The seriousness of the symptoms doesn't say what treatment is required, or even if treatment is needed at all.
> the absolute bare minimum of what is required for acceptance of trans women is using their names, pronouns, treating them as you would cisgender women in all situations
Up to the boundaries of women's single-sex rights of course. Sports, prisons, bathrooms, scholarships, etc.
What do you want us to do where their rights conflict?
> And if you oppose any of those things that is opposing trans people since every single one is fundamentally necessary for trans people to exist in society
Are all of those absolutely required, because that seems like a way to shoot for the moon and achieve nothing. I can see pronouns and social acceptance but that's about it. Sports is already returning to sex segregation and prisons and rape shelters are coming around. Is there no middle ground where we could serve trans people without giving up on everyone else's rights?
> If there was a treatment that could alter a trans person's brain chemistry so they would no longer feel dysphoria it would without question be deemed medically necessary and covered.
I would think so, but it's a terribly unpopular idea in the community.
> the usage of the word man and woman that is consistent with the medical community
The evidence based medical community that performs heart transplants and stuff, or the same psych community that supported recovered memories which led to the satanic sex panic scandal?
> You are under no obligation to accept trans women, but in my view calling them women is a prerequisite to that.
I've accepted transexual people for decades and now you're telling me that it counts for nothing unless I participate in removing women's rights on their behalf?
> you're now not shunning them from polite society, locking them up in mental institutions, or lynching them but that alone doesn't constitute acceptance
Yeah, it does. Lack of rejection is acceptance. It's all the catholics and scientologists get, it's all anyone can demand.
> they "accepted black people" but were insistent that they were "black people" not "people" because the overwhelming majority believed that "people" means humans of white skin.
You've agreed that trans aren't the sex they claim and it's that we should treat them like they are. So are you saying that black people aren't people, and we only treat them as such as a courtesy? This argument just comes across as stunningly racist and blind to the differences between race and sex.
In this case male people are like colonizers, going into and displacing women from their spaces. You're basically arguing for allowing Rachel Dolezal to claim blackness and race-based subsidies, because we're all just people.
While it’s clear me and the other fellow have strong disagreements they are coming to the table in earnest where you seem to be actively trying to misunderstand what I’m saying to concoct the most insane bad faith readings I couldn’t have even imagined.
Some of your arguments go a bit far, like racial analogies. That's what they imply - that black people aren't real people. Because men are not women.
You've said that you know it's not actually true that trans people are their desired sex but that we should say things because those things help people. Why not just leave the argument there, that we should be polite?
It feels like you're unreasonably polarizing this argument, by using unreasonable analogies and saying things like "every single one [of those accommodations] is fundamentally necessary for trans people to exist in society" you're drawing lines in the sand for other people's fight. What if only 75% of that is possible?
> coming to the table in earnest
This isn't like a 50/50, meet in the middle thing. You're trying to convince people to give up their sex-based rights and you're going to have to make the initial case. Why should I tell my mother, sister, wife, and daughter that I've decided other men can call themselves women and join them in their spaces? Do you feel you've met the burden of proof?
You talked about PTSD type pain, how do you think female rape victims feel when they're told to accept a male in their space, and punished when they talk about it? https://rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/rape-crisis-centre-in-b-c-en...
You should treat trans women as women because they are. But if that's not possible for you then you should treat trans women as women because it's mean to trigger their dysphoria.
I view people not recognizing trans women as women the same way racists of old didn't recognize black people as people.
> What if only 75% of that is possible?
Nonsense, everything I listed is totally in control of humans. Hell, what I listed is the reality in some places. The only thing that will ever stand in the way of getting to what I view as actual trans acceptance is people not wanting to. All of those things are fundamentally necessary for trans people because they all stem from two things -- recognizing trans women as women/trans men as men, and recognizing gender dysphoria as a medical condition. If you don't do that you're not actually accepting trans people's transness and what that actually means.
> I've decided other men can call themselves women and join them in their spaces
Because that's fundamentally not true and not how being trans works. Being trans isn't a choice. Your idea of what single-sex rights means assumes the thing we disagree about -- that trans women aren't women.
You do understand that that article is extremely transphobic right? That's why people are mad about it. The author is calling trans women mutilated cross-dressers pumped full of chemicals impersonating women for gods sake.
> Trans women aren’t women because [...] they’re women because they experience distress and wrongness when treated as a man
You're essentially saying that they aren't, but because it upsets them we treat them as if it's true.
>> What if only 75% of that is possible?
> Nonsense, everything I listed is totally in control of humans.
Right, but you've got to convince everyone that they can safely do this, and should, etc. You've said that if they don't get all of this then none of it matters. I'm just wondering if you really mean to be an accelerationist like that, and risk them getting nothing. Like, if I'm not prepared to use pronouns you're telling me not to bother with the rest.
> trans women are women, trans women are female, trans women have XY chromosomes. Single sex rights for women include trans women.
Males can't be females. Trans women can still impregnate females and the vast majority (90%+) still have their penis and testicles. Single-sex spaces are to avoid large male-bodied people who are trying to have sex with you. You're proposing to totally ruin that.
Also, you have yet to address the fact that I look exactly like a male-presenting trans woman. How do you propose to keep me out of women's spaces when I can just say "I'm a woman too"?
> not recognizing trans women as women the same way racists of old didn't recognize black people as people
I'm not the only one who thinks that's racist af. I don't think you're gaining support when you use it.
> recognizing trans women as women/trans men as men, and recognizing gender dysphoria as a medical condition. If you don't do that you're not actually accepting trans people's transness and what that actually means.
I've never seen anyone attempt to prove it. Not the feelings part, that's internal, but the being female now. Without that being strongly factual the rest falls apart. If you want to take someone's safe spaces away by putting in the very people who abuse them - you should dot the Is and cross the Ts.
> Being trans isn't a choice.
Another thing that needs to be proven. It acts like a social contagion which is sorta the definition of a choice.
> Your idea of what single-sex rights means assumes the thing we disagree about -- that trans women aren't women.
Trans women can impregnate women. That's not what single sex means. And as the sports debacle shows, are just as big and strong as normal men.
Moreover, prison statistics show, per capita, that trans women are convicted of sex crimes at a much higher rate than non-trans identified males. This fits with crossdressing and flashing being the #1 and #2 indicator of a male going on to commit later sex crimes.
> The source of the "fact" on trans women criminality is so misunderstood that the author had to come out and tell people how wrong the conclusions they were taking from it was. https://medium.com/@notCursedE/do-trans-women-retain-male-pa...
> Do trans women ‘retain male pattern violence’? Obviously not.
Then how do you get trans women in prison for baby rape? There hasn't been a female case of that in Canada yet and we've got multiple trans women in jail for it so that alone blows them way out of the female criminality category.
> Tell the women in my life I've decided other men can call themselves women and join them in their spaces
> Not at all.
Yes. That's what you want, for me to come around and add my democratic weight to voting that woman means "female and trans woman". You want me to decide that the status quo is wrong. You want me to tell the women in my life that I've decided to broaden their category because it was inconvenient for other males.
>> article: Vancouver Rape Shelter rejects male counsellor
> You do understand that that article is extremely transphobic right? That's why people are mad about it.
I understand that they are mad but I do not give their feelings any weight. I see rape victims as needing 100% control over who they talk to. If I don't like my doctor or counsellor I can get a new one, so why can't they?
The shelter offered to let the trans woman be an optional counsellor, listed in the book for people to call, but they were sued because they didn't put them in the rotation and force victims into counseling with them. Nobody wanted to see them when it was optional which is why they wanted to force their way in.
If that trans woman was a woman in any way, wouldn't they have recognized the terror they were causing in women by forcing them to sit alone in a room with someone who resembles their rapist?
That's now the only rape shelter in Canada that's exclusively for females and the rest of the shelters are posting about problems with the males harassing, threatening, beating, and sexually molesting the females in shelters.
None of this is female-pattern criminality:
https://www.womenarehuman.com/male-transgender-boasts-of-har...
https://reduxx.info/violent-necrophiliac-transferred-to-wome...
https://4w.pub/violent-woman-killer-to-be-transferred-to-wom...
Pick whatever criteria makes you comfortable -- documented history of gender dysphoria, psych evals from multiple doctors, a minimum number of years being "out" and living socially transitioned. It's not like it's impossible to determine whether someone is trans or not. In most states that's literally what happens when someone goes to court to change their gender marker. You need doctor's sign off that you are trans and have finished your transition.
> Males can't be females.
We're in total agreement about this up to the definition of male and female. This is what I mean when I say it's not a choice.
> Trans women can still impregnate females
I really don't understand why you care so much about impregnation, you mention it multiple times. There are men who are infertile, hell there are trans men with vaginas. Neither should be allowed in women's spaces.
> Not the feelings part, that's internal, but the being female now. Without that being strongly factual the rest falls apart
Again I don't really disagree with you. We clearly just have two different readings of the science.
> It acts like a social contagion
You have the observation right but explanation wrong. The number of trans people is increasing, but it's because of a combination of it being socially acceptable to be trans and come out, and people who were suffering with gender dysphoria are now realizing that's what it is and getting help. See the graph of left handed people over time -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/09/l... -- wanna guess when we stopped forcing kids to be right handed?
> And as the sports debacle shows, are just as big and strong as normal men.
This is a yes and no situation. Yes, women with high T will be bigger and stronger. Which is why sports clubs have minimum times on HRT for trans women to compete. And if it turns out that the current requirements aren't enough we can make them stricter, we can have trans women to shed all muscle while on HRT and then build it back. Trans men ought to be the counterexample because they are bigger, stronger, and out-compete women.
> I don't think you're gaining support when you use it.
You're right, probably not but the parallels are uncanny, especially when it comes to the use of crime statistics. If you put yourself in the mindset of someone who believes that trans women are women and then look at what the opposition looks like it's remarkably like the era of Jim Crow and separate but equal.
> by putting in the very people who abuse them
Again, totally agree with you up to the definition. You're lumping a group of women in with the male abusers and then saying obviously we can't have them around. In your world, what do you do with trans men in this situation?
> I understand that they are mad but I do not give their feelings any weight. I see rape victims as needing 100% control over who they talk to.
I agree with you on this with no notes. If someone doesn't want to see anyone as a counselor they shouldn't have to. If someone being in the rotation means victims are forced to see them, trans or not, that's a problem. The thing I take issue with, and I think the women did as well, is the presumption that victims wouldn't want to see her.
> with someone who resembles their rapist
Ugh, this is always what it boils down to. You mentioned it earlier in the post when you said "large male-bodied." People get this idea in their heads that all trans women look like linebackers. It's no wonder so many trans women spend so much time, effort, and money on passing as cisgender, and in particular starving themselves to be smaller. If a rape victim, trans or not, is triggered because their counselor physically resembles their assailant, trans or not, then they're probably not a good fit.
> males harassing, threatening, beating, and sexually molesting the females in shelters.
That's horrible and exactly why female only shelters are needed. No woman, trans or not, should have to be the victim of that.
This discussion is so frustrating because I agree with you in almost everything.
- I know that what trans folks experience with dysphoria isn't "hurt feelings" and is a medical issue more akin to triggering someone's PTSD.
- I view the absolute bare minimum of what is required for acceptance of trans women is using their names, pronouns, treating them as you would cisgender women in all situations not directly related to medical care where chromosomal differences are relevant, recognizing dysphoria as a medical condition, and providing them access to the medically necessary healthcare of medical transition in the same manner as any other medical treatment.
And if you oppose any of those things is opposing trans people since every single one is fundamentally necessary for trans people to exist in society. I would think you mad if you tried to argue that a law banning two people of the same sex from having sex was not opposing gay people and that it was enough to simply view them as people instead of monsters.
- I view fighting for the usage of the word man and woman that is consistent with the medical community (yes I know you disagree with that bit) as convincing people to include trans men and women when using those words so that the meaning changes, not telling people that they have to. You are under no obligation to accept trans women, but in my view calling them women is a prerequisite to that.
It's great that you're now not shunning them from polite society, locking them up in mental institutions, or lynching them but that alone doesn't constitute acceptance. I view what you're doing the same way I would view someone who said they "accepted black people" but were insistent that they were "black people" not "people."