Are transgender people the gender they say they are?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Of course.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

Because I personally believe that gender (to the extent that it exists) is directly connected to sex.

This point of view hurts trans people and helps no one. Why would you decide to define things in such a way?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

That's not my point. Naturally there are doctors, intimate partners, parents etc, but that's not your position. How do you know what someones birth sex is?

How in your day to day interactions with people do you determine someone's birth sex? Is that something you do with everyone? When is it relevant to you? How do you determine someone is man/woman, male/female other than by how they present to you and what they tell you?

The honest answer is you do accept what they tell you in order to help validate, or correct what you perceive by how they present to you. Birth sex isn't something you can individually determine with each person you meet therefore sociologically it's irrelevant to interactions with people.

If birth sex is important to you, you should doubt everyone who tells you what they are, until they prove what they have between their legs. But that's bordering on sociopathy, so you won't do that either.

So birth sex, on a practical level, doesn't actually matter to you, or me or anyone.

You can argue that “it doesn’t matter if trans men are actually men or not, just don’t be a jerk to people” which is what you’re doing here by saying that since it’s not even possible to know someone’s birth sex 99% of the time, but that’s different than saying “trans men are actually men.”

Why do you care whether they are or not? What difference does it make to you?

Very little, as long as no one actually expects me to consider them men (calling them preferred pronouns/using preferred name is not too much to expect, however).

Why wouldn’t you consider them men? It costs you nothing.

Because I personally believe that gender (to the extent that it exists) is directly connected to sex.

This point of view hurts trans people and helps no one. Why would you decide to define things in such a way?

I’m not going to be bullied into abandoning my beliefs because they happen to “hurt someone feelings.”

TIL asking why someone would define a concept in a way that hurts some people and helps no one is bullying.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

a

No it’s just a cause of immense psychological pain, leads to them being forced in to physically dangerous spaces and is on the whole potentially deadly when trans people « aren’t seen as the gender they claim to be »

I mean, what in the actual Christ, this is why people claim that right wingers aren’t capable of empathy.

Just making sure this gets seen.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I could be wrong (because I don't remember every comment I've written on this site), but I don't think I ever said puberty blockers should be banned. I have only said that (A) There must be extensive studies done of their long-term effects, and (B) Those effects should be honestly communicated to any patient to whom these drugs are prescribed.

The problem with this is that there has been no real evidence of puberty blockers having negative long term effects, and we have studied them quite a bit. It is very clear, on the other hand, that not getting puberty blockers is harmful to trans people.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

How about an organization that actually provides puberty blockers? Lol.

It also says that bone density will increase after you stop taking blockers, and the risks in general aren't any higher than the average psychiatric medication. Your fearmongering about this is misinformed, is the point I'm making.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There have been several studies suggesting that puberty blockers have long-term effects on bone density. The psychological effects of a postponed puberty should also not be ignored (nor, of course, should the effects of actually going through puberty).

Do you have a source for that that  doesn't have an obvious agenda?

How about an organization that actually provides puberty blockers? Lol.

It also says that bone density will increase after you stop taking blockers, and the risks in general aren't any higher than the average psychiatric medication. Your fearmongering about this is misinformed, is the point I'm making.

You asked if there was evidence that they have negative long-term effects, and I provided you with it. If that's "fearmongering" then I guess I apologize.

Effects that reverse once you stop taking the drug aren't the kind of thing I was talking about. Though yes, that is a negative effect. Those negative effects are not large enough to justify just how risky you seem to think puberty blockers are.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Effects that reverse once you stop taking the drug aren't the kind of thing I was talking about. Though yes, that is a negative effect. Those negative effects are not large enough to justify just how risky you seem to think puberty blockers are.

I don't think they're particularly risky. If I did, I wouldn't want them to be legal (which I do).

Okay, that's good. The way you've talked about puberty blockers in the past gives off a different vibe, which is why I've been skeptical of you on this.