Do trans-activists allow for trans-moderates?

[Debater Slayer]

Fair enough.

Some quick comments;

1) I made no comments regarding specific items in the OP relating to trans rights, and specifically said I would disagree with the OP on where the 'moderate' line would be.

I can see this, and I get the impression that you'd disagree with at least a few of the points in the OP, especially given previous views you've expressed.

2) Science is often 'established'. But unless dealing with specific claims in context, I'm honestly not sure what that means. Climate science is 'settled' too, in that climate change is broadly agreed. That doesn't mean all actions to proactively deal with science have equal scientific support and evidence. If you want to bring that back to trans issues, I'm not for a moment arguing against gender dysmorphia, or anything else I'd see as settled science.

Of course, but this assumes broadly sharing the same goals in the first place. When someone starts a discussion by saying that it's "extremism" to label trans women as women and by rejecting or trying to undermine the authority of medical organizations to begin with—based on unfounded scenarios that I find to qualify as conspiracy theories—then we're not even talking about the same broad goals anymore.

It's the difference between discussing how to improve some of the current treatments and calling for them to be banned for minors despite the fact that they've saved some minors' lives. I think some positions simply derail productive discussions about potential inprovements and instead drag the discourse into a pit of extremist positions and harmful misconceptions. When a group of people have the goal of wanting to improve current treatments and want to discuss potential approaches to that end, a position like "those treatments should be banned for minors to begin with" has no place in the discussion. It requires its own space in order for others to challenge and expose the problems with it.

3) Assuming all the claims in this thread are correct (let's say from the left side, which is clumsy, I know. But you get my meaning...) there is still a whole lot of thought and discussion that should be happening. Personally, I don't think enforcing a consensus via echo chambers lead to anything other than reactionism. To whit, are people more interested in being 'right' or effecting change? These things aren't always aligned (at least not completely).

I don't disagree, but this goes back to my above points. Effecting healthy, desirable change requires that all participants in such discussions broadly have that goal. Banning necessary treatments and denying medical consensus on shaky grounds seem to me well outside the territory of sharing the goal of effecting healthy change.

4) Stepping back from specific claims made in the OP...like I said, I don't align with them...what does a trans-moderate look like in your opinion?

Generally speaking, they would

• acknowledge the reality that gender dysphoria exists, there is a distinction (but also some overlap) between sex and gender, and that there are established and effective treatments for it, whether for minors or adults.

• acknowledge that some treatments are sometimes necessary for minors but also believe in thorough, rigorous consultation of medical professionals and not opting for irreversible or surgical interventions unless professionals deem those absolutely necessary after such consultation—the same way any responsible parent and doctor would handle irreversible or major surgeries or treatments for any other issue (e.g., bone or stomach problems).

• recognize that there are considerable challenges around including trans women in women's sports but that this doesn't apply to all sports and also involves varying levels of advantages and nuances that don't uniformly apply to all sports. They would also recognize that not everyone who has concerns about the advantages and challenges is transphobic or agenda-driven.

• recognize that almost all of these issues are a relatively new area of public discourse and policy, so there will be a lot of discussions and trial and error until solutions are found or optimized. This means not shutting down or demonizing such discussions, but it also means taking into account trans people's concerns and not just dismissing said concerns and calling it a day.

• have no problem using a trans person's preferred pronouns among "he," "she," and "they" just as they do for a cis person. I see custom pronouns as a grayer and more context-dependent area, however.

These are very summarized points; I'm not sure I can come up with an exhaustive list considering the numerous variables and different situations that could arise around this subject.

5) What broad percentage of either your country, the USA, or Australia do you think clears that bar (trans-moderate) and what do you think the best way to increase that percentage is?

1) I think an extremely tiny percentage of people in my country would clear that bar, as is the case with views on a lot of other issues related to social justice and civil rights. As for how to increase that percentage, I think comprehensive social and economic reform are needed, starting with education. However, I think such changes would most likely take at least two or three decades for their effects to start manifesting in society, and I doubt I'll see that happen within my lifetime.

2) I don't know about an exact percentage in the US, but multiple trends as well as statistics and election results seem to me indicative of a heavily polarized country, where some states are significantly different politically. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of moderates on trans issues to extremists were close to 50-50, give or take 10%-15%. This is just a guess, though; I don't know what the actual number is.

I don't think I can cover the question of how to increase that percentage in this post (or even in this thread, really), as it's extremely complicated and multifaceted.

3) I get the impression that Australia is overall more socially liberal than the US (if we take the total of all American states rather than zoom in on any specific ones), so I would guess the percentage of moderates on this issue in Australia might be... 70%-80%? Again, this is just a guess. I don't have exact numbers.

Of course, it's also quite difficult to quantify "moderation" so confidently, because someone could be moderate about a subject in most ways but have one or two extreme opinions. Whether they should be called a "moderate" becomes a murkier and even more subjective judgment call at that point. There's also the variance between different countries and societies, where a radically accepting position in one may be seen as the norm or bare minimum in another.

 

[icehorse]

Of course, but this assumes broadly sharing the same goals in the first place. When someone starts a discussion by saying that it's "extremism" to label trans women as women and by rejecting or trying to undermine the authority of medical organizations to begin with—based on unfounded scenarios that I find to qualify as conspiracy theories—then we're not even talking about the same broad goals anymore.

"transwomen as women" - I still await your answer to my questions.

"the authority of medical organizations" - I still your answers to my questions.

You can huff and puff and try to claim some sort of moral high ground all you want. But when you keep dodging the complex questions it seems you're on shaky ground.

It's the difference between discussing how to improve some of the current treatments and calling for them to be banned for minors despite the fact that they've saved some minors' lives. I think some positions simply derail productive discussions about potential inprovements and instead drag the discourse into a pit of extremist positions and harmful misconceptions. When a group of people have the goal of wanting to improve current treatments and want to discuss potential approaches to that end, a position like "those treatments should be banned for minors to begin with" has no place in the discussion. It requires its own space in order for others to challenge and expose the problems with it.

For the sake of this discussion I took an unpopular stance. You succeeded in expressing outrage, but your counterarguments were weak. And again, made even weaker by your continued dodging of my questions. I am convince-able on this point, but your arguments have to be rock solid. As I said earlier, the point here is to win the hearts and minds of moderates.

 

[Stevicus]

That seems fair, and I'm pretty much similar. Sports is a relatively less important area, but one I'm personally heavily invested in. And as a parent and former teacher, I do think the potential conflict between the rights of parents vs children is a tricky and important consideration.

My only other consideration really is more along economic lines, in terms of what is paid for by insurance/government vs private funding.

Yes, it seems that schools have turned into political football fields, so to speak.

School boards often don't really help, as they're politicians trying to pander to the general public. In fact, it occurs to me that a lot of politicians started their political careers running for school board.

 

[Debater Slayer]

"transwomen as women" - I still await your answer to my questions.

"the authority of medical organizations" - I still your answers to my questions.

I have answered multiple times. I see no point in repeating myself, nor do I see any indication that you would acknowledge the answers you're given considering the dismissal of my and other posters' responses as "dogmatic," "extreme," etc.

I don't get the impression that this is a thread fostering understanding and useful discussion; it seems to be focused on pushing a specific notion of "moderation" while dismissing all counterarguments or criticism.

You can huff and puff and try to claim some sort of moral high ground all you want. But when you keep dodging the complex questions it seems you're on shaky ground.

This is an example of what I mentioned above: instead of considering the responses in light of discussion, you're now adding one more dismissive description ("huff and puff") to the abovementioned ones.

It's really simple: people can be reasonable and still disagree with the arguments you've offered in this thread. It's a choice between your stance and that of medical organizations, researchers, and many trans people (as measured in studies). I think it's easy to tell which one most reasonable people will go with.

For the sake of this discussion I took an unpopular stance.

You've repeated your positions and emphasized them, beyond all doubt, in ways that most reasonable people wouldn't take to be just a case of playing devil's advocate:

As I said elsewhere on this thread, I think kids ought to be able to explore and talk about these topics, and that parents and other authority figures should not tell kids what to think or how to feel. But topics like sexual orientation and gender expression and such are extremely complex. Couple that with the fact that kids are going through confusing hormonal changes and confusing peer pressure, and I do not think any irreversible measures should be suggested or approved for people under 21 (or thereabouts). So, no hormones, no surgeries.

I think it's an extreme (and dangerous), position to claim that trans women are women.

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?

You've made your beliefs pretty clear throughout the thread. People are free to challenge and criticize them.

You succeeded in expressing outrage, but your counterarguments were weak. And again, made even weaker by your continued dodging of my questions. I am convince-able on this point, but your arguments have to be rock solid. As I said earlier, the point here is to win the hearts and minds of moderates.

In addition to "dogma," "extreme," and "huff and puff," now there's "outrage." This thread really isn't about discussion or examination of the points you listed in the OP, I suppose.

I suspect that what you consider "rock solid" is probably entirely different from what I and multiple others consider to be so, since you've also made it clear that you're willing to dismiss the positions of medical organizations based on unfounded and unevidenced assumptions.

Since this is probably going to be my last post on your points, I'm also going to respond to a few misrepresentations of my views before I disengage:

I think perhaps you're aligning my stance with the stance taken by anti-trans legislators? Please step back, this whole thread is about being moderate. This response of yours is an example of the kind of thinking that concerns me. It would appear that from your perspective, any disagreement on this topic makes a person - me in this case - a far right extremist.

Nowhere did I say that "any disagreement on this topic" makes someone an extremist, and "far-right extremist" is a term you introduced, not I. My reasons for challenging your views are all detailed in this thread. In fact, not a single one of my posts includes the term "far-right extremist" in reference to anything you've said. What I've said is that some of the positions and misconceptions you've supported here can either enable or contribute to anti-trans legislation, and they already do so when they become popular enough in some places.

I would appreciate it if you tried to focus on what others actually say instead of claims that you've attributed to them.

For the Nth time - I'm not attacking gender affirming care!

You're saying that parts of it that are sometimes life-saving should be categorically withheld from "people under 21 or thereabouts," despite the numerous and explicit professional recommendations against such a ban and despite the studied positive outcomes that many trans people have experienced from undergoing said treatments before they were 21. You're poposing a uniform, unscientific, and overly heavy-handed approach to something that can vastly differ on a case-by-case basis.

It seems like you've got your mind made up what ALL my positions must be since I disagree with you on a few points?

No, I'm basing my assessment of your positions about this topic on what you've explicitly and repeatedly stated throughout this thread, not because "[you] disagree with [me] on a few points."

I'm inferring here that you're claiming all drugs have equally dangerous side effects? I haven't head that anti-depressants negatively impact bone growth.

No, I cited examples of procedures and medications that have major and potentially irreversible possible side effects but are still sometimes deemed necessary and therefore sometimes prescribed to minors by professionals. This is not remotely equivalent to "claiming all drugs have equally dangerous side effects."

You claim that we should rely on the conclusions of the healthcare system. I claim that our healthcare system is quite flawed, often engaged in profiteering, and is always evolving. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

No, I stated and still state that medical issues are best left for professionals and medical organizations to study and decide the suitable approaches for. "[Your] healthcare system" (I'm assuming you're referring to the American healthcare system) is not the only one holding the positions I cited concerning treatment for gender dysphoria.

If by "our healthcare system" you mean medical organizations in general rather than any one country's healthcare system, then my earlier point applies: dismissing professional consensus based on unfounded or unevidenced assumptions falls within the territory of conspiracy theories not unlike denial of evolution and climate change, except that in this case, it can lead or contribute to bans on life-saving medical care.

It would appear that you side with a healthcare system that tends to avoid systems thinking, and focuses on cutting and drugs as the only approaches to consider?

No, I side with deferring to qualified experts and medical organizations (which include many non-profit ones) from different countries when it comes to medical issues and research. You are, once again, rewording others' points instead of addressing what was actually said.

I wish you luck with navigating this subject while taking into account the criticism of your views, which you seem to have asked for and wanted to discuss by starting this thread, and without demonizing it as "dogma," "huffing and puffing," "outrage," "extremism," etc.

Take care.

 

[JDMS]

You can huff and puff and try to claim some sort of moral high ground all you want.... You succeeded in expressing outrage, but your counterarguments were weak.

What??? @Debater Slayer has been perfectly calm this whole time...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can see this, and I get the impression that you'd disagree with at least a few of the points in the OP, especially given previous views you've expressed.

I would indeed. I have been accused of transphobia once or twice though, but not by my transgender cousin, so I'm kinda okay with that.

Of course, but this assumes broadly sharing the same goals in the first place. When someone starts a discussion by saying that it's "extremism" to label trans women as women and by rejecting or trying to undermine the authority of medical organizations to begin with—based on unfounded scenarios that I find to qualify as conspiracy theories—then we're not even talking about the main goals anymore.

I disagree. Wherever someone is talking about this, the important thing is that they're listening and open to dialogue rather than monologue. Some people have further to travel. And some are pretending discourse, of course. The difference is often a judgement call. Incidentally, it's possible to be right, but monologuing too. That's not veiled references to anyone here, just my general view.

It's the difference between discussing how to improve some of the current treatments and calling for them to be banned for minors despite the fact that they've saved some minors' lives. I think some positions simply derail productive discussions about potential inprovements and instead drag the discourse into a pit of extremist positions and harmful misconceptions. When a group of people have the goal of wanting to improve current treatments and want to discuss potential approaches to that end, a position like "those treatments should be banned for minors to begin with" has no place in the discussion. It requires its own space in order for others to challenge and expose the problems with it.

To a degree. I think context matters. It's hard to explain in a nuanced way here, but I'd say that where someone starts an OP, they are trying to create 'its own space for challenging and exposing the problems with it'. And some of what I've seen in this space is more akin to straw manning than steel manning, which...I just find it unhelpful to much of anything, tbh.

I don't disagree, but this goes back to my above points. Effecting healthy, desirable change requires that all participants in such discussions broadly have that goal. Banning necessary treatments and denying medical consensus on shaky grounds seem to me well outside the territory of sharing the goal of effecting healthy change.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending those who claim they're for freedom, then want to control others reproductive freedoms, gender expressions, etc. At best they're hypocrites.

But I'm getting old. I remember gay rights being unpopular. It wasn't by demanding that all participants in conversations agreed we were working towards equal rights for gay people (incl. marriage) that healthy change was effected. At least, not imho.

I'm honestly interested to see how I fit on your trans-moderate list, incidentally! I get that it's just a rough back of the napkin job, and appreciate the effort. Dialogue, baby!!

Generally speaking, they would

• acknowledge the reality that gender dysphoria exists, there is a distinction (but also some overlap) between sex and gender, and that there are established and effective treatments for it, whether for minors or adults.

Check one for me

• acknowledge that some treatments are sometimes necessary for minors but also believe in thorough, rigorous consultation of medical professionals and not opting for irreversible or surgical interventions unless professionals deem those absolutely necessary after such consultation—the same way any responsible parent and doctor would handle irreversible or major surgeries or treatments for any other issue (e.g., bone or stomach problems).

Mostly agree, my only thought/clarification is around when parents would be included versus excluded in this process.

• recognize that there are considerable challenges around including trans women in women's sports but that this doesn't apply to all sports and also involves varying levels of advantages and nuances that don't uniformly apply to all sports. They would also recognize that not everyone who has concerns about the advantages and challenges is transphobic or agenda-driven.

Agree. My guiding principle would be to include unless there is a reason not to, and include at levels where inclusion doesn't result in exclusion for someone else.

• recognize that almost all of these issues are a relatively new area of public discourse and policy, so there will be a lot of discussions and trial and error until solutions are found or optimized. This means not shutting down or demonizing such discussions, but it also means taking into account trans people's concerns and not just dismissing said concerns and calling it a day.

Agreed, but I'm not 100% sure what that looks like practically. No need to clarify, though, just making the point that implementing some of this might have small differences in our mind.

• have no problem using a trans person's preferred pronouns among "he," "she," and "they" just as they do for a cis person. I see custom pronouns as a grayer and more context-dependent area, however.

Cool with that too, and agree on the custom pronoun comment. Within reason I'll use whatever a person wants.

These are very summarized points; I'm not sure I can come up with an exhaustive list considering the numerous variables and different situations that could arise around this subject.

No expectation you would. Grateful you took it at face value and had a crack at it though.

1) I think an extremely tiny percentage of people in my country would clear that bar, as is the case with views on a lot of other issues related to social justice and civil rights. As for how to increase that percentage, I think comprehensive social and economic reform are needed, starting with education. However, I think such changes would most likely take at least two or three decades for their effects to start manifesting in society, and I doubt I'll see that happen within my lifetime.

Agree. My completely ignorant assumption is that transgender rights will trail female rights, and LGB rights. But I know very little about modern Egypt and am basing that on common history in liberal democracies.

In a horribly oversimplified example, the most effective paths to transgender rights in Egypt might be more to do with encouraging female rights, promoting relatively moderate expressions of Islam, and hoping for transgender rights in the West to become less polarised and more accepted, whilst avoiding direct promotion of transgender rights in Egypt at all.

2) I don't know about an exact percentage in the US, but multiple trends as well as statistics and election results seem to me indicative of a heavily polarized country, where some states are significantly different politically. I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of moderates on trans issues to extremists were close to 50-50, give or take 10%-15%. This is just a guess, though; I don't know what the actual number is.

I don't think I can cover the question of how to increase that percentage in this post (or even in this thread, really), as it's extremely complicated and multifaceted.

Take this with a grain...or perhaps a bucket...of salt.
But I think 50% is broadly right in a general sense, based on some research I saw. It becomes higher or lower based on the specific issue, and specific part of the country.

However, something like bathroom access and sports inclusion rank lower in general popularity than fair workplace treatment and protections from discrimination in areas of housing, employment, justice and welfare generally.

Simplistically, parts of the American left might be making a strategic problem by pushing for full access to women's sports for trans athletes. Whilst seeing this as a way the right can 'pick off centrists and make them transphobes' is one way of reading this, I think it's a mistake to start describing the majority of the population as transphobes, on multiple levels.
(Aware that you didn't do that)

3) I get the impression that Australia is overall more socially liberal than the US (if we take the total of all American states rather than zoom in on any specific ones), so I would guess the percentage of moderates on this issue in Australia might be... 70%-80%? Again, this is just a guess. I don't have exact numbers.

Me either. We have a higher rate of apathy generally on most issues than the US. A bit more 'who cares' for better and worse.

Of course, it's also quite difficult to quantify "moderation" so confidently, because someone could be moderate about a subject in most ways but have one or two extreme opinions. Whether they should be called a "moderate" becomes a murkier and even more subjective judgment call at that point. There's also the variance between different countries and societies, where a radically accepting position in one may be seen as the norm or bare minimum in another.

Agreed. I think you have a handle on my position. I think of myself as centre-left in Aussie terms generally. I'd be a radical leftie in some countries...lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, it seems that schools have turned into political football fields, so to speak.

School boards often don't really help, as they're politicians trying to pander to the general public. In fact, it occurs to me that a lot of politicians started their political careers running for school board.

Am I allowed to say the American school board system is bloody ridiculous?

 

[Stevicus]

Am I allowed to say the American school board system is bloody ridiculous?

Yes, and you'd be right.

 

[icehorse]

I have answered multiple times. I see no point in repeating myself, nor do I see any indication that you would acknowledge the answers you're given considering the dismissal of my and other posters' responses as "dogmatic," "extreme," etc.

I don't get the impression that this is a thread fostering understanding and useful discussion; it seems to be focused on pushing a specific notion of "moderation" while dismissing all counterarguments or criticism.

I wish you luck with navigating this subject while taking into account the criticism of your views, which you seem to have asked for and wanted to discuss by starting this thread, and without demonizing it as "dogma," "huffing and puffing," "outrage," "extremism," etc.

Take care.

I don't get the impression that you are at all willing to think beyond the talking points you already had before the thread started. I say this because you were repeatedly unwilling to dive into many of the followup questions I asked you.

And finally, I am more than willing to consider other opinions, but they've got to hold up to some scrutiny. This topic is a moving target. The medical community's positions and definitions are far from stable. For example, until recently, WHO called trans a mental disorder and as of a few years ago they changed their minds and now call it "gender incongruence".

Here's another example of the moving target nature of this topic:

Correction of a Key Study: No Evidence of “Gender-Affirming” Surgeries Improving Mental Health

There are many such examples that indicate to me the science is far from settled.

==

As @lewisnotmiller has hinted at, I'll try to steelman your thoughts here in the interest of you knowing that I've heard your positions:

You think that psychologists and medical experts understand gender incongruence well, and that sometimes the best course of action for a given youth is hormones and/or surgeries.

You think it's reasonable to make the claim that a transwoman is a woman.

==

I agree that we should end this discussion. We both feel we're not being heard.

Thanks for your time!