You’re not being very nice to me Cougar, while I am trying to argue in good faith. What happened to ‘be kind?’
It goes out of the window when your 'opinion' is enabling people to be physically attacked and reinforcing a narrative which is driving people to kill themselves. In all the reading you've done, has any of it been "this thread"? If it isn't then you probably should.
Sigh.
Look, OK, yes, I'm being argumentative. Sorry. But I get somewhat vexed when people post stuff like "I know it's unpopular but... just my opinion..." when the people who are directly affected by this are trying over and over and over to get it through to people like - well, everyone else - just how difficult their lives are and 'just my opinion' seeks to put them back in their box. If someone knows that their opinion is going to be unpopular before they even post, isn't that perhaps cause for them to re-evaluate it?
Folk have been beaten because of what they are, some have (I hate to keep repeating this but you keep bleeping over it) taken their own lives or come close to doing so. This is a similar narrative to what we're just seeing now with the 'black lives matter' movement and they've been a **** of a lot more visible for a lot longer. And you're focusing on 'women's spaces' whatever the hell that is even supposed to mean.
Once more with feeling: THESE THINGS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. We can be kind to both.
@cougar I have previously explained to you the position on the two sexes.
Could you remind me in a one-liner please? I'm poor at keeping track of usernames and am not about to read back through 13 pages looking for it. What's your metric?
Eg, chromosomes, genitals, something else?
Cougar - what your actually saying is be kind, except when you feel that you can identify exceptional circumstances where you can decide not to be kind, stuff the rest of can't see?
That kind of meets the definition of something you would not like to be thought of as.
Secondly your assertion that transwomen are women is based on gender? And not sex?
Cougar – what your actually saying is be kind, except when you feel that you can identify exceptional circumstances where you can decide not to be kind, stuff the rest of can’t see?
Eh? What does that even mean?
Eh? What does that even mean?
I think from his statement above he was attempting to say coming dangerously close to saying is that we should all be kind, except he can be selective with his kindness.
except he can be selective with his kindness.
And this is the "freedom of speech" argument.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't think I was being unkind. Is this not how discussions work, people challenge opinions and offer facts?
Secondly your assertion that transwomen are women is based on gender? And not sex?
It's based on talking to people who are directly affected by this issue. Reading posts on this thread; people posting on previous threads (one of whom started one entitled "it really hurts" not all that long ago because of shitty attitudes of people who thought their opinions were more important than others' life experiences); and speaking with people I know personally.
OK this makes things much clearer regarding your behaviour on here.
I wonder have you considered if your approach is working, is it effective?
I wonder have you considered if your approach is working, is it effective?
His approach seems to be plain speaking, people who have views that are incompatible with the lives of others, who are causing no harm, seem to be upset by this. Oh well never mind.
It’s a journey isn’t it!
Yes! A journey that often reminds me of song/lyric:
“Now tell me good Captain,
How does it feel
To be driven away from your own steering wheel?”
Some days feel like this:
Some days, more:
🙂🙃
Sex is biologically determined and fixed.
I think that's overly simplistic. In theory, presence or absence of Y chromosome should make it pretty straightforward, but It's relatively common to have folks who have sex chromosomes saying one things and their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy saying another. What's more, genetic research is starting to reveal that our bodies are made up of a patchwork of genetically distinct cells, some with a sex that might not match the rest of the body. So while you might (with a bit of sleight of hand) say they are fixed, it's more true (and perhaps a better definition) to say "Post about 6 weeks your sex is fixed along a path that has fully male and one end and fully female at the other, but you can fall pretty much anywhere in between those two common points"
I think the problem comes from trying to fit humans who have a hazy determination into a society that is resisting the haziness of humans...in both societal and legal definitions.
Guys can we please just try and wind it in a little bit.
Virtually everyone on here is in agreement that trans and non binary people should be free to live our lives happily, able to express ourselves and be ourselves without fear of ridicule, violence and discrimination.
This makes me very happy.
Outside of that there is discussion about definitions, rights and protections. There is no easy answer to a lot of this. I have no answers, mostly I don't even have opinions, just thoughts which are no more or less valid than everyone else's.
I'd prefer to save the arguing for those on here who still think that trans and non binary people are just doing it to seek attention or gain access to ladies toilets for whatever reason.
I remember the post "It hurts so much" vividly. It was horrendous, and Rachel is very much missed.
@theotherjonv You are amazing. Your son is so lucky to have loving and supporting parents. I really hope you are able to get the support and treatment you need.
Today is not a good day. I've been unemployed for a few weeks and I have an interview this afternoon. It's for a good job that I'd love to do and I'm qualified and experienced to do. But today I'm very much in "girl mode", I have a beautiful skirt suit which fits well and looks good. I feel happy and confident wearing it. It's what my brain says I need to wear today. But I'll be in my stupid mans trouser suit because it's quite a conservative organisation. Objectively it's fine, but I feel ridiculous. I feel like I'm playing dress up in my Dad's clothes. It kills my confidence and I feel miserable. I don't want to go, I want to throw myself off a bridge instead. (Don't worry, I won't, I've been here a million times before and I can deal with it.) If I get the job I'd be working from home a lot so can be me. Hopefully my brain will switch sometime between now and the interview...
Life is hard, but at least I'm not starving to death in Africa or getting blown up in the Middle East or living the infinitely harder lives which so many do around the world.
Boriselbrus wishing you the very best of luck today.
Good luck.
Longish story but I hope it helps. I did the Oxford Entrance exam when i was doing A Levels. Passed it and went for interview. Failed the interview because they said I wasn't superstrong on the subject and I had too many outside interests and they felt I'd struggle to keep up with the work. This was fed back to my Headmaster who suggested that i play down the extra-curr stuff at my Durham interview. I agonised for ages and my Dad, still my icon and hero, told me not to compromise who I was to get a Uni place or a job or anything.
First question at my Durham interview was why had Oxford rejected me (IDK if they have that info or not). I told them as close to word for word as i could and my interviewer laughed out loud - "Typical, they all say they want rounded personalities and then reject anyone that presents with one!!" He then told me all about how the Chem dept 5 a side team was always up there in the interdept league, and his eyes lit up when i said I played in goal. We won the league all three years i was there, I captained the College at football in my final year, and I had a fantastic time being me rather than playing a part.
Do not compromise who you are to get the job. Conservative or not, they should accept you for who you are and you won't interview well unless you're comfortable as you. If they can't deal with it, then they don't deserve you.
I've been trying to catch up on this thread because it's an interesting topic and one I don't know much about. I jumped to the last page to see if I could get the gist (naive I know) and felt compelled to reply to your post above @boriselbrus. I was also reluctant to jump into the thread so am glad you've posted similar to what I was thinking theotherjonv.
If this job is as appealing to you as it sounds, why on earth would you be anything but 100% honest with them? Assuming you get the job, will you hide your real self from your employer and colleagues indefinitely? That sounds like a recipe for disaster and unhappiness to me.
You say they are conservative, but maybe they'll surprise you. If they do, and you get the job, think how much happier you could be.
His approach seems to be plain speaking
I'm just wondering how helpful it is.
But I’ll be in my stupid mans trouser suit because it’s quite a conservative organisation. Objectively it’s fine, but I feel ridiculous. I feel like I’m playing dress up in my Dad’s clothes.
You are not alone there, I hate a suit and avoid wearing one at all costs.
Good luck.
I know it's absolutely not even a tiny bit the same Boriselbrus, but I decided at a young age to always wear to an interview what I would wear on a normal work day for the company if I got the job, no special interview garb. If the interview is with people who you will be working with in a day to day capacity if you get the job (rather than it being some remote hands off management figure, or farmed out to personnel department people who won't be you immediate colleagues) then wear whatever works for you. GOOD BLOODY LUCK.
but It’s relatively common to have folks who have sex chromosomes saying one things and their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy saying another.
People with Differences in Sexual Development (DSD) are male or female.
Yes, scientific enquiry continues however, a newly discovered cellular level minutiae does not explain the recent explosion in referrals to the NHS specialist services of adolescent females with gender issues.
It is unfortunate that the 'sex' definition has to be discussed (though I may have started it...), if I remember correctly both GIDS and WPATH note broadly normal distributions of Karotype within transgender individuals.
It is unfortunate that the ‘sex’ definition has to be discussed (though I may have started it…),
It is essential to the discussion in that people conflate sex and gender, so we need to talk about it.
The use of the word woman/women is also confusing. Most people not invested in this type of discussion consider it to mean the female sex and others consider it to be a gender definition.
Good luck Boris.
Good luck with the interview, BB. They're enough of a pain without external factors adding to it.
I think that’s overly simplistic.
It is overly simplistic, and it's why I've asked both of those claiming otherwise on this page to elaborate as to what they mean. Both of whom have remained steadfastly silent on the matter since, the first presumably hasn't been back yet and the second is too busy complaining about my debating style.
The last couple of pages have been:
Person X: "I've done a lot of research and I think [this]."
Person Y: "Well, that's not the case, so you either need to do more research or explain why you think that so we can further the discussion."
Person X: "Why are you attacking me?"
I mean no offence, but neither am I going to let what I see as potentially harmful / hurtful beliefs go unexplored. Hell, I might be way off the mark, don't you want the opportunity to perhaps change my mind? I love to be proven wrong, this is how we learn things. It's literally how science works. And also what a forum is.
I love to be proven wrong, this is how we learn things. It’s literally how science works. And also what a forum is.
I'm not sure that the above is compatible with the below.
I have probably misunderstood the below statement but as a response to your assertion that "transwomen are women", when i asked for what you base your definition on you replied with this:
It’s based on talking to people who are directly affected by this issue. Reading posts on this thread; people posting on previous threads (one of whom started one entitled “it really hurts” not all that long ago because of shitty attitudes of people who thought their opinions were more important than others’ life experiences); and speaking with people I know personally.
Which combined with "transwomen are women" doesn't have anything falsifiable in it so its not a scientific position.
Have you done this on purpose to trap the unwary?
Perhaps I'm just on a learning curve also.
well we all are right.
It’s based on talking to people who are directly affected by this issue. Reading posts on this thread; people posting on previous threads (one of whom started one entitled “it really hurts” not all that long ago because of shitty attitudes of people who thought their opinions were more important than others’ life experiences); and speaking with people I know personally.
But you can't seem to acknowledge that those whom you disagree with are coming from a place of experience too. I've spoken with detransitioners, all who now realise they are Lesbians. Every one of them has had life changing surgery, and now face living with the consequences of their actions (and being dependent on artificial hormones) for the rest of their lives. Those consequences include, but are not limited to, male pattern baldness and vaginal atrophy. I'm talking about young women in their early 20s.
The dating app 'Her', originally for Lesbians and Bisexual women (but now seemingly open to anyone) recently emailed users with advice on the 'benefits' of micro-dosing with testosterone.
Excuse my ignorance, but are young non-binary people electing for surgery and hormone dosing in any big numbers? Does the binary only (M or F, you have to fit into one or the other, no exclusions) approach push some people into using medical intervention who might not in a society where non-binary is more accepted and understood, and well, seen as "normal"?
I dunno the numbers, but does that matter much? Even if it is only a few, its still bad if people feel that transition was a mistake, especially if some things are irreversible.
Edit, I see your addition now, yeah thats an important question I think.
I'll not be participating any further in this thread, but I'd ask you give this a watch. As of the weekend Sinead Watson joins the growing list of women banned from Twitter.
I dunno the numbers, but does that matter much?
My point was, is the pushing of a "binary only, you're one or the other" idea in society something that leads to more medical interventions?
Does the binary only (M or F, you have to fit into one or the other, no exclusions) approach push some people into using medical intervention who might not in a society where non-binary is more accepted and understood, and well, seen as “normal”?
This could certainly be the case. One of the arguments is that the barrier to transition surgery is too high, but some are also saying it's too low. Both "sides" can illustrate with anecdotes. Knowing and seeing the effect that hormones have on the teenage brain, I'm not sure that's the best time to be deciding. Better acceptance of a middle way might be a benefit
I’ll not be participating any further in this thread
That's a shame. This thread/forum needs more disparate voices.
My point was, is the pushing of a “binary only, you’re one or the other” idea in society something that leads to more medical interventions?
Yeah apologies, misreading on my part, you and Scotroutes have covered it well.
One of the arguments is that the barrier to transition surgery is too high, but some are also saying it’s too low.
Perhaps underfunding and misunderstanding could result in both? The services (not just surgery, but everything that comes before and after, and might not even result in that) might well be unavailable or poor quality or mistimed for many that seek it, and could also result in poor and wrong outcomes for others that do manage to get it. Rather than reducing medical interventions by the use of scarcity and delays (this probably isn't the intention, but it can look like it is), perhaps help should be available for more people quicker, but the process take longer from inception, with more focus on care and support before (or instead of in many cases) intervention.
TBH it ties in with the idea that we should be genderblind, as many have said before, who cares what you wear, who you have sex with, how you behave, it does not and should not depend on your bio sex if you don't want it to.
and could also result in poor and wrong outcomes for others that do manage to get it.
Its not just the surgery, some of the hormones have irreversible effects.
If we accept peoples ways, perhaps it would make it easier for them to accept their immutable characteristics.
accept their immutable characteristics
I'm not sure I'm following you. I think we agree that more acceptance of non-binary people may result in fewer people having a need for irreversible physical changes... but were does "immutable characteristics" come into that? What does that even mean?
I'll stick my head above the parapet and chip-in.... it seems to me that surgery or hormone treatment in an attempt to help people feel comfortable in themselves, and in the world, is getting things completely the wrong way around. At least in the vast majority of cases.
So coming back to the original question....
I read the news that Demi Lovato has come out as non binary..
Someone needs to explain to me why this is an advantage for someone
.... if non-binary status helps people to be happy as they are, then that is the 'advantage' for them, and everyone in fact.
But you can’t seem to acknowledge that those whom you disagree with are coming from a place of experience too.
Largely because you're the first person to suggest that anyone is I think.
I've never come across a 'detransitioner', is that overly common? To even consider going down that road in the first place would you not have to be pretty certain?
@kelvin Sorry - your bio sex is an immutable characteristic. It is physical and defined by your DNA. It is currently not possible to change this. So surgery and hormones only simulate a sex change.
My point being the same as yours, more acceptance leading to less desire for physical changes.
To even consider going down that road in the first place would you not have to be pretty certain?
Kiera Bell said that she wasn't given the opportunity to explore that concept, she just went along with the clinicians affirming that transition was the right thing to do. They all assumed she was sure.
To even consider going down that road in the first place would you not have to be pretty certain?
Teenage brains.
But you can’t seem to acknowledge that those whom you disagree with are coming from a place of experience too. I’ve spoken with detransitioners, all who now realise they are Lesbians.
I wonder are there more de-transitioners than there are gender-dismorphic suicide victims?
It's clear that we as a society do not know how to handle this just yet, but that does not mean we should stop trying.
I read that in the US transitioners were being given training in Choice supportive bias (it's like the opposite of buyers remorse), to help prevent them getting buyer remorse and regretting their transition.
The argument against was that if they had been given choice supportive bias training in the first place they would not have needed to transition. (I appreciate for some its not a choice, but I did not name the bias).
it seems to me that surgery or hormone treatment in an attempt to help people feel comfortable in themselves, and in the world, is getting things completely the wrong way around. At least in the vast majority of cases.
Some cases for sure, but vast majority?
I'm all for the talking therapies to be done prior to significant and irreversible treatments, and I also get the plasticity of teenage brains. I already said earlier one of my worries is that by going to a paid for service is there an 'upsell' risk - can I completely trust that their response will be neutral and that after a few sessions of talking they'd say that hormones and blood tests and ultimately surgery are not what is needed? And let the cash cow go back out into the field unmilked.
Equally the flipside of the more militant anti- and detransitioners worries me. It's a fine line between talking about it and convincing an already desperate, unhappy / borderline suicidal person that their particular diagnosis is the right one, and I don't particularly trust anyone in this highly 'politicised' debate.
But I can't get access to an NHS service for up to 4 years; what choice do i have?
Also consider that transitioning in later life (after maturity) is a more major task. As I said about my son, there are clear indications on a regular cyclic basis that his gender and his body do not match, and at 15 it's pretty well too late for him in that regard. All the more important to find that balance between getting the (talking) help early, but stopping short of convincing.
