Trump Admin Said to Refine Legal Definition of Gender, Putting Transgender Gains at Risk: NY Times

[SpaceCoastVol]

Nonsense. You just have an issue with it. The student in the class requested this person to speak.

So If 'the student' requested a Christian figure to speak at a government school, would it be allowed?

 

[zeppelin128]

So If 'the student' requested a Christian figure to speak at a government school, would it be allowed?

For a career day? I wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Roustabout]

If you're a hermaphrodite with genetic mosaicism, what's your gender?

I actually have an acquaintance with this condition.
What does that have to do with “choosing?”
Answer, nothing.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I actually have an acquaintance with this condition.
What does that have to do with “choosing?”
Answer, nothing.

Well, from following the conversation, I've gotten the impression that part of his argument is to question whether an illness is an illness if it was genetically predisposed. Sort of like, cancer isn't an illness if it was genetically predisposed, type 2 diabetes isn't an illness if it was genetically predisposed, and body dysphoria isn't a mental illness if there is by chance a genetic predisposition.

 

[Vol_Doc]

Well, from following the conversation, I've gotten the impression that part of his argument is to question whether an illness is an illness if it was genetically predisposed. Sort of like, cancer isn't an illness if it was genetically predisposed, type 2 diabetes isn't an illness if it was genetically predisposed, and body dysphoria isn't a mental illness if there is by chance a genetic predisposition.

You're getting warm. No one else seems to be able to see what I'm driving at.

 

[Roustabout]

You're getting warm. No one else seems to be able to see what I'm driving at.

Quit playing coy and just say what you mean. I ain’t got time to dig thru pages of cryptic BS.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Grand his joke wasn’t lost on me but my point is valid. You will never hear me complain about uneducated rednecks because I know we as a country are better for having them. The same could be said for the “weak and pathetic” democrats the genius above me just referred to.

Hmmm so you complain about generalizing a demographic yet here you are doing it. Not surprising.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

If you're a hermaphrodite with genetic mosaicism, what's your gender?

The individual will likely show a greater amount of either testosterone or estrogen yes?

 

[Vol_Doc]

The individual will likely show a greater amount of either testosterone or estrogen yes?

Variable from individual to individual, but yes one would be dominant. I would assume that would correlate with the patient's gender phenotype, regardless of what gender was identified at birth.

 

[Vol_Doc]

Quit playing coy and just say what you mean. I ain’t got time to dig thru pages of cryptic BS.

I haven't tried to be cryptic. I've actually gone into great detail in my explanations. I think I've been quite clear, in fact.

 

[Roustabout]

I never said it was proven. I also don't conduct research in that area. I said there was mounting evidence. A particularly interesting study came out last year, in fact. Feel free to look it up, though I don't expect you to. I know it's easier to think gay and transgender individuals are just a disturbed, mentally ill group that needs fixing. I'm honestly not trying to convince you. I'm just having a conversation. I don't post here to change people's minds. It's merely a passtime. I'm currently sitting in the airport. Headed to a conference.

All of those things are different. One of the problems i see if treating gender dysphoria and hermaphroditism under the same umbrella.
-Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder that leads to delusions contrary to biological fact. I would rank that similar to anorexia and other conditions that result in a distorted self-image.
-Hermaphroditism is physical/genetic defect.
-Homosexuality is a disordered proclivity. We don't know whether same sex attraction is genetic or environmental or a combination. Whether it's genetic or not doesn't really matter. In fact, I would argue that if it can be identified as a genetic trait, then it can also be treated as a genetic defect.

Are we being intellectually honest if we aren't open to treat any physical defect, mental disorder, or disordered proclivity?
If homosexuality can be be identified genetically then the questions becomes, should we try to treat it as we would other genetic abnormalities?

 

[Orange_Crush]

All of those things are different. One of the problems i see if treating gender dysphoria and hermaphroditism under the same umbrella.
-Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder that leads to delusions contrary to biological fact. I would rank that similar to anorexia and other conditions that result in a distorted self-image.
-Hermaphroditism is physical/genetic defect.
-Homosexuality is a disordered proclivity. We don't know whether same sex attraction is genetic or environmental or a combination. Whether it's genetic or not doesn't really matter. In fact, I would argue that if it can be identified as a genetic trait, then it can also be treated as a genetic defect.

Are we being intellectually honest if we aren't open to treat any physical defect, mental disorder, or disordered proclivity?
If homosexuality can be be identified genetically then the questions becomes, should we try to treat it as we would other genetic abnormalities?

Just to make it explicit, as Doc didn't respond to this in my initial posting of it... As a doctor, I'm sure @Vol_Doc doesn't refuse to acknowledge a defect as a defect if it was the result of a genetic predisposition. As mentioned, I think certain heart diseases, cancers, etc are the results of genetic predispositions. I'm curious if doctors refuse to treat cancer and instead call it the "new norm" because of a genetic predisposition like @Vol_Doc seems to be arguing for with gender/body dysphoria.

Would he refuse to treat cycle cell anemia because it's a genetic predisposition that about 8% of black people tend to carry?

 

[Vol_Doc]

All of those things are different. One of the problems i see if treating gender dysphoria and hermaphroditism under the same umbrella.
-Gender Dysphoria is a mental disorder that leads to delusions contrary to biological fact. I would rank that similar to anorexia and other conditions that result in a distorted self-image.
-Hermaphroditism is physical/genetic defect.
-Homosexuality is a disordered proclivity. We don't know whether same sex attraction is genetic or environmental or a combination. Whether it's genetic or not doesn't really matter. In fact, I would argue that if it can be identified as a genetic trait, then it can also be treated as a genetic defect.

Are we being intellectually honest if we aren't open to treat any physical defect, mental disorder, or disordered proclivity?
If homosexuality can be be identified genetically then the questions becomes, should we try to treat it as we would other genetic abnormalities?

That's an interesting side discussion. Who gets to decide which genetic variations are defective? And what should denote the defect?

As to the original issue, my point was that a hermaphrodite is a sexual mosaic, but ultimately presents as only one gender that may or may not match the predominant genetic composition (e.g., the case of a predominant XY becoming pregnant). What determines the gender, then, since it speaks to the issue of restroom assignment? A hermaphrodite may have one gender on the birth certificate, yet manifest as the other. Is that a choice? Or were the doctors or parents incorrect the first time? Or did puberty change the manifestation? [There's a separate genetic variation that results in XY females that grow a penis at puberty.]

To the transgender. Why do they choose to change? Is it a mental disorder? Undiagnosed mosaicism? Biochemical? Is it treatable? If so, how and whose decision? If the person doesn't want treatment, should they be committed? Are they a danger to self or others? Same questions regarding homosexuals.

Back to the bathroom issue, is the problem really about the genetic vs gender difference? Or is it about the choice? If it's ok for a hermaphrodite who is predominant XY but manifests as female to use the women's bathroom, what makes it not ok for the XY transgender individual?

 

[Vol_Doc]

Just to make it explicit, as Doc didn't respond to this in my initial posting of it... As a doctor, I'm sure @Vol_Doc doesn't refuse to acknowledge a defect as a defect if it was the result of a genetic predisposition. As mentioned, I think certain heart diseases, cancers, etc are the results of genetic predispositions. I'm curious if doctors refuse to treat cancer and instead call it the "new norm" because of a genetic predisposition like @Vol_Doc seems to be arguing for with gender/body dysphoria.

Would he refuse to treat cycle cell anemia because it's a genetic predisposition that about 8% of black people tend to carry?

I got at this with my immediately prior post, but the examples you give create harm. That's the difference, in my mind.

 

[Grand Vol]

That's an interesting side discussion. Who gets to decide which genetic variations are defective? And what should denote the defect?

As to the original issue, my point was that a hermaphrodite is a sexual mosaic, but ultimately presents as only one gender that may or may not match the predominant genetic composition (e.g., the case of a predominant XY becoming pregnant). What determines the gender, then, since it speaks to the issue of restroom assignment? A hermaphrodite may have one gender on the birth certificate, yet manifest as the other. Is that a choice? Or were the doctors or parents incorrect the first time? Or did puberty change the manifestation? [There's a separate genetic variation that results in XY females that grow a penis at puberty.]

To the transgender. Why do they choose to change? Is it a mental disorder? Undiagnosed mosaicism? Biochemical? Is it treatable? If so, how and whose decision? If the person doesn't want treatment, should they be committed? Are they a danger to self or others? Same questions regarding homosexuals.

Back to the bathroom issue, is the problem really about the genetic vs gender difference? Or is it about the choice? If it's ok for a hermaphrodite who is predominant XY but manifests as female to use the women's bathroom, what makes it not ok for the XY transgender individual?

You cast a wide net for unrelated items.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I got at this with my immediately prior post, but the examples you give create harm. That's the difference, in my mind.

You are saying there is no harm in gender dysphoria? I've heard the exact opposite, and that's why I should support their bodily mutilation. Because they were depressed, suicidal, skin crawling at the very thought of being in their own body... I'd say that cutting a penis off is pretty harmful, as well as scooping a vagina out.

If you were to be honest, you would have to agree that the syndrome is harmful, and that's why they are treated for it. And in reading your previous post, I think you were honest in a sense to mention their need for treatment.

 

[Vol_Doc]

You cast a wide net for unrelated items.

I think I've adequately explained the rationale. You can, of course, disagree. Like I've said, I'm not here to convince you. Just having conversation.

 

[Vol_Doc]

You are saying there is no harm in gender dysphoria? I've heard the exact opposite, and that's why I should support their bodily mutilation. Because they were depressed, suicidal, skin crawling at the very thought of being in their own body... I'd say that cutting a penis off is pretty harmful, as well as scooping a vagina out.

If you were to be honest, you would have to agree that the syndrome is harmful, and that's why they are treated for it. And in reading your previous post, I think you were honest in a sense to mention their need for treatment.

So, what's your proposed treatment and why?

 

[Grand Vol]

I think I've adequately explained the rationale. You can, of course, disagree. Like I've said, I'm not here to convince you. Just having conversation.

The problem with your rationale is trying to shoehorn three items under the same umbrella. One has science behind it, the other two are theoretical.

 

[Vol_Doc]

The problem with your rationale is trying to shoehorn three items under the same umbrella. One has science behind it, the other two are theoretical.

I simply took your open door and walked through it. Your OP implied that transgender individuals being XY or XX was the important factor over their gender identity, when it comes to the bathroom issue. Did I misinterpret that?

 

[Grand Vol]

I simply took your open door and walked through it. Your OP implied that transgender individuals being XY or XX was the important factor over their gender identity, when it comes to the bathroom issue. Did I misinterpret that?

As it is. The problem is you're confusing a mental issue with a genetic one.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So, what's your proposed treatment and why?

I've already said it. I see it as a mental illness that needs psychological treatment. Why? Because it's obviously a psychological issue.

But what remains is for you to deal with the obvious contradiction in your argument... i.e. that some genetically predisposed illnesses should be treated and others shouldn't be considered illnesses because they're genetically predisposed. Your initial distinction in classification had to do with harm, yet you seem to agree that gender dysphoria is harmful and needs treatment.

Not to be rude, but I didn't post my points to petition for permission to believe that they need psychological treatment for a mental illness. I posted to see if you can align the contradiction in your argument, and I propose that you still haven't dealt with the contradiction.

 

[Vol_Doc]

I've already said it. I see it as a mental illness that needs psychological treatment. Why? Because it's obviously a psychological issue.

But what remains is for you to deal with the obvious contradiction in your argument... i.e. that some genetically predisposed illnesses should be treated and others shouldn't be considered illnesses because they're genetically predisposed. Your initial distinction in classification had to do with harm, yet you seem to agree that gender dysphoria is harmful and needs treatment.

Not to be rude, but I didn't post my points to petition for permission to believe that they need psychological treatment for a mental illness. I posted to see if you can align the contradiction in your argument, and I propose that you still haven't dealt with the contradiction.

Have you reviewed literature on psychological treatment for gender dysphoria? How successful is it in changing the patient's gender identity to align with their genetic sex?

As to my "contradiction," I was speaking more toward your silly life-threatening examples, like cancer. If a person is going to be killed by their disease, naturally you would try and combat that disease. In the case of transgender or homosexual individuals, their condition is not life-threatening outside of the anxiety, depression, etc that could lead to suicide.

What I was getting at with the treatment question was trying to identify the correct treatment. If psychotherapy works, there you go. If it fails, is gender reassignment not an acceptable option at all? Is it not a treatment? If not, why not?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Have you reviewed literature on psychological treatment for gender dysphoria? How successful is it in changing the patient's gender identity to align with their genetic sex?

As to my "contradiction," I was speaking more toward your silly life-threatening examples, like cancer. If a person is going to be killed by their disease, naturally you would try and combat that disease. In the case of transgender or homosexual individuals, their condition is not life-threatening outside of the anxiety, depression, etc that could lead to suicide.

What I was getting at with the treatment question was trying to identify the correct treatment. If psychotherapy works, there you go. If it fails, is gender reassignment not an acceptable option at all? Is it not a treatment? If not, why not?

I have read up on it, though your response seems a bit misplaced, unless you're claiming it's not a psychological issue. Are you saying that if an anorexic doesn't initially respond well to psychotherapy, we should go ahead and starve them to feed their delusion? Or are you arguing that their chromosomes are what's actually incorrect, and their mental state is what's correct--i.e. that it's not a delusion?

And what specifically was silly about my examples? Are you saying that you would refuse to treat a cleft palate since it's not life threatening, but may be genetically predisposed? You'd refuse to treat schizophrenia if it ran in the family, but wasn't immediately life threatening? Or, as has already been posted, you'd cut the schizophrenic's penis off and call him the Queen of England if that was his working delusion?

Call my questions silly if you like. They are genuine areas of internal inconsistencies in your argument. You're a doctor. I suspect you know exactly how true your inconsistencies are, and that you're arguing from an emotional stance as opposed to a rational one.

I say that because I can't imagine any physician making the arguments you have about any illness/syndrome/affliction except one that carried the ideological baggage that this one does.

 

[Vol_Doc]

I have read up on it, though your response seems a bit misplaced, unless you're claiming it's not a psychological issue. Are you saying that if an anorexic doesn't initially respond well to psychotherapy, we should go ahead and starve them to feed their delusion? Or are you arguing that their chromosomes are what's actually incorrect, and their mental state is what's correct--i.e. that it's not a delusion?

And what specifically was silly about my examples? Are you saying that you would refuse to treat a cleft palate since it's not life threatening, but may be genetically predisposed? You'd refuse to treat schizophrenia if it ran in the family, but wasn't immediately life threatening? Or, as has already been posted, you'd cut the schizophrenic's penis off and call him the Queen of England if that was his working delusion?

Call my questions silly if you like. They are genuine areas of internal inconsistencies in your argument. You're a doctor. I suspect you know exactly how true your inconsistencies are, and that you're arguing from an emotional stance as opposed to a rational one.

I say that because I can't imagine any physician making the arguments you have about any illness/syndrome/affliction except one that carried the ideological baggage that this one does.

I notice you tend to ignore my questions. How about this? What ideological baggage do you think I carry? What's in your bag?