Philosophy Discussion Forums

Fried Egg. I'm totally against reassignment surgery for kids. In severe cases of GD, where there is a risk or suicide, I think there is a place for hormone treatment until the young person is an adult and can decide for themselves about surgery. But hormones should only on be made available on medical advice where the situation is clearly unmanageable otherwise.

There have been too many cases of distraught teenagers who have killed themselves for this not to be available. For example, there was tragic case here of a girl who, with the onset of menstruation, could not deal with it and killed herself. She looked and acted so much like a boy already that it was crazy that she could not get puberty blockers. Obviously, her/his parents were devastated. There have been too many cases like this.

But a decision to provide puberty blockers should never be taken lightly. And I doubt it ever is. I know of no "trans activists" who advocate otherwise. This is just a boogeyman used by anti-trans activists.

In respect of sport, I do not a agree that trans women should be allowed to compete as women. That would be unmanageable. Trans people understand this. In respect of toilets, I was at our major hospital yesterday and I noticed that all the toilets for the public are unisex. That solves the problem and such facilities are increasingly being made available in public spaces everywhere.

People like Ms Tickle are outliers. Unfortunately, they get all the publicity. She and her ilk are playing into the hands of anti-trans activists and risk making things even harder for young trans people. I hope that court case in resolved quicky and she disappears. The last thing most trans people want is to cause disruption. Once they have made a successful transition, they just want to get on with their lives like everyone else. And most do.

Well, for the most part the the last posts of Lagayscienza and Sy Borg sound perfectly reasonable although I'm sure I share your optimistic assessment of where society is now and where it is heading on this issue.

For instance, the reaction of the medical establishment in America to the Cass Review has been quite revealing. The Endocrine Society simply stated that it contains no new evidence and continues to support puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors. The American Academy of Pediatrics simply re-affirmed their opposition to any legal restrictions on the administration of gender reassignment treatment to children. The American Medical Association who only last year resolved last year to intensify its lobbying efforts in support of youth access to gender transitions, has not even commented on the review. And WPATH of course stated that the review was “rooted in the false premise that non-medical alternatives to care will result in less adolescent distress for most adolescents”.

The rights of women to women only spaces is hanging in the balance and the argument for protecting women's sports is far from won (look only at the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport's recent report claiming that trans women have no unfair advantages over women in cycling).

While people are still losing their jobs for expressing "sex realist" views I don't think it's fair to say this issue has played itself out.

I guess only time will tell.

Fried Egg, relax! Civilization is not about to end just because a tiny segment of our population now has access to appropriate treatment for their condition.

I'm inclined to listen to expert bodies such as the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. They are the scientific experts in this field and not me, you, Ms Tickle or the rabid religious-right. I trust the science.

Women's rights will be just fine and I'm confident sports bodies will deal with the issue sensibly. Ms Tickle will disappear into oblivion and the media will get over their feeding frenzy as soon as the court case is over. It's all good.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 21st, 2024, 3:49 amI'm inclined to listen to expert bodies such as the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. They are the scientific experts in this field and not me, you, Ms Tickle or the rabid religious-right. I trust the science.

Firstly, they all advocate increasing access to gender re-assigning treatments for children (something which you have stated repeatedly you oppose).

Secondly, how can you trust WPATH after it was revealed that it does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine and knowing this still advocate treatments to minors for which there is not good evidence for?

I too trust science but the problem is that some of these organisations have not been properly following the science. So I don't trust them and won't until they abandon the ideology and get back to the science.

Women's rights will be just fine and I'm confident sports bodies will deal with the issue sensibly. Ms Tickle will disappear into oblivion and the media will get over their feeding frenzy as soon as the court case is over. It's all good.

As I've pointed out previously, the Tickle vs Giggle case is going to set a precedent in Australia (and possibly beyond) as to how to define women in law. If gender identity is found to trump biological sex, if trans women really are women, how can there be anywhere in society for women that is safe from men who claim to identify as women?

Of course civilisation will go on either way but I do think this is an important issue.

Fried Egg, all I can do is heed the the experts. I am in no position to personally evaluate every scientific paper on everything from climate change to puberty-blockers. No one is. So, in respect of gender dysphoria and its treatment, I defer to highly respected organizations such as The Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association. They take precedence, especially over the media, and even over the Cass Report which has, as I understand it, some important deficiencies.

I never take anything I hear on the sensationalist mainstream media seriously. They are the ones involved in the Ms Tickle feeding frenzy. Instead, I will read the judgement of Tickle vs Giggle in the original when it becomes available so that get a good understanding the judges reasoning and his application of the legislation and case law to the facts of the case. I doubt any precedents will be set. I suspect the judge will abide by stare decisis and stick to the letter of the Sex Discrimination Act. There is unlikely to be anything Earth shattering there.

The world is not about to be invaded by a horde of ravenous transexuals intent on bringing down civilization as we know it. Transexuals are a tiny segment of the population. After a successful transition, all they want to do is fit in. And they mostly do. Ms Tickle will soon disappear from view. The sooner the better.

Just out of interest, I had a look at the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 NSW and noted multiple exemptions. I suspect that Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd, the the online club who is the defendant, will argue that its discrimination falls under Section 7D and/or that it falls under one of the exemptions in Part 2, Division 4 of the Act. I note in particular an exemption for services for members of one sex.

And, Fried Egg, there is also an exemption in respect of sport.

Where Section 7D and/or an exemption applies, it is not unlawful under the Act to discriminate. Therefore, if the court finds that Section 7D and/or an exemption applies, the online club may well succeed. If so, it will then be open to Ms tickle to have the case reviewed or appeal to the Supreme Court. I will follow this with interest.

Hopefully, the sections to which I have pointed will make it clear that The Sex Discrimination Act does not allow transexuals to sue in many instances where they have been discriminated against, particularly not in areas of concern to Fried Egg So, the walls of civilization are unlikely to come tumbling down as a result of the Act or of this particular case.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 21st, 2024, 7:33 am Just out of interest, I had a look at the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 NSW and noted multiple exemptions. I suspect that Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd, the the online club who is the defendant, will argue that its discrimination falls under Section 7D and/or that it falls under one of the exemptions in Part 2, Division 4 of the Act. I note in particular an exemption for services for members of one sex.

I doubt any precedents will be set.

I just listened to a recent interview with Sall Grover (the CEO of Giggle for Girls) and she believed it would set a precedent. Okay, hardly an objective observer and she's certainly not an expert in law, but given the sexual discrimination act exemption that you referred to above, it's hard to see how, if they eventually find in favour of Tickle, that won't set a precedent. If people who identify as women are legally equivalent to women, then how can anyone discriminate against trans women?

As I understand it, the sexual discrimination act has been amended to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity so it seems clear that there is a conflict here. It cannot be both illegal to differentiate between women and transwomen while also allowing certain services to discriminate in favour of women on the basis of biological sex. The question is, which protection takes priority? This ambiguity is being tested in the courts and I believe the eventual outcome of this case will set a precedent.

Like I said, there are exemptions in the Act that allow discrimination. If the court finds that Section 7D of the Act and/or an exemption in Part 2, Division 4 of the Act applies, Giggle for Girls will win and Tickle will lose. If section 7D of the Act and/or an exemption in Part 2, Division 4 of the Act do not apply, then Ms Tickle will win.

We don't know what, if any, case law the litigants will be relying on but I think this case will turn on the wording of the Act. Having perused the Act, I'll be surprised if Ms Tickle wins. In respect of creating a precedent, whoever wins, the case is likely to clarify the circumstances under which Section 7D and the exemptions apply.

I want to go back and consider a post I made a little while back that got lost amongst all the chatter about the tickle vs giggle case:

Fried Egg wrote: ↑May 20th, 2024, 4:40 amIt seems to me that cases like this prove that transgender activism goes well beyond just wanting to be left alone to live their lives. And I think this is because for many transgender people, it is not only how they see themselves that is important, but having everyone else in society see them how they want to be seen. If there is anything in society that is for women then they (trans women) should have full access to it otherwise it is serving as a reminder that they are not seen by others as a "real" woman. That's also why "mis-gendering" is such an issue because it serves as a reminder that others do not see them as the gender they identify as.

I really do think this is something particular about gender identity. Whether it is innate or not (or some mixture of the two), it seems to be inextricably linked to (and contingent upon) how others in society see and treat you. In so far far as society sees and treats men and women differently, trans people need not to be excluded from that. It is not enough to see yourself as the gender you desire yourself to be. It is not enough even if all your friends and family also affirm it. If there is anyone else in society that does not affirm it, then that pricks the bubble of the illusion and your gender identity feels threatened. Everyone else needs to see you in the same way that you see yourself or else it is undermined.

This seems quite different with, say, sexuality that is not nearly so dependent or contingent with how others see you. If I am gay and someone else chooses not to believe me, what do I care (as long as they don't try to interfere)? With gender identity, it is not sufficient that others simply refrain from interfering, they must also share your view of your gender identity.

After all, what meaning does gender identity have beyond the ways in which society sees and treats men and women differently? If society did not treat men and women differently at all, gender identity would have no meaning at all.

And this is why I think trans activists seek to enshrine mis-gendering as a hate crime. If I mis-gender someone, I am saying I don't believe they are the gender they claim to be. But it is not considered homophobic to say that I don't believe you are gay if you say you are. That's neither here nor there. It's only homophobic if I say you are a bad person because you are gay. When J.K. Rowling (for instance) intentionally mis-genders someone, she is not saying that person is a bad person because of their gender identity. Which is why she doesn't believe she is being transphobic when she does so. Impolite maybe. Rude perhaps. But transphobic? Guilty of a hate crime? I would say not.

For the most part, I think the public is ok with treating transgender people as the gender they see themselves to be. That is easy to do because, to see most transexuals, is to see a person of the gender the transexual presents as. And, like most people, I don't go around asking women whether they are "real" women or asking men whether they are "real" men.

It is an unfortunate reality that some transgender women (perhaps because they could not access treatment earlier) have not, in terms of appearance, been able to make a really successful transition. I imagine life is hard for them, especially when they are misgendered. But, even in such cases, if a person dresses as a female and acts as a female, then I respect that and treat them as female. It's only polite to do so, whatever I may think about the way they look. Live and let live. In my experience, the majority of people are similarly courteous and see no reason to needlessly offend someone.

This whole issue smacks of anti-trans activism whipped up by the haters and the rabid religious-right who have succeeded in getting some celebrity or another onside. They need to get over it, live their own lives and leave other people alone. That said, there are a very small number of trans activists like Ms Tickle who have not made a successful transition and who have a chip on their shoulder. They need to get over it and get on with working on their transition to make it more successful.

I have little patience with those who call themselves "non-binary" and make a point of looking like jocks in frocks. It just confuses everyone, and they make it hard for transexuals who just want to fit into society. My impatience with them is probably a shortcoming on my behalf, but it's the way I feel about it.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 5:45 am I have little patience with those who call themselves "non-binary" and make a point of looking like jocks in frocks. It just confuses everyone, and they make it hard for transexuals who just want to fit into society. My impatience with them is probably a shortcoming on my behalf, but it's the way I feel about it.

Even you have your prejudices.
Be confused. What it the problem?

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 8:28 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 5:45 am I have little patience with those who call themselves "non-binary" and make a point of looking like jocks in frocks. It just confuses everyone, and they make it hard for transexuals who just want to fit into society. My impatience with them is probably a shortcoming on my behalf, but it's the way I feel about it.

Even you have your prejudices.
Be confused. What it the problem?

Fair point. I think there are two dynamics in play. It seems that a bunch of people who would otherwise be closeted are out. The [whatsisname] sex report (my memory is getting dodgy) released in the 60s made clear that many ostensibly straight people have queer interests. There's probably fewer young people in the closet about their gender-based and sexual feelings than ever before.

Secondly, as I've mentioned in other threads, young people today understandably resent that they don't have the opportunities that earlier generations enjoyed, and even expected. I suspect that there is an element of "F you" to the older generation, as the young slay one of the last of the oldies' sacred cows.

In the 1940s, women wearing trousers was a rebellious act. In the early 60s, men wearing their hair long was considered outrageous. Little areas of social repression that the young eventually ditch as they try to forge their own identities.

That sounds right. In Western countries the young don't have to hide their sexuality the anymore. The law no longer criminalizes certain sexualities and there is anti-discrimination legislation. Even down at the pub with a bunch of straight blokes I rarely hear the term poofter (fag in Americanese) bandied about thee days. There is no law against using such words in private or even in public as long as it is not intended as a threat or used to unlawfully vilify someone. It's just that people just don't seem to use the words they way they used to.

Your point about the young feeling resentful towards older generations is something I've been hearing a lot about lately. They are struggling to get into the housing market or even to pay rent (If they can find a place to rent). This is while oldies sit comfortably in their four bedroom houses with double garage and reap the benefits of superannuation pensions that they could afford to stash away over a lifetime of secure employment. I feel for the young ones who have to increasing be satisfied with gig employment. It's not surprising they get a bit of kick out of slaying remaining sacred cows.

I don't know how to fix the problem. One thing that could be done, pretty much immediately, is to curb immigration. That would free up housing stock and put a brake on ever-increasing house prices. If something is not don't to fix things, we'll end up a nation of rent payers with all the housing owned by fewer and fewer very wealthy individuals and corporations. From what I read, the situation is similar in other advanced economies.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2024, 3:57 am That sounds right. In Western countries the young don't have to hide their sexuality the anymore. The law no longer criminalizes certain sexualities and there is anti-discrimination legislation. Even down at the pub with a bunch of straight blokes I rarely hear the term poofter (fag in Americanese) bandied about thee days. There is no law against using such words in private or even in public as long as it is not intended as a threat or used to unlawfully vilify someone. It's just that people just don't seem to use the words they way they used to.

It may depend on where you live. In the UK, a hate crime is defined thusly:
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity." (emphasis added)
Note the "perceived by the victim" bit. This is important because it does not depend on the intention of the perpetrator (as you seemed to suggest).

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of "hate" crimes, especially when it based on the subjective opinion of the "victim". Although the topic is probably worthy of it's own thread...

Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 7:36 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 8:28 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑May 22nd, 2024, 5:45 am I have little patience with those who call themselves "non-binary" and make a point of looking like jocks in frocks. It just confuses everyone, and they make it hard for transexuals who just want to fit into society. My impatience with them is probably a shortcoming on my behalf, but it's the way I feel about it.

Even you have your prejudices.
Be confused. What it the problem?

Fair point.

With respect I was not directing my comments to you