Treatments for trans children and politics, world-wide

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I know you keep trying to come back to this topic after being made to look a little silly on basic biology. 

I'm not the one talking about biological women without defining it. I know you keep trying to avoid explaining what you mean though - it's a lot easier to be vague when discriminating. 

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ok I’ll bite. Yes I think there are circumstances where female only spaces are important. Wards might well be one of those.  

And why is that? Why are female only spaces, where female is apparently defined by gonads, important? 

 

5 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I don’t recall anyone ‘celebrating’ it… 

@Heartofice explicitly did so. You can go back and look at their posts if you like. Perhaps you'll want a biological definition of 'celebration' that involves the celebratory gonads; if that's the case, feel free to substitute whatever terminology you would prefer when someone is happy about something happening and is telling people about it. 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

You know things are going off the rails when Richard Dawkins is deputized into the argument.

He's a behavioral ecologist who is pretty infamous for outdated opinions on topics outside of his field that you would expect your embarrassing grandfather to say Thanksgiving. Of course there would be people who would find a kindred spirit in Dawkins. 

[Conflicting Thought]

21 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Sadly yes, that someone decided to retract an award because they said something controversial about trans people isn’t remotely surprising to anyone on either side. It proves nothing either way.

Controvertial to you,  existential to trans people. Cant you understand that? People here are debating the existence and validity of trans people, its not some fucking thought experiment that has no real world consequences. People really are saying "well you can call them women all you like, but we all now the real truth, they are cosplaying, they are not FEMALES" its disgusting

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

19 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I know we’re well past the point of making much progress in this debate, but for what it’s worth, this is exactly how it feels on the other side of the debate too. That the attempt is to eliminate any means by which one might successfully identify what, 20 years ago, was called a woman. First gender meant gender, sex meant sex. But now sex doesn’t mean that. We’ll have woman, but not female. OK you can’t have female either. It’s not realistic to expect someone debating something like sports, or medical practices, or any issue where birth sex is relevant, to be muscled out of every term other than ‘those who were assigned female at birth’ or ‘those who potentially could or used to or do produce microgametes’.

Woman vs female makes the most sense to me. They’re short words, nobody needs to say female unless they mean female and not woman. They’re words everyone already knows. I think it’s a losing game to try and remove that ground from the discussion.

Well, no. One side looks for new various ways to exclude transwomen from what it means to be a woman, which has massive political, social, psychologial, and health repercussions for trans people as well as cis people who also fail to meet this ever evolving criteria. The other side wants to include transwomen into what it means to be a woman, which does not mean erasing ciswomen from what it means to be a woman. It means widening rather than contracting our understanding of "woman." So while you may feel that this is exactly how it feels on the other side of the debate, then it is only superficially so because the stakes, motivations, and consequences are different.

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And why is that? Why are female only spaces, where female is apparently defined by gonads, important?

Well firstly I’d say that in most, almost all circumstances people should be treated on an individual basis, as circumstances are different for everyone. 
 

But yes for instance a rape shelter for women should be a female only space.
 

 

[TrackerNeil]

33 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

People here are debating the existence and validity of trans people

I have not gotten into these back-and-forths, because they are often not the exchange of ideas but just jousting. However, this is just wrong, wrong, wrong. No one here has suggested that, and it's my understanding that the mods would not permit it. 

I really try to speak from a place of humility, but what you have said here is just not true.

Edited May 2 by TrackerNeil

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

He's a behavioral ecologist who is pretty infamous for outdated opinions on topics outside of his field that you would expect your embarrassing grandfather to say Thanksgiving. Of course there would be people who would find a kindred spirit in Dawkins. 

He’s an evolutionary biologist, so biological sex is smack dab in the middle of his field of expertise. It’s a shame he’s become far more known for his religious views because, while I largely agree with those views, his books on evolution are fantastic. The Selfish Gene should be required reading, particular its second chapter which is easily the best explanation of how evolution works I’ve read. 

[polishgenius]

1 minute ago, DaveSumm said:

It’s a shame he’s become far more known for his religious views because, while I largely agree with those views,

 

 

This is off-topic but ooof. Why would you admit this. 

[Kalbear]

53 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well firstly I’d say that in most, almost all circumstances people should be treated on an individual basis, as circumstances are different for everyone. 

But yes for instance a rape shelter for women should be a female only space.

So follow that through. Why are the gametes of the people working there hugely important? What is specifically threatening or dangerous or problematic such that the potential to produce gametes specifically matter? 

By that token, would you think it would be acceptable to that shelter to have a trans man there? 

[DaveSumm]

Just now, polishgenius said:

This is off-topic but ooof. Why would you admit this. 

Why wouldn’t I?

[Heartofice]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So follow that through. Why are the gametes of the people working there hugely important? What is specifically threatening or dangerous or problematic such that the potential to produce gametes specifically matter? 

By that token, would you think it would be acceptable to that shelter to have a trans man there? 

I’m going to try and brush over the fact that even now you still don’t understand gametes or biological sex. That’s just your limitation.

As I said, ideally you would treat everyone as individuals and be able to make an assessment as to whether it would be suitable.

This is basically what happens in women’s prisons, however as in the Isla Bryson case it can be exposed as not always making appropriate decisions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64796926.amp

But then there is the question as to whether it isn’t worse to be forcing trans women into some sort of assessment t to get into a rape shelter, which it probably would be.

but then if you don’t make those calls, do you allow anyone who says they are a women due to self identification into a female rape shelter? Would you be ok with that?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

29 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

He’s an evolutionary biologist, so biological sex is smack dab in the middle of his field of expertise. 

His specialty is not the biological sex of humans nor has he been involved in modern day research around that topic. He is an evolutionary biologist who has worked mostly in animal behavior and gene selection. His last academic paper in his field was in 2004, when he basically switched to being a public figure for the New Atheist movement. I'm not sure if any of his academic papers have focused on the complexities or issues around the biological sex of humans. Jerry Coyne, who was linked earlier, specialized in fruit flies. It seems pretty obvious to me that people whose views are most pertinent for this subject are the ones who actually research and publish about the subject being discussed. 

 

35 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Why wouldn’t I?

Regardless of arguments about whether God exists or not, his views about religion and religious history are laughably shallow. I can't recall encountering anyone who takes his opinions or arguments seriously within the field of religious studies. Usually the only people impressed by Dawkins's views on the subject are try-hard edge lord bros on the internet who imagine themselves as "critical thinkers" and like to dunk easy baskets on religious fundamentalists while complaining about feminism and Anita Sarkeesian. 

[polishgenius]

22 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Regardless of arguments about whether God exists or not, his views about religion and religious history are laughably shallow. I can't recall encountering anyone who takes his opinions or arguments seriously within the field of religious studies. Usually the only people impressed by Dawkins's views on the subject are try-hard edge lord bros on the internet who imagine themselves as "critical thinkers" and like to dunk easy baskets on religious fundamentalists while complaining about feminism and Anita Sarkeesian. 

 

Yeah, his understanding of theology and religious belief itself are childish at best, and his views on organised religion, its influence, and dogma are, while understandable and in many respects correct, laughably hypocritical. Both in terms of the fact that he himself is incredibly dogmatic and bad-faith about it, and in the fact that recently he's decided that actually, Christian moral values (you know, the things instilled by that dogma) are important and should be kept alive against the rise of Islam or some such shit. 

Edited May 2 by polishgenius

[Kalbear]

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I’m going to try and brush over the fact that even now you still don’t understand gametes or biological sex. That’s just your limitation.

It's cute that you think that, so please - don't brush over it! 

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

As I said, ideally you would treat everyone as individuals and be able to make an assessment as to whether it would be suitable.

So you're against what the NHS has done, then? Because they're certainly not doing that. 

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

But then there is the question as to whether it isn’t worse to be forcing trans women into some sort of assessment t to get into a rape shelter, which it probably would be.

We're not talking about forcing trans women into rape shelters; we're talking about your hypothetical, where you make a female only space (where female is defined by you as having the ability to at one point produce female gametes) as an important thing. Try and stay focused, please! And we're talking about not just the people who are allowed in but the people who work there, which is the analogy of the NHS restricting who can and can't be seen by whom. 

35 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

but then if you don’t make those calls, do you allow anyone who says they are a women due to self identification into a female rape shelter? Would you be ok with that?

I would probably not be entirely okay with that, but given there are a whole lot of restrictions on who can and can't be admitted into those shelters as they are I'm not sure that it's as massive a problem as you make out to be. More importantly, are you okay with letting in trans men because they are, per your criteria, biologically women?

[Heartofice]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So you're against what the NHS has done, then? Because they're certainly not doing that. 

Maybe it's possible to make assessments about individuals and maybe it wouldn't be. Not sure how you could do that in the hospital setting. Giving trans people their own room seems a reasonable compromise.
 

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I would probably not be entirely okay with that,

Why wouldn't you be ok with that?

[Kalbear]

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Maybe it's possible to make assessments about individuals and maybe it wouldn't be. Not sure how you could do that in the hospital setting. Giving trans people their own room seems a reasonable compromise.

But that's not the only thing they're doing - they're also saying that people who want (by your terminology) biologically sexed people of a specific sex to treat you, you can get that. Which is obviously discriminatory, and was lauded as a good move by folks on this thread. 

So are you going around and asking what gonads people had at birth then? 

And remember, this is the 'common sense' good conversation that you said they had. Why are you so cagey about it now?

39 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Why wouldn't you be ok with that?

Because I know from experience that the phenotype of the people in these areas matters a LOT more to many people in making them feel safe than the gonads. Which is why I think the gonad argument is so utterly stupid.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Why wouldn’t I?

Citing Dawkins is akin to citing Noam Chomsky in an IR discussion.  On paper, their CVs are incredibly and undeniably impressive.  But they’ve both demonstrated over decades that their views are not very credible.

[DMC]

Also, definitely a tangent, but just wanna say I volunteered at a woman’s shelter during high school.  The idea that they would or should turn away a trans woman is not something I’d ever even consider.  This seems like a hypothetical that is completely divorced from reality irt a person using their gender identity in order to gain entrance for nefarious purposes.

[TrackerNeil]

45 minutes ago, DMC said:

Citing Dawkins is akin to citing Noam Chomsky in an IR discussion.  On paper, their CVs are incredibly and undeniably impressive.  But they’ve both demonstrated over decades that their views are not very credible.

DMC, I am curious. Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to disagree with @Ran--and with Dawkins--about the binary nature of sex. Assuming I have that right, can you tell me why you disagree? Was there a time you thought sex was binary and then changed your mind? If so, what convinced you? I'd like to try to understand.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not asking you to persuade me; I just want to know what persuaded you.

Edited May 2 by TrackerNeil

[Zorral]

5 hours ago, Ran said:

I would hate to learn of a transwoman who ends up learning she had prostate cancer  too late to do anything useful about it because she believed that the procedures we have available today "changed" her biological sex and she no longer needed to worry about it and skipped getting examined for it. 

O for pete's sake!  That's on the same preposterous level as insisting there are men who will transition in order to gain entry into women's safe spaces and commit horrors upon women. 

You know what?  Trans women are as subject to rape as are, well, women are, and they need safe shelter too.

Good grief, grow a pair you guys and get some basic understanding of what any of this is.  It's not hard.

And yes, sexuality is a fluidity.  Something most of us figured this out while we were in college, along with diversity and equal pay for equal work,  if we were fortunate enough to be born in the liberated, sexual acceptance narrow window of decades.  Some of you clearly were born in the frackin' comstock era if not before.