Hypothetically....

[AyeKarumba]

If you had a child who was anorexic, would you say "don't worry we can fix your body because that's your problem. ....have dome diet pills now then you can get a tummy tuck & a breast reduction when you are older. That will make you happy"

Or would you ask why their world had made them feel so uncomfortable in their own body & try to help them feel happy with who they are?

No one is saying transwomen are biological women

That is literally what ‘trans women are women’ means - that there can be no differentiation on grounds of biology, which would also include trans men.

No one is saying transwomen are biological women. They're two different things

Quite a lot of people are. (Not trying to pick your point apart, but just in case you weren't aware, a lot of people are saying transwomen are biological women, or that they are the same thing, or that it's transphobic to say 'they're two different things').

This muddling of what is being said and what is actually meant is another reason this whole debate is so confusing.

[quote PearlescentIridescent]@TheRabbitOfCaerbannog Yes okay that makes when defining biological women but why does that mean someone can't be a transwoman? I'm so confused. No one is saying transwomen are biological women. They're two different things[/quote]
Lots of people say transwomen are women and lots of people are trying to get the law changed to recognise that. Stonewall has lobbied hard using TWAW has its guiding principle and indeed advised institutions that they don't need to be too concerned about sex as a protected characteristic, despite that being enshrined in the EA2010. The national census which gathers information that informs our healthcare and administrative systems is happy for people to not disclose their biological sex. We know there are big differences in the diagnosis and treatment of women and men. We know that if men who believe themselves to be women - like Pip Bunce - are recorded in gender pay gap statistics it will enable organisations to skew the figures. How then will women demonstrate where they are being discriminated against?

The legal side is where it becomes clear.
Laws being changed to say transwomen are women and there are no biological sex classes.

@merrymouse

No, the idea of "sexual orientation" has no objective substance. Sexual activity does, but people have a sexual orientation regardless of whether they engage in sexual activity or not.

Because they do or don’t experience attraction. That is not a tangible physical object, but it is an objectively understood idea.

It's not objectively provable though. It relies on you believing someone when they tell you.

The same as with gender identity.

This is the main reason there was a lack of acceptance of homosexuality until the last few decades. Because people didn't believe it and there was no way to prove that it's innate.

My parents paid for me to have breast reduction surgery when I was in my teens. I went from a J cup to a DD and am now an E cup and think it's one of the best things that ever happened to me.

Anorexia, obviously, you have to treat because of the mortality rate but if someone hates how they look but could have a body they were happy with, then yeah, I think sometimes the right thing to do is change your body.

@therabbitofcaerbannog thank you- I found it a good review of the evidence/ issues

I'm not quick enough to keep up with this thread whilst cooking the kids tea- but I'll come back to have a read later. Great contributions!

[quote yeahbutnaw]@AdHominemNonSequitur

How do you know that ROGD exists? Because you "feel" it's true? Is there any actual evidence?

Is it possible that your prejudice is clouding your judgement?[/quote]
The Littman Study done at Brown in 2017/18. I don't think they trepane for psychological phenomenon anymore.

I don't "feel" anything. I am a clinician and I have read the descriptive study, which has reasonable methodology, is logical and describes a large cohort with shared features and a novel presentation of symptoms, whose appearance in numbers (4000% increase in referrals to GIDS in the UK) seem to correspond with the rise of gender ideology.

Do you "feel" it is untrue? Is it possible that your prejudice is clouding your judgement? Do you have any evidence to contradict it?

and on we spin

This is the main reason there was a lack of acceptance of homosexuality until the last few decades. Because people didn't believe it and there was no way to prove that it's innate.

This is interesting - can you provide a bit more information about this? Do you mean "acceptance" as in 'believing it exists' or 'believing it's morally ok'? It seems like you meant the former?

It's not objectively provable though. It relies on you believing someone when they tell you.

Whether or not it can be proven isn’t relevant .

This is the main reason there was a lack of acceptance of homosexuality until the last few decades. Because people didn't believe it and there was no way to prove that it's innate.

No, they objected to homosexuality because it challenged gender roles and might interfere with enlarging the work force and creating heirs.

Whether or not it was innate was completely irrelevant. The law criminalised acts, not feelings.

Homosexuality is now accepted because society is less likely to care.

The idea that same sex attraction has to be innate to be acceptable (they can’t help it!) is actually quite homophobic.

This is the main reason there was a lack of acceptance of homosexuality until the last few decades. Because people didn't believe it and there was no way to prove that it's innate.

I have never, ever heard of that before! The reason was much more that people thought it was unnatural, forbidden by certain religions and morally wrong.

People didn't believe homosexuality existed because you can't prove it? That's why there were laws against it, is it?

@merrymouse

It's not objectively provable though. It relies on you believing someone when they tell you.

Whether or not it can be proven isn’t relevant .

This is the main reason there was a lack of acceptance of homosexuality until the last few decades. Because people didn't believe it and there was no way to prove that it's innate.

No, they objected to homosexuality because it challenged gender roles and might interfere with enlarging the work force and creating heirs.

Whether or not it was innate was completely irrelevant. The law criminalised acts, not feelings.

Homosexuality is now accepted because society is less likely to care.

The idea that same sex attraction has to be innate to be acceptable (they can’t help it!) is actually quite homophobic.

Absolute tosh. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're an ill-informed heterosexual person.

Firstly, no, the gay rights movement centred on homosexuality being innate and acceptable. It required both. If it was acceptable but not innate, there would be no urgency for change (because people could just stop being gay).

Secondly, you're conflating social acceptance and legality of activity. They rarely coincide. Homosexuality was socially unacceptable for long after it was decriminalised. Homophobic attacks are also rarely motivated by observation of sexual activity. I've had homophobic slurs shouted at me from passing cars - not because I was engaging in homosexual sex at the time - but because they believed me to be homosexual.

I'd suggest you read a few articles about gay history before you try to correct LGB people on their own history.

@WindyPudding

This is the main reason there was a lack of acceptance of homosexuality until the last few decades. Because people didn't believe it and there was no way to prove that it's innate.

I have never, ever heard of that before! The reason was much more that people thought it was unnatural, forbidden by certain religions and morally wrong.

People didn't believe homosexuality existed because you can't prove it? That's why there were laws against it, is it?

You've never heard someone say that homosexuality is a choice?

What do you think conversion therapy is based on exactly?

Why on earth would someone choose/pretend to be gay at a time when it was illegal and hugely frowned upon? People did everything they could to hide it, except in their inner circles.

Sexual orientation being innate is not something that can be objectively proven. It relies on you believing me when I tell you my orientation.

Of course it's true that you could be lying, but there is not motive to, and even more importantly, it doesn't matter. It doesn't affect me whether someone else is gay or not (unless they're my husband I suppose, but it still doesn't affect my rights). There's not motive to be gay, or to pretend to be gay, except those feelings.

Whereas with GD there are multiple motives to be something special and admired, find a "family" away from unsympathetic parents, find a solution to feeling dissociation from or hatred for one's body, and convince yourself that's GD when it isn't; or in another way, to claim to be a woman for other benefits, as when a rapist saying they are female gives them access to vulnerable captive women.

Academically, yes they are both feelings. That doesn't mean they are the same in their ramifications.

@WindyPudding

Why on earth would someone choose/pretend to be gay at a time when it was illegal and hugely frowned upon? People did everything they could to hide it, except in their inner circles.

Sexual orientation being innate is not something that can be objectively proven. It relies on you believing me when I tell you my orientation.

Of course it's true that you could be lying, but there is not motive to, and even more importantly, it doesn't matter. It doesn't affect me whether someone else is gay or not (unless they're my husband I suppose, but it still doesn't affect my rights). There's not motive to be gay, or to pretend to be gay, except those feelings.

Whereas with GD there are multiple motives to be something special and admired, find a "family" away from unsympathetic parents, find a solution to feeling dissociation from or hatred for one's body, and convince yourself that's GD when it isn't; or in another way, to claim to be a woman for other benefits, as when a rapist saying they are female gives them access to vulnerable captive women.

Academically, yes they are both feelings. That doesn't mean they are the same in their ramifications.

Why on earth would someone choose/pretend to be trans at a time when it is hugely frowned upon?

Theres a lot of corporate and institutional and indeed social support for trans people at the moment.

The Littman Study done at Brown in 2017/18. I don't think they trepane for psychological phenomenon anymore.

The 'Littman Study' wasn't a study, it's entirely scientifically ignored and involved a survey under people on different forums who claimed to be parents of transgender children with no verification thereof and zero involvement of any children themselves (to confirm or deny claims by 'their parents') with heavily leading questions.

It 'coincidentally' was exclusively sent to websites that want to get rid of the thought of and any affirmation of trans children to begin with (transgender trend, 4th wave now and youth trans critical professionals), proving it to be an extremely biased survey.

Why on earth would someone choose/pretend to be trans at a time when it is hugely frowned upon?

What do you mean by "pretend to be trans"? What is the difference between claiming to be trans and being it? Hard to answer until you define it.

@DeaconBoo

Why on earth would someone choose/pretend to be trans at a time when it is hugely frowned upon?

What do you mean by "pretend to be trans"? What is the difference between claiming to be trans and being it? Hard to answer until you define it.

@DeaconBoo If you'd read the conversation prior to this, you'd notice that we've established that it's based on believing someone's self declaration.

The same way you believe (or don't) someone when they tell you they're gay.

Absolute tosh. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're an ill-informed heterosexual person.

I am just some random on the internet. I would be wary believing you can judge the sexuality of randoms on the internet, but here is an informed lesbian.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/sexuality-nature-nurture-debate

If it was acceptable but not innate, there would be no urgency for change (because people could just stop being gay).

No. Plenty of human desires and traits are innate. That doesn't influence their acceptability. Homosexuality is now acceptable because society realises that consenting adults should be able to form romantic relationships with each other as they wish, and that two people of the same sex are as entitled to argue over who empties the bins, have protections on divorce and benefit from IHT rules as two people of opposite sexes.

However, homosexuality challenges gender, and some people believe that their status is dependent on maintaining gender roles. They really don't care why people are homosexual, they are just threatened by the fact that they are.

Do you support gay conversion therapy? If not, why do you think it's acceptable in this case?

Gay conversion therapy tries to make you something you're not. Why should lesbians or gay men try to become heterosexual? They're fine as they are.

Affirmation therapy is, in many cases, a form of gay conversion therapy.

Many children who believe they are trans will, if allowed to continue without puberty blockers, grow up to be normal gay adults. But Mermaids and other lobby groups are full of parents who 'knew' their gender-non-conforming toddlers were trans. These accounts radiate the parents' fear and horror of having a 'sissy' son or a tomboy daughter. Better trans (and on drugs for life) than gay.

Many other children think they must be trans because they feel like misfits. But proper counselling is likely to find they are autistic, or suffering from distress caused by bullying, loneliness, sexual abuse, domestic violence or other trauma.

The prevalence of violent porn, and the expectation for ever-younger girls to be sexually compliant, is another powerful reason for any young girl to try to avoid becoming a woman.

Treatment should obviously include practical action to tackle any external problems, eg violence or other abuse.

Therapy should aim to help these children see through the genderist stereotypes and accept their healthy bodies as they are. No one should set a child on a path to radical surgery and lifelong drug dependence, in pursuit of an unreachable goal.

@merrymouse

Absolute tosh. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're an ill-informed heterosexual person.

I am just some random on the internet. I would be wary believing you can judge the sexuality of randoms on the internet, but here is an informed lesbian.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/16/sexuality-nature-nurture-debate

If it was acceptable but not innate, there would be no urgency for change (because people could just stop being gay).

No. Plenty of human desires and traits are innate. That doesn't influence their acceptability. Homosexuality is now acceptable because society realises that consenting adults should be able to form romantic relationships with each other as they wish, and that two people of the same sex are as entitled to argue over who empties the bins, have protections on divorce and benefit from IHT rules as two people of opposite sexes.

However, homosexuality challenges gender, and some people believe that their status is dependent on maintaining gender roles. They really don't care why people are homosexual, they are just threatened by the fact that they are.

Yes, this is why I made it clear that it's based on being BOTH innate and acceptable. It would be a lot more productive a conversation if you read my comments before forming a response.

Why on earth would someone choose/pretend to be trans at a time when it is hugely frowned upon?

I already gave a long list of reasons, and one of them is that it's not frowned upon in the circles where it typically happens - it's celebrated and praised to the skies, to the point where questioning it at all is banned and can get you into trouble. In academia, schools, arts circles, etc. and increasingly in public policy.

@7Days

Theres a lot of corporate and institutional and indeed social support for trans people at the moment.

Indeed ahead of controversial amendments to the Scottish Hate Crime Bill being withdrawn, which is the only group that the Scottish Justice Minister met with? A group representing trans people, no racial equality groups, no women's groups:

twitter.com/forwomenscot/status/1366863240286846979?s=21

I had read it. Can you answer my question? It wasn't about whether a third party believes it or not. You stated that there is such a thing as "pretending to be trans". What does this mean and what is the difference between that and being trans?