You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'm not siding, I know what Kelvin is referring to but I'd also say 'play the ball not the man'. I'm sure there are experiences and opinions to be shared that are valuable, let's wait and see what they are.
Ok Kelvin, you seem like a decent sort so I'll accept you were posting in good faith, maybe I misread the tone.
I'm perhaps being a bit sensitive as I think rainper is the only lesbian in the discussion, possibly the only woman. Just as it's important to hear the lived experience of boriselbrus I think people should listen to her.
For the record I'm very much of the JK Rowling school of belief. Everyone should do what they can to live their best lives: dress how they want, call themselves what they want, sleep with any consenting adult that agrees.
I also believe we have a number of classes who have various protections: BAME people, those with disabilities, children, women, etc. I don't think that people should have the ability to 'opt in' to those protections if they are not of that class. Other than that they can describe themselves how they want.
I understand that lots of people, many of whom I would agree with on other subjects, think otherwise.
Ok Kelvin, you seem like a decent sort so I’ll accept you were posting in good faith, maybe I misread the tone.
I read Kelvin's post, am not about to go searching through the history of every poster before I reply to them and in fact am terrible at keeping track of usernames* but I assumed the implication was that rainper was a TERF and therefore best avoided. When seemingly the opposite is true.
(* - A while ago I got challenged by a user as to why I was continually picking on them, arguing and following them across threads to troll them. I didn't recall ever seeing their username ever before in my life. Text can be a fickle mistress.)
For the record I’m very much of the JK Rowling school of belief.
You need to be a little careful here - and do some reading - because this is a dangerous logical fallacy you've sided with. It's the "well, I self-identify as a postbox!" argument and it's used continually to belittle and demonise already struggling minorities.
Did you "opt in" to being a white heterosexual male (or whatever you are, I'm just playing the odds here) or is it just how you are? The examples you yourself cite, could you "opt in" to those other categories, could you opt in to being black? Could you get half fare on the bus by self-identifying as a 12-year old? It's ridiculous and (because of course this is an STW discussion) also a straw man.
These people are not opting in to anything any more than my mate at work opted to be ginger. I rather expect that when they were teenagers many would've loved to have been able to opt out and be 'normal' like most of their peers. You have read the posts on this thread talking about suicide, right? This is the discussion we had in the 1980s around homosexuality all over again, "well, if you choose to be gay then what do you expect..."
Maybe we should add non-binary to your list of groups requiring protection? Right now they probably need it at least as much as the others you've listed, so everyone's a winner. Why do you think that protecting one group has to come at the exclusion of protecting another? As per the previous paragraph, this is the "same-sex marriage is destroying marriage" argument. It's not like it's suddenly become bloody mandatory, you're not 'less married' than you were last week.
I wrote my post 'for the record' as Kelvin seemed to be a little suspicious about where I was commenting from - I wanted to be open and clear. I don't really want to get involved in a debate as I know it upsets some people and it's not as if anything we say here will solve anything.
However, you seem to be suggesting I said a lot of things that are nothing like what I believe, so again, for the record:
Nothing I wrote is anything like an "I identify as a post box" argument. I have every sympathy with trans and non-binary people. I don't always agree with them, but I do not think they should be ridiculed with puerile comparisons like that (and I think it's you who is making the straw man argument).
No, I of course do not believe that anyone can opt in to being black. Nor do I believe that anyone can opt in to being a woman. If you are born white you are white, if you are born male you are male. This does not mean you cannot dress in a stereotypically feminine way, call yourself by a stereotypically feminine name, etc., but material reality is not altered.
I absolutely think we should add non-binary as a protected category. Non-binary people deserve to be happy and to have safe spaces same as anyone else.
This is nothing like the 'same sex marriage' argument. Homosexual people getting married affected nobody but homosexual people. I know you believe that transwomen (and non-binary males some of the time, I assume) are actual women, so you think accepting them into women's spaces, allowing them into women's sport, allowing them onto women-only shortlists, etc, is fair. I do not. Women are protected because of their biology, not because they feel like women. I know some will disagree, but I don't think this makes me a bigot.
I found your 'do some reading' comment extremely patronising. I have read widely on this subject, and spoken to many people about it. And I actually listened.
Women are protected because of their biology
That's some hardcore bullshit right there, women are "protected" because many men are arseholes I thought!
Bless them, they can't look after themselves 🙄🤔
@kelvin where do I stand...TL; DR
Formerly an NHS hospital doctor with years of A&E experience. I have grave concerns on the impact of the transgender narrative on the vulnerable adolescents and young adults that I met during some of their darkest moments.
Sex is biologically determined and fixed. Gender is a societal construct 'imposed' and assimilated/developed through life, an aspect of personality?
A very Sunday evening post...
@anagallis_arvensis
Incredibly clumsy use of language from me there, for which I apologise. I meant protected in the sense that women have spaces, sports, short-list, refuges, etc, reserved solely for them. Protected from male imposition.
In no way did I intend to imply that women cannot look after themselves.
I have grave concerns on the impact of the transgender narrative on the vulnerable adolescents and young adults that I met during some of their darkest moments.
Can you explain? Concerned it is being pushed too readily, or that adolescents are not being supported in their needs? THE GIC is currently seeing people who were referred in Oct 2017
Have you read much on what JKR has to say on the subject? Because it's seemingly in conflict with what you're asserting you actually think. Well, somewhat.
I know you believe that transwomen are actual women,
Because they are, unless you're going to counter with the 'bloke in a dress' argument. Have any of the "many" people you've spoken to been M➡F trans women? Did any of them agree with you?
(and non-binary males some of the time, I assume)
I mean, you could ask rather than assuming. We're going to run out of straw soon otherwise.
so you think accepting them into women’s spaces, allowing them into women’s sport, allowing them onto women-only shortlists, etc, is fair.
I think it's complicated and I don't think it's helpful to lump all of those things into one amorphous mass and then present it as a throwaway statement with a [yes|no] tick box at the end. I'll refer you back to the thread title.
No, I of course do not believe that anyone can opt in to being black
So your argument is "I don't believe that people shouldn't be allowed to opt into something that they cannot opt into". This was your example not mine. It's a tautology.
I found your ‘do some reading’ comment extremely patronising. I have read widely on this subject, and spoken to many people about it. And I actually listened.
Terribly sorry. I'll revise that. Do more reading.
Because whilst you're feeling patronised, others are feeling persecuted and attacked.
You're not being very nice to me Cougar, while I am trying to argue in good faith. What happened to 'be kind?'
Concerned it is being pushed too readily
in wider society, yes. However, given this is the situation we are already in, those that have problems should have better access to appropriate services. Unfortunately, CAMHS has been decimated over recent years. That service should be an accessible first port of call for comprehensive assessment and management.
I have no answer for you personally and my heart goes out to your and your family.
I have grave concerns on the impact of the transgender narrative on the vulnerable adolescents and young adults that I met during some of their darkest moments.
Is this 'transgender narrative' a positive or negative impact? It's not clear to me what you mean, sorry.
Sex is biologically determined and fixed.
How would you define that?
Sigh.
I did try. I really did. This is why I didn't want to enter the debate in this way.
Cougar
Good luck to you, I know you're arguing from a position where you want the best for people. I don't know why you cannot give me the same respect.
I'm not one of those people who feel like they have to have the last word, so I'm bowing out as I think I've said a lot of what I'd like to say (note - this is not the same as what Cougar says I'm saying :)) Apologies to anyone hurt by anything I've said, I've tried to be tactful but it's difficult with a subject like this.
Unfortunately, CAMHS has been decimated over recent years.
Something we can all agree with, I hope. Schools are having to try to take up the slack, and some of our local schools have done an amazing job. With the issues discussed in this thread though, that is not so much as regards being an alternative to professional mental health intervention, but rather helping kids to be more open, to feel welcome and included, and hopefully less likely to get to the dark place where urgent mental health care is needed. Support for schools (and for parents seeking assistance) is a “postcode” lottery, and all but absent in many areas of the country now.
Thanks.
I know, we're having to find the money for private consultations, and eventually once at the right age then whatever treatment is appropriate. I worry that a private clinic *may not* always act in the absolute best interests - particularly as you say that the narrative is becoming increasingly pro-
My wife and I are concerned that he doesn't become a 'project'. But a four year waiting list is beyond tolerable to a teen that is struggling every day.
You’re not being very nice to me Cougar, while I am trying to argue in good faith. What happened to ‘be kind?’
It goes out of the window when your 'opinion' is enabling people to be physically attacked and reinforcing a narrative which is driving people to kill themselves. In all the reading you've done, has any of it been "this thread"? If it isn't then you probably should.
Sigh.
Look, OK, yes, I'm being argumentative. Sorry. But I get somewhat vexed when people post stuff like "I know it's unpopular but... just my opinion..." when the people who are directly affected by this are trying over and over and over to get it through to people like - well, everyone else - just how difficult their lives are and 'just my opinion' seeks to put them back in their box. If someone knows that their opinion is going to be unpopular before they even post, isn't that perhaps cause for them to re-evaluate it?
Folk have been beaten because of what they are, some have (I hate to keep repeating this but you keep bleeping over it) taken their own lives or come close to doing so. This is a similar narrative to what we're just seeing now with the 'black lives matter' movement and they've been a **** of a lot more visible for a lot longer. And you're focusing on 'women's spaces' whatever the hell that is even supposed to mean.
Once more with feeling: THESE THINGS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. We can be kind to both.
@cougar I have previously explained to you the position on the two sexes.
Could you remind me in a one-liner please? I'm poor at keeping track of usernames and am not about to read back through 13 pages looking for it. What's your metric?
Eg, chromosomes, genitals, something else?
Cougar - what your actually saying is be kind, except when you feel that you can identify exceptional circumstances where you can decide not to be kind, stuff the rest of can't see?
That kind of meets the definition of something you would not like to be thought of as.
Secondly your assertion that transwomen are women is based on gender? And not sex?
Cougar – what your actually saying is be kind, except when you feel that you can identify exceptional circumstances where you can decide not to be kind, stuff the rest of can’t see?
Eh? What does that even mean?
Eh? What does that even mean?
I think from his statement above he was attempting to say coming dangerously close to saying is that we should all be kind, except he can be selective with his kindness.
except he can be selective with his kindness.
And this is the "freedom of speech" argument.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think I was being unkind. Is this not how discussions work, people challenge opinions and offer facts?
Secondly your assertion that transwomen are women is based on gender? And not sex?
It's based on talking to people who are directly affected by this issue. Reading posts on this thread; people posting on previous threads (one of whom started one entitled "it really hurts" not all that long ago because of shitty attitudes of people who thought their opinions were more important than others' life experiences); and speaking with people I know personally.
OK this makes things much clearer regarding your behaviour on here.
I wonder have you considered if your approach is working, is it effective?
I wonder have you considered if your approach is working, is it effective?
His approach seems to be plain speaking, people who have views that are incompatible with the lives of others, who are causing no harm, seem to be upset by this. Oh well never mind.
It’s a journey isn’t it!
Yes! A journey that often reminds me of song/lyric:
“Now tell me good Captain,
How does it feel
To be driven away from your own steering wheel?”
Some days feel like this:
Some days, more:
🙂🙃
Sex is biologically determined and fixed.
I think that's overly simplistic. In theory, presence or absence of Y chromosome should make it pretty straightforward, but It's relatively common to have folks who have sex chromosomes saying one things and their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy saying another. What's more, genetic research is starting to reveal that our bodies are made up of a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match the rest of the body. So while you might (with a bit of sleight of hand) say they are fixed, it's more true (and perhaps a better definition) to say "Post about 6 weeks your sex is fixed along a path that has fully male and one end and fully female at the other, but you can fall pretty much anywhere in between those two common points"
I think the problem comes from trying to fit humans who have a hazy determination into a society that is resisting the haziness of humans...in both societal and legal definitions.
Guys can we please just try and wind it in a little bit.
Virtually everyone on here is in agreement that trans and non binary people should be free to live our lives happily, able to express ourselves and be ourselves without fear of ridicule, violence and discrimination.
This makes me very happy.
Outside of that there is discussion about definitions, rights and protections. There is no easy answer to a lot of this. I have no answers, mostly I don't even have opinions, just thoughts which are no more or less valid than everyone else's.
I'd prefer to save the arguing for those on here who still think that trans and non binary people are just doing it to seek attention or gain access to ladies toilets for whatever reason.
I remember the post "It hurts so much" vividly. It was horrendous, and Rachel is very much missed.
@theotherjonv You are amazing. Your son is so lucky to have loving and supporting parents. I really hope you are able to get the support and treatment you need.
Today is not a good day. I've been unemployed for a few weeks and I have an interview this afternoon. It's for a good job that I'd love to do and I'm qualified and experienced to do. But today I'm very much in "girl mode", I have a beautiful skirt suit which fits well and looks good. I feel happy and confident wearing it. It's what my brain says I need to wear today. But I'll be in my stupid mans trouser suit because it's quite a conservative organisation. Objectively it's fine, but I feel ridiculous. I feel like I'm playing dress up in my Dad's clothes. It kills my confidence and I feel miserable. I don't want to go, I want to throw myself off a bridge instead. (Don't worry, I won't, I've been here a million times before and I can deal with it.) If I get the job I'd be working from home a lot so can be me. Hopefully my brain will switch sometime between now and the interview...
Life is hard, but at least I'm not starving to death in Africa or getting blown up in the Middle East or living the infinitely harder lives which so many do around the world.
Boriselbrus wishing you the very best of luck today.
Good luck.
Longish story but I hope it helps. I did the Oxford Entrance exam when i was doing A Levels. Passed it and went for interview. Failed the interview because they said I wasn't superstrong on the subject and I had too many outside interests and they felt I'd struggle to keep up with the work. This was fed back to my Headmaster who suggested that i play down the extra-curr stuff at my Durham interview. I agonised for ages and my Dad, still my icon and hero, told me not to compromise who I was to get a Uni place or a job or anything.
First question at my Durham interview was why had Oxford rejected me (IDK if they have that info or not). I told them as close to word for word as i could and my interviewer laughed out loud - "Typical, they all say they want rounded personalities and then reject anyone that presents with one!!" He then told me all about how the Chem dept 5 a side team was always up there in the interdept league, and his eyes lit up when i said I played in goal. We won the league all three years i was there, I captained the College at football in my final year, and I had a fantastic time being me rather than playing a part.
Do not compromise who you are to get the job. Conservative or not, they should accept you for who you are and you won't interview well unless you're comfortable as you. If they can't deal with it, then they don't deserve you.
I've been trying to catch up on this thread because it's an interesting topic and one I don't know much about. I jumped to the last page to see if I could get the gist (naive I know) and felt compelled to reply to your post above @boriselbrus. I was also reluctant to jump into the thread so am glad you've posted similar to what I was thinking theotherjonv.
If this job is as appealing to you as it sounds, why on earth would you be anything but 100% honest with them? Assuming you get the job, will you hide your real self from your employer and colleagues indefinitely? That sounds like a recipe for disaster and unhappiness to me.
You say they are conservative, but maybe they'll surprise you. If they do, and you get the job, think how much happier you could be.
His approach seems to be plain speaking
I'm just wondering how helpful it is.
But I’ll be in my stupid mans trouser suit because it’s quite a conservative organisation. Objectively it’s fine, but I feel ridiculous. I feel like I’m playing dress up in my Dad’s clothes.
You are not alone there, I hate a suit and avoid wearing one at all costs.
Good luck.
I know it's absolutely not even a tiny bit the same Boriselbrus, but I decided at a young age to always wear to an interview what I would wear on a normal work day for the company if I got the job, no special interview garb. If the interview is with people who you will be working with in a day to day capacity if you get the job (rather than it being some remote hands off management figure, or farmed out to personnel department people who won't be you immediate colleagues) then wear whatever works for you. GOOD BLOODY LUCK.
but It’s relatively common to have folks who have sex chromosomes saying one things and their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy saying another.
People with Differences in Sexual Development (DSD) are male or female.
Yes, scientific enquiry continues however, a newly discovered cellular level minutiae does not explain the recent explosion in referrals to the NHS specialist services of adolescent females with gender issues.
It is unfortunate that the 'sex' definition has to be discussed (though I may have started it...), if I remember correctly both GIDS and WPATH note broadly normal distributions of Karotype within transgender individuals.
It is unfortunate that the ‘sex’ definition has to be discussed (though I may have started it…),
It is essential to the discussion in that people conflate sex and gender, so we need to talk about it.
The use of the word woman/women is also confusing. Most people not invested in this type of discussion consider it to mean the female sex and others consider it to be a gender definition.
Good luck Boris.
Good luck with the interview, BB. They're enough of a pain without external factors adding to it.
I think that’s overly simplistic.
It is overly simplistic, and it's why I've asked both of those claiming otherwise on this page to elaborate as to what they mean. Both of whom have remained steadfastly silent on the matter since, the first presumably hasn't been back yet and the second is too busy complaining about my debating style.
The last couple of pages have been:
Person X: "I've done a lot of research and I think [this]."
Person Y: "Well, that's not the case, so you either need to do more research or explain why you think that so we can further the discussion."
Person X: "Why are you attacking me?"
I mean no offence, but neither am I going to let what I see as potentially harmful / hurtful beliefs go unexplored. Hell, I might be way off the mark, don't you want the opportunity to perhaps change my mind? I love to be proven wrong, this is how we learn things. It's literally how science works. And also what a forum is.
I love to be proven wrong, this is how we learn things. It’s literally how science works. And also what a forum is.
I'm not sure that the above is compatible with the below.
I have probably misunderstood the below statement but as a response to your assertion that "transwomen are women", when i asked for what you base your definition on you replied with this:
It’s based on talking to people who are directly affected by this issue. Reading posts on this thread; people posting on previous threads (one of whom started one entitled “it really hurts” not all that long ago because of shitty attitudes of people who thought their opinions were more important than others’ life experiences); and speaking with people I know personally.
Which combined with "transwomen are women" doesn't have anything falsifiable in it so its not a scientific position.
Have you done this on purpose to trap the unwary?
Perhaps I'm just on a learning curve also.
well we all are right.
It’s based on talking to people who are directly affected by this issue. Reading posts on this thread; people posting on previous threads (one of whom started one entitled “it really hurts” not all that long ago because of shitty attitudes of people who thought their opinions were more important than others’ life experiences); and speaking with people I know personally.
But you can't seem to acknowledge that those whom you disagree with are coming from a place of experience too. I've spoken with detransitioners, all who now realise they are Lesbians. Every one of them has had life changing surgery, and now face living with the consequences of their actions (and being dependent on artificial hormones) for the rest of their lives. Those consequences include, but are not limited to, male pattern baldness and vaginal atrophy. I'm talking about young women in their early 20s.
The dating app 'Her', originally for Lesbians and Bisexual women (but now seemingly open to anyone) recently emailed users with advice on the 'benefits' of micro-dosing with testosterone.
Excuse my ignorance, but are young non-binary people electing for surgery and hormone dosing in any big numbers? Does the binary only (M or F, you have to fit into one or the other, no exclusions) approach push some people into using medical intervention who might not in a society where non-binary is more accepted and understood, and well, seen as "normal"?
I dunno the numbers, but does that matter much? Even if it is only a few, its still bad if people feel that transition was a mistake, especially if some things are irreversible.
Edit, I see your addition now, yeah thats an important question I think.
I'll not be participating any further in this thread, but I'd ask you give this a watch. As of the weekend Sinead Watson joins the growing list of women banned from Twitter.
I dunno the numbers, but does that matter much?
My point was, is the pushing of a "binary only, you're one or the other" idea in society something that leads to more medical interventions?
Does the binary only (M or F, you have to fit into one or the other, no exclusions) approach push some people into using medical intervention who might not in a society where non-binary is more accepted and understood, and well, seen as “normal”?
This could certainly be the case. One of the arguments is that the barrier to transition surgery is too high, but some are also saying it's too low. Both "sides" can illustrate with anecdotes. Knowing and seeing the effect that hormones have on the teenage brain, I'm not sure that's the best time to be deciding. Better acceptance of a middle way might be a benefit
I’ll not be participating any further in this thread
That's a shame. This thread/forum needs more disparate voices.
My point was, is the pushing of a “binary only, you’re one or the other” idea in society something that leads to more medical interventions?
Yeah apologies, misreading on my part, you and Scotroutes have covered it well.
One of the arguments is that the barrier to transition surgery is too high, but some are also saying it’s too low.
Perhaps underfunding and misunderstanding could result in both? The services (not just surgery, but everything that comes before and after, and might not even result in that) might well be unavailable or poor quality or mistimed for many that seek it, and could also result in poor and wrong outcomes for others that do manage to get it. Rather than reducing medical interventions by the use of scarcity and delays (this probably isn't the intention, but it can look like it is), perhaps help should be available for more people quicker, but the process take longer from inception, with more focus on care and support before (or instead of in many cases) intervention.
TBH it ties in with the idea that we should be genderblind, as many have said before, who cares what you wear, who you have sex with, how you behave, it does not and should not depend on your bio sex if you don't want it to.
and could also result in poor and wrong outcomes for others that do manage to get it.
Its not just the surgery, some of the hormones have irreversible effects.
If we accept peoples ways, perhaps it would make it easier for them to accept their immutable characteristics.
accept their immutable characteristics
I'm not sure I'm following you. I think we agree that more acceptance of non-binary people may result in fewer people having a need for irreversible physical changes... but were does "immutable characteristics" come into that? What does that even mean?
I'll stick my head above the parapet and chip-in.... it seems to me that surgery or hormone treatment in an attempt to help people feel comfortable in themselves, and in the world, is getting things completely the wrong way around. At least in the vast majority of cases.
So coming back to the original question....
I read the news that Demi Lovato has come out as non binary..
Someone needs to explain to me why this is an advantage for someone
.... if non-binary status helps people to be happy as they are, then that is the 'advantage' for them, and everyone in fact.
But you can’t seem to acknowledge that those whom you disagree with are coming from a place of experience too.
Largely because you're the first person to suggest that anyone is I think.
I've never come across a 'detransitioner', is that overly common? To even consider going down that road in the first place would you not have to be pretty certain?
@kelvin Sorry - your bio sex is an immutable characteristic. It is physical and defined by your DNA. It is currently not possible to change this. So surgery and hormones only simulate a sex change.
My point being the same as yours, more acceptance leading to less desire for physical changes.
To even consider going down that road in the first place would you not have to be pretty certain?
Kiera Bell said that she wasn't given the opportunity to explore that concept, she just went along with the clinicians affirming that transition was the right thing to do. They all assumed she was sure.
To even consider going down that road in the first place would you not have to be pretty certain?
Teenage brains.
But you can’t seem to acknowledge that those whom you disagree with are coming from a place of experience too. I’ve spoken with detransitioners, all who now realise they are Lesbians.
I wonder are there more de-transitioners than there are gender-dismorphic suicide victims?
It's clear that we as a society do not know how to handle this just yet, but that does not mean we should stop trying.
I read that in the US transitioners were being given training in Choice supportive bias (it's like the opposite of buyers remorse), to help prevent them getting buyer remorse and regretting their transition.
The argument against was that if they had been given choice supportive bias training in the first place they would not have needed to transition. (I appreciate for some its not a choice, but I did not name the bias).
it seems to me that surgery or hormone treatment in an attempt to help people feel comfortable in themselves, and in the world, is getting things completely the wrong way around. At least in the vast majority of cases.
Some cases for sure, but vast majority?
I'm all for the talking therapies to be done prior to significant and irreversible treatments, and I also get the plasticity of teenage brains. I already said earlier one of my worries is that by going to a paid for service is there an 'upsell' risk - can I completely trust that their response will be neutral and that after a few sessions of talking they'd say that hormones and blood tests and ultimately surgery are not what is needed? And let the cash cow go back out into the field unmilked.
Equally the flipside of the more militant anti- and detransitioners worries me. It's a fine line between talking about it and convincing an already desperate, unhappy / borderline suicidal person that their particular diagnosis is the right one, and I don't particularly trust anyone in this highly 'politicised' debate.
But I can't get access to an NHS service for up to 4 years; what choice do i have?
Also consider that transitioning in later life (after maturity) is a more major task. As I said about my son, there are clear indications on a regular cyclic basis that his gender and his body do not match, and at 15 it's pretty well too late for him in that regard. All the more important to find that balance between getting the (talking) help early, but stopping short of convincing.
I wonder are there more de-transitioners than there are gender-dismorphic suicide victims?
@molgrips suicide rates of 'gender-dysmorphic' individuals are in line with similar age group referrals to CAMHS. Both these groups have the same range of underlying psychological/psychiatric problems ASD, body dysmorphia, drug dependency.... the gender component clouds the issue, it is not the source problem.
There is very little data on outcomes of drug and surgical treatment. The clinical studies I have read do not show any benefit (some argue they show worse than 'do nothing').
I think it is GIDS that has data that if a 'do minimum' approach is taken, well above 80% reconcile their 'inner selves' with their sexed bodies. Many are gender non-conforming lesbians. Early access to neutral support is needed.
This paper has a reasonable summary. These are caring concerned clinicians, not 'phobes.
> deleted - posted in wrong thread <
TBH it ties in with the idea that we should be genderblind
Did you read the 'black lives matter' (I think) thread a little while ago? What came out of that is that there is a evolution of understanding:
1) I'm racist, brown people are different and funny.
2) I'm not racist but I still think brown people are different and funny.
3) I'm woke, I'm colourblind, we're all the same really.
4) I realise and acknowledge that people of colour face daily challenges that barely even register with me as existing and now I totally see colour.
Broadly the same argument, n'est-ce pas? Most people don't get past 3), it took me a long time.
your bio sex is an immutable characteristic. It is physical and defined by your DNA.
Now we're getting somewhere. It is, sort of, it's the SRY gene and a couple of others I can't remember and would have to google, plus a bunch of cells which hopefully determine which lumpy bits you get. Which is all well and good unless those genes stop working or hormones contradict them or your primordial whatever cells don't form correctly so a surgeon guesses(*) or a shitload of other factors.
Many of these are very rare outliers of course, but an outlier of "one" proves unequivocally that it's not black and white.
Complicated questions have complicated answers, who'd have thought it.
(* and they almost always guess 'boy' for some reason.)
--
Kiera Bell said that she wasn’t given the opportunity to explore that concept, she just went along with the clinicians affirming that transition was the right thing to do. They all assumed she was sure.
Not familiar with that specific case so I cannot comment, but my own anecdotal experience with a friend is diametrically opposite. She needed surgery 'downstairs' for complicated reasons that aren't relevant to this discussion and it took months of pleading with the surgeon to get him to agree to it. The operation would render her infertile. She didn't want children, she'd never wanted children, her partner absolutely didn't want children and she was heading towards an age where childbirth would possibly present a health risk and in all honesty she was probably infertile anyway because of other issues. His objection for months was "well you might change your mind."
I'd guess that individual experiences vary between individuals?
A doctor refusing a request because the patient (for want of a better word) 'might regret it' is a very difficult situation. Some would view the doctor's attitude as paternalistic and intrusive; but for others it might be really important to have some brakes or outside views applied to their own mind. And how does a doctor tell the difference? Extremely difficult.
Did you read the ‘black lives matter’ (I think) thread a little while ago?
Rememver we had the 1,2,3 evolution discussion a few pahes back.
We agreed on a sligtly diff conclusion.
I don't agree with 4.
I don’t agree with 4.
could you expand?
@nickc to answer your question.
Cougar posited on this post back on page 8 that after stage 3 (4 above but 3 below) there is another stage where you do not see colour, but only after you have solved all of the problems referred to in stage 3.
Cougar wrote: It absolutely should be. Unfortunately it’s not how it’s panned out thus far. Maybe the progression should be a combination of yours and mine:
1) I don’t like brown people,
2) I don’t see colour,
3) I absolutely see colour and recognise the problems they face,
4) We’ve sorted this now and colour no longer matters.Ditto non-binary etc which was the point in the first place. I long for the day when someone is gender-fluid or gay or trans or vegan or Buddhist or Muslim or atheist or a goth or has green hair and the rest of the world goes, “meh.”
There are numerous problems with stage 3 in bold:
I think that his stages thing is misconceived but the point about stage 3 in bold is that it leads to abuse, belittling and maybe worse like job loss or public "shaming" of people that Cougar thinks are on stage 1 or 2.
Its easy to jump in now and say but yes the trans/gay/brown/differentother people get abuse all time.
The answer is undoubtedly but does passing that abuse around (or even back at the abusers) make things better?
I argue not, hence asking Cougar about his approach earlier, as some of his posts are a bit too enthusiastically like John Cleese centurion in Life of Brian.
If you ask the average trump voter or Johnson-O-Phile about trans or black people they will say that they have made victims of themselves and all lives matter and you can't turn a man into a woman etc.
These people are ignorant, where ignorant means unaware of the facts, oppression, pain, suffering, morals, science current philosophy etc.
How can we challenge this ignorance?
For me the answer is not with job loss, shaming, belittling, etc etc. It is by leading them gently into the light.
Any other approach is likely to lead to entrenched resistance (its happening on this thread every time someone hands out a headmaster like barb, or worse, and the other side just entrench) .
2) as alluded to above, 2 wrongs don't make a right and for many people cougars stage 3 in bold above leads to positive discrimination. Now I used to be a massive advocate of this, but it evidentially does not work. The anti BLM and anti trans movement is growing. And I think the main reason is because of stage 3 - considering colour and all the problems.
Some of us prefer to be the change we want to see, and positive discrimination is intellectually dishonest as it perpetuates discrimination. It may have been a good idea, but that time has passed.
3) there is a form of white knighting in this, many feminists do not want men to make things easier for them because they are girls - its the same concept - women have been badly treated so we must recognise their sex and treat them with more care than we would a bloke. Its a form of patriarchal patronisation. Personally I open doors for everyone (its a metaphor) and try to treat everyone with kindness.
Its the same with trans people, I don't think anyone wants to support gaslighting people into thinking that a male sex can be changed to a female sex and all their lived experience and underlying physical differences can be magicked away. I also do not think that trans people want to see other people oppressed on their behalf.
I confess to falling for this myself in that I don't really defend men, I don't think we need it..
4) Its too easy to say to someone like me whose beliefs are a not conformist with current ideology (I will set out my beliefs again, I have made them clear in the threads, but see below in quotes) that we are stuck at stage 2 when they are probably on stage 4, they are too similar so its a bit of trick, as way of trying to belittle our arguments when yours has run out.
5) I would argue that most/many of us here are on stage 4, or are a few conversations away from it (with some obvious stage 1'ers, but I don't want to fall into the trap of stages as I think its more scattered).
Some ideas about gender and sex.
a) People should be free of discrimination regardless of what they wear (we shouldn't care about appropriate dress, this is a form of oppression) , who they have sex with (consenting adults of course), how they behave in public (without encroaching on others rights and freedoms of course) etc etc. This is what non binary gender is about. we shouldn't really think gender is a thing and it is time we ignored it. I do.
b) you cannot change someones biological sex, regardless of their chromosomes, the number of sexes thing is a red herring, because you cannot safely change any of them. However their biological sex should not need to have any influence on their dress, sexual behaviour, societal role etc etc.
c)There is massive concern that the female sex is being oppressed/erased due to huge confusion over gender and sex, and where male sexed people especially are encroaching into female sexed spaces that ought should be protected.
d) There is even more concern that the health systems set up to support gender dysphoric people are flawed, hurried and badly thought out. The research is new, but in the name of affirmation we may have committed some horrendous crimes against people.
I really do apologise if I have hurt anyones feelings. That is not my intention.
Thanks, I'll take some time to read and take all that in.
Note I think Cougars intentions are pure, even he does get a bit too much of a kick out pointing out peoples ignorance..
This is an interesting distillation of most of the arguments.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/cis-free-speech-19166406
Huh. I didn't realise I'd posted that 1-4 thing twice. It was rolling around in my head, was all.
Note I think Cougars intentions are pure, even he does get a bit too much of a kick out pointing out peoples ignorance..
I don't think it's [fair|accurate] to say I get a 'kick' out of it.
I enjoy debate on a forum, it's what forums are for. I hope to both learn things and for others to do likewise. Though I do concede that I perhaps need to better recognise when it's all gone a bit 'big hitter' and step down.
This is an interesting distillation of most of the arguments.
If that's a distillation I'd hate to see the long form. Have you read it all?
yeah, sorry it is long.
It’s also very nasty. I’m out of this thread now.
This is an interesting distillation of most of the arguments.
^^^
Which says that notions around non-binary are being pushed for profit. On a site that invites financial donations, ironically enough.
.
I enjoy debate on a forum, it’s what forums are for. I
I think they are to slag off the state of people's fill in the blank in bike pictures.
On a semi serious note, what you see as debate is, er, debatable. See also conflating two completely separate things into one and using it as stick to beat someone with. I don't disagree at all with what you say about debate, I just don't think you realise that sometimes when you think you are debating, you may not come off that way to others. Debating, lecturing and hectoring are all points on a continuum, as it were.
Absolute proof is also not necessarily'scientific'. Even the meaning of words cannot be proved, but can be accepted.
If you genuinely want a debate, dismissing someone's opinion is not a great place to start.
I'm not trying to start an argument or derail this thread but it seemed an oddly appropriate place to put it.
See also conflating two completely separate things into one and using it as stick to beat someone with.
I thought I tried very hard to challenge that. Did I fail?
I just don’t think you realise that sometimes when you think you are debating, you may not come off that way to others.
Eh. Thank you. You're likely right, it's a blind spot. The Aspie in me always leaps in going "I can win this!" rather than the rational part deploying the empathy that I feel fit to lecture others on.
How do I improve this? I mean no harm. I think perhaps I see forums as a succession of debating teams, maybe I should just learn to shut up.
I’m not trying to start an argument or derail this thread but it seemed an oddly appropriate place to put it.
No no, I thank you for your constructive feedback. It's given me pause for thought.
Maybe this is a discussion for another thread.
How do I improve this? I mean no harm. I think perhaps I see forums as a succession of debating teams, maybe I should just learn to shut up.
Just dont be condescending when you think someone is wrong, even if they are Hitler in your eyes.
(That sounds horrifically condescending but I am not sure how else to say it).
Though I do concede that I perhaps need to better recognise when it’s all gone a bit ‘big hitter’ and step down
I don't think thats an issue, you have a right to express your opinions.
I agree it is a debating club too, we just need to agree on the rules..