Conversion Therapy and a Survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth

[Shizuku]

Trigger Warning - this post discusses suicidal feelings.

As the banning of conversion therapy is currently being debated, it might be useful for members of this group to see a survey of 25,896 LGBTQ youth which found that 57% of transgender and non-binary youth who have undergone conversion therapy report a suicide attempt in the last year:

www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2019/?section=Conversion-Therapy-Change-Attempts

If anyone reading this is experiencing suicidal thoughts, please know that suicide is preventable, and that support is available. Here is a link to the Samaritans:

www.samaritans.org/

@Helleofabore

They've also asked people like you to stop saying that sex is a simple binary, which leaves you in something of a dilemma, doesn't it.

And yet, medicine and developmental and evolutionary biologists all agree that sex classification for people with differences of sex development are either male or female.

This does NOT change the facts.

The list of these differences for the majority fall into either male conditions or female conditions.

You really cannot cherry pick what facts are true and what are not.

Again, spreading of misinformation around sex is harmful. Why do you continue to do so?

2617 eminent scientists including several Nobel Prize winners disagreeing with you here:

not-binary.org/statement/?fbclid=IwAR29fQ9nHtgrIWGMSsSdefR_OWPeMuZEmei0G3oEC31bAP_FThbngykjjtU

"The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood. There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex. Furthermore, even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities."

@FamilyOfAliens

Not everyone who reads these boards agrees with you.

I haven’t expressed an opinion on this thread so that’s an odd thing to say.

My apologies. Let me rephrase - not everyone who reads these boards disagrees with me.

Not everyone who reads these boards agrees with you.

I suggest you start a poll in AIBU.

The last few have all been enlightening and consistently around 95 -98% tend to agree with many of the views expressed on this thread. And those voting were from all over Mumsnet.

I think we, as parents, are pretty confident that there is no sex spectrum and that you need an egg and a sperm to produce another human. The vast majority of us posting here have indeed done this experiment personally and can confidently assure you it is the case. Many people have had to discover this very painfully as well.

No third gamete. No third sex. Just the two.

This is illuminating. I think I understand your perspective now Shizuku Please tell me if this reflects your opinion:

1. Gender identity exists.

1. Gender identity does not change. It is set before birth and manifests later.

1. Gender identity usually matches biological sex but not always.

1. There is probably a genetic marker for having a gender identity at odds with one's biological sex but it hasn't been identified clearly enough to be a diagnostic tool yet.

1. The best way to diagnose having a gender identity that does not match sex is to ask the person if they feel their gender identity matches their sex or not.

1. A person's assertion about their gender identity cannot be verified by observing their adherence to gender stereotypes or their level of masculinity / femininity.

1. Extreme body modification to make the body appear more like the sex that most closely matches a person's declared gender identity is a reasonable response to feeling one's gender identity does not match one's sex, including for children.

1. The side effects of the body modification are acceptable when weighed against the impact on the patient of not modifying their body.

1. Trying to convince somone they are mistaken about their gender identity should be illegal.

1. Trying to block someone from modifying their body in response to their feelings about their gender identity should be illegal.

10. Treatments with the goal of bringing a person's perceived gender identity into line with their sex should be illegal.

Am I correctly representing your opinion?

Your opinion is unclear to me on:

A) If a person is uncomfortable with their gender identity, should it be illegal for other people to try to convince them that gender identity does not exist?

B) What mistakes were made with detransitioners and if / how can these be avoided in future?

So, on your sex spectrum. Who has arbitrated who is more female than another person? Is there a panel who does this?

What axis have they used to decide this? And can this be done without involving other people's medical conditions?

" 95 -98% tend to agree with many of the views expressed on this thread."

Well of course they do - look what happens to dissenting voices, so a lot of people are afraid to speak up, and I don't blame them. They do however read, and not everyone who reads these threads has a Mumsnet account.

@Helleofabore

So, on your sex spectrum. Who has arbitrated who is more female than another person? Is there a panel who does this?

What axis have they used to decide this? And can this be done without involving other people's medical conditions?

Ask the scientists - most of the ones on that link can be found through their universities etc.

Well of course they do - look what happens to dissenting voices, so a lot of people are afraid to speak up, and I don't blame them. They do however read, and not everyone who reads these threads has a Mumsnet account.

You have not been onto AIBU then? You have not seen the way posters from other parts of Mumsnet post? Perhaps you should go and look. The people on this board are significantly constrained by guidelines that don't apply to the rest of the board.

A very large proportion of those posters on AIBU do not post on this board so you are quite incorrect in your inference.

I doubt they even read it. But they do read extensively from a wide range of sources.

@30PercentRecycled

This is illuminating. I think I understand your perspective now Shizuku Please tell me if this reflects your opinion:

1. Gender identity exists.

1. Gender identity does not change. It is set before birth and manifests later.

1. Gender identity usually matches biological sex but not always.

1. There is probably a genetic marker for having a gender identity at odds with one's biological sex but it hasn't been identified clearly enough to be a diagnostic tool yet.

1. The best way to diagnose having a gender identity that does not match sex is to ask the person if they feel their gender identity matches their sex or not.

1. A person's assertion about their gender identity cannot be verified by observing their adherence to gender stereotypes or their level of masculinity / femininity.

1. Extreme body modification to make the body appear more like the sex that most closely matches a person's declared gender identity is a reasonable response to feeling one's gender identity does not match one's sex, including for children.

1. The side effects of the body modification are acceptable when weighed against the impact on the patient of not modifying their body.

1. Trying to convince somone they are mistaken about their gender identity should be illegal.

1. Trying to block someone from modifying their body in response to their feelings about their gender identity should be illegal.

10. Treatments with the goal of bringing a person's perceived gender identity into line with their sex should be illegal.

Am I correctly representing your opinion?

Your opinion is unclear to me on:

A) If a person is uncomfortable with their gender identity, should it be illegal for other people to try to convince them that gender identity does not exist?

B) What mistakes were made with detransitioners and if / how can these be avoided in future?

Based on a quick skim, that's broadly my position, however, I would argue that gender identity is a definitive sex characteristic, so trans people aren't changing sex - a trans woman was always female.

To answer your other points:

A) Yes. That would be gaslighting and conversion therapy, and somewhat akin to trying to convince someone with anxiety that anxiety doesn't exist, or a migraine sufferer that headaches don't exist.

B) Given that many detransitioners go on to retransition, there weren't necessarily any mistakes. When there were mistakes, those are likely to very varied and you would have to look at them on a case by case basis. Of course, there is no way in medicine to eliminate error completely, but fortunately, trans regret is extremely rare - somewhere between 0.3 and 3.8%, which is better than for most medical procedures.

whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/%20what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people%20/

What do you think sex is?

Do you know how babies are made?

They do however read, and not everyone who reads these threads has a Mumsnet account.

Yes, and those without a Mumsnet account who are drawn to these specific threads are possibly more likely to be reading because TRAs linked to them on Twitter. So are also biased.

What the average person really think is reflected in polls. These have consistently shown that people are happy to live and let live up to the point they think it will cause a problem.

however, I would argue that gender identity is a definitive sex characteristic, so trans people aren't changing sex - a trans woman was always female.

And I would argue that is an entirely ideological position that the vast majority of the population doesn't share.

Voting on AIBU is anonymous.

Other people only know how you voted if you write a post stating how you voted.

We've moved the goalposts now to "there are lots of people reading who don't have accounts"

2617 eminent scientists including several Nobel Prize winners disagreeing with you here

You mean the Nobel Laureate who is linked with New England Biolabs (probably a tad of a bias there).

And the many anthropologists, marine biologists and other biologists that have no speciality in this field, psychologist, environmental engineers, paleotologists, social sciences, toxicology, behavioural science, history, obstetricians, linguistics ...to be honest, I gave up after the linguistics.

So, not really so many notable evolutionary and developmental biologicals. And a whole heap of people heavily invested in progressing this theory.

This is a theory that has been progressed to destabilise science. I suspect that there are so many more scientists who don't even register that this is something that they have to prove. Because it is proven science.

so trans people aren't changing sex - a trans woman was always female

You may not be aware of this but many transwomen have fathered children by using their male sex organs to impregnate a fertile female with their fully functional sperm.

In addition, please be aware that some transmen have become biological mothers using their female sex organs.

A simple internet search will reveal several cases for you to use as a portal to educate yourself on sexual reproduction by trans people.

I suspect that there are so many more scientists who don't even register that this is something that they have to prove. Because it is proven science.

I agree. It's certainly the case with the several medics I know. They were baffled by these claims when they learned about them, and they very much see them as fringe identity politics and are amused by them, because they are not affected by them in their day to day practice.

@Helleofabore

2617 eminent scientists including several Nobel Prize winners disagreeing with you here

You mean the Nobel Laureate who is linked with New England Biolabs (probably a tad of a bias there).

And the many anthropologists, marine biologists and other biologists that have no speciality in this field, psychologist, environmental engineers, paleotologists, social sciences, toxicology, behavioural science, history, obstetricians, linguistics ...to be honest, I gave up after the linguistics.

So, not really so many notable evolutionary and developmental biologicals. And a whole heap of people heavily invested in progressing this theory.

This is a theory that has been progressed to destabilise science. I suspect that there are so many more scientists who don't even register that this is something that they have to prove. Because it is proven science.

Sorry, just to clarify this for readers.

So, not really so many notable evolutionary and developmental biologicals. And a whole heap of people heavily invested in progressing this theory....

Are the people who have been given the job of arbitrating which body configuration is more 'female' than another....

So, a group of people heavily invested in destabilising known science and may be supporting pseudoscientific theory and NOT known science, will be deciding which person is more female on the spectrum. Including people who are developing drugs and treatment plans for transitioning.

Anyone else see potential issues and conflicts of interest here?

Like how climate change deniers are scientists? These are sex deniers?

I have read the article you linked signed by scientists from a wide spectrum of disciplines.

It was a reaction to to some US domestic legislation that was being proposed and as such refers repeatedly to the draft legislation. There is no link to the draft legislation. I am not familiar with how the US drafts, enacts and uses domestic legislation. I believe it is quite different to the UK system. I do not believe the US has equality laws as robust as in the UK and the EU.

So I cannot really comment on the argument, except as inferred from the reaction document linked.

The proposed policy seeks to erase the identities of millions of Americans who identify as transgender (individuals whose gender identification differs from their assigned sex at birth) or have intersex bodies (individuals with biologically atypical patterns of male and female traits).

I do not believe that the UK has any plans to make it illegal to identify as transgender. In fact, the UK includes the characteristic of gender reassignment in the equality act. I would argue that there is very little chance that the UK will attempt to enact legislation banning people from stating that their gender identity does not match their sex.

I am unfamiliar with US legislation affecting people with disorders of sexual development, described using the word "intersex" in the text.

Given what I do know about the US healthcare system, I am unsurprised that people with congenitial disorders like DSD face challenges in accessing proper care. Given what I know of the US legal system I am also unsurprised that people with DSD in the US have difficulties if their biological sex is not correctly identified by the time the baby's birth is registered. Fortunately we have the NHS in the UK, which I am told is pretty good for people with DSD. I have not heard of any complaints about their legal identity from people in the UK with DSD.

I am not clear on the relevance of this letter to the topic under discussion.

I agree with the signatories that it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities

Like with religion, if a person chooses to believe in gender identity they should be free to do so. Any perceived mismatch between a person's gender identity and their sex should not matter so long as law is well-drafted to make clear which laws are is sex-based and which are not.

Again, I do not see the relevance of confusion in the US between gender identity and sex.

And I would argue that is an entirely ideological position that the vast majority of the population doesn't share.

It's not even that - it's just fucking around with words.

Shizuku - are you capable of expressing your position in a way that doesn't redefine well-understood English words?

You do know how babies are made - how do you describe the two parties required in your language? We can play your game if you want - tell us your words for "male", "female" and "sex" and we can try having the discussion in your made-up language. If you can manage to keep your definitions stable.

I suspect that there are so many more scientists who don't even register that this is something that they have to prove. Because it is proven science.

Emma Hilton and Colin Wright are on the case though - they talk about it here.

...saying to them i need a reference for there are only two sexes, and i can't find one. And one of my colleagues said to me, well it's just textbook. No, it won't even be in a textbook will it, and that's the level we're at - that even it's not just papers, it's not even textbooks preface their sections on on sex and its role in evolution or how sex develops in in a given individual - nobody needs to say there are two sexes, because biologists don't think this needs saying. It's like saying "water is wet", or like Colin said, "objects fall to the ground". You know imagine every paper on gravitational theory starting with a kind of image of Newton under an apple tree - it's just insane, and it's insane we are in a position where we're trying to create resources or you know citable resources just to fight against this nonsense. It's insane.

The thing is though: we don't need citable sources to prove that sex is real. That's just a distraction. Some privileged people have great fun pretending they can't tell a man from a woman and that the definition of each is complicated. In real life, pretty much everybody is actually in touch with reality.

In the UK, the government is just about at that point every parent knows. The one where you play along with your child pretending to be a horsey day after tedious day but when they start pooing on paths and refusing to attend school, you get that firm face on and draw the line, no matter how epic the tantrum.

Ask the scientists - most of the ones on that link can be found through their universities etc.

I asked what axis would be used to define who would be more of a female on this spectrum than another female.

Since we cannot ask these scientists, what do you propose?

Surely you can see just how this pits females against females. Where would a women who had had a hysterectomy fit in? Or a menopausal woman? Or a woman with PCOS? A woman with low oestrogen?

And you are telling us that a transwoman is female. Where on the scale do they fit? Does it matter they are one of the 90% with a penis? Not on cross sex hormones? What about if they have 1 child, 7 children?

Or is it based on social/behavioral sciences and how we dress? Can we cook apple pie?

How do you honestly see this spectrum working?

Friday night. Time to relax. For no particular reason I thought of 30 Rock and Dr Leo Spaceman.

This best of compilation contains my long time favourite quote from the good doctor.

Jack Donaghy: Couldn't you just inject something right into his heart?

Dr. Leo Spaceman: I'd love to, but we have no way of knowing where the heart is. See, every human is different.

May your Mothering Sunday have every last bit of adulting done by some other fucker for once.

Shizuku (re the non-existence of gender identity):
So when people talk about their gender identity, what is it that you think they are referring to?

-- It seems they are referring to something which does not exist. Roughly the same as what people who talk about their guardian angels are referring to.

Shizuku (more of the same):
So what do you think they are referring to? Do you think they are simply lying? Or delusional?

-- The latter, for the most part. Like you, if I read you right. You seem sincere. People make mistakes.

What do you think they (people who talk about their guardian angel) are referring to? Do you think them delusional? It would seem a strange matter to lie about, no?

[There are puzzles about these terms that do not refer to anything. How can we talk about them meaningfully, for instance? If you are interested in puzzles like this (and it is new to you) check out (Bertrand) Russell's ' Theory of Descriptions ' for a start on getting to grips. It is really neat. Not, perhaps, the last word, but a good start.]