Part 1 – The History of Transgenderism: r/theschism, r/BlockedAndReported, themotte.org
Part 2 – the Causes and Rationalization of Transgenderism: r/theschism, r/BlockedAndReported, themotte.org
Part 3 – How Transgenderism Harms Women And Children: r/theschism, r/BlockedAndReported, themotte.org
Part 4 – How Transgenderism Took Over Institutions And How Some Women Are Fighting Back: r/theschism, r/BlockedAndReported, themotte.org
Part 5 – Conclusion and Discussion: r/theschism, r/BlockedAndReported, themotte.org
I had said in my last post that I wished to review a book that promised to be more red meat for the people here. But I had not expected to be posting this so soon, I thought I might find my book of choice boring enough to last me a month. Instead, I found myself engaged so deeply that I binged the entire work in a few days.
Helen Joyce is an Irish journalist and executive editor for “events business” at the Economist. She’s currently on sabbatical to do some work for Sex Matters, a UK non-profit that advises the public on the importance of biological sex as a category when making policy. In July of 2021, she published Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality. It purports to be a general book about the history of transgenderism, trans activism, and the issues that trans women pose to cis women.
It is the first one that we will focus on this post.
The Girl From Denmark
For Joyce, the story begins with Einar Wegener. Wegener was a Danish man born in 1882. He was an artist and married to Gerda Wegener. As the story goes, Gerda was convinced by Anna Larssen to have Einar take Larssen’s place for some modeling because the latter was running late. Wegener’s modeling for his wife was kept a secret for years. “Hardly anyone knew that Gerda’s sultry, sloe-eyed model was her cross-dressing husband,” Joyce writes. Eventually, the couple moved to Paris, but Einar was not the only person involved now. A new figure, named Lili, began to introduce herself as Gerda’s sister.
It was, you may have guessed, Einar. Over time, he seems to have grown weaker compared to the “woman in this body”, suggesting a battle in the mind over which identity was the real one. Doctors at the time diagnosed him as mad or homosexual. But this did nothing to resolve the conflict, and Einar was determined to either make Lili a reality or simply end his own persona.
In 1930, that opportunity would come at the hands of the Institute of Sexual Science in Berlin and its founder Magnus Hirschfeld. Hirschfeld believed that people were all bisexual, but not in the sense that they were attracted to both, rather that they were both. This was naturally attractive to the ailing model because it allowed for the possibility that you could move from one sex to the other with enough work. He was willing to operate on Einar.
The surgeries were grueling and saw the removal of testicles and penis, then insertion of ovaries, and finally the construction of a “natural outlet”. This last part is not necessarily clear as the Nazis burned the institute’s records in 1933, leaving only Lili's memoir Man Into Woman. it would probably have been a neovagina or attempted womb transplant.
In any case, Einar ceased to exist in the operating room, and Lili was manifested into reality. Things could not have been better after the surgery, it seemed. The King of Denmark gave Lili a new passport that defined her sex as female and annulled her marriage to Gerda. She went on to get engaged to an art dealer.
Sadly, Lili would die before the marriage in September 1931 due to heart failure. But she wrote that she had found her 14 months of life as Lili to be a “whole and happy human life”.
Joyce commends Hirschfeld for his forward-thinking nature and willingness to support franchising women and supported decriminalizing homosexual relationships between men (he was himself gay), but excoriates his views on what it means to be a female. She suggests that his views had a conspicuously shaped hole named Charles Darwin. For Joyce, Darwin had conclusively demonstrated that there was no meaningful definition of sex apart from that about reproduction. She accuses believers in Hirschfeld’s model as being sexist and simply accommodating the existence of women scientists, poets and leaders by claiming they were simply being less womanly.
Lili does not get off scott-free either, Joyce relates passages from her memoir that suggest some unconscious sexism in her mind. Lili believed her validation as a woman would come about by having a child. She self-described as the character opposite to Einar: thoughtless to his thoughtfulness, illogical to his ingenuity, superficial to his sagacity. The last fulfilment of being a real woman, according to Lili, was to have a “sterner being, the husband” to protect her in life.
Lili's importance to this topic will become clear eventually, I promise.
“What American Woman Wouldn’t Be Happy?”
Following this lengthy account come yet another, this time about Christine Jorgensen, formerly known as George Jorgensen. Jorgensen was a 26-year-old New Yorker who went to Europe in 1950 to get treatment for “men like him”. The 1930s and 40s had seen the rise of synthetic sex hormones and antibiotics, with some doctors now claiming it was possible to move males to the female end of the spectrum. Jorgensen would return in 1952 having undergone castration, penectomy, and plastic surgery for his external female genitalia.
Crucially, however, the doctors who treated him did not regard themselves as making him the opposite sex. They saw him as a man so beset by “transvestism” as to be unable to live without presenting as a woman. Christine was the one who claimed to be a woman to the media (the title of this section is a paraphrasing of what she told reporters). The media that covered the story, and their readers, ate it up. They praised the results and cast no doubt on Jorgensen’s claims about what sex was or about her own intersex condition.
But for all the many requests that the doctors who did the operation received, all were turned down. Instead, Joyce argues, an enterprising fraud and German endocrinologist would take up this task. That man’s name? Harry Benjamin.
To be clear, I don’t see any evidence that Benjamin didn’t believe what he said, and Joyce doesn’t directly argue this either. But the references to his quack background seem chosen to imply as much.
In any case, Benjamin was an outspoken advocate for using hormones and surgery to treat “transsexualists” as opposed to most doctors of the time who would have use electric shocks or mega-doses of the original sex’s hormones to “cure” the desire. In 1963, he took on a patient named Rita Erickson and transitioned her into Reed Erickson. Erickson was grateful and funded him for several research symposia. Erickson also went on to fund the Erickson Educational Foundation, which primarily focused on funding studies into transsexualism, as well as the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic.
In the following decade, other major medical centers would open up programs of a similar sort. Thus began a slow but continuous effort by doctors and researchers who would go on to be authorities and gatekeepers. They did their best to accommodate their patients. In 1979, they would all get together and found their own professional association, the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association.
Or, as you may know it after 2006, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
Putting Your Money Where Your Benjamin Is
The history of transgenderism cannot be explained without talking about the man who coined the term “gender”. John Money was a Harvard psychologist from New Zealand who popularized the sex-gender distinction that people use even to this day.
Briefly, Money is the reason we talk about gender at all and make the distinction between sex and gender. For him, a woman or man was defined by taking on certain roles, which they were socialized (taught by others) into accepting. But some people were atypical for their sex and took on the roles of the other sex more easily/naturally. In other words, gender was what your roles were, and sex was your body.
Joyce describes their meeting as a moment when the stars aligned. You had Benjamin on one hand who believed that sex was a spectrum and people could move between the two ends, and Money on the other who believed that men and women were defined by what roles they took on, not by their bodies. Combined in a manner akin to Dragon Ball Z’s Fusion Dance, they created a powerful new theory of what caused cross-sex identification, what it meant, and what to do about it.
This can be found in Bejamin’s work The Transsexual Phenomenon. In it, he gave Hirschfeld’s depiction of a sex spectrum and described transsexuals as people suffering from a mind-body mismatch. He would also nod to Money’s ideas about “gender feeling” (a collection of feelings, attitudes, and desires). If this feeling was settled and mismatched to the body, then the body had to give.
We will discuss Money, his work, and his impact in a later post.
Handling Edge Cases
I mentioned previously that Lili Elbe had been granted a new passport by the Kingdom of Denmark that stated her sex as female. But, as Helen Joyce asks, what did this really mean to the people who made such decisions?
She relates the case of Corbett v. Corbett as a telling example in far more detail than really necessary. Arthur Corbett wanted his marriage to April Ashley annulled on the grounds that she was a trans woman. Corbett did not look totally good in this case, to be clear, as he was someone who broke up his previous marriage because he was obsessed with Ashley and only demanded an annulment when she started asking for the deeds to their house. The judge in that case delivered the following remarks (somewhat paraphrased) to a devastated Ashley.
Intercourse using the completely artificially constructed cavity could never constitute true intercourse…the respondent is not, and was not, a woman at the date of the ceremony of marriage, but was, at all times, a male.
Joyce characterizes the response by officials and governments in the first half of the 20th century as trying to resolve some small number of anomalous cases with varying amounts of compassion and logic. The British government of Ashley’s time (the 1960s) believed that no operation could change sex, so even if the NHS would perform sex-change operations, it would not allow the recipient to go about being treated as a woman by the government.
But why said governments went about it how they did is an important question, and Joyce attributes this to two factors: the rise of bureaucracy and the shift in what defined womanhood.
Firstly, there was always a legal significance to being a man or woman: voting, inheriting, or even controlling money was dependent upon this. But no laws defined sex because it seemed pointless. Everyone could just see and make an accurate assessment, and the few who cross-dressed or passed as the other sex could be seen by their naked body.
This obviously changed with Lili Elbe, who would not appear male under nudity. But the less obvious influence was the rise of government documentation that listed sex. If you showed these, they would count as proof that you were a man or woman. To someone who was trans, these documents were sought after as another bit of proof to help get society to validate the new identity. Persuading bureaucrats was now a useful goal.
Secondly, what it meant to have womanhood, or be a woman, changed significantly between Jorgensen’s return in 1952 and her death in 1989. For doctors, journalists, and lawyers who were involved with this topic, it was no longer about having a body that could under normal circumstances get pregnant. Now it was about being able to “receive” in heterosexual sex and an inner sense of being “female”.
At first glance, this does not sound too bad, but without reference to reproduction, Joyce argues that being a woman became more individualistic over communal. Reproductive service was about your role in your species, sexual service was about your role to your husband.
This, she argues, was the birth of “gender identity”.
The Role Of Leftist Thought
Joyce, surprisingly enough, does not really delve deeply into the role played by broader left-wing ideology in supporting and even promoting transgenderism. She does spend some effort to address what she calls “social justice” or “applied postmodernism” (AP). As she tells it, AP rejects objectivity, logic, and reason. Here, language prescribes instead of describes, meaning oppression springs from discourse. The focus on letting individuals reign supreme in defining themselves fits mind-body dualism perfectly, since it means being a man or woman can never be gatekept.
But to convince others of this, you have to deny the objectivity of sex and instead insist that gender identities are the real thing. Judith Butler, described as the most influential gender theorist, has argued that sex and gender are not distinct and are both socially constructed. Tellingly, Butler defines transness as the mismatch between what society tells you to act as and what you know about yourself (notice the framing of society oppressing individual expression). Doctors, she argues, engage in performance when they register a baby’s sex, changing social reality by their very words.
Joyce discusses the terms AFAB/AMAB (assigned female at birth, assigned male at birth) and argues that they deny any argument that man/woman might be gender and male/female can be kept for sex. Instead, she argues, TRA ideology takes these terms to mean you are female or male should you define yourself that way.
This was a bold claim to me. I had even recently argued, among other things, that I did not know how many TRAs (trans rights activists) believed that a trans person was by nature the sex they identified as. Joyce would tell me that my definition of “sex” includes immutability, and I think that it a good definition of my position. I do not think we should define sex as anything other than what your natal body’s reproductive pathways are, but I remain open to arguments to the contrary.
With that said, I think Joyce has pointed to a gap in my own thinking. I had assumed that when terms like AFAB and AMAB are used, TRAs understood sex mostly as I did. But if they follow ideas like Butler’s, then sex and gender are both malleable to the extent that yes, TRAs would tell you they are actually the same in terms of body as people of the sex they identify as.
As for how widespread this idea is, I’ve found the following.
-
Here are 3 studies published in 2017 and 2018 that use male/female as one would traditionally use man/woman.
-
Wikipedia defines trans women as having a “female gender identity”.
-
A 700 person Twitter poll from 2018 where about 50% said that trans women are female.
There is more, of course, but I think these at least suggest the idea sex and gender are to some people mutable. I’m still not clear on how prevalent this view of sex is, but I think it is at least not insignificant.
I’m a bit frustrated that Joyce doesn’t go further into the role of left-wing thought in the intellectual and ideological support for transgenderism. I think it would be worthwhile to discuss what drove, and arguable drives, left-wing support for glorifying all forms of individual expression. I myself covered one such motivation here.
That’s all for this post. Next time, we’ll go over the harm Joyce attributes to the version of pro-trans ideology that has come to define what it means in 2023 to be supportive, and maybe some other stuff as well. I hope you enjoyed!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think an underlying issue is that for all that people try to propound the sex/gender distinction, I think pop gender theory is actually pretty bad about maintaining a strict distinction in all instances.
There's a proliferation of redundant terminology in modern English. For example:
Man, manly, masculine, male, virile, masc
Woman, womanly, feminine, female, femme
All of these words, to a first approximation are synonyms or derivations of the first word in their set (or that word in another language.) Sure, someone can try to carefully maintain that "masc" refers to ones clothing style and presentation, while "male" refers to your assigned sex at birth, and "man" refers to your social role. But I think the reality is that these all sort of blur together, and combined with the instinct to be nice to trans people, we end up in a place where a transwoman is a woman, a female, femme-presenting, etc. in a lot of people's vocabulary.
Recently, I put forward the word "signalment" as a word to refer to all of the medically relevant information about a person, including their assigned sex at birth, and their history of hormones and surgeries. I have no illusions that this will catch on. I've also considered solutions like "mating type", "gametic sex" or "chromosomal sex" - I think all of them could have their purposes, but I think at a basic level a lot of people just don't want to have a widely known method of referring to this idea.
I've even seen rants on Tumblr complaining about the fact that her cishet cousin had asked if someone was "assigned male or female at birth" - since she realized that now that this terminology had spread to normies, they were going to use it as a polite way of asking what sex a person "really was."
I think there will always be ways to try and refer to the trait transwomen and cismen have in common that differs with transmen and ciswomen, but it might just become a strange euphemism treadmill, where a word that would refer to the difference starts to just refer to the trans individuals in that category as well. The only phrases I think will remain immune are words like "sperm" and "ovum/egg" which will leave us in the weird, clinical space of referring to "individuals who naturally produce sperm" or something of that nature - functional, but very clunky.
This space has already arrived, and I hate it.
More options
Context Copy link
I've also thought along these lines - that no term referring to the immutable could ultimately stand, because any barrier whatsoever standing between a person and "the real ones" of a group they desire to belong to seems contrary to the whole ethos of the endeavor.
But I post now mainly to report that I think I was wrong: I haven't seen the case of "cis-" fall down the euphemism treadmill. Even I can't say "well, just you wait" about it; I do think I was mistaken.
deleted
I'm pretty sure TRAs would not be happy in the least if you pitched them this view, because it allows for an easy escape into saying that historical uses of "women" (like say, bathroom differentiation and what not) are about cis women. They kept saying "trans women are women" because women was generally understood to be what they called cis women.
I believe that's political strategy rather than peacetime philosophy.
In places where trans woman are well accepted, trans women don't care about the distinction existing. In some spaces trans women are even thought of as more ideal than cis women.
It's only in locations where rights are under contest- where people actually want to put trans women in men's bathrooms, where you start seeing lines of thought like that grow.
They're arguments as soldiers that don't catch on in peacetime, and TRAs are on the front lines so they are more likely to hold them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
I just think it sounds Ferengi.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm actually not sure it's being used as an adjective there. I think it might be like the compound phrase "hunter-gatherer," where two nouns are used side-by-side to refer to a single entity. If that's correct, I think the correct way to write the phrases would be "woman-president" and "woman-scientist." I agree that it's a bit of a redundant and unnecessary phrasing in any case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. We can use words attributed to animals for an analogue: we believe in a animal behavior/biology distinction in a weak sense.
The weak sense being: a person can be "weaselly" without being a weasel. But they cannot actually become a 'real' weasel by embodying those traits - not in the strong sense.
As far as I'm concerned what has gone on is the argumentative equivalent of a gaslighting campaign where normies say "well, yes, a person can feel and act more weaselly than most humans would" and then someone goes "aha! So you agree behavior and biology are totally separate!" and, if they accede to this, they find themselves risking the slippery slope.
What's fascinating to me is that this works at all. I can only assume 50 years of feminism being at best agnostic to claims of substantial sex differences or actively hostile to them has helped set the ideological stage - or rather: removed traditional obstacles (like acknowledging basic biological differences) to this line of reasoning.
There's clear evidence we're on a euphemism treadmill, given that this is a "fake" problem only relevant because trans activists broke their own talking point of "woman=/= female" and started to refer to people like Levine as "female".
Why did they do that? Well, my unflattering take is influenced by Joyce: many of them want to live out a fantasy (or, if you prefer, social fiction), and anything that pulls them out of the fantasy (social fiction) is offensive and must be extirpated.
If I strain myself to be charitable, it's no different than people who don't want to hear teachers say loudly "John, get your stuff! Your ADOPTED father is here!".
From an article in the Economist 2 days ago:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would TRAs be happy if we renamed women's sports female sports and proceeded to exclude transwomen from female sports?
I would say it's complicated.
Why don't we have Co-ed sports to begin with? Why don't we separate out people with genetic mutations that make them stronger into their own branch of sports? What is the goal of sports?
Sports doesn't have a philosophically rigorous premise. The way we divide it is based on convenience and profit and politics and other practical factors. The practical factors a TRA will be concerned with are the ones they think will help trans people.
Would splitting sports help trans people? TRAs are going to be happy with the results they think help trans people, both in the context of Sports glory and funding, and in the context of people's perception of trans people for use in the wider culture war.
Sure, all sorts of things have shaped sports as it exists today. But I think there's a really simple reason why women's sports exist and will continue to exist: women want to compete with each other on a relatively level playing field instead of getting literally and figuratively pummeled by men.
And sure, TRAs want policies that they think help trans people. But what one thinks helps trans people is tied to one's understanding of sex and gender. If one has a conventional understanding of sex as real, significant and immutable, then it is really easy to come to the conclusion that certain policies favoured by TRAs are disastrous for the public image of trans people because they make them look unreasonable and unfairly harm some "cis" people. Which suggests that the TRA view of sex/gender probably isn't the conventional view.
Overturning and blurring the 'conventional' understanding has been a powerful tool for TRAs in pursuing trans acceptance. Prior understanding closely married sex and gender presentation and who it was ok to sleep with and strict gender roles. It's been blurring the whole time.
The battle of the TRA is to make the conventional understanding obsolete. A TRA wouldn't be happy with chromosome based sports, because that's an expression of a society that still cares more about sex than gender. A woman doesn't complain that another woman she's competing against has better genetics or a better training regimen, so why should it be legitimate for her to complain that her opponent used to be a man?
That is to say I agree. The ideological goals of trans rights are not compatible with conventional gender's existence. A TRA might accept limits for testosterone levels or muscle mass that equally apply to cis women, but the defeat of the immutability of sex, both conceptually through overhauling the understanding, and literally through the advancement of the technology of transition, is the whole point of the project.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I doubt it, but they might argue that people who propose this don't actually agree with this and are just trying to exclude them due to bigotry.
Secondly, you'd still run into the same problem if the TRAs think sex and gender are not distinct, thus making it possible to become female if you are a trans woman.
TRAs thinking that sex and gender are not distinct would just confirm Helen Joice's claims.
TRAs rejecting sex segregation as bad faith bigotry while holding that sex is real and immutable is possible, I guess. But then I would expect more of them to say things like "Yes, I am undeniably, immutably male, and I am woman". That's very much a minority position among them, as far as I know.
*Joyce
But yet, I agree - if they view the two as indistinct, that's an argument in favor of Joyce's construction of modern gender-identity ideology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was always under the impression that most people understand the terms "man" and "woman" to refer to one's gender, and "male" and "female" to refer to one's sex. The more I discuss this issue, the more I start to think that this distinction is not as widely employed as I previously believed. Lots of people use "man" and "male" interchangeably to refer to sex or gender, without endorsing the view that sex is mutable. You'll see people employing circumlocutions like "Caitlyn Jenner is a woman but is biologically/anatomically male"; if "male" was understood to exclusively refer to sex, the qualifiers "biologically" or "anatomically" would be redundant. This confusion over terminology is widespread enough to seriously affect survey results and the interpretation thereof:
The confusion is definitely deliberate. The whole point of the "sex vs gender" distinction was to create two categories, redefine one of them, then strategically conflate them to destroy the common sense definition whenever it's convenient to. (But leave it intact whenever it isn't!)
If that sounds odd, there's also the "systemic vs individual racism" con that worked exactly the same way.
More options
Context Copy link
Most people do not distinguish between "man" and "male" because doing that is wrong. If it is not a "male" then it CANNOT be a "man". That's like saying that a triangle has four corners. I mean, you can say it. You'd just be wrong.
Memes like "Caitlyn Jenner is a woman" is just that - wrong. It's a falsehood forced upon people against their will by force. You have to say that the triangle has four corners to not do something as gauche as to be rude, so you do. But it's fucking wrong, and you know it's fucking wrong, and you know the fucking people making you fucking say it are fucking evil.
Emphasizing every noun and verb in your sentence with a curse word is not a great way to persuade me.
More options
Context Copy link
This is an opinion. It is an opinion you are allowed to have. It is an opinion you are allowed to forcefully argue.
It is not an opinion you are allowed to assert as a fact and claim that anyone who thinks otherwise is "fucking wrong and know it's fucking wrong." Even if you strongly believe that. There are people who do not, in fact, believe the same things you do, and you are allowed to argue with them and explain why you think they're wrong. You are not allowed to simply angrily stamp your feet and pound your fists and say "You're wrong!" Let alone that people who believe things you don't believe are "fucking evil." (Again, you may genuinely believe this. You are still required to be civil and not scream boos at your outgroup and weakman them. We have civility rules for a reason.)
Whenever you take a contentious opinion and state it as "You know this is wrong, everyone knows it's wrong," you have veered into consensus-building language.
More options
Context Copy link
The categories of man and woman are entirely created by humans. Redefining them is entirely acceptable even if any particular redefinition might be rejected. Nothing wrong about it, you just have a particular side you believe is, for some reason, objectively correct.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I do not think the average person (who cares little about such things) considers "gender" and "sex" to be different. After much thinking on the matter I do not think there is a difference either.
I don't know what exactly is driving this but among the American public more and more people instead say that gender is determined at birth.
My view has hardened substantially on this and I think the simple answer is just that a lot of people never really thought about it that much and simply went along assuming we'd be dealing with another gay marriage: i.e. of limited impact on normies, so why not indulge them?
Then they got introduced to the ever escalating demands of TRAs which heavily lean on the rhetorical force of the sex/gender distinction and TWAW and realized that the simplest solution was to never cede the original redefinition of gender in the first place.
After you see supposedly smart people tie themselves in knots over weight classes or "hormone classes" to avoid an intuitive and workable system (perhaps at the risk of athlete's health) because "TWAW and we can't just exclude them!" you intuitively see the leg of the stool you need to kick out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To the best of my understanding, this distinction was introduced, or at least popularized, in the mid-20th century by Simone de Beauvoir. In a nod to horseshoe theory, the people who seem to most resist this in my experience are conservative people who make no distinction because they think social and biological roles are intertwined, and trans advocates who make no distinction because they object to the use of any language that helps to distinguish transsexuals from the biological categories they are emulating.
It seems to me that the trans movement is deeply committed to doing the opposite of tabooing their words. They're not the only ones--I think a lot of the political left, along with many conservative religious groups, flee from clarity a lot. My own prejudice is that this is because they know, at some level, that linguistic clarity undermines their ingroup activism. But Scott Alexander has written occasionally about preserving disclarity in ways that may help to arrive at a slightly more charitable take. Maybe.
Horseshoe theory is such a good way to describe the convergence. I myself try to maintain a distinction between man/woman and male/female but even someone as pathologically fastidious about words as me fails regularly.
More options
Context Copy link
For me, I've long felt that the very concept of being "trans" depends on sex and gender being distinct concepts, which is why I'm so confused when I encounter trans activists insisting that they're one and the same. What on earth does "trans woman" mean if not "a person with a female gender but a male sex"?
If the "intersex brain" hypothesis had any validity (the idea that trans people are intersex individuals where the primary physical feature affected is their brains, which are more similar to their identified sex), then I could imagine defining a trans woman in those terms. That is, we could decide that an intersex (leaning feminine) brain in an otherwise masculine frame is the "tie breaker" for sex determination, and that such a person is female with a condition affecting the rest of their body, which requires treatment to get it in line with their intersex brain.
The only issue with this, is that I'm given to understand that current brain science doesn't confirm the intersex brain hypothesis, and that even the positive results in this field are questionable, since there's lots of brain regions, and it doesn't take that much statistical maneuvering to find a single brain region in a sample population that is more similar in transwomen and ciswomen than it is to typical cismen.
More options
Context Copy link
What I've seen seems to suggest they believe that someone can have an image or view of themselves that is deep-seated and internalized which corresponds to a "female gender identity". Note the use of the word "female", not "womanly" or something similar.
I think a big confounder here is how often trans people lie to doctors. It's not hard to find the criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM-V-TR and just memorize the script to get the treatment you want. I don't have a time stamp, but I believe Abigail Thorn talks a little bit about it in this video.
It's really unclear to me, if any testimony from trans people themselves should be taken to be an accurate description of their internal experiences, or a script they learned to tell doctors and the public that optimizes for acceptance and ease of understanding. They might hold a more complicated position that they don't share because it would undermine their claims.
I'm socially liberal enough that no matter what the actual underlying case may be, I can justify pronoun hospitality, nickname hospitality, and access to hormone treatments and cosmetic surgeries. But I'm not sure if something like Blanchard's typology, or social contagion theory, or something-something autism turned out to be the underlying cause of transgenderism that the general public would agree. If it turned out that the vast majority of trans people have brains more similar to their sex assigned at birth on the whole, and that became a widely known truth, I don't know what fate would await trans people at the hands of larger society.
jfc I can't watch five seconds of thing without losing my lunch. WTF is wrong with these theatric propaganda spewing youtubers who all end up deciding they're women?
More options
Context Copy link
So you would support hormones and surgeries for transgenderism caused by social contagion? That sounds interesting, could you flesh that out?
I'm not sure I have anything profound to say here. To use a non-trans example, I suspect the desire for tattoos and certain forms of cosmetic surgery are plausibly a result of "social contagion", and I still don't see much point in the State being wielded as a weapon to stop people from doing these things, even acknowledging that some percentage of people who seek out either of these will regret it.
The first results I found on Google claim that 65% of women regret getting plastic surgery, and 78% of people with tattoos regret at least one of them. I can speculate a number of reasons a person could regret a surgery or tattoo. Perhaps it was a botch job, perhaps people who are dissatisfied enough with their looks to want cosmetic surgery or a tattoo are also likely to be self-critical enough to never be satisfied with how they look. Perhaps they become conscious of lost job opportunities, or loss of status and respect in their social circles. The potential reasons are endless, and I'm sure the articles I linked go into many other reasons for this regret.
Basically, I'm not a paternalist. I think giving people the freedom to figure out what their version of the good life looks like, inevitably creates the freedom to ruin their own life as well. There are lots of ways people can ruin their own lives: Sometimes it looks like taking up smoking, sometimes it looks like becoming obese, sometimes it looks like obeying your parents when they order you not to go out of State to the great college you got a full ride scholarship to, sometimes it looks like being so stubbornly independent that you refuse to ask your family for help even though they would happily solve several of your problems in an instant. Etc., etc.
Obviously, this is easiest to apply to adults. Certainly, I don't think any trans adult with the money for it should be denied the ability to seek out surgeries and treatments available to cis people. If we give cis men over 35 the ability to get put on testosterone, why not trans men? If we let cis women get boob jobs, why not trans women?
More caution is obviously called for when it comes to minors. There's a lot of concerns with regards to unknowns, and the elephant in the room is that going through only the puberty of their identified sex is probably the best guarantee of a "normal" life living as the opposite sex. Ideally, I'd like parents, doctors and the child to weigh all options, be presented with all possible information, and to unanimously agree on a course of action for a trans child.
If being trans is mostly social contagion, I would like that to be widely known and to be weighed when making these decisions. The social contagion hypothesis doesn't mean that the desire to transition can easily be brainwashed away, or that we have reliable ways to make the socially contaminated people happy once they've gotten the idea they're trans into their head.
Even when it comes to tattooing, I'm sure there are kids raised by tattoo-averse parents, who are told all their life that they'll be disowned if they ever get a tattoo, who wait until they're financially independent and of the age of majority and get a tattoo anyways. In fact, I know such people exist, because my sister is one of them. Having graduated college - paid for by my parents, she now has several tattoos, much to my dad's displeasure.
I'm sure there's a non-zero regret rate for transitioning. Many people who transition will regret it, or will regret at least some of the procedures they seek out. Some will require additional surgeries to correct those regretted surgeries. Perhaps it would be good to nudge people away from bad outcomes, and to somewhat gatekeep transition, to limit the amount of people who regret it. But in the end, I think the strength of our society has been in allowing people enough freedom for good outcomes, while accepting the bad ones as acceptable loses. Sometimes, the family black sheep really will be happier with a tattoo and piercings, and sometimes the weird girl who always felt pushed around her entire life really will be happier living in the role of a man. I don't presume to know ahead of time which outcome a person will have.
I dont think regret particularly matters, because its a backwards-looking measure. Its possible that youll regret all or none of the possible decisions, after you actually make them.
Its more about the idea of the "real self", and how the social environment needs to "let it develop". This is common among liberals and especially in the trans discourse, so I was surprised by you position seeming to give it little weight.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've actually heard the opposite: that, ironically, trans memoirs are actually surprisingly open things like autogynephilia, while activists insist on tarring and feathering Blanchard and suppressing the very idea.
I've seen only one example of it, quoted by another feminist, but I can't really say I know for sure since trans memoirs...aren't a priority.
It wasn't a memoir, but Andrea Long Chu in her book "Females" does mention that she was into sissy hypnosis before she transitioned, and she blames it for making her trans. However, that whole work seems written to be provocative not necessarily to state the truth, so I'm not sure if she was trolling or not. I'd be curious if you could remember the names of some trans memoirs that mention AGP?
I looked up the one concrete example of someone bringing this up and the person she cited was Long Chu, but an article instead of her book it wasn't so much about sissy hypnosis as transitioning for things like benevolent sexism and female clothing.
Can't think of another example offhead, sorry.
Haven't read it, but Anne Lawrence's book "Men trapped in Men's bodies" has "first-person narratives collected from 249 autogynephilic transsexuals over a period of 13 years". I have read the excellent "Galilleo's Middle Finger" by Alice Dreger, which refers to Anne Lawrence's work extensively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is only going to become more of an issue as telehealth takes hold. I've gotten a telehealth subscription for some...ahem...fun drugs and it took comically little effort to get a prescription for whatever I wanted. I even got one thing, decided I wanted the other thing, and went back and more or less asked for that instead, and got it handed right to me. Prescription medicine by digital chat is a joke, but it's just going to keep going until it stops being funny.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link