5 ms·

Academically, gay rights come from romanticism, and trans rights come from feminism, but they're all part of the same fight: same as anti-racism, class conflict

Academically, gay rights come from romanticism, and trans rights come from feminism, but they're all part of the same fight: same as anti-racism, class conflict, religious pluralism, pacifism, and environmentalism. Historically, the movements have long been linked: gay folk and trans folk ran in similar circles, being trans was classified as a type of homosexuality by the medical establishment… Now that being gay is "normal", but being trans remains "abnormal", respectability politics has led to a lot of historical revisionism. These fights are a lot more related than you think. It's no coincidence that Norway's legislature has been on the forefront of gay rights, trans rights, and intersex rights wrt legal protections (or would you like to try to explain that?) – though your observations do match the relatively-late protections for bi rights, and Norway's fallen behind on protections for intersex infants. But I do appreciate your perspective, as a source of information: many things you're saying are factually incorrect, but it's important to know that some people believe them.

simianparrot 1y ago
I am aware of our legislation but there’s also a cultural component. Many things are technically legal but culturally uncommon. IIRC less than 2000 changed their legal gender in the last decade over here. There’s not that much of a focus on gender because it’s ok to be a feminine male or a woman with masculine traits. Personally I think this obsession with making new categories for people who don’t strictly fit some weird resurgence of classic gender roles —- like intersex —- does more harm than good.
- wizzwizz4 1y ago
  Intersex has nothing to do with gender roles, classic or otherwise: the term refers to abnormal sexual development. Intersex rights issues include non-consensual surgical interventions on perfectly-healthy infants, which can cause pain, infertility, and other issues. Norway has not banned this. If you object to "medical interventions on underage people", then I'd suggest campaigning against this would be a better use of your time than railing against trans rights. Banning consensual, requested gender-affirming treatment that provides clear benefit to children, while allowing injurious cosmetic surgery on literal babies, is doing things the wrong way around. (Even if you turn around and get consensual gender-affirming treatment banned afterwards, that'd still better than the status quo.) > There’s not that much of a focus on gender because it’s ok to be a feminine male or a woman with masculine traits. Excellent! I approve. However, that doesn't have very much to do with transgender people. > this obsession with making new categories Is a compromise, because in other cultures that have much more rigid conceptions of gender, cultural factors prevent us from abolishing the gender system: drawing new categories around observed clustering and calling them "genders" is somewhat of a hack. (Though not without precedent: many cultures throughout history have taken this approach, usually with 3–5 genders and a lot of them ascribe spiritual significance to the non-binary genders. Orthodox Judaism is an outlier: they have unusually-many genders but ascribe negligible spiritual significance to them.) What you're seeing is probably a side-effect of multiculturalism: in this case, exporting your culture's gender non-conformity more intensely will alleviate it.
  - simianparrot 1y ago
    I am aware what intersex is. A child cannot consent to anything, so I don’t see a reason to ban medical interventions — there’s procedures involving doctors and parents before such things are considered.
    - wizzwizz4 1y ago
      I don't see any reason to do medically-unnecessary cosmetic genital surgery, which may cause infertility, on a child who can't (or doesn't) consent, for the sole purpose of "normalising" their bodies. Generally, this is considered a human rights violation (https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12795 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12795). Children are people, not playthings.
      - simianparrot 1y ago
        That's not what I'm saying at all. I am actually considered "intersex" because I was born with one of my testicles located and stuck within my abdomen. As a baby they discovered it, and my mom let them operate and relocate it to my scrotum. While the testicle is believed to be inert, it's otherwise normal and I'm glad she did. And I'm glad she and the doctor had the mental faculties in place to _evaluate individual medical concerns_ properly. Not all cases are simply cosmetic; a dislocated testicle can cause a lot of problems later in life, as you might imagine, since it's not supposed to be where it was stuck.
        wizzwizz4 1y ago
        "Organ in an unhealthy place" is of course a case where intervention is in the best interests of the child ("medically-necessary"). But in many countries (including Norway), medically-unnecessary interventions are frequently approved, or even recommended, by doctors. The existing processes do not provide enough protection against such abusive practices. Wikipedia cites https://web.archive.org/web/20210425173353/https://bufdir.no/Bibliotek/Dokumentside/?docId=BUF00004919 https://web.archive.org/web/20210425173353/https://bufdir.no..., which I cannot read easily, but which you may find interesting. (Unlike Bergamot, Firefox Translation has no Norwegian support, but the Swedish model tries really hard.)

simianparrot 1y ago

I am aware of our legislation but there’s also a cultural component. Many things are technically legal but culturally uncommon. IIRC less than 2000 changed their legal gender in the last decade over here. There’s not that much of a focus on gender because it’s ok to be a feminine male or a woman with masculine traits. Personally I think this obsession with making new categories for people who don’t strictly fit some weird resurgence of classic gender roles —- like intersex —- does more harm than good.

wizzwizz4 1y ago
Intersex has nothing to do with gender roles, classic or otherwise: the term refers to abnormal sexual development. Intersex rights issues include non-consensual surgical interventions on perfectly-healthy infants, which can cause pain, infertility, and other issues. Norway has not banned this. If you object to "medical interventions on underage people", then I'd suggest campaigning against this would be a better use of your time than railing against trans rights. Banning consensual, requested gender-affirming treatment that provides clear benefit to children, while allowing injurious cosmetic surgery on literal babies, is doing things the wrong way around. (Even if you turn around and get consensual gender-affirming treatment banned afterwards, that'd still better than the status quo.) > There’s not that much of a focus on gender because it’s ok to be a feminine male or a woman with masculine traits. Excellent! I approve. However, that doesn't have very much to do with transgender people. > this obsession with making new categories Is a compromise, because in other cultures that have much more rigid conceptions of gender, cultural factors prevent us from abolishing the gender system: drawing new categories around observed clustering and calling them "genders" is somewhat of a hack. (Though not without precedent: many cultures throughout history have taken this approach, usually with 3–5 genders and a lot of them ascribe spiritual significance to the non-binary genders. Orthodox Judaism is an outlier: they have unusually-many genders but ascribe negligible spiritual significance to them.) What you're seeing is probably a side-effect of multiculturalism: in this case, exporting your culture's gender non-conformity more intensely will alleviate it.
- simianparrot 1y ago
  I am aware what intersex is. A child cannot consent to anything, so I don’t see a reason to ban medical interventions — there’s procedures involving doctors and parents before such things are considered.
  - wizzwizz4 1y ago
    I don't see any reason to do medically-unnecessary cosmetic genital surgery, which may cause infertility, on a child who can't (or doesn't) consent, for the sole purpose of "normalising" their bodies. Generally, this is considered a human rights violation (https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12795 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12795). Children are people, not playthings.
    - simianparrot 1y ago
      That's not what I'm saying at all. I am actually considered "intersex" because I was born with one of my testicles located and stuck within my abdomen. As a baby they discovered it, and my mom let them operate and relocate it to my scrotum. While the testicle is believed to be inert, it's otherwise normal and I'm glad she did. And I'm glad she and the doctor had the mental faculties in place to _evaluate individual medical concerns_ properly. Not all cases are simply cosmetic; a dislocated testicle can cause a lot of problems later in life, as you might imagine, since it's not supposed to be where it was stuck.
      - wizzwizz4 1y ago
        "Organ in an unhealthy place" is of course a case where intervention is in the best interests of the child ("medically-necessary"). But in many countries (including Norway), medically-unnecessary interventions are frequently approved, or even recommended, by doctors. The existing processes do not provide enough protection against such abusive practices. Wikipedia cites https://web.archive.org/web/20210425173353/https://bufdir.no/Bibliotek/Dokumentside/?docId=BUF00004919 https://web.archive.org/web/20210425173353/https://bufdir.no..., which I cannot read easily, but which you may find interesting. (Unlike Bergamot, Firefox Translation has no Norwegian support, but the Swedish model tries really hard.)