I did not. Not even close. I was comparing two related concepts, I never said anything to suggest that one is the cause of the other.
Yes you did, when you characterized the position as "applying an inverted double standard", with your elaboration of that perceived double standard as being rooted in the idea of misidentifying someone's sex.
"Like, I understand the double standard you see, that someone might see the shape of a penis and call a baby a boy, so if that person alters their appearance to have the shape of a vagina, they ought to be fairly seen as a woman by that standard. But I really think most of you are just still applying an inverted double standard: if a doctor can misidentify a persons sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics, why would you then consider changing those physical characteristics to be a sex change? If the current standards can be right or wrong, and you take the exact inverse position, you've still taken a position that can be right or wrong."
The entire fucking paragraph is you using "misidentification of sex" to claim that the position you're arguing against is inherently flawed, if not hypocritical ("why would you consider that to be a sex change?"). That's not "comparing two related concepts". That's stating outright that you perceive a major failing in the opposing position to be belied by the possibility of "misidentif[ication] of a person's sex based on a shallow assessment of physical characteristics", leading you to characterize the position as necessarily applying "the exact inverse" double standard. If that is not what you intended, then you expressed yourself
incredibly poorly.
It is, because it's a different situation entirely. An individual who lived as a certain gender finding out they are intersex and changing their gender expression based on that is not the same thing as a individual trying to change their sex to match their desired gender expression. When I said I had said the opposite, this is what I meant. Someone adjusting their gender to match changes in what they know of their sex is not trans. I have never suggested that is trans.
And again,
I never said that you said it was trans. For fuck's sake, that very paragraph you quoted opened up with me acknowledging that poor phrasing on my part may have created that perception, and the next two paragraphs were devoted to explaining the meaning I had actually intended. So to again borrow your phrasing: "I don't think you understood a word I said."
Ok, but you understand that in this context, in order to point to the contradiction, you are appealing to the sensibilities of transphobes. The logic of sex reassignment is identical to the logic of transphobes, that specific elements of physical presentation preclude people from societal roles.
No, we are not. Not remotely. That logic's so tortured that it would make Hellraiser's Cenobites uncomfortable. Setting aside the obvious fact that the argument I'm championing is summed up as "Stop harassing transfolk", which is antithetical to the transphobe's position, your take here is rendered nonsensical by the fact that nobody you're accusing here is trying to make these people trans.
We aren't saying "but thou art trans" when these people display stereotypically masculine or feminine traits/interests or fill a social role stereotypically associated with a different sex. Point of fact, the converse tends to be true in that those are generally
not treated as predictors of a person being trans. It's
a given that gender non-conforming =/= transgender. Interests do not equal gender identity. The only people trying to pretend otherwise are ideologues (such as "anti-SJWs") strawmanning anyone who's trans-positive as looking for even the feeblest of excuses to try and gaslight someone into believing they're trans. Their characterization is not just factually untrue, it's completely divorced from reality. To use an old favorite analogy, it's about on-par with Creationists pretending that Origin of the Species is treated like some infallible scripture and no advancements have been made in Biology since its publication for fear of contradicting Darwin. Much like in that case, the claim is downright
bizarre in how counterfactual it is.
For fuck's sake, before even HRT is even approved, a trans individual has to have mental health evaluations to first confirm that they're making an informed decision, that it really is what they want, that they aren't confusing something like gender non-conformity with being transgender, and to get a professional opinion on whether transitioning would have a positive or deleterious effect on their mental health! Never mind that SOP for trans kids is to simply keep them on hormone blockers to delay puberty until they either change their mind or reach an age where doctors and psychiatrists can be sure that they're cognitively and emotionally developed enough to make an informed decision. That's a waiting period of literal
years to ensure that it isn't an impulse decision or rooted in false presumptions!
It is not something that is done lightly, and it is certainly a far cry from the "Aha! That proves you are trans!" mindset that you're trying to paint us as holding. We aren't making determinations based on gender role stereotypes or "specific elements of physical presentation". Hell, the lie of that claim is illustrated by the fact that something like being a drag queen doesn't carry much in the way of implications for a person's gender identity! We just aren't fucking ostracizing people or giving them the runaround when they tell us that they consider themselves to be a different gender and/or that they want to change their sex to better match that gender.
And just so it's not lost in the shuffle, leave us not forget that this idiotic gotcha you're attempting is dead on arrival. You're trying to claim that the logic that SRS changes a person's sex is identical to the transphobe's logic that SRS
fails to change a person's sex (which they claim to be immutable; that a transman will always be a woman and a transwoman always a man). Equating the two does not hold up to even token scrutiny.
Once again,
you do not understand this topic. The fact that that wounds your pride to be called out on that does not make it any less true.
You're still not getting it. I'm not saying trans people are confused or have the wrong reasons. I'm saying the outside circumstances of a society fixated on gender roles puts people into the situation where it is logical to try to present as the opposite sex because of a real dissonance between their self-image and their experience of gender in society. Prescribing transitions further reinforces the societal obsession with gender roles that causes the dissonance in the first place.
Everything after that first sentence demonstrates that you absolutely
are saying that they're confused and have the wrong reasons. You just balk at the phrasing because it isn't flattering, so you try to spin it as something that paints you in a better light. It's not appreciably different from how a racist will vehemently deny that they're racist, prejudiced, bigoted, or any other similar terms, even if their position is unquestionably racist. Rather, they insist, they're just "telling it as it is", "speaking the truth that everyone else pretends not to notice", and that they're the
real good guys who are "standing strong against society's false narrative", because "facts don't care about your feelings". They are not racist, they insist, they're just "not afraid to speak uncomfortable truths"! In fact, if anyone's the real racist, they claim, it's the people insisting to the contrary for the sake of being politically correct, "because, really,
those are the ones assigning artificial weight to race"!
Those who championed anti-miscegenation claimed to have the moral high ground, saying that their position that the mixing of races was an abomination was actually rooted in respect for those races that the opposing position lacked. The KKK itself balks at the allegation that they're in any way racist, much less white supremacist. Chauvanists insist that they aren't prejudiced against women, but rather they love and respect them for what they are whereas the the non-chauvanists disrespect them by - as the chauvanists tell it - treating femininity as inferior and trying to make women 'better' by forcing them to be more masculine. ...Ugh. Listen, people are very good at rationalizing their prejudices. As a matter of definition, the moment someone recognizes a prejudice as such is the same moment they reject it. At least as often as not, however, when forced to consider their prejudice they find ways not only to excuse it but also insist that it's really the other side that is prejudiced...often with the same tortured, counterfactual logic that you have utilized here. That last part's kinda a red flag.
In your case, you've tried to spin trans status as an identity forced upon them by society - bullied into as you previously termed it (wrong reasons) - which you further attribute to an "obsession with gender roles" creating a dissonance between their self-image and experience of gender that wouldn't otherwise exist (confused). It's the kind of argument that belies the fact that you've never had an honest sit down with a trans individual in your life, never mind actually learning about the general demographic and its experiences rather than simply assuming an explanation that fits your preconceptions. The basic premise your argument is circling around but you're trying not to directly say is "nobody can
legitimately be trans and therefore those who enable the trans identity are the real bad guys; that the alleged trans are therefore really just the brainwashed victims of monsters who are 'drugging children to fit gender roles'". That does not
remotely resemble reality. That's a transphobic boogeyman; a fantasy which wholly rejects the demographic's actual experiences to try and justify their dismissive attitude towards that same demographic.
So again, I say to you:
You very obviously do not understand this topic and are arguing from presumption. You need to rectify that before trying to weigh in on it again.
www.snopes.com
