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
.
No way. Having your identity questioned is not only hurtful, but absurd. I can't see why any trans person would join in this thread.
Having your identity questioned is not only hurtful, but absurd.
Your use of 'your' is also singularly unhelpful here because of its ambiguity.
So far as I can tell, no individual here is having their personal identity called into question.
That said, if transgender issues are to be discussed at all, that necessarily involves calling into question some of the parameters that make up that identity (and again, I see no evidence that these are entirely clear-cut, nor that all transgender people see them the same way).
Putting a minimum distance between oneself and the issue under discussion is vital if any discussion is to be had at all, no matter what the subject, all the more so if it is a sensitive one for the individual concerned.
@quetzalcoatl you and others here regularly call into question the identity of Christians in that you constantly challenge their core beliefs, which for Christians establish their identity. Do you think it's absurd to do so? Do you think the risk of that challenging being hurtful means the topic should be off-limits?
I can't see why any trans person would join in this thread.
And I can't see why anybody should presume to speak on behalf of an entire category of people as if they were a uniform whole. In fact the irony of presuming to do so in this area in particular strikes me as especially acute.
There are spaces on the Ship for a support group: private boards, for instance. Purgatory isn't one of them.
I understand why there is a dislike of the use of the word transphobia because it acts as a way of shutting down conversation, but when, for example, this article is quoted and when the authors are checked* and are found to be the American College of Pediatricians who Wikipedia describe as:
a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians and other healthcare professionals in the United States. ... The group's primary focus is advocating against the right of gay or lesbian people to adopt children, and it also advocates conversion therapy.
<snip>
ACPeds has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for "pushing anti-LGBT junk science". A number of mainstream researchers, including the director of the US National Institutes of Health, have accused ACPeds of misusing or mischaracterizing their work to advance ACPeds' political agenda.
transphobia doesn't seem to be an unfair description of that organisation's work (and that's one of several examples).
* I didn't pick this one up, by the way, it was other posters on the thread, I found it as an example when I was looking at the links posted.
Within the bounds of Purgatory, such a statement is not usually considered sufficient grounds to dismiss an opinion outright, whatever the subject.
A more rigourous standard for a claim would be to say "this is a hate group and here are the grounds for that allegation". "They push junk science" may be true, but it requires substantiation, in the form of at least one example that can be debated.
Also, I don't think much of guilt by association. It's not fair to accuse someone of x-phobia simply because they cite something put out by an organisation accused or generally held to be x-phobic. It may decrease the weight of their argument, but it doesn't ipso facto make the person quoting it x-phobic.
Why I'm pushing this is I have labelled organisations as transphobic, the American College of Pediatricians cited above, Transgender Trend and the research for the paper that describes ROGD (rapid onset gender dysphoria), which was discussed here
<snip> The criticism seems valid to me. I find it hard to justify creating a new diagnostic category of "rapid-onset gender dysphoria" based on a study that did not directly examine anyone who allegedly has such a condition.
“The three websites (that Littman posted to) all have ties (to) organizations and people that promote conversion therapy and reject gender identity,” wrote Brynn Tannehill, who has written widely about transgender experiences, including her own, in a follow-up email to The Herald. “The fact that she did not acknowledge the bias of these websites, and the effects that this would have on the data, clearly distorts whatever conclusions you may find. That’s flat-out bad research,” she said. <snip>
<snip>
Now, I realise telling other posters they are transphobic is unhelpful, outwith Hell, but I don't understand why web sites and research that have flaws in their methodology in these ways cannot be described as transphobic.
Now, I realise telling other posters they are transphobic is unhelpful, outwith Hell, but I don't understand why web sites and research that have flaws in their methodology in these ways cannot be described as transphobic.
That's fair enough. But I'm not convinced everybody has been as rigourous as you there in distinguishing sources from those quoting them. It's just like "attack the issue not the person", which is all the more pertinent when the topic is sensitive.
There's a world of difference between saying "I admit to some doubts about diagnoses of gender dysphoria" and saying "your gender dysphoria is nothing more than a liberal plot".
And there's a world of difference between saying "the research you cite is transphobic and here's why" and "you are a transphobe and a bigot".
Use of the second person ("you", "your") really needs to be carefully considered before posting.
Respecting these kinds of distinction is important. Doing so won't get rid of all the pain involved in discussing these issues, but it will take a lot of the heat out of the debate.
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.
If you see the discussion above this, you'll see some of the links posted that are trying to justify the 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.
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.
If you look at the links I posted above your post, it wasn't just me challenging those sites and links but a number of different Shipmates;
The statistics I found earlier on suicide are here
More than two in five trans young people (45 per cent) have attempted to take their own life. For lesbian, gay and bi young people who aren’t trans, one in five (22 per cent) have attempted to take their own life, (p7)
<snip> 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. <snip>
* 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.
Could you explain how finding the researched figures for attempted suicide rates in young people is weaponising suicide?
(I didn't discuss or find the numbers for violence against trans people, someone else did, as I know my way around the information for young people and education, rather than adults.)
If someone repeatedly cites publications or websites with a particular point of view in service of their own point of view, it's a fair conclusion that that person shares the views of those publications and websites. So if someone here repeatedly cites transphobic sources, I'm going to draw that conclusion.
Also, it's a shame that the word is "transphobic" (like "homophobic"), but etymology does not equal meaning in English.
Bleugh, sorry Firenze - that post above should be something like:
- this bit is a quotation from me in the earlier post that quantpole is answering 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.
(and this section is from quantpole) 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.
This idea of shutting down debate, for example by using "transphobic", is comical, as this thread has reached quite a lot of posts. Whoever is doing the shutting down, is very bad at it!
Agree with much of what you said about "-phobe" vs. "-hater". I'd been trying to figure out how to broach that.
If people aren't allowed to (carefully, civilly, hopefully sensitively) look at what's triggering their fears, ask questions, listen, carefully consider, learn, how are they ever supposed to take even baby steps forward?
People tend to be scared of differences--some people more than others. If they're shamed, have to bury their feelings, and pretend that they're totally happy about the difference, pressure is likely to build up, and bring some sort of emotional explosion and/or damage--possibly affecting the people around them, including people with the differences in question.
IOW, labeling scared people as haters is counter-productive.
Re Christina Marie:
I remember her. If I may ask, what was it about her that helped you, that got you onto the Ship? If you feel you shouldn't answer that, don't.
ChristinaMarie was one of the people I interacted with first on the Ship. I did so for some time, on unrelated subjects, before I knew she was transgender. So I go to know her as a person quite a while before knowing anything about her gender or sexual orientation.
(The wonders of the Internet: getting to know people you never otherwise would).
It pulled me up short to realise I would probably never have started interacting with her had I known she was transgender, through sheer phobia, in the proper sense of the term: an irrational fear.
We later swapped more than a few PMs about transgender issues, and notably the UK Evangelical Alliance's guidelines on trans people at the time, which she pointed me to. This had the immediate effect of me never wanting to be a member of an EA church ever again (a bit theoretical since I'm in the wrong country, but with knock-on effects on other, similar affiliations).
Her contribution to me staying was that she helped me realise the Ship was a place where I could meet people of faith from really different backgrounds who were willing to interact intelligently, robustly, and not disparagingly with those with stories very different from their own. This attitude, which for me she exemplified, probably contributed to me going on to dip a toe into the DH debates on homosexuality, which in turn significantly moved my views on that forward.
@quetzalcoatl - the problem with using transphobic to describe either a new or occasional poster or their actions is that is off-putting to that new or occasional poster wanting to discuss those ideas. It is frustrating on such a long thread as this when whatever said is repetition of something discussed much earlier, but it is unhelpful to that newcomer to just label that same idea. It does shut down their enquiries and prevents the conversation from happening.
I know we have had this discussion as to whether posters should read the whole thread before joining in¹, and in that conversation I was one of several Shipmates who said that they caught up with previous posts to check if the brilliant idea had not already been dismissed two pages earlier. If I have neither the time nor inclination to read back through, I do not participate on that thread. This board etiquette is impossible to police on a thread as long and unwieldy as this one and is obviously not followed by every Shipmate as we often see posts starting "I haven't read everything on this thread, but ...".
This repeated argument of the same points is something that often happens on the longer Dead Horses threads when Shipmates come and go. But unless that new poster has time to explore their ideas, they cannot change their minds. Shutting them down immediately doesn't help them to move on. (And that happens in Dead Horses too - and I've changed my mind on topics in Dead Horses since I've been on the Ship).
As Eutychus has said, there are a range of views on transgender issues, ranging from the total denial of transgender from such as the groups I linked to a few posts ago² through the middle ground of GIDS³ at the Tavistock in the UK to the demands for total and immediate acceptance from the campaign groups such as Mermaids. I am arguing and evidencing from the middle ground of GIDS and against Mermaids on many issues appertaining to transgender; as a result I would be seen as transphobic by many trans people.
Curiosity, I don't recollect any new person being labelled transphobic. I have used it of various websites, e.g., Mumsnet, which I call transphobia central, although they are supposed to have moderated their language.
I was answering your question, but also thinking of posts like this which isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but when that falls into the conversation on this page must feel pointed in that climate.
Curiosity, interesting point about Mermaids, "total and immediate" acceptance. I don't know much about them, but acceptance of what? If an adolescent turns up with a rambling and confused set of ideas about gender, I suppose many therapists accept that, and don't criticize it. But then, that is different from clinical assessment and recommendation for treatment, which is not Mermaids job.
Just heard of somebody waiting two years to meet a consultant at the Tavi, this seems terrible, if someone is in great distress. There was an idea of emergency treatment by GPs, but I don't know if it's happening.
Also, Eutychus, it's quite a stretch to align a body of ideas, which has been around for a long time, and was often dominant, intellectually and socially, with a fledgling identity. Of course, I am talking about the West, as there are arguments that "third gender" has existed in many countries. It's interesting that this is a Christian forum, surely this reflects social stability? Trans people don't have that, although I think they are coming in from the cold.
It's things like this quote from this response the Government consultation on self identification here (pdf) document that I am not totally convinced by:
Mermaids recommends the repeal of the current diagnosis requirement and that generally the legal process for gender recognition should be completely de-medicalised, for all ages; (TNB health care and LGR should be completely disassociated.) Mermaids recommends that a future system is built on a system of “self-determination” (PACE 2048(2015) 6.2.1.) p7
Mermaids believes that what it means to ‘be’ a gender is not defined by anything but one’s self-determined identity. Any system that allows a person’s self-determination to be limited depending on a third party’s opinion (including professional medical opinion) is deeply problematic and incompatible with international human right principles and legislation.
I understand that the current hoops to be jumped to acquire a GRC (Gender recognition certificate) are onerous and unnecessarily difficult because there are huge waiting lists and it is medicalised making everything very slow. And being given a GRC can be held up at the whim of a psychiatrist (someone I know of has been refused twice because the psychiatrist didn't like their chosen name). But completely barrier-free self-determination gives a licence to those who will choose to abuse self ID.
I don't think the answer to solving the current problems is unchecked self-determination or without monitoring in any way.
TNB - Trans or non-binary
LGR - Legal gender recognition
Are you really saying that I constantly challenge Christian beliefs? My rhetorical powers are under appreciated by myself, as I don't recollect that.
No, I'm suggesting that when you do, you use the yardstick you would like to see applied to this discussion, in other words how others perceive your words, not your fetchingly modest apprecation of how incisive or hurtful they might be, or how they clearly should have been understood as being tongue in cheek. Implementing that would mean using words like "your" more carefully.
Also, Eutychus, it's quite a stretch to align a body of ideas, which has been around for a long time, and was often dominant, intellectually and socially, with a fledgling identity.
What I really don't think is a stretch, in this context, is to extend the same courtesy, within the limits of our rules, to ideas and identities however old or new they may be.
The fact that Christian identity has been around for a long time in no way makes it fair game to be gratuitiously impugned any more than the idea that trans identities are a new one makes them fair game for the same treatment. At least not in this debating space.
Activism of all sorts has its place, but again, this forum is not designed as vehicle for activism but for debating ideas.
It's things like this quote from this response the Government consultation on self identification here (pdf) document that I am not totally convinced by:
Mermaids recommends the repeal of the current diagnosis requirement and that generally the legal process for gender recognition should be completely de-medicalised, for all ages; (TNB health care and LGR should be completely disassociated.) Mermaids recommends that a future system is built on a system of “self-determination” (PACE 2048(2015) 6.2.1.) p7
Mermaids believes that what it means to ‘be’ a gender is not defined by anything but one’s self-determined identity. Any system that allows a person’s self-determination to be limited depending on a third party’s opinion (including professional medical opinion) is deeply problematic and incompatible with international human right principles and legislation.
I understand that the current hoops to be jumped to acquire a GRC (Gender recognition certificate) are onerous and unnecessarily difficult because there are huge waiting lists and it is medicalised making everything very slow. And being given a GRC can be held up at the whim of a psychiatrist (someone I know of has been refused twice because the psychiatrist didn't like their chosen name). But completely barrier-free self-determination gives a licence to those who will choose to abuse self ID.
I don't think the answer to solving the current problems is unchecked self-determination or without monitoring in any way.
TNB - Trans or non-binary
LGR - Legal gender recognition
Thanks for that. It's difficult to work out what happens in practice. I think an overly medical approach in the first instance is prohibitive. Also, personal identity is quasi-philosophical. Who is it that is familiar with your experience, well, not me.
As for abuse of self ID, is it a genuine risk? There are plenty of anecdotes, of course.
I heard of psychiatrists who said, "you don't look feminine enough", to trans women. Gulp, who is the judge of that? But then I had gay clients who were told to visit prostitutes, to "cure" them, or to get married. But those were the bad old days. I think some GPs are nervous around gender issues, who can blame them.
Curiosity, another point about self-ID, is that we all do this. This is very ticklish with gender - how masculine should I be? Should I flirt with men (as a male)? How feminine can I be, whatever that means.
But this sounds like voluntary gender, whereas many trans people talk of an inner identity, which is not chosen.
There seems to be an intersection here of personal experience, social constructs, prejudice, conformity, and so on. It's so complex, but if we don't start from personal experience, then I am allowing others to define me. Hence, the psychiatrist who says you're not feminine enough, is a kind of Stalinist.
Eutychus, I think debating issues that are new and/or controversial in a changing societal environment is in fact a form of activism. It can lead people to change their minds, as you did.
Yes, but it requires modulation of behaviour. Another seminar I was working at lately was on the subject of activism and got me thinking.
Part of the blurb:
the people that currently participate in citizen projects are mostly activists of some kind! If we want to upscale this movement, shouldn't we consider this activism as a limit to our action? How to get in touch with people of different background? (sic)
One of the insights in the discussion was the need to adjust terminology accordingly. Another was to accept that having one's ideas accepted was a very different thing from turning everyone into an activist.
I find this fascinating on many levels but to pursue it would probably be a tangent here.
There are reports that the Scottish govt has abandoned plans for self ID, after a considerable backlash. I wonder if there will be any scheme, or will they stick with medical oversight? It will be seen as a defeat for trans people.
The debate started in Parliament in November 2018 - BBC coverage on changing the current complex gender recognition process, which is currently:
To change a birth certificate a person currently has to:
Provide two medical reports, one showing a diagnosis of "gender dysphoria" and the other outlining details of treatment received
Obtain the consent of their spouse if they are married
Demonstrate that they have lived in their acquired gender for at least 2 years
Pay £140
I am not sure I would want to do away totally with the demonstration of some time spent living in their acquired gender and some acknowledgement of psychological or medical support through the process. If the transgender person is transitioning hormonally or surgically that last should be relatively easily obtained, not so easy when social transition only is happening.
As to abuse of self-ID, having spent some time digging around, looking, the stuff I'm finding is very transphobic. But self-ID without any suitably qualified support through the mental and physical stresses of transitioning does not sound a particularly healthy option for trans people.
of course, the notion of an acquired gender is open to various objections. First, many trans people will say it's not acquired. Second, do we all have an acquired gender? Or is it innate? Then some trans people argue that theirs is.
Lots of philosophical assumptions flying around, aren't there? Or maybe they're not philosophical, they're just pragmatic. But hang on, that is philosophical. Aw, shucks.
quetzalcoatl: It will be seen as a defeat for trans people.
Maybe so, but there are wider issues regarding the important distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Despite regarding himself/herself as an ugly duckling the subject was, indeed, a swan.
quetzalcoatl: It will be seen as a defeat for trans people.
Maybe so, but there are wider issues regarding the important distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Despite regarding himself/herself as an ugly duckling the subject was, indeed, a swan.
Well, in some ways it hinges on that. Do I get to describe myself, or do you? Your 'indeed' conceals a whole mass of ideas, about 'who, whom?'
Once again I'm left wondering why people have such a problem here. Unless you're involved directly it doesn't concern you. Why can people not let other people just be? I don't get why people like hip-hop but I don't insist they must be mistaken and actually need to spend a weekend at a rock festival to understand what they really like.
Comments
No way. Having your identity questioned is not only hurtful, but absurd. I can't see why any trans person would join in this thread.
Your use of 'your' is also singularly unhelpful here because of its ambiguity.
So far as I can tell, no individual here is having their personal identity called into question.
That said, if transgender issues are to be discussed at all, that necessarily involves calling into question some of the parameters that make up that identity (and again, I see no evidence that these are entirely clear-cut, nor that all transgender people see them the same way).
Putting a minimum distance between oneself and the issue under discussion is vital if any discussion is to be had at all, no matter what the subject, all the more so if it is a sensitive one for the individual concerned.
@quetzalcoatl you and others here regularly call into question the identity of Christians in that you constantly challenge their core beliefs, which for Christians establish their identity. Do you think it's absurd to do so? Do you think the risk of that challenging being hurtful means the topic should be off-limits?
And I can't see why anybody should presume to speak on behalf of an entire category of people as if they were a uniform whole. In fact the irony of presuming to do so in this area in particular strikes me as especially acute.
There are spaces on the Ship for a support group: private boards, for instance. Purgatory isn't one of them.
* I didn't pick this one up, by the way, it was other posters on the thread, I found it as an example when I was looking at the links posted.
A more rigourous standard for a claim would be to say "this is a hate group and here are the grounds for that allegation". "They push junk science" may be true, but it requires substantiation, in the form of at least one example that can be debated.
Also, I don't think much of guilt by association. It's not fair to accuse someone of x-phobia simply because they cite something put out by an organisation accused or generally held to be x-phobic. It may decrease the weight of their argument, but it doesn't ipso facto make the person quoting it x-phobic.
Now, I realise telling other posters they are transphobic is unhelpful, outwith Hell, but I don't understand why web sites and research that have flaws in their methodology in these ways cannot be described as transphobic.
That's fair enough. But I'm not convinced everybody has been as rigourous as you there in distinguishing sources from those quoting them. It's just like "attack the issue not the person", which is all the more pertinent when the topic is sensitive.
There's a world of difference between saying "I admit to some doubts about diagnoses of gender dysphoria" and saying "your gender dysphoria is nothing more than a liberal plot".
And there's a world of difference between saying "the research you cite is transphobic and here's why" and "you are a transphobe and a bigot".
Use of the second person ("you", "your") really needs to be carefully considered before posting.
Respecting these kinds of distinction is important. Doing so won't get rid of all the pain involved in discussing these issues, but it will take a lot of the heat out of the debate.
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.
Could you explain how finding the researched figures for attempted suicide rates in young people is weaponising suicide?
(I didn't discuss or find the numbers for violence against trans people, someone else did, as I know my way around the information for young people and education, rather than adults.)
Confusing quote sequence sorted. Possibly. Firenze, Purg Host
Also, it's a shame that the word is "transphobic" (like "homophobic"), but etymology does not equal meaning in English.
And then the answer below, which I've snipped out
Agree with much of what you said about "-phobe" vs. "-hater". I'd been trying to figure out how to broach that.
If people aren't allowed to (carefully, civilly, hopefully sensitively) look at what's triggering their fears, ask questions, listen, carefully consider, learn, how are they ever supposed to take even baby steps forward?
People tend to be scared of differences--some people more than others. If they're shamed, have to bury their feelings, and pretend that they're totally happy about the difference, pressure is likely to build up, and bring some sort of emotional explosion and/or damage--possibly affecting the people around them, including people with the differences in question.
IOW, labeling scared people as haters is counter-productive.
Re Christina Marie:
I remember her. If I may ask, what was it about her that helped you, that got you onto the Ship? If you feel you shouldn't answer that, don't.
(The wonders of the Internet: getting to know people you never otherwise would).
It pulled me up short to realise I would probably never have started interacting with her had I known she was transgender, through sheer phobia, in the proper sense of the term: an irrational fear.
We later swapped more than a few PMs about transgender issues, and notably the UK Evangelical Alliance's guidelines on trans people at the time, which she pointed me to. This had the immediate effect of me never wanting to be a member of an EA church ever again (a bit theoretical since I'm in the wrong country, but with knock-on effects on other, similar affiliations).
Her contribution to me staying was that she helped me realise the Ship was a place where I could meet people of faith from really different backgrounds who were willing to interact intelligently, robustly, and not disparagingly with those with stories very different from their own. This attitude, which for me she exemplified, probably contributed to me going on to dip a toe into the DH debates on homosexuality, which in turn significantly moved my views on that forward.
I know we have had this discussion as to whether posters should read the whole thread before joining in¹, and in that conversation I was one of several Shipmates who said that they caught up with previous posts to check if the brilliant idea had not already been dismissed two pages earlier. If I have neither the time nor inclination to read back through, I do not participate on that thread. This board etiquette is impossible to police on a thread as long and unwieldy as this one and is obviously not followed by every Shipmate as we often see posts starting "I haven't read everything on this thread, but ...".
This repeated argument of the same points is something that often happens on the longer Dead Horses threads when Shipmates come and go. But unless that new poster has time to explore their ideas, they cannot change their minds. Shutting them down immediately doesn't help them to move on. (And that happens in Dead Horses too - and I've changed my mind on topics in Dead Horses since I've been on the Ship).
As Eutychus has said, there are a range of views on transgender issues, ranging from the total denial of transgender from such as the groups I linked to a few posts ago² through the middle ground of GIDS³ at the Tavistock in the UK to the demands for total and immediate acceptance from the campaign groups such as Mermaids. I am arguing and evidencing from the middle ground of GIDS and against Mermaids on many issues appertaining to transgender; as a result I would be seen as transphobic by many trans people.
¹ It was here
² here
³ The UK Gender Identity Development Service
Thank you for this. Most of my memories of her are from her...difficult...times, so it's nice to know good things about her.
Very good. But I'd be interested to see a citation of someone being labelled transphobic on this thread, apart from "Del boy in a dress".
No acknowledgement that nobody has directly and personally called into question the identity of any specific individual posting?
No acknowledgement that constant challenging of Christian beliefs could also be constituted to be calling into question Christians' identity?
Just heard of somebody waiting two years to meet a consultant at the Tavi, this seems terrible, if someone is in great distress. There was an idea of emergency treatment by GPs, but I don't know if it's happening.
Are you really saying that I constantly challenge Christian beliefs? My rhetorical powers are under appreciated by myself, as I don't recollect that.
I understand that the current hoops to be jumped to acquire a GRC (Gender recognition certificate) are onerous and unnecessarily difficult because there are huge waiting lists and it is medicalised making everything very slow. And being given a GRC can be held up at the whim of a psychiatrist (someone I know of has been refused twice because the psychiatrist didn't like their chosen name). But completely barrier-free self-determination gives a licence to those who will choose to abuse self ID.
I don't think the answer to solving the current problems is unchecked self-determination or without monitoring in any way.
TNB - Trans or non-binary
LGR - Legal gender recognition
Thx.
What I really don't think is a stretch, in this context, is to extend the same courtesy, within the limits of our rules, to ideas and identities however old or new they may be.
The fact that Christian identity has been around for a long time in no way makes it fair game to be gratuitiously impugned any more than the idea that trans identities are a new one makes them fair game for the same treatment. At least not in this debating space.
Activism of all sorts has its place, but again, this forum is not designed as vehicle for activism but for debating ideas.
Thanks for that. It's difficult to work out what happens in practice. I think an overly medical approach in the first instance is prohibitive. Also, personal identity is quasi-philosophical. Who is it that is familiar with your experience, well, not me.
As for abuse of self ID, is it a genuine risk? There are plenty of anecdotes, of course.
I heard of psychiatrists who said, "you don't look feminine enough", to trans women. Gulp, who is the judge of that? But then I had gay clients who were told to visit prostitutes, to "cure" them, or to get married. But those were the bad old days. I think some GPs are nervous around gender issues, who can blame them.
A point from you is like a rare and delicious orchid blooming in the desert of my life.
But this sounds like voluntary gender, whereas many trans people talk of an inner identity, which is not chosen.
There seems to be an intersection here of personal experience, social constructs, prejudice, conformity, and so on. It's so complex, but if we don't start from personal experience, then I am allowing others to define me. Hence, the psychiatrist who says you're not feminine enough, is a kind of Stalinist.
Part of the blurb:
One of the insights in the discussion was the need to adjust terminology accordingly. Another was to accept that having one's ideas accepted was a very different thing from turning everyone into an activist.
I find this fascinating on many levels but to pursue it would probably be a tangent here.
The debate started in Parliament in November 2018 - BBC coverage on changing the current complex gender recognition process, which is currently:
I am not sure I would want to do away totally with the demonstration of some time spent living in their acquired gender and some acknowledgement of psychological or medical support through the process. If the transgender person is transitioning hormonally or surgically that last should be relatively easily obtained, not so easy when social transition only is happening.
As to abuse of self-ID, having spent some time digging around, looking, the stuff I'm finding is very transphobic. But self-ID without any suitably qualified support through the mental and physical stresses of transitioning does not sound a particularly healthy option for trans people.
Lots of philosophical assumptions flying around, aren't there? Or maybe they're not philosophical, they're just pragmatic. But hang on, that is philosophical. Aw, shucks.
Maybe so, but there are wider issues regarding the important distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Despite regarding himself/herself as an ugly duckling the subject was, indeed, a swan.
Well, in some ways it hinges on that. Do I get to describe myself, or do you? Your 'indeed' conceals a whole mass of ideas, about 'who, whom?'
For other provincial documents, you do the same and get a letter signed by someone like a physician or psychologist. There is no indication required as to the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Example: http://www.forms.ssb.gov.on.ca/mbs/ssb/forms/ssbforms.nsf/FormDetail?OpenForm&ACT=RDR&TAB=PROFILE&SRCH=1&ENV=WWE&TIT=11325&NO=007-11325E