Why?

[SissySalina]

What is it?
Is it LGBT?
Is it LGBTQ?
Is it LBGTQI?

Have heard all 3 in the last weeks, but most of all, where is the S?

 

[stickygirl]

What is it?
Is it LGBT?
Is it LGBTQ?
Is it LBGTQI?

Have heard all 3 in the last weeks, but most of all, where is the S?

You could have a case if you think you are unfairly discriminated against and don't fall under the existing headings

 

[yukonnights]

Maybe there should be an 'F' on the list for Free?

All people should be 'Free" to be the person their heart and soul whispers in the deep canyons of their being. In a rainbow, there are many more shades than the named colors. It is where these colors blend into another where most of us find ourselves...the subtle differences hard to name, yet so very real.

But first and foremost, every shade is a human being and worthy of their freedom and their place in the diverse spectrum of life.

I think 'labels' are not evil, just words we use to try to express subtle realities. They are often blunt instruments, but serve the purpose of human communication. If they were perfect, there would not be so many misunderstandings among humans. I don't think words will ever be perfect.

 

[QuasiSemiDemiEsqueIsh]

I typically write it as LGBT+, because that includes all of it. It just gets too long to try to include everything individually. I believe the Q, standing for “queer”, often serves the same purpose as the +, because queer basically means any sexual minority.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What is it?
Is it LGBT?
Is it LGBTQ?
Is it LBGTQI?

Have heard all 3 in the last weeks, but most of all, where is the S?

Depends who you mean to refer to. For example, if you're running something that addresses gay, lesbian, bi, and transgender issues, but doesn't consider stuff that is specific to intersex people, then LGBT would be appropriate and LGBTI would not. Unfortunately a lot of people just pick one acronym and use it everywhere without considering what they actually mean.

Like QSDE said, the Q and + are used as catch-alls for groups who experience similar issues.

 

[klippert]

Its actually
LBGTQJJ093487UT609 8HNH AEJR;/ZHNGT'

 

[BigTopBedlam]

LGBTQAAIIP... and on and on it goes, when will it stop? No one knows!

I just pejoratively call it The Alphabet Club, although technically I could be included, being bisexual, however my distaste for labels/catagorisation and my horror at the encroaching intersectional mafia-esque fun police overrides my self-interest.

It should be noted that diversity without a limiting principle leads inexorably to anarchy and that upturns the boat for everyone. Why not stop at LGBT and say that anything else is only a derivation of the same?

 

[Bramblethorn]

It should be noted that diversity without a limiting principle leads inexorably to anarchy and that upturns the boat for everyone.

What does "upturning the boat" look like in this context?

If "anarchy" means people getting to do their own thing and be happy in the way that works for them, without being beaten up or discriminated against for being weird, I'm all for it.

Why not stop at LGBT and say that anything else is only a derivation of the same?

Because it would be incorrect and harmful.

Intersex isn't a derivation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. There are some common issues, which is why the 'I' ends up sharing an umbrella with the 'LGBT', but there are also some issues unique to intersex folk, and pretending that "LGBT" is the only thing that matters leads to intersex people getting shafted.

 

[BigTopBedlam]

Ok, this is gonna be a long one but it's a complex situation, so here goes.

What does "upturning the boat" look like in this context?

If "anarchy" means people getting to do their own thing and be happy in the way that works for them, without being beaten up or discriminated against for being weird, I'm all for it.

Unlimited inclusion. Yay! Right?
Well what about pedos? Oh. I see.
And bestiality? I bet the animal rights lot would love that. I'm not linking paedophilia with LGBT rights, you are, by saying anything goes. If you disagree with that then you agree with me that there does need to be a limiting principle.

The next question is where is that limit set? No sex with kids or animals, right? Well if your underlying ideology is that anything goes but you've just accepted the bare minimum limit for practicality's sake. It follows that you have a paradox on your hands and that eventually the chips will fall on one side or the other. I.e: Either pedophillia is OK or nothing but heterosexuality is. I don't know about you but neither of those options are at all acceptable to me.

Because it would be incorrect and harmful.

Intersex isn't a derivation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. There are some common issues, which is why the 'I' ends up sharing an umbrella with the 'LGBT', but there are also some issues unique to intersex folk, and pretending that "LGBT" is the only thing that matters leads to intersex people getting shafted.

If you want to talk about hermaphrodites, there are hardly any, and given that as you say an issue solved for the trans lobby is an issue solved for the 'intersex' lobby why bring them up at all. Are there any issues which exclusively affect this group that couldn't be solved by expanding trans rights? Any at all?

Isn't it easier and more intellectually consistent to return to treating them as what they are, people suffering from a disorder which leaves them balancing between the two stools of male and female? Just as transsexuals are people suffering from a disorder which leaves them balancing between the two stools of masculine and feminine. (i.e Gender Dysphoria)

The whole LGBT lobby would rid itself of this whole headache by admitting that it's OK to be abnormal, and that they don't need to reject all science and human history just because they don't see their specific sexual make-up reflected by society at large.

If it can't do that then it will collapse under it's own weight sooner or later as it tries to legitimate an ever increasingly fine distinction between categories of people ad infinitum. This has already started to happen (see the TERF vs trans fight) and I am worried that the inevitable social course correction will leave us in a worse place than before. (i.e 'upturning the boat' so to speak)

Ironically none of this was necessary as seen by the gay marriage fight, one of the most sacred of societies institutions eventually opened up to a discriminated minority (not without a fight, granted) because most people when it comes down to it are live and let live. They aren't live and let live when you tell them that there's no such thing as biological distinction, a direct attack on their identity masked by 'inclusion'.

 

[stickygirl]

Ok, this is gonna be a long one but it's a complex situation, so here goes.



Unlimited inclusion. Yay! Right?
Well what about pedos? Oh. I see.
And bestiality? I bet the animal rights lot would love that. I'm not linking paedophilia with LGBT rights, you are, by saying anything goes. If you disagree with that then you agree with me that there does need to be a limiting principle.

The next question is where is that limit set? No sex with kids or animals, right? Well if your underlying ideology is that anything goes but you've just accepted the bare minimum limit for practicality's sake. It follows that you have a paradox on your hands and that eventually the chips will fall on one side or the other. I.e: Either pedophillia is OK or nothing but heterosexuality is. I don't know about you but neither of those options are at all acceptable to me.



If you want to talk about hermaphrodites, there are hardly any, and given that as you say an issue solved for the trans lobby is an issue solved for the 'intersex' lobby why bring them up at all. Are there any issues which exclusively affect this group that couldn't be solved by expanding trans rights? Any at all?

Isn't it easier and more intellectually consistent to return to treating them as what they are, people suffering from a disorder which leaves them balancing between the two stools of male and female? Just as transsexuals are people suffering from a disorder which leaves them balancing between the two stools of masculine and feminine. (i.e Gender Dysphoria)

The whole LGBT lobby would rid itself of this whole headache by admitting that it's OK to be abnormal, and that they don't need to reject all science and human history just because they don't see their specific sexual make-up reflected by society at large.

If it can't do that then it will collapse under it's own weight sooner or later as it tries to legitimate an ever increasingly fine distinction between categories of people ad infinitum. This has already started to happen (see the TERF vs trans fight) and I am worried that the inevitable social course correction will leave us in a worse place than before. (i.e 'upturning the boat' so to speak)

Ironically none of this was necessary as seen by the gay marriage fight, one of the most sacred of societies institutions eventually opened up to a discriminated minority (not without a fight, granted) because most people when it comes down to it are live and let live. They aren't live and let live when you tell them that there's no such thing as biological distinction, a direct attack on their identity masked by 'inclusion'.

There is so much wrong with everything you've said that it's not worth a response and in any case, I'm sure you're just hankering for a mindless exchange. Hope you're feeling better for having got it out there though: it's important to have a stage to strut upon? You should work on your anger - it's gotta be bad for your health and BP

 

[QuasiSemiDemiEsqueIsh]

Yeah, I’m gonna back out of this thread at this point, because I don’t even know where to start with all the faulty logic and flawed assumptions. Plus, I can already tell I wouldn’t be able to fully respond without being triggered (talking about actual C-PTSD triggers, not the bullshit “lol I’m so triggered” nonsense), and I don’t need to be chasing triggers and spending the weekend recovering from them, so that’s it for me.

I can (and will) say that there were some good points made here—though, IMO, not by Bedlam, who seems to be completely overlooking how consent works and also dismissing the identities of swathes of people as unimportant and/or indistinct, if I’m reading that right? There are some definite false binaries, at the very least—, and I hope that the conversation continues, because it’s an interesting and important topic; I just don’t think I can currently contribute to it beyond what I’ve said here, at least not in a rational and healthy way.

So, on that note, kthxbai!

 

[BigTopBedlam]

There is so much wrong with everything you've said that it's not worth a response and in any case, I'm sure you're just hankering for a mindless exchange. Hope you're feeling better for having got it out there though: it's important to have a stage to strut upon? You should work on your anger - it's gotta be bad for your health and BP

Hey girl, I'm chill. Just because you're angry doesn't mean I am.

If you've actually got a response I'd love to hear it.



edit: if you can't parse what I said in the negative, try making a statement in the positive about what you believe and we can go from there, if that helps.

 

[BigTopBedlam]

I can (and will) say that there were some good points made here—though, IMO, not by Bedlam, who seems to be completely overlooking how consent works and also dismissing the identities of swathes of people as unimportant and/or indistinct, if I’m reading that right? There are some definite false binaries, at the very least—, and I hope that the conversation continues, because it’s an interesting and important topic; I just don’t think I can currently contribute to it beyond what I’ve said here, at least not in a rational and healthy way.

Sure, you do you. I'm here for a debate with people who think differently to me. If I wanted a shouting match I'd be on the GB.

For example, the point about consent as the limiting principle is interesting. However I would counter that the expanding LGBT etc. activism has already trampled over that line by beginning to attempt to normalise paedophilia and other 'intergenerational relationships'. Hence my point about a paradox in ideology not being something you can paper over for too long.

For my money the only way to solve the problem is simplify the argument from intersectionality down to just LGBT, which removes the 'anything goes' impulse.

Thoughts?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Unlimited inclusion. Yay! Right?
Well what about pedos? Oh. I see.
And bestiality? I bet the animal rights lot would love that. I'm not linking paedophilia with LGBT rights, you are, by saying anything goes. If you disagree with that then you agree with me that there does need to be a limiting principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

"A slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is a consequentialist logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect."

People have been using the "if we tolerate homosexuality and bisexuality, we have to tolerate pedophilia and bestiality" argument for literally decades. It was bullshit then, and it's just as bullshit when applied to intersex or transgender people as it was when folk were applying it to you.

The next question is where is that limit set? No sex with kids or animals, right? Well if your underlying ideology is that anything goes but you've just accepted the bare minimum limit for practicality's sake. It follows that you have a paradox on your hands and that eventually the chips will fall on one side or the other. I.e: Either pedophillia is OK or nothing but heterosexuality is. I don't know about you but neither of those options are at all acceptable to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.""

If you want to talk about hermaphrodites,

No, I don't. I never mentioned the word. I was talking about intersex people. Using "hermaphrodite" for intersex people is inaccurate, and about as polite as a stranger calling a gay man "faggot".

there are hardly any,

Wrong. Per Fausto-Sterling et al, about 1.7% of people have some kind of intersex condition, which makes it more common than being transgender or having red hair.

and given that as you say an issue solved for the trans lobby is an issue solved for the 'intersex' lobby

If you're going to make up nonsense, kindly don't put it in my mouth. I never said any such thing, and it's not true.

As I did say, there are some issues where trans and intersex rights share common ground - enough so that it makes sense for these groups to work together. But as I also said - and you quoted me, apparently without reading it - there are issues that are unique to intersex people, and there are in fact issues where trans and intersex considerations can work against one another if not carefully handled.

Are there any issues which exclusively affect this group that couldn't be solved by expanding trans rights? Any at all?

Yes. This is Intersex 101 stuff, and you would know it if you'd taken five minutes to read up on the topic before posting your opinion.

For instance, one of the biggest issues in intersex advocacy, is "normalisation" treatment on intersex infants and children. Doctors encounter a child whose body doesn't fit neatly into that male-female binary, and they decide to modify that body via surgery/medication, long before the child is capable of understanding what they're trying to do, let alone giving informed consent or indicating what would work best for them. It's unethical, very harmful to intersex people, and still pretty common.

Meanwhile, transgender rights activists are looking out for the rights of transgender kids, who often stand to benefit from childhood treatments like puberty blockers, which delay physical bodily changes until that kid is an adult who can make up their own mind.

This is a good thing, but approaching it solely from the transgender perspective ("let's change the rules so it's easier for trans kids to get the sex-related medical treatment that they need") risks inadvertently screwing over intersex kids ("whoops, we also made it easier for intersex kids to get sex-related medical treatment that they didn't want or need and is harmful for them").

Hence the importance of considering the intersex angle and making sure the proposed solutions work for everybody, instead of just assuming that taking care of the "T" will automatically take care of the "I".

That's probably the biggest example of where focussing on "LGBT" to exclusion of "I" is harmful, but it's by no means the only one. If you really want to engage in this discussion and be taken seriously by folk who've actually taken the time to learn about the things they're discussing, I recommend putting in the effort to go do some reading on these matters, like we've done.

Isn't it easier and more intellectually consistent to return to treating them as what they are, people suffering from a disorder which leaves them balancing between the two stools of male and female?

I guess being wrong 100% of the time does count as "intellectually consistent", but I wouldn't recommend it.

Being intersex is no more inherently "disordered" than being same-sex attracted, or being left-handed, or being seven feet tall. It's unusual, it's uncommon, but what makes it "disordered" is mostly just other people who can't stand the idea that not everybody comes from the same cookie cutter.

A caveat here: "intersex" covers many different medical conditions. Some of them can cause serious health complications, and those complications might reasonably be considered "disorders", but many others are perfectly harmless - until you run into assholes who insist on cutting off anything that doesn't fit into their mental model of how human bodies should be. Many intersex conditions can't even be detected without sophisticated genetic testing.

The people with such conditions don't "suffer from" being intersex, they suffer from being around narrow-minded assholes. The best way to alleviate that suffering is not being a narrow-minded asshole.

The whole LGBT lobby would rid itself of this whole headache by admitting that it's OK to be abnormal, and that they don't need to reject all science and human history just because they don't see their specific sexual make-up reflected by society at large.

Science and human history tell us that intersex and transgender are real things which have been with us for a very long time. There's no "rejection" of science required to suggest that maybe we should try being nice to people in these categories.

If it can't do that then it will collapse under it's own weight sooner or later as it tries to legitimate an ever increasingly fine distinction between categories of people ad infinitum. This has already started to happen (see the TERF vs trans fight) and I am worried that the inevitable social course correction will leave us in a worse place than before. (i.e 'upturning the boat' so to speak)

Who precisely do you mean by "us" here?

Perhaps I'm misjudging - I don't know you, and it's always hard to read tone over the net - but this sounds uncomfortably close to the attitude I hear sometimes of "now us gay/bi folk have some rights after decades of rocking the boat, we want the rest of y'all to stop rocking the boat".

A better analogy might be: "if we throw the trans and intersex people to the wolves, who do you think the wolves are going to eat next?" The TERF-vs-trans thing didn't happen because trans people got too uppity; it happened because the religious right was on the back foot after success by LGBT rights campaigns, and they saw it as a way to divide and weaken their enemies.

These people didn't suddenly decide that they're now okay with gay and bi folk existing. They've just decided to pick off your allies first by going for the most marginalised; if they succeed in that, they're coming for you next.

Ironically none of this was necessary as seen by the gay marriage fight, one of the most sacred of societies institutions eventually opened up to a discriminated minority (not without a fight, granted) because most people when it comes down to it are live and let live. They aren't live and let live when you tell them that there's no such thing as biological distinction, a direct attack on their identity masked by 'inclusion'.

Nah. There are still plenty of vicious homophobes who are dying to give you the old Matthew Shepard treatment, but they've realised that now is not the moment. So they've made a strategic retreat to fight over trans and intersex issues for now. If they win those fights, they're coming back to you.

(Also, the "no such thing as biological distinction" thing is yet another straw man.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sure, you do you. I'm here for a debate with people who think differently to me. If I wanted a shouting match I'd be on the GB.

Cool. If you genuinely want a debate, you might want to work on showing respect to the people you're trying to "debate" with.

That starts with things like doing the background reading - so you're not expecting everybody else to waste their time educating you on stuff like Intersex 101 that you could easily find for yourself - and not manufacturing straw men or attributing to us things that we never said.

For example, the point about consent as the limiting principle is interesting. However I would counter that the expanding LGBT etc. activism has already trampled over that line by beginning to attempt to normalise paedophilia

[citation extremely needed]

and other 'intergenerational relationships'.

The article you linked to is about a 52-year-old who now identifies as a 6-year-old girl. There is no mention of a sexual angle that I could discern. You're free to think it's weird, but you're drawing a long bow in trying to link that to pedophilia.

There are already plenty of fundies trying to argue that all LGBT folk are pedos. You really don't need to do their work for them.

 

[BigTopBedlam]

Firstly thank you for the response. See how good it is to have a long form discussion with people of a completely different political/philosophical background, it means you can work out kinks in your own thinking.

You talk repeatedly about doing 'background reading' then say I need to show the people I'm debating 'more respect'. I could say the same to you for assuming that you know better than me in all respects and that I'm not sufficiently 'read up' if I disagree with you. I'm at least trying to do you the courtesy of coming at this as just two people from differing points of view. There's validity in holding both, people speak from different experience.

For example I wouldn't even consider that doctors are allowed to mutilate intersex babies in order to refine them into strictly male or female. It gave me pause as I considered what I would want in that situation. It's certainly true that people born like the majority of those around them find an easier time of it. On the other hand I'd want to live how I was born as far as possible, and then once you start eliminating 'intersex' as a category of people it starts you down the road of eugenics and stuff like eliminating dwarfism from the gene pool etc. And we all know where that leads.

So yeah, on reflection I agree there are issues exclusive to that group, however it's still not clear to me that tacking on an 'I' to LGBT is helpful or even necessary. Given that that issue is solved by a carte blanche 'no mutilating babies' approach.

So I agree, mutilating children for any reason is sick, which is why I find your advocation of puberty blockers more than a touch hypocritical, a child cannot consent to having it's puberty blocked. For that matter a child can't decide that it's not the gender it was born as, legally speaking. Sure it can feel that way if it has Gender Dysphoria but also even if it doesn't and if last week he felt like a frog and next week he'll feel like spiderman.

People have been using the "if we tolerate homosexuality and bisexuality, we have to tolerate pedophilia and bestiality" argument for literally decades. It was bullshit then, and it's just as bullshit when applied to intersex or transgender people as it was when folk were applying it to you.

I would agree with you but for an important distinction. The argument is the same but the ground has shifted underfoot since then, making it's effect different. Back in the day that argument was beng made from a strictly outsider christian perspective, that anything outside the norm was immoral and would lead to more immorality. Despite homosexuality being fairly commonplace in society.

That was before intersectionality rolled into town. It was a bullshit argument then, it's not anymore. Now there are actually an ever multiplying number of people within the movement arguing for all manner of batshit insanity. It's a fair question to ask, where does this all end?

The TERF-vs-trans thing didn't happen because trans people got too uppity; it happened because the religious right was on the back foot after success by LGBT rights campaigns, and they saw it as a way to divide and weaken their enemies.

Another example of seeing things from two different directions. The TERF vs. trans fight isn't just the religious right attacking the LGBT, it would mean that all these hardcore feminists were secretly conservatives this whole time. It's not an attack from the outside, it's people on the inside realising that they're being pushed out.
From their point of view they would call the trans lobby an insurgent conservative attack on feminism (allowing men into female spaces) but they'd be just as wrong. It's only the natural evolution of a conversation our society has been having since the sixties.

You talk a lot about straw man arguments, suggesting that all the LGBT lobby is interested in is 'trying to be nice to these people', I guess it might seem accurate from within the movement but I find it disingenuous. It's a veneer of respectability and common manners plastered over an at least partly intentional upending of biological distinction. It's a way of getting 'useful idiots' to fight in your corner against their own interests and it's a tactic as old as time.

(Also, the "no such thing as biological distinction" thing is yet another straw man.)

Just because you personally are not making the 'no biological distinction' argument doesn't mean the lobby on the whole isn't. There is a huge contingent that would look at you as differently as you do me for saying that there is even such a thing as male and female. Ironically the same people would turn around and ape the most blatant gender stereotypes, trans in a dress, heavy make up etc. This is one of the biggest knots the movement as whole needs to unravel. (Which goes back to the whole TERF thing.)

LGBT activism isn't a monolith and people tend to assume that their ideas are reflected across it, just as feminism has it's difference feminism and 'equality' feminism camps, so too does the trans lobby have multiple factions. I'm saying that because it lends itself to factionalism by endorsing any group with victimhood to claim, rather than simple binary difference like feminism, it is inherently unstable and when it crashes and burns it'll take all of us with it.

(Incidentally that '6 yr old girl' has a relationship with an adult man, but it doesn't even need to go that far to open the way for predators, he's claiming to be 6 yrs old despite the fact that he's a biological 52 yr old man and he's getting taken seriously, there's nothing to stop the argument being used in the opposite direction, the logic's the same.)

Again, appreciate the response.

 

[QuasiSemiDemiEsqueIsh]

Sure, you do you. I'm here for a debate with people who think differently to me. If I wanted a shouting match I'd be on the GB.

For example, the point about consent as the limiting principle is interesting. However I would counter that the expanding LGBT etc. activism has already trampled over that line by beginning to attempt to normalise paedophilia and other 'intergenerational relationships'. Hence my point about a paradox in ideology not being something you can paper over for too long.

For my money the only way to solve the problem is simplify the argument from intersectionality down to just LGBT, which removes the 'anything goes' impulse.

Thoughts?

Just to clarify, while I did (and still do) disagree with some of your points, I didn’t mean to imply that you were looking for a shouting match or incapable of having a reasonable discussion. The reason I’ve backed out is not anything to do with you, specifically, and I probably should have clarified that originally.

My dilemma is only that I’ve been susceptible to triggers lately, and to prevent being affected by them, I’m temporarily avoiding all in-depth debates and disagreements, and especially those that focus on subjects I’m passionate about. Just wanted to clarify that I wasn’t trying to make any judgments about you, specifically, because I checked back in here and realized that wasn’t as clear as I’d thought it was.

And there is one thing that I can’t get out of my head regarding this conversation, so even though I know I probably shouldn’t re-engage, I feel like I have to point out that from my perspective, you’re erasing/dismissing a lot of valid identities and orientations.

As a demisexual, the one that affects me most personally is the asexual spectrum— which already gets enough dismissal/erasure—, but there are others. And choosing to deliberately exclude them for the sake of simplification or to prevent the inclusion of those who harm others and/or operate against/without consent doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

From my perspective, “anything goes” means “anything goes, provided it doesn’t harm (harm, not hurt) oneself or others and provided it can be and has been consented to.” To me, that’s where the line is drawn, and I don’t see why there would be a problem with that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Firstly thank you for the response. See how good it is to have a long form discussion with people of a completely different political/philosophical background, it means you can work out kinks in your own thinking.

You're projecting. It may well be "good" for you, but it's not for me. I get into conversations like this as an unpleasant moral duty, not because I enjoy them.

You talk repeatedly about doing 'background reading' then say I need to show the people I'm debating 'more respect'. I could say the same to you for assuming that you know better than me in all respects and that I'm not sufficiently 'read up' if I disagree with you.

As far as intersex issues are concerned - which was one of the specific points we were discussing at the time - it's pretty clear that I do know better than you.

I don't believe I ever said I know better than you "in all respects". I'm sure there are areas where you do know far more than me, and if we ever happen to discuss them, I guarantee that I will not be chiming in with my opinion on How Things Should Be Handled until I've put in some serious effort to educate myself. If I did, I would not expect anybody's respect here.

To be clear: no, I am not treating you with respect here, because I don't think you're behaving in a way that deserves it. I understand that this could alienate you. But the thing is, you're the one who finds this kind of discussion fun. I don't. If you want me to stick around and talk nicely about this stuff, you're effectively asking me for a favour.

Hence my saying "if you genuinely want a debate, you might want to work on showing respect". Otherwise, I'll probably just put you on ignore and go about my business, because I have no shortage of opportunities for interesting conversations with people who do put in the effort.

I'm at least trying to do you the courtesy of coming at this as just two people from differing points of view. There's validity in holding both, people speak from different experience.

That's not a courtesy, though. This "just two people from differing points of view" ignores the fact that only one of those points of view is based on information. It implies that the work I've put into learning about these issues should count for nothing. "Courtesy"? That's an insult.

I'm really, really tired of the 21st-century thing of faux "balance" which says we're obliged to give equal weight to all opinions, no matter how much or how little those opinions have behind them. It's the "every kid gets a prize" mentality.

Certainly there are cases where two people can both have a lot of experience on an issue from different perspectives, and then both those perspectives can be valuable. But "not knowing what intersex is" isn't a valuable alternative perspective on this topic.

"Courtesy" would also include things like apologising when it's pointed out to you that you've misrepresented somebody by falsely putting words in their mouth.

For example I wouldn't even consider that doctors are allowed to mutilate intersex babies in order to refine them into strictly male or female. It gave me pause as I considered what I would want in that situation. It's certainly true that people born like the majority of those around them find an easier time of it. On the other hand I'd want to live how I was born as far as possible, and then once you start eliminating 'intersex' as a category of people it starts you down the road of eugenics and stuff like eliminating dwarfism from the gene pool etc. And we all know where that leads.

I'm glad that you learned something from this, and that it's given you pause for thought about these issues. I really am. It's part of why I put myself through discussions like this that I find stressful and unenjoyable.

But can you understand why I'm cranky that you started making pronouncements about how intersex issues should be handled, without even being aware that this was one of the major issues intersex people deal with? Do you see why it's a bad look to be posting these "are there ANY intersex issues that can't be covered by trans rights?" questions and expecting me to do the work of educating you, when you could have gone and looked it up and then come back to have an informed discussion about this?

So yeah, on reflection I agree there are issues exclusive to that group, however it's still not clear to me that tacking on an 'I' to LGBT is helpful or even necessary. Given that that issue is solved by a carte blanche 'no mutilating babies' approach.

It really isn't, though. I could give a long list of reasons why it's more complicated than that - but again, much of this is stuff that you could easily learn for yourself with just a little bit of effort, and I'm not being paid enough to spoon-feed you. (Plus, at least one of the issues is already mentioned in one of my previous posts...)

So I agree, mutilating children for any reason is sick, which is why I find your advocation of puberty blockers more than a touch hypocritical, a child cannot consent to having it's puberty blocked.

People don't magically go from "unable to give consent to anything" to "able to consent to everything" at some magic moment during their 6575th day on earth. Minimum age for sexual consent, for joining the military, for voting, for buying booze - all those may be different even in the same jurisdiction, because we recognise that informed consent is a complicated thing and one's capacity evolves gradually over time.

Generally we recognise that as children age, their capacity for informed consent increases, and we give their wishes greater weight in medical decision-making. If I want to get my two-year-old vaccinated for influenza, I get to make that call, no matter how much they object to the needle. If I want to get my sixteen-year-old vaccinated, they get considerably more say.

We also recognise that not doing anything is still making a decision which can have serious consequences. If a 13-year-old gets cancer which can be treated by chemo, we don't tell them "sorry kid, you're too young to make the decision, let's wait until you're 18 and then you can have chemo if you still want it". That would be absurd. We let them consent to it, even though they're still a "child", because doing harm by neglect is not automatically better than harm by intervention.

Puberty blockers are a similar proposition to the 13-year-old who wants chemo, except that the side-effects of blockers are milder than chemo. (Generalising here; there are many different kinds of chemo.) This is another of those areas where I really ought to be telling you to go do the reading, but for the benefit of any bystanders who are curious about this stuff:

Being transgender, especially transgender female, is dangerous in all sorts of ways. Trans girls and women are at high risk of violence, discrimination, all sorts of crap, and also body dysphoria that can lead to self-harm etc.

Those risks are much higher for trans women with obvious masculine characteristics. Obviously you're more likely to get fired/beaten up/etc. if the local transphobes can easily see that you're transgender.

Until puberty, boys and girls with their clothes on look pretty similar. During puberty, all sorts of physical changes kick in that make the differences far more visible. These make it much harder for trans girls/women to "pass", and they can also be very traumatic from a body dysphoria perspective - you have somebody who already has the wrong body, and now it's getting further away from their identity. For a transgender girl, allowing puberty to proceed is very likely to do serious and permanent harm to her - by the time she's 18, a lot of these changes can't easily be undone.

That process could be prevented by medical intervention - surgery, hormone therapy, etc. aimed at giving the kid a female body and preventing those masculinising changes. But that intervention is also irreversible, and for understandable reasons we're wary about performing that kind of surgery on minors. The narrative of "trans regret" is heavily exaggerated by transphobes, but it can happen. So either option has risks. This is where blockers come in.

Puberty blockers are medications that stall the onset of puberty. They allow a transgender girl to postpone that huge decision until she's an adult, presumed mentally competent to make such important choices. And if that child decides they're not really transgender after all, they can stop taking blockers and catch up with male puberty, deep voice and facial hair and all the rest of it.

In short - if you value bodily autonomy and consent, and believe that it's better to give the permanent decisions to an 18-year-old than to make those decisions for them at 13, then puberty blockers are often the best option. (Usual caveats apply; as with any medication, there can be individual circumstances that make blockers inappropriate.)

For that matter a child can't decide that it's not the gender it was born as, legally speaking. Sure it can feel that way if it has Gender Dysphoria but also even if it doesn't and if last week he felt like a frog and next week he'll feel like spiderman.

This is... rather confused.

In the context of this discussion, sex is the physical body somebody has, and gender is how they see themselves. Unless you're telepathic, we have no way of verifying "the gender it was born as", because zero-years-old humans are not very good at communicating these concepts.

Kids aren't diagnosed as transgender because of a passing whim. It requires an established pattern, typically years, of the child asserting their gender identity. Again, things you'd know if you'd done the reading.

That was before intersectionality rolled into town. It was a bullshit argument then, it's not anymore.

Do you actually know what "intersectionality" is?

Serious question. You've brought it up a few times, but none of the stuff you're talking about actually involves intersectionality. (There certainly are intersectionality angles to a lot of the issues we've been talking about, but we haven't been discussing those angles.) "Intersectionality" is a word with a clearly-defined meaning, and "adding new letters to the acronym" ain't it.

Now there are actually an ever multiplying number of people within the movement arguing for all manner of batshit insanity. It's a fair question to ask, where does this all end?

There were always people "within" "the movement" arguing for batshit insanity.

The most famous pro-pedophilia advocacy group in the world is a gay-male-oriented organisation founded more than forty years ago. Does that mean gay men should be kicked out of "LGBTI+" for tainting the movement with pedophilia? Of course it doesn't.

You will always find some element of batshit insanity in any large group. When somebody goes seeking out those examples as an attempt to discredit the group as a whole, without considering how the rest of the movement treats that lunatic fringe, that can safely be written off as bad faith.

Another example of seeing things from two different directions. The TERF vs. trans fight isn't just the religious right attacking the LGBT, it would mean that all these hardcore feminists were secretly conservatives this whole time.

It's certainly not just the Religious Right. But plenty of TERFs are very comfortable playing useful idiots for hardline religious conservatives. See e.g. Cole Parke's work on tracking the associations between those groups.

It's not an attack from the outside, it's people on the inside realising that they're being pushed out.

Not really, no. Transgender people have been part of queer spaces since forever - indeed, back before we made clear distinctions between the concepts of trans and gay/bi identities. (Not that those distinctions are entirely clear-cut now, in some spaces!) And they're not "pushing" people out - except, occasionally, for those who've been working hard to exclude trans people.

From their point of view they would call the trans lobby an insurgent conservative attack on feminism (allowing men into female spaces) but they'd be just as wrong.

They certainly do make such claims. But as I've stated above, I don't have a lot of time for the attitude that all claims have equal merit and should be taken equally seriously.

Just because you personally are not making the 'no biological distinction' argument doesn't mean the lobby on the whole isn't. There is a huge contingent that would look at you as differently as you do me for saying that there is even such a thing as male and female.

Oh? Out of this "huge contingent", which would you say is the largest trans advocacy group that takes this position?

(I know of plenty who take the position that it's far more complicated than "some people are male, everybody else is female, end of", but that's not the same as what you're saying.)

Ironically the same people would turn around and ape the most blatant gender stereotypes, trans in a dress, heavy make up etc.

...and now we're back in Trans 101 That People Really Ought To Know Before Discussing This Stuff territory. Are you aware of the reasons why trans people often dress to gender stereotypes? Very often it's not about a personal preference for dresses and makeup.

Fair notice: whether I respond to further posts in this thread will depend very much on the nature of those posts. You may be here simply for the fun of debating, but I'm not.

 

[stickygirl]

Bless you Brambles. You have a knack of making me feel irascible and impetuous, so thank you for your informed, balanced and patient responses, which I am hope are read with the same open-mindedness.
Bedlam - it's sometimes useful to have someone tip out the apple cart because if the discussion it provokes, just so long as they help put the apples back.

Have a good Sunday everyone

 

[BigTopBedlam]

You're projecting. It may well be "good" for you, but it's not for me. I get into conversations like this as an unpleasant moral duty, not because I enjoy them.

Thank you for your service.

I'm gonna have to shorten this despite having plenty more to say so this doesn't turn into a game of duelling essays.

But can you understand why I'm cranky

No, not really, but it gets to another reason the intersectional lobby is starting to lose the argument in society as a whole. Progressives are impossible to have a civil debate with because they reflexively start trying to shut it down with grand pronouncements on how smart they are and that you need a social studies degree to be 'on their level'. Meanwhile society is having the debate without them. If you don't show up to debate, you lose.

You will always find some element of batshit insanity in any large group. When somebody goes seeking out those examples as an attempt to discredit the group as a whole, without considering how the rest of the movement treats that lunatic fringe, that can safely be written off as bad faith.

There will always be fringe lunatics, I'm talking meta narrative here, the lunatics are running the asylum now, they weren't back then.

If you think puberty blockers are just some casual thing that doesn't require consent then I'm not sure where else we can go on this one. Puberty blockers are very serious, chemical castration levels of serious and pushing them on kids is sick.

Speaking of consent, your backsliding on the age of consent is kinda proving my point for me vis-a-vis paedophillia normalisation.

In any case, not wanting to hog the debate, this is where I leave you.
Also hoping for a bevy of other equally distinct voices to chime in on this important topic.



https://i.imgur.com/q55MJSg.gif

 

[stickygirl]

No, not really, but it gets to another reason the intersectional lobby is starting to lose the argument in society as a whole. Progressives are impossible to have a civil debate with because they reflexively start trying to shut it down with grand pronouncements on how smart they are and that you need a social studies degree to be 'on their level'. Meanwhile society is having the debate without them. If you don't show up to debate, you lose.

There will always be fringe lunatics, I'm talking meta narrative here, the lunatics are running the asylum now, they weren't back then.

If you think puberty blockers are just some casual thing that doesn't require consent then I'm not sure where else we can go on this one. Puberty blockers are very serious, chemical castration levels of serious and pushing them on kids is sick.

The thing about debate, which Bramblethorn pointed out, is that it has to be debate, not one side making statements that have no basis in truth and then complaining when they're called out on them. Again - check your facts

Speaking of consent, your backsliding on the age of consent is kinda proving my point for me vis-a-vis paedophillia normalisation.

He didn't, he wouldn't - read it again. The reference was to age limits according to national legal limits, not personal opinion.

In any case, not wanting to hog the debate, this is where I leave you.
Also hoping for a bevy of other equally distinct voices to chime in on this important topic.

You've solidly avoided the topic, posted by the OP. Instead you've sidetracked the thread into some pet subjects you wanted to get off your chest. Fortunately, the asylum still isn't being run by lunatics, or people who don't fact-check or shut their ears to truth because it doesn't fit a mindset they refuse to change. But this is nothing new...

https://66.media.tumblr.com/bae68bcf5b7a398535c25ff3fb22e611/tumblr_mlps5uP1su1rqtrujo1_500.gif

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, not really, but it gets to another reason the intersectional lobby is starting to lose the argument in society as a whole. Progressives are impossible to have a civil debate with because they reflexively start trying to shut it down with grand pronouncements on how smart they are and that you need a social studies degree to be 'on their level'.

Straw man yet again. Nobody is asking you to get a social studies degree, nobody's even asking you to be smart. Just to spend a little bit of time reading up on the stuff you're trying to discuss. Don't be lazy.

If you're making pronouncements about intersectionality without even understanding what the word means? That's not a "debate". That's just talking for the love of hearing your own voice.

You are not a special snowflake, you do not get a prize just for showing up, and your opinions are not interesting or worthy of debate just because you happen to hold them. Sorry if you've been coddled by people who led you to believe otherwise, but the sooner you learn that lesson the better.

At this point, even if you were informed, I'd be leaving this discussion. Debate relies on good faith between participants, and you're not acting in good faith. You've continued to fabricate words that aren't mine and put them in my mouth, even after I pointed this out and made it clear that it was unacceptable.

There will always be fringe lunatics, I'm talking meta narrative here, the lunatics are running the asylum now, they weren't back then.

Have you noticed how inconsistent your standards of evidence are?

You were happy to play the slippery-slope-to-pedophlia argument against the trans and intersex advocacy movements on the strength of one article about a single guy who identifies as a six-year-old (who isn't having sex with kids AFAICT?).

But when I mention a well-known organised gay-pro-pedo group that's been around for more than forty years, one that mustered over a thousand members back in the 1990s, that's just "fringe lunatics". Uh huh.

I'm also going to note for the record that I asked BTB to name a trans lobby group that held a position which he claimed was backed by "the lobby as a whole", and he was unable to produce even one example.

Seems like a good time for this flowchart, borrowed from the creation/evolution wars:

https://rudd-o.com/uploads/images/debate-flowchart/debate-flow-chart.jpg

If you think puberty blockers are just some casual thing that doesn't require consent then I'm not sure where else we can go on this one.

And yet again you're fabricating nonsense and putting it in my mouth. You claim to want "debate" but you keep running away from engaging with the things I've actually said, in favour of building your straw man and pounding on that.

Some things are complex and nuanced. The issue of medical treatment for children is one of them. It seems as if you are not well equipped to deal with that kind of issue, but that's no excuse for lying about what I said.

Puberty blockers are very serious, chemical castration levels of serious and pushing them on kids is sick.

It would be, if anybody was doing that, which they're not. Do you know how hard trans kids have to fight to access any kind of treatment?

Ha ha, of course you don't.

Meanwhile, the same dude who's been telling us that trans and intersex people are somehow creating a slippery slope to pedophilia and bestiality... is in a neighbouring forum posting gifs of people having sex with animals.