• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

[Merged] Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

From what I have read in article after article today,
Tell me you just now started frantically investigoogling a rebuttal, without telling me.
assaults on such individuals is magnitudes more.
I'm sure the algorithm fed you a bunch of truthy headlines that matched your preconceived notions. And I'll bet you anything that the vast majority of the articles are either of the form "the Guardian reports that the BBC reports that Veja reports that a 20 year old study suggests that transwomen sex workers in Brazil experience a higher rate of violence than the general population of Brazil". Or they're just outright fabrications.

As soon as you start posting links, we can start determining whether I'd lose that bet.
 
Because of the sign on the door
Well that's stupid.
and why it was put there.
Why was it put there?
No, because it already was given to women.
So what? Why does it matter if it was already given to them? If they shouldn't have it, then it should be taken away. They should only keep it if keeping it is the right thing, regardless of past history.
Sexual dimorphism is literally why they built two separate spaces in the first place.
YES. EXACTLY. You finally said something which is unambiguously objective and correct.

And that's also why you should keep males out of there, because sexual dimorphism doesn't vanish just because someone says so.
 
That's right. They can treat their daughters as possessions that they have permanent authority over. You know, like in the Bible where women are prevented from owning property and fathers can marry them off to whomever or sell them off as slaves or concubines. The good old days.
WTAF?

You've now framed fathers protecting their children from harm as some kind of oppression. So yeah... parents who don't allow their kids to do drugs, skydive, or have sex with 50 year olds are all just treating their kids like possessions.
 
Tell me you just now started frantically investigoogling a rebuttal, without telling me.

I'm sure the algorithm fed you a bunch of truthy headlines that matched your preconceived notions. And I'll bet you anything that the vast majority of the articles are either of the form "the Guardian reports that the BBC reports that Veja reports that a 20 year old study suggests that transwomen sex workers in Brazil experience a higher rate of violence than the general population of Brazil". Or they're just outright fabrications.
I think most of them aren't fabrications as such, but there are a ◊◊◊◊ ton if misattributions of cause. As I mentioned upthread, a lot of trans people engage in risky behavior, and pay a price for it. It's tragic and sad, but it's not transphobia. For example:
This is a case of a transwoman, Hamilton, who was murdered. But Hamilton wasn't murdered for being trans, but because Hamilton broke up with Reynolds, and Reynolds killed Hamilton out of anger. Reynolds wasn't a transphobe, he wanted to be in a romantic relationship with Hamilton. There's obviously something wrong with Reynolds for him to resort to murder, but it's not transphobia.
As soon as you start posting links, we can start determining whether I'd lose that bet.
We don't really have to wait. Other people have dived into the data and found it lacking. I fully believe that trans people face higher rates of violence, but examination of that violence indicates it's not because of transphobia, but rather correlated risk factors such as drug use or involvement in the sex trade. And that's regrettable, and I don't fault anyone for wanting to do something to lower those rates of violence. But letting them into women's bathrooms won't do anything about those other risk factors, and so it won't reduce violence against them.
 
There is lots of other evidence. My nephew took puberty blockers for precocious puberty. He grew up to be a healthy adult male.
I'm going to give the same lecture I've given five or six times in this discussion before.

First, precocious puberty is not the same as dysphoria. Using outcomes from precocious puberty as justification for dysphoria is like using outcomes for cancer treatment as justification for doing chemotherapy for warts.

First, some basics. Puberty is predominantly a two-part process. It involves two major functions, the pituitary and the adrenal. The adrenal gland triggers repeatedly throughout childhood development, as it drives bone growth. The pituitary normally triggers at the onset of puberty, and continues to serve a role in hormonal regulation after puberty has completed. During puberty, the adrenal triggers rapid growth of the long bones (which results in increased height), as well as growth of fine underarm hair and fine pubic hair. When puberty has completed, the adrenal gland triggers closure of the growth plates, which stops the long bones from growing longer. The pituitary triggers hormonal production by the gonads, as well as several physical changes that differ by sex. In males, it leads to facial and body hair growth, thickening of the jaw and brow ridges, thickening of the adam's apple which causes lowering of the voice, lengthening and thickening of the penis, and descent of the scrotal sac away from the body to support higher volume sperm production. In females, it leads to widening of the hips, maturation of lactation glands in the breast region, enlargement of the uterus, and menarche. In both males and females, the adrenal causes armpit, pubic, and leg hair to coarsen and rapid accretion of bone density. When the adrenal has completed it's process, it signals the pituitary to STOP driving pubertal changes, and to switch over to either constant production of testosterone in males, or cyclical production of estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone in females.

In precocious puberty, the pituitary process begins before the adrenal process, causing them to be out of sync. In addition to the sex-related changes, this also means that short bones start acreting density when they are not expanding in length. This can cause pain as well as risks warping of the bones and later disability. If left untreated it can result in damage to the bones and surrounding tissue when the bones try to lengthen after hardening. Using blockers in precocious puberty halts the production of hormones that trigger those changes for a while, to allow the adrenal function to trigger and fall into alignment with the pituitary.

In someone with dysphoria those two processes are not out of alignment at all. Using blockers forces them out of alignment. If used for a very short time - on the order of just a few months - the risk is probably pretty low. A few months delay in the pubertal process is well within the window of normal adolescent development. If used for much longer than that, however, certain steps in the process can be missed entirely. For example... if blockers are in place when the child would normally be accreting bone density, and the adrenal signals the growth plates to close, those bones cannot accrete enough density to maintain the strength they need as an adult. They can leave the individual with permanent osteoporosis. If bockers are in place when the penis would normally lengthen and the scrotal sac drop, it can result in the individual being left with a permanently child-sized penis and unable to achieve orgasm, as well as a high likelihood of sterility because the testes didn't properly mature. This happened to Jazz Jenkins, and it's been acknowledged as a risk for males. In females, it can result in the uterus never enlarging, which can make childbirth very high risk or even impossible.

All of this is only a discussion of the physical changes that occur as a result of the pituitary-adrenal partnership. It doesn't discuss the cognitive changes that occur during puberty at all. I know far less about that, but I do know that a lot happens. My goddaughter's endocrinologist gave an overview of some of it, things like the development of a tendency toward romantic boding in addition to friendship bonding.
 
The funny thing is, if we get back to the basic issue of fiat self-ID in public policy, acbytesla probably agrees it's a bad idea. He'd probably have to wrestle with the same conundrum some of us - or at least I - have wrestled with.

Put it this way: acbytesla, do you think men should be entitled to enter women's locker rooms just because they say they want to?
 
No you didn't. You posted a massive junk of text from the so-called 'Yale Critique', a non peer-reviewed hit piece from the Yale Integrity Project prepared for use in litigation and co-authored by individuals with a strong vested interest in maintaining current practice, including those whose own research was rated low quality in the Cass Review. The paper contains nothing which undermines any conclusions of the review. There is zero evidence that you have any ability to understand or evaluate the research yourself. You are simply uncritically accept anything that supports your pre-determined conclusion.
The errors and misrepresentations in the Yale piece have been covered in this peer-reviewed paper which you won't bother to read.
I mean to say 'chunk of text' not 'junk of text'. Freudian slip?
 
That's too vague. Far too many variables. Everything depends on the individual, when they started using them and when they stopped. People takem for gender dysphoria because they don't want to develop male traits like voice changing, growth, being hirsute. Take them for a couple of years, the individual can change their mind.

I know of such a young man. He took puberty blockers for gender dysphoria in his teens and stopped taking them. After stopping his voice deepened and developed facial hair. But he didn't see a growth spurt that he might have If hadn't taken them. (But no one knows for sure if that is the cause...he's 5'5..which is on the short side for men today.)
I bet they also have low bone density, a child-sized penis, very low sperm count, and potentially anorgasmia and sterility too.

Their voice deepened because that's what testosterone does - it thickens the vocal cords. This is why females who take testosterone will develop lower voices. Same thing with facial hair and body hair. It's triggered by testosterone alone, and doesn't require a second element supplied by the adrenal. It's also a one-way switch. If a female takes testosterone, they will develop facial and body hair that will never go away, it cannot be undone.
 

Puberty blockers banned for minors in the UK.

Are the Brits now intolerant bigots?

Or is this something different? Maybe leaving adult, irreversible decisions to adults..is a good thing?
I disagree with puberty blockers and am ok with them being banned. So many pre puberty kids being scared of puberty due to social media pressure when it's a nonsense. Go through puberty then, then, then, you are informed enough to make a decision.
 
I bet they also have low bone density, a child-sized penis, very low sperm count, and potentially anorgasmia and sterility too.

Their voice deepened because that's what testosterone does - it thickens the vocal cords. This is why females who take testosterone will develop lower voices. Same thing with facial hair and body hair. It's triggered by testosterone alone, and doesn't require a second element supplied by the adrenal. It's also a one-way switch. If a female takes testosterone, they will develop facial and body hair that will never go away, it cannot be undone.
Trans individuals take puberty blockers along with cross sex hormones (ie: testosterone or estrogen hormones) for the purpose of having their bodies develop according to their own perceived gender identity. Females naturally have lower bone density than males. As well as other differences. So naturally as can be expected, taking those hormones do result in the typical developmental traits of the respected sex.
 
Trans individuals take puberty blockers along with cross sex hormones (ie: testosterone or estrogen hormones) for the purpose of having their bodies develop according to their own perceived gender identity. Females naturally have lower bone density than males. As well as other differences. So naturally as can be expected, taking those hormones do result in the typical developmental traits of the respected sex.
No. They do not just adopt the traits of their respected sex. They often have low bone density compared to the norm for both sexes.
This may put them at significant risk for development of osteoporosis.
 
No. They do not just adopt the traits of their respected sex. They often have low bone density compared to the norm for both sexes.
This may put them at significant risk for development of osteoporosis.
Now look who's providing evidence from a biased source. (Regardless of the title of the organization)
 
Now look who's providing evidence from a biased source. (Regardless of the title of the organization)
Let me guess. You think SEGM is biased because the Southern Poverty Law Centre declared it a hate group. You have no actual evidence of bias. You uncritically believe everything your sacred institutions proclaim, like all true believers.
 
Now look who's providing evidence from a biased source. (Regardless of the title of the organization)
I'm not surprised that you're attacking the source, but not even addressing the data itself. And you still haven't provided any links showing that puberty blockers are safe and reversible for gender dysphoria.
 
Jeez, bloody capitalist supply and demand gets everywhere!

The lower planes are understaffed. Management blames this on younger spirits who don't want to incarnate any more. But what do they expect, when they're requiring at least ten prior incarnations even for untouchable-caste positions? Until they get this ironed out, everybody already on the material plane has to put in extra lifetimes, and use of accrued astral regeneration time is restricted and subject to prior approval. It's all hands on deck and there's no I in team, so don't even think about getting choosy about gender, race, or hotness.
 
Trans individuals take puberty blockers along with cross sex hormones (ie: testosterone or estrogen hormones) for the purpose of having their bodies develop according to their own perceived gender identity.
Except that it doesn't actually do that. No amount of testosterone taken during puberty will cause a female to develop a penis. No amount of estrogen taken during puberty will cause a male to develop a uterus. It's a lie, plain and simple. Cross sex hormones will NOT cause their body to develop according to their gender identity.
Females naturally have lower bone density than males.
That's false. Females have naturally smaller and thinner bones than males, but the density is essentially the same in healthy pre-menopausal females as it is in adult males.
As well as other differences. So naturally as can be expected, taking those hormones do result in the typical developmental traits of the respected sex.
They absolutely do NOT result in the typical development traits of the target sex.

Males who take estrogen do NOT grow a uterus, do NOT have periods, do NOT develop mature lactation glands, do NOT have their hips widen or their pelvic opening change shape, do NOT stop growing facial hair, do NOT stop growing body and arm hair, do NOT shrink in stature and become shorter. Females who take testosterone do NOT grow a penis, do NOT develop seminal vessicles, do NOT grow a prostate, do NOT grow broader shoulders, do NOT get taller, do NOT change the tilt of their pelvis.

Cross sex exogenous hormones result in superficial changes that mimic some (but not all) of the secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex. It's like kit cars: The body panels might look a bit like a Ferrari, and might be Ferrari colored... but it's still a Mazda underneath.
 
Trans individuals take puberty blockers along with cross sex hormones (ie: testosterone or estrogen hormones) for the purpose of having their bodies develop according to their own perceived gender identity. Females naturally have lower bone density than males. As well as other differences. So naturally as can be expected, taking those hormones do result in the typical developmental traits of the respected sex.
Im sorry but these are lies.

Taking puberty blockers and estrogen will not turn a teenage boy into a teenage girl.

He will still have a penis, testicles, prostate, etc. He will still NOT have a uteris, vagina, ovaries, etc.

Its currently IMPOSSIBLE for a man to become a woman. Especially simply by suppressing normal hormonal development and adding hormones.
 
You're not going to like this, but I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about your feelings. I'm not here to make you feel good and to prop up your baseless beliefs.

The reason is that an extremely high proportion of males who currently identify as transgender are autogynephilic. Autogynephilia is a behavioral disorder (a subtype of transvestic disorder) where the male gets sexual arousal from imagining themselves as female, from being treated the way they believe females should be treated, or from forcing females to tolerate and affirm their presentation. It's a paraphilia.

Even more, it's a paraphilia that is clustered with a set of other paraphilias that are meaningfully correlated with sexual offending, as well as with narcissistic behavioral profiles. Sexual sadism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, and transvestitism are all precursor paraphilias that frequently escalate to violent sexual offenses - almost always against females.

Not all transgender identified males are autogynephilic... but under the current, modern description of transgender that we're being force-fed, they are a massive majority. That's why they have a higher rate of incarceration - because they have a higher rate of offending. Because they have a paraphilia that has long been documented with a correlation to sex crimes.
Adding on to my own post here...

Paraphilia are well documented to get worse when they're fed. If someone has voyeuristic tendencies, and you feed them hidden camera footage that arouses them, it will intensify their paraphilia and make it worse. Affirming an autogynephilic male's desire to be treated as a female, giving them the special dispensation to violate female boundaries, will make their paraphilia even stronger.

This isn't a mystery, and it's not wild assumptions, it's something that is well known by psychiatrists.
 
Based on current technology, it is IMPOSSIBLE to transform a male human into a female human. Even at the early stages of life.

All we can do is mutilate the body so as to sorta-kinda look more like a female.
 
And that's also why you should keep males out of there, because sexual dimorphism doesn't vanish just because someone says so.
No, it vanishes because doctors are actively prescribing endocrinological and surgical treatments to help people pass as the opposite sex. This is a problem which has to be accommodated somehow, and my answer is to query the males about the disposition of their spaces and query the females about theirs, because they really are different spaces serving different constituencies with different needs. My answer is not for the men to step in and protect the women whether they like it or not, as much as that might be emotionally appealing deep down in my gonads.
 
No, it vanishes because doctors are actively prescribing endocrinological and surgical treatments to help people pass as the opposite sex.
They pass as the opposite sex, they don't become the opposite sex, because medical intervention can only mask sexual dimorphism, not eliminate it or actually change to the other sex. Furthermore, lots of trans identifying people don't even use any of these medical interventions. And since the TRAs want self ID, you cannot limit the conversation to how to deal with people who have had medical intervention.
This is a problem which has to be accommodated somehow, and my answer is to query the males about the disposition of their spaces and query the females about theirs, because they really are different spaces serving different constituencies with different needs.
But you didn't actually want to query the females who use those spaces. You only wanted to query the Congresswomen.
My answer is not for the men to step in and protect the women whether they like it or not, as much as that might be emotionally appealing deep down in my gonads.
There are women who want to be protected. Your argument is basically to NOT protect those women because some other women don't want those women to be protected. Perhaps that's emotionally appealing to you. I'm a bit more interested in whether there's actually a threat to be protected from. And there is.
 
They pass as the opposite sex, they don't become the opposite sex, because medical intervention can only mask sexual dimorphism, not eliminate it or actually change to the other sex. Furthermore, lots of trans identifying people don't even use any of these medical interventions. And since the TRAs want self ID, you cannot limit the conversation to how to deal with people who have had medical intervention.

But you didn't actually want to query the females who use those spaces. You only wanted to query the Congresswomen.

There are women who want to be protected. Your argument is basically to NOT protect those women because some other women don't want those women to be protected. Perhaps that's emotionally appealing to you. I'm a bit more interested in whether there's actually a threat to be protected from. And there is.
I disagree with d4m10n's take on this... but for different reasons than you do. I disagree because consent isn't transferable. Males shouldn't be deciding whether or not some special males get a pass to invade female-only spaces... but females shouldn't be deciding it either.

The question on the table is "Should males with gendery feels be allowed to violate female boundaries and invade female single-sex spaces on their say-so?"

My answer is No, and it shouldn't be a vote at all. Any vote for Yes is a vote to eliminate single sex spaces entirely, so if it's going to be voted on it should be voted on honestly.
 
You only wanted to query the Congresswomen.

My answer is No, and it shouldn't be a vote at all.

There will inevitably be a vote when the GOP introduces a new bathroom bill:

My argument is that they ought to allow women to decide on women's spaces, and men decide on men's spaces, because the spaces are not equivalent and do not serve the same needs. I do not find EC's argument that we may never reconsider those spaces (so long as one person objects) particularly compelling but I also don't think a majority of one sex should be making decisions for the other sex.
 
There will inevitably be a vote when the GOP introduces a new bathroom bill:

My argument is that they ought to allow women to decide on women's spaces, and men decide on men's spaces, because the spaces are not equivalent and do not serve the same needs. I do not find EC's argument that we may never reconsider those spaces compelling, but I also don't think a majority of one sex should be making decisions for the other sex.
My argument isn't that we may never reconsider those spaces. My point is that a vote to allow Robert to use the female restroom because Robert wants to and a lot of people think Robert is a nice guy is fundamentally dishonest in its framing.

Even if you limit the vote on the use of female spaces to only females, it's dishonest. It's disingenuous to even consider letting some special males use the female-only spaces because 1) you can't grant someone else's consent to let a strange male into their presence and 2) that makes it a mixed-sex space.

If you want to have the vote, be up front about what's being voted on: Should single-sex spaces be eliminated and all spaces made into mixed-sex spaces?
 
There will inevitably be a vote when the GOP introduces a new bathroom bill:
It's not a bill, it's a resolution, meaning it's a rule adopted by the House governing how the House handles things within the House. And you're out of date, it's already been adopted.
I do not find EC's argument that we may never reconsider those spaces (so long as one person objects) particularly compelling but I also don't think a majority of one sex should be making decisions for the other sex.
It isn't one sex deciding for the other sex. It's the House deciding for the House. And they made the right decision.
 
We have an expression at my day job, "Good enough for government work." Regarding men's spaces (and only men's spaces) the trans men I've met pass well enough for most guys to shrug and not care.
And? There is no symmetry between trans men and trans women. Why would men care about trans men? They are typically physically weaker even with hormones, and even more importantly, predatory females don't try to pass themselves off as men. But predatory males do try to pass themselves off as women. So the risk profiles don't look anything like each other. You can't take how men treat trans men and say that women should just do the same, because it's not the same.
 
It's not a bill, it's a resolution, meaning it's a rule adopted by the House governing how the House handles things within the House. And you're out of date, it's already been adopted.
It was also followed by a bunch of advocates, transgender, and plain old male people storming the capitol and making videos of themselves flouting the rule in the female restroom. I believe it resulted in several arrests.
 
We have an expression at my day job, "Good enough for government work." Regarding men's spaces (and only men's spaces) the trans men I've met pass well enough for most guys to shrug and not care.
Cool story. Now how about you work on your fellow males to be more accepting and caring toward males that dress in traditionally female attire and wear lipstick, so that those males won't be scared of males in male single-sex spaces? That would be even cooler.
 
It was also followed by a bunch of advocates, transgender, and plain old male people storming the capitol and making videos of themselves flouting the rule in the female restroom. I believe it resulted in several arrests.
More than that, it resulted in a trans advocate physically assaulting Mace.

Because we all know the best way to convince females that males aren't a threat is male violence against females who think they're a threat.
 
Now how about you work on your fellow males to be more accepting and caring toward males that dress in traditionally female attire and wear lipstick, so that those males won't be scared of males in male single-sex spaces?
Is there some evidence that would persuade a skeptic males are insufficiently accepting at the moment?

I'm really not getting the sense that trans women are hoping to be accepted by us at all, that it's even on their wish list.
 
Is there some evidence that would persuade a skeptic males are insufficiently accepting at the moment?

I'm really not getting the sense that trans women are hoping to be accepted by us at all, that it's even on their wish list.
The claim by the TRAs is that trans women have to use the women's bathroom because they aren't safe in the men's bathroom. If you want to reject that claim, I for one am quite happy to, no further argument needed.

Emily Cat's point is that even if you accept this claim, allowing self ID males into female spaces isn't the proper solution, getting males to accept them in male spaces is.
 
Is there some evidence that would persuade a skeptic males are insufficiently accepting at the moment?

I'm really not getting the sense that trans women are hoping to be accepted by us at all, that it's even on their wish list.
One of the most common arguments made in support of transgender identified males being granted access to female single-sex spaces is that they don't feel safe in male single-sex spaces, and they need to be in the female spaces for their own safety.
 
It isn't one sex deciding for the other sex. It's the House deciding for the House.
I thought it was just Speaker Johnson laying down the new rule?

You've already admitted "[t]here is no symmetry between trans men and trans women" so it's really bizarre to be satisfied with the House creating a unisex solution without consulting either separate constituency.
 
One of the most common arguments made in support of transgender identified males being granted access to female single-sex spaces is that they don't feel safe in male single-sex spaces, and they need to be in the female spaces for their own safety.

It doesn't matter of course that by allowing males into female single-sex spaces, in pursuit of this goal, women don't feel safe.

Man in a frock: I feel unsafe in the men's room, I must pee with the ladies!
Woke society: Of course, madam, your comfort is our first concern.
Women: We feel unsafe with men in the ladies' room.
Woke society: Bigot! Transphobe!
 
Back
Top Bottom