Transphobia

[JDMS]

The issue is, I've seen arguments from both sides and can find backings for both sides. Detransitioners are not a rare breed, and their stories are frightening and legitimate, they need to be taken into consideration. I also see that there is a need to deal with the suicides of young people with gender dysphoria. I don't believe allowing minors to transition is the correct answer, at least not until there are more security measures in place to prevent mistakes - there are a lot of people in the medical field who rush the process and honestly I don't trust that the medical field fully understands gender dysphoria enough to diagnose it so easily to make permanent solutions like this.

Statistically speaking, I see overwhelming evidence that indicates that allowing minors to transition is a medically sound decision. There's just way too few people who experience regret to warrant banning anyone under 18 from accessing gender affirming care. It's life saving.

A UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that only sixteen (0.47%) of the participants experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Mind you, this is a gender clinic, where detransitioners often frequent after making the decision to detransition to get access to resources, hormones, etc. if they already had certain surgeries or otherwise.

In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that only 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% percent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Feel free to read the entire 300-page report if you don't believe their methodologies.

And lastly for now, another study of transgender teens found that only 1.9% of young people on puberty blockers did not want to continue with the medical transition.

Actually... Another for good measure.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think we need to encourage these folks to talk to each other, and to share their experiences, information, strength, and hope with each other. And to do that we need to create safe environments for them to meet and talk freely WITHOUT OUR JUDGMENT (meaning the rest of society).

Seems everyone wants to weigh in and pass judgment and impose controls when they have no idea what they're talking about. As usual.

I suppose that's what the internet is for, forums and other social boards. There is no escaping judgement, however.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What's a detransitioner?

A detransitioner is someone who began the transitioning process but later wanted to return to their original gender.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The issue is, I've seen arguments from both sides and can find backings for both sides. Detransitioners are not a rare breed, and their stories are frightening and legitimate, they need to be taken into consideration. I also see that there is a need to deal with the suicides of young people with gender dysphoria. I don't believe allowing minors to transition is the correct answer, at least not until there are more security measures in place to prevent mistakes - there are a lot of people in the medical field who rush the process and honestly I don't trust that the medical field fully understands gender dysphoria enough to diagnose it so easily to make permanent solutions like this.

There are only few studies on detransitioners so far, and I agree that possibility should be taken into consideration. However, there are also many trans people whose mental health has been detrimentally affected by a lack of access to gender-affirming care, up to and including hormone therapy as well as surgery.

The fact that this is not a straightforward or settled issue is one of the main reasons I'm strongly against supporting a blanket ban on such procedures for minors. These questions are medical rather than political. We don't have bans on back surgery or similarly complicated medical procedures for minors either, because we know that their necessity or lack thereof can only be determined by qualified professionals after talking to the child and the child's legal guardians. Once politicians give themselves a carte blanche to decide what is or is not medically necessary and implement bans on that basis, we end up with deeply harmful laws like abortion bans and legalization of conversion therapy.

 

[exchemist]

A detransitioner is someone who began the transitioning process but later wanted to return to their original gender.

OK. Presume it's reversible until one has had the op. How frequent an occurrence is this? (I'm interested because the partner of a daughter of a friend of mine announced he was changing sex a year ago, having just fathered a child with her. I have to say I am a bit sceptical about deep-seated this really is. And it's a huge mess now, of course.)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Statistically speaking, I see overwhelming evidence that indicates that allowing minors to transition is a medically sound decision. There's just way too few people who experience regret to warrant banning anyone under 18 from accessing gender affirming care. It's life saving.

How long of a period of time were each of the studies?

 

[Debater Slayer]

OK. Presume it's reversible until one has had the op. How frequent an occurrence is this? (I'm interested because the partner of a daughter of a friend of mine announced he was changing sex a year ago, having just fathered a child with her. I have to say I am a bit sceptical about deep-seated this really is. And it's a huge mess now, of course.)

There have only been relatively few studies on this so far, which I suspect is mainly because tracking any changes in trans people's views about it over years or decades requires follow-up over the very long term. However, some studies also state that regret and detransitioning are not common occurrences.

The answer is uncertain at best for the time being. As I said, it's a nascent area of research that has only recently gained a lot of public attention.

 

[PureX]

I suppose that's what the internet is for, forums and other social boards. There is no escaping judgement, however.

The internet is too public, I think. The judgers are ever-present. Instead of passing laws to make any and every gender fluid human run and hide alone in a closet, we ought to be setting up safe places for them to meet and share their experiences and wisdom with each other, to each other's benefit. This is not a new issue, but it is new in the sense of it being a newly acknowledged issue on a large scale. So there is bound to be a big learning curve involved with it, initially. So, as a society, let's encourage that learning and shut our mouths in the mean time if we are not part of the group in question. I would like to see anyone with any gender questions, issues, confusion, or unease of whatever sort be able to meet with others of a similar predicament and talk with them freely. I believe that would help them far more than ANYTHING society or government would or has come up with. And given a little time I think a lot of the confusion and bad decisions that may currently be happening regarding gender and identity will be resolved before they become a problem.

 

[exchemist]

There have only been relatively few studies on this so far, which I suspect is mainly because tracking any changes in trans people's views about it over years or decades requires follow-up over the very long term. However, some studies also state that regret and detransitioning are not common occurrences.

The answer is uncertain at best for the time being. As I said, it's a nascent area of research that has only recently gained a lot of public attention.

Yes, not surprising since the whole phenomenon is so new, at least on the scale at which it is now occurring. Another thing I'd be curious to know is what the proportions are of men changing to women and women changing to men. My guess would be 80% are the former, but it's just a guess.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, not surprising since the whole phenomenon is so new, at least on the scale at which it is now occurring. Another thing I'd be curious to know is what the proportions are of men changing to women and women changing to men. My guess would be 80% are the former, but it's just a guess.

I just wish more people acknowledged the complexity of the subject and became more open to new evidence in their approach to it instead of proposing blanket bans or unrestricted access to major medical procedures. Currently, I see the former position as having a bigger presence and impact globally—an impact that I would say is a net negative.

 

[JDMS]

Yes, not surprising since the whole phenomenon is so new, at least on the scale at which it is now occurring. Another thing I'd be curious to know is what the proportions are of men changing to women and women changing to men. My guess would be 80% are the former, but it's just a guess.

It's not that big of a gap, actually. Most communities I see are split about 50/50 or so. For example, these are the reddit communities for both, and there's not that significant of a difference. Definitely not 80%.

But you're correct that there were not enough people medically transitioning 20+ years ago to have solid research now. I know a women who transitioned in 1977 though. She's got some crazy stories, lol.

 

[Kfox]

This is such a bizarre, nonsensical take on language. I have never heard anyone say anything even remotely as weird as "a word is objective, but adding other words to that word makes it subjective". That's plain absurd.

Consider the word “claustrophobia” the fear of confined spaces. If somebody accused me of being claustrophobic and I denied it, I can prove objectively that I am not, or you can objectively prove that I am by going to a confined space and allowing me to enter it.

Now consider the word Xenophobia. If you accused me of xenophobia, I can deny it and you have no objective proof that I am because xenophobia is subjective according to your opinion, claustrophobia is objective based on actual fears.

Except that's how they are defined. The terms literally mean bigotry.

As I said before, what constitutes bigotry is subjective making any term based on bigotry subjective

 

[Kfox]

Sure, but as I said in my initial post here (#20), that is just how language and common usage of it naturally changes and evolves

So you agree with what I said concerning Christian phobia, atheist phobia, Republican phobia, democratic phobia?

. Nobody can or does control which words or phrases become commonly used and which never catch on or fade out of use. None of it is that specific to this topic.

Actually people do; through books, popular songs, movies etc. I believe the term Homophobia was initially coined when someone wrote a book about homosexuality back in the 1960's, Institutional racism was coined by a man who wrote a book on racism back in ther 1960's; some do it with songs, movies; all it takes is for someone to introduce a term out of thin air and if enough people listen to the song, book, movie, etc the word will eventually become mainstream.

 

[Augustus]

What did you mean by that? It seems to me you may have have jumped to a wrong conclusion about what I was saying.

You mean someone didn’t read a post both carefully and with good faith and instead jumped to some preordained conclusion that any opinion different to theirs must be based on bigotry and prejudice? In one of these threads?

I, for one, simply can’t believe that that would ever happen

 

[exchemist]

It's not that big of a gap, actually. Most communities I see are split about 50/50 or so. For example, these are the reddit communities for both, and there's not that significant of a difference. Definitely not 80%.

But you're correct that there were not enough people medically transitioning 20+ years ago to have solid research now. I know a women who transitioned in 1977 though. She's got some crazy stories, lol.

That's very interesting, as it may assuage one of my worries about this, which is that it might have to do with our exposure to endocrine disruptors (oestrogen mimics etc) in the environment. This is a well-known issue and has been associated with declining sperm counts among other things. There is also the biological issue that men are a sort of "special case" of women, by virtue of having this funny Y chromosome, so one might expect that reversion to the female "base case" could be more likely than the opposite. But if the ratios are close to 50:50 it seems unlikely to be that.

 

[HonestJoe]

So you agree with what I said concerning Christian phobia, atheist phobia, Republican phobia, democratic phobia?

Which part exactly? I specifically disagreed with your statement that those terms must be used. They could be used, and quite possibly are sometimes, but there is no requirement that people use every word that could possibly be constructed around a particular prefix or postfix.

Actually people do; through books, popular songs, movies etc.

People can coin new words or new meanings for existing words but they can't control whether they catch on across wider society. There will be plenty of examples that didn't catch on (though we obviously don't know what they are by definition).

You're free to use words like Christophobia or Republicophobia if you want, and people would probably understand what you mean but nobody else is required to use them and they may or may not catch-on in general usage (even if you were able to get them in to any mainstream media).

 

[Kfox]

Which part exactly? I specifically disagreed with your statement that those terms must be used. They could be used, and quite possibly are sometimes, but there is no requirement that people use every word that could possibly be constructed around a particular prefix or postfix.

I was not suggesting they must be used, I was suggesting Xenophobia or trans phobia makes about as much sense as using Christian Phobia or Atheist phobia

 

[HonestJoe]

I was not suggesting they must be used, I was suggesting Xenophobia or trans phobia makes about as much sense as using Christian Phobia or Atheist phobia

If Phobia is a word to denote bigotry, then it has is to be used against all bigotry;

(my emphasis)

That might not have been your intention but they are the words you used. Which is, interestingly, the wider point here. Whether words "make sense" isn't simply a matter of literal etymology, it's about intent of the speakers/writers and interpretation of the listeners/readers. Again, there are loads of words and phrases that are used inconsistently on the basis of etymology, original meaning or previous usage. But, like, whatever, that's just cool man, you get me?

It is obvious that the reason this is highlighted in the specific case of "transphobia" and "homophobia" has nothing to do with concern for the integrity of the English language and everything to do with people not wanting there to be simply terms to label certain forms of bigotry. There are certainly valid arguments against how casually and widely such terms are thrown around, and that actual debate is long overdue better clarity and understanding, but the specific argument over the "phobia" postfix is entirely the wrong way to address that.

 

[Augustus]

It is obvious that the reason this is highlighted in the specific case of "transphobia" and "homophobia" has nothing to do with concern for the integrity of the English language and everything to do with people not wanting there to be simply terms to label certain forms of bigotry. There are certainly valid arguments against how casually and widely such terms are thrown around, and that actual debate is long overdue better clarity and understanding, but the specific argument over the "phobia" postfix is entirely the wrong way to address that.

What you say is partially true, but a bit of an overstatement too imo.

Using another example, many people here have complained about the term New Atheism, because evangelical anti-theism wasn’t new. Some went as far as pretending the term was incomprehensible and nonsensical, when it is quite obvious they understood the term’s referent.

As the term is a proper noun (phrase) and not separate adjective + noun it doesn’t matter whether it is literally a new form of atheism, just that it has an identifiable referent.

Claiming the term doesn’t make sense because you refuse to treat it as a proper noun and insist it must be treated as 2 separate words is obtuse and silly.

Saying “I understand what it means but find the term misleading so I don’t like using it” is fair enough.

Many people don’t like -phobia suffixes as they find them misleading and prejudicial and thus dislike using them.

It’s silly to pretend it is difficult to understand that the meaning of phobia has expanded to cover prejudice, but it is reasonable to dislike this expansion and feel the connotations of the suffix are an impediment to good faith discussion.

While some people may not want there to be a label, most people would be fine with alternative labels like anti-trans bigotry.

I’d say that is a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Consider the word “claustrophobia” the fear of confined spaces. If somebody accused me of being claustrophobic and I denied it, I can prove objectively that I am not, or you can objectively prove that I am by going to a confined space and allowing me to enter it.

Now consider the word Xenophobia. If you accused me of xenophobia, I can deny it and you have no objective proof that I am because xenophobia is subjective according to your opinion, claustrophobia is objective based on actual fears.

Because there's nothing at all subjective about claustrophobia?

Yes, these words refer to different things. Your point?

As I said before, what constitutes bigotry is subjective making any term based on bigotry subjective

Whereas using a word to denote a strong fear of something is... objective?

Words and their usage and what they apply to is always subjective. Are you under the misunderstanding that because there is a psychological phenomenon that we also use the word "phobia" for, that this usage is somehow more "objective" than the use of the term in broader contexts?

You seem very confused. It feels like you're just grasping at straws here to try and make a very weak argument.