Do trans-activists allow for trans-moderates?

[icehorse]

I see free speech as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Therefore, I believe some limitations on it are necessary (e.g., banning hate speech, which sometimes also overlaps with incitement against certain groups).

How would you define "hate speech".

I wish the best for everyone, but I think Islam is a horrible, divisive, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic, anti-semetic, totalitarian ideology. Is that hate speech?

 

[icehorse]

After the failure to answer, & the hostility
of the "sea lioning" accusation, I hereby
deme you unworthy of further attempts
to engage on this subject.

Given your demonstrated inability to understand nuance or fine distinctions, I'm happy to hear your decision.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's some evidence that it enhances the political climate and overall quality of public discourse in multiple countries.

Enhancing such things isn't the same thing as liberty.

I see free speech as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

As do I.

Therefore, I believe some limitations on it are necessary (e.g., banning hate speech, which sometimes also overlaps with incitement against certain groups).

USA has limitations.
Just not as many as you'd want, apparently.

Conversely, finding many people who disagree doesn't make it incorrect either.

That's a rather pointless counter.

I can't anticipate every possible inference, especially when some of them are quite unexpected and uncommon. I tend to prefer expressing myself in a precise manner and then letting people know that they can ask if they're unsure about the intention or meaning of something I said.

This approach has worked well in most discussions I've been in... but you and I seem to run into communication issues quite a bit.

I like clear declarative statements about what one stands for.
Your posts are too much melange of allusion, association &
suggestion with occasional moral absolutism that gets walked
back later.
I find addressing such posts to be nailing Jello to a wall.

 

[icehorse]

After the failure to answer, & the hostility
of the "sea lioning" accusation, I hereby
deme you unworthy of further attempts
to engage on this subject.

Given your demonstrated inability to understand nuance or fine distinctions, I'm happy to hear your decision.

 

[Revoltingest]

Given your demonstrated inability to understand nuance or fine distinctions, I'm happy to hear your decision.

Well, If I may brag, my IQ is nearly 70.
Perhaps you can join me up there some day.
Study hard!
Perhaps you'll even learn to avoid double posting.

 

[icehorse]

I've also heard all kinds of erroneous claims from anti-trans activists, but I haven't cited them here because I don't think they're relevant to the strictly medical questions you're raising in this thread. Activists, whether for or against trans rights, don't get to determine what the medically sound positions are, and they don't override the opinions of qualified experts and medical organizations.

As for that question, I'm still interested to know your answer: how do you define "woman"?

Which of my opinions fall into the "strictly medical" category?

As for defining a woman, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, a woman is an adult, female, human.

 

[icehorse]

Well, If I may brag, my IQ is nearly 70.
Perhaps you can join me up there some day.
Study hard!
Perhaps you'll even learn to avoid double posting.

By all means, teach me how to stop modern web browsers from ever getting out of synch!

 

[Callisto]

The majority of trans people don't throw hissy fits when they are misgendered by strangers who don't know better. Most of us, like you said, just want to live life and so obviously we aren't going to start fights over something like that. Now if a family member or friend consistently argues about it and refuses to respect a person's pronouns, that's another story. And I think that's what most trans people mean when they say they want people to respect their pronouns of choice.

Though, most people who have a family/private situations aren't inclined to make it public knowledge so, agreed, we're not going to hear about them. The overwhelming number of instances made public are people flipping out on someone openly or wailing in their car about anyone from a barista and salespersons to coworkers, social media is clogged with meltdowns.

And it's this very public segment and various activists that demand people at large use certain pronouns. This simply is not an option and is advocating for compelled speech which (in the US) violates the First Amendment.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Any specifics?

Every single "DON'T" point I addressed from your OP.

The devil is in the details. "Gender affirming care for minors" is very vague, correct? Are they banning counseling or are they banning surgeries - those are two very different things.

No, it's usually not very vague when these categorical bans are in discussion. It's quite explicitly clarified on multiple websites of medical organizations what gender-affirming care is, and one can also read about the bills in multiple sources. No bill I have seen so far has made a distinction between gender-affirming therapy and surgery, but even banning surgeries would be unsound and extremely harmful because whether a minor should have surgery is, as with any other medical condition, something for doctors to decide, not politicians.

Gender-affirming care is considered safe, effective, and medically necessary by major professional health associations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Endocrine Society. Yet, a growing number of states have taken action to restrict access to this care for youth through enacted or proposed legislation or executive actions. Bills that limit access to gender-affirming health care for minors include criminal penalties against health professionals and parents who provide or enable access to such care.

Prohibiting Gender-Affirming Medical Care for Youth

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu

Well I did say "or thereabouts". Let's zoom out. As a society, we've made many such decisions about age thresholds. As I said earlier, driving, drinking. voting, emancipation, and on and on. Setting such thresholds is hardly a new or radical idea.

But no medical procedure or treatment that could sometimes be necessary for minors is targeted with bans except for gender-affirming care. Why do you think that is? Are we going to see bans on back surgeries for minors in the future? Or on prescription of antipsychotics for children who have schizophrenia, since those medications have a heavy side-effect profile?

How do you classify "trans"? Is it a disorder? Is it a mental disorder? Is a person separate from their body?

This is easily answerable by going to a medical source, again. Gender dysphoria is not classified as a mental disorder. There are also trans people who don't experience dysphoria with their body, but let's focus on trans people who have gender dysphoria for now.

A trans person is defined thus by the APA:

Transgender is an umbrella terms for persons whose gender identity, gender expression or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.

Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression

Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity (sense of themselves as male or female) or gender expression differs from socially constructed norms associated with their birth sex. This includes androgynous, bigendered and gender queer people, who tend to see...

www.apa.org

Is it incorrect to say that trans people feel they're in the wrong body?

Many trans people do (i.e., they have gender dysphoria), but medical experts don't consider gender dysphoria a necessary criterion for someone to be trans.

Which of my opinions fall into the "strictly medical" category?

Mainly the statements about surgery, hormones, and the necessity of either or both for a subset of minors.

As for defining a woman, AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, a woman is an adult, female, human.

Since you included "female" in the definition, it now includes trans men as women. How do you account for that contradiction? And how do you account for trans women? If not women, what are they?

 

[Debater Slayer]

How would you define "hate speech".

That's a separate and lengthy discussion that I won't get into here, since it's different from the focus of the thread.

I wish the best for everyone, but I think Islam is a horrible, divisive, misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic, anti-semetic, totalitarian ideology. Is that hate speech?

Criticism of religions generally doesn't fall within hate speech laws, although how it is expressed could get it into that territory (e.g., by saying that all followers of X religion are "subhuman," that they need to be "eradicated," etc.).

 

[JDMS]

Though, most people who have a family/private situations aren't inclined to make it public knowledge so, agreed, we're not going to hear about them. The overwhelming number of instances made public are people flipping out on someone openly or wailing in their car about anyone from a barista and salespersons to coworkers, social media is clogged with meltdowns.

And it's this very public segment and various activists that demand people at large use certain pronouns. This simply is not an option and is advocating for compelled speech which (in the US) violates the First Amendment.

"Overwhelming number"? Show me 20 cases that have happened in the last year. Considering that there are millions of trans people that interact with strangers at least a few times a week, this should be pretty easy, right?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I like clear declarative statements about what one stands for.
Your posts are too much melange of allusion, association &
suggestion with occasional moral absolutism that gets walked
back later.
I find addressing such posts to be nailing Jello to a wall.

I also sometimes find it tedious when I end up having to clarify every other point I make or pointing out that some inference or another is a misrepresentation of what I actually said.

Like I said, sometimes we have issues communicating. I don't have anything else to add on this tangent.

 

[Callisto]

"Overwhelming number"? Show me 20 cases that have happened in the last year. Considering that there are millions of trans people that interact with strangers at least a few times a week, this should be pretty easy, right

Perhaps reading the sentence correctly would help: "The overwhelming number of instances made public are people flipping out on someone openly or wailing in their car".

You can find a lot more than 20 instances on any social media platform.

 

[JDMS]

Perhaps reading the sentence correctly would help: "The overwhelming number of instances made public are people flipping out on someone openly or wailing in their car".

Yes, you're right. I read your post incorrectly. I apologize.

 

[icehorse]

Many trans people do (i.e., they have gender dysphoria), but medical experts don't consider gender dysphoria a necessary criterion for someone to be trans.

The definitions you included (thanks), seem to boil down to what I said: they feel they're in the wrong body.

But no medical procedure or treatment that could sometimes be necessary for minors is targeted with bans except for gender-affirming care. Why do you think that is?

Because feeling you're in the wrong body isn't life threatening. Again, I'm not opposed to counseling. I understand that many young people are depressed or even suicidal. I'm not saying "do nothing".

Now, one of your citations included the phrase: "sex to which they were assigned at birth." Are you of the opinion that a person's sex is malleable?

So I'd like to hear YOUR definition. I think it's compassionate to call it a disorder. I suspect it will ultimately be categorized as a mental disorder. But what you DO think?

Are you of the opinion that the medical industry - rife with corruption as it is - is somehow not seeing trans as a money making opportunity? Like this is the one topic on which the medical profession is morally and ethically upstanding?

So again, I'd like to hear YOUR definition, and not make arguments from (questionable) authority.

 

[Yerda]

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

What is extreme or dangerous about it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The odds of various forms of coercion are extremely high.

Let's try another situation: say that an adolescent male is having a problem with phimosis (look it up, I won't describe it here). THe family has gone to a doctor, who recommended circumcision, in this particular case, and they took the precaution of getting a second opinion, which agreed. Now, the health-care provider, the family and the adolescent have all agreed to a surgical procedure on the boy's genitals.

Do you agree that they have the right to proceed? Of do you think that the government should be involved, and make the final decision? Which be effectively saying, "the kid can just learn to live with it until he's old enough to decide on his own."

 

[fantome profane]

I don't know if "trans-moderate" is an accepted term or not?

But I'll take a whack at what it means to me.

A "trans-moderate":

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

- DOES NOT agree that therapists should "affirm" anything. That's not therapy
- DOES NOT agree that children and adolescents should be told how to identify
- DOES NOT agree that children and adolescents should be subjected to surgeries or homones
- DOES NOT agree that trans-women are women
- DOES NOT agree that sex is a social construct
- DOES NOT agree that differences in opinion on these matters is violence
- DOES NOT agree that arbitrarily declared pronouns are harmless

I don't accept you definitions of moderate and extreme.

But as far as I am concerned just acknowledge the right of trans people to exist and be visible in the world and we are good.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Are you of the opinion that the medical industry - rife with corruption as it is - is somehow not seeing trans as a money making opportunity? Like this is the one topic on which the medical profession is morally and ethically upstanding?

I think your question would seem to lead one to the conclusion that the medical industry shouldn't be allowed to do anything without the approval of the government. After all, heart, lung, vascular and virtually all other surgeries are "money-making opportunities," aren't they?

 

[Debater Slayer]

The definitions you included (thanks), seem to boil down to what I said: they feel they're in the wrong body.

Not all of them do, but we can focus on the ones who do for now, as I said.

Because feeling you're in the wrong body isn't life threatening.

It can be, and I have already posted a study concluding that suicide rates among trans people are higher when they're denied gender-affirming care.

Also, not all conditions for which minors sometimes get irreversible or complicated treatments or surgeries are life-threatening either. Those conditions could have extremely drastic effects on minors' health, however.

Again, I'm not opposed to counseling. I understand that many young people are depressed or even suicidal. I'm not saying "do nothing".

Now, one of your citations included the phrase: "sex to which they were assigned at birth." Are you of the opinion that a person's sex is malleable?

Surgery and hormones can change sex to a large extent, although they're definitely not a perfect match for being born a certain sex. Still, medical professionals recommend sex reassignment surgery to a lot of trans people (but rarely to minors, as the link I posted has clarified) as part of treating gender dysphoria.

So I'd like to hear YOUR definition.

There's no such thing as "my definition." This isn't some matter of opinion or personal preference, and I'm not a qualified medical expert either. Offering "my definition" here would be like a layperson's offering "their definition" of evolution or anxiety even though both have highly specific definitions offered by experts, based on decades of research.

I think it's compassionate to call it a disorder. I suspect it will ultimately be categorized as a mental disorder.

Calling it a disorder is more harmful than not nowadays because 1) this isn't how any medical organization classifies it, so it's simply incorrect given current evidence, and 2) classifying it as such is a common way of dismissing the necessity of gender-affirming care, instead proposing any of a multitude of unevidenced and ideologically slanted "treatments" in lieu of proper approaches.

I have seen a lot of trans people wish that there were a non-surgical treatment for their specific condition. If the treatment were as direct as getting therapy and calling it a day, many trans people's lives would be much easier, but that's not the case.

But what you DO think?

I think that as things stand, there's no justification to call it a "disorder," and even if we did call it that (despite the fact that no medical organization would agree), that wouldn't change the current medically approved treatments for gender dysphoria. Just because some people, including a lot of ideologues and politicians, want medical evidence to be different doesn't mean it can just change overnight.

If enough evidence accumulated and medical experts classified it as a disorder, while offering treatments in that light, then hopefully that would benefit trans people and make treatment more effective. That scenario hasn't happened so far, though.

Are you of the opinion that the medical industry - rife with corruption as it is - is somehow not seeing trans as a money making opportunity? Like this is the one topic on which the medical profession is morally and ethically upstanding?

Hold on: now we've moved on to conspiracy theories about the medical industry in an attempt to discredit their established positions? I think the similarity between the above and anti-vax arguments is conspicuous.

"The medical profession" is not some monolithic entity; there are major medical organizations across the globe and millions of medical professionals worldwide who run the gamut from morally and ethically upstanding to corrupt and unreliable. The idea that the vast collection of medical bodies and professionals would somehow agree to concoct a plan to milk money out of trans people is both unevidenced and well within the territory of unfounded conspiracy theories.

There are also numerous ways the medical industry could make money from trans people other than surgery and gender-affirming care if they were really aiming to maximize that without any regard for medical effectiveness. For example, if medical organizations came out tomorrow and announced that some ultra-expensive medication were now approved for "treatment of gender dysphoria," I think it would almost surely sell like hotcakes, especially because, as I said above, many trans people do wish they could avoid the hassle of surgery and the lack of access to gender-affirming care where they live (whether in some states of the US or in other countries altogether).

There's also the fact that any effective treatment is bound to generate a lot of money, so the same conspiracy theory could be circulated about aspirin, paracetamol, vaccines (and that has already happened, as I'm sure you know), and all other effective treatments that generate a lot of revenue. Just because a treatment makes money doesn't imply sinister motivations behind it or ineffectiveness thereof.

So again, I'd like to hear YOUR definition,

See above. I've already addressed this.

and not make arguments from (questionable) authority.

All authorities on the planet, being human and fallible, are questionable to varying extents. This is not a sufficient reason to dismiss what they have to say on a topic related to their expertise unless one has significant evidence and proper qualifications, and it doesn't automatically mean that all or even most of their positions are incorrect.

An appeal to authority is a fallacy when the authority is unjustified, not when the authority's position is both qualified and corroborated by other reputable and relevant expert organizations from around the world. Peer review is a core pillar of science, and it is why Stephen Jay Gould's peer-reviewed positions on evolution should be taken more seriously than those of Ken Ham or some random preacher.

Again, the similarity between the above line of reasoning and anti-vax arguments is glaring.