Therefore, insofar as the topic is positive essential characteristics of females, there is nothing to be said. Any positivity is a social construct, as is the negativity. One might think that reproductive ability is an essential positive, but the existence of abortion legal or illegal, and the stigmatisation of offspring born out of wedlock contradicts this. — unenlightened

I specifically said traits associated with women whether they are invented or real.
The issue was celebrating traits associated with women which has led to people denying such traits exist.
I then pointed out that women consistently behave less antisocially than men and that the top hundred most highly rated movies are almost all about mens experience's

Women committing less crime and carrying and caring for children is not a social construct. If people value human life and aren't antinatalist then the fact that we all grew inside a woman and only biological women can carry and grow a child is very relevant fact. It is one of the reasons women are more vulnerable in some ways and you would imagine it would raise the value of women but it has not.
You don't need to vilify men altogether to recognise that their biological traits can be harmful when misdirected.

This is not a fact of nature, it's a social construct. this is demonstrated by the fact that you already pointed out that what is and isn't a mental health condition changes from time to time, not in the light of evidence, but in the light of changing social mores. — unenlightened

Again with putting words in my mouth: "not in the light of evidence, but in the light of changing social mores"? When did I say that? Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness from the DSM due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, if that was what you were attempting to refer to.

And the notion that medical professionals are currently changing these sorts of classifications willy-nilly based on social mores or political agendas is well into nutty conspiracy theory territory (and, needless to say, is completely baseless)... I don't remember you being much of a conspiracy theory fan, un, but people's interests change so whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Women committing less crime and carrying and caring for children is not a social construct. If people value human life and aren't antinatalist then the fact that we all grew inside a woman and only biological women can carry and grow a child is very relevant fact. It is one of the reasons women are more vulnerable in some ways and you would imagine it would raise the value of women but it has not. — Andrew4Handel

It is a social construct, because crime is a social construct created by law.

Homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness from the DSM due to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, if that was what you were attempting to refer to. — busycuttingcrap

[sarcasm}Of course it was. And the same with drapetomania. [/sarcasm]

It is a social construct, because crime is a social construct created by law. — unenlightened

Crime is anti social behaviour and harmful regardless of whether it is made legal. The crimes men are committing are objectively harmful.

My point is that we should be celebrating whatever makes women behave more pro socially, more caring and less violent even if these things were being created by socialisation.

You could take the view everything is a construct and that constructs are deterministic or that biology is deterministic and we will never be able to change one way or the other.

So, out of curiosity, since the decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was (apparently) based on social mores and not evidence, would you say it was therefore an erroneous decision?

In your informed medical opinion, should homosexuality still be classified as a mental illness?

And what about gender dysphoria- I suppose that was also done on the basis of social mores and not evidence?

Attempts to remove it from mental health manuals are political — Andrew4Handel

Nah, medical/scientific. Sorry if you're salty about it, but that's life. Gender dysphoria isn't considered a mental health condition.

If it is not a mental health condition then
why the need for the long term ingestion of harmful cross sex hormones (For example testosterone often causes vaginal atrophy in the women taking it.) — Andrew4Handel

They're not harmful, nor are they irreversible, and I'm not sure where it says that "if X involves hormones X must be a mental health condition" anyways- care to fill me in here?

Facial feminisation surgeries that can lead to permanent facial numbness. Tracheal shave that can give men permanent speech disabilities. — Andrew4Handel

Ok, and? All forms of surgeries, and most non-surgical medical interventions as well, carry potential risks.

And the belief that some flaccid arm flesh hanging between your leg is the equivalent of a penis. — Andrew4Handel

Your naked disgust at trans people or gender-affirming surgery isn't relevant or appropriate, so you should probably ease off the throttle a bit with this kind of nakedly transphobic rhetoric.

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) lists several disorders related to gender identity:[32][33]

Transsexualism (F64.0): Desire to live and be accepted as a member of the opposite sex, usually accompanied by a desire for surgery and hormonal treatment
Gender identity disorder of childhood (F64.2): Persistent and intense distress about one's assigned gender, manifested prior to puberty
Other gender identity disorders (F64.8)
Gender identity disorder, unspecified (F64.9)
Sexual maturation disorder (F66.0): Uncertainty about one's gender identity or sexual orientation, causing anxiety or distress

The American Psychiatric Association permits a diagnosis of gender dysphoria in adolescents or adults if two or more of the following criteria are experienced for at least six months' duration

In addition, the condition must be associated with clinically significant distress or impairment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Diagnosis

Does any remember the furore about comparing trans racialism to transgender and blackface to woman face.

"The American Humanist Association has withdrawn its humanist of the year award from Richard Dawkins, 25 years after he received the honour, criticising the academic and author for “demean[ing] marginalised groups” using “the guise of scientific discourse”.

The AHA honoured Dawkins, whose books include The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, in 1996 for his “significant contributions” in communicating scientific concepts to the public. On Monday, it announced that it was withdrawing the award, referring to a tweet sent by Dawkins earlier this month, in which he compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the civil rights activist who posed as a black woman for years.

“In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawkins on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/20/richard-dawkins-loses-humanist-of-the-year-trans-comments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

Nkechi Amare Diallo (/nɪˈkeɪtʃiː əˈmɑːreɪ diːˈɑːloʊ/; born Rachel Anne Dolezal, November 12, 1977)[fn 1] (/ˈdoʊləʒɑːl/)[9] is an American former college instructor and activist known for identifying as a transracial black woman. In addition to claiming black ancestry, she also claimed Native American descent.[10] She is also a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter president.

So how does any of that defeat the argument that this change might be for the worse and we ought steer society in a more healthy direction? — Isaac

In that this change might also be for the better.
I'm not convinced that a "more healthy direction" has been put forward or attempted.
A number of people, though a quite small segment of society, and therefore not politically significant, is desperately unhappy with their assigned gender roles. Psychotherapy, aversion therapy, self-medication and peer bullying has failed to cure them of their unhappiness. So they turn to surgery or suicide.
What's the healthy alternative?

That much is evident. Others can, hence the discussion — Isaac

So there's debate as to whether transexual surgeries are harmful. Who gets to decide?

In a prior Covid vaccination thread you argued that due to uncertainties in vaccine effectiveness and the right for the individual to determine his own risks and benefits, the person directly affected had full authority to decide.

My view is that the best evidence ought be used and have less a problem imposing rational views on the irrational even if it reduces their autonomy

So, if you can show me that X is a public health hazard, I think it may need to be removed from the market, despite some still wanting to take the risk.

Are we in agreement regarding about the allowance of public mandates and prohibitions?

You seem to class surgery and suicide together, as if they are similar when they are not. Surgery may be the healthy alternative to suicide for many. There is such a tendency especially in social media to focus on those who are unhappy with their gender transitions rather than having regrets. Also, some people just get on with their lives afterwards and don't make a big thing out of it. Many pass as their chosen gender and don't even need to tell people most of the time, except for intimate relationships or in a medical context.

Also, from what I have read about detransitioning, except in cases like Kiera Bell in England, who changed too early in adolescence, many who do go back to their natal gender do so on account of the social intolerance which they experience

Why does the patient have the right to self ownership to do aa he wishes, but the doctor doesn't have the right to self-ownerhip to do as he wants as long as there is mutual consent?

The doctor has the right to perform Vaginoplasty just as he does Rhinoplasty, only that the procedure ought to come at the customer’s expense like most other medically unnecessary procedures.

So you're in favor of facial feminization, breast implants, buttock implants, and liposuction, but hold your single objection to modifications to the penis?

I don’t object to anyone getting cosmetic procedures. They could sew their hands to their feet and call themselves a circle, for all I care. I just don’t think others should pay for it.

Crime is anti social behaviour and harmful regardless of whether it is made legal. The crimes men are committing are objectively harmful. — Andrew4Handel

You just happen to be wrong about this. It used to be a crime to commit acts of sodomy; now it is not, here in the UK. It used to be a very very serious crime now it is an entirely personal matter nobody's business but the participants'. Except in those other countries where it is still a very serious crime. What is anti-social depends entirely on the society in question. It used to be a crime not to attend church on Sunday. It used not to be a crime to beat your wife and your children. Times change; yesterday's hero is today's villain.

We can argue about what is objectively harmful to what subject. I might agree that corporal punishment is harmful, or that surgery is harmful, because physically, it damages the organism, but whether or when it might be beneficial in the longer run to the individual or to society in general is still up for grabs. I had a minor surgery for a hernia and I still bear the scar and feel some residual pain. But on the plus side, my guts are not bulging out of my belly risking life-threatening strangulated hernia. I'm not going to make the argument in favour of corporal punishment, but it can be made precisely on the grounds of your complaint about objectively harmful behaviour of unrestrained males. They need discipline.

So, out of curiosity, since the decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was (apparently) based on social mores and not evidence, would you say it was therefore an erroneous decision? — busycuttingcrap

I am a moral realist of sorts, but I think the moral certainty of some moral positions being taken up here is dangerous. But I am not a mental illness realist. Mental illness and mental health are social constructs.

I agree wholeheartedly- for instance, the moral certainty that trans people are wrong and bad, and/or that gender dysphoria is not a legitimate medical condition- despite all the evidence and expert consensus to the contrary- can be quite dangerous.

You know what else is dangerous? Ignorance- especially of the willful variety- and bigotry (the post-hoc rationalization of bigotry isn't all that swell, either). And especially dangerous to trans people, who are many times more likely to be the victim of a crime than cis people, and at least partially due to the prevalence of the sort of rhetoric on display here.

But back to the matter at hand: do you think the decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was a mistake? Should it still be classified as a mental illness, in your view? And was declassifying gender dysphoria as a mental illness also a mistake?

You just happen to be wrong about this. It used to be a crime to commit acts of sodomy; now it is not, here in the UK. — unenlightened

Homosexuality was considered harmful but there was a lack of evidence for this just like it was considered a mental disorder but there was a lack of evidence for that.

If something is proven totally harmless and is still a crime then either it will be made legal or it's being labelled criminal will be inexplicable.

We can argue about what is objectively harmful to what subject. — unenlightened

If a criminal is harmed by a punishment that is a fact. If you are harmed by having surgery that is a fact. If the punishment or surgery has long term benefits it will be a short term harm for long term gain.


We are getting into rabbit whole territory now because if anything can deemed harmful and the same thing can be considered not harmful we have a contradiction (possibly due to subjectivity) That would fatally undermine all value claims.

The danger there is that I could take a course of action that harms other people but could not called out on it because my perception is final.
That does make me think that maybe people don't value you woman's traits because they are frightened of things like warmth and care and nurturing for maybe Freudian reasons. We value stoicism and self reliance because we are frightened people and they are the easiest paths to take.

A good Wiki article on the status of detransitioning studies:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition#:~:text=Frequency%20estimates%20for%20detransition%20and,to%20as%20many%20as%208%25.

You seem to class surgery and suicide together, as if they are similar when they are not. — Jack Cummins

Not together - alternative solutions to the problem of chronic hopeless unhappiness. I prefer surgery.

Surgery may be the healthy alternative to suicide for many. — Jack Cummins

Not if they can't afford it.

many who do go back to their natal gender do so on account of the social intolerance which they experience — Jack Cummins

I may have mentioned that.

"medical evidence/expertise has been mistaken in the past, therefore this particular piece of medical evidence/expertise is mistaken" isn't much of an argument either. — busycuttingcrap

...

Its not that great to keep attributing fictitious claims and quotes to people you're trying to have a discussion with; maybe stick to the things I actually said? — busycuttingcrap

In that this change might also be for the better. — Vera Mont

Who said it couldn't? People, as far as I can can see, are expressing their view that the change is for the worse. I don't read anyone expressing the view that it's actually impossible to be for for the better.

A number of people, though a quite small segment of society, and therefore not politically significant — Vera Mont

They've literally just changed the law in Scotland. Campaign groups are currently going through court to have opposing campaign groups stripped of their charitable status. several prominent figures have have their careers (or reputations) ended for holding opposing views on this... The idea that this is not a 'politically significant' group is absurd. It took decades for women (half the population) to receive the sort of legal protections that trans folk have achieved in the space of a couple of years. By that measure alone, they have been one of the most successful political movements we've ever seen.

So there's debate as to whether transexual surgeries are harmful. Who gets to decide? — Hanover

Hopefully, we do. Debate, democratic action, constitutional consideration... the usual.

In a prior Covid vaccination thread you argued that due to uncertainties in vaccine effectiveness and the right for the individual to determine his own risks and benefits, the person directly affected had full authority to decide. — Hanover

As I've said above, I don't believe anyone is arguing that gender-transitional surgery be banned (certainly I'm not), so I don't really see how this is relevant. The individual will indeed determine their own risks and benefits. I might disagree with that determination - especially if it fails to take into account the effect of that decision on others. I might also take issue with institutions of my government advocating or supporting certain routes, as is my duty as a citizen of that government (to hold them to account, that is).

My view is that the best evidence ought be used and have less a problem imposing rational views on the irrational even if it reduces their autonomy — Hanover

This is, no offence, a ridiculous view. I struggle to think of a single course of action for which there is 'best evidence' in any clear way. Perhaps gravity, or electromagnetism. Certainly not anything medical (where replication rates for experimental proofs are barely over 50% and corporate influence is so rife as to lead frequently to criminal charges). The idea that there is, available to us, any kind of clear 'best evidence' for any medical intervention is laughable. We just don't live in such a world, even if one were possible.

We live in a world where 'best practice' is hotly debated among experts in their field and we (non-experts) are hopelessly unequipped to decide between them.

if you can show me that X is a public health hazard, I think it may need to be removed from the market, despite some still wanting to take the risk. — Hanover

This is overly simplistic. The problem is what degree of proof you'll need, what default position you take. For example, why even let it on to the market in the first place? Why is the default position that it be 'on the market' until proven unsafe, why not 'off the market' until proven more safe? If I (assuming I'm an expert here) merely suspect it of being unsafe, should it be removed first and replaced when shown to be fine, or left available and removed if not? Then there's the question of who it is we need convince of it's safety and why. The question of degrees of personal autonomy to disagree with that body and on what grounds.

Testing the efficacy (or harm) of a medical intervention is not like testing the pH of a chemical sample, or weight of an object...there's never, ever, a single clear answer. So there's always a choice about who to believe, and choices about who to believe are political, not scientific.

Who appoints the members of SAGE in the UK? Who appoints the head of the CDC? Who appoints the Director-General of the World Health Organization? ... Politicians.

But back to the matter at hand: do you think the decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was a mistake? Should it still be classified as a mental illness, in your view? And was declassifying gender dysphoria as a mental illness also a mistake? — busycuttingcrap

I think the class 'mental illness' is a social construct, as I already said. This means that there is no fact of the matter such that anything is or is not a mental illness, and one has or does not have anything identifiable like a virus or a wound. I would prefer to follow David Smail's psychology and talk instead about 'distress' and 'unhappiness'. Sources of distress are not defects of individuals at all, but defects in relationships. Homosexuals used to have an unhappy relationship with society, and now it is a little better. But anyone who deviates from our sexual stereotypes is liable to have a difficult relation to our society, because our society is very rigid still about sexuality, and many other things.

In general, I think the identification of any person as mentally ill is unhelpful. What is 'wrong' with homosexuals, intersex, schizophrenics, autistics, is that we cannot relate to them, and that is our problem at least as much as theirs. And this is not a particularly wild and wacky view, but has been a thread in psychology for a very long time.

It took decades for women (half the population) to receive the sort of legal protections that trans folk have achieved in the space of a couple of years. — Isaac

That doesn't make the persons changing gender assignment a politically significant number; that shows how many of their fellow citizens support their right to self-determination. The support is significant, because the small, insignificant number of sufferers has won the sympathy of people who were always comfortable with their own gender.

People, as far as I can can see, are expressing their view that the change is for the worse. — Isaac

Too bad. Change happens. One group wants this, another group doesn't want them to have this, a third group thinks they should have it, a fourth says they could have this but not at our expense, etc, etc. Somebody wins an advantage, at least temporarily, and everyone who loses is disgruntled. The fact that this happens - all the time, over every issue - is not a philosophical or ethical consideration when assessing the citizen's claim to a right or prerogative.

It took decades for women (half the population) to receive the sort of legal protections that trans folk have achieved in the space of a couple of years. — Isaac

You mean, Scotland didn't allow trans folk to vote or manage their own money until recently? Yet, somehow, women now having those rights causes less disruption and strife in society than the long fight to secure the right. So maybe it the disruption and strife over trans rights will cease, once they have secured their rights.

That doesn't make the persons changing gender assignment a politically significant number; — Vera Mont

Yes it does. A number that can get a national law changed is a significant number. and you've no idea whatsoever how that campaign won the gains it did, you're just storytelling. It might have won over the compassion of the population. It might have been seen as a cynically astute move by the politicians. It might have been good lobbying. It might have downright blackmailed enough Scottish MPs, or got in the good books of the fucking Lizardmen for all we know... You've provided nothing to back up your assertion at all. If you think all laws that get passed do so because of popular support then you're even more naive than you first appeared.

It's crazy how fast you mainstream liberals will spin, it must make you dizzy. If a fracking law gets passed, it'll be without doubt the result of evil corporate powers with their backdoor dealings, but as soon as one of the new fads gets its legal recognition suddenly the law becomes nothing but a pure reflection of the people's heartfelt will.

Those who transition this way usually have to be on drugs for the rest of their lives. That's an enormous profit for the pharmaceuticals. I don't know what kind of utopia you live in, but here on earth massively powerful lobbying groups are more often responsible for changes in law than an entire parliament suddenly finding itself moved by compassion. Funny these newly compassionate individuals didn't find it in their hearts to do anything about the 50 million starving children in Africa. Maybe next, eh?

Too bad. Change happens. One group wants this, another group doesn't want them to have this, a third group thinks they should have it, a fourth says they could have this but not at our expense, etc, etc. Somebody wins an advantage, at least temporarily, and everyone who loses is disgruntled. The fact that this happens - all the time, over every issue - is not a philosophical or ethical consideration when assessing the citizen's claim to a right or prerogative. — Vera Mont

Of course it's a bloody ethical consideration. If the change is bad, it's an ethical concern. It's literally what the word 'bad' means.

You mean, Scotland didn't allow trans folk to vote or manage their own money until recently? — Vera Mont

No. I mean that campaigns to change the law are usually long and hard fought. Any campaign which gets it's way after only a couple of years is a powerful political movement, not a downtrodden, barely influential minority.

When a biological male is trying to be a woman what is he attempting to be and how?

What are these womanly attributes?

If there are womanly attributes where do they come from?

trans rights — Vera Mont

What is a trans right?

And how are they not covered by basic human rights?

Unfortunately what is not being explicitly said is that one sex wants the right to things that are for the other sex such as single sex spaces (including women's shelters) and single sex sports, gay male spaces, gay spaces etc. This is in conflict with women's rights and dignity such as not undressing in front of a male bodied person in a changing room and not being physically intimately examined by a male bodied person etc.

What has happened in Scotland is men can now identify as women without a gender recognition certificate, without having "lived as a woman" or presented as female for any specific length of time" and without having had any surgeries. Which has compromised women's security and is Going to be challenged by the British Government.

In contrast gay people have the right to marry and that in no way compromises straight marriages or the right of other people to get married.

Of course it's a bloody ethical consideration. If the change is bad, it's an ethical concern. It's literally what the word 'bad' means. — Isaac

I have yet to hear your proposal for the healthier, more beneficial, more ethical direction in which you want some unnamed factions or agents to steer the issue.

If there are womanly attributes where do they come from? — Andrew4Handel

DNA + social roles, usually. All infants born and raised in a society absorb the society's perception and expectation of these gender roles. When the DNA is ambiguous and a person is assigned to one kind of role, but internally identifies with the other, they have a strong desire to change their external image to their match their internal one. (Usually after a long, failed struggle to change the internal one.)

What is a trans right? — Andrew4Handel

Yet to be determined, in many countries. I haven't defined it what advocacy groups demand of their governments and societies. A right, for anybody, is license to perform some activity and access to some share of communal resources under protection of the law. A 21-year-old, in western countries, has a right to buy alcohol; a seventeen-year-old does not. In countries with national health insurance, all citizens and resident aliens have a right to hospital admission for serious illness at public expense, while in countries with no such insurance, nobody has that right; hospital admission must be bought with private funds. So, no, all rights are not uniformly covered under human rights, which are concerned only with freedom from persecution.

I have yet to hear your proposal for the healthier, more beneficial, more ethical direction in which you want some unnamed factions or agents to steer the issue. — Vera Mont

So? What has that to do with the counterargument I'm presenting?

You argued that societal change had no ethical component because it's going to happen anyway. That's simply wrong on both counts. It does have an ethical component (there exist arguments about whether the change is 'right' or 'wrong'), and it is not going to happen anyway, its driven by our collective actions.

Whether I present an opinion about how society ought progress has no bearing on the validity of that argument.

If transsexual regret is a measure for how bad transitioning would be, then the opposite should be true. Since only 8% regret transitioning, transitioning is a good thing. From those 8% the majority regret it because of parents, social reactions and inability to get a job. It's not transsexuals that are the problem, it's the societies they live in.

That said, I have a theory that societies that are less hung up on gender stereotypes, will see a significant decrease in transitioning because there's a wider gamut available for gender expression so the dysphoria will probably lessen because gender roles will be less pronounced. For starters, men should be able to wear dresses instead of boring suits.

High heels, stockings and a wig:



And more of this please: