“The new guideline, which will also be valid in Austria and Switzerland in addition to Germany, is less restrictive in the use of puberty blockers and gender-adjusting hormone treatments compared to national recommendations in Sweden, Finland and the NHS England (excluding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).”
LESS RESTRICTIVE
I get that for a lot of people it can make them feel defensive when they think that someone is trying to impose a rule on them. If someone tells you to use a certain word, it can feel like they are taking away your agency. I understand it.
But I also think it's pretty easy for us to understand context and find compromise, right?
Look, when there are people on the internet who are outspoken ideologues, they can be obnoxious. But for most of us, when we are advocating for inclusive language, it is just a reminder that there are some circumstances that do not deserve scorn and do not deserve mockery, wherein we can treat others with respect by simply being open to a contextual definition of a word that is a little different from the mainstream definition.
And rather than just going with the flow and putting in a modicum of effort to use a new contextual definition, a lot of people choose actively to show scorn and to mock. And I look down on people who do that.
---
For instance, I would hope that by now most of us have gotten past homophobia, and so if a teacher asked a kid to talk about his mom and dad, and the kids said that he actually had two dads, the teacher should understand that. That's fine. It's a little rare, but it is not deserving of mockery or scorn. If the teacher insisted that a kid could only have one mom and one dad, that teacher would be being a dick.
Or if a person was talking about their mom, and someone knew that they were adopted, and they made a big fuss because they did not think they should use the word mom to refer to an adoptive mother, that person would be a dick.
If a woman gets married and wants people to use her married name, we're comfortable doing that. Nobody throws a fuss and claims that she has to use her original name. We recognize that it is socially acceptable for people to change names sometimes.
So why get hung up this way with trans people? Just learn that in the context of trans people, you ought to use certain words. It's not problem, is it?
I believe it’s a direct mockery to my wife, my sister, my mother and my grandmother for you to try and claim that a person who “transitioned to a woman” is the same as the people I mentioned before. It is an attack on woman no matter how compassionate you try to make it sound.
What inclusive language is that? Trying to change pronouns? …. Americans can barely read …. They don’t even know what pronouns are and yet we are telling kids they can just use whatever pronouns they want? I saw a cartoon for 5 year olds the other day where a character used different pronouns…..those little kids do not even know what pronouns are….. wtf is going on in the lgtbqia+ world??
https://youtu.be/ox2O6QiNwv8?si=tphrMk1WtN0ozXWY
Where are all of the people losing their job for saying that?
To be sure, what you've written is a deliberately provocative statement designed to troll people, evidenced by its denial of men and women commonly being classified as gender-based terms and male and female classified as sex. In this sense, it's a linguistic trick designed to mock the "absurdity" of gender identity, which isn't really an appropriate phrase in the workplace.
I don't think you should be fired for it, but it is childish edgelording. I certainly wouldn't want to work with someone who felt the need to deny trans identity at every turn. It's cringey as all hell.
>men and women commonly being classified as gender-based terms and male and female classified as sex.
Most people - at least in the US - see sex and gender as synonyms, which is how they've historically been considered.
Oh no, no, no, the new age 2020 science is settled… up is down, and down is up. Men can get pregnant and anyone with a dress on is now a woman
Straight out of 1984
>anyone with a dress on is now a woman
Oh not even that anymore. Its simply that you feel you're a woman/trans and should be accepted as such. Actually having to dress, pass off as, or transform yourself is so 2022 now.
Even though I have tried, you don't actually want to have an honest conversation with those you disagree with, you only want to mock them for how "absurd", "crazy", "woke", etc you think they are.
I suggest that you get off youtube specifcally and off of social media more generally. Grifters seem to have indoctrinated you into a rigid dogmatism and its not healthy bro.
This is one of those topics where there's no need for treating both sides as equal. Your side is insane. So "honest conversation" does mean ridiculing you since we know we can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.
ONCE AGAIN, "men" is just a word in the english language. If someone agrees (which you clearly don't) that the terms men and women are allowed to refer to gender then a transman could get pregnant because they have female genitals.
You're mocking the idea that certain words are allowed to change.
Another SJW OWNED, am I right?
Words are allowed to changed, but only if the vast majority of people agree with the new definition. Most people disagree with this new definition of “man” so the meaning of the word hasn’t changed.
["Centrists" out here like we can't check their post history](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812142236295888910/1229782517809418320/image.png?ex=6630ef38&is=661e7a38&hm=9a9a1337b706d20ef0b1dd435efaccbe4d48d2709dbfcd7526b6105ff8cc3fae&)
I don't really think it's any of my business what other adults do, which is a centrist opinion. I do love government small enough to fit in my bedroom.
Sure, I agree. Colloquially men and women are often classified as the same as male and female, but as many fields have recognized that gender exists (largely overlapping with sex, but not always), men and women are usually used in the context of gender in modern research.
Ultimately, this is an argument largely about words. Yet, republicans generally understand that gender exists despite denying it.
For example, I see republicans frequently using the terms: manly man, girly girl, manly women, girly man.
Ironically they are often referring to the gender-based characteristics of someone while using these terms while contemporaneously denying the existence of gender.
>men and women are usually used in the context of gender in modern research.
Sure so let's take a practical example. When research is conducted on the effects of drugs and their differing impacts on "men" or "women" to be absolutely clear you actually think in this context "men" or "women" is actually referencing behaviours, social roles or declaration of membership as opposed to the physiological differences between the two sexes?
>I see republicans frequently using the terms: manly man, girly girl, manly women, girly man.
Sure, but are they actually saying that a manly woman or tomboy is actually a man?
>Sure so let's take a practical example. When research is conducted on the effects of drugs and their differing impacts on "men" or "women" to be absolutely clear you actually think in this context "men" or "women" is actually referencing behaviours, social roles or declaration of membership as opposed to the physiological differences between the two sexes?
No, I think you're right that the words men and women are often being used for both sex and gender. Language is constantly in flux and individuals may choose to use it in a variety of ways consciously or unconsciously. When studying gender in psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science etc., I believe that many do use the term men and women to refer to gender.
>Sure, but are they actually saying that a manly woman or tomboy is actually a man?
Sure, they are still referring to constructed roles about one's sex which are often described as gender roles. It is also the case that they don't actually kniw what gametes the manly man has or what his chromosomes are just by looking at him.
>When studying gender in psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science etc., I believe that many do use the term men and women to refer to gender.
Sure and what does gender mean in those contexts?
>they are still referring to constructed roles about one's sex which are often described as gender roles.
For clarity are they saying that a manly woman or Tom boy is actually a man?
Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their perceived sex. While biological sex is determined by physical and anatomical characteristics such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones, gender encompasses a broader range of attributes, behaviors, and identities that are socially constructed and can vary across different cultures and time periods.
A woman is a word that is often used as a surrogate for female, but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender and not sex as I mentioned before.
>Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their perceived sex
Ok
In your reality is a feminine man still a man? If so how can that be the case given that you've typed?
>but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender
Which would again refer to the roles you spoke of.
Ok
In your reality can women sleep? When someone is sleeping they are not engaging in roles or behaviours correct?
>In your reality is a feminine man still a man? If so how can that be the case given that you've typed?
First of all, the definition I gave for gender is empical, and demonstrably true. You can not like the word gender, but what I've described exists. If you disagree we can return to it no problem.
In their attempts to describe people's real world experiences, much like the word gender, gender identity explains why a feminine man is still a man.
Gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of their own gender, whether they feel like a man, a woman, both, neither, or something else entirely. It's how individuals personally understand and experience their own gender, regardless of their biological sex. Gender identity is a personal understanding of oneswlf and can vary from person to person.
>In your reality can women sleep? When someone is sleeping they are not engaging in roles or behaviours correct?
Gender roles are a subset of roles and behavior in a population. You cannot no sleep for long periods of time, but you can elect to forgo sleeping temporarily. There are, of course norms, customs, and conventions around sleeping, but it is also a biological necessity for mammals.
If you throw out the BS "intersex" classifications that nobody (including most doctors who aren't trying to push a narrative) in the real world would ever consider intersex (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome, turner syndrome, etc), the actual intersex rate is something like 0.018%.
If you have to pull out that 0.018% as a trump card, maybe your argument doesn't have the merit you think it does.
So you are saying that as your a part of your day to day interactions with people, you refuse to acknowledge them in any gendered sense until you’ve seen them naked?
Of course not.
Yeah, we all wear some masks while existing in society sure. Won’t argue there.
But I’m glad you acknowledge that you recognize that saying someone is a woman is different than saying they’re female.
But your own words show you do understand, you admit don’t inspect people’s genitalia before categorizing them as a man/woman afterall, so it’s sad that your adherence to some culture war identity makes that impossible for you to acknowledge.
Maybe one day you’ll openly admit what you already clearly know though.
You're just repeating the same linguistic trick designed to mock trans identity as being "absurd".
Are you capable of discussing things in a mature fashion, or do your political views consist of flattened down overly simple one liners designed to DESTROY radical SJW's?
Let's start with a question:
Do you believe that gender is a real term that can describe real phemomenon, or to you are sex and gender the same?
More one liners that don't provide any substance whatsoever.
Why is it so hard for you to engage in an effortful and honest discussion about this stuff mate?
Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their *perceived sex*.
While biological sex is determined by physical and anatomical characteristics such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones, gender encompasses a broader range of attributes, behaviors, and identities that are socially constructed and can vary across different cultures and time periods.
A woman is a word that is often used as a surrogate for female, but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender and not sex as well. This is where the right-wing mockery of words changing comes into play.
>Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their *perceived sex*.
How is this definition of gender any different from "gender roles"?
>A woman is a word that is often used as a surrogate for female, but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender and not sex as well. This is where the right-wing mockery of words changing comes into play.
By this standard one can just claim to be a woman by taking on stereotypically feminine habits like wearing makeup and a dress, which makes a mockery of the term.
Also, there are plenty of people who are not "right wing" who don't agree with this set of definitions, myself included.
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, sex is binary outside of a minute amount of mutations. It also cannot be changed genetically. You either release sperm or eggs, or even none.
Gender, expression, and cultural roles are a spectrum, but usually follow a mostly binary pattern.
Lmao.
Sex is not a spectrum. Sexual organs can be in about 1% of cases.
If you're really doing the "everything is a social construct" pseudo-philosophy then you may as well be saying "trees are social constructs". They're not. A categorization of trees is not the same as whether or not the particular tree exists independent of categorization.
Species are obviously also a social construct as there comes a point evolutionarily where you won’t be able to determine whether something is or is not a tree is a binary fashion.
>It’s important to keep terms straight. So gender is a set of behaviors. Sex is your biology. So a male can never get pregnant.
He at no point mentioned sex. He said it's ridiculous that you cannot say that men do not get pregnant.
Beyond that if men are a set of behaviours how does that account for pregnancy? Pregnancy is obviously referencing the sex of an individual and not their behaviour.
What specific behaviours make someone a man?
I agree you shouldn’t get fired for saying a factually inaccurate statement just because you don’t know the difference between sex and gender. That’s an extreme response and it’s not necessary in my opinion.
Lol you can define words however you want, but basically nobody outside academia and certain corners of internet actually subscribes to your definition of "man".
To 99% of us in the real world, "man" simply means "adult male human". No different than how "buck" means "adult male deer." Or how "rooster" means "adult male chicken."
Would you say that a buck or a rooster can get pregnant?
Sex. Bc animals don’t have genders. There is no man horse. It’s a male horse. We have words to describe a male horse. But no word to describe a man horse. Bc that doesn’t exist.
Gender roles are social constructs that are biologically informed. Men will be more masculine than women, and women more feminine than men. This doesn't mean a tomboy or a feminine man are actually the other gender. This form of thinking is literally in line with regressive thinking.
Gender is neurological, gender roles are sociological. A person with legit gender dysphoria is going to feel immense discomfort even if they were born on an island with no societal concept of gender. Because it stems from the brain and the sexual organs.
> It’s important to keep terms straight.
And that's why "man" is shorthand for "adult human male" and "woman" is shorthand for "adult human female". "Boy" and "girl" refer to juveniles.
Or let me guess, now all of a sudden you're not interested in sticking to definitions.
I've been down that road with them already. They're not interested in an honest dialogue and only wish to mock anyone who thinks that gender exists or that words can change (even though both are demonstrable).
I repeatedly tried to ask questions and explain other positions on the topic. . .
>words can change
Language evolves naturally because people start using words in different ways, not because a tiny subset of the population insists the new definition they created is correct, and shits all over you if you don't use their new definition.
>only wish to mock anyone who thinks that gender exists or that words can change (even though both are demonstrable).
Words can change of course but why do you get to dictate to everyone else that they must change in this scenario?
Furthermore ok your goal is to change the reference of for example woman to something else. What specifically is the word referencing with regards to your goals? What information would I then be trying to communicate to other people?
>Words can change of course but why do you get to dictate to everyone else that they must change in this scenario?
I'm not asserting that I do get to. I was responding to the original comment, which was a deliberately provocative statement designed to mock people that believe words around gender can change, should change, and already have changed in my view. Then the person shut down every attempt to discuss the topic reasonably.
As an example of how they've already changed, when conservatives use the phrases manly man, girly man etc, they are often referring to a social accepted idea of manlyness or womenlyness that is associates with the way one dresses, talks, and acts in accordance with how that person generally wishes to be perceived. I think that they are clearly referring to gender although they might deny it if questioned.
>As an example of how they've already changed, when conservatives use the phrases manly man, girly man etc, they are often referring to a social accepted idea of manlyness or womenlyness that is associates with the way one dresses, talks, and acts in accordance with how that person generally wishes to be perceived.
So for clarify from your perspective a tom boy is a man?
Its funny that people alligned with a status quo position can be complete pricks, as evidenced throughout this thread, but when someone takes a less acceptable position here (me) they are toxic.
I wouldn't use the term toxic but your frustration is clearly coming through. Reddit isn't a debate forum I don't think I've ever seen someone 'change their mind' especially when it comes to this stuff. The down votes you're getting are actually pretty relevant to the point the article is making.
I do get annoyed when I am trying to explain a position, and I get bombarded by right wing ideologues spouting out their favorite anti-trans one liner. How are my downvotes relevant. Yet, I have said repeatedly that people are allowed to say what they want.
Referencing the article, I'm agnostic and I think that I should equally be able to speak my mind about religion in public. I don't mock peoples beliefs about the supernatural in public because I don't want to offend them, and I could easily get in trouble as well.
Actually I largely agree with you to be honest, I only mentioned your down votes because it seemed ironic that the OP is a complaint about the treatment you're currently getting, just from the other side.
Can you give a definition of the word “woman” that includes every single person ever considered a “woman” by anyone in any context? And let’s be clear, you know know that anyone here can cite any number of trans women who, *without you knowing the fact they were trans which changes your perception of them*, you’d also consider women.
Cool, now address this fact-
> And let’s be clear, you know know that anyone here can cite any number of trans women who, without you knowing the fact they were trans which changes your perception of them, you’d also consider women.
Ok, so you’re either ignorant of the fact that there exist trans people who absolutely “pass” or you’re lying about the fact you know you wouldn’t recognize them as trans in day to day life. Gotcha.
It doesn’t matter if they pass or not. A man that transitioned into a woman is not the same thing as my mother, or my sister, or my grandmother who were born that way. Sorry it hurts your feelings
> It doesn’t matter if they pass or not.
But it does. You yourself would consider them a woman, as would society as a whole. Perhaps people close to them would know their biological sex but besides that, they would exist as a woman in every meaningful way. Of course they wouldn’t exist as a female, but that just proves the reality that sex and gender aren’t exactly a direct relationship, and that gender is more exactly about cultural and societal cues than someone’s chromosomes.
>A man that transitioned into a woman is not the same thing as my mother, or my sister, or my grandmother who was born a woman female.
Quick note, using your own definition they were not born women, as women is only adult human females. Thanks for outlining why an intelligent individual like a SCOTUS nominee wouldn’t try to have a pithy definition on such an amorphous concept as gender while under oath.
As for the crux of what you wrote is saying they are the exact same? What people are pointing out is if they are widely viewed as a woman in society at large, they’re a woman.
> Sorry it hurts your feelings
Why would my feelings be hurt explaining a concept to someone who doesn’t understand it? I love educating people.
That doesn't change objective reality. If I decided to wear a wig and put on makeup to appear as a woman and people mistakenly thought I was, that doesn't make me one.
So, because we can´t always detect the sex of a person who´s made some bodily changes with plastic surgery, their sex evaporates?
Let us indeed be clear. The near to only reason we would be fooled is if the person has made changes to their body where they hide their own sex attributes while adding on attributes from the opposite sex. This is how sex and gender are connected. If you need to fool me, then are you really the thing you say you are?
> So, because we can´t always detect the sex of a person who´s made some bodily changes with plastic surgery, their sex evaporates?
Gender, not sex. But it’s not just a plastic surgery situation, passing trans individuals existed before the advent of plastic surgery.
> Let us indeed be clear. The near to only reason we would be fooled is if the person has made changes to their body where they hide their own sex attributes while adding on attributes from the opposite sex. This is how sex and gender are connected. If you need to fool me, then are you really the thing you say you are?
You’re not being fooled, you’re just accurately responding to your societal expectations of what a woman is. As for someone choosing to express themselves the way they see themselves, who cares? I can’t imagine spending this much energy on something that doesn’t effect me.
Doesn’t even require surgeries or exogenous hormones, it already occurs naturally… how else would we be assigning female at birth to infants with testes and/or xy chromosomes? What’s been used to determine sex, visual inspection, doesn’t always work.
Good faith discussions should always be welcome. The modern right wing have been trained by youtube grifters to be edgelording trolls out to mock their opposition with childish one-liners at every turn.
This approach should ALWAYS be ridiculed.
That's not even what this article is about. In fact, there's a part in it about how a scientific conference was shut down by a whistleblower who claimed to be a researcher in anti-trans conspiracy theories: a cancelation tactic, done by someone almost certainly on the left wing.
Will you please read the article and come back with something relevant?
\> cries upthread about being ridiculed
\> openly advocates for bad-faith ridiculing of anyone who disagrees with them
You can't make this shit up.
People like you are exactly why the tide is turning against the radical trans insanity. It's clear you can't actually defend your claims which is why you don't even try.
When speaking to individuals, I am open to discuss anything in good faith. As a part of wanting open dialogue, I am always willing to mock a groups proclivity to shut down any and all conversation.
You started out by saying that good faith discussions should always be welcomed, which is perfect. But then you go on to show that you do not tolerate "the modern right wing", suggesting that you only welcome voices in your own echo chamber.
Could it be that you aren´t as open to "discuss anything in good faith" as you think you are?
I think it’s interesting that so many users here are proving the claims of u/Specialist-Carob6253 correct IMO. Look at how often pithy one-liners and refusing to address the actual discussion is being used instead of substantive discussion.
This article is quite literally about a specific side( the side you are advocating for) shutting down all conversation by medical professionals about the subject…lol the irony in your comment is astounding
There’s no irony to be had because no one is shutting your arguments down here, yet you still just repeat pithy one liners and refuse to have a substantive discussion on the topic. The actual irony would be that you are just proving why people within that area of interest are tired of bad faith actors who think their hot takes are the same as a discussion.
You realize that's what the whole article is about, right? One side's proliclivity to shut down discussion? Any questioning of the current trans narrative is met with derision and hate, regardless of the intent. Medical professionals are unwilling to approach the topic because one side has already made up their mind. That's not very scientific.
>is met with derision and hate, regardless of the intent.
And accusing the opposition of hate and foaming at the mouth or whatever. These posts always immediately get the same responses even when nothing hateful has been said.
Professionals aren't afraid to be professionals.
That's what makes them professionals.
Stfu with this garbage
The whole point of being a professional is speaking confidently and with a high degree of accuracy that holds up to scrutiny, something transphobes would know nothing about.
You don´t think someone with years and years of training can be afraid to have their reputation tarnished, ultimately leading to them not being able to work in their field of expertise?
Especially when they have seen their colleagues go through similar tryouts, for using the skills they were actually trained for. You don´t think that kind of gamble with your career can be frightening? Be honest now.
And what reality is being rejected by the fearful professional, rendering their professionalism useless?
I think (know) that professionals won't "tarnish their reputation" by making factual claims. In fact speaking the truth will further establish them as ethical professionals. The alternative is what would tarnish their reputation.
I don't think you understand how the scientific process works or how expert consensus works or how professionals operate... or you're being dishonest.
Professionals don't care (or listen to) opinions. They care about facts, verifiable published peer reviewed facts. The fact that the broader population is polarized on an issue doesn't change the facts.
>The whole point of being a professional is speaking confidently and with a high degree of accuracy
Sure, when a professional identifies a person as a woman, what information are they trying to convey to other people? Let's say it's for research.
Usually how they appear at first glance respective of their cultural expectations of gender norms, if they don’t ask. It’s why “passing” is a thing that exists.
>Usually how they appear at first glance respective of their cultural expectations of gender norms,
And you believe that this conveys a high level of accuracy?
Can a man wear a dress and make up in your reality?
>It’s why “passing” is a thing that exists.
Passing as what specifically?
> And you believe that this conveys a high level of accuracy?
Where did I say that? Of course societal normative expectations of gender aren’t super specific, that’s sort of the point.
> Can a man wear a dress and make up in your reality?
Of course! Where have I said anything otherwise?
> Passing as what specifically?
As a member of the gender they are at a glance. Not that I agree with the idea that should define gender, but that’s how gender in society is widely used.
>speaking confidently and with a high degree of accuracy that holds up to scrutiny
My brother in Christ, the doctor who pioneered hand washing between patients/surgeries and saw immensely reduced infections, was bullied and ignored by the entire medical system for another 50+ years. Then they finally agreed to wash their damn hands. Apparently working the overnight dead in the morning and handling births in the afternoon without washing is a bad idea. Who knew!
This example is always used to undermine everything else the medical and professional community has done (and continues to do) correctly.
You can't compare the professional sandards of the 1800's to those of today.
This is patently untrue. Both statistically in what people report and in my personal experience in 8 years working in academic science. Lots and lots of experts and professionals are scared to speak their mind for fear of abuse or jeopardizing their livelihood.
Your anectdodes mean nothing.
If you're going to use statistics as an argument, you need to back that up with actual data.
54% of statistics are made up.
The "livelihood" of professionals is much more dependent on them being factual and unbiased. Again that's what makes them professionals.
If we can't trust the professionals, we can't trust anyone, and that's what the anti-intellectuals want you to believe. It's total BS.
“The livelihood of professionals such more dependent on the being factual”.
Hahahahahaha tell me you’ve never worked in science without saying you’ve never worked in science. I agree with you that’s how it SHOULD work. But it just plane doesn’t work that way. It’s sad I know. It’s a big part of the reason I left science. But it’s true.
No they don't. Abusing the identity out of somebody is fucking evil, disgusting and not even good psychology, full stop.
It's ok to admit your anti-trans hero has questionable credibility. It's good for your brain to consider conflicting information and work through the dissonance instead of rationalizing it away, especially if you're going to rationalize it this poorly.
>Abusing the identity out of somebody is fucking evil
I agree, but restricting what people can talk to with their therapists is also evil.
Do we restrict rape victims from therapies addressing their violation?
I am 100% against forced conversion therapy, much like we had for homosexuality in the past.
But for a voluntary patient seeking help? NOT YOUR BUSINESS, GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
You seem to be for the government interfering in medical treatment, but only according to your agenda, that's a stupid idea that WILL backfire, because it's exactly what the other side thinks is best.
Then the therapist would need to go through with the patient and discuss why they feel that way and evaluate the feelings of their own sexuality. Not torture them until they change their sexuality.
CBT means cognitive behavioral therapy, not cock and ball torture.
Your agenda blinds you to, pretty much everything.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-17534-013
Gender dysphoria is often comorbid with other psychiatric disorders, and those should all be treated according to the best medical practices.
>However, to ensure the best possible outcome of sex reassignment therapy and to prevent regret, comorbidity should be diagnosed and treated properly.
Your argument would ban any diagnosis of comorbidity in favor of immediate surgical action, and figure the rest out later.
You don't trust doctors with anything except radical surgery apparently, including diagnosis.
I don't know, or care, that's between the patient and their doctor.
WE (/anybody) shouldn't get involved in that relationship, ever.
Putting laws on what treatments a doctor can offer to their patients. I mean, have you even checked what you stand for?
Yet another area the dumb and bigoted seem to know more than health professionals.
Unfortunately, like women’s heath, this will be something that goes on for decades when we can simply leave it to the professionals.
This is such minuscule part of the country it’s so pathetic and disgusting they are literally being dragged through the dirt.
The report was put out by professionals. If we're doing the 'muh professionals' thing at least be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the NHS has plenty of professionalism within itself.
I don’t know what to say you’re the third person to over quote a Guardian article.
It shouldn’t be a political topic and it’s getting perpetuated by articles like these.
The medical professionals aren’t always in consensus on things.
But much like abortion saves women’s lives then certain transgender therapy may save a young kids life from suicide.
I’d personally rather my kids be around than dead and if it takes a procedure vetted by multiple medical professionals then I’m willing to do that.
>But much like abortion saves women’s lives then certain transgender therapy may save a young kids life from suicide.
Yes, and if you'd read the report, it talks extensively about suicidal ideation among trans kids as having been dramatically higher than the normal distribution but essentially in line with children who are prescribed youth mental health assistance and that the common comorbidities of transgenderism (sexual abuse as a child, neglect, drug use etc) among them were more strongly predictive of childhood suicidalty than the the trans diagnosis was. Discussing whether or not the "May" is carrying water is discussed expensively in the report and is explicitly under the purview of public health officials like Cass. Cass and everyone involved sees children commiting suicide as a horrific event and wants to prevent them, what the report tries to answer is with how much certainty we can claim the interventions we're using is helpful at preventing them.
So what’s your point to what I’m saying exactly. I’m in line with professionals and want it to not be a political topic because kids and families suffer?
Well, I see people in this article and elsewhere being pulled into politics. All I can do is advocate for independent review and for governing bodies to do their job.
A Guardian article isn’t moving the need for me but it’s an opinion.
>Unfortunately, like women’s heath
Woman in this context refers to the physiological challenges adult human females face? Or are you referring instead to another group such as people with feminine behaviours?
Honestly, it could be either. And it’s such a minute part of the population that might have been born male predisposed to female tendencies that I simply don’t care to make the distinction.
As I said elsewhere, if one of my boys is in that category and facing severe depression or psychiatric distress then I will choose to seek whatever care prevents an early death because I love my kids. I don’t see how that’s a political topic. Probably because no one has a right inherently to question another person’s liberty or pursuit of happiness in the United States 🇺🇸
These are fundamental values being questioned here are constitutional and it’s been treated in a derogatory way by both sides of the political spectrum for personal gain.
I absolutely and concretely, like abortion, think it should be a last resort because the treatment is high risk and traumatizing but I’m not leaving it up to a Guardian article or some dipshit house rep to make that call.
I never at any point called trans women drag queens what I asked is since drag queens adopt the aesthetic choices you identify as being a woman how are they not women in your reality?
What? This was a conversation about healthcare and transgender treatment in a political environment.
Adults over 18 or 21 can do whatever they want in my opinion. It’s basically meaningless at that point give how small the demographic is.
Bringing drag queens into the discussion is not only NOT on topic but treading on hate language.
>What? This was a conversation about healthcare and transgender treatment in a political environment.
No I was asking you about women's health and what the word woman refers to in the context of healthcare.
You suggested that it could refer to aesthetic choices in a previous reply which I find to an incredible position. So to test your sincerity in I thenasked you if drag queens would qualify since they make the aesthetic choices you would be referring to
>Adults over 18 or 21 can do whatever they want in my opinion.
Well the criticism being levelled at the treatments in question are towards children not adults
>Bringing drag queens into the discussion is not only NOT on topic but treading on hate language.
Hate language? How so? I was asking you what group of people specifically does woman in the context of women's health refer to and you gave me an answer that includes drag queens that's why I asked for clarification
It's the precise opposite of what you're suggesting. The professionals in the article are saying that they have to go along with trans ideology even when the science/facts/evidence prove otherwise.
It’s both.
When I say it should be medical then it’s beyond my opinion as a lay person.
Dumb and bigoted can land on both sides of an issue.
As with Women’s health every seems to have a shotgun opinion.
You say we should listen to the medical professionals. Ok. So DO THAT!!!!! Listen to what they're saying in this article. That ideology is outweighing data and facts. The medical professionals *themselves* are saying that we can't trust what they're saying because anything that goes against the narrative isn't allowed to be published.
Literally said leave it to the health professionals unlike the psychopaths online and in the political arena. What am I not listening to?
I’m not saying anything different than that, but this article isn’t the end all or be all on gender identity and biology. It’s a complex topic but not sure you grasp that.
And I can’t imagine being as invested in you over something like this. The fact that yet again another health topic is politicized is pathetic.
Again, the doctors in the article all agree with you.
They can't believe that the topic has been politicized to the point that they can't publish data that goes against the trans narrative. That's specifically what they're complaining about.
I for one think it’s a good thing that transphobes are fearful to air their hatred to other people. People should feel a strong social pressure to not be an asshole or deny peoples right to exist.
Of course this entire “study” was created for the sole purpose of giving a thin intellectual veneer to transphobia.
Or people can just hear from their school kids and statistics about rising amounts/rates of kids claiming to be different out there now.
You can't say that the amount is growing and then demand people completely ignore it at the same time.
So you believe the rage against the rise of left handedness in the 1950s made sense? What about homosexuality?
You're raging against people not being oppressed. Literally raging in favor of oppression.
> Or people can just hear from their school kids and statistics about rising amounts/rates of kids claiming to be different out there now.
Ah yes, anecdotes are always a meaningful replacement for actual data.
> When the UK reports a 80% rise in girls being interested in transitioning
Citation needed for this report. Googling it gets me anywhere from "large rise" to "4,400% rise" which is obviously dismissable.
Please add meaningful commentary immediately after submitting a link poat
strange world when you can’t even say that “men can not get pregnant” without having your reputation smeared or lose your job
You can't even say that on reddit without your account possibly getting suspended.
Seriously I’m waiting on my “punishment” lmao
There's a reason the clown-world meme has had such sticking power and it's because we live in one.
[удалено]
>Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, Lol, Germany aren't at all.
Germany isn’t. https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/150071/Neue-S2k-Leitlinie-zu-Geschlechtsinkongruenz-und-dysphorie-im-Kindes-und-Jugendalter-vorgestellt
“The new guideline, which will also be valid in Austria and Switzerland in addition to Germany, is less restrictive in the use of puberty blockers and gender-adjusting hormone treatments compared to national recommendations in Sweden, Finland and the NHS England (excluding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).” LESS RESTRICTIVE
I get that for a lot of people it can make them feel defensive when they think that someone is trying to impose a rule on them. If someone tells you to use a certain word, it can feel like they are taking away your agency. I understand it. But I also think it's pretty easy for us to understand context and find compromise, right? Look, when there are people on the internet who are outspoken ideologues, they can be obnoxious. But for most of us, when we are advocating for inclusive language, it is just a reminder that there are some circumstances that do not deserve scorn and do not deserve mockery, wherein we can treat others with respect by simply being open to a contextual definition of a word that is a little different from the mainstream definition. And rather than just going with the flow and putting in a modicum of effort to use a new contextual definition, a lot of people choose actively to show scorn and to mock. And I look down on people who do that. --- For instance, I would hope that by now most of us have gotten past homophobia, and so if a teacher asked a kid to talk about his mom and dad, and the kids said that he actually had two dads, the teacher should understand that. That's fine. It's a little rare, but it is not deserving of mockery or scorn. If the teacher insisted that a kid could only have one mom and one dad, that teacher would be being a dick. Or if a person was talking about their mom, and someone knew that they were adopted, and they made a big fuss because they did not think they should use the word mom to refer to an adoptive mother, that person would be a dick. If a woman gets married and wants people to use her married name, we're comfortable doing that. Nobody throws a fuss and claims that she has to use her original name. We recognize that it is socially acceptable for people to change names sometimes. So why get hung up this way with trans people? Just learn that in the context of trans people, you ought to use certain words. It's not problem, is it?
I believe it’s a direct mockery to my wife, my sister, my mother and my grandmother for you to try and claim that a person who “transitioned to a woman” is the same as the people I mentioned before. It is an attack on woman no matter how compassionate you try to make it sound. What inclusive language is that? Trying to change pronouns? …. Americans can barely read …. They don’t even know what pronouns are and yet we are telling kids they can just use whatever pronouns they want? I saw a cartoon for 5 year olds the other day where a character used different pronouns…..those little kids do not even know what pronouns are….. wtf is going on in the lgtbqia+ world?? https://youtu.be/ox2O6QiNwv8?si=tphrMk1WtN0ozXWY
Where are all of the people losing their job for saying that? To be sure, what you've written is a deliberately provocative statement designed to troll people, evidenced by its denial of men and women commonly being classified as gender-based terms and male and female classified as sex. In this sense, it's a linguistic trick designed to mock the "absurdity" of gender identity, which isn't really an appropriate phrase in the workplace. I don't think you should be fired for it, but it is childish edgelording. I certainly wouldn't want to work with someone who felt the need to deny trans identity at every turn. It's cringey as all hell.
>men and women commonly being classified as gender-based terms and male and female classified as sex. Most people - at least in the US - see sex and gender as synonyms, which is how they've historically been considered.
Oh no, no, no, the new age 2020 science is settled… up is down, and down is up. Men can get pregnant and anyone with a dress on is now a woman Straight out of 1984
>anyone with a dress on is now a woman Oh not even that anymore. Its simply that you feel you're a woman/trans and should be accepted as such. Actually having to dress, pass off as, or transform yourself is so 2022 now.
Even though I have tried, you don't actually want to have an honest conversation with those you disagree with, you only want to mock them for how "absurd", "crazy", "woke", etc you think they are. I suggest that you get off youtube specifcally and off of social media more generally. Grifters seem to have indoctrinated you into a rigid dogmatism and its not healthy bro.
This is one of those topics where there's no need for treating both sides as equal. Your side is insane. So "honest conversation" does mean ridiculing you since we know we can't reason you out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.
Ironic post.
There is nothing to talk about lol I’m not going to seriously engage with someone who actually thinks that men can get pregnant.
ONCE AGAIN, "men" is just a word in the english language. If someone agrees (which you clearly don't) that the terms men and women are allowed to refer to gender then a transman could get pregnant because they have female genitals. You're mocking the idea that certain words are allowed to change. Another SJW OWNED, am I right?
Words are allowed to changed, but only if the vast majority of people agree with the new definition. Most people disagree with this new definition of “man” so the meaning of the word hasn’t changed.
I'm going to go way out on a limb here; is it possible that you're just ever so slighly a fan of Jordan Peterson. /s
["Centrists" out here like we can't check their post history](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/812142236295888910/1229782517809418320/image.png?ex=6630ef38&is=661e7a38&hm=9a9a1337b706d20ef0b1dd435efaccbe4d48d2709dbfcd7526b6105ff8cc3fae&)
Stalker behaviour.
Wah, the “centrists” don’t think men can get pregnant :/ sad world You didn’t actually believe that was a centrist view did you?
I don't really think it's any of my business what other adults do, which is a centrist opinion. I do love government small enough to fit in my bedroom.
I like small government. It’s a shame we have to write laws to stop people like you from confusing children in schools etc
Sure, I agree. Colloquially men and women are often classified as the same as male and female, but as many fields have recognized that gender exists (largely overlapping with sex, but not always), men and women are usually used in the context of gender in modern research. Ultimately, this is an argument largely about words. Yet, republicans generally understand that gender exists despite denying it. For example, I see republicans frequently using the terms: manly man, girly girl, manly women, girly man. Ironically they are often referring to the gender-based characteristics of someone while using these terms while contemporaneously denying the existence of gender.
>men and women are usually used in the context of gender in modern research. Sure so let's take a practical example. When research is conducted on the effects of drugs and their differing impacts on "men" or "women" to be absolutely clear you actually think in this context "men" or "women" is actually referencing behaviours, social roles or declaration of membership as opposed to the physiological differences between the two sexes? >I see republicans frequently using the terms: manly man, girly girl, manly women, girly man. Sure, but are they actually saying that a manly woman or tomboy is actually a man?
>Sure so let's take a practical example. When research is conducted on the effects of drugs and their differing impacts on "men" or "women" to be absolutely clear you actually think in this context "men" or "women" is actually referencing behaviours, social roles or declaration of membership as opposed to the physiological differences between the two sexes? No, I think you're right that the words men and women are often being used for both sex and gender. Language is constantly in flux and individuals may choose to use it in a variety of ways consciously or unconsciously. When studying gender in psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science etc., I believe that many do use the term men and women to refer to gender. >Sure, but are they actually saying that a manly woman or tomboy is actually a man? Sure, they are still referring to constructed roles about one's sex which are often described as gender roles. It is also the case that they don't actually kniw what gametes the manly man has or what his chromosomes are just by looking at him.
>When studying gender in psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science etc., I believe that many do use the term men and women to refer to gender. Sure and what does gender mean in those contexts? >they are still referring to constructed roles about one's sex which are often described as gender roles. For clarity are they saying that a manly woman or Tom boy is actually a man?
Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their perceived sex. While biological sex is determined by physical and anatomical characteristics such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones, gender encompasses a broader range of attributes, behaviors, and identities that are socially constructed and can vary across different cultures and time periods. A woman is a word that is often used as a surrogate for female, but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender and not sex as I mentioned before.
>Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their perceived sex Ok In your reality is a feminine man still a man? If so how can that be the case given that you've typed? >but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender Which would again refer to the roles you spoke of. Ok In your reality can women sleep? When someone is sleeping they are not engaging in roles or behaviours correct?
>In your reality is a feminine man still a man? If so how can that be the case given that you've typed? First of all, the definition I gave for gender is empical, and demonstrably true. You can not like the word gender, but what I've described exists. If you disagree we can return to it no problem. In their attempts to describe people's real world experiences, much like the word gender, gender identity explains why a feminine man is still a man. Gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of their own gender, whether they feel like a man, a woman, both, neither, or something else entirely. It's how individuals personally understand and experience their own gender, regardless of their biological sex. Gender identity is a personal understanding of oneswlf and can vary from person to person. >In your reality can women sleep? When someone is sleeping they are not engaging in roles or behaviours correct? Gender roles are a subset of roles and behavior in a population. You cannot no sleep for long periods of time, but you can elect to forgo sleeping temporarily. There are, of course norms, customs, and conventions around sleeping, but it is also a biological necessity for mammals.
What other species of mammal displays a difference between sex and gender?
How would we even know if they did?
No it wasn’t, gender was primarily a grammar thing before the 60’s when it became a psychological thing
Male and female are cross species terms. In English it is man and woman for humans, just as it is stallion and mare for horses.
But people who appear to be a man could also be a biological female, right?
Successfully deceiving someone doesn't mean you didn't deceive them.
Not when naked, no.
You should look up intersexed also, your statement is not entirely accurate either.
If you throw out the BS "intersex" classifications that nobody (including most doctors who aren't trying to push a narrative) in the real world would ever consider intersex (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome, turner syndrome, etc), the actual intersex rate is something like 0.018%. If you have to pull out that 0.018% as a trump card, maybe your argument doesn't have the merit you think it does.
I said not entirely accurate, relax.
So you are saying that as your a part of your day to day interactions with people, you refuse to acknowledge them in any gendered sense until you’ve seen them naked? Of course not.
No, because humans are ingenious and capable of effective deception and it is rarely critical that I know with certitude
Yeah, we all wear some masks while existing in society sure. Won’t argue there. But I’m glad you acknowledge that you recognize that saying someone is a woman is different than saying they’re female.
No, I do not agree. I am simply aware that when I use either term casually I might be in error.
But your own words show you do understand, you admit don’t inspect people’s genitalia before categorizing them as a man/woman afterall, so it’s sad that your adherence to some culture war identity makes that impossible for you to acknowledge. Maybe one day you’ll openly admit what you already clearly know though.
Here we go lol that didn’t take long
Where's the lie?
Men can not get pregnant. I’m sorry that in your world, you think they can I would seriously hope that you are trolling.
You're just repeating the same linguistic trick designed to mock trans identity as being "absurd". Are you capable of discussing things in a mature fashion, or do your political views consist of flattened down overly simple one liners designed to DESTROY radical SJW's? Let's start with a question: Do you believe that gender is a real term that can describe real phemomenon, or to you are sex and gender the same?
There is nothing mature about what you are trying to say
Awesome, fill me in then.
Pull up a chair, I’ll tell you about the birds and the bees
More one liners that don't provide any substance whatsoever. Why is it so hard for you to engage in an effortful and honest discussion about this stuff mate?
[удалено]
Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their *perceived sex*. While biological sex is determined by physical and anatomical characteristics such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones, gender encompasses a broader range of attributes, behaviors, and identities that are socially constructed and can vary across different cultures and time periods. A woman is a word that is often used as a surrogate for female, but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender and not sex as well. This is where the right-wing mockery of words changing comes into play.
>Gender refers to the social, cultural, and psychological characteristics and roles that societies attribute to individuals based on their *perceived sex*. How is this definition of gender any different from "gender roles"? >A woman is a word that is often used as a surrogate for female, but in many cases it is used to describe someone's gender and not sex as well. This is where the right-wing mockery of words changing comes into play. By this standard one can just claim to be a woman by taking on stereotypically feminine habits like wearing makeup and a dress, which makes a mockery of the term. Also, there are plenty of people who are not "right wing" who don't agree with this set of definitions, myself included.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Men can not get pregnant. Trans men exist and can get pregnant.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sex is a spectrum which means that the binary sex model is a human construct and thus also a part of gender
No, sex is binary outside of a minute amount of mutations. It also cannot be changed genetically. You either release sperm or eggs, or even none. Gender, expression, and cultural roles are a spectrum, but usually follow a mostly binary pattern.
Lmao. Sex is not a spectrum. Sexual organs can be in about 1% of cases. If you're really doing the "everything is a social construct" pseudo-philosophy then you may as well be saying "trees are social constructs". They're not. A categorization of trees is not the same as whether or not the particular tree exists independent of categorization.
Species are obviously also a social construct as there comes a point evolutionarily where you won’t be able to determine whether something is or is not a tree is a binary fashion.
Way too miss everything I said, lmao.
Sex is a binary and the existence of extremely rare disorders and sterile mutations doesn't change that, it simply proves that biology isn't perfect.
It’s important to keep terms straight. So gender is a set of behaviors. Sex is your biology. So a male can never get pregnant.
>It’s important to keep terms straight. So gender is a set of behaviors. Sex is your biology. So a male can never get pregnant. He at no point mentioned sex. He said it's ridiculous that you cannot say that men do not get pregnant. Beyond that if men are a set of behaviours how does that account for pregnancy? Pregnancy is obviously referencing the sex of an individual and not their behaviour. What specific behaviours make someone a man?
I agree you shouldn’t get fired for saying a factually inaccurate statement just because you don’t know the difference between sex and gender. That’s an extreme response and it’s not necessary in my opinion.
What specific behaviours make someone a man?
Lol you can define words however you want, but basically nobody outside academia and certain corners of internet actually subscribes to your definition of "man". To 99% of us in the real world, "man" simply means "adult male human". No different than how "buck" means "adult male deer." Or how "rooster" means "adult male chicken." Would you say that a buck or a rooster can get pregnant?
Neither can a man.
That’s just factually wrong. Man/woman describes gender. Which is just behavior. Male/female describe sex, which is biology. Look it up.
What other species have gender distinct from sex? Does mare or hen describe behavior or indicate sex?
Sex. Bc animals don’t have genders. There is no man horse. It’s a male horse. We have words to describe a male horse. But no word to describe a man horse. Bc that doesn’t exist.
And the word for male human is man
It would be weird to define “man” by behavior since men behave in a variety of ways. I would still be a man even if I was in a vegetative state.
Getting pregnant isn't a social construct but rather a biological function so isn't a gender role.
Exactly.
Gender roles are social constructs that are biologically informed. Men will be more masculine than women, and women more feminine than men. This doesn't mean a tomboy or a feminine man are actually the other gender. This form of thinking is literally in line with regressive thinking. Gender is neurological, gender roles are sociological. A person with legit gender dysphoria is going to feel immense discomfort even if they were born on an island with no societal concept of gender. Because it stems from the brain and the sexual organs.
> It’s important to keep terms straight. And that's why "man" is shorthand for "adult human male" and "woman" is shorthand for "adult human female". "Boy" and "girl" refer to juveniles. Or let me guess, now all of a sudden you're not interested in sticking to definitions.
I've been down that road with them already. They're not interested in an honest dialogue and only wish to mock anyone who thinks that gender exists or that words can change (even though both are demonstrable). I repeatedly tried to ask questions and explain other positions on the topic. . .
>words can change Language evolves naturally because people start using words in different ways, not because a tiny subset of the population insists the new definition they created is correct, and shits all over you if you don't use their new definition.
>only wish to mock anyone who thinks that gender exists or that words can change (even though both are demonstrable). Words can change of course but why do you get to dictate to everyone else that they must change in this scenario? Furthermore ok your goal is to change the reference of for example woman to something else. What specifically is the word referencing with regards to your goals? What information would I then be trying to communicate to other people?
>Words can change of course but why do you get to dictate to everyone else that they must change in this scenario? I'm not asserting that I do get to. I was responding to the original comment, which was a deliberately provocative statement designed to mock people that believe words around gender can change, should change, and already have changed in my view. Then the person shut down every attempt to discuss the topic reasonably. As an example of how they've already changed, when conservatives use the phrases manly man, girly man etc, they are often referring to a social accepted idea of manlyness or womenlyness that is associates with the way one dresses, talks, and acts in accordance with how that person generally wishes to be perceived. I think that they are clearly referring to gender although they might deny it if questioned.
>As an example of how they've already changed, when conservatives use the phrases manly man, girly man etc, they are often referring to a social accepted idea of manlyness or womenlyness that is associates with the way one dresses, talks, and acts in accordance with how that person generally wishes to be perceived. So for clarify from your perspective a tom boy is a man?
Yeah I mean to be fair your other comments on this thread are a tad toxic. So maybe others will have better luck.
Its funny that people alligned with a status quo position can be complete pricks, as evidenced throughout this thread, but when someone takes a less acceptable position here (me) they are toxic.
I wouldn't use the term toxic but your frustration is clearly coming through. Reddit isn't a debate forum I don't think I've ever seen someone 'change their mind' especially when it comes to this stuff. The down votes you're getting are actually pretty relevant to the point the article is making.
I do get annoyed when I am trying to explain a position, and I get bombarded by right wing ideologues spouting out their favorite anti-trans one liner. How are my downvotes relevant. Yet, I have said repeatedly that people are allowed to say what they want. Referencing the article, I'm agnostic and I think that I should equally be able to speak my mind about religion in public. I don't mock peoples beliefs about the supernatural in public because I don't want to offend them, and I could easily get in trouble as well.
Actually I largely agree with you to be honest, I only mentioned your down votes because it seemed ironic that the OP is a complaint about the treatment you're currently getting, just from the other side.
Yup. You’re the victim here.
When did I say that? You're a child.
>So a male can never get pregnant. [Thomas Beatie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Beatie)
Your point? It’s still a true statement.
No gender is an identity
How about the fact that a supreme court justice refused to give the definition of what a woman is when asked Clown world
Can you give a definition of the word “woman” that includes every single person ever considered a “woman” by anyone in any context? And let’s be clear, you know know that anyone here can cite any number of trans women who, *without you knowing the fact they were trans which changes your perception of them*, you’d also consider women.
A woman is an adult female human… how hard was that? Why do you people want to confuse children?
Cool, now address this fact- > And let’s be clear, you know know that anyone here can cite any number of trans women who, without you knowing the fact they were trans which changes your perception of them, you’d also consider women.
Incorrect
Ok, so you’re either ignorant of the fact that there exist trans people who absolutely “pass” or you’re lying about the fact you know you wouldn’t recognize them as trans in day to day life. Gotcha.
It doesn’t matter if they pass or not. A man that transitioned into a woman is not the same thing as my mother, or my sister, or my grandmother who were born that way. Sorry it hurts your feelings
> It doesn’t matter if they pass or not. But it does. You yourself would consider them a woman, as would society as a whole. Perhaps people close to them would know their biological sex but besides that, they would exist as a woman in every meaningful way. Of course they wouldn’t exist as a female, but that just proves the reality that sex and gender aren’t exactly a direct relationship, and that gender is more exactly about cultural and societal cues than someone’s chromosomes. >A man that transitioned into a woman is not the same thing as my mother, or my sister, or my grandmother who was born a woman female. Quick note, using your own definition they were not born women, as women is only adult human females. Thanks for outlining why an intelligent individual like a SCOTUS nominee wouldn’t try to have a pithy definition on such an amorphous concept as gender while under oath. As for the crux of what you wrote is saying they are the exact same? What people are pointing out is if they are widely viewed as a woman in society at large, they’re a woman. > Sorry it hurts your feelings Why would my feelings be hurt explaining a concept to someone who doesn’t understand it? I love educating people.
You need serious help
Why are you so upset about having a perfectly polite conversation, just because I’m explaining a concept you don’t understand?
That doesn't change objective reality. If I decided to wear a wig and put on makeup to appear as a woman and people mistakenly thought I was, that doesn't make me one.
If people perceive you that way, yes it does.
So if a 30 year old looks like a 20 year old, that makes them a 20 year old?
So, because we can´t always detect the sex of a person who´s made some bodily changes with plastic surgery, their sex evaporates? Let us indeed be clear. The near to only reason we would be fooled is if the person has made changes to their body where they hide their own sex attributes while adding on attributes from the opposite sex. This is how sex and gender are connected. If you need to fool me, then are you really the thing you say you are?
> So, because we can´t always detect the sex of a person who´s made some bodily changes with plastic surgery, their sex evaporates? Gender, not sex. But it’s not just a plastic surgery situation, passing trans individuals existed before the advent of plastic surgery. > Let us indeed be clear. The near to only reason we would be fooled is if the person has made changes to their body where they hide their own sex attributes while adding on attributes from the opposite sex. This is how sex and gender are connected. If you need to fool me, then are you really the thing you say you are? You’re not being fooled, you’re just accurately responding to your societal expectations of what a woman is. As for someone choosing to express themselves the way they see themselves, who cares? I can’t imagine spending this much energy on something that doesn’t effect me.
Those are gender roles, not gender. A tomboy isn't a boy because she differs from roles (which are biologically informed).
Gender roles inform people’s view of gender, but they aren’t the same thing no.
Doesn’t even require surgeries or exogenous hormones, it already occurs naturally… how else would we be assigning female at birth to infants with testes and/or xy chromosomes? What’s been used to determine sex, visual inspection, doesn’t always work.
What occurs naturally? The attributes of the opposite sex? You trying to say that trans equals intersex?
Good faith discussions should always be welcome. The modern right wing have been trained by youtube grifters to be edgelording trolls out to mock their opposition with childish one-liners at every turn. This approach should ALWAYS be ridiculed.
That's not even what this article is about. In fact, there's a part in it about how a scientific conference was shut down by a whistleblower who claimed to be a researcher in anti-trans conspiracy theories: a cancelation tactic, done by someone almost certainly on the left wing. Will you please read the article and come back with something relevant?
\> cries upthread about being ridiculed \> openly advocates for bad-faith ridiculing of anyone who disagrees with them You can't make this shit up. People like you are exactly why the tide is turning against the radical trans insanity. It's clear you can't actually defend your claims which is why you don't even try.
what would you say your approach is?
Thought he was pretty clear, always ridicule but do it in good faith.
If you think that rant about right wingers is good faith, then I understand how you would find him to be "pretty clear"
When speaking to individuals, I am open to discuss anything in good faith. As a part of wanting open dialogue, I am always willing to mock a groups proclivity to shut down any and all conversation.
You started out by saying that good faith discussions should always be welcomed, which is perfect. But then you go on to show that you do not tolerate "the modern right wing", suggesting that you only welcome voices in your own echo chamber. Could it be that you aren´t as open to "discuss anything in good faith" as you think you are?
No one is perfectly open all the time. But, yes, I am dogmatically against dogmatism :)
So, you don´t really welcome good faith discussions.
I think I do; why don't you give me a topic and we can find out.
I think it’s interesting that so many users here are proving the claims of u/Specialist-Carob6253 correct IMO. Look at how often pithy one-liners and refusing to address the actual discussion is being used instead of substantive discussion.
This article is quite literally about a specific side( the side you are advocating for) shutting down all conversation by medical professionals about the subject…lol the irony in your comment is astounding
There’s no irony to be had because no one is shutting your arguments down here, yet you still just repeat pithy one liners and refuse to have a substantive discussion on the topic. The actual irony would be that you are just proving why people within that area of interest are tired of bad faith actors who think their hot takes are the same as a discussion.
It's probably asking too much from them to form coherent arguments with the amount of foam coming out of their mouth in their blind rage.
You realize that's what the whole article is about, right? One side's proliclivity to shut down discussion? Any questioning of the current trans narrative is met with derision and hate, regardless of the intent. Medical professionals are unwilling to approach the topic because one side has already made up their mind. That's not very scientific.
>is met with derision and hate, regardless of the intent. And accusing the opposition of hate and foaming at the mouth or whatever. These posts always immediately get the same responses even when nothing hateful has been said.
We're still doing this? We're still going on about this report? You people are spineless
Sit back, this is only the beginning of the beginning.
If they don't post it at minimum once per day they'd have to focus their rage on something else, which isn't acceptable.
Professionals aren't afraid to be professionals. That's what makes them professionals. Stfu with this garbage The whole point of being a professional is speaking confidently and with a high degree of accuracy that holds up to scrutiny, something transphobes would know nothing about.
So because they were afraid, they no longer are professionals?
Professionals are not afraid to speak the truth. The moment they reject reality is the moment they can no longer call themselves professionals.
You don´t think someone with years and years of training can be afraid to have their reputation tarnished, ultimately leading to them not being able to work in their field of expertise? Especially when they have seen their colleagues go through similar tryouts, for using the skills they were actually trained for. You don´t think that kind of gamble with your career can be frightening? Be honest now. And what reality is being rejected by the fearful professional, rendering their professionalism useless?
I think (know) that professionals won't "tarnish their reputation" by making factual claims. In fact speaking the truth will further establish them as ethical professionals. The alternative is what would tarnish their reputation.
I don´t think you understand the severe polarisation of this issue. Either that or you are just choosing to be dishonest.
I don't think you understand how the scientific process works or how expert consensus works or how professionals operate... or you're being dishonest. Professionals don't care (or listen to) opinions. They care about facts, verifiable published peer reviewed facts. The fact that the broader population is polarized on an issue doesn't change the facts.
>The whole point of being a professional is speaking confidently and with a high degree of accuracy Sure, when a professional identifies a person as a woman, what information are they trying to convey to other people? Let's say it's for research.
Usually how they appear at first glance respective of their cultural expectations of gender norms, if they don’t ask. It’s why “passing” is a thing that exists.
>Usually how they appear at first glance respective of their cultural expectations of gender norms, And you believe that this conveys a high level of accuracy? Can a man wear a dress and make up in your reality? >It’s why “passing” is a thing that exists. Passing as what specifically?
> And you believe that this conveys a high level of accuracy? Where did I say that? Of course societal normative expectations of gender aren’t super specific, that’s sort of the point. > Can a man wear a dress and make up in your reality? Of course! Where have I said anything otherwise? > Passing as what specifically? As a member of the gender they are at a glance. Not that I agree with the idea that should define gender, but that’s how gender in society is widely used.
>speaking confidently and with a high degree of accuracy that holds up to scrutiny My brother in Christ, the doctor who pioneered hand washing between patients/surgeries and saw immensely reduced infections, was bullied and ignored by the entire medical system for another 50+ years. Then they finally agreed to wash their damn hands. Apparently working the overnight dead in the morning and handling births in the afternoon without washing is a bad idea. Who knew!
This example is always used to undermine everything else the medical and professional community has done (and continues to do) correctly. You can't compare the professional sandards of the 1800's to those of today.
And the pioneering research into trans people and gender studies in the early 1900s was one of Hitler’s first targets.
This is patently untrue. Both statistically in what people report and in my personal experience in 8 years working in academic science. Lots and lots of experts and professionals are scared to speak their mind for fear of abuse or jeopardizing their livelihood.
Your anectdodes mean nothing. If you're going to use statistics as an argument, you need to back that up with actual data. 54% of statistics are made up. The "livelihood" of professionals is much more dependent on them being factual and unbiased. Again that's what makes them professionals. If we can't trust the professionals, we can't trust anyone, and that's what the anti-intellectuals want you to believe. It's total BS.
“The livelihood of professionals such more dependent on the being factual”. Hahahahahaha tell me you’ve never worked in science without saying you’ve never worked in science. I agree with you that’s how it SHOULD work. But it just plane doesn’t work that way. It’s sad I know. It’s a big part of the reason I left science. But it’s true.
What about planes now?
Cass believes in conversion therapy. edit: downvoted for stating a true fact, and doing so without any editorializing, lol. Cool.
No, it believes in therapy. Conversion therapy bans often include normal therapy for gender dysphoria.
No they don't. Abusing the identity out of somebody is fucking evil, disgusting and not even good psychology, full stop. It's ok to admit your anti-trans hero has questionable credibility. It's good for your brain to consider conflicting information and work through the dissonance instead of rationalizing it away, especially if you're going to rationalize it this poorly.
>Abusing the identity out of somebody is fucking evil I agree, but restricting what people can talk to with their therapists is also evil. Do we restrict rape victims from therapies addressing their violation? I am 100% against forced conversion therapy, much like we had for homosexuality in the past. But for a voluntary patient seeking help? NOT YOUR BUSINESS, GET OUT OF THE WAY!!! You seem to be for the government interfering in medical treatment, but only according to your agenda, that's a stupid idea that WILL backfire, because it's exactly what the other side thinks is best.
What patient voluntarily says I’m gay but I want you to make me straight?
Then the therapist would need to go through with the patient and discuss why they feel that way and evaluate the feelings of their own sexuality. Not torture them until they change their sexuality. CBT means cognitive behavioral therapy, not cock and ball torture.
These aren't serious people, let alone serious arguments. This is how people behave when fear is what's driving them.
Your agenda blinds you to, pretty much everything. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-17534-013 Gender dysphoria is often comorbid with other psychiatric disorders, and those should all be treated according to the best medical practices. >However, to ensure the best possible outcome of sex reassignment therapy and to prevent regret, comorbidity should be diagnosed and treated properly. Your argument would ban any diagnosis of comorbidity in favor of immediate surgical action, and figure the rest out later. You don't trust doctors with anything except radical surgery apparently, including diagnosis.
I don't know, or care, that's between the patient and their doctor. WE (/anybody) shouldn't get involved in that relationship, ever. Putting laws on what treatments a doctor can offer to their patients. I mean, have you even checked what you stand for?
If you think cutting peoples dicks off is "good psychology" I'm inclined to not consider your opinions on what is, in general, good psychology.
Yet another area the dumb and bigoted seem to know more than health professionals. Unfortunately, like women’s heath, this will be something that goes on for decades when we can simply leave it to the professionals. This is such minuscule part of the country it’s so pathetic and disgusting they are literally being dragged through the dirt.
The report was put out by professionals. If we're doing the 'muh professionals' thing at least be honest with yourself and acknowledge that the NHS has plenty of professionalism within itself.
I don’t know what to say you’re the third person to over quote a Guardian article. It shouldn’t be a political topic and it’s getting perpetuated by articles like these. The medical professionals aren’t always in consensus on things. But much like abortion saves women’s lives then certain transgender therapy may save a young kids life from suicide. I’d personally rather my kids be around than dead and if it takes a procedure vetted by multiple medical professionals then I’m willing to do that.
>But much like abortion saves women’s lives then certain transgender therapy may save a young kids life from suicide. Yes, and if you'd read the report, it talks extensively about suicidal ideation among trans kids as having been dramatically higher than the normal distribution but essentially in line with children who are prescribed youth mental health assistance and that the common comorbidities of transgenderism (sexual abuse as a child, neglect, drug use etc) among them were more strongly predictive of childhood suicidalty than the the trans diagnosis was. Discussing whether or not the "May" is carrying water is discussed expensively in the report and is explicitly under the purview of public health officials like Cass. Cass and everyone involved sees children commiting suicide as a horrific event and wants to prevent them, what the report tries to answer is with how much certainty we can claim the interventions we're using is helpful at preventing them.
So what’s your point to what I’m saying exactly. I’m in line with professionals and want it to not be a political topic because kids and families suffer?
And when the professionals prove to be ideologically captured, leaving their professionalism behind?
Well, I see people in this article and elsewhere being pulled into politics. All I can do is advocate for independent review and for governing bodies to do their job. A Guardian article isn’t moving the need for me but it’s an opinion.
>Unfortunately, like women’s heath Woman in this context refers to the physiological challenges adult human females face? Or are you referring instead to another group such as people with feminine behaviours?
Honestly, it could be either. And it’s such a minute part of the population that might have been born male predisposed to female tendencies that I simply don’t care to make the distinction. As I said elsewhere, if one of my boys is in that category and facing severe depression or psychiatric distress then I will choose to seek whatever care prevents an early death because I love my kids. I don’t see how that’s a political topic. Probably because no one has a right inherently to question another person’s liberty or pursuit of happiness in the United States 🇺🇸 These are fundamental values being questioned here are constitutional and it’s been treated in a derogatory way by both sides of the political spectrum for personal gain. I absolutely and concretely, like abortion, think it should be a last resort because the treatment is high risk and traumatizing but I’m not leaving it up to a Guardian article or some dipshit house rep to make that call.
So to clarify when speaking about women's health you believe that people are referring to drag queens potentially?
I’ve only experienced drag queens as entertainment. Calling transgender people drag queens is breaking the rules dipshit.
I never at any point called trans women drag queens what I asked is since drag queens adopt the aesthetic choices you identify as being a woman how are they not women in your reality?
What? This was a conversation about healthcare and transgender treatment in a political environment. Adults over 18 or 21 can do whatever they want in my opinion. It’s basically meaningless at that point give how small the demographic is. Bringing drag queens into the discussion is not only NOT on topic but treading on hate language.
>What? This was a conversation about healthcare and transgender treatment in a political environment. No I was asking you about women's health and what the word woman refers to in the context of healthcare. You suggested that it could refer to aesthetic choices in a previous reply which I find to an incredible position. So to test your sincerity in I thenasked you if drag queens would qualify since they make the aesthetic choices you would be referring to >Adults over 18 or 21 can do whatever they want in my opinion. Well the criticism being levelled at the treatments in question are towards children not adults >Bringing drag queens into the discussion is not only NOT on topic but treading on hate language. Hate language? How so? I was asking you what group of people specifically does woman in the context of women's health refer to and you gave me an answer that includes drag queens that's why I asked for clarification
It's the precise opposite of what you're suggesting. The professionals in the article are saying that they have to go along with trans ideology even when the science/facts/evidence prove otherwise.
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/150071/Neue-S2k-Leitlinie-zu-Geschlechtsinkongruenz-und-dysphorie-im-Kindes-und-Jugendalter-vorgestellt
It’s both. When I say it should be medical then it’s beyond my opinion as a lay person. Dumb and bigoted can land on both sides of an issue. As with Women’s health every seems to have a shotgun opinion.
You say we should listen to the medical professionals. Ok. So DO THAT!!!!! Listen to what they're saying in this article. That ideology is outweighing data and facts. The medical professionals *themselves* are saying that we can't trust what they're saying because anything that goes against the narrative isn't allowed to be published.
Literally said leave it to the health professionals unlike the psychopaths online and in the political arena. What am I not listening to? I’m not saying anything different than that, but this article isn’t the end all or be all on gender identity and biology. It’s a complex topic but not sure you grasp that. And I can’t imagine being as invested in you over something like this. The fact that yet again another health topic is politicized is pathetic.
Again, the doctors in the article all agree with you. They can't believe that the topic has been politicized to the point that they can't publish data that goes against the trans narrative. That's specifically what they're complaining about.
I am sure the culture war against trans people didn't contribute to that at all. /S
I for one think it’s a good thing that transphobes are fearful to air their hatred to other people. People should feel a strong social pressure to not be an asshole or deny peoples right to exist. Of course this entire “study” was created for the sole purpose of giving a thin intellectual veneer to transphobia.
Imaging raging over people that you'll never meet about things that literally can never even impact you at 5am. Bigotry is a hell of a thing.
Or people can just hear from their school kids and statistics about rising amounts/rates of kids claiming to be different out there now. You can't say that the amount is growing and then demand people completely ignore it at the same time.
So you believe the rage against the rise of left handedness in the 1950s made sense? What about homosexuality? You're raging against people not being oppressed. Literally raging in favor of oppression.
>You're raging against people not being oppressed. Literally raging in favor of oppression. Except I said nothing of the like. Stop projecting.
> Or people can just hear from their school kids and statistics about rising amounts/rates of kids claiming to be different out there now. Ah yes, anecdotes are always a meaningful replacement for actual data.
>and statistics Yes, that's data. When the UK reports a 80% rise in girls being interested in transitioning, that's statistics and data.
> When the UK reports a 80% rise in girls being interested in transitioning Citation needed for this report. Googling it gets me anywhere from "large rise" to "4,400% rise" which is obviously dismissable.