JK Rowling and her trans views

[daveyd]

@daveyd; to your responses on puberty blockers, the major articles I have read on these (mostly from The Economist) indicate that a vast proportion of kids who go through puberty blockers end up having gender re-assignment surgery thereafter. So one of the questions is whether even that should be done or not. Essentially, is that influencing people to have surgery. In very simple terms: "In for a penny, in for a pound?"

Perhaps that is accurate for the UK where the affordability of not a barrier to getting surgery as it is here. For argument's sake lets assume it is true… I would point out is that correlation does not mean causation. It could also be that if someone starts transitioning they are already pretty sure that it is right for them. So if they start taking puberty blockers after dressing & taking on pronouns / name that fits with their gender identity for awhile, they are already quite sure they are in fact transgender. Then if they take hormones years later they're extremely sure, so by the time someone does all that a reassignment surgery is highly desirable when cost is not a barrier.

I've heard many trans people feel from a very early age that the gender they assigned at birth / raised as does not fit who they are. Others report experiencing more confusion or actively suppress these thoughts (but often due to disapproval from family / peers / their religious groups more so than actual doubt or confusion).

I think the most important question is what % of people who undergo sexual reassignment surgery end up regretting it vs. the % who feel better after having the procedure? There probably isn't extensive data on this yet. Best study I could find was the 2015 US Transgender Survey. There's some methodology limitations and they do not seem to clearly distinguish between groups of trans people who have only socially transitioning, those who are also taking hormones, and those who have had surgery.

But on page 111 they cover "de-transitioning" which is presumably as good a measure of regret as we have. The study found about 8% of respondents have at some point detransitioned, though 62% did so only temporarily. And the majority of reasons these people gave for detransitioning seemed to be outside pressures. Only 5% saying they realized it wasn't right for them and another 4% saying "initial transition did not reflect the complexity of their gender identity". So I'd infer from this (admittedly flawed) data that the % of people who clearly regret going through gender transitioning of any kind is relatively small.

I'm sure there are individuals out there who got gender reassingment surgery and regret it. Some of those we could find online are probably questionable (i.e., someone pushing a conservative agenda) but in a world of 8 billion people I'm sure at least one such individual genuinely exists. But you know we could say that for major decision that human beings make. Lots of people regret getting tattoos / piercings, alcohol use, plastic surgery etc. I think (hope) most people would agree it'd be silly to ban these things because some people end up regretting them.

I realize the people who are questioning whether trans people should be taking puberty blockers, hormones, or gender reassingment surgery are not necessarily saying these things should be banned…. but it's not quite clear to me what policies you are proposing. If you're just saying people should be really sure before deciding to get a major medical procedure, then I'm in full agreement with you. However, if you want some restrictive legal barrier to letting trans people (and adults in particular) get them, then I strongly disagree.

 

[lackblogger]

I have just made my mind up about what you are based on what you wrote.

Well that's something, for sure. Prey tell, what am I?

 

[lackblogger]

In technical terms it certainly is genital mutilation, but I do understand why Myrthos and others would accuse you of some biases since the word mutilation itself has very negative connotations.

Well I guess this the nub of it.

Shall we assign positive or negative connotations to something that is, in comparison to nothing else, quite extreme in nature.

It would seem that of the five of us having this particular rabbit hole discussion about the nature of trans that:

Four of us would like to be reassured that any such surgery is taken with the utmost precaution.

Two of us have stated that "because I want to" is 'enough' caution. However, three of us have not stated that claim in bold form.

And so there could be a cultural element here, because the three of us who have not just stated "because they want to" all happen to be UK posters, while the two who have stated "because they want to" are not UK posters. This could well just be coincidence and a meaningless stat, of course.

But it could be to do with the nature of the NHS, a particularly unique UK institution. In that we have a long history of debating this topic publicly, due to the public nature of NHS funding.

Which brings me to daved's quote:

And the majority of reasons these people gave for detransitioning seemed to be outside pressures.

I agree with a lot you say in your post. If in the US people have to pay huge sums for the surgery, then that's a pretty good indication that the person undergoing the surgery has taken due consideration. And I've no doubt they would have to sign lots of forms saying they can't sue anyone down the line.

Now, poor people. Is it inequality that is being addressed by increasing the availability of the surgery via NHS pipelines?

Or is it opening up the floodgates for a 'lifestyle' to be actively promoted, one that could result in poor people being put under pressure to do something - for money.

And I quote that part of your post because it highlights that people are prone to pressure. At this point in time, yes, there exists powerful organisations that promote a restrictive attitude towards transgenders, we are all aware of who they usually are.

However, the converse is just as potentially worrisome in regards to transitioning, worrisome due to the unique and incomparable nature of a trans lifestyle. If we jump from a highly negative framework straight into a highly positive one, you still have the same element of social pressure, just from the direct opposite direction.

The NHS does not just open it's doors in the morning and have 'customers' come in who want something done, except in the case of 'emergency'. It has a 'referral' system. Everyone who wants to be transitioned via the NHS will have to 'judged' on their 'medical' need.

"Because they want to" is not, by itself, a medical need.

If transitioning is considered a 'medical need', then it is classed as an ailment, a malady. something which someone suffers from. Which, like it or not, is a negative use of language.

So how does someone 'prove' they 'need' to be transitioned when they have no physical aliment? By psychological assessment, of course. But then you could have a psychological assessment for any form of body modification.

If pressure and psychology are known factors in the human condition, then it stands to reason that promoting transitioning in a very positive light will vastly increase the amount of people wanting to be transitioned.

I mean, can you FEEL the PRESSURE @Myrthos; instantly puts me under just because I refer to gender realignment surgery as genital mutilation. The owner and autocratic dictator of this site has literally gone all-in in pure antagonism.

Now imagine someone of a nefarious mindset. You know, someone who has found much profit in the trans buck. Particularly amongst the poor. Are you telling me they wont be using that power to the maximum of their potential?

You are right @daveyd; , trans surgery isn't banned in the UK, but declaring open season is a very new concept.

And it's surprising how little natural cynicism is given to the topic, considering how much cynicism is permitted on so many other topics. This isn't about voting rights, it isn't about employment equality, it isn't about representation, it's about whether the NHS will consider it an ailment and whether we have any safeguards at all from societal pressure to undergo surgery, particularly among the poor.

 

[Ripper]

Well, with regard to "genital mutilation", it's a strange way to frame a medical surgery. I mean, one could describe a tonsillectomy as pharyngeal mutilation, but it would get you some funny looks. I think choice of words does matter - if there were a gay atheist man, and someone described him as a godless sodomite, it could be defended on purely semantic grounds, but most folks are still going to be thinking, "Uh-huh..."

I would suggest not framing in those terms if you don't want people to infer something from that.

When it comes to what a proper assessment consists of, I think that's essentially straightforward. If someone goes in to the doctor's office and asks for re-assignment surgery, it needs to be discussed so the doctors are satisfied that surgery is the right thing for a person - there needs to be a proper psychiatric evaluation to ensure that a person isn't in state that affects their rational judgement (a history of psychosis, Munchhausen's, or so on), and should be treated in a different way. In the end, it comes down to what I already mentioned - the balance of harms and good faith medical judgement. All surgeries have risk, and responsible doctors only take that course when they feel it's the best bet for the patient's wellbeing.

I think it is necessary to have doctors acting as the gatekeepers before major surgery - not imposing their own views and values, but doing their job to determine that a procedure is necessary, that the patient is entering into the decision in full possession of the information about outcomes, and is making the decision with a rational mind.

But, I didn't start this topic to discuss the validity of trans people and their choices. For me that is no problem at all. The issue I wanted to discuss is in the attempt to censure anyone who raises good-faith concerns about the complexities of radically changing society's concept of gender, and how that impacts other groups. To me, that is a reasonable discussion, and I think the faction that immediately attacks on sight of such questions is actually hugely counterproductive.

 

[lackblogger]

Well, with regard to "genital mutilation", it's a strange way to frame a medical surgery. I mean, one could describe a tonsillectomy as pharyngeal mutilation, but it would get you some funny looks. I think choice of words does matter - if there were a gay atheist man, and someone described him as a godless sodomite, it could be defended on purely semantic grounds, but most folks are still going to be thinking, "Uh-huh…"

I would suggest not framing in those terms if you don't want people to infer something from that.

When it comes to what a proper assessment consists of, I think that's essentially straightforward. If someone goes in to the doctor's office and asks for re-assignment surgery, it needs to be discussed so the doctors are satisfied that surgery is the right thing for a person - there needs to be a proper psychiatric evaluation to ensure that a person isn't in state that affects their rational judgement (a history of psychosis, Munchhausen's, or so on), and should be treated in a different way. In the end, it comes down to what I already mentioned - the balance of harms and good faith medical judgement. All surgeries have risk, and responsible doctors only take that course when they feel it's the best bet for the patient's wellbeing.

I think it is necessary to have doctors acting as the gatekeepers before major surgery - not imposing their own views and values, but doing their job to determine that a procedure is necessary, that the patient is entering into the decision in full possession of the information about outcomes, and is making the decision with a rational mind.

But, I didn't start this topic to discuss the validity of trans people and their choices. For me that is no problem at all. The issue I wanted to discuss is in the attempt to censure anyone who raises good-faith concerns about the complexities of radically changing society's concept of gender, and how that impacts other groups. To me, that is a reasonable discussion, and I think the faction that immediately attacks on sight of such questions is actually hugely counterproductive.

Well, it would be nice if people didn't compare the removal and disruption of reproductive organs as similar in nature to having one's tonsils removed or a simple nose job. That comes across as more disingenuous.

The language should surely reflect the potential dangers and long term consequences of what is involved.

Calling it "gender realignment surgery" is about as far away as you can get from providing a realistically descriptive nature of what is actually happening. Almost like it's deliberately intended to avoid the extreme nature of the procedure. I'm sure the promotory leaflets sound much better from a marketing perspective if the title of the surgery completely avoids mentioning what's actually involved. Particularly for young children sitting in Blocker waiting rooms reading random stuff around them.

I'm not entirely happy with the term genital mutilation, but it's at least more accurately descriptive than "gobbledeygook, shadowspeak happy fairy surgery". But I would be ok with a more neutral term, for sure.

So you are happy with a psychiatric evaluation? For a medical surgery? So what's the difference between that and someone who's manically depressed because they are obsessed that their ears are too big? Aka, cosmetic surgery.

You say that "it needs to be discussed so the doctors are satisfied that surgery is the right thing for a person", but that will equate to "because they want it - and they're otherwise sane"? No? And since psychiatric analysis has an element of the subjective about it, can you not envision a lot of suing going on with those that are denied? Let alone those that later claim they were cajoled into it?

I don't see how this is any way off-topic to JK as her main point is that biology is biology, and that while we have the technology to make some physical changes to a person, we still can't put them in a magical changing device that alters all of their body to become entirely and distinctly an opposite gender. And that someone with a penis in a female safe space is somewhat - complex. And removal of said penis isn't that much of a change of scenario. In the grand scheme of things. And she got shouted at.

However, there is compromise ground possible on people without penises. Which puts greater pressure on non-binaries to get surgery. So they can more easily enter female spaces.

 

[Ripper]

No, I would think it obvious that I didn’t mention those as a comparison of degrees of significance in surgery. I mentioned a nose job in the context of something the NHS might not deem to be medically necessary. And I mentioned the tonsillectomy in relation to the oddness of referring to any kind of medical surgery as “mutilation”. To give another example, some religions are opposed to having tattoos, and refer to that as self-mutilation. That’s far more trivial than the most minor surgery, but to frame it in that way does suggest one’s attitude to the subject. That’s the point – not the impact of the procedure. I think many surgical names sound quite dry and euphemistic in their definitions – one could say that “caesarean section” doesn’t really conjure up “splitting your belly open and pulling the baby out.”

Do I think that a surgery can be justified on psychiatric/psychological grounds? Yes, absolutely, and I’d say that’s the standard position, which has been the case for a very long time. To go back to plastic surgery, I think a cosmetic surgery could be justified if someone had one extremely large ear, such as to give them a very unfortunate appearance, which caused them to be so self-conscious and depressed that they withdrew from the world and didn’t function. Now (and I think this addresses most of what you were saying), of course since we have people acting as gatekeepers, making assessments and decisions, that’s going to be flawed and open to challenge and debate (and change over time). But there’s nothing new in that as a fundamental issue.

Gender dysphoria is medically recognised, and if a doctor concludes that other issues have been ruled out, that the patient is suffering significantly and could have the opportunity to function and thrive with the surgery, there’s an ethical basis to proceed.

As I drew attention to in the OP, this stuff is complicated, and it’s not a matter of a simple binary. IMO, the science neither supports the idea that sex is a simple binary, nor that it’s exactly a spectrum. I think it’s more like a map of points, creating a dominant pattern of two clusters in a binary. Now, my two cents is that society needs to accept that the binary is very meaningful to the majority of people, but that of course we need to accommodate those who fall outside of the dominant pattern, and we need to discuss that in a more productive way.

As I said, though, I’d rather you start a new thread to discuss challenges to the subject of trans-sexuality more fundamentally. I wanted to answer some of the points here, but that’s not the conversation I’m really interested in having.

 

[lackblogger]

The Green Party of England and Wales, the 5th largest political party in Britain, is the latest political party to be being torn apart by The Gender Non-Debate.

[former] Party Spokesman for policing and domestic safety Dr. Ali is now suing The Green Party for discrimination under the rules of the Equality Act 2010, claiming his removal from office was “a targeted act of unlawful victimisation”.

His 'crime' against his party:

“a woman is commonly defined as an adult human female and, genetically, typified by two XX chromosomes…these facts are not in dispute” he said. He also has negative views on the increasing use of Puberty Blockers for children.

The Green Party (what remains) has said that it “strongly defends the right of party members to contest our policies and embraces both free speech and respectful deliberation”, but then immediately contradicts itself by saying “Like all political parties, we reserve the right to change our frontbench according to the needs and reputation of the party.”. Ah, the old classics are the best.

As you can imagine, Dr. Ali isn't the only one to feel this purge, several other leading figures were 'removed' recently as well for not toeing completely the 'party line' on Gender Politics.

Dr Ali has so far raised £14,500 in crowdfunding the fight case.

His chances are good because just last year a high court judge ruled that "gender-critical views are a protected belief under the Equality Act".

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...or-transgender-views/ar-AAU4oQw?ocid=msedgntp

At this point, I'm not aware of any party that isn't in some kind of civil war over this non-issue seemingly-massive-issue.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

There's a newish RPG system out there : https://www.evilhat.com/home/thirsty-sword-lesbians/

Description : https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/evilhat/thirsty-sword-lesbians/description

 

[lackblogger]

It's all going a bit weird in the UK.

Trans issues have once again come to the forefront of our daily politics because, while the government has finally decided to ban the appalling practice of Conversion Therapy, which is nothing but good news, they decided to omit Trans folk from the bill via an amendment.

However, all the fallout debate about this has been all the other trans issues, as various sporting bodies are now happy and free to say they will not allow trans athletes to compete in women's events, that societies can have safe spaces for women without breaking the law, and all that kind of thing.

Which is really weird because allowing people to differentiate between trans and natural, or whatever words are politically correct this day to define such a difference, has nothing to do with the appalling practice of Conversion Therapy.

As per usual with politicians, they've taken the popular sentiment and used it to shadow mask something completely different. Conversion Therapy has nothing to do with anything other than Conversion Therapy, and if the practice is to be banned it can only be banned outright. You cannot say that CT is bad and then say but it's also ok if. Utterly bizarre.

So, once again, modern politics shafts the 'regular voter' (AKA, someone like me who looks to choose who to vote for rather than constantly have an 'always' party). On the one hand I have the Conservatives, who are at least willing to defend biology, but are using my support there to allow the continued use of the abhorrent Conversion Therapy, and on the other side you now have the protestors who don't care a jot for biology but at least would completely do away with CT.

As they say, between a rock and a hard place.

 

[JDR13]

However, all the fallout debate about this has been all the other trans issues, as various sporting bodies are now happy and free to say they will not allow trans athletes to compete in women's events, that societies can have safe spaces for women without breaking the law, and all that kind of thing.

I don't understand how those things were ever considered controversial to begin with. Sadly though, the U.S. still doesn't seem to have it figured out.

Spoiler: Our college women's swimming champion.

 

[Stingray]

I don't understand how those things were ever considered controversial to begin with. Sadly though, the U.S. still doesn't seem to have it figured out.

Spoiler: Our college women's swimming champion.

The U.S. as a whole has it figured out pretty well (which is borne out by the polling), it's just a vocal minority and a lot of Democratic Party politicians that don't.

 

[JDR13]

The U.S. as a whole has it figured out pretty well (which is borne out by the polling), it's just a vocal minority and a lot of Democratic Party politicians that don't.

Actually, we don't or this wouldn't still be an issue. Politicians have nothing to do with the Lia Thomas debacle.

 

[Stingray]

Right, it's still an issue because of that vocal minority, and the politicians (and other leaders) who are afraid to make them mad. Whether that equates to us not having it "figured out" is all dependent on how you want to use the words I guess. The vast majority of the country holds the sane view on the topic.

 

[fadedc]

I'm normally on the moderate left but I am not even sure I've figured out my thoughts on the whole sports/gender thing. On one hand it seems like something that could be unfair, on the other hand sports are kind of arbitrary and as tech advances we are going to see more blurring of lines on every level. There have been plenty of other issues with prosthetic limbs and other advances that people think may give people an unfair advantage. I think the gender thing just gets so much attention because it's such a hot button culture war issue.

 

[Stingray]

There have been plenty of other issues with prosthetic limbs and other advances that people think may give people an unfair advantage.

Can't really compare that to this. Sure prosthetic limbs could maybe be an advantage in certain cases, but we don't have separate sports brackets for people without prosthetic limbs, and people with prosthetic limbs. So, what to do about those cases is a real quandary, and people will have to make decisions.

Meanwhile, we do have separate sports brackets for men and women, and the point of them is because women are at a biological disadvantage in just about every sport. So this is easy. Unless someone is a biological woman then they shouldn't be competing in the women's bracket. Everyone else should be in the men's bracket, whether they are a regular biological man, a biological man who decided to take estrogen, a biological woman who decided to take testosterone, or those people with the extremely rare chromosomal/hormonal issues that would give them some kind of advantage over a regular woman. All of them have unfair advantages. They could rename the "men's" bracket to the "open" bracket if it helps.

 

[fadedc]

Can't really compare that to this. Sure prosthetic limbs could maybe be an advantage in certain cases, but we don't have separate sports brackets for people without prosthetic limbs, and people with prosthetic limbs. So, what to do about those cases is a real quandary, and people will have to make decisions.

Meanwhile, we do have separate sports brackets for men and women, and the point of them is because women are at a biological disadvantage in just about every sport. So this is easy. Unless someone is a biological woman then they shouldn't be competing in the women's bracket. Everyone else should be in the men's bracket, whether they are a regular biological man, a biological man who decided to take estrogen, a biological woman who decided to take testosterone, or those people with the extremely rare chromosomal/hormonal issues that would give them some kind of advantage over a regular woman. All of them have unfair advantages. They could rename the "men's" bracket to the "open" bracket if it helps.

Yeah but it all boils down to the whole unfair advantage argument. I don't disagree with that. But I also don't see a fundamental difference between that and all the other things that can potentially give someone an unfair advantage in sports. It doesn't mean I think we should ignore it, but I think it should be a broader discussion. The whole prosthetic limb thing is only the tip of the iceberg compared to what's coming as technology advances and society changes.

Regarding women's division vs. open division, that seems to assume that the women's division is innately worse and that allowing any man to participate would give them too much of an advantage. I could see that being true for sports that rely on raw physical strength, but is that necessarily true for everything? What about women who get reassigned to men? Would they be allowed to compete in the open division?

 

[Stingray]

What about women who get reassigned to men? Would they be allowed to compete in the open division?

Yeah that's where they should be competing imo. I laid that out in my previous post. Although re-reading it, I guess I wasn't 100% clear.

 

[JDR13]

Right, it's still an issue because of that vocal minority, and the politicians (and other leaders) who are afraid to make them mad. Whether that equates to us not having it "figured out" is all dependent on how you want to use the words I guess. The vast majority of the country holds the sane view on the topic.

Let's not pretend to know what everyone else's opinion is.

That said, I agree that it should be clear to most people. When I said the "U.S." doesn't have it figured out yet, I was referring to governing bodies not the general population.

I'm normally on the moderate left but I am not even sure I've figured out my thoughts on the whole sports/gender thing. On one hand it seems like something that could be unfair, on the other hand sports are kind of arbitrary and as tech advances we are going to see more blurring of lines on every level. There have been plenty of other issues with prosthetic limbs and other advances that people think may give people an unfair advantage. I think the gender thing just gets so much attention because it's such a hot button culture war issue.

I think you're comparing apples and oranges by bringing up prosthetic limbs. That's really a very different topic.

Prosthetics are normally being used by people who are competing in a special classification. Paralympics, etc.

 

[fadedc]

Normally but not always.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSGBwUEcM6c

 

[JDR13]

Yeah, I remember Oscar Pistorius. There was some mild controversy there, but it's not like he was blowing away the competition. He made it to a semifinal heat where he finished last.

The bigger controversy came later when he shot and killed his wife(?) during some kind of domestic dispute.