11 ms·

I'll add onto this, if people are genuinely worried about invasive surgery, the policing of trans identity is counterproductive to addressing that concern. Wha

I'll add onto this, if people are genuinely worried about invasive surgery, the policing of trans identity is counterproductive to addressing that concern. What would be productive is allowing kids to use different pronouns, allowing them to dress themselves the way they wish and allowing them to seek affirmative care and affirmative communities -- so that they can explore their own gender identity without feeling like they need to commit hard or lean in against opposition that tells them they're not really trans. To the extent that gender identity can be influenced by social norms, allowing kids to identify their own genders is a way of allowing them to safely experiment in that space without invasive surgeries that they might regret. But if everything becomes policing whether or not someone really is trans, if everything involves policing even minor interventions like puberty blockers, then of course kids who suspect they might be trans are going to think that surgery is the only way that they'll be accepted or feel comfortable -- because that's what "gender-critical" groups are telling them, they're telling them that having a certain body is a barrier to their identity. For some trans people, exploring gender is a process. Allowing people to feel safe and accepted during that process decreases the risk of rash decisions. And accepting them regardless of whether or not they pass for their gender decreases social pressure that might exist telling them they need to medically transition to be valid. It's not surprising that mocking gender fluidity, over-emphasizing physical attributes in gender identity, and restricting low-impact interventions like puberty blockers might make uncertain kids feel like they need to hard-commit to medically transitioning. It's not surprising that trans kids and trans-questioning kids would be alienated by that environment, and that they might be less willing to openly air their doubts and fears or seek external advice.

zozbot234 5y ago
The gender critical are not policing trans identity; rather, trans-activists are doing the policing of gender expression by loudly insisting that any kind of socially non-normative gender expression should be seen as tantamount to and ipso facto equated with some sort of trans identity. Your own reference to "gender fluidity" as tantamount to a separate identity rather than a characteristics that all humans may share to a lesser or greater extent, is an especially clear example of this. Need I point out how this policing may be harmful to non-heteronormatively-expressing folks?
- angus-prune 5y ago
  This description is the opposite of my experience of the trans community. In my experience of trans people they are welcoming of any combination of gender expression and identity and are universally supportive of gender exploration and non-traditional gender expression for trans and cis people alike.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Unfortunately, trans-activists are not at all co-extensive with 'the trans community'. Many self-proclaimed activists "for trans rights" are not even trans themselves, and pursue social positions, points of view and policies that are largely opposed by actual trans people.
    - justinjlynn 5y ago
      Who? Your argument appears, to me, to be dangerously approaching what resembles that of a "true Scotsman" or "straw man" fallacy. You should provide some data and sources to back up your anecdotal observations or you risk appearing disingenuous in your discourse. Also, why is it that you refer to people who advocate for the validity of the trans experience as "trans activists" but insist on using the term "gender critical" to describe those who advocate for the position that the trans experience is invalid? Would not a more appropriate term be "anti-trans activists"? Is the resemblance to the "pro-choice/pro-life" argument - i.e. using a euphemism to avoid saying what the position is descriptively and clearly - purposeful?
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        > "gender critical" to describe those who advocate for the position that the trans experience is invalid While some people with highly traditionalist views might indeed believe this, many gender critical folks do not. Trans identity can definitely be valid, but so can cis identity. And it's definitely wrong to conflate any and all non-normative gender expression or presentation with some kind of all-encompassing "trans experience", at least in the strict identity sense.
munk-a 5y ago
Puberty blockers are a pretty nifty tool to this end - they allow any hard committal to be deferred - the child can reverse their decision without any serious long term ills. I am rather concerned about the possibility that invasive surgery might become normalized in non-adults but I don't believe it's something that's close to happening. Teenagers explore their identity in a number of vectors. I have always been strongly opposed to parentally imposed career choices and gender falls into this same category except there is some genetic predisposition that will carry on bodily changes unless proactive intervention is undertaken.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  Please cite a long term medical study that confirms the safety and complete reversibility of puberty blocking.
  - justinjlynn 5y ago
    Impossible. Your request is a distraction and is deceptive - at best - because medicine doesn't work that way - and it never has. There's always the risk of long-term and short-term side-effects when any medication or treatment is given to treat any condition; the question is one of the benefits outweighing the risks. Accepting responsibility for the outcomes of these decisions is what lies at the heart of practising medicine. Frankly, transgender youth who seek these treatments generally suffer from clinical mental health disorders - including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. These carry a significant risk of long-term suffering and anguish - not to mention the obvious fact that suicide is far too common in this population. The risks of treatment are well studied and well known - the drugs used have existed for decades. They absolutely do not have to be completely safe and free of long term side effects - and even then the risk present is incredibly low - if what it does is keep them from committing suicide because of the suffering they endure as their bodies slowly turn into what they don't want to be. Surely you can imagine the distress that would cause? The studies and metastudies and International Endocrine Society metareviews and treatment protocol recommendations are there and the vast majority of them say that you do less harm by providing blockers than you do by withholding them - do your own googling.
gentleman11 5y ago
> What would be productive is allowing kids to use different pronouns The debate is not about whether somebody can use a pronoun. It’s whether everyone else is compelled to use it as well. It’s the difference between positive and negative rights - whether you have the right to compel others to behave a certain way vs whether you have the right to behave a certain way yourself. Legally compelled speech creates a real Pandora’s box. I think you should feel good for being respectful and for using whatever terms people prefer, but punishing people for not doing so seems wrong minded
- docmars 5y ago
  Nailed it. If someone required me to chant "Chocolate is god" whenever I enter their home, and my refusal to do so is a punishable / jailable offense, then that is a massive breach of my own rights to control my own speech. I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way. The same applies to identity, given that immediate obvious biological traits are present that can be used to infer a person's identity, and if asked to refer to them as something different, to respect that as long as the request is as respectful as me asking someone to do me a small favor. Anything beyond that is toxic, purely from an emotional/verbal abuse lens.
  - justinjlynn 5y ago
    > I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way. This is the solution to your problem; and, if you were continually offensive to those people, one you may be forced to enact - by their rejection of your presence. However, if you do choose to interact with them, or choose to engage in activities where you will interact with them (during your work duties, for example) - that's the social contract you're going to have to adhere to if you want to continue doing so. You wouldn't argue that you should be able to go around verbally assaulting people without consequence because that would be an infringement to your right to free speech (which has always been limited, by the way; like it or not - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre), would you?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

zozbot234 5y ago

The gender critical are not policing trans identity; rather, trans-activists are doing the policing of gender expression by loudly insisting that any kind of socially non-normative gender expression should be seen as tantamount to and ipso facto equated with some sort of trans identity. Your own reference to "gender fluidity" as tantamount to a separate identity rather than a characteristics that all humans may share to a lesser or greater extent, is an especially clear example of this. Need I point out how this policing may be harmful to non-heteronormatively-expressing folks?

angus-prune 5y ago
This description is the opposite of my experience of the trans community. In my experience of trans people they are welcoming of any combination of gender expression and identity and are universally supportive of gender exploration and non-traditional gender expression for trans and cis people alike.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Unfortunately, trans-activists are not at all co-extensive with 'the trans community'. Many self-proclaimed activists "for trans rights" are not even trans themselves, and pursue social positions, points of view and policies that are largely opposed by actual trans people.
  - justinjlynn 5y ago
    Who? Your argument appears, to me, to be dangerously approaching what resembles that of a "true Scotsman" or "straw man" fallacy. You should provide some data and sources to back up your anecdotal observations or you risk appearing disingenuous in your discourse. Also, why is it that you refer to people who advocate for the validity of the trans experience as "trans activists" but insist on using the term "gender critical" to describe those who advocate for the position that the trans experience is invalid? Would not a more appropriate term be "anti-trans activists"? Is the resemblance to the "pro-choice/pro-life" argument - i.e. using a euphemism to avoid saying what the position is descriptively and clearly - purposeful?
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > "gender critical" to describe those who advocate for the position that the trans experience is invalid While some people with highly traditionalist views might indeed believe this, many gender critical folks do not. Trans identity can definitely be valid, but so can cis identity. And it's definitely wrong to conflate any and all non-normative gender expression or presentation with some kind of all-encompassing "trans experience", at least in the strict identity sense.

munk-a 5y ago

Puberty blockers are a pretty nifty tool to this end - they allow any hard committal to be deferred - the child can reverse their decision without any serious long term ills. I am rather concerned about the possibility that invasive surgery might become normalized in non-adults but I don't believe it's something that's close to happening. Teenagers explore their identity in a number of vectors. I have always been strongly opposed to parentally imposed career choices and gender falls into this same category except there is some genetic predisposition that will carry on bodily changes unless proactive intervention is undertaken.

nate_meurer 5y ago
Please cite a long term medical study that confirms the safety and complete reversibility of puberty blocking.
- justinjlynn 5y ago
  Impossible. Your request is a distraction and is deceptive - at best - because medicine doesn't work that way - and it never has. There's always the risk of long-term and short-term side-effects when any medication or treatment is given to treat any condition; the question is one of the benefits outweighing the risks. Accepting responsibility for the outcomes of these decisions is what lies at the heart of practising medicine. Frankly, transgender youth who seek these treatments generally suffer from clinical mental health disorders - including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. These carry a significant risk of long-term suffering and anguish - not to mention the obvious fact that suicide is far too common in this population. The risks of treatment are well studied and well known - the drugs used have existed for decades. They absolutely do not have to be completely safe and free of long term side effects - and even then the risk present is incredibly low - if what it does is keep them from committing suicide because of the suffering they endure as their bodies slowly turn into what they don't want to be. Surely you can imagine the distress that would cause? The studies and metastudies and International Endocrine Society metareviews and treatment protocol recommendations are there and the vast majority of them say that you do less harm by providing blockers than you do by withholding them - do your own googling.

gentleman11 5y ago

> What would be productive is allowing kids to use different pronouns The debate is not about whether somebody can use a pronoun. It’s whether everyone else is compelled to use it as well. It’s the difference between positive and negative rights - whether you have the right to compel others to behave a certain way vs whether you have the right to behave a certain way yourself. Legally compelled speech creates a real Pandora’s box. I think you should feel good for being respectful and for using whatever terms people prefer, but punishing people for not doing so seems wrong minded

docmars 5y ago
Nailed it. If someone required me to chant "Chocolate is god" whenever I enter their home, and my refusal to do so is a punishable / jailable offense, then that is a massive breach of my own rights to control my own speech. I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way. The same applies to identity, given that immediate obvious biological traits are present that can be used to infer a person's identity, and if asked to refer to them as something different, to respect that as long as the request is as respectful as me asking someone to do me a small favor. Anything beyond that is toxic, purely from an emotional/verbal abuse lens.
- justinjlynn 5y ago
  > I would probably choose to no longer spend time with those people if they felt they could compell (or more accurately, coerce) me to speak a certain way. This is the solution to your problem; and, if you were continually offensive to those people, one you may be forced to enact - by their rejection of your presence. However, if you do choose to interact with them, or choose to engage in activities where you will interact with them (during your work duties, for example) - that's the social contract you're going to have to adhere to if you want to continue doing so. You wouldn't argue that you should be able to go around verbally assaulting people without consequence because that would be an infringement to your right to free speech (which has always been limited, by the way; like it or not - you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre), would you?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]