So although there are queries about the Stonewall figures, backed up by similar other North American research, but not others. The small sample sizes mean that figures are not accurate, but that there is evidence that transgender people do experience an elevated risk of suicide.
I didn't claim that there isn't an elevated risk. I said that the figures pushes by Mermaids and Stonewall are dubious. And that the Samaritans are concerned about the sensationalising of such stats. There is also a distinct lack of comorbidity analysis of such figures.
There is a strong correlation between trans people and autism. I read something by an autistic person recently (sorry, can't remember where exactly) who said that they were worried about the constant talk of suicide because it is the sort of thing that to her she would end up interpreting as people telling her she should feel suicidal.
Proponents of the link between ASD and GD have pointed to studies that suggest that gender variance is present in 5% to 7% of youth with ASD compared with approximately 1% in the general population. However, those studies have used a definition of "gender variance" that does not indicate GD or transgender identity. Conversely some have argued that ASD is over-represented in those with GD, although these studies have used symptomatology scales that might not be specific to ASD. This has led to a number of theories linking these 2 phenomena, although none are supported by concrete evidence.
The article goes on to explain how the assessment of gender variance is assessed.
One elephant remains in the living room, however: pregnancy and childbirth. I would submit that, until / unless humanity switches over to lab-ifying the entire reproductive process (we'll likely have gone extinct before that transpires), equalizing the treatment of people who gestate and birth babies and people who don't is going to remain a significant challenge.
So as soon as a woman gives birth she is treated completely differently than she was before she got pregnant? Is this why the "religious right," the biggest bitchers about trans people, are also trying to prevent abortions and in extreme cases (such as the USA) trying to prevent women from attaining birth control (or punish them if they do)? So they can PROVE they're real women by giving birth?
Don't know how you got that from what Ohher posted. I'm thinking of the differences in medical care. Equal treatment is not always equitable. Childbearing women typically require measurably more medical care than men of the same age, as pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous.
So as soon as a woman gives birth she is treated completely differently than she was before she got pregnant? Is this why the "religious right," the biggest bitchers about trans people, are also trying to prevent abortions and in extreme cases (such as the USA) trying to prevent women from attaining birth control (or punish them if they do)? So they can PROVE they're real women by giving birth?
I'm no angel, and this appears to be an invitation to go where they likely fear to tread. But having spent some time attempting to unravel the internal "logic" of a few evangelical minds (not necessarily successfully), I'll bite.
Yes: women who give birth (within a Christian* marriage) occupy a different status than women who don't marry, and different from those who marry but remain childless. Birthing partially redeems women by ensuring compliance with the terms laid out by God in expelling the nincompoop Eve from Eden. (Recall that OT regards childlessness in women as a curse; it basically leaves women with no way to justify their existence and dooms them to lesser being-hood, spiritually speaking. If you don't lust after your husband and undergo the trials of pregnancy and the mortal dangers of giving birth, you're basically in rebellion against God, since that's what He decreed. You have to take your punishment.) So in a religious sense, the barren OT / Evangelical-but-single-and/or-childless woman is indeed "less real" or at least not quite "in the fold." In an OT social sense, she was also doomed, with no one to care for her in old age. (Note that Evangelicals aren't crazy about governmental social interventions either.)
The need to ensure that God's plan gets worked out means not interfering with it (except, of course, for the infertile couple; it's apparently fine to reject God's will in that matter and do whatever it takes to produce a quiver-full). God's plan apparently depends, in part, on The Chosen People (whoever that happens to be at the mo -- ancient Hebrews, medieval landholders, modern US Evangelicals) out-populating everybody else.
Which brings us to same-sex sex, abortions, birth control, and rape. Sexual activity that doesn't produce offspring just can't be on the Christian* sex menu; if it doesn't contribute to out-populating everybody else, it's evil. Masturbation, same-sex sex, sex using birth control: off with its head. Abortion? Unthinkable; sexual activity has already produced offspring! God's will!
Which brings us at long last to this: you'll note the ongoing insertion into the abortion debate the question, "What about in cases of rape and incest?" The usual objection raised is "So rare; why even discuss this?" (Ask that of the woman who's fallen pregnant.) It's estimated that only about 4% of rapes result in pregnancy. (I have no current figures for incest). What goes unsaid is that about 20% of all (US) women experience attempted or completed sexual assault (and that's likely an underreport): 26 million women. Assume only half of these are completed assaults, and we're dealing with 13 million women. A pregnancy rate of 4% yields more than half-a-million babies.
And the underlying question is the same: who controls a woman's body? A rapist? The state? Her husband?
If you think about the sort of ethic that might develop in a prehistoric world where humankind lives in small tribes (extended families) that are in constant danger of extinction, the survival of the tribe depends on having women who produce multiple healthy offspring.
And what follows is the pro-birth attitudes you describe.
Obsolete thinking.
But then conservatism is the error of hanging onto elements of the past too long. Just as the opposite error discards too much of the past too easily.
Which brings us right back to the question of which attributes of gender (as defined by yourselves) are specifically and unchangingly male or female.
Are we talking about stuff as irrelevant (to me, in this context) as "I want to wear pretty dresses" or "I want to be paid the same as the men in my office"? I can think of a whole bunch of similar things that are due to the fucked up way society treats men and women differently, but ISTM that the solution to that issue is to get society to stop treating men and women differently rather than to simply let individuals swap between one and the other according to how they'd rather be treated.
If gender roles in society should be the same for both sexes (which I strongly believe they should), and if biological considerations are irrelevant (as you claim), then what's left to define gender? Which remaining factors are there to make a difference?
There are NO attributes of gender, as defined by me, that are specifically and unchangingly male or female as determined by a person's biological sex.
The problem is your wish to define other people and your top-down viewpoint, as revealed by your line
the solution to that issue is to get society to stop treating men and women differently rather than to simply let individuals swap between one and the other according to how they'd rather be treated.
What the hell is wrong with letting people live their lives as they see fit?
Colin Smith: What the hell is wrong with letting people live their lives as they see fit?
The simple answer is, as Aristotle recognised, that "Man [and woman] is by nature a political [or social] animal." The problem of "living our lives as we see fit" is that it is difficult to do so without impinging on the interests and rights of others and making demands on others. There is no easy way of establishing the legitimate boundaries between actions which ought to be self-determined and those which ought to be socially determined, and where the private good of the individual should take precedence over the public good of the whole. Thus, while one can sympathise with your frustration, Colin, it begs the question in relation to trans rights, for example, rather than providing an answer to it.
Colin Smith: What the hell is wrong with letting people live their lives as they see fit?
The simple answer is, as Aristotle recognised, that "Man [and woman] is by nature a political [or social] animal." The problem of "living our lives as we see fit" is that it is difficult to do so without impinging on the interests and rights of others and making demands on others. There is no easy way of establishing the legitimate boundaries between actions which ought to be self-determined and those which ought to be socially determined, and where the private good of the individual should take precedence over the public good of the whole. Thus, while one can sympathise with your frustration, Colin, it begs the question in relation to trans rights, for example, rather than providing an answer to it.
I think a contextually appropriate, if crude, reply to this is "bollocks".
I am not talking about my right, or anyone's right, to live my life of daylight robbery or drug trafficking while impinging on your rights by bashing you on the head and taking your wallet or turning your children into drug addicts.
I cannot for the life of me see how a male-sexed person choosing to live as a woman or a female-sexed person choosing to live as a man has any impact on my life or the life of anyone else, at all other than their immediate friends and relatives.
Society and legislation has a role in protecting the vulnerable but otherwise it should get the hell out of regulating people's lives.
Colin Smith: What the hell is wrong with letting people live their lives as they see fit?
The simple answer is, as Aristotle recognised, that "Man [and woman] is by nature a political [or social] animal." The problem of "living our lives as we see fit" is that it is difficult to do so without impinging on the interests and rights of others and making demands on others. There is no easy way of establishing the legitimate boundaries between actions which ought to be self-determined and those which ought to be socially determined, and where the private good of the individual should take precedence over the public good of the whole. Thus, while one can sympathise with your frustration, Colin, it begs the question in relation to trans rights, for example, rather than providing an answer to it.
I think a contextually appropriate, if crude, reply to this is "bollocks".
I am not talking about my right, or anyone's right, to live my life of daylight robbery or drug trafficking while impinging on your rights by bashing you on the head and taking your wallet or turning your children into drug addicts.
I cannot for the life of me see how a male-sexed person choosing to live as a woman or a female-sexed person choosing to live as a man has any impact on my life or the life of anyone else, at all other than their immediate friends and relatives.
Society and legislation has a role in protecting the vulnerable but otherwise it should get the hell out of regulating people's lives.
This, exactly. That Fred is now Freda has absolutely no impact on anyone else. An individual's relationship between gender, genitalia at birth and genitalia now is not my concern.
The only people trying to impact other people's lives in this conversation are the transphobes. And I will use the word because quibbling aside we all know what it means.
Colin Smith: I think a contextually appropriate, if crude, reply to this is "bollocks".
An entirely inapposite comment, one might suggest, in the context of the issue under discussion.
Colin Smith: I cannot for the life of me see how a male-sexed person choosing to live as a woman or a female-sexed person choosing to live as a man has any impact on my life or the life of anyone else, at all other than their immediate friends and relatives.
Maybe justifiably so respecting yourself. There are, however, questions of public policy in relation to the issue regarding, for example, the access of trans women to public spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, admission to female prisons etc, which are highly controversial amongst cis-gendered women. Is the solution to be resolved by removing engendered facilities across a whole range of service provision, or the dismissal of the 'mums net brigade' reservations in the way one would demands for racial segregation? What should policy be regarding the admittance of trans women into female sporting events? More generally there is the question of how one might create a more sympathetic attitude towards trans, which requires the creation a social willingness that should be so, and accepted educational mechanisms to achieve that end. As you say yourself, Colin:"Society and legislation has a role in protecting the vulnerable," but that often requires restrictions on the actions of those less enlightened than your good self. The resolution of these issues involve value decisions taken at a societal rather than individual level.
There are separate issues, aren't there? The stuff about toilets and so on could be termed "an appeal to consequences". Thus, it would be odd to prevent people transitioning because there might have to be changes in such things.
The various right wing and Christian anti-trans media, which make a lot of noise about toilets, and so on, are often hiding a moral opposition to trans people, on the grounds that they are "unnatural", or going against God, or are denying biology, and so on.
The various right wing and Christian anti-trans media, which make a lot of noise about toilets, and so on, are often hiding a moral opposition to trans people, on the grounds that they are "unnatural", or going against God, or are denying biology, and so on.
Interestingly this same group of anti-trans Christians rallied behind a man who was a known rapist of preadolescent girls and made him governor of Alabama. Making it patently clear that the whole bathroom thing around trans people was a blatant lie and the real issue was transphobia, not any kind of concern about their daughters.
Is there much point in continuing to discuss trans denial, because ISTM that the condition is proven to the satisfaction of most reasonable people? The more pertinent questions are how to respond to it in a just, compassionate and rational manner, taking into account the need to recognise the uncertainty of its definition and causes, and problems of acceptance (social, administrative and legal), and the need to build greater sympathy amongst the public as a whole.
I cannot for the life of me see how a male-sexed person choosing to live as a woman or a female-sexed person choosing to live as a man has any impact on my life or the life of anyone else, at all other than their immediate friends and relatives.
I don't agree with your use of "choosing" which has connotations of a totally voluntary, almost whimsical, choice. It's a choice made because those, deep down, believe themselves to be of the gender other than that usually associated with their sex (using sex as the physical).
I cannot for the life of me see how a male-sexed person choosing to live as a woman or a female-sexed person choosing to live as a man has any impact on my life or the life of anyone else, at all other than their immediate friends and relatives.
I don't agree with your use of "choosing" which has connotations of a totally voluntary, almost whimsical, choice. It's a choice made because those, deep down, believe themselves to be of the gender other than that usually associated with their sex (using sex as the physical).
Good point. It is totally the wrong word. A much better word would be "compelled".
Is there much point in continuing to discuss trans denial, because ISTM that the condition is proven to the satisfaction of most reasonable people? The more pertinent questions are how to respond to it in a just, compassionate and rational manner, taking into account the need to recognise the uncertainty of its definition and causes, and problems of acceptance (social, administrative and legal), and the need to build greater sympathy amongst the public as a whole.
I really do struggle with the tone and implications here. Unless I've seriously misread this, you appear to be saying that we as a a society have to accommodate those who deny that trans is a thing and the logical conclusion is that this "accommodation" will have some impact on the lives of those who are trans.
That's like society accommodating racists by taking measures that impact on the lives of black people.
Is there much point in continuing to discuss trans denial, because ISTM that the condition is proven to the satisfaction of most reasonable people? The more pertinent questions are how to respond to it in a just, compassionate and rational manner, taking into account the need to recognise the uncertainty of its definition and causes, and problems of acceptance (social, administrative and legal), and the need to build greater sympathy amongst the public as a whole.
I'm not sure what "most reasonable people" means, when you think that the Vatican recently released a document critical of trans identities, and the US administration seems hostile. I guess that Trump is paying homage to evangelicals, many of whom support him, and many are anti-trans.
Well, OK, you could say that these are not reasonable people, but I think they still have to be argued against.
quetzalcoatl: I'm not sure what "most reasonable people" means.
What I should have referred to were "those open to reason" in contrast to those Southern rednecks whose prejudice is probably invincible. As I see it there are a number of reasons why individuals are transphobic, of which an important constituency are those whose opposition does not rise from a denial of the condition but fear the consequences of a more accepting approach. A campaign of reassurance directed towards them may well induce a change of attitude, given that the phobia centres on practical rather than ideological considerations. Has that not been the experience of changing attitudes towards homosexuality?
I take the point about the Vatican, whose position might well merit a continuing challenge.
quetzalcoatl: I'm not sure what "most reasonable people" means.
What I should have referred to were "those open to reason" in contrast to those Southern rednecks whose prejudice is probably invincible. As I see it there are a number of reasons why individuals are transphobic, of which an important constituency are those whose opposition does not rise from a denial of the condition but fear the consequences of a more accepting approach. A campaign of reassurance directed towards them may well induce a change of attitude, given that the phobia centres on practical rather than ideological considerations. Has that not been the experience of changing attitudes towards homosexuality?
No, I don't think so. We just ignored the homophobes and when the sky didn't fall in most of them shut up. This will probably end up going much the same way.
What I should have referred to were "those open to reason" in contrast to those Southern rednecks whose prejudice is probably invincible.
I wondered how long it would take before someone came out with the "anyone who disagrees with me about this is an ignorant bigoted redneck" line.
I utterly detest the way so many complain about others not being "open to reason", when what they actually mean by "open to reason" is "agree immediately and unquestioningly with my views".
Proponents of the link between ASD and GD have pointed to studies that suggest that gender variance is present in 5% to 7% of youth with ASD compared with approximately 1% in the general population. However, those studies have used a definition of "gender variance" that does not indicate GD or transgender identity. Conversely some have argued that ASD is over-represented in those with GD, although these studies have used symptomatology scales that might not be specific to ASD. This has led to a number of theories linking these 2 phenomena, although none are supported by concrete evidence.
The article goes on to explain how the assessment of gender variance is assessed.
Yes, more research is good, and what you have found does not show that there isn't a correlation, only that they do not think the research is precise enough. But the link seems to be widely acknowledged, e.g. GIDS.
Is there much point in continuing to discuss trans denial, because ISTM that the condition is proven to the satisfaction of most reasonable people? The more pertinent questions are how to respond to it in a just, compassionate and rational manner, taking into account the need to recognise the uncertainty of its definition and causes, and problems of acceptance (social, administrative and legal), and the need to build greater sympathy amongst the public as a whole.
I really do struggle with the tone and implications here. Unless I've seriously misread this, you appear to be saying that we as a a society have to accommodate those who deny that trans is a thing and the logical conclusion is that this "accommodation" will have some impact on the lives of those who are trans.
That's like society accommodating racists by taking measures that impact on the lives of black people.
Are women who have been raped or abused by men transphobic to want a space where there are no male people (in the biological sense), because they are triggered by who the perceive to be men when they think they are in a safe space? Are you comparing them to racists? Is it right that the Vancouver Rape Relief centre is having its funding withdrawn because it only accommodates people who are born women?
Still in Canada, a particularly odious individual is suing 16 people/companies because they refused to carry out a 'bikini wax' on them, when they have a penis. (And yes, the court is taking it seriously). Of course there are going to be bad apples in any group, so it is not the individual that is the problem, but how society and government react to such individuals. And at the moment the court there is deciding whether they should force people to have to touch penises when they don't want to, or face being sued.
I think that this is on the right thread - hard to be precise.
I don't agree with much of what NP has posted on this topic, particularly recently. One question raised by him early on does seem to warrant more discussion and that is the timing of the trans procedure. He suggests that his relation went to see a doctor and then all was started immediately.
Those with long memories will recall a thread a decade or more ago from poster Zwingli. He raised an instance in Victoria of the great anguish expressed by a transwoman who later decided that it was in fact a mistake and wish.ed a reversal. Zwingli fulminated against the doctors who had carried out the procedures without question. Several of us drew his attention to the requirements in all the states that the procedure was to be staged, with one of the stages being that the trans person having to live as a person of the gender which they believed to be the correct one for a period of 12 months.
What comments do posters have of this aspect? Certainly what NP posits could not happen here. Obviously a person transitioning should be given substantial support and counselling throughout the procedure and that is in fact done.
What comments do posters have of this aspect? Certainly what NP posits could not happen here. Obviously a person transitioning should be given substantial support and counselling throughout the procedure and that is in fact done.
I'm not sure where 'here' is, but I assume it's the UK. The problem is that the resources are stretched, waiting times are long, and ultimately the support isn't good enough. (From some quarters counselling is also viewed as 'conversion therapy' if it is not purely affirmative.) The RCGP have recently released a statement on this calling for more resources and training. People who get fed up of waiting for the NHS (or don't want to use it) often get grey market hormones, which whilst not being surgery, do have significant effects.
There is also a wide range of medical/surgical use. The statistic often bandied about (though I don't know its source or accuracy) is that 80% of trans women have not had genital surgery. Whether that is because the wait times are too long or because they don't want to I don't know.
I don't know of resource issues here. Probably there are some and I don't know if private health insurance is available to help with the bills of surgery etc. Probably not.
There are NO attributes of gender, as defined by me, that are specifically and unchangingly male or female as determined by a person's biological sex.
Then why does it matter which one somebody is considered to be?
It doesn't. Or at least, it shouldn't.
From your posts on this thread it seems to matter to you a great deal, which seems inconsistent with you also thinking gender is a meaningless label.
You're missing the point. By a mile. It doesn't matter at all TO ME whether a male-sexed person identifies as a woman or a female-sexed person identifies as a man. It matters a hell of a lot TO ME that every person has the right to identify as man or woman regardless of their biological sex.
Are women who have been raped or abused by men transphobic to want a space where there are no male people (in the biological sense), because they are triggered by who the perceive to be men when they think they are in a safe space? Are you comparing them to racists? Is it right that the Vancouver Rape Relief centre is having its funding withdrawn because it only accommodates people who are born women?
Still in Canada, a particularly odious individual is suing 16 people/companies because they refused to carry out a 'bikini wax' on them, when they have a penis. (And yes, the court is taking it seriously). Of course there are going to be bad apples in any group, so it is not the individual that is the problem, but how society and government react to such individuals. And at the moment the court there is deciding whether they should force people to have to touch penises when they don't want to, or face being sued.
If you transfer your bad experience with one person onto all persons who share characteristics with that person, then yes, you are the equivalent of a racist. It would be like, oh, I dunno, treating all Christians as pushy idiots because you had a bad experience with a persistent Jehovah's Witness.
It's not the job of society to accommodate everyone's 'triggers' by ensuring there are 'safe' spaces everywhere. It's for the individual to seek and receive help to deal with the trauma so the 'trigger' no longer exists.
Yes, bikini waxes should be available to both sexes and if you are running a company offering bikini waxes you should not discriminate between the sexes in the same way that companies and people offering a paid for service cannot discriminate based on race, religion or any other basis.
Are women who have been raped or abused by men transphobic to want a space where there are no male people (in the biological sense), because they are triggered by who the perceive to be men when they think they are in a safe space? Are you comparing them to racists? Is it right that the Vancouver Rape Relief centre is having its funding withdrawn because it only accommodates people who are born women?
If you transfer your bad experience with one person onto all persons who share characteristics with that person, then yes, you are the equivalent of a racist. It would be like, oh, I dunno, treating all Christians as pushy idiots because you had a bad experience with a persistent Jehovah's Witness.
It's not the job of society to accommodate everyone's 'triggers' by ensuring there are 'safe' spaces everywhere. It's for the individual to seek and receive help to deal with the trauma so the 'trigger' no longer exists.
Women cannot win here. We have had years / decades / centuries of being told that it is our responsibility to keep ourselves safe - don't go out alone at night, don't get into a lift with a lone male, move into a different train carriage if you are a lone female amongst males, don't go jogging alone, carry a rape whistle, cross onto the other side of the street if you think a man is following you, etc etc etc.
And now you, Colin Smith, are sneering at women who have internalised the message that women's safety is women's responsibility.
It matters a hell of a lot TO ME that every person has the right to identify as man or woman regardless of their biological sex.
OK, but based on what? Are you advocating for just taking people's word for it regardless of any other factors?
Yes. If you say you're a Christian, I'll take your word for it. If you say you're a liberal, I'll take your word for it. I may decide to disagree with your opinion, if your behaviour suggests otherwise.
Yes, bikini waxes should be available to both sexes and if you are running a company offering bikini waxes you should not discriminate between the sexes in the same way that companies and people offering a paid for service cannot discriminate based on race, religion or any other basis.
I'm not sure if I can respond seriously to this but I'll try.
Companies can and do offer services separately to different sexes. And they should be able to. Because the service is often a different one. And no one should be forced to handle genitalia that they haven't chosen to.
This is women who are being sued. Many of them working from home for themselves. Women have fought for years for informed consent, body autonomy, dignity etc. And now you are saying that someone who wants to offer any sort of intimate service for women should also be made to offer the same (even though it's not the same) service to male sexed people. And you wonder why feminist groups are concerned about things?
Originally posted by Colin Smith: Yes, bikini waxes should be available to both sexes and if you are running a company offering bikini waxes you should not discriminate between the sexes in the same way that companies and people offering a paid for service cannot discriminate based on race, religion or any other basis.
Just to clarify, in case I've misunderstood you, you're not talking solely about transwomen here? You think that any man who wants his penis handled by a young woman should be able to rock up to any beautician offering waxing services and demand that she does it?
I'm not sure if I can respond seriously to this but I'll try.
Companies can and do offer services separately to different sexes. And they should be able to. Because the service is often a different one. And no one should be forced to handle genitalia that they haven't chosen to.
This is women who are being sued. Many of them working from home for themselves. Women have fought for years for informed consent, body autonomy, dignity etc. And now you are saying that someone who wants to offer any sort of intimate service for women should also be made to offer the same (even though it's not the same) service to male sexed people. And you wonder why feminist groups are concerned about things?
I see this as equivalent to 'Christian' bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples or 'Christian' people offering bed and breakfast accommodation and refusing to accept business from same-sex couples.
Originally posted by Colin Smith: Yes, bikini waxes should be available to both sexes and if you are running a company offering bikini waxes you should not discriminate between the sexes in the same way that companies and people offering a paid for service cannot discriminate based on race, religion or any other basis.
Just to clarify, in case I've misunderstood you, you're not talking solely about transwomen here? You think that any man who wants his penis handled by a young woman should be able to rock up to any beautician offering waxing services and demand that she does it?
Not exactly. It's more a case that if you want to offer bikini waxes you must accept that some of your customers may be male.
I'm not sure if I can respond seriously to this but I'll try.
Companies can and do offer services separately to different sexes. And they should be able to. Because the service is often a different one. And no one should be forced to handle genitalia that they haven't chosen to.
This is women who are being sued. Many of them working from home for themselves. Women have fought for years for informed consent, body autonomy, dignity etc. And now you are saying that someone who wants to offer any sort of intimate service for women should also be made to offer the same (even though it's not the same) service to male sexed people. And you wonder why feminist groups are concerned about things?
I see this as equivalent to 'Christian' bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples or 'Christian' people offering bed and breakfast accommodation and refusing to accept business from same-sex couples.
I'm not sure why you've used scare quotes. Or why you are talking about cakes. A cake is a cake whether it is for a gay couple or not. As is a bed.
But anyway, thanks for illustrating exactly why some people have worries over what some aspects of gender identity ideology may lead to.
My wife works in a clinic where there is massage and colonic irrigation. It is mixed sex, but occasionally a practitioner tells the admin not to accept any more bookings from X, presumably because there was some weirdness. I did some massage courses a long time ago, which were mixed sex, but I assume a woman could advertise for women clients only, trans, dunno. I think it's unusual with proper massage, as an alternative treatment.
And you have to accept that some of your male customers want a bikini wax because they get sexual gratification from having their penis handled by a young woman, possibly a teenager? Seriously?
Female waxers who wax men usually offer a "back, sack and crack" wax; if all that a waxer offers is a "bikini wax" then they should be free to refuse cis men.
Comments
I didn't claim that there isn't an elevated risk. I said that the figures pushes by Mermaids and Stonewall are dubious. And that the Samaritans are concerned about the sensationalising of such stats. There is also a distinct lack of comorbidity analysis of such figures.
There is a strong correlation between trans people and autism. I read something by an autistic person recently (sorry, can't remember where exactly) who said that they were worried about the constant talk of suicide because it is the sort of thing that to her she would end up interpreting as people telling her she should feel suicidal.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0252?journalCode=lgbt
So as soon as a woman gives birth she is treated completely differently than she was before she got pregnant? Is this why the "religious right," the biggest bitchers about trans people, are also trying to prevent abortions and in extreme cases (such as the USA) trying to prevent women from attaining birth control (or punish them if they do)? So they can PROVE they're real women by giving birth?
I'm no angel, and this appears to be an invitation to go where they likely fear to tread. But having spent some time attempting to unravel the internal "logic" of a few evangelical minds (not necessarily successfully), I'll bite.
Yes: women who give birth (within a Christian* marriage) occupy a different status than women who don't marry, and different from those who marry but remain childless. Birthing partially redeems women by ensuring compliance with the terms laid out by God in expelling the nincompoop Eve from Eden. (Recall that OT regards childlessness in women as a curse; it basically leaves women with no way to justify their existence and dooms them to lesser being-hood, spiritually speaking. If you don't lust after your husband and undergo the trials of pregnancy and the mortal dangers of giving birth, you're basically in rebellion against God, since that's what He decreed. You have to take your punishment.) So in a religious sense, the barren OT / Evangelical-but-single-and/or-childless woman is indeed "less real" or at least not quite "in the fold." In an OT social sense, she was also doomed, with no one to care for her in old age. (Note that Evangelicals aren't crazy about governmental social interventions either.)
The need to ensure that God's plan gets worked out means not interfering with it (except, of course, for the infertile couple; it's apparently fine to reject God's will in that matter and do whatever it takes to produce a quiver-full). God's plan apparently depends, in part, on The Chosen People (whoever that happens to be at the mo -- ancient Hebrews, medieval landholders, modern US Evangelicals) out-populating everybody else.
Which brings us to same-sex sex, abortions, birth control, and rape. Sexual activity that doesn't produce offspring just can't be on the Christian* sex menu; if it doesn't contribute to out-populating everybody else, it's evil. Masturbation, same-sex sex, sex using birth control: off with its head. Abortion? Unthinkable; sexual activity has already produced offspring! God's will!
Which brings us at long last to this: you'll note the ongoing insertion into the abortion debate the question, "What about in cases of rape and incest?" The usual objection raised is "So rare; why even discuss this?" (Ask that of the woman who's fallen pregnant.) It's estimated that only about 4% of rapes result in pregnancy. (I have no current figures for incest). What goes unsaid is that about 20% of all (US) women experience attempted or completed sexual assault (and that's likely an underreport): 26 million women. Assume only half of these are completed assaults, and we're dealing with 13 million women. A pregnancy rate of 4% yields more than half-a-million babies.
And the underlying question is the same: who controls a woman's body? A rapist? The state? Her husband?
God?
That makes a kind of sense.
If you think about the sort of ethic that might develop in a prehistoric world where humankind lives in small tribes (extended families) that are in constant danger of extinction, the survival of the tribe depends on having women who produce multiple healthy offspring.
And what follows is the pro-birth attitudes you describe.
Obsolete thinking.
But then conservatism is the error of hanging onto elements of the past too long. Just as the opposite error discards too much of the past too easily.
There are NO attributes of gender, as defined by me, that are specifically and unchangingly male or female as determined by a person's biological sex.
The problem is your wish to define other people and your top-down viewpoint, as revealed by your line
What the hell is wrong with letting people live their lives as they see fit?
The simple answer is, as Aristotle recognised, that "Man [and woman] is by nature a political [or social] animal." The problem of "living our lives as we see fit" is that it is difficult to do so without impinging on the interests and rights of others and making demands on others. There is no easy way of establishing the legitimate boundaries between actions which ought to be self-determined and those which ought to be socially determined, and where the private good of the individual should take precedence over the public good of the whole. Thus, while one can sympathise with your frustration, Colin, it begs the question in relation to trans rights, for example, rather than providing an answer to it.
I think a contextually appropriate, if crude, reply to this is "bollocks".
I am not talking about my right, or anyone's right, to live my life of daylight robbery or drug trafficking while impinging on your rights by bashing you on the head and taking your wallet or turning your children into drug addicts.
I cannot for the life of me see how a male-sexed person choosing to live as a woman or a female-sexed person choosing to live as a man has any impact on my life or the life of anyone else, at all other than their immediate friends and relatives.
Society and legislation has a role in protecting the vulnerable but otherwise it should get the hell out of regulating people's lives.
This, exactly. That Fred is now Freda has absolutely no impact on anyone else. An individual's relationship between gender, genitalia at birth and genitalia now is not my concern.
The only people trying to impact other people's lives in this conversation are the transphobes. And I will use the word because quibbling aside we all know what it means.
An entirely inapposite comment, one might suggest, in the context of the issue under discussion.
Maybe justifiably so respecting yourself. There are, however, questions of public policy in relation to the issue regarding, for example, the access of trans women to public spaces such as toilets, changing rooms, admission to female prisons etc, which are highly controversial amongst cis-gendered women. Is the solution to be resolved by removing engendered facilities across a whole range of service provision, or the dismissal of the 'mums net brigade' reservations in the way one would demands for racial segregation? What should policy be regarding the admittance of trans women into female sporting events? More generally there is the question of how one might create a more sympathetic attitude towards trans, which requires the creation a social willingness that should be so, and accepted educational mechanisms to achieve that end. As you say yourself, Colin:"Society and legislation has a role in protecting the vulnerable," but that often requires restrictions on the actions of those less enlightened than your good self. The resolution of these issues involve value decisions taken at a societal rather than individual level.
Whom, and what actions?
The various right wing and Christian anti-trans media, which make a lot of noise about toilets, and so on, are often hiding a moral opposition to trans people, on the grounds that they are "unnatural", or going against God, or are denying biology, and so on.
Interestingly this same group of anti-trans Christians rallied behind a man who was a known rapist of preadolescent girls and made him governor of Alabama. Making it patently clear that the whole bathroom thing around trans people was a blatant lie and the real issue was transphobia, not any kind of concern about their daughters.
I don't agree with your use of "choosing" which has connotations of a totally voluntary, almost whimsical, choice. It's a choice made because those, deep down, believe themselves to be of the gender other than that usually associated with their sex (using sex as the physical).
Good point. It is totally the wrong word. A much better word would be "compelled".
I really do struggle with the tone and implications here. Unless I've seriously misread this, you appear to be saying that we as a a society have to accommodate those who deny that trans is a thing and the logical conclusion is that this "accommodation" will have some impact on the lives of those who are trans.
That's like society accommodating racists by taking measures that impact on the lives of black people.
I'm not sure what "most reasonable people" means, when you think that the Vatican recently released a document critical of trans identities, and the US administration seems hostile. I guess that Trump is paying homage to evangelicals, many of whom support him, and many are anti-trans.
Well, OK, you could say that these are not reasonable people, but I think they still have to be argued against.
What I should have referred to were "those open to reason" in contrast to those Southern rednecks whose prejudice is probably invincible. As I see it there are a number of reasons why individuals are transphobic, of which an important constituency are those whose opposition does not rise from a denial of the condition but fear the consequences of a more accepting approach. A campaign of reassurance directed towards them may well induce a change of attitude, given that the phobia centres on practical rather than ideological considerations. Has that not been the experience of changing attitudes towards homosexuality?
I take the point about the Vatican, whose position might well merit a continuing challenge.
No, I don't think so. We just ignored the homophobes and when the sky didn't fall in most of them shut up. This will probably end up going much the same way.
Then why does it matter which one somebody is considered to be?
It doesn't. Or at least, it shouldn't.
I wondered how long it would take before someone came out with the "anyone who disagrees with me about this is an ignorant bigoted redneck" line.
I utterly detest the way so many complain about others not being "open to reason", when what they actually mean by "open to reason" is "agree immediately and unquestioningly with my views".
Stop calling the kettle black, Mr. Pot.
Ironic you spot this in a post by Kwesi which clearly was aimed at clearly distinguishing open-minded disagreement with incorrigibility though.
From your posts on this thread it seems to matter to you a great deal, which seems inconsistent with you also thinking gender is a meaningless label.
Yes, more research is good, and what you have found does not show that there isn't a correlation, only that they do not think the research is precise enough. But the link seems to be widely acknowledged, e.g. GIDS.
Are women who have been raped or abused by men transphobic to want a space where there are no male people (in the biological sense), because they are triggered by who the perceive to be men when they think they are in a safe space? Are you comparing them to racists? Is it right that the Vancouver Rape Relief centre is having its funding withdrawn because it only accommodates people who are born women?
Still in Canada, a particularly odious individual is suing 16 people/companies because they refused to carry out a 'bikini wax' on them, when they have a penis. (And yes, the court is taking it seriously). Of course there are going to be bad apples in any group, so it is not the individual that is the problem, but how society and government react to such individuals. And at the moment the court there is deciding whether they should force people to have to touch penises when they don't want to, or face being sued.
I don't agree with much of what NP has posted on this topic, particularly recently. One question raised by him early on does seem to warrant more discussion and that is the timing of the trans procedure. He suggests that his relation went to see a doctor and then all was started immediately.
Those with long memories will recall a thread a decade or more ago from poster Zwingli. He raised an instance in Victoria of the great anguish expressed by a transwoman who later decided that it was in fact a mistake and wish.ed a reversal. Zwingli fulminated against the doctors who had carried out the procedures without question. Several of us drew his attention to the requirements in all the states that the procedure was to be staged, with one of the stages being that the trans person having to live as a person of the gender which they believed to be the correct one for a period of 12 months.
What comments do posters have of this aspect? Certainly what NP posits could not happen here. Obviously a person transitioning should be given substantial support and counselling throughout the procedure and that is in fact done.
I'm not sure where 'here' is, but I assume it's the UK. The problem is that the resources are stretched, waiting times are long, and ultimately the support isn't good enough. (From some quarters counselling is also viewed as 'conversion therapy' if it is not purely affirmative.) The RCGP have recently released a statement on this calling for more resources and training. People who get fed up of waiting for the NHS (or don't want to use it) often get grey market hormones, which whilst not being surgery, do have significant effects.
There is also a wide range of medical/surgical use. The statistic often bandied about (though I don't know its source or accuracy) is that 80% of trans women have not had genital surgery. Whether that is because the wait times are too long or because they don't want to I don't know.
I don't know of resource issues here. Probably there are some and I don't know if private health insurance is available to help with the bills of surgery etc. Probably not.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/st-albert-passes-motion-banning-conversion-therapy-1.5204850
You're missing the point. By a mile. It doesn't matter at all TO ME whether a male-sexed person identifies as a woman or a female-sexed person identifies as a man. It matters a hell of a lot TO ME that every person has the right to identify as man or woman regardless of their biological sex.
If you transfer your bad experience with one person onto all persons who share characteristics with that person, then yes, you are the equivalent of a racist. It would be like, oh, I dunno, treating all Christians as pushy idiots because you had a bad experience with a persistent Jehovah's Witness.
It's not the job of society to accommodate everyone's 'triggers' by ensuring there are 'safe' spaces everywhere. It's for the individual to seek and receive help to deal with the trauma so the 'trigger' no longer exists.
Yes, bikini waxes should be available to both sexes and if you are running a company offering bikini waxes you should not discriminate between the sexes in the same way that companies and people offering a paid for service cannot discriminate based on race, religion or any other basis.
OK, but based on what? Are you advocating for just taking people's word for it regardless of any other factors?
Women cannot win here. We have had years / decades / centuries of being told that it is our responsibility to keep ourselves safe - don't go out alone at night, don't get into a lift with a lone male, move into a different train carriage if you are a lone female amongst males, don't go jogging alone, carry a rape whistle, cross onto the other side of the street if you think a man is following you, etc etc etc.
And now you, Colin Smith, are sneering at women who have internalised the message that women's safety is women's responsibility.
Isn't that exactly what you're asking society to do for trans people?
Yes. If you say you're a Christian, I'll take your word for it. If you say you're a liberal, I'll take your word for it. I may decide to disagree with your opinion, if your behaviour suggests otherwise.
I'm not sure if I can respond seriously to this but I'll try.
Companies can and do offer services separately to different sexes. And they should be able to. Because the service is often a different one. And no one should be forced to handle genitalia that they haven't chosen to.
This is women who are being sued. Many of them working from home for themselves. Women have fought for years for informed consent, body autonomy, dignity etc. And now you are saying that someone who wants to offer any sort of intimate service for women should also be made to offer the same (even though it's not the same) service to male sexed people. And you wonder why feminist groups are concerned about things?
Yes, bikini waxes should be available to both sexes and if you are running a company offering bikini waxes you should not discriminate between the sexes in the same way that companies and people offering a paid for service cannot discriminate based on race, religion or any other basis.
Just to clarify, in case I've misunderstood you, you're not talking solely about transwomen here? You think that any man who wants his penis handled by a young woman should be able to rock up to any beautician offering waxing services and demand that she does it?
No it isn't.
I see this as equivalent to 'Christian' bakers refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples or 'Christian' people offering bed and breakfast accommodation and refusing to accept business from same-sex couples.
Not exactly. It's more a case that if you want to offer bikini waxes you must accept that some of your customers may be male.
I'm not sure why you've used scare quotes. Or why you are talking about cakes. A cake is a cake whether it is for a gay couple or not. As is a bed.
But anyway, thanks for illustrating exactly why some people have worries over what some aspects of gender identity ideology may lead to.
Female waxers who wax men usually offer a "back, sack and crack" wax; if all that a waxer offers is a "bikini wax" then they should be free to refuse cis men.