did SCOTUS consider such evidence, or was that question assumed to have already been litigated to the Court's satisfaction at a lower level? Is there medical evidence that the Court missed, which, if they had considered it, might have changed the outcome?

My super-quick and not-at-all-careful reading suggests the majority opinion is mostly about the dry, technical, legal aspects of standards of review. I'll circle back with my own impression of the opinions when I'm better informed.

 

[d4m10n]

Well, how has that law played out? Has Merager been cleared of all charges?

Yes.

Just to expand on this a bit more:

Merager’s reaction? “I’m relieved,” the defendant told me after the verdict was read, as the felony charges could have led to serious jail time given Merager’s history. Merager plans to continue to use the women’s side at facilities and says he still calls in advance to confirm the policy for transgender patrons.

...

Here in tolerant California, there had been much ado, with jurors deciding in the end that Darren Merager simply was behaving like any other woman in a shower, spa or changing room.​

Even as Great Britain is trending the other way, California is charging forward towards a progressive vision of the future.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, not always. They're always elective in the sense that a patient elects to have them. But the needfulness calculus varies. That's the point I'm using the breast implant analogy to rebut.

I had "cosmetic" surgery as a young teenager to correct my right ear that stuck out farther than my left. It was covered by insurance. Similarly a cisgender boy who has abnormally large breasts may have reduction surgery that is covered by insurance. That is because in the taxonomy of needfulness, those kinds of treatments are considered corrective. They serve little or no medical purposes, but they address a body-image dysphoria that is nevertheless recognized as an important medical concern.

But only for cis people, the same treatment for a trans person is a step vastly too far.

 

[p0lka]

Yes, they do. You're several years behind the curve of this conversation.

Thanks for the link, they actually do, wow. I started reading that and they are failing at the first hurdle. Their premise is incorrect so everything that follows can be ignored.

 

[JayUtah]

But only for cis people, the same treatment for a trans person is a step vastly too far.

In my skim I saw a lot of discussion about whether this was a discrimination based on sex. A sex-based determination incurs intermediate scrutiny, which would have required Tennessee to justify their law to a greater degree. If the Court finds that the law does not discriminate on the basis of sex, then rational review applies and Tennessee need only show that their law is rationally related to achieving a cognizable end.

 

[Aber]

Thanks for the link, they actually do, wow. I started reading that and they are failing at the first hurdle. Their premise is incorrect so everything that follows can be ignored.

You're beginning to get it. Most participants in this thread started with an attitude "there must be some arguments for transgenderism". Those arguments have not appeared, apart from "be kind to transwomen".

 

[Hercules56]

Supreme Court clearly feels that transgender medicine therapy for minors is clearly an elective procedure that does not raise to the same standard as required medicine, such as antidepressants or drugs to treat diabetes.

And we clearly do not want children undergoing purely elective medical procedures even if their parents think it's a good idea. But once they become adults they are free to do whatever they want to their bodies, within reason.

 

[theprestige]

But only for cis people, the same treatment for a trans person is a step vastly too far.

In my skim I saw a lot of discussion about whether this was a discrimination based on sex. A sex-based determination incurs intermediate scrutiny, which would have required Tennessee to justify their law to a greater degree. If the Court finds that the law does not discriminate on the basis of sex, then rational review applies and Tennessee need only show that their law is rationally related to achieving a cognizable end.

Both of you are begging the question that the sex of trans-identifying individuals is something other than their biological sex. I won't get into it here, but there's a couple threads suitable for debating this question rather than begging it.

 

[theprestige]

Supreme Court clearly feels that transgender medicine therapy for minors is clearly an elective procedure that does not raise to the same standard as required medicine

Really? Where in their decision do they make this feeling clear?

Please understand that appeals courts very often do not consider the merits of the original complaint as such, but rather look at whether due process was followed, and that the relevant laws were properly applied. So this decision could hinge entirely on things other than whether the treatment is medically valid.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for the link, they actually do, wow. I started reading that and they are failing at the first hurdle. Their premise is incorrect so everything that follows can be ignored.

It can be ignored in terms of trying to figure out the factual correctness of their claims. But that was never actually the point. Articles like that are not intended to convince anyone. Everyone already has an opinion about whether males should be able to share bathrooms with females, and it has nothing to do with whether sex is binary or bimodal. What articles like this do is give people who already believe that males should be able to share bathrooms with females some intellectual cover for that belief. And the argument doesn't have to be correct in order to serve that purpose. It just has to be plausible enough to alleviate any cognitive dissonance they might have. Which, at the end of the day, doesn't actually take that much for people who want to believe.

 

[d4m10n]

Articles like that are not intended to convince anyone.

Mind reading is amazing.

 

[smartcooky]

ok thanks, but then that's a stupid position to take as they will fail.

You are still missing the point.

TRA's don't care about facts, they only care about getting their own way. They do not see a set of facts that go against what they are claiming, as fatal to their arguments. So long as they get the power they need to force their way through getting legislation in support of what they want, the facts do not matter to them - they never have, and never will.

 

[JayUtah]

Both of you are begging the question that the sex of trans-identifying individuals is something other than their biological sex. I won't get into it here, but there's a couple threads suitable for debating this question rather than begging it.

We appear to be in that thread now. But in any case I wasn't trying to litigate that particular question. And I understand that it's hotly debated in this thread and therefore something I may not want to wade into.

As far as I've read, the majority opinion didn't reach the question of whether the sex of trans-identifying individuals is legally distinct from biological sex, because their goal seems to have been to find a way to say that the law didn't amount to sex discrimination at all. They would need to talk about gender identity only if they had found that something other than rational review was needed. That's when we would have had to confront the question you're saying we've begged. The majority avoided it altogether, and therefore so largely did I. I can see how that a comes across looking like a begged question. I'll keep this in mind and circle back if my more careful reading means I need to go into your question more thoroughly.

 

[Ziggurat]

Mind reading is amazing.

No mind reading is necessary. Only simple deductions. He's factually wrong, his logic is paper thin and full of holes, so either he's an idiot or he doesn't believe what he wrote. And I doubt he's an idiot. So what would be the point of writing something that you don't even believe? On a surface level, it's explicitly an endorsement of a certain political position in regards to trans issues. Will it change anyone's mind? Unlikely, given that nobody's position on the topic is really determined by the nuances between sex being binary or bimodal. So what good does such an endorsement do, when it's not likely to persuade anyone to change their opinion (particularly given its factual and logical errors)? Well, even if you can't change anyone's mind, you can reinforce the opinions of your own side. Why would such opinions need reinforcing? Because they're self-contradictory, and cause cognitive dissonance. Which we know is widespread, given the common reactions to the questions "what is a woman?".

Now, could I be wrong about his motives? Yes, I could be. One or more steps in my deduction process could be wrong (for example, maybe he actually is an idiot). But I don't think I am. And I don't think any of the steps in that process are unreasonable.

 

[d4m10n]

He's factually wrong, his logic is paper thin and full of holes, so either he's an idiot or he doesn't believe what he wrote.

This manifestly false dilemma describes much (if not most) of what Aristotle wrote about the natural world.

So what would be the point of writing something that you don't even believe?

Of course he believes it. Most highly educated people believe the mantras they've been taught to believe, even those who are thoroughgoing and prolific skeptics with ample scientific training. Most of the time, it's just fine to "trust the science" as the kids say, because tail-eating citation cartels like WPATH are actually relatively rare.

On a surface level, it's explicitly an endorsement of a certain political position in regards to trans issues.

Mostly it's an attempt to redefine sex, though. If "sex" actually meant a quantity derived from summing up "all the traits relevant to sex" which he listed as bullets (e.g. one point for SRY, one point for testicles, one point for wearing y-fronts, etc.) then we'd actually have a bimodal variable along the x-axis.

Will it change anyone's mind? Unlikely, given that nobody's position on the topic is really determined by the nuances between sex being binary or bimodal.

I wouldn't give you that given, especially considering the target audience for SBM.

Now, could I be wrong about his motives? Yes, I could be.

Call me old fashioned, but it seems much more productive to me to address arguments rather than motives, assuming that we are trying to converge on the truth. Smearing people's motives makes us talk about their character instead of whether they are reasoning validly from premises which are sound.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course he believes it. Most highly educated people believe the mantras they've been taught to believe

Being highly educated isn't incompatible with being an idiot.

Mostly it's an attempt to redefine sex, though.

But he doesn't actually define sex at all. Which is part of why I think he's being dishonest.

If "sex" actually meant a quantity derived from summing up "all the traits relevant to sex" which he listed as bullets (e.g. one point for SRY, one point for testicles, one point for wearing y-fronts, etc.) then we'd actually have a bimodal variable along the x-axis.

Sure. But he doesn't actually do that. He never says what the axis is at all. No attempt at constructing an actual axis is made. If you had such an axis, then one of the results is that you've find a lot of trans identifying males would still end up solidly on the "male" side. I don't think the purpose is to actually establish a continuum of sex that we can use to evaluate people, but just to muddy the waters.

I wouldn't give you that given, especially considering the target audience for SBM.

SBM seems mostly aimed at countering alternative medicine. But the trans issue has nothing to do with alternative medicine. And his article has nothing to do with evaluating evidence standards for anything to do with the trans debate either. Nowhere in his article does he ever touch on questions of scientific evidence for trans treatment or trans policy.

And the target audience is probably just credentialled medical professionals. They have a vested interest in opposing alternative medicine that's independent of any actual principled skepticism. Skepticism and self-interest happen to align on the issue of alternative medicine, but they don't align on the trans issue. Which is probably how you end up with such an unskeptical and unscientific article in a source nominally dedicated to both.

Call me old fashioned, but it seems much more productive to me to address arguments rather than motives, assuming that we are trying to converge on the truth.

You would be right if I were trying to converge on the issue of whether or not sex is binary. But I'm not, and I wasn't, and that's a misunderstanding on your part. I was engaging with p0lka over the issue of how the public policy debate works, specifically in regards to whether relabeling bathrooms as "female" instead of "women" would help settle the issue. And on that question, addressing motive of participants is absolutely relevant, far more relevant than whether sex is actually binary or bimodal.