Do trans-activists allow for trans-moderates?

[icehorse]

Apologies but I didn’t see any concrete ones. Allowing a trans person use the bathroom of their identity doesn’t magically take away mine.
Allowing trans participation in sports is no doubt complex as an issue. But I already said that I ultimately don’t care either way. Nor does it hamper my ability to participate in sports if I choose
Or did I misunderstand you?

We're talking about society in general. So the fact that you don't care about sports competitions is fine, but not important in this conversation. Fair competition is a strong and innate drive in most mammals. Having transwomen participate in women's sports deprives women competitors of the right to fair competition.

Allowing a transwoman the right to use the women's restroom takes away the woman's right to privacy and can also put the woman at risk of assault.

Putting transwomen in women's prisons could easily be construed as cruel and unusual punishment for the women in that prison.

 

[SomeRandom]

We're talking about society in general. So the fact that you don't care about sports competitions is fine, but not important in this conversation. Fair competition is a strong and innate drive in most mammals. Having transwomen participate in women's sports deprives women competitors of the right to fair competition.

I’m not too versed in the actual scientific arguments for and against for trans inclusion to truly comment either way.
Like I’ve already alluded to in threads here, I do have to wonder what the actual stats would be if we measured a cis woman against a trans individual who did not experience puberty (puberty blockers being a common medical route taken with gender dysphoria.)
Possibly closer than folks want to admit.
But like I said, I’m not too versed in sports science so

Allowing a transwoman the right to use the women's restroom takes away the woman's right to privacy and can also put the woman at risk of assault.

Does the US public women’s bathrooms not have individual stalls?
Like I’ll admit that I found the raised height of said bathroom stalls to be very creepy when I visited the states (ours are actually a lot lower.)
So I’d argue that the states needs to first fix their stalls before commenting on privacy.

Also as a woman I have accidentally run into the men’s during…emergencies let’s just say.
I did not feel exposed nor did I magically lose my privacy. So I don’t know how allowing a trans person, who I might not even be able to recognise as trans by looks alone, takes away privacy. Again I’ve likely shared the bathroom with trans people and I would feel safer if trans men (who often have beards) use the men’s. And indeed extra scrutiny just singles out non traditionally feminine cis women for ridicule and bullying.
I don’t know about you, but when I go to the bathroom I don’t expect there to be some kind of genital expecting to ensure everyone is using the correct bathroom. Hell there could be hermaphrodites or intersex people with ambiguous genitalia sharing the bathroom with me. It’s not really any of my business.
And nothing is stopping assault from occurring in bathrooms now. We don’t have security in our bathrooms, don’t know about the US. So again this feels rather fear monger-y.

Putting transwomen in women's prisons could easily be construed as cruel and unusual punishment for the women in that prison.

One could argue that forcing a trans woman to share a cell with a cis male is cruel and unusual punishment. Setting themselves up for assault and nightly rapes

 

[icehorse]

First off, let me apologise. I know that you're not a closet fash or anything. I'm sure you've given this lots of thought.

thanks!

Would you accept that it might appear to others that you're being a little dogmatic by arguing againsts the findings and recommendations of the medical profession when they don't agree with your opinion?

I asked questions about those findings and recommendations and didn't get any good answers. I found those citations to be poorly and ambiguously worded. You can also find doctors who are concerned about administering hormones to teens who might be trans. In a nutshell, I don't believe the medical community has arrived at any consensus. Sure, some groups have, but not all. And sad to say, there is a LOT of profiteering in medicine!

But to answer your question about being dogmatic, I strive to be open to good evidence.

Let me give you another example from medicine, back operations. In recent studies, top spinal surgeons - as a group - are completely unable to tell which patients are in pain based on looking at X-rays or other imaging. An amazing finding is emerging, and that is that there is a very low correlation between chronic pain and tissue damage. That's an idea you have to let bounce around in your mind for a while. The bottom line is that a significant percentage of back operations - intended to relieve pain - are without merit. But man oh man, are they ever profitable.

As I mentioned earlier, the trans-medical industry is a multi-billion dollar one.

Or that you think people who disagree with you are dangerous extremists?

I can only answer that question on a case by case basis

A weird thing that I am seeing more often is cis gendered women being challenged and harrassed by angry gender critical men and women when they are mistaken for being trans. And of course reports of growing harrassment and assaults on trans people.

I agree that these are real problems. In general I think that dogmatic positions often lead to harassment and worse.

Do you see anything of worth in the opinion that concern and hostility to trans people seems to be manufactured by right wing politicans and press (and dark money funded group), and that the right wing politicians and press (and dark money funded groups) are at the same time attempting to erode rights women fought for?

Yes, but we might disagree as to why. We should NOT underestimate right wing strategists. A short answer here is that liberals need to stop pitching softballs to the right. They will hit them out of the park. I consider the loud claim that "a transwoman is a woman" to be an example of a softball trans-activists have pitched to the right. Of course they'll take advantage of such extraordinary claims!

As for eroding women's rights in general - that's EXTREMELY troubling, and I think consistent with right wing strategy.

 

[icehorse]

I think discarding medical consensus in favor of ideological positions is arguably a dogmatic position. Being human, we're all prone to such errors in reasoning, but recognizing this seems crucial to me instead of embracing it even further.



The points you've objected to in this thread aren't remotely "radical left talking points"; they're either established positions of medical professionals or accommodations that cisgendered people already have but are supposedly "radical" when also extended to trans people (e.g., correct usage of pronouns).

As to your medical claims, see my answers in post 183.

As far as pronouns go: as a courtesy, of course. as a mandate, no way.

 

[icehorse]

On the issue of privacy, neither of us can speak for everyone. But I've heard stories from some women who feel some combination of "grossed out" and threatened.

One could argue that forcing a trans woman to share a cell with a cis male is cruel and unusual punishment. Setting themselves up for assault and nightly rapes

Agreed. I would propose that transwomen need to be imprisoned elsewhere altogether.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As to your medical claims, see my answers in post 183.

I see a repetition of the same claims I addressed in post #80 (or ones similar to them): unevidenced assumptions about why medical organizations hold the positions they currently do and dismissal of said positions on an ideological rather than medical basis.

As far as pronouns go: as a courtesy, of course. as a mandate, no way.

Frequently addressing a cis man as "she" or a cis woman as "he" in a workplace could count as discipline-worthy harassment in multiple parts of the world, and that's assuming the person doing it wouldn't get in major trouble with coworkers before any disciplinary or legal action could even be taken.

 

[SomeRandom]

On the issue of privacy, neither of us can speak for everyone. But I've heard stories from some women who feel some combination of "grossed out" and threatened.

I mean that is true.
However I don’t think the discourse stigmatising trans identities helps matters. It seems to only fuel misgivings, trust issues and otherwise cause people to scrutinise their fellow man without need.
Like I said, the discourse has had some rather unfortunate side affects for even cis women.

I’m not accusing you of promoting such issues nor am I trying to say you’re wrong for bringing up the topic.

I’m just saying that there may be adverse actions towards folks as a result.

Agreed. I would propose that transwomen need to be imprisoned elsewhere altogether.

I mean, that’s fair

 

[icehorse]

I see a repetition of the same claims I addressed in post #80 (or ones similar to them): unevidenced assumptions about why medical organizations hold the positions they currently do and dismissal of said positions on an ideological rather than medical basis.

I'm making an inference here: I'm going to infer that you would say some medical groups are ideologically neutral, but others are right wing. But that you'd argue against the notion that a medical group might be left wing?

Second, I'm inferring that any mention of who funds which groups would be met with cries of "conspiracy theories!!".

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm making an inference here: I'm going to infer that you would say some medical groups are ideologically neutral, but others are right wing. But that you'd argue against the notion that a medical group might be left wing?

Speaking of the leanings of entire "medical groups" makes little sense to me: they're made up of individuals who may come from all walks of life and all kinds of backgrounds. As with any large group of people, some medical professionals lean right, some lean left, and some probably don't care at all about politics.

In order to establish a causal relationship between those individuals' personal views and the positions of their respective medical organizations on trans people's health care, you need significant evidence. I haven't seen any of that here.

Second, I'm inferring that any mention of who funds which groups would be met with cries of "conspiracy theories!!".

Unless accompanied by evidence that the sources of the funding affect the positions of the medical organizations in question when it comes to trans issues, yes, it would rightfully be met with such, especially considering that many of those organizations are located in different countries, get funding from entirely different sources, and are sometimes non-profits to begin with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey, @icehorse - your posts in this thread have made it clear that you're opposed not only to trans rights but the whole idea of trans identity, so what's your motivation for wanting to be seen as a "moderate"?

Is this just some sort of "nobody's the villain of their own story" thing, or is there something deeper going on?

 

[icehorse]

Hey, @icehorse - your posts in this thread have made it clear that you're opposed not only to trans rights but the whole idea of trans identity, so what's your motivation for wanting to be seen as a "moderate"?

Is this just some sort of "nobody's the villain of their own story" thing, or is there something deeper going on?

You could NOT be more wrong.

On the other hand, you appear to bear out my claim that if a person doesn't accept the whole trans-activist ideology, lock, stock, and barrel, that person will be labeled anti-trans.

So here we are. I'm an example of a person who supports trans people but who does not agree with all of the ideas that trans-activists want us all to swallow without question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You could NOT be more wrong.

On the other hand, you appear to bear out my claim that if a person doesn't accept the whole trans-activist ideology, lock, stock, and barrel, that person will be labeled anti-trans.

So here we are. I'm an example of a person who supports trans people but who does not agree with all of the ideas that trans-activists want us all to swallow without question.

In what sense do you "support trans people"?

 

[Viker]

Most of what you wrote doesn't describe a "moderate"; it describes an ideologically charged position that denies medical consensus and expertise in favor of ideology and personal preferences. I think it's quite problematic to pass off something so potentially harmful as "moderation"—especially when anti-trans legislation is sweeping the US as we speak.



I agree with the above.



It is therapy according to medical organizations such as the World Health Organization and American Psychological Association. Gender-affirming care is not about hastily or superficially "affirming" someone's gender identity as some claim; it includes an extensive range of interventions and therapeutic approaches.

What is gender-affirming care? Your questions answered

As states move to restrict certain treatments for transgender youth, experts explain the many types of care, the need for them, and their impact.

www.aamc.org

See above. Also, if we take the above statement as a general rule, then parents and society shouldn't tell children and adolescents to identify as cisgendered either, yet that frequently happens. Should we also reject that?



See above. Medical organizations generally don't recommend surgical procedures for minors, and if a medical professional does so, that's usually done after extensive evaluation by qualified experts. A lot of bone surgeries and other procedures are also quite complicated, but they're not banned for minors because sometimes doctors determine that they're necessary. Why or how is this any different?

You're directly contradicting medical expertise based on your personal opinions. This is a dangerous slippery slope of the kind that has led to loss of life during the pandemic, among other instances.



Then what are they? How are you defining "women" in the first place?



I have never seen any relevant medical or scientific authority claim that "sex is a social construct"; only that gender is. I would agree that some expressions of gender are rooted in biology, but exactly which ones and to what extent is a different question.



I have rarely ever seen someone claim that, but what I have seen and agree with is the notion that some opinions are more likely to enable violence or harm than others. So, for example, denial of the medical consensus on gender-affirming care and saying it should be categorically withheld from minors is a harmful opinion because it can enable bans on necessary and sometimes life-saving medical care.

For example:

Error | AAP

Error landing page

www.aap.org

I find this to be context-dependent, but in general, it's definitely a secondary issue compared to the above ones.

I think rejection of established medical consensus is far more harmful than arbitrarily declared pronouns.

Nailed it.

 

[icehorse]

Speaking of the leanings of entire "medical groups" makes little sense to me: they're made up of individuals who may come from all walks of life and all kinds of backgrounds. As with any large group of people, some medical professionals lean right, some lean left, and some probably don't care at all about politics.

In order to establish a causal relationship between those individuals' personal views and the positions of their respective medical organizations on trans people's health care, you need significant evidence. I haven't seen any of that here.

Opinion: Doctors and parents need to rethink 'gender-affirming care' for children

The National Post is considered conservative. Are the doctors cited in the article?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Opinion: Doctors and parents need to rethink 'gender-affirming care' for children

The National Post is considered conservative. Are the doctors cited in the article?

This is an opinion piece in an overtly partisan source. I can find dozens of opinion articles agreeing with my opinion if I want to.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. The article doesn't cite any peer-reviewed positions in support of the presented opinion, and it conflates gender-affirming care (which encompasses a wide array of interventions and treatments) with surgery, a subset thereof that is rarely recommended to minors per current guidelines of medical organizations.

I seriously have no idea what the purpose of this thread is. You have no religious reason to deny the medical consensus about gender dysphoria, nor do you deny science when it comes to evolution, climate change, etc. Why is this one topic such a drastic turnaround for you?

 

[icehorse]

In what sense do you "support trans people"?

And... back to the OP we go:

As a trans-moderate I:

- have empathy for people who have gender or body dysphoria
- support the creation of public facilities for trans people
- support the idea of "open" categories for competitions, sports and otherwise.
- support ADULTS who chose to modify their bodies
- support fair treatment for trans people

And @9-10ths_Penguin - I recommend you lay off the kool-aid

 

[icehorse]

This is an opinion piece in an overtly partisan source. I can find dozens of opinion articles agreeing with my opinion if I want to.

I'm not sure what point you're making here. The article doesn't cite any peer-reviewed positions in support of the presented opinion, and it conflates gender-affirming care (which encompasses a wide array of interventions and treatments) with surgery, a subset thereof that is rarely recommended to minors per current guidelines of medical organizations.

I seriously have no idea what the purpose of this thread is. You have no religious reason to deny the medical consensus about gender dysphoria, nor do you deny science when it comes to evolution, climate change, etc. Why is this one topic such a drastic turnaround for you?

Did you actually READ the article? It's chock full of factual claims. It cites two LEADING docs who are concerned about "gender affirming care" for young people.

You keep saying the medical community agrees. It doesn't. Many of the points I've made in this thread concerning the medical community (and other topics), have gone unanswered. It strikes me that your stance is to buy whatever an organization like WHO tells you to buy.

==

As for the purpose of the thread, it was to see how widespread and deep the dogma runs in this topic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Did you actually READ the article? It's chock full of factual claims. It cites two LEADING docs who are concerned about "gender affirming care" for young people.

You keep saying the medical community agrees. It doesn't. Many of the points I've made in this thread concerning the medical community (and other topics), have gone unanswered. It strikes me that your stance is to buy whatever an organization like WHO tells you to buy.

You're free to link to a single reputable medical organization that supports categorically withholding gender-affirming care from minors.

This is literally the exact same kind of thing that happened throughout over two years of the pandemic: people citing opinion articles or YouTube videos and saying things like, "This doctor thinks vaccines are harmful and a hoax" or, "This doctor has found a successful treatment for COVID."

All of those claims always overlook fundamental aspects of science such as peer review and reproducible results, which would immediately rule out something like an opinion article that has no peer-reviewed backing and no established evidence for its claims.

And of course, the same thing has happened for many years in creationist arguments: cite a few scientists with fringe opinions (again, never with peer-reviewed backing) and claim, without any sound evidence, that there's some conspiracy or systematic attempt to shut them down.

It strikes me that your stance is to buy whatever an organization like WHO tells you to buy.

Except that it's not just "an organization like WHO"; it's every reputable medical organization you or I could find. Your stance is to believe what a fringe opinion article states over the conclusions of numerous studies and medical organizations, including studies that demonstrate life-saving benefits of gender-affirming care for many trans people.

There are certain forms of science denial that have relatively little or moderate immediately measurable impact when the average person embraces them, such as denial of evolution and rejection of the fact that dinosaurs existed. On the other hand, something like this dismissal of gender-affirming care is affecting many people as we speak, and it threatens the lives of some who are denied necessary medical care because of ideology and politics.

You keep citing dogma in your posts; this ideologically rooted dismissal of one form of health care strikes me as an especially pernicious form thereof.

==

As for the purpose of the thread, it was to see how widespread and deep the dogma runs in this topic.

I think it would be much more beneficial to consider the input that other members have given you in this thread instead of insisting that all people who disagree with you—including qualified professionals with peer-reviewed support—are just following "dogma."

 

[icehorse]

You're free to link to a single reputable medical organization that supports categorically withholding gender-affirming care from minors.

That's a strawman, that's not what I've been proposing.

And, you've failed again to answer my reasonable questions.

==

As for the not-so-subtle personal slams... I think that before you go slinging mud you ought to ask yourself why you've avoided answering so many of my questions in this thread.

==

You continue to use the phrase "gender affirming care" (GAC). Would you agree that such care is multi-faceted? Would you be able to list all of the approaches in common use to provide GAC? I'm NOT proposing that we withhold GAC. Do you get that?

==

Step back and consider the words of Carl Sagan: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Medicine is an evolving science. Approaches that were mainstream a few decades ago are now considered bad practice.

In 2023 we're seeing enormous spikes in the rates of transgender youths. We're also experiencing global existential crisis. The youths of today are being immersed in toxic social media. Their diets become more artificial every year. The air they breathe is fouler. They're constantly exposed to a post-truth world.

Now when a young person feels they're in the wrong body, there is no physical way to prove or disprove this claim. What tools do we have? Talk therapy, right? And therapists are also in the situation of trying to help people in this mess of a world. Therapists are largely in uncharted waters these days. Are youths being asked to leave social media? Perhaps, but I haven't heard of that intervention.

So the first extraordinary claim that concerns me is: "In this horribly messed up, world, when a hormone riddled youth, positively awash in propaganda, says they feel they're in the wrong body, a routine solution should be to perform chemical castration on them, and perhaps artificially alter their body parts, subsequent osteoporosis be damned."

Given that no physical evidence is possible, I would say that EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE to support this claim has not been established.

Another extraordinary claim is that "A transwoman is a woman."

Notice that in this thread, I was asked to provide the definition of a woman, and I did so. No one countered me, or offered a different definition. Using my unchallenged definition, a transwoman is most definitely NOT a woman.

Seems like the claim that "A transwoman is a woman" fits the bill for dogma quite nicely, no?

 

[JDMS]

Seems like the claim that "A transwoman is a woman" fits the bill for dogma quite nicely, no?

Everything else aside, the fact that you keep trying to belittle others by swinging around the word "dogma" and insisting their opinions ARE dogmatic feels... well... quite dogmatic to me.