GC: What should happen to trans people after the media storm fizzles out

BiologyIsReal · 2023-05-05T02:17:16+00:00

I use the term transsexual instead of transgender as it connects me to the strong and resilient women in the past who defied a society that wanted them to not exist and communicates that changing my secondary sex characteristics to be that of the opposite sex is paramount to my condition.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like quite the overstatement. First, who exactly did want people like you not to exist? Disagreeing with your views, even how you view yourselves is not the same as wanting you not to exist. Second, exogenous hormones and elective surgeries can only alter your appearance so much. For some, it may increase the likelihood that other people mistake them for the opposite sex, but only up to a certain point; and I remain skeptical that someone could fool ALL the people ALL the time. IME, people like you not only often overestimate how much they pass irl (which doesn't come up with filters, convenient angles and so on), but they also underestimate how much people are willing to play along whether for thinking is the "polite" thing to do, for fear of negative consequences or for not wanting to go against the flow.

Putting the matter of "passing" aside, there are other things that you've not considered. You focused a lot on how much people like you need all those medical procedures and that you all were/are willing to risk everything for them; unlike the modern "transgender people", who are only following a trend. However, if people like you would have born at the early 19th century, you couldn't have access them not matter what because they didn't exist. So, how much is this need innate? How much has said need arised by the very new existence (in terms of human history) of said procedures?

Furthermore, I disagree that back then there was actual "gatekeeping". I've read the old diagnostic criteria and they still relied on sexist stereotypes, unsurprisingly. It could not have been any other way because once you rule out biology to define who is a woman or a man, you're only left with stereotypes. What is more, any "gatekeeping" could be bypassed if you have enough money and that is how even in the good old days of gatekeeping you had middle aged males who were sexually attract to females, have fathered children and had very "manly" jobs declaring suddenly they were "transsexuals" and got all the hormones and surgeries done. So, how can you tell who is and who is not a "true trans". If there less people like you back then is likely because these procedures were more expensive, less available, less advertised, and less people willing to play along among other things.

All of this, plus the shoddy science done by the doctors working on "gender medicine", the fact that not other mental issue is treated the same way (e.g. nobody recommends liposuction for people with anorexia nervosa) and the well-known health problems produced for these elective surgeries and the usage of exogenous hormones is enough, I think, to question the wisdom of "gender affirmement treatments" for anyone but, ESPECIALLY, for children and teens.

You also complain about other people dismissing the experiences of people like you; however, besides focusing so much on "passability" and overestimating the ability to tell "true trans" apart from the trenders, you're ignoring the fact people will never have the same experiences than females, regardless of how much hormones you take, how many surgeries you undergo or much effort you put on emulating the stereotypical dressing and mannerisms of women, and so on.

But you worry about Republicans and bathrooms. I don't care for Republicans. I don't have any good thing to say about them nor about the Democrats (I'm not American). Yet, by your post it seems you have not considered at all how the bathroom's issue affects women, not only in the US, but in all the other countries where "affirmation" has become the norm. Indeed, it seems you feel threatened by "modern transgender people" because women may assert their boundaries with all trans identified males. Nevertheless trans identified males, BOTH "old school transsexuals" and the "modern transgender people", have inserted themselves in former women-only spaces, not only in public bathrooms, but also changing rooms, spas, sports, hospital wards, refugees, prisons, and so on. Women were not consulted for this and when we tried to assert our boundaries you all (i.e. both groups of trans identified males) you kept going on. You STILL keep going on. In some cases, some of you have responded to dissenting women with threats of rape and violence, trying to get them fired from their jobs or "cancelled", or even with actual violence.

Both groups seems completely disinterested in how much their actions hurts women. Both groups seems completely disinterested on how women may find offensive to be defined based on a bunch of sexist stereotypes or how offensive is to see our biology and our experiences be treated like a costume. Both groups ignore also how much their actions are setting the hard-earned women's rights back. In conclusion, by your post it seems you have more in common with "modern transgender people" than you think.

And yet you won't go to the men's bathrooms. Of course, you all could have lobby for third spaces ages ago. That is the obvious compromise that both the "old school transsexuals" and "the modern transgender people" has ruled out from the very beginning, and they both still treat it as a taboo. Apparently third spaces are othering and akin to racial segregation. Funny, though, how we women don't feel othered by not sharing the bathrooms with men, don't you think?

Edit: yeah, I guess I'm once again able to write a long post discussing this topic after a long, and very needed, "rest".

GCdebatesQT

MODERATORS