Terf me out...

[Donny osmond]

I'm genuinely not trying to pick a fight or be snide or difficult. Just to make that clear, because it isn't always in text. I acknowledge TERF is an emotionally charged label and probably wasn't the best choice of word from me. I wasn't meaning to denigrate the women you know, just noting that you seemed to be implying that these opinions were held by women as a whole ("It's not me [saying this], it's other women") and, while that might be true for the women you know, it's not true for the women I know, so there's not a united front on the matter. Hence the "not all women" quip.

I still don't get why counting trans women as women reduces the identity of cis women. The argument that they lose women-only spaces is predicated on the idea that trans women are secret men, trying to get extra things, which I've established is ridiculously unlikely because being a trans woman in this society is rubbish and no-one is going to pretend to it just to get into a women's refuge. The changing rooms and toilets angle also carries the wonderful assumption that, not only are trans women all blokes in dresses, but they're perverts, criminals, and rapists. When, in reality, they're just people who want to have a piss. Kind of ignores the fact that women are fine wih lesbians being in changing rooms, who are a lot more likely to be interested in naked female bodies than trans women (who aren't keen to be flashing their own bits around either - see the shitness of being trans in this society).

Even if we leave aside all of that, what do non-trans women actually lose by treating trans women as women? How are their rights diminished? What change is there to their lives and their fight for equality?

Puja

I dont think anyone has a problem with trans people using changing rooms, the problem is predatory men abusing the system to prey on women/girls. I'm not talking about self id either, rather there are plenty of men out there who will do whatever it takes to manufacture an opportunity to exercise some power over females. Again I'd like to stress I'm not talking about demonizing trans women here, its easy to recognize that trans people are more likely than anyone else to be abused, I'm talking about men who are sexual predators taking whatever chance they can get.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I have heard that argument before and the riposte given which is that there is currently nothing to stop a predatory man just wandering into a women's changing room anyway, in a dress or not. They're not fortresses, guarded by gender bouncers. And claiming that you're a trans woman doesn't give you a magical shield protecting you from repercussions - you can't sit there as an obvious man in a dress, staring at naked women and be immune to being thrown out or the police being called because you claim to be trans. It's not giving sexual predators any more licence than they currently have.

And, apart from that, look at it from the perspective of the trans women. If women need a safe space to change or to urinate, don't trans women need that too? Where do they go? Do they have to change in the men's where they are much more likely to meet male sexual predators or do they just not get to use the swimming pool/clothes shop/wherever with the heavily implication that it's because they're probably a sexual predator.

Aside from anything else, is no-one bothered about lesbian sexual predators anymore? That used to be a thing - that lesbians shouldn't be allowed to use public changing rooms or toilets because they would obviously forget their need to piss and try to assault all the straight women they could get their hands on. Nice to see society has moved a bit, but just onto a new target for the scare story.

Puja

Well thats quite a journey in one post, from it wouldnt make any difference to sexual predators (on which I disagree, it creates a grey space for predators to exploit) to where to trans women go (same changing rooms as non trans as I've already said) to a strawman that places gay people as sexual predators but they arent we have just moved onto a new target, which I've been very careful not to do.

Tbh I think the whole safe space thing is relatively easy to solve by using communal spaces with individual cubicles for privacy.

However your post(s) demonstrate what really confuses me about this whole area of discussion, which is that seemingly solid sensible people seem to be so easily derailed into easy assumptions and woeful strawmen, at best, and it's incredibly difficult to just actually objectively discuss the issues. I realize its always hard to be truly objective anyway but this topic seems near impossible.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

I dont think anyone has a problem with trans people using changing rooms, ....

Er, I do Donny. But only in the specific case of schools and other facilities used by children under the age of legal consent. My Mrs teaches in one of NI's more liberal and sensitive grammar schools and there are a number of pupils who are now living a trans-gender life. The school is now having to confront the issue of whose rights are now being impacted by allowing a boy, who dresses as a girl but retains his danglers, to use the girls' bogs, changing rooms and showers. Apart from the unease I have regarding a child's capacity to make any decision about their gender or sexuality, my concern is that other children who are almost certainly at another point on their own journey towards maturity might be affected to a horrendous degree by having to share their lavatories and showers with someone who, regardless of their own views, can be perceived by a child to be something else entirely.

If this means providing gender-neutral toilets, changing rooms and showers in schools and public places then so be it - or indeed make the majority of such facilities gender neutral and provide gender-specific facilities for those who feel they need them - but for feck sake don't be forcing children to have to confront their own developmental nightmares in the full glare of someone else's issue.

Fair comment Serge and apols for the generalisation. Every school I've taught in has had kids who are transitioning and its horrible watching their support teachers and psychologists try and deal with all the issues that you have alluded to, not least because literally every child psychologist I've spoken to about it says, based on their experience, transitioning is hugely unlikely to be what actually helps the individual child achieve peace within themselves. Theres a whole other discussion to be had about these kids and how to help them, I'm not really in a place to be able to have that conversation.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Puja]

I dont think anyone has a problem with trans people using changing rooms, ....

Er, I do Donny. But only in the specific case of schools and other facilities used by children under the age of legal consent. My Mrs teaches in one of NI's more liberal and sensitive grammar schools and there are a number of pupils who are now living a trans-gender life. The school is now having to confront the issue of whose rights are now being impacted by allowing a boy, who dresses as a girl but retains his danglers, to use the girls' bogs, changing rooms and showers. Apart from the unease I have regarding a child's capacity to make any decision about their gender or sexuality, my concern is that other children who are almost certainly at another point on their own journey towards maturity might be affected to a horrendous degree by having to share their lavatories and showers with someone who, regardless of their own views, can be perceived by a child to be something else entirely.

If this means providing gender-neutral toilets, changing rooms and showers in schools and public places then so be it - or indeed make the majority of such facilities gender neutral and provide gender-specific facilities for those who feel they need them - but for feck sake don't be forcing children to have to confront their own developmental nightmares in the full glare of someone else's issue.

A couple of notes:

Firstly, a trans child is almost certainly on puberty blockers*, so they will not be going through puberty until after they're deemed competent to decide which puberty that will be. So they won't have danglers that dangle - they'll be like a 5 year old down there, which I'm not sure will be overly traumatising for the female populace at large.

Secondly, while I acknowledge your right to feel uncomfortable with a communal shower, what's the big deal about toilets? If you are using a female toilets and you are looking at someone else's genitalia, you are using them incorrectly in some fashion.

Puja

[Puja]

I dont think anyone has a problem with trans people using changing rooms, the problem is predatory men abusing the system to prey on women/girls. I'm not talking about self id either, rather there are plenty of men out there who will do whatever it takes to manufacture an opportunity to exercise some power over females. Again I'd like to stress I'm not talking about demonizing trans women here, its easy to recognize that trans people are more likely than anyone else to be abused, I'm talking about men who are sexual predators taking whatever chance they can get.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

I have heard that argument before and the riposte given which is that there is currently nothing to stop a predatory man just wandering into a women's changing room anyway, in a dress or not. They're not fortresses, guarded by gender bouncers. And claiming that you're a trans woman doesn't give you a magical shield protecting you from repercussions - you can't sit there as an obvious man in a dress, staring at naked women and be immune to being thrown out or the police being called because you claim to be trans. It's not giving sexual predators any more licence than they currently have.

And, apart from that, look at it from the perspective of the trans women. If women need a safe space to change or to urinate, don't trans women need that too? Where do they go? Do they have to change in the men's where they are much more likely to meet male sexual predators or do they just not get to use the swimming pool/clothes shop/wherever with the heavily implication that it's because they're probably a sexual predator.

Aside from anything else, is no-one bothered about lesbian sexual predators anymore? That used to be a thing - that lesbians shouldn't be allowed to use public changing rooms or toilets because they would obviously forget their need to piss and try to assault all the straight women they could get their hands on. Nice to see society has moved a bit, but just onto a new target for the scare story.

Puja

Well thats quite a journey in one post, from it wouldnt make any difference to sexual predators (on which I disagree, it creates a grey space for predators to exploit) to where to trans women go (same changing rooms as non trans as I've already said) to a strawman that places gay people as sexual predators but they arent we have just moved onto a new target, which I've been very careful not to do.

Tbh I think the whole safe space thing is relatively easy to solve by using communal spaces with individual cubicles for privacy.

However your post(s) demonstrate what really confuses me about this whole area of discussion, which is that seemingly solid sensible people seem to be so easily derailed into easy assumptions and woeful strawmen, at best, and it's incredibly difficult to just actually objectively discuss the issues. I realize its always hard to be truly objective anyway but this topic seems near impossible.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

My point about "gay people as sexual predators" isn't a strawman - it was common belief as recently as the 1990s. I'm not saying you believe it, I'm saying that, "Gay people shouldn't use the same bathrooms/changing rooms as straight people;they should have individual ones," was seen as a reasonable middle-ground argument 25 years ago. It's been recycled for trans people nowadays and, while you personally might not subscribe to it, a lot of the bathroom debate is driven by people who do.

Out of interest, if you are happy with trans people using bathrooms and changing rooms and happy for them to identify as their gender and agree that they should be treated as their gender, what are the issues that require objective discussion?

Puja

[SerjeantWildgoose]

A couple of notes:

Firstly, a trans child is almost certainly on puberty blockers*, so they will not be going through puberty until after they're deemed competent to decide which puberty that will be. So they won't have danglers that dangle - they'll be like a 5 year old down there, which I'm not sure will be overly traumatising for the female populace at large.

Secondly, while I acknowledge your right to feel uncomfortable with a communal shower, what's the big deal about toilets? If you are using a female toilets and you are looking at someone else's genitalia, you are using them incorrectly in some fashion.

Puja

A couple of rebuttals:

We're not talking about the female populace at large; I was quite specific in talking about schools and other places where children might be required to disrobe. One dangler or three danglers makes hardly a shred of difference to a 13 year old girl when they are dangling between the legs of a 13 year old other.

I don't have any personal discomfort with a communal shower, but I do feel that no child should be required to shower communally with another child sporting different genitalia.

I agree that cubicles reduce the risk within communal toilets, but there is still a massive difference in how a child will feel about using those facilities. I have no problem telling an adult to get over themselves but this cannot be just about the transitioner when other youngsters are exposed.

As an aside, I ran the Army's Compulsory Drug Testing team when the Army was also seeing its first soldier go through the transition. The collecting part of the CDT requires that the donor be 'monitored' and however discretely this is done, the intent is that the monitor is able to see the piss coming out of the pissee. We tested a bloke who was still dressed as a bloke and he was standing up in the blokes' loo. We tested him/her about 1 year later when (s)he was dressed as a woman but still in possession of his 'faculties'. As (s)he was then living as a woman and close to the op (s)he was allowed to pee in the ladies' toilets but, because (s)he was still anatomically male (s)he was monitored by a male. This time there could be no coy watching over the shoulder, this was to be full-frontal monitoring and in a team of 20 we had to draw straws to see who would do it. Two years later she was tested post-op and I understand they could have held a lottery, such was the curiosity to see what the hand-carved front bottom looked like.

What always struck me as the oddest thing about the whole thing was that the individual in question was so powerfully ugly as a bloke I wondered why (s)he even bothered.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It seems to me that there are only a couple of real areas of controversy. Most people will accept anyone's right to call themselves whatever they like. Mot people accept the need to make toilet and changing room provision such as will make people feel comfortable. The controversies really are:
1. Sport. Women's sport basically will cease to exist as a thing that cis women can generally compete in unless self declaration is not sufficient to qualify.
2. Sexuality. There are women who consider themselves lesbians who do not consider transwomen suitable sexual partners. There are transwomen who give those women abuse.
3. There are transwomen who assume that they have the full experience of being female. They just don't - I posted links to 2 transwomen explaining why that is the case - and when ciswomen point out that this is the case they have a right to be heard and understood without being abused and threatened as transphobes.

[morepork]

Great thread . This issue requires input from the full spectrum of formal knowledge, from civil rights through to Darwinian level biology (thanks for that input Vitamin P). I have a colleague at work that addresses the issue of Hermaphroditism in nematodes and the take home message of this work is that sexuality is one of the most dynamic processes in evolution. This work interrogates genetic pathways that have valid human homologues and so is considered relevant. My question is that if this facet of basic biology, that drives evolution no less, is apparent across phyla, then should the narrative not be focused on accommodation? This is the very bread and butter of why science matters. From a biological perspective, this is a very real issue, and one that needs to be made a discipline unto itself. That defines a clinical spectrum that is mainstream. Is the conversation difficult? Yes. Does this conversation matter? Absolutely. Eugene (Vitamin E?), your input here regarding the issues that confront the rule of law in this conversation is a welcome perspective from someone with boots on the ground.


Take home message? Too many MBA’s in the world.

[Coco]

Eugene and Donny hit on points I can agree with... Sarg too. As a woman though, I hate being referred to as a cis woman. To me that is cramming something down my throat that I really dont identify with. I am a woman... period. If you want to refer to yourself as transwoman.. cis woman... green woman.. thats great and i respect that. But please dont expect me to change who/what I identify as to suit the ever-broadening list of identities. My own identity is not hyphenated, qualified or asterisked. Please dont force me to start identifying as such.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I am a woman... period.

Is this a statement?

A definition?

Or a warning?

[Donny osmond]

It seems to me that there are only a couple of real areas of controversy. Most people will accept anyone's right to call themselves whatever they like. Mot people accept the need to make toilet and changing room provision such as will make people feel comfortable. The controversies really are:
1. Sport. Women's sport basically will cease to exist as a thing that cis women can generally compete in unless self declaration is not sufficient to qualify.
2. Sexuality. There are women who consider themselves lesbians who do not consider transwomen suitable sexual partners. There are transwomen who give those women abuse.
3. There are transwomen who assume that they have the full experience of being female. They just don't - I posted links to 2 transwomen explaining why that is the case - and when ciswomen point out that this is the case they have a right to be heard and understood without being abused and threatened as transphobes.

1. Not the case. A trans woman on 12+ months of HRT has no significant difference with a cis woman, other than the plumbing. "Bone density" is usually what gets brought up, but it's not unusual for trans women to have far more brittle bones, which requires calcium supplements.

.

Sorry but this is just not true, anyone growing up producing male levels of testosterone has a massive advantage over someone growing up producing female levels of testosterone.

I realize this is getting into a hyper contentious area but the effect of testosterone on the body isnt really contentious and its very significant.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

I have heard that argument before and the riposte given which is that there is currently nothing to stop a predatory man just wandering into a women's changing room anyway, in a dress or not. They're not fortresses, guarded by gender bouncers. And claiming that you're a trans woman doesn't give you a magical shield protecting you from repercussions - you can't sit there as an obvious man in a dress, staring at naked women and be immune to being thrown out or the police being called because you claim to be trans. It's not giving sexual predators any more licence than they currently have.

And, apart from that, look at it from the perspective of the trans women. If women need a safe space to change or to urinate, don't trans women need that too? Where do they go? Do they have to change in the men's where they are much more likely to meet male sexual predators or do they just not get to use the swimming pool/clothes shop/wherever with the heavily implication that it's because they're probably a sexual predator.

Aside from anything else, is no-one bothered about lesbian sexual predators anymore? That used to be a thing - that lesbians shouldn't be allowed to use public changing rooms or toilets because they would obviously forget their need to piss and try to assault all the straight women they could get their hands on. Nice to see society has moved a bit, but just onto a new target for the scare story.

Puja

Well thats quite a journey in one post, from it wouldnt make any difference to sexual predators (on which I disagree, it creates a grey space for predators to exploit) to where to trans women go (same changing rooms as non trans as I've already said) to a strawman that places gay people as sexual predators but they arent we have just moved onto a new target, which I've been very careful not to do.

Tbh I think the whole safe space thing is relatively easy to solve by using communal spaces with individual cubicles for privacy.

However your post(s) demonstrate what really confuses me about this whole area of discussion, which is that seemingly solid sensible people seem to be so easily derailed into easy assumptions and woeful strawmen, at best, and it's incredibly difficult to just actually objectively discuss the issues. I realize its always hard to be truly objective anyway but this topic seems near impossible.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

My point about "gay people as sexual predators" isn't a strawman - it was common belief as recently as the 1990s. I'm not saying you believe it, I'm saying that, "Gay people shouldn't use the same bathrooms/changing rooms as straight people;they should have individual ones," was seen as a reasonable middle-ground argument 25 years ago. It's been recycled for trans people nowadays and, while you personally might not subscribe to it, a lot of the bathroom debate is driven by people who do.

Out of interest, if you are happy with trans people using bathrooms and changing rooms and happy for them to identify as their gender and agree that they should be treated as their gender, what are the issues that require objective discussion?

Puja

I called it a strawman as I felt it was a little out of the context of this particular discussion. Demonizing gay or trans people as potential predators is obviously bullshit, as far as I know the only societal group that could reasonably be viewed as such is men, which is why I brought that up.

As to what is there for objective discussion, as Coco's post alludes to and as you have talked about previously, labels. Symbolism matters to people, and my question is, if it doesnt really matter what we label ourselves as, why are trans women willing to single people out as bigots for using the wrong label? The inference I've taken from your posts is that non trans women shouldnt have a problem with trans women calling themselves simply women, but that door swings both ways and by the same logic therefore trans women (and I guess men although I havent seem this argument being had about men) surely shouldnt object to calling themselves trans women? If labels dont matter.

As Coco's post shows, labels do matter.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[SerjeantWildgoose]

It seems to me that there are only a couple of real areas of controversy. Most people will accept anyone's right to call themselves whatever they like. Mot people accept the need to make toilet and changing room provision such as will make people feel comfortable. The controversies really are:
1. Sport. Women's sport basically will cease to exist as a thing that cis women can generally compete in unless self declaration is not sufficient to qualify.
2. Sexuality. There are women who consider themselves lesbians who do not consider transwomen suitable sexual partners. There are transwomen who give those women abuse.
3. There are transwomen who assume that they have the full experience of being female. They just don't - I posted links to 2 transwomen explaining why that is the case - and when ciswomen point out that this is the case they have a right to be heard and understood without being abused and threatened as transphobes.

1. Not the case. A trans woman on 12+ months of HRT has no significant difference with a cis woman, other than the plumbing. "Bone density" is usually what gets brought up, but it's not unusual for trans women to have far more brittle bones, which requires calcium supplements.

.

Sorry but this is just not true, anyone growing up producing male levels of testosterone has a massive advantage over someone growing up producing female levels of testosterone.

I realize this is getting into a hyper contentious area but the effect of testosterone on the body isnt really contentious and its very significant.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

East German Shot Putters say "Bollocks to Testosterone!"

[Donny osmond]

Sorry but this is just not true, anyone growing up producing male levels of testosterone has a massive advantage over someone growing up producing female levels of testosterone.

I realize this is getting into a hyper contentious area but the effect of testosterone on the body isnt really contentious and its very significant.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Do you know what anti-androgens are?

They block androgens such as testosterone. Which is fine if someone has been on them since puberty started (and I am really not going to get into a debate about when is an appropriate age to start transitioning as I'm not remotely qualified to comment on either the psychology or science of that).

But what about where someone hasnt been on them since puberty started and has had years of male levels of testosterone coursing through their body? The effects of that are life long and as far as I know irreversible.

I know we're getting into Caster Semenya territory here and again I dont remotely know all the science behind intersex bodies, but simply in the context of a discussion about someone born into the wrong body and transitioning, a trans woman who hasnt had anti androgens since puberty has a significant physical advantage over non trans women.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Cas, you've rather missed the point anyway. In order to have any leveling effect of HRT, you need to enforce it and therefore have standardised testing for what a woman is for sporting purposes. Many trans campaigners object to such a thing, claiming that self identification should be the only qualification.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

One other thing. I have a son. If he tells me he feels like he's a girl I'll ask him what he means. I'll ask him what he thinks girls can do or be that he can't. I'll tell him that I had hoped that he'd grow up without reductive views on gender and that he can be a kind or gentle or caring or camp or wear whatever clothes or do or be whatever it is that he thinks being female is without being a girl.

[Puja]

Eugene and Donny hit on points I can agree with... Sarg too. As a woman though, I hate being referred to as a cis woman. To me that is cramming something down my throat that I really dont identify with. I am a woman... period. If you want to refer to yourself as transwoman.. cis woman... green woman.. thats great and i respect that. But please dont expect me to change who/what I identify as to suit the ever-broadening list of identities. My own identity is not hyphenated, qualified or asterisked. Please dont force me to start identifying as such.

A couple of notes on this - no-one requires you to identify as a cis-woman. All the prefix 'cis' means is 'not-trans' and, as such, you probably won't ever use it as you don't consider that part of your identity - and that's fine. There's no trans militia* that enforces it on you and it is completely legitimate to just be a woman. No-one wants you to change your identity.

However, it is a descriptor and it's easier than saying "non-trans", "female assigned at birth", or any of the other ways of differentiating trans people from cis people, so it'll come up if anyone ever needs to refer to you as not a trans woman. There's no insult or requirement for you to adopt it as part of your identity, it's just used in conversation if it ever comes up that you need to be described as not-trans.

Puja

*Okay, so there are some people, but there are extreme fringes everywhere.

[Puja]

One other thing. I have a son. If he tells me he feels like he's a girl I'll ask him what he means. I'll ask him what he thinks girls can do or be that he can't. I'll tell him that I had hoped that he'd grow up without reductive views on gender and that he can be a kind or gentle or caring or camp or wear whatever clothes or do or be whatever it is that he thinks being female is without being a girl.

Or, you know, you could accept that your kid might be suffering from gender dysphoria, support them through the commonly prescribed treatment (which is transitioning) and respect their preferred gender identity without making a fucking song and dance about it.

And it's worth noting that nothing for kids is permanent or lifetime. If it turns out to be just a phase, that's not an issue - they just go back to the gender they were assigned at birth, without any effect on their lives except a bit more knowledge about themselves and the comfort that their parents will always be there for them and won't ever belittle or try to logic away their feelings.

Puja

[Puja]

Cas, you've rather missed the point anyway. In order to have any leveling effect of HRT, you need to enforce it and therefore have standardised testing for what a woman is for sporting purposes. Many trans campaigners object to such a thing, claiming that self identification should be the only qualification.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that self-identification should be the only qualification - I've only ever seen that idea raised as a strawman by anti-trans sport campaigners. Do you have a source for it?

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

Is what Eugene suggested belittling, or trying to "logic away their feelings"?

I don't want to speak on his behalf, but I definitely think there's an issue that there are a million different ways that people can feel they don't "fit". Leaping to one specific course of action without fully knowing what the issue is seems unwise. There is an enormous grey area between feeling you are the wrong gender, that you don't feel you happen to fit with a societal idea of how a particular gender should present themselves, or that you sincerely feel you are in the wrong physical body.

I don't feel that what Eugene said was forbidding any consideration that the child may want to physically alter their body. Again, may well have misunderstood and don't want to speak for him, but the questions he posed seem very sensible to me as long as they are about understanding, rather than shutting down, the child's feelings.

I also think there is a paranoia that all leftie/progressive types are desperate for their kids to transition and are forcing it on their children (who could be confused/insecure for any number of reasons) but that kind of response- dismissing anything other than immediately going ahead with transitioning without questioning what the specific issues might be- doesn't seem particularly helpful either.

[Digby]

However, it is a descriptor and it's easier than saying "non-trans", "female assigned at birth", or any of the other ways of differentiating trans people from cis people, so it'll come up if anyone ever needs to refer to you as not a trans woman. There's no insult or requirement for you to adopt it as part of your identity, it's just used in conversation if it ever comes up that you need to be described as not-trans.

as ever seizing on the real issues how is this so? I've tried saying both aloud (and I realise I don't actually know how cis is pronounced but going with any seemingly obvious variant I can't make it cis woman/female easier to pronounce than non-trans, and non-trans is a lower number of letters to type, so logically it would seem non-trans is easier to say, albeit not preferred for whatever reason

[Digby]

Great thread . This issue requires input from the full spectrum of formal knowledge, from civil rights through to Darwinian level biology (thanks for that input Vitamin P). I have a colleague at work that addresses the issue of Hermaphroditism in nematodes and the take home message of this work is that sexuality is one of the most dynamic processes in evolution. This work interrogates genetic pathways that have valid human homologues and so is considered relevant. My question is that if this facet of basic biology, that drives evolution no less, is apparent across phyla, then should the narrative not be focused on accommodation? This is the very bread and butter of why science matters. From a biological perspective, this is a very real issue, and one that needs to be made a discipline unto itself. That defines a clinical spectrum that is mainstream. Is the conversation difficult? Yes. Does this conversation matter? Absolutely. Eugene (Vitamin E?), your input here regarding the issues that confront the rule of law in this conversation is a welcome perspective from someone with boots on the ground.


Take home message? Too many MBA’s in the world.

When will your so called science ensure parents have the choice not to have a trans, or intrasex child?

[Stom]

Or, you know, you could accept that your kid might be suffering from gender dysphoria, support them through the commonly prescribed treatment (which is transitioning) and respect their preferred gender identity without making a fucking song and dance about it.

And it's worth noting that nothing for kids is permanent or lifetime. If it turns out to be just a phase, that's not an issue - they just go back to the gender they were assigned at birth, without any effect on their lives except a bit more knowledge about themselves and the comfort that their parents will always be there for them and won't ever belittle or try to logic away their feelings.

Puja

Seriously, Eugene, what you're suggesting is one of the worst things you can do in such a scenario. Like, holy shit. I've got a lot of experience with LGBT kids, and what you're suggesting is the kind of thing that would make them less likely to feel comfortable and secure enough around you to be able to come out. They want support and acceptance, not to be cross-examined like it's an episode of fucking Perry Mason.

I'm pretty sure Eugene didn't want to suggest he would impinge on his child's true feelings...

But they are still a child. They still get confused by many things. And they still need you to be there as a calming presence. And showing an interest in your child does not equal interrogation. By asking questions, being attentive, and showing them calm love, you can help them through what is obviously going to be a difficult period. If they want to become a woman, they can transition when they're ready and certain. Which is rarely immediately.

You also forget the age this happens at. If the kid is 14, it's something completely different to if the kid is 8...

[Sandydragon]

As a parent, I’m used to my child changing their mind frequently.

If my child decides they are trans gender or gay then I will support them. But I won’t condone any permanent changes until they are an adult. Whilst we all mature differently, I would want to be sure they were dead set on making such a change.

If that makes me a terrible parent in the eyes of some then so be it.

[Puja]

As a parent, I’m used to my child changing their mind frequently.

If my child decides they are trans gender or gay then I will support them. But I won’t condone any permanent changes until they are an adult. Whilst we all mature differently, I would want to be sure they were dead set on making such a change.

If that makes me a terrible parent in the eyes of some then so be it.

That is pretty much exactly how it works. No permanent changes are legally allowed until they're an adult - the most invasive is puberty blockers, which just defer puberty and will allow them to go through the right one when they're old enough to make a final decision. And even then, going through puberty isn't a final decision and can be changed with hormones.

Like I said earlier, if it is just a phase, no-one is harmed and the kid gets a bit more knowledge about who they are and the knowledge that their parents will support them. You sound like a pretty decent parent from that post Sandy.

Puja

[Puja]

However, it is a descriptor and it's easier than saying "non-trans", "female assigned at birth", or any of the other ways of differentiating trans people from cis people, so it'll come up if anyone ever needs to refer to you as not a trans woman. There's no insult or requirement for you to adopt it as part of your identity, it's just used in conversation if it ever comes up that you need to be described as not-trans.

as ever seizing on the real issues how is this so? I've tried saying both aloud (and I realise I don't actually know how cis is pronounced but going with any seemingly obvious variant I can't make it cis woman/female easier to pronounce than non-trans, and non-trans is a lower number of letters to type, so logically it would seem non-trans is easier to say, albeit not preferred for whatever reason

We all love a bit of incidental pedantry! For your edification, it is pronounced with a soft c, like "sis".

Quite apart from the fact that cis is one syllable and three letters, so I'm not sure how you're getting that non-trans is easier, I think the issue is that it's more equable in language to have two opposig words, rather than X and not-X, as it inherently defines X as weird. You can go on using "not-trans" if you like - it literally makes no difference to anyone as that's just the definition of cis, so you're saying exactly the same thing.

Puja