The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

Please stop.

Also great. That's the basis behind my point. That many people hold all sorts of different values as important to them and there is no "right" way to approach this.

That's good, so I guess you have no problem with people in the public eye calling it make believe and not affording it any legitimacy then.

Yes, but you appear to think your own way of dealing with it is the "nuanced" way, and everyone doing it differently is an extremist

😂🤦‍♀️

No.

Editing to continue, now that I've finished laughing.

In the public debate, which is what we are talking about, I fully support people highlighting the absurdity of gender identity ideology.

So do I, as I have said on multiple occasions. This is just as important as people who discuss it in a more "neutral" way. All of it contributes to the public debate.

I agree that we should stop this conversation now. But I'm not going to let it end on a misrepresentation of what I've been saying.

@BonfireLady

Yes, but you appear to think your own way of dealing with it is the "nuanced" way, and everyone doing it differently is an extremist. I personally think indulging the belief as legitimate often does more harm than good, and I think that generally more bluntness is good, depending on the circumstances. In the public debate, which is what we are talking about, I fully support people highlighting the absurdity of gender identity ideology.

Of course I would try to be sensitive to a person's feelings in real life. I wouldn't go up to someone who claims to have heard voices in their head and laugh in their face that it was bollocks, either.

You've successfully articulated that that is what you personally think, and how you conceptually approach it, yes.

Great.

Other views exist.

Also great. That's the basis behind my point. That many people hold all sorts of different values as important to them and there is no "right" way to approach this.

Edited for clarity.

Hopefully I've successfully articulated what I was trying to say about the benefits of "neutral" approach which focuses on the impact of the belief rather than the belief itself.

You've successfully articulated that that is what you personally think, and how you conceptually approach it, yes. Other views exist.

Thank you.

Empathy for her distress, without judgement, is at the core of everything that I am doing to support her.

Biological sex is not a binary. Gender is a social construct. We made it up! We can do whatever we want. We chart all our own paths.

Biological sex is binary. Disorders of sexual development exist.

Gender is a social construct based on sex stereotypes. Without sex, there would be no "gender". We are mostly free to chart our own paths and do what we want, but we can't escape biology entirely.

You are free to disagree, and I suggest we draw a line under it, because it's a derail.

I hope it wasn't a derail as it's directly related to reasons why Democrats don't speak out: they feel they are being respectful to others' beliefs.

But I agree that it risks being a derail, which is why I apologised to the OP earlier.

Hopefully I've successfully articulated what I was trying to say about the benefits of "neutral" approach which focuses on the impact of the belief rather than the belief itself. Even more importantly, hopefully enough Democrats can stop actively defending and repeating the tenets of the belief and instead look at the harms associated with it.

Truly I wish only the best for you and your kid and I hope you met her with empathy and she receieved the support from you she needed.

Biological sex is not a binary. Gender is a social construct. We made it up! We can do whatever we want. We chart all our own paths.

Anti-trans arguments often sound so controlling to me. I caution trans kids that they can't control how others perceive them and that their identity is internal and not determined by how other's see them or address them, and I think gender criticals should remember they can't control how others perceive themselves.

Yep 👍

I cannot imagine you were this antagonistic with her

That's an interesting interpretation of everything that I have written.

I am comfortable referring them to their medical practioner for more information instead of going on Reddit as their sole source of advice.

By the time I am speaking to them, they already know about medical treatments.

That would be telling them what they are. That's not for me, or anyone, to decide for them.

You can't decide your own biological sex. It's as simple as that.

What they are is already pre-determined from the point of conception: they are human beings and are either male or female

That would be telling them what they are. That's not for me, or anyone, to decide for them.

They already know about medical interventions for transitioning. Telling them to ask their doctor for specifics to them is preferable to them learning it off of friends or the internet.

Is it likely you approached your daughter's gender questioning in a non-abusive or supportive way? Only she would know. I cannot imagine you were this antagonistic with her, so hopefully it was positive for her.

The Cass is an imperfect report which struggles with bias. I have seen plenty of teen girls question their gender, socially transition, and then transition back when it didn't feel authentic to them.

That's exactly the point I'm making with my analogy, because in modern day Britain (unlike in the past)...

You seem to think because I think gender identity ideology is completely incoherent nonsense I should apply exactly the same criteria to all spiritual and religious beliefs. It's my opinion that they are not all the same, and I will continue to treat them differently and refer to them as such, as is my prerogative. You are free to disagree, and I suggest we draw a line under it, because it's a derail.

You're taking a charitable view of Texas legislators and their intentions.

"It doesn't say so explicity, so that'll never happen," is a line voters were fed about abortion bans in Texas, and now women are being denied lifesaving medical care when their pregnancies endanger them.

If religious beliefs were imposed on me in the same way as gender identity ideology and the truth of them was given as a reason why I should accept my oppression in their name, then yes I would point out that their religious worldview wasn't based on objective reality.

That's exactly the point I'm making with my analogy, because in modern day Britain (unlike in the past)...

luckily I live in a place and time where that isn't necessary, unlike with this secular ideology.

To add: the additional point that I'm making is that when I think of how people feel about their religious beliefs (the nearest I come to this in my own experience is my belief in ghosts), it helps me recognise just how strongly true gender identity believers feel that it's true that everyone has a gender identity. Christians are used to batting of disbelief from atheists because society has worked out how believers and non-believers can rub along next to each other. We don't have that with gender identity belief, so any direct challenge is taken as hate and spread as a danger to believers.

I don't know how it will be possible for young people to recover from being groomed into a victim mentality when in fact their lives are completely normal.

Indeed 😔😔😔

It's going to take a combination of every style of engagement to get this issue exposed for the medical scandal that it is - and for the impact that gender identity belief has on women's rights.

A key part of that is conversation and bravery within the Democrat party in the US and Labour/Lib Dems in the UK. Not just within it but speaking publicly, like Seth Moulton has done.

The Be Kind population (of which I was a fully signed up member) is often put off by messaging that it sees as right-wing adjacent and/or being force-teamed with policies on immigration or (in the US) homosexuality. However, we still need these strong voices speaking out. We need all the voices we can get. It's just unfortunate if too many of them come from people who are also talking loudly about traditional right wing politics and/or display an intolerance of people who are gay or from a different culture.

It's the belief itself that is equally as valid and nonsensical to me.

Yes, to you. Others see it differently. We fully share a disbelief in god, but I don't personally take the view that all things I disbelieve in are in the same category.

Just because I am happy to call gender identity ideology "make believe", doesn't mean I have to treat all beliefs the same, so I don't have to think the centuries of religious tradition and culture of Christianity or Islam is equally as silly as believing in "otherkin" or leprechauns or whatever.

If religious beliefs were imposed on me in the same way as gender identity ideology and the truth of them was given as a reason why I should accept my oppression in their name, then yes I would point out that their religious worldview wasn't based on objective reality. But luckily I live in a place and time where that isn't necessary, unlike with this secular ideology.

However, I don't see any positives at all associated with gender identity belief
This is my position too.

Apart from all the bigger issues the article linked just shows how mentally unhealthy the whole thing is. None of the laws ban 'trans presentation'. Convincing vulnerable people that everyone hates them when that's not true is so cruel. I don't know how it will be possible for young people to recover from being groomed into a victim mentality when in fact their lives are completely normal.

As far as I can see there is nothing listed in this very biased, activist written article that indicates that it will be illegal to be present as trans in public in Texas, though I concede it might, nonetheless, be an uncomfortable experience for those who chose to do so. As we keep being told drag artists are not necessarily trans identifying and most trans identifying people would not consider themselves to be in drag. The article points, in outrage to:

“10 separate bills designed to criminalize gender-affirming care for trans youth, criminalize drag shows, ban trans kids in sports (again), limit changes to gender markers on the birth certificates of minors, and limit discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.”

Frankly I think all of those changes would be very welcome - the only one I have issue with would be the outright banning of drag performance which I feel should simply be confined to adult only, licensed venues for those old enough to consent to attending (rather than the lunch time cafe shows with tots encouraged to put dollar bills in thongs that we’ve seen footage of, which is actually revolting.) However, not one of the proposed laws cited by Mx Caraballo states that girls won’t legally be able to wear boys clothes or men wear dresses if they feel like it (ie be gender non-conforming) - to say Texas is banning trans presentation in law is a wildly inaccurate and inflammatory claim, almost as inflammatory and inaccurate as the article title.

I've never said there is no value to religious belief. As I have done on other threads, I'm happy to admit that I'm rather jealous of the feeling of calm and peace that faith gives people. I value the way that it can bring communities together e.g. church events, people offering food every evening during Ramadan. For example, Cairo has a great tradition of this, where groups of young people get together and run their own tables every day during the whole month, giving food out to people who otherwise may not get any.

It's the belief itself that is equally as valid and nonsensical to me. Not the values within it. Religious beliefs have lots of fantastic values. Far more than dodgy ones - most dodgy values have been consigned to the bin of history in the UK (not so much in Afghanistan, Iran etc e.g. the dodgy values by which women are treated). When I stayed in downtown Cairo, and also in Marrakech, I was struck by how alive and vibrant the city was on a Friday night owing to the lack of drinking. Quite the contrast to drunk people falling over everywhere. Although I'm happy to drink alcohol (and have been drunk and stumbling around myself when younger) I can see positives where this is not the norm in a society.

However, I don't see any positives at all associated with gender identity belief.

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this. I've got a few points that I'd like to raise in response:

Typically I tell kids that nobody should tell them what they are,

Great! Although presumably you mean "how they should live their lives?" e.g. nobody should tell them that "this is what women should dress like, act like, do as a job etc". What they are is already pre-determined from the point of conception: they are human beings and are either male or female. From that start point, they should be free to embrace or reject the inevitable sex-based stereotypes that every society places on every child. Sadly every society has expectations and limitations that differ between girls and boys, even at a subconscious level e.g. when girls are born they are more likely to get lots of pink gifts compared to boys who are more likely to get blue gifts. From the word go, society tells us "this is what girls do" and "this is what boys do".

and they should speak to their health practioner and be fully educated on the risks and side effects of medical intervention

Why would you mention medical interventions to a child who is already vulnerable to believing that their lack of adherence to cultural expectations and/or lack of acceptance to submit to cultural limitations means they are "in the wrong body"? Surely the start point is that they are in exactly the right body and that it's totally ok to be whatever kind of boy/girl you want to be. Just by mentioning medical interventions, there is a bias from the start that their body might be wrong for them. They'll grab it with two hands as a possible answer for why they are confused/distressed if it's coming from an adult they trust.

I don't know any adult in my setting telling kids they can be any gender, just that it's ok if they are or they are questioning.

If any adult in your setting is sharing preferred pronouns, for example, they are already setting the scene that it's possible to be any "gender". That gender identity is important. That it's more important than what sex you are.

Typically the no to pronouns and name and haircut is delivered is in an unsupportive and needlessly fearful manner. It is atypical in my experience that caregivers want to watchful wait and are not doing so in an invalidating manner (the usual case) or harmful manner (less often now but was the normal 5 years ago.)

When my daughter experienced huge distress and confusion about whether or not she was meant to be a girl, I told her that she needed to keep using her normal pronouns while she worked through all of her thoughts on this. That it was important to stick with everything exactly as it is now and look at each thing that upset her on its own merits. Without introducing any bias whatsoever e.g. using sports bras (not binders) to help alleviate her distress about her breasts growing and the pill to alleviate her distress about her periods. I made it very clear that it was important that everything we did didn't change the status quo: that she is a female. Meanwhile, she desperately needed help with her mental health as she was struggling with all of it, plus bullying at school related to her autism. When she asked for puberty blockers to give her time to think we said no, because the NHS advised that there was an unknown impact on teenage brain development. We said we weren't happy with this kind of medical experimentation.
Here's what I was up against at the time: https://www.transgendertrend.com/teenage-gender-identity-crisis/

Does my approach sound invalidating? Or that I delivered it in an unhelpful, fearful manner?

I have a few detransitioned friends. I understand parental fears around the issue. I think if someone is worried about harm reduction, they need to weigh social transitioning carefully and not refuse it out of a place of "what if this leads to more"?
It is not a gateway drug.

The Cass Report explains very clearly that social transition is a "gateway drug". Obviously that's not the phrase that's used. Instead it is explained that social transition is "not a neutral act" and that it can bring in a bias which overshadows any other explanation for a child's distress, such as autism-related puberty distress, linked to sensory issues (breast development, periods) and distress about their body changing.