Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[8ball]

That's my hunch, yes, looking at how the pattern can appear or disappear. I might be wrong, but it doesn't matter either way regarding the point, which is that such things are being looked for in order to point the finger and shout 'look, they're still men!'.

I think it's a complex picture but agree with you about the motivation.

 

[MochaSoul]

To do so would seem incompatible with supporting people's rights to express their gender identities as they see fit.

It's sad that their opinions seem to be of less value than their gender identities. If they express similar ideas as the opposite camp as yours they become "tokens" of the other camp. I think the debate is toxic enough without people always needing to pay whatever perceived injury back in the same coin.

 

[elbows]

Actually, this happens all the time. Sometimes I wonder if changing pronouns is sincerely held to be the most fundamental aspect to being trans, because people seem to focus on this more than anything else.

Its not the fundamental aspect, but its stuff that ties closely to identity and its obvious why this aspect is on the front line.

Take just one scenario, the parent trying to adapt and do the right thing by their offspring that has decided to transition. For this scenario lets say the offspring has reached adult age so we can avoid a different can of worms for just this moment.

Would you expect the parent to try to support their child by referring to them in the manner desired? Or lecture them about how a lack of eggs makes that pronoun technically incorrect in your opinion, so sorry you'll just have to deal with it without this support?

Basic decency comes first, and I find there is little excuse for being cruel by insisting on retaining adherence to all manner of gender, language and other constructs. Its mostly all baggage anyway, there by accident of historical human beliefs, power structures and behaviours, rather than pure merit, factual accuracy etc.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Blanchard's a dodgy source. Fucking bigot, whose theories should be consigned to the dustbin.

Interesting use of the word 'bigot'. Like it or not, Blanchard's typology reflects reality more than any other theory about transsexualism or transgender identity.

And the claim regarding 'male-pattern criminality' was not so much a dodgy source as a dodgy use of a source by you. I share smokedout's problem with the way you used that source, which repeated the way it has been misused elsewhere in an attempt to show that trans women are really men because they commit crime like men do, something that isn't borne out by the evidence in the way it is claimed.

This is a DIRECT QUOTE from the study. It's neither taken out of context nor cherry-picked.

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.​

it doesn't quite fit with the idea that this is an example of maleness as something almost mystically essential to an unchangeable male identity, rather than something that can be altered rather simply.

Who is claiming this is essential to male identity? Do you have something against males?

 

[MochaSoul]

My comment about MY's liminal status being seen as not a 'real' trans person wasn't supposed to be an accusation aimed at any posters here on this thread, I should've been clearer (or not said it that way at all) but its not for nothing that her twitter byline is 'blocked by millions, between a rock and a hard place' - like Kristina Harrison the hate comes at MY from both 'sides', being seen as traitors to the cause and disavowed by many who see 'trans women are women' as the bedrock of the movement for trans right now.

Well said. It's as if some trans opinions were more valuable than others.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Like those trans inclusive trends which de-emphasise biology, even at a class level.

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Are you familiar with Butler's ideas on this?

 

[8ball]

Well said. It's as if some trans opinions were more valuable than others.

That happens to pretty much anyone who questions a general (or local) orthodoxy.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Interesting use of the word 'bigot'. Like it or not, Blanchard's typology reflects reality more than any other theory about transsexualism or transgender identity.

I reject that. He bends the evidence to make it fit.

And yes, someone who considers homosexuality to be some kind of evolutionary mistake is a bigot, as well as a person who doesn't understand evolution.

 

[Athos]

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Are you familiar with Butler's ideas on this?

Her performativity stuff, you mean? Yes, reasonably familiar.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Or lecture them about how a lack of eggs makes that pronoun technically incorrect in your opinion, so sorry you'll just have to deal with it without this support?

Basic decency comes first, and I find there is little excuse for being cruel by insisting on retaining adherence to all manner of gender, language and other constructs. Its mostly all baggage anyway, there by accident of historical human beliefs, power structures and behaviours, rather than pure merit, factual accuracy etc.

Families are always messy. Do you think it's cruel to lie to people?

 

[TopCat]

I move that this thread be binned immediately

Why?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

I reject that. He bends the evidence to make it fit.

And yes, someone who considers homosexuality to be some kind of evolutionary mistake is a bigot, as well as a person who doesn't understand evolution.

Please link to anything peer-reviewed which supports your claim he 'bends the evidence'. Please also explain to me how autogynephilia is not a thing when this behaviour is so clearly fundamental to the transition of the males I quote in this piece:

Pornography And Autogynephilia In The Narratives Of Adult Transgender Males

 

[SpookyFrank]

What is 'gender identity'?

What is the point you think you're making with this?

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Her performativity stuff, you mean? Yes, reasonably familiar.

It's more her idea that it is the social category that is oppressed, which makes sex class identity based. So people can opt in and out of sex-based oppression, if you get me.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

What is the point you think you're making with this?

I asked you to define something that is fundamental to your argument, and our apparent disagreement. Yet you cannot define it?

 

[TopCat]

How is responding to the point you raised, a derail? Aren’t cis women entitled to contribute to the debate about what makes someone a woman?

What makes someone a woman would be a fascinating thread but this thread is not about that.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Well said. It's as if some trans opinions were more valuable than others.

We are talking about a trans person who has repeatedly invalidated the experiences and choices of other trans people tbf.

 

[Pickman's model]

This is a DIRECT QUOTE from the study. It's neither taken out of context nor cherry-picked.

all quotes are cherry-picked, miranda

 

[Miranda Yardley]

We are talking about a trans person who has repeatedly invalidated the experiences and choices of other trans people tbf.

Saying men cannot become women is not invalidating anyone's experience, because this hasn't happened.

I'm still waiting on you to:

• substantiate your claim I have ever said anything hateful; and
• define 'gender identity'.

Thanks!

 

[Miranda Yardley]

all quotes are cherry-picked, miranda

Here's the full section, with the part I extracted in bold. How have I got this wrong?

Gender differences
Tables S1 and S2). However, violence against self (suicidal behaviour) and others ([violent] crime) constituted important exceptions. First, male-to-females had significantly increased risks for suicide attempts compared to both female (aHR 9.3; 95% CI 4.4–19.9) and male (aHR 10.4; 95% CI 4.9–22.1) controls. By contrast, female-to-males had significantly increased risk of suicide attempts only compared to male controls (aHR 6.8; 95% CI 2.1–21.6) but not compared to female controls (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 0.7–4.8). This suggests that male-to-females are at higher risk for suicide attempts after sex reassignment, whereas female-to-males maintain a female pattern of suicide attempts after sex reassignment (Tables S1 and S2).

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.​

 

[SpookyFrank]

I asked you to define something that is fundamental to your argument, and our apparent disagreement. Yet you cannot define it?

My point was that 'gender identity' has no objective definition. You can't accuse me of saying something I said openly, that's not how an accusation works.

 

[TopCat]

All feminists? Or just your shower?

This is a pretty long established feminist view. See Simone De Beuvois etc.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

My point was that 'gender identity' has no objective definition. You can't accuse me of saying something I said openly, that's not how an accusation works.

If we cannot define 'gender identity' how can we protect it in law?

Have you read this?

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10481889909539349?journalCode=hpsd20

 

[Pickman's model]

Here's the full section, with the part I extracted in bold. How have I got this wrong?

Gender differences
Tables S1 and S2). However, violence against self (suicidal behaviour) and others ([violent] crime) constituted important exceptions. First, male-to-females had significantly increased risks for suicide attempts compared to both female (aHR 9.3; 95% CI 4.4–19.9) and male (aHR 10.4; 95% CI 4.9–22.1) controls. By contrast, female-to-males had significantly increased risk of suicide attempts only compared to male controls (aHR 6.8; 95% CI 2.1–21.6) but not compared to female controls (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 0.7–4.8). This suggests that male-to-females are at higher risk for suicide attempts after sex reassignment, whereas female-to-males maintain a female pattern of suicide attempts after sex reassignment (Tables S1 and S2).

Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.​

all quotes are by their very nature cherry-picked. do you really not see that? a person selects a small portion of a document or of someone's spoken words and uses that for their own ends, generally to illustrate or support a point.

there are none so blind as those who will not see
--john heywood

 

[SpookyFrank]

Saying men cannot become women is not invalidating anyone's experience, because this hasn't happened.

You're invalidating people's experiences on a two-for-one special here. Firstly by denying that gender transition is real and also by implying that people who transition and become 'officially' female weren't, in truth, female all along.

 

[Athos]

It's more her idea that it is the social category that is oppressed, which makes sex class identity based. So people can opt in and out of sex-based oppression, if you get me.

I'm not sure that's what she's saying at all.

 

[elbows]

Families are always messy. Do you think it's cruel to lie to people?

I believe there is a difference between not lying to people and insisting that the rigidity of your own ideas is the most important thing.

I believe there are plenty of objective facts in the world. But there is also a huge area that is just about how people perceive the world, themselves, others. Treating the latter as the former and applying your own beliefs to the latter with a high degree of inflexibility towards others is incompatible with a range of human rights in my book.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

all quotes are by their very nature cherry-picked. do you really not see that? a person selects a small portion of a document or of someone's spoken words and uses that for their own ends, generally to illustrate or support a point.

Please explain where I have got this wrong.

 

[SpookyFrank]

If we cannot define 'gender identity' how can we protect it in law?

The answer to that, at least in present-day UK law, is apparently, 'by making it needlessly difficult for people to change their legally recognised gender'.

The process for which, as noted elsewhere, is dependant upon the entirely subjective judgements of entirely subjective humans based on an entirely arbitrary set of characteristics for 'male' and 'female'.

 

[Athos]

You're invalidating people's experiences on a two-for-one special here. Firstly by denying that gender transition is real and also by implying that people who transition and become 'officially' female weren't, in truth, female all along.

What does "invalidating people's experiences" actually mean? Is it just an IDpol way of saying disagreeing with someone? Am I 'invalidating a christian's experience' by saying I don't believe in God?