Treatments for trans children and politics, world-wide

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

"Biological sex = gametes" is also scientifically not true. It's an overly simplistic understanding that is derived from a human desire to reduce sex to a simple binary. People only started identifying gametes with "biological sex" after those people who believed that chromosomes equated to biological sex got crushed by science. 

When we determine the "sex" humans or other animals, we are not looking just at gametes alone. That is bad science. The sex of a human or other animal is a sum of elements and markers that includes but not exclusive to gametes. Biologists will also use markers like sexual dimorphism, internal/external genitalia, chromosomes, hormone expression, behavior, neurological elements, etc. It's about a phenotypic sex model over andg against a singular aspect of genotypic sex. 

This likely factors into the problem with a lot of discussion. There are people who insist that gametes proves that biological sex is binary. However, those who view sex as a spectrum are using the phenotypical model in which is a person's sex is a sum of gametes, chromosomes, secondary sex expressions, brain chemistry, and behavior. 

The sex binary is a fact. There are males and females. You might say the way that is expressed may differ with various factors but it doesn’t change the basic fact of the sex binary.

Edited May 6 by Heartofice

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

which is why I'm even more mystified by your posting at 3AM

Oh, not that it’s any of your business, but the reason I’m up late is because my last final is at 12:30 on Monday, and I spent four hours Sunday publishing my summer courses.  It must be quite convenient though for you to insult others’ personal lives.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Cowardly censoriouness?  WTF?  Are you trying to be the next William Safire?  Who, btw, was a dick that just used fun coins of term to make a career.  Anyway, how am I trying to censor anything?  Like, seriously, this defies basic logic and rather clearly is derived from some emotional based animus.  But, to your credit, positively Nixonian.

Complaining that I'm being "obstinate" about a very fundamental and uncontestable fact because some other party ("the far right") is abusing science for political reasons makes it sound like I should be shutting up even if I'm correct.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

So, in other words, you don’t even know what I was referring to.  

Why should I care what you were referring to, precisely? What does the biological fact that there are only two sexes noted on this forum have anything to do with what is going on at the White House, the Department of Education, various state governments, and the workings of the two parties? 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It’s very cute you think this.  It assumes you have a monopoly on science. And a bewildering understanding of what self-censorship means.

You're telling me to shut up about this because of something someone else is doing is a call for self-censorship. Stop trying to worm your way out of very plain words. I've already dealt with the bullshit about being an "enemy" because I'm not agreeing to nonsense that I don't believe is accurate.

I have no monopoly on science. But there is no third gamete. There's male and there's female, and it's incumbent on you, if making a contrary claim, to prove that claim. Your own sources agreed with me, which is the weirdest thing. 

58 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

"Biological sex = gametes" is also scientifically not true. It's an overly simplistic understanding that is derived from a human desire to reduce sex to a simple binary.

What then is the third sex?

Sex is binary. There is one or the other. Variations of sexual traits, on the other hand, are bimodal, sure.

59 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

When we determine the "sex" humans or other animals, we are not looking just at gametes alone.

As I already said, we can determine sex with 99.8% accuracy with an ultrasound. And 99.95% accuracy out of the womb. How can we do this? Well, we see the physical development of the organs of gamete and sexual hormone production in the ultrasounds, and we literally see the external organs associated with those organs out of the womb, and combined we approach 100% accurate sexual identification. 

People are making this overly complicated, and it seems counter-productive to me because it looks a lot like trying to erase biological sex from consideration when figuring out appropriate policies, and I think most people are going to object to that when you start to apply that logic to policy problems.

I think the easiest way to look at this from a policy perspective is acknowledge that gender is a spectrum, and that the biological sex aspect is a part of that spectrum and needs to be considered when relevant to understanding issues. There are some transwomen who are hormonally and phenotypically completely identical to males, and there are some transwomen who are hormonally and phenotypically substantially less male, and maybe you need to have different rules for different groups depending on the areas of concern (sports, locker rooms, etc.)

But that smells too much like compromise for activists on both sides, I suspect.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

 What then is the third sex?

Sex is binary. There is one or the other. Variations of sexual traits, on the other hand, are bimodal, sure.

If you are so easily upset by people constructing strawmen positions, why do you do the same here? People arguing in the existence of a sex-spectrum not claiming that a third sex exists. It even misunderstands the point. Simply having a third sex would invalidate sex-as-a-spectrum. Your last point is largely what most people who argue for sex-as-a-spectrum mean: i.e., people have variations of sexual traits. This is why scientists typically apply a more phenotypic sex model when it comes to evaluating the sex of an individual rather than simply the gametes. If you want to apply science, then fine, but understand that a person's sex is more than just an individual's gametes.

 

10 minutes ago, Ran said:

People are making this overly complicated, and it seems counter-productive to me because it looks a lot like trying to erase biological sex from consideration when figuring out appropriate policies, and I think most people are going to object to that when you start to apply that logic to policy problems.

To me it looks like you are trying to oversimplify sex to an elementary school level binary understanding, particularly with a hyperfixation on a person's gametes as their "biological sex."  

[DaveSumm]

2 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

a hyperfixation on a person's gametes as their "biological sex."

Sorry, you don’t get to call this a hyperfixation if you’re continually asking Ran what he means by biological sex. He’s responding to challenges that sex isn’t binary, in which case he’s unavoidably going to bring up gametes. I don’t think anyone wants to be talking about gametes page after page, I just can’t understand why you don’t just concede this simple point - for as long as humanity has existed, we’ve referred to men and women and those terms do actually correspond to something. We didn’t pull them out of a hat, it’s not smoke and mirrors that can be dismantled so we can all look back and wonder what on earth we were talking about.

[felice]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Who has said that we must "abide" by that for policy purposes? I was dispelling misinformation about "changing [your] biological sex", which we can't at this time do

The type of gamete produced can't be swapped, but the whole gamete production system can be removed, and virtually every other sex-related characteristic can be changed (particularly if started before puberty). Defining people's sex on the basis of a bit of anatomy they don't even have any more seems kind of unreasonable. The remnants of original biological sex are utterly irrelevant outside of certain medical contexts that will likely never come up in any given individual's lifetime.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

39 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Sorry, you don’t get to call this a hyperfixation if you’re continually asking Ran what he means by biological sex. He’s responding to challenges that sex isn’t binary, in which case he’s unavoidably going to bring up gametes. I don’t think anyone wants to be talking about gametes page after page,

I haven't asked Ran anything of the sort. I mostly stopped interacting with him because getting into an argument with the owner is simply a no-win scenario where abuse and insults can be lobbed by one party but not the other. It's not like I can report him on the board when he does such things. I probably should have avoided replying to him entirely but as he directly quoted me, it seemed appropriate to respond. 

From what I gather, Ran has mostly been insisting that gametes are biological sex. Most scientists, from what I gather, believe that sex stems from a series of phenotypic factors, which includes but is not limited to gametes.

However, the hyperfixation on gametes as biological sex is fairly recent phenomenon. Before that, most people would argue that chromosomes represented a person's biological sex. This was even true for anti-trans activists. But when that proved to be a lot more messy, the argument of biological sex shifted to gametes. Gametes certainly represent a much clearer binary for people who want sex to be a simple binary, so many anti-trans activists have fairly recently latched onto "biological sex = gametes," despite the aforementioned fact that "sex > gametes."

 

39 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I just can’t understand why you don’t just concede this simple point - 

Because a person's sex is more than just that person's gametes. It may be more accurate to say that sex is mostly bimodal, but this is generally what "sex on a spectrum" means, as bimodal is not strictly a simple binary. 

Edit: By any chance did you read the link that I posted earlier? I will link it HERE so you do not have to go digging through the thread again. 

Edited May 6 by Matrim Fox Cauthon

[baxus]

20 minutes ago, felice said:

The type of gamete produced can't be swapped, but the whole gamete production system can be removed, and virtually every other sex-related characteristic can be changed (particularly if started before puberty). Defining people's sex on the basis of a bit of anatomy they don't even have any more seems kind of unreasonable. The remnants of original biological sex are utterly irrelevant outside of certain medical contexts that will likely never come up in any given individual's lifetime.

Excuse me, but what difference does it make if something can be removed? Removing "gamete production system" doesn't change person's sex any more than losing one's legs in a car accident would change their species on the grounds of humans being bipedal.

And no, you can not just "change every other sex-related characteristic". It would take rather heavy medication and surgery. At the very least, it's definitely not a process I'd like to see a child go through before puberty.

Would you please elaborate how "remnants of original biological sex" are utterly irrelevant? 

Edited May 6 by baxus

[DaveSumm]

44 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

I haven't asked Ran anything of the sort. I mostly stopped interacting with him because getting into an argument with the owner is simply a no-win scenario where abuse and insults can be lobbed by one party but not the other. It's not like I can report him on the board when he does such things. I probably should have avoided replying to him entirely but as he directly quoted me, it seemed appropriate to respond. 

Ran hasn’t said anything that I would’ve expected anyone else to have been reprimanded for.

44 minutes ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Edit: By any chance did you read the link that I posted earlier? I will link it HERE so you do not have to go digging through the thread again. 

I went digging before I saw the update, thanks.

I did want to pull out this quote;

Quote

Their starting premise (and desired conclusion) is: There must be a strict binary because that would define trans people out of existence.

Leaving aside this heavily biased assumption of their opponents motivations, it’s an interesting point because it can be levelled at both sides. If biological sex is so elusive, what exactly is it that trans people want to transition to or from? What is it that they wish they were born as? Can’t every one of your responses be levelled at any answer they might give in reply? 

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Ran hasn’t said anything that I would’ve expected anyone else to have been reprimanded for.

That is certainly your opinion, and that's all I'll say more on that matter. 

 

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Leaving aside this heavily biased assumption of their opponents motivations, it’s an interesting point because it can be levelled at both sides.

Keep in mind that three scientists have been linked as "credible" - Colin Wright, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne - who have all maligned their opponents by accusing them of just being "woke," which is one helluva dogwhistle. Many have also gone to speak on right wing talk shows, news outlets, or right wing propaganda shams like PragerU. Dawkins has even endorsed and platformed Helen Joyce, an anti-trans activist. Do you think that these scientists are so gullible or naive that they are unaware of how their views on the subject matter are being used by right wing pundits to further anti-trans rhetoric? 

 

3 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

If biological sex is so elusive, what exactly is it that trans people want to transition to or from? What is it that they wish they were born as? Can’t every one of your responses be levelled at any answer they might give in reply? 

I am not the person who is best equipped to answer these questions as I am not trans nor gender queer; however, do you have good faith interest in what answers that trans people may give you or are these questions more of a rhetorical formality for a bad faith gotcha game? 

[baxus]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Keep in mind that three scientists have been linked as "credible" - Colin Wright, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne - who have all maligned their opponents by accusing them of just being "woke," which is one helluva dogwhistle. 

Are we arguing the point or the people who are making the point (or trying to)? Calling someone "woke" may be in poor taste, but does not mean that the point the person is trying to make is invalid.

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Many have also gone to speak on right wing talk shows, news outlets, or right wing propaganda shams like PragerU.

How many "left wing talk shows, news outlets or propaganda shams" were willing to have them on board to discuss the issue? If none, then the right is the only alternative.

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Dawkins has even endorsed and platformed Helen Joyce, an anti-trans activist. 

I'm not familiar with Helen Joyce and what she stands for, but in general "anti-trans" label is being thrown around quite easily.

We, as a society, are (or at least should be) trying to figure out how to get majority to truly accept trans people. It's a work in progress, and it takes some debating to first define the issue and then figure out how to fix it. You can not have a debate if any conflicting point of view is attacked and "the other side" is labeled woke or anti-trans or whatever. We need to talk, listen and learn. Not every point of view is valid, but we need to hear it in order to see if it is or not. And even when it's not valid, we need to debate it and disprove it, not just throw a tantrum and leave.

Resenting someone being given a platform is against the core principles of democracy. For example, I don't resent Joe Rogan for giving a platform to some people to present their rather dubious theories. I resent that he's doing a poor job of it and is not asking them the tough questions, as well as that he's very rarely giving a platform to "the other side". But he's a stand-up comic who thinks he knows much more than he actually does so maybe we are expecting too much of him if we want him to act as a serious journalist.

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Do you think that these scientists are so gullible or naive that they are unaware of how their views on the subject matter are being used by right wing pundits to further anti-trans rhetoric?

What would be your alternative? Should they change their views on the subject, which are based on data they have available (which may or may not be correct) just because some idiot can abuse those views?

Edited May 6 by baxus

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Complaining that I'm being "obstinate" about a very fundamental and uncontestable fact because some other party ("the far right") is abusing science for political reasons makes it sound like I should be shutting up even if I'm correct.

No, it sounds like you’re claiming something is a “very fundamental and uncontestable fact” when it isn’t.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

Why should I care what you were referring to, precisely? What does the biological fact that there are only two sexes noted on this forum have anything to do with what is going on at the White House, the Department of Education, various state governments, and the workings of the two parties? 

Uh, cuz of what I already said.  If you don’t care, fine, but these aren’t rhetorical questions.

3 hours ago, Ran said:

You're telling me to shut up about this because of something someone else is doing is a call for self-censorship. Stop trying to worm your way out of very plain words.

I’m not trying to “worm” my way out of anything.  I never said you should shut up nor did I suggest it.  Again, you seem to be responding with some emotional animus here that is coming from somewhere else.

[karaddin]

Can someone please tell me what the fuck is the relevance of the gametes one used to produce when kicking said person off a hospital ward for making someone else feel irrational uncomfortable?

Which is the point, to even attempt to justify discrimination you need to make an argument that's actually relevant and instead it's just putting forward unrelated shit. Whatever magic importance you place on the gamete production is no longer relevant at the point you don't possess that anatomy anymore yet somehow that's still the critical definition.

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

I am not the person who is best equipped to answer these questions as I am not trans nor gender queer; however, do you have good faith interest in what answers that trans people may give you or are these questions more of a rhetorical formality for a bad faith gotcha game? 

Are those my only two options? I was making a point; you can’t have your cake and eat it. Either biological sex exists and there are those who aren’t born into the sex they wish they were, or it’s big murky slippery nothing and then, what are trans people complaining about? What do you mean you weren’t born into the sex you wanted? How are you defining sex? 

ETA; while I guess I’m coming across as being on a particular ‘side’ here, the hospital ward thing doesn’t make any sense that I can see and I can’t come up with any good arguments for it.

[karaddin]

There's nothing contradictory if you think the most important factor is whether your endocrine system is estrogen or testosterone dominant and then you fix that by changing it. There were some anatomical issues for me as well and I changed them too. I'm not pretending I didn't change anything, photos of me in my 20s and 30s make it pretty clear there were some big ones, but the changes happened. 

I can't change society by taking hormones though so that shit remains.

[DMC]

It seems readily apparent there are people here that want to act like victims simply because their definition of biological sex is being questioned.  What a warped timeline we live in.

[HexMachina]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/06/how-the-single-sex-toilet-law-in-england-will-work

Its hard not to see these kinds of proposals as particularly pointed. And yes, I'm aware its not banning GN bathrooms, but its leaving it open to make new non-domestic buildings less trans-friendly. If the proposal was to require GN, M and F facilities I'd have less issue but I'm cocking a suspicious eye at this

[mormont]

The Tories have nothing left but to smash that 'trans panic' button* over and over in the hope that it somehow saves some seats.

 

 

*OK, and the 'immigrant panic' button. 

[Heartofice]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2xly8vxreo
 

Quote

The change to building regulations will also allow contained, universal toilets in addition to single-sex toilets where space allows, or instead of single-sex toilets where there is not enough space. 

A universal toilet is defined by the government as a self-contained room with a toilet and sink for individual use.

My reading of that is that they should provide universal toilets instead of single sex ones if there isn’t enough space. So from what I can see the regulations mean new builds need to provide universal and single sex toilets?

If true, what is the problem?

Quote

A consultation, which received 17,000 responses, found 81% agreed with the intention for separate single-sex toilet facilities and 82% agreed with the intention to provide universal toilets where space allows.

It also seems to be something that was very popular in the consultation. 
 

Either way, if new builds have to provide both types of toilet then I think that is a good thing. Gender neutral toilets I’ve noticed are pretty horrible, with long queues and awkward moments by the sinks. I know even as a guy I don’t feel massively comfortable taking a massive dump and then smiling at a group of ladies afterwards as the smell wafts up their noses. But maybe that’s just a me issue.

[HexMachina]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2xly8vxreo
 

My reading of that is that they should provide universal toilets instead of single sex ones if there isn’t enough space. So from what I can see the regulations mean new builds need to provide universal and single sex toilets?

If true, what is the problem?

It also seems to be something that was very popular in the consultation. 
 

Either way, if new builds have to provide both types of toilet then I think that is a good thing. Gender neutral toilets I’ve noticed are pretty horrible, with long queues and awkward moments by the sinks. I know even as a guy I don’t feel massively comfortable taking a massive dump and then smiling at a group of ladies afterwards as the smell wafts up their noses. But maybe that’s just a me issue.

I'll admit I found the proposals a bit confusing but my reading is the opposite to yours - new builds MUST provide single sex facilities, unless there is not sufficient space. They may still provide GN spaces but this is not a requirement.

Personally, gender neutral toilets have been excellent for me, and provide a lot of comfort for those whom look what is perceived as traditionally masculine or feminine (whether they identify as male, female, NB or otherwise). I have cis-female friends who've had some unpleasant moments in female bathrooms because of their appearance, and the same with my cis-male friends in male spaces. The point about smell, embarrassment awkwardness etc. Doesn't really register with me because its a public bathroom, noone wants to be there so sure it might be a bit awkward at times

Edited May 6 by HexMachina