all 98 comments

[–]emptiedriver 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What exactly are you asking - why do some people think that they are trans? Or what features should count as trans? Or what...

GC people generally don't believe that being trans is an objective thing. If the person never said anything, they'd be a guy in a dress. To someone gender critical, that is still the case. Stick to reality, not peer pressure.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm asking what would make you call another person "trans"

[–]emptiedriver 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Are you familiar with the acronyms for Trans-identified males or females? Most GC people understand trans as something people can identify as, but that doesn't change reality.

I call another person trans the way I call another person christian, or emo, or maybe some kind of hobbyist. It's something they've decided to be. They may be more or less committed to it - it could just be a phase, or something they have a superficial interest in, or it could be their lifelong passion - but it's still a thing they decided to identify with...

[–]censorshipment 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

I don't believe anyone is transgender/transsexual nor nonbinary nor anything else under that umbrella.

I believe people who identify as trans (or the opposite sex without saying trans) are dysphoric... or self-loathing (internalized misogyny, internalized homophobia)... or sexually perverted (autogynephilia).

I can speak from experience as a homosexual female who once identified as a straight guy. I wanted to increase attention to me from women and decrease attention to me from men. Now, I have to worry about increased attention from mentally disturbed, straight males identifying as (trans/nonbinary) women... GOD HELP!!!!

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Does this mean you accept the Blanchardian model of gender?

Why are gnc males perverts but homosexuals are not? That seems a very morally loaded term.

I am assuming you are a masculine woman attracted to women, possibly feminine women.

Often masculine straight guys are very antagonistic towards femininity in other men. They will call them perverts, straight or not. It's difficult for me not to relate that antagonism in masculine woman attracted to women.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Does this mean you accept the Blanchardian model of gender?

I don't get what you mean by "the Blanchardian model of gender." If you are referring to Ray Blanchard, he's a psychologist whose focus has been providing clinical services to, and studying and writing about, grown men who wish they were women. Blanchard has also obtained insight into, and ideas about, such men's experiences and psychology when they were boys, though I don't think he has worked with or studied children directly. His Twitter bio describes him thus:

Researcher in sexual orientation, paraphilias, & gender identity disorders

Though it would be more accurate if he added "among males" at the end. Because I don't think he's ever studied females, treated female patients or paid much or any attention to female people. His interest in "gender identity disorders" in females seems confined to the recent wave of "ROGD" amongst girls and young women. But previously, he's shown no professional interest in female people apart from the different ways that some female individuals, and the female sex as a whole, are factors in the life histories and psyches of his male patients and study subjects.

I don't believe Ray Blanchard has proposed any kind of "model of gender," much less one so novel and distinct that it would warrant the tag "Blanchardian model of gender." He seems never to have questioned, much less carefully examined with a critical eye, the sex stereotypes that constitute gender at all, in fact. Blanchard is very much a sexist, or genderist to use the current term. He's also a male supremacist who seems utterly blind to the existence of, experiences of and views of girls and women; he sees girls and women as his male patients see us - as projections of male fantasies; as objects of male desire, animus, envy and covetousness; and as service humans whose purpose is to be useful to men. He does not understand that we are human beings in our own right who exist apart from males' projections, desires and feelings.

Blanchard said on Twitter a couple of weeks ago that he'd just realized that "gender critical" means being critical of gender itself, meaning the sexist sex stereotypes, roles, social norms, rules of conformity and hierarchical power relations that dictate and, presume the inevitability of, male superiority, dominance and importance and female inferiority, subservience and insignificance. On 13 August he tweeted:

I stumbled across this concise definition of “gender critical” this morning. It implies that the “gender critical” position is not solely (or primarily) about transsexualism but is also a theory of the origins of sexually dimorphic behavior in normal human males and females.

This is the definition he was referring to:

Gender critical: those who believe biological sex is real, and in humans bimodal, but gender is merely a social construction. They criticize the belief that people are intrinsically gendered, and they criticize traditional heteronormative gender roles.

Of course, there's a glaring error in the above definition: "gender critical" people believe that sex is binary, not bimodal. But that aside, it's very telling that until mid-August 2021 Blanchard was operating under the wholly mistaken impression that the "gender critical" position is "solely (or primarily) about transsexualism." Which means Blanchard must have been asleep in the 1960s, 70s and 80s when the women's liberation movement was in full flower, and he is thus wholly unfamiliar with the core ideas of second-wave feminism. And which also means that Blanchard hasn't been paying any attention whatsoever to what feminists have been saying in the so-called "Terf wars" of the past decade either. One woman responded:

Is your post in earnest? You only just realised that? I am still amazed at the number of people who seem to be deeply embedded in this debate but haven't taken the time out to understand what the GC position is.

Blanchard did come up with a typology of male transsexualism/transvestitism in which he posited that the men who wish they were women are heterosexuals with autogynephilia (AGP) or homosexuals with internalized homophobia (HSTS). This typology is usually presented as an either-or, but I believe that those who think Blanchard's typology has merit have always observed that many homosexual men who identify as women are also AGP, and that this is especially the case of HSTSs today. But Blanchard's typology of men who wish they were women can hardly be described as a "model of gender."

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

It seems pretty directly that Blanchardianism is a model of gender. When he describes gender disorders it reflects his wider model of gender. I would think any description of gender disorders is going to reflect a wider model of gender. It's hard for them not to be related.

For males it's saying masculinity is always connected to gynephilia and femininity is always connected to androphilia. That's a pretty direct position on gender in males.

He seems to edge around committing to the female version.

GC is in a position of saying they don't like Blanchard, don't like his values and disagree with him apart from the bits where he calls straight transwomen gay men and lesbian transwomen perverted paraphiliacs.

GC likes the moral position of calling people perverts.

There are Blanchardian cis women who believe they are autoandrophiliacs. I'd say there are people who fit some of that evidence. Where is GC on that? I guess GC will call them perverts as well. Which of course means there are female "perverts" after all.

Maybe I think GC is too broad a term and we really could do with refining the schools of thought.

This typology is usually presented as an either-or, but I believe that those who think Blanchard's typology has merit have always observed that many homosexual men who identify as women are also AGP, and that this is especially the case of HSTSs today. But Blanchard's typology of men who wish they were women can hardly be described as a "model of gender."

Or maybe Blanchard is wrong. I mean you are saying you think he's wrong in some ways.

I think he captures aspects of "gender disorders" but I don't think ultimately holds entirely up. I do agree that his ideas are often connected to fairly misogynistic ideas about men, women and sex. It's often a very masculine male understanding of sexuality IMHO.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It’s a model of a paraphilia not a ‘gender disorder’ goddamn dude.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (9 children)

His twitter bio says "Researcher in sexual orientation, paraphilias, & gender identity disorders"

His theory is that gay men are naturally feminine. As in the gender bits that gender critical is critical of are natural and that autogynephilia is not strictly a fetish but a sexual target error.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Why does his Twitter bio mean that the agp theory is a theory of gender disorders lmao. That’s complete nonsense.

I feel you have surely misinterpreted the theory of agp.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

What have I said here that's wrong?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I disagree that it’s a typology of gender disorders and is a model of a paraphilia. Sorry bro thought that was clear.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Do you class HSTS as a gender disorder?

What would you compare "agp" to?

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well, males are perverted in general... but the straight male is an apex (sexual) predator, and that's more apparent when paraphilias are involved. The trans woman openly shows perversion and calls anyone who sees it for what it is a bigot. This is typically what white trans women do though... call you a bigot for calling them out as perverted... to be seen as victims of hate. It's a scheme to make perverted white males (who don't identify as "cisgender") a marginalized majority group. The best example of this is trans women being sent to women's prison where women cannot escape the perverted rapists... it's like putting one snake into a cage with mice, but the snake is considered a marginalized species.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What do you think causes perversion in men?

[–]censorshipment 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)


[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Do you think testosterone only causes perversion or do you think it has other behavioural effects?

[–]censorshipment 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This is your follow-up question? I think testosterone is the root of all problems. If billions of human males didn't exist... the whole planet would be better off, the entire female population (of all creatures) would be thriving.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I can't tell if this is serious or not.

[–]censorshipment 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

what is the "Blanchardian model of gender"? As far as I know, his work was about AGPs, not gender. The every-shifting concept of gender might not have even crawled up out of the sewers yet when he was discovering it. It certainly is not the same concept it was when Butler started publishing her BS, and she's shifted her arguments over time to keep the grift going the way a surfer follows the wave before it comes crashing down.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not for me to decide personally. Gc defines it how transgender people themselves define it afaik. Half the problem with tra is that they can’t decide this for themselves.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

either self-delusion, or being duped by group think.

Effeminate boys are just that, not women. Men addicted to porn who go from fantasizing cross dressing to being trans are just so deeply lost in their fantasies that the real world becomes the next place for them to play their fantasy, they are men. Young women who fear rape and being overly-sexualized by society and abused and seen only as sex objects by porn addicted boys might just take any escape route they can from being what they are. It's pretty clear.

What GC believes is easy to get a handle on: it's reality. What makes no sense is what QT or tras believe. What makes someone trans inkling? What concrete thing can you point to that proves this concept is not just a bad version of a new religion? Why should what someone thinks their identity is make any difference to anyone out side that person? How, in light of the fact that sex refers to the two and only two sexes involved in reproduction and that those two and only two sexes are man and woman which are categorized according to the function of their genitals, does the concept of a gendered identity make any sense? What about an identity is "gendered" and why do you think it invalidates the simple fact of sex and our two and only two reproductive roles?

You should try to get a handle on what we know. I have no interest in what you believe-- that's religion.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You should try to get a handle on what we know.

Thats what Im doing?

I have no interest in what you believe

Wow good thing youre on a debate sub then haha

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To both of your sentences replying to me: note the distinction I'm making, and you're ignoring, between "know" and "believe". Or not. Your choice. Would you like to talk about what I believe? I gave you something I actually know: that we and every species that reproduces sexually have two and only two sexes.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Do you think porn makes crossdressers?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Do you think the subject of this sentence here in my reply to you is "think"?

Do you think I said that anywhere in what I typed above? Seems like you are rearranging my words to create a straw man.

[–]theory_of_thisan actual straight crossdresser 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm asking based on inferring what you are saying.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's because you're here trolling. You only have to resort to inferring something that is not there, clearly not there, because you can't find anything all that satisfying to your trolling in what I actually said. You say you are looking for what we "believe", I told you. You skip passed it in hopes of finding some bs you can take to dismiss the GC view.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I mean, when it comes down to it, for me, anyone who actually takes the steps to "transition" is trans.

Sure there’s agp and hsts and tucute and transmed etc, but at the end of the day if you’re attempting to "transition" and insisting on using the wrong spaces and forcing pronouns etc on others- trans.

There are differences between what I listed, and Im more comfortable and have more sympathy for some than others, but when it comes down to it, I don’t want my rights undone or to be forced to share spaces with any of them.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sure there’s agp and hsts and tucute and transmed etc, but at the end of the day if you’re attempting to "transition" and insisting on using the wrong spaces and forcing pronouns etc on others- trans.

So if someone transitions but doesnt insist on using the "wrong" spaces you dont consider that person trans?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That’s not what I meant, poor wording.

What I mean is I don’t think being trans is really about the mental aspect- at least not when it comes to the rest of society

I think anyone who sincerely attempts to "transition", regardless of what anyone thinks it means to be trans, is actually trans.

I don’t think trans= dysphoria. There are people with dysphoria who aren’t trans.

I don’t think trans = agp, there are people with agp who aren’t trans.

For all intents and purposes, it doesn’t matter what someone’s reasoning is.

They can be Laverne Cox, Blaire White, Riley Dennis, Dana Rivers or (some of) the trans people sending rape threats to feminists- they all "transitioned", they’re all trans.

And I’d currently be forced to share spaces with any and all of them (were one of them not in jail for murder- eta nvm. If I were in jail I could absolutely be forced to share space with Rivers).

If someone "transitioned" and didn’t invade other people’s spaces I’d respect them more and know they respected me. But I don’t think it makes sense to define being trans as anything other than actual physical "transition".

I don’t think that anyone who wants to "transition" but hasn’t (or doesn’t and just claims to be- like the whole umbrella thing or the non binary thing) are actually trans. If you want to "transition" and you haven’t begun that process, i wouldn’t consider You trans. I also would still have no choice about You in my spaces but that’s a different topic.

What I meant by what you quoted: it doesn’t matter what a trans person thinks it means to be trans or what their logic is to the rest of the world- if you have or are in the process of "transition" and we (gp, society) can see that you have or are at least trying/taking the steps, then we have to deal with that in some way.

If someone is not out as trans they have to deal with being "misgendered" and all of that other shit, but as soon as someone starts altering their appearance and making even the smallest steps towards it- we (gp) suddenly have to validate them and adjust or decide not to. If we see someone visibly trans, it’s expected of us to pretend for them.

If someone hasn’t taken any steps, it’s understandable why they wouldn’t receive any validation or play pretend for their sake, or at the least it’s understandable when people don’t know they were supposed to validate and play along, if that makes sense

Physical "transition" to me is the point where the rest of us get dragged into it.

If it’s still just in your head it’s all you, how have you and what has transitioned? And if nothing has "transitioned", how are you trans?

Idk I just woke up

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like- the physical aspect has to be there because I know men with long hair, painted nails, who wear skirts and dresses and make up etc, who are perfectly fine with being acknowledged as men.

I honestly don’t know any men who get ffs, take cross sex hormones, change their names to something more unisex or traditionally feminine, and want or have bottom surgery who are okay with being acknowledged as men.

The men who do the latter are always transwomen.

We can’t and shouldn’t just assume that the former are trans.

It’s the physical/physiological clues, not the ornamental or internal.

[–]soundsituationpurrgender 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What makes someone trans is them saying that they are trans. It has no meaningful referent.

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

You tell us what makes someone trans. We're not the ones who came with this concept after all. In what sense are "transwomen" women? I've been asking QT for a while a non circular definition for woman that doesn't rely on sexist stereotypes and I've yet to get an answer.

Personally, I don't believe in "gender identity". There are only two sexes and humans cannot change their sex. I don't believe in "true trans" or in "trans trenders". There are people that for a variety of reason claim not to be the sex they are or think their sex is unimportant, and some of those people may take a variety of measures to appear to be the opposite sex. For practical purposes I regard anyone claiming a "trans identity" that need to be respected by others as "trans", but that doesn't mean I believe they are really "trans".

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

You tell us what makes someone trans.

But I want to know what you think? Why dont you make another thread asking what I think?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (21 children)

Is this a debate sub or an interrogation sub?

[–]inkling 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Geez. I thought asking questions to understand the other side better was welcome. My mistake.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

wow then you should be in "ASK GC" which I guess was a sub at the old place until reality became mean and bannable.

You can't on the one hand say to people "this is a debate sub" when we are dismissive of BS, and then also act like it's cool to just interrogate and not debate. You are trolling. That's OK, this really is not used as a debate sub because TRAs and team QT have no valid arguments and never actually debate.

Elsewhere you stated you are surprised at the consistency of the GC view (I'm paraphrasing), well reality is clear once you see it. But I also see when someone articulates it in a less than clear way, the tendency seems to be when they get caught up in some kind of language that is accommodating of the BS, you engage fully using the fuzziness that comes from speaking of things the way QT and TRAs speak of them. You know gender is all BS, regardless of what "gender dysphoria" (better named "sex dysphoria" otherwise where is the incongruity?) or "body dysmorphia" is. You don't say what you think because you know there is no real rationale to any of this. Have fun trolling, kid.

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Elsewhere you stated you are surprised at the consistency of the GC view (I'm paraphrasing)

No I didnt. I never said anything like this.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

you certainly said something very much like that. That's why I stipulated that I'm paraphrasing. You may have deleted it though as you deleted a lot of things.

Good luck trolling and being intellectually dishonest with yourself. You have the freedom to do that, to yourself. We're done here, kid.

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo![M] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

That is enough. You've certainly been engaging in trolling behaviour yourself in this thread. Just say your arguments without breaking the rules.

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Perhaps I'm unclear on the rules. Can you show me where I'm breaking the rules?

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo![M] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'd think continuely calling someone a troll would qualify as flaming.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

I haven’t deleted any comments, only two posts I thought were inappropriate. Show me the comment?

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Here is that which I paraphrased: "I did not expect you all to have an organized and agreed upon definition, I expected to hear a variety of answers."

But, regardless: I think you are trolling here. I don't accept where you say "this is a debate sub", and then also say "Im only here asking questions". This is not a questions sub. You do offer your thoughts in some instances though, which I now see as I had to go through your comments to find what I paraphrased. You comments seem fully on board with the TRA and QT way of imagining the world. That's cool, but it seems you mind is made up already. The whole zen emptying the glass before filling it might be applicable.

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

C'mon FlippyKing, it doesn't look good on you taking quotes out of context... Inkling never admired our consistency.

[–]inkling 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

That was in response to someone saying the comments wouldn’t be consistent so why was I asking? And me saying I expected them to not be (and they weren’t, they were very varied). Reading one more comment back would have given you that context. I never said or implied what you think I did

Edit: thanks for giving everyone an example of what I was talking about when I said I was told to stick to debating

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter that much how transgender is defined to us. What matters is the erasure of women and our rights. How transgender is defined does not really change the threat posed to women, or how people still choose to gender objects, colours, and behaviours.

The way you phrased the question reads almost as if you expect us to have an organised and agreed upon definition of something that is only loosely and contentiously defined by the very people who say it’s what we should base the running of the world upon.

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It really only matters to me and my curiosity. I did not expect you all to have an organized and agreed upon definition, I expected to hear a variety of answers. Judging by the hostility to my questions/discussion topics, it doesn't seem like this is an appropriate place for my own personal learning. Its a shame because there aren't a lot of places on the internet that I can interact with "the other side" but Ill keep looking I guess.

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We answered your question, but it's hard to say what makes someone "trans" when we don't believe in this stuff and even QT can't agree on a definition.

If you want to learn what we believe, you could lurk past threads, too.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think you’re interpreting mild exasperation and confusion as hostility. What we think is made quite clear imo, but there is an expectation that you will have a certain level of understanding what gender critical and radical feminism are before engaging in debate.

[–]Spikygrasspod 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I didn't invent the word, so I can't really make up my own definition. Going with the definition that other people seem to use, it's something people say about themselves, but there may be wide variation in the actual content. It includes people who dress up as the other sex part time or always; people who medically alter their bodies to more resemble the opposite sex; people who identify as or believe they are the opposite sex (or both sexes or neither); people who know what sex they are but believe that "gender identity" is the more important classification and believe that they have some innate quality of mind appropriate to the opposite sex (or both sexes or neither sex). It's also anyone who says they're trans, even if I can't discern any difference from non trans people.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

It doesn' t matter one bit to me what it is the thing that makes someone qualify as trans, they are still their biological sex and that takes precedence over everything as far as I am concerned. Transitioning, whatever it' s made up of (gender identity, suffering from dysphoria, getting hormones and surgery, presentation, pronouns, behaviour, preferences, your level of passing, whatever rocks your boat), doesn' t make someone more "valid" as the other sex.

What do you and the QT community think makes someone trans? Because the answer changes every week according to what narrative seems to be the more beneficial at the moment.

[–]Spikygrasspod 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right. I can say what I think trans is according to what trans people say, but the real question is whether any of it is meaningful. I just don't find gender identity a meaningful thing. I'm sure some people feel they have one, but I don't find it more important than, say, your star sign or whether you identify as belonging to a music subculture. Let alone more important than, or capable of replacing, sex.

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

they are still their biological sex and that takes precedence over everything as far as I am concerned

Over EVERYTHING or over gender identity?

What do you and the QT community think makes someone trans?

Someone with a neurological sex that doesnt match their assigned sex at birth

[–]Spikygrasspod 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

When you say neurological sex, are you saying you think there are distinctively sexed brains? I have a couple of questions, then.

  1. Do you think these differences are significant enough to make them the more important classifying feature (in other words, is this more important than physical sex?)

  2. Would you be willing to restrict legal sex change and access to women's spaces on the basis of neurological sex, assuming it could be measured?

Because honestly, I think a lot of trans women have bog standard male psychology. Behaviour is a much better measure of psychology than neurological features. And redefining women as an idea they have is a traditional male behaviour, a continuation of what men have been doing forever under patriarchy. And the more recent strains of activism I've seen online, involving bullying and sexual threats towards women, is so distinctively male in my opinion.

My worry is that you're trying to shift the meaning of 'woman' and 'man' from something concrete, meaningful, and highly significant to our lives (sex, including whatever sexed psychology exists) to something unmeasurable ('neurological sex') in order to blur the boundaries of 'man' and 'woman' so that men can have access to everything formerly reserved for women. That's the problem with an unmeasurable, unprovable, unfalsifiable definition.

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Do you think these differences are significant enough to make them the more important classifying feature (in other words, is this more important than physical sex?)

Yes though I dont know why brains arent considered "physical"

Would you be willing to restrict legal sex change and access to women's spaces on the basis of neurological sex, assuming it could be measured?

It can and has been measured though I think restricting gender affirming care based on brain scans would gatekeep it to the point where it would be a privilege of the wealthy.

I think a lot of trans women have bog standard male psychology.

What is "male psychology"? Why is "sexed psychology" meaningful but neurological sex is not?

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, that is a bit too convenient, isn't it? You claim trans identified people are legitimate because neurological sex, whatever that is, can be measured but you refuse checking someone's brain as gatekeeping method because supposedly only the wealthy could afford it. However, transactivists have campaigned in some places to get "medical transition" covered by their health system. So, why aren't there transactivists campaigning for brain scans being covered, too? Could it be because they know that if this were a thing many trans identified people would be rejected as "true trans"?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, as I'm sure you know but it bears repeating for the lurkers and for OP: all sorts of "transition" related care such as T blockers, cross-sex hormones, "puberty blockers," and myriad surgeries are already covered by government health care systems like the NHS in the UK, and by both private and public health insurance plans in countries like the US. If being "trans" could be discerned by a brain scan, health care authorities would be all for it - and the scans would be provided free or at very low out-of-pocket cost. Coz the financial savings would be enormous. So would the ethical benefits of being able to make sure that no one is unnecessarily subjected to "care" that can cause a great deal of harm and additional suffering. Right now, what's happening with trans-identified kids is that 100% of them are being subjected to interventions that will cause irreversible damage when it's known that nearly 9 out of 10 of them would "desist" from their "dysphoria" and cross-sex identification if they were allowed to grow up without their minds and bodies being interfered with.

[–]Spikygrasspod 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Brains are physical, I just don't think what we can currently measure about them should overrule the whole package of physical sex. I would also not use height, elbow thickness, or hair length to determine a person's sex, though I might expect these to differ by sex.

Oh, I do think men and women are psychologically different (though I don't know to what extent this is socialised vs innate, if such a distinction even makes sense), I just think behaviour is a much, much better and more useful measure than neurological scans. Some of the salient features of male behaviour are a greatly increased statistical tendency to sexual predation and physical and social aggression. That's why I like women only spaces. Neurology is not meaningful in this context because it has virtually no predictive or explanatory power with our present measurements, as far as I know.

Can you point me to where neurological sex has been reliably measured and described? I got the impression that the best we can do is say that men and women have a 'mosaic' of brain features that a programme can tell apart with low accuracy? I have also seen a study that shows at least some trans women have brains similar to women and gay men (in one small, specific and potentially unimportant way, kind of like elbows... the fact that gay men and women have similarities here should tell us that this is not a good or comprehensive measure of anything like neurological sex) but I have never seen anyone suggest either that they can reliably tell female from male brains, let alone that trans people's brains can be reliably classified as the sex they identify as without previous knowledge.

So yeah, I'm still concerned that you're preferring a virtually unmeasurable definition of woman/man (neurological sex) over a concrete, highly reliable measure (actual sex), and that the effect if not the purpose is simply to allow men access to everything formerly reserved for women, including the word itself.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It’s so strange for tra to try and make sex about brains. Sex is sexually reproductive differences. It’s like there’s this weird underlying idea that human biology is distinctly defined in a different way to any other animal. Like, sure duh, animals are all sexed but not humans.

[–]Spikygrasspod 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, it is strange. You know what I think? I think men invent femininity, their own picture of how women should be, and force it on women with violence, threats, humiliation, "medicine", grooming, economic coercion, advertising and so on. And they fall in love with their own invention of femininity, which is so much better than actual women, who, after all, have minds of their own and bodies that answer nature's purposes, not men's. And then they say femininity is the real thing and women don't exist (I've gotta credit de Beauvoir and Daly for these ideas).

I think trans and non trans men alike do this. I think if the trans movement were to succeed, it would fail. That is to say, if men could successfully strip femaleness from every social meaning associated with it (in short, from femininity), they would be able to enter the category at will but it would no longer be appealing to them. It gets its appeal from the sexual aspect which relies on female bodies. I don't think they'd want to wear makeup and women's clothing if these were no longer associated with women. So they actually need to weaken the definitional criteria of "women" to let a few people in, without changing the content much. They can do this because most of us haven't actually changed our understanding of what women are, we just added "trans women" as an addendum whose logical incoherence we paper over in our minds.

Anyway, that was a much longer aside than I intended. Long speech short sense: neurological sex is only useful to the movement because it conflates femaleness and femininity without destroying the category "woman" (since females are still presumed to be similar enough to each other to produce a standard to which trans women can be matched) while being unfalsifiable. The second it becomes practicably measurable it will be dropped.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Damn that was well put. I agree with you entirely

[–]Spikygrasspod 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

A TRA on Twitter the other day actually did claim that humans aren't sexed, only (other) animals are.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh goddamnit why was I still surprised by this

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Please link to the research providing evidence for your claims that "neurological sex" in humans exists and that "it can and has been measured" via "brain scans."

I am especially interested in the research showing that "neurological sex" can be observed in humans' brains during infancy and childhood, and the reports describing the exact differences in brain scans of babies taken in the neonatal period (birth to one month) compared to the scans of those same babies at six-seven months, after the mini puberty of infancy is over. I'm also really interested in seeing the reports of the scans describing in detail how boys' and girls' brains change over the course of the puberty of adolescence, and how scans of women's brains differ from before they've been pregnant and given birth to afterwards.

This research sounds very exciting! I can't believe I somehow managed to miss it.

ETA: Once I had some brain scans done because I was having some neurological issues and had a history of tumors in my right eye orbit right next to the brain. Per usual, before I left the imaging place, I got a set of films of the scans to take with me to appointments with the various specialist doctors I was consulting at the time to try to figure out what was wrong. After numerous doctors had put these brains scans on their light boards and looked them over carefully, I finally saw my regular doctor and he did the same - then immediately started shaking his head. You see, he was the first of all the learned physicians who pored over these brain scans who bothered to look at the small print on the side of the films. Immediately, he saw that they weren't scans of my brain after all - they were the scans of the brain of a man in his late 70s! Odd that none of the physicians I'd consulted had been able to tell the difference between male brain that was pushing 80 and a female one that was nearly half that age. What, I wonder, are the chances of that?

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Obviously, that old man was actually a closetted "trans woman". What more evidence do you need?!/jocking

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When you say "it can and has been measured", I've yet to see any of that stand up to scrutiny. You should read up on how these bogus studies have been shown to be worthless. But there are a couple of problems with trying to draw the conclusions they draw.

First, what are they comparing their populations to? If they are saying these brains of a trans population are more like women's than men's, they already have the sex based classifications set. They are not looking at their brain data and saying "hey, there's something wrong here, these seem to be women's brains", no they are arguing from the conclusion they want to find. And there are easy ways to show just looking at those same brains which came from males and which came from females. Talk about cherry picking data to serve the conclusion they were looking for all along.

Secondly: how does anything about these very debatable observations in some people's brains invalidate the simple fact that sex refers to our means of reproduction and truly all of these people in these studies are classifiable easily based on their reproductive function and that classification is easier and indisputable whereas the brain thing has very weak evidence? What does it mean to have an effeminate brain? How does that over-ride anything about what it means to be male or female? It doesn't even complicated it.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Over EVERYTHING or over gender identity?

Over everything that regards gender. See the list I made.

Someone with a neurological sex that doesnt match their assigned sex at birth

Once we have a way to prove, objectively and physically, that this is a thing, I will be happy to call them trans if that' s going to be the designation that is assigned to them.

It still doesn' t make them members of the other sex as far as I am concerned: a male with a neurological female sex (aka, ladybrain), would be a male with female brain, not a woman, a female with neurological male sex (aka, a gentbrain), would be a female with a male brain, not a man.

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sex is not assigned at birt, but it is determined at conception and observed at birth. Tthough, nowadays, thanks to modern medical technology you can identify the sex before the baby is even born. The biological category of sex is based on reproductive roles: the female sex is the one that produce large gametes (eggs) and the male sex is the one that produces small gametes (sperm). Having an atypical brain doesn't make a male a woman just like being short doesn't make a male a woman.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Just to add: it's not only nowadays that the sex of human fetuses can be identified before birth. The medical technology that makes this possible has been around for a very long time.

Amniocentesis, invented in the 1930s, was first used to determine the sex chromosomes of fetuses in 1960. From 1972, when amnio became much safer because someone came up with the idea of using ultrasound to guide the needle, amnio became commonplace and even standard for women who had medically managed pregnancies if they were over 35 or had a history of certain congenital conditions in their families.

CVS, chromosome and genetic testing on a tiny bit of tissue taken from the placenta that can be done as early as 8-9 weeks, was invented in 1983; I had CVS when pregnant more than 30 years ago.

Fetal scanning by ultrasounds have been in use since the 1960s. They began to become common in medically-managed pregnancies in the 1970s. Due to a constellation of developments that made ultrasound machines much cheaper, more accurate, and portable - and advances in knowledge that allowed physicians and scan technicians to use scans to identify fetal sex with certainty - scans of pregnant women's bellies which reveal the sex of their fetuses in the second trimester have been widely available and used routinely in medically-managed/monitored pregnancies around the world for decades now. In places where sex-selective abortion is practiced, scans have been widely used since at least the 1980s to identify fetal sex even amongst the poor in pregnancies that are not otherwise medically managed.

Now there's the NIPT, a form of genetic testing that allows the sex of fetuses to be ascertained at 8-9 weeks using blood taken from pregnant women's arms in standard blood draws.

So the reality is, medical technology has made it possible to identify the sex of fetuses months before birth for more than 60 years. Over the past 40 years, use of various kinds of medical tech to identify the sex of fetuses in utero has become routine in medically managed pregnancies around the world, as well as in pregnancies of women not getting prenatal medical care. If you're under 40, you come from a "developed" country where your mother had prenatal care when she was pregnant with you, or your mother was pregnant in India or China, then it's very likely that a scan was taken of you showing your sex many months before you were born. Prior to the present century, parents commonly asked scan techs and physicians not to tell them the sex of their fetuses coz they wanted to wait to find out at birth. But the scans showing the fetuses' sex were still routinely done during pregnancy - and the sex was recorded in the medical records months before babies were born.

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, that was a poor choice of words on my part. I was thinking that these technologies are recent in terms of human history, but I didn't meant to suggest that amniocentesis, ultrasound or genetic testing were some brand-new development.

[–]MarkTwainiac 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nah, your word choice was fine. I am just trying to make things crystal clear for other posters and the lurkers.

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't really believe that transgenderism, or gender dysphoria is really a thing. A person wearing the opposide sex's clothes or presenting as the opposite sex is just crossdressing. The trans concept is based in a foofy religous like concept of inner essence which as an atheist I reject completely. Your mind is an embodied concept, it does not exist outside of the body, so transgenderism is just religious-like hooey.

I would like a trans person to define what transgenderism means to them, including all trans people including people who don't crossdress or transition since no hatekeeping, ok?

[–]inkling 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So there isnt anything that would make you call another person "trans"?

[–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mean if I had to go along with trans dogma or lose my job I would probably say what I had to in order to stay employed. But in my view transgenderism is basically a delusion, a false idea that changing sex is possible, or that brains have a sex and that one has or can have the brain of a different sex. Every study on the human brain in the different sexes has shown that apart from a slight difference in size (female brains are smaller) there are no measurable or significant differences in the brain between the sexes . So no, I don't believe that anyone can actually be trans.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I believe the current definition is too broad.

To me, "trans" is what old-school transsexuals used to experience. Severe, debilitating sex and genital dysphoria that starts in early childhood and persists through adolescence and into mature adulthood. The kind that is resistant to all forms of therapeutic treatment.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

But is that really an accurate description of what all "old-school transsexuals used to experience"?

Even in the 1970s, most male "transsexuals" who had genital surgeries were middle-aged heterosexuals who had been married to women, fathered children, and long had lived as "manly men" who enjoyed great success in male-dominated fields and professions. Many excelled in macho endeavors such as men's sports and the military, and did very well academically, socially and athletically at the all-male schools they attended. As James, Jan Morris even accompanied Sir Edmund Hillary in the historic expedition in which "man" (represented by a group of men) finally "conquered" Mount Everest! As Richard Raskin, Renee Richards not only was a star in American football, tennis and baseball - he was offered a position on the NY Yankees! The sorts of accomplishments that Morris, Raskin/Richards and many "transsexuals" of their era racked up prior to "becoming women" represented the pinnacle of masculinity. None of these men had "sex and genital dysphoria" so "debilitating" that it stopped them from doing well in school and athletics in childhood, adolescence and adulthood; prevented them from being successful at work; and got in the way of them dating and marrying women. And their "genital dysphoria" wasn't so terrible that it prevented them from getting their wives and girlfriends pregnant, either.

[–]worried19 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

True, there have always been autogynephiles, but there used to be stricter gatekeeping. They had to at least convince psychiatrists that hormones and surgery were necessary. If a transsexual didn't have surgery, they couldn't legally change sex. Heterosexual men who loved their penises and wanted to keep them became transvestites, not transsexuals.

The common perception of transsexuals is that they are still made up primarily of extremely effeminate homosexuals who have too much physical and social distress to live as male in society. That's part of the reason we're in this current mess. The general public doesn't realize that the demographic has shifted. They have no idea "transbians" are even a thing.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry, worried19, the response I've written to you - below - is way too long. To put it mildly. But you made some points that got me thinking back and reflecting... as your posts often do. Before reading on, please be aware that whilst I am disagreeing with you on a few particulars, I really appreciate and value all your posts and enjoy the exchanges we have. Your intelligence and knowledge is very impressive. I wish I knew as much as you when I was your age. Now to my points:

True, there have always been autogynephiles, but there used to be stricter gatekeeping. They had to at least convince psychiatrists that hormones and surgery were necessary.

But that sort of gatekeeping only went on at the "gender clinics" affiliated with major teaching hospitals like Johns Hopkins and UCLA. None of that sort of gatekeeping was done at all by the doctors who did the vast majority of "sex change surgeries" in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, who were maverick independent operators in private practice unaffiliated with big-name establishment medical institutions. Like Georges Burou in Casablanca, Morocco and Stanley Biber in Trinidad, Colorado, USA, each of whom did thousands of "male to female sex change" surgeries.

Many other surgeons in private practice did these operations in other places like Denmark, the Netherlands and Harley Street, London, too. In 1951, for example, "the first modern sex reassignment surgery from male to female using a flap technique" was done by London-based physician Sir Harold Delf Gillies, a private practitioner known as the "father of modern plastic surgery." The patient was Robert/Roberta Cowell, an engineer, professional race car driver and World War II fighter pilot who had been married to a woman and fathered two children before deciding he was a woman himself. Here's some of Cowell's background from Wikipedia, with the pronouns changed to be accurate and so the story makes sense:

Cowell attended Whitgift School, a boys' public school in Croydon and was an enthusiastic member of the school's Motor Club, along with John Cunningham, who would later be famous as an RAF night fighter ace and test pilot. Towards the end of his school days, he visited Belgium, Germany, and Austria with a school friend. At the time, one of his hobbies was photography and film making, and he was briefly arrested in Germany for shooting a cine film of a group of Nazis drilling. He secured his release by agreeing to destroy the film, but was able to substitute unused film stock, and keep the original footage.

Cowell left school at the age of 16 to join General Aircraft Limited as an apprentice aircraft engineer, but soon left to join the Royal Air Force, becoming an acting pilot officer on probation on 4 August 1936 ;Cowell began pilot-training, but was discharged because of air-sickness.

In 1936, Cowell began studying engineering at University College London. Also in that year, he began motor-racing, winning her class at the Land's End Speed Trial in a Riley. He gained initial experience of the sport by sneaking into the area where cars were serviced at the Brooklands racing circuit, wearing mechanic's overalls, and offering help to any driver or mechanic who wanted it. By 1939, he owned three cars and had competed in the 1939 Antwerp Grand Prix.

On 28 December 1940, Cowell was commissioned into the Royal Army Service Corps as second lieutenant, and in June 1941, married Diana Margaret Zelma Carpenter (1917–2006),[12] who also had been an engineering student at UCL with an interest in motor racing.Cowell served in Iceland before transferring from the Army to the RAF on 24 January 1942 with the rank of pilot officer (temporary).He had obtained a private pilot's licence before the war and completed RAF flying training at RAF Ansty.

In 1944, the Hawker Typhoon fighter-bomber Cowell was piloting whilst on a bombing mission of Nazi Germany was badly hit by enemy fire, and Cowell made a crash landing. Soon Cowell was captured by Nazi troops.

Cowell made two escape attempts, reasoning that the chances of success were greatest if the attempt was made quickly, while still close to the front–line. However, the attempts failed and he was taken further into Germany, spending several weeks in solitary confinement at an interrogation centre for captured Allied aircrew, before being moved to the prisoner–of–war camp Stalag Luft I.

Cowell remained a prisoner for around five months, occupying the time by teaching classes in automotive-engineering to fellow inmates. In Cowell's biography, he describes the situational sexual behaviour shown by some of the camp's Allied prisoners, and his discomfort at being propositioned by prisoners who assumed he also wanted to take part in this. He was offered the part of a woman in a camp theatrical production but turned it down, as she thought this would make her appear homosexual in the eyes of other prisoners. Towards the end of the war, food became short at the camp; Cowell lost 50 pounds (23 kg) in weight, and later described killing the camp's cats and eating them raw because of hunger.

After demobilization, Cowell was engaged in a number of business ventures until, in 1946, he founded a motor-racing team and competed in events across Europe, including the Brighton Speed Trials and the Grand Prix at Rouen-Les-Essarts.

However Cowell's autobiography describes this as a time of great distress. Cowell experienced a traumatic flashback when watching the film Mine Own Executioner, in which the hero is shot-down by anti-aircraft fire while flying a Spitfire.

In 1948, Cowell separated from his wife and, suffering from depression, he sought out a leading Freudian psychiatrist of the time, but was unsatisfied by the help he offered. Sessions with a second Freudian psychiatrist... gradually revealed, in Cowell's own words, that his "unconscious mind was predominantly female" and the "feminine side of my nature, which all my life I had known of and severely repressed, was very much more fundamental and deep-rooted than I had supposed."

Sorry, the contention that "there used to be stricter gatekeeping" to weed out the het AGPs is not true. Nor is the claim that "the demographic has shifted" in recent years so that AGPs now predominate amongst trans-identified males, whereas in the past males who became "transsexuals" were "primarily extremely effeminate homosexuals" who had "severe, debilitating sex and genital dysphoria" all their lives from early childhood that caused them "too much physical and social distress to live as male in society." AGPs have always predominated.

As for the contention that

Heterosexual men who loved their penises and wanted to keep them became transvestites, not transsexuals.

I don't think this is true either, at least it wasn't in the USA in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. In the past just as today, the vast majority of men who wish they were women and dress and "present as" women did not get the genital surgeries called "sex change operations" that today we associate with the term "transsexual." Like today, most kept their dicks and balls and focused on altering their appearance by use of clothing, wigs, makeup etc. Some did this FT and in public; others did it PT and in private.

In many places, such as the areas of the US I lived and spent time in (NYC, SF, Boston, DC) and circles I traveled in during the 60s, 70s and 80s, heterosexual men who dressed as women and liked to LARP as women, usually for erotic purposes, were called cross-dressers, and the gay guys who cross-dressed were called transvestites. However, this wasn't true across all of the US; the terminology, and meanings behind it, varied from region to region, and amongst different groups. Moreover, by the end of the 1990s, these two terms and two groups of men were being increasingly lumped together under the new nomenclature "transgender" and just plain "trans," as this convo from 1999 shows:

But the larger issue is that neither "gender dysphoria" nor autogynephilia in either homosexual males or het ones are as static as you seem to think. Whatever the age of onset, in both groups of boys and men, "gender dysphoria" and AGP alike tend to change over time in intensity and the ways these conditions manifest.

Moreover, I believe you are vastly overestimating the number/proportion of homosexual males who wish they were women whose "gender dysphoria" is mainly characterized by, or involves, severe dislike of, and distress over, their genitals. Even for gay males who experienced disgust and shame over their dicks and balls in and from early childhood, such negative feelings do not represent all their feelings about their genitals; their feelings often are a mixture that run the gamut from revulsion to "don't mind" to viewing their dicks and balls as pretty terrific. Once puberty begins and gay boys with "genital dysphoria" start masturbating to orgasm like mad as all boys do, the positive feelings very often outweigh the negative ones, and/or the genital shame and disgust they felt previously become more complicated.

Also, according to Blanchard and Michael Bailey, the men most likely to seek to have "sex change surgeries" in order to obtain facsimile female genitals are the heterosexual AGPs, not the homosexual ones. The fact that het AGPs wanted to, and today want to, have their dicks and balls refashioned into vulvas and vaginas doesn't mean they didn't and don't "love their penises." It simply means they want a vulva and vagina more. These men are trying to "become what they love" - and what they love are female bodies and genitals. But loving and obsessing over the genitals of the opposite sex, and having a deep-seated fantasy-fed desire to possess/obtain/own the genitals of the opposite sex, doesn't mean not loving your own genitals.

[–]BiologyIsReal¡Vamos Argentina tricampeón del mundo! 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But how could they know whether hormones and surgeries were necessary? Because trans identified people wanting them is not good enough reason. Otherwise, we would be giving liposuctions to patients with anorexia nervosa or amputing healthy body parts to patients with body integrity dysphoria. In truth, it was all experimental. Even today, after decades of "medical transition" being developed, there is not stil solid evidence that such drastic procedures, which ultimately won't change anyone's sex, do improve mental health. Studies in this area often suffer from several methodological issues: e.g. no controls, not looking at long-term effects, many subjects dropping the studies. There is also some anecdotical evidence that suggest many regreters or detransitioners may not go back to their doctors.

Moreover, if you read the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria or the previous names of the disorder, you'll see that they rely a lot on sex stereotypes. This is particularly true when it comes to children.

[–]FlanJam 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

(im not GC but close enough)

I think its up to the trans community to decide the classification for being trans. There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus so far, so I'll just take people at their word. If they say they're trans, I'll call them trans.