Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 4:58 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 9th, 2024, 6:07 pmWhat are these magical exclusive woman's spaces, and how do they differ from the reasonable exclusions that I mentioned above, professional sport and DV services, and to keep penis-owners out of women's prisons?

It's only a tiny minority of women who occupy those spaces, and transpeople are only a tiny minority themselves, so let's remember that this issue is a molehill being treated as a mountain. It's pretty clear that we are being cynically and cunningly distracted from a program of mass immigration and quantitative easing (ie. redistribution to the wealthy) as governments make their societies much worse for the average person in order to bolster their power, improving superficial economic data and to providing extra business for their quasi-oligarch allies.

This issue is more about distraction than anything important to society.

You're just diminishing their concerns because it's something you don't care about.

Don't forget that J.K. Rowling first got embroiled into this issue speaking out in defence of Maya Forstater who got fired from her job for making "transphobic tweets" (what were essentially biological facts). There are numerous other famous examples of people losing their jobs and livelihoods for similar reasons and probably many more that we don't know about because it's the unknowns who are most in danger of being "cancelled". Most people just keep silent and don't speak out because they want an easy life.

So, yes, maybe this isn't the most important problem affecting society today but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or that this is a frivolous distraction from the "real" issues.

I agree with Sy Borg, because separating individuals into 'tribes' of this or that is a way of ruling over the society. This because certain of these spurious 'tribes' can be demonised at the convenience of the more powerful eg the ruler.

Examples of spurious 'tribes' that have been demonised to advantage those in power:

Uyghurs Negros Women Jews Homosexuals Rohingya Irish the Poor the Mad
'Lepers' Hispanics Immigrants Biblical polytheists. The list goes on and on.
How to identify a spurious 'tribe' is to compare it with universalist values, so what you say may be for example "Before these are lepers, thieves, Irish, Jews , Palestinians, or whatever they are all simply people."

Quite timely for this discussion is the publication of the Cass Review which is an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people in England.

Particularly pertinent to this thread was this key finding:

There is no simple explanation for the increase in the numbers of predominantly young people and young adults who have a trans or gender diverse identity, but there is broad agreement that it is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors. This balance of factors will be different in each individual.

Suggesting that there is no clear answer to my opening question in this thread, and no broad consensus.

Other interesting points:

• While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.
• The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
• For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 6:19 am Quite timely for this discussion is the publication of the Cass Review which is an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people in England.

Particularly pertinent to this thread was this key finding:

There is no simple explanation for the increase in the numbers of predominantly young people and young adults who have a trans or gender diverse identity, but there is broad agreement that it is a result of a complex interplay between biological, psychological and social factors. This balance of factors will be different in each individual.

Suggesting that there is no clear answer to my opening question in this thread, and no broad consensus.

Other interesting points:

• While a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.
• The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.
• For most young people, a medical pathway will not be the best way to manage their gender-related distress. For those young people for whom a medical pathway is clinically indicated, it is not enough to provide this without also addressing wider mental health and/or psychosocially challenging problems.

Thanks for posting that, Fried Egg. I have downloaded the report and read the summary and recommendations. I will read it in full tonight. What I have read has broadened my understanding. It would be hard to disagree with any of the report's recommendations. When dealing with kids with GD, extreme caution is warranted given the lack of good quality evidence about the effects of medical interventions such as the puberty suppression.

I guess the best a loving parent can do is seek counselling and, where appropriate, accept that their child's GD is real and support their child in the gender the child feels most comfortable with. Perhaps in the future when a greater understanding of the causes and best treatments for GD is attained, things will become clearer and parents and people with GD will be able to make better informed decisions about medical treatments. In the meantime, our societies could make efforts to make it easier for trans people through education of the public, protecting them from violence and by, for example, providing more gender neutral bathrooms.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 4:58 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 9th, 2024, 6:07 pmWhat are these magical exclusive woman's spaces, and how do they differ from the reasonable exclusions that I mentioned above, professional sport and DV services, and to keep penis-owners out of women's prisons?

It's only a tiny minority of women who occupy those spaces, and transpeople are only a tiny minority themselves, so let's remember that this issue is a molehill being treated as a mountain. It's pretty clear that we are being cynically and cunningly distracted from a program of mass immigration and quantitative easing (ie. redistribution to the wealthy) as governments make their societies much worse for the average person in order to bolster their power, improving superficial economic data and to providing extra business for their quasi-oligarch allies.

This issue is more about distraction than anything important to society.

You're just diminishing their concerns because it's something you don't care about.

Don't forget that J.K. Rowling first got embroiled into this issue speaking out in defence of Maya Forstater who got fired from her job for making "transphobic tweets" (what were essentially biological facts). There are numerous other famous examples of people losing their jobs and livelihoods for similar reasons and probably many more that we don't know about because it's the unknowns who are most in danger of being "cancelled". Most people just keep silent and don't speak out because they want an easy life.

So, yes, maybe this isn't the most important problem affecting society today but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter or that this is a frivolous distraction from the "real" issues.

The whole trans drama is indeed a frivolous distraction from real issues. The ruining of careers and reputation for what are considered to be social faux pas is a much more serious issue than some small proportion of tortured individuals trying to make viable lives for themselves. If trans are excluded from sports and female support groups who don't want them, and penis-owners are not permitted in women's prisons, then I don't see any issue.

I have just read that the Pope has recently attacked gender transitioning in a similar way to JK Rowling and Consul. He argues that it blurs the difference between men and women., as well as getting rid of a person's uniqueness. Strangely, the Pope seems to be in support of gay issues. It shows how ideas change, and he is holding on to the Catholic opposition to abortion.

I am aware that there is already a Vatican document about against gender transitions, although I was not aware of it until fairly recently. Previously, I had thought that Catholicism would support trans people although, growing up as a Catholic, I came across such mixed ideas on the issue and it's not as if there is not a closet of gay priests and, priests wear frocks. Also, within religious history there is the tradition of eunuchs, which is connected to retaining a high singing voice, but it is also a form of surgery towards androgyny.

Popey is right, it does blur the lines. Humans are in the process of "norming" in multiple areas, and not just mentally.

Wealth is averaging out, as the west bleeds its riches out, seemingly deliberately. Races are averaging out. "Whites" will disappear and, once Nigeria is finished with its population explosion, so "blacks" will also go away as humanity averages out to tan.

Genders are doing the same, with humans becoming less sexually dimorphic because machines do much of the heavy work once performed by males. Some people think it's the end of the world but it's just evolution.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 11:37 am I have just read that the Pope has recently attacked gender transitioning in a similar way to JK Rowling and Consul.

My argumentation has nothing to do with the Pope's theological argumentation; and I've never attacked "gender transitioning" (feminizing/masculinizing body modifications) in general, or denounced it as morally wrong in principle.

See: viewtopic.php?p=459712#p459712

By the way, news from gender medicine:

* https: //www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/10/gender-medicine-built-on-shaky-foundations-cass-review-finds

* https: //www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/10/what-are-the-key-findings-of-the-nhs-gender-identity-review

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 3:24 pmGenders are doing the same, with humans becoming less sexually dimorphic because machines do much of the heavy work once performed by males. Some people think it's the end of the world but it's just evolution.

I'm sorry, but I think this is utter nonsense. Is there any evidence to support this notion whatsoever?

I agree that traditional gender roles have been undermined by modern technological and sociological developments but that is most definitely not the same as becoming less sexually dimorphic. It is this conflation of gender roles with sex that is what's led to so much confusion on this subject. It may well be that humanity does evolve differently in the future but evolution operates over much larger time scales.

It is interesting to note that in Iran it is quite opposite to many western societies in that it is extremely accepting and supportive of transgender individuals but is extremely hostile and unaccepting of homosexuality. Indeed, some would say that that is why so many people transition in Iran - the only safe way to be able to pursue one's sexuality (if you are gay).

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 5:12 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 3:24 pmGenders are doing the same, with humans becoming less sexually dimorphic because machines do much of the heavy work once performed by males. Some people think it's the end of the world but it's just evolution.

I'm sorry, but I think this is utter nonsense. Is there any evidence to support this notion whatsoever?

I agree that traditional gender roles have been undermined by modern technological and sociological developments but that is most definitely not the same as becoming less sexually dimorphic. It is this conflation of gender roles with sex that is what's led to so much confusion on this subject. It may well be that humanity does evolve differently in the future but evolution operates over much larger time scales.

Fair complaint. I have no evidence. While the notion is speculative, it makes sense to me, based on reduced heavy physical requirements in modern societies and how culture are breaking long-standing taboos and ancient traditions.

Fried Egg wrote: ↑April 10th, 2024, 5:12 pm It is interesting to note that in Iran it is quite opposite to many western societies in that it is extremely accepting and supportive of transgender individuals but is extremely hostile and unaccepting of homosexuality. Indeed, some would say that that is why so many people transition in Iran - the only safe way to be able to pursue one's sexuality (if you are gay).

It is interesting. Just goes to show that there's more than one way to skin an orange. I wonder if they are as accepting towards female-to-male transpeople as they are towards male-to-females? I'd suspect not since, in Iran, that would mean claiming a higher societal status and more freedoms.

'Popey' seems to becoming less traditional in Catholicism and its traditional view of sexuality and its moral basis. I only read his perspective as a news item on my phone and he seems to be going in the same direction as JK Rowling as far as I can see. His actual objection to transitions is that they demonstrate the mutability of gender. For all practical purposes, they show the inbetweeness of the male and femaleness and a possible breakdown of the idea of gender, just as sexuality as being about reproduction has been challenged by gay liberation.

Maybe, but it's interesting how sex, sexuality and gender still seem to occupy the religious mind more than any other aspect of human biology and human behaviour. The religious presume to tell others how to behave in their sexual lives and yet the sexual misconduct of priests and preachers seems to know no bounds. Hardly a day goes by when we don't read of another scandal about sexual abuse of children by the religious. So, why should I take anything that the latest pointy-hat on the Vatican throne says about matters sexual?

...so why should I take seriously anything that the latest pointy-hat on the Vatican throne says about matters sexual?

Sorry about the omission of "seriously" above.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 2:51 am ...so why should I take seriously anything that the latest pointy-hat on the Vatican throne says about matters sexual?

Sorry about the omission of "seriously" above.

In talking about the Pope I am not suggesting that his power and authority should be taken 'seriously', but the point is it is taken seriously by so many in religious circles, although some Catholics don't agree with him. Having grown up with Catholicism, I am interested because it is my cultural roots and I explore the issues of sexuality/gender and religion, because these aspects affect so many people and are probably far more influential than postmodernism. Traditional religious thinking and postmodern deconstruction may be perspectives opposed to one another, and postmodern approaches to gender may seen as the response to forms of religious fundamentalism.

Oh, I agree. I grew up a under Catholicism, too. This was in the 1950's before contraception, women's liberation and no fault divorce when the priests word was more or less law. The power and authority of the church have waned somewhat in the West but hundreds of millions worldwide are still in its thrall.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 2:29 am 'Popey' seems to becoming less traditional in Catholicism and its traditional view of sexuality and its moral basis. I only read his perspective as a news item on my phone and he seems to be going in the same direction as JK Rowling as far as I can see. His actual objection to transitions is that they demonstrate the mutability of gender. For all practical purposes, they show the inbetweeness of the male and femaleness and a possible breakdown of the idea of gender, just as sexuality as being about reproduction has been challenged by gay liberation.

I share your stance, and the reason you give for it. I'd like to add that not only the Roman Catholic elite but other political conservatives too,especially those on the far right, want to keep certain categories immutable, notably those bearing on kinship relations and gender.
I like many traditions for their own sake but not when they fail to meet present needs at psychological level.