Transing children

[Pratchet]

Brace doctor breaks cover and warns of the dangers

*An adoptive mother is an adoptive mother no one pretends they are the birth mother.

An adoptive mother is a parent. She may not have given birth to the child but she is the parent as parenting is the process of bringing up a child, not just giving birth. Adoptive mothers are clear to their children that they haven’t given birth to them, we all accept that to lie to a child about this is cruel, wrong, and can do untold damage when they inevitably find out the truth.

I watched this and agreed with most of it,

but there's also an interesting rebuttal here www.adolescenthealth.org/SAHM-News/SAHM-Responds-to-Dr-Michelle-Cretella.aspx

that refutes all the twin stuff. I know she's a believer in 'curing' homosexuality which kind of screws her credibility and I have no idea who the SAHM lot are (other than named after an MN acronym!)

Confusing. What are people's thoughts?

OldCrone Can you explain exactly what you mean by 'gender' and 'gender identity' in this context?

I actually meant gender as in sex, in this context. The old fashioned meaning. But I recognise that today people usually mean gender as a role or class assigned to a particular sex by society.

Gender identity = the sex with which you identify or feel you are. I don't think the term has any usefulness outside a clinical context.

Ophelia the point I was making is that you would not only have the legal rights as a mother, you would legally be the mother. I doubt all adoptive mothers constantly refer to themselves as 'adoptive mother' in all or even most contexts - just mother usually. That's not the same as 'pretending' to be a biological mother to the child within the privacy of the family.

harmful to pretend an adoptive parent is a genetic parent especially when tracing blood type or genetic abnormalities.

It would also be harmful for a transperson to pretend to be genetically/ biologically a sex they were not when dealing with certain medical situations or genetic abnormalities. Within the privacy of a medical context. Again you only strengthen the analogy.

It would also be harmful for a transperson to pretend to be genetically/ biologically a sex they were not when dealing with certain medical situations or genetic abnormalities

Or to gain entry to women's only spaces?

Bowlofbabelfish Do you believe humans can change sex?

Legally yes.

I also believe that some people need to change their hormonal biochemistry, some of their physiology, their name and their societal role in order to alleviate their dysphoria when their gender identity conflicts with their physical gender (or sex). I also believe there is a mixture of biological and environmental factor that cause it.

Or to gain entry to women's only spaces?

If they are legally and biochemically female then in most situations no, it wouldn't be harmful for a legal (trans) female to enter female only spaces. In certain cases it might be and provision is made for that situation in the Equality act.

If they are legally and biochemically female then in most situations no

A GRC merely creates the legal fiction that the holder is of the opposite sex. It does not state or require that the holder is "biochemically" of the sex they wish to become.

I also believe that some people need to change their hormonal biochemistry, some of their physiology, their name and their societal role in order to alleviate their dysphoria when their gender identity conflicts with their physical gender (or sex). I also believe there is a mixture of biological and environmental factor that cause it

Many, many people who identify as trans domnot identify as dysphoric.

Gender identity = the sex with which you identify or feel you are.

How is it possible to feel you are a different sex than you actually are?

I understand that it is possible to be unhappy with your body, and unhappy with the expectations of society regarding people of your own sex. To feel that such experiences mean you 'feel' like the opposite sex, or 'identify' with the opposite sex is delusional. You cannot feel like something you have never experienced and never can experience.

A GRC merely creates the legal fiction that the holder is of the opposite sex. It does not state or require that the holder is "biochemically" of the sex they wish to become.

I don't think a legally established fact is the same as fiction. It's an oxymoron.

Does it not require some sort of treatment to have been attested to? I was using that as an example to illustrate the lower risk of allowing a legally and medically transitioned woman into woman's space as opposed to, say, a man in a dress.

Many, many people who identify as trans domnot identify as dysphoric.

No so they would just be GNC people. The treatment and transition we are talking about is treatment for gender dysphoria.

the point I was making is that you would not only have the legal rights as a mother, you would legally be the mother

Christ almighty. Why do you think a legal fiction is created in adoption? Nothing to do with legal rights to be called a mother and everything to do with statutory responsibilities for a child. It's because you then become legally responsible for a child as a biological parent is.

This is yet another tu quoque. Adoption and legal gender reassignment have nothing to do with each other at all.

Does it not require some sort of treatment to have been attested to? I was using that as an example to illustrate the lower risk of allowing a legally and medically transitioned woman into woman's space as opposed to, say, a man in a dress.
If the Scottish reform of the GRA goes ahead, the man won't even have to put on a dress, let alone have any treatment. Even now, no treatment is required to obtain a GRC.

OldCrone How is it possible to feel you are a different sex than you actually are?

I'm not sure anyone has the exact answer to that, or ever will? It's like asking where is identity? Where is human consciousness? Where is the self and the personality? It starts to become a philosophical and metaphysical question.

It is though a clinically observable phenomenon. I don't think transpeople are delusional because they are not literally saying they are actually a different biological and chromosomal sex. They are saying they 'feel as though they are' a different sex, or 'should be'. That isn't the same as a psychotic delusion. Treatment that follows is then palliative. Not a cure but an attempt to alleviate dysphoria and change what is possible to change within modern medicine.

There is also evidence that there are genetic, biological and social factors so you could argue it isn't entirely psychological. Biopsychosocial model of human behaviour is widely accepted.

If the Scottish reform of the GRA goes ahead, the man won't even have to put on a dress, let alone have any treatment.
And that's something I don't support. I've said to you before I'm not trying to argue against every point on the forum.

"I don't think transpeople are delusional because they are not literally saying they are actually a different biological and chromosomal sex."

• then why the f""k should we say "they" are a different biological sex!!!

It seems you do not agree with "transwomen are women"? (not trying to trip you up but curious).

Christ almighty. Why do you think a legal fiction is created in adoption? Nothing to do with legal rights to be called a mother and everything to do with statutory responsibilities

Yes they have the rights of a mother. Established by a legal act.

Gov.uk:
What is parental responsibility?
All mothers and most fathers have legal rights and responsibilities as a parent - known as ‘parental responsibility’.
(my underline)

Adoption and legal gender reassignment have nothing to do with each other at all.

No they don't - except they are both examples of where a biological function is redefined by law for the good of society.

Sure, and apples and tomatoes are both fruit but no one with any sense tries to use them the same to support a specious argument because it is too obviously specious.

Happy to be tripped up in the interests of open discussion.

Yes trans women are women. Not all trans women say they are female biological sex - eg. Blaire White (youtube). She states clearly that she is a woman but that doesn't make her biologically female. Other trans people disagree.

Trans women are legally female if they wish to be. Hormonally/ biochemically they can be female. Given there is likely a genetic/ brain component (established by twin studies etc), many, including their care providers, consider them to be to all intents and purposes female. I think 'biological sex' does have different elements - genes, biochemistry, hormonal, reproductive organs - internal and external, brain structure.

It's not straightforward. Human sex, sexuality and gender identity is complex as others have said more eloquently than me. We have to arrive at a point that works for most individuals and wider society. The discussion on this forum is probably part of that process.

If you want to use that as analogous -

a local authority goes to court to place a child for adoption. This will be the culmination of possibly years of trying to improve parenting capacity to a good enough level. All parties will have separate legal representation in court including the child. There will be psychological reports, cognitive assessments, possibly residential placement etc.
It is a lengthy traumatic (for birth families) process.

Perhaps it is the model we should use for legal gender reassignment?

The "biological function" of motherhood is not simply passed from one person to another by being "redefined".

Sure, and the difference between knowledge and wisdom is knowledge is knowing tomatoes are a fruit, but wisdom is knowing not to put them in a fruit salad.
So what was the question again?

"I don't think transpeople are delusional because they are not literally saying they are actually a different biological and chromosomal sex."

"Yes trans women are women".

• how do you square that circle?

From Wiki

The Act gives people with gender dysphoria legal recognition as members of the sex appropriate to their gender (male or female) allowing them to acquire a new birth certificate, affording them full recognition of their acquired sex in law for all purposes, including marriage. The two main exceptions are .... etc etc

People present evidence to a Gender Recognition Panel, which considers their case and issues a Gender Recognition Certificate. If the person involved is in a legally recognised marriage they will be issued an 'Interim Gender Recognition Certificate.... etc

The Act requires applicants to have transitioned two years before a certificate is issued........ Successful applicants are entered onto a Gender Recognition Register, held by the registrar general, similar in operation to the Adoptions Register for those who have been adopted. (my emphasis)

So there is a legal procedure to go through. It is not as onerous/ stringent as the process you describe for adoption because an adult is making decisions about themself. For adoption there are 2 parties involved and a baby cannot represent him/ herself.

The "biological function" of motherhood is not simply passed from one person to another by being "redefined".

Where did that come from? We're not talking about passing on functions from one person to another.

they are both examples of where a biological function is redefined by law for the good of society

Dear lord. Even you don't believe your own baloney, surely?

No biological functions are being redefined. Legal fictions are being created. In one case, for the integrity of legal frameworks surrounding statutory responsibilities for children and, in the other, personal validation of an individual's inner identity.

I'm hoping even you can see that one is a social good and the other is (arguably) an individual good with repercussions (arguably) for a different legally protected group.

Mate, Wikipedia is not the best source to be using on a gender critical forum!