Talking to non GC people

I've been chatting to a few people recently about gender issues, and their opinion runs roughly like this ' we should all listen to each other, and not be so unpleasant. But of course, men shouldn't be in women's sports'
Which begs the question that, if GC people hadn't been 'unpleasant' men would have been firmly in women's sports.
So, should I be pleased that public opinion has shifted slightly, or should I be banging my head against the wall?

I think that people on here are going to have to assume that posts with masses of links are going to include some sort of data harvesting links and just not click on any in future.

Did you take the time to read the links to scientific papers, facts, and associated material? I'm guessing not so I shall make this nice and clear; your opinion doesn't trump science.

Despite your off-puttingly patronising attitude ("For those still a little confused in their GC stance, here's a short list of proper reading material for you to ponder") I will respond briefly. And no, I haven’t read all the articles you linked; they aren’t applicable as I’m not at all confused in my GC stance.

The problem is the overreach. I’m quite ready to accept that some people truly identify with another gender, and that this is not mental illness. However, identifying with another gender is not the same thing as being another sex. In humans, sex is immutable. It is identifiable and unchangeable in every cell of our bodies, not to mention things like the shape of the pelvis which often make it possible to know, from the skeleton, the sex of someone who died hundreds of years ago. Yet people who express this truth have for years been hounded from their jobs and vilified as transphobic bigots who want all trans people dead.

If the entire organisational principle of our society is to be changed, why is it somehow impermissible for there to be open discussion about this, with views from both sides heard respectfully, rather than one side insisting that they are right so there should be no discussion allowed, and anyone who thinks differently is a transphobic bigot who wants all trans people dead?

If the meaning of common words such as "woman" is to be changed, how is it right for this to be imposed unilaterally, with anyone who thinks differently labelled a transphobic bigot who wants all trans people dead?

If people are troubled by the unnaturally large percentage of teenage girls deciding they are really boys who have a history of other problems such as autism or family breakdown, leading to the possibility that they could be wrongly attributing their difficulties to a fashionable idea, and are too young to fully understand the implications of taking medical steps that will irreversibly affect the rest of their lives, should those who express their concerns really be labelled transphobic… you know the rest.

Overreach: why should male people be allowed to self-identify as members of a historically disadvantaged group, and then qualify for the protections and affirmative actions in place to benefit those born and brought up in that group, such as all-women shortlists or awards? Why are those who point out the ridiculousness of this, or of ludicrous virtue-signalling such as the first UN Women UK Champion being a transwoman, accused of being … fill in the rest yourself.

How does it differ from Rachel Dolezal, a white woman, claiming to be Black because she feels black? Does anyone accuse the black people who object to this of being racists who want her dead? Would it be perfectly acceptable for her to be named as a leading representative of black people?

Why are those who point out that there is no evidence whatsoever that transwomen do not maintain the same level of criminality, including sexual crimes, as other men, howled down and accused of… you know what?

The proponents of the TWAW, TMAM mantra seem to think they are excitingly progressive, and that anyone who thinks differently is an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, whereas in fact the opposite is true. The idea that, for example, a boy who does not identify with traditional, stereotypical "boy behaviour" but prefers traditional, stereotypically "girl behaviour" must therefore be a girl is incredibly regressive. In my opinion he is not a type of girl but a member of a sub-section of the category "boy".

Well, that wasn’t as brief as I intended!

So can you explain why the post containing all those links seems to have been removed?

So can you explain why the post containing all those links seems to have been removed?

Did you take the time to read the links to scientific papers, facts, and associated material? I'm guessing not so I shall make this nice and clear; your opinion doesn't trump science.

Quick is coming across as really creepy in their latest posts.

I think that the gender critical argument is that it's perfectly normal not to identify with the expectations of your birth sex, and that nobody needs to self-identify in that way. It's the basis of feminism.

The societal expectation that one should conform to gender expectations is the problem.

An individual may struggle with body dysmorphia to such an extent that it is a mental illness, but the problem is the body dysmorphia, not that they are the wrong sex.

Just seen this - I scrolled up.

Either these links were posted in good faith and/or some just didn't work as expected.... or not.

Do you remember if any went straight to a pdf?

Regarding internet safety (and clicking on pdfs) this is a concerning conversation exchange from above:

What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links.

💪❤️

I was recently having a conversation with a "mum friend". She and I have different views on gender identity (she believes everyone has one, I don't) but we had lots of common ground on the harms associated with this belief (obviously she saw it as factual - but was interested in the notion I didn't).

Most of our conversation was about children. Where we differed primarily was that she thinks some children are true trans and need to be given an opportunity to understand themselves through this lens. We didn't come to any conclusion either way on who was "right" and I have no idea if the conversation will take us that way. However, she was very clear that she was worried about anyone - not just children - altering their body permanently if there was a chance that they may change their mind.

I did nudge her towards MN as a way to explore her thoughts if she wanted to do so, particularly as she also seems interested in women's rights. She's now read some threads but I don't know if it'll be something she wants to continue doing.

I hope it's not too trite to say but I really enjoy your contributions on this board. We get told we're in a echo chamber by a lot of ploppers, but we're clearly not. If a transman and a non-believer like me can have interesting discussions without tearing strips off each other, it's a pretty good indication that it's not!

TBH I think most IRL conversations end up finding common ground. Not always, obviously. I've been, and remain, on the receiving end of some uncomfortable conversations and situations.

But, to pull it back to the OP, there are some obvious areas of common ground that pretty much every person (who didn't have a motive driving them differently) would likely agree on if they could find an opportunity to do so. Sport and prisons are two. Harm to vulnerable children is another.

Just seen this - I scrolled up.

Either these links were posted in good faith and/or some just didn't work as expected.... or not.

Do you remember if any went straight to a pdf?

Regarding internet safety (and clicking on pdfs) this is a concerning conversation exchange from above:

What on earth are you up to?

What indeed? But thank you for clicking on the links.

I clicked on a handful of those links. Quite a few led to "Page not found". One was titled "How food overconsumption has hijacked our notions about eating as a pleasurable activity". Another was about lack of grief counselling during the pandemic. What on earth are you up to?

I think one of the more pernicious aspects of the GC ideology is the assertion that anyone who doesn't identity with their assigned at birth sex must somehow be suffering from mental illness.

It's literally
a) a belief entirely in our head, which
b) causes us to attack our perfectly healthy biology through the use of hormones and surgeries.

In short: it's in the mind, and it has deleterious effects, thus it's a mental illness.

I've yet to see anybody cite or reference the exact part of the DSM5 that clearly shows trans-identification to be a mental illness;

Criteria: Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months’ duration, as manifested by at least two or more of the following:

• A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
• A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

"Desire", by definition, is exclusively mental. So all those criteria except the first one are purely mental. And the first one only refers to gender incongruence in expression, which isn't a pathological trait, and thus doesn't need medical treatment.

So yes, the DSM-5 definition makes it amply clear that gender dysphoria is purely a mental illness, that the hormones and surgeries are to treat a mental illness.

indeed, the generally accepted mindset among the professionals in the field is that trans-identification is both real and rational.

Real, yes, but rational? What's rational about wanting to hurt oneself through the use of hormones and surgeries? What's rational about saying, "Huh, I can totally see that I'm fe/male, but no, I argue I'm not!" ? Trans-identification is completely irrational. It's entirely in the head, and it's entirely at odds with the reality of one's body. It's a mental illness.

Here's the abstract of the first paper you linked to:

Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders. The umbrella terms for such genders are 'genderqueer' or 'non-binary' genders. Such gender identities outside of the binary of female and male are increasingly being recognized in legal, medical and psychological systems and diagnostic classifications in line with the emerging presence and advocacy of these groups of people. Population-based studies show a small percentagebut a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbersof people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as suchwhile not being disorders or pathological in themselvespeople with such genders remain at risk of victimization and of minority or marginalization stress as a result of discrimination. This paper therefore reviews the limited literature on this field and considers ways in which (mental) health professionals may assist the people with genderqueer and non-binary gender identities and/or expressions they may see in their practice. Treatment options and associated risks are discussed.

So in short: genderqueer or non-binary people exist. They may be at risk of victimisation or discrimination. Here's what mental health professionals can do to help them.

Okay, and? Nobody here denies that some people perceive themselves to be transgender, genderqueer, or non-binary. Nobody denies that such people should be protected from discrimination or victimisation. So what's your point?

You are in error, which you'd know if you'd read my response to her.

I stated very clearly that "My use of [sic] is automatic - blame it on my many years in academia! - and not done to attack somebody" and that "whether or not the poster is dyslexic is, again, utterly irrelevant."

That she misinterpreted it as an attack is an understandable mistake and one that required the clarification I gave. The fact that, even with that clarification, you have continued to assert the same reflects badly on you, not on me.

I think one of the more pernicious aspects of the GC ideology is the assertion that anyone who doesn't identity with their assigned at birth sex must somehow be suffering from mental illness.

It's literally
a) a belief entirely in our head, which
b) causes us to attack our perfectly healthy biology through the use of hormones and surgeries.

In short: it's in the mind, and it has deleterious effects, thus it's a mental illness.

I've yet to see anybody cite or reference the exact part of the DSM5 that clearly shows trans-identification to be a mental illness;

Criteria: Gender Dysphoria in Adolescents and Adults

A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least six months’ duration, as manifested by at least two or more of the following:

• A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics)
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
• A strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)
• A strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

"Desire", by definition, is exclusively mental. So all those criteria except the first one are purely mental. And the first one only refers to gender incongruence in expression, which isn't a pathological trait, and thus doesn't need medical treatment.

So yes, the DSM-5 definition makes it amply clear that gender dysphoria is purely a mental illness, that the hormones and surgeries are to treat a mental illness.

indeed, the generally accepted mindset among the professionals in the field is that trans-identification is both real and rational.

Real, yes, but rational? What's rational about wanting to hurt oneself through the use of hormones and surgeries? What's rational about saying, "Huh, I can totally see that I'm fe/male, but no, I argue I'm not!" ? Trans-identification is completely irrational. It's entirely in the head, and it's entirely at odds with the reality of one's body. It's a mental illness.

Here's the abstract of the first paper you linked to:

Some people have a gender which is neither male nor female and may identify as both male and female at one time, as different genders at different times, as no gender at all, or dispute the very idea of only two genders. The umbrella terms for such genders are 'genderqueer' or 'non-binary' genders. Such gender identities outside of the binary of female and male are increasingly being recognized in legal, medical and psychological systems and diagnostic classifications in line with the emerging presence and advocacy of these groups of people. Population-based studies show a small percentagebut a sizable proportion in terms of raw numbersof people who identify as non-binary. While such genders have been extant historically and globally, they remain marginalized, and as suchwhile not being disorders or pathological in themselvespeople with such genders remain at risk of victimization and of minority or marginalization stress as a result of discrimination. This paper therefore reviews the limited literature on this field and considers ways in which (mental) health professionals may assist the people with genderqueer and non-binary gender identities and/or expressions they may see in their practice. Treatment options and associated risks are discussed.

So in short: genderqueer or non-binary people exist. They may be at risk of victimisation or discrimination. Here's what mental health professionals can do to help them.

Okay, and? Nobody here denies that some people perceive themselves to be transgender, genderqueer, or non-binary. Nobody denies that such people should be protected from discrimination or victimisation. So what's your point?