Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[TruXta]

Miranda Yardley I realise there's a lot of people engaging with you right now, but I'm a bit worried that you're seemingly willing to champion what seems to be a illogical scientific theory ala Blanchard et al.

If you have any links to responses from BBL or their allies that directly address this criticism I'd be grateful. Ta.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

the right to have their gender identity recognised in law. Thus (for example) leaving transwomen in mens prisons where their likelihood of self harm, assault, and suicide is through the roof.

Gender identity is just thoughts and feelings. You can't legislate to protect that.

Apropos of prisons, in case you haven't noticed, our prison system is falling apart. Cultural violence and sexual abuse abounds. The entire system needs reform, and the epidemic of prison suicides across the estate needs to be addressed.

Do you believe double rapists like Jessica Winfield should be housed with women in prison? Don't you think a better solution would be to have an improved facility for transgender prisoners, where their unique needs can be met?

 

[smokedout]

I don't believe there is a realistic chance the 2004 GRA will be repealed.

Is this more questions you aren't going to answer then? You seem pretty evasive on a lot of things.

The reason it didn't become law was because parliament was dissolved as a result of the General Election. I have never ever suggested anyone should be refused housing or employment based on how they dress or their thoughts or their feelings or other faith. There is a better way to protect the rights of crossdressers and non-binary individuals than protecting the thoughts and feelings, or faith, of 'gender identity': just allow people to wear what they like.

There's no guarantee it would have become law if parliament hasn't been dissolved, it was only a private member's bill. How else would you propose protecting the rights of non-binary people to be discriminated against without changing the Equalities Act to include the?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Miranda Yardley I realise there's a lot of people engaging with you right now, but I'm a bit worried that you're seemingly willing to champion what seems to be a illogical scientific theory ala Blanchard et al.

If you have any links to responses from BBL or their allies that directly address this criticism I'd be grateful. Ta.

Your criticism it's 'illogical'? What makes you say that?

 

[smokedout]

Gender identity is just thoughts and feelings. You can't legislate to protect that.

Religion is protected under the Equalities Act. Why not gender identity?

 

[Athos]

Lol, what patronising drivel. There are many feminists who have applied critical thinking that reject the terf outcome. In fact their thinking isn’t really critical at all, it’s a crude, simplistic, essentialist, argument that has been put forward by conservatives for decades. Their endpoint is the reactionary drivel being promoted by Yardley here.

Yes, but it normally amounts to more than a banal one-liner they key term of which the speaker admits to not having any communicable conception of!

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Is this more questions you aren't going to answer then? You seem pretty evasive on a lot of things.

I have answered every question you have put to me. Please don't gaslight me.

There's no guarantee it would have become law if parliament hasn't been dissolved, it was only a private member's bill. How else would you propose protecting the rights of non-binary people to be discriminated against without changing the Equalities Act to include the?

If you saw the first reading, you'd have seen the strength of support the bill had, and the way the SNP was leveraging it against the government.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think you understand what 'essentialist' means. Please explain exactly what I promote that is 'reactionary drivel'. Thank you.

So Blanchard, then, and his disease model of transgender/transsexuality. That he sees homosexuality as deviant - not just him, his fellow travellers such as J Michael 'bisexual men are liars' Bailey, too - is not a conclusion of his theorising. It is the starting point of his theorising.

I'm very surprised to see you quoting such a person.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Religion is protected under the Equalities Act. Why not gender identity?

As I have said a number of times before, we have a protected characteristic for faith. Obviously you realise there are problems with protecting faith, it is after all ideology. And all ideology should be open to question.

 

[TopCat]

Do you have an argument you would like to put forward?

You are a cunt.

 

[TruXta]

Your criticism it's 'illogical'? What makes you say that?

I could refer you to my previous post, but what it boils down to is that the theory of autogynephilia is, as far as I can see, not falsifiable. Either mtf people are gay or they are aroused by the thought of themselves as women, and if they are not homosexual and deny being autogynephilic then the theory says they must be lying or in denial.

That is pretty much the text book definition of a theory that can't be disproved.

 

[belboid]

Yes, but it normally amounts to more than a banal one-liner they key term of which the speaker admits to not having any communicable conception of!

No one on this thread has put forward a definition of woman that is universal, so why imply that only one side of the debate have failed to do so?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your criticism it's 'illogical'? What makes you say that?

It's worse than illogical. It's a bunch of prejudices dressed up as science and used as a means to deny others certain rights or treatments. It's fucking vile.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

So Blanchard, then, and his disease model of transgender/transsexuality. That he sees homosexuality as deviant - not just him, his fellow travellers such as J Michael 'bisexual men are liars' Bailey, too - is not a conclusion of his theorising. It is the starting point of his theorising.

I'm very surprised to see you quoting such a person.

I think the idea of autogynephilia and the two-type taxonomy is clever. In particular I think the mutually exclusive/collectively exhaustive characteristic of the typology is very clever. Blanchard took many decades of other's work a gave an insightful way of understanding it.

I don't see you engaging with the substance of the argument, which is 'transsexual males fall into two categories differentiated by sexual orientation'. This is supported by neurological evidence.

A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism

 

[bimble]

.. How else would you propose protecting the rights of non-binary people to be discriminated against without changing the Equalities Act to include them?

Are you legally allowed to deny someone housing or employment based on how they dress / look at the moment? I think basically you are, there's no law saying you can't. If your aim is simply this smokedout, as you seem to say, then why do only 'non binary' people need this protection, why must it be framed in terms of reifying and enshrining in law 'gender identity'.

There is a better way to protect the rights of crossdressers and non-binary individuals than protecting the thoughts and feelings, or faith, of 'gender identity': just allow people to wear what they like.

^ This sounds like a good idea but if its a change in the law that people want it'd be a pretty unwieldly thing and probably impossible to prove (discrimination on grounds of looking / dressing wrong).

 

[Athos]

No one on this thread has put forward a definition of woman that is universal, so why imply that only one side of the debate have failed to do so?

I'm not. I simply queried what that poster meant by that hackneyed phrase she chose to repeat (one that's pretty central to the discussion, you be fair). Seemingly, she's not sure. That's fine; there are, indeed, lots of people with half-baked ideas on this thread.

 

[smokedout]

I have answered every question you have put to me. Please don't gaslight me.

You haven't answered whether you think transgenderism in children is caused by autogynephilia. I'm sorry I don't think this is gas lighting, I'd like to know, without having to read a book. I don't think there's any evidence for that you see. I don't think transgenderism in children is likely to be caused by a sexual fetish. And I don't think autogynephilia really adequately explains androphilic transsexuals. Or as you agree female to males. And most gynephilic male to females say it doesn't describe them, either because they don't experience it or because they don't see it as the motivating factor in changing their gender. So as a theory of transsexuality it seems to be to be pretty piss weak.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I could refer you to my previous post, but what it boils down to is that the theory of autogynephilia is, as far as I can see, not falsifiable. Either mtf people are gay or they are aroused by the thought of themselves as women, and if they are not homosexual and deny being autogynephilic then the theory says they must be lying or in denial.

That is pretty much the text book definition of a theory that can't be disproved.

Well, the taxonomy makes predictions which can be tested. And these things aside, it appears describe the real world very well.

 

[belboid]

Gender identity is just thoughts and feelings. You can't legislate to protect that.

There are plenty of laws covering thoughts and feelings already, so that's wrong. And whether gender identity is just thoughts and feelings or whether there is a more biological basis for it is one of the things being debated.

Apropos of prisons, in case you haven't noticed, our prison system is falling apart. Cultural violence and sexual abuse abounds. The entire system needs reform, and the epidemic of prison suicides across the estate needs to be addressed.

Do you believe double rapists like Jessica Winfield should be housed with women in prison? Don't you think a better solution would be to have an improved facility for transgender prisoners, where their unique needs can be met?

Avoiding the question again, I see. The 'we must change everything, before we change anything' argument is rarely convincing, and certainly not here.

 

[smokedout]

As I have said a number of times before, we have a protected characteristic for faith. Obviously you realise there are problems with protecting faith, it is after all ideology. And all ideology should be open to question.

I have no problem with faith being open to question, but I think it's fair enough that religious people are protected from discrimination in housing, employment and service provision. I don't see why this can't be applied to non-binary people as well. And the mechanism for doing that would be the Equalities Act.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

^ This sounds like a good idea but if its a change in the law that people want it'd be a pretty unwieldly thing and probably impossible to prove (discrimination on grounds of looking / dressing wrong).

How on earth do you prove discrimination based on 'gender identity'? I mean, for many people this doesn't even seem to affect how they live their lives, they just say it is an 'identity'. I hope we agree that we would all benefit from a more compassionate society?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

There are plenty of laws covering thoughts and feelings already, so that's wrong. And whether gender identity is just thoughts and feelings or whether there is a more biological basis for it is one of the things being debated.

Avoiding the question again, I see. The 'we must change everything, before we change anything' argument is rarely convincing, and certainly not here.

There's not an awful lot of evidence to show 'gender identity' is biological. Certainly, the evidence for Blanchard's typology far outweighs what evidence there is.

That's a bit rich, considering you just evaded my asking whether that double rapist should have been in a women's prison. Are you going to answer me or not?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

You haven't answered whether you think transgenderism in children is caused by autogynephilia. I'm sorry I don't think this is gas lighting, I'd like to know, without having to read a book. I don't think there's any evidence for that you see. I don't think transgenderism in children is likely to be caused by a sexual fetish. And I don't think autogynephilia really adequately explains androphilic transsexuals. Or as you agree female to males. And most gynephilic male to females say it doesn't describe them, either because they don't experience it or because they don't see it as the motivating factor in changing their gender. So as a theory of transsexuality it seems to be to be pretty piss weak.

Describing AGP as a 'sexual fetish' doesn't help those who live with this. Apropos children, I referred you to a post on my website looking at how gender non-conformity in young children (which is linked to later homosexuality) appears to be interpreted as the child being transgender. The children who later become homosexual would, if they transition, be homosexual not autogynephilic transsexual. Note I am not saying either is more valid, and I am not saying either are 'true trans'.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

the right to have their gender identity recognised in law. Thus (for example) leaving transwomen in mens prisons where their likelihood of self harm, assault, and suicide is through the roof.

Please see my earlier response. It answers your point.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Religion is protected under the Equalities Act. Why not gender identity?

Again it's thoughts and feelings. I'd prefer our protections to be based on something more material.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I have no problem with faith being open to question, but I think it's fair enough that religious people are protected from discrimination in housing, employment and service provision. I don't see why this can't be applied to non-binary people as well. And the mechanism for doing that would be the Equalities Act.

Surely we are all 'non-binary'? I mean, none of us are one-dimensional stereotypes, are we.

 

[belboid]

There's not an awful lot of evidence to show 'gender identity' is biological. Certainly, the evidence for Blanchard's typology far outweighs what evidence there is.

No there isn't, the research you just quoted doesn't really support Blanchard's theory, only one of it's assumptions. Most conspiracy theories start from a couple of basics. It is not support for the wider theory.

That's a bit rich, considering you just evaded my asking whether that double rapist should have been in a women's prison. Are you going to answer me or not?

Well, I can see this is going to go well, but....

I asked you a question, you answered me with a different question. Why should yours take precedence? You do keep doing this.

 

[belboid]

Again it's thoughts and feelings. I'd prefer our protections to be based on something more material.

and racial hatred? Hate is just a feeling, isn't it?

 

[TruXta]

Well, the taxonomy makes predictions which can be tested. And these things aside, it appears describe the real world very well.

Doesn't matter if it did really. If it can't be falsified even in principle it's not a scientific theory, but ideology dressed up as science.

 

[bimble]

How on earth do you prove discrimination based on 'gender identity'? I mean, for many people this doesn't even seem to affect how they live their lives, they just say it is an 'identity'. I hope we agree that we would all benefit from a more compassionate society?

True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.