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

[Buyetyen]

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.

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?

Dude, the "no U" binge you've been on rhetorically lately is a non-starter. "Figuratively destroying" isn't anything more than a value judgment that you made and are attempting to impose on everyone else.

There is no definition of "transgender" that will please you, because your logic is operating from the flawed premise that trans identities aren't even real.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

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?

Your semantic arguments get more pathetic by the week. You said, and I quote: "that would never justify sex changes". Evidently, you are wrong, huh? Because the people doing them are doing them, at smaller rates of regret than literally every other cosmetic surgery and some life saving cancer treatments.

So you claim that sex change surgeries aren't justified. That's by *your standard*. Other people justify it to themselves no problem, and that's your problem.

Somebody wants a penis, or a vagina, or a uterus transplant, or a great set of tits, or no set of tits, why not? Why not use our vast and ever expanding medical knowledge and experience to do that? We let cis people, no problem

Why do they have to justify that to *anybody*, least of all *you*?

Shit man, people permanently modify and "damage" their bodies all the fucking time, but I don't see you out here trying to ban children's ballet or contact sports

What's the matter, your "if we don't sort people into two immutable sex boxes, humanity will end" argument not work out the way you thought?

 

[tstorm823]

Dude, the "no U" binge you've been on rhetorically lately is a non-starter. "Figuratively destroying" isn't anything more than a value judgment that you made and are attempting to impose on everyone else.

There is no definition of "transgender" that will please you, because your logic is operating from the flawed premise that trans identities aren't even real.

Legitimate question: are you reading Terminal's half of this conversation? Or are you just reading my half and looking for things to complain about?

So you claim that sex change surgeries aren't justified.

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed that they aren't justified specifically by a definition of "transgender" that doesn't draw a line between sex and gender. If you define transgender as someone who's gender identity is different than their sex at birth, that's where the justification comes from.

TerminalBlue is arguing that sex is an arbitrary social concept with tenuous connection to biology, and that the line between gender and sex is so hazy as to be inappropriate to define. I'm saying that you can't base a sex change off of your gender if you cannot distinguish between the two concepts.

I don't think either of you are even trying to follow the discussion going on here. You aren't winning any points by never understanding what is going on.

 

[Buyetyen]

Legitimate question: are you reading Terminal's half of this conversation? Or are you just reading my half and looking for things to complain about?

Speaking of Terminal, is there a reason you're complaining about me again instead of responding to them?

You aren't winning any points by never understanding what is going on.

Back atcha, bro. Multiple people in this thread have given very intelligent answers to your stupid fucking questions, but you continue to play shallow semantic games instead of engaging with the substance of anyone's arguments.

The truth is that there is no way to define sex and gender in a way that will personally satisfy you because the reality is not as simple as you would like it to be. You are still imposing your own value judgments on everyone else and getting shitty when we refuse to comply.

 

[tstorm823]

Speaking of Terminal, is there a reason you're complaining about me again instead of responding to them?

I'm doing both of those things.

Multiple people in this thread have given very intelligent answers to your perfectly reasonable questions.

True, multiple people have given intelligent answers to me. You are not among them.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm doing both of those things.

True, multiple people have given intelligent answers to me. You are not among them.

Argue in bad faith, you're going to get people like me pointing out you're full of shit. That's how this works. Don't like it? Try being less dishonest.

But hey, you want something with some more substance? How about this:

Your semantic arguments bring up the word "should" a lot, but do not reckon with the reality that sex and gender are a part of our culture and a significant part of identity negotiations that effects us down to the neurological level. Social constructs still have a very real impact on our lives well-being. A major problem with your logic is a failure to understand and recognize this brute fact reality. You assert that no one should be allowed to transition, but just saying, "Because gender is a social construct," isn't a good enough answer. It doesn't take into account the very real effects of sex and gender on human psychology and mental health. Your argument is fixated on how things should be, never asking why they are the way they are.

Your logic assumes a lot of things, and too many assumptions make for poor reasoning.

 

[tstorm823]

You assert that no one should be allowed to transition

No, I don't assert that.

but just saying, "Because gender is a social construct," isn't a good enough answer. It doesn't take into account the very real effects of sex and gender on human psychology and mental health. Your argument is fixated on how things should be, never asking why they are the way they are.

In an ideal world, in my mind, there would be no transitioning. That is true. But I understand we do not live in an ideal world, and what adults do with the hands they are dealt is their business. But that does not mean we shouldn't be working towards the ideal as much as we can, especially when it comes to children. "Society sucks, here's some drugs" is not how to raise children to make the future where this is all moot.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No, I didn't claim that. I claimed that they aren't justified specifically by a definition of "transgender" that doesn't draw a line between sex and gender. If you define transgender as someone who's gender identity is different than their sex at birth, that's where the justification comes from.

No, I don't assert that.

In an ideal world, in my mind, there would be no transitioning. That is true. But I understand we do not live in an ideal world, and what adults do with the hands they are dealt is their business. But that does not mean we shouldn't be working towards the ideal as much as we can, especially when it comes to children. "Society sucks, here's some drugs" is not how to raise children to make the future where this is all moot.

No, you claim that sex changes aren't justified. Not now nor in your ideal world.

Somebody wants a penis, or a vagina, or a uterus transplant, or a great set of tits, or no set of tits, why not? Why not use our vast and ever expanding medical knowledge and experience to do that? We let cis people, no problem

Why do they have to justify that to *anybody*, least of all *you*?

Shit man, people permanently modify and "damage" their bodies all the fucking time, but I don't see you out here trying to ban children's ballet or contact sports

Why's transitioning the profane cow, but kids can fuck up their bodies in innumerable other ways no problem?

 

[Buyetyen]

No, I don't assert that.

Then enlighten me. When is it acceptable for people to transition, if ever?

In an ideal world, in my mind, there would be no transitioning. That is true. But I understand we do not live in an ideal world, and what adults do with the hands they are dealt is their business. But that does not mean we shouldn't be working towards the ideal as much as we can, especially when it comes to children. "Society sucks, here's some drugs" is not how to raise children to make the future where this is all moot.

You're looking for a world where nobody is born different. That's never going to happen.

 

[tstorm823]

No, you claim that sex changes aren't justified. Not now nor in your ideal world.

Feel free to point to wherever you imagine I said that.

Why's transitioning the profane cow, but kids can fuck up their bodies in innumerable other ways no problem?

No problem? Nah, there's lots of problems. The list of things I think kids shouldn't do is very, very long.

Then enlighten me. When is it acceptable for people to transition, if ever?

As adults.

You're looking for a world where nobody is born different. That's never going to happen.

I'm not looking for a world where nobody is born different. I'm looking for a world where those differences aren't presorted into prejudiced categories.

 

[Buyetyen]

As adults.

And why do you think this is your business, and not a matter of confidentiality between doctor and patient? Why do you know medicine better than actual medical professionals?

I'm not looking for a world where nobody is born different. I'm looking for a world where those differences aren't presorted into prejudiced categories.

That would mean something if you knew what you were talking about, but this is all sophistry that amounts to, "No U!!" You're not doing this out of an excess of compassion, dude, we can tell.

 

[Terminal Blue]

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.

For that to be true, I would need to believe that gender is real. I do not. Not in the sense we have been using the term real.

However, things that are not real can be experienced as real, and can have real consequences. We live in a deeply gendered society, after all.

I consider medicating children to be something best left to the discretion of the medical profession, based on the logic of what is best for the child's wellbeing. I don't take that position lightly given that the medical profession has also been a vehicle for discrimination and abuse towards gender non-conforming and intersexed people, but it is still better than leaving these decisions up to parents, teachers, politicians or internet conservatives.

I have to ask though, are you opposed to prescribing anti-depressants to depressed people (which can also include children and teens) because depression doesn't exist except within the experience of the individual?

That is figuratively destroying people who don't conform to arbitrary gender concepts.

Watching the descent into TERFdom in real time has been fascinating.

Again, the reason I don't want to offer you a definition of man, woman or what it means to be trans is because I believe it falls to individuals to decide what these things mean. They are, after all, things that can only be experienced by individuals. Fortunately for me, the medical profession, for the most part, agrees.

The purpose of social and medical transition is not to enable a person to better conform to society's gendered expectations. If it were, it would be exactly the kind of desistance-focused treatment you would want. The purpose of gender identity based therapy is to enable each individual to live comfortably within an identity that does not cause them harm or distress, whether that be as a man, a woman or neither, and whether it is gender conforming or otherwise.

The belief that transitioning is a means to erase gender non-conforming children is a ludicrous one. As someone who was a gender non-conforming child once, I can tell you that society at large is singularly and irrationally fixated on erasing gender non-conforming children. A gender identity clinic is ironically one of the few places where such a child is likely to be listened to and taken seriously.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Feel free to point to wherever you imagine I said that.

"In my ideal world, in my mind, there would be no transitioning"
Like, direct quote.

No problem? Nah, there's lots of problems. The list of things I think kids shouldn't do is very, very long.

Yet you're championing using the vast powers of the state to block a single trans girl from playing girls basketball or whatever and nothing about ballet, gymnastics, cheerleading, school football, child marriage, etc, etc.
Conservatives would lose their entire minds at banning those

I'm not looking for a world where nobody is born different. I'm looking for a world where those differences aren't presorted into prejudiced categories.

Some people are gonna want/need different tackle my dude.

As adults.

Then you're significantly more socially liberal than most conservatives. Or you're lying

 

[Dreiko]

For that to be true, I would need to believe that gender is real. I do not. Not in the sense we have been using the term real.

However, things that are not real can be experienced as real, and can have real consequences. We live in a deeply gendered society, after all.

I consider medicating children to be something best left to the discretion of the medical profession, based on the logic of what is best for the child's wellbeing. I don't take that position lightly given that the medical profession has also been a vehicle for discrimination and abuse towards gender non-conforming and intersexed people, but it is still better than leaving these decisions up to parents, teachers, politicians or internet conservatives.

I have to ask though, are you opposed to prescribing anti-depressants to depressed people (which can also include children and teens) because depression doesn't exist except within the experience of the individual?



Watching the descent into TERFdom in real time has been fascinating.

Again, the reason I don't want to offer you a definition of man, woman or what it means to be trans is because I believe it falls to individuals to decide what these things mean. They are, after all, things that can only be experienced by individuals. Fortunately for me, the medical profession, for the most part, agrees.

The purpose of social and medical transition is not to enable a person to better conform to society's gendered expectations. If it were, it would be exactly the kind of desistance-focused treatment you would want. The purpose of gender identity based therapy is to enable each individual to live comfortably within an identity that does not cause them harm or distress, whether that be as a man, a woman or neither, and whether it is gender conforming or otherwise.

The belief that transitioning is a means to erase gender non-conforming children is a ludicrous one. As someone who was a gender non-conforming child once, I can tell you that society at large is singularly and irrationally fixated on erasing gender non-conforming children. A gender identity clinic is ironically one of the few places where such a child is likely to be listened to and taken seriously.

If something is so subjective so as to differ based on each individual perception, it definitely isn't real, so I get what you think about it. I'm not sure I agree with it but it's at least consistent. At the same time, just because it has real effects on people, this thing shouldn't be treated as though it's any more real than other such things like for example fiction. Lots of people get inspired or touched in one way or another by something society made up out of thin cloth, it's not limited to gender.


Basically, when someone claims things about their gender, they're not any more substantial than when someone claims things about their favorite anime or book or what have you. They are not broaching a holy subject, they're talking about their favorite pokemon.


Now, of course our society really thinks highly of this thing, which is not unlike how other people think highly of things around the world, like how in India cows are seen as sacred and they are left to roam, but that still doesn't mean anything at the end of the day. This is not something beyond reproach or that others shouldn't get to comment about.


And hey, I think just calling someone "gender-non-confomring" is way too imprecise. Like for example I have long hair and had it since I was a kid so that's technically one of those traits, another one is that I like to cook which, at least growing up, was very much frowned upon by my grandma especially since she thought it was a woman's work (she came around once I grew a bit older and learned to cook well enough to earn her respect haha), but I never really identified those as crucial elements to my being at all. I think a lot of people do a ton of things that don't 100% conform with their gender but they don't make a big deal out of them or interpret them as indications that they're not that gender. They don't make those things into their actual identity. It honestly sounds bizarre to me to just decide one day that I'm a different gender just because my hobby is cooking and I have metal hair lol. If anything, I interpret those things as merely broadening the scope of the gender.


I think you can do that with a lot of things, you can just add them to the genders we have and have them be included as one more normal aspect of them. It definitely is more reasonable than just making up a whole new gender out of whole cloth to suit them anyhow.

 

[Buyetyen]

It definitely is more reasonable than just making up a whole new gender out of whole cloth to suit them anyhow.

Question: What do you mean by this? Who are you referring to?

 

[Dreiko]

Question: What do you mean by this? Who are you referring to?

Things like the genders that the thousands of pronouns that are there correspond to. I could prolly come up with a couple but most of them are things some kid came up with and not on the caliber of for example the native american two-spirit thing which is cultural and historical. These things are like someone's quest for self-discovery, but instead of discovering anything they just come up with their own superhero nickname and replace discovery with fantasy or imagination. It's less about being true to yourself and revealing the real you to the world and more projecting a self you deem palatable to folks who have to congratulate you for it.

 

[tstorm823]

"In my ideal world, in my mind, there would be no transitioning"
Like, direct quote.

Reread that exchange one post at a time if you don't understand how bad this response was.

Yet you're championing using the vast powers of the state to block a single trans girl from playing girls basketball or whatever and nothing about ballet, gymnastics, cheerleading, school football, child marriage, etc, etc.
Conservatives would lose their entire minds at banning those
Some people are gonna want/need different tackle my dude.
Then you're significantly more socially liberal than most conservatives. Or you're lying

You don't know the faintest thing about what conservatives think. You can't even comprehend what you're reading right now. Everything you've said the entire thread is wrong. Adults can do what they want with their bodies in the privacy of their lives is default conservative. Child marriage is not default conservative. You are grossly mislead by the internet about these things.

Why do you know medicine better than actual medical professionals?

If medical professionals refused to provide the hormone treatments you are advocating for, you would call them bigots and want their licenses revoked. Why are you the only allowable opinion, medical or otherwise?

I consider medicating children to be something best left to the discretion of the medical profession, based on the logic of what is best for the child's wellbeing. I don't take that position lightly given that the medical profession has also been a vehicle for discrimination and abuse towards gender non-conforming and intersexed people, but it is still better than leaving these decisions up to parents, teachers, politicians or internet conservatives.

In the very near future, medical professionals are going to stop doing these things, I guarantee it. We are nearing the end of the "what we can do" part of sex change treatments, and entering the "what we should do" part, and it's probably within a decade that people look at blocking puberty like we do lobotomies. I hope your position is as open to that as you're making it seem right here.

I have to ask though, are you opposed to prescribing anti-depressants to depressed people (which can also include children and teens) because depression doesn't exist except within the experience of the individual?

I am largely opposed to the prescription of anti-depressants as a treatment for environmental ailments. Much like there are people with inherent body dysmorphia, whose sex change is largely or completely unrelated to social gender concepts, there are definitely people whose depression is a inherent psychological problem within the individual, and would not hope to even try and deter them from anti-depressants. But that isn't most people's experience with depression, most people are better served by therapy and lifestyle changes than by anti-depressants.

To state the consistent position I'm taking across these examples: drugs are not a solution to social environmental problems.

Again, the reason I don't want to offer you a definition of man, woman or what it means to be trans is because I believe it falls to individuals to decide what these things mean. They are, after all, things that can only be experienced by individuals. Fortunately for me, the medical profession, for the most part, agrees.

You think the medical profession agrees. That is but a rapidly fleeting illusion.

The purpose of social and medical transition is not to enable a person to better conform to society's gendered expectations. If it were, it would be exactly the kind of desistance-focused treatment you would want.

I think you might have misunderstood what I'm suggesting. As an example, let's consider a trans-man. This is someone with "male" gender and "female" sex. The sex of this person may perfectly conform to societal expectations of women, and the gender of this person may perfectly conform to societal expectations of men, the thing that doesn't conform is having those two concepts within one individual. So when you think of making people conform, you're thinking of removing the male gender identity and having them live as a woman in both sex and gender, because sex and gender matching is full conformity to social expectations. But If you take that same person and do a full sex change, now they meet the social expectations of male in both sex and gender, which is also full conformity to social expectations. You're still pushing for conformity, or at least defending those who are.

I don't get how you don't see this, especially given your opinion of past medical practices. You see doctors doing procedures on infants' sex organs in the past (so that they'll present more obviously as one sex or the other) and think "that's heinous", but then you see doctors preventing kids from having puberty now (also so that they' can present more obviously as one sex or the other) and think "boy, I'm sure glad I've got doctors on my side." It's just so much more of the same thing.

 

[Buyetyen]

If medical professionals refused to provide the hormone treatments you are advocating for, you would call them bigots and want their licenses revoked. Why are you the only allowable opinion, medical or otherwise?

You make shit up, dude. You really do.

 

[Trunkage]

You make shit up, dude. You really do.

Man, don't be so hasty. If a medical professional says that they refuse due to their personal religious beliefs, I would call them ineffective at thier jobs and everyone should know they failed their patients due to their superstitions

If tstorm claims that's just calling them bigots, I... actually wouldn't be suprised. Seems to be standard

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Reread that exchange one post at a time if you don't understand how bad this response was.

lmao, the free space of arguments

You don't know the faintest thing about what conservatives think. You can't even comprehend what you're reading right now. Everything you've said the entire thread is wrong. Adults can do what they want with their bodies in the privacy of their lives is default conservative. Child marriage is not default conservative. You are grossly mislead by the internet about these things.

Hi, the Supreme Court striking down sodomy laws against conservative opposition happened in my lifetime. Conservatives still want to undo gay marriage. The default opposition to bans on child marriage still comes from the right. Fucking deal man

If medical professionals refused to provide the hormone treatments you are advocating for, you would call them bigots and want their licenses revoked. Why are you the only allowable opinion, medical or otherwise?

Man, it's like if things were different, people would react to them differently

In the very near future, medical professionals are going to stop doing these things, I guarantee it. We are nearing the end of the "what we can do" part of sex change treatments, and entering the "what we should do" part, and it's probably within a decade that people look at blocking puberty like we do lobotomies. I hope your position is as open to that as you're making it seem right here.

What are "sentiments shared over a decade ago" for $100, Alex

I am largely opposed to the prescription of anti-depressants as a treatment for environmental ailments. Much like there are people with inherent body dysmorphia, whose sex change is largely or completely unrelated to social gender concepts, there are definitely people whose depression is a inherent psychological problem within the individual, and would not hope to even try and deter them from anti-depressants. But that isn't most people's experience with depression, most people are better served by therapy and lifestyle changes than by anti-depressants.

"Unless they're kids, because fuck 'um"

I think you might have misunderstood what I'm suggesting. As an example, let's consider a trans-man. This is someone with "male" gender and "female" sex. The sex of this person may perfectly conform to societal expectations of women, and the gender of this person may perfectly conform to societal expectations of men, the thing that doesn't conform is having those two concepts within one individual. So when you think of making people conform, you're thinking of removing the male gender identity and having them live as a woman in both sex and gender, because sex and gender matching is full conformity to social expectations. But If you take that same person and do a full sex change, now they meet the social expectations of male in both sex and gender, which is also full conformity to social expectations. You're still pushing for conformity, or at least defending those who are.

Or the trans man in question want a penis. But that would be too simple, and would be giving the trans man too much personal agency, so I can see why you'd argue against it

I don't get how you don't see this, especially given your opinion of past medical practices. You see doctors doing procedures on infants' sex organs in the past (so that they'll present more obviously as one sex or the other) and think "that's heinous", but then you see doctors preventing kids from having puberty now (also so that they' can present more obviously as one sex or the other) and think "boy, I'm sure glad I've got doctors on my side." It's just so much more of the same thing.

Just a normal conservative completely tripped up by the idea of consent, I see.