Utah creates 5 person commission to regulate one trans girl playing sports

[Silvanus]

I do not. I'm not aware of myself ever supporting forced conversions.

In this post you opined that GRS should be made near-impossible. Then later on in the same thread you said they should just learn "acceptance" of their biological sex.

I don't know how to interpret that other than wanting to force people to fit into your concept of sex and gender.

 

[tstorm823]

In this post you opined that GRS should be made near-impossible. Then later on in the same thread you said they should just learn "acceptance" of their biological sex.

I don't know how to interpret that other than wanting to force people to fit into your concept of sex and gender.

a) That post was specifically about children.
b) Sex and gender (and sexuality) are still separate concepts. Accepting your biological sex says nothing about gender or sexuality.
c) Preferring an outcome is not the same as seeking that outcome through torture. That's an insane leap.

 

[Silvanus]

a) That post was specifically about children.

That's true, fair enough. Though we know that HRT is much more onerous if kids have passed puberty, so blanket blocking it for kids still means you're forcing them to undergo puberty for their birth sex, and then making the ultimate transition much more difficult and stressful.

& hormonal blockers are fully reversible, so it's not as if you were just arguing to stop kids signing up to something permanent they may regret.

b) Sex and gender (and sexuality) are still separate concepts. Accepting your biological sex says nothing about gender or sexuality.

By "accepting your biological sex", I was rather under the impression that you meant convincing someone that their gender matches their birth sex, even if they feel differently. Is that not what you meant? And if not, uhrm... what else could it mean? Accepting that their gender and sex don't match, but just convincing them to put up with it?

c) Preferring an outcome is not the same as seeking that outcome through torture. That's an insane leap.

D'you recognise conversion therapy as torture, then?

 

[tstorm823]

By "accepting your biological sex", I was rather under the impression that you meant convincing someone that their gender matches their birth sex, even if they feel differently. Is that not what you meant? And if not, uhrm... what else could it mean? Accepting that their gender and sex don't match, but just convincing them to put up with it?

Gender is a social construct. Not matching the list of stereotypes associated with your biological sex isn't abnormal, and shouldn't be thought of as a identity.

D'you recognise conversion therapy as torture, then?

Against someone's will, sure.

 

[Silvanus]

Gender is a social construct. Not matching the list of stereotypes associated with your biological sex isn't abnormal, and shouldn't be thought of as a identity.

Regardless of what I think about "gender-critical" beliefs, this is functionally identical to what I described above. Someone feels their gender and sex don't match, and they wish for their sex to more closely match their gender; your approach is to restrict their ability to do so, and to convince them to put up with it.

It doesn't make a difference really whether the line of argument is "Your gender isn't what you think because it matches the sex" or "Your gender isn't what you think because it's just a social construct". Both result in denying the person's sense of self and forcing them to fit your own conception.

Against someone's will, sure.

This is a bit like saying abuse is only abuse if its "against someone's will".

I.E., it's just a loophole to allow abusive parents/authority figures to intimidate or browbeat kids and vulnerable people into agreeing to something.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I think putting any label on yourself is ultimately trying to box out some of your real feelings, whether you're trying to make yourself straight/cis or gay/trans.

What if you're trying to make yourself a man or a woman? Does that not involve some boxing out of your real feelings?

The difference, of course, is that being a man or a woman is not an identity a person chooses. It is an imposed identity selected on the basis of a cursory examination of the genitals, yet an enormous amount of social control goes into imposing that identity onto children. There are real, measurable harms that accompany that, which makes this fake concern for the wellbeing of people freely and healthily adopting identities that suit them seem incredibly disingenuous (which of course it is).

Human reproduction is dependent on the coherent social meaning of sex, and reproduction has significant metaphysical and teleological importance. There are natural and social mechanisms which purposefully put sperm in contact with egg, otherwise none of us exists. If that concept of sex disappears the way you imagine it will, so does the whole species.

Firstly, you have this backwards. Sexual reproduction does not exist in order to allow the perpetuation of our species, it exists because it allowed the perpetuation of our species. Nature is not invested in keeping us alive. It does not care if our species reproduces or not. Human extinction would be no more significant to nature than any of the countless extinctions which have occurred before.

The natural mechanisms which put sperm in contact with egg are not purposeful at all. They aren't part of some special plan that was drawn up especially to create us. They exist because we exist, because our ancestors were the ones who were able to survive and reproduce. This, however, is completely irrelevant to us and our own behaviour. It does not provide any natural or self-evident blueprint for our lives.

And regardless, this is irrelevant because you're not understanding the most important element. The social concept of sex is not the same thing as the biological reality of sexual reproduction. The latter does not necessitate the former. We can understand that some people produce sexed gametes without needing to imagine that this magically creates a type of person called a 'man' or a 'woman', or that these types of people somehow correspond accurately with the historical beliefs of people who thought men were men because they had more magic fire inside the body than women, and didn't know what a gamete was.

It's very weird that you can understand the intangibility and arbitrariness of identity in the case of sexuality or gender identity, yet seem utterly unable to apply that understanding here.

b) Sex and gender (and sexuality) are still separate concepts. Accepting your biological sex says nothing about gender or sexuality.

Sex, gender and sexuality are all related concepts. They are certainly more closely related than the legal and biological definitions of sex, or the definition of sex conservatives want to enforce and the biological understanding that many organisms reproduce using sexed gametes.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That's true, fair enough. Though we know that HRT is much more onerous if kids have passed puberty, so blanket blocking it for kids still means you're forcing them to undergo puberty for their birth sex, and then making the ultimate transition much more difficult and stressful.

& hormonal blockers are fully reversible, so it's not as if you were just arguing to stop kids signing up to something permanent they may regret.

Yeah, hormone blockers are the compromise to when we just gave kids hormones.

Side effect of just giving kids hormones is that fewer mastectomys got performed for obvious reasons.

But if kids got hormones before puberty, they'd be much harder to clock. Not that transphobes are good at it to begin with, but still

 

[tstorm823]

It doesn't make a difference really whether the line of argument is "Your gender isn't what you think because it matches the sex" or "Your gender isn't what you think because it's just a social construct". Both result in denying the person's sense of self and forcing them to fit your own conception.

The problem isn't what people think gender is. The problem is what people think sex is. Sex is not your sense of self, it is physical reality. Children should not be having lasting changes made to their physical bodies to fit the transient sense of self they feel in adolescence.

This is a bit like saying abuse is only abuse if its "against someone's will".

I.E., it's just a loophole to allow abusive parents/authority figures to intimidate or browbeat kids and vulnerable people into agreeing to something.

It is exactly like that. Getting punched in the face is abuse if a parent does it as punishment, it isn't abuse if you're a boxer in the ring. Whether something is abuse is context dependent, yes. I doubt you're going to maintain that's "just a loophole" if you think about it.

What if you're trying to make yourself a man or a woman? Does that not involve some boxing out of your real feelings?

Yes.
We can understand that some people produce sexed gametes without needing to imagine that this magically creates a type of person called a 'man' or a 'woman'.
[/quote]
No, you can't. "Man" and "woman" are descriptions. It's not magical that having two distinct categories creates two words for them.

It's very weird that you can understand the intangibility and arbitrariness of identity in the case of sexuality or gender identity, yet seem utterly unable to apply that understanding here.

It's not weird at all. The purpose of the concept of "gender" was to separate social concepts of male and female from the physical reality of male and female. If sex is arbitrary social concepts, there is no such thing as gender, they are exact synonyms. What even is "trans" if both sex and gender describe arbitrary social distinctions, and there is nothing tangible actually in conflict?

 

[Silvanus]

The problem isn't what people think gender is. The problem is what people think sex is. Sex is not your sense of self, it is physical reality. Children should not be having lasting changes made to their physical bodies to fit the transient sense of self they feel in adolescence.

Someone's identification with a gender is actually usually not transient. In the majority of cases, for both cis and trans people, it stays with the person throughout their life.

And those "lasting changes" could be fully reversible hormonal blockers. Puberty itself here is the "lasting change" which these people wish to stop; your approach is to make them undergo a lasting change they don't need to.

It is exactly like that. Getting punched in the face is abuse if a parent does it as punishment, it isn't abuse if you're a boxer in the ring. Whether something is abuse is context dependent, yes. I doubt you're going to maintain that's "just a loophole" if you think about it.

Y'know, analogies only work if they can actually practically apply to the situation under discussion. A boxer is a profession which involves getting punched for sport. Is there a sporting profession in which people undergo child abuse competitively?

I mean its a "loophole" in practice. What happens in reality is that when "voluntary" therapies are allowed, parents ship their kids off to "pray the gay away" camps that the kids don't want to be at. But they've been repeatedly told its for their own good, to control the evil impulses or to stop their family being disappointed. That kid is not truly consenting. That kid is being browbeaten.

Similarly, if the law said that child abuse is only against the law if it's not "voluntary", what you'd get is a lot of bruised and bloody kids nervously telling the social workers that they gave their consent.

 

[Terminal Blue]

The problem isn't what people think gender is. The problem is what people think sex is. Sex is not your sense of self, it is physical reality. Children should not be having lasting changes made to their physical bodies to fit the transient sense of self they feel in adolescence.

Sex is probably the most significant and wide-reaching form of identity that exists in our society. It defines the sense of self of the vast majority of people from the moment they are capable of possessing a sense of self at all. The fact that it is assigned on the basis of a cursory observation of real anatomical structures does not change that. You can believe that sex is a rational basis for identity formation if you want, you can believe that it is normal and healthy for children to be systematically taught to define their entire sense of self around their genitals, but that is not an objective truth, it is a subjective statement of value.

Nothing about the existence of human genitalia necessarily predisposes the formation of self-evident male and female identities as 'men' and 'women'. There is no reason why a child should look at their tiny, useless genitals and believe that these are the things that make them who they are and define their entire selfhood into one of two binary categories. That process is learned.

No, you can't. "Man" and "woman" are descriptions.

"Gay", "straight", "cis" and "trans" are also descriptions. They describe things that also exist in reality. Being a description is not mutually exclusive with being a constructed identity.

The purpose of the concept of "gender" was to separate social concepts of male and female from the physical reality of male and female.

Yes, at one point it was.

And then everyone sat down and thought about it, and what they realised is that you cannot rigidly separate the social aspects of maleness and femaleness from the physical. Both because physical structures are the referents for social structures, and because the social world defines the way physical reality is read by socialized human beings.

The people who failed to grasp or understand this, who continued to cling to the idea of an objective female identity exterior to societal influence, became TERFs, and descended into a murky world of pseudoscience and cultish quasi-mysticism in an attempt to avoid engaging with a more complex reality. That should be a cautionary tale.

If sex is arbitrary social concepts, there is no such thing as gender, they are exact synonyms.

They are not synonyms because each has distinct implications involved in its use. However, the boundaries between them are hazy and difficult to define in an intellectually honest way.

What even is "trans" if both sex and gender describe arbitrary social distinctions, and there is nothing tangible actually in conflict?

Do not make the incredibly basic mistake of assuming that arbitrary social distinctions do not have tangible consequences.

 

[tstorm823]

"Gay", "straight", "cis" and "trans" are also descriptions. They describe things that also exist in reality.

Is this a counterpoint?

And then everyone sat down and thought about it, and what they realised is that you cannot rigidly separate the social aspects of maleness and femaleness from the physical. Both because physical structures are the referents for social structures, and because the social world defines the way physical reality is read by socialized human beings.

Do you really not see that you are the one fixated on maintaining arbitrary social constructions of male and female?

However, the boundaries between them are hazy and difficult to define in an intellectually honest way.

That doesn't seem to stop you. Seriously, define transgenderism without drawing that boundary.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That doesn't seem to stop you. Seriously, define transgenderism without drawing that boundary.

Somebody who doesn't identify with the gender definition society has chosen for them

'Course, that's also true of, say, butch women, frequent collateral damage to times when conservatives devote vast state power to control *checks notes* one child

 

[tstorm823]

Somebody who doesn't identify with the gender definition society has chosen for them

That is not an effective definition, but even if it were, that would never justify sex changes.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

That is not an effective definition, but even if it were, that would never justify sex changes.

Sex changes don't need to be justified

 

[Buyetyen]

That is not an effective definition, but even if it were, that would never justify sex changes.

Pretty sure trans people don't need to justify their medical decisions to you.

 

[tstorm823]

Sex changes don't need to be justified

Pretty sure trans people don't need to justify their medical decisions to you.

Pretty sure everyone getting a sex change feels it's a justified decision, or would either of you like to argue that people do that sort of thing without reason?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Pretty sure everyone getting a sex change feels it's a justified decision, or would either of you like to argue that people do that sort of thing without reason?

here is a nice set of equivocations that is probably just a result of scattered thinking rather than disingenuousness, if I'm being charitable-- and I suppose I am. The charity may be a bit backhanded, but I see no alternative that is still charitable.

1)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who have done it, as a matter of historical fact, have justified at the very least to themselves
2)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who would do it, as a matter of prudence and given all the implications those things currently have in our society today, should justify at the very least to themselves.
3)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who have done it, as a matter of historical fact, have (at least generally) had to justify themselves to others.
4)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who would do it, as a matter of ethics and given all the implications those things currently have in our society today, should justify to others.
5)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who would do it, as a matter of prudence in any time and place including a far future in which people could get really weird with their own gender without any necessarily lasting consequence, as a matter of prudence, should justify at least to themselves
6)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who would do it, as a matter of prudence in any time and place including a far future in which people could get really weird with their own gender without any necessarily lasting consequence, as a matter of prudence, should have to justify to others
7)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who would do it, as a matter of prudence in any time and place including a far future in which people could get really weird with their own gender without any necessarily lasting consequence, as a matter of ethics, should justify at least to themselves
8)the use of gender affirming surgery, hormone treatments, clothing style, etc. is a decision that the people who would do it, as a matter of prudence in any time and place including a far future in which people could get really weird with their own gender without any necessarily lasting consequence, as a matter of (including future) historical fact, will have justified at least to themselves

for the record, I think yes, yes, mostly, no, not really, no, no, no, in many or most cases but it is of little consequence

Also, we can multiply all this by including another category other than themselves and the very general "others"-- specifically, medical professionals. Very broadly, I think that medical professionals should be treated like others; their role in such matters should be informational rather than dictatorial.

you are arguing with people who are clearly saying the opposite of a statement like #4 or possibly #6 by trying to make it a gotcha about #1 or #2. This may be clever disingenuousness aimed at people without the inclination to analyze language and all the various possibilities that can be read into a vague phrase. Or it may simply be scattered thinking, the pointing out of which should prompt further reflection. I suppose I'd recommend further reflection in the former case as well, though not of precisely the same kind.

 

[Buyetyen]

Pretty sure everyone getting a sex change feels it's a justified decision, or would either of you like to argue that people do that sort of thing without reason?

I never said otherwise. I said they don't have to justify themselves to you.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Do you really not see that you are the one fixated on maintaining arbitrary social constructions of male and female?

That's a very strange argument. Why do you think that?

But if I was to go on some crusade against the existence of arbitrary social constructions, there are far more offensive targets. Money is an arbitrary social construction. Nationhood is an arbitrary social construction. Race is an arbitrary social construction. The human world will always be at least in part determined by things that don't actually exist.

I don't think it's particularly a problem that most people identify strongly with an arbitrary concept assigned to them based on the basis of a superficial examination of their genitals. I think it's a problem when people start trying to make those arbitrary concepts real, by literally or figuratively destroying anything or anyone who doesn't conform to them.

It is a very, very short time since the accepted medical standard for treating intersexed children was to surgically "correct" their genitals at birth, a practice which surprisingly lead to absolutely no outcry from any of the people now concerned about trans children going on hormone blockers.

That doesn't seem to stop you. Seriously, define transgenderism without drawing that boundary.

If I was being facetious, I would say that "transgenderism" is a term transphobes came up with to refer to the supposedly sinister belief system by which the evil trans cult is brainwashing kids into being trans. I have very rarely seen it used as an honest or neutral description of the condition of being trans. However, in this case I understand it was meant us such so I will ignore it and move on.

Let me turn this question back to you. Why do you need a definition of what it means to be trans? Is it not enough for you to accept that the meaning of being trans, like the meaning of being a man or woman, is not something on which every person has to agree. These are not just social identities, as much as there may be massive societal and institutional control focused on imposing and enforcing the identities of male and female, they are also personal identities. They grow and change throughout our individual lives and within the collective social life of our society. They will never be fixed or clear-cut in the way you want them to be.

Not being able to coherently define these things in a single sentence on an internet forum is not a flaw. It's not a problem or symptomatic of a weakness of thinking, it's a reflection of the complexity of the concepts themselves. Neither sex, gender or the concept of being trans has a single definition. There are numerous ways you can define these things and various routes by which you can arrive at an acceptable answer. The desire for someone to come along and define these things simply and unambiguously and definitively, to destroy any possibility of deeper thought or critical engagement beyond the childish repetition of accepted knowledge and to eliminate the freedom of individuals to figure out what these things mean for themselves is not a strength of conservatism. It's conservatism taking off its mask.

 

[tstorm823]

you are arguing with people who are clearly saying the opposite of a statement like #4 or possibly #6 by trying to make it a gotcha about #1 or #2. This may be clever disingenuousness aimed at people without the inclination to analyze language and all the various possibilities that can be read into a vague phrase.

What you are missing is that Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum were both using unclever disingenuousness in the first place. My point with the word "justify" is that by suggesting a definition of transgenderism that does not relate to physical sex, it falls short of connecting to deliberate changes in sex characteristics, so people seeking physical and medical changes are obviously not thinking in those terms; I was always referring to how someone thinks of themselves. It is the other users doing the thing that you think I'm doing.

I think it's a problem when people start trying to make those arbitrary concepts real, by literally or figuratively destroying anything or anyone who doesn't conform to them.

This seems to me to be your position. You want to make arbitrary gender concepts real (in place of sex), and consider medicating children a reasonable means to that end. That is figuratively destroying people who don't conform to arbitrary gender concepts. Why do you not see that as a problem?