Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

Yeah, but that's primarily because of social changes, not medical changes.

I don't believe these are severable phenomena; instead, I'd argue that the medical experts set up a sort of permission structure which allows people with cultural cachet to declare that sex can be changed at will, given enough time, effort, and sufficiently advanced technology. This shift in culture driven by available technology and medical "best practices" is basically what Mary Harington calls "meat lego gnosticism."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1707632815708283185

...one wouldn't expect to see the rise of so many trans people who aren't undergoing any medical transition but still trying to access female spaces.

I don't actually see "so many" people like that; what I've seen is an ideology which rejects any gatekeeping based on external appearances populated primarily by people who whine online about how they don't pass nearly as much as they'd like. On rare occasions, I see someone go internet viral for demanding access without making any attempt to pass, but I'm not remotely convinced that such people are unexceptional in TQ spaces.

Which is why they don't cause problems even when the rules don't permit them.

I believe they would cause major problems if they assiduously tried to follow the rules, though, especially the trans men who started on exogenous testosterone relatively early in life. This tells me that we need better rules which are flexible enough to avoid shocking women by forcing them to share their spaces with people who look like men, who are increasingly more common in the relevant population (Figure 11 in the final Cass Report illustrates the surge in patient referrals of "birth-registered females presenting in early teenage years," for example).

 

[Rolfe]

That was already covered in the SG FWS judgment.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't actually see "so many" people like that

If you had to take a guess, what would you say is the fraction of trans identifying males who have undergone surgical procedures to appear female?

 

[d4m10n]

If you had to take a guess, what would you say is the fraction of trans identifying males who have undergone surgical procedures to appear female?

No point in guessing on an evidence-based forum, but did you notice that the goalposts moved from "any medical transition" to "surgical procedures" in just a few posts?

 

[Ziggurat]

No point in guessing on an evidence-based forum, but did you notice that the goalposts moved from "any medical transition" to "surgical procedures" in just a few posts?

I shifted my question because surgical procedure data is easier to come by. But it's useful to the discussion anyways. As for not guessing, well, you WERE guessing in your previous post. Why the sudden reluctance now?

So, how many trans identifying males don't undergo any surgical transition? A significant majority of them, around 72% according to one survey. Some proportion of these people are going to undergo cross-sex hormone therapy, but that won't make them look female. Remember your claim:

That century was mostly prior to the widespread adoption of endocrinological and surgical interventions designed to mimic the opposite sex.

Cross-sex hormones will significantly masculinize the appearance of trans-identifying females, but they will not significantly feminize trans-identifying males. Males who go on cross-sex hormone therapy might "feel" more female, but they will not look more female on account of those hormones. If they're asking to use the women's restrooms, it's not because medical technology has allowed them to appear more female, because they have not availed themselves of that technology.

Oh, and while it's harder to track down, there is some data on how many trans identifying males are on cross-sex hormones. For example, this study started with a survey population of 1,608 trans-identifying males and found that 1,165 reported hormone use within the past 12 months. That's a higher fraction than the surgery population, but it's still about 28% who aren't using hormones. Now, there might be a few who have had surgery but not hormones, but those two things are probably positively correlated, so even being generous and assuming that there's no correlation, we still have an (under)estimate of about 20% of trans identifying males who aren't on hormones and haven't had any surgery.

This is not a negligible fraction of the trans identifying male population. It's a significant fraction.

 

[d4m10n]

As for not guessing, well, you WERE guessing in your previous post.

I wasn't pretending to put numbers on it.

Males who go on cross-sex hormone therapy might "feel" more female, but they will not look more female on account of those hormones

Growing a set of boobs tends to make someone code female, IMO. You do know that happens, right?

...being generous and assuming that there's no correlation, we still have an (under)estimate of about 20% of trans identifying males who aren't on hormones and haven't had any surgery.

Being generous might also include avoiding the assumption that all of these people are already "trying to access female spaces" despite knowing they've yet make any physical changes to pass as female.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, you are confusing expression of skepticism with affirmation of the contrary claim. I never said they were all anything, I said that we have no good reason to presume they are actual humans, or males, or trans, especially given the number of bots, females, and cisgender posters on social media.

You have no reason to assume that they're NOT exactly what they claim to be. Especially since you accept that posts and self-reported information from internet posts from people who claim to be transgender identified males when it casts a positive or neutral light on transgender people in general. You're being selective in what you accept or reject based on whether or not you view it as good or bad - in other words confirmation bias. That's not skepticism, it's selection.

 

[Emily's Cat]

'Taint me or my definitions. It's the entirety of the profession, with one voice.

Support your assertion.

It doesn't matter if it screws up your preferred narrative and makes you angry. It is the definition, and if you revered the DSM as much as you claim to, you would accept their own freaking terms and their usage.

This is a skeptic's forum. You can't just make ◊◊◊◊ up and trust that no one is paying attention.

You're the one who has decided that a modifier for a diagnosed disorder isn't a disorder.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wasn't pretending to put numbers on it.

I didn't say anything about pretending or numbers, I said you were guessing. And this is what I'm referring to:

I don't actually see "so many" people like that

"like that" meaning trans people who aren't undergoing any medical transition. Now, as phrased one could take this sentence on its own as simply an observation. And I will not make any claim on what you personally have or have not seen. But this wasn't just an observation. You made it part of your argument. And it only makes sense as part of the argument if you think that your observations (or lack thereof) is somehow indicative of the broader class of trans people. And that's where I'm saying you made a guess. You were guessing that there aren't many trans people who aren't undergoing medical transition. That's the clear meaning of this claim in context.

And there are a lot of trans people who aren't undergoing medical transition, whether you see them or not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No one suffers in any way from a thought that arouses you. Any suffering is from actions independent of those thoughts.

I very strongly disagree with this. Allow me to explain.

I'm going to start with a completely different paraphilia - a foot fetish. Diagnostically speaking, this would be a paraphilic disorder, where the paraphilia is focused on a specific non-sexual part of the body (fetish), where that body part is feet. Paraphilia is the class of disorder, fetishism is the subclass of the disorder, and feet is the specific trigger of the fetishistic paraphilia. At this point, I expect you to proclaim that a foot fetish is totally not at all a disorder, it's just arousal by feet, not a big deal, and I'm an evil bigot for providing a clinically accurate description of a disorder in the DSM.

Now, in and of itself, being aroused by feet isn't immediately and necessarily a problem. But it is a problem when it becomes clinically significant - meaning that it causes distress to the individual experiencing the condition, or when it impedes their ability to live a normal life, or when it interferes with other people being able to live their lives without disruption or risk introduced by the condition. So if a person is nothing more than somewhat aroused by feet, but it's minor and non-disruptive, then it's not a paraphilic disorder. It's a kink, and nothing more.

On the other hand, if the kink is so strong that the individual can't get aroused without seeing or interacting with feet, that's a problem - it impedes their ability to have a normal healthy sexual relationship. Similarly, if the kink is so strong that it gets in the way of their partner's healthy sexual relationships, it's a paraphilia. You might think this sounds minor, but imagine a situation in which a male cannot get aroused unless they are stroking or handling their partner's feet, but the partner gets no arousal or enjoyment out of having their feet stroked in that way. Now the partner has to submit to something they don't enjoy in order to have a physical interaction with their partner. That makes it a paraphilic disorder - even if you don't think it's a big deal, it still meets the clinical criteria of paraphilic fetishism focused on feet.

If you're heading to the beach with your buddy, and you know that they have a serious foot fetish... that might introduce a bit of discomfort for you, wouldn't you say? Hanging around at the beach where almost everyone's feet are uncovered and visible puts you in a situation where you are accompanying your pal while they're engaging in a sexual activity. It's not sexual for you, but you know that they're effectively watching porn with you present. They are arousing themselves while you're there.

At this point, would you say it's still no big deal, not a problem for anyone?

Now let's take that one step further. Your buddy wants to go to the beach with a group of 10 friends and acquaintances. Now your friend is going to be arousing themselves in the presence of 10 people, none of whom have consented to take part in their sexual activity. Let alone the impact on everyone else at the beach - all of them are now players in your pal's sexual role play without consent, even if it's without their knowledge. Do you still think it's not a big deal, it's nothing more than arousal by feet?

What if your friend with the foot fetish managed to convince their employer that everyone has to wear open-toed sandals or flip-flops at work? What if they influenced policy so that other people were now required to present the object of that pal's sexual desire on a regular basis, whether they wanted to or not? Every person that they work with is now required by policy to take part in your friend's sexual arousal.

Do you think that's a problem?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are confused about the logic of your own argument. What you should be saying is that these particular thoughts don’t lead to harmful actions. That’s a claim that EC will likely dispute, but it’s what you believe, and it is at least a coherent position. But this idea that thoughts are divorced from actions is delusional. People who are sexually aroused by minors frequently turn those thoughts into actions. The thoughts lead to harms. So the distinction you are trying to make doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

I don't dispute that the thoughts themselves are not directly harmful. But as you point out, those thoughts lead to behaviors, and those behaviors can be extremely harmful.

Seriously, this is a fundamental aspect of psychological diagnosis. A person who thinks about murder as an abstraction isn't necessarily a problem - realistically I think everyone at some point considers what's involved in murder even if only as an intellectual exercise after watching a serial killer movie. When that thought pattern becomes prevalent and frequent enough to cause distress to the person having the thoughts, or when they experience a compulsion to act on those thoughts, or they actually do act on those thoughts - that's a problem.

If some male has occasional fantasies of themself having a female body, and is aroused by the thought of caressing their own breasts... well... I don't think that's particularly uncommon, nor do I think it's problematic in and of itself. I imagine a large portion of heterosexual people on the planet have at some point fantasized about what it might be like to have the opposite sex's body, and be able to feel the sensations that they imagine the opposite sex would feel. Honestly, I think that's a pretty normal and common fantasy.

But most people don't take that next step and start acting on that fantasy. Most people don't put on the opposite sex's undergarments in order to heighten their arousal and add verisimilitude to their fantasy. Most people don't go out in public while cross-dressed in order to strengthen the immersion of their fantasy. And most people don't go into single-sex spaces of the opposite sex while cross-dressed in order to round out their fantasy by using other people as live-action players in their fantasy.

And most people aren't in a position to influence policy that requires complete strangers to take part in their sexual role play without consent - for example, by getting lawmakers or employers or business owners to give them permission to use opposite-sex intimate spaces based on their professed (but unverifiable) gender identity.

To circle it back to your example... the situation we're now in is one where people who are sexually attracted to minors have the ability to say the magic phrase "I identify as a child", and then on the basis of that declaration, they have the legal right to spend all day hanging out at the local preschool with the kids that are the object of their sexual arousal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're being deliberately obtuse now. Pedophilia is a disorder in and of itself, and acting on it is an extension of it. "AGP" is unrelated to disordered behavior.

PARAPHILIC DISORDER is the class of disorders to which the subclassification of TRANSVESTISM belongs, and AUTOGYNEPHILIA is the way in which that PARAPHILIC TRANSVESTISM is expressed.

PARAPHILIC DISODER is a class of disorders to which the subclassification of PEDOPHILIA belongs. And just like for FETISHISM, there are additional aspects that the clinician is expected to identify regarding how that PARAHILIC PEDOPHILIA is expressed.

Compare the diagnosis guides:

Pedophilic Disorder

The clinician must specify whether

• The patient has an exclusive attraction to prepubescent children (exclusive type) or attraction to both children and adults (nonexclusive type).
• The patient is sexually attracted to males, females, or both.
• The behaviors/urges/fantasies are limited to incest.

Transvestic Disorder

The clinician must specify whether

• Fetishism (sexual arousal by fabrics, materials, or garments) or autogynephilia (arousal by thoughts or images of self as a woman) are present.
• The patient is living in a controlled environment (eg, institution) or in full remission (ie, at least 5 years without distress/impairment in an uncontrolled environment)

 

[Emily's Cat]

We were not talking about transgender issues, scooter. We were talking about universal terminology, specifically what a specifier means, and no, it is not in dispute even by a nurse, or they wouldn't have made it through their exams.

Might there be the occasional unhinged whack job who doesn't accept the basic definitions they use professionally, yet manage to put on the act like they do? Perhaps some dimwitted technician who scoffs inwardly whenever a doctor references a specifier? Sure. They are not significant voices within the profession, and like many of the arguments here, beneath consideration.

You do not understand the clinical criteria and language in use. You are, quite simply, wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

NHS Fife could stop the action by admitting liability. They could make Mrs Peggie an offer she couldn't refuse. They're not going to do that.

The parade of captured (female) staff continues today. A senior A&E consultant is being cross-examined. Yesterday she said she knew she was female because that's what it says on her birth certificate. It's what she was "given" when she was born. She believes it's something the people delivering the baby do at the time, but she's not an expert. (By this count of course, Upton, whom she is adamant is female, is actually male.)

Half the country is glued to this. It's better entertainment than a TV sitcom.

Some of the witnesses and experts speaking on behalf of Upton have made some really eyebrow-raising comments. Like, bat-◊◊◊◊ crazy stuff. I'm glad that so many people are glued to the tribunal - it continues to expose the rank idiocy of this ideology and the degree of institutional capture. But I'm also sad, because this is absolutely going to cause a lot of people to lose faith in the integrity and trustworthiness of the medical profession. If they're so blatantly off their rockers about something as basic and straightforward as sex... what else are they entirely wrong about? What other treatments and interactions are based on wishful thinking and blind belief rather than science?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That century was mostly prior to the widespread adoption of endocrinological and surgical interventions designed to mimic the opposite sex. These days you can get your cross-sex hormones after a single doctor visit, in more progressive jurisdictions.

You know, I genuinely can't tell if you think this is a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They know, and they know they are factually wrong. But they rely on everyone accepting their alternate reality, else their fig leaf of cards collapses.

It's very simple: the couple advocates of this AGP postulate acknowledge themselves that they have no evidence to support it. Their postulate is not accepted by the professional and academic communities. EC and others claimed it is a DSM defined mental disorder. It demonstrably and definitionally is not. That's pretty much it.

You're full of it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The question was basically why we are having this problem now instead of earlier, and my answer is that the number of people trying to pass as the opposite sex—to varying degrees of success—is much higher now than in previous decades.

I'd like to amend your statement, because as written I don't agree.

Why are we having this problem now? It's because the number of people declaring that they're a gender different from their sex is much higher now than in previous decades.

Sure, some of them try to pass... but a whole lot of them don't put anything more than a cursory effort into it. A whole lot are certainly not trying to successfully pass. And a core component of the TRA position is that nobody should be required to pass, or even to really try to pass. The core position is that self-declaration by itself is the sole arbiter of whether someone is transgender, and that self-declaration alone is all that should be needed in order to attain the legal right to transgress sex-based boundaries.

Nobody in their right mind would think that Eddie Izzard or Alex Drummond passes, and most sane people don't even think they're making a genuine effort to pass since neither has had ANY procedures to modify their physical expressions. They're both quite clearly males wearing female-styled clothing and makeup and that's the end of it... but both of them (and a whole lot more) demand that they should have access to female single-sex spaces because of how they say they feel about themselves.

There are a huge number of males who declare themselves to be transwomen, and whose only real effort is cross dressing. A fair number will take just enough estrogen to grow their own boob-like structures, but NOT enough to inhibit their ability to use their penises to achieve orgasm.

 

[Thermal]

I very strongly disagree with this. Allow me to explain.

I'm going to start with a completely different paraphilia

You'd probably first want to start with clarifying whether you are referring to harmless kinds, fetishes, or paraphilia which has escalated till it causes distress and becomes an actual disorder. You're waaaaay too fast and loose with those distinctions.

- a foot fetish. Diagnostically speaking, this would be a paraphilic disorder, where the paraphilia is focused on a specific non-sexual part of the body (fetish), where that body part is feet. Paraphilia is the class of disorder, fetishism is the subclass of the disorder, and feet is the specific trigger of the fetishistic paraphilia. At this point, I expect you to proclaim that a foot fetish is totally not at all a disorder, it's just arousal by feet, not a big deal, and I'm an evil bigot for providing a clinically accurate description of a disorder in the DSM.

Now, in and of itself, being aroused by feet isn't immediately and necessarily a problem. But it is a problem when it becomes clinically significant - meaning that it causes distress to the individual experiencing the condition, or when it impedes their ability to live a normal life, or when it interferes with other people being able to live their lives without disruption or risk introduced by the condition. So if a person is nothing more than somewhat aroused by feet, but it's minor and non-disruptive, then it's not a paraphilic disorder. It's a kink, and nothing more.

This is what AGP is, definitionally. It is nothing more than sexual arousal at the thought of being a woman. Keep that in mind; as I pointed out to you earlier, that is the only definition provided in the DSM, and it is given twice in text.

On the other hand, if the kink is so strong that the individual can't get aroused without seeing or interacting with feet, that's a problem - it impedes their ability to have a normal healthy sexual relationship. Similarly, if the kink is so strong that it gets in the way of their partner's healthy sexual relationships, it's a paraphilia. You might think this sounds minor, but imagine a situation in which a male cannot get aroused unless they are stroking or handling their partner's feet, but the partner gets no arousal or enjoyment out of having their feet stroked in that way. Now the partner has to submit to something they don't enjoy in order to have a physical interaction with their partner. That makes it a paraphilic disorder - even if you don't think it's a big deal, it still meets the clinical criteria of paraphilic fetishism focused on feet.

Agreed. At no point in the DSM or elsewhere is it even suggested that a person with an autogynephilia tendency is *only* capable of arousal if this kink is coddled to. This is one of your major breaks in reasoning.

If you're heading to the beach with your buddy, and you know that they have a serious foot fetish... that might introduce a bit of discomfort for you, wouldn't you say? Hanging around at the beach where almost everyone's feet are uncovered and visible puts you in a situation where you are accompanying your pal while they're engaging in a sexual activity. It's not sexual for you, but you know that they're effectively watching porn with you present. They are arousing themselves while you're there.

Ya I got bad news for you: virtually every male is getting sexually aroused at the beach, to one degree or another. But just like someone with AGP, it ain't a problem. I know you want to insist that it is, but that is not demonstrated, just assumed on your part.

Quick sidebar- do you really think every (or most or whatever) transwomen are in a constant state of sexual arousal? Like, wood at full mast for the majority of the day? Again, I got bad news for you. It ain't the case. They are not experiencing anything remotely like you assume.

At this point, would you say it's still no big deal, not a problem for anyone?

Guys are checking out the hotties all day long, and not from.the artistic appreciation standpoint. I live at the beach, where it is cureently summer, and can attest to this. This very morning, I saw a cop almost crash his patrol car while he was rubbernecking a young lady in a bikini.

Now let's take that one step further. Your buddy wants to go to the beach with a group of 10 friends and acquaintances. Now your friend is going to be arousing themselves in the presence of 10 people, none of whom have consented to take part in their sexual activity. Let alone the impact on everyone else at the beach - all of them are now players in your pal's sexual role play without consent, even if it's without their knowledge. Do you still think it's not a big deal, it's nothing more than arousal by feet?

Again, half the human population is getting aroused by the other half at the beach. Feet aren't anything special here, with cheeks on open display and bikini tops that are little more than band-aids strung on dental floss.

What if your friend with the foot fetish managed to convince their employer that everyone has to wear open-toed sandals or flip-flops at work? What if they influenced policy so that other people were now required to present the object of that pal's sexual desire on a regular basis, whether they wanted to or not? Every person that they work with is now required by policy to take part in your friend's sexual arousal.

Do you think that's a problem?

The comparison just ran off the rails, and wildly. The thought *of yourself* as a woman does not require others to unwillingly expose any part of their bodies. It's entirely a first-person thought.

That's where you make the second major break in reasoning: AGP definitionally doesn't require anyone else to do anything to you or for you. It is, definitionally, a thought about yourself. This connection about other people treating you as you prefer is not part of that.

And that goes for all of your foot fetish jazz above, too. You are begging the question that AGP *really* means getting turned on (apparently in perpetuity) by *other people* treating you as a woman. That is not, definitionally, what it is. Again, it is the solo thought of yourself as a woman. It does not involve anyone else.

And I know what you are going to say. "It's a natural/automatic extension". No, it's not. If it was, the definition of AGP would be along the lines of "sexual arousal at being treated like a woman by others".

That is not the definition, because that's not what it is. At that point, your house of cards collapses. AGP has nothing to do with anyone else, full stop.

 

[Thermal]

You do not understand the clinical criteria and language in use. You are, quite simply, wrong.

I do, and have discussed this with my wife, who is an actual psychologist. She has quite a few opinions about all the armchair psychologists ITT, who understand exactly squat dick of what they are talking about and parrot anti-trans lingo which is roundly condemned by the professional communities.

At a choice between her and all y'all, I'm deferring to her in terms of judgement on whether I'm using the terms correctly.

Eta: and I don't mean that as a slam against you or anyone else (although I see it sounds like one). My wife has postgraduate degrees in this stuff, and y'all, I'm pretty certain, have exactly nothing but googling Reduxx and the other low credibility hate sites. I hope you understand where my confidence is coming from, and why your assertions are falling flat.

EC, earlier in the thread, I actually posted the two times AGP was defined in the text of the DSM for you, with page numbers, from the 5-TR edition. You replied "nuh-uhh" and literally posted the same two pages, with the definitions verbatim as I described. Yet you keep insisting the words say something completely different, and have meanings that I guess you are pulling from tarot cards or something.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Growing a set of boobs tends to make someone code female, IMO.

Are you kidding? Slap some falsies on Dwayne Johnson, and suddenly you actually perceive them to be female?