Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

In this thread, which is That Thread.

And "That Thread", which is this thread, as all of us here know, is "The Thread Where Intellectual Cowards and Science Deniers Fear To Tread"

 

[smartcooky]

I wonder how many female flight attendants would prefer not to be forced into the usual blouse-and-tight-skirt getup required of sisters with tits and a ◊◊◊◊, and would rather wear shirt-and-trousers. Most, would be my guess. But they voluntarily took a job that comes with different sex based uniforms, so I doubt federal law would come to their aid either.

I take the view that if you are looking at a job that has rules, and don't like the rules, then you either brook it or don't take the job.

I hate (loathe, actually) wearing a collar & tie, but I once had a job where a white shirt, buttoned-up collar, jacket and tie was the standard dress requirement, so I just had to grin and bear it. I haven't worn a tie since I left that job over 30 years ago!!

 

[Aber]

I have no objection to women in thr men's room

And so you can have no objection to transwomen in the men's room too.

 

[Thermal]

And so you can have no objection to transwomen in the men's room too.

Right, as I've said many times. And?

 

[d4m10n]

Transgenderism without dysphoria may not be mental disorder, but there's no reason anyone needs to accommodate it either.

Has anyone come up with real world examples of "transgenderism without dysphoria" yet?

Alexis Black was suggested but since she is on cross-sex hormone therapy we can reasonably assume she is being treated for the usual condition associated with that specific therapeutic treatment. Most of the major figures we've discussed in this thread (e.g. Lia Thomas, Laurel Hubbard, Rachel McKinnon) are known to have been prescribed hormones for the same reason.

Where and who are the folks who claim to have transitioned their gender without hope of medical intervention?

What accommodations have they requested, beyond pronouns?

 

[Thermal]

Has anyone come up with real world examples of "transgenderism without dysphoria" yet?

I'll let you know after I've tried to come up with real world examples of 'cisgenderism without depression'.

 

[d4m10n]

I'll let you know after I've tried to come up with real world examples of 'cisgenderism without depression'.

Most cisgender people (i.e. people who do not wish to change either their apparent sex or their social sex role) do not suffer from clinically significant depression most of the time, but even those that do suffer from one depressive disorder or another generally fail to see any link between that suffering and their biological sex or social sex role.

By contrast, the symptoms of gender dysphoria are as follows:

• Noticeable incongruence between the gender that the patient sees themselves are, and what their classified gender assignment
• An intense need to do away with his or her primary or secondary sex features (or, in the case of young teenagers, to avert the maturity of the likely secondary features)
• An intense desire to have the primary or secondary sex features of the other gender
• A deep desire to transform into another gender
• A profound need for society to treat them as another gender
• A powerful assurance of having the characteristic feelings and responses of the other gender

Basically, if you're intensely desirous of changing sex (physically and/or socially) then you probably fit the bill.

Thermal appears intent on decoupling transgenderism from mental illness, but they haven't made any serious effort to say what it looks like to be transgender without ever having suffered through at least some of the above symptoms. I'm not saying it cannot be done, I am saying that no one has done it here in this thread.

 

[Thermal]

@d4m10n, have you googled the Informed Consent model for gender affirming jazz? Like, through Planned Parenthood and others? You don't need a diagnosis of dysphoria to take hormones. Since they are potent stuff, they are not sold over the counter at Walgreens, of course, but what gives you the idea that you have to be mentally ill to get on a hormone regimen?

 

[Thermal]

Most cisgender people (i.e. people who do not wish to change either their apparent sex or their social sex role) do not suffer from clinically significant depression most of the time, but even those that do suffer from one depressive disorder or another generally fail to see any link between that suffering and their biological sex or social sex role.

By contrast, the symptoms of gender dysphoria are as follows:

• Noticeable incongruence between the gender that the patient sees themselves are, and what their classified gender assignment
• An intense need to do away with his or her primary or secondary sex features (or, in the case of young teenagers, to avert the maturity of the likely secondary features)
• An intense desire to have the primary or secondary sex features of the other gender
• A deep desire to transform into another gender
• A profound need for society to treat them as another gender
• A powerful assurance of having the characteristic feelings and responses of the other gender

Basically, if you're intensely desirous of changing sex (physically and/or socially) then you probably fit the bill.

Thermal appears intent on decoupling transgenderism from mental illness, but they haven't made any serious effort to say what it looks like to be transgender without ever having suffered through at least some of the above symptoms. I'm not saying it cannot be done, I am saying that no one has done it here in this thread.

You accidentally snipped out part of the diagnosis: "The second necessity is that the condition should be connected with clinically important distress, or affects the individual significantly socially, at work, and in other import areas of life."

From your link. Bolding added.

Eta: regarding the passive-aggressive use of "they" in referring to yours truly- my name is not Legion, nor am I many.

 

[d4m10n]

"The second necessity is that the condition should be connected with clinically important distress, or affects the individual significantly socially, at work, and in other import areas of life."

This is a key diagnostic criterion, included in order to justify serious endocrinological and/or surgical interventions which would otherwise seem like overkill. I wouldn't call it a symptom so much as a measure of overall severity of the condition.

Since they are potent stuff, they are not sold over the counter at Walgreens, of course, but what gives you the idea that you have to be mentally ill to get on a hormone regimen?

Prescription drugs are coupled with a diagnosis, even at Planned Parenthood.

my name is not Legion, nor am I many.

I'm not about to memorize and apply everyone's preferred pronouns here in That Thread; too much effort for almost no payoff.

 

[Thermal]

I wouldn't call it a symptom so much as a measure of overall severity of the condition.

They disagree. They call it a necessity in order to make the diagnosis. No clinically significant distress, no diagnosis of mental illness.

Prescription drugs are coupled with a diagnosis, even at Planned Parenthood.

So that's a no, you didn't look into it? You can get on a hormone regiment entirely electively, man. There is absolutely no diagnosis required, any more so than for Botox or breast augmentation.

I'm not about to memorize and apply everyone's preferred pronouns here in That Thread; too much effort for almost no payoff.

Interestingly, I haven't found it so daunting, either on this small thread or IRL. There's a couple posters I don't know the preference of, but with the knowns I haven't found said memorizing to be that cumbersome a task.

 

[d4m10n]

You can get on a hormone regimen entirely electively, man.

There still has to be an ICD-10 code on the prescription itself, such as F64.1 (Gender identity disorder in adolescence and adulthood), or F64.9 (Gender identity disorder, unspecified). You don't sign off scripts for life-altering drugs with "Hey, man, they asked for it."

No clinically significant distress, no diagnosis of mental illness.

Without any clinically significant distress, it seems like it would be difficult to ethically justify irreversible medical interventions, especially when we're talking about adolescent patients.

 

[Thermal]

You don't sign off scripts for life-altering drugs with "Hey, man, they asked for it."

Actually they do. On a large scale. Everyday. You can Google this stuff and everything.

Without any clinically significant distress, it seems like it would be difficult to ethically justify irreversible medical interventions, especially when we're talking about adolescent patients.

I agree that with minors it shouldn't even be on the table, although I sympathize with the desire to avoid suicides with puberty blockers and all. But that doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely no need for a diagnosis of mental illness to get on ye olde female hormone regimen.

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually they do. On a large scale. Everyday. You can Google this stuff and everything.

I believe you. I also think this is a sign that the medical treatment of "gender transition" is a gigantic train wreck, and indicates a deeply dysfunctional system that is taking advantage of trans identifying people to make a profit at the expense of their health.

 

[Ziggurat]

There still has to be an ICD-10 code on the prescription itself, such as F64.1 (Gender identity disorder in adolescence and adulthood), or F64.9 (Gender identity disorder, unspecified).

I'm not sure that's necessary if you're paying out of pocket.

You don't sign off scripts for life-altering drugs with "Hey, man, they asked for it."

You shouldn't. That doesn't mean that they won't.

Without any clinically significant distress, it seems like it would be difficult to ethically justify irreversible medical interventions, especially when we're talking about adolescent patients.

Oh, absolutely. But we've established already that the medical establishment acts unethically when it comes to gender transition treatment.

 

[d4m10n]

I believe you.

I remain skeptical. It seems inherently contradictory to claim "gender-affirming care is life-saving" while maintaining that said care isn't actually treating any underlying medical condition.

 

[theprestige]

A few posts back, you declared transpeople to be either mentally ill, misogynists, or perverts.

A non sequitur? Do better.

I just realized how ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up that is.

No you didn't. You've been opining about how ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up that is for weeks, if not months by this point.

Anyway:

• "Mentally Ill" - Obviously, some people suffer from gender dysphoria, a mental health disorder, and need real help. Scientific, ethical help. And of course as much tolerance and support as society can muster, as they try to live with their condition. My view is that there is no good evidence that social transition is the best, most ethical way to treat them. Further, my view is that modern trans privilege activism is actually counter-productive for these people.
• "Misogynists" - Modern trans privilege activism is objectively anti-woman. Everything beyond gender non-discrimination laws and policies is privileges accorded to men at the expense of women, without concern for the rights, worries, dignity, and modesty of the women affected by these new privileges for males. Further, I think that expressions of autogynaephilia have a misogynistic component to them. Further, we have seen time and again examples of trans privilege being leveraged to supersede actual women. It's a pattern I sneeringly refer to as "men are better than women at everything, including being women". TPA is a misogynist ideology.
• "Perverts" - Obviously there are concerning number of perverts expressing themselves under the banner of trans privilege. These are in fact the bad actors that are ruining it for everyone else - especially women and actual dysphorics. Most of our policy debate in this thread has been about how to ethically and humanely accommodate people who suffer from gender dysphoria, and are using social transition to help mitigate their distress, without also opening the door to misogynistic perverts who will exploit trans privilege to indulge their perversions, rather than seeking the help they need for the problems they actually have.

See? When explained, none of this is ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up at all. It's actually reasonable discrimination between different cohorts of trans privilege activists, and their contributions to the current state of affairs. I'm sure when you think about it, you'll find that you generally agree with me on these three issues. Our main point of contention is that you think you've found a way to accommodate actual dysphorics without opening the door to misogynistic perverts, while I think you haven't found any such thing, and aren't even interested in finding any such thing.

 

[Thermal]

I'm not sure that's necessary if you're paying out of pocket.

That's my understanding- if insurance is picking up the tab, they require medical necessity for reimbursement.

 

[Ziggurat]

I remain skeptical. It seems inherently contradictory to claim "gender-affirming care is life-saving" while maintaining that said care isn't actually treating any underlying medical condition.

I agree, it's absolutely contradictory.

That doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

[theprestige]

I remain skeptical. It seems inherently contradictory to claim "gender-affirming care is life-saving" while maintaining that said care isn't actually treating any underlying medical condition.

Not contradictory - clever. Ideological capture means they can simply point to the received and unquestioned "wisdom" that trans-affirming care is life-saving, without having to diagnose or treat any medically-recognized underlying condition. It's a perfect situation for them: All the authority of the medical community, none of the responsibility to actually practice medicine as we know it.

It's of a piece with the canard about how you have to respect preferred pronouns, or the poor trans person will kill themselves.