Transgenderism

[blandy]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Why would you ask a trans person question 2? Do you think it advances men’s rights to equality that some men kill children? Are you ok with men accessing public spaces when its been absolutely proven some men are murderers? How can you defend this?

Now, I don’t actually think you’re a defender of or apologist for murderers. But y’know, it is a fact that some men are murderers so we need to think of that when we let them out on their own. 

I think, as you’ve rightly posted, gender is a social construct. As such society has an embedded way, or understanding, of the roles/behaviours/characteristics and attributes of men and women. The same long-standing, (but evolving) understanding doesn’t really exist to the same extent for trans people. So, as we know, “work needs to be done” for those people to be treated fairly and decently and with the same kindness and tolerance as we as non trans people hope to be treated with. As such, @Risso‘s post and the question he asks seems relevant, in that context, doesn’t it? In the specific instance of a born male, multiple rapist of women being in some respects treated exactly the same as the vast majority of just lovely trans people at the time where those people are trying and fighting for wider acceptance and better treatment from all of us, the question about whether the rapist’s actions in declaring they are a woman now and want treatment accordingly, hinder the situation for trans people seems a valid one

[chrisp65]

35 minutes ago, blandy said:

I think, as you’ve rightly posted, gender is a social construct. As such society has an embedded way, or understanding, of the roles/behaviours/characteristics and attributes of men and women. The same long-standing, (but evolving) understanding doesn’t really exist to the same extent for trans people. So, as we know, “work needs to be done” for those people to be treated fairly and decently and with the same kindness and tolerance as we as non trans people hope to be treated with. As such, @Risso‘s post and the question he asks seems relevant, in that context, doesn’t it? In the specific instance of a born male, multiple rapist of women being in some respects treated exactly the same as the vast majority of just lovely trans people at the time where those people are trying and fighting for wider acceptance and better treatment from all of us, the question about whether the rapist’s actions in declaring they are a woman now and want treatment accordingly, hinder the situation for trans people seems a valid one

I think it only hinders things when the two issues are conflated.

When trans people are viewed as a potential threat, because some people are a threat. You wouldn’t any longer presume a threat from all black or Asian people because of something someone else did. I appreciate its a new ‘thing’ for many people to think about, but it doesn’t really take too much thinking (in my opinion) to work out that there is potentially something else going on here. Something beyond the norms of behaviour for everyday trans folk.

We know very little about this person, it could be a complete ruse to just wind up the authorities, it could be legitimate, it could be that years of mental anguish trying to work out who they are has lead to violence. We don’t know, we likely will never know. My fear with these things, is that the same people that don’t want all men tarred with the same brush as domestic abusers, will be tempted to view all trans people as ‘x’ because they read half a poorly researched story about someone that may or may not be a trans person.

It’s not that long ago, homosexuality would have been conflated with paedophilia. Out someone as queer and the community worries they’ll be after their kids. Most of us have now worked out that’s two different things. It shouldn’t be a massive leap for journalists and politicians to be able to work out the same when it comes to trans people and devious people who are a physical threat to others. That doesn’t shift newspapers and create clicks and misguided anger though. 

Appreciate that was a slight ramble, I’m cooking up a chilli.

[Risso]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I think, as you’ve rightly posted, gender is a social construct. As such society has an embedded way, or understanding, of the roles/behaviours/characteristics and attributes of men and women. The same long-standing, (but evolving) understanding doesn’t really exist to the same extent for trans people. So, as we know, “work needs to be done” for those people to be treated fairly and decently and with the same kindness and tolerance as we as non trans people hope to be treated with. As such, @Risso‘s post and the question he asks seems relevant, in that context, doesn’t it? In the specific instance of a born male, multiple rapist of women being in some respects treated exactly the same as the vast majority of just lovely trans people at the time where those people are trying and fighting for wider acceptance and better treatment from all of us, the question about whether the rapist’s actions in declaring they are a woman now and want treatment accordingly, hinder the situation for trans people seems a valid one

Thanks Pete, you explained it better than me, as usual.

[Risso]

27 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I think it only hinders things when the two issues are conflated.

When trans people are viewed as a potential threat, because some people are a threat. You wouldn’t any longer presume a threat from all black or Asian people because of something someone else did. I appreciate its a new ‘thing’ for many people to think about, but it doesn’t really take too much thinking (in my opinion) to work out that there is potentially something else going on here. Something beyond the norms of behaviour for everyday trans folk.

We know very little about this person, it could be a complete ruse to just wind up the authorities, it could be legitimate, it could be that years of mental anguish trying to work out who they are has lead to violence. We don’t know, we likely will never know. My fear with these things, is that the same people that don’t want all men tarred with the same brush as domestic abusers, will be tempted to view all trans people as ‘x’ because they read half a poorly researched story about someone that may or may not be a trans person.

It’s not that long ago, homosexuality would have been conflated with paedophilia. Out someone as queer and the community worries they’ll be after their kids. Most of us have now worked out that’s two different things. It shouldn’t be a massive leap for journalists and politicians to be able to work out the same when it comes to trans people and devious people who are a physical threat to others. That doesn’t shift newspapers and create clicks and misguided anger though. 

Appreciate that was a slight ramble, I’m cooking up a chilli.

I have to say that the standard of debate on here is very high. The problem as I see it (very much as an outsider, looking in) is that the trans and feminist groups are so vehemently at opposite ends of the spectrum, that rational discussion such as the points above is mostly absent, and for once it's the middled aged blokes being the sensible ones. The main issue I see it with the trans issue is that there does exist the possibility in a very few specific arenas for trans women who were born males to be problematic at some level for biological women. Once you've been through puberty male hormones make men much, much bigger and more powerful than women on the whole. So this can lead to an issue in some sports, and in very uncommon situations like this one. However, when there is an issue, and whatever the rapist's motives for choosing to live as a woman, the fact that they raped two women IS an issue, a discussion needs to be had. It's one area where 100% black or white answers really aren't possible, in a small number of cases.

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

When trans people are viewed as a potential threat, because some people are a threat. You wouldn’t any longer presume a threat from all black or Asian people because of something someone else did. I appreciate its a new ‘thing’ for many people to think about, but it doesn’t really take too much thinking (in my opinion) to work out that there is potentially something else going on here. Something beyond the norms of behaviour for everyday trans folk.

Exactly. To my mind therefore, if the wrong ‘uns such as the rapist are (metaphorically) taken away from the mass of good people and treated as what they are - rapist/mugger/wife beater/tax evader/whatever, rather than primarily as whatever societal or racial or gender or born sex group they claim to be, or are, part of then they are segregated for their crimes and not representative of that group. I accept that some people will always be inclined to look for confirmation bias and that’s where responsible media coverage is important. Sadly we don’t always get that.

[Chindie]

You have to be wary of treating someone's gender as a privilege.

[Stevo985]

8 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Gender is a social construct, hmm? I know you claim ro be the oracle on everything diverse, an you can hold your placard up as long as you want, but that's not fact!

I don’t claim to be anything of the sort. I’m just not a thick gammon so I actually care about being inclusive (not aimed at you by the way, just that anyone who actually cares is usually more willing to make people feel included)

I’m not sure if it’s a scientific fact, it probably depends on semantics. But it is widely accepted that gender is a social construct

Edited January 27, 2023 by Stevo985

[CVByrne]

On 27/01/2023 at 19:36, Stevo985 said:

I don’t claim to be anything of the sort. I’m just not a thick gammon so I actually care about being inclusive (not aimed at you by the way, just that anyone who actually cares is usually more willing to make people feel included)

I’m not sure if it’s a scientific fact, it probably depends on semantics. But it is widely accepted that gender is a social construct

It's still an area of debate. Primarily due to the biological (mainly hormones) links to human behaviour. People born as male or female differ in many many ways and differ even more so after puberty. These difference between the two is the primary driver for the gender constructs. A trans woman who doesn't take hormones for example will mean they wont live the experiences biological women experience due to their hormones, the same in reverse for trans men. 

All of this is completely irrelevant to how we treat people though. If a person wants to live as a certain gender and not take any hormones or have any surgery. What harm does it do to anyone to just be a decent human being and treat them they way they wish. I'm pretty sure they've had tougher life experiences than you have. 

[tomav84]

40 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

It's still an area of debate. Primarily due to the biological (mainly hormones) links to human behaviour. People born as male or female differ in many many ways and differ even more so after puberty. These difference between the two is the primary driver for the gender constructs. A trans woman who doesn't take hormones for example will mean they wont live the experiences biological women experience due to their hormones, the same in reverse for trans men. 

All of this is completely irrelevant to how we treat people though. If a person wants to live as a certain gender and not take any hormones or have any surgery. What harm does it do to anyone to just be a decent human being and treat them they way they wish. I'm pretty sure they've had tougher life experiences than you have. 

this is what always gets me scratching my head...people that take issue with it are impacted in no way whatsoever

but this also applies to so many other topics like those that those that kicked off about uncle bens rice changing its name to bens original despite having probably never bought a bag of the stuff in their lives

[Delphinho123]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

It's still an area of debate. Primarily due to the biological (mainly hormones) links to human behaviour. People born as male or female differ in many many ways and differ even more so after puberty. These difference between the two is the primary driver for the gender constructs. A trans woman who doesn't take hormones for example will mean they wont live the experiences biological women experience due to their hormones, the same in reverse for trans men. 

All of this is completely irrelevant to how we treat people though. If a person wants to live as a certain gender and not take any hormones or have any surgery. What harm does it do to anyone to just be a decent human being and treat them they way they wish. I'm pretty sure they've had tougher life experiences than you have. 

This is kind of where I’m at. If somebody wants to call themselves a woman or a man, that’s fine by me, I’ll treat like I treat anybody else. Doesn’t hurt to be inclusive. 

I must admit though, I have a hard time signing up to some of the arguments put forward by some of the debate but best to steer clear of debating this topic I feel. 

[CVByrne]

11 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

this is what always gets me scratching my head...people that take issue with it are impacted in no way whatsoever

but this also applies to so many other topics like those that those that kicked off about uncle bens rice changing its name to bens original despite having probably never bought a bag of the stuff in their lives

Yes, why people get so riled by what other people want to do with their lives when it doesn't impact them in any real way. People just want to be angered and offended by almost anything these days. 

All the lines are shades of grey in almost everything yet many topics are polarising that any real debate can't actually happen.

[CVByrne]

9 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said:

This is kind of where I’m at. If somebody wants to call themselves a woman or a man, that’s fine by me, I’ll treat like I treat anybody else. Doesn’t hurt to be inclusive. 

I must admit though, I have a hard time signing up to some of the arguments put forward by some of the debate but best to steer clear of debating this topic I feel. 

Yeah, it's almost impossible to to debate these topics. For example I don't agree with the Scottish bill, simply on the grounds that I don't think 16 year olds should be able to change Gender without having consulted medical professionals, teenages are more vulnerable than adults and I feel the state owes an extra service of care to them.

This means in the polarised views of this discussion I would be grouped in with everyone else who is against the law. Which is ridiculous, I'd just want the age changed to 18 with a different process for those 16, 17. (the way the law has been in Ireland since 2015). 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, CVByrne said:

Yeah, it's almost impossible to to debate these topics. For example I don't agree with the Scottish bill, simply on the grounds that I don't think 16 year olds should be able to change Gender without having consulted medical professionals, teenages are more vulnerable than adults and I feel the state owes an extra service of care to them.

This means in the polarised views of this discussion I would be grouped in with everyone else who is against the law. Which is ridiculous, I'd just want the age changed to 18 with a different process for those 16, 17. (the way the law has been in Ireland since 2015). 

The SNP are caught by their own policies there. They support giving the vote at 16 (because it likely means more votes for them), it's then hard for them to argue that you are an adult to be able to vote but not an adult when it comes to making decisions about your own body and mind

[CVByrne]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

The SNP are caught by their own policies there. They support giving the vote at 16 (because it likely means more votes for them), it's them hard for them to argue that you are an adult to be able to vote but not an adult when it comes to making decisions about your own body and mind

Fair point. I do wonder how much of this is wrapped up in Sturgeons singular ambition for an independent Scotland. So anything that can inflame relations with London will always be a positive for her in that particular political objective. 

18 has always been an arbitrary number anyway to consider a person suddenly an adult. Science has shown people keep developing until early 20s. 

[Davkaus]

15 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

simply on the grounds that I don't think 16 year olds should be able to change Gender without having consulted medical professionals

I don't say this flippantly, what's the worst that can happen? It's a bit of paper with very, very little practical impact. We're not talking about people have hormone therapy or surgery without medical consultations, it's a certificate.

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Yeah, it's almost impossible to to debate these topics. For example I don't agree with the Scottish bill, simply on the grounds that I don't think 16 year olds should be able to change Gender without having consulted medical professionals, teenages are more vulnerable than adults and I feel the state owes an extra service of care to them.

This means in the polarised views of this discussion I would be grouped in with everyone else who is against the law. Which is ridiculous, I'd just want the age changed to 18 with a different process for those 16, 17. (the way the law has been in Ireland since 2015). 

18 is no less arbitrary though.

If teenagers are more vulnerable, don’t we need to move the age for pretty much everything to 20?

When a kid has known all their life they were sent out in to the world with the wrong physical kit, why make them wait until they are 18? I mean, if access to some ‘process’ was actually possible and didn’t involve years on a waiting list for a consultation, followed by ridiculous rules to prove your dedication I might just possibly agree. But the process is broken. So until that is fixed, we can’t make someone wait until they are 18 or 21 or 35 to be able to become the person they’ve known they are since they were 4. Remember we’re not even talking about anything physical here, we’re not talking about surgery or medication. Just the right to be called Mr..

[CVByrne]

25 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I don't say this flippantly, what's the worst that can happen? It's a bit of paper with very, very little practical impact. We're not talking about people have hormone therapy or surgery without medical consultations, it's a certificate.

It's more that younger people should discuss their problems with medical professionals. Without a need for that they can decide to make all these decisions on their own like living in their assumed gender, get the certificate and then get access to hormone therapy. I think the consultation with medical professionals should come before that. As getting prescription for hormones when you are legally the gender you desire to be is a formality. 

I feel we've a duty of care to young people. I think the 16yo age is as stated above is more for political reasons than anything medical or specifically about trans rights. 

[CVByrne]

22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

18 is no less arbitrary though.

If teenagers are more vulnerable, don’t we need to move the age for pretty much everything to 20?

When a kid has known all their life they were sent out in to the world with the wrong physical kit, why make them wait until they are 18? I mean, if access to some ‘process’ was actually possible and didn’t involve years on a waiting list for a consultation, followed by ridiculous rules to prove your dedication I might just possibly agree. But the process is broken. So until that is fixed, we can’t make someone wait until they are 18 or 21 or 35 to be able to become the person they’ve known they are since they were 4. Remember we’re not even talking about anything physical here, we’re not talking about surgery or medication. Just the right to be called Mr..

Two things here. Firstly we've set 18 as the age of adulho for essentially all legal definition. So to change that would change countless other things. There isn't political will or design to redefine the legal age of adulthood as 18.

Secondly, not all trans people have known all their life they were born in the wrong body. Those for whom it's been clear since a young age they have been born in wrong body would be the easiest diagnosis from a medical professional. Thus for those people changing their legal gender at 16 will be no issue. 

As stated in my previous post. It's not the piece of paper that is any issue. It's the bypassing of medical professionals in the entire process in the case of these pre adult teens. 

These seems to be no issue with the process in Ireland which has a different process for 16,17yo and adults. 

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

As getting prescription for hormones when you are legally the gender you desire to be is a formality. 

I'm going to focus on this point as it seems to be the crux of your objection, and it simply  is not true, a GRC makes no difference to the process that trans people need to go through to get hormone therapy. A GRC is neither a requirement, nor a shortcut to access hormone therapy. Hormone therapy comes with a gate of several appointments across a number of months

Someone can wear the opposite gender's clothes, they can call themselves whatever they want, and ask others to do the same. I'm not sure why this certificate becomes the threshold, other than a misguided belief it entails easier access to hormone therapy.

As an aside, the average lead time for a first appointment for a gender identity clinic is currently over 3 years. People simply aren't rushing through this process.

 

[Davkaus]

As an aside, talking about the age of informed consent, and certificates with far more practical implications and obligations; you can get married at 16, but not have a different pronoun on your passport.