Are teenagers who claim to be trans just acting out?

Great Debates
141

FWIW I could find this recent article using an Australian population that attempts to start to unpack it. It is of note that they had a greater number of their transgender teen population with ASD as well than most other studies. Not sure what to make of that in interpretation.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(24)00078-6/fulltext

A few highlights:

First confirming the predominance of AFAB among transgender teens. 75% of those with ASD and 64% of those without. Those are very similar rates so my wondering if the increase was driven by AFAB autistic spectrum individuals glomming onto the identity does NOT get support.

Also “Overall, the autistic trait group displayed poorer mental health than the non-autistic trait group” which is “in keeping with the high rates of mental health difficulties commonly reported by those with ASD in non-trans specific populations in other clinical and community settings.15 However, in our study, rates of depressive and anxiety problems (in the clinical range) in the autistic trait group were as high as 73% and 65% respectively, which is even higher than the prevalence rates of depressive disorders (2.5%–47.1%) and anxiety disorders (1.5%–54%) reported in other studies involving non-trans autistic populations.”

Overall the autistic trait and not autistic trait groups of transgender teens were very similar: “Few differences in gender identity, gender expression and gender dysphoria were found in those with and without autistic traits; we also found that both groups experienced high levels of gender dysphoria. Taken together, these findings suggest that gender diversity appears similar in trans young people with and without autistic traits, but some subtle differences were observed including higher rates of social transition and body dissatisfaction in those with autistic traits.”

The implication as stated by the authors is that this study “reinforces the importance of trans young people with and without autistic traits being availed the same opportunities to access gender-affirming care”

I think follow up into adulthood for satisfaction with outcomes is a necessary next step.

Of course no support for large numbers becoming transgender to gain attention or enable bad behaviors.

142

But 65% of Americans currently say that they think a person’s gender is determined by their sex at birth, and this number has been growing since at least 2017. Words mean what the people using them mean.

143

Cites?

– and, even aside from that question: when words change over time they don’t, of course, do so all at once. That doesn’t mean they don’t change.

There are still people out there using “man” to mean “people of all genders”; entirely regardless of body parts.

144
145

p.s. When word about the pregnancy got out, and not just via me, there was a lot of discussion about how and where she found a boy or man who could stand being around her long enough to find out if she would have sex with him, whether it was consensual or not.

146

The political breakdown is pretty illuminating. The people who say birth gender can’t be changed are overwhelmingly Republican - 90% of them feel that gender can’t be changes, compared to only 39% of Democrats. Unsurprisingly, the cohort in American politics that’s unfailingly hostile to queer people in general, is also (one might say, especially) hostile to trans people.

147

And what the people hearing them understand them to mean. Whatever one’s beliefs about gender discordance, using the word “female” encompassingly for all AFAB including those identifying as male, as you used it, in this conversation, introduces confusion and makes it harder to understand what you meant. You knew what you meant but I doubt I was alone in not being able to figure it out at first read. There is also simple manners: using “female” in that manner with the crowd of this board is something that you can easily expect will cause offense.

148

Saying that men and women are divided by whether we’re male or female rather than by woman gender or man gender is not the same as hostility to trans people. It’s just a disagreement about the most sensible way to classify people.

Disagreement is not hostility. I disagree with Muslims about whether the quran is a guide to the best way to live, but that doesn’t mean I hate Muslims. Interpreting disagreement as hatred is half the problem in this debate.

149

Maybe, maybe not, but the Republican Party is overtly hostile to trans people, all the way up to the very top. It is, as I said, not at all surprising that the party that regularly slanders trans people as pedophiles is not open to the idea that it’s possible to change your gender. To the extent that “disagreeing about the sensible way to categorize people” is represented in the general population, you’re going to mostly find them in the minority of Democrats who answered “no” to that question - and, I suspect, even among that cohort, they are an even smaller minority compared to the people who are simple bigots.

150

The sensible way to classify people is the way that doesn’t make them feel more marginalized than they already feel. It’s the way that makes vulnerable teens feel cared for and respected.

The other half of the problem is trans kids killing themselves. Happened in my community a couple of weeks ago.

Explain to me again why we need to debate word choices instead of debating the best way to keep these kids safe. If that isn’t your top priority, why the hell should I care what you think about it?

151

The sensible way to classify people depends on why you are classifying them at all. If you want to create a “women’s prayer group”, the sensible way to classify them is by gender. That’s a social interaction and social categories are the important determinant. If you are planning to do a colonoscopy on the person, you should classify them by what their innards look like, and whether they currently have or used to have a uterus is important information. Deciding that the world is black or white, and everyone falls into consistent binary categories is always wrong, and sometimes fatally wrong.

152

You certainly weren’t alone. I specifically asked what was meant.

The cite, in addition to showing a considerable difference according to political party, appears to show a significant difference in age groups, with younger people more likely to accept new language usage than older people – which is exactly what would be expected during a change in language use. For a large political commotion to have caused a delay or partial reversal in such changes is also not surprising, and may not indicate any long-term reversal.

The “most sensible way to classify people” doesn’t seem to me to be a way which amounts to stating that some people don’t exist.

In a purely medical context, whether somebody is cis or trans matters for some purposes. Outside of medical contexts, it generally doesn’t. While it would be useful to have some clear terminology to use in medical contexts which is different from the terminology used outside such contexts, there are quite a few areas in which the common sense of words varies from what they mean in technical contexts. “Bug” means something very specific to a biologist dealing with insects, which excludes a very large number of the meanings that the word means outside those contexts – including excluding what it means in most conversations even when applied to smallish crawly live things.

This is certainly true – but what is happening in many cases, such as forbidding medical treatment and the use of bathrooms, is the equivalent not just of disagreeing about whether you yourself ought to become a practicing Muslim, but of saying that one doesn’t hate Muslims while insisting that they mustn’t be allowed to practice their religion.

Quoted for truth, and with massive upvotes. Especially that last line.

153

If a group wants to form around internally experienced gender rather than sex, then why not? I have absolutely no problem with this concept. Trans-inclusive womens prayer groups can totally be a thing.

The problem is in cases where sex clearly is relevant, but people (usually women) are coerced into making the group gender-identity-based anyway, even if they all agree that sex is the relevant characteristic, and even if alternative gender-identity-based groups are available for the people who believe in gender identities.

For instance: A group of lesbian women want to have an all-female social event for lesbians only. They are female-attracted people, they don’t have any attraction to male people, they’d rather just do something that doesn’t involve any male people. Is it reasonable for the government to insist that they must include male people anyway? (link)

154

I’m going to address just the medical treatment issue - the reason why there are more and more restrictions on medical treatment for minors in particular is that they have become convinced that these medical treatments are more likely to harm the patients than to help them. I know there’s a lot of negativity on this board to the Cass Review, but support for Cass is bipartisan in the UK, and this is actually the third government investigation in a row that has decided that they don’t believe that gender treatments for minors are doing good. Finland had one in 2020 and then stopped doing puberty blockers, same for Sweden in 2022. People are turning against pediatric gender medicine because medically they don’t believe the evidence supports it.

155

You can tell from such remarks that, to coin a phrase, “the cruelty is the point”, by their obstinate refusal to use inclusive or respectful language to discuss an issue that is otherwise legitimately debatable.

What you mean, obviously, is that a group of cisgender female lesbians wanted to have a social event for cisgender lesbians only (at a local Pride Centre specifically built to be an inclusive space for LGBTIQ+ communities, as it happens).

The Australian Human Rights Commission said nope, no exemptions to the clearly stated inclusivity rules for this institution just because you want to hold a cisgender lesbian event here that excludes transgender-female/nonbinary lesbians. (Of course, the cisgender lesbian group can go have their cisgender-only social event in any other available space that does not have similar inclusivity requirements, but that wouldn’t be controversial enough, I guess.)

Now, there is certainly plenty of legitimate debate room for discussing whether such inclusivity requirements are too sweeping, whether some instances of social sex segregation by birth-assigned sex are desirable or legally protectable, etc. There is nothing unethical about having different opinions on this issue.

There’s a lot unethical, IMHO, about refusing to refer to transgender/nonbinary lesbians (or other AMAB transgender people) by those terms, and insisting instead on calling them “male people”. It’s just as discourteous and disrespectful as referring to, say, adoptive parents as “unrelated primary caregivers and legal guardians”.

Can the person Insisting on the use of such terms, applied to people who feel strongly hurt and disrespected by the use of such terms, make a specious linguistic case for their strict factuality according to traditional interpretations of words like “women” and “lesbians” and “parents”? Sure. Is that person nonetheless being discourteous and disrespectful by insisting on the denial of an important part of those other people’s identity? Absolutely.

If you want to convince people that your position on gender identity is rooted in genuine respect for all people, rather than in having an excuse to call people you consider somehow defective or inferior by names that you know they don’t like, then I think you need to refer to them by respectful terms. Transgender lesbians, for example, are “transgender lesbians” or “AMAB lesbians”, not “male people”.

156

Victoria is a self-ID state ( like many US states). This group you call “transgender lesbians” include people whose bodies are completely physically male, penis and all. Objectively, “transgender lesbians” are male people who went to the Births and Deaths register, paid their $130 or so, and got the sex marker changed on their birth certificate.

You are arguing that it’s okay to force lesbian women to include people with penises in their social events, when they don’t want to.

157

And objectively, adoptive parents are

But you don’t call them that unless you are trying to insult them, or belittle their parenthood. @Kimstu explicitly said there might be an argument for creating a space only for cisgender lesbians, but that nonetheless, the language you insist on using is rude and hurtful.

I know a pair of transgender lesbians, by the way. I don’t know what equipment they have under the hood, because i just dance with them, i don’t engage in any naked activities with them. I’m pretty sure they were born with penises, but that’s generally not relevant. It’s certainly not relevant to my social interactions with them. And i would certainly never call them “male people”, because doing so would make me a jerk.

158

Interesting that you’re discounting the opinion of at least one lesbian woman who wants to attend. How do you determine which lesbian opinions count and which ones are ignored?

159

Anyone’s opinion on who they’d like to have sex with, and who they’d exclude, must be respected. Anyone who says you must include me in your sex practices, despite your preference otherwise, has an opinion that must be ignored.

With regard to sexual attraction, we like what we like. It’s a completely different (and pretty singular) aspect of the gender discussion. Not at all in the same arena as restroom access, employment discrimination, medical options, etc.

160

But a group of lesbians won’t all be attracted to each other. Unless the social event is an orgy, that’s not a problem. If you only want to invite cis females who have brown hair and blue eyes and are between 5’4"and 5’10" and have a BMI of under 25 to your orgy, go for it, i have no problems with that. If you put requirements like that on your “lesbian support group” , then i can see why the local LGBT center doesn’t want to give you space for the meeting.