Treatments for trans children and politics, world-wide

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

You are missing the point I am making. I am not saying the Cass report directly caused the new changes within the NHS, but indirectly, by highlighting the approach to gender within the NHS over the past few years. It has also helped to remove many of the barriers to talking about the topic, and exposed some of the poor thinking in general on the topic. 

This has led to the NHS re-examining some of it's other policies and maybe taking a wider, I'd say more sensible, view as to what actions they should take.

I'm not missing your point. I get that you're viewing a medical report as a good excuse to change unrelated policies. I'm questioning why you think this is a good thing and questioning the people who previously said that the Cass report was apolitical. 

In particular, I'm pointing out that the person who brought this up specifically stated that the Cass report impacted the NHS in some good way, even though nothing in the Cass report related to the changes being brought, and appeared to consider that a win. 

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

The difference is that some people would say it's perfectly possible to treat someone as the gender in which they identify whilst also recognising that biological sex exists. 

That has nothing to do with this at all, and you know it. In particular these specific trans individuals are wanting to be treated as women and considered women biologically and gender-wise. The people who are wanting something else are the ones who are specifically requesting that they are only with people who have the biological sex at birth that they want. The difference is that these people say that there can never, ever be a person who changes their biological sex and that a trans woman is not a 'true' woman. 

That's a VERY different viewpoint than talking about what gender means, what sex means, about queerness or anything like that. 

And that's fine, but let's not think this is some language issue and it's all very confusing. 

[DaveSumm]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The difference is that these people say that there can never, ever be a person who changes their biological sex and that a trans woman is not a 'true' woman. 

That's a VERY different viewpoint than talking about what gender means, what sex means, about queerness or anything like that. 

And that's fine, but let's not think this is some language issue and it's all very confusing. 

I don’t get what’s VERY different here. The first statement is what some people think, by their own definitions. The whole problem is the lack of clear definitions. 

It’s not that it’s confusing, it’s that most of these arguments boil down to someone saying “trans women are women” (knowing full well by their own definition, they are) and someone else saying “no they aren’t” (knowing full well by their own definition, they aren’t). It’s pointless and doesn’t get us anywhere.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I don’t get what’s VERY different here. The first statement is what some people think, by their own definitions. The whole problem is the lack of clear definitions. 

It’s not that it’s confusing, it’s that most of these arguments boil down to someone saying “trans women are women” (knowing full well by their own definition, they are) and someone else saying “no they aren’t” (knowing full well by their own definition, they aren’t). It’s pointless and doesn’t get us anywhere.

But this is hardly a 'language' dispute, much less a silly one. It's literally the whole point of the question.

If you don't think that trans women are women and should be excluded from cis women, that is not a language disagreement. If you do so despite what medicine and science indicate, that indicates that it's not particularly based in logic or expertise. 

It's also not very confusing, honestly. Either you view trans women as women with all that entails or you don't. There is very little ambiguity or room for movement. Since you said that it's a 'ridiculous language game', I think that it's important to push back on how it absolutely is not a language game. 

Really, the point is whether or not you define trans women as women. I don't know how that is a ridiculous language viewpoint. Framing it as such is only choosing to frame the whole argument and concern as a silly thing, allowing you to dismiss it without considering it or any ramifications of it. 

[Heartofice]

Whether it’s a language issue or not, it’s essentially meaningless because in reality every individual is different and context matters. 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Whether it’s a language issue or not, it’s essentially meaningless because in reality every individual is different and context matters. 

This is only true if you're not a government; if you're choosing to differentiate and discriminate based on one definition over another it matters quite a bit. 

 

[DaveSumm]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Really, the point is whether or not you define trans women as women. I don't know how that is a ridiculous language viewpoint. Framing it as such is only choosing to frame the whole argument and concern as a silly thing, allowing you to dismiss it without considering it or any ramifications of it. 

To be clear, it’s the tendency to intentionally obfuscate one’s meaning when discussing it that I’m calling a ridiculous language game. I’m not saying there’s anything silly about the actual debate subject itself, far from it. I personally think we would be better off if we all subscribed to the definition that trans women were women, at which point the mantra would become as pointless as asking if Granny Smiths were apples.

But that doesn’t mean I’ll say to someone discussing it that “I think all women should be allowed to participate in women’s sports”, because it comes across as baiting them into a trap. I wait for them to inevitably disagree, say “ah ha, so you don’t think trans women are women!” Another transphobe successfully unmasked, another debate averted.

There has to be some space for this debate to actually take place, even if you don’t like the language the other side uses.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

To be clear, it’s the tendency to intentionally obfuscate one’s meaning when discussing it that I’m calling a ridiculous language game. I’m not saying there’s anything silly about the actual debate subject itself, far from it. I personally think we would be better off if we all subscribed to the definition that trans women were women, at which point the mantra would become as pointless as asking if Granny Smiths were apples.

How is saying 'trans women are women' obfuscating anything? It's 4 words, two of the words are literally the same thing. 

But yes, the point is that there are a whole lot of people, including those in this thread, who believe that trans women are not women and should not be afforded the rights of women. Like the NHS, who apparently believes it's okay to differentiate and separate people. 

6 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

There has to be some space for this debate to actually take place, even if you don’t like the language the other side uses.

Again I'm not going to let you get away with this framing as 'not liking the language'. People don't like being treated differently or being segregated. If you don't think that trans women are women and you're okay with people saying that they don't want to be treated by a woman doctor if that woman is trans, then it is emphatically not a language issue; that is a change in behavior and is discriminatory by design. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

To be clear, it’s the tendency to intentionally obfuscate one’s meaning when discussing it that I’m calling a ridiculous language game. I’m not saying there’s anything silly about the actual debate subject itself, far from it. I personally think we would be better off if we all subscribed to the definition that trans women were women, at which point the mantra would become as pointless as asking if Granny Smiths were apples.

But that doesn’t mean I’ll say to someone discussing it that “I think all women should be allowed to participate in women’s sports”, because it comes across as baiting them into a trap. I wait for them to inevitably disagree, say “ah ha, so you don’t think trans women are women!” Another transphobe successfully unmasked, another debate averted.

There has to be some space for this debate to actually take place, even if you don’t like the language the other side uses.

Regardless of the opinions of people here, I don't think that our society can get to the space where actual debate can happen until we can first agree that trans women are indeed women. As I mentioned before in relation to women's sports, there are a number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits against transwomen athletes who inherently view this debate not as "should transwomen be allowed to compete alongside ciswomen?" but, rather, as "why are men being allowed to compete with women?"

Much as @mormont notes, there is undeniably an anti-trans prejudice at place in this debate, and there are many of such transphobic people who use things like the Cass Review and transwomen in women's sports as the "motte" to their more transphobic baileys. And there are many transphobes who do use people claiming to be interested in more nuance (i.e., the moderates) as their useful idiots to hide their transphobia behind. This tried and proven tactic by the right has very much been the case for nearly every social issue - gender equality, race and ethnicity, gay rights, etc. - that you can possibly name. 

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

The difference is that some people would say it's perfectly possible to treat someone as the gender in which they identify whilst also recognising that biological sex exists. 

Who is saying that biological sex doesnt exist?  And what does it mean to recognize that biological sex exist, in your view.

[DaveSumm]

51 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Regardless of the opinions of people here, I don't think that our society can get to the space where actual debate can happen until we can first agree that trans women are indeed women.

Then you’re never going to convince anyone of anything. There are people out there, probably tending older and less online, who are entirely happy to refer to someone as ‘she’ if she wants, and don’t care what they wear or gender they say they are or whatever, but who grew up where for 95% of their lives, ‘woman’ meant ‘female at birth’. That’s what they mean by the word. To approach people like this and, instead of even attempting to convince them why changing their definition would actually be much more inclusive and helpful overall, simply state “change your definition right now before we start talking”, is incredibly alienating, and you end leaving people like this with the impression that you’re attempting to deny reality. These are potential allies who get turned off of the whole endeavour because this ‘side’ seems elitist and dogmatic. 

44 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Who is saying that biological sex doesnt exist?

Case in point; you know full well that HoI is referring to sex at birth here, and I assume you also read Kal’s post where he clearly didn’t use it to mean that. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

Then you’re never going to convince anyone of anything. There are people out there, probably tending older and less online

Just as an observer, this isn’t necessarily true.  At least in studying American public opinion.  First of all, those people - which you’re right there are many - will die off.  Second, probably the greatest shift in public opinion this century was SSM.  Being against it helped Dubya get reelected.  A decade later, no politician wanted to explicitly express opposition.  Normalization can be a rapid process.  Or, ya know, not.  Just saying it depends.

[HexMachina]

12 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Then you’re never going to convince anyone of anything. There are people out there, probably tending older and less online, who are entirely happy to refer to someone as ‘she’ if she wants, and don’t care what they wear or gender they say they are or whatever, but who grew up where for 95% of their lives, ‘woman’ meant ‘female at birth’. That’s what they mean by the word. To approach people like this and, instead of even attempting to convince them why changing their definition would actually be much more inclusive and helpful overall,[b] simply state “change your definition right now before we start talking”, [/b]is incredibly alienating, and you end leaving people like this with the impression that you’re attempting to deny reality. These are potential allies who get turned off of the whole endeavour because this ‘side’ seems elitist and dogmatic. 

Case in point; you know full well that HoI is referring to sex at birth here, and I assume you also read Kal’s post where he clearly didn’t use it to mean that. 

who is doing this though? I can agree it comes up in a lot of the online discussions (or let's face it, screaming matches) I've seen but who is actually kicking off a conversation regarding trans-persons this way? In my lived experience, people are generally open to 'mistakes' and giving an initial explanation as to certain concepts and ideas. Its only after repeated misgendering and stubborn denial that things get more heated.

Edit: That should have bolded the part I was referring to, hopefully you can still make out what I was referring to

Edited May 1 by HexMachina

[TrackerNeil]

12 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Then you’re never going to convince anyone of anything.

I think it depends on the anyone and the anything. Sure, there are some people who have no real curiosity, are convinced they are always correct, and assume they know what those who disagree with them are thinking. But there are those, often on the sidelines of discussions, who aren't as emotionally invested in being "right", and thus are more willing to consider an issue with at least some humility. It's not always easy to see those people, but they're there. Or so I tell myself. 

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Case in point; you know full well that HoI is referring to sex at birth here, and I assume you also read Kal’s post where he clearly didn’t use it to mean that. 

I don't think it's clear that HoI was referring to biological sex as 'sex at birth'. Maybe you have a problem with language, in that case? It's certainly not the 'standard' to refer to biological sex as a differentiator between trans women who have medically transitioned and cis women; the standard there is to actually refer to the sex at birth as 'at birth'. Biological sex literally means the sex of your biology, and that can actually be medically changed. 

Now if you're wanting to be that loose with the definitions that's on you. 

There's a lot of debate on whether or not someone's gender and biological sex should differ or can differ, but the discussion about trans people really has nothing to do with that and that's why I have such a hard time with you characterizing this as a language issue. 

 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

58 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Then you’re never going to convince anyone of anything.

That's not true, and I know that it's not true because I was someone who was convinced. You know how I was convinced? Because I listened to trans people who humbled me time and time again with their lives and experiences, much the same way as was the case with gay and lesbian rights before that. If you looked through old archives of this forum, you would find a much younger me who was skeptical of SSM and even gays and lesbians. Now I'm in a queer relationship with a trans man. My opinions evolved because people convinced me that I was wrong about what I previously felt was "common sense" or the ideas about gender and sexuality that I grew up with. 

ETA: This is one reason why seeing some of the people who challenged my past homophobic views in this forum now seemingly suspicious of trans rights feels so heartbreaking to me. 

Edited May 1 by Matrim Fox Cauthon

[Heartofice]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Biological sex literally means the sex of your biology, and that can actually be medically changed. 

When people say biological sex, I'm going to assume in most cases they just mean sex rather than gender.

 

Edited May 1 by Heartofice

[Kalbear]

Just now, Heartofice said:

When people say biological sex, I'm going to assume in most cases they just mean sex rather than gender.

In which case trans women who have transitioned medically have the biological sex of a woman. 

Or do you disagree with that?

[Heartofice]

Just now, Kalbear said:

In which case trans women who have transitioned medically have the biological sex of a woman. 

Or do you disagree with that?

You are going to have to clarify what you mean.

[DaveSumm]

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Biological sex literally means the sex of your biology, and that can actually be medically changed. 

 

37 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There's a lot of debate on whether or not someone's gender and biological sex should differ or can differ

I don’t really get how these are compatible. Biological sex refers to a whole cluster of different things, some of which can be changed and some can’t. Some people define it on the former, some the latter. 

[Ran]

Your body has the biological plan for producing small gametes (sperm) = male, your body has the biological plan for producing large  gametes (eggs) = female, like 99.8% of the time.

At this juncture, hormonal and surgical interventions do not exist to change the reproductive plan of members of our species. We can mimic some aspects of it, but not in a functional way -- we haven't transported a uterus into a male-sexed body, or testes into a female-sexed body, or turned human ovaries into testes and vice versa. We may not be all that far off, though -- a decade or two ago, somatic sex reprogramming of mouse gonads (literally turning ovaries into testes and testes into ovaries) was showing some potential application in other species (including humans), but I think the research stopped because of very high cancer risks.

With advancements in cancer treatment seeming on the way, that may reopen this line of inquiry.

ETA: To bring this back to an earlier point that may or may not have been addressed, essentializing transwomen and transwomen through their biology and whether it has been modified -- when many of them aren't, in fact, opting for surgery, and some aren't even opting for hormones -- seems counterproductive to trans rights. I think there's a term for it, transmedicalism, which basically states that only trans people who suffer gender dysphoria which leads to medical transition are "truly" trans, and I think most trans rights activists strongly disagree with their viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1 by Ran