Changing Perspectives On Gender.

[wayfriend]

But I am a slave to the sex I was born as? For moral reasons?
I need someone to explain why that is across the line.

I have not mentioned morality, so I'm unclear who you're responding to.
None of the things you mention will change your immutable genetic coding.

And becoming transgender will not either.
And yet those other not-changing-your-genetic code things are generally tolerated,
while this other not-changing-your-genetic-code thing many people find objectionable and most would admit is controversial.
There are no bills in congress for legislating what people who change their hair color can or cannot do.
No one refused play a sport game because someone with a nose bob was playing on the other team.

I don't see the logic or reason for the distinctions that are clearly being made.
The distinction that us unarguably a moral distinction.

[Avatar]

Sorry, haven't read the preceding few posts, but occurs to me that to the libertarians among us, living with the consequences of your decision should be par for the course. If anybody makes the choice to change their gender and then regrets it, well, that's the bed you made...

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I think Sony and Cher's child changed, and then changed back. So there's always that.

[Fist and Faith]

That’s the most salient distinction ~ transgenderism IS apparently about your genetic coding.

As DSD and intersex conditions are not a mental problem ~ they are genetically and biologically determined.

How are mental problems determined?

[Skyweir]

By psychological assessment presumably but as I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist beyond that ~ I cannot expand.

How is that relevant to the genetics? I also can’t say. Which chromosomes contribute to dysphorias? Not a geneticist or a cellular biologist.

But it seems clear that referring to intersex/developmental sex disorders as a mental problem is arguably an oversimplification and does not accord with current scientific understanding of transgender/intersex/developmental sex disorders.

[Skyweir]

Sorry, haven't read the preceding few posts, but occurs to me that to the libertarians among us, living with the consequences of your decision should be par for the course. If anybody makes the choice to change their gender and then regrets it, well, that's the bed you made...

--A

Pragmatism noted and if these are informed choices made as an adult ~ 100% agree.

I would suggest the concern is where hormone therapies are involved in minors ~ and I share those concerns. Though I see nothing unreasonable about respecting a child’s gender identity with appropriate pronouns, preferred clothing choices etc.

[Fist and Faith]

You said DSD are genetically and biologically determined. I thought you were using "determined" to mean "caused." Genetics/biology is often a large part of the cause of mental illnesses, and I'm sure sometimes the only cause. There's no way to say some environmental Factor could not have had anything to do with it in any case, but I'm sure it's negligible often enough.

[Skyweir]

I think Sony and Cher's child changed, and then changed back. So there's always that.

Fist, that may not be correct as he continues as a man and is out as transgender … at least in this 2022 article claims:

https://www.sdlgbtn.com/child-of-sonny- ... ansgender/

He struggled with his identity for many years, and in 2008, he announced that he was transgender and would begin living as a man. Bono has been an outspoken advocate for the transgender community, and in 2010, he published a memoir, Transition: The Story of How I Became a Man.

I had a quick look at the detransition situation and found this interesting article:

A total of 17,151 (61.9%) participants reported that they had ever pursued gender affirmation, broadly defined.

Of these, 2242 (13.1%) reported a history of detransition. Of those who had detransitioned, 82.5% reported at least one external driving factor.

Frequently endorsed external factors included pressure from family and societal stigma.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8213007/

Conclusion: Among TGD adults with a reported history of detransition, the vast majority reported that their detransition was driven by external pressures.

Clinicians should be aware of these external pressures, how they may be modified, and the possibility that patients may once again seek gender affirmation in the future.

[Skyweir]

You said DSD are genetically and biologically determined. I thought you were using "determined" to mean "caused." Genetics/biology is often a large part of the cause of mental illnesses, and I'm sure sometimes the only cause. There's no way to say some environmental Factor could not have had anything to do with it in any case, but I'm sure it's negligible often enough.

You are right and I did not say environmental factors could not have any impact.

I said it seems an oversimplification. I think that may be why it has been re-defined in recent years.

[Fist and Faith]

I agree.

[Skyweir]

Gender nonconformity is not the same thing as gender dysphoria and does not always lead to dysphoria or distress.

The causes of gender incongruence are unknown but a gender identity likely reflects genetic, biological, environmental, and cultural factors

From;
World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People Archived 2015-08-14 at the Wayback Machine, ver. 7 (2011), 5 ("only some gender nonconforming people experience gender dysphoria at some point in their lives.")

[Fist and Faith]

I think Sony and Cher's child changed, and then changed back. So there's always that.

Fist, that may not be correct as he continues as a man and is out as transgender … at least in this 2022 article claims:

Ok. Just a vague memory from long ago. Apparently vague and incorrect.

[Skyweir]

From an article a poster linked:

Seems separating the child from their parents was in the child’s interest.

May 11, 2021, DCS received a report alleging that Mother was verbally and emotionally abusing then-sixteen-year-old Child by using rude and demeaning language toward Child regarding Child's transgender identity, and as a result, Child had thoughts of self-harm.

On May 21, 2021, DCS received a second report alleging that the Parents were verbally and emotionally abusing Child because they do not accept Child's transgender identity, the abuse was getting worse …

Seems separating the child from their parents was in the child’s interest.

The FCM prepared a preliminary inquiry report (PIR), which indicated the following: Mother and Child both stated that Child had been suffering from:

an eating disorder for the past year but had yet to be evaluated by a medical professional;

the Parents had withdrawn Child from school,

and DCS was unaware of the family's intent to enroll Child in a new school for the upcoming school year;

Child had been in therapy, but the Parents had discontinued it;

Child did not feel mentally and/or emotionally safe in the home;

Mother said things such as "[Child's preferred name] is the bitch that killed my son";

and Child "would be more likely to have thoughts of self-harm and suicide if [Child] were to return to the family home due to mental and emotional abuse.

None of this supports a previous claim made that children are being separated from their parents BECAUSE they fail to use preferred pronouns.

It is the proposal of this nature that in my opinion skews the facts.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Again, no one is injecting morality into this conversation, so I'm not sure why it keeps being brought up.

Changing your hair color doesn't get you voted, "Woman of the Year".

Changing your eye color doesn't allow a man to compete in women's sports.

And neither of them renders the person irreversibly sterile, and/or unable to nurse a child.

Gender isn't genetic, as gender doesn't exist anywhere other than societal mores and norms. There is no, "Gender" box on a birth, marriage, or death certificate. So the way a person chooses to present themselves is perfectly fine, with the understanding that no matter what surgery, hormones, hair color, or clothing they choose to incorporate, male is still male, and female is still female.

The issue here isn't (and really has never been) whether or not individuals choose to present as the opposite sex. The issue is whether or not they deserve equal protection under the law (yes, absolutely). It's how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes. This is the major catch, as this causes a schism in how we deal with this minority. Women aren't men, and men aren't women. So when it comes to sports, scholarships, restrooms, etc., there's no reconciling between the two camps. And, of course, there's the issue with minor children, which again, our society has a history of drawing bright lines between children and adults.

[wayfriend]

Again, no one is injecting morality into this conversation, so I'm not sure why it keeps being brought up.

Because in general people have made it a moral issue. This doesn't mean people on the Watch have made it a moral issue. (Although "It's a social contagion, spread by pervasive social media ...etc. etc. ... as a 'transitioned' child will require a lifetime of drugs." has I judge this immoral stamped all over it.)

It's how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes.

And that's exactly the issue, as I have been saying.

We don't assign people a different role in society by hair color or eye color.

But we assign people different roles in society by their sex. When people cross the lines on these roles, then anyone who believes those lines should be rigid and uncrossable will understandably have objections. It is a social issue. And if your response to this social issue is to keep society "traditional", where being transgender is considered indecent, and where transgendered people are oppressed, then it becomes a moral issue. Now it's "bad".

And this is why the fight for transgender rights is just another battle in the war for women's rights.

And this is why it's about power. Specifically, male dominance in society. Which is what the battle for women's rights is.

If you notice, all the objections to males transitioning to females are about how it's unfair to females. The subtext is, males are superior, it is unfair for women to compete with them. But objections to females transitioning to males is about females gaining male advantages. The subtext is, women should stay in their lane and rear children.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Again, no one is injecting morality into this conversation, so I'm not sure why it keeps being brought up.

Because in general people have made it a moral issue. This doesn't mean people on the Watch have made it a moral issue. (Although "It's a social contagion, spread by pervasive social media ...etc. etc. ... as a 'transitioned' child will require a lifetime of drugs." has I judge this immoral stamped all over it.)

That's your interpretation, not at all what I've repeatedly said. So if it's not too much trouble, can we talk about what's actually being discussed here and not what, "general people" may or may not think?

It's how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes.

And that's exactly the issue, as I have been saying.

We don't assign people a different role in society by hair color or eye color.

But we assign people different roles in society by their sex. When people cross the lines on these roles, then anyone who believes those lines should be rigid and uncrossable will understandably have objections. It is a social issue. And if your response to this social issue is to keep society "traditional", where being transgender is considered indecent, and where transgendered people are oppressed, then it becomes a moral issue. Now it's "bad".

You're quoting me, but you're responding to an argument I haven't made. I couldn't care much less for keeping society, "traditional". Society evolves, and that's well and good. Our society - more so than most others - has, in the course of less than 250 years, erased many of those lines you're talking about. Again, this is well and good. Further, I don'e believe anyone here is taking the position that being transgendered is indecent. So again, I'm not clear who you're arguing with.

The bright lines I'm discussing, which I've specifically enumerated, are sports, scholarships, and bathrooms/changing areas. Telling a man who identifies as a woman that he's not eligible for women's sports, women's scholarships, or to bathe with females is not oppression.

And this is why the fight for transgender rights is just another battle in the war for women's rights.

And this is why it's about power. Specifically, male dominance in society. Which is what the battle for women's rights is.

Nope. It's the exact opposite, and the exercising of male privilege. Lia Thomas couldn't be a competitive swimmer as a man, so he started identifying as a woman, and now she's demolishing the field. Women are a protected class for a number of reasons, but by and large because it's sucked to be a woman throughout most of history. Lia Thomas never had to worry about catcalls from construction workers when she was a little girl, or experience the anxiety of her first period. She has none of the societal or biological baggage that comes from growing up female. Trans women are no more actual women than Jimmy Kimmel in blackface is an actual black person.

If you notice, all the objections to males transitioning to females are about how it's unfair to females. The subtext is, males are superior, it is unfair for women to compete with them. But objections to females transitioning to males is about females gaining male advantages. The subtext is, women should stay in their lane and rear children.

Perhaps that's what some may feel. Neither of us know that, and certainly no one here is making that claim.

Though it's fact ("The Science") that men are generally much stronger and better athletes. So it is, in fact, grossly unfair to have men competing in women's sports.

[Skyweir]

I agree ~ society evolves and that is good.

Society, er go must support trans rights as it has gay rights ~ equal rights for all regardless of hair colour or eye colour or gender or sex.

Trans women are no more actual women than Jimmy Kimmel in blackface is an actual black person.

We as a society though are required to treat transgender women as women ~ as there is no acceptable alternative.

We may not understand the factors involved in gender identity but as the most recent research shows is that there exists disorders of sexual development, intersex and that one of those factors IS genetic.

Scientists today know sex is not binary. There are not simply two
sexes.

Sex like gender is fluid.

[wayfriend]

So if it's not too much trouble, can we talk about what's actually being discussed here and not what, "general people" may or may not think?

No. If it's not too much trouble, can we play fair? If someone can bring up "social contagion", "pervasive social media", and "the irreversible mutilation and sexualization of children", none of which anyone here at the Watch ever mentioned prior, then why can't I say the far more unprejudicial term "moral issue" without such one-sided rule-stickling?

We're not discussing this in a vacuum. We're discussing this because it's an issue that's been in the news and which people are taking sides on. Why can't this be mentioned? If no one can introduce facts into a discussion, there would not be much discussion.

You're quoting me, but you're responding to an argument I haven't made.

But I am. You said "It's how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes." And I had an opinion to share about "how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes." That seems fair, does it not?

certainly no one here is making that claim.

I disagree. "Lia Thomas couldn't be a competitive swimmer as a man, so he started identifying as a woman, and now she's demolishing the field. etc. etc." is exactly that kind of claim. (And thanks for explaining Lia's motives. I wish I could write things like that!)

By the way, no one brought up Lia Thomas, so is this out of bounds or not? I could do a much better job if you could explain the rules that you think i need to adhere to in such a way that you yourself would not seem to be clearly running afowl of them.

Though it's fact ("The Science") that men are generally much stronger and better athletes. So it is, in fact, grossly unfair to have men competing in women's sports.

It is indeed a fact, but a grossly insufficient fact. Because you have not explained why men dominating women in sports is so much more worse then men dominating women in corporations, men dominating women in their homes, men dominating women on the internet, etc. Without this, it is a fact without a point.

[wayfriend]

We as a society though are required to treat transgender women as women.

Indeed. I am reminded of Asimov's Bicentenial Man. How much being a woman is considered enough to be a woman? (And the same for men.)

[Skyweir]

So if it's not too much trouble, can we talk about what's actually being discussed here and not what, "general people" may or may not think?

No. If it's not too much trouble, can we play fair? If someone can bring up "social contagion", "pervasive social media", and "the irreversible mutilation and sexualization of children", none of which anyone here at the Watch ever mentioned prior, then why can't I say the far more unprejudicial term "moral issue" without such one-sided rule-stickling?

We're not discussing this in a vacuum. We're discussing this because it's an issue that's been in the news and which people are taking sides on. Why can't this be mentioned? If no one can introduce facts into a discussion, there would not be much discussion.

You're quoting me, but you're responding to an argument I haven't made.

But I am. You said "It's how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes." And I had an opinion to share about "how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes." That seems fair, does it not?

certainly no one here is making that claim.

I disagree. "Lia Thomas couldn't be a competitive swimmer as a man, so he started identifying as a woman, and now she's demolishing the field. etc. etc." is exactly that kind of claim. (And thanks for explaining Lia's motives. I wish I could write things like that!)

By the way, no one brought up Lia Thomas, so is this out of bounds or not? I could do a much better job if you could explain the rules that you think i need to adhere to in such a way that you yourself would not seem to be clearly running afowl of them.

Though it's fact ("The Science") that men are generally much stronger and better athletes. So it is, in fact, grossly unfair to have men competing in women's sports.

It is indeed a fact, but a grossly insufficient fact. Because you have not explained why men dominating women in sports is so much more worse then men dominating women in corporations, men dominating women in their homes, men dominating women on the internet, etc. Without this, it is a fact without a point.

So if it's not too much trouble, can we talk about what's actually being discussed here and not what, "general people" may or may not think?

No. If it's not too much trouble, can we play fair? If someone can bring up "social contagion", "pervasive social media", and "the irreversible mutilation and sexualization of children", none of which anyone here at the Watch ever mentioned prior, then why can't I say the far more unprejudicial term "moral issue" without such one-sided rule-stickling?

We're not discussing this in a vacuum. We're discussing this because it's an issue that's been in the news and which people are taking sides on. Why can't this be mentioned? If no one can introduce facts into a discussion, there would not be much discussion.

You're quoting me, but you're responding to an argument I haven't made.

But I am. You said "It's how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes." And I had an opinion to share about "how we categorize them in a society that has historically drawn very bright lines between the two sexes." That seems fair, does it not?

certainly no one here is making that claim.

I disagree. "Lia Thomas couldn't be a competitive swimmer as a man, so he started identifying as a woman, and now she's demolishing the field. etc. etc." is exactly that kind of claim. (And thanks for explaining Lia's motives. I wish I could write things like that!)

By the way, no one brought up Lia Thomas, so is this out of bounds or not? I could do a much better job if you could explain the rules that you think i need to adhere to in such a way that you yourself would not seem to be clearly running afowl of them.

Excellent points ~ fairs fair.

We might need to go back to the drawing board as it is entirely unclear what is permitted and what is not.

Seems it’s ok to call transgenderism a social contagion spread by social media but not ok to ask for such a claim to be backed with any semblance of evidence.

Seems ok to suggest that transgenderism was spread to children who were isolated and alienated during the Covid lockdowns. lol

What does that even mean? lol

Seems perfectly acceptable to claim kids are being separated from their parents BECAUSE the parents failed to address their child with the appropriate pronouns.

This is an obvious oversimplification.

And none of the cases provided by any poster supports those irrational assertions.

Why is that?

Could it be because they are not factually accurate?

I’m sure there are exceptions to the rule ~ cuz mistakes get made ~ but separating children from their parents should be only contemplated where there exists reasonable grounds to intervene, as in the cases linked previously, depicting child abuse.

It’s specious assertions of this nature that stigmatises transgender people (children, youth & adults) yet it seems entirely acceptable here.

Why is that?