I actually know someone who detrasitioned. They were assigned female at birth. They successfully obtained a medical f-to-m transition. And it didn’t solve their problems. They were still uncomfortable in their skin. They eventually decided they were non-binary and wouldn’t be happy as either a man or a woman, and sought medical help to partially detrasition, to have a less gender-specific body. And they succeeded in that, too. They had moved in the interim, so it was probably a different doctor. But it’s not like the medical establishment said “no, no, you must stay male!” Yeah, just one anecdote. But the other side seems to only have one anecdote, too.
I suspect there are cis women who have breast enhancement surgery (I’d guess this is by far the most common gender confirming surgery in the US) who change their minds, too.
The Second Circuit, which in December upheld a lower court backing a Connecticut school policy allowing transgender students to compete in sports based on the gender they identify as, announced Monday that it is reinstating an appeal of that ruling.
This is the case about two girls who run track suing because a trans girl beat them. (Or maybe she didn’t even, but she was there, so it wasn’t fair.)
the mothers of female high school track athletes claimed that a Connecticut high school sports governing body’s policy allowing transgender students to compete in sports based on their gender identity deprives other female students of equal opportunities to compete and win.
It’s relevant to this thread because the Trump administration backed that suit.
The courts initially dismissed the suit, saying there was no evidence Title IX was violated. It was appealed, and the appeal was denied because the trans athletes had graduated, and no one could find any other people the suit would affect. In December, the second circuit unanimously agreed that the case was moot, as no legal action would fix the plaintiffs’ alleged injury,.
Now the courts have decided to re-hear the case. the article doesn’t say why they have decided to rehear it.
Kentucky senators have introduced a bill banning “adult oriented businesses”, including any place that hosts drag shows, within 1000 feet of a park, church, school, or a long list of other establishments—including a residence.
Those 1000 foot circles would easily blanket most cities. The two venues in Lexington that regularly host drag shows would have to stop doing so.
I don’t think this will pass, but this is where their heads are.
Isn’t it amazing how much government interference you get from people opposed to government interference?
The point, of course, is to impose their will on others. The point is to eliminate both the practices they disapprove of and, if they won’t change, the people who engage in those things.
Coming back to this as I’ve just finished another two week stint with my increasingly frail parents.
Some of the stuff on EWTN was bad enough (attacks on American bishops and the Pope for being out of touch with the reality of the “invasion” of undesirables). But some of what I previously thought was EWTN programming is actually streaming of even more virulently More Catholic than the Pope folks.
My mother was triumphant that a Black man (West African from the accent) was hammering home the message that the Church is heading down the same road as the Anglicans.
They don’t see it as government interference, quite to the contrary they see it as good wholesome Christ centered governance. It’s ok for them to tell you and I what to do and how to behave. Because we are not the righteous upright true believers that they are and therefore are subject to their will and correction…
There may be a wedge to use against them: those who genuinely believe this horseshit and those who just like to fling it.
Keys to using the wedge:
a) Inconsistency. It pretty much speaks for itself, doesn’t it? If drag shows are fine and wonderful up until it looks like it has something to do with transgender rights, and they can’t explain why…
b) Solicitous Protection of Women. If your motivating concern is for protecting women from intrusive male sexual threats, you are of course on record in support on bills that let women defend themselves against quid pro quo sexual harassment in the workplace, yes?
c) Intersex People’s Concerns. If you think it’s crucial that people be allowed to develop according to their bodies’ natural structure’s outcomes, are you on record as opposing the arbitrary assignment of infants to one sex or the other and rearranging their most sensitive tissues with a scalpel to make them conform to one or the other conventional sex?
Nonsense! The women folk should be at home keeping house and squirting out babies (for their husbands, of course!). And a woman shouldn’t be subservient to a man who isn’t her father or husband. Anyway, those little ladies are just taking jobs away from men.
/great big S
//actual crap I’ve heard from my conservative evangelical relatives
I think the only person that should be involved in gender decision is the individual. Not the parents of a minor, not a health care worker, and certainly not the government. So these decisions need to be done when someone is an adult and of legal age to make them. That should be the only determining factor.
Until then, if someone wants to appear and act as a different gender, they can dress and appear as the other gender does, and do all the things that the other gender might do, but again, as far as any physical changes through a doctor, these are decisions that only THAT adult is qualified to make.
It just seems so obvious to me. Parents don’t always make the best decisions for their children, and I feel they, and people outside the family that work in health care, don’t have the right to meddle in this, not legally or ethically. Government’s role in this should be zero.
But parents, in conjunction with medical professionals, make irreversible decisions for minors all the time. Why should gender dysphoria be treated differently than, say, cancer?
The Talmud talks about the religious obligations of people who are women who used to be men, and if men who used to be women, and of people who are both, though.
Things like cancer are objectively detectable conditions which may be fatal if not treated. Gender identity is subjective and may just be a phase that a minor is going through. As such, treatments for minors should have more limits than for adults. It’s not all that problematic for minors to have treatments that are relatively straightforward to reverse with minimal long-term consequences, such as hormone therapy and electrolysis. Something like breast surgery has more consequences, but even then it’s probably okay. Something like genital reassignment surgery is going to be much harder to reverse and is something best left until after they are an adult and will likely be more confident in their gender identity.
If the goal is really “wait until they’re adults and let them decide”, then you need to be in favor of minors having access to puberty-delaying drugs (which, from what I understand, have very few negative side-effects). Because a lot of options that someone might decide upon cease to be options after they’ve gone through puberty.
Could you give a source for this? I’d love to read more about it.