Transgender Thread.

  • Thread starter Com Fox
  • 2,194 comments
  • 129,662 views

Transgender is...?

  • Ok for anyone

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Ok as long as it's binary (Male to Female or vice versa)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No one's business except the person involved

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
Indeed. Depression doesn't go away instantly though, everyone knows this. There's no "quick fix" for it, you have to do the time to recover. Just like no quick fix for cancers.

Couldn't that just be a delusional feeling? "I suddenly feel like a person that needs to transition...to benefit myself, look at all these happy transitioned people, this is my calling now, it fits, the shoe fits!" But if you insist.. Good yes, but not every movement is good just because it's popular.

If a majority didn't have a single, significant regret in 10-20 years time I'd have to change my mind.

What would you like to cite from that study you linked, to disprove my position?
It's part of the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria, a long running study ran using data from patients who sought treatment for gender dysphoria including HRT and GAS. They follow cohorts of trans people and also tracked whether they expressed any regret after surgery.

Page 6 showcases a table of the incredibly small number of those who expressed regret, what the reversal surgery was, and why the patient wanted the reversal in the first place.

Essentially, of the group of trans patients from the 1970s, only one expressed regret and desire to have their surgery reversed. Of the group from the 1980s, only five did. Of the 90s, only seven expressed regret.
 
Last edited:
It's part of the Amsterdam Cohort of Gender Dysphoria, a long running study ran using data from patients who sought treatment for gender dysphoria including HRT and GAS. They follow cohorts of trans people and also tracked whether they expressed any regret after surgery.

Page 6 showcases a table of the incredibly small number of those who expressed regret, what the reversal surgery was, and why the patient wanted the reversal in the first place.

Essentially, of the group of trans patients from the 1970s, only one expressed regret. Of the group from the 1980s, only five did. Of the 90s, only seven expressed regret.
I can't argue with that then. I'm now a somewhat bemused pro-trans person by way of defeat. But you won't be catching me in any parades.. yet. Also it will take years for me to incorporate this fundamental difference in my personal life. There are people out there who benefit from this new movement in whole or part. How strange. Nevertheless I do wonder what the stats say of those who transitioned before age 25. That's the last piece of the puzzle for me.
 
Last edited:
I can't argue with that then. I'm now a somewhat bemused pro-trans person by way of defeat. But you won't be catching me in any parades.. yet. Also it will take years for me to incorporate this fundamental difference in my personal life. There are people out there who benefit from this new movement in whole or part. How strange. Nevertheless I do wonder what the stats say of those who transitioned before age 25. That's the last piece of the puzzle for me.
It's not actually a new movement, trans people have been around well before you or I were born!

Are there more trans people today than there were years ago? Of course! But that doesn't necessarily mean it's a trend, or a fad. We could just be seeing more people that are comfortable and confident enough to not need to hide their authentic selves. And I think it's a great thing that we've gotten to this stage. :)



Have a look at it this way: if you asked someone from the 1930s about left-handedness, do you reckon they would have written it off as a fad?

images-5.png
 
Since you're the one claiming I identify with said groups, which you don't know nor care to know squat about me.
Of which people on Gt-planet are okay with, because most of GTplanet is over 55 and willing to let the younger generations suffer and die early "just because it's funny to see them suffer" Or something along those lines IIRC.
Going beyond the obivous issue there, what do you have to support the claims that people don't care about anyone other than their own age groups, and that the people in this thread specifically don't care about the people interested in GAC?

You have a solid track record of pulling extreme claims out of thin air. You've been getting responses exactly because people here care beyond themselves. When someone comes into a thread and starts to spread misinformation, or express support for controlling other people's lives, that tends to be combated.

If you ever plan on having kids...
Then be ready to take care of them for a life time. There is no guarantee that your children will be healthy or ever reach the point where they can care for themselves. If wheeling them around because they can't move themselves is a problem for you, then don't have kids. It's not for you.
yes. Repeated steroid use leads to early deaths of ages around say 30-45. Of which people on Gt-planet are okay with, because most of GTplanet is over 55 and willing to let the younger generations suffer and die early "just because it's funny to see them suffer" Or something along those lines IIRC.
As before, longevity is not a life score. A longer life is not a better one. People are free to choose for themselves how they want to live. They're not spending your money, and they're not pushing the risks on you, so cost and risk shouldn't factor into you're argument. You're not the one dealing with those things.
It's curious how you have all the time in the world to write up essays
I've just quoted half a dozen or so posts made by you.
on effectively "an opinion, made by one person, whom I don't like" curious. One has to wonder why you'd engage in "civil discourse" with a person you don't like and an opinion you disagree with if there were better, more interesting, more constructive, things to talk about in millions of other threads. There are.
There are? Wouldn't that come down to individual preference? Maybe this is the most important thread of all for some people. Though on the other hand it's not like people can't engage in more than one topic at a time.

I don't know about other people, but disagreeing is more conductive to discussion for me. If I agree with someone, I may not have much to say. The closer their opinion is to mine, the more likely it is that anything that I'd have to say was said already. When I disagree with someone I can have a lot to say.

Lastly you said you're not liked. It's possible, but for me the bigger issue is that you don't seem to have a well informed opinion or an unbiased stance on this topic, and that is driving you toward harming other people, directly or indirectly. Just to be blunt, you've convinced me that you are near the bottom of the list of people qualified to ban GAC or surgery.
I have my opinion, and I'll discuss it only with people whom are here in good-faith. Not too many of those. Most are just here for the instant gratification they get by hurling insults at others in a closed-off forum with their "follower" buddies with their grandfathered accounts. It's quite cliquey. Which is why I'm not all that interested in talking to those types in the first place.

We'll go with your definitions then, I've no desire to halt progress for the few that are aren't here for petty memes from 2008.
This is a public and open forum, and this section specifically is designed to allow people to express opinions, whatever they may be so that those opinions can be reviewed and discussed. If it seems like everyone is on the "same side" to you, it's an indicator that your opinions are pretty extreme. If you read through this thread from the beginning you'll see the participants here and their follower buddies disagreeing with each other quite a lot. You jumped in immediately and tried to paint the common thread members as unquestioning of GAC at all. In reality the thread could not finish page 1 without differing opinions meeting.

This isn't you vs the ingroup. It's you managing to find a way to disagree with a bunch of other different groups that have their own different views and then being very slow to respond to corrections or discussion from those various other groups.
I'm just guessing the ages too, could be more realistically 40-65. But my point remains these people aren't as likely to live as long as "normal" straight people that do not do the whole steroids and reckless amounts of substances thing.
And trans people that don't get GAC may die even sooner than steroid users.
There are very few people in the 18-25 range that can be said to be "of sound mind at all times" That's the age where people is really just starting to learn about things and make many more mistakes. So your fallacy is there. It seems unfortunately your logic doesn't extend to benefit mankind, just the simple pleasantries followed by the "now get off my lawn, stranger" trope...
Even if your claim is taken to be true, so what. Unless no one in the 18-25 range is qualified to be an adult, then someone exists in that range that can make decisions for themselves. Those people should not have control of their lives taken away from them just because other people can't make sound decisions.

Whatever you think of 18-25 year olds specifically, I had already decided my career path at that point, taken on the largest debt of my life up to that point to fund that career path, moved away from my home which also resulted in me breaking my record for largest debt again within that same span of time, bought a car and started driving, was granted the right to vote (which I decided not use because I did not feel ready for it), and had to start paying my own taxes. I'm not completely unique in that regard and a lot of the decisions I faced could be said to be more complicated and risky than looking into a certain form of treatment with a good track record, that involves counseling and therapy to screen people won't don't really need it, because you are unhappy with some aspect of your life.
See the issue for me is "suicide risk decreased". I'll wait for the next study to come out saying the opposite, "suicide risk increased".
You can wait for whatever you want, but that second paper either doesn't exist or hasn't been presented. The first one has.
You stray too far from the norm, you basically throw your life away to a certain "normal" crowd of highly opinionated and vetted people. The rest of society just shrugs and carries on. This is something trans people have to deal with too. Additionally Some of them will feel some kind of imposter syndrome not long after their journey into steroids begins.
So then you're pro conformity even in the cases where people don't really fit the common mold? That sounds like a disaster in the making. There are plenty of people who find their own way through life who end up being the ones to shrug their shoulders in the face of other people trying to convert them to "normalcy". It seems like you don't even want to consider that.
Once you're dead, you're dead, all your worries die with it.
Yet people care about what happens even after that point. We would not have wills otherwise.
Maybe it doesn't affect you or how your peers are doing, or how your grandma is doing or how your kids are doing because you don't give a flying crap, maybe you're selfish like that, but not all people have to be or think just like you y'know??
Wanting to control someone isn't caring about other people, or at least it's not caring in a good way. If I had to pick the most selfish position in this thread, it's yours.
If someone writes about something, and you don't like it, you don't have to respond? Just scroll along or "unfollow" the threads you don't have anything to do with or nothing to say?
That's the situation where people aren't interested and don't see a problem to correct. The opposite will happen if people consider something worth the effort of trying to fix.
So to answer your question, these new trends do affect the world, and, therefore, me. It affects me "so much" that I have to write about it on GT Planet, in the trans thread of course.
And that doesn't apply to anyone but you?
Would you say the same thing to trans people? What does it matter that they care about their own bodies to such an extent that they want to change it? Good luck trying to change that if you think like that.
You're surprised that people care about their own bodies? That has to be the most unexpected opinion posted so far.

Of course people care about their own bodies. That is not surprising. That's why people don't like it when someone comes in and tries to take away bodily control, which is what you're doing.
General anxiety and depression is not something that goes away quickly, so a moot point, those things tend to return very quickly. Depression especially stays with the person for decades once the newness of transitioning wears off, I believe.

In recent years, all of those professions have lost their credibility, to me at least. Some people think all doctors are full of it. I just make exceptions to the doctors I like. They're not all money hungry, as it turns out, but still can't be trusted with even basic things.

I'm saying the Exposure to trans movements can make one rethink their life and find themselves trans instead of something else. Which in itself is not always a good result, somewhat unnecessary depending on person. Of course I can't speak for everyone.

Right. I'll wait for the studies of that same group in 20 years time, convince me 20 years later that same group, by at least a majority, did not regret a single aspect of their transition, and I'd have my mind changed quite a bit.

Usually takes a person a good decade or so to fully evaluate once the dust settles. "was that event a good idea" "was that relationship good for my growth" "did my transition ultimately do anything for me that I couldn't have accomplished in other ways with less money down the drain? maybe that money could have gone towards the mortgage?"

Of course if you ask someone "did you have a good birthday?", they'd say yes, if you asked them on their birthday... But Ask them a decade later about that same day, the truth will come out about all that went on, assuming the person even remembers the details by that point. Just an example.
This is an unfounded rant. People can decide for themselves what is best for them.
Indeed. Depression doesn't go away instantly though, everyone knows this. There's no "quick fix" for it, you have to do the time to recover. Just like no quick fix for cancers.

Couldn't that just be a delusional feeling? "I suddenly feel like a person that needs to transition...to benefit myself, look at all these happy transitioned people, this is my calling now, it fits, the shoe fits!" But if you insist.. Good yes, but not every movement is good just because it's popular.

If a majority didn't have a single, significant regret in 10-20 years time I'd have to change my mind.

What would you like to cite from that study you linked, to disprove my position?
What quick fix? GAC tends to be spread out over quite a while, sometimes years.

I doubt that people "suddenly" feel like transitioning.

Your standard on regrets is nonsensical. There must be no regrets, or the treatment is a failure? Do you regret being born because you felt pain one time?
 
yes. Repeated steroid use leads to early deaths of ages around say 30-45. Of which people on Gt-planet are okay with, because most of GTplanet is over 55 and willing to let the younger generations suffer and die early "just because it's funny to see them suffer" Or something along those lines IIRC.
If this isn't worthy of a ban then I don't know what is. No one on GT Planet thinks it's funny to see young people suffer.
 
Then be ready to take care of them for a life time. There is no guarantee that your children will be healthy or ever reach the point where they can care for themselves. If wheeling them around because they can't move themselves is a problem for you, then don't have kids. It's not for you.

I do agree with this sentiment, but in practice I think it makes sense to not have creating children represent such a gamble. It's for another thread really.
 
I do agree with this sentiment, but in practice I think it makes sense to not have creating children represent such a gamble. It's for another thread really.
My stance is definitely built around hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst. Realistically the chances of a healthy child reaching self sufficiency is good in places with modern healthcare and rights protections, but I think it's always worth asking yourself what you would do if you or your child end up unlucky and stuck in a tough situation. Agreed that anything further is better suited for a different thread.
 

Will have to read more about this, but could be game changing in how children how treated in the UK at least.
I get where they're coming from about being careful and regulating what is prescribed, but I disagree with some of their phrasing and arguments.

Puberty blockers aren't unproven or new, they've been used for decades, just for managing precocious puberty instead of for GAC. There isn't really a danger to prescribing puberty blockers, they don't really change your body like HRT does.

I can't speak for England, but in the USA you can't really get physical trans healthcare without previous mental health counseling regarding gender and identity (assuming you aren't an adult using informed consent services in lieu of getting a prescription). Especially with minors, you can't get HRT or hormone suppressors without a gender dysphoria diagnosis, which you get from counseling and therapy. Mental healthcare is already a pretty big part of trans healthcare.
 
I've been holding off on posting on this until the medical community (and wider) had a chance to review the paper, as being a UK Government 'Independent' report doesn't make it peer-reviewed.

The results have, to be blunt, been less than favorable to it.

Highlight Include:

  • Suppressing evidence from studies on spurious grounds
  • Repeating un-proven claims that themselves lack an evidence base
  • Complaints from at least one participant that “after three discussions it was obvious that the review had been written before we started. She [Hilary Cass] totally discounted evidence from trans people from the basis of knowledge or lived experience.”
  • Over 100 academics signed an open letter stating that the report was “dangerous and potentially harmful to trans children” due to its “unsound methodology, unacceptable bias [and] problematic and supported conclusions”
  • That Dr Cass herself has links to the creators of Ron DeSantis's deeply anti-trans and widely panned as biased report into trans care that was used to shut down trans care in Florida. A link that should have been openly disclosed as part of the NHS review. The Florida review was described as “not a serious scientific analysis, but rather, a document crafted to serve a political agenda,” by researchers at Yale
  • Doesn't actually show high levels of de-transitioning, despite this being one of the key bases for some of its recommendations, the rate was 0.3% (10 out of 3,499).
  • Infers that puberty-blockers were handed out with little to no control, despite only 27% of patients being refered for potential endocrinology treatment (which covers both blockers and wider hormone treatment), and of that 27%, only 54% received a prescription. That makes the final percentage just 14%!




In related news we now have one of the only studies of its type done has scientifically concluded (within the papers limitations) that trans-women do not have an advantage over cis women (with a number of caveats that it's a small study size and more research is needed). Naturally, the Telegraph has had a meltdown over it, claiming it pitted unfit trans individuals against cis-athletes, which is demonstrably untrue, as the selection criteria (sports-wise) were the same for all participants. In contrast to the Cass report this paper is peer review, does state it's limitations and does include all the standards one would expect from a paper of its nature.

 
Last edited:
In related news we now have one of the only studies of its type done has scientifically concluded that trans-women do not have an advantage over cis women (with the caveat that it's a small study size and more research is needed).
More caveats needed. The measured metrics are not the only measure of advantage.
 
More caveats needed. The measured metrics are not the only measure of advantage.
Hence the reason the study states that more research is needed.

It's not as if the paper wasn't clear on its limitations...

"Study limitations
The limitations of this study primarily relate to its cross-sectional design, making it challenging to establish causation or examine if the performance of athletes changes as a result of undergoing GAHT. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine how GAHT, and other factors impact athletes’ physiology and performance over time. Additionally, the composition of the study cohort may not fully represent the diversity of athletes in elite sports from worldwide populations. Athletes from various sporting disciplines and performance levels were included, and the athlete training intensity was self-reported. Therefore, the results may suffer from selection and recall bias.43 The results may not apply to all levels or ages of athletes, specifically as this research did not include any adolescent athletes competing at the national or international level. The athletes participating in the present study represented a variety of different sports, and this would have undoubtedly impacted the results of the study as different sports stress different training and sports modalities. Exercise type, intensity and duration all have an impact on physiological responses and overall laboratory performance metrics.44 The subgroups of sports that emerged were also too dissimilar to allow meaningful subgroup analysis. The complexity and difficulty of this area of activity means that while this study provides a starting point for understanding the complex physiology in GAHT and athletic performance, this study does not provide evidence that is sufficient to influence policy for either inclusion or exclusion. However, this is the first study to assess laboratory-based measures of performance in transgender athletes, and this opens up interesting avenues for replication and extension into the longitudinal effects of GAHT on athletic performance.

Future research should include more extensive and diverse samples to enhance the generalisability of findings or smaller, more specific cohorts to hone in on a particular sports discipline. However, such studies may be complex due to the low numbers of transgender athletes. The recruitment method of this study also provided a limitation as social media advertising was used rather than recruitment from a clinical provider. Social media recruitment leaves this study open to sample bias as social media advertising, although great for recruiting hard-to-reach participants for observational studies,44 45 does not represent a clinical population in 86% of comparisons.44 As the participants were not recruited from a clinic, this also means that the gender-affirming treatment of the transgender athletes was not controlled. For example, different testosterone suppression methods have different efficacies,46 and future studies should consider differences in the prescribed GAHT to participants. Lastly, the participants were not screened by a clinician before participation, and any medical conditions were self-reported in the physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). This method of medical reporting leaves the data open to self-reporting bias, which can mislead descriptive statistics and causal inferences47 as participants’ cognitive processes, such as social desirability, can alter participants’ responses.48 Therefore, it is recommended to use a clinic to screen and recruit participants to avoid such bias in a longitudinal study of transgender athlete sports performance."

...but it is a start, and it does cover the main claims that have been made, in particular Bone Mineral density, which due to it's relationship to muscle mass has always been claimed to be an advantage.
 
Last edited:
Hence the reason the study states that more research is needed.

It's not as if the paper wasn't clear on its limitations...

"Study limitations
The limitations of this study primarily relate to its cross-sectional design, making it challenging to establish causation or examine if the performance of athletes changes as a result of undergoing GAHT. Longitudinal studies are needed to examine how GAHT, and other factors impact athletes’ physiology and performance over time. Additionally, the composition of the study cohort may not fully represent the diversity of athletes in elite sports from worldwide populations. Athletes from various sporting disciplines and performance levels were included, and the athlete training intensity was self-reported. Therefore, the results may suffer from selection and recall bias.43 The results may not apply to all levels or ages of athletes, specifically as this research did not include any adolescent athletes competing at the national or international level. The athletes participating in the present study represented a variety of different sports, and this would have undoubtedly impacted the results of the study as different sports stress different training and sports modalities. Exercise type, intensity and duration all have an impact on physiological responses and overall laboratory performance metrics.44 The subgroups of sports that emerged were also too dissimilar to allow meaningful subgroup analysis. The complexity and difficulty of this area of activity means that while this study provides a starting point for understanding the complex physiology in GAHT and athletic performance, this study does not provide evidence that is sufficient to influence policy for either inclusion or exclusion. However, this is the first study to assess laboratory-based measures of performance in transgender athletes, and this opens up interesting avenues for replication and extension into the longitudinal effects of GAHT on athletic performance.

Future research should include more extensive and diverse samples to enhance the generalisability of findings or smaller, more specific cohorts to hone in on a particular sports discipline. However, such studies may be complex due to the low numbers of transgender athletes. The recruitment method of this study also provided a limitation as social media advertising was used rather than recruitment from a clinical provider. Social media recruitment leaves this study open to sample bias as social media advertising, although great for recruiting hard-to-reach participants for observational studies,44 45 does not represent a clinical population in 86% of comparisons.44 As the participants were not recruited from a clinic, this also means that the gender-affirming treatment of the transgender athletes was not controlled. For example, different testosterone suppression methods have different efficacies,46 and future studies should consider differences in the prescribed GAHT to participants. Lastly, the participants were not screened by a clinician before participation, and any medical conditions were self-reported in the physical activity readiness questionnaire (PAR-Q). This method of medical reporting leaves the data open to self-reporting bias, which can mislead descriptive statistics and causal inferences47 as participants’ cognitive processes, such as social desirability, can alter participants’ responses.48 Therefore, it is recommended to use a clinic to screen and recruit participants to avoid such bias in a longitudinal study of transgender athlete sports performance."

...but it is a start, and it does cover the main claims that have been made, in particular Bone Mineral density, which due to it's relationship to muscle mass has always been claimed to be an advantage.
I was mostly commenting on your language that the paper "has scientifically concluded that trans-women do not have an advantage over cis women". Which isn't just not shown by the paper, it's also essentially impossible to show - because factors like height can play an important role in certain sports, and height is not something that is adjusted in the processes we're discussing but is influenced by hormone levels in puberty. That's why I said you needed to caveat that these are not the only metrics that confer advantage.

It's great and important research being done, and we need lots of it. Ultimately some sports may be able to show that there is no advantage for transgender athletes given a certain current or recent hormone levels. But it won't be all sports. It would happen on a sport-by-sport level, and sports which rely exclusively on the athlete's "strength, power and aerobic capacity" may be influenced by a study such as this.
 
Last edited:
The only decent place for a crewmember to take a poo in ORD is the all-gender bathrooms. There's so much room to find yourself in there!
 
Last edited:
I was mostly commenting on your language that the paper "has scientifically concluded that trans-women do not have an advantage over cis women". Which isn't just not shown by the paper, it's also essentially impossible to show - because factors like height can play an important role in certain sports, and height is not something that is adjusted in the processes we're discussing but is influenced by hormone levels in puberty. That's why I said you needed to caveat that these are not the only metrics that confer advantage.

It's great and important research being done, and we need lots of it. Ultimately some sports may be able to show that there is no advantage for transgender athletes given a certain current or recent hormone levels. But it won't be all sports. It would happen on a sport-by-sport level, and sports which rely exclusively on the athlete's "strength, power and aerobic capacity" may be influenced by a study such as this.
Fair enough, I was posting in a hurry and on my phone (explanation - not excuse) and could have worded it better.
 
Very long video on Anita Bryant, JK Rowling and a few others, and it seems pretty fair on the issue all the way around. At the end of the video she even talks about how inclusion of trans athletes in certain sports is something that deserves to be discussed, and on a sport by sport basis at that. I really appreciated including that, because she didn't have to. I also like that she doesn't vilify rowling completely. Natalie calls her a "useful idiot" which is hard to argue with.


Careful! I think there is plenty of bad language in this, and there is some hateful speech that gets played. So maybe not at work.


I think I might be the only person who enjoyed both Hellen Joyce's book and the ContraPoints video above and sees where they're both coming from and the common ground. Seriously, might just be me. Something is wrong with me.
 
Last edited:
Apologies for the double post. I'm making my way through Contrapoints on youtube because, honestly, she's fabulous (I'm only 5 years late on this video). If you're at all interested in this subject, this is a great youtube channel. Ok that's my plug, here's the video I want to talk about. I promise I won't post them all.

Bad Language, some sexual references



This contrapoints video is designed to rebut a lot of the arguments I have personally made in this thread. She also explains what some in this thread responded to me with initially, which was a refusal to engage out of self-protective suspicion that they were dealing with a bigot. This video makes a hard argument that such an initial response to these concepts is well warranted. She calls the video "Gender Critical" but really it's aimed at "TERFS" which is trans-exclusionary radical feminist. I'm not sure I like either name honestly. But she does it out of a concession to the feminists she's trying to reach. She goes through a series of arguments against trans inclusion that she says are commonly advanced by TERFs. Here they are:

Argument: There's no such thing as being trapped in the wrong body. Response: It's metaphorical shorthand for something else.

I personally have made this argument. I do like her response that it's metaphorical shorthand, but I'm still left bothered by the "trapped in the wrong body" language. It might be metaphorical, but it's also potentially very harmful and I think giving the wrong impression in the first place. So while I understand the response, I think this language is too easy to argue with, and maybe isn't the best way to communicate to someone who isn't trans themselves.


Argument: Claiming to "live as woman" is reinforcing stereotypes about women. Response: It's not what makes you a woman, but it is what some people want.

I get that too. But since "what makes you a woman" is difficult to define, these stereotypes are left defining women. The feeling of wanting to be feminine is not an invalid feeling for anyone to have. And in the video she makes it clear that she doesn't feel that femininity makes you a woman, but then what does? She quotes Catherine MacKinnon saying "I always thought I don't care how someone becomes a woman or a man; it does not matter to me... Anybody who identifies as a woman, wants to be a woman, is going around being a woman, as far as I'm concerned, is a woman." On its face this quote seems like it's saying that femininity makes you a woman. But I suppose a different reading suggests that it means that if you want to be a woman, you are.

That argument works just fine form the perspective of the person wanting to be a woman. There are some real problems with that from the perspective of the rest of society, and perhaps this is where the stereotypes get re-introduced.

For their part, feminists (and everyone else) struggle with this same question - what makes someone a woman. Or a man for that matter. The "large gametes" crowd is not doing any better job. For my part, I think the answer is that the whole concept of gender is pretty much garbage. Which brings us to her very next argument.

Argument: Let's get rid of gender Response: It's picking on the transgender people to hold up their lives due to a utopian pipe dream

This depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about treating trans people legally in all cases as though they're the sex they identify with, such as in the case of sports or support groups or prisons, then I think that's not a fair argument. But based on what I've seen so far, I don't think Natalie is making that argument, and if you're talking about basically anything else, I agree. Gender may be garbage, but because it's garbage to me, I can't be bothered to give someone grief over it. I don't want to get in the way of anyone's good time.

Argument: you don't know what it's like to be raised as a girl Response: Kinda, but actually transgender upbringing is a mixed bag with its own set of issues

I agree with her take. But like the one above, it's fairly moderate take. This kind of recognition of the past that actually happened isn't always present. I appreciate it here.


Argument: you're erasing the language needed to talk about sex-specific issues Response: Not really. The terms you're complaining about are just inclusive.

But the inclusive terms do make it harder to talk about sex-specific issues. This is the same argument as the legal argument - that what constitutes a woman under the law is not necessarily the same thing as what people mean when discussing gender. This is why I go back to my gender is garbage position.

The rest of the video is dedicated to a discussion of the underlying bigotry that usually accompanies these arguments. And while I love that she took the time to respond to these arguments with some nuance and pragmatism, the rest of the video just feels like generalization. And maybe that generalization is warranted, but it comes at the expense of dismissing someone like myself. Which I can accept.

Anyway, love the video. Love the deep dive into the subject - the nuance, the consideration of all sides, the philosophical underpinnings. She's great.
 
Last edited:
For their part, feminists (and everyone else) struggle with this same question - what makes someone a woman. Or a man for that matter. The "large gametes" crowd is not doing any better job. For my part, I think the answer is that the whole concept of gender is pretty much garbage.
I feel the same. It's built around false assumptions and doesn't serve much purpose so far as I can tell. I think it would be best to drop any significance attached to it if it has to remain.
 
I'm a bit curious if she addresses how transgender men and women approach healthcare because I'm trying to figure out that issue right now, and I'm stymied. In almost every health system, you have male-to-female trans people attempting to schedule OB/GYN appointments, which obviously makes no sense. On the flip side you have female-to-male trans people attempting to schedule appointments with men's health. In an ideal world, it would be fine to let them because it makes them feel more at home with their chosen gender. In the real world, though, it's taxing on specialties where appointments are already at a premium. Also, an OB/GYN isn't trained to solve your prostate issue, and a men's health specialist isn't trained to deal with your ovarian cyst.

Along the same vein, you have male-to-female trans people ignoring things like a prostate exam and female-to-male trans people ignoring their annual exam. Just because you're XYZ gender doesn't change your biological sex, nor how your body functions.

Going even further, you have transgender people who lie about their biological sex, which causes all sorts of medical problems too. Medications can interact differently between men and women, and some places have policies regarding who can even administer exams based on the sex of a patient (i.e., a male physician can't administer a physical exam to a female patient without a female witness being present).

I get wanting to embrace your new found gender, but when it comes to medical stuff, for the love of god use your biological sex. It'll not only help with making sure the right people get into the right speciality, it'll also keep you safer and decrease the chance of a medical error.

I've tried addressing this with a committee of folks and proceeded to offend everyone because I just don't understand. I'm willing to learn, but it drives me nuts that so many people who don't follow traditional gender paths get pissy when you just don't know. Like how am I supposed to know "Queer" is a legitimate sexual orientation? I thought it was what we used to call LGBT people back in the day which then transitioned to a slur. Also, and I didn't know this, but Native Americans apparently have their own set of sexual/gender identities. You'd thought I made a grievous era when I asked if "Two Spirit" was supposed to be there instead of being the religion field.

Everyday I feel like an old man who was once with it, but now doesn't know what it even is. I also do understand how people start hating "wokeness." I don't want to fall into that, but I can see how some people just say screw it. Obviously, this is different than people just being a-holes or whatever.
 
Everyday I feel like an old man who was once with it, but now doesn't know what it even is. I also do understand how people start hating "wokeness." I don't want to fall into that, but I can see how some people just say screw it.

Don't give in to the dark side. :lol: From this thread and from the rest of my journey through this issue I definitely have an appreciation of the human side of the issue.
 
Don't give in to the dark side. :lol: From this thread and from the rest of my journey through this issue I definitely have an appreciation of the human side of the issue.
I can definitely see the human side, and I'm of the opinion that even if I don't understand it, I'm not going to hate people over it. I just think LGBT people shouldn't assume everyone has bad intentions. Yes, many people do have bad intentions, but some of us just legitimately don't know, make mistakes, and say things that might not be correct or outdated. Like if I call you "he/him" and those aren't your pronouns, I'm not doing it malciously. Politely correct me and I'll make an effort to change, but it will still take some time since my entire life pronouns have been a certain way.

Probably the best interaction I had with a trans person was with a girl I used to work with. She never got bent out of shape if you used the wrong pronouns or called her by her old name as long as you made an effort. She'd get pissed if you were doing it to be a dick, but the people who were dicks were pretty few and far between.

I just think that part of the reason some people get fed up with "wokeness" (for lack of a better term) is that they get lambasted for not knowing, and it turns them off from ever learning. From what I've seen, there are 70 different accepted gender identities; I can't possibly know all their intricacies.
 
I just think LGBT people shouldn't assume everyone has bad intentions.
This idea is all over different groups in society for different reasons. Defense mechanisms I guess. I've got several of my own, and unfortunately these women I'd like to date do too. :lol:
 
I just think that part of the reason some people get fed up with "wokeness" (for lack of a better term) is that they get lambasted for not knowing, and it turns them off from ever learning.

Maybe. I think most of them would be in the fox news "I don't know what woke is but it means whatever I don't like" camp.
 
I just think LGBT people shouldn't assume everyone has bad intentions.
It may well be because many/most of the interactions they've had were from people with bad intentions.

If the situation is that a significant minority of the public may wish you harm (from abuse, harassment, to violence), then assuming 'bad intentions' may well be defensive. That said, this may well vary on a country-by-country/Location-by-location basis, I've LGBT friends from South America (and now live in the UK) who took years to adjust to the fact that being openly gay didn't automatically put their lives in very real danger of death, that they assumed bad intentions on the part of strangers was 100% not surprising.
 
Last edited:
Like how am I supposed to know "Queer" is a legitimate sexual orientation? I thought it was what we used to call LGBT people back in the day which then transitioned to a slur. Also, and I didn't know this, but Native Americans apparently have their own set of sexual/gender identities. You'd thought I made a grievous era when I asked if "Two Spirit" was supposed to be there instead of being the religion field.
"Queer" has started to make a bit of a comeback since reclamation attempts starting in the 80s[1]. It can act as a personal identifier for someone as a general "I'm not cis and/or straight" without delving into the details.

And then it can act as an umbrella term for the entire community that's more inclusive (not to mention quicker to say) that than whatever acronym is appropriate for the time, location and culture. In New Zealand for instance, we're very unlikely to use the term Two Spirit since it's not an identity that is commonly used here.

Other umbrella terms I've seen include the acronym GSM (gender and sexual minorities), and -- slightly more tongue-in-cheek -- QUILTBAG and the Rainbow Mafia.
From what I've seen, there are 70 different accepted gender identities; I can't possibly know all their intricacies.
While there's a lot of overlap with some of the lesser used ones (and no doubt can be confusing for others), I think that number originally stems from a list Facebook added to their gender identity so people could describe themselves to the best of their ability.

e.g man, cis man, cisgender male, trans man, female to male, FTM all share the similar aspect of "identifies as some sort of man" but were all listed as different options to choose from.
 
Back