"Her penis" - not at all Orwellian - argh

[Yerda]

Yes, and sex and biology matter!

Agreed.

It makes sense but it's a misogynistic and homophobic approach

I'm confident that it is neither misogynistic or homophobic to conceptualise "woman" as containing trans women but we can agree to disagree here if it saves argument.

That's why I answered to pronouns question the way I did. By giving three examples of when using pronouns that do not match sex are a problem.

This is why I said it seemed semantic in part. You're matching the pronoun to the sex. Most everyone else is matching the pronoun to the gender.

I was asked to explain examples of when using the wrong pronoun might matter.

I hope this also answers your last two questions? This conversation - in the moment - is about pronouns.

Ok, fair enough. I'm jumping in after a gazillion posts and I'm not up to speed.

Let me try to catch up. If pronouns are specific to the biological sex of the person is it ever acceptable to use "he" to refer to a trans man?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Tying to make it personal does NOT strengthen your argument

The argument is your fallacious emphasis amd demand for a control group. That isn't how science works, and indeed lots of times there can be no control groups. So there are other methods. And if this was something you've actually studied you'd know double blinds are more highly valued than a control group because it's beem shown time and time again a control group alone can introduce bias. Double blinds help reduce this.

 

[icehorse]

The argument is your fallacious emphasis amd demand for a control group. That isn't how science works, and indeed lots of times there can be no control groups. So there are other methods. And if this was something you've actually studied you'd know double blinds are more highly valued than a control group because it's beem shown time and time again a control group alone can introduce bias. Double blinds help reduce this.

But in THIS case it would be quite easy to compare GAC drugs to talk therapy only.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now tell me how comparing the outcomes of using GAC drugs to the outcomes of using talk therapy only, is not basic research methodology?

For one it's your use of "GAC drugs." This betrays both ignorance of the subject (as these drugs are used for various conditions not even related to transgender treatmemt) and a deep partisanship behind the subject.
For two, and also going back to the first point in one, that isn't how it works. There is no "either or approach." Treatments, bith physical and mental, often times must be made more custom for an individual (allergic reactions to common meds is probably the most common example when a prescriber would try something not as commonly used).
This means we don't say as a whole does this group do better with this or that. There are some trans people who are ok with just talk therapy. Some just dress at home. If that's what they need to reduce feelings of dysphoria (and thus reducing the presenting symptoms of illness) and nothing more then there won't be a need or reason to go further with treatment. And for those talk therapy alone isn't enough that's when the option of medication is discussed. It's no different than it is when it comes to proscribing Xanax or Effexor.
Despite what you may believe the goal in medicine is for people to need less medicine, fewer treatments, fewer appointments and if possible work towards none at all. And there's a lot of trans people who basically just do the medical thing long enough to get what they need, such as a FtM having his breasts removed. After that they may or may not continue hormones/testosterone.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But in THIS case it would be quite easy to compare GAC drugs to talk therapy only.

It's been done amd the sources posted. You waved it away saying "activists."

 

[icehorse]

I'm confident that it is neither misogynistic or homophobic to conceptualise "woman" as containing trans women but we can agree to disagree here if it saves argument.

I don't think my RF opponents on this topic are misogynistic or homophobic.

But I do think that the demands of trans activists have unintended consequences that most people have not thought through. And the most common of these is that seemingly "good" solutions for trans people end up being zero-sum, and hurting women and gays.

I think that conceptualizing trans women as women is one of those ideas with unintended, bad consequences.

This is why I said it seemed semantic in part. You're matching the pronoun to the sex. Most everyone else is matching the pronoun to the gender.

Let me try to catch up. If pronouns are specific to the biological sex of the person is it ever acceptable to use "he" to refer to a trans man?

One of the problems is that sometimes sex REALLY matters, and it's not always easy to see when that's the case. So the risk is that you use a "gender" pronoun when sex matters. And that's a significant risk.

 

[icehorse]

It's been done amd the sources posted. You waved it away saying "activists."

You have plenty of energy to post, why not offer up a link to such a study if you have one? I have looked at the studies that you and your cohorts have posted. (I suspect that you have not given me the same courtesy )

All of the studies your cohort have posted look at other questions. Related questions to be sure, but not the specific question I'm asking.

For one it's your use of "GAC drugs." This betrays both ignorance of the subject (as these drugs are used for various conditions not even related to transgender treatmemt) and a deep partisanship behind the subject.

Hahaha. In the past I've posted that some GAC drugs are the same ones used to treat prostate cancer and to inflict chemical castration on sex offenders. Are those the sorts of other conditions you're talking about?

For two, and also going back to the first point in one, that isn't how it works. There is no "either or approach." Treatments, bith physical and mental, often times must be made more custom for an individual (allergic reactions to common meds is probably the most common example when a prescriber would try something not as commonly used).
This means we don't say as a whole does this group do better with this or that. There are some trans people who are ok with just talk therapy. Some just dress at home. If that's what they need to reduce feelings of dysphoria (and thus reducing the presenting symptoms of illness) and nothing more then there won't be a need or reason to go further with treatment. And for those talk therapy alone isn't enough that's when the option of medication is discussed. It's no different than it is when it comes to proscribing Xanax or Effexor.
Despite what you may believe the goal in medicine is for people to need less medicine, fewer treatments, fewer appointments and if possible work towards none at all. And there's a lot of trans people who basically just do the medical thing long enough to get what they need, such as a FtM having his breasts removed. After that they may or may not continue hormones/testosterone.

And going back to one of my earlier points, what's the purpose of healthcare for kids with GD? Your posts seem to imply that the purpose is to make transitioning as successful as possible. Is that a fair summary?

The problem with that is that the goal OUGHT TO BE, to improve mental health outcomes. Occasionally that might mean using drugs and / or surgeries, but OFTEN it means providing talk therapy support so that the GD kid goes through puberty NATURALLY, and the GD resolves on its own with no drugs required.

Because this outcome is common it is a SCANDAL that we have not compared the use of GAC drugs to talk therapy only. Because on a case by case basis, no one knows whether a GD kid will have their GD resolve naturally.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your posts seem to imply that the purpose is to make transitioning as successful as possible. Is that a fair summary?

Yes, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Treatments, bith physical and mental, often times must be made more custom for an individual

There are some trans people who are ok with just talk therapy.

Some just dress at home.

If that's what they need to reduce feelings of dysphoria (and thus reducing the presenting symptoms of illness) and nothing more then there won't be a need or reason to go further with treatment.

My goal, since you need help, is that treatment should fit the needs of the individual. Amd this is something that is not for you or me to work out (and I'm the one who's been a licensed professional in mental health). Yes, transitions should ideally be as successful as possible. But the medical side can only do so much, amd it isn't actually that much. A successful transition is really more of a social thing. Granted it helps to start earlier so the individual has a body more like those of their identitified gender, but even someone who flawlessly passes can have a failed transistion due to things like bullying and discrimination. And not having social support is a top predictor of a failed transition.

You have plenty of energy to post, why not offer up a link to such a study if you have one? I have looked at the studies that you and your cohorts have posted. (I suspect that you have not given me the same courtesy )

All of the studies your cohort have posted look at other questions. Related questions to be sure, but not the specific question I'm asking.

Yeah, you done had your chance and blew it.

 

[icehorse]

My goal, since you need help, is that treatment should fit the needs of the individual. Amd this is something that is not for you or me to work out (and I'm the one who's been a licensed professional in mental health). Yes, transitions should ideally be as successful as possible. But the medical side can only do so much, amd it isn't actually that much. A successful transition is really more of a social thing. Granted it helps to start earlier so the individual has a body more like those of their identitified gender, but even someone who flawlessly passes can have a failed transistion due to things like bullying and discrimination. And not having social support is a top predictor of a failed transition.

Transitioning SHOULD NOT be the goal of helping kids with GD.

IMPROVED MENTAL HEALTH should be the goal of helping kids with GD. And dangerous, irreversible interventions should only be pursued if:

1 - their efficacy is well established - which in the case of GAC is not yet known.
2 - their efficacy is significantly better than less dangerous interventions.

Transitioning is a radical solution. It might occasionally be appropriate, but we should not inflict transitioning on kids that might not need it.

Yeah, you done had your chance and blew it.

So we're talking about confused kids experiencing GD. Many of these kids end up being happily gay. Many of these kids are on the spectrum. Many of these kids have other mental health issues.

So your answer is to pout and stamp your feet and not provide everyone who is reading this thread a link to studies that show that dangerous GAC is more effective than talk therapy only?

Seems selfish on your part, no?

 

[Yerda]

I don't think my RF opponents on this topic are misogynistic or homophobic.

Good to hear.

But I do think that the demands of trans activists have unintended consequences that most people have not thought through. And the most common of these is that seemingly "good" solutions for trans people end up being zero-sum, and hurting women and gays.

I think that conceptualizing trans women as women is one of those ideas with unintended, bad consequences.

Ok. The way I see it is that no solution is perfect, and the solutions that I've heard from most trans activists (by which I mean trans people with a platform discussing trans issues) regarding things like pronouns, gendered spaces, therapy and surgery etc, didn't seem poorly thought out. Or inconsiderate of women or gay people. I think it just that this is all so new to most people; we haven't had the time to tell us whether the costs and benefits are the ones we want.

I also don't believe women and gay people are being significantly impacted by the demands of trans activists.

Not saying you're wrong and I'm right here. Just my view.

One of the problems is that sometimes sex REALLY matters, and it's not always easy to see when that's the case. So the risk is that you use a "gender" pronoun when sex matters. And that's a significant risk.

Is it a significant risk?

Wouldn't we be able to deduce biological sex from "trans" or "cis" in any event that it mattered? I'm genuinely struggling to think of an example.

 

[icehorse]

Is it a significant risk?

Wouldn't we be able to deduce biological sex from "trans" or "cis" in any event that it mattered? I'm genuinely struggling to think of an example.

- Male convicts are claiming to be trans, being put in women's prisons, and then assaulting female prisoners.
- Biological males are demanding that they be allowed to attend lesbian only events, shutting these events down when they don't get their way, and attempting to "cancel" women who disagree with their demands.
- Women who want same-sex health care are having biological males - most of whom are intact - foist upon them, and being criticized if they refuse to receive healthcare from these men.
- In courtrooms, victims of rape are made to say idiotic phrases like "she raped me with her penis". Apparently not hurting the feelings of the rapist has become more important than the dignity of the victim?

All of these situations are muddied, confused, and/or exacerbated by demanding that reality-bending pronouns be used.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Transitioning SHOULD NOT be the goal of helping kids with GD.

Amd so clearly you should not be the one to decide that with your abysmal lack of knowledge, education and experience.
And you clearly ignored where I said transition is mostly a social thing. That part isn't medical.
When you say "transitioning should ot be the goal" you making clear you ignore everything that has been said in effort to educate you and correct you ignorance and fallacies.
For a little kid to be called a different name and act and behave like the opposite sex, it's an entirely reversible thing if the child decides that's not to continue. But you are so prejudiced agaisnt trans people you refuse to see and acknowledge all of that just so you can hyper focus on meds.
It shows your ignorance and hatred just as much as it does when you weaponize women, gays, and now autistics.

 

[icehorse]

Amd so clearly you should not be the one to decide that with your abysmal lack of knowledge, education and experience.
And you clearly ignored where I said transition is mostly a social thing. That part isn't medical.
When you say "transitioning should ot be the goal" you making clear you ignore everything that has been said in effort to educate you and correct you ignorance and fallacies.
For a little kid to be called a different name and act and behave like the opposite sex, it's an entirely reversible thing if the child decides that's not to continue. But you are so prejudiced agaisnt trans people you refuse to see and acknowledge all of that just so you can hyper focus on meds.
It shows your ignorance and hatred just as much as it does when you weaponize women, gays, and now autistics.

I'm sharing what I'm learning from Europe's top experts. I think their knowledge, education, and experience is far, far, far superior to yours.

As for it being a "social thing", what are the emotional downsides to having a gay kid "try out" being trans? They are substantial, and to some degree a "one way street".

Again, the approach your advocating puts the cart before the horse. The diagnosis of "trans" should be extremely rare, only after less severe diagnosis have all been exhausted.

As for weaponizing, wow! It seems to me that YOU'RE the one weaponizing confused GD kids, pushing them down a radical path way, way, way before it's called for.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As for it being a "social thing", what are the emotional downsides to having a gay kid "try out" being trans? They are substantial, and to some degree a "one way street".

It's only one way to you because you want to see it that way amd refuse to listen amd learn.

Again, the approach your advocating puts the cart before the horse. The diagnosis of "trans" should be extremely rare, only after less severe diagnosis have all been exhausted.

No, you just want to ignore what I saw to misrepresent it (again).
Because you either can't tell or just outright refuse to see, what I'm advocating is for people to get the treatment they need from qualified healthcare providers. You refuse to acknowledge that I have made clear that does not necessarily mean a full medical transition or any transition at all.

I'm sharing what I'm learning from Europe's top experts.

You obviously aren't because I have easily disproven many of your claims, with sources from spending less than a minute on Google, on multiple occasions.
But like always you spin and ignore.

 

[icehorse]

But like always you spin and ignore.

Pot, meet kettle.

Here, as an act of good faith I will provide links, again, having done so many times. Where are yours?

(This is a link to many links for those of you watching):

The evidence supporting "gender affirming care" is of very low reliability

 

[SkepticThinker]

- Male convicts are claiming to be trans, being put in women's prisons, and then assaulting female prisoners.
- Biological males are demanding that they be allowed to attend lesbian only events, shutting these events down when they don't get their way, and attempting to "cancel" women who disagree with their demands.
- Women who want same-sex health care are having biological males - most of whom are intact - foist upon them, and being criticized if they refuse to receive healthcare from these men.
- In courtrooms, victims of rape are made to say idiotic phrases like "she raped me with her penis". Apparently not hurting the feelings of the rapist has become more important than the dignity of the victim?

All of these situations are muddied, confused, and/or exacerbated by demanding that reality-bending pronouns be used.

Sorry but this sounds to me like you've gone down one of those weird YouTube rabbit holes of fear mongering nonsense.


Kinda like the guy who told me that kids in the next school board over from ours are pooping in kitty litter boxes. Nonsense.

 

[icehorse]

Sorry but this sounds to me like you've gone down one of those weird YouTube rabbit holes of fear mongering nonsense.

Kinda like the guy who told me that kids in the next school board over from ours are pooping in kitty litter boxes. Nonsense.

Every example I listed is happening in real life.

So how many such instances do you think women should tolerate in support of the dubious idea that trans people are better off if we all pretend and warp our language? How many rape victims should be further traumatized? How many elderly women should be forced to have intact males perform their medical exams?

And do you really think that shaming society into using fake pronouns is going to end up improving the lives of trans people?

We see that in Republican states anti-GAC bills are being passed, correct? This is easier for Republicans to accomplish when trans activists make such radical demands on society.

 

[Soandso]

And do you really think that shaming society into using fake pronouns is going to end up improving the lives of trans people?

Ah! You finally answered my question. Took quite a few posts, but hey, you did it finally

 

[icehorse]

Ah! You finally answered my question. Took quite a few posts, but hey, you did it finally

Dude, respectful conversation goes both ways. Have you answered all of my questions?

 

[Soandso]

Dude, respectful conversation goes both ways. Have you answered all of my questions?

Your questions were irrelevant to the one I asked and you asked them to deflect and distract from my main question. That said, I did address your questions in posts #919 and #915

Ultimately you've tipped your hand and expressed what you really think, finally. "Fake pronouns." You think it's bad to refer to trans people as the pronouns they identify with. That wasn't so hard, was it?