You seem to be making the mythical assumption that people who change gender are just people who can't accept homosexuality. — Jack Cummins

There is increasing evidence for this and I have already cited two cases of gay men in this thread.

I have shown you the evidence about the Tavistock clinic of which I can find you more given time.

So it is not mythical, there is evidence and there is increasing evidence and there is lots of evidence.

There are other reason for presenting as the opposite sex and there is lots if evidence for Autogynephilia a term created Ray Blanchard who is an expert in this area, worked with trans people and made this theory with their approval based on their evidence such as arousal at the thought of oneself being the opposite sex. The only reason the autogynophile is unpopular is because it doesn't support the trans children narrative and makes people have to view some trans people as having a sexual paraphilia.

There is also evidence for Rapid onset gender dysphoria being transmitted among girls.

I will leave the discussion for now because I need to get up early tomorrow. It does seem from what you have said that your life has involved a lot of struggle. To end on a light upbeat note, we have one thing in common, as I can't bear playing sport at all either. Good night!

Just before I log out, in case anyone gets confused and sees it as some kind of sexual pun, when I said that I don't like playing sport it is meant as field games, such as football!

Also, I think one has to be a little careful of some aspects of sexuality, especially self disclosure. That is because online discussions are very different from those face to face. Most importantly, it is not a safe therapeutic space because it is a philosophy site which the public can read. It may be worth you thinking about because the more I use this and sites in general I am aware of a need for a certain amount of caution in what I say.

Not that I am recommending silent suppression of speech. I am simply saying that the nature of too much self disclosure on a public philosophy site is worth reflecting upon, mainly for how it may impact on you at some point rather than just those who read it.

Good night,
Jack

You really need to think this stuff through.

If you wish to discount all reports of subjective experience and rely entirely upon objectively measured data for fear of dishonesty, you must apply that objection globally and not just to those you disagree with.

That is, if you reject studies that show high correlations of gender reassignment surgery satisfaction, you must reject those reports that state the opposite.

To be consistent, you must be agnostic and you cannot make such claims as:

It shows that gender ideology is based on untrue foundations. — Andrew4Handel

No, nothing shows anything under your stance. If the subjects of my polling can't be trusted, then your smattering of friends you've talked to can't be either, nor can we trust Money's admission he lied.

The point is that it's currently actively antithetical to that progress ever being made. Promoting an intervention which continues to treat intolerance as a fault of some individual's biology just further embeds the intolerance, it doesn't just fail to tackle it, it actively makes it worse. — Isaac

That's a false dichotomy though. And we started out with a theory anyway so let's not get carried away with the qualifications shall we?

It doesn't actively make it worse at all. I seem to be quite capable of holding both views simultaneously because I theorise some reasons for gender dysphoria have to do with one's surroundings. If surgery helps them, then by all means let them have it. A lot of depression and anxiety in younger people is due to worry about climate change, shall we not treat that depression (hopefully through cognitive therapy only) because it's not their fault? That doesn't sit right with me.

That's a false dichotomy though. — Benkei

I don't see how.

It doesn't actively make it worse at all. I seem to be quite capable of holding both views simultaneously because I theorise some reasons for gender dysphoria have to do with one's surroundings. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you 'seem' to be capable of is a very good measure for appropriate public policy. I seem to be capable of owning a gun and not shooting anyone with it. Does that lead to the conclusion that we ought allow everyone to own a gun without restriction?

A lot of depression and anxiety in younger people is due to worry about climate change, shall we not treat that depression (hopefully through cognitive therapy only) because it's not their fault? — Benkei

No one is talking about not treating those with gender dysphoria. As I've said, lots of good therapies are available. If you were asking a like-for-like question - say "should we not give depressives SSRI drugs assuming the problem is their faulty neurotransmitters", then yes I agree with that sentiment. I think anti-depressants do more harm than good in the long run and ought to be severely restricted. Should we not treat depression at all? No. But that's not what I'm suggesting here for gender dysphoria.

As the experience with Tavistock clinic and campaign groups like Mermaids is testament to, these medical interventions are promoted as end goals, not as reluctant stop gaps awaiting societal change. As I said, no-one in the mainstream trans movement is treating opposition like Kathleen Stock as being well-meaning but over idealistic, they're treating them as bigots. This isn't a question of ideology vs pragmatism. It's a question of ideology vs ideology.

I am not sure what many, including yourself, are suggesting for gender dysphoria. There is often such an emphasis on protecting the feelings of those who are offended by gender dysphoria and those who claim to identify outside of the binary.

So much seems to be based on opinion rather than any clinical basis. For example, you say that 'antidepressants do more harm than good' which is merely your viewpoint. Surely, there is a need to step back and look at evidence as critically as possible, not picking and choosing what to select. Part of the problem is that there is so much information online. In order to offer approaches which are intended to aid those who are struggling with gender identity issues, there is a need to look at the issue from various angles.

I am not sure what many, including yourself, are suggesting for gender dysphoria. — Jack Cummins

I don't necessarily think this is the place to discuss specific therapies. I assume everyone is broadly aware that alternative therapies exist. If your position is that there literally are no alternatives to surgery, then I'm happy to go through what those alternatives are, but presuming you're aware of them, I'm not sure what you're asking.

So much seems to be based on opinion rather than any clinical basis. For example, you say that 'antidepressants do more harm than good' which is merely your viewpoint. Surely, there is a need to step back and look at evidence as critically as possible, not picking and choosing what to select. — Jack Cummins

Do you feel capable of doing that? Do you trust the government to do that? Looking back over the history of medicine (particularly psychology, particularly sex and gender...) what would you say our track record has been on 'stepping back' and looking at the evidence critically?

In order to offer approaches which are intended to aid those who are struggling with gender identity issues, there is a need to look at the issue from various angles. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Do you think the current debate is one that's welcoming of "various angles"? How have the angles other than a full-throated agreement with all claims been received? Would you say alternative viewpoints to the mainstream trans agenda are welcomed in intellectual debate?

there is a need to step back and look at evidence as critically as possible — Jack Cummins

I should add, that if you're keen, there's no reason why doing so might not be interesting nonetheless. Do you have a particular clinical study in mind?

In many ways I see the current thread as having some diverse opinions, and if anything, what seems strange is that the thread title is 'Positive characteristics of females' and the main focus is upon transgender. This may hark back to the way in which a lot of the original objections to trans people comes from the quarter of lesbian feminism, especially of those assigned to the male gender in 'female spaces'. Strangely, it seems that gender fundamentalism seems to almost coincide with religious ideas, especially a focus on what genitals a person has.

I am not sure that a completely unbiased angle is possible or one definitive clinical study stands supreme but approaching the issue from a philosophy angle requires a certain degree of impartiality. I do come from a background in training in various psychological therapies, ranging from the psychodynamic to the cognitive models. I agree that the discussion of various therapies is probably beyond the scope of this thread.

Gender dysphoria and its 'treatment' medically and therapeutically, and if anything what I question more than anything is why on a forum such as this, so many threads are created focused on trans issues. It is probably that they generate a lot of moral feeling, mostly from the angle of what is projected onto those who identify as transgender, including those who transition. It may be that the whole issue raises critical issues about the nature of gender, which those who are gender euphoric, as opposed to gender dysphoric, may wish to sidestep. This involves the cultural construction of gender and, to what extent this is biological or about exaggerations of biological differences based on reproduction.

I don't see how. — Isaac

Precisely for the reason I stated. We can be in favour of both social change and gender affirming surgery. The latter is therefore not antithetical to the former.

I'm not sure what you 'seem' to be capable of is a very good measure for appropriate public policy. I seem to be capable of owning a gun and not shooting anyone with it. Does that lead to the conclusion that we ought allow everyone to own a gun without restriction? — Isaac

I don't think that analogy works. If you want an analogy: It's better to teach people to cope with the underlying causes of potential criminal behaviour than to lock criminals up but I'm still in favour of locking up criminals.

No one is talking about not treating those with gender dysphoria. — Isaac

Then I'm having trouble placing your comments when you call it "antithetical". That sounds to me like you disapprove. Or is there a difference between offering the option (which I'm advocating) and your idea of "promoting" gender affirming surgery, which you claim is currently happening?

In many ways I see the current thread as having some diverse opinions, — Jack Cummins

It does, but 'pro-trans' (for want of a better term) positions are not the ones being labelled 'conspiracy theory'. Not all opinions are equal, and the reasons for that inequality interest me.

if anything what I question more than anything is why on a forum such as this, so many threads are created focused on trans issues. — Jack Cummins

Few issues deny the validity of other people's opinions on such ideological grounds. I think that scares people (quite justifiably). You and I might disagree vehemently on, say, economics, we might call each other all the names under the sun, but at the end of the day, Marxism is a valid economic theory, as is Free-Market Capitalism (though I have to rinse my mouth out for admitting it). Same with, say, clashing theories of evolution, quantum physics, psychology... even religion.

But there's this (I believe, new) category of issue, of which transgender is an example, where certain points of view are considered invalid on ideological grounds alone. We don't simply debate whether transitioned women are 'real' women, or whether they ought have all the rights and benefits of natal women. It's considered an invalid opinion to disagree (as opposed to a valid opinion which I merely disagree with). But there's no fact of the matter about such a question. It's something society simply comes to some shaky agreement on. We can't run a test on it. So if people feel excluded from the decision, then they're going to become frustrated about that.

In my experience (the circles I move in are hardly representative, I'll admit) people are nervous. A state of affairs has come to exist where certain views can be (on a whim, it seems) declared verboten with moderately serious consequences. It's a real issue, especially in academia. I've mentioned Kathleen Stock before. Her experience sent quite a few shock-waves through certain academic circles. She's neither a bigot, nor a cruel person. She's actually very friendly and intelligent. But she was physically attacked because she held views which were unpopular and her University (my University too) did not even properly support her.

Whether that's what motivates the influx of threads, I don't know. Maybe unlikely. But that's where my interest is.

We can be in favour of both social change and gender affirming surgery. The latter is therefore not antithetical to the former. — Benkei

You showed you can. Not we can. Hence my example of gun ownership. The fact that you can hold those two concepts concurrently foes not prove society can any more than the fact that I can safely own a rifle proves that society can.

It's quite normal, and indeed advisable, to design policies around the likely responses of society as a whole. Society as a whole does not have such a good track record as I've no doubt you have.

It's better to teach people to cope with the underlying causes of potential criminal behaviour than to lock criminals up but I'm still in favour of locking up criminals. — Benkei

Yes, but locking up criminals does not contradict anything about their crime having underlying causes. If we locked them up with no attempt at rehabilitation, it would. And indeed I would be vehemently opposed to that approach.

As I said, a very reluctant and guarded use of surgery because we have no better option is not what's being proposed. People in favor see it as an objective in its own right, and people opposed are labelled bigots. The disagreement is ideological, not practical.

Then I'm having trouble placing your comments when you call it "antithetical". That sounds to me like you disapprove. — Benkei

Of surgery, yes. Of therapy, no. There's a massive difference. I disapprove of medicalising the effects of intolerance. That includes surgery, pharmaceuticals and blame-based therapies, but it does not exhaust all forms of treatment.

is there a difference between offering the option (which I'm advocating) and your idea of "promoting" gender affirming surgery, which you claim is currently happening? — Benkei

There is a difference, yes. But even within the 'offer' camp (into which I also fall) there are degrees of enthusiasm behind that offer which matter, I think, considering that, as I said, the mainstream position is not merely a reluctant offer.

A lot of depression and anxiety in younger people is due to worry about climate change, shall we not treat that depression (hopefully through cognitive therapy only) because it's not their fault? That doesn't sit right with me. — Benkei

I prescribe carbon neutrality, all round. This is a case where it becomes absolutely clear that treating the individual is unable to get at the pathogen because the pathogen is societal. The cure for the individual is to join extinction rebellion, there's nothing like a just war for raising morale.
To treat the sufferer is to invalidate their feelings and becomes an antidemocratic oppressive measure. Thus we see how inevitably psychology becomes a political tool.

There is a difference, yes. But even within the 'offer' camp (into which I also fall) there are degrees of enthusiasm behind that offer which matter, I think, considering that, as I said, the mainstream position is not merely a reluctant offer. — Isaac

I think the mainstream position is concerned with that if a person has gender affirming surgery then people should accept it. About the question whether persons with gender dysphoria should have gender affirming surgery, I think opinions are much more qualified. But maybe things are simply different here than in the UK.

The Royal Dutch Association for the promotion of the Medical Arts, a.k.a. the Doctor's Association writes the ethical code for practitioners in the Netherlands. One of the ethical pillars is the subsidiarity principle that requires practitioners to employ the means that have the least impact to reach a specific goal. So a gender affirming operation is only on the table if other less impactful measures have failed.

That doesn't rise to the level of promotion in my view but, since it's the most impactful measure available, as an ultimum remedium.

I think the mainstream position is concerned with that if a person has gender affirming surgery then people should accept it. — Benkei

On what grounds?

About the question whether persons with gender dysphoria should have gender affirming surgery, I think opinions are much more qualified. But maybe things are simply different here than in the UK. — Benkei

I think gender surgery is still not easy to get in the UK, but I'm including any medicalisation of the problem, so puberty blockers and hormone therapy. Puberty blockers were, until very recently, alarmingly easy to get here in the UK, and the campaign groups are not saying "phew, that was a narrow escape, thanks for shutting Tavistock", they're saying they want more drugs, more easily available.

One of the ethical pillars is the subsidiarity principle that requires practitioners to employ the means that have the least impact to reach a specific goal. So a gender affirming operation is only on the table if other less impactful measures have failed. — Benkei

Yes, we have a similar code. The issue is not it's existence, the issue is the very strong campaign to ignore it in favour of more readily available treatments. The trans movement slogan is not "things are about right as they are, thanks"

On what grounds? — Isaac

Personal freedom usually. My body, my choice, kind of thing.

Puberty blockers were, until very recently, alarmingly easy to get here in the UK, and the campaign groups are not saying "phew, that was a narrow escape, thanks for shutting Tavistock", they're saying they want more drugs, more easily available. — Isaac

Subsidiarity precludes it becoming more readily available in the Netherlands. They can campaign but it's not going to change the ethical rules doctors have to abide by. First stop is therapy, if that doesn't help then a second psychiatrist will do an assessment on whether it really is gender dysphoria and if there aren't other insufficiently treated or untreated mental illnesses. If that's yes and none (or if the latter are a consequence of the dysphoria), then I suspect puberty blockers are less problematic than other drugs (anti-depressants, if that would make sense) and therefore would be available.

I have to say the movement isn't really vocal in the Netherlands or I haven't been paying attention.

I have to say the movement isn't really vocal in the Netherlands or I haven't been paying attention. — Benkei

I suspect it's because the rules are sensible and there isn't a big backlash against gender-nonconformism in general. I guess it must be the same in Canada, though we have some loud assholes who demand a reset to 1900 CE - and a smaller faction that's holding out for 1600.

Those aren't male or female traits but gender stereotypes. You shouldn't confuse the two. That said, it is correct that male gender stereotypes are valued more than female ones. It reinforces biases as people try to conform their behaviour to what's expected and the end result is a lot of sexism even from people who don't intend it. — Benkei

Biologically males and females are different and that biological difference includes psychological and behavior differences. The same thing also manifest homosexuality and all the different places on the sexual spectrum. And men improve with age because their hormones change with age.

And men improve with age because their hormones change with age — Athena

:rofl:

includes psychological and behavior differences. — Athena

There are cognitive differences. Behaviour is learned. So no.

And men improve with age because their hormones change with age. — Athena

I shall inform the old bastards in my local.

Of surgery, yes. Of therapy, no. There's a massive difference. I disapprove of medicalising the effects of intolerance. That includes surgery, pharmaceuticals and blame-based therapies, but it does not exhaust all forms of treatment. — Isaac

Perhaps I have missed this, but don't you need to establish that a trans person's stated need for transition is caused by intolerance? Same with younger people who want to take puberty blockers to give them more time for their gender identity to fix, why intolerance there?

I'm also interested in what's made you so worried about the availability of puberty blockers?

They can campaign but it's not going to change the ethical rules doctors have to abide by. — Benkei

So you'd disagree with any such campaign? If so, we have no subject of disagreement. There are such campaigns in England.

Perhaps I have missed this, but don't you need to establish that a trans person's stated need for transition is caused by intolerance? — fdrake

'Establish'? That would imply the default position is that it isn't (or that it's not being so has already been established such that I need present evidence to the contrary).

As ever in these kinds of debates I'm more interested in the manner by which the debate is conducted than by the positions within the debate themselves. Here, what peaked my interest was the accusations of bigotry, 'conspiracy theory' etc. So it's not so much about whether one position has been 'established' or not. It's about whether one position is even in the debate. The question I'm asking is - why is it seen a illegitimate to even hold the belief that a trans person's need for transition is caused by intolerance? I don't need to prove it as established fact to investigate that, only that it is as plausible an explanation as any other.

There only seem to me to be two broad positions here (from which many more nuanced ones arise). Either;

1. there exists such a thing as a male/female brain and as such it is possible to be born with the wrong brain for your body.

or

2. behaviour typically associated with male/female bodies is frowned upon to such an extent that it you have a male/female body but behave in ways usually associated with female/male bodies, respectively, you will not be treated fairly.

Of course both can exists and merely manifest in different people.

In the case of (1) surgery (or drugs) to make the body match the brain seems a viable option. But so would medical intervention to make the brain match the body - yet so called 'conversion therapy' is very much a shut off route (it doesn't work at the moment, of course, but then transitional techniques didn't work at first either - further progress is shut off on ideological grounds, not practical grounds, no one is even researching the possibility).

A further complication of (1) is that females born in the 'right' body must, if we're to accept the premise of (1), have 'female-type' brains. ie there's a different brain type for females, it's fixed, and nothing short of medical intervention can change that. Anyone who can't see the very serious implications of accepting such a model for women, people of colour, the disabled... that different phenotypes have predictable and fixed ways of thinking...

It's essentially the issue that feminists have with this framing - that there's a 'female brain' which causes people to want to wear dresses, feel sexually attracted to men, and enjoy Bridget Jones.

So I don't buy (1), not without overwhelming evidence, which we don't have.

That leaves (2). Under (2), treating the person wanting to behave in ways more typically associated with the opposite sex by medically changing their sex so they more closely match society's expectation is unjust at best, abhorrent when pushed on young people by media representations.

I don't see a third option.

I'm also interested in what's made you so worried about the availability of puberty blockers? — fdrake

Hopefully explained above, but if not see... literally any pharmaceutical company's track record on ensuring their products are safe and efficacious first, profitable second.

This is from Hilary Cass, a senior paediatrician who has been reviewing NHS gender services for children.

As already highlighted in my interim report, the most significant knowledge gaps are in relation to treatment with puberty blockers, and the lack of clarity about whether the rationale for prescription is as an initial part of a transition pathway or as a ‘pause’ to allow more time for decision making…

We do not fully understand the role of adolescent sex hormones in driving the development of both sexuality and gender identity through the early teen years, so by extension we cannot be sure about the impact of stopping these hormone surges on psychosexual and gender maturation. We therefore have no way of knowing whether, rather than buying time to make a decision, puberty blockers may disrupt that decision-making process.

and on 'gender-affirming' hormones...

Any potential benefits of gender-affirming hormones must be weighed against the largely unknown long-term safety profile of these treatments in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria

These are obviously just snippets within the wider debate. as I said, I'm less interested in the technical details here than in the manner in which the discussion is conducted.

Ah, I think there are some tangential benefits so I'd mostly just leave it be. It raises awareness, creates more room for people struggling with these issues to open up about it. All in all, I don't think it's bad, just misplaced, as long as doctors stick to agreed ethical standards.

'Establish'? That would imply the default position is that it isn't (or that it's not being so has already been established such that I need present evidence to the contrary). — Isaac

Ideally default positions have arguments for them IMO. But I doubt we need to get into it here.

1. there exists such a thing as a male/female brain and as such it is possible to be born with the wrong brain for your body. — Isaac

I think this is factually nonsense too, but rhetorically useful. Like the neurodivergent banner and neurodivergent brains. I think position ( 2 ) is a possible explanation for it, but I don't think it's easy to establish as true.

While it's probably true that some of the pain and behaviour of trans folks is motivated by fitting into a societal norm, like "passing" there's a question about whether this is even an atypical response to particularly salient and fundamental norms about society. You can find similarly strong norms about race, disability and sexuality. There is a third possibility, which I think @unenlightened is close to (though please correct me if I'm wrong), in which all identity works like passing, and passing is nevertheless expressive.

This is from the paper I linked earlier, I found it quickly for a citation, I don't know and am not in a position to judge if it is authoritative.

]An interesting example, relevant to this discussion and regarding the social recognition of gender is the experience of some cisgender women that are high-performance athletes. Some of them become so muscular that, in the eyes of society, they lose their femininity, and begin to be mistaken for men, despite their identifying as cis women. Some of them speak of difficulties when trying to use the women's bathroom, being frequently kicked out by other users or cleaning staff, claiming that they are men. One athlete tells of a time when she had to raise her blouse and show her breasts to prove she was a woman and be allowed to use the women's bathroom (Jardim, 2018). They do not have intelligible bodies.

For that reason, Amara Moira Rodovalho (2017) suggested that the idea of cis and trans identities also includes the element of social recognition, which goes beyond the simple subjective identification with these identities (as though one thing could occur independently from the other). She defined cisgender women as “those women that, having been raised as women due to the genitals they were born with, exist for themselves and society under the identity of woman” (Rodovalho, 2017, p. 373). This implies that the intrasubjective aspect is not enough to define cis/trans identities, as also the intersubjective one is necessary. Social recognition is part of the process.

To achieve social recognition, it is fundamental that the individual adjusts to the normative model of their gender. This brings them legitimacy, intelligibility and saves them much trouble in social dynamics. Obviously, being trans will never entirely stop being an issue. That is why “passing” as a cis person is so fundamental.2 Let us now go back to the points defined by Duque (2013) that are crucial for recognition and gender passing. The outfit also plays an essential role in passing, as, at an intrapersonal level, it materializes the image that the persons construct of themselves. In contrast, at an interpersonal level, it fulfils the expectations of how one socially expects to see a masculine or feminine person — Dias et al 2021

There is a trope that the pressure to transition comes from trans activists, I want to make an argument against that here.

If we think of passing as a moral imperative, that "if you are X then you ought to behave as expected of X", it raises the question of where those expectations are coming from. I don't think it's reasonable to explain the imperative to conform to cisgender+heteronormative gender norms as arising from trans activist pressure to pass, transition etc - that expectation arises from a social consensus. It's societal standards which give rise to the imperative to conform to standard categories of gender expression "in public", rather than the criticisms of trans activists. So the pressure derives from societal norms rather than transgender rights activist groups and their allies. The trans activist origin of this pressure is also undermined by the same norms forcing conformity on cis men, women and people who don't fit on the binary.

When speaking about that pressure, there is a question about whether it is sufficient to explain why some transgender people want to present as more traditionally female - is it all fear, or is it also a self affirmation? Some testimony favours the latter, despite acknowledging the mix:

Assimilation is powerful and affirming, but it is also a bind that traps me, tempting me into closing the door behind me to all of the trans people who cannot assimilate or do not want to. It’s a false choice between the allure of belonging and the power of speaking out against injustice. Early in my transition, a trans guy friend told me that sometimes trans people are so aware of their individual privileges that they become all they can see. I didn’t understand what he was saying at the time. I do now.

But my friend said something else, too, which is that one’s own happiness is not a sin. Assimilating, blending in, is not a choice I made for safety reasons or even aesthetic ones. It’s an expression of who I really am. The challenge is to keep holding that door open, to not close it behind me, to take a sledgehammer to its edges until it’s wide enough for everyone. Womanhood is too expansive a category to be defined by limited parameters, no matter how it’s marketed.

Capitalism feeds off this ideal woman, but it didn’t strictly create her. She’s an outgrowth of all of us, a golem created over millennia by an ever-shifting set of thoughts on what it means to be a woman. To be a trans woman is perhaps to be more aware of this odd set of expectations, of the way you probably don’t need that pink razor but want it anyway. But it’s not to be uniquely aware of those expectations. I am an assimilationist not because I have failed to examine my choices or the options afforded me under capitalism, but because when I find myself affirmed by family, by friends, by random strangers, I realize how deeply intoxicating it can be to love your life.

What a novelty this is! To fight and fight and fight and discover the simple beauty of actually living the life you merely occupied before. — Emily St. James, Vox

It is majorly affirming to have something which you identify as a core aspect of your being affirmed socially. Not just for "fleeing shame", but by skilfully controlling an aspect of your presentation to better perform your identity.

The role that medical interventions might play in this is self affirmation in that regard. Restorative rather than pandering to societally inflicted wounds. Would we see the desire to get surgery in a society that had less confining gender norms? Who knows, I guess it comes down to how much transgenderism is rooted in less socially constructed aspects of embodiment (like is it somehow an interaction between developmental tendencies of proprioception and social norms?) - would the desire for a different body matter less if it was less gender-normy?

Anyway, if we're talking about whether it's permissible to surgically transition or delay puberty, we've got informed consent for that right? The bar seems quite high to establish that either of those are impermissible given that it improves stated wellbeing for those who want it.

These are obviously just snippets within the wider debate. as I said, I'm less interested in the technical details here than in the manner in which the discussion is conducted. — Isaac

Yeah that's fair enough. It'll come down to a risk assessment on an individual level basis, and the individual's desires ought to play a big role in that. Should they be determinative? I'd side with yes if we're comparing it to unestablished future risks vs established reports that individuals tend to be satisfied and have low levels of regret for surgery , but I don't think I've got a fortress of an argument for that claim.

There is a third possibility, which I think unenlightened is close to (though please correct me if I'm wrong), in which all identity works like passing, and passing is nevertheless expressive. — fdrake

Indeed. I have never thought of it quite like that, but yes. Or I could say that narrative identity is always fiction. Or if you can stand the Freudian terminology, that identity is always a dual act of introjection and projection. That is the answer to why people are exercised about each other's identifications. If a woman is more muscular than me, it is an attack on my masculinity, and contrariwise, as a woman, a muscular woman is an attack on my femininity.

Thus there is much resistance to someone who undermines identity by denying the dichotomies: human not animal, white not black, male not female, and so on. There is, extraordinarily you might think, resistance from women to women having the vote, joining the army, having control of their own fertility, because "it undermines the family" or some such.

The need for acceptance is so fundamental that more than one psychologist, can think it insane for even a slave to resist their identification as such. And more than one slave can accept the identity in order to be accepted. We go back again and again to our abusers, because to be abused is to be confirmed and accepted as part of the society. To be alone is death.

But again, all this must be denied, and the identity of the self-interested rational responsible man who is the captain of his fate etc must be affirmed, because to be so dependent and fragile in one's identity is also death.

I think it is a shame that we cannot state or celebrate the positive differences between males or females.

As I found with the top 100 movie rating list that was 99% about the male experience.

The new ideologies on gender do not strengthen women's identities and has a limited effect on mens identities.

Can people define what a women is which is vital if we are to have women's rights and women's achievements. If you can't that is a disaster for women.

I think it is a shame that we cannot state or celebrate the positive differences between males or females. — Andrew4Handel

Nobody's preventing such a celebration. Just don't accept enthusiastic cheering from people who are forced into a role they did not freely choose.