The costs of trans visibility

Given countries that make it a crime to be a trans are part of the UN and aren't sanctioned for it I really don't think you got a good grasp of the topic.

We mentioned Algeria recently because one of the 2 boxers discussed is Algerian: they don't allow any sex change at all, you are born a sex and you die that sex in Algeria.

Curiously no pro -trans person in this thread attacked algeria as being inimical to a core human right, and thus incompatible with civil society and so on, I wonder why.

I wonder why no why asked for severe repercussions for Algeria because of their stance on trans issue.

Any idea why they didn't? At all? Even tangentially ? Why Algeria isn't considered a pariah state ?

Do you not think respect for sexual orientation is a human right either then? Because exactly the same argument can be made for that - there are many countries that are part of the UN where being gay is illegal that aren't sanctioned for it.

People absolutely criticise these countries for these things and I've seen lots of criticism towards Algeria's policy on being transgender because this issue made people more aware of it, albeit not in this thread specifically. The whole point of the UN's declaration and mandates is that they aspire to push member states towards it as a goal but that doesn't mean a country is completely ostracised if they don't live up to them (hell the US often falls foul of aspects of it - an obvious one being torture of prisoners in Guantamo until recently and a more debatable one being "slave" labour of prisoners).

No, but CN invoked “basic human rights.” If that’s the case, then we need to respect ALL basic human rights including right to free speech.

It shouldn’t be illegal to identify as trans. Still, the trans identity should not be privileged and protected from critique. If people have had their self / soul replaced by the trans identity, and take criticism of the trans identity as criticism of their deepest sense of being, then that is something they must fix in private.

A lot of you keep saying this, it's not true.

I’ve had dialogue with trans people about this topic with no issue. They don’t need nor want to be infantilized.

You could always just... not post in this thread.

Forcing schools to out students to their parents isn't moral. It's vindictive.

When and how and to whom an LGBT person chooses to come out should always be up to them. In an ideal world all LGBT children wouldn’t grow up in homophobic and transphobic households where they are terrified of the consequences of their parents finding ours but sadly that isn’t our world.

As demonstrated by posters ITT.

If a parent has a child with clinical depression and doesn't want them to be a lifelong medical patient, is it pertinent for the parent to suggest the child refrains from taking medical steps to control their depression?

If a parent has a child with high blood pressure or cholesterol and doesn't want them to be a lifelong medical patient, should the parent withhold medication to control the blood pressure or cholesterol?

What is the difference between the two examples above and a parent deciding they should withhold medical care for their trans child to prevent them from being a lifelong medical patient?

The difference is that there's no such thing as a trans person, obv. Just a scam to get into bathrooms.

I thought the difference was that being trans isn't a disease and comparing it to one was against forum rules.

Could be higher than 10%, I honestly can't remember. However, I can count the number of times I've seen any indication of Marxist/far left behaviour in our department (Psychology) on one hand. Last time I can remember is someone posted "smash the patriarchy" in a Menti word cloud about 3 years ago.

We also have maybe half a dozen critical theorists, but they tend to keep themselves to themselves.

Overall, the vast majority are centre left, but this is a guess as people hardly ever discuss politics at work.

Also I give two lectures on evolution and sex. Never had one complaint from the students (not naïve enough to think no one has ever complained), but the HoD is smart enough to provide cover against student blow-hards.

Anyway, the perception of people outside higher education that it's rampant with Marxism is not really born out in my experience.

Fair enough. I think banning males from competing in women's events is a view held by the vast majority of people, and I would like to think even people who disagree with this position can at least understand the rationale.

Yes, they are using slight of hand here. They state that "In many cases, androgens are non-functional or, alternatively, absent and therefore testosterone cannot be responsible for their athletic success". However the most common DSD they discuss is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). They clue is in the title here - for this particular DSD, individuals do not have testosterone receptors, so the body cannot process testosterone. For context, these are all males with AIS. They all likely have T levels consistent with all the males posing ITT:

So, they are correct in what they are saying, but they do not really cover other DSDs where the XY body CAN process and respond to testosterone. This is clearly evident in DSD athletes such as Semenya and Khalif.

However, the degree to which DSD athletes produce and respond to T is variable (as it is in all males and females). So, in determining whether an athlete should be able to compete, I'd suggest a two-stage process is needed. First, a genetic test. This will be conclusive in the vast majority of cases. Subsequently, for those women who come back as XY, the degree to which they are capable of producing and responding to T should be determined. Thus AIS athletes should be clear to compete, and other XY DSD athletes probably on a case by case basis, or maybe an outright ban as in the majority of cases, they will have a performance advantage.

There was a man named Joseph Campbell who studied myths across cultures and he discovered there were the same archetypes, or identities, across cultures who had no contact with each other. His work suggests that most identities don’t just emerge from the bottom up based on the environment, but rather they can impose themselves through the collective consciousness. Identities which impose themselves in this way have a type of agency independent of human agency.

The trans identity wants to actualize itself. This is clear. You are framing this as a medical issue. I am not.

really interesting, thanks for posting

@didace yet another source (at least for the Algerian boxer), of XY chromosomes (and high-T)

Source in French, center-left weekly magazine

https://www.lepoint.fr/sport/exclusif-jo...

Interview to the staff of the boxer, they say they got independent testing in Paris, XY chromosomes, high T.

I'm not framing this as a medical issue. There are medical professionals that specialize in the care of trans people.

It literally IS a medical issue. I don't really give a **** what you frame it as.

It isn't, activists want to keep it one, while denying it is, to get public money spent on lifestyle choices. It's a scam.

Activists made a convincing case that trans ness is a natural phenomenon, not a mental or physical illness. They are convincing , I think data supports that.

Which is why we shouldn't spend anything on trans ness in a healthcare sense. We shouldn't spend for their bodily transformations or hormones or whatever, anything. Many trans people live good lives without getting body changes. Others want body changes. That's not different from anyone else, and we don't subsidize women who want breast enlargement, or tattoos or anything like that to affirm identity.

Trans ness is not a healthcare issue at all, so it's obscene we still pay for trans care.

Some women feel their identity mandates them to cut their leg hair. We don't subsidize that.

Only if the patients exhibit an identifiable pathology. Otherwise it's social.

Trans is an identity. This is an identity issue which has been medicalized using manipulative language like “care”. Many advocates are privileging and promoting the trans identity based on a flawed understanding of comparison to other conditions or identities.

It’s easier to pretend to solve problems and feel virtuous than to actually solve problems. The trans identity is not a lasting solution to despair + suicidal ideation.

If a trans patient has any health issue, those are human health issue and unrelated to trans ness, as trans ness isn't a pathology, isn't an illness, and trans activists proved that.

It's like calling an homosexual person with depression , depressed because of his sexual preferences. It would be deeply insulting.

Homosexuality isn't a mental issue. Trans ness isn't either. Trans people with health issues are NORMAL people with health issues.

Thus, "trans care" can't exist and positing it does exist, is an insult to trans people.

Do you have even a single bit of evidence for this?