This is excellent news. Beyond my comprehension how this was never done in the first place. I am reading 'Time to think' and I listened to the Triggernometry interview with Hannah Barnes yesterday. The level of utter stupidity by seasoned clinicians remains jaw-dropping. They were all 'well-meaning' is the defence. American blue sanctuary states are going to find themselves outliers before long.
Also, this just up, the experiences of 50 trans widows, how the deceit was revealed, what happened to the children he fathered (no one collects data), what the "shrink-sanctioned kink" really means for the women:
Yes, it will be up soon. Subscribe to YT channel Trans Widow Ute Heggen and I will put out a community notice with a link. It's supposed to be in a week or so. Thanks. Most of my half of the conversation is similar to what's on my channel. Be well, count the butterflies, thx!
Encouraging news; nice to see an increasing number of countries willing to read the writing on the walls, hopefully the death knell for much of "gender ideology".
Even if too much of America hasn't yet gotten the memo, although I see a recent post from Jamie Reed points to a change in the wind there too:
JR: "Currently there are 21 states that have passed laws restricting medical interventions in minors to modify sex characteristics. Missouri’s attorney general issued regulations along the same lines that were slated to go into effect on August 28, 2023."
Nice to see that she said "modify sex characteristics" and didn't talk about "sex change operations" which too many on the Right -- like Christopher Rufo -- cluelessly insist on doing.
But what is absolutely astounding, if a bit depressing, is how we ever came accept a " 'self-id' law for adults whereby adults did not need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to register a legal sex change" in the first place. Arguably many on the right are culpable in that clusterfuck for insisting that sex is synonymous with gender. Defining the former as reproductive abilities and the latter as sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types, at least to first approximations, underlines the rank insanity of allowing some dick-swinging dude in a dress to claim to be able to compete in women's sports:
The ethics of the American Psychological Association includes "discrimination against" "gender identity" among the list of behaviors (?) that are unethical, like discrimination on the basis of "race," and other categories of identity based on observable physical traits. I do not know what this means. Psychologists have until very recently been free to restrict their practices to special populations, such as women, gay people, IT professionals, domestic abusers, people exposed to trauma, and a long list of diagnoses requiring specialized training. I consider the gender work I have done to have been treatment of the mental disorder "gender dysphoria," as well as whatever other mental disorders my clients presented and wanted to address. I chose to stop accepting referrals for evaluation and treatment of people with gender issues for several reasons that had nothing to do with the current crisis that we have been discussing on this site and elsewhere.
I would consider it to be racial discrimination if I refused to treat black people for depression but did treat white people for the same condition, but I do not consider it to be discrimination if I decline to accept into my practice people who identify as "trans," "nonbinary," "eunuch" or whatever. At present, the main reason why I would not see these people is that I am not free to offer such individuals the same high quality of care I offer to everyone else, because my state has made it illegal for me to offer it to people who identify themselves by these terms.
Hard not to get the impression that the APA and company are basically peddling conversion therapy. In case you missed it, an earlier comment of mine here on an article in the Elsevier Journal of Adolescent Health. Of particular note:
"The World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association no longer classify gender dysphoria as a mental health disorder. Rather, it is described as the distress of living with physical characteristics that do not align with one's gender identity, worsened by nonaffirming social factors."
Seems like a rather odious premise right out of the chute: because one's personality traits (gender) are not typical of one's sex that means one should mangle one's body into some ersatz and non-functioning replica of the other sex?
ICYMI, Peter Boghossian interviewed Kathleen Stock some 2 weeks ago and she had this comment thereon:
KS @7:45 : "I mean that's what they used to joke at the Tavistock gender identity clinic in London. Some of the clinicians there would be say there's not going to be any gay kids left if we carry on like this."
And Helen Joyce similarly in an interview by Richard Dawkins:
HJ @21:00 "Well I mean according to the Tavistock Clinic which is the UK's main gender identity clinic for children, the great majority of the children they see are same-sex attracted. There's a strong statistic they could have been perfectly happy because yes so we are turning potentially healthy gay adults into sterile straight simulacra of the opposite sex. And one of the points you'll make I think is that there are certain parents who would rather have a trans child than a gay child. ...."
HJ: "And if you're a mammal every part of your body is female ... but you know my hands are female my jaw is female ..."
She might just as well assert that if she was still a teenager then every part of her body is a teenager; similarly, that every part of her body is a vertebrate because she, presumably, has a spine.
Maybe "less sense" because your reading comprehension or willingness to read and think about what I say is getting worse each week ...
Riddle me this, is each part of Helen's body a vertebrate?
Wikipedia: "Vertebrates (/ˈvɜːrtəbrɪts, -ˌbreɪts/)[3] are animals with spinal cords and bony or cartilaginous backbones, including all mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish."
Just to put this in perspective, Denmark is about the size of Wisconsin, and what they have done is. O different than US states which have forbidden child mutilation, chemical and surgical sterilization and medical hormonal manipulation. Not different at all.
The heavyweights - Germany, France, Italy, Spain have only limited, qualified intervention. In general those countries have very conservative healthcare. (I lived in Europe for a decade, I speak from direct knowledge. US people confuse universal healthcare access with liberal scope. US has liberal treatment scope not conservative access, Europe has liberal coverage but conservative scope.)
The Dutch team’s non-repeatable “study” and bizarre before/after survey data, along with death of a surgically transitioned child is an anomaly in Europe (UK does not consider itself Europe). I’m quite surprised and frankly think the Dutch team is out of control.
Germany, Holland, France and other countries also have very strict laws controlling what they consider “Cult” organizations.
I wouldn’t be surprised if WPATH were designated a cult at some point , and blocked from organizing and functioning.
In case you didn't follow the link in the "scientific misinformation" phrase, it leads to an article in the Elsevier Journal of Adolescent Health. Of particular note:
"The World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association no longer classify gender dysphoria as a mental health disorder. Rather, it is described as the distress of living with physical characteristics that do not align with one's gender identity, worsened by nonaffirming social factors."
Seems like a rather odious premise right out of the chute: because one's personality traits (gender) are not typical of one's sex that means one should mangle one's body into some ersatz and non-functioning replica of the other sex?
> I lived in Europe for a decade, I speak from direct knowledge. US people confuse universal healthcare access with liberal scope. US has liberal treatment scope not conservative access, Europe has liberal coverage but conservative scope.
That makes sense. Since healthcare is paid for directly from the budget, they're obliged to implement various methods to control costs.
And yet the Danish still write ridiculous things like “assigned female at birth”. They may be following the science on “treatment”, but clearly they still believe sex is arbitrary in some way.
All of the research uses this language. (as enforced by the Trans Journalists Association Style Guide) and all the ex-husbands of trans widows everywhere. If Kathleen Stock, in her "debate" with Deirdre (formerly Donald) McCloskey on YouTube channel, UATX, had started the debate saying that she uses the term cross-sex ideation and will not bow to the rhetoric of "born in the wrong body," perhaps the points would have been clear. McCloskey famously pulled out of a debate with Michael Knowles. I cannot fathom why that youtube clip is not used to counter this fallacious culture. For the perspective of women who were gaslit on an entirely personal level, completely outside of anything resembling equal rights for women:
It drives me crazy that the ideological insanity about sex being assigned by doctors has been normalized to such an extent! Even the medical term "natal sex" leans in that direction. Birth isn't even that significant an event as far as sex goes.
Correct, as Dr. Miriam Grossman testified before the US Congress, sex is determined at conception and identified at birth. People who get mixed up about their sexed body are in need of physical therapies to bring them into congruence in mind/body. Feldenkrais physical therapy, Alexander body work, chiropractic acupressure, and other mind/body exercises, as well as gardening and being out in nature, will reconvene and realign the psyche and body. We all struggle with an imperfect physique with all of our body's asymmetries, or if we do believe we have perfection in early adulthood, we deal with the slow decline. Be happy with yourself, get out and count the butterflies. Accept this life, do your best for others, be a good example!
"ideological insanity about sex being assigned by doctors"
It really isn't logically or philosophically untenable to argue in favour of that "assigned at birth", although it is hardly arbitrary. It depends crucially on how you define the sexes. IF you define the categories -- as the standard biological definitions do -- such that functional gonads are the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as male or female THEN it necessarily follows that we don't acquire a sex until we hit puberty. Until then we only have a "promissory note" that we might be able to "cash in" for the real-meal deal, the gilt-edged membership card.
A succinctly phrased tweet from philosopher and mathematician Patrick Killeen underlines the argument:
Killeen: "Strictly speaking it’s the sex that an individual is disposed to develop into that is determined at conception, i.e. the sex that a person will become *if* they develop the ability to produce gametes. This is one of the few contexts where that particular distinction matters."
But if you want to use the folk-biology definitions -- which Oklahoma has done -- then that's an entirely different kettle of fish:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
Steersman, the trans activists are claiming that "gender", by which they sometimes mean bio sex, other times mean masculinity/femininity, and other times mean their mystical "gender identity"/soul being, can be established whenever in a person's life they "feel like" it is "true." When they complain about doctors "assigning sex at birth," their objection is that the child himself/herself has "the right" to discover and "reveal" it at any time in development. Their objection to bio puberty, as opposed to fantasies about it, is that it makes more obvious (and undeniable?) to all observers which sex the child is. Puberty forecloses the progressively multiplying fantasy options the child can cultivate, which is the main concern of the woke cult. Objective reality is always their primary enemy, no matter how anyone defines it.
The argument about when bio sex can be determined has no relevance to their concerns. Their position is that biology never determines or defines sex, "gender" or any related personal trait. Wokesters want to eliminate the limitations on personal choice that are imposed by reality.
Sandra: "... trans activists are claiming that "gender", by which they sometimes mean bio sex, other times mean masculinity/femininity, and other times mean their mystical "gender identity"/soul being ..."
Sure. But just because someone says that "2+2=5" doesn't mean we're obliged to burn all of the books on arithmetic. Which is basically what many of the "gender critical" crowd are doing -- they're rejecting any and all definitions of the terms "gender" and "gender identity". Some of which have some currency, coherence, value, and utility, not least in helping to resolve the whole transgender clusterfuck.
You may wish to take a gander at a conversation on that point that I was having with Dr. Michael Robillard -- Substacker and "Philosopher/Veteran/Patriot/Catholic", and in your neck of the woods too if I'm not mistaken:
He's written some credible criticisms of both in places like Quillette, but he's also endorsed more rational definitions of each:
MR: "Thanks. Yeah, I don't see any problem with 'gender' explained in those terms. I think those examples would still generally fall under the second sense of 'gender' that I describe in the piece. The key problem is in the equivocation in law and policy between this meaningful second sense of 'gender' and the third, privately-defined, and hence, incoherent sense of 'gender.' ..."
And in a conversation I've been having with "Hippiesq" -- a mother of a dysphoric daughter -- who rather brilliantly, cogently, and succinctly endorses the same perspective:
"Steersman, I understand your point of view, and you and I have discussed this before. I personally suspect (without doing an in-depth research project, the likes of which I have no idea how to accomplish, I cannot know for sure) that 'gender identity' started off to mean 'the degree and type of feminine and/or masculine (as those terms are defined in a given society at a given time) qualities one possesses and with which the person feels most comfortable.' This definition makes sense to me, and has value. It can be used to say that we tend to have set (although fluctuating) degrees and types of feminine and masculine qualities that are somewhat inherent to us, and allow for more acceptance of what is considered gender non-conforming behavior."
When I was a grad student in the Seventies, I was taught that Robert Stoller coined the term "gender identity" in the mid-Sixties. Stoller used that term to include accurate recognition of one's sex, but also included a child's desire to be "a masculine boy" or "feminine girl" congruent with the child's sex. Stoller also talked about a component of gender identity that develops from how one is seen and evaluated by others in terms of gender. Stoller also talked about "gender role", which seems to be similar to masculinity/femininity, and involves "experience of oneself" as well as how one acts. During the Seventies the term "sex role" was also used to describe "masculinity/femininity."
The use of the term "role" implies a social role in the sense that sociologists used the term during the 1960's-1980's. The emphasis was placed on being in a role that has been shaped by cultural expectations, social rewards and penalties, as well as by biological functions such as bearing and nursing children.
I was interested in Stoller's work because he provided a basis for differentiating the concepts of sex, gender identity (knowing which sex one is), sex role identity (masculinity/femininity), and sexual orientation. During the Seventies I always used the term "sex role identity" to refer to "masculinity/femininity." I have since then thought of "gender identity" as being based primarily on the child's correct recognition of self as a boy or a girl.
Stoller said that the task of forming an accurate gender identity was completed in early childhood. I think he said that this process happens around two years old, but I may not be remembering that accurately. I am also not well informed about how developmental psychologists currently understand the course of development of an accurate self-image with respect to one's sex.
Unfortunately, this area of scholarship has been compromised by the actions of critical theorists, as well as by the unethical actions of some of the leading clinicians and researchers working within the specialty.
There is a theory in psychoanalysis attributed to Donald Winnicott, which proposes that little kids need to learn that some people can survive everything a kid tries to do to them, and continue to function as caregivers for the child. Winnicott believed that if the child did not have this experience of “the indestructible object,” his/her development would be derailed. We are witnessing the validity of Winnicott’s predictions.
So many words have been twisted to the point of meaninglessness, it is uncertain as to how much of our language can be retrieved from the insanity.
I completely agree! It is interesting that a generation that is lost in fantasy is simultaneously devoid of creativity. Maybe the loss of creativity correlates with the concretization of fantasy. Fantasy no longer exists as a true play space, and becomes limited to the extent that it functions as a substitute for reality.
You mean their "mainly made up of birth-assigned girls”?
Certainly an awful of quite unscientific claptrap floating about, much of it being peddled by so-called biologists and philosophers. One case that really chaps my hide is both an NCBI book and the Yale School of Medicine insisting that "Every Cell Has a Sex":
The former is maybe not surprising given that Anne Fausto-Sterling -- she of the five sexes -- apparently has her dirty ideological mitts all over the book:
Maybe not surprising then that Helen Joyce came out with a howler of her own in an interview with Dawkins where she endorses that view. Methinks she should have stuck to mathematics if she's going to mangle the biology so badly:
HJ: "And if you're a mammal every part of your body is female ... but you know my hands are female my jaw is female ..."
She might just as well assert that if she was still a teenager then every part of her body is a teenager; similarly, that every part of her body is a vertebrate because she, presumably, has a spine.
People -- all members of all anisogamous species -- are male or female ONLY on the basis of the type of gametes they produce, not their cell chromosomes.
However, that "assigned a sex at birth" depends on how we define sex in the first place. By standard biological definitions we don't really acquire a sex until we hit puberty. Though very few if any cases of any XXers turning out to be males at that point -- hardly "arbitrary". But a tweet from a philosopher and mathematician underlines the same point:
Oh yes, I knew i wasn’t get it quite right. I recall us having this “you don’t acquire a sex until puberty” discussion before. From what I gather “birth-assigned” (which is an even stranger way to put it) means basically you have a placeholder sex until puberty can confirm it???
I guess I think that’s just splitting hairs given the small number of people who would discover something was up at puberty.
The definition of sex isn’t just “those that do produce such and such gametes”, but those with a body ordered towards producing those gametes (whether they do or not doesn’t matter). Therefore, in my mind, stating a baby is male or female is a reasonable thing to do, rather than pretend that sexual maturity isn’t going to “pay up” with regard to gamete production or maturation.
Maz: "From what I gather “birth-assigned” (which is an even stranger way to put it) means basically you have a placeholder sex until puberty can confirm it???"
Correct. And I quite agree with you that "birth-assigned" is a rather odd way of putting it, although that might be the result of a literal translation from the Danish.
Maz: "I guess I think that’s just splitting hairs ... something up at puberty."
I can certainly sympathize with that argument. And would probably agree with you if the issue was just a matter of definitions for the sexes applicable just to humans. But the larger issue is that those definitions have to apply to all of the literally millions of other species who use sexual reproduction. Don't think we can reasonably have two quite different definitions in play -- will we have one set for the kids in their social studies classes, and an entirely different one for their biology classes? We might just as well tell them that black is white.
You may wish to read an essay by Paul Griffiths in Aeon Magazine that goes into some detail on that choice, particularly these paragraphs:
PG: "Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]. ....
On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition [e.g., in law], the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."
Maz: "The definition of sex isn’t just 'those that do produce such and such gametes', but those with a body ordered towards producing those gametes (whether they do or not doesn’t matter)."
ICYMI, the "sovereign State" of Oklahoma is intending to base some of their laws on virtually the same definition:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
However, they might find they've painted themselves into a tight corner when it becomes evident -- as I expect will be inevitable -- that they conflict in significant ways with the standard biological definitions. For comparison purposes, see:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Reiterating Griffiths' point, it seems that corrupting the biology simply because many people find its conclusions "unpalatable" is rather "unwise" at best. We might just as well "teach the controversy", that the earth is flat and 6000 years old, that humankind is the result of a special creation by Jehovah, Himself:
“But the larger issue is that those definitions have to apply to all of the literally millions of other species who use sexual reproduction.”
This is just overcomplicating things unnecessarily. The definition of male and female as it relates to gametes or even role in reproduction works just fine for most species, even the ones that have both or none. They often still rely on knowing that there are two gametes, and that humans belong to a species in which sex is binary.
And the idea that you should think people “acquire” sex in puberty is just silly. To me it’s akin to human fetal development. It’s a human regardless of stage, it doesn’t acquire humanness when it’s born, it was one all along. It seems to me this whole thing of defining sex in different ways is similar to arguing humanness vs personhood when it comes to the unborn.
Boyhood is a stage of development in a male’s life even though he’s not yet mature enough to produce gametes.
Understanding the categories of sex is as fundamental to human species survival as knowing what a human is.
When medical research adopts this stupid language it buys into the notion that all human sex is assigned, when the reality is this is even more rare with today’s technology. Applying birth-assigned sex to everyone implies there’s some kind of other metric that will develop (like gender identity), which takes medicine into the realm of philosophy or theology as far as I can see.
It just occurred to me that if sex were actually assigned by a doctor when the baby is born, we would probably see more effects of bias in the assignments. The Chinese people, for example, would not have had to discard so many girl babies. The Chinese doctors could have simply assigned male sex to the majority of babies born and the problem would have been settled.
It's interesting to me that in the recent court trials where bans have been over-turned, I don't see much attention being paid to European developments.
Because those developments completely hack into the grain of the testimony being given by trans activists and their supporters.
Speaking of over-turned bans and ICYMI, fairly decent and illuminating post from something of a lawyer over on Lisa Davis' Substack:
"This post is part of the Brandt Files, a series on the lawsuit in which 'trans kids,' their families, and doctors successfully challenged Arkansas’ ban on youth gender medicalization."
But something of note, if rather clueless, from the "Judge" in the case:
" 'Gender identity' refers to a person’s deeply felt internal sense of belonging to a particular gender."
Too many on the Right -- including that "Judge" -- apparently haven't got a flaming clue that "gender" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "sex", that "gender" is only, at best, a rough synonym for sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types. So flaming what if some "dysphoric" child "feels" some extra affinity for some personality traits more typical of the other sex? Does not in any way, shape, or form change their sex. Rank insanity, the crime and medical scandal of the century, of the last hundred years at least, to "think" that atypical personality traits "justifies" butchering defenseless children.
Whole bunch of "doctors" deserve to lose their licenses, if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind -- figuratively speaking, of course ...
Though I see you've also left a comment or two there yourself. But, ICYMI, you might have some interest in my conversation on the topic with "Hippiesq", a mother of a dysphoric daughter:
Good news, but it doesn't go far enough. The 6% should be 0% -- for both minors and adults. Of course, the US is digging its heels in. The "trans mob" are having conniption fits.
The phenomenon is not as rare as one might think: healthy people deliberately setting out to rid themselves of one or more of their limbs, with or without a surgeon's help. ..."
The overwhelming majority of gender-bending procedures would be stopped if it were made illegal for health care provides to perform them. Of course, deranged men will still be able to castrate themselves with ten or twenty dollars worth of equipment. But changes to birth certificates, pro-"trans" indoctrirnation in schools, and the official use of wrong-sex pronouns can all be banned.
Quite happy to drive some wooden stakes through the hearts of "changes to birth certificates", "indoctrination in schools", and "wrong-sex pronouns". So to speak. 🙂
Though still not sure about "illegal". Making the patient pay the full cost might be the optimal solution.
I can definitely sympathize with those that are rather "bent out of shape" over the "trans-gressions" of the transloonies. But letting that get the better of your arguments, letting your emotions dictate to your reason really doesn't help matters much.
I can't believe that any sane human being would condone castration, an ancient, barbaric practice that is just as objectionable as women's foot binding. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors take says "First, do no harm." Castrating a human male results in : osteoporosis, kyphosis of the spine,, failure of closure of the epiphyses, reactive pituitary hyperplasia, shrinkage of the prostate, and development of gynecomastia.
We see several malpractice lawsuits emerging from adults who made this choice:
Camille Kieffer, Ritchie Herron, Prisha Moseley are just a few. The doctors will withdraw when they feel the sting of rising medical malpractice insurance. The Scandinavian policy changes will be documented in the process, as attorneys ask, why aren't you reading international literature, "Doctor Marci (formerly Mark) Bowers?"
I agree here. I wish these malpractice lawsuits by Prisha Mosely, Chloe Cole, Camille Kieffer and so many others would go to trial sooner. I'd love to sue the therapists who diagnosed my former husband 27 years ago for sexual harassment, for their insistence to me (one in person, to my face) that I need to "try out" sex role play, ie, to pretend to be a man with my much larger husband, with use of some kind of silicone instrument, and "be rough." This is not in any way "what women want." It is a maladaptive coping mechanism that narcissistic men with histories of childhood abuse rely on, instead of dealing with their issues normally in trauma therapy. The Alfred Kinsey--John Money--Volkmar Sigusch--Rachel (Richard) Levine history of sexual fetishism is quite visible. Today's article in the NY Times, admitting that "child affirmative care" is not settled science, but only vaguely referring to the flaws in the "Dutch study" which so influenced American doctors, is journalistic malpractice. DeVries, Martinius, et al, (2014) ignored the loss of 15 subjects, causing the N = to be 55, and when 2 died post "transition," they pretended it was all in the cause of "progress." With some Danish doctors now openly criticizing the "Dutch Protocols" calling for use of gonadatrophin agonists in teens, DeVries and Martinius are going to have to do more than invent new terms like "gender incongruence" to explain that 50% of a very small cohort were "lost to follow up."
Wow! I really appreciate this honesty. Please don't ever stop. I've had plenty of conjecture about my crossdressing ex-husband and his imaginary pink mist about "being a woman."
My 20 Questions to Ask a Trans Widow reveal the deep glittery colors:
Insightful comment re: this crucial difference between Europe and the US, “US has liberal treatment scope but conservative access, Europe has liberal coverage but conservative scope.” Another crucial difference is the centralized nature of European (and UK) systems. There is a degree of centralized tracking that does not exist in the US. And the imperative to spend taxpayers money wisely.
What is so sickening here in the US is the lack of responsible self-regulation in the gender medicine world. This has led to legislators taking things into their own hands. And when an LBGTQ+ ally is horrifically gunned down for her staunch support of the cause, as happened so tragically in SoCal, “anti-trans” legislation is blamed for directly causing the murder.
Well its about time some countries are coming to their senses. (Denmark) Pre-teens often fear the challenges of becoming a REAL woman or a REAL man. I am a senior now, but as a young girl of thirteen, I saw womanhood as something that I was not ready for and never imagined that I could be sensuous or seductive. Hence, the term "tomboy" was what I considered myself to be. The confusion of ones self-identity during adolescence is normal, and transitioning into an adult is hard enough, let alone changing your sexual identity at a young age. Hurray for Denmark!
As always, we need to go one further. Role models in our socializing systems confer gender conforming behaviors intentionally. Children need these socializing agents. A healthy society provides acces to well-differentiated and confident same sex role models through whom children learn how to act like a boy or girl. None of these role models is a perfect specimen, but they offer primarily masculine and feminine traits, both of which clusters are well-delineated and normative.
More or less. A new dawn is definitely "breaking" -- so to speak -- but don't think the sun will be fully above the horizon until virtually everyone realizes that sex (reproductive abilities) and gender (sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types) are two entirely different kettles of fish.
CF: "Sexual dimorphism refers specifically to physical characteristics and a phrase like 'sexually dimorphic personalities' is nonsensical."
You seem to have cornered the market in pigheaded ignorance.
Wikipedia: "Sexual dimorphism is the condition where sexes of the same species exhibit different morphological characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction. .... Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, weight, color, markings, or behavioral or cognitive traits."
CW: "Sexual dimorphism, in contrast, refers to the differences in size, shape, color, behavior, and other physical and behavioral characteristics between males and females of the same species."
Do let us all know how you fare convincing Wikipedia and Colin that their "behavioral or cognitive traits" -- AKA, "personalities" -- are "nonsensical" ... :roll-eyes: 🙄
Just wanted to jump in with something related that I find encouraging. I've been toying with AI for a few months now and (despite what others have said) find ChatGPT to be biased in the woke direction but willing to listen to argument and respond reasonably.
Google's Bard, on the other hand, basically told me that gender affirming care is Truth manifest, and that if I disagree it means I am wrong. However, after rereading some of this article this morning I gave it the following prompt:
"So, Denmark has joined the list of Western countries (including Britain, Sweden, and Norway) that has backed away from gender affirmative care after it has become clear that studies supporting affirmation are flawed and that gender clinics often don't stick to their own standards of care before promoting a patient to transition. Will Bard be incorporating these recent changes into its knowledge base?"
Bard's response:
"Yes, I will be incorporating these recent changes into my knowledge base. I am constantly learning and updating my information, and I believe it is important to be aware of the latest developments in all areas, including gender-affirming care.
"The decision by Denmark to back away from gender affirmative care is a significant one, and it is important to understand the reasons behind this decision. As you mentioned, there is growing evidence that the studies supporting affirmation are flawed, and that gender clinics often don't stick to their own standards of care before promoting a patient to transition. This evidence suggests that gender affirmative care may not be the best approach for all transgender people, and that more caution is needed in its provision.
"I will be adding information about the decision by Denmark to back away from gender affirmative care to my knowledge base. I will also be adding information about the studies that have called into question the effectiveness of affirmation, and about the concerns that have been raised about the practices of gender clinics. I believe that it is important to have access to accurate information about gender-affirming care so that people can make informed decisions about their own healthcare.
"I am always open to feedback, so please let me know if you have any suggestions for how I can improve my knowledge base on this topic."
I know it's just an AI, so maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I hope that this change is indicative of a broader change in opinions and available research regarding gender affirming care.
"Why AAP staunchly refuses to accept the conclusions of multiple systematic reviews of evidence that found the practice of youth gender transition to either not be clearly beneficial, or net-harmful, is unclear." Riiiight! As if having a for-profit healthcare system has nothing to do with it. Common sense plays a huge part, but a significant reason for the Danish (and Dutch) decision comes from being dreaded "socialized medicine" systems. Taxpayers don't like to pay for expensive medicines and surgical procedures that have no clear benefits (and most people don't support btw). Perversely, the American system incentivizes keeping gender dysphoric people on medical treatments and endless surgical procedures. It's not (just) stupidity but cynicism and greed as well. The only way to reverse this in the US seems to be through litigation. Once it becomes a net loss for them they will suddenly see the light. It's just a question of how many kids will have to be mutilated before this happens....
This is excellent news. Beyond my comprehension how this was never done in the first place. I am reading 'Time to think' and I listened to the Triggernometry interview with Hannah Barnes yesterday. The level of utter stupidity by seasoned clinicians remains jaw-dropping. They were all 'well-meaning' is the defence. American blue sanctuary states are going to find themselves outliers before long.
My comments on the Scandinavians, the Danish doing this under the radar, &etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylMBInCC3to&t=1s
Also, this just up, the experiences of 50 trans widows, how the deceit was revealed, what happened to the children he fathered (no one collects data), what the "shrink-sanctioned kink" really means for the women:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8-3fYh3TVc&t=1s
Ute, I want to watch your conversation with Tammy Peterson, but can't see it yet.
Yes, it will be up soon. Subscribe to YT channel Trans Widow Ute Heggen and I will put out a community notice with a link. It's supposed to be in a week or so. Thanks. Most of my half of the conversation is similar to what's on my channel. Be well, count the butterflies, thx!
Encouraging news; nice to see an increasing number of countries willing to read the writing on the walls, hopefully the death knell for much of "gender ideology".
Even if too much of America hasn't yet gotten the memo, although I see a recent post from Jamie Reed points to a change in the wind there too:
JR: "Currently there are 21 states that have passed laws restricting medical interventions in minors to modify sex characteristics. Missouri’s attorney general issued regulations along the same lines that were slated to go into effect on August 28, 2023."
https://lgbtcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/the-countdowns
Nice to see that she said "modify sex characteristics" and didn't talk about "sex change operations" which too many on the Right -- like Christopher Rufo -- cluelessly insist on doing.
But what is absolutely astounding, if a bit depressing, is how we ever came accept a " 'self-id' law for adults whereby adults did not need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria to register a legal sex change" in the first place. Arguably many on the right are culpable in that clusterfuck for insisting that sex is synonymous with gender. Defining the former as reproductive abilities and the latter as sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types, at least to first approximations, underlines the rank insanity of allowing some dick-swinging dude in a dress to claim to be able to compete in women's sports:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
The ethics of the American Psychological Association includes "discrimination against" "gender identity" among the list of behaviors (?) that are unethical, like discrimination on the basis of "race," and other categories of identity based on observable physical traits. I do not know what this means. Psychologists have until very recently been free to restrict their practices to special populations, such as women, gay people, IT professionals, domestic abusers, people exposed to trauma, and a long list of diagnoses requiring specialized training. I consider the gender work I have done to have been treatment of the mental disorder "gender dysphoria," as well as whatever other mental disorders my clients presented and wanted to address. I chose to stop accepting referrals for evaluation and treatment of people with gender issues for several reasons that had nothing to do with the current crisis that we have been discussing on this site and elsewhere.
I would consider it to be racial discrimination if I refused to treat black people for depression but did treat white people for the same condition, but I do not consider it to be discrimination if I decline to accept into my practice people who identify as "trans," "nonbinary," "eunuch" or whatever. At present, the main reason why I would not see these people is that I am not free to offer such individuals the same high quality of care I offer to everyone else, because my state has made it illegal for me to offer it to people who identify themselves by these terms.
Hard not to get the impression that the APA and company are basically peddling conversion therapy. In case you missed it, an earlier comment of mine here on an article in the Elsevier Journal of Adolescent Health. Of particular note:
"The World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association no longer classify gender dysphoria as a mental health disorder. Rather, it is described as the distress of living with physical characteristics that do not align with one's gender identity, worsened by nonaffirming social factors."
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(22)00503-1/fulltext
Seems like a rather odious premise right out of the chute: because one's personality traits (gender) are not typical of one's sex that means one should mangle one's body into some ersatz and non-functioning replica of the other sex?
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/denmark-joins-the-list-of-countries/comment/38908481
How is that not conversion therapy?
ICYMI, Peter Boghossian interviewed Kathleen Stock some 2 weeks ago and she had this comment thereon:
KS @7:45 : "I mean that's what they used to joke at the Tavistock gender identity clinic in London. Some of the clinicians there would be say there's not going to be any gay kids left if we carry on like this."
https://boghossian.substack.com/p/peter-boghossian-and-kathleen-stock
"Joke" -- ha, ha ...
And Helen Joyce similarly in an interview by Richard Dawkins:
HJ @21:00 "Well I mean according to the Tavistock Clinic which is the UK's main gender identity clinic for children, the great majority of the children they see are same-sex attracted. There's a strong statistic they could have been perfectly happy because yes so we are turning potentially healthy gay adults into sterile straight simulacra of the opposite sex. And one of the points you'll make I think is that there are certain parents who would rather have a trans child than a gay child. ...."
https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/trans-when-ideology-meets-reality
Though I'm not entirely happy with Joyce as I think she came out with a howler of her own:
https://substack.com/@humanuseofhumanbeings/note/c-21582743
HJ: "And if you're a mammal every part of your body is female ... but you know my hands are female my jaw is female ..."
She might just as well assert that if she was still a teenager then every part of her body is a teenager; similarly, that every part of her body is a vertebrate because she, presumably, has a spine.
Maybe "less sense" because your reading comprehension or willingness to read and think about what I say is getting worse each week ...
Riddle me this, is each part of Helen's body a vertebrate?
Wikipedia: "Vertebrates (/ˈvɜːrtəbrɪts, -ˌbreɪts/)[3] are animals with spinal cords and bony or cartilaginous backbones, including all mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate
Does her eyeball have a spinal cord or backbone? 🤔🙄
Sorry for the delay in responding to you. Too many too quick to get their knickers in a twist.
Just to put this in perspective, Denmark is about the size of Wisconsin, and what they have done is. O different than US states which have forbidden child mutilation, chemical and surgical sterilization and medical hormonal manipulation. Not different at all.
The heavyweights - Germany, France, Italy, Spain have only limited, qualified intervention. In general those countries have very conservative healthcare. (I lived in Europe for a decade, I speak from direct knowledge. US people confuse universal healthcare access with liberal scope. US has liberal treatment scope not conservative access, Europe has liberal coverage but conservative scope.)
The Dutch team’s non-repeatable “study” and bizarre before/after survey data, along with death of a surgically transitioned child is an anomaly in Europe (UK does not consider itself Europe). I’m quite surprised and frankly think the Dutch team is out of control.
Germany, Holland, France and other countries also have very strict laws controlling what they consider “Cult” organizations.
I wouldn’t be surprised if WPATH were designated a cult at some point , and blocked from organizing and functioning.
In case you didn't follow the link in the "scientific misinformation" phrase, it leads to an article in the Elsevier Journal of Adolescent Health. Of particular note:
"The World Health Organization and the American Psychiatric Association no longer classify gender dysphoria as a mental health disorder. Rather, it is described as the distress of living with physical characteristics that do not align with one's gender identity, worsened by nonaffirming social factors."
https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(22)00503-1/fulltext
Seems like a rather odious premise right out of the chute: because one's personality traits (gender) are not typical of one's sex that means one should mangle one's body into some ersatz and non-functioning replica of the other sex?
Seems a rather serious "disorder" to me ...
> I lived in Europe for a decade, I speak from direct knowledge. US people confuse universal healthcare access with liberal scope. US has liberal treatment scope not conservative access, Europe has liberal coverage but conservative scope.
That makes sense. Since healthcare is paid for directly from the budget, they're obliged to implement various methods to control costs.
And yet the Danish still write ridiculous things like “assigned female at birth”. They may be following the science on “treatment”, but clearly they still believe sex is arbitrary in some way.
All of the research uses this language. (as enforced by the Trans Journalists Association Style Guide) and all the ex-husbands of trans widows everywhere. If Kathleen Stock, in her "debate" with Deirdre (formerly Donald) McCloskey on YouTube channel, UATX, had started the debate saying that she uses the term cross-sex ideation and will not bow to the rhetoric of "born in the wrong body," perhaps the points would have been clear. McCloskey famously pulled out of a debate with Michael Knowles. I cannot fathom why that youtube clip is not used to counter this fallacious culture. For the perspective of women who were gaslit on an entirely personal level, completely outside of anything resembling equal rights for women:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTUmEUXM5wc
It drives me crazy that the ideological insanity about sex being assigned by doctors has been normalized to such an extent! Even the medical term "natal sex" leans in that direction. Birth isn't even that significant an event as far as sex goes.
Correct, as Dr. Miriam Grossman testified before the US Congress, sex is determined at conception and identified at birth. People who get mixed up about their sexed body are in need of physical therapies to bring them into congruence in mind/body. Feldenkrais physical therapy, Alexander body work, chiropractic acupressure, and other mind/body exercises, as well as gardening and being out in nature, will reconvene and realign the psyche and body. We all struggle with an imperfect physique with all of our body's asymmetries, or if we do believe we have perfection in early adulthood, we deal with the slow decline. Be happy with yourself, get out and count the butterflies. Accept this life, do your best for others, be a good example!
Good for you! I'm inspired. Not that far from 70 myself.
"ideological insanity about sex being assigned by doctors"
It really isn't logically or philosophically untenable to argue in favour of that "assigned at birth", although it is hardly arbitrary. It depends crucially on how you define the sexes. IF you define the categories -- as the standard biological definitions do -- such that functional gonads are the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as male or female THEN it necessarily follows that we don't acquire a sex until we hit puberty. Until then we only have a "promissory note" that we might be able to "cash in" for the real-meal deal, the gilt-edged membership card.
A succinctly phrased tweet from philosopher and mathematician Patrick Killeen underlines the argument:
Killeen: "Strictly speaking it’s the sex that an individual is disposed to develop into that is determined at conception, i.e. the sex that a person will become *if* they develop the ability to produce gametes. This is one of the few contexts where that particular distinction matters."
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039829533392822272
https://headandheart.info/about/
Many others do likewise.
But if you want to use the folk-biology definitions -- which Oklahoma has done -- then that's an entirely different kettle of fish:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
May be "socially useful", but it ain't biology.
Steersman, the trans activists are claiming that "gender", by which they sometimes mean bio sex, other times mean masculinity/femininity, and other times mean their mystical "gender identity"/soul being, can be established whenever in a person's life they "feel like" it is "true." When they complain about doctors "assigning sex at birth," their objection is that the child himself/herself has "the right" to discover and "reveal" it at any time in development. Their objection to bio puberty, as opposed to fantasies about it, is that it makes more obvious (and undeniable?) to all observers which sex the child is. Puberty forecloses the progressively multiplying fantasy options the child can cultivate, which is the main concern of the woke cult. Objective reality is always their primary enemy, no matter how anyone defines it.
The argument about when bio sex can be determined has no relevance to their concerns. Their position is that biology never determines or defines sex, "gender" or any related personal trait. Wokesters want to eliminate the limitations on personal choice that are imposed by reality.
Sandra: "... trans activists are claiming that "gender", by which they sometimes mean bio sex, other times mean masculinity/femininity, and other times mean their mystical "gender identity"/soul being ..."
Sure. But just because someone says that "2+2=5" doesn't mean we're obliged to burn all of the books on arithmetic. Which is basically what many of the "gender critical" crowd are doing -- they're rejecting any and all definitions of the terms "gender" and "gender identity". Some of which have some currency, coherence, value, and utility, not least in helping to resolve the whole transgender clusterfuck.
You may wish to take a gander at a conversation on that point that I was having with Dr. Michael Robillard -- Substacker and "Philosopher/Veteran/Patriot/Catholic", and in your neck of the woods too if I'm not mistaken:
https://michaelrobillard.substack.com/p/virginias-gender-error/comment/21265175
He's written some credible criticisms of both in places like Quillette, but he's also endorsed more rational definitions of each:
MR: "Thanks. Yeah, I don't see any problem with 'gender' explained in those terms. I think those examples would still generally fall under the second sense of 'gender' that I describe in the piece. The key problem is in the equivocation in law and policy between this meaningful second sense of 'gender' and the third, privately-defined, and hence, incoherent sense of 'gender.' ..."
And in a conversation I've been having with "Hippiesq" -- a mother of a dysphoric daughter -- who rather brilliantly, cogently, and succinctly endorses the same perspective:
"Steersman, I understand your point of view, and you and I have discussed this before. I personally suspect (without doing an in-depth research project, the likes of which I have no idea how to accomplish, I cannot know for sure) that 'gender identity' started off to mean 'the degree and type of feminine and/or masculine (as those terms are defined in a given society at a given time) qualities one possesses and with which the person feels most comfortable.' This definition makes sense to me, and has value. It can be used to say that we tend to have set (although fluctuating) degrees and types of feminine and masculine qualities that are somewhat inherent to us, and allow for more acceptance of what is considered gender non-conforming behavior."
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/the-brandt-files-2-on-gender-identity/comment/36694389
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater really doesn't help matters much.
When I was a grad student in the Seventies, I was taught that Robert Stoller coined the term "gender identity" in the mid-Sixties. Stoller used that term to include accurate recognition of one's sex, but also included a child's desire to be "a masculine boy" or "feminine girl" congruent with the child's sex. Stoller also talked about a component of gender identity that develops from how one is seen and evaluated by others in terms of gender. Stoller also talked about "gender role", which seems to be similar to masculinity/femininity, and involves "experience of oneself" as well as how one acts. During the Seventies the term "sex role" was also used to describe "masculinity/femininity."
The use of the term "role" implies a social role in the sense that sociologists used the term during the 1960's-1980's. The emphasis was placed on being in a role that has been shaped by cultural expectations, social rewards and penalties, as well as by biological functions such as bearing and nursing children.
I was interested in Stoller's work because he provided a basis for differentiating the concepts of sex, gender identity (knowing which sex one is), sex role identity (masculinity/femininity), and sexual orientation. During the Seventies I always used the term "sex role identity" to refer to "masculinity/femininity." I have since then thought of "gender identity" as being based primarily on the child's correct recognition of self as a boy or a girl.
Stoller said that the task of forming an accurate gender identity was completed in early childhood. I think he said that this process happens around two years old, but I may not be remembering that accurately. I am also not well informed about how developmental psychologists currently understand the course of development of an accurate self-image with respect to one's sex.
Unfortunately, this area of scholarship has been compromised by the actions of critical theorists, as well as by the unethical actions of some of the leading clinicians and researchers working within the specialty.
There is a theory in psychoanalysis attributed to Donald Winnicott, which proposes that little kids need to learn that some people can survive everything a kid tries to do to them, and continue to function as caregivers for the child. Winnicott believed that if the child did not have this experience of “the indestructible object,” his/her development would be derailed. We are witnessing the validity of Winnicott’s predictions.
So many words have been twisted to the point of meaninglessness, it is uncertain as to how much of our language can be retrieved from the insanity.
This explains so much!
I completely agree! It is interesting that a generation that is lost in fantasy is simultaneously devoid of creativity. Maybe the loss of creativity correlates with the concretization of fantasy. Fantasy no longer exists as a true play space, and becomes limited to the extent that it functions as a substitute for reality.
You mean their "mainly made up of birth-assigned girls”?
Certainly an awful of quite unscientific claptrap floating about, much of it being peddled by so-called biologists and philosophers. One case that really chaps my hide is both an NCBI book and the Yale School of Medicine insisting that "Every Cell Has a Sex":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/
https://medicine.yale.edu/ycci/news-article/every-cell-has-a-sex-x-and-y-and-the-future-of-health-care/
The former is maybe not surprising given that Anne Fausto-Sterling -- she of the five sexes -- apparently has her dirty ideological mitts all over the book:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222285/
Maybe not surprising then that Helen Joyce came out with a howler of her own in an interview with Dawkins where she endorses that view. Methinks she should have stuck to mathematics if she's going to mangle the biology so badly:
HJ: "And if you're a mammal every part of your body is female ... but you know my hands are female my jaw is female ..."
https://substack.com/@humanuseofhumanbeings/note/c-21582743
She might just as well assert that if she was still a teenager then every part of her body is a teenager; similarly, that every part of her body is a vertebrate because she, presumably, has a spine.
People -- all members of all anisogamous species -- are male or female ONLY on the basis of the type of gametes they produce, not their cell chromosomes.
However, that "assigned a sex at birth" depends on how we define sex in the first place. By standard biological definitions we don't really acquire a sex until we hit puberty. Though very few if any cases of any XXers turning out to be males at that point -- hardly "arbitrary". But a tweet from a philosopher and mathematician underlines the same point:
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039829533392822272
https://headandheart.info/about/
Oh yes, I knew i wasn’t get it quite right. I recall us having this “you don’t acquire a sex until puberty” discussion before. From what I gather “birth-assigned” (which is an even stranger way to put it) means basically you have a placeholder sex until puberty can confirm it???
I guess I think that’s just splitting hairs given the small number of people who would discover something was up at puberty.
The definition of sex isn’t just “those that do produce such and such gametes”, but those with a body ordered towards producing those gametes (whether they do or not doesn’t matter). Therefore, in my mind, stating a baby is male or female is a reasonable thing to do, rather than pretend that sexual maturity isn’t going to “pay up” with regard to gamete production or maturation.
Maz: "From what I gather “birth-assigned” (which is an even stranger way to put it) means basically you have a placeholder sex until puberty can confirm it???"
Correct. And I quite agree with you that "birth-assigned" is a rather odd way of putting it, although that might be the result of a literal translation from the Danish.
Maz: "I guess I think that’s just splitting hairs ... something up at puberty."
I can certainly sympathize with that argument. And would probably agree with you if the issue was just a matter of definitions for the sexes applicable just to humans. But the larger issue is that those definitions have to apply to all of the literally millions of other species who use sexual reproduction. Don't think we can reasonably have two quite different definitions in play -- will we have one set for the kids in their social studies classes, and an entirely different one for their biology classes? We might just as well tell them that black is white.
You may wish to read an essay by Paul Griffiths in Aeon Magazine that goes into some detail on that choice, particularly these paragraphs:
PG: "Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]. ....
On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition [e.g., in law], the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Maz: "The definition of sex isn’t just 'those that do produce such and such gametes', but those with a body ordered towards producing those gametes (whether they do or not doesn’t matter)."
ICYMI, the "sovereign State" of Oklahoma is intending to base some of their laws on virtually the same definition:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
However, they might find they've painted themselves into a tight corner when it becomes evident -- as I expect will be inevitable -- that they conflict in significant ways with the standard biological definitions. For comparison purposes, see:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Reiterating Griffiths' point, it seems that corrupting the biology simply because many people find its conclusions "unpalatable" is rather "unwise" at best. We might just as well "teach the controversy", that the earth is flat and 6000 years old, that humankind is the result of a special creation by Jehovah, Himself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy
“But the larger issue is that those definitions have to apply to all of the literally millions of other species who use sexual reproduction.”
This is just overcomplicating things unnecessarily. The definition of male and female as it relates to gametes or even role in reproduction works just fine for most species, even the ones that have both or none. They often still rely on knowing that there are two gametes, and that humans belong to a species in which sex is binary.
And the idea that you should think people “acquire” sex in puberty is just silly. To me it’s akin to human fetal development. It’s a human regardless of stage, it doesn’t acquire humanness when it’s born, it was one all along. It seems to me this whole thing of defining sex in different ways is similar to arguing humanness vs personhood when it comes to the unborn.
Boyhood is a stage of development in a male’s life even though he’s not yet mature enough to produce gametes.
Understanding the categories of sex is as fundamental to human species survival as knowing what a human is.
When medical research adopts this stupid language it buys into the notion that all human sex is assigned, when the reality is this is even more rare with today’s technology. Applying birth-assigned sex to everyone implies there’s some kind of other metric that will develop (like gender identity), which takes medicine into the realm of philosophy or theology as far as I can see.
You’re right. I fell into this trap previously and should know better.
block him. i did.
It just occurred to me that if sex were actually assigned by a doctor when the baby is born, we would probably see more effects of bias in the assignments. The Chinese people, for example, would not have had to discard so many girl babies. The Chinese doctors could have simply assigned male sex to the majority of babies born and the problem would have been settled.
It's interesting to me that in the recent court trials where bans have been over-turned, I don't see much attention being paid to European developments.
Because those developments completely hack into the grain of the testimony being given by trans activists and their supporters.
Have I missed something?
Speaking of over-turned bans and ICYMI, fairly decent and illuminating post from something of a lawyer over on Lisa Davis' Substack:
"This post is part of the Brandt Files, a series on the lawsuit in which 'trans kids,' their families, and doctors successfully challenged Arkansas’ ban on youth gender medicalization."
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/the-brandt-files-2-on-gender-identity
But something of note, if rather clueless, from the "Judge" in the case:
" 'Gender identity' refers to a person’s deeply felt internal sense of belonging to a particular gender."
Too many on the Right -- including that "Judge" -- apparently haven't got a flaming clue that "gender" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "sex", that "gender" is only, at best, a rough synonym for sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types. So flaming what if some "dysphoric" child "feels" some extra affinity for some personality traits more typical of the other sex? Does not in any way, shape, or form change their sex. Rank insanity, the crime and medical scandal of the century, of the last hundred years at least, to "think" that atypical personality traits "justifies" butchering defenseless children.
Whole bunch of "doctors" deserve to lose their licenses, if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind -- figuratively speaking, of course ...
Though I see you've also left a comment or two there yourself. But, ICYMI, you might have some interest in my conversation on the topic with "Hippiesq", a mother of a dysphoric daughter:
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/the-brandt-files-2-on-gender-identity/comment/36694389
I actually read a fair amount of that judge's decision. What an embarrassment....largely copypasta from trans activist talking points.
I had a higher opinion of judges, but these rulings have cracked that.
Leftist judges have been issuing activist rulings for nearly half a century.
Generally not. Hint: an activist ruling is one that disregards the underlying law, it is not the same as a ruling you don't like.
This conversation between Wesley Yang and Leor Sapir is excellent...really .excellent.
https://wesleyyang.substack.com/p/its-possible-to-criticize-and-raise
Good news, but it doesn't go far enough. The 6% should be 0% -- for both minors and adults. Of course, the US is digging its heels in. The "trans mob" are having conniption fits.
Not sure that one can reasonably prevent "adults" from doing what they want to their own bodies. Though there may well be some exceptions:
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/woman-blinds-herself-on-purpose-with-drain-cleaner/
And see:
"A New Way to Be Mad
The phenomenon is not as rare as one might think: healthy people deliberately setting out to rid themselves of one or more of their limbs, with or without a surgeon's help. ..."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/12/a-new-way-to-be-mad/304671/
Archive version: https://archive.ph/OsvZ6
The overwhelming majority of gender-bending procedures would be stopped if it were made illegal for health care provides to perform them. Of course, deranged men will still be able to castrate themselves with ten or twenty dollars worth of equipment. But changes to birth certificates, pro-"trans" indoctrirnation in schools, and the official use of wrong-sex pronouns can all be banned.
Quite happy to drive some wooden stakes through the hearts of "changes to birth certificates", "indoctrination in schools", and "wrong-sex pronouns". So to speak. 🙂
Though still not sure about "illegal". Making the patient pay the full cost might be the optimal solution.
Many procedures are illegal. A surgeon can't chop off your head if you ask him or her to.
Sadly, look into what's been going on with "assisted suicide".
LoL. Kinda think chopping off a head will qualify as murder. Doubt you can make the same argument about castration.
Speaking of which:
https://the-orbit.net/zinniajones/2013/08/why-im-having-an-orchiectomy/
I can definitely sympathize with those that are rather "bent out of shape" over the "trans-gressions" of the transloonies. But letting that get the better of your arguments, letting your emotions dictate to your reason really doesn't help matters much.
I can't believe that any sane human being would condone castration, an ancient, barbaric practice that is just as objectionable as women's foot binding. The Hippocratic Oath that doctors take says "First, do no harm." Castrating a human male results in : osteoporosis, kyphosis of the spine,, failure of closure of the epiphyses, reactive pituitary hyperplasia, shrinkage of the prostate, and development of gynecomastia.
We see several malpractice lawsuits emerging from adults who made this choice:
Camille Kieffer, Ritchie Herron, Prisha Moseley are just a few. The doctors will withdraw when they feel the sting of rising medical malpractice insurance. The Scandinavian policy changes will be documented in the process, as attorneys ask, why aren't you reading international literature, "Doctor Marci (formerly Mark) Bowers?"
I agree here. I wish these malpractice lawsuits by Prisha Mosely, Chloe Cole, Camille Kieffer and so many others would go to trial sooner. I'd love to sue the therapists who diagnosed my former husband 27 years ago for sexual harassment, for their insistence to me (one in person, to my face) that I need to "try out" sex role play, ie, to pretend to be a man with my much larger husband, with use of some kind of silicone instrument, and "be rough." This is not in any way "what women want." It is a maladaptive coping mechanism that narcissistic men with histories of childhood abuse rely on, instead of dealing with their issues normally in trauma therapy. The Alfred Kinsey--John Money--Volkmar Sigusch--Rachel (Richard) Levine history of sexual fetishism is quite visible. Today's article in the NY Times, admitting that "child affirmative care" is not settled science, but only vaguely referring to the flaws in the "Dutch study" which so influenced American doctors, is journalistic malpractice. DeVries, Martinius, et al, (2014) ignored the loss of 15 subjects, causing the N = to be 55, and when 2 died post "transition," they pretended it was all in the cause of "progress." With some Danish doctors now openly criticizing the "Dutch Protocols" calling for use of gonadatrophin agonists in teens, DeVries and Martinius are going to have to do more than invent new terms like "gender incongruence" to explain that 50% of a very small cohort were "lost to follow up."
Wow! I really appreciate this honesty. Please don't ever stop. I've had plenty of conjecture about my crossdressing ex-husband and his imaginary pink mist about "being a woman."
My 20 Questions to Ask a Trans Widow reveal the deep glittery colors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H4aDv-AmMk&t=16s
Insightful comment re: this crucial difference between Europe and the US, “US has liberal treatment scope but conservative access, Europe has liberal coverage but conservative scope.” Another crucial difference is the centralized nature of European (and UK) systems. There is a degree of centralized tracking that does not exist in the US. And the imperative to spend taxpayers money wisely.
What is so sickening here in the US is the lack of responsible self-regulation in the gender medicine world. This has led to legislators taking things into their own hands. And when an LBGTQ+ ally is horrifically gunned down for her staunch support of the cause, as happened so tragically in SoCal, “anti-trans” legislation is blamed for directly causing the murder.
Well its about time some countries are coming to their senses. (Denmark) Pre-teens often fear the challenges of becoming a REAL woman or a REAL man. I am a senior now, but as a young girl of thirteen, I saw womanhood as something that I was not ready for and never imagined that I could be sensuous or seductive. Hence, the term "tomboy" was what I considered myself to be. The confusion of ones self-identity during adolescence is normal, and transitioning into an adult is hard enough, let alone changing your sexual identity at a young age. Hurray for Denmark!
Encouraging news. Now, I can’t wait for US doctors to brave the hissing of ideologues and divorce their science from make belief.
As always, we need to go one further. Role models in our socializing systems confer gender conforming behaviors intentionally. Children need these socializing agents. A healthy society provides acces to well-differentiated and confident same sex role models through whom children learn how to act like a boy or girl. None of these role models is a perfect specimen, but they offer primarily masculine and feminine traits, both of which clusters are well-delineated and normative.
Thank goodness. Sanity prevails.
More or less. A new dawn is definitely "breaking" -- so to speak -- but don't think the sun will be fully above the horizon until virtually everyone realizes that sex (reproductive abilities) and gender (sexually dimorphic personalities and personality types) are two entirely different kettles of fish.
CF: "Sexual dimorphism refers specifically to physical characteristics and a phrase like 'sexually dimorphic personalities' is nonsensical."
You seem to have cornered the market in pigheaded ignorance.
Wikipedia: "Sexual dimorphism is the condition where sexes of the same species exhibit different morphological characteristics, particularly characteristics not directly involved in reproduction. .... Differences may include secondary sex characteristics, size, weight, color, markings, or behavioral or cognitive traits."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
And Colin says the SAME thing:
CW: "Sexual dimorphism, in contrast, refers to the differences in size, shape, color, behavior, and other physical and behavioral characteristics between males and females of the same species."
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-sex-binary-vs-sexual-dimorphism
Do let us all know how you fare convincing Wikipedia and Colin that their "behavioral or cognitive traits" -- AKA, "personalities" -- are "nonsensical" ... :roll-eyes: 🙄
CF: "And then there's logic. Read. Learn. http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/logicalfallacies.html"
LoL. "Dueling citations"? Tsk, tsk. What a hypocrite.
Just wanted to jump in with something related that I find encouraging. I've been toying with AI for a few months now and (despite what others have said) find ChatGPT to be biased in the woke direction but willing to listen to argument and respond reasonably.
Google's Bard, on the other hand, basically told me that gender affirming care is Truth manifest, and that if I disagree it means I am wrong. However, after rereading some of this article this morning I gave it the following prompt:
"So, Denmark has joined the list of Western countries (including Britain, Sweden, and Norway) that has backed away from gender affirmative care after it has become clear that studies supporting affirmation are flawed and that gender clinics often don't stick to their own standards of care before promoting a patient to transition. Will Bard be incorporating these recent changes into its knowledge base?"
Bard's response:
"Yes, I will be incorporating these recent changes into my knowledge base. I am constantly learning and updating my information, and I believe it is important to be aware of the latest developments in all areas, including gender-affirming care.
"The decision by Denmark to back away from gender affirmative care is a significant one, and it is important to understand the reasons behind this decision. As you mentioned, there is growing evidence that the studies supporting affirmation are flawed, and that gender clinics often don't stick to their own standards of care before promoting a patient to transition. This evidence suggests that gender affirmative care may not be the best approach for all transgender people, and that more caution is needed in its provision.
"I will be adding information about the decision by Denmark to back away from gender affirmative care to my knowledge base. I will also be adding information about the studies that have called into question the effectiveness of affirmation, and about the concerns that have been raised about the practices of gender clinics. I believe that it is important to have access to accurate information about gender-affirming care so that people can make informed decisions about their own healthcare.
"I am always open to feedback, so please let me know if you have any suggestions for how I can improve my knowledge base on this topic."
I know it's just an AI, so maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I hope that this change is indicative of a broader change in opinions and available research regarding gender affirming care.
"Why AAP staunchly refuses to accept the conclusions of multiple systematic reviews of evidence that found the practice of youth gender transition to either not be clearly beneficial, or net-harmful, is unclear." Riiiight! As if having a for-profit healthcare system has nothing to do with it. Common sense plays a huge part, but a significant reason for the Danish (and Dutch) decision comes from being dreaded "socialized medicine" systems. Taxpayers don't like to pay for expensive medicines and surgical procedures that have no clear benefits (and most people don't support btw). Perversely, the American system incentivizes keeping gender dysphoric people on medical treatments and endless surgical procedures. It's not (just) stupidity but cynicism and greed as well. The only way to reverse this in the US seems to be through litigation. Once it becomes a net loss for them they will suddenly see the light. It's just a question of how many kids will have to be mutilated before this happens....