Oh no, it's a thread about trans issues made by John Dule

[John Dule]

I think it is high time that I addressed this topic, because the exaggerated pearl-clutching about my opinions has frankly gone on long enough. I would like to discuss my views on trans issues. If Peebs is mature enough to be open to this, then quite frankly nobody else has any excuse to be offended.

Jokes aside, I'm actually somewhat willing to hear what you have to say, and if you're worried the Secular Blog will moderate it, send it my way directly.

Therefore, I hope that this thread is not moderated by any overzealous admins who take an overly broad interpretation of this forum's TOS.

It is clear to me now that I have a reputation on this site when it comes to this issue. Even posters who I respect such as Fubart Solman have outright called me "transphobic." I believe that this is hyperbole, and it borders on an outright mischaracterization of my views. It's possible that even after reading this, some people on this forum will find me a reprehensible person. That's ok, but I'd rather they come to that conclusion having all the facts rather than base their judgement on an offhand comment or outright hearsay.

Firstly, I have never said that trans people should not be allowed to transition, or that they should not be allowed to present themselves as they see fit in public. I do not wish to infringe upon the personal activities of anyone over the age of 18. This is consistent with the rest of my views on a variety of issues; I understand that the age of consent is somewhat arbitrary, but for social purposes, having a rigidly defined beginning to "adulthood" is necessary.

I also have never wished to cause anyone "distress," or to treat people as "invalid," when discussing this topic. If I disagree with a person's views-- even their views about their own identity-- that does not equate to a denial of their humanity. I would argue that Christians (who I routinely clash with on this site) view their faith as a part of themselves in much the same way that transgender individuals see their gender identity as a part of themselves. But if I do not believe in God, that does not mean that I somehow view Christians as "less than human."

Most of the anger with my views that I have seen on Atlas has come due to one of the following statements I have made. I will try to explain my views as best as I can, and if they are still met with outrage, then at least I will have done all that I can do to clarify what I believe to be a gross, willful misunderstanding of what I have said.

------------------------------------

1) I once said that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder. Now right off the bat, I want to explain-- I believe a whole lot of things are mental disorders, but that doesn't mean that I think they should be suppressed or treated with electroshock therapy. A disorder can be caused by both genetic and environmental factors; disorders affect all of us and are extremely common. I am a big believer in the idea that there is no "perfect" human brain, and that we all have some manner of neuroses and irregularities going on in our heads. This includes me as well. So while I understand that the word "disorder" carries with it certain connotations that cause people alarm, I am not using the term for any nefarious purposes.

Why did I say that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder? Because it was classified as such until 2013, when it was renamed "gender dysphoria." Why was it renamed? Wikipedia spells it out in plain black-and-white: "The condition was renamed to remove the stigma associated with the term 'disorder.'"

To me, this was a poor decision for two reasons. Firstly, reclassifying something in order to "remove stigma" is not a scientifically valid line of reasoning. If gender dysphoria is not a disorder, then it should have been reclassified for that reason and that reason alone. But secondly, I think that this action actually reinforces the perception that other disorders-- bipolar disorder, addictive personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder-- are malignant and are deserving of ridicule. There is no shame in being neuro-atypical; that is literally what gives people their unique personalities. It is not something that needs to be shied away from. So the desire to segregate gender dysphoria out from this category is pointless, inaccurate, and genuinely harmful.

2) I have frequently criticized the language surrounding the debate on gender. For me, this is the biggest source of frustration when it comes to this subject-- while trans individuals do not make me angry, the obtuse, unspecific use of language when it comes to gender and gender roles absolutely drives me up the wall. It is difficult to interact with gender theory adherents simply because they lack a unified, cohesive language to describe the same topics. Thus, what is offensive to one person in this group is wholly inoffensive to another. Having interacted with these people at Berkeley, I believe that they are consciously constructing a linguistic minefield around their beliefs so that they feel justified in treating others with scorn and derision when they "use the wrong word."

To this day, I do not understand what the substantive difference is between "gender" and "gender roles," as used by the far left. I am certain that you could ask ten "gender theory" adherents for a definition of gender and get ten different answers. While I could go on for ages about the innumerable contradictory claims I have heard under the umbrella of modern gender theory, I'll simply say this: None of this labyrinthine obfuscation matters one iota when it comes to transgender individuals. As far as I know, trans people either transition from male to female, or from female to male. I have never heard the term "transgender" applied to any of the other genders that have been dreamt up in recent years, and so I do not consider these subjects to be related. Whether or not gender means a social role or an action, whether it is a part of identity or not, whether there are two or five thousand-- it has no bearing on the lives of trans individuals, and so I think it ought to be ignored for the purposes of this. 

3) I have opposed the use of puberty blockers and gender reassignment surgery for underage people. This has nothing whatsoever to do with trans issues either. Those who know me well are probably aware that I am a libertarian who supports equality of opportunity, and that I relegate underage people to a unique status in my political worldview. I am against teenagers getting tattoos, drinking, getting piercings, and taking drugs. I am against parents hitting their kids. I am even against parents taking their children to church or to political events. In fact, in the past I have dabbled with the idea of state-raised children and a 100% inheritance tax solely because I am committed to equality of opportunity. This sounds ridiculous coming from a libertarian, I know, but my views often lead me to conclusions that I myself am uncomfortable with. I do not like all of my own political beliefs; I simply view them as the logical outcomes of basic principles that I believe in.

Given all of the views I listed above, it should not come as any surprise that I am against underage reassignment surgery. However, I understand that the effects of puberty blockers can be fairly impermanent, so I don't see them as that big of an issue-- I care far more about banning infant circumcision, for instance. In my view, children are individuals in exactly the same way that adults are, but given their inherent vulnerability they require certain state protections. I am as consistent on this subject as I am on any other. Generally speaking, life-altering decisions are best left until after one turns 18.

4) I have routinely said that gender and sex are the same thing. This use of terminology, far from being a remnant of the dark ages, is still used in essentially every serious study of biology. The use of the word "gender" as something that is distinct from sex is a very recent concept, and it was coined by a quack doctor who was essentially little more than a child abuser. Now, the fact that a bad person created something is not sufficient reason to condemn the thing he created, but the actual studies he carried out do speak to the mindset of the person who dreamt up this concept in the first place. I would recommend delving into the "experiments" carried out by this monster if you aren't familiar with them.

But setting John Money aside, I do not understand the need to splice a definition of "gender" out from the definition of "sex." The things that gender theorists place under the umbrella of gender-- identity, personality, self-presentation, clothing, etc-- all neatly fall under the already-established term "gender roles." Trans people cannot change their sex, of course, but they can certainly change their role in society-- in other words, the way they present and express themselves. In fact, I think that simply using the term "gender roles" in place of "gender" would do a great deal of service to the trans rights cause. It acknowledges the immutable reality of sex while nevertheless specifically describing the aspect of the person that can be changed-- their societal role and classification.

Gender roles are not the same as sex, and I have no problem with anyone who wishes to challenge or push the boundaries of those roles. My beer-drinking, baseball-loving, six-foot-tall mother is not "less of a woman" simply because she doesn't fit the exact stereotypes of her gender. But parsing out "gender" as something that is distinct from "sex" is, to me, a form of unnecessary verbal gymnastics that only serves to complicate this already messy issue. And the use of "gender" as essentially a synonym of "gender roles" is an inherently contradictory use of language that I don't think I need to explain.

5) Now, here is the big one: Would I refer to a transgender person by their preferred pronouns? The question here is whether pronouns refer to a person's biological sex or the gender role with which they identify. In my life, I have never even considered that the words "he" and "she" refer to anything other than sex. And honestly, I have never had a long enough conversation with a trans person for this to be an issue. But I certainly would not want to insult or offend anyone, and I understand that some people believe that pronouns refer to things that are independent of biological sex. For that reason, I have never gone out of my way to "misgender" anyone. Any cursory examination of my past comments on this site will confirm that.

------------------------------------

If I seem like I discuss this subject fairly frequently, that is not due to any animosity directed at trans people. It is because I find the rhetoric surrounding gender theory unproductive, obnoxious, and borderline cultlike. There is no other subject on this site that receives this level of hostility when it is broached. For example, I have constantly ridiculed Christians on here and they have handled it in fine form, taking my criticisms in stride and dishing it back as well. A sense of humor and humility is necessary when discussing any hot-button political topic, and I do not see that from adherents of gender theory. This probably has to do with the fact that they are so frequently mocked for malicious and dehumanizing purposes, and that ridicule has unfortunately made them hyper-aware of any perceived slight. The answer to this, however, is not to disproportionately and reflexively retaliate with equally dehumanizing and cruel language. I am always suspicious of this kind of behavior, and when a person acts this way, my first instinct is to question their beliefs further to see where their (obvious) insecurity stems from. If I come across as though I am trying to interrogate people, that is not my intention. My only goal is the truth.

I have done my best to explain my views. If the reactionary Atlas left still wishes to call me a "transphobe," then I will happily wear that label, because I will at least know that people understand where I am coming from. However, I do not think that anything I have written here is outrageous, and it is certainly not deserving of censorship or the widespread condemnation it so frequently receives.

[PSOL]

You have to be insane if you think anyone is going to read that wall of text.

[John Dule]

You have to be insane if you think anyone is going to read that wall of text.

I don't care if anyone reads it. If you choose not to read it and continue to misrepresent my views, I will rest easy knowing that I was mature enough to reach out and you were not mature enough to respond in that same spirit.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You have to be insane if you think anyone is going to read that wall of text.

I read it.

I realize that I'm developing something of a reputation for both-sidesing culture war issues, but in this case I actually do think that both the trans community and ideological currents like the oft-maligned "TERFs" are frequently guilty of an obfuscatory, almost esoteric treatment of gender roles and how they relate to sex. Treating gender identity and gender roles as entirely distinct, to the point of asserting that one can't guess someone's gender identity from their social presentation with greater than random accuracy (an assertion that is demonstrably, empirically untrue but that some people seem sincerely to believe), leaves us with a strange cul-de-sac conception of gender identity in which it's something that Just Is, that doesn't have any testable or reproducible definition, that people can declare by fiat, and that has no connection to anything observable by others but still must be treated with complete deference. It shouldn't surprise anybody that that sort of thing would put off an atheist-rationalist-materialist like Dule, even though I'm saying this as someone whose own worldview inclines me to be somewhat more sympathetic to it.

Conversely, the "TERF" ideology or mindset as it's developed over the past decade or so has ended up biting the bullet on things that no 60s or 70s feminist worth her salt would have ever argued or countenanced others arguing. I've seen people who see themselves as the logical heirs of second-wave feminism claim that womanhood is intrinsically connected to childbearing! Sometimes this goes even further into overtly spiritual or religious rhapsodes about the phases of the moon, blood magic, the sea, etc. etc., anybody who's ever had a serious conversation with a Dianic Wiccan will know what I'm referring to (although non-transphobic women sometimes hold some of these beliefs as well). The zeal to "protect" womanhood and women from the type of essentialism that I described in the above paragraph has metastasized into the even-more-essentialist view that being a woman literally is just the female reproductive role and the appurtenances thereof. It's a complete rejection of the principle that biology is not destiny. Cogent arguments can be made for this view but it's certainly not a leftist view or a feminist one.

This is the sort of jao I normally wouldn't bother with--because, again, I know I'm developing a reputation for both-sidesing issues like this and I don't want to go out of my way to encourage that reputation if I don't have to--but as a dysphoric person who identified as trans in the past but no longer does, I think I have an unusual amount of experience with this issue and have devoted an unusual amount of thought to it, and thus I hope my perspective on it carries a little more authority than when I both-sides, say, abortion or Israel-Palestine.

[lfromnj]

One thing I would like to add about the mental illness part. Its funny in how the term was changed to stop the stigma of being trans when there shouldn't be a mental illness stigma to begin with . Rather than work on fixing that, the trans movement just separated that term from mental illness.

[Alcibiades]

Well, I bothered to read the wall of text. Before I respond point by point, I’ll make clear that I’ve never thought your positions are motivated by bigotry or transphobia, Dule.

1) You’re pretty persuasive on a lot of your points here, because obviously transgender people themselves acknowledge that something “went wrong” in that they wish their gender and sex matched, but nonetheless I have sympathy for those who do not want gender dysphoria referred to as a “disorder” to reduce stigma. Sometimes the means have to justify the ends, and I think increasing social acceptance of transgender people is a very valuable ends. Clearly it is not comparable to something like schizophrenia because it does not prevent an individual functioning well within society.

2 & 4) I’m not sure what you’re saying about sex, gender, and gender roles. The difference between the first two is pretty clear to me: sex is what’s between your legs, and gender is what’s in your head. As for gender expression, this is a third different aspect, the classic example being cisgender drag queens. However, I do agree that some of the language from the small activist class (most of whom are cisgender) is ridiculously and deliberately obfuscatory, and that it is detrimental to furthering the cause of trans rights, because it turns off the kind of people that need to be won over; the centrist Boomer suburbanites who have driven the sea change in attitudes on same sex marriage, and want to be kind and tolerant, but are confused by all this language, and then can understandably react in a hostile manner when challenged for not understanding every last piece of jargon.

3) No disagreement here. People have to give informed consent for such a life changing procedure, and we as a society have decided that as a general rule, people under 18 cannot give fully informed consent. I think there can be individual, exceptional circumstances where it is in everyone’s best interests for a minor to undergo sex reassignment surgery, but these are rare.

5) I see literally zero reason why anyone would deliberately not respect someone’s preferred pronouns. It’s just a matter of common decency and kindness which costs you nothing but could mean the world to the other person.

Overall, I have a fundamentally libertarian attitude to the trans issue (funnily, seemingly more than you). An individual’s gender identity is an intensely private, personal matter which is their business and no one else’s. The only situation in which the state has any role to play in it is to protect minors, as stated above.

The main concern for public policy on trans issues, though, should be to rectify the evident structural disadvantages many trans people face. Suicide and murder rates are shockingly high. Ultimately, our goal should be to enable as many trans people as possible to lead happy, safe and comfortable lives, not get bogged down in culture wars nonsense.

[Kingpoleon]

Fundamentally flawed, and I will respond. Before I begin, however, I want to make the terms of this discussion quite clear. I reject, in whole and without hesitation, the sort of dirtbag rhetoric that has become increasingly mainstream. It is the politics of a decaying heart and soul, and indicative of the social fabric ripped asunder by culture wars. If at any point I feel as though you pluck away at people without mercy, I will be forced to abandon this topic with you going forwards.

On the first point: yes, obviously trans people are not neurotypical. Neither are gay people, yet homosexuality was delisted in the 1970s from mental illnesses. There is wide debate about classifying all sorts of things, such as ADHD, as disorders. To weigh in, without any sort of medical or ethicist background, on what should or should not be listed as disorders because of your personal feelings, is obtuse at best.

To the third point: when medical professionals recommend puberty blockers, at the age of 12 when some form of consent can be ascertained, it ought to be done. The law must show some form of deference to medical advice. As far as intensive surgery, I advise against elective surgery until the age of eighteen. It is possible, in limited circumstances, that a 16 or 17 year old could reasonably consent to such surgeries, but it’s not a road to go too far down.

To the fourth point: Trans people can change their sex. There are four primary indicators: genitalia, chromosomes, hormonal system, and gonads. By changing 2-3 of these, trans people’s sex becomes intersex.

To the fifth point: I understand that Yankees lack manners and reject them as some sort of oppressive Dixie system. However, when talking to and about people, it is indicative of a minimal amount of mutual respect that you call them what they ask you to. Failure to do so is impolite at best, and downright nasty if we’re being honest.

[John Dule]

You have to be insane if you think anyone is going to read that wall of text.

I read it.

I realize that I'm developing something of a reputation for both-sidesing culture war issues, but in this case I actually do think that both the trans community and ideological currents like the oft-maligned "TERFs" are frequently guilty of an obfuscatory, almost esoteric treatment of gender roles and how they relate to sex. Treating gender identity and gender roles as entirely distinct, to the point of asserting that one can't guess someone's gender identity from their social presentation with greater than random accuracy (an assertion that is demonstrably, empirically untrue but that some people seem sincerely to believe), leaves us with a strange cul-de-sac conception of gender identity in which it's something that Just Is, that doesn't have any testable or reproducible definition, that people can declare by fiat, and that has no connection to anything observable by others but still must be treated with complete deference. It shouldn't surprise anybody that that sort of thing would put off an atheist-rationalist-materialist like Dule, even though I'm saying this as someone whose own worldview inclines me to be somewhat more sympathetic to it.

Ugh, I didn't have the patience to delve into the can of worms opened up by the bolded portion. My post was long enough already. What irritates me the most about this topic is the unwillingness of people to even discuss the implications of a system where anyone can "identify" as whatever they please, and the constant self-righteous assertion that anyone who questions this is a bigot. Until they become willing to engage with others on a level playing field, gender theory adherents will be impossible to talk to.

[John Dule]

On the first point: yes, obviously trans people are not neurotypical. Neither are gay people, yet homosexuality was delisted in the 1970s from mental illnesses. There is wide debate about classifying all sorts of things, such as ADHD, as disorders. To weigh in, without any sort of medical or ethicist background, on what should or should not be listed as disorders because of your personal feelings, is obtuse at best.

Whether or not gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder is immaterial to what I was saying. My point was that the reasoning given for its declassification was unscientific.

To the fourth point: Trans people can change their sex. There are four primary indicators: genitalia, chromosomes, hormonal system, and gonads. By changing 2-3 of these, trans people’s sex becomes intersex.

This is factually untrue. An intersex person is a person who is born with any of several variations in sex characteristics. For example, a man who loses his genitals in some sort of factory accident is still a member of the male sex, regardless of whether or not he can reproduce. Saying that a person can change their biological sex is a lie.

To the fifth point: I understand that Yankees lack manners and reject them as some sort of oppressive Dixie system. However, when talking to and about people, it is indicative of a minimal amount of mutual respect that you call them what they ask you to. Failure to do so is impolite at best, and downright nasty if we’re being honest.

This is unnecessarily rude and frankly uncalled for. I think you should take your own advice and decide not to engage with me on this topic any further. Unlike Nathan, Alcibiades, and others, I do not think that you are attempting to engage in a constructive dialogue.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     An excellent post, and one that I thank you for writing. It is something that bothers me that I see a very loaded agenda being forced on society on the back of a weaponized idea of compassion that becomes a thought-terminating cliche. I have also had the experience of being called transphobic for pointing out clear problems with the activist agenda.

      Your points are very cogent, and I have little to add. What I will say is that is highly destructive to political course to have the expectation enforced that we are to support one side of an issue uncritically simply because it is something we are not meant to speak on. There is an extremist fringe of this activism that is entirely at odds with empirical reality. They will say it is bigoted to not want to date a transperson or, as Nathan pointed out, insist that gender is unrelated to sex. Since contradicting gender ideology will, as you point out, result in a stream of abuse being thrown your way, and these extremists dish it out as well as or better even than their more mainstream counterparts.

     Since I see no proper means by which people who are not trans are meant to test these gender theories and resist their more radical forms, it seems we are simply to shrug and drop our defenses against ideas that are fundamentally anti-society and that if fully realized would inexorably bring us into decline. To be clear, I don't lump all affirmation of transgenderism in that category, but I also don't think that clarification will be sufficient to spare me invective.

[Kingpoleon]

Whether or not gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder is immaterial to what I was saying. My point was that the reasoning given for its declassification was unscientific.


This is factually untrue. An intersex person is a person who is born with any of several variations in sex characteristics. For example, a man who loses his genitals in some sort of factory accident is still a member of the male sex, regardless of whether or not he can reproduce. Saying that a person can change their biological sex is a lie.

To the contrary. The APA can and has cited stigma as the reason for delisting homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1970s.

I apologize and stand corrected on the fact that people must be born intersex. Yes, trans people obviously cannot change their chromosomes. But when genital reconstruction surgery and hormonal therapy comes highly recommended from doctors, including Johns Hopkins since the 1960s, I find it difficult to pretend that people should not undergo medical treatment recommended by modern medicine.

This is unnecessarily rude and frankly uncalled for. I think you should take your own advice and decide not to engage with me on this topic any further. Unlike Nathan, Alcibiades, and others, I do not think that you are attempting to engage in a constructive dialogue.

I suggested that it’s nasty to purposefully call people something they don’t want to be called. If it’s rude to ask for manners along those lines, I apologize.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

While there's an asshole part of me that wants to send some dumb meme, but I'll be a relatively big person and contradict it. I've really got nothing worth saying outside of 3. I'll put it in the next paragraph.

Your reasoning is sound, more sound than I'd like to admit. I've said before, and I'll say again, that SRS shouldn't be performed on minors. Maybe there's a case for older teens (i.e. someone who's about to turn 18 anyway) who can actually consent on the matter, but you have to be very persistent and very lucky to get that far before the age of majority, considering the WPATH standards that most surgeons and insurance companies follow. Puberty blockers, I consider to be a different matter (and even then I'd reserve them for ages 12 and up, when a kid can actually understand the ramifications) in part because studies have shown them to be fully reversible, unlike HRT and especially SRS.

I went in expecting to get into a big tizzy, but I found myself agreeing more than disagreeing. Oh shoot, am I transphobic? And what the hell. Now that I've finished, I feel obligated.

Spoiler alert: dumb meme mentioned at the beginning; mods pwease no steppy

Show

[TheReckoning]

Until I’m given a coherent definition on what gender is, I myself refuse to take a position on the issue. The current gender debate is filled with contradictions.

1: If gender is just a social construct, (as many trans activists claim) then why can’t we say that their are only two genders? By this definition of gender, their are as many genders as society wants their to be. If society wants their to be 2 genders, as western society did for centuries, that is just as valid as progressives now calling their to be multiple. This is only one of the issues with the idea of “gender being a social construct.”

2: But let’s say gender isn’t a social construct, which is what many actual trans people will tell you. Then, what exactly is it? Sure, you can say it’s in the Brain, but if this is true, than it’s safe to say that brain sex is real. No problem, but then what is brain sex? We can define biological sex pretty easily, so I think it’s only fair is brain sex it held to the same standard. Again, this is only one of the issues with the idea that gender is indeed biological.

As of right now, I lean towards the idea that gender and sex are intrinsically linked.

[Former President tack50]

Well I read that big wall of text. I mostly agree with it, with only a few points of disagreement.

1) I go back and forth over this without really knowing what to say. However reading at the Wikipedia article you read, it seems gender dysphoria is still classified as a disorder? Not being explicitly called a disorder doesn't mean it isn't considered one. Indeed something like say, anorexia is also a disorder despite not having the word disorder in its name

2 & 4) This is probably the point where I am in the most disagreement. In my opinion, it is not that hard to draw a distinction between sex, gender and gender roles (admittedly the last 2 are harder).

Sex is very simple, just look at whatever you have between your legs, or take a DNA test and look at your chromosomes.

The problem for you I guess comes from trying to distinguish gender from gender roles. My guess is that gender roles are certain patterns of behaviour and what not that come imposed from society; while gender is your affirmation as to what role you would develop inside society. I would also draw a distinction between various levels of gender roles; some are harmful and on their way out ("women should stay in the kitchen") while others aren't going away any time soon.

The thing of course is that for 99% of people, gender roles fit their gender quite nicely. Even for many trans people, they will happily adopt the gender roles of the gender they identify as. Indeed TERFs often call trans women sexist for adopting female gender roles.

To try and put an example, I could start wearing dresses, painting my nails and wearing makeup tomorrow (all female gender roles), yet still identify as male. On the opposite end of the spectrum it is not hard for me to imagine a trans person with short hair, who wears manly clothes, has stereotypically male tastes and what not; yet identifies as female.

I imagine your main worry would be that what Nathan describes could lead to say, a standard cis man changing their gender from a legal point of view, getting scholarships indended for women and what not while not having any changes in their behaviour or appearance and being male in all but name. That is an overblown worry, although I will say that it is also a legitimate one; and a worry that I am not sure how it can be reconciled with the demands of gender activists other than "hope for the best".

3) Like others said, puberty blockers are a reversible procedure so they should probably be allowed on minors under medical supervision of some sort (obviously not an over the counter thing); starting somewhere around age 13 (when puberty and teenage years start for most people).

I am fine with delaying any permanent changes to people 18 and up, though there might be a debate over whether hormones should start at age 16?

Then again I am not a doctor of any sort nor a trans person so whatever works is fine by me.

5) Well, you are merging gender and gender roles here but whatever. I can't speak for any actual trans people but I think that 99% of them would like to be adressed by whatever pronouns belong to the gender they identify as.

The reason you have not seen "he" and "she" used as a sex instead of gender differentiator is because well, for 99.99% of the population, sex and gender are the same!

In my view, deliberately misgendering people is extremely rude. However, accidents happen and appearances can be deceiving so unlike some trans people I think mistakenly misgendering someone is fine as long as you immediately correct and apologize. Yes it can be demoralizing for the trans person in question but honest mistakes happen. There is a difference between going well out of your way (Ben Kenobi style) and having an honest mistake or lapus in judgement. A standard conversation could look like this for instance.

-Where is he?
-Actually, (insert name) prefers to be adressed as a she
-Oh ok I am sorry. Where is she?

In fact, given that English is a very gender neutral language and that he/she are 3rd person pronouns it is kind of hard for me to figure out a conversation where you'd be misgender someone to their face (it gets easier in Spanish thanks to it being a very gendered language). Furthermore, since one of the first questions you do when meeting someone is "What's your name?", you can infer someone's gender from that 99.999%  of the time (then again iirc gender neutral names are more common in English while they don't exist in Spanish so I might be wrong here)

Lol this ended up being way longer than I anticipated

[Devout Centrist]

I'm going to be short here since much has been said on the topic, by people both far smarter and far more passionate than me.

There's a tendency for people to abstract the debate on trans people and on medical issues related to transitioning. This is a mistake. First and foremost, this is a tangible problem, not a philosophical one. You can debate this topic in abstract terms, but this ignores the most central part of transitioning: the people who suffer from gender dysphoria. Everything else is tangential to this.

Let us concede, for a moment, that gender dysphoria ought to be classified as a mental disorder. This abstracts the issue in ways that aren't very useful for our purposes, but perhaps this distinction is meaningful to some people. If gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, it follows that we should pursue treatments that ease the physiological and psychological burden of the illness. This gives us several options:

1. Tell these people that they should live life as their socially recognized gender

This presents some challenges. For one, there isn't an accepted framework for providing treatment under this model. This puts the patient in an adversarial position with respect to their care provider. Secondly, there are no therapeutic benefits to this approach, as patients under this course of treatment will carry on as usual in their daily life. Research for this course of action is not promising.

2. Provide the patient with support from other people with gender dysphoria and with medication

This approach offers some promise, as it can address some symptoms of gender dysphoria while allowing the patient to build a community with their peers. Unfortunately, there are several obstacles to this approach; assembling a gender dysphoria support group isn't easy because the rarity of the condition and the sensitive nature of the issue. It may be feasible to conduct this approach over the internet, but this type of socialization is far less effective than in-person communication.

Secondly, while anti-depressants can address the symptomatic side of gender dysphoria, they have limited to no effectiveness at reducing feelings of gender dysphoria itself. Without addressing the source of the issue, patients are made worse off in the long run as these feelings do not dissipate.

3. Provide medication for people to transition into their preferred gender.

This leaves us with option three, which has its own shortcomings. The process of transitioning can increase some physical health risks related to hormone therapy and some people with gender dysphoria have expressed reluctance to stay with their preferred gender after transitioning.

Nevertheless, it is our best option. Research suggests it can moderately improve quality of life for people with gender dysphoria and it can also provide significant psychological benefits for people with the condition.

Given the choice, option three is the clear winner despite its downsides. We can make meaningful improvement in the lives of these people with this medical intervention. The exact specifics of medical treatment can get confusing, but we have a clear path to consider future debate on the topic.

There are also some related issues that I want to cover before I close out. Pronouns are related to this debate because they reaffirm the course of therapy for people with gender dysphoria. When other people confirm their pronouns, trans people feel accepted and their quality of life improves as a result. You may not feel that their pronouns are accurate or are 'truthful' to their actual gender, but this matters far less to you than it matters to them. For them, it is an act of integration into regular social life and an affirmation of their thoughts and feelings.

Puberty blockers also serve a purpose, as they improve quality of life for certain teenage people living with gender dysphoria. Unlike sex reassignment surgery, puberty blockers can be stopped at any time. This suggests that they may be a better treatment for people with only mild to moderate signs of gender dysphoria. There are some thorny ethical questions here that are important but puberty blockers are also fully reversible and noninvasive. This is why they may be used in a course of treatment for teenagers with gender dysphoria.

These are real people, folks. They are an extremely small minority living in a hostile and unforgiving society. If we claim to respect humanity, decency, and respect, then we must make our best effort to extend those values to these people. Any philosophical question about gender or sex is only tangentially related to this topic. We must first and foremost care about the person, not their beliefs or their philosophy. That debate is better suited elsewhere.

[John Dule]

I will try to respond to these comments in as much detail as I can. So far, I am feeling optimistic about this conversation.

Whether or not gender dysphoria is classified as a disorder is immaterial to what I was saying. My point was that the reasoning given for its declassification was unscientific.


This is factually untrue. An intersex person is a person who is born with any of several variations in sex characteristics. For example, a man who loses his genitals in some sort of factory accident is still a member of the male sex, regardless of whether or not he can reproduce. Saying that a person can change their biological sex is a lie.

To the contrary. The APA can and has cited stigma as the reason for delisting homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1970s.

Fair enough, but I would make the same argument with regards to that case. If homosexuality isn't a mental disorder, it should have been declassified for that reason. But declassifying something as a mental disorder in order to "remove stigma" implies that everything else in the category of "disorder" does deserve that stigma.

For the record, I think homosexuality could be classified as a disorder. But I also think that homophobia could be classified as a disorder as well.

I apologize and stand corrected on the fact that people must be born intersex. Yes, trans people obviously cannot change their chromosomes. But when genital reconstruction surgery and hormonal therapy comes highly recommended from doctors, including Johns Hopkins since the 1960s, I find it difficult to pretend that people should not undergo medical treatment recommended by modern medicine.

You'll find no disagreement from me here. In the past, I have questioned the efficacy of gender reassignment surgery solely because I have read a not-insubstantial number of tales of woe from trans people, detailing how their surgeries did not produce the outcomes they had hoped for. I have no right to object to anyone getting any kind of elective surgery, but I do think that doctors need to be more up-front about the possible complications that can arise. Having never consulted with such a doctor, I can't speak from experience-- but having read testimonials from people who have undergone SRS, I get the feeling that many of them went in with unrealistic expectations.

Once again, this has more to do with my particular brand of libertarianism than it has to do with any animosity towards trans people. I believe that false advertising must be punished very strictly, and plastic surgeons have a reputation for spreading misleading information about the efficacy of their procedures. That particular profession is, to me, notoriously untrustworthy. So any qualms I have about SRS have to do with protecting trans people from doctors who misrepresent what they can and cannot do. This will become more of a non-issue as the technology improves, of course.

I suggested that it’s nasty to purposefully call people something they don’t want to be called. If it’s rude to ask for manners along those lines, I apologize.

Tbh, I was more annoyed by the implication that Southerners have better manners than Yankees.

[John Dule]

Well, I bothered to read the wall of text. Before I respond point by point, I’ll make clear that I’ve never thought your positions are motivated by bigotry or transphobia, Dule.

Thank you. I hope this thread will serve its purpose in explaining this to others.

2 & 4) I’m not sure what you’re saying about sex, gender, and gender roles. The difference between the first two is pretty clear to me: sex is what’s between your legs, and gender is what’s in your head. As for gender expression, this is a third different aspect, the classic example being cisgender drag queens. However, I do agree that some of the language from the small activist class (most of whom are cisgender) is ridiculously and deliberately obfuscatory, and that it is detrimental to furthering the cause of trans rights, because it turns off the kind of people that need to be won over; the centrist Boomer suburbanites who have driven the sea change in attitudes on same sex marriage, and want to be kind and tolerant, but are confused by all this language, and then can understandably react in a hostile manner when challenged for not understanding every last piece of jargon.

The concept of "gender" as "something that's in your head" presents us with a number of problems due to how we have segregated our society based on gender (or, if you prefer, sex). As Nathan alluded to, it's this element of this subject that drives me absolutely up the wall.

A short example: When I look at my driver's license, it says "Sex: M." Now, to me it's pretty clear that this is referring to biological sex. But does this mean that a transgender person should not be able to alter their sex on government documents? I can wholly understand that a trans person-- who goes through years of effort to pass as the opposite sex-- would not want to carry around a physical reminder of their biological sex in their wallet. At the same time however, altering government policy to make the card read "Gender" rather than "Sex" opens up a completely different series of problems. If gender is just something that's in our heads, and there is an ever-growing list of genders one can identify as, then this essentially defeats the purpose of having the notation on a government document in the first place. It's like including your Meyers-Briggs personality or your Political Compass score on your ID. The DMV shouldn't care about your personality traits. There isn't any point to it.

I think there are potential ways to work around this. However, as you say, the all-or-nothing approach to issues like these is only going to alienate "centrist boomers" such as myself. The unwillingness to even discuss the innumerable problems caused by defining "gender" as a nebulous, ever-changing, unspecific subjective personality trait has slowed social progress on this subject. I fear that as the language gets more extreme-- aided on by virtue-signaling Berkeleyite "allies"-- the animosity will only get worse. To stop this vicious cycle, gender theory adherents have got to start engaging with the logical consequences of their outlandish claims.

5) I see literally zero reason why anyone would deliberately not respect someone’s preferred pronouns. It’s just a matter of common decency and kindness which costs you nothing but could mean the world to the other person.

Overall, I have a fundamentally libertarian attitude to the trans issue (funnily, seemingly more than you). An individual’s gender identity is an intensely private, personal matter which is their business and no one else’s. The only situation in which the state has any role to play in it is to protect minors, as stated above.

I wish this were true. But unfortunately, this issue stopped being "private" when laws against misgendering started being considered, the most infamous being Canada's bill C-16. I hope you can see how, as a libertarian, I have no choice but to oppose a measure this extreme.

As for your remarks on point #5: On the one hand, you are right. Using particular pronouns takes essentially no effort. It is a harmless courtesy that makes others feel more comfortable in their own skin. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable compelling anyone to say something that they do not actually believe. Another example: As an atheist, if I were to sit down to dinner with a Christian family, would I say grace with them? Again, it's a harmless courtesy and it costs me nothing to participate. But such participation would be, quite frankly, a lie-- and lying in order to affirm other people's beliefs should not be encouraged, and especially should not be mandated by the government.

In any case, I have never spent enough time speaking with a trans person for this to be an issue (nor have I ever had dinner with a bunch of Christians).

[Devout Centrist]

As for your remarks on point #5: On the one hand, you are right. Using particular pronouns takes essentially no effort. It is a harmless courtesy that makes others feel more comfortable in their own skin. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable compelling anyone to say something that they do not actually believe. Another example: As an atheist, if I were to sit down to dinner with a Christian family, would I say grace with them? Again, it's a harmless courtesy and it costs me nothing to participate. But such participation would be, quite frankly, a lie-- and lying in order to affirm other people's beliefs should not be encouraged, and especially should not be mandated by the government.

You are generally expected to bow your head and let them say a few words, yes. This is very much common courtesy, especially when you're invited into someone's home.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As for your remarks on point #5: On the one hand, you are right. Using particular pronouns takes essentially no effort. It is a harmless courtesy that makes others feel more comfortable in their own skin. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable compelling anyone to say something that they do not actually believe. Another example: As an atheist, if I were to sit down to dinner with a Christian family, would I say grace with them? Again, it's a harmless courtesy and it costs me nothing to participate. But such participation would be, quite frankly, a lie-- and lying in order to affirm other people's beliefs should not be encouraged, and especially should not be mandated by the government.

You are generally expected to bow your head and let them say a few words, yes. This is very much common courtesy, especially when you're invited into someone's home.

Yeah, as someone who occasionally says grace and who often eats with people who are much more punctilious than I am about doing so, I can confirm that the polite thing to do if you can't get behind the sentiment is to maintain a respectful silence. It's not a compelled speech issue in the same way that the debate around misgendering is.

[John Dule]

As for your remarks on point #5: On the one hand, you are right. Using particular pronouns takes essentially no effort. It is a harmless courtesy that makes others feel more comfortable in their own skin. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable compelling anyone to say something that they do not actually believe. Another example: As an atheist, if I were to sit down to dinner with a Christian family, would I say grace with them? Again, it's a harmless courtesy and it costs me nothing to participate. But such participation would be, quite frankly, a lie-- and lying in order to affirm other people's beliefs should not be encouraged, and especially should not be mandated by the government.

You are generally expected to bow your head and let them say a few words, yes. This is very much common courtesy, especially when you're invited into someone's home.

Yeah, as someone who occasionally says grace and who often eats with people who are much more punctilious than I am about doing so, I can confirm that the polite thing to do if you can't get behind the sentiment is to maintain a respectful silence. It's not a compelled speech issue in the same way that the debate around misgendering is.

Well, I certainly wouldn't talk over people while they were trying to say grace. But would I bow my head and hold hands with the person next to me? I honestly can't say what I'd do until I've actually found myself in such a situation. But generally speaking, I think it's much poorer manners to expect others to conform to your worldview just to make you feel good. I think vegetarianism is stupid, but I certainly wouldn't expect a vegetarian to eat meat if I brought them over for dinner.

[Del Tachi]

To the whole "is it a mental illness of not" question, I'll stick to what I've opined before:

Mental illness is made up.  Different cultures have varying interpretations as to what constitutes optimal versus pathological psychological functioning.  That certain behavior patterns are valued, accepted, encouraged, or even statistically normative is not universal.  Clinical conceptions of mental illness cannot be separated from subjective personal or cultural values.   

That gender dysphoria was "delisted" as a mental illness reflects this basic truth. 

However, if trans advocates insist that gender dysphoria *isn't a mental illness then I believe you have to arrive at the conclusion that HRT and SRS have to be understood as purely elective, cosmetic procedures.  And that's even before questioning the ethicality of letting doctors operate-on and alter perfectly normal, healthy human body parts. 

[Devout Centrist]

As for your remarks on point #5: On the one hand, you are right. Using particular pronouns takes essentially no effort. It is a harmless courtesy that makes others feel more comfortable in their own skin. On the other hand, I don't feel comfortable compelling anyone to say something that they do not actually believe. Another example: As an atheist, if I were to sit down to dinner with a Christian family, would I say grace with them? Again, it's a harmless courtesy and it costs me nothing to participate. But such participation would be, quite frankly, a lie-- and lying in order to affirm other people's beliefs should not be encouraged, and especially should not be mandated by the government.

You are generally expected to bow your head and let them say a few words, yes. This is very much common courtesy, especially when you're invited into someone's home.

Yeah, as someone who occasionally says grace and who often eats with people who are much more punctilious than I am about doing so, I can confirm that the polite thing to do if you can't get behind the sentiment is to maintain a respectful silence. It's not a compelled speech issue in the same way that the debate around misgendering is.

Well, I certainly wouldn't talk over people while they were trying to say grace. But would I bow my head and hold hands with the person next to me? I honestly can't say what I'd do until I've actually found myself in such a situation. But generally speaking, I think it's much poorer manners to expect others to conform to your worldview just to make you feel good. I think vegetarianism is stupid, but I certainly wouldn't expect a vegetarian to eat meat if I brought them over for dinner.

I'm not sure how you could compare forcing someone to eat meat to Christian prayer? You can politely refuse to say a few words at grace or hold hands. You're just expected not to act like a jackass. Which is similar to the whole pronouns thing...

[afleitch]

Just to add to a few points already made here and to address the points you've made.

1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.

3. What is a life altering decision? If you have gender dysphoria, isn't puberty causing the development of unwanted dissociative secondary sexual characteristics and this being allowed to reach it's conclusion a life altering decision? Isn't using puberty blockers to increase height or suppressing early onset puberty a life altering decision? The pill? Pregnancy? There are so many physical and hormonal interventions that take place that have little to do with something as core as your identity. They are done for extremely valid reasons. But I can't see why 'pausing' puberty is more 'harmful' than these. It's being weaponised as a 'threat' for political and ideological purposes. I appreciate that you can sort of see that.

[John Dule]

1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.

The category matters insofar as it represents a valid scientific classification. Political and social considerations should be left aside when scientific research is being conducted, and the politicization of scientific inquiry is wrong. It is painfully obvious that the reclassification of gender dysphoria represents a concession (however mild) to activists.

For example, there is a stigma attached to the word "disabled," because it implies that the person with the disability is less physically capable than others. Should people with spinal cord injuries protest this classification? Should they pressure doctors and scientists to reclassify their disability, so as to remove the stigma surrounding the word "disabled?" Of course not. Firstly, there is no reason why we should single out this one particular affliction, removing the "stigma" attached to it while simultaneously ignoring the "stigma" attached to other disabilities. And secondly, science should not have to cave to the demands of the activist class. Scientific terminology ought to be above political considerations.

This is not to say that gender dysphoria must be classified as a "disorder." I do not care either way. What I do care about is that the reason for its classification is based solely on scientific calculations rather than political ones. Because the disorder was reclassified "to remove stigma" and for no other reason, I have to conclude that scientific considerations were not the driving force behind this reclassification, and I oppose it for that reason and that reason alone.

[afleitch]

1. If you say on one hand it doesn't matter if something is classified as such (i.e a mental disorder) then why isn't reducing stigma a valid reason to remove it, if removing the classification doesn't affect the treatment/intervention offered? For example, the US DSM-5 folded my Aspergers into an autism spectrum disorder and created a new diagnosis of social communication disorder not on the spectrum, but something entirely new. It hasn't affected the net treatment per se, but has for some, negatively impacted perception of people with Aspergers. So not only does it work both ways, it highlights how reducing stigma is valid when it impacts upon society and socialisation.

The category matters insofar as it represents a valid scientific classification. Political and social considerations should be left aside when scientific research is being conducted, and the politicization of scientific inquiry is wrong. It is painfully obvious that the reclassification of gender dysphoria represents a concession (however mild) to activists.

For example, there is a stigma attached to the word "disabled," because it implies that the person with the disability is less physically capable than others. Should people with spinal cord injuries protest this classification? Should they pressure doctors and scientists to reclassify their disability, so as to remove the stigma surrounding the word "disabled?" Of course not. Firstly, there is no reason why we should single out this one particular affliction, removing the "stigma" attached to it while simultaneously ignoring the "stigma" attached to other disabilities. And secondly, science should not have to cave to the demands of the activist class. Scientific terminology ought to be above political considerations.

This is not to say that gender dysphoria must be classified as a "disorder." I do not care either way. What I do care about is that the reason for its classification is based solely on scientific calculations rather than political ones. Because the disorder was reclassified "to remove stigma" and for no other reason, I have to conclude that scientific considerations were not the driving force behind this reclassification, and I oppose it for that reason and that reason alone.

It's also been removed from the UN classification in ICD-11. Given that the decision was made by those versed in health, it can hardly be considered 'political.' It was clearly a scientific concensus.