Well, you know, every decision has costs

NHS England is to be taken to court by the UK’s equality watchdog for failing to offer fertility services to transgender patients.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission will launch a high-profile judicial review action, a legal manoeuvre that is likely to prove controversial at a time when the NHS is struggling to balance budgets and provide core services.

Last month the Observer reported that the commission had written to NHS England putting it on notice that it needed to offer fertility services to transgender patients before they underwent treatment for gender dysphoria, a process that normally results in a loss of fertility.

By extracting and storing eggs and sperm before they undergo gender reassignment, transgender people can choose to have their biological children delivered via surrogates later in life. However, many are keen to proceed with treatment when they are teenagers, and may not have the resources to pay for such fertility services. This, the commission argues, discriminates against transgender people, whom it says should be offered the services as a standard procedure.

And if you’re not willing to carry the costs then you don’t really want that decision, do you?

73 thoughts on “Well, you know, every decision has costs”

  1. But, the sex you transitioned to is your real sex, right?

    It’s the one your psyche wants so it’s the right one? So that means that you are and always have been a real woman, complete with ovaries, wombs, paired X chromosomes, and so on, just need some basic plumbing changes done to correct nature’s failures, yes?

    Not so long ago we had the claim that M2F trans had period pains and should be allowed time off for it. So it must be true, yes?

    And if you are and have always been a real woman then you weren’t ever making sperm that could be frozen.

  2. “And if you’re not willing to carry the costs then you don’t really want that decision, do you?”

    It’s done on the basis the people offered cancer treatment that is going to render them infertile are *also* offered fertility treatment.

    Is it your argument that if you’re not willing to bear the cost yourself, then you didn’t really want the cancer treatment?

    Now, you might well choose to argue that that’s wrong too (although I can’t help noticing that you didn’t), but the point of the case is that in the case of other treatments the NHS do, and therefore you can’t pick and choose which treatments to do it for.

    “So that means that you are and always have been a real woman, complete with ovaries, wombs, paired X chromosomes, and so on, just need some basic plumbing changes done to correct nature’s failures, yes?”

    No. And you’d have to be an idiot to think that was what it meant.

  3. And the march of Western society towards oblivion carries on one step at a time…

    Maybe if we stopped pissing all this money down the toilet, we could use the money on something useful, like trying to find a cheap and easy way to escape the gravity well and truly free humanity to live free amongst the stars.

    But I guess I’m just a dreamer and we’ll have to put up with funding chicks with dicks having kids.

  4. “But cancer is a real illness, while trans-genderism is a delusion best treated psychiatrically, not surgically.”

    The medical profession disagree. But of course, you knew that already, and don’t care. You know better…

  5. Cancer kills people or makes them infertile.

    People don’t choose to catch cancer.

    A woman staying a woman isn’t going to die of it. Nor is staying a woman going to make a woman infertile.

    So the cancer analogy is bollocks.

    And I’ve still not had a proper answer to how someone born one sex can know they “feel” like the other sex. I only know how I feel. I don’t know how it feels to be anyone or anything else. Neither does anyone else.

  6. @NiV “The medical profession disagree”

    It’s been amazing over the years what the medical profession has agreed and disagreed with, especially in the psychiatric field.

    The medical profession used to agree that chaining people to beds and throwing away the key was good for mentally ill patients. Then they agreed that hallucinogenic drugs or electric shocks were great.

    I’m sure 30 years ago they would have agreed that a man who thought he was a woman needed counseling.

    Now they think he should have his cock cut off.

    And each generation laughs at the previous.

    Almost as if what they believed was the fashion of the day like the emperor’s new clothes.

  7. “It’s been amazing over the years what the medical profession has agreed and disagreed with, especially in the psychiatric field.”

    It’s amazing what random idiots pontificating on the internet have agreed and disagreed with, too! Why do you think you’re immune to the same issue? Why do you think, sans evidence, you know any better?

    Oh, yes. “Because it’s *my* opinion.” Same as everyone else.

  8. Women don’t make sperm so how can a woman have her sperm frozen pre-surgery to orrect cruel nature giving her the wrong genitals, just in case she wants to father a child?

  9. @Tim

    Not sure I agree with “And if you’re not willing to carry the costs then you don’t really want that decision, do you?”, at least in the form argued.

    It’s certainly possible to imagine two 18 year-old trans people, one from a wealthy and very supportive household and one who is skint. The impossible financial cost of fertility treatment leaves the skint one facing a greater opportunity cost of transitioning, but that doesn’t mean they “want” to transition any less than the wealthy one. Similarly, the opportunity cost of two cancer sufferers from starting treatment would not be equal if only one of them could afford fertility treatment, but that doesn’t mean the other “wants” treatment for cancer less.

  10. “A woman staying a woman isn’t going to die of it”
    Suicide rates are above average in these cases so depends on how you want to measure risk. Attempted suicide for trans teens is significantly higher than average rate as well

  11. I interpreted Tim’s comment about costs as being about consequences, not finances.

    Amusingly, I think I’m with NiV on this – but, obviously, not for the same reason. My view is that if the NHS is ideologically callous enough to destroy patient genitalia to indulge the symptoms of patient mental illness, then extracting and storing patient gametes should be a compulsory part of the process, along with any subsequent surrogate fertility assistance as may be necessary.

    Tim is correct, decisions have costs – and the NHS should bear the costs of its decisions.

  12. “Not many”

    This is poor and ironic form for you, NiV; an appeal to authority.

    The medical profession, as with much of science, is enthralled to progressive McTwattery. That so many of them believe mad shit doesn’t stop the shit being mad.

  13. @PJF

    I may have misread him, but the implication seemed to me to be “if you can’t afford to get the fertility treatment, and the therefore the disadvantage of inability to have kids weighs against transitioning, then you don’t really want it, do you?” He may not have intended it like that, but unless the NHS or somebody else steps in, the finances will be the critical thing that determines how bad the opportunity costs are for someone.

  14. Exhibit A: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6195853/Credit-Suisse-boss-dresses-woman-slammed-appearing-100-women-list.html

    That’s fabulous, Theo. We’ve had real women pissed off with men-pretending-to-be-women, and now we have real men-pretending-to-be-women getting pissed off with men pretending-to-be-real-men-pretending-to-be-women. Or is it just full-timers annoyed with part timers?

    I wonder what Pippa / Philip Bunce’s brain is like. Half man – half woman, Tommy Cooper style? Maybe NiV can get the medicos to do a scan.

    India said, “transgender has become totally meaningless”. Always was, old chap, always was.

  15. “I may have misread him…”

    You’re probably correct, MyBurningEars. I read Tim’s lines as one:

    “Well, you know, every decision has costs and if you’re not willing to carry the costs then you don’t really want that decision, do you?”

    …and then read the snippet. The association with finances isn’t as strong that way.

  16. another nivfest. When ze/zer/it told us that 1400 years of islamic invasion/murder etc could be overcome by exposure to the west – how did that work out in afghanistan and iran niv? – oh not so well – they have jeans/iphones/cars but still want to murder us – you know that it’s an idiot (if you didn’t know that already.) Nevermind – Swedes who seem bent on national suicide are thinking of transplanting uteruses into men who’ve had their cock cut off and dress as women.

  17. Andrew

    And I’ve still not had a proper answer to how someone born one sex can know they “feel” like the other sex. I only know how I feel. I don’t know how it feels to be anyone or anything else. Neither does anyone else.

    Quite so. There is something that it feels like to be a woman or man – an irreducible core of subjective experience (derived from chromosomal, hormonal, genital and social factors), which results in specific and near-universal female and male behaviours and aptitudes. These behaviours and aptitudes range from superior colour perception in females to female modesty to male and female sexuality having different vectors, etc, etc.

    M2Fs or chicks with dicks (CWDs) do not and cannot have the irreducible core of subjective experience that a real female has. They may claim to have a ‘female brain’, but they don’t have the relevant chromosomal, hormonal or genital underpinning to support the claim, nor do they have the deep core of subjective experience of being female.

    In short, they are deluded. This is confirmed by the way CWDs simply don’t understand how women think or feel — e.g. over the matter of opening spaces reserved for girls and women to CWDs.

    For thousands of years, men and women have opted for segregated hygiene, toilet and changing facilities.This female modesty is a recognition that men are physically stronger than women, that women are sexually vulnerable, that men’s sexual urges are less discriminating and more automatic, and that in consequence a minority of men pose a significant sexual hazard to girls and women. Accordingly, we have developed this sexual segregation to protect females from the dangers posed by a minority of men and the embarrassment and anxiety that females naturally feel when their privacy is invaded by CWDs (ie men).

    CWDs like NiV can’t see this and NiV compares the anxiety real females feel in these circumstances to snowflakes imagining micro-aggressions. But a CWD who takes this stance simply shows that he certainly hasn’t got a female brain. These people claim to be women but can’t understand how women think and feel. And they can’t understand how women think and feel because they aren’t women.

  18. Just put ’em on a waiting list and forget ’em. That’s what the NHS does with any other operation..

    (I know, that is slightly unfair, but it’s my mood after my father-in-law told me about his planned op.)

  19. There is a psychiatric disorder where people feel that parts of their body aren’t theirs. They frequently ask to have the offending part removed by surgery. This is usually denied, because it doesn’t solve the actual problem, which is a mental disorder. People have sympathy for any unfortunate with this problem.

    I struggle to see significant differences with transgender people. They likewise perceive their body to be “wrong”. It used to be that we accepted they had a disorder, which we tried to treat. Even if they transitioned, their birth gender was not considered wrong.

    Now, apparently, their brains are fine and their body is the part that is wrong.

    I call Bullshit.

    Either people with body dismorphia — of any sort — are right about their body or they aren’t. This situation where *only* transgender people aren’t suffering from a disorder, whereas say anorexics are, is ludicrous.

  20. “Tim is correct, decisions have costs – and the NHS should bear the costs of its decisions.”

    Interesting take. Same goes for cancer treatment, of course.

    “This is poor and ironic form for you, NiV; an appeal to authority.”

    Granted. I was just laughing at Dr Theo issuing expertly prescribing medical treatment!

    We are talking about treatments provided by the NHS, which is run by the medical profession, not Dr Theo. They decide what’s a real illness that gets treatment and what’s delusion.

    “The medical profession, as with much of science, is enthralled to progressive McTwattery.”

    Most science isn’t! And it’s not something I’ve seen any evidence of with the medical profession, either.

    The NHS do at least make an effort to use evidence-based treatment, unlike some.

    “That so many of them believe mad shit doesn’t stop the shit being mad.”

    True. But it’s also true that so many of them believing good medical science doesn’t stop the science being good, either. The problem is telling the difference.

    Dr Theo says above that cancer is a real illness. How does he know? How do you know? You can’t have found it out from the medical profession, because that’s full of “Mad Shit Progressive McTwattery”, and so if that was the source their claim that cancer is real would have to be classed likewise. So how do you know?

    Maybe this so-called ‘lung cancer’ is just a Progressive anti-smoking propaganda campaign that got out of hand…?

    “another nivfest.”

    Tim does it deliberately.

    And it ‘takes two to tango’ – if you don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it.

    “There is something that it feels like to be a woman or man – an irreducible core of subjective experience (derived from chromosomal, hormonal, genital and social factors), which results in specific and near-universal female and male behaviours and aptitudes.”

    “Near” universal?

    Consider the Guevedoces. They have XY chromosomes but due to a genetic fault that disables the production of the hormone dihydrotestosterone, they’re born with female external genitals. They’re raised socially as a girl.

    Genetics. Hormones. Genitals. Social. All of these give them the physical experience of *being* a girl. And yet, somehow, they can all tell. They *behave* like boys. They’re not happy being treated as girls. How do they know?

    Go on Dr Theo, tell us how your theory explains this?

    “For thousands of years, men and women have opted for segregated hygiene, toilet and changing facilities.”

    That’s very Muslim of you!

  21. @NiV

    You’ve frotted yourself into a right lather here.

    You say that the medical profession is in near full agreement about transgender people being right. They really are men trapped in women’s bodies or vice versa.

    You also say there’s no evidence that the medical profession is enthralled by the latest fad. Yet go back 30 years and how much of the medical profession thought the same?

    Are you saying that 30 years ago you would have said that the medical profession was right because it near uniformly agreed that these people needed counselling not ‘gender reassignment’? Or would you have known they were wrong?

    And you still haven’t explained how a man can say he feels like a woman and be right about it. He might feel miserable and unhappy with his life and his body, as many do but how can he know he ‘feels like a woman’? The only person he can possibly know what it feels like to be is himself. He wants his cock cut off so you say ‘yay, cut it off!’. If he wanted his left arm cut off? Or both his legs below his knees? What would you say then? And there are people with such delusions.

    And I bet if they received more publicity, and began a campaign group there’d be a lot more sad, miserable mentally unstable people who suddenly realised it wasn’t their cock they wanted cut off but their arm or leg or ears.

  22. “@NiV “For thousands of years, men and women have opted for segregated hygiene, toilet and changing facilities.”

    That’s very Muslim of you!”

    That’s very pathetic of you. Even for you.

  23. He might feel miserable and unhappy with his life and his body, as many do but how can he know he ‘feels like a woman’?

    QED???

  24. ” ‘another nivfest.’

    Tim does it deliberately.”

    Yes, it’s all about you, NiV.

    I note that you haven’t addressed Pippa / Philip. Surely that case must offer all kinds of insights into transgenderism. Maybe you’re just an unfeeling bigot like India Willoughby.

  25. “And I bet if they received more publicity, and began a campaign group there’d be a lot more sad, miserable mentally unstable people who suddenly realised it wasn’t their cock they wanted cut off but their arm or leg or ears.”

    Let’s go for it! With the slogans, ‘An amputee is the thing to be!’
    ‘Amputeeism is armless!’ and ‘No need to get drunk to be legless: join the amputees!’

  26. I remember when Jack Askley (deaf MP) was condemned by “deaf rights” activists for having treatment that allowed him to hear. It was like he was a traitor to the cause. Deafism now!

    A lot of this stuff is attention seeking. India Willoughby is bent out of shape because someone even more bizarre is getting the attention. Once you’ve transitioned that should be pretty much it, right? You just get on, happy in your new identity. But somehow, the presentation still needs to be trans-female. And now here’s Pippa / Philip, in a constant state of trans; keeping that attention flowing.

    Transgenderism is about the trans, not the gender.

  27. NiV

    The practice of medicine uses science but it isn’t wholly scientific. And it has many prejudices and fashions… I have low blood pressure: in Germany, I’d be placed on medication; in the UK, no NHS doctor will treat it. In Scandinavia, doctors don’t worry about administering potentially addictive pain relief to terminal patients; in the UK, they do. And so on and on…

    Psychiatry is even less scientific than other medicine. My wife’s cousin is a trick cyclist, and he is full of fashionable nonsense about ‘ethnic stress’ in the UK and how Palestinian suicide bombers are rational. Psychiatry is very prone to political fashion and various liberationist fads (remember R D Laing, Thomas Szasz, etc). So it’s unsurprising that many psychiatrists side with TG lobby.

    “Dr Theo says above that cancer is a real illness. How does he know?”

    Cancer is an objective condition. (I know that because I’ve got cancer. I’ve seen images of my tumour. I’ve read the literature.) Believing you are a woman trapped in a male body is not only a subjective and unverifiable condition but also the belief is undermined by CWDs evidently not understanding how real women think and feel.

    “Consider the Guevedoces.”

    One swallow does not make a summer, as Aristotle observed. The category of grey doesn’t undermine the categories of black and white.

    “Genetics. Hormones. Genitals. Social. All of these give them the physical experience of *being* a girl. And yet, somehow, they can all tell. They *behave* like boys. They’re not happy being treated as girls. How do they know?”

    Because their chromosomes are XY, you idiot! Delayed sex differentiation shows that chromosomal sex is fundamental. Which in turn supports my view that anyone with XY chromosomes who believes they are a woman is deluded and deranged.

  28. I self-identify as somebody who has a girlfriend, but I don’t have a girlfriend. What is the state going to do to ensure my self-identification is expressed?

  29. I identify as a bloke with a 10″ penis. I feel mentally that I do have this appendage, regardless of the physical reality, and that having a 10″ penis is a fundamental part of who i am as man. I therefore expect every women who I meet to treat me as if my version of reality is correct, and behave accordingly.

    What, it doesn’t work that way???

  30. “Yes, it’s all about you, NiV.”

    No it’s all about clickbait for more traffic, and getting a good argument going.

    “Are you saying that 30 years ago you would have said that the medical profession was right because it near uniformly agreed that these people needed counselling not ‘gender reassignment’? Or would you have known they were wrong?”

    I’m not saying it’s right because the medical profession say so. I’m saying that the NHS regard both cancer and dysphoria as genuine conditions, and therefore if they offer fertility treatment in the case of one they’re required by the rules to offer it for the other. It’s the views of the medical profession that count – Dr Theo’s opinion is as irrelevant as those of people who say that cancer is caused by demons and needs exorcism.

    Science progresses. We used to think all sorts of things, but then the evidence changed our minds. (The intellectual fashions chase after scientific discovery, not the other way round.) And while it may be that evidence yet to be discovered will change our minds again, at the moment the best evidence we’ve got is that it works this way. And until somebody provides better evidence, it makes no sense to be following old opinions we definitely know are wrong rather than newer opinions that might be wrong.

    You keep on missing out this essential step. Yes, you can dismiss the latest science as uncertain, but the same applies double to uninformed opinions that don’t even have that much backing. You need to bring better evidence if you want to overturn the current scientific front-runner, and you never do.

    I first read about the science back in 1993 in Matt Ridley’s book ‘The Red Queen’, which was 25 years ago, so personally if asked 30 years ago I’d have said “I don’t know, tell me what the evidence is”. But Matt was citing research that had been done in the 1970s and 1980s, and seemed to consider it scientifically uncontroversial and a done deal, so I suspect the experts probably did know.

    “Cancer is an objective condition. (I know that because I’ve got cancer. I’ve seen images of my tumour. I’ve read the literature.)”

    Images produced by who? The literature written by who?

    “One swallow does not make a summer, as Aristotle observed.”

    Aristotle also said that women have fewer teeth than men. He’s not exactly a good source on the scientific method.

    Try: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    “Because their chromosomes are XY, you idiot!”

    How can a five-year old kid living in the Dominican Republic tell that their chromosomes are XY?

  31. NiV,

    I know that because I’ve got cancer. I’ve seen images of my tumour. I’ve read the literature.

    “Images produced by who? The literature written by who?”

    You really are a nasty, thoughtless little piece of shit, aren’t you.

    Now I’ve got that out of the way:

    If a person with fully and indisputably male characteristics (say, an olympic athlete who has fathered several children) transitions to become a woman, has that person actually become female?

    No obfuscating: just a yes or no answer please, so we know what your position is.

    Further to that – has that person always really been female, at least for as long as they have harboured the desire to transition?

    Again, yes or no.

  32. You grow increasingly pathetic and feeble in your responses, NiV….

    “Images produced by who? The literature written by who?”

    Technicians and cancer specialists, using empirical techniques, which I can verify. Diagnoses of transgenderism don’t use scanners and biopsies, and they don’t involve objective scientific data. – But do go ahead and step into the vortex of self-refuting relativism…

    “Aristotle also said that women have fewer teeth than men. He’s not exactly a good source on the scientific method.”

    That’s completely irrelevant to the truth of Aristotle’s statement that one swallow doesn’t make a summer. You spout multiple falsehoods here, but you also are right…occasionally.

    “How can a five-year old kid living in the Dominican Republic tell that their chromosomes are XY?”

    This must rank as one of your most dishonest comments! You are shameless and have no respect for truth….Why? The child kid doesn’t have to know that his chromosomes are XY to know that he is not female. He knows he’s not female because he has XY chromosomes. Just as you can see without knowing that there are about 26 biochemical cascades in the photo-receptors on your retina.

  33. @NiV “they’re required by the rules to offer it for the other.”

    What rules are those? When did they get written?

  34. “You really are a nasty, thoughtless little piece of shit, aren’t you.”

    Yayyy!! Quality ad hominem (abusive)!

    I mean, seriously. Whose character do you think that’s more revealing of?

    “If a person with fully and indisputably male characteristics (say, an olympic athlete who has fathered several children) transitions to become a woman, has that person actually become female?”

    Sheesh! How many times do I have to explain?! Do I just repeat the same thing again and again and again and again and again ad infinitum? Do you still pretend not to understand ad infinitum?

    Organisms are made up of many parts, each of which may be arranged according to the male-typical pattern or the female-typical pattern separately. An organism may be a mixture – some bits male, some bits female. So the question “Is this organism ‘male’ or ‘female’?” has no unambiguous answer. It’s both, or neither. Or something on the spectrum in between.

    Some organisms are born with a male-typical brain anatomy, and female-typical genitalia. Some of those then develop male-typical genitalia later in life, while some others don’t.

    Are Guevedoce children male or female? If you define it by genitals, they’re female. If you define it by brain anatomy, they’re male. Which is it? When they later develop male-pattern genitals, which are they now? Did they switch? Or were they always male?

    It all comes down to what definition you’re using. If you’re really, really, really going to insist on a single binary-choice answer for a multi-part organism, well, we start by asking which bit of the organism counts as “the” person, for legal purposes.

    Death is defined to be brain death. A dead brain in a live-and-otherwise-healthy body is (as a ‘person’) dead. A live brain in a body missing numerous bits is (as a ‘person’) still live. Siamese twins with two brains are two people. In the case of organ transplants, a body with bits from two different people “is” the original person from which the brain came. Heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, arms, legs, and – yes indeedy – genitals don’t count. The brain defines the person. The brain has the one-and-only vote.

    So we define “the” gender – male or female – of the person by reference to the brain. And someone with a male brain is male, irrespective of the rest of the body.

    Thus, the Guevedoce boys as people are always male, even during the time before they have male genitals. Their genitals are female. Their “gender presentation” (the social role they follow) is female. They wear skirts and dresses. They go in the girls’ toilets. If you ask them, they’ll quite likely tell you they’re a girl, since that’s what they’ve been taught to say by society. ‘Girl’ norms are enforced. There are lots of different related concepts of sex/gender that could be used as definitions, which often go together but not quite always, and whichever you choose you’ll always find cases to disagree on.

    Similarly, beards are male, but girls with beards are still *girls*, even with masculine beards on their chins. Because of what’s *behind* the beard.

    The default definition that our society now uses – as a result of modern inventions like life support machines and organ transplants that forced us to change the ones we had before – is that the brain defines the person.

    For any other meaning, you need to clarify which definition you’re using.

    Does that answer your questions? Do you understand now?

    Or would it be more fun (and better show off your intellectual quality) to try a few more childish insults instead?

    “This must rank as one of your most dishonest comments! You are shameless and have no respect for truth….”

    Of course I have respect for truth! Do you?!

    I’m attempting to use the Socratic method here, but it’s a struggle! I think you already know the answer, but I firmly expect you to wriggle like a worm on a hot plate to avoid answering. Do feel free to confound my prediction – but I know you won’t!

    “The child kid doesn’t have to know that his chromosomes are XY to know that he is not female. He knows he’s not female because he has XY chromosomes.”

    Yes, but *how* does he know he’s not female – how do the chromosomes *tell* him?

    Chromosomes have no awareness. Hormones are just chemicals in the blood – they’re not conscious.

    He can’t see them, or feel them. Without a microscope the cells don’t look any different. Blood is still red. And if you judge their presence by their results – looking down for the usual result of XY on the genitals should surely lead him to deduce that he is XX, yes? And yet, he knows.

    By what mechanism do the chromosomes enable him to know he is male?

  35. “What rules are those? When did they get written?”

    The Sex Equality Act (2010), and the Gender Recognition Act (2004).

  36. 1. “Organisms are made up of many parts, each of which may be arranged according to the male-typical pattern or the female-typical pattern separately.”

    Many parts, yes; but every part cannot be male or female in the same organism. I cannot have a female liver but male kidneys. My chromosomal sex coordinates my bodily organism’s development as a whole. By claiming that organs in the same body “may be arranged according to the male-typical pattern or the female-typical pattern separately”, you are assuming whst you are trying to prove.

    2. The brain doesn’t count as “the person, for legal purposes”. You are making that up. A person in law is an individual human being — ie a human being to which mental and physical predicates can be applied. A live brain in a vat would not be person: it would be a very important part of a person.

    3. “By what mechanism do the chromosomes enable him to know he is male?”

    By what mechanism do the photo-sensitive biochemical cascades in your retina enable you to see colour? Those cascades aren’t conscious, yet you are conscious of seeing red, blue, green, etc.

    The XY or XX chromosomes contain the blueprint for the sexual development of human organisms. My chromosomal sex coordinates my bodily organism’s development as a whole.
    A Guevedoce boy knows that he is what he is and he knows that he is not another thing. He isn’t at first conscious of being male as such – he’s simply conscious that he is what he is – though his chromosomes are striving to unfold his complete maleness. As he develops language and social awareness, he’ll identify himself with those who think and feel in similar ways and learn that what he is is male.

  37. @NiV

    Written by the medical profession, then, those rules?

    I’m curious though. This sudden realisation of the vast swathes of gender reassignment candidates.

    Spread evenly world wide? Should be, if it’s biology.

  38. “Many parts, yes; but every part cannot be male or female in the same organism. I cannot have a female liver but male kidneys.”

    Well, there’s no difference in pattern for liver or kidneys between the sexes, but for other organs, why not?

    “My chromosomal sex coordinates my bodily organism’s development as a whole.”

    *IF* the entire process works correctly. There are dozens of different mechanisms, which all have to work in coordination. As the kids with the 5α-Reductase deficiency demonstrate, if part of the mechanism is broken, then the dihydrotestosterone that the Y chromosome is supposed to trigger doesn’t get triggered, and bits of the proper bodily development don’t work.

    Machines break. Why should this be a surprise?

    “A person in law is an individual human being”

    Which bit?

    Suppose you have several organ transplants, so you get Ann’s (female) liver and Bill’s (male) kidneys. Are you Ann, or Bill? If not, why not? Are you *partly* Ann and Bill? Do you get part ownership of Ann’s old house, for example?

    “By claiming that organs in the same body “may be arranged according to the male-typical pattern or the female-typical pattern separately”, you are assuming whst you are trying to prove.”

    No, I’m just describing what we see with people like the Guevedoce, and bearded ladies. Female genitals but male brain. Male beard but female mind. It’s straightforward observation, not assumption.

    “As he develops language and social awareness, he’ll identify himself with those who think and feel in similar ways and learn that what he is is male.”

    HOORAAAAYY!!! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! Whoop!! That’s it! 🙂 🙂

    Well done! You confounded my prediction, that you’d avoid saying it. That’s it exactly. You got it!

  39. “Written by the medical profession, then, those rules?”

    Written by legislators, based partly on advice and evidence from the medical profession.

    “Spread evenly world wide? Should be, if it’s biology.”

    It’s a good question. Some genetic traits do have a limited geographic distribution. We don’t have a complete enough picture yet to tell.

    But so far as we know, yes, it’s widespread worldwide.

  40. “HOORAAAAYY!!! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! Whoop!! That’s it!”

    No, that isn’t it. The subject in question there is male. It is no surprise that the inner male biology overcomes outward appearance and socialisation.

    “Trans” people are biologically the sex they are born with. There is no innate pressure from biology causing their perceptions, any more than there is with people who think they are Martian.

  41. “Well, there’s no difference in pattern for liver or kidneys between the sexes, but for other organs, why not?”

    Lack of evidence?

    “*IF* the entire process works correctly. There are dozens of different mechanisms, which all have to work in coordination. As the kids with the 5α-Reductase deficiency demonstrate, if part of the mechanism is broken, then the dihydrotestosterone that the Y chromosome is supposed to trigger doesn’t get triggered, and bits of the proper bodily development don’t work.
    Machines break. Why should this be a surprise?”

    Then what is the objective medical test for transgenderism? If there’s an objective test, fine. You, however, support self-identification, which is, in Ecksian terms, subjectivist cockrot, and which is wide open to abuse.

    “Which bit?”

    No bit of a human is the identifiable locus of personhood. In law, a human person is psycho-physical unity. A live brain in a vat would not be person: it would be a very important part of a person.

    “HOORAAAAYY!!! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! Whoop!! That’s it”

    No, that’s not it. The guevedoce are male all along. Part of their sexual differentiation is delayed; but, eventually, their inner biology triumphs. Pippa/Philip, for example, is male. His desire to impersonate a female is probably more to do with narcissism and his finding aspects of his male role stressful.

  42. “No, that isn’t it. The subject in question there is male. It is no surprise that the inner male biology overcomes outward appearance and socialisation.”

    By “inner male biology” I assume you mean “male-pattern structure of the brain”? Or if not, what?

    ““Trans” people are biologically the sex they are born with. There is no innate pressure from biology causing their perceptions”

    *Everyone* has “innate pressure from biology causing their perceptions”. You agreed that the male you were discussing above clearly has “innate pressure from biology causing their perceptions” from what you describe as their “inner male biology”. Guevedoce know what sex their mind is. Normal boys and girls know what sex their mind is. What makes you think this “innate pressure” has disappeared in the case of TGs?

    What makes you think that if the biological development process went wrong and this “innate pressure” was pushing in the other direction, that the person wouldn’t know, the same way everyone else does? Because you don’t want it to?

    “Lack of evidence?”

    You’re claiming there’s no evidence for Guevedoce and bearded ladies?!

    “Then what is the objective medical test for transgenderism?”

    Do you really need one to accept the possibility?

    How did the parents of the Guevedoce know their girls were going to become boys without doing any genetic tests? How do the boys themselves know?

    “You, however, support self-identification, which is, in Ecksian terms, subjectivist cockrot, and which is wide open to abuse.”

    As we discussed in the “pew-jumper” conversation, the same can be said of a lot of stuff that we routinely take for granted socially.

    Do Christians exist? Is the Pope Catholic? If somebody self-identifies as a Christian, should I take her word for it and treat her as such? Or should I treat her as a mentally ill nutter suffering delusions? Or a narcissist liar only pretending to believe? What’s the objective test for a ‘Christian’? And what objective medical test can distinguish a ‘Protestant Christian’ from a ‘Catholic Christian’?

    I don’t believe myself, and I don’t exactly understand how anyone else could, but I don’t have any reason to think it’s impossible, and I take people at their word that they do. Would you say that all religion, all churches, all priests, all sacraments and ritual restrictions are “subjectivist cockrot”?

    Should we disband the churches and put all their members in insane asylums until someone can come up with an objective medical test for genuine Christian belief?

    “A live brain in a vat would not be person”

    Why not?

    Would a person who lost a leg still be a person? Where do you draw the line?

    “No, that’s not it.”

    No, it very definitely is it. 🙂 You just don’t want to admit it. Wriggle Wriggle.

  43. “If somebody self-identifies as a Christian, should I take her word for it and treat her as such? Or should I treat her as a mentally ill nutter suffering delusions? Or a narcissist liar only pretending to believe? What’s the objective test for a ‘Christian’? And what objective medical test can distinguish a ‘Protestant Christian’ from a ‘Catholic Christian’?”

    You can do any of those things. Its your choice. When someone says ‘I’m a Christian’ it does not behove you to behave in any particular manner at all. In fact you can take the claim as proof the person is indeed a bit mentally not right if you like, if you have negative views about those who have religious beliefs. No one is saying that you must agree with everything a Christian says, like the world was made in 7 days and Jesus died for your sins. Everyone is free to say ‘I’m a believer in X’ and everyone else is free to say ‘You’re mentally ill because you believe in an imaginary sky fairy’.

    Similarly if you still have the meat and two veg you’re completely at liberty to say ‘I’m a Lady!’ if you want, and behave like one too if you must. Just don’t expect those of us still attached to reality to agree, or treat you as if it was true.

  44. “In fact you can take the claim as proof the person is indeed a bit mentally not right if you like, if you have negative views about those who have religious beliefs.”

    That’s a different question. I’m not asking for a test of whether their beliefs are true, but of whether they are a truly a believer.

    It’s not a question of having negative views about those who have religious beliefs. It’s about whether I should take their word for it that they have religious beliefs at all.

    My point is that society does take people’s word for it on externally-unobservable mental characteristics like religious belief or liking Marmite, routinely and uncontroversially. Is the Pope Catholic? How can you tell?

  45. NiV

    1. “You’re claiming there’s no evidence for Guevedoce and bearded ladies?!”
    As usual, you argue dishonestly and with scant regard for the truth. Actually, the guevedoces don’t support your case. They are born with an apparently vulval cleft containing testes and a micro-penis, but no vagina, uterus or ovaries. Unsurprisingly, with testosterone in their blood, they behave like boys and identify with other boys. The only difference from normal boys is that they complete their genital development at puberty instead of in utero. They were boys all along. Which is why they are classed as pseudo-hermaphrodites.

    2. “Do you really need one [an objective medical test] to accept the possibility?”
    I am interested in realities, not possibilities. Give me an objective medical test that shows that CWDs really are female, and I would accept that CWDs could share female-only spaces. Self-identification is not on, ever.

    3. “How did the parents of the Guevedoce know their girls were going to become boys without doing any genetic tests?”
    They could look inside the apparently vulval cleft.

    4. “How do the boys themselves know?”
    Testosterone. And self examination.

    5. “Is the Pope Catholic? How can you tell?” etc, etc.
    This is a pathetic and feeble argument, as Jim points out above. The Pope has his certificates of baptism, confirmation, first communion and ordination. Moreover, if I say I am a Christian, I am not claiming any particularly important special privileges in society. My faith is personal and private. I don’t expect access to other people’s private spaces. I have no right to enter a mosque, for example, to preach the Gospel. Yet you are claiming that TG self-identification brings the privilege of and right to entering female-only spaces.

    6. “Why not? Would a person who lost a leg still be a person? Where do you draw the line?”

    A living brain in a vat would have no agency (or even potential agency) and no sensory input, though it would probably have memories and dreams. A person as defined in English law is a psycho-physical unity, which reflects the broadly commonsense view that a person is an embodied consciousness capable of agency. Take away agency or consciousness fully/permanently and personhood is lost. The brain is not the locus of personhood, though it is a necessary condition for it (a position dating back to Aristotle, and which, btw, is why Christians traditionally believed in the resurrection of the body, rather than disembodied immortality). Personhood is a matter of the whole body. You, of course, want to make personhood brain-centred because that suits your subjectivist TG agenda of claiming that genital and chromosomal configuration is irrelevant to sexual identity

    7. Abnormalities in brain chemistry might result in some unfortunates imagining that they are chicks when they have dicks. But why should we indulge their delusion when we don’t indulge people with brain chemistry abnormalities urging them to amputate their limbs? Or brain chemistry abnormalities that lead people to imagine that they are Napoleon, a fried egg or a cat? Why should we indulge CWDs, but not the ‘Napoleons’, ‘fried eggs’ and ‘cats’? The arguments you proffer for accepting TGism would result in ‘anything goes’.

  46. “As usual, you argue dishonestly and with scant regard for the truth.”

    As usual, you seem to think that if you repeat a lie often enough, somebody might be stupid enough to believe it.

    “Actually, the guevedoces don’t support your case.”

    Actually, yes they do.

    “They are born with an apparently vulval cleft containing testes and a micro-penis, but no vagina, uterus or ovaries.”

    Which is what I said. They have the external genitals of a girl. They are identified by society as girls. Parts of their body follow the female-typical pattern, while other parts do not.

    “Unsurprisingly, with testosterone in their blood, they behave like boys and identify with other boys.”

    Because testosterone affects the mind, yes? And ‘identifying with other boys’ is objective and biologically based, yes?

    (Actually, there are other congenital conditions where testosterone in the blood doesn’t have this effect, because the body can’t detect it. Such people grow up as women in both mind and external appearance.)

    “They could look inside the apparently vulval cleft.”

    Only if they’re a doctor with the right equipment. And they clearly didn’t look (why give them names like ‘Felicita’ and ‘Carla’ and send them to school in pretty red dresses if you looked?), but they still eventually figured it out. How?

    “This is a pathetic and feeble argument, as Jim points out above. The Pope has his certificates of baptism, confirmation, first communion and ordination.”

    Certificates! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    So if someone has a gender recognition certificate, that’s sufficient, eh?

    “Moreover, if I say I am a Christian, I am not claiming any particularly important special privileges in society.”

    On the contrary. We already discussed the issue of “pew-jumpers” getting their kids into the best schools by claiming to be religious. I’ve previously mentioned the Lords Spiritual who have a role in the government of our country based solely on their faith. Priests and Popes get comfortable careers living in palaces supported by the contributions of the faithful on the basis of their claims to have a spiritual calling. Religious figures often appear in public discussions (on TV, for example) representing “public morality”, and religious views get a privileged position in public debate. And believers get special protection and privileges for their views, and the practice of their rituals. Religion is a protected characteristic in the Equality Act (2010), same as gender reassignment. And of course there have been various church scandals that the perpetrators got away with for so long because of the deference and protection given to the church.

    However, none of that is relevant to the point – which is that whether one is claiming any particularly important special privileges in society does not change whether it constitutes “subjectivist cockrot”. The question is simple: do you have an objective test, or do you routinely and uncontroversially take people’s word for it? The privileges at stake make no difference at all to whether something is subjective or objective.

    The reason you are dishonestly dodging the question is that it’s bloody obvious that society routinely takes people’s word for it on a huge number of topics, to which you make no objection.

    You claim to be male. I’m taking your word for it. Have you ever undergone or been asked to take an objective medical test yourself to see?

    “I don’t expect access to other people’s private spaces.”

    The question is whether you expect access to what you claim to be your own private spaces.

    For example, would you yourself expect to be let into the gents toilet without first demonstrating with an objective medical test that you’ve got XY chromosomes?

    And what would you do if you did the test and discovered to your surprise that you had “XX male syndrome” and were, by your own definition, a woman?

    “A living brain in a vat would have no agency (or even potential agency) and no sensory input, though it would probably have memories and dreams.”

    Who says?

    “Personhood is a matter of the whole body.”

    So I’ll ask again. If you lose a leg, are you no longer a person? You are no longer a whole body.

    “want to make personhood brain-centred because that suits your subjectivist TG agenda of claiming that genital and chromosomal configuration is irrelevant to sexual identity”

    It’s not irrelevant. But it’s not determinative, because things can break. (There are XX males and XY females.)

    “Abnormalities in brain chemistry might result in some unfortunates imagining that they are chicks when they have dicks.”

    Or – as with the Guevedoce – imagining they’re boys when they don’t have dicks. You’ve already agreed that it’s possible to *be* a boy when you’re born without a dick, and that this isn’t a delusion. Why suddenly revert?

    ” The arguments you proffer for accepting TGism would result in ‘anything goes’.”

    The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

    Whether it’s real has nothing at all to do with whether it should be allowed! Should Jews be allowed to circumcise themselves and their kids because their sky fairy told them they had to? Whether their beliefs are true makes no difference to people’s rights over themselves. (Like this sort of nuttiness.)

    TGs have got a lot more claim to be telling the truth than the religious! But the religious still have the same rights, for the same reason.

  47. “They have the external genitals of a girl.”

    No, they don’t. Granted, there’s a similarity; but they have a micro-penis instead of a clitoris, and no vaginal opening. They have a vulva-like cleft, not “the external genitals of a girl.”

    “Because testosterone affects the mind, yes?”

    Yes, hormones affect the mind. Real women, as opposed to CWDs, experience cognitive and mood changes on a monthly basis as a result of hormonal fluctuations.

    “Certificates! Ha! Ha! Ha!”

    Is that supposed to be an argument? – In pursuit of your subjectivist agenda, you are desperate to deny that that there can be objective corroboration of mental states. Yet social life and even language would become impossible if we weren’t able to corroborate most statements of others about their mental states by reference to their behaviour, credentials, biography, third-party testimony…

    “Who says?”

    Granted, future technological changes might give a brain in a vat some limited agency. At which point the law and our conceptual schemes might, just might, have to be revised. But we are where we are.

    “So I’ll ask again. If you lose a leg, are you no longer a person? You are no longer a whole body.”

    Whole organism – in the sense of a psycho-physical unity. Of course, the organism can lose some of its appendages and limbs. ‘Whole organism’ here means receiving sensory input, having bodily experiences (hunger, desire), potential for social interaction…. The loss of a limb doesnt stop you being the subject of mental and physical predicates or a human being.

    “It’s not irrelevant. But it’s not determinative, because things can break. (There are XX males and XY females.)”

    Just because something can break doesn’t mean it’s not determinative. Breakages and faults aren’t identity criteria. A functioning ignition is determinative of a working car. When the ignition fails, I don’t then declare that a functioning ignition isn’t determinative of a working car: I get it fixed. Similarly, there are many genetic and chromosomal abnormalities that either can be fixed now or will be fixable in the near future. The XX ‘males’ and the XY ‘females’ you mention could – in principle – be fixed, though TGs would undoubtedly try to prevent any such research being undertaken…just as some deranged disability activists have opposed cures for congenital blindness, deafness etc because they are ‘differently abled’.

    “…it’s possible to *be* a boy when you’re born without a dick, and that this isn’t a delusion.”

    But the guevedoce aren’t born without a penis: they are born with a micro-penis.

  48. “Is that supposed to be an argument? – In pursuit of your subjectivist agenda, you are desperate to deny that that there can be objective corroboration of mental states. Yet social life and even language would become impossible if we weren’t able to corroborate most statements of others about their mental states by reference to their behaviour, credentials, biography, third-party testimony…”

    Aaaaaarggghh!!! How do you manage to turn everything around backwards so completely?!!

    No! I don’t have a “subjectivist agenda”! No! I’m not “desperate to deny that that there can be objective corroboration of mental states”!! I’ve been arguing desperately for several years saying its NOT subjective, and that you CAN corroborate people’s objective mental states objectively! What I’ve been ‘desperately’ trying to do is to get YOU to acknowledge the same! That’s what this whole argument is about! It’s what I’ve been trying to lead you up to admitting!

    “As he develops language and social awareness, he’ll identify himself with those who think and feel in similar ways and learn that what he is is male.”

    Mental maleness is defined by how people “think and feel” – it is an objective fact that is not culturally taught or intellectually invented, but is biologically inbuilt – dihydrotestosterone (and other hormones) in the developing fetus affects the anatomy of the brain.

    He can also tell “those who think and feel in similar ways”. He does so by means of their behaviour – what they say, what they do, the emotions they express, their stated goals and ambitions, their methods of dealing with problems, the activities they enjoy doing and pursue, and those they don’t. Their parents can tell the same way. Given freedom to behave as they want and no reason to hide it (such as violent enforcement of cultural norms), you can easily identify a person’s mental gender from their behaviour.

    This is precisely how the medical profession diagnose gender dysphoria.

    When it comes to being Catholic, or liking Marmite, or country-and-western music, society is happy to judge mental states by reference to their behaviour, credentials, biography, third-party testimony… including what they say about themselves. The Pope said he was a Catholic believer, performed the culturally mandated rituals for Catholics, and the Church has issued certificates confirming that they heard him say so. Likewise, TGs have told the doctors about their mental gender, and happily performed the culturally expected activities for their gender, and are given a certificate to confirm all this. Society is as confident in it’s diagnoses of gender dysphoria as it is that the Pope is Catholic. Social life and even language would become impossible if we weren’t able to corroborate most statements of others about their mental states this way, and we do it routinely.

    The reason I was laughing when you said we knew the Pope was Catholic ‘because he has certificates’ is that it concedes the argument – gender dysphorics often have certificates, too. Except I knew that you wasn’t going to see it that way – the Pope’s certificates are acceptable, but there’s no way you’re going to accept a ‘Gender Recognition Act’ certificate as valid.

    “Granted, future technological changes might give a brain in a vat some limited agency. At which point the law and our conceptual schemes might, just might, have to be revised.”

    Yours might. Everyone else’s is fine.

    By the time medical technology has advanced to the point where we can keep a brain alive in a vat, I’m sure BCIs will be well-developed. We can already provide enough for ‘agency’ with existing technology. Ultimately, I expect we’ll be able to link up to robot bodies – telepresence. Or to avatars in virtual realities. And it’s perfectly possible to start thinking now about how we could deal with this legally and culturally.

    (See also ‘total locked-in syndrome’ and the case of Tony Nicklinson for more on the legal issues of ‘agency’.)

    “Just because something can break doesn’t mean it’s not determinative.”

    My point was simply to get you to acknowledge that things break, and when they do, they’re in a state of being broken. Cars start when you turn the ignition key – except when the ignition is broken. Turning the ignition key is not determinative of the car starting, because when I turn the key this particular car does not start. It is possible for that to happen.

    To say that “all cars start when you turn the ignition key” is false. It’s true to say almost all cars start, and it’s useful to assume as a first approximation, but the world is more complicated than our simple categories portray, and not all cars fit the simplistic picture. Things break.

    By the way, a better analogy would be something like a car of one make where, due to an error at the factory, the suspension and the dashboard and steering column dials and controls from a different make were fitted inside. It’s not ‘broken’ – everything is perfectly functional, and works just as it does in the other make of car. But it doesn’t behave quite as one would expect based on the outside appearance.

    “But the guevedoce aren’t born without a penis: they are born with a micro-penis.”

    So are girls – except it’s called a clitoris. The male and female sex organs are originally the same, but differ in size and shape due to the effects of hormones on their development. If dihydrotestosterone is detected by the fetal cells the genital tubercle grows to become a penis. If there’s none detected, it does not grow and becomes a clitoris. With 5α-Reductase deficiency, there’s no dihydrotestosterone so you get what is essentially a clitoris, which they describe as a micro-penis because it happens to be in a male.

    Like I said – they’d not call the kid ‘Felicita’ and send her to school in a red dress if anyone could tell from external examination!

  49. “….Given freedom to behave as they want and no reason to hide it (such as violent enforcement of cultural norms), you can easily identify a person’s mental gender from their behaviour.”

    I don’t accept that there is such a thing as a standalone ‘mental gender’. A human being is a psycho-physical unity and also a blend of nature and nurture. Gender or sex is psycho-physical and applies to the whole human organism – from chromosomes to reproductive systems to glands and hormones and secondary sexual characteristics, as well as sense perceptions, aptitudes and thought-patterns (both learned and innate).

    A CWD doesn’t have menstrual hormonal fluctuations, hasn’t experienced vaginal penetration, hasn’t experienced the vulnerabilities that many women feel, has never given birth and has never experienced life as a girl child or woman. This CWD has functioning male genitals, male secondary sexual characteristics, XY chromosomes and is completely tone-deaf and tin-eared to women’s concerns about his presence. But he says he’s a woman, demands access to female-only facilities and gets some gullible leftoid medic to certify that he is female!

    Yet the most the medic can do is certify that the CWD sincerely believes that he is a female in a male body. The medic cannot certify that this belief is true, because there is no objective test for TGism. And many TGs deny the need for medical certification: self-certification is enough.

    (Likewise, we can ascertain that the Pope sincerely believes in the doctrines of the RC church; but we cannot ascertain that the truth of that church’s doctrines by observing and interviewing the Pope.)

    The problem here is that many sincere people are self-deceiving and self-deluding about what they believe about themselves – eg most people believe they are good drivers, others have false memories about places they believe they have visited as children. Some are seriously deluded – such as those who believe they are cats, fried eggs, Napoleon, or females trapped in male bodies. Inner convictions about ourselves are often at variance with reality.

    So, in the absence of an objective medical test for TGism, I refuse to accept that CWDs are women. Since they aren’t women, they shouldn’t use female facilities. If they want transvestite thrills, they’ll have to use the gents when they are out and about.

    That said, if there was an objective test for TGism, I would accept Gender Recognition Certificates, though I would still hesitate to allow access to women-only spaces until after surgery.

    Finally, your penultimate paragraph above is a classic example of your dishonesty in argument and your desperation to win a point. I observe that the guevedoce have micro-penises. You reply: “So are girls – except it’s called a clitoris”. This is the fallacy of equivocation. The clitoris is not a micro-penis: it is a vestigial penis. In the guevedoce – who are classed as pseudo-hermaphrodites – the urethra emerges through the micro-penis, while in a real female the urethra emerges underneath the clitoris. A vestigial penis is not the same as a micro-penis, so please don’t try to pretend that it is.

  50. The reason I was laughing when you said we knew the Pope was Catholic ‘because he has certificates’ is that it concedes the argument – gender dysphorics often have certificates, too. Except I knew that you wasn’t going to see it that way – the Pope’s certificates are acceptable, but there’s no way you’re going to accept a ‘Gender Recognition Act’ certificate as valid.“

    Why should we? It’s a certificate for something that patently isn’t true.

    Yes, society does accept certificates as evidence of some status or reality. That of being Pope, or for example, that of being a pilot. Anyone can self identify as a pilot if they like, but generally speaking we prefer certificated pilots as those usually have demonstrated the actual capability to fly a plane.

    Someone might choose to identify as an antelope. They might have a set of horns surgically grafted to their head, wear the appropriate pelt and bound across the hills pausing now and again to rub the corner of their eye on a twig. This might be enough to convince some sympathetic rangers to issue them a nice certificate of antelopeness.

    Does this make them an antelope? No.

  51. “I don’t accept that there is such a thing as a standalone ‘mental gender’.”

    Liar.

    “As he develops language and social awareness, he’ll identify himself with those who think and feel in similar ways and learn that what he is is male.”

    “A CWD doesn’t have menstrual hormonal fluctuations, hasn’t experienced vaginal penetration, hasn’t experienced the vulnerabilities that many women feel, has never given birth and has never experienced life as a girl child or woman.”

    Simply wrong.

    “…and is completely tone-deaf and tin-eared to women’s concerns about his presence”

    Thanks for reminding me!

    In the previous post on this topic you claimed:

    “However, a majority of the public doesn’t want chicks with dicks in said facilities.”

    And I replied:

    I strongly suspect you’re lying, and just made that up. Show me your evidence!

    You never did. From which I concluded that yes, you were lying, yes, you did just make it up, and yes, you were well aware that you said it with no evidence because it’s not true, which is why you didn’t reply.

    But maybe I’m being unfair? Maybe you just overlooked my request by accident? Well, here’s a second chance for you to “win a point”! And indeed, to support your frequently protested claims to ‘honesty’ in this debate.

    Where is your evidence to support this claim?

    Given that a clear majority of women don’t object to TGs in the loos, we are forced to conclude that the concern of the minority is not because they are women and this is somehow a characteristically female way of thinking, but simply because some women are paranoid bigots. They, like everyone, have been raised with certain social norms to enforce. It’s culture, not biology.

    And of course, you say you’re all happy to display a “tin ear” to the concerns of TGs! Hence, a “tin ear”, according to you, is not an unfeminine trait.

    “The problem here is that many sincere people are self-deceiving and self-deluding about what they believe…”

    Are you ‘sincere’ and merely self-deceiving/self-deluding? Or are you aware of what you’re doing?

    “So, in the absence of an objective medical test for TGism, I refuse to accept that CWDs are women.”

    There *is* an objective medical test for TGism. We’ve just been discussing it.

    You can refuse to accept the reality that they are women if you like, just as others can refuse to accept they’re not Napoleon, or that they can’t fly by flapping their arms, or that homeopathy cures cancer.

    But it will make no difference because it’s not your decision.

    “Finally, your penultimate paragraph above is a classic example of your dishonesty in argument and your desperation to win a point.”

    I’ve won every fucking point bar one or two! “Win a point…”!

    “In the guevedoce – who are classed as pseudo-hermaphrodites – the urethra emerges through the micro-penis, while in a real female the urethra emerges underneath the clitoris.”

    Sheesh!

    Patients with 5-alpha-reductase type 2 deficiency classically present with striking ambiguity of the genitalia, with a clitoral-like phallus, bifid scrotum, pseudovaginal perineoscrotal hypospadias, and a rudimentary prostate. Occasionally, patients can appear more masculinized; they may lack a separate vaginal opening, and have isolated penile hypospadias [2] or even a penile urethra

    From here. Due to the delay in development the penis developed at puberty often has perineoscrotal hypospadia. Cases vary in severity. Look up hypospadias and see the rightmost sub-image in the figure near the top. Yes?

    Pseudovaginal perineoscrotal hypospadias is a rare autosomal recessive disorder of male sexual development. Patients of this disease have a normal 46,XY karyotype, but have incompletely differentiated male genitalia, leading to varying degrees of genital ambiguity; ranging from minimal undervirilization and presentation of normal male anatomy with micropenis or hypospodias, to severe undervirilization and presentation of normal female external genitalia with mild clitoral enlargement. The testes in neonates are usually found either in the inguinal canals bilaterally, or in the labioscrotal folds. Mullerian duct derived structures are not present. By puberty, signs of virilization can be seen, with a prominent Adam’s apple, muscularity, body and facial hair being developed, and a deepening of the voice.

    The exact frequency of this disorder worldwide is not known. However, some countries like the Dominican Republic, New Guinea, and Turkey have reported higher frequencies.

    From here.

    Is that what you’re talking about?

  52. ” ‘A CWD doesn’t have menstrual hormonal fluctuations, hasn’t experienced vaginal penetration, hasn’t experienced the vulnerabilities that many women feel, has never given birth and has never experienced life as a girl child or woman.’

    Simply wrong.”

    Please explain how a M2F TG has menstrual hormonal fluctuations. Not hormonal fluctuations generally – specifically menstrual ones.

    Please explain how someone without a vagina can experience vaginal penetration. Having an assembly of surgically altered tissue and calling it a vagina doesn’t count.

    Please explain how any M2F TGs have given birth.

    Please explain how any M2F TG has experienced life as a girl child.

    I’ll leave out the womanly feeling experiences since womanhood is already established as disagreed upon. Note also that I’m asking about M2F TGs at all stages. Theophrastus uses “CWD” which I assume means a pre-surgical M2F TG. Note also that use of “M2F” is simply for conversational clarity, and does not imply that I accept that a male can become a female.

  53. “You can refuse to accept the reality that they are women if you like, just as others can refuse to accept they’re not Napoleon…”

    That’s such an utterly twisted and reverse-perverse usurpation that I genuinely enjoyed it.

  54. Poor Pippa / Philip still left out in the cold.

    If such a ludicrous example (a piss-take?) is embraced then transgenderism looks as silly as it is; and if it is rejected then so is the notion of accepting self-identified gender – and the whole house of cards flops down into its sandy foundations.

    Yes, best ignored. But everyone can see that it is being ignored – especially those who are pretending…

  55. NiV

    “Liar”

    Oh dear, you are losing it! Mental gender is not standalone: it emerges from a combination of chromosomes, hormones, genital development and configuration and experience.

    “Simply wrong.”

    You are seriously deluded!

    “Well, here’s a second chance for you to “win a point”! And indeed, to support your frequently protested claims to ‘honesty’ in this debate.”

    We know that in Britain 56% of women aren’t comfortable with the thought of using a unisex toilet:
    https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2013/09/13/unisex-toilets-british-women-most-reluctant-share-

    “Given that a clear majority of women don’t object to TGs in the loos…”

    Post-op TGs, probably. CWDs, not likely given the YouGov data.

    “There *is* an objective medical test for TGism.”

    No, there isn’t. To repeat: the most the medic can do is certify that the CWD sincerely believes that he is a female in a male body. The medic cannot certify that this belief is true, because there is no objective test for TGism.
    Even TGs admit this:
    https://www.quora.com/Can-gender-identity-be-determined-with-biological-tests

    “I’ve won every fucking point bar one or two!”

    More evidence, if it were needed, that you are deluded or dishonest.

    On the final point, I concede that by no means all of the guevedoce have a penile urethra. However, you are still refusing to accept the difference between a micro-penis and a vestigial penis. And the guevedoce are not girls: they are boys with a self-correcting disorder of the genitals.

  56. “We know that in Britain 56% of women aren’t comfortable with the thought of using a unisex toilet:”

    Thanks! I didn’t think you had any evidence for the claim!

    (BTW, I do look forward to seeing the start of your new campaign against unisex toilets on trains, for the disabled, and in people’s houses.)

    Meanwhile, here’s another survey for your collection of uncomfortable statistics.

    Many people may have not-so-fond memories of changing in front of their classmates for gym class. The locker room, a place with a sole purpose of providing somewhere to change away from public eyes, makes nearly a third of Americans (31%) feel self-conscious about their bodies and say they don’t feel comfortable changing in front of people of the same gender.

    According to new research from YouGov Omnibus, a little over a third (34%) say that they feel comfortable changing all of their clothes in front of others, while 27% say that they’re only comfortable changing down to their underwear.

    Nearly half of men (47%) say that they’re comfortable changing all of their clothes, while less than a quarter of women (23%) say the same. At least a quarter of men (25%) and women (28%) say they’re comfortable down to their underwear. As for those who feel completely self-conscious in locker rooms, 41% of women (41%) say they’re not comfortable changing in front of others at all, compared with 20% of men.

    https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2018/01/04/most-people-are-comfortable-changing-front-others-

    What policy changes would you recommend, on hearing that women feel uncomfortable changing in front of other women? Ban women from the women’s changing rooms?

  57. “Post-op TGs, probably. CWDs, not likely given the YouGov data.”

    Nearly forgot.

    The survey didn’t specify post-op, the question defined it thus: “Please think about a transgender woman – that is a man who has gone through all or part of a process to become a woman.” (Every TG has to spend time, usually a couple of years, living in the role before they get given irreversible treatment. Pre-op experience is part of the process.)

    I think that given you are trying to make an (unfounded) distinction between pre-op and post-op TGs, it’s a bit cheeky to try to get me to buy the total lack of distinction you make between TGs and all men!

    It would have been more ‘honest’ to simply say you don’t have any evidence to back your original asertion up. I don’t generally have any problem with people ‘making shit up’ in debates – it’s perfectly normal human behaviour. (They’re ‘statements of belief’, not ‘statements of fact’.) But you shouldn’t throw stones about other people’s ‘honesty’ when you live in glass houses.

  58. NiV

    “(BTW, I do look forward to seeing the start of your new campaign against unisex toilets on trains, for the disabled, and in people’s houses.)”

    That is a classic example of your dishonesty in argument. Unless you are thick, you know that (1) the unisex family toilet where each individual use is private and by friends and family is quite different to (2) sharing a unisex toilet where each individual use is private but by strangers, which is different to (3) unisex toilets used by strangers but with shared handwashing facilities and all three are quite different to (4) the special provision of toilets for the disabled which can be used by others if necessary.

    Similarly with changing rooms…there’s a difference between an open changing area and individual cubicles. My wife will only shop for clothes in retailers that provide cubicles.

    “…given you are trying to make an (unfounded) distinction between pre-op and post-op TGs”

    The distinction is justified. Both groups are mentally ill, but a pre-op TG is a potential risk to women and children in certain circumstances, while the post-op TG being cockless isn’t so much, but at least we know that he is sincere in his delusion.

    “…the total lack of distinction you make between TGs and all men!”

    But I do. TGs are mentally ill and experience severe delusions. Most other men don’t share that category.

    I don’t make things up. However, you have form on this blog. Your style of argument relies heavily on equivocation, distortion, evasion, non sequiturs, rhetoric, not to mention tendentious research with inadequate sampling. You are a fanatic who views the world through a TG ideology. I notice you completely ignored the point made by your fellow TG who accepts that there is no objective test for TGism. Your behaviour here has done nothing for your cause. Most of us regard you as a bumptious and dishonest prat.

  59. “That is a classic example of your dishonesty in argument.”

    It’s a classic example of yours.

    The point of the examples is that unisex toilet arrangements satisfactory to all parties are trivially easy to arrange, are widely available in practice, and actually already far more numerous than segregated shared facilities. People currently feel similar discomfort for many other reasons, which you transparently don’t care about and don’t see any need to campaign for change on. You don’t actually care about women feeling anxiety, or want to accept any alternative simple solutions for it already available; it’s just a convenient excuse to justify your persecution of one particular group.

    “The distinction is justified.”

    The distinction isn’t justified. Every one of the latter used to be one of the former – they are the same set of people, with the same morals, looked at at different times.

    “Both groups are mentally ill”

    Neither group is mentally ill.

    “But I do. TGs are mentally ill and experience severe delusions. Most other men don’t share that category.”

    TGs are not mentally ill, and are not subject to any delusion.

    And no you didn’t. You tried to use evidence that women are uncomfortable with cisgender men in the toilets to support your false, made-up claim that they had the same concerns over transgender women.

    “I don’t make things up.”

    Oh yes you do! You said “However, a majority of the public doesn’t want chicks with dicks in said facilities.” You had no evidence for that, and knew when you said it that you had no evidence. You already knew – since I’d already given *my* sources – that it very likely wasn’t true. But you didn’t care. You’ve got no honour, and no respect for the truth – all you want is to ‘win’ the argument, at any cost, using any tactic. You see it as a political fight for the survival of your creed, and no tactic is too dirty if it allows you and your kind to cling on to power.

    Your assertion was an attempt to justify your nasty, venomous species of transphobic bigotry by claiming the ‘Argument ad Populam’ authority of ‘a majority of the public’, and women in particular – when of course we both know the truth is that a majority of the public (and an even larger majority of women) would spit on your vile opinions.

    A significant majority of the public oppose transphobia, and support protection for TGs, and allowing them to use the facilities appropriate to their new gender. The legislators recognised the will of the public by granting those rights, and we’ve been operating that way for the past eight years and more with no problems. And yet still – incredibly – we’ve got fruitcakes so isolated from reality that they’re still saying the public is against it and there would be social disaster if it was ever allowed to happen!

    “Your style of argument relies heavily on equivocation, distortion, evasion, non sequiturs, rhetoric, not to mention tendentious research with inadequate sampling.”

    Your style of argument relies on making stupid, wrong, made-up, easily falsifiable assertions backed by no evidence at all, and then when I show them to be false or without backing you try to wriggle and twist the argument, throwing out spurious accusations of ‘equivocation’ and ‘non sequitur’ to avoid acknowledging the obvious conclusion: that you’re wrong. You made up a bunch of shit to try to justify your slimy bigotry and got called on it.

    And now you think that making up yet more shit about me instead will somehow disguise what just happened.

    Which in its own special way is all very entertaining, of course, but we’d all get on a lot better if you just learned from experience, checked the evidence first, and only made statements you knew I couldn’t disprove. Then I wouldn’t need to point it out so often! 🙂

    “You are a fanatic who views the world through a TG ideology.”

    No. I’m simply a libertarian with principles, which I try to apply consistently. I don’t play “us-vs-them” games – if my own side of the argument does something wrong, I’ll say so.

    Obviously, that’s going to piss people off who are nominally on ‘my side’ who don’t have such principles, and they’re likely going to assume that because I’m criticising them, I must be on the ‘other side’.

    It’s like the joke about the journalist who approached the Northern Ireland border to find a paramilitary checkpoint with gun-toting balaclava-wearing partisans who asked him “Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?” Knowing that the wrong answer might mean death, the journalist replied “I’m an atheist.” “Yes,” they said, “but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?”

    Partisans get so wrapped up in the little worlds of their private blood feuds that they see everyone and everything in terms of which side they’re on. And what’s considered to be on which side has got nothing to do with principles.

    I don’t care about which side says it, I only care about what’s true.

    “I notice you completely ignored the point made by your fellow TG who accepts that there is no objective test for TGism.”

    It depends what you consider to be an “objective test” – how high you set the bar. It’s the same question as whether there is an objective test for Catholicism. For most practical purposes, mental characteristics can be objectively divined by observing behaviour – including what people say about themselves. If someone says they hate Marmite, but have previously been observed spreading it on their toast, you can deduce they’re probably lying. If priests say they believe in God’s justice and in hellfire and damnation, but are still caught buggering small boys (or defending those who do against ‘The Great Accuser’), they’re probably not genuine. However, that’s nothing that a good actor couldn’t disguise. The tests can all be fooled – whether there’s motive to do so is usually the question.

    You explained it yourself:

    “As he develops language and social awareness, he’ll identify himself with those who think and feel in similar ways and learn that what he is is male.”

    Even a five-year old can observe how other people think and feel precisely and reliably enough to distinguish their mental gender. As can parents. As can doctors. But people who have a desperate need to disbelieve, whose faith demands it, will always be able to find a reason to do so.

    “Your behaviour here has done nothing for your cause. Most of us regard you as a bumptious and dishonest prat.”

    You regard me as a bloody nuisance for constantly exposing your lies and pointing out your authoritarian evil. You want to enjoy your group-hug – virtue-signalling to one another your participation in the two-minute hate against the enemy class and all whose side they take. You want to believe you are better than them, but without paying the costs of actually having to *be* better than them. And you have just enough respect left for the truth to feel shamed by such exposure, and to want to defeat it and make it go away.

    Childish insults are a particularly unsophisticated way of doing that. It’s only one step up from one tribe of monkeys flinging poo at another tribe of monkeys to drive them off their territory. You must have figured out by now that they don’t work on me and I don’t consider them to have any validity. You must have realised it’s an ineffective tactic, since I’m quite happy to join in (it’s lots of fun!) and so you must be aware they similarly don’t have any discouraging or defeating effect on you either. Quite the reverse. But I guess they still feel satisfying, as a way of venting your anger at my intrusion?

    Well consider: – if you feel that way, I can tell that what I’m saying is getting through to you. You wouldn’t argue with me at such length and with such passion if you didn’t care about what I was saying. It’s clearly an important debate to have. So that’s all good.


    It’s been fun! Thanks for playing! See you in the next thread.
    🙂

  60. “Your style of argument relies heavily on… evasion ….”

    Sometimes, relies totally on evasion. Just pretending challenging points haven’t been raised; hoping no one notices.

    .
    “Thanks for playing! See you in the next thread.”

    Pippa / Philip will be along to play too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *