I'm not sure that causes matter. I remember when there was an obsession with causes for being gay, and in a way it was abusive and pathologizing. A lot of conversion therapists would get into causes for being gay, you were abused as a child, you had a distant father, blah, blah. It began to disappear when gays and lesbians began to speak for themselves, and said, we're here, listen.
Freud used to say, 'so what causes heterosexuality?', which was quite amusing.
This is why I don't think we can discuss same sex and trangender as comparative. There's data for the one which helpfully also comes from ethology (other species observations, particularly primates).
Re Freud, the concepts of homo and hetero sexuality were invented by Havelock Ellis in the last 2 decades of the 19th century. Before then the concepts didn't exist the same way, rather specific acts such as "sodomy" were defined, with no presumption that engaging in any particular sexual act had something to do with an orientation. To use your recent expression, the confines of available discourse did not allow the discussion until then.
No. This is biological and evolutionary. Don't put your thoughts into my words please. Nothing to do with any religion if that's your thought. The term errors in this context describes variation from the two biological sexes. Sexual dimorphism evolved for reproduction. Certainly humans and other animals use it for other purposes. But it doesn't escape the biology. There is no reproduction without as humans have no way of reproducing without the two sexes. Biologists speak of body plans as part of how they discuss anatomy.
However mutations through variations in meiosis and mitosis and other mechanisms are a feature, not a bug. We would not evolve without this.
Almost all mutations are lethal. They are mostly bugs. And we have adapted to some detrimental ones, for example humans don't manufacture our our vitamin C and must eat it. We have the metabolic pathway until a near ending step and then we destroy the precursor. Unlike my dog and my cat.
There's a lot of misunderstandings about evolution and human evolution in particular. Mostly species don't change very much, and are static for long periods of time. If changed environmental conditions occur, some unforeseen genetic variation may allow certain individuals to survive the change and reproduce. Some additional characteristics may accompany the selected for characteristics, but are not in themselves adaptive. Often species go extinct when environmental conditions change.
Human evolution isn't occurring presently. We are not changing, we are mixing the genetics of humanity as widely as possible. And there's no selection pressure.
But what is the detriment you fear will happen if ‘vulnerable children’ change gender ? Basically, why does it matter, beyond their own ease of mind, what gender someone is ?
It matters if an unformed child who has not gone through psychological developmental has something confirmed that they have not explored yet. To use the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson's term "foreclosed" on an early choice before adequate exploration. I think it is fundamentally disrespectful to children's developmental autonomy and potential. It's currently rush to confirmation.
I think, quetzalcoatl, the rest of your post provides the answer: if being gay is seen as a pathological condition then aversion therapies can be seen as necessary and justified, and the condition even regarded as a moral perversion.
Apart from that, the desire to know the causes of things is a human trait. I'm tempted to see the pursuit of knowledge as beneficial to the human condition, though that cannot be a scientific judgement and not one that is incontestable.
But what is the detriment you fear will happen if ‘vulnerable children’ change gender ? Basically, why does it matter, beyond their own ease of mind, what gender someone is ?
It matters if an unformed child who has not gone through psychological developmental has something confirmed that they have not explored yet. To use the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson's term "foreclosed" on an early choice before adequate exploration. I think it is fundamentally disrespectful to children's developmental autonomy and potential. It's currently rush to confirmation.
How is assigning their gender at birth, not foreclosing ? It as if you are assuming assigned birth gender is somehow a natural phenomenon rather than a cultural artifact.
What would the mechanism be for that? Since just about every sort of person seems be reproducing for just about every sort of reason, natural selection is certainly out of the picture.
But what is the detriment you fear will happen if ‘vulnerable children’ change gender ? Basically, why does it matter, beyond their own ease of mind, what gender someone is ?
It matters if an unformed child who has not gone through psychological developmental has something confirmed that they have not explored yet. To use the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson's term "foreclosed" on an early choice before adequate exploration. I think it is fundamentally disrespectful to children's developmental autonomy and potential. It's currently rush to confirmation.
How is assigning their gender at birth, not foreclosing ? It as if you are assuming assigned birth gender is somehow a natural phenomenon rather than a cultural artifact.
Yes, it's amazing how cis gender is seen as "natural", and not requiring explanation.
There are things that are changing in humans - see Wikipedia on recent human evolution, the one that immediately came to mind was that we are gradually losing our wisdom teeth. I don't have time for more now as I'm due out.
Yes, it's amazing how cis gender is seen as "natural", and not requiring explanation.
I don't think this is amazing at all. Though I'd use different terminology. It is normative: most frequently occurring. Exceptions to this are a small proportion of humanity. Thus non-normative. Statistical occurrence. There is a lot or variation within humanity, and there is most frequently occurring.
What's the selection pressure right now? What are the selected against human traits? I'm not apprised of any that hold much water. What humanity is doing today is keeping people alive to reproduce who'd have died and not left offspring in the past.
@Curiosity killed The wisdom teeth thing, light coloured skin and a few others listed in Wikipedia are at best conjectures, e.g., ight coloured skin may be sexual selection as may darker in other populations, and nothing to do with adaptation to climate. The Wiki article also doesn't attend to things like later menopause being affected by general improvement in diet and health, i.e. not genetic but environmental.
But what is the detriment you fear will happen if ‘vulnerable children’ change gender ? Basically, why does it matter, beyond their own ease of mind, what gender someone is ?
It matters if an unformed child who has not gone through psychological developmental has something confirmed that they have not explored yet. To use the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson's term "foreclosed" on an early choice before adequate exploration. I think it is fundamentally disrespectful to children's developmental autonomy and potential. It's currently rush to confirmation.
How is assigning their gender at birth, not foreclosing ? It as if you are assuming assigned birth gender is somehow a natural phenomenon rather than a cultural artifact.
The thing assigned at birth is biological sex via inspection of the body of the newborn. Though to be accurate, parents more often than not know the sex of the baby prior to birth in the present day. Gender isn't a consideration at that point. Gender is socialized by the parents to conform with biological sex and we all historically make the assumption that these two things - sex and gender - are the same thing. When it is proposed that they don't align, we need to know why the norm is not true for this individual if the individual is a child. Is this something the child is exploring or is it something firm within, and is this maintained over time. I suspect for some it is maintained. I suspect for others it is not, and we mustn't lead on this. We should start from the assumption, for the best interests of the child, that gender and sex align. This is the norm, which means most frequently encountered.
Stating that families of gender non conforming kids that listen to what their kids are saying and support them. Are somehow "foreclosing" on a "hasty choice". Is at the very least, unfair to the families who have gender non conforming kids. The families I personally know take very seriously their role as parents. One of the guiding ideas we go by is tht we are not in the "lead" on this. We don't push them to transition they push for it themselves and the parents are usually the ones slowing things down and supporting exploration and making very sure the kids are expressing their true selves. Not a fad or peer pressure. And we are totally on board if they change their mind. Before taking irreversible steps they go to counseling and have to demonstrate a stable and clear frame of mind and informed consent.
Stating that families of gender non conforming kids that listen to what their kids are saying and support them. Are somehow "foreclosing" on a "hasty choice". Is at the very least, unfair to the families who have gender non conforming kids. The families I personally know take very seriously their role as parents. One of the guiding ideas we go by is tht we are not in the "lead" on this. We don't push them to transition they push for it themselves and the parents are usually the ones slowing things down and supporting exploration and making very sure the kids are expressing their true selves. Not a fad or peer pressure. And we are totally on board if they change their mind. Before taking irreversible steps they go to counseling and have to demonstrate a stable and clear frame of mind and informed consent.
Don't know where you're from, but here, the counselling is only if you pay for it, roughly $200/hour. The process seems to be you go to a physician, who refers to the clinic who has a social worker tell you the medical options and asks if you want to see the clinic's doctor. It's a bit like consulting an orthopedic surgeon: why are you here if you don't want surgery? in this case hormones. Medicare provides free access to medical care but not the psychosocial. I have this now from 2 western provinces in Canada.
You posted this >>One of the guiding ideas we go by is tht we are not in the "lead" on this. We don't push them to transition they push for it themselves and the parents are usually the ones slowing things down and supporting exploration and making very sure the kids are expressing their true selves.
Agree totally. But there's no resources for parents and families except advocacy here: we feel the leadership is others and all leading the young people in a particular direction. I wish...
We are in Arizona. After my son went to the hospital for suicidal ideation he came out as transgender to the doctors there. And then to us. We were given the information of a parent lead support group. Mental health resources are inadequate here as well, but using private insurance and with referrals from the group and some trial and error we found some good providers. The biggest help was the parent group. About tree years on my son is doing much better and has socially transitioned in school.
Depending on the results of this assessment, the options for children and young people with suspected gender dysphoria can include:
family therapy
individual child psychotherapy
parental support or counselling
group work for young people and their parents
regular reviews to monitor gender identity development
hormone therapy (see below)
Your child’s treatment should be arranged with a multi-disciplinary team (MDT). This is a group of different healthcare professionals working together, which may include specialists such as mental health professionals and paediatric endocrinologists (specialists in hormone conditions in children).
Most treatments offered at this stage are psychological, rather than medical or surgical. This is because the majority of children with suspected gender dysphoria don't have the condition once they reach puberty. Psychological support offers young people and their families a chance to discuss their thoughts and receive support to help them cope with the emotional distress of the condition, without rushing into more drastic treatments.
We are in Arizona. After my son went to the hospital for suicidal ideation he came out as transgender to the doctors there. And then to us. We were given the information of a parent lead support group. Mental health resources are inadequate here as well, but using private insurance and with referrals from the group and some trial and error we found some good providers. The biggest help was the parent group. About tree years on my son is doing much better and has socially transitioned in school.
Curiosity, there are arguments that the NHS approach is transphobic and takes too long, and that the only approach should be affirmation. (e.g. suggesting going to counselling is transphobic in itself, as it is doubting the sincerity of the person). Mermaids advice now seems to be completely affirmative and not questioning. I am of no doubt that transitioning is right for some people, but I also think it should be done with great consideration and care (as Ikkyu has shown with the approach with their son), and it is not wrong to try and get to the bottom of why young people in particular feel the way they do.
At the same time, there was a significant change in how I felt about my gender. Reflecting on the difference in how I was treated when people saw me as a man, I realised other women were also held back by this. I had assumed the problem was in my body. Now I saw that it wasn’t being female that was stopping me from being myself; it was society’s perpetual oppression of women. Once I realised this, I gradually came to the conclusion that I had to detransition.
Excuse me, can you show me where I have advocated for Mermaids on this thread?
About three posts above this I have linked to the NHS guidelines above, again, for the umpteenth time.
If you had read the earlier pages, you'd know I have challenged reported advice from Mermaids for schools as being in contravention of a number of other school requirements and not necessarily implementable as school policy. (I used to be a school governor, have worked in independent special school senior management.)
Well, Mermaids is a support group, and is not involved in clinical treatment. There are all kinds of stories flying around that they hustle medical staff and counsellors, or that they ignore non-trans kids and non-binary kids. A lot of these stories come from transphobic sources, in fact, the same names come up again and again, (check out Mumsnet).
As far as I can see, the Tavistock does not encorage people to transition, and does not accelerate kids towards hormone blockers. My memory is that over half the kids visiting the Tavi do not transition and do not move on to blockers. Many kids who are gender non-conforming are not trans and Tavistock consultants are well aware of this.
I didn't say you had advocated for Mermaids. And I think we are talking cross purposes. I was highlighting that the NHS advice is being quite strongly challenged.
And sorry, but I'm not going to go back a year and read a thousand messages before feeling like I can contribute to this thread.
We did discuss the challenges to NHS guidelines and GIRES on this thread, so if you want us to discuss this again, you're asking us to rehash discussions we had a year ago.
I was responding to your claim to No Prophet that their experience is not the same everywhere, and you referenced the NHS guidelines. But in the UK there does appear to be quite a push towards affirmative only approaches. If you don't want to discuss these things as they've been done before, maybe you shouldn't kick the discussion off in the first place.
Well, Mermaids is a support group, and is not involved in clinical treatment. There are all kinds of stories flying around that they hustle medical staff and counsellors, or that they ignore non-trans kids and non-binary kids. A lot of these stories come from transphobic sources, in fact, the same names come up again and again, (check out Mumsnet).
They seem to have a very prominent voice on the media, are very involved in advising schools and other institutions on trans issues. They are much more than a support group, and appear to be quite influential.
I have stayed involved in this thread because I care about the trans and gender fluid Shipmates who have abandoned the Ship following the comments made on and around this thread: there were both Styx and Hell threads that came out of earlier comments. I have wanted to counter the negative viewpoints, but that does not mean I want to keep rehashing arguments.
That's very sad that people have left, but it must be depressing seeing so much transphobia around. I have been supporting LGBT people a long time, but the hostility doesn't go away, and with trans people, seems to get worse. So many trans women attacked, and so many killed, good grief, what a fucking nightmare.
So your idea is that we do not discuss anything in a section of SOF which is all about discussing things? With the second idea being that asking questions is negative, hostile and attacking? or are you just lamenting something in general?
It's absolutely necessary to take care clinically (medically, psychologically) of transgender people. A care provider does not have to agree about anything other than there is a human being who needs care and to provide it according to the accepted guidelines. As far as I can see - not working with this population except incidentally - that's what most in my jurisdiction do, and they refer onward to the relatively few who claim expertise, and they meet the medical and psychosocial needs as best as possible, suspending their personal opinions and concern re lack of systematic data. The respect for human dignity, rights and integrity of adult persons to live their lives as they wish being a paramount principle for health and psychosocial care providers. This differs when we have developmentally vulnerable children and concerned parents, which has been discussed earlier on the thread.
Do you wish to start a support thread in another section of the Ship?
That's very sad that people have left, but it must be depressing seeing so much transphobia around. I have been supporting LGBT people a long time, but the hostility doesn't go away, and with trans people, seems to get worse. So many trans women attacked, and so many killed, good grief, what a fucking nightmare.
How do you define transphobia? The only reason I became aware of the whole issue was when I asked about self-id and was immediately labelled a transphobe simply for asking the question.
And as far as violence against transwomen goes, in the UK the murder rate is less than for men and about the same as for women. It is an appeal to emotion and to try shut down discussion.
How do you define transphobia? The only reason I became aware of the whole issue was when I asked about self-id and was immediately labelled a transphobe simply for asking the question.
If you are questioning a fundamental aspect of a person's self identity, I think you inevitably take the risk of being perceived as hostile. I don't think you can avoid that risk.
You can increase the risk by being crass, insensitive, and failing to listen, but even if you avoid all of those things there isn't really a way to tell someone that you aren't convinced that they are the gender that they say they are and guarantee that you won't offend them.
@NOprophet_NØprofit as we have been around this discussion several times, I couldn't find a polite way to discuss this further and started a Hell thread.
I think asking questions about the whole LGBT+ range of identities is fine, but it should be respectful, as Eliab said. The media and various websites are full of hostile and prurient questions, so one has to be different from that. I don't think it's hard, with enough good will.
I've just been listening to Aretha Franklin singing: "You make me feel like a natural woman." Perhaps the major problem faced by a trans individual is less coming to terms with not being cisgendered, but the difficulty in persuading third parties to treat him/her as a natural man/woman not simply on an intellectual but on a subjective emotional level.
@Kwesi - any trans person I know or have come across has been desperate not to be in the body they are in, suicidally so. The transgender male I knew best as a teenager was sectioned regularly, traumatised by menstruation, and attempted suicide multiple times. He was eventually, after several hospital admissions, put on puberty blockers which stabilised enough to get some education, but would have done much better if the condition had been picked up earlier. He then fully transitioned when he was old enough. These days you would assume he was a cis male on meeting him.
Perhaps the major problem faced by a trans individual is less coming to terms with not being cisgendered, but the difficulty in persuading third parties to treat him/her as a natural man/woman not simply on an intellectual but on a subjective emotional level.
@Kwesi - any trans person I know or have come across has been desperate not to be in the body they are in, suicidally so. The transgender male I knew best as a teenager was sectioned regularly, traumatised by menstruation, and attempted suicide multiple times. He was eventually, after several hospital admissions, put on puberty blockers which stabilised enough to get some education, but would have done much better if the condition had been picked up earlier. He then fully transitioned when he was old enough. These days you would assume he was a cis male on meeting him.
Knowing only what you've told us about this boy, also mentioned in the Hell thread, CK, I can see how sincere and impassioned you are on his behalf. For people like yourself, with empathy and intelligence, it's intensely distressing to see another person suffer so.
That said, in an earlier part of my life, I was responsible for designing services for a caseload of dual-diagnosis folks with developmental and psychiatric disabilities. I supervised a small staff intensively trained to deliver these services to this sometimes quite challenging group of 45 folks.
Sorry -- there's a point I was working toward, but RL has intruded. I'll be back later.
Back again; I'll try to keep this brief as I'm able.
The current suicide rate among US teens is at an all-time high, especially among young men . Puberty and adolescence have probably always challenged developing humans; the body undergoes dramatic alterations; hormonal changes and fluctuations produce intense and labile feelings over which still-adapting kids don't always have much control. We all know this. This was tough enough in relatively stable, traditional, even rigid societies where -- love it or hate it -- people "knew their place" and had reasonably clear notions about what was expected of them and what consequences would ensue for non-compliance.
Now, though, social roles and expectations and questions around sexual and gender identity BOTH have become -- quite abruptly -- far more complicated and various. Sexual minorities, back in the bad old days, at least had some certainty; they knew they had to hide. Hard as that was, at least people knew what they were up against much of the time.
No more; now you've got Tennesee preachers calling for your execution on one hand, and voters lining up to make a gay bro President on the other.
Relations between hetero partners are now almost infinitely negotiable where once male partners were pretty much in charge. And all of this gets layered onto the existing challenges while advancing up the age ladder is also altering family and social roles and responsibilities -- and the family itself is likely under any number of stresses.
How are men supposed to act toward women? Should he be all protective and knightly?
Should he take charge? Should he let her lead? God help the 15-year-old trying to figure this out while he still may be wondering whether he's even attracted to women. How are women supposed to act toward men? If she's flirty, she's a slut; if she's aloof, she's frigid or a lesbian. God help her if, in the midst of this, she's also increasingly concerned she's really a he.
And there are no clear answers. There's also no help: school guidance counselors are overwhelmed; parents may be hostile to even discussing the possibilities; there's no coverage for therapy and no money for private help. And because all this is relatively new, qualified / experienced expertise is thin on the ground.
So then: you've got an age group already in some degree of biological turmoil. Many are now growing up in households also in turmoil from similar pressures, plus financial and political stress. There's little by way of guidance or help available, and . . .
You're going to end up with some kids who simply crack under all this stress. And gender dysphoria COULD be (I'm not saying it necessarily is, nor that this would be true of all or even most cases) a symptom rather than the disorder. It could be a symptom of a cracking-apart kid as much as it could be an authentic case of boy-in-a-girl's body or a girl-in-a-boy's. The extreme behaviors, intense emotions and suicidal gestures -- that's hallmark signs of adolescent stress. It's definitely a kid who is desperately unhappy and coming apart at the seams. The problem as s/he has framed it -- I'm really X, not Y -- may in fact be the genuine issue. All I'm saying is that -- especially with all the discrimination transgender people face -- we should move with extreme caution toward placing a kid not yet old enough to sign a contract, join the service, or marry IN this category.
Ohher, NP's original position was that set out in your last couple of lines. He seems to have moved from that, but I'm not sure where he is now.
Earlier in that paragraph, you referred to gender dysphoria as being a disorder. Is disorder the right word? It seems to me to be judgmental rather than simply accepting that for some people their gender is not that which matches their sexual characteristics. Not something wrong with their belief, it just is.
@Ohher, we had this discussion back on pages 12 and 13, when you were participating on this thread. I will quote the information I found on suicide then:
@ Curiosity killed: thanks for reading what I actually posted with the same careful attention you gave to your original stats.
@Ohher - in your first answer to me, your answer read as someone theorising without an evidential basis. I would be interested where you found the 22% figure for attempted suicide rates in normal cis teens, as there was no link to that data in your answer.
22% is the figure I found, and evidenced, for attempted suicide in LGBQ youth, and the attempted suicide rate for transgender youth is double that at 45% (link - Stonewall School Report 2017). The figure I can find for attempted suicide for teenagers, generally, from the CDC Healthy Youth report (pdf, p47) is that the rate of attempted suicide of young people in 2017 was 7.4%*. So LGBQ youth attempt suicide at three times the norm and trans youth attempt suicide at six times the norm. And you still think that is normal and acceptable?
Actually, I also have spent the last two decades working in education with troubled teenagers, most of that in special needs in mainstream or special needs provision, so have experienced the volatility and pain of young people.
* over the 10 year survey the rate of attempted suicide for teenagers varied between 6.8% and 8.6%, but comparing 2017 figures as that was the figures compared earlier.
I challenge you to evidence your assertions again, because evidence proves you wrong.
The other thing I will point out is that I am in the UK, where young people with gender dysphoria are treated with psychiatric support and possibly puberty blockers, which are reversible. And note that young people traumatised by abuse may also be given puberty blockers to give them time to recover from the abuse before going through puberty.
Those who still want to transition when they are adults, so not until they are over 18, can then start transitioning with different hormone treatments. But to do that they will have had to demonstrate persistence in their beliefs, sufficient mental capacity to give consent and have lived as the preferred gender socially for some time.
Ohher talks about "extreme caution" with regard to trans kids, but what does this mean concretely? If you have a child who is in great distress over gender, possibly self-harming, and with suicidal thoughts, do you tell them to wait a few years? If you end up in a gender clinic, which suggests social transition, and hormone blockers, do you forbid this in the name of extreme caution? Good luck with that.
quetzalcoatl, as I consider your legitimate questions, I find a whole complex of other, related (but not necessarily to the subject of this thread) issues arise for me, partly around the grim facts on the ground in the US surrounding MH treatment generally, and partly around the processes by which our "officialdom" recognizes (or not) the "disorder" question as it relates to the human psyche -- something I personally suspect we have very little certain knowledge of. But that's a tangent or another thread. I'm bowing out of this one, with one note: the DSM-5 lists the issue under discussion here as "gender identity disorder." An earlier edition of the same tome (DSM-2, I believe) once listed homosexuality as a disorder. This was dropped in 1973. I submit that the rationales for decisions like these may be as political and economic in nature as they are public or mental-health related, and not always to be relied on, therefore, as especially "scientific" -- or even responsible -- in nature. But that's a different discussion.
* over the 10 year survey the rate of attempted suicide for teenagers varied between 6.8% and 8.6%
And higher for males than females ?
That seems a very high figure. Two in every schoolroom of 30 pupils. If it's right (not saying it isn't) then modern life really isn't working for many young people. That seems much higher than it would have been 50 or 100 years ago.
This says to me that those who believe in social progress and advocate more of the same are really missing something about human well-being. Modernity isn't working.
Perhaps it's time to stop seeking to effect social change by educating the young to believe that there's something wrong with society that it's up to them to sort out ?
If you are questioning a fundamental aspect of a person's self identity, I think you inevitably take the risk of being perceived as hostile. I don't think you can avoid that risk.
You can increase the risk by being crass, insensitive, and failing to listen, but even if you avoid all of those things there isn't really a way to tell someone that you aren't convinced that they are the gender that they say they are and guarantee that you won't offend them.
The question I asked was basically "Isn't there a risk that predatory men might abuse self-id to access women's spaces?"
That is nothing about the identity of trans people, or doubting trans experiences, or saying that trans women themselves are a risk to women. It was specifically about whether there was a potential risk to women from men as a result of proposed legislative changes. But as I very quickly found out, anything that is remotely questioning of the current trans rights orthodoxy is dismissed as being transphobic.
There is a risk that predatory men might abuse self-ID. There has been one very publicised case of this happening - Karen White and lots of discussion about the possibility. We did discuss this issue pages back.
It seems that the likelihood of a man dressing as a woman to access woman's places is not happening as much as predicted when self-ID was proposed last year. I think if it was happening I'd find more actual cases than discussion of the probability when I look for it, which I have just done, and only found Karen White again, and no other actual cases.
What is also happening is that a lot of places are being designed unisex. This enables other things, like fathers taking children to the toilet without having to take them into the men's toilets or beg a woman to take them into the ladies'. The Olympic Swimming Pool at Stratford has unisex changing rooms and the recently built local secondary school has unisex toilets, with open areas and cubicles. It means more cubicles and the loss of urinals in toilets.
If you are questioning a fundamental aspect of a person's self identity, I think you inevitably take the risk of being perceived as hostile. I don't think you can avoid that risk.
You can increase the risk by being crass, insensitive, and failing to listen, but even if you avoid all of those things there isn't really a way to tell someone that you aren't convinced that they are the gender that they say they are and guarantee that you won't offend them.
The question I asked was basically "Isn't there a risk that predatory men might abuse self-id to access women's spaces?"
That is nothing about the identity of trans people, or doubting trans experiences, or saying that trans women themselves are a risk to women. It was specifically about whether there was a potential risk to women from men as a result of proposed legislative changes. But as I very quickly found out, anything that is remotely questioning of the current trans rights orthodoxy is dismissed as being transphobic.
Because the "men will identify as women to abuse women in toilets" is as much a standard transphobic trope as secret Zionist cabals controlling governments is an anti-Semitic one. Repeating standard transphobic tropes is a really good way of getting labelled as transphobic.
It was in the context of the proposed changes to the GRA. Just because transphobic people might use an argument does not mean the argument has no merit.
Katie Dolotowski was a recent case, and there have been other prisoners. Self-id has not yet come in, so we do not know what the ramifications might be. Though it seems to be seeping through with some organisations jumping the gun on the legislation. In Scotland they have just announced that they want more time to review how the proposed changes to the GRA will affect women. No doubt they are "transphobic" for doing so.
That story hasn't got any research to back it up other than the original Sunday Times article, which is behind a pay wall. All I found when I looked were links back to that story and stories about protests about other changing rooms. I am not going to be totally convinced as the Times is campaigning against transgender issues and I'm not sure, without seeing the actual research, how this has been done - apparently it's from a FOI challenge, rather than research.
I have changed in the Olympic Pool at Stratford Swimming Pool and found them fine, really safe feeling as they were so open and busy. Far safer than the single sex facilities at university where we were all preyed on.
So two highly publicised cases: Katie Dolatowski and Karen White. Out of how many transgender people? We have a problem with predatory men. That doesn't mean we have to demonise all transgender people because there are occasional predatory men using transgender as a cover, just as we shouldn't demonise all men as there are so many predatory men.
That's great if you're comfortable. But there are many people who aren't. A lot of them probably won't complain, they'll just stop using facilities. Are there single sex changing rooms too? If you care to look there have been lots of reports of voyeurism in unisex toilets and changing rooms. Yes, people may be able to sneak into single sex facilities too, but it does make it easier if it's unisex.
We do "demonise" all men. There are specifically single sex spaces because of the risk men (as a group) present to women.
The trouble is, that the transphobic media, of which there are many in the UK, have a set of stories and themes which are used incessantly. One of them is this one, that cis men will pass as women, in order to abuse. Another is the"contagion" idea with adolescents, another is that kids are being hustled into being trans. Mumsnet is a good place to find them.
It doesn't mean that someone using such a theme is automatically transphobic, but buyer beware.
Properly supervised unisex areas are fine with cubicles to allow for privacy. But it does really mean that these spaces need supervision. But so do single sex places need supervision to stop petty theft, bullying and any other nasties that humans inflict on each other. Girls aren't lovely with their body shaming in single sex places, for example.
But if we go for single sex resources there are no safe places for transitioning people to go, it's not easy for families to support children - fathers can't easily take their daughters out and mothers struggle with sons. Unisex resources are meeting more needs than just transgender.
We took a group of Girl Guides to the Olympic Pool at Stratford on a Sunday (for the inflatables), and we had a very mixed group: several girls came with their fathers, some whole families came, both parents and sons, Those unisex changing rooms were a total blessing for everyone
...
The question I asked was basically "Isn't there a risk that predatory men might abuse self-id to access women's spaces?"
Women get assaulted everywhere, even in their own homes, by friends and family, and overwhelmingly by cis men. There's really no need for cis men to disguise themselves since a sign on a door won't stop them and never will. So, thanks for your concern.
OTOH, trans people are incredibly vulnerable in public toilets and changing facilities.
From my point of view, the math is simple: including trans women has practically no impact on my safety but makes a huge difference to theirs.
I must admit, I'm suspicious now of posts that just happen to mimic the (in)famous transphobic ones, such as cis men passing as women, or the contagion among teens. It seems odd that someone should happen to light on them, which are so well worn that there are holes in them.
Comments
This is why I don't think we can discuss same sex and trangender as comparative. There's data for the one which helpfully also comes from ethology (other species observations, particularly primates).
Re Freud, the concepts of homo and hetero sexuality were invented by Havelock Ellis in the last 2 decades of the 19th century. Before then the concepts didn't exist the same way, rather specific acts such as "sodomy" were defined, with no presumption that engaging in any particular sexual act had something to do with an orientation. To use your recent expression, the confines of available discourse did not allow the discussion until then.
Almost all mutations are lethal. They are mostly bugs. And we have adapted to some detrimental ones, for example humans don't manufacture our our vitamin C and must eat it. We have the metabolic pathway until a near ending step and then we destroy the precursor. Unlike my dog and my cat.
There's a lot of misunderstandings about evolution and human evolution in particular. Mostly species don't change very much, and are static for long periods of time. If changed environmental conditions occur, some unforeseen genetic variation may allow certain individuals to survive the change and reproduce. Some additional characteristics may accompany the selected for characteristics, but are not in themselves adaptive. Often species go extinct when environmental conditions change.
Human evolution isn't occurring presently. We are not changing, we are mixing the genetics of humanity as widely as possible. And there's no selection pressure.
It matters if an unformed child who has not gone through psychological developmental has something confirmed that they have not explored yet. To use the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson's term "foreclosed" on an early choice before adequate exploration. I think it is fundamentally disrespectful to children's developmental autonomy and potential. It's currently rush to confirmation.
I think, quetzalcoatl, the rest of your post provides the answer: if being gay is seen as a pathological condition then aversion therapies can be seen as necessary and justified, and the condition even regarded as a moral perversion.
Apart from that, the desire to know the causes of things is a human trait. I'm tempted to see the pursuit of knowledge as beneficial to the human condition, though that cannot be a scientific judgement and not one that is incontestable.
This is not true, it’s just slow.
How is assigning their gender at birth, not foreclosing ? It as if you are assuming assigned birth gender is somehow a natural phenomenon rather than a cultural artifact.
What would the mechanism be for that? Since just about every sort of person seems be reproducing for just about every sort of reason, natural selection is certainly out of the picture.
Yes, it's amazing how cis gender is seen as "natural", and not requiring explanation.
I don't think this is amazing at all. Though I'd use different terminology. It is normative: most frequently occurring. Exceptions to this are a small proportion of humanity. Thus non-normative. Statistical occurrence. There is a lot or variation within humanity, and there is most frequently occurring.
The thing assigned at birth is biological sex via inspection of the body of the newborn. Though to be accurate, parents more often than not know the sex of the baby prior to birth in the present day. Gender isn't a consideration at that point. Gender is socialized by the parents to conform with biological sex and we all historically make the assumption that these two things - sex and gender - are the same thing. When it is proposed that they don't align, we need to know why the norm is not true for this individual if the individual is a child. Is this something the child is exploring or is it something firm within, and is this maintained over time. I suspect for some it is maintained. I suspect for others it is not, and we mustn't lead on this. We should start from the assumption, for the best interests of the child, that gender and sex align. This is the norm, which means most frequently encountered.
You posted this >>One of the guiding ideas we go by is tht we are not in the "lead" on this. We don't push them to transition they push for it themselves and the parents are usually the ones slowing things down and supporting exploration and making very sure the kids are expressing their true selves.
Agree totally. But there's no resources for parents and families except advocacy here: we feel the leadership is others and all leading the young people in a particular direction. I wish...
For example, this article, and in particular:
Is it wrong to try and find out what has caused the recent increase in young people saying they are trans, particularly girls?
About three posts above this I have linked to the NHS guidelines above, again, for the umpteenth time.
If you had read the earlier pages, you'd know I have challenged reported advice from Mermaids for schools as being in contravention of a number of other school requirements and not necessarily implementable as school policy. (I used to be a school governor, have worked in independent special school senior management.)
As far as I can see, the Tavistock does not encorage people to transition, and does not accelerate kids towards hormone blockers. My memory is that over half the kids visiting the Tavi do not transition and do not move on to blockers. Many kids who are gender non-conforming are not trans and Tavistock consultants are well aware of this.
And sorry, but I'm not going to go back a year and read a thousand messages before feeling like I can contribute to this thread.
They seem to have a very prominent voice on the media, are very involved in advising schools and other institutions on trans issues. They are much more than a support group, and appear to be quite influential.
@quetzalcoatl @Curiosity killed
Quoting myself below, in your view is this hostile?
Do you wish to start a support thread in another section of the Ship?
How do you define transphobia? The only reason I became aware of the whole issue was when I asked about self-id and was immediately labelled a transphobe simply for asking the question.
And as far as violence against transwomen goes, in the UK the murder rate is less than for men and about the same as for women. It is an appeal to emotion and to try shut down discussion.
If you are questioning a fundamental aspect of a person's self identity, I think you inevitably take the risk of being perceived as hostile. I don't think you can avoid that risk.
You can increase the risk by being crass, insensitive, and failing to listen, but even if you avoid all of those things there isn't really a way to tell someone that you aren't convinced that they are the gender that they say they are and guarantee that you won't offend them.
This misses the point by a mile.
Knowing only what you've told us about this boy, also mentioned in the Hell thread, CK, I can see how sincere and impassioned you are on his behalf. For people like yourself, with empathy and intelligence, it's intensely distressing to see another person suffer so.
That said, in an earlier part of my life, I was responsible for designing services for a caseload of dual-diagnosis folks with developmental and psychiatric disabilities. I supervised a small staff intensively trained to deliver these services to this sometimes quite challenging group of 45 folks.
Sorry -- there's a point I was working toward, but RL has intruded. I'll be back later.
The current suicide rate among US teens is at an all-time high, especially among young men . Puberty and adolescence have probably always challenged developing humans; the body undergoes dramatic alterations; hormonal changes and fluctuations produce intense and labile feelings over which still-adapting kids don't always have much control. We all know this. This was tough enough in relatively stable, traditional, even rigid societies where -- love it or hate it -- people "knew their place" and had reasonably clear notions about what was expected of them and what consequences would ensue for non-compliance.
Now, though, social roles and expectations and questions around sexual and gender identity BOTH have become -- quite abruptly -- far more complicated and various. Sexual minorities, back in the bad old days, at least had some certainty; they knew they had to hide. Hard as that was, at least people knew what they were up against much of the time.
No more; now you've got Tennesee preachers calling for your execution on one hand, and voters lining up to make a gay bro President on the other.
Relations between hetero partners are now almost infinitely negotiable where once male partners were pretty much in charge. And all of this gets layered onto the existing challenges while advancing up the age ladder is also altering family and social roles and responsibilities -- and the family itself is likely under any number of stresses.
How are men supposed to act toward women? Should he be all protective and knightly?
Should he take charge? Should he let her lead? God help the 15-year-old trying to figure this out while he still may be wondering whether he's even attracted to women. How are women supposed to act toward men? If she's flirty, she's a slut; if she's aloof, she's frigid or a lesbian. God help her if, in the midst of this, she's also increasingly concerned she's really a he.
And there are no clear answers. There's also no help: school guidance counselors are overwhelmed; parents may be hostile to even discussing the possibilities; there's no coverage for therapy and no money for private help. And because all this is relatively new, qualified / experienced expertise is thin on the ground.
So then: you've got an age group already in some degree of biological turmoil. Many are now growing up in households also in turmoil from similar pressures, plus financial and political stress. There's little by way of guidance or help available, and . . .
You're going to end up with some kids who simply crack under all this stress. And gender dysphoria COULD be (I'm not saying it necessarily is, nor that this would be true of all or even most cases) a symptom rather than the disorder. It could be a symptom of a cracking-apart kid as much as it could be an authentic case of boy-in-a-girl's body or a girl-in-a-boy's. The extreme behaviors, intense emotions and suicidal gestures -- that's hallmark signs of adolescent stress. It's definitely a kid who is desperately unhappy and coming apart at the seams. The problem as s/he has framed it -- I'm really X, not Y -- may in fact be the genuine issue. All I'm saying is that -- especially with all the discrimination transgender people face -- we should move with extreme caution toward placing a kid not yet old enough to sign a contract, join the service, or marry IN this category.
Earlier in that paragraph, you referred to gender dysphoria as being a disorder. Is disorder the right word? It seems to me to be judgmental rather than simply accepting that for some people their gender is not that which matches their sexual characteristics. Not something wrong with their belief, it just is.
I challenge you to evidence your assertions again, because evidence proves you wrong.
Those who still want to transition when they are adults, so not until they are over 18, can then start transitioning with different hormone treatments. But to do that they will have had to demonstrate persistence in their beliefs, sufficient mental capacity to give consent and have lived as the preferred gender socially for some time.
And higher for males than females ?
That seems a very high figure. Two in every schoolroom of 30 pupils. If it's right (not saying it isn't) then modern life really isn't working for many young people. That seems much higher than it would have been 50 or 100 years ago.
This says to me that those who believe in social progress and advocate more of the same are really missing something about human well-being. Modernity isn't working.
Perhaps it's time to stop seeking to effect social change by educating the young to believe that there's something wrong with society that it's up to them to sort out ?
But maybe that's a separate discussion ?
The question I asked was basically "Isn't there a risk that predatory men might abuse self-id to access women's spaces?"
That is nothing about the identity of trans people, or doubting trans experiences, or saying that trans women themselves are a risk to women. It was specifically about whether there was a potential risk to women from men as a result of proposed legislative changes. But as I very quickly found out, anything that is remotely questioning of the current trans rights orthodoxy is dismissed as being transphobic.
It seems that the likelihood of a man dressing as a woman to access woman's places is not happening as much as predicted when self-ID was proposed last year. I think if it was happening I'd find more actual cases than discussion of the probability when I look for it, which I have just done, and only found Karen White again, and no other actual cases.
What is also happening is that a lot of places are being designed unisex. This enables other things, like fathers taking children to the toilet without having to take them into the men's toilets or beg a woman to take them into the ladies'. The Olympic Swimming Pool at Stratford has unisex changing rooms and the recently built local secondary school has unisex toilets, with open areas and cubicles. It means more cubicles and the loss of urinals in toilets.
Because the "men will identify as women to abuse women in toilets" is as much a standard transphobic trope as secret Zionist cabals controlling governments is an anti-Semitic one. Repeating standard transphobic tropes is a really good way of getting labelled as transphobic.
Katie Dolotowski was a recent case, and there have been other prisoners. Self-id has not yet come in, so we do not know what the ramifications might be. Though it seems to be seeping through with some organisations jumping the gun on the legislation. In Scotland they have just announced that they want more time to review how the proposed changes to the GRA will affect women. No doubt they are "transphobic" for doing so.
Also, unisex facilities have been shown to increase the risk of assault.
I have changed in the Olympic Pool at Stratford Swimming Pool and found them fine, really safe feeling as they were so open and busy. Far safer than the single sex facilities at university where we were all preyed on.
So two highly publicised cases: Katie Dolatowski and Karen White. Out of how many transgender people? We have a problem with predatory men. That doesn't mean we have to demonise all transgender people because there are occasional predatory men using transgender as a cover, just as we shouldn't demonise all men as there are so many predatory men.
We do "demonise" all men. There are specifically single sex spaces because of the risk men (as a group) present to women.
It doesn't mean that someone using such a theme is automatically transphobic, but buyer beware.
So single sex spaces aren't needed?
But if we go for single sex resources there are no safe places for transitioning people to go, it's not easy for families to support children - fathers can't easily take their daughters out and mothers struggle with sons. Unisex resources are meeting more needs than just transgender.
We took a group of Girl Guides to the Olympic Pool at Stratford on a Sunday (for the inflatables), and we had a very mixed group: several girls came with their fathers, some whole families came, both parents and sons, Those unisex changing rooms were a total blessing for everyone
Women get assaulted everywhere, even in their own homes, by friends and family, and overwhelmingly by cis men. There's really no need for cis men to disguise themselves since a sign on a door won't stop them and never will. So, thanks for your concern.
OTOH, trans people are incredibly vulnerable in public toilets and changing facilities.
From my point of view, the math is simple: including trans women has practically no impact on my safety but makes a huge difference to theirs.
I must admit, I'm suspicious now of posts that just happen to mimic the (in)famous transphobic ones, such as cis men passing as women, or the contagion among teens. It seems odd that someone should happen to light on them, which are so well worn that there are holes in them.