Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

It's pretty easy. No male danglies in women's spaces.

Yes, common sense is easy.

What's harder is justifying it to those who lack it.

There are practical difficulties with this "common sense" approach.

In many countries, trans people are required to live as the opposite 'sex' for some time before further treatment will be permitted. This is probably a sensible precaution. But it does pose the question: during that period (often several years in length), where does the trans-person-living-as-a-woman pee?

Fair point. I'd suggest a note from the treating psychiatrist, saying that, while the tackle is present, it is doomed. In the end, it's up to a transperson to have good enough judgement to make sure that they can pass as a woman before attempting a change. What logic is there in living as a regular man and changing into someone who is considered a freak? That's not "living as a woman", and it's certainly not an improvement on their old situation.

[Lagayascienza]

In Australia, many local councils and government workplaces have converted toilets to lockable unisex facilities. This has helped overcome the problem to some degree. Still, in restaurants, pubs, nightclubs, etcetera there is still a way to go. So I imagine it must still be difficult for transwomen to find a facility they can use without risk of embarrassment or worse.

[Good_Egg]

As we have said already, someone's "actual sex" is not as clear-cut or binary as you state. Brain-sex (as we have called it) and body-sex are not *always* the same thing. They *can* vary, even though it is uncommon.

I suspect that the brain-sex argument doesn't do what you want.

In a world where brain-sex differing from body-sex is a thing - uncommon, but common enough that everyone has come across a handful of examples - one might expect those few social institutions that segregate men and women to do a little bit of thinking about why they do so.
Whether it is the sex of bodies or brains that forms their rationale.

In such a world, sporting institions would rapidly conclude that it is body-sex that matters for their purpose, and there would be no wrong in barring male-bodied people from women's sports.

The decision for girls' schools might be harder. They might take it as their mission to nurture female brains regardless of what body-shape they come in.

Such a world is not what the "woke" (for want of a better label) narrative is putting forward.

The philosophy that some appear to espouse is not brain-sex but soul-sex. That a person may have a female soul despite being male in every other conceivable way - appearance, voice, mannerisms, thought-patterns etc.

If you believe the narrative, every person has an ontologically-real reified "gender identity" - i.e. soul-sex - that only they can know. So that treating anyone as male or female for any purpose is potentially a violation of their deepest being, and only the victim can say whether or not that is the case.

That is not an evidence-based position, that is a faith position.

Wouldnt it be nice if those who subscribe to that faith were honest enough to come out and say so. Instead of weaselling about sex not being clear-cut... To accurately label their opponents as infidels instead of hatemongers.

But then there are twisted thought-systems in which it is a doctrine of the faith that the faith is true, and therefore it is unthinkable to the faithful that people of goodwill can disagree with it.

You see what I'm saying here. If you don't understand this stuff as a quasi-religion then you don't fully understand it.

[Pattern-chaser]

The philosophy that some appear to espouse is not brain-sex but soul-sex.

IMO, "soul-sex" will follow brain-sex in pretty much every case. So I don't think this (i.e. "soul-sex") is an issue or a problem.

[Pattern-chaser]

You see what I'm saying here. If you don't understand this stuff as a quasi-religion then you don't fully understand it.

Hmm. Not sure about this. It seems to me that, if you do understand this stuff as a quasi-religion then you don't fully understand it. Trans people themselves are (as they see it) speaking out to fight for their own survival. A few of them demand the right to live, harming none, without being persecuted or discriminated-against. But they are just a few extremists. No need to take any notice...

[Good_Egg]

Talk of survival and persecution seems unwarranted.

Insisting on the fact of someone's body-sex is no more persecuting than insisting on the fact of their age or height. You're seeing a persecuted minority where maybe none exists, because you're invested in the narrative. Seems you like that story, and insist on seeing any gender-conflict issues through that lens.

You refer to the category "trans people" as if it were well-defined. When you use the term, do you mean a group defined by brain structure or by ideology or by some medical diagnosis or something else ?

[Pattern-chaser]

Talk of survival and persecution seems unwarranted.

Fact-check:

Example: Brianna Ghey

Wikipedia link: Murder of Brianna Ghey

Wikipedia link: List of people killed for being transgender



In the light of the above, I think it is reasonable that "survival" and "persecution" should play their part in this conversation, don't you?

[Pattern-chaser]

You refer to the category "trans people" as if it were well-defined. When you use the term, do you mean a group defined by brain structure or by ideology or by some medical diagnosis or something else ?

Something else. "Brain-sex" is something we came up with that is evidence-based, and so it cannot easily be denied by those such as you, who are sceptical. It's actually much more than that, although it seems like a reasonable guess to say that the basis of all this is that mind and body — or brain and body — are not in their usual alignment.

[Fried Egg]

You refer to the category "trans people" as if it were well-defined. When you use the term, do you mean a group defined by brain structure or by ideology or by some medical diagnosis or something else ?

Something else. "Brain-sex" is something we came up with that is evidence-based, and so it cannot easily be denied by those such as you, who are sceptical.

I dispute that. The only "evidence" that I saw posted in this thread was actually a study that showed a difference between same sex attracted people who sought gender re-assignment and opposite sex attracted people who didn't. Hence, they didn't control for a very significant factor. i.e. too many variables.

Those who believe that gender dysphoria is caused by having an opposite sexed brain from the rest of the body are actually saying that it is merely highly specific form of intersex in which there are no other signs of mis-matched sex besides the brain itself. I've already explained (earlier in this thread) why I think that is quite unlikely.

Also, even if it is established that some people with gender dysphoria really do have brains our of kilter with the rest of their body, a concern of many is that we are doing nothing to verify this before recommending sex re-assignment treatments and instead have moved towards a gender affirming approach (where one shouldn't even ask questions).

[Sy Borg]

Those who believe that gender dysphoria is caused by having an opposite sexed brain from the rest of the body are actually saying that it is merely highly specific form of intersex in which there are no other signs of mis-matched sex besides the brain itself. I've already explained (earlier in this thread) why I think that is quite unlikely.

Most transpeople are physically somewhat androgynous. You see certain individuals who are clearly not real transsexuals presenting as such. Sure, self-image issues or fetishes would seem to be the issue there, but most transpeople don't parade themselves around - they simply transition and keep living their lives.

Tik Tok oddities do not reflect reality.

Years ago I saw studies about male foetuses miss out on testosterone during a crucial period of brain development if the mother was deeply stressed. When I read it, I was wondering why that would be. I figured that mothers become stressed during famine and war. During such times, it might be a more successful "strategy" to produce males who don't want to fight or breed, who would end up acting in support roles in the tribe instead, which could aid rebuilding without adding extra burdens.

[Fried Egg]

Would everyone here agree that children should not generally be given access to gender re-assignment treatments (ranging from puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to full blown re-assignment surgery)?

If so, would they regard those who advocate giving children access to them as extremists?

In WPATH's latest published Standards of Care (SOC 8 ), was expected to lower the minimum age for prescribing testosterone or oestrogen from 16 (in version7) to 14 and to set minimum recommended ages of 15 for breast removal, 16 for breast augmentation and facial surgeries, 17 for hysterectomy, vaginoplasty, or removal of testicles, and 18 for phalloplasty.

Before it was actually published however, they decided to remove all "arbitrary age requirements.” They also state that therapy or counselling should never be mandatory and that therapeutic professionals should be "gender affirming". They advise that not all existing mental health conditions "can or should" be resolved prior to offering permanent treatments.

WPATH's standards of care influence medical practices in trans health care all over the world. But as far as I am concerned, they have been completely discredited after the leak of many messages and recordings (WPATH files) shows that they are not a solely professional body and many of their membership are activists. They also show that doctors and therapists are aware they are offering minors life-changing treatments they cannot fully understand. They demonstrate a lack of consideration for long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments.

Many organisations around the world fully support WPATH's latest standards of care publication including the American Medical Association (AMA), The American Psychological Association (APA) and The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). So many mainstream health organisations around the world are advocating for making it easier to prescribe permanent life altering treatments to children whilst removing many of the checks and safeguards.

I find it all quite worrying...

[Sy Borg]

Sure, I agree that children should not have these complexities pushed on them, and that children lack the experience to safely make life-changing decisions.

Do you accept that transsexuals are a real and valid phenomenon that has been railroaded by media sensationalism?

The risk detailed above points to the fact that most people who were gender non-conforming during childhood usually later grow up to be gay, not trans. The gay rate tends to be one or two percent, while transpeople have long been about a hundredth of a percent of the population, about the same frequency as dwarfism.

Today, ten to twenty percent of Gen Z claim to be non-binary. Many of these will probably end up as bisexual. There are many girls on social media claiming to be non-binary who are not even tomboys, let alone truly androgynous. "Non-binary" has become a fad, a modern attention-seeking exercise embraced by transvestites and lonely girls with little to lose.

Young people are acutely aware that the traditional gendered role of parenthood are now denied them due to housing costs that were driven up by mass immigration. We are seeing the social impacts of cynical policies. There is a loss of hope. This breaking of taboos is, to a fair extent, an act of self-mutilation that is ultimately a cry for help.

[Fried Egg]

Do you accept that transsexuals are a real and valid phenomenon that has been railroaded by media sensationalism?

I agree they are a real and valid phenomenon but I'm not sure what you mean by "railroaded by media sensationalism".

When I started this thread, I just wanted to try to better understand how people come to have gender identities. I'm still not sure I understand it very well but I have never been anti trans (for adults with informed consent).

[Sy Borg]

Do you accept that transsexuals are a real and valid phenomenon that has been railroaded by media sensationalism?

I agree they are a real and valid phenomenon but I'm not sure what you mean by "railroaded by media sensationalism".

When I started this thread, I just wanted to try to better understand how people come to have gender identities. I'm still not sure I understand it very well but I have never been anti trans (for adults with informed consent).

About: "railroaded by media sensationalism". The combination of demented activists and a lascivious mainstream media blew demands for "rights" out of proportion, as if it was a group larger than 0.01% of the population, as if they require significant adjustments from the other 99.99%.

As far as I can tell, gender identities are formed through experience. Things happen in their lives that make them doubt the depth of their gender identification.

[Pattern-chaser]

...I have never been anti trans (for adults with informed consent).

Isn't this what makes this issue so very difficult? A trans child, successfully and correctly diagnosed before puberty, can benefit from treatment before puberty kicks in. The difficulty is the obvious one — how can we be so confident in a diagnosis, that we are happy to allow such treatment? We can't of course. So things get more and more difficult...