Transgender

1252628303146

Comments

  • quantpolequantpole Shipmate
    I'd hope that those who can't comprehend that some people don't have an innate feeling of gender set out to learn more about how other people feel about it, and not dismiss it or make presumptions about such people. They could stew in their ignorance and self-superiority forever, but I hope they don't.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Eliab wrote: »
    Therefore I think you're wasting your time complaining that you can't question self-identity without being thought transphobic by someone. I'm saying nothing at all about the merits of your arguments - even if you are 100% correct, it's almost inevitable that someone will find a critique of their identity offensive.

    You might well not have meant to imply this, but I find it hard not to read this as suggesting it doesn't matter whether what you say is true, what matters is whether or not someone is offended by it. And that, therefore, it is better to express a wrong but agreeable opinion than a right but offensive one.

    Is that the sort of world some people want to live in?
  • quantpole wrote: »
    I'd hope that those who can't comprehend that some people don't have an innate feeling of gender set out to learn more about how other people feel about it, and not dismiss it or make presumptions about such people. They could stew in their ignorance and self-superiority forever, but I hope they don't.

    Well, yes. I don't know if it's innate, but certainly internal. I think I am competent at self-presentation as a male, but this is obviously different from an inner experience.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Eliab wrote: »
    . . . it's almost inevitable that someone will find a critique of their identity offensive.

    Surely there's a difference between "critique" and non-malicious questioning, e.g., how DOES one "know" what gender they are?

    I'm with quetzalcoatl: I don't think of myself as "female" except in situations where sex or gender is relevant. Given my age and interests, I've had rather a lot of comments thrown at me along the lines of "You think / write / act / talk like a man" (back in the days when to be competent -- something other than a bubbly cheerleading air-headed flibbertigibbet concerned solely with clothing, makeup, and man-pleasing -- was Unfeminine. Given my appearance in younger years, however, I've also had to deal with boatloads more #MeToo crap than would be given credence. What felt utterly erased in both cases was my "me-ness," not my gender or sex.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    ......that's OK for you, Ohher, but isn't the point that for "trans" differences between men and women and their links between masculine and feminine are very important indeed, as demonstrated by the limits some are prepared to go in submitting themselves to major surgery.
  • The problem for most of us is that we are writing from the point of view of cis privilege - we are happy enough with our sex assigned at birth to be comfortable within our bodies. I may find the disadvantages of being a woman frustrating at times, but I am not suicidally distressed by the way my body works, unlike the transgender man I know who became anorexic as a teenager to try avoid starting menstruation and developing breasts, who was hospitalised repeatedly, sectioned and attempted suicide multiple times. He was distressed he could not find masculine clothes to fit - we went through our wardrobes to find him clothes at one point.
  • I think some folk are confused about what the term “social construct” means.

    Justice, patriotism, and honour are social constructs - and people have been willing to die and kill for them for thousands of years. So the idea that people would have surgery ‘for a social construct’ is entirely unsurprising really.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Reflecting on the discussion thus far I'm tending to the conclusion that the traditional binary classification of biological sex is more convincing than the proposition there is a continuum or spectrum of more than two sexes from female to male, and that trans is a (cruel) genetic aberration in which the normal alignment of biological sex and propensity to masculine and feminine roles is compromised. Both cisgender and trans are natural conditions in the sense that they are both inherent and not the product of the social construction of gender or perverse choice. Such an understanding best fits the development of humanity out of evolutionary and associated reproductive processes that can produce unpredictable and random outcomes.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Some trans people argue for that reason that trans identities may have a biological origin, in part. I am not getting commission from Julia Serano, but she argues this in various publications, and she is a biologist. I think her most well-known book is Whipping Girl.

    I've read Whipping Girl, and I found it useful. It's a much better book than its rather unfortunate title would lead one to expect. (The title of her second book "Excluded!", is just as bad, though I haven't read the book so I have no idea what the contents are like. But somebody needs to have a word with her publisher.)

    Two useful things: First, it's a first-person account of trans experience from an articulate, intelligent trans women. Second, she has done some thinking about the wider gender theory issues and I think tries to engage these issues in a way that addresses the concerns that some people may have about how transgenderism fits in with these wider issues.

  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    You might well not have meant to imply this, but I find it hard not to read this as suggesting it doesn't matter whether what you say is true, what matters is whether or not someone is offended by it. And that, therefore, it is better to express a wrong but agreeable opinion than a right but offensive one.

    I'm not implying that. There may, in particular cases, be good reasons to question someone's claimed identity. But expressing those reasons inherently risks offence because its inevitably a challenge to a deeply important part of someone else's life.

    What I am saying (and all I am saying) is that if you (generic you) do question someone's identity, whether you are right or wrong to do so, there's no point complaining that you get called an Xist or a Yphobe by the person you are talking about. The risk of being thought offensive in that way is basically the price of admission to that sort of discussion. You will never be able to have that discussion without that risk, so there's no sense moaning about it.

  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Anent this discussion, I was re-reading extracts from Jan Morris - worth reading Conundrum if you have not come across it heretofore - because she writes so beautifully about the mystery of identity.

    I also like it that she reckons the best part of humanity is Us Crones (my term, not hers).
  • I think some folk are confused about what the term “social construct” means.

    Justice, patriotism, and honour are social constructs - and people have been willing to die and kill for them for thousands of years. So the idea that people would have surgery ‘for a social construct’ is entirely unsurprising really.

    It also depends on how radical your social constructionism is. The most radical would argue that all human ideas are constructs. In some ways, this is obvious, but leads to the provocative idea that sex is a construct, or if you are a Butlerian, a product of discourse. It means that there are no percepts without concepts. Maybe a bit off-topic but gender is right in the firing line of philosophical approaches to social categories.
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    Eliab wrote: »
    What I am saying (and all I am saying) is that if you (generic you) do question someone's identity, whether you are right or wrong to do so, there's no point complaining that you get called an Xist or a Yphobe by the person you are talking about. The risk of being thought offensive in that way is basically the price of admission to that sort of discussion. You will never be able to have that discussion without that risk, so there's no sense moaning about it.

    In and of itself that would be fair enough, if it weren't for the fact that calling someone Xist or a Yphobe is used very successfully as a way to close down discussion and utterly discredit anything said by the person being so named. Which, if what that person is saying is actually true, strikes me as highly problematic.
  • edited June 2019
    Appreciate the comments Marvin. I didn't post since condemnation, basically desisting from this thread because apparently I'm repeating myself and labelled as bad for doing so. What I'll do is post more infrequently, such as this worthy read: https://prospect.org/article/born-way which is about the director of a clinic who served trans children. It is a long read. and if you cannot manage it, read what you can and the ending. He was pushed out because, it seems, he wasn't the advocate demanded.

    I reiterate that someone's personal experience with a particular person is not data, it's not evidence, no matter how compelling and heartfelt, how compassionate you are about it,. it is still an anecdote and we don't understand the general issues with anecdotes.
    Some trans people argue for that reason that trans identities may have a biological origin, in part. I am not getting commission from Julia Serano, but she argues this in various publications, and she is a biologist. I think her most well-known book is Whipping Girl.

    This is an example of of someone who has a good advocacy standpoint and should be respected for that, and also the integrity with how she lives. This is argument without data however, it's opinion, and because of good education, well articulated. Her biology credentials, research and biology publications have nil to do with human gender identities. It cannot be passed off as evidence unless her books are research evidence based. She studied the genetics of arthropods, mostly fruit flies and crustaceans, viz., http://www.juliaserano.com/biologist.html .

  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    In and of itself that would be fair enough, if it weren't for the fact that calling someone Xist or a Yphobe is used very successfully as a way to close down discussion and utterly discredit anything said by the person being so named.

    That's a fair point. But even if the person making the accusation of bigotry is wrong to do so, the person who challenged their self-identity is (it seems to me) knowingly and deliberately taking the chance of being misinterpreted that way. They've decided the conversation is important enough to have, notwithstanding that.

    I'm not excusing people who make accusations of bigotry in bad faith, or when the evidence clearly supports a different conclusion - and you and I have both argued against accusations of bigotry we thought unsubstantiated on other Ship threads in the past. That's something that it would be better not to do, obviously. But there are also opinions that need to be expressed very carefully because there is an inherent risk of offence that cannot be wished away.

    It's not just sex and gender. For example, there are doubtless people who would say that a true Christian is someone who belongs to (say) the Orthodox Church, or who was baptised as an adult believer (and I'm neither). I don't think they are necessarily bigoted to believe that. I don't think either view is stupid or contemptible. And I'm a pretty thick-skinned lawyer with over 20 years experience in arguing and not taking things personally. Yet despite that, it would be entirely possible for me to react negatively to the suggestion that because X isn't true of me, I'm not a Christian, because Christianity is so fundamental to my self-identity. If you want to tell me that I'm mistaken about my own identity without irritating me, some small degree of tact is required. You can have the discussion, of course, and it may even be a moral duty for someone to have it, but the risk of offence is inseparable from the conversation.

    Quantpole complaining of being called a transphobe seemed to me rather like someone who enters a discussion about pornography and then complains that he's learned more than he's comfortable with about his interlocutor's viewing choices. He should have seen that coming. My sympathy is limited.


  • ... calling someone Xist or a Yphobe is used very successfully as a way to close down discussion ...

    Given that the discussions have continued, and the same Xist and Yphobic arguments are posted over and over, it doesn't look like that the discussion was successfully closed down.

    And of course, outside of Hell, Ship rules say that arguments are Xist or Yphobic, not Shipmates.
  • By the way, Martina is on BBC tonight, presenting a programme on trans athletes. Will she use the cheat word? She will probably walk on egg-shells. 9pm, BBC1.
  • This thread has probably closed down discussion by trans people, and gender nonconforming people. I had to laugh when Mumsnet said that trans people were welcome to contribute. Wot a laaf.
  • @NOprophet_NØprofit - that Prospect article is by Dr Kenneth Zucker, the child psychologist who was fired from his job in 2015 in a controversial move - because the clinic where he worked was accused of using conversion therapy on the patients. The clinic was also closed down. Zucker appeared on a BBC programme (that I saw at the time) that was lambasted for including him as an expert in the field (Guardian link). He has always been controversial:
    In 1990 he also spoke out in favour of discouraging children to be gay because, “a homosexual lifestyle in a basically unaccepting culture simply creates unnecessary social difficulties”.
  • edited June 2019
    Fact check: it is not by him, it is about him and it comes to the conclusion that some children are transgender and some are not, and that quick support is clinically unwise. And you make the point about not discussing and being ideologically driven and advocacy oriented.
  • Yes, Zucker has become a transphobic icon, what a surprise that he is cited on this thread.
  • edited June 2019
    You are obviously not aware than the claims about Zucker's use of "conversion therapy" are wrong and were retracted, including apology and monetary settlement? https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-doctor-fired-from-gender-identity-clinic-says-he-feels-vindicated/
    “I think the term conversion therapy is incredibly inflammatory,” he said. “I think it’s been inappropriately expropriated from the original use of the term, where it was directed at very conservative, religiously motivated clinicians or pastoral counsellors who were seeing, primarily, homosexual men who didn’t want to be gay. There were lots of problems in trying to offer treatment to change an adult’s sexual orientation − we know that’s a very dubious proposition. But to apply [the term] to [treating] a three-year-old child with gender dysphoria, in my opinion, is an absurd comparison.”

    He stressed that he assessed each patient on a case-by-case basis, and noted that in 1999 his clinic was one of the first in North America to start using hormonal suppression for adolescents to help them transition.

    As I've said before, I get the heart-felt advocacy, but it doesn't go down well. Zucker has received formal apologies for the mis-characterization of his work, 500 clinicians supported his defence.
    Yes, Zucker has become a transphobic icon, what a surprise that he is cited on this thread.
    You make an emotional point, sans any discussion.

  • @NOprophet_NØprofit - that Prospect article is by Dr Kenneth Zucker, the child psychologist who was fired from his job in 2015 in a controversial move - because the clinic where he worked was accused of using conversion therapy on the patients. The clinic was also closed down. Zucker appeared on a BBC programme (that I saw at the time) that was lambasted for including him as an expert in the field (Guardian link). He has always been controversial:
    In 1990 he also spoke out in favour of discouraging children to be gay because, “a homosexual lifestyle in a basically unaccepting culture simply creates unnecessary social difficulties”.

    This quote is untrue, as it your prior statement of the authorship of the article I referenced earlier. I have only found reference to Zucker, as a journal editor, publishing an article by Robert Spitzer (one of the people who developed and revised the DSM) discussing whether people could change their sexual orientation, which also included commentaries against it in 2012. Spitzer was also instrumental in getting homosexuality removed from the DSM in 1973. But this is not about the contradictory man Spitzer, it's about your objection to Zucker because he isn't an advocate after your ideal.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited June 2019
    @NOprophet_NØprofit I think you need to check your facts too. CAMHS has only withdrawn some criticisms, some cited name calling later withdrawn, and paid out for those and for sacking Zucker, but not the criticisms of the treatments.
    When the settlement was announced, CAMH stated that it "stands by its decision to close the child and youth gender identity clinic following an external review which concluded the clinic was not meeting the needs of gender expansive and trans children and their families" "We believe our modernized approach to delivering services to youth better supports diverse patients through best practice and timely care. Source Wikipedia.

    I saw the BBC programme on transgender with Zucker giving his views which were very much at variance with the other experts on the programme. That Prospect article may not be written by Zucker, but it's based on his views
  • The BBC program you watched is extensively discussed, with the next day BBC hosts misleading with some of their guests, if the show was called Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best. The guests were not treated by Zucker, and were not treated within his clinic, except that guests and the BBC hosts mislead that they were. The CBC did not air the documentary because of these problems.

    Quote from above:
    Zucker got in trouble for believing that gender dysphoria isn’t necessarily a signal of a stable internal identity; rather, he approached it the way he would a psychological symptom like anxiety or depression, by trying to understand whether there might be other causes which are causing it and can be addressed....Zucker “believes that a whole range of psychological issues can manifest themselves in a child’s obsession with changing their gender.” “Taking any behavior in isolation when thinking about gender dysphoria is not the way that I think about it,” Zucker explains. Rather, it’s key to understand a child’s family, life history, and other factors. Gender dysphoria is more complicated than being a signal of a stable underlying identity, in Zucker’s view, especially in light of developmental psychology research which suggests it takes a long time before a child’s gender identity really solidifies in the first place. That said, Zucker did believe that in some cases transition was the best bet, and according to my reporting his clinic never tried to “switch back” a child who had already transitioned...

    This apparently is transphobic of him, and transphobic of me to think his clinical and developmental approach might be better than advocacy.
  • Zucker's clinic was investigated after some suicides among his patients or ex-patients and CAMH maintains its decision to close the clinic as it was not following the most up-to-date treatment.

    The NHS treats children with gender dysphoria and has two centres of GIDS, the Gender Identity Development Service, one in London the other in Leeds. Their approach is described in the news from 5/11/2018:
    We recognise that there are strongly held views among patients and families and their representatives including those who wish for physical treatment to be offered earlier or by those who feel that physical treatments should not be offered to young people at all. The service has worked hard, and continues to do so, to maintain a balanced view in which we are fully aware of wider social, cultural, legal and political factors, but maintain a focus on an individual approach to care informed by the particular circumstances of each young person we see.

    We do not limit or curtail assessments because of pressure to move swiftly to medical interventions. With complex cases, rather than truncating assessments, we will often extend the time given to trying understand what may be going on. Whilst the national specifications against which the service is commissioned describe an assessment phase of between 4 and 6 meetings, one outcome of assessment may be further assessment. Nevertheless, we are always mindful that gender dysphoria is not in and of itself a mental health diagnosis. The young people seeking support from our service frequently experience high levels of distress, victimisation and isolation related to their self-identified gender. We are committed to ensuring we work to recognise and meet the various needs of all the young people we see in this complex and contentious field.

    I have queried whether advice from Mermaids for schools is legally applicable, repeatedly, and have advocated for the NHS treatment guidelines, repeatedly, so I am not blindly advocating for transgender. But I am aware, from several cases, the pain people with gender dysphoria go through, however, those cases I met through work I cannot discuss on here. And I am also aware of the many, many transphobic stories in the media, many of which have been posted as links here, and when unpicked are inaccurate or biased for other reasons.
  • Well, no prophet offers a Cook's tour of anti-trans articles, websites and so on, so we should be grateful for the tour d'horizon.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Well, no prophet offers a Cook's tour of anti-trans articles, websites and so on, so we should be grateful for the tour d'horizon.

    Are they? I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm talking through my hat. But my impression here so far is that NoProphet is raising not unreasonable and legitimate concerns about a fairly new phenomenon. IME, that often happens with new phenomena.

    I am far from expert in the specific topic under discussion here. As it happens, I do have some experience at the US-state level in policy and planning for a population deemed eligible for government help. I also have experience setting up, for a different population not (or not at that point) deemed eligible for government help, a brand-new set of services. This required plenty of advocacy, as there was initial resistance in the face of an as-yet generally unrecognized need.

    In both circumstances, my team and I started by gathering information. We also built continual info-gathering into our efforts going forward. Obviously, information is key to providing effective services. It’s also key to effective advocacy. Veterans of US struggles to set up services for battered women will recognize that untold years of efforts devoted to figuring out how to “fix battered women” were largely wasted – due to posing the wrong questions based on faulty assumptions. That’s what info-gathering should do: obviate similar mistakes by figuring out what really is needed, who really needs it, how many folks need it, how we pay for it, and how best to deliver what's needed.

    The impression I’m getting from this thread is that advocates (a legitimate and necessary role) regard questions about gender dysphoria as questioning the existence of the phenomenon itself. This, as Marvin has already pointed out, is not helpful; it closes the discussion down.

    Nevertheless, it’s easy to understand how questions can be read this way. I’ve seen this happen in the state policy-planning role I played: people in the field got so used to having their proposals attacked, their beliefs questioned, and their efforts blocked, they began assuming Everybody Is Against The Wonderful Work We’re Trying To Accomplish, and would go into situations assuming hostility and opposition. And guess what? That’s what they generally got. Advocates are usually advocating for change, and let's face it: people hate change. They always moan about some New Thing which makes demands on them.

    The reality is that most of those hostile folks I encountered only GOT hostile on perceiving they’d been pre-deemed by the advocates to be a pack of ignorant, obstinate, progress-stopping, morally-obtuse fools. I found it necessary to develop a new approach to community meetings where a new project was being proposed. I stopped advocates from presenting their plans and reasons at the start, and instead made them start by asking about community needs. Eventually, some community member would name a need our proposal could help with, and then we'd present our project.

    That approach collected information (always useful in problem-solving), yielded understanding and further discussion, and sometimes (not always) led to cooperation.

    Perhaps the advcocates on this thread could help those of us perceived as non-advocates phrase legitimate questions without arousing hurt and ire and charges of x-phobia?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Ohher, thanks for that. You write not uninstructively for a number of us on this post who feel that innocent scepticism and "legitimate questions" have been met with unmerited censure for the expression of improper thoughts.
  • However, if the articles posted come from sources that are known to be controversial in the field, or to be repeating known and inaccurate tropes, pointing that out is hardly an accusation. When all the articles posted come from sources that are known to be controversial in the field, repeat inaccurate tropes and offer dubious research, then maybe we should start querying motivation.
  • edited June 2019
    However, if the articles posted come from sources that are known to be controversial in the field, or to be repeating known and inaccurate tropes, pointing that out is hardly an accusation. When all the articles posted come from sources that are known to be controversial in the field, repeat inaccurate tropes and offer dubious research, then maybe we should start querying motivation.

    That makes for an impossible discussion situation where it's predetermined what is acceptable questions, and that which doesn't pass someone's standard for acceptability is adjudged as wrong and the person vilified. In this case, me, cf, the hell thread.

    You say "known to be controversial", which seems to me to describe the majority. There is no good data, plenty of opinion, and the assertiveness of position closes off discussion and means that questions may not be asked. It is very clear that you feel deeply about some of the children you know. It is clear to me that others who feel deeply about children both generally and about specific children they love do not agree with you. That's the fact. Some of us think that it is likely that some children who explore trangender will confirm this over time, and that others who explore it will not. I don't have any understanding of actual information on many points.
    (so when you and others say you know and tell us who don't that we're bigots - well, read what ohher said)

    -do most who explore transgender, transition? and are they permanently happy having done so?

    -do most explore transgender and then back away from it - and why do they back away from it, is it social pressure, developmental influences within an identity crisis? something else?

    -is the epidemiology of transgender increased because of the social acceptability level allowing previously hidden transgender people to more freely explore their identity? (I say more freely explore as I don't see it as free)

    -does it make a difference at what age and developmental level a person explores transgender (e.g., preschool, latency aged, adolescence, adulthood)

    -are the mental health concerns related to transgender because of the lack of support to be transgender, or are the mental health concerns inclusive of transgender such that trans is a symptom of other mental health or social/psychosocial issues?

    -do persons with particular social and psychological issues pursue transgender exploration moreso than others

    -what is the role of family, peer acceptance, school success, intellectual ability, social media, and peer and other perceived pressures and other such influences on any of this?

    There are other questions too.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Curiosity killed, I, for one, am impressed by much of what you have to say based on personal experience and great compassion, but there is a danger that the emotional commitment of your advocacy will alienate potential allies and discourage questions from those genuinely seeking enlightenment.
  • The problem is that we been provided with a long list of articles and research (from a range of people) some of which is very dubious, including:

    1. an article from Quillette, a right wing magazine, challenging transgender as being a contagion and claiming ROGD
    2. ROGD discussed as if is decided - and there are huge problems with that concept
    3. the position statement on gender dysphoria from the American College of Paediatrics an organisation of right wing paediatricians in the USA;
    4. a statement from Transgender Trend a group of parents " concerned about the current trend to diagnose children as transgender" putting out materials for schools whose crowdfunding was suspended for "contradicting reality".
    5. a link to the ROGD paper, criticised by Croesos
    6. an article by Margaret Wente, described by Marsupial as having a bee in her bonnet about trans issues

    Alongside a challenging any research with a different point of view.

    Now I haven't gone through the whole thread, and I'm not going to now, but I know there were a lot more links like this.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    However, if the articles posted come from sources that are known to be controversial in the field, or to be repeating known and inaccurate tropes, pointing that out is hardly an accusation. When all the articles posted come from sources that are known to be controversial in the field, repeat inaccurate tropes and offer dubious research, then maybe we should start querying motivation.

    CK, I too admire the staunchness of your advocacy. But we're dealing on this thread with an extremely complex topic which touches on several academic / professional disciplines: mental health, medicine, sociology, psychosexual development and possibly others as well. It's also, as noted several times, a fairly recent phenomenon. How could any of this be anything except controversial? Can you name a similar development that wasn't? Isn't controversy -- and the questions and investigations controversy raises -- precisely how we acquire the kinds of evidence and information that provide solid undergirding for discovering what works, what helps, what we need to do for folks, and how to advocate for them and their needs? Questions, challenges, controversy, competing theories and viewpoints -- these are the very engines which expand human knowledge. I submit that if there's one thing we really need on this topic, it's more knowledge.

    I'm getting up there in age. In my lifetime, doctors actually recommended that certain patients take up smoking. People were encouraged to consume plenty of meat, milk, and butter. Young athletes in my high school got salt pills distributed on hot days (!) -- and I live in a pretty cool microclimate. Women were "known" to be far more suited temperamentally to home-making than to professional careers. All of these views and practices eventually got challenged, and many changes resulted.

    A good advocate wants what's best for those she advocates for, and a really good advocate wants to know what that is.
  • The problem is that we been provided with a long list of articles and research (from a range of people) some of which is very dubious, including:

    1. an article from Quillette, a right wing magazine, challenging transgender as being a contagion and claiming ROGD
    2. ROGD discussed as if is decided - and there are huge problems with that concept
    3. the position statement on gender dysphoria from the American College of Paediatrics an organisation of right wing paediatricians in the USA;
    4. a statement from Transgender Trend a group of parents " concerned about the current trend to diagnose children as transgender" putting out materials for schools whose crowdfunding was suspended for "contradicting reality".
    5. a link to the ROGD paper, criticised by Croesos
    6. an article by Margaret Wente, described by Marsupial as having a bee in her bonnet about trans issues

    Alongside a challenging any research with a different point of view.

    Now I haven't gone through the whole thread, and I'm not going to now, but I know there were a lot more links like this.

    So what> you want to ask if I'm biased? Read what I've posted recently just above. And you've provided anecdote and links to things which are about support, care plans, and the like. When I posted for example about rapid onset gender dysphoria, it seemed to me she had a point if the data about an increase in girls exploring transgender. I still don't know if purported increases are true or artefact. The person who published it, did they have an agenda? Were they advocating for a point of view? were they doing bad data collection? did they do okay data collection but offended transgender people?

    You know we come into a topic like this actually trying to understand something and then there's this push push push and we look for evidence. Have I looked for evidence to support transgender? nope. Because others like yourself are posting that. yet, the quality of evidence is low, and we're back to well-spoken advocates publishing their well written arguments without actual data.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Well, no prophet offers a Cook's tour of anti-trans articles, websites and so on, so we should be grateful for the tour d'horizon.

    Are they? I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm talking through my hat.

    At the risk of conducting Hellish business out of Hell, a review of the the entire thread may be instructive for understanding why some of us finally lost patience here.
    But my impression here so far is that NoProphet is raising not unreasonable and legitimate concerns about a fairly new phenomenon. IME, that often happens with new phenomena.

    I think part of the disconnect we're having here is that the phenomenon isn't that new. The medical profession has been thinking about transgenderism for decades. People have been writing about transgenderism for decades - Harry Benjamin's pioneering work was published in 1966. (Jan Morris's Conundrum, which in case it needs to be said is not a book I consider a medical work, was published over 10 years ago, in 2006.)

    What is relatively new is that there is now increasingly a broad consensus within the medical profession as to how transgenderism should be dealt with, a consensus that is broadly affirming of transgender people's identities. This is also now increasingly reflected in law and policy. Some people are very unhappy about this, so a topic that existed largely under the radar for decades is now suddenly a hot topic.

    I get it that people who haven't been following this until recently may have questions and concerns. But at the risk of belabouring the obvious, there is a difference between saying "I don't really understand transgenderism and I have questions" and saying "there are objectively valid concerns about transgenderism that need to be put to the medical profession." In order to be taken remotely seriously in making the second statement you actually need have some level of understanding of transgenderism and/or the clinical work that has been done in transgenderism in the last few decades. Which, without intending any offence to anyone, most people on this thread clearly do not have.
    The impression I’m getting from this thread is that advocates (a legitimate and necessary role) regard questions about gender dysphoria as questioning the existence of the phenomenon itself. This, as Marvin has already pointed out, is not helpful; it closes the discussion down.

    I am at a bit of a loss though as to anyone expects these questions to answered in this forum. As far as I know, nobody here has clinical expertise in transgenderism. Nobody here is offering first-person insights into their experience of being transgender. There are many excellent sources one can consult if one has questions about transgenderism - I've referred to a number of them throughout this thread - but Ship of Fools is not one of them.





  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    CK, I too admire the staunchness of your advocacy. But we're dealing on this thread with an extremely complex topic which touches on several academic / professional disciplines: mental health, medicine, sociology, psychosexual development and possibly others as well... A good advocate wants what's best for those she advocates for, and a really good advocate wants to know what that is.

    This line of "discussion", implying that CK is just a well-meaning but overly emotional advocate, is such a steaming pile of condescending disregard that it deserves to be called out.

    CK has consistently linked the best of peer-reviewed research, policy, and practice on this subject to date. Admittedly these areas of research are still new, and whatever evidence might satisfy No Prophet - because according to No Prophet, that's all he's really seeking - has not yet been assembled.

    If there is emotion, it is burning through the monitor from posters who:
    • feel inadequate to the expectations of expertise from extended family
    • feel frustrated by the lack of data that they seem to indicate would satisfy them, should such data ever appear to their satisfaction
    • feel sulky about inferences of bigotry
    • feel confident that their non-expert opinions about someone else's life is as good, or better, than that person's own opinions about their own life

    Not one single person has pretended or inferred that transgender issues are not difficult and complicated for children or adolescents. Not one. And yet there is this bad-faith pretence that someone is defending some other position, and that they require "support" or a warm fuzzy banky. I find this pretence very tiresome. And that is my emotion. Would that others would own up to theirs.

  • I would have thought that masculinity and femininity might form a spectrum, so that a woman might be slightly masculine or very masculine. OK, now someone will say this isn't gender.

    I think of that as a person's yin/yang balance. Different people have/need different balances. Yin/yang symbols usually have 2 parts of different colors, and each also has a dot of the other color. Some people need an even balance of whatever is considered masculine/feminine/other in their culture. Others fit exactly their cultural patterns. Some find them more or less a good fit--except they've got to quietly break the rules on one or two things. Or they find them a bad fit, except for one or two things.
  • quantpolequantpole Shipmate
    Eliab wrote: »
    Quantpole complaining of being called a transphobe seemed to me rather like someone who enters a discussion about pornography and then complains that he's learned more than he's comfortable with about his interlocutor's viewing choices. He should have seen that coming. My sympathy is limited.

    It's a good job I wasn't looking for your (or anyone's) sympathy. My comment was about the way the conversation is going (in general). If you dare to say "I'm not sure about that" you are labelled a transphobe. It doesn't matter whether what you're talking about, whether it is the "cotton ceiling", women's sports, or as CCP has found out, the way the world is designed primarily for men. As Marvin says it's a way to shut down discussion and condemn people for Wrongthink. Similarly. the acronym 'terf' is used to cast aside mainly women.
  • BBC iPlayer has a 2 part mini-history of LGBTQ in the UK, which is informative, amusing and tragic, in turn. Cleverly based around prized objects that people have kept for the last 50 years. Also a ghastly shot of Thatcher decrying "pretended" homosexual families.

    A short section on trans people, included the statistic of 600, 000 trans people in the UK, a kind of guess probably, and if my maths is intact, 1% of the population, but probably includes non-binary. It's difficult to assess, as I have friends who describe themselves as trans, but have never visited a doctor or clinic.
  • Forgot the title, "Prejudice and Pride".
  • Ummmm.
    .
    For the ship....we seem to be going somewhere that i would not have expected us to be going.
    .
    People.
    We are talking About people.

    People who in all probability reside in plain sight. Right next to you. And have for years.

    .
    I m uncomfortable with the remarks being made here.
    But mostly....for the Very first time.....i am shocked.
    .
    Just sayin'
  • We appear to have decided to be a ship without uncloseted Trans people.
  • It's a very raw issue for both supporters and opponents of trans people. I suppose gay/lesbian identity was also raw 40 years ago, but less so now.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Hosting
    mousethief wrote: »
    We appear to have decided to be a ship without uncloseted Trans people.

    A personal attack is no less personal for being comprehensive.

    You know the ropes, and that isn’t one of them.

    Firenze
    /Hosting


  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Leaf wrote: »
    If there is emotion, it is burning through the monitor from posters who: (...)
    feel confident that their non-expert opinions about someone else's life is as good, or better, than that person's own opinions about their own life

    I think the problem here is that there is an inevitable tendency for somebody immediately concerned by the issue to take others' opinions personally, all the more so when the issue is wrapped up with one's sense of self-identity.

    However, there has to be room for these 'others' to work through their opinions. It's simply not realistic to expect the 'others' to immediately conform to individuals' opinions about their own lives, however painful that may be. Lashing back out is likely to reinforce prejudice, not overcome it.
  • It has been very obvious that this thread has been all about working through the issues around transgender which has meant much of the posting has been a denial of transgender. The problem is that outworking has meant so many of the links and justifications posted have been transphobic in origin (come from groups set up to deny transgender diagnosis), controversial or from groups that have been identified as hate groups. That level of denial and the unpleasantness of those links and arguments has meant that this thread must be extremely painful for anyone who is transgender or who has friends or families who are.

    (I'm a step back from this as I'm not directly involved with anyone transgender, interested, have had some training from Stonewall on LGBT+ issues, but not emotionally involved. I do know someone more involved in gender fluid communities who has not signed up for the new Ship, and this thread is part of that decision. And Greyface was the reason I joined the Ship originally, although I doubt she remembers that now - it was 13 years ago - she's not anyone I know personally, just Shipboard encounters.)
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited July 2019
    It has been very obvious that this thread has been all about working through the issues around transgender which has meant much of the posting has been a denial of transgender.

    I disagree.

    Firstly, questioning does not equal denial. Challenging our assumptions about a spherical earth does not make one a Flat Earther.

    Secondly, I broadly agree with those that find the -phobia suffix extremely unhelpful.

    'Phobia' originally means 'fear', and is commonly used as a suffix to stand for '-hater'. There are undoubtedly people who hate and are deliberately hurtful towards minorities, and in my experience here they are dealt with one way or another pretty effectively.

    However, all too often, throwing around words with '-phobe', '-phobia', and '-phobic' suffixes comes across simply as a way of shutting down debate. The same applies to the word 'bigot'. So far as I can see, use of this word is simply a way of shooting first.
    this thread must be extremely painful for anyone who is transgender or who has friends or families who are.
    It's my opinion that any discussion that does not pretty much exactly match the feelings and opinions of somebody for whom gender and/or sexual identity is a sensitive issue is going to be extremely painful for them.

    (This is not helped by the fact that, despite your protestations, there is no broad consensus on many aspects of these issues that I can see).

    In no way do I want to dismiss the pain people experience in this respect, but I think there needs to be an acknowledgement that if discussion is going to take place, there's going to be a degree of pain involved. This sucks, all the more so in that it can feel like having to suffer twice over, once within oneself and once in the public gaze, but there aren't easy solutions to that.

    Finally, what we're into on the Ship as I understand it is unrest, not activism. Unrest means we won't shy away from controversial subjects (and this is one). Historically (from my perspective at least) we are ahead of the Church at large in addressing them, and minorities are likelier to find a home here than in many other places.

    But (and this is an important but), unrest is not the same as activism: we are not in an environment in which our activist convictions, or even our identity, will go unchallenged; it would be mistaken to expect everyone else to espouse whichever form of activism we might be into.

    And finally, ChristinaMarie is a big part of why I'm here and why I stayed.
  • quantpolequantpole Shipmate
    It has been very obvious that this thread has been all about working through the issues around transgender which has meant much of the posting has been a denial of transgender.

    What does you mean by a denial of transgender? I haven't seen anyone claim that transgender people don't exist, or that it is not a real thing. What I have seen is disagreement on some of the ideology surrounding transgender issues.
    The problem is that outworking has meant so many of the links and justifications posted have been transphobic in origin (come from groups set up to deny transgender diagnosis), controversial or from groups that have been identified as hate groups. That level of denial and the unpleasantness of those links and arguments has meant that this thread must be extremely painful for anyone who is transgender or who has friends or families who are.

    You seem to have set yourself up as the arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable evidence. There are dubious statistics and evidence being thrown around from all sides. I find the conflagration of DSD and transgender on this thread deeply unpleasant. As is the weaponising of suicide and misrepresentation of violence against trans people.
  • Was merely observing that after many years on the Ship, this was the first time that i have felt uncomfortable with the way a thread was going.
    .
    That really was all.

    But were i trans....might i have even stayed to write this? Debatable
    .
Sign In or Register to comment.