what does it mean "live as a woman"?

[vivariumvivariumsvivaria]

I gather that in order for a male person who believes themselves to be feminine they have to "live as their acquired gender" for 2 years in order to get a GRC.

Is there a definition of how women live? Because I don't think I qualify.

Oh stop it! We can see how far you are sidestepping, avoiding all questions. All the way to somewhere on the other side of town!

If you asked me what transphobia is I couldn't tell you. Because what I would think it is wouldn't be what the current milieu insists it is, in all it's gray amorphousness.

I would say it is the targetted actions, negative behaviours because of a person's trans identity.

And that couldn't include anything GC women do when they stand up to protect women's rights. Because the reaction of women is to the negation of their rights, not specifically to any individual doing the shouting.

if you have any better example, to clarify, then let's see it!

I don't believe the correct response to a male person saying they think they are a female person is to agree and let them into women only spaces and roles - if that makes me transphobic then so be it. I guess that also makes me depressaphobic because I don't think the correct response to a depressed person is to give them a lift to Beachy head or pass them a razor.

@ArabellaScott

Homosexuality isn't the same thing as gender dysphoria, no.

It is precisely as real as gender identity, however, and both are well documented subjective internal realities experienced by humans.

But ... nobody is treated for 'gender identity', are they?

All the treatments, the efforts to render someone the appearance of the opposite sex are ostensibly to treat dysphoria.

Look, everybody has a sexuality (even asexual people have a knowledge of whom they are attracted to (=nobody)). So it's not difficult to understand that some people are attracted to same sex people and some people to opposite sex. Homosexuality is a behaviour that can be observed in animals, can be traced back in history, etc.

But - 'gender identity' is not 'well documented'. Most of the people on this board don't have one, most people you ask on the street don't have a 'gender identity'.

It's a very new concept, and I would say given that so many people don't agree that it even exists, it's controversial. Far from settled.

The whole idea of 'gender identity' was invented in the 60s by a man I would be extremely cautious about giving credence to.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

(Content warning, child abuse, paedophilia)

People are treated for an incongruence between gender identity and physically expressed primary and secondary sex characteristics that manifests as gender dysphoria.

Urgh John Money
Yeah, what a horrendous creep. That entire saga is just...shudder

So do you think that women asserting that all transwomen are men and that sex matters in terms of sex segregation is transphobic butterfly?

And you keep talking about homosexuality and homophobia, but according to transgenderism, two males in a sexual relationship can be lesbians, as can a man and a woman. So it doesn't really make any sense unless you define your terms.

@Datun

I've c+p'd the definition of transphobia from Wikipedia, if that's what you mean!

Indeed you did!

Do you think it's transphobic if women say all transwomen are men in order to advocate for sex segregation?

I think it's a philosophical position that is protected from discrimination by law.

I also think there are good reasons for there to be same-sex exemptions built into the 2010 equality act, for example. But we already spent an entire thread going over those, and I'm not really keen on turning this one into that discussion either.

I don't want to go over anything. A simple yes or no. Literally a word would have sufficed.

But as I have said several times, I wasn't expecting an answer.

It's the lack of answer that I'm demonstrating.

How about homosexuality, and sexual orientation in general? Do you think that's based on sex or gender identity?

I also think there are good reasons for there to be same-sex exemptions built into the 2010 equality act, for example. But we already spent an entire thread going over those, and I'm not really keen on turning this one into that discussion either.
It is same sex exceptions and I am sure you don't want to discuss incarcerated women being forced to share showers with male sex offenders or rape victims being denied same sex counselling.

Money was a creep, yes. A dangerous sadist, very disturbed. Yet he coined 'gender identity' as a concept and phrase. And is seen as the father of the 'transgender' movement, with much of current thinking based on his ideas.

'Money proposed and developed several theories and related terminology, including gender identity, gender role,[12] gender-identity/role'

I don't doubt that trans people exist. People have an idea that their body doesn't conform to how they feel.

I would say that is is not that uncommon - many of us don't have a body that works exactly as we might wish.

But a male can only imagine what a female body feels like from the inside. It's logically, categorically impossible for a male to know what it is to be a female. There is no 'inbetween' sex, there is no 'spectrum', there is no 'third sex'.

So... transphobia is... I say chaps, have you seen my new watch?

Crikey, weather's on the turn again, hey?

Come on girls, let's go shopping!

Squirrels!

@Runningupthecurtains

I don't believe the correct response to a male person saying they think they are a female person is to agree and let them into women only spaces and roles - if that makes me transphobic then so be it. I guess that also makes me depressaphobic because I don't think the correct response to a depressed person is to give them a lift to Beachy head or pass them a razor.

I don't believe the correct response to a phenotypically female or male person saying that the expression of that phenotype is causing them distress, and asking for endocrine and surgical interventions to help them change that phenotype, is to deny them those treatments and try to brainwash them into desisting, as that approach has been repeatedly demonstrated not to work.

I think a healthy measure of caution is appropriate in evaluating whether those treatments will actually be effective in addressing that distress, however.

I don't believe the correct response to a phenotypically female or male person saying that the expression of that phenotype is causing them distress, and asking for endocrine and surgical interventions to help them change that phenotype, is to deny them those treatments and try to brainwash them into desisting, as that approach has been repeatedly demonstrated not to work.

But butterfly when that person thinks they've got a female brain in a male body, and can't answer whether sex segregation is transphobic, and can't define what a homosexual is, or a woman or a man, don't you think accommodating them with what they say they want might be a tad premature?

I think a healthy measure of caution is appropriate in evaluating whether those treatments will actually be effective in addressing that distress, however.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see this last paragraph. Well that's a bit of a relief, at any rate.

@Datun

How about homosexuality, and sexual orientation in general? Do you think that's based on sex or gender identity?

I think sex is complicated and it manifests as a cloud of genetic, instantaneous and historical hormonal, and psychological datapoints that combine together to give us an overall picture of a person.

I think we lack sufficient data to be able to definitively state what the neural correlates of brain sex - in terms of sexual attraction, gender identity, and the manifestation of endocrine factors - exactly are. However, we can ask people what they experience and how they feel.

It seems utterly bizarre that we can accept a person experiences same-sex attraction but disregard their experiences of gender identity in the same breath. I just...how do you square one of these things being real, and the other not being?

Paragrpah 2 is what we have been shouting about for years, that you have spent some time and effort challenging across a few threads.

And nobody is denying anyone anything - again, the great lie! If you want to call discussing the relative merits of any treatments including the emerging evidenece abd desistors 'brainwashing' then you don't, can't actually mean what you say in paragraph 2. Because AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME the wieght of evidence is that irreversible intervention has little or no effect on the mental health of individuals and that many who do wait, desist naturally. Indeed the fact of such intervention makes desisting much more difficult.

But again, we are talking about 2 entirely different cohorts - kids and adults. And within those 2 cohorts we MUST discuss males and female, because the effects of any intervention differ wildly depending on the sex of the individuals concerned.

deny them those treatments and try to brainwash them into desisting, as that approach has been repeatedly demonstrated not to work. only if your definition of succes is actually making the choice to transition.

If your definition is making sense of dysphoria and being happy/happier in oneself then many of those talking interventions are highly successful. As evidenced in the reams of studies that have been cited across many threads.

You can't just state your own truth and expect anyone else to fall in line!

I think a healthy measure of caution is appropriate in evaluating whether those treatments will actually be effective in addressing that distress, however.
But there isn't a treatment that can make them change sex! Their DNA can't be rewritten. So we need to find the root cause (which isn't "ermm I don't know maybe lady brains?") and do what we can to ease that suffering and address those causes, which probably means society needs to drop the bullshit stereotypes and accept that we are all unique and that boys who like pink are not girls and that girls who like dinosaurs are not boys.
If someone told you their inner self was a cat would you reach for the Whiskers or think perhaps, that however heartfelt the inner feelings are that they can be wrong?

It seems utterly bizarre that we can accept a person experiences same-sex attraction but disregard their experiences of gender identity in the same breath. I just...how do you square one of these things being real, and the other not being? STOP IT!

You have repeated that a number of times. It is so dishonest!

Nobody denies the reality of trans individuals or their feelings of 'otherness'.

We just don't accept the absolute truth of them when they impact upon others.

You can think, feel believe whatever you like about yourself. But if that belief has a negative impact on any other cohort then, as with any other belief, that reality stops at the end of your nose.

Being gay has no negative impact on others - it may hurt feelings, but we ignore that, it is immaterial. And if/when it comes into conflict with any other protected characteristic there is a measured response, often via court case - see gay men and religious bakers

With trans belief that is reversed and we are being asked to make the feelings of the few paramount - no matter what the cost to any other cohort! When trans and female rights come into conflict we get all osrts of aggression and nonsensical court cases, see MArion Millar having retweeted someone elses picture of a piece of ribbon someone else had tied to a fence.

Or any of the 'die in a grease fire' 'suck my lady dick' type SM posts.

Or any of the Stonewall supported attempts to get loud, lesbian women sacked - see Joanne Cherry, Allison Bailey - for standing up for women's rights.

I don't believe the correct response to a phenotypically female or male person saying that the expression of that phenotype is causing them distress, and asking for endocrine and surgical interventions to help them change that phenotype, is to deny them those treatments and try to brainwash them into desisting, as that approach has been repeatedly demonstrated not to work.

I used to work in mental health. We had patients who thought they were immortal and wanted to prove it. We did not hand them a knife/escort them to a train station.

Why is it different? We know humans are not immortal. We know that if they jump in front of a train they will, at best, suffer horrific injuries. If they survive.

We also know that humans cannot change sex. Our sex is encoded into our dna. We can "live as the opposite sex" (whatever that means) and change our genitals/outward experience. But we cannot change sex.

So why is one treated as a mental illness and one pandered to. (Sorry. Pandered isn't the best word but I can't think of a better one).

It seems utterly bizarre that we can accept a person experiences same-sex attraction but disregard their experiences of gender identity in the same breath. I just...how do you square one of these things being real, and the other not being?

Because homosexuality IS same sex attraction.

Identifiable, verifiable and demonstrable.

Not ...complicated and it manifests as a cloud of genetic, instantaneous and historical hormonal, and psychological datapoints that combine together to give us an overall picture of a person.

Gender identity is not identifiable, verifiable or recognisably demonstrable.

What I find extraordinary is that you actually rely on the generally accepted definitions of men, women, homosexual, sexual orientation, in order to make yourself understood. And then say that in order to have what you want, be who you want, they have no meaning.

It's such a cheek. That we all have to pretend that the meanings you rely on all the time are suddenly not true when they inconvenience you.

It's not only completely illogical, it's so self-serving that I struggle to comprehend how you think anyone can respect it.

That we all have to pretend that the meanings you rely on all the time are suddenly not true when they inconvenience you. Having read that I realised that in replying I, and I can see others doing it too, actually remember to use Butterfy's version of words in order to frame their responses.

Even when we are refuting them we are giving them credence in order to do so. It's fucking infuriating!

And yet we, GC posters, still end up posting logically, consistently. Even, or maybe especially, when we disagree with each other.

@Runningupthecurtains

I think a healthy measure of caution is appropriate in evaluating whether those treatments will actually be effective in addressing that distress, however. But there isn't a treatment that can make them change sex! Their DNA can't be rewritten. So we need to find the root cause (which isn't "ermm I don't know maybe lady brains?") and do what we can to ease that suffering and address those causes, which probably means society needs to drop the bullshit stereotypes and accept that we are all unique and that boys who like pink are not girls and that girls who like dinosaurs are not boys. If someone told you their inner self was a cat would you reach for the Whiskers or think perhaps, that however heartfelt the inner feelings are that they can be wrong?

Society definitely needs to drop the bullshit stereotypes!

The difference between believing a person's inner self is a cat, and believing a person's inner self is, say, male, is at least partially that there are numerous examples of individuals with DSD's who have grown up experiencing the same patterns of incongruence as trans people do, demonstrating that brain sex, in the way that it manifests as gender identity, demonstrably has a psychological manifestation that can be theraputically treated as is documented in many hundreds of cases throughout the last hundred years.

There isn't currently a treatment that can rewrite their DNA - and there doesn't even need to be. That is one particular marker of sex, of which there are many others, as demonstrated extensively in research into DSD's and indeed transgender people. The report I linked earlier gives an extensive overview of the data and links many individual studies which have investigated this subject in some depth.

You are welcome to disregard that data and claim that all these people are deluded if you find the idea of acknowledging the reality that sex is a complicated multi-faceted combination of different factors to be more to your taste, but that attitude is likely to be considered quite rude by the people whose experiences you are disregarding.

And yet we, GC posters, still end up posting logically, consistently. Even, or maybe especially, when we disagree with each other.

That's because we know what we mean, and hence can formulate the same meaning given any language, however awkward.

Whereas it's far from clear that many other people's statements have any concrete meaning divorced from a particular language formulation.

@CuriousaboutSamphire

That we all have to pretend that the meanings you rely on all the time are suddenly not true when they inconvenience you. Having read that I realised that in replying I, and I can see others doing it too, actually remember to use Butterfy's version of words in order to frame their responses.

Even when we are refuting them we are giving them credence in order to do so. It's fucking infuriating!

And yet we, GC posters, still end up posting logically, consistently. Even, or maybe especially, when we disagree with each other.

It's something that really gets me.

All these bloody politicians talking about male violence and misogyny.

While being wholly unable to define who is perpetuating it, and who is the victim of it.

And yet they know, we all know. And they do use those words and then in the next breath say they don't know what they mean.

It's as though everyone else has been given a key to unlock discourse, conversation, opinion, and then when women hold out their hands for the key, they're told no. You don't get this key.

Like butterfly here. Blithely talking about same sex attraction, and homophobia. But when I want the key to talk about the homophobia that lesbians are receiving on the basis of their same sex attraction, I don't get that key. There is no such thing as same-sex attraction suddenly. The key's gone.

It's as though everyone else has been given a key to unlock discourse, conversation, opinion, and then when women hold out their hands for the key, they're told no. You don't get this key.

In this game, their words mean what they want them to mean.

And your words mean what they want them to mean.

Society definitely needs to drop the bullshit stereotypes! Preaching, choir!

The difference between believing a person's inner self is a cat, and believing a person's inner self is, say, male, is at least partially that there are numerous examples of individuals with DSD's who have grown up experiencing the same patterns of incongruence as trans people do, demonstrating that brain sex, in the way that it manifests as gender identity, demonstrably has a psychological manifestation that can be theraputically treated as is documented in many hundreds of cases throughout the last hundred years.

No! We respect the wishes of people with DSDs NOT to drag them into this. They are not your shuild, your ammunition etc (and have you got any further with your MAIS dx yet?)

There isn't currently a treatment that can rewrite their DNA - and there doesn't even need to be. That is one particular marker of sex, of which there are many others, as demonstrated extensively in research into DSD's and indeed transgender people. The report I linked earlier gives an extensive overview of the data and links many individual studies which have investigated this subject in some depth.

Oh my word! One particular marker = the thing that makes a body either/or! And I think we established that many of the studies you have linked to do not say what you tell us they do!

You are welcome to disregard that data and claim that all these people are deluded

That being what a dysphiria is!!

if you find the idea of acknowledging the reality that sex is a complicated multi-faceted combination of different factors to be more to your taste, but that attitude is likely to be considered quite rude by the people whose experiences you are disregarding.

You see that's the fallacy in a nutshell. We do actually believe science over the feelings of the few.

But that doesn't mean we don't believe that the few hold those opinions, are influenced by those feelings. We don't actually deny any of that - no matter how many times you care to repeat that we do!

And I don't care if it is thought of as rude. I think telling me, a woman, that any man can be as female as me is absolutely bobbins, but nobody seems to care!