They/Them She/Her He/Him - as you will

[Jarhyn]

Yes, observing that someone was born "male" by whatever standard you wish to use at the moment may be tantamount to pointing at them and proclaiming before all and sundry that they have pissy pants.

I'm sorry, but Alex Drummond and Laurel Hubbard and Lia Thomas and Rachel Mckinnon and Andrea Long Chu and Eddie Izzard are all male. They are OBSERVABLY male. Nobody needs to point anything out at all.

You are not asking that we be nice to the kid who peed their pants; you're insisting that nobody could even possibly be aware that they peed their pants, and that if we notice wetness on their pants, we should all assume that it's in our imagination and the pants are actually dry.

Honestly, that would in fact be the kindest outcome, to just forget it ever happened for their sake. Or to try. The next best thing we can do is stay silent except for to kick the shit out of anyone who does say anything to try to foment a mob.

So your body, specifically the gonads part, something which is a part of yourself... Is pumping out hormones... Into yourself...

I do not see how this could be a hard concept for a fifth grader let alone a grown ass man.

Your body also produces insulin. Unless you're already an insulin-dependent diabetic... taking exogenous insulin can kill you quite effectively.

Taking a large volume of hormones that a body is not evolved to produce can have very deleterious effects.

So, first of all, we have a wide variety of examples of humans with otherwise similar enough biology being exposed to exactly those chemicals in exactly those amounts, and living happy, productive lives.

Second, nobody is taking "large volumes" of hormones in a body not evolved to produce them. Human bodies evolved to produce them, specifically, and to adapt to them. You are committing a naturalistic fallacy and also ignoring the longstanding evidence of a whole generation of trans kids so as to put yourself over them and their wishes for their own bodies.

Quit pretending you forcing a puberty on a child who has clearly stated their intent is nothing less than denying them power of self determination.

It is entirely within our power to choose, so even just denying them access is making that choice for them.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Trans-boys being forced through female puberty tend to have worse issues, to be honest. They can become seriously injured by using inappropriate methods of chest-binding. Their rate of attempted suicide is considerably higher.

The rate of attempted suicide for transgender identified teenage females is approximately the same as for lesbian teenage females... which is also about the same rate as for teenage females that experience anorexia, bulimia, or cutting.

That's higher than the rate for teenage females who do not have mental health disorders... and the rate for females in general is higher than for teenage males of all sorts.

The number of detransitioners are also highly disproportionately female... nearly all those who ultimately understand that they are lesbians, not transmen. And one of the biggest expressed regrets is that they surgically removed healthy breast tissue and took cross-sex hormones that has left them either sterile, or with a dramatically reduced number of viable eggs.

Also worth noting that Sweden's Karolinska Institute - one of the most progressive institutions, and one of the first to strongly champion affirmative-only models of care for gender dysphoric children - has changed their policy during the last year, based on studies done on the outcomes of affirmatively treated children. They no longer recommend puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, but prefer a "watch and wait" model. This is due to the lack of improvement in mental health conditions paired with the deleterious impacts of both puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on the long-term health of those individuals.

The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend the "watchful waiting" model.

From the American Academy of Pediatrics| Policy Statement| October 01 2018

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents​

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents

As a traditionally underserved population that faces numerous health disparities, youth who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) and their families are increasingly presenting to pediatric providers for education, care, and referrals. The need for more formal training, standardized...

publications.aap.org

Acknowledging that the capacity for emerging abstract thinking in childhood is important to conceptualize and reflect on identity, gender-affirmation guidelines are being focused on individually tailored interventions on the basis of the physical and cognitive development of youth who identify as TGD.45 Accordingly, research substantiates that children who are prepubertal and assert an identity of TGD know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their developmentally equivalent peers who identify as cisgender and benefit from the same level of social acceptance.46 This developmental approach to gender affirmation is in contrast to the outdated approach in which a child’s gender-diverse assertions are held as “possibly true” until an arbitrary age (often after pubertal onset) when they can be considered valid, an approach that authors of the literature have termed “watchful waiting.” This outdated approach does not serve the child because critical support is withheld. Watchful waiting is based on binary notions of gender in which gender diversity and fluidity is pathologized; in watchful waiting, it is also assumed that notions of gender identity become fixed at a certain age. The approach is also influenced by a group of early studies with validity concerns, methodologic flaws, and limited follow-up on children who identified as TGD and, by adolescence, did not seek further treatment (“desisters”).45,47 More robust and current research suggests that, rather than focusing on who a child will become, valuing them for who they are, even at a young age, fosters secure attachment and resilience, not only for the child but also for the whole family.

Instead, they recommend embracing a non-binary model of gender precisely due to the criticisms that you have brought to this discussion. They believe that embracing a non-binary concept of gender tends to limit "detransitioning," which is the reason why we have been humoring the peculiar neo-pronouns. However, I am partly to blame for ones like the sie/hir pronouns: I used them a lot in my roleplaying life during my youth, and I may have contributed to them catching on by simply using them frequently and being a gifted writer. Anyhow, non-binary gender identities are useful for stymieing how often young people start medical procedures when they are not really emotionally ready, and this is why we humor the neopronouns, at least for the sake of helping children form secure family attachment and resilience. This is the pediatric community's official answer to your concern.

While "detransitioners" and "desisters" may exist, maintaining secure family attachments is more important, and allowing the use of non-binary gender identities can stymie the excessive reliance upon hormone replacement therapy in situations where it is not clearly necessary or appropriate.

*tilts her head playfully* And this is why you must call @Jarhyn a wizard, and you should also acknowledge that I am, indeed, a dragon.

 

[Jarhyn]

Trans-boys being forced through female puberty tend to have worse issues, to be honest. They can become seriously injured by using inappropriate methods of chest-binding. Their rate of attempted suicide is considerably higher.

The rate of attempted suicide for transgender identified teenage females is approximately the same as for lesbian teenage females... which is also about the same rate as for teenage females that experience anorexia, bulimia, or cutting.

That's higher than the rate for teenage females who do not have mental health disorders... and the rate for females in general is higher than for teenage males of all sorts.

The number of detransitioners are also highly disproportionately female... nearly all those who ultimately understand that they are lesbians, not transmen. And one of the biggest expressed regrets is that they surgically removed healthy breast tissue and took cross-sex hormones that has left them either sterile, or with a dramatically reduced number of viable eggs.

Also worth noting that Sweden's Karolinska Institute - one of the most progressive institutions, and one of the first to strongly champion affirmative-only models of care for gender dysphoric children - has changed their policy during the last year, based on studies done on the outcomes of affirmatively treated children. They no longer recommend puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, but prefer a "watch and wait" model. This is due to the lack of improvement in mental health conditions paired with the deleterious impacts of both puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on the long-term health of those individuals.

The American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend the "watchful waiting" model.

From the American Academy of Pediatrics| Policy Statement| October 01 2018

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents​

Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents

As a traditionally underserved population that faces numerous health disparities, youth who identify as transgender and gender diverse (TGD) and their families are increasingly presenting to pediatric providers for education, care, and referrals. The need for more formal training, standardized...

publications.aap.org

Acknowledging that the capacity for emerging abstract thinking in childhood is important to conceptualize and reflect on identity, gender-affirmation guidelines are being focused on individually tailored interventions on the basis of the physical and cognitive development of youth who identify as TGD.45 Accordingly, research substantiates that children who are prepubertal and assert an identity of TGD know their gender as clearly and as consistently as their developmentally equivalent peers who identify as cisgender and benefit from the same level of social acceptance.46 This developmental approach to gender affirmation is in contrast to the outdated approach in which a child’s gender-diverse assertions are held as “possibly true” until an arbitrary age (often after pubertal onset) when they can be considered valid, an approach that authors of the literature have termed “watchful waiting.” This outdated approach does not serve the child because critical support is withheld. Watchful waiting is based on binary notions of gender in which gender diversity and fluidity is pathologized; in watchful waiting, it is also assumed that notions of gender identity become fixed at a certain age. The approach is also influenced by a group of early studies with validity concerns, methodologic flaws, and limited follow-up on children who identified as TGD and, by adolescence, did not seek further treatment (“desisters”).45,47 More robust and current research suggests that, rather than focusing on who a child will become, valuing them for who they are, even at a young age, fosters secure attachment and resilience, not only for the child but also for the whole family.

Instead, they recommend embracing a non-binary model of gender precisely due to the criticisms that you have brought to this discussion. They believe that embracing a non-binary concept of gender tends to limit "detransitioning," which is the reason why we have been humoring the peculiar neo-pronouns. However, I am partly to blame for ones like the sie/hir pronouns: I used them a lot in my roleplaying life during my youth, and I may have contributed to them catching on by simply using them frequently and being a gifted writer. Anyhow, non-binary gender identities are useful for stymieing how often young people start medical procedures when they are not really emotionally ready, and this is why we humor the neopronouns, at least for the sake of helping children form secure family attachment and resilience. This is the pediatric community's official answer to your concern.

While "detransitioners" and "desisters" may exist, maintaining secure family attachments is more important, and allowing the use of non-binary gender identities can stymie the excessive reliance upon hormone replacement therapy in situations where it is not clearly necessary or appropriate.

*tilts her head playfully* And this is why you must call @Jarhyn a wizard, and you should also acknowledge that I am, indeed, a dragon.

Well, it is not that she must call me a wizard. I would never demand that. I would like it if she acknowledged what I am, but I will be it with or without her acknowledgement.

I would, admittedly, love to hear her set some goalposts, but I know Emily possibly has a twin sister in Lucy, though while Lucy tends to move the ball, Emily tends towards moving goalposts. We'll see, I guess.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

I actually dress in practical attire for my job, plus a little bit of silly costumery not related to my gender. Come to think of it, my place of work is relaxed enough that I wear a pair of dragon wings to work, and reactions are positive. I am really too lighthearted, most of the time, to really be insecure about what people think of me identifying as a woman in spite of appearances. I don't even get mad when people misgender me. I just politely correct them, and if they apologize, I assure them that it's no big deal, except it sounds odd to me.

And one of many ways that my life is kind of cool is that, for now, I can use a urinal. Urinals are actually kind of neat. I'll miss those when I eventually go under the knife.

That's wonderful, I'm glad you are in a position where you can be lighthearted and fun.

In light of the direction of this discussion... would it be reasonable to assume that neither you nor your co-workers actually believe that you are a for-realsies dragon when you put on pink wings? They understand that it's fund and it's an expression of your personality, but that you're still actually human and that the risk of you breathing fire in the office is non-existent?

I'm also quite curious, if you're willing, to get your take on the distinction between "identifying as a woman" and "being a woman". Do you view them as being perfectly synonymous, or do you think there's a distinction between them?

On the point of me being a dragon, it kind of started in the late 1990's. There were not as many options for young transgender women, and the only outlet for my gender identity was roleplay. Before starting hormone replacement therapy, I identified as essentially gender non-binary. For some reason, the HRT has been adequate to make the "female" gender identity feel appropriate. Anyhow, I avoided suicide by engaging in deep emotionally and mentally immersive roleplay, which allowed me to have a social life in which I did not feel so horribly wrong. It might just be a matter of sentimental value, but Sigma was the version of me that was willing to continue living. I do not expect anybody else to take it seriously, and I don't want them to. The emotional significance is lost on anybody besides myself and my dearest friends. It's like a tattoo that only has true significance to its bearer: you may admire its beauty, but do not pretend you can understand it.

As far as my identity, I am a transgender woman. I am open about this. I have no interest whatsoever in "going stealth." From that information, you can infer easily enough that I was assigned male at birth. I do not care if you know. If I wanted to extend more of an effort, then I could fool you into believing that I had been born as a woman, but I have no interest in doing so.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Emily Lake, I am going to give you what I hope is a helpful parallel, here, but I don't want to be misunderstood. I would not be very happy if you pretended to fully understand what it's like to be transgender, since you really can't. Likewise, I will not pretend to understand fully the issues of cis-women. I am not endeavoring to make you believe I understand something that it's impossible for me to really understand, but I think that I can understand it just enough for the sake of creating an extremely rough juxtaposition.

Imagine a woman who got knocked-up by her boyfriend, but instead of staying around to help raise his child, the motherfucker just applied for a job out-of-state and moved a thousand miles away in order to avoid the issue. Imagine if, instead of feeling sorry for herself, she were to just embrace the idea of being a single mother, and she realized it was, while not always easy, not a terrible thing. Imagine that she raised her child on television shows where a child was being raised by single parents, such as Hilda, and she encouraged that child to believe that single-parent families were a valid type of family. She might never really forgive that child's father for being a deadbeat, but she can give her child a fair chance at living a fulfilling life and at developing a positive self-concept.

However, imagine that a fundamentalist Christian were to try to teach that child that their mother is sinful for her adultery, and that fundamentalist Christian were to lament how their mother had done them a grave injustice by depriving them of a father. Imagine that that child were to believe the fundamentalist Christian, and that child became unhappy and depressed.

Now, imagine you had another friend that was trying to raise a child that might or might not be transgender, and your other friend were trying to maintain the trust of their child by giving them a sense of affirmation and support, rather than trying to correct them when they did not really have to. That parent reinforces their case by seeking out the opinion of a licensed pediatrician, and that child's pediatrician has confirmed that this were the best way to make sure that that child grows up with secure attachment.

However, imagine that an alt-right asshole were start telling that child that there is really no such thing as gender non-binary or transgender people, and that child were to be told they are somehow broken for being what they are. And imagine that alt-right asshole were to tell them their parents are liars for saying they accept them for what they are. Imagine that child growing unhappy after that conversation.

Sure, those situations might not be exactly the same, but they are not fundamentally different. They are both situations where a child has been born with something noticeably different about them, and their parents are trying their best to make them feel happy with themselves. It is not really helpful when other people attempt to shame them for being different, and really, it's unnecessarily destructive.

I am a transgender adult. Yeah, you might be able to offend me in regard to my gender, but as much as I wish that people wouldn't, I am not really at risk of hurting myself because of this matter. A child, on the other hand, actually is. Therefore, my stance on transgender issues is really focused mostly on how people choose to behave toward children and young adults. As an adult, I might feel that it is respectful for you to affirm my gender, but I also mature enough to recognize that your respect has to be earned. The way I understand the world, you stop getting free stuff, besides a little bit of help with your higher education, the day that you have a right to vote, except if you have a very serious disability that effectively makes you as helpless as a child. To me, this discussion is really about the health of kids. It is a child's unique prerogative to be fragile, and if you are not going to help protect them, then you should consider giving them the right to vote.

I really disapprove of transgender adults that are thin-skinned and paranoid in how they deal with the issue of gender-affirmation. I don't think that works. I think that they can come across as bullies, and I think that it's partly because of their behavior that some people have grown to be resentful toward attempts to protect transgender people's health. We ought to learn how to see the respect we want as something we should try to earn. It is really hard to respect an adult that is thin-skinned.

If you shared a place of work with me and I wanted to use the women's restroom, assuming the restrooms were divided based on gender, I feel that I would be obligated to take special pains to make you feel comfortable with me, at an individual level. It would be up to me to earn your individual trust and to make you feel comfortable. I feel it would be up to me to make sure that I did not look out-of-place in that space. This is a matter of earned mutual respect and trust.

We do have to make special concessions to make sure that gender expansive kids feel as comfortable as we can make them. They are an especially vulnerable risk group. It is not unreasonable to make an extra effort to make their lives as manageable as possible. However, the right agencies to make those kinds of decisions need to be pediatric and teachers' associations. A layperson does not have the intimate knowledge of these conditions to make authoritative decisions. It is not the layperson's business to know how it's done. It's the layperson's business to know that authority has been invested in appropriate professional organizations that they trust.

I see my views on this as moderate, realistic, and fair.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, it is not that she must call me a wizard. I would never demand that. I would like it if she acknowledged what I am, but I will be it with or without her acknowledgement.

I acknowledge that you are a human male who does not possess magic powers of any sort whatsoever, but who really likes to dress up in a cloak and wander around with a staff.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, it is not that she must call me a wizard. I would never demand that. I would like it if she acknowledged what I am, but I will be it with or without her acknowledgement.

I acknowledge that you are a human male who does not possess magic powers of any sort whatsoever, but who really likes to dress up in a cloak and wander around with a staff.

I reiterate, you have never once given me a standard or goalpost to knock the ball over...

While I do not have faith that you are not Lucy's twin, waiting instead to pull the goalposts rather than the ball, you are the one who needs to set the standards for belief, and in a way that is not "ha, you can't by definition do something that is definitionally impossible therefore you cannot be what you are."

Until you do that, you are just in petulant denial of what may exist, an ostrich burying her head in the proverbial sand.

 

[Emily Lake]

We do have to make special concessions to make sure that gender expansive kids feel as comfortable as we can make them. They are an especially vulnerable risk group. It is not unreasonable to make an extra effort to make their lives as manageable as possible. However, the right agencies to make those kinds of decisions need to be pediatric and teachers' associations. A layperson does not have the intimate knowledge of these conditions to make authoritative decisions. It is not the layperson's business to know how it's done. It's the layperson's business to know that authority has been invested in appropriate professional organizations that they trust.

I'm all for being gender expansive. Partly, that's because I view the concept of gender as deleterious in and of itself - it's confining, regressive, and harmful to expect conformity to social roles and behaviors. In my view, a little boy who likes tutus and butterfly wings should have every right to dress in frills and skip around town as any girl would. A little girl who loves climbing trees and playing cops and robbers should have every right to be rambunctious, loud, aggressive, and dominant as any boy would. Any person should be able to dress, comport, and express themselves as they feel comfortable, without judgement. For me, this is a very deeply held principle that I've had ever since I was that little girl climbing trees, making my own bow and arrow, and starting fires at the park while pretending to be an indian brave. I was, and absolutely continue to be, gender non-conforming.

My concern is that such non-conformity is no longer empowering and freeing... it is now being pathologized. That same rejection of gender roles and stereotypes that was freedom for me now risks children being given cross-sex hormones and surgeries in order to fit them into a different gender basket. Instead of tearing down the cages, we just stick them in one of the other color. And it worries me.

Part of that worry is very personal. I have a then-nephew-now niece who is, to be a bit callous "genuine transgender". Even as a child, they were fairly feminine, and had expressed that they wanted to grow up to be a woman many times. She has now transitioned, and she's much happier, and is living a good life with her partner. She waited until she was 21 before she began transitioning, even though that meant that she went through a male puberty with all that entails for her physique and voice. Her younger sibling is 16... and has never expressed any kind of dysphoria or discomfort with her body. My younger niece (and I *will* say niece here) has very recently started identifying as "trans" along with five of her close female friends. The odds of that are astronomical. She has developed back problems and shortness of breath from constantly wearing a binder over her very large breasts. She has a history of depression and anxiety, and is highly likely to be bipolar, as is her mother (my sister).

My younger niece started testosterone a few months ago... after a single one-hour session with a counselor. They did not discuss her anxiety and depression at all, they did not discuss her lack of dysphoria. Essentially, she said "I'm trans I want testosterone" and the doctor said "oh you're so brave, here you go".

I think my older niece would have been a good candidate to have cross-sex hormones during puberty. I would have supported her in that. But I deeply, sincerely, do NOT think that my younger niece is a good candidate for it at all, and I think her identification as transgender is a coping mechanism for other problems. And I am genuinely worried that she is going to be permanently and irreversibly damaged as a result of this affirmation model of care.

Despite how @Jarhyn tends to characterize me, I'm NOT AT ALL opposed to transgender people, nor am I opposed to making accommodations for transgender people. I do think that there's an ideological aspect involved in this topic though, and I dearly wish it weren't there so we could simply talk about policies and reasonable accommodations as rational adults. I don't think it's unreasonable to take a position that male prisoners with penises should not be placed in the female prison. I'd be happy to set aside a separate wing for transgender penis-havers... and I'm happy to allow post-surgical transwomen to be placed in the female prison. It seems like a very rational solution to me. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect non-medicalized teenaged transgender students to compete against their own biological sex. I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that male bodies have a definite athletic advantage and that including them in female sports reduces the fairness and equality of those women. I think there are lots of ways that we can be accommodating and rational all at the same time... but the discussions so often end up firewalled to a "no debate" rhetoric that it's very frustrating.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, it is not that she must call me a wizard. I would never demand that. I would like it if she acknowledged what I am, but I will be it with or without her acknowledgement.

I acknowledge that you are a human male who does not possess magic powers of any sort whatsoever, but who really likes to dress up in a cloak and wander around with a staff.

I reiterate, you have never once given me a standard or goalpost to knock the ball over...

While I do not have faith that you are not Lucy's twin, waiting instead to pull the goalposts rather than the ball, you are the one who needs to set the standards for belief, and in a way that is not "ha, you can't by definition do something that is definitionally impossible therefore you cannot be what you are."

Until you do that, you are just in petulant denial of what may exist, an ostrich burying her head in the proverbial sand.

You're not a goddamned wizard! You like to think of yourself as one, but you aren't! Magic is not real, you don't fucking practice it!

I absolutely refuse to kowtow to your religious beliefs. You can believe them all you want, but you have absolutely no right to force those beliefs on me or anyone else at all. You can "identify" as the second messiah for all I give a fuck... it will not actually make you the son of a nonexistent fucking god!

But hey, if you want to play that game, I fucking identify as Shiva and I have blue skin and four arms. You can't see them though, because they're invisible to mere mortals like you... but I insist that you recognize me as a literal fucking god and bow before me from this day forth. And if you fail to do so, then you're a fucking bigot who I will use my power to utterly destroy and I shall haunt your days from now to eternity!

 

[Trausti]

My younger niece started testosterone a few months ago... after a single one-hour session with a counselor. They did not discuss her anxiety and depression at all, they did not discuss her lack of dysphoria. Essentially, she said "I'm trans I want testosterone" and the doctor said "oh you're so brave, here you go".

I think my older niece would have been a good candidate to have cross-sex hormones during puberty. I would have supported her in that. But I deeply, sincerely, do NOT think that my younger niece is a good candidate for it at all, and I think her identification as transgender is a coping mechanism for other problems. And I am genuinely worried that she is going to be permanently and irreversibly damaged as a result of this affirmation model of care.

This really gets me. It's totally normal to feel weird and awkward in your teens and early 20's. I think all of us did something. But for all the earlier generations, we didn't do any permanent damage to our bodies to be "different." We were able to grow out of it. Young people ought to be told this. This push to put young people on hormones and surgeries is ghastly.

If these young punks lived today they'd be all about their pronouns and gender fluidity instead of their dress.

 

[Jarhyn]

The funniest part is that even people on busses, the train, just out on the street recognize me for what I am.

Oftentimes they recognize it with derision and disbelief, but recognition all the same.

I see, @emily,

Well, it is not that she must call me a wizard. I would never demand that. I would like it if she acknowledged what I am, but I will be it with or without her acknowledgement.

I acknowledge that you are a human male who does not possess magic powers of any sort whatsoever, but who really likes to dress up in a cloak and wander around with a staff.

I reiterate, you have never once given me a standard or goalpost to knock the ball over...

While I do not have faith that you are not Lucy's twin, waiting instead to pull the goalposts rather than the ball, you are the one who needs to set the standards for belief, and in a way that is not "ha, you can't by definition do something that is definitionally impossible therefore you cannot be what you are."

Until you do that, you are just in petulant denial of what may exist, an ostrich burying her head in the proverbial sand.

You're not a goddamned wizard! You like to think of yourself as one, but you aren't! Magic is not real, you don't fucking practice it!

I absolutely refuse to kowtow to your religious beliefs. You can believe them all you want, but you have absolutely no right to force those beliefs on me or anyone else at all. You can "identify" as the second messiah for all I give a fuck... it will not actually make you the son of a nonexistent fucking god!

But hey, if you want to play that game, I fucking identify as Shiva and I have blue skin and four arms. You can't see them though, because they're invisible to mere mortals like you... but I insist that you recognize me as a literal fucking god and bow before me from this day forth. And if you fail to do so, then you're a fucking bigot who I will use my power to utterly destroy and I shall haunt your days from now to eternity!

View attachment 36586

And yet here I am successfully casting "a magic spell either to break Emily's irrational disbelief, or at least generate a large amount of amusement"

I'm only getting the byproduct of a primary fizzle, but I'm rolling with it.

You have again defined "magic" out of existence.

You have not set a goalpost.

I can easily say "by what principle of physics are your arms hidden? By what property of atomic composition and particle emission is "blue" descriptive of your skin?

You have not once told me what it is you think that I cannot do!

I can further ACCEPT that you are identity Shiva (if you really wish to demand this), to which: please beware that I will kill you by any means that an organic being may be destroyed, and to henceforth obliterate any future avatar you possess as well, or failing the ability to do so imprison your avatar in place where it will be difficult for you to cause further harm, should I ever meet you and should you refuse to yield all earthly power and submit yourself to judgement by a jury of humans of all tribes for your crimes against existence.

I offer similar to "kings" and "emperors".

I just handed a coworker a magical spell to avoid jury duty, formed of an utterance of two words.

Late edit: and still, it does indeed confuse me as to why @Emily Lake felt the need to resurrect this whole shit show of a thread, specifically just to address why she thinks I'm not a wizard, all of a sudden.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the lulz are worth it. I admit, I do enjoy being a wizard for a variety of reasons, but among them is "to fuck with people who take their beliefs too seriously". But that's more a bonus skill I didn't know I would be picking up.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

We do have to make special concessions to make sure that gender expansive kids feel as comfortable as we can make them. They are an especially vulnerable risk group. It is not unreasonable to make an extra effort to make their lives as manageable as possible. However, the right agencies to make those kinds of decisions need to be pediatric and teachers' associations. A layperson does not have the intimate knowledge of these conditions to make authoritative decisions. It is not the layperson's business to know how it's done. It's the layperson's business to know that authority has been invested in appropriate professional organizations that they trust.

I'm all for being gender expansive. Partly, that's because I view the concept of gender as deleterious in and of itself - it's confining, regressive, and harmful to expect conformity to social roles and behaviors. In my view, a little boy who likes tutus and butterfly wings should have every right to dress in frills and skip around town as any girl would. A little girl who loves climbing trees and playing cops and robbers should have every right to be rambunctious, loud, aggressive, and dominant as any boy would. Any person should be able to dress, comport, and express themselves as they feel comfortable, without judgement. For me, this is a very deeply held principle that I've had ever since I was that little girl climbing trees, making my own bow and arrow, and starting fires at the park while pretending to be an indian brave. I was, and absolutely continue to be, gender non-conforming.

My concern is that such non-conformity is no longer empowering and freeing... it is now being pathologized. That same rejection of gender roles and stereotypes that was freedom for me now risks children being given cross-sex hormones and surgeries in order to fit them into a different gender basket. Instead of tearing down the cages, we just stick them in one of the other color. And it worries me.

Part of that worry is very personal. I have a then-nephew-now niece who is, to be a bit callous "genuine transgender". Even as a child, they were fairly feminine, and had expressed that they wanted to grow up to be a woman many times. She has now transitioned, and she's much happier, and is living a good life with her partner. She waited until she was 21 before she began transitioning, even though that meant that she went through a male puberty with all that entails for her physique and voice. Her younger sibling is 16... and has never expressed any kind of dysphoria or discomfort with her body. My younger niece (and I *will* say niece here) has very recently started identifying as "trans" along with five of her close female friends. The odds of that are astronomical. She has developed back problems and shortness of breath from constantly wearing a binder over her very large breasts. She has a history of depression and anxiety, and is highly likely to be bipolar, as is her mother (my sister).

My younger niece started testosterone a few months ago... after a single one-hour session with a counselor. They did not discuss her anxiety and depression at all, they did not discuss her lack of dysphoria. Essentially, she said "I'm trans I want testosterone" and the doctor said "oh you're so brave, here you go".

I think my older niece would have been a good candidate to have cross-sex hormones during puberty. I would have supported her in that. But I deeply, sincerely, do NOT think that my younger niece is a good candidate for it at all, and I think her identification as transgender is a coping mechanism for other problems. And I am genuinely worried that she is going to be permanently and irreversibly damaged as a result of this affirmation model of care.

Despite how @Jarhyn tends to characterize me, I'm NOT AT ALL opposed to transgender people, nor am I opposed to making accommodations for transgender people. I do think that there's an ideological aspect involved in this topic though, and I dearly wish it weren't there so we could simply talk about policies and reasonable accommodations as rational adults. I don't think it's unreasonable to take a position that male prisoners with penises should not be placed in the female prison. I'd be happy to set aside a separate wing for transgender penis-havers... and I'm happy to allow post-surgical transwomen to be placed in the female prison. It seems like a very rational solution to me. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect non-medicalized teenaged transgender students to compete against their own biological sex. I don't think it's unreasonable to acknowledge that male bodies have a definite athletic advantage and that including them in female sports reduces the fairness and equality of those women. I think there are lots of ways that we can be accommodating and rational all at the same time... but the discussions so often end up firewalled to a "no debate" rhetoric that it's very frustrating.

I honestly have trouble finding your positions to be particularly problematic. No two people are quite a mirror for each other, but I have read, scanned, and picked through this post that I am replying to. I have difficulty conceiving of an argument that your positions are particularly alarming to me.

As far as your quarrel with @Jarhyn, I am not sure what to tell you. I have two other friends that I cannot allow into the same space with each other. They fight like cats. If I put them in the same place and take my eyes off of them for more than a few hours, I will find that the entire discussion has been dedicated to them flaming each other, and I am not sure exactly what to do about it. Their positions on the essentials are not all that different, in my opinion.

I have told you, I am not a prison administrator. I admire the sorts of people that are brave enough to enter that occupation. It is not a job for a hardhearted person. They need to be especially compassionate to do well in their positions. I would not exchange positions with them, and I am not sure how prepared I am to dispense advice to them on how their jobs ought to be done.

I do not care about sports. I am very sorry to any transgender people that care a lot about sports, but I do not.

Insofar as your sibling get with the psychiatric issues, I think that we need to go a little bit farther at destigmatizing therapy. As long as people think feel they are being attacked, somehow, when someone tells them that they might be candidates for therapy, the people that need it the most will continue to suffer without it. Too many people are saying "get help" as a personal attack. In many instances, it replaces, "you are an idiot," but it is also substantially more destructive to say. It is very harmful when advice that really could help many people, assuming they would follow it, is used as words of abuse against them. The way that I think of it, someone that is prone to bipolar disorder is like a high performance automobile that is more prone to breaking down, needs gentler care, and requires a higher fuel grade, not because there is anything inherently wrong with it but because its own power can overheat it. Particularly gifted and special individuals need more attention and care, not less.

Anyhow, good luck to both of your sibling get that you have discussed here.

 

[blastula]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

Right...so, what, exactly?

If you are saying "the State should not discriminate against people by sex" I entirely agree and it's the #1 reason the State ought never have restricted the benefits of marriage to people who chose opposite-sex partners.

I am saying it's another demand to be called something others don't agree with, which is in response to what you said.

But you know what gay men never demanded of straight people? We never demanded that you look at us and call us 'straight'.

 

[blastula]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

That does not seem to be how that debate went.

Some gay people demanded that they be allowed to marry. They did not demand that their relationships - that is, the ones that they had before gay marriage was allowed - be called 'marriage'. Well, perhaps some gay people did so, but that was not the main claim as I recall it.

You recall wrong. It was all about the definition of marriage and whether it only applied to opposite sex couples.

Some other people replied that the concept of 'marriage' in English (and the same for other languages) was such that a same-sex relationship could not be a marriage, even if laws called it so. What can I say? It seems to me that:

1. Gay relationships before gay marriage were allowed in the US were in fact not marriages, in the usual sense of the words in English. But if I'm mistaken and there was one common usage under which they were, then that would not make the statements of people who say that they were not marriages mistaken. Maybe the people saying they were marriages and the people saying they were just speaking past each other.

2. Gay relationships after gay marriages were allowed in the US (or in some of the states at first) were/are marriages in the usual sense of the words in English, provided that they actually get married in a legal fashion. That seems to be how the term 'marriage' behaves in English, at least in one of its common usages. I do not know whether there is a sense of 'marriage' common enough under which same-sex marriages are not marriages. If there is one and many conservatives usually use 'marriage' in that fashion, then those conservatives and the people who disagree with them are speaking past each other on the matter.

But the above does not affect any of the points I've been making with regards to the terms 'man', 'woman', etc., and regarding accusations of misgendering.

It does apply to anyone who says there is no analogy to gay marriage. But I have no idea if that includes you because I can make no sense of what you're trying to say about gay marriage history.

 

[Jarhyn]

Gays have demanded (rightfully) that their committed relationships be considered marriages, contrary to a lot of people saying they're not real marriages by definition.

That does not seem to be how that debate went.

Some gay people demanded that they be allowed to marry. They did not demand that their relationships - that is, the ones that they had before gay marriage was allowed - be called 'marriage'. Well, perhaps some gay people did so, but that was not the main claim as I recall it.

You recall wrong. It was all about the definition of marriage and whether it only applied to opposite sex couples.

Some other people replied that the concept of 'marriage' in English (and the same for other languages) was such that a same-sex relationship could not be a marriage, even if laws called it so. What can I say? It seems to me that:

1. Gay relationships before gay marriage were allowed in the US were in fact not marriages, in the usual sense of the words in English. But if I'm mistaken and there was one common usage under which they were, then that would not make the statements of people who say that they were not marriages mistaken. Maybe the people saying they were marriages and the people saying they were just speaking past each other.

2. Gay relationships after gay marriages were allowed in the US (or in some of the states at first) were/are marriages in the usual sense of the words in English, provided that they actually get married in a legal fashion. That seems to be how the term 'marriage' behaves in English, at least in one of its common usages. I do not know whether there is a sense of 'marriage' common enough under which same-sex marriages are not marriages. If there is one and many conservatives usually use 'marriage' in that fashion, then those conservatives and the people who disagree with them are speaking past each other on the matter.

But the above does not affect any of the points I've been making with regards to the terms 'man', 'woman', etc., and regarding accusations of misgendering.

It does apply to anyone who says there is no analogy to gay marriage. But I have no idea if that includes you because I can make no sense of what you're trying to say about gay marriage history.

They're seemingly making a linguistic/legalism argument that before gay marriage was legalized that gay people could not possibly "be married", that legal recognition made it a "marriage" even though when my husband asks me "when we got married", as a minor test, it is not the day we stood in a courthouse that he means, even if it didn't happen as a function of religion...

Really, the fact of marriage did not change, merely the legal recognition.

 

[blastula]

I don't know if he's talking about whether it was supposed to be retroactive or what, but the issue was whether same sex relationships would be legally recognized as marriages. Even after it was made legal, there were still many who didn't and don't want to go along (see Kim Davis, et al).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You recall wrong. It was all about the definition of marriage and whether it only applied to opposite sex couples.

No, I do not recall wrong. Rather, you do not understand what I am saying.

Some other people replied that the concept of 'marriage' in English (and the same for other languages) was such that a same-sex relationship could not be a marriage, even if laws called it so. What can I say? It seems to me that:

1. Gay relationships before gay marriage were allowed in the US were in fact not marriages, in the usual sense of the words in English. But if I'm mistaken and there was one common usage under which they were, then that would not make the statements of people who say that they were not marriages mistaken. Maybe the people saying they were marriages and the people saying they were just speaking past each other.

2. Gay relationships after gay marriages were allowed in the US (or in some of the states at first) were/are marriages in the usual sense of the words in English, provided that they actually get married in a legal fashion. That seems to be how the term 'marriage' behaves in English, at least in one of its common usages. I do not know whether there is a sense of 'marriage' common enough under which same-sex marriages are not marriages. If there is one and many conservatives usually use 'marriage' in that fashion, then those conservatives and the people who disagree with them are speaking past each other on the matter.

But the above does not affect any of the points I've been making with regards to the terms 'man', 'woman', etc., and regarding accusations of misgendering.

It does apply to anyone who says there is no analogy to gay marriage. But I have no idea if that includes you because I can make no sense of what you're trying to say about gay marriage history.

Yes, you do not understand what I am saying. That much is clear, but I'm not sure how to make the points more clear to you.

Still, let me explain my position on the so-called "misgendering" - at least some key points of the part I have argued for in this thread -, and compare that to the gay marriage case, so that you can see the differences and the similarities:

1. Claims of 'misgendering' are generally false. Why? Because they imply that the claims involved are false. However, in NW-English, the language spoken by a substantial portion of native English speakers (let's add: in the US, just to make it easier), trans men are not men, and trans women are not women. These language is spoken at least by most conservatives and many feminists, which together make up a large enough portion of speakers to be consider a common language (and I would say of course by the vast majority of English speakers, but I haven't argued for that and do not need that for my points). So, people who say 'trans men are not men' and 'trans women are not women' are usually making true claims. Now this is so even if one assumes for the sake of the argument that people who sincerely claim 'trans men are men' and 'trans women are women' are also making true claims. If they are both making true claims, they are speaking in different dialects, and talking past each other. Now, the latter usage is an assumption for the sake of the argument because Woke usage of the words appears to be incoherent, but I have not argued for that here.

2. Claims that two men or two women cannot be married are probably false in English, at least on the basis of the usage I observe. Still, I am not certain of the previous assessment. It might be that a substantial portion of native English speakers in the US do use the words in a manner in which some claims are true. If this is so, well then it is. But I am pretty sure a substantial portion of native English speakers use the word 'marriage' in a sense in which the aforementioned claims are true. So, are same-sex marriages marriges? Yes, in the sense I use the words, which is a common enough sense in English, and regardless of whether there is another sense that is common enough to be regular usage.

I don't know if he's talking about whether it was supposed to be retroactive or what, but the issue was whether same sex relationships would be legally recognized as marriages. Even after it was made legal, there were still many who didn't and don't want to go along (see Kim Davis, et al).

Actually, that is a very different issue. Some same-sex relationships - those that meet some legal requirements - are in fact recognized legally as marriages. That is a different matter from the matter of whether, when some people say 'gay marriages are not marriages', they are making a true or a false claim, in English. In order for the claim to be true, there needs to be a common usage of the term 'marriage' in English in which those are indeed not marriages, even if there is another usage - there clearly is - in which they are.

 

[Emily Lake]

The funniest part is that even people on busses, the train, just out on the street recognize me for what I am.

Oftentimes they recognize it with derision and disbelief, but recognition all the same.

They recognize that you play dress up as a wizard.

Trust me, no sane person actually thinks that you are a really real for realsies wizard.

 

[Jarhyn]

The funniest part is that even people on busses, the train, just out on the street recognize me for what I am.

Oftentimes they recognize it with derision and disbelief, but recognition all the same.

They recognize that you play dress up as a wizard.

Trust me, no sane person actually thinks that you are a really real for realsies wizard.

I must work with several very insane people then, and know a fair number of very insane people, and then you are calling by this measure several people on this forum "insane" as well.

You have not given goalposts, so all you have done is insult. I asked you several times for goalposts and definitions, and you offered none. You just offered "you are ridiculous". It is an insult when offered without a goalpost, a standard, beyond your mere derision.