To try and view this in a more positive light, perhaps if there is made some sort of distinction between "men who identify as women" and "women, who at one point used to be men, but are now...
To try and view this in a more positive light, perhaps if there is made some sort of distinction between "men who identify as women" and "women, who at one point used to be men, but are now definitely women", this could actually help to separate the actual trans women from those who are trying to take advantage of the label.
Just like the ‘teach the controversy’ bullshit, I’m sure there’s some POS in a think tank already drafting a bill to send out to the state houses that are happy to step on their LGBTQ community.
Just like the ‘teach the controversy’ bullshit, I’m sure there’s some POS in a think tank already drafting a bill to send out to the state houses that are happy to step on their LGBTQ community.
If a customer presents a legal ID that says "female", that should be all that's necessary for the business to meet any contractual responsibility to the public. It's impossible to eliminate any...
If a customer presents a legal ID that says "female", that should be all that's necessary for the business to meet any contractual responsibility to the public.
It's impossible to eliminate any vestige of sexuality to make everyone completely comfortable. Heck, I've ogled girls in a girls' locker room, though hopefully not in a creepy way.
Short of issuing private facilities, niquab or blinders to all of the patrons, it's inevitable that there will be sexual thoughts occurring, however overtly heterosexual and segregated by physiognomy the customers are.
At the same time, trans identity does not predispose to more creepiness than any other, and likely comes with a great deal more awareness of what constitutes appropriate sexual boundaries.
There have been, to date, no reported incidents of cis men identifying as trans, simply to walk into the women's bathrooms. Despite the fact that there have been many cis men who walk into the...
There have been, to date, no reported incidents of cis men identifying as trans, simply to walk into the women's bathrooms. Despite the fact that there have been many cis men who walk into the woman's bathrooms.
Vox article that cites scholarly sources: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11592908/transgender-bathroom-laws-rights . Summary: men pretending to be trans to get into bathrooms has never happened. For...
Summary: men pretending to be trans to get into bathrooms has never happened. For some reason people are really transphobic about this one issue even when they're surprisingly less transphobic about other ones -- so transphobic policymaking fuckwads ramble about bathrooms instead of the 98% of human life that doesn't take place next to a toilet.
I'm not opposed to the idea that a customer would want access to a locker room that doesn't have penises in it. I'm a little sceptical that Planet Fitness "misled" or "deceived" her on the...
I'm not opposed to the idea that a customer would want access to a locker room that doesn't have penises in it. I'm a little sceptical that Planet Fitness "misled" or "deceived" her on the contract simply by using the word "woman", though.
I would just like to add that there has been one recorded case of a trans woman abusing someone in a bathroom. It wasn't very highly publicized, thankfully. But this kind of sentiment is missing...
I would just like to add that there has been one recorded case of a trans woman abusing someone in a bathroom. It wasn't very highly publicized, thankfully. But this kind of sentiment is missing the entire point: even if there were cases of trans women abusing people in bathrooms, we aren't a monolith. We can (and should) simultaneously oppose the actions of an individual (who happens to be part of a group) without demonizing that entire group.
Oh yeah, this was really recent (in the last year at most). I was dreading it becoming national news and the media freaking out about how the "transgenders are pedophiles". But no, thankfully....
Oh yeah, this was really recent (in the last year at most). I was dreading it becoming national news and the media freaking out about how the "transgenders are pedophiles". But no, thankfully.
And, yeah it definitely is important to bring up that all trans people aren't a monolith. The same way women aren't a monolith, the same way people of color aren't a monolith, the same was Muslims aren't a monolith, etc...
What, exactly, would these penises do to a customer who wasn't expecting them in her locker room? Do they attack her? Bite her? Chase her? What's the big deal about penises being present in a...
a locker room that doesn't have penises in it.
What, exactly, would these penises do to a customer who wasn't expecting them in her locker room? Do they attack her? Bite her? Chase her? What's the big deal about penises being present in a locker room?
Everyone's got their past traumas. Maybe it's a bad habit of mine, but I usually just let it go. I won't defend her desire for a penis-free locker room, but I can't bring myself to say she...
Everyone's got their past traumas. Maybe it's a bad habit of mine, but I usually just let it go. I won't defend her desire for a penis-free locker room, but I can't bring myself to say she shouldn't be allowed to seek one out.
Why don't we all just walk around nude? You expect certain things in certain places. Is being squemish about private parts a "social construct"? sure. But some people are and don't want dicks or...
Why don't we all just walk around nude? You expect certain things in certain places. Is being squemish about private parts a "social construct"? sure. But some people are and don't want dicks or vaginas in a "private" locker room. I think the solution is to just not have "private" locker rooms.
The way to make the legal challenge go away would be to find a definitive physiological pattern (in the brain, I assume) that shows that people who are trans are born that way; That they are...
The way to make the legal challenge go away would be to find a definitive physiological pattern (in the brain, I assume) that shows that people who are trans are born that way; That they are biologically different than people who identify their gender as their birth sex (I hope I'm getting this wording right, I'm still learning). The problem is that gender might not be binary so it may never be clear enough.
Yeah, the dangers of using tests for transness remind me of Gattaca (the 1997 movie) where society decided to use genes to determine everything about who and what a person can be. Early tests...
Yeah, the dangers of using tests for transness remind me of Gattaca (the 1997 movie) where society decided to use genes to determine everything about who and what a person can be. Early tests could easily limit the understanding of gender instead of being enlightening. Also, I suspect the genetics of gender are a lot more complicated than the genes for hair color, for instance.
That said, even a limited test that showed that it's biological could really stick it to the people who think that transgender is a choice.
I can sympathise with parents of a pre-pubertal child who is declaring their trans status; they might want an objective test to identify their child's gender. It would help them make a decision...
I can sympathise with parents of a pre-pubertal child who is declaring their trans status; they might want an objective test to identify their child's gender. It would help them make a decision that is quite overwhelming for many people: whether to start medical procedures such as puberty blockers for their child.
I get the reticence behind wanting a medical test. Society should just accept that I'm gay because I say so, without me having to be tested, and same for you. But if science can prove the existence of homosexual and transgender people, that reduces the scope for bigots to attack us.
That's nice in theory but, in practice, some parents and doctors want something a bit more scientific than just "My son says he's a girl." I didn't say it would necessarily change bigots' minds....
Listen to the child—don’t rely on external reassurance.
That's nice in theory but, in practice, some parents and doctors want something a bit more scientific than just "My son says he's a girl."
When have the public’s opinions ever actually been changed been changed by facts? :P
I didn't say it would necessarily change bigots' minds. However, if there is scientific proof that transgender people are born that way, it exposes the bigotry for what it is - personal disgust - rather than some righteous crusade to uphold the natural order. When nature tells you that this child really has a girl's brain, even though she looks like a boy, what "natural order" are you upholding by forcing her to be a boy? It won't stop the bigotry, but it will force it to reveal itself as hatred rather than righteousness.
Imagine a well-meaning but uninformed father who is concerned that his son keeps saying he's a girl. He thought it was a phase, just like when he was a ballerina or a fireman or a vet. But it's...
Imagine a well-meaning but uninformed father who is concerned that his son keeps saying he's a girl. He thought it was a phase, just like when he was a ballerina or a fireman or a vet. But it's been happening for years now. So he takes his son to a doctor because he wants to help.
Which response is going to be more helpful, convincing, and useful to this dad who wants to do the right thing but doesn't know what that is?
"You should believe your child when she says she's a girl. Studies have shown that children are almost always right about these things. Kids just know."
"The results of this MRI scan show that your child has a girl's brain. She's actually a girl inside".
Remember that we need this father to be convinced as strongly and quickly as possible, to reduce the stress for his child. Which one will get him across the line quicker?
At that point, what you're arguing for is basically a placebo. An mri brain scan, even if it was 99% accurate, would be as accurate as just listening to the child. At that point, give the kid a...
At that point, what you're arguing for is basically a placebo.
An mri brain scan, even if it was 99% accurate, would be as accurate as just listening to the child. At that point, give the kid a sugar pill, draw some blood, and tell the father the kid is right. You've accomplished the same thing.
People don't listen to "science", they listen to what they want to hear. I would rather spend time and money on developing better care for transpeople or raising awareness about listening to their children when they say they are trans than trying to develop a test that will never be conclusive. In general, people don't follow the advice of their doctors that seriously no matter how many scans you take.
"Placebo" might not be the word you're looking for but, yes, there is a psychological difference in saying that an MRI scan has found physical evidence of the child's gender and saying that we...
At that point, what you're arguing for is basically a placebo.
An mri brain scan, even if it was 99% accurate, would be as accurate as just listening to the child.
"Placebo" might not be the word you're looking for but, yes, there is a psychological difference in saying that an MRI scan has found physical evidence of the child's gender and saying that we should just trust the child's word. Using hard science is more likely to have an effect than telling a parent to listen to their child. That's why I've proposed this scenario - to point out that using a medical scan which detects physical evidence is much more likely to convince an uncertain parent than just telling them to rely on studies which find that the children are right in what they say.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that some sort of scan a) will be that much more convincing and b) will be affordable and reasonable for most people. People consistently ignore the hard and...
I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that some sort of scan a) will be that much more convincing and b) will be affordable and reasonable for most people.
People consistently ignore the hard and proven results of science (see anti-vax, anti-climacte change, anti-gmo sentiment). I work at a hospital and my mother works with medical professionals and the complaint I hear the most is patients refusing to listen to their doctors, even when shown proof. How do you know people will listen to an mri scan more often? What evidence leads you to believe that?
And the cost issue is somewhat separate, but no reasonable doctor would recommend an expensive brain scan that serves no diagnostic purpose. Transitioning is already expensive between puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and general mental health treatment. Adding on an additional $2,600, the average US cost of an mri, is a lot for most families.
I like the intent of giving skeptical families additional assurance, but this is not a realistic way to go about it.
Challenge accepted! Gender Dysphoria: Brain Reaction To Male Odor Shifts At Puberty Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation Transgender brains are...
The way to make the legal challenge go away would be to find a definitive physiological pattern (in the brain, I assume) that shows that people who are trans are born that way;
It really bothers me that so many of these discussions go the way of: We know that [X] is true -- it's a pity the scientific basis is so flimsy. Oh, it's not? Well, it's a pity that scientists...
It really bothers me that so many of these discussions go the way of:
We know that [X] is true -- it's a pity the scientific basis is so flimsy.
Oh, it's not? Well, it's a pity that scientists haven't communicated that [X].
You mean they have? It's a pity there's no consensus.
You mean there is?
without ever asking the question "Why wasn't I taught about this in school?"
The public viewpoint about science comes from a curriculum that's (1) slow to change (2) intentionally designed not to include "controversial" facts like those about global warming, evolution, homosexuality, and recently transexuality.
The mainstream political view is that it's OK for textbooks to take ten or twenty years to change, because this is a new topic, but all these areas have been actively researched since the 1990s or earlier. German sociologists and biologists were researching transgender people in the 1930s.
I'm hesitant of this kind of thing for two reasons. It puts people into these groups of who are and who are not 'allowed' to be trans or just not identify with their assigned at birth gender. It...
I'm hesitant of this kind of thing for two reasons.
It puts people into these groups of who are and who are not 'allowed' to be trans or just not identify with their assigned at birth gender. It may seem intuitive that there is some brain pattern that can determine whether someone will have these feelings but it could potentially isolate those who don't fit into that brain pattern.
It may lead to a feeling that those who fit this pattern are a sort of other. That there are people who are trans because their brains are telling us that, and then there are 'normal' people. I don't think this one will necessarily happen, but I definitely see it as a possibility.
Personally I think the solution should be more of a redefining of how we view gender and gender identity, but unfortunately wishing that people will be better than they are is a dream that can never be achieved. That being said, I do think that there is absolutely merit to your idea because it could certainly facilitate transitioning for those who do fit into whatever brain activity is found to correlate with being trans.
The problem is that gender identity really is complicated. I'm a little more optimistic about people being able to be better. I think the first step is having the conversation and introducing the...
The problem is that gender identity really is complicated. I'm a little more optimistic about people being able to be better. I think the first step is having the conversation and introducing the previously unknown to those who just don't know anything about it.
I say this as a person who has been learning a lot about gender identity over the last few years. Don't assume that everyone is coming from a place of close-minded bigotry. Some of us are a little afraid of the unknown and we just aren't familiar enough with what transgender people are going through.
Educate us. Dispel the myths. Turn on the lights because we're all a little afraid of the dark.
I absolutely agree that not everyone is super closed-minded about it. Heck, I was one of those edgy kids, but over time I learned to be accepting of others. But I don't want to ignore the fact...
I absolutely agree that not everyone is super closed-minded about it. Heck, I was one of those edgy kids, but over time I learned to be accepting of others. But I don't want to ignore the fact that there are many people who, when presented the facts, just outright refuse to accept them. For example, the entire reaction to the gender episode of Bill Nye's new show.
I do think time is an important factor here. With time, people can come around and we may start to see large shifts in attitudes on trans people. But we have to act fast because of a certain group that attempts to radicalize young people into the belief that trans people are dangerous, and if those people are swept up in that before they see the merits of being accepting, they may only double down and refuse to believe it and call it "cultural marxism" or something.
But, in the end I think you are right. People will come around, and those who don't will be replaced by those who are more accepting in the first place. I just worry that people I care about will be hurt.
To try and view this in a more positive light, perhaps if there is made some sort of distinction between "men who identify as women" and "women, who at one point used to be men, but are now definitely women", this could actually help to separate the actual trans women from those who are trying to take advantage of the label.
Probably not. But maybe.
I think you can already separate the two based on the fact that the former exists and the latter doesn't.
What kind of advantages to trans women have?
Just like the ‘teach the controversy’ bullshit, I’m sure there’s some POS in a think tank already drafting a bill to send out to the state houses that are happy to step on their LGBTQ community.
If a customer presents a legal ID that says "female", that should be all that's necessary for the business to meet any contractual responsibility to the public.
It's impossible to eliminate any vestige of sexuality to make everyone completely comfortable. Heck, I've ogled girls in a girls' locker room, though hopefully not in a creepy way.
Short of issuing private facilities, niquab or blinders to all of the patrons, it's inevitable that there will be sexual thoughts occurring, however overtly heterosexual and segregated by physiognomy the customers are.
At the same time, trans identity does not predispose to more creepiness than any other, and likely comes with a great deal more awareness of what constitutes appropriate sexual boundaries.
There have been, to date, no reported incidents of cis men identifying as trans, simply to walk into the women's bathrooms. Despite the fact that there have been many cis men who walk into the woman's bathrooms.
Vox article that cites scholarly sources: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11592908/transgender-bathroom-laws-rights .
Summary: men pretending to be trans to get into bathrooms has never happened. For some reason people are really transphobic about this one issue even when they're surprisingly less transphobic about other ones -- so transphobic policymaking fuckwads ramble about bathrooms instead of the 98% of human life that doesn't take place next to a toilet.
I'm not opposed to the idea that a customer would want access to a locker room that doesn't have penises in it. I'm a little sceptical that Planet Fitness "misled" or "deceived" her on the contract simply by using the word "woman", though.
I would just like to add that there has been one recorded case of a trans woman abusing someone in a bathroom. It wasn't very highly publicized, thankfully. But this kind of sentiment is missing the entire point: even if there were cases of trans women abusing people in bathrooms, we aren't a monolith. We can (and should) simultaneously oppose the actions of an individual (who happens to be part of a group) without demonizing that entire group.
Oh yeah, this was really recent (in the last year at most). I was dreading it becoming national news and the media freaking out about how the "transgenders are pedophiles". But no, thankfully.
And, yeah it definitely is important to bring up that all trans people aren't a monolith. The same way women aren't a monolith, the same way people of color aren't a monolith, the same was Muslims aren't a monolith, etc...
What, exactly, would these penises do to a customer who wasn't expecting them in her locker room? Do they attack her? Bite her? Chase her? What's the big deal about penises being present in a locker room?
Everyone's got their past traumas. Maybe it's a bad habit of mine, but I usually just let it go. I won't defend her desire for a penis-free locker room, but I can't bring myself to say she shouldn't be allowed to seek one out.
Why don't we all just walk around nude? You expect certain things in certain places. Is being squemish about private parts a "social construct"? sure. But some people are and don't want dicks or vaginas in a "private" locker room. I think the solution is to just not have "private" locker rooms.
The way to make the legal challenge go away would be to find a definitive physiological pattern (in the brain, I assume) that shows that people who are trans are born that way; That they are biologically different than people who identify their gender as their birth sex (I hope I'm getting this wording right, I'm still learning). The problem is that gender might not be binary so it may never be clear enough.
edited to make less didactic
Yeah, the dangers of using tests for transness remind me of Gattaca (the 1997 movie) where society decided to use genes to determine everything about who and what a person can be. Early tests could easily limit the understanding of gender instead of being enlightening. Also, I suspect the genetics of gender are a lot more complicated than the genes for hair color, for instance.
That said, even a limited test that showed that it's biological could really stick it to the people who think that transgender is a choice.
I can sympathise with parents of a pre-pubertal child who is declaring their trans status; they might want an objective test to identify their child's gender. It would help them make a decision that is quite overwhelming for many people: whether to start medical procedures such as puberty blockers for their child.
I get the reticence behind wanting a medical test. Society should just accept that I'm gay because I say so, without me having to be tested, and same for you. But if science can prove the existence of homosexual and transgender people, that reduces the scope for bigots to attack us.
That's nice in theory but, in practice, some parents and doctors want something a bit more scientific than just "My son says he's a girl."
I didn't say it would necessarily change bigots' minds. However, if there is scientific proof that transgender people are born that way, it exposes the bigotry for what it is - personal disgust - rather than some righteous crusade to uphold the natural order. When nature tells you that this child really has a girl's brain, even though she looks like a boy, what "natural order" are you upholding by forcing her to be a boy? It won't stop the bigotry, but it will force it to reveal itself as hatred rather than righteousness.
Imagine a well-meaning but uninformed father who is concerned that his son keeps saying he's a girl. He thought it was a phase, just like when he was a ballerina or a fireman or a vet. But it's been happening for years now. So he takes his son to a doctor because he wants to help.
Which response is going to be more helpful, convincing, and useful to this dad who wants to do the right thing but doesn't know what that is?
"You should believe your child when she says she's a girl. Studies have shown that children are almost always right about these things. Kids just know."
"The results of this MRI scan show that your child has a girl's brain. She's actually a girl inside".
Remember that we need this father to be convinced as strongly and quickly as possible, to reduce the stress for his child. Which one will get him across the line quicker?
At that point, what you're arguing for is basically a placebo.
An mri brain scan, even if it was 99% accurate, would be as accurate as just listening to the child. At that point, give the kid a sugar pill, draw some blood, and tell the father the kid is right. You've accomplished the same thing.
People don't listen to "science", they listen to what they want to hear. I would rather spend time and money on developing better care for transpeople or raising awareness about listening to their children when they say they are trans than trying to develop a test that will never be conclusive. In general, people don't follow the advice of their doctors that seriously no matter how many scans you take.
"Placebo" might not be the word you're looking for but, yes, there is a psychological difference in saying that an MRI scan has found physical evidence of the child's gender and saying that we should just trust the child's word. Using hard science is more likely to have an effect than telling a parent to listen to their child. That's why I've proposed this scenario - to point out that using a medical scan which detects physical evidence is much more likely to convince an uncertain parent than just telling them to rely on studies which find that the children are right in what they say.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that some sort of scan a) will be that much more convincing and b) will be affordable and reasonable for most people.
People consistently ignore the hard and proven results of science (see anti-vax, anti-climacte change, anti-gmo sentiment). I work at a hospital and my mother works with medical professionals and the complaint I hear the most is patients refusing to listen to their doctors, even when shown proof. How do you know people will listen to an mri scan more often? What evidence leads you to believe that?
And the cost issue is somewhat separate, but no reasonable doctor would recommend an expensive brain scan that serves no diagnostic purpose. Transitioning is already expensive between puberty blockers, hormone replacement therapy, and general mental health treatment. Adding on an additional $2,600, the average US cost of an mri, is a lot for most families.
I like the intent of giving skeptical families additional assurance, but this is not a realistic way to go about it.
Challenge accepted!
Gender Dysphoria: Brain Reaction To Male Odor Shifts At Puberty
Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation
Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age
And, the next step? :P
It really bothers me that so many of these discussions go the way of:
without ever asking the question "Why wasn't I taught about this in school?"
The public viewpoint about science comes from a curriculum that's (1) slow to change (2) intentionally designed not to include "controversial" facts like those about global warming, evolution, homosexuality, and recently transexuality.
The mainstream political view is that it's OK for textbooks to take ten or twenty years to change, because this is a new topic, but all these areas have been actively researched since the 1990s or earlier. German sociologists and biologists were researching transgender people in the 1930s.
It also depends on when one went to school. For example, most of this science about transgender people's brains happened long after I was in school!
I'm hesitant of this kind of thing for two reasons.
Personally I think the solution should be more of a redefining of how we view gender and gender identity, but unfortunately wishing that people will be better than they are is a dream that can never be achieved. That being said, I do think that there is absolutely merit to your idea because it could certainly facilitate transitioning for those who do fit into whatever brain activity is found to correlate with being trans.
The problem is that gender identity really is complicated. I'm a little more optimistic about people being able to be better. I think the first step is having the conversation and introducing the previously unknown to those who just don't know anything about it.
I say this as a person who has been learning a lot about gender identity over the last few years. Don't assume that everyone is coming from a place of close-minded bigotry. Some of us are a little afraid of the unknown and we just aren't familiar enough with what transgender people are going through.
Educate us. Dispel the myths. Turn on the lights because we're all a little afraid of the dark.
I absolutely agree that not everyone is super closed-minded about it. Heck, I was one of those edgy kids, but over time I learned to be accepting of others. But I don't want to ignore the fact that there are many people who, when presented the facts, just outright refuse to accept them. For example, the entire reaction to the gender episode of Bill Nye's new show.
I do think time is an important factor here. With time, people can come around and we may start to see large shifts in attitudes on trans people. But we have to act fast because of a certain group that attempts to radicalize young people into the belief that trans people are dangerous, and if those people are swept up in that before they see the merits of being accepting, they may only double down and refuse to believe it and call it "cultural marxism" or something.
But, in the end I think you are right. People will come around, and those who don't will be replaced by those who are more accepting in the first place. I just worry that people I care about will be hurt.