Over in England, there's been a long-running case involving an international development researcher who was let go for tweeting about transgender women. In particular, she repeatedly expressed skepticism that trans women are really women and the tribunal ruled that this was largely the reason her employment contract wasn't renewed.
I had never heard of this case before, but thanks to Twitter I heard about it today because the researcher, Maya Forstater, won her case on appeal to Britain's highest employment tribunal. They ruled that all her tweets were reasonable enough to be protected under current law, and therefore she had been sacked unfairly.¹
I don't especially agree with Forstater's views except possibly in a few narrow ways,² but I don't like to see people fired in response to mobs who are upset that someone feels differently than they do. That's regardless of the specific laws in question, which are harsher toward free speech in Britain than they are here.
I would like to see more people calm down about transgender issues, but there are real concerns at stake on both sides and people routinely write and act passionately about their political views. That's OK—even good—as long as it doesn't veer into active harassment. The court ruled that Forstater's tweets didn't do that, so now it's time to figure out what compensation she deserves. Good.
Short version of the ruling: Say what you want but stay away from deliberate harassment. As long as you do that, you shouldn't be the victim of woke mobs demanding you be fired.
¹Forstater has collected a full set of her tweets here. The appellate tribunal responsible for today's decision ruled unanimously that all of her tweets were "fairly mild" with one exception: a tweet about a Credit Suisse executive who identified as a woman for part of the week. Forstater described him as a “part-time cross dresser.” The panel also absolved her on that one, but the vote was 2-1, not unanimous.
²I'd have to study her beliefs in more detail to know.
The problem with publicly decrying even the very concept of trans people, let alone naming individuals, is that it does embolden many people to condemn them - & others are waiting to take it from there, escalating it to the point that quite a few trans individuals have been murdered.
"Funny" how these people who feel free to speak out against sex changes are not only so much more vociferous now than I remember when such an operation made news decades ago, but they have never seen a medical report or claim for an operation on an infant identified as intersex. Someone has then decided arbitrarily which gender that child will be, even though it may not feel right in later years.
So some of those people who have used the line that "God doesn't make mistakes" may believe that there are some "mistakes" that need interventions. Others deem themselves morally obligated to persecute trans people. It isn't just about which sports competition someone can participate in.
Too right. The sports angle is the hot iron, the low fruit, the bumper sticker. The real attack is along the lines of Dobbs, it is that regression again to barbaric times, where some folks are seen as not worthy of their autonomy, the State will decide for you.
There are parents out there who are terrified that CPS will take their children if they don't play along with affirmation. There are therapists who worry their license will be revoked b/c they dare to ask "Why?" with a trans-identifying patient.
Agreed that state action can be barbaric ... but it can go both ways.
Agreed on the barbarity, yet they find ways to express their displeasure with at risk populations or minority, inter them in their own community, and with seeming glee. Since the very founding.
You are lying.
There are no such cases.
Abusing children by denying them toys, dress, and manner because it's gendered is a usive.
And that's what you're defending.
LOL.
There are such cases. I know because I talk to them! Is it time for #BelieveParents or #TrustTherapists ? There's a group of people being marginalized by a mob for not conforming with YOUR norms. Hmmm.... maybe you should educate yourself? Consider how you are using your privilege to oppress others?
Crissa don't care ... but others might!
Take a look at:
https://www.city-journal.org/transgender-identifying-adolescents-threats-to-parental-rights and especially the delicious "... more than a year later, Nicole reports that her daughter is much better, as is their relationship. The daughter has dropped the idea that she is transgender ..."
Its harder to document professional investigations ... but look at https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/24/trans-kids-therapy-psychologist/ for a fair assessment of the state of therapy.
Your first link is to a dodgy source and is terrible journalism to boot. Also, those anecdotes don't really support what you want them too. I would think the fact they were quoting Betsy DeVos -- with hearty approval to boot -- should have tipped you off, but hey, I'm not going to make any nasty cracks about your intellegence.
Your second link __really__ doesn't say what you want us (and doubtless yourself) to believe it does; they're not saying gender reassignment is a bad thing, no, not even for 'children'. What they're saying is there need to be higher professional standards in the biz where so manyy practioners sadly lacking in much of any. Again, I will not take your attempt to equate the two positions as a commentary on reading ability or general level of intelligence.
Not liking the material != "Terrible Journalism". And Betsy? Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. Or, just because your enemy thinks breathing is a good idea doesn't mean you should stop doing it.
The second ... well, you read words differently than I do.
And since you like throwing ad hominem attacks around ... hows that left side of the Dunning-Kruger curve looking these days?
They were approvingly quoting DeVos on education, you yutz. Not in the direct link. So thanks for proving you didn't read your own cite. And has for the WaPo link,,, let me quote a few of those words that you read differently than I do:
Wow you _really_ 'read words differently' than I do. Unless you can explain how wanting higher professional standards in any way equates to 'abusive practices by the woke. Do go on, good chap. I'm sure I'll be absolutely _fascinated_ by your mental processes.
It's rare there dude. There aren't many trannies in general. Your trying to squeeze it out with little real juice.
So ...if I'm in a theater and I smell something like smoke I shouldn't say anything because there's probably a reactionary loud mouth who wants to shout "FIRE!"?
I can't control reactionary loudmouths with their own agenda. But their presence shouldn't prevent me from discussing smoke with others and forming an opinion on the danger this smoke represents ... if any.
I find your claim on intersex is disingenuous... such operations (and people) are quite rare and I don't believe that anyone is suggesting they should be persecuted in any way. The modern issue is the explosion of trans identification among vulnerable groups (especially young females) and the numbers simply don't make sense.
I wasn't at all suggesting that operations on babies born with physical sex organs of both genders! That was pointing out that people who think that there is no justification for sex changes really don't know a lot about it but still might condemn that- with possibly more justification than when the decision is made by the individual who is to undergo that change.
But it amazes me that so many people object to someone else's choice & don't think that the consequences of creating a furor online or in public attacks too easily brings out those who persecute & even kill others.
Operations due to an intersex diagnosis are rare; so are claims for baby footprints & beads associated with a claim for a therapeutic abortion - but I have seen both.
As for your smelling "something like smoke" in a theater, your statement is puzzling. Assuming that another person is actually smoking, I would think that quietly reporting such illegal activity would not result in anyone shouting "fire!"
I think we're missing each other on the intersex example ... thanks for clarifying, I agree with "really don't know a lot about it but still might condemn that" is a very real (and dangerous) reaction.
Smoke in a theater? Sorry, I thought I was clearly invoking the accepted restriction on free speech, that one cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without some cause. Cigarettes aren't the issue ... its being in a building that might be on fire and might kill you. However the cigarette is a good addition to the example ... by asking other theater goers if they smell smoke we might determine that it is indeed a cigarette and not the curtains. Determining the appropriate action still requires communicating, even with the risk of a "Fire!" bellower.
Tell me, I'm curious: just how, precisely, do you thing gender-bendering is going to kill you? This has got to be one of the oddest anologies I've heard this week.
Or maybe it's just a really bad analogy.
JFC! Not everything is about gender.
Can I say something without worrying about what the worst person in the room might do? Yes, yes I can.
Alternately, my right to speech shouldn't be infringed because there is a chance that someone will hear me and do something stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
Oh dear lord, the 'reactionary loudmouth' can yell fire if there is, in fact, a fire because otherwise people might be killed by said fire. Similarly, shouting fire when there is none can result in people being injured or even killed in the ensuing panic. That's why that restriction and the excepton to that restriction are the way they are.
Now, again, tell me how you think this genderbering is going to kill people.
Surprise dick when he rings up an online escort?
Wow. He really can't work the menu tree. Who knew?
If someone tells you god doesn't make mistakes ask them if they've had their teeth fixed.
If they have you can feel free to spit on them, harass them and follow them around shouting.
Yeah, but I don't WANT to follow anyone around shouting - had my fill of that when surrounded by crazies with signs that came close to hitting my eye because my husband's daughter & I didn't know of the proximity of an abortion provider.
Anyone anywhere remember being taught "live and let live?" Now everybody's business is everybody else's business to criticize & even control.
"If someone tells you god doesn't make mistakes ask them if they've had their teeth fixed."
Or why vertebrates have blind spots but squids don't.
Taisez-vous, they will hear you.
Victorians thought the perfection of the human body (or possibly the perfection of the white aristocratic male body) was an argument for the existence of God. Naive fools.
Europeans don't and they think Americans are creepy with their perfect teeth. As it happens my teeth never needed fixing. Never had dental hardware!
hmmmm.
Neanderthal skulls all seem to have perfect teeth as well.
But if you can't pick on their teeth you can pick on their pacemaker, or their hearing aid, or their gallbladder surgery, or their one-a-day vitamin supplement.
Imperfection is a target rich environment.
or their eyeglasses. Or their sore throats, or hangovers, or stubbed toes. Although I guess at some point their argument would shade into "something something, Eve, apple, fallen world," so maybe the argument utlimately isn't effective . . .
Orthodontics are of the Devil*!
*John Kerry, according to my cousin in West Michigan, who told our grandmother in 2004 he couldn't vote for the Democrat candidate in the presidential election because "he's the Devil".
If god doesn’t make mistakes then perhaps it’s a good moment to revisit the problem of evil. I would make the Brothers Karamazov required reading in every high school. And then let the holy rollers explain what happens to the innocent children in the story.
My first truly depressing read was probably The Bridge of San Luis Rey. I was young enough that it was confounding.
And yes, I was taught that Christians don't believe in duality, but some believe in a satan so powerful I wonder...
But here we are I the 21st century, with a prominent politician referencing "God's will" after the murder of school kids.
That says a lot about Christians and, if the are right, it says a lot about their god, too. And none of it good
We all went to the same school in different places.
Gandhi is reported as saying he had no issues with Christianity, only with Christians.
Yes, but I found that my problem is with a creator and the concept of original sin; continuing cruelty seems a far more just reason for our species
(Incomplete reply) failure to achieve a state of grace.
And while I'm here, you never seemed to be one to make particularly negative comments, so it surprised me that you accused me of raining on our blogger's parade or some such. As someone with unresolved medical issues, I was simply so happy to learn that not only had he received good news but that Kevin & Marian were off to Paris, I was just sorry that the world's problems were still uppermost in his mind - had half expected a hiatus from Jabberwocking, with lots of vacation photos on their return to California!
There are others who have freely criticized Kevin Drum's charts or opinions, & at least one who fees the need to be disturbingly rude, so your reaction surprised me & made me think twice about responding at that time. Please know that I was just wishing that the war raging in Ukraine could be momentarily replaced in the vacationers' minds with the sights & pleasures of Paris - rain or no rain. So, as some of us used to say, peace out.
I am wondering if anyone in this thread actually read the tweets in question. I mean who exactly is decrying the very concept of trans people? I mean I'm sure there are nutbars out there doing that but no one could seriously argue that Maya Forstater, who this post is about, did any such thing.
The problem with discussing any trans related issue with anyone remotely liberal is that not everything is black and white but the liberal world (well much of it because I certainly consider myself a liberal) has convinced itself that all trans issues are black and white and you are either 100% with the most absolutist pro-trans take on every issue that comes up or you are ipso facto anti-trans.
Orrrr -- roll with me here -- the organization who dismployed her, Centre for Global Development (CGD), thought those tweets were not the look they were lookin' for. Them being a 'Thinktank' and all, and presumably reliant on the largesse of others.
TL;DR: If you're working at Goldman-Sachs and are tweeting approvingly of the Nazis, don't be surprised if they show you the door.
Geeze, this isn't really that hard, folks.
Yup.
It's a bit like the PR woman who got binned out after becoming the Trending Topic after tweeting an AIDS joke just before boarding her flight to South Africa.
This is indeed good news, protecting the character of a heterodox society to have reasonable and good-faith discussions on difficult topics. Now we need a ruling in the US that undoes "questioning trans self-identification = real harm" so we too can have discussions that lead to true informed consent, actual understanding of what the other side is saying, and maybe some actual research (with control groups and real research design and data and everything!) on outcomes.
Grumpy, you are obviously an old-fashioned guy who believes in the archaic notion of civil discussion of issues without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Sorta like Kevin Drum and me. Sorta unlike a lot of other folks around us.
Thanks Ken! It hurts that this notion is "old fashioned" yet it doesn't seem embraced by younger generations (looking sideways at my kids ...). I think its the only way to avoid uncontrolled tribalism and all of its dangers.
There's real research and it says that questioning self-id does real harm. Every reputable psychology and psychiatry and pediatrics group supports affirmative care.
But you've never heard about it, because there's a well-funded lobby pushing conversion therapy.
Yeah, NO. What's the difference between evidence supported positions and political capture of institutions? A lot!
Here's the difference ... with evidence, there are real studies comparing outcomes over time and carefully considering the benefits and costs. Sure you can point at https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/ and pretend that the issue is settled ... but most of those studies are so seriously flawed as to be useless (no controls, short time periods, small samples, poor methodology, etc).
Please, show me a study in which gender dysphoric children are randomly assigned to treatment groups that range from non-affirmation therapy to teen surgeries and follow for 10 years. Once you've done that then you can talk to me about what the appropriate course is for my teen.
Just because the Emperor has been convinced to wear this fancy suit, the rest of us don't have to go along with the charade.
Tell, who gets to decide what is real science and what is 'political capturing of institutions'? Yeah, thought so. Let me say this very clearly and put this incident down in my rolodex:
It's not you that gets to decide, bub.
And be sure to record on that same card "And without a credible body of evidence to differentiate between the two states, neither do I get to decide".
Being happy with the current state doesn't mean its right.
You don't get to decide which body of evidence is 'credible' and which is not. Or are you a professional in this specific area with years of experience with citable publications in the field?
No? I thought not. Real researches read real well. Real researchers read their own cites before linking to them as supporting evidence. Real researchers - oh, who am I kidding? I think it's pretty obvious to everyone here that the only research you've done on the topic is clicking on Facebook links.
Oh, I'm pretty sure that on the off-chance he really hasn't heard about it's because he doesn't want to.
Keep up. I just demolished that argument. Is there evidence? Yes, and guess what? The medical establishment - despite the policy positions - still considers that pile of evidence to be "low quality." And really, how could it be anything else when the activist position is that treatment can never be withheld? Sure we actually test cardiac and cancer treatments ... in some cases withholding care ... why can't we have real studies on this topic?
The same people you just cited as proof of your argument and recommend just that? Those people? Why would your sources recommend something that hasn't been well-researched? Well, according to you, anyway.
If a boy thinks they are a girl or a girl thinks they are a boy, how much more harm can be done? They're already suffering from a mental illness.
There's serious pushback against medicalized transition for minor children:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/950964 - Sweden stops puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatment
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fins-turn-against-puberty-blockers-for-gender-dysphoria/ -- Finland also stops puberty blockers for children
https://genderreport.ca/sweden-gender-healthcare-for-youth/ -- the French National Academy of Medicine also suggests that puberty blockers are over-prescribed.
In all of these cases, the medical boards recommend psychiatric investigations before hormone-based treatment, i.e. do not recommend just accepting self-ID before treatment.
There's pretty obviously a social contagion aspect to questioning gender, which is pretty dangerous considering we're talking about likely irreversible damage to one's reproductive system. If an adult wants to medically transition, well, more power to them. But to do this to a child who has no idea what they're giving up seems cruel.
No, clearly he doesn't.
Denying that someone exists and campaigning for child abuse is not civil.
Period.
Uh, calling the kettle black much?
No denial that people exist. No denying that gender dysphoria is a thing. No denying that for many people the most effective treatment for their condition is some course of affirmation, hormones, surgery.
Telling a girl that she's a he because she likes climbing trees and engages in atypical gender behavior .... THAT'S some serious abuse. Taking explorative therapy and turning it into legalized gay-conversion... THAT'S abuse. Mastectomies and orchiectomies on teens before they can truly consent ... THAT'S abuse.
What parent or grandparent assumes a tomboi child is not of the gender assigned in labor n' delivery, based just on those tomboish activities alone? Kids can be unflinchingly honest, & a truly trans child will say, on more than one occasion, they are not as appear.
It's been like this for years. I remember, back in the late 2000s, or early 2010s, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel did a series on children in Wisconsin transitioning. This was years before Kaitlyn Jenner or Laura Jane Grace or Elliott Page were a thing, before Lia Thomas & Quinn, yet somehow children were still & already misaligned, misassigned, dysmorphic.
Trans isn't anything new.
That being said, the Carmen story arc, starting from 2005, on It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, may be the most human(e) representation of trans in pop culture. & when even dinguses like Dennis & Diandra Reynolds are using the correct pronouns, well... you need to examine where you went wrong.
"I would like to see more people calm down about transgender issues, but there are real concerns at stake on both sides ..."
I'm sure there are, but when state legislatures are falling all over themselves to ban like 4 transgender student athletes in the entire state (as happened in Utah) from participating in sports, you have to wonder how much power "both sides" have to push their agendas. Sure, on the one hand we have a bunch of legislators bringing the weight of the entire state down on the backs of 4 underage transgender people... but over there, the transgender people are getting a little uppity in their online comments... so both sides!
Much of the RedState Reaction is bad and overblown. Totally true. Ain't gonna try to defend them.
Yet ...
Is California's creation of a Transgender Sanctuary any less reactionary, destroying all sorts of rights and norms? That's not being "uppity in their online comments" - that's using the power of the state to not just protect a minority but to elevate the rights of the minority above the rights of pretty much everyone else.
And as for athletes ... imagine if there were just three Lia Thomas swimmers in the same league. They could potentially lock out the podium - and the effects of that are serious! Imagine the emotional and financial toll on other athletes who cannot place. In a high school context, there go a bunch of scholarships. And so much for Title IX. The point here is that the number of transgender athletes isn't the issue, its the size of the effect they have on fair competition.
The norms of abusing children who do not fit perfect gendered molds are norms worthy of shattering.
Should kids be allowed freedom in expression? Yes. Should we generally have a society that allows both sexes a wide range of dress, preference, mannerism ... e.g. secondary sexual characteristics ... why yes, we should.
Protecting the right of kids to play, explore, grow, make mistakes with minimal consequences is not abuse. My refusal to conform to your norms is not abuse.
Crushing the dreams of my girls, my nieces, my neighbors who want to be athletes ... well, that's not cool.
My refusal to conform to your norms is not abuse.
You must be real fun at parties.
If a boy wants to play with Barbies that is fine. But it doesn't make him a girl.
Indeed.
& no one is supposing that alone does.
Counterpoint: Kye Allums has never won WNBA MVP. He wasn't even Atlantic 10 Women's Basketball Outstanding Player in 2007-08.
Being born identified in the delivery room as a man doesn't mean one will own women's sports if later confirmed as a woman, nor will an individual identified at birth as a woman suddenly turn into the GOAT if confirmed as a man but remaining in the women's competition.
The whole transgender athletes in sports is probably the dumbest issue to hit this country in a long time. As Austin points out, very few people are impacted, but red-state right wing politicians are very happy to exploit this hot button to fire up their troops. But there are not exactly a lot of laurels to give out on the side of the trans advocates either because they are basically doing the same thing.
Anyone who thinks there is a simple answer to the question as to whether trans female athletes should be allowed to compete in girls/womens sports has not really thought about it. Either that or they have an axe to grind. There is basically no answer to the question that is not unfair to someone.
I think first you have to consider the question of why we have separate women's and girls sports. Why not just have one set of competitions and just have the best athletes, whatever gender, compete together? Well obviously that would mean that at pretty much every level girls and women would be boxed out from competing because, as a rule, "people assigned male at birth" have physical advantages when it comes to most sports.
Trans female athletes that compete against non-trans girls or women have a physical advantage. Does anyone actually dispute this? So if we want to keep having separate girl/women's sports, allowing trans female athletes changes what this means quite a bit.
But on the other hand, telling trans girls that they are not allowed to play sports is unfair to them and telling them "you are not really female" is hurtful. Anyone who does not recognize both of these realities is just wearing blinders.
All that said, this impacts very few people so why we keep talking about it, I don't even know.
I’m with you. But if “we keep talking about it” because we want to fair to everyone, that’s actually a good thing, isn’t it?
"But on the other hand, telling trans girls that they are not allowed to play sports..."
Is anyone saying that? They can play men's sports.
In a sport like swimming, where we have a fossil record of gender nonconformity influencing results, in the way of the 1970-88 East German women's team, I think Lia Thomas's best move, from a pr standpoint, would have been to take advantage of NCAA rules for (medical) redshirting -- & gotten an extra year on campus, during which to start a master's program, even -- & returned to the pool on the women's side after her testosterone levels had fully synched with her gender identity, but she didn't.
But as I noted above, in the way of George Washington University women's basketball player Kye Allums, the simple fact of playing a women's team season while either confirming to the state of a man or woman, with the attendant fluctuation in man sex hormones, does not a worldbeater make. Otherwise, OL Reign player Quinn would be Mia Garciaparra ^ Marta + Christine Sinclair.
I think it’s hysterical when people get fired over twitter… regardless of the topic. It’s like one of those Darwin Award things. Don’t care about this topic otherwise.
The sports thing I am against because I place fairness in a higher value. And if you are using your uterus as it was designed then you are a pregnant woman. Otherwise whatever.
It's also bullshit, because it's about harassing young women, not fairness.
See also new laws 'inspecting' female atheletes.
The history here is indeed unsavory.
We're getting better at it. The new rules regarding male puberty are a tremendous improvement and reflect our current understanding of athletic performance, physical development and the role of hormones. This is a good thing.
It mainly comes into play at the elite levels. For example if Serena Williams competed on the men's tour no one would have ever heard of her.
For lower levels it only matters because elite athletes male or female are often singled out at a young age. Consequently they get more training, nutrition, etc. even then. For the majoriry of young athletes there's no hard evidence transgender inclusive sports are damaging.
An invitation for a team doctor like Gym Jordan's THE Ohio State physio Richard Strauss or Michigan State's Larry Nasser to get their diddler on, for science.
Sabine Hossenfelder, Trans athletes in women's sports: Is this fair?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ9YAFYIBOU
I read her too. That woman has a good head on her shoulders.
When Senator Lindsey Graham demanded from Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson a definition of "woman", I was very disappointed by her answer. I thought she should have told him that, as a lawyer, he knows that words have different meanings in different contexts.
There's the legal definition, as set forth in statute, and that to the best of her knowledge, "woman" as a concept (as opposed to distinctions between "girls" and "women") has not been defined.
There's the scientific definition, which she will defer to biologists and geneticists.
There's the common definition, which falls into "I know one when I see one", and which she adds a caveat that Senator Graham might check out RuPaul's show if he actually thinks this is obvious.
And there's the courtesty definition, wherein transvestites and upgraded former men (X-Men??) are called "women."
There are probably more perfectly acceptable definiitions, but this at least shows it's not a simple quetion with a single answer.
She should have said, "HAMBISCUITS! A woman is someone who takes a good dick. So, that makes you a woman, you Palmetto State bitch".
This is bullshit, Kevin.
Maya went out of her way to harass and then sic people on her coworkers.
This is bullshit. Maya is a bully.
She actually said in a statement today:
"What we are not free to do is compel others to believe the same thing, to silence those who disagree with us or to force others to deny reality.”
Which would be fine, except that this is exactly what she and other transphobes have been doing. Trans people exist, and to say otherwise is to deny reality and to behave in the same bullying practises that she is ostensibly decrying.
That's like saying that left-handed people don't exist. If I knew how, I'd insert that notorious chart about how the incidence of left-handed people rocketed from about 2% to about 12% in 20 years between 1920 and 1940 but we didn't end up with 100% of the population being left-handed because what was actually happening was a recognition that, well, about 12% of the population were left-handed and we simply stopped trying to make them something that they were not...
Check out her site, sex-matters.org. The woman sounds like a real piece of work, and it's pretty obvious that her presence made people uncomfortable. And by people, I mean 'most of the other employees', regardless of their personal beliefs in the matter.
Will be interesting if, in the reverse scenario, where a trans advocate gets fired from, say, FIRE, if the modern reich supports that individual's right to get their job back.
I say the cislange will suddenly be in favor of a company's discretion in hiring.
Okay, how long ago was it that Rachel Dolezal called herself black and everyone trounced her because she was "lying". Until someone can explain the difference between calling yourself "black" and calling yourself a "woman" I don't want to hear all of the contortions people are going through to redefine women. I also don't really care what you call yourself whether it be black, woman, or Klingon, but we have to figure out how to protect children from making life-changing physical decisions without understanding what they are doing. And, yes, this is not an unusual problem. I'm in a music group with 10 people: 3 of us have "transgender" grandchildren. In my grandson's case, I in no way believe this is anything more than following the latest trend. Hate me if you want, but this is not a theoretical issue to a lot of people. p.s. I do not hate him, but I do hold his mother accountable. She's supposed to protect him and guide him to make his life happier. She's too busy being WOKE.
Thanks for sharing! Similar observations here.
LOL.
Generation Z is significantly more self-reported as non-binary (20%) than Millenials (5%). Is that because they feel free to be themselves or because they are encouraged to be that way?
Non-binary should not be presentes as desirable, just a thing that is.
Indeed, it is.
I am in my forties, & in my life I can count on two hands the number of medically gender confirmed people I know (of) personally.
The domestic supply of trans is not anywhere close to the klown kar of Amy Coney-Barrett's or Elizabeth Bruenig's uterus.
Um, does nonbinary include "that one time I hooked up another girl/boy while we were tripping on X"? What definition of nonbinary are they using here? Does the definition make a distinction between experimentation and confirmed lifer? Um, what else? Uh, for some people at least, they think it means they have gay as well as straight sex. And since society at large has become much more tolerant/accepting of LGBTQ+, well, why not give it a go and see what the fuss is all about? Etc., etc.
Exactly.
I have to think a certain percentage of nonbinary selfreporting is basically keto, but with six &/or gender.
It's trying to keep up with the crowd, but in all but the sincerest cases will be dropped by the next season.
I'm sure that's part of it, but I'm not sure that's the whole or even most of the story. I mean these are young people right, and identies form over time, right? Even toddlers. Even first[1], second, third, etc. graders. Puberty just means that you have to add sexual identity into the mix, no more or no less special than the decisions that come before or come after. Or at least that's the way it should be; up until _very_ recently any experimentation outside the box was, was um, not sanctioned, shall we say, let alone encouraged, let alone assuming a gender/sexual flavor very much not box. "We've got _both_ kinds of music here. Country and Western." So maybe, just maybe, things are changing for the better, trying flavors that are neither chocolate nor vanilla is no longer that big a deal, and the kids are more comfortable with who they are. And you know what this? A good thing. A very good thing.
[1]At the age of six, I decided I was going to be a firefighter _and_ a scuba diver when I grew up.
Oh, I forgot so I have to piggyback: What does it mean to 'identify' as a (fe)male? That you like to do girl/boy things? That you have tradional girl/boy role/job in society. Because I gotta say even accounting for age I simply don't spend a lot of time 'identify' myself as either. Math is math, programming is programming, teaching is teaching, household chores are household chores, etc.
Given your obvious antipathy to trans, I am assuming your granddaughter prolly doesn't get on so well with you.
Aren't we letting the medical industry act woke a little too easily by claiming it offers "gender reassignment surgery"? I don't have the impression that science has advanced enough that gender can be "reassigned". "Gender imitation surgery" maybe.
That call it "gender affirmation surgery" actually and that name is pretty much correct.
Yup.
Yeppers, and it seems that there are people here who are deliberately conflating sexual organs, sexual preferences and gender identifcation so they can pull the ol' Motte and Bailey.
Rather stupid people actually, or should just I say unwise? I -- and I imagine rather a lot of the regular commentors -- prefer not to take a strong stance on any given topic without first doing a little research (and trust me folks, it ain't that hard. Y'all got magic information boxes otherwise known as phones and computers.) The people I metioned above? They seem to feel otherwise.
Which is the Motte and which is the Bailey? What I see here is the Queer Shuffle -- attack and erode my position but when called upon to offer an explicated alternative model there is nothing offered but fog and mist.
So data! Studies! Results! The whole point of Kevin's post is that this should be something we can talk about, and questioning of a position shouldn't be prohibited. I mentioned the Cornell studies (https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/). People should look at it and decide if a) they understand what is actually going on and b) if these studies make it clear that Maya Forstater is a bad, bad person.
OR you could also look at segm.org/studies for a contrary viewpoint.
Oh dear lord, if you can post you can look up the fallacy yourself. Here the motte is that the person does not have the sex organs of a woman. The bailey is gender identity.
Your are demonstrably ... clumsy. Clumsy in both your scholarship and your arguments and I think my words and yours speak perfectly well for themselves at this point. Worse -- and this is the truly unforgivable part -- you're boring.
So, I looked at your website. It’s a little bit odd that this entire organization sprang to life during a Republican culture war attack on “transgender” people as the other. The people doing the studies seem to be more culture warriors than scientists who are getting peer reviewed studies published.
I looked at a couple of articles. They seemed more opinionated than one would expect. Googling several of the experts listed in the “about us” section gave a distinct impression that some of these people are basically cranks or religious people. I couldn’t find some of the studies cited and the ones they claimed to have done themselves didn’t have methodologies.
I also found this very strong critique of the organization:
https://transsafety.network/posts/segm-uncovered/
Can you tell me who funds this organization?
Can you assure me that none of these experts are conservatives (and particularly religious conservatives)?
Blink. I swear to God that I will accuse you of trolling again, though I thought yu were doing just that on many topics in the past.
So. I admit I was wrong and I apologize.
Your apology is very gracious. Thanks.
Blink. No, it's not gracious. It's simply stating the facts. Never admitting you're wrong is not ony the sign of a very small, very crabbed person, it's also anti-Enlightment and anti-Rationalist.
Plus, You were _owed_ an apology. Saying I'm gracious is lke thanking me for writing you a check for services rendered that didn't bounce. But I'll try harder not to fly off the handle in an effort to be gracious, especially at the end of the month; I have chronic pain issues and that's when the shots are wearing off.
Okay, but gender reassignment surgery (or "sex reassignment surgery") is what it's called in Wikipedia which has a page for it by that name
I think Kevin’s right about this to a significant degree. One the one hand, the anger about men in most sports transitioning to being women is perfectly understandable. As is the off putting insistence on “pregnant people” and the obsessive focus on pronouns, which, I feel, have a tendency to trivialize everything.
On the other hand, I also feel that much of what “moderates” are reacting to is decent people reacting to cruel, vicious, and heartless Republican culture warriors targeting people who are frequently the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. I believe this is a natural emotional response and it’s commendable.
I personally find it hard to believe that this tiny segment of the people could create so much hatred in the hearts of Republicans but I believe it’s much the way that the Nazis stirred up hatred against Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, and the Roma and for much the same reasons. Anger should be directed at the evil people who are engaged in this foul culture war.
Liberals and the center left generally haven’t really fought the culture wars. We’ve stood by in bemused silence as the Republicans have slowly destroyed everything decent and good about us as a people. It’s time get serious—the Republican Party needs to be destroyed and everyone and everything tainted by it needs to be destroyed too. The Republican Party needs to be burned to the ground, which should then be salted.
Let’s focus on that instead of being reasonable all the time. Destroy the Republican Party and make conservatives slither back under a rock and the “problems” with transgender and pronouns will quickly recede into distant memory.
Men, in droves, transitioning to women under false pretenses to wreck women's sport?
Has the right so debased itself they will cut their dicks off to pwn tha libz? (Admittedly, I have said a small part of me considered that Lia Thomas may, in five or ten years time, emerge as an op from the UPENN Student GQP, but even there, I assumed as an isolated case, just a genderbent provocateuse, not much different from attentionwhore James O'Queef.)
In the context of the larger society, the number of transgender people is trivial and, absent Republican culture war hysteria, would be pretty much unnoticeable. But in the context of sports, the opposite is the case and most people are very sympathetic to the demands to exclude formerly male athletes who’ve transitioned to female because of their huge natural advantages. This seems to be particularly the case in sports like swimming.
Even a small number of such athletes represent a huge public relations problem and there’s a lot of ambivalence in defending them even among liberals such as myself. I don’t have any ideas about what to do but I absolutely do understand where a lot of non-culture war people are coming from.
Well. I'm a very temperate guy. I don't especially want people to be fired.
And, the governor of Texas accuses me of child abuse for helping my daughter transition. Don't tell me to calm down about it. This is a very real, and very personal issue.
Indeed.
Well, you need to stay away from it. The Gov of Texas is a crippled pedo.
Legit LOL.
Rumors on Abbott being a molestor is 20 years old. Educate yourself.
Kevin says "there are real concerns at stake on both sides" which is bullshit. One side literally would like to just be able to live a normal life without being interfered with and attacked and killed. There's no both effing sides to that Kevin.
Sometimes, you have to wonder if Kevin's mom stepped out with David Broder.
Transgender crap is a bourgeois disorder at its finest. Elites use it to run capital essentially. Christians and Trannies need sent to reeducation camps.
Why are you confusing gender dysmorphia with anorexia nervosa?