The Democrats Need an Honest Conversation on Gender Identity Part 2

[Ingenieur]

Starting a new thread in case the first fills up.

It has got nothing to do with feelings. Women would never win if they competed with men in the vast majority of events; and in many others they would be seriously injured. And why should men have to play tippy toe for fear of injuring their female team mates. Where's the fun or the incentive for excellence in that?

Female categories give women and girls a chance to excel on level playing field.

Sex is real. This is a measurable and mundane fact of earthly reality. And sex has consequences. Do you dispute this?

You are comfortable with advising young people who are struggling with the normal range of adolescent identity issues, including same sex attraction and autism, to embark on a medically unnecessary path of drugs and even radical surgery - in order to feel comfortable within themselves?

So your friend is a male who mocks women in womanface. Then he deserved to get in trouble.

Christianity embedded the concept of mind - body dualism whereby spirit and matter were seen as being separate; though ironically Jesus came to earth in a body of flesh to redeem mankind. Probably because Christianity arose out of earlier earth centred paganistic practices and beliefs that revolved around birth, death, renewal...the natural round of life.

People have always struggled with the inevitable limits and frustrations of the flesh and the earthly material world, and in one form or other all seek transcendence.There can be something very healing about the concept of trans-substantiation whereby body can once again be united with spirit.

(Astrologically Christianiity arose in the age of Pisces.......the sign of the fish swimming in opposite directions - both towards the earth, but also away from it. Suffering, sacrifice,Redemption. Virgo, the sign of the Virgin is opposite. The sign of purity and cleanliness and redemption through service)

Yes, some people will believe almost anything - the dafter the better, it seems.

Others don’t feel the need, and are continually pestered as a result.

Mind-body dualism as a concept has been seen as one of the gravest heresies throughout the Christian centuries. Descartes late-in-the-day stuff notwithstanding.

Body and mind are one. The soul is part of that, central and without sex, nationality, sect There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus Galatians 3:28.

Paul didn't think slavery didn't exist, or that women and men didn't exist, and his political and legal troubles meant he knew perfectly well that he was a Jew and that that had repercussions. But he was pointing out that the soul was separate from all of that and transcended it.

Myths exist in all societies and cultures and they are the way that humankind seeks meaning in life. The, themes, though all tend to share the same characteristics. All cultures have frameworks of beliefs - and in a post religious world many turn to secular religions: political ideologies, transhumanism in contemporary times; the wellness industry; the " be your best self" industry, technology....

What I am fed up with is cynical left wing politicians so hung up on appearing progressive and righteous that they will jump on the latest so called " liberal" idea no matter how stupid it is. The Labour party ended up aligned with paedophiles in the 70/80s because of this. The Democrats handed their opponents an open goal because of this, and as a result the world will now have to cope with another Trump presidency

Quite.

Yet apparently there are rules where some of these beliefs should be described as "playing make-believe" and other beliefs should be described as valid.

I'll maintain my "middle ground" assessment of all of it: religious belief is equally as valid and equally as nonsensical as the belief that we all have a gender identity.

Obviously the potential for radicalism within each of these types of belief is different because there are much greater societal safety nets to identify and address religious radicalisation e.g. people at risk of causing harm to themselves and/or others stand a better chance of being identified and helped on to a pathway that has a healthier outcome. Tackling this doesn't require challenging the belief head-on e.g. I'm assuming Prevent teams don't try and address the next (sadly inevitable) religiously-driven public attack by saying "why are you doing this in the name of a god who doesn't even exist?". Instead, they acknowledge that the person holds a belief and focus on the impact that this belief can have if left unchecked. If someone has been radicalised to the point where they think causing harm to themselves and/or others, it's clear that there is far more to unpick than just whether or not god is real. Ergo the logic that it's not always productive to directly challenge someone's belief in gender identity when addressing the impact of the belief.

Trump will certainly shake things up and disrupt the status quo.

What I am fed up with is cynical left wing politicians so hung up on appearing progressive and righteous that they will jump on the latest so called " liberal" idea no matter how stupid it is. The Labour party ended up aligned with paedophiles in the 70/80s because of this. The Democrats handed their opponents an open goal because of this, and as a result the world will now have to cope with another Trump presidency

YY.

Agreed.

As a natural lefty/liberal it saddens me no end that there are more people speaking sense from the side whose politics don't align with mine.

Even more so that some of their motivations (in the US, not so much the UK) stem from religious beliefs which see homosexuality and people with transgender identities as immoral. I fear for LGB people in the States that they'll get caught up in a backlash resulting from this. Hopefully more Democrats will wake up and work out what's actually going on. LGB people are going to need the political voice from the left to counter the bias towards the religiously
-motivated voice from the right.

To add: my experience of religion in the UK is that the positioning of LGB people as immoral is limited. Thankfully there seems to be a far greater tolerance here than we see in the US. Obviously I could be wrong on that but that's my impression from everything that I've seen.

I'll maintain my "middle ground" assessment of all of it: religious belief is equally as valid and equally as nonsensical as the belief that we all have a gender identity.

This isn't a "middle ground" assessment, it's a particular viewpoint that you have that there is no value in religious belief and it's equivalent to whatever other odd belief people might have.

I'm an agnostic atheist, but I think people's tradition, culture etc that goes back thousands of years is more understandable and legitimate than an incoherent, very recently formed idea that everyone has a "gender", fully based on sex stereotypes, which can be distinct from sex, and I'll continue to treat them accordingly.

Meant to quote @BonfireLady

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this. I've got a few points that I'd like to raise in response:

Typically I tell kids that nobody should tell them what they are,

Great! Although presumably you mean "how they should live their lives?" e.g. nobody should tell them that "this is what women should dress like, act like, do as a job etc". What they are is already pre-determined from the point of conception: they are human beings and are either male or female. From that start point, they should be free to embrace or reject the inevitable sex-based stereotypes that every society places on every child. Sadly every society has expectations and limitations that differ between girls and boys, even at a subconscious level e.g. when girls are born they are more likely to get lots of pink gifts compared to boys who are more likely to get blue gifts. From the word go, society tells us "this is what girls do" and "this is what boys do".

and they should speak to their health practioner and be fully educated on the risks and side effects of medical intervention

Why would you mention medical interventions to a child who is already vulnerable to believing that their lack of adherence to cultural expectations and/or lack of acceptance to submit to cultural limitations means they are "in the wrong body"? Surely the start point is that they are in exactly the right body and that it's totally ok to be whatever kind of boy/girl you want to be. Just by mentioning medical interventions, there is a bias from the start that their body might be wrong for them. They'll grab it with two hands as a possible answer for why they are confused/distressed if it's coming from an adult they trust.

I don't know any adult in my setting telling kids they can be any gender, just that it's ok if they are or they are questioning.

If any adult in your setting is sharing preferred pronouns, for example, they are already setting the scene that it's possible to be any "gender". That gender identity is important. That it's more important than what sex you are.

Typically the no to pronouns and name and haircut is delivered is in an unsupportive and needlessly fearful manner. It is atypical in my experience that caregivers want to watchful wait and are not doing so in an invalidating manner (the usual case) or harmful manner (less often now but was the normal 5 years ago.)

When my daughter experienced huge distress and confusion about whether or not she was meant to be a girl, I told her that she needed to keep using her normal pronouns while she worked through all of her thoughts on this. That it was important to stick with everything exactly as it is now and look at each thing that upset her on its own merits. Without introducing any bias whatsoever e.g. using sports bras (not binders) to help alleviate her distress about her breasts growing and the pill to alleviate her distress about her periods. I made it very clear that it was important that everything we did didn't change the status quo: that she is a female. Meanwhile, she desperately needed help with her mental health as she was struggling with all of it, plus bullying at school related to her autism. When she asked for puberty blockers to give her time to think we said no, because the NHS advised that there was an unknown impact on teenage brain development. We said we weren't happy with this kind of medical experimentation.
Here's what I was up against at the time: https://www.transgendertrend.com/teenage-gender-identity-crisis/

Does my approach sound invalidating? Or that I delivered it in an unhelpful, fearful manner?

I have a few detransitioned friends. I understand parental fears around the issue. I think if someone is worried about harm reduction, they need to weigh social transitioning carefully and not refuse it out of a place of "what if this leads to more"?
It is not a gateway drug.

The Cass Report explains very clearly that social transition is a "gateway drug". Obviously that's not the phrase that's used. Instead it is explained that social transition is "not a neutral act" and that it can bring in a bias which overshadows any other explanation for a child's distress, such as autism-related puberty distress, linked to sensory issues (breast development, periods) and distress about their body changing.

I've never said there is no value to religious belief. As I have done on other threads, I'm happy to admit that I'm rather jealous of the feeling of calm and peace that faith gives people. I value the way that it can bring communities together e.g. church events, people offering food every evening during Ramadan. For example, Cairo has a great tradition of this, where groups of young people get together and run their own tables every day during the whole month, giving food out to people who otherwise may not get any.

It's the belief itself that is equally as valid and nonsensical to me. Not the values within it. Religious beliefs have lots of fantastic values. Far more than dodgy ones - most dodgy values have been consigned to the bin of history in the UK (not so much in Afghanistan, Iran etc e.g. the dodgy values by which women are treated). When I stayed in downtown Cairo, and also in Marrakech, I was struck by how alive and vibrant the city was on a Friday night owing to the lack of drinking. Quite the contrast to drunk people falling over everywhere. Although I'm happy to drink alcohol (and have been drunk and stumbling around myself when younger) I can see positives where this is not the norm in a society.

However, I don't see any positives at all associated with gender identity belief.

As far as I can see there is nothing listed in this very biased, activist written article that indicates that it will be illegal to be present as trans in public in Texas, though I concede it might, nonetheless, be an uncomfortable experience for those who chose to do so. As we keep being told drag artists are not necessarily trans identifying and most trans identifying people would not consider themselves to be in drag. The article points, in outrage to:

“10 separate bills designed to criminalize gender-affirming care for trans youth, criminalize drag shows, ban trans kids in sports (again), limit changes to gender markers on the birth certificates of minors, and limit discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.”

Frankly I think all of those changes would be very welcome - the only one I have issue with would be the outright banning of drag performance which I feel should simply be confined to adult only, licensed venues for those old enough to consent to attending (rather than the lunch time cafe shows with tots encouraged to put dollar bills in thongs that we’ve seen footage of, which is actually revolting.) However, not one of the proposed laws cited by Mx Caraballo states that girls won’t legally be able to wear boys clothes or men wear dresses if they feel like it (ie be gender non-conforming) - to say Texas is banning trans presentation in law is a wildly inaccurate and inflammatory claim, almost as inflammatory and inaccurate as the article title.

However, I don't see any positives at all associated with gender identity belief
This is my position too.

Apart from all the bigger issues the article linked just shows how mentally unhealthy the whole thing is. None of the laws ban 'trans presentation'. Convincing vulnerable people that everyone hates them when that's not true is so cruel. I don't know how it will be possible for young people to recover from being groomed into a victim mentality when in fact their lives are completely normal.

It's the belief itself that is equally as valid and nonsensical to me.

Yes, to you. Others see it differently. We fully share a disbelief in god, but I don't personally take the view that all things I disbelieve in are in the same category.

Just because I am happy to call gender identity ideology "make believe", doesn't mean I have to treat all beliefs the same, so I don't have to think the centuries of religious tradition and culture of Christianity or Islam is equally as silly as believing in "otherkin" or leprechauns or whatever.

If religious beliefs were imposed on me in the same way as gender identity ideology and the truth of them was given as a reason why I should accept my oppression in their name, then yes I would point out that their religious worldview wasn't based on objective reality. But luckily I live in a place and time where that isn't necessary, unlike with this secular ideology.

I don't know how it will be possible for young people to recover from being groomed into a victim mentality when in fact their lives are completely normal.

Indeed 😔😔😔

It's going to take a combination of every style of engagement to get this issue exposed for the medical scandal that it is - and for the impact that gender identity belief has on women's rights.

A key part of that is conversation and bravery within the Democrat party in the US and Labour/Lib Dems in the UK. Not just within it but speaking publicly, like Seth Moulton has done.

The Be Kind population (of which I was a fully signed up member) is often put off by messaging that it sees as right-wing adjacent and/or being force-teamed with policies on immigration or (in the US) homosexuality. However, we still need these strong voices speaking out. We need all the voices we can get. It's just unfortunate if too many of them come from people who are also talking loudly about traditional right wing politics and/or display an intolerance of people who are gay or from a different culture.

If religious beliefs were imposed on me in the same way as gender identity ideology and the truth of them was given as a reason why I should accept my oppression in their name, then yes I would point out that their religious worldview wasn't based on objective reality.

That's exactly the point I'm making with my analogy, because in modern day Britain (unlike in the past)...

luckily I live in a place and time where that isn't necessary, unlike with this secular ideology.

To add: the additional point that I'm making is that when I think of how people feel about their religious beliefs (the nearest I come to this in my own experience is my belief in ghosts), it helps me recognise just how strongly true gender identity believers feel that it's true that everyone has a gender identity. Christians are used to batting of disbelief from atheists because society has worked out how believers and non-believers can rub along next to each other. We don't have that with gender identity belief, so any direct challenge is taken as hate and spread as a danger to believers.

You're taking a charitable view of Texas legislators and their intentions.

"It doesn't say so explicity, so that'll never happen," is a line voters were fed about abortion bans in Texas, and now women are being denied lifesaving medical care when their pregnancies endanger them.

That's exactly the point I'm making with my analogy, because in modern day Britain (unlike in the past)...

You seem to think because I think gender identity ideology is completely incoherent nonsense I should apply exactly the same criteria to all spiritual and religious beliefs. It's my opinion that they are not all the same, and I will continue to treat them differently and refer to them as such, as is my prerogative. You are free to disagree, and I suggest we draw a line under it, because it's a derail.

What they are is already pre-determined from the point of conception: they are human beings and are either male or female

That would be telling them what they are. That's not for me, or anyone, to decide for them.

They already know about medical interventions for transitioning. Telling them to ask their doctor for specifics to them is preferable to them learning it off of friends or the internet.

Is it likely you approached your daughter's gender questioning in a non-abusive or supportive way? Only she would know. I cannot imagine you were this antagonistic with her, so hopefully it was positive for her.

The Cass is an imperfect report which struggles with bias. I have seen plenty of teen girls question their gender, socially transition, and then transition back when it didn't feel authentic to them.