Michael Rosman Guest-Blogging About Title IX, Gender Identity, Sports, and Affirmative Action

I'm delighted to report that Michael Rosman of the Center for Individual Rights (whose work I have known and admired for decades) will be blogging this coming week about his new article, Gender Identity, Sports, and Affirmative Action: What's Title IX Got To Do With It? Here's an excerpt from the Introduction:

Recently, state and local jurisdictions have held that schools cannot discriminate against individuals on the basis of gender identity with respect to separate sex sports teams. That is, they have held that biological males who identify as females—whom I will refer to as "trans females"—must be permitted to participate on female sports teams. Some have relied upon Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 to justify this position, claiming that Title IX's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex requires the policy.

This, in turn, has led others to claim that the policy is both unwise (a point I will not address), not required at all by Title IX, and in fact, illegal discrimination against biological females in violation of Title IX. In essence, opponents argue that males possess unfair biological advantages compared with females, and that forcing biological females to compete against biological males, including trans females, constitutes sex discrimination against biological females….

These differing views of Title IX start with the same statutory language. One takes that language and concludes that certain conduct (allowing trans females to play on female teams) is mandatory, while the other asserts that the same conduct is prohibited.…

For more on resolving this puzzle, tune in to the forthcoming posts.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

These differing (contradictory) views are found within the same federal agency, separated only by a change in administration.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You don't honestly think that Betsy had control over the OCR Field Offices, do you?

[AmosArch]

The 'puzzle' as Eugene puts it is leftist fantasy crashing into reality and logic. People and groups are not physically or mentally identical to each other regardless of how many laws you pass declaring it to be so. SJW logic also is internally nonsensical and inconsistent which is why you have multiple definitions of discrimination clashing with each other such as in this case feminists being denied their affirmative action teams vs LDFKDFLKDKILFKLDSF desire for the 'equality' to horn their way on different teams which shouldn't exist in the first place if people were truly equal.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The last thing conservatives want is for people to be truly equal. They fight against that strenuously.

Other than that, great comment.

[Longtobefree]

I will refer to as "trans females"

I will refer to them as gender dysphoric.

"The diagnostic label gender identity disorder (GID) was used until 2013 with the release of the diagnostic manual DSM-5. The condition was renamed to remove the stigma associated with the term disorder."

Nothing in the world newspeak can't fix.

[John F. Carr]

If you go down that road you may find they are protected under IDEA or the ADA instead of Title IX.

[Michael P]

The legal protections under those laws are quite different than what they would get under Title IX.

[DavidTaylor]

Gender dysphoria is an appropriate diagnosis or clinical label when an individual experiences depression or other psychological distress as a result of their transgender identity -- so, all people with gender dysphoria are transgender, but not all transgender people have gender dysphoria.

David Taylor, MD, PhD

[mulched]

That's some fancy redefinitioning, doc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

He's technically right -- the DSM *was* redefined to read that way -- the real issue is why does society care what the DSM says?!?

As even the DSM-V says in its introduction, its not intended to be used for legal purposes. So why do we?

[Nige]

It's nice when you acknowledge it exists, though, instead of all the performative ignorance of what it actually is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

That's what the DSM-V says, the DSM IV-IR said something very different.

The problem I have as an academic is that the rationale for the change was never documented. The Voodoo Scientists just DID IT, like they removed "homosexuality" from the DSM-III.

Of course I should add that the DSM itself is not based on empirical research and never has been -- much as membership in the Baseball Hall of Fame is by popular vote, definitions in the DSM are also by popular vote.

[y81]

David Taylor is defining "appropriate diagnosis" by reference to the majority vote of psychologists interested in the question. Which is fine, but it must be remembered that the Nicene Creed, the Talmud, and the Republican Party platform are just as true by that standard. Whereas the truth of, say, aerodynamics is demonstrated every time your plane lands, and the truth of relativity was demonstrated rather conclusively at Hiroshima.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do not forget that some 90+% of psychologists self-identify as being on the far left.

[Brett Bellmore]

And, remember that when 90% plus of a group will say that they're left-wing, the rest are so surrounded by left-wingers that they have a distorted idea of what's right wing. "I must be right wing, I don't even own a Che shirt!"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

This was the dilemma the transgender activists on the DSM committees had to resolve.

They wanted to remove transgenderism from the DSM completely to "reduce stigma" as a treatment hypothesis like they did with homosexuality.

BUT, if there's no diagnoses, there's no insurance to pay for their treatments.

So they invented "gender dysphoria", a disorder with a diagnosis, and the parse like we see above. Which this alleged MD PhD accepts uncritically even though it's obvious nonsense.

[DavidTaylor]

"Which this alleged MD PhD accepts uncritically even though it’s obvious nonsense."

Wow, some seriously unwarranted assumptions there. I am a cardiologist (see my other comments over the years), so the issue of gender dysphoria is not one on which I have any professional -- or personal -- view. As one of the very few physicians reading or commenting on this legal blog, I simply pointed out that not all transgender people would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, so it is an error to equate the two: transgender is not always the same as gender dysphoria. As for "accepts uncritically," you could not be more wrong. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I have always been skeptical of diagnoses that point to exogenous factors rather than pathological responses. "Gender dysphoria" looks to many of us like a form of clinical depression, so why not simply call it that? I don't call small cell lung cancer "cigarette-induced lung cancer."

Otherwise, as far as I understand the history, you are correct that the DSM shifted its nosology to accommodate transgender activists, but that does not entail that transgender identity is not really associated with increased risk of depression or other psychological distress. It is. But presumably any of those other possible diagnoses would also be acceptable to insurance companies, so the DSM terminology might be more purely political than financial.

But I have been amused by the potential my simple comment had for other readers to project their own issues onto me.

[Lee Moore]

But I have been amused by the potential my simple comment had for other readers to project their own issues onto me.

For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The difference lies in magical thinking: that merely wanting to be female makes one female in reality, and all those old-fashioned male/female differences either vanish or switch with the wish. It's utter nonsense.

I have seen proposals to allow the switch if is complete before puberty, and maybe all that gender mutilation really does switch the differences; but it is also child abuse of the worst sort, embraced by the same people who were so upset about African female genital mutilation just a few years ago.

This legal analysis will presumably skip that aspect, but it's hard to ignore.

[Michael Ejercito]

so how is the selective Service administered?

If sex is just a state of mind, rather than a physical trait, then no one would have to register if everyone was female.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

There's an idea! But I think we can all guess the courts would create some new exception to some law.

[SRG]

The difference lies in magical thinking: that merely wanting to be female makes one female in reality

But we're not talking about people who want to be female. We're talking about people whose sexual self-description and self-awareness is female. If your brain says you're female and your body says you're male, that's not a "want".

Are there people whose brains tell them they're male and their body is male who want to be physically female? No doubt. But we're not generally talking about them. Or were you?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You can talk about them all you want. Others can talk about Hogwarts all they want. It's a free magical world.

[SRG]

When ignorance rejects knowledge, it becomes bigotry.

We know that Hogwarts is fictional We also know that there are people whose brain gives them a sexual identity at variance with their body. This has been well documented long before the recent culture wars in the US, where the White Resentment faction continue with the insane delusion that the world is zero sum hence any recognition given to anyone else detracts from them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Rachel Dolezal thought she was Black -- what's the difference?

[Nige]

Derp.

[Brett Bellmore]

So, you're saying these are people who've been diagnosed as "trans" by functional MRI? Their brain is actually saying they're the opposite sex?

Look, let's be realistic: The number of "trans" people has absolutely exploded in the space of just a few years. There are really only two plausible explanations for this:

1. It's real, and we're facing a catastrophe level consequence of some chemical introduced a couple decades ago messing with sexual differentiation.

2. It's a fad among easily influenced youngsters.

3. No, that there were this many "trans" all along and they were just in the closet isn't a plausible third option.

[Nige]

If only there were some other way for the brain to communicate.

4. It became less of a stigma to come out as trans. Good job on the pushback. Get 'em back in that closet.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I don't give a rat's ass if an adult wants to pretend to be something they are not. I despise adults who push children into thinking they want to be something they are not, whether that be Superman jumping off the roof in a Halloween costume or genital mutilation surgery, puberty blockers, and all other irreversible action. I especially despise all those people who espouse this child abuse, who used to recoil in horror at African female genital mutilation. They are hypocrites of the first water.

[Nige]

Trans people shouldn’t have to give a rat’s ass that you don't give a rat’s ass. You should just fuck off and leave them alone.

I too find some medical treatments icky and I don’t understand them therefore they should be banned.

[Lee Moore]

There are different kinds of medical treatments though.

There's the kind between doc and patient where the doc does something vaguely scientific to the patient, and it doesn't interfere with anyone else. The "just fuck off and leave them alone" kind.

Then there's the kind in Peter Pan where Tinkerbell is poisoned and to save her the whole audience is implored to confirm that they believe in fairies. And lo, when the audience does so, Tinkerbell is saved !

The treatment of gender dysphoria by insisting that the whole world must declare its belief in fairies is of the latter kind.

[Nige]

'The treatment of gender dysphoria by insisting that the whole world must declare its belief in fairies is of the latter kind.'

You are entitled to think so, or any other number of dumb analogies, just fuck off and let the people affected and the medical professionals get on with it.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Explain why female genital mutilation was icky and a crime but child genital mutilation surgery and puberty blockers are wonderful and should be encouraged and subsidized.

[Nige]

I believe I've explained it to you at least twice before on this very blog. You failed to come up with any effective rejoinders then, why relitigate it now?

[Harvey Mosley]

Trouble is, they don't want to be left alone. They want to be given special treatment. We have numerous example of people with penises wanting to use the girls bathroom but are unhappy using a gender neutral one person bathroom. We have people with penises who compete in the boys events and lose and then declare that they are female and now want to compete in girls events.

Someone with a penis wants to say they are female, fine. Someone with a vagina wants to say they are male, fine. But their (dis)comfort and desires are no more important than anyone else's (dis)comfort and desires. Allow anyone to use a gender neutral bathroom. Allow biological males to compete with other biological males. Allow biological females to compete with either biological males or females. This is the solution that negatively impacts the least amount of people.

The solution that pisses everyone off could be useful, too. No men's sports. No women's sports. All bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers are gender neutral. Everybody is treated the same.

Anything else is catering to a very small minority to make the most people possible uncomfortable and fearful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Case in point, Catherine Clark's son. Or daughter. Or both.
Arrested for beating on cops. https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/01/22/katherine-clark-daughter-arrested-assaulting-officer-anti-police-graffiti/?p1=recirc_mostpopular

[Brett Bellmore]

"The solution that pisses everyone off could be useful, too. No men’s sports. No women’s sports."

And no more women ever winning again in most sports?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Just sell the teams to the pro franchises -- they are farm teams now.

[Nige]

It certainly makes sense that in order to fuck with trans people, you'd love to see women's sport shut down and women's spaces locked up - transphobia and misogyny hand in hand.

[Harvey Mosley]

Brett, if trans women can compete against women then we will get to that point anyway. It will only be trans women winning.

[Nige]

Yeah, they want to live in the world, just like everybody else does. It isn’t as if they’re claiming anything particularly egregious and false, such as, say, the 2020 election was really won by Trump. If you were told you make people uncomfortable and fearful for no discernible reason and must therefore conform to standards of behaviour other than those you prefer to live by, causing no actual harm to anyone, how would you react?

[Harvey Mosley]

If having a biological male in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and competing on women’s teams is no big deal why limit it to trans women? Why isn’t it okay for any male to go into the women’s bathrooms? Maybe because just possibly it makes women feel like they aren’t safe? or just uncomfortable? Why is the comfort and safety of a really small minority of people more important than that of half the population?

And "...no discernible reason..."? Really? Are you that stupid or that much of a liar? The reason women would feel uncomfortable is easily "discernible" for anyone with at least three brain cells.

[Nige]

'Why isn’t it okay for any male to go into the women’s bathrooms?'

Social norms. Trans women have always used women's bathrooms

'Why is the comfort and safety of a really small minority of people more important than that of half the population?'

Why is the already-tenuous comfort and safety of a really small minority of the population worth utterly destroying because of the fearmongering of people who hate them?

[not guilty]

"No, that there were this many 'trans' all along and they were just in the closet isn’t a plausible third option."

Oh, really? How do you claim to know?

The right wing fixation on what is in other people's pants reminds me of Jerry Falwell kvetching about what Tinky Winky did with the genitalia it did not have.

[Joe_dallas]

Bretts point is valid

The mental health profession has a long history of implanting false memory and other ideas into the minds of the vulnerable
Repressed memory syndrome, mass child care abuse, just to name a few fads in the recent past.

1,000x increase in transgender diagnoses in just a few years.
A biological treatment for a mental illness?

Basic common sense, basic science should be raising red flag!

Pro transgender advocates are dominated by anti science individuals

Represses

[Nige]

Its odd how this is trotted out as a reason to deny trans people treatment, but not anyone else.

[SRG]

Or it might be real in some cases and not real in others. You're not stupid enough to be unaware of this possibility so why didn't you post it?

[Joe_dallas]

Srg – it might be real in some cases but unlikely

All indications are that it is a fad diagnosis of a mental illness

If it was a biological illness , then there would a much higher success rate comparable to the success rate of other biological treatments. The current success rate is close to zero

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas, that is just nonsense. Medical science is full of successful treatments which deliver mainly amelioration of symptoms, without notable progress against the underlying condition. Ailments which can be treated with moderate-to-great success, but not even adequately explained scientifically, remain commonplace. Much of rheumatology works that way. Some of ophthalmology works that way. Much of neurology works that way. Quite a bit of gastroenterology works that way. Psycho-pharmacology is a baffling puzzle to everyone, but delivers notable, repeatable successes in some types of cases. The problem there can be to recognize what type of case is being treated.

[Joe_dallas]

lathrop - your comment showing positive success rates for various procedures further validates the point I made. the current treatment for the mental illness of "transgender" individuals on the other hand has a near zero success rate and creates a permanent case that is irreversible.

[Nige]

'a near zero success rate'

Of course, just below you dismiss studies that show otherwise.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When you look at the suicide rates of post-transition trannies, I'd say the success rate is less than zero.

[Nige]

'trannies'

Yeah, I wonder what could be affecting their mental health, it's a mystery, especially since something like 98% of them are satisfied with transitioning itself.

[Joe_dallas]

Nige - are the "surveys" showing 90% satisfaction valid?

A reading of those studies show a lot of agenda driven results, along with relatively short follow up periods (1-5 years)

Yet there remains a high percentage of suicides in the trans population and a high percentage of the trans population post reassignment that have come out against reassignment. Those facts are in conflict with the "high rates of positive satisfaction" of gender reassignment and should raise serious red flags.

[Nige]

Only a tiny number of people detransition – they deserve care and support, yes, but the ones who then decide they want to deny other trans people treatment tend to get amplified far more than other trans people.

Trying to exist as a trans person is clearly quite difficult in a society where half the population seems determined to villify and oppress them.

[SimonP]

So, which is it, Brett? Is gender a construct that begins to collapse once we tug at its foundations? Or is it fixed and innate, such that people can't really "change" what they were born with?

This whole hysteria over "grooming" and rejecting transgenderism takes as a premise that it is possible, somehow, to shift how a child (or adult) thinks about his or her own gender. But don't you also deny that such a thing is possible? Aren't you also arguing that this is all some kind of "fad" that is ultimately contrary to nature?

What we're seeing right now is a cultural confusion over gender that has occurred because gender is, and really always has been, a social construct. We have begun looking at the underlying assumptions of that social construct and found them wanting. We don't know what to do with it yet, because we're faced with (i) a reactionary revanchism that insist on a received notion of the gender binary and (ii) a progressive mentality that can think of no real response to that revanchism other than to reify the gender continuum into statuses and identities that are worth defending in their own right.

But there is another path, and it is simply to recognize that there are some things about "gender" that are innate, and others that are learned and socially reinforced - and to leave it, simply, at that. Let people be who they want to be. If there are issues with things like people who go through male puberty wanting to participate in women's or girls' sports, then we deal with that just by asking what's fair - and not by insisting that women's sports are about competing vaginas, nor by insisting that "trans women are women" and treating male muscles and skeletons as just natural advantages.

[Lee Moore]

A series of good questions.

1. "gender" has a bad habit of being poorly defined, making it very different to discuss coherently. It is used variously as (a) an inner feeling of sex-related identity or (b) a set of socially imposed sex differentiated behavior norms or (c) a desire that society should treat you as a member of one or other sex or maybe neither or (d) a synonym for sex. These different meanings are vaguely related - ie they are all somehow related to sex rather than to fishing - but they're definitely different and any attempt to talk about them all at once is doomed to end, if it does not begin, in chaos.

2. Thus, for example, your question to Brett - which is it ? - naturally attracts the response "it depends." ie the collapsing construct applies quite well to attempts to mix up the different meanings, and particularly to the mantra "a trans woman is a woman" which suffers from its circularity. But the fixed and innate thing maps pretty well to (a) above. Though not perfectly, since an inner feeling that one really belongs to Team Girl, does not need to be fixed or innate to be real. Such feelings could be non-innate but fixed (ie picked up in utero, or in infancy but now immutable) or innate but mutable. And real nonetheless.

[Dilan Esper]

We’re talking about people whose sexual self-description and self-awareness is female. If your brain says you’re female and your body says you’re male, that’s not a “want”.

Trans people should have civil rights and there are even good arguments for inclusion in women's sports (at least at the non-elite level), but there is extensive data over 100 years as to what gender dysphoria is and it has little to do with what you said and a lot more to do with desire and specifically, sexual orientations. Ray Blanchard is probably the go-to scientist here but basically all the sex researchers confirm this.

[Lee Moore]

there are even good arguments for inclusion in women’s sports (at least at the non-elite level)

Not really. There's no good reason for a moderately talented female athlete to lose out on 3rd place in the under 16 year old Palookaville Flats School long jump competition just because some even more moderately talented male athlete has come out as a "girl."

There are far more people playing sports with non elite level talent (by definition) and there's no reason to screw up the fun of all non-elite female sportistas.

And leaving aside mere fun, male participation in female contact sports adds materially to the risk of injury to females.

[Dr. Ed 2]

MIT has the solution -- every student must play a sport and MIT must find/field a team for the student. Hence you have ability level grouping along with interest level grouping -- and sane women aren't going to want to play contact sports with guys.

I'll never forget when the NCAA volleyball championships were held at UMass and all the teams got stuck there because of a snowstorm -- these were women all over 6 feet tall, the average height for a *man* is 5" 08" -- and I'll bet they could beat most guys on physical strength as well. So all your arguments go overboard when you compare the *average* male to the *elite* female, and what you're doing is comparing them to the *elite* male...

[Joe_dallas]

True story
1974 the US women’s volleyball team played a scrimmage in Dallas against an ad hoc men’s team from the north texas area

The scrimmage had a few house rules to make game competitive
No guys over 5’9”
No guys hitting in front of ten foot line

[Dr. Ed 2]

1974 was different.

[Joe_dallas]

Dr Ed - the relative physical differences have remained fairly large for the last several centuries.

two of the players from the 1980 team would definitely make the current team . flo hyman and rita crockett ( rita had a 42 vertical ) . flo played in that scrimage, rita was a high school jr or senior at that time. she didnt join the national team until 77 or 78 as I recall

[Davy C]

The claim was third place in long jump. Let's look at the results from a Wisconsin high school division 2 track meet:

First place girl got 17-06.25. Second place girl got 17-01.75.

15th place boy (that was last place, by the way) got 17-05.75. 14th place boy got 18-01.75. 8th place (perhaps the definition of "moderately talented?") boy got 20-04.00.

So I rate the claim as "true". If anything it's understated.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Then there's what most of us would have gotten -- you're comparing outliers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the first place girl is a real outlier, that's for sure. The 15th place boy, not so much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

0ut of 216,001 Wisconsin high school students, these are ALL outliers....

[Josh R]

If one part of treating gender dysphoria is having a trans girl compete as a girl, I think that is good reason. That being said, I can see how sometimes the harm done in allowing a trans girl to compete as a girl outweighs the benefit. Details matter and I lean towards the benefits as the competition becomes less serious.

[Michael Ejercito]

How would that be considered treatment?

[Josh R]

It's gender affirming care, which is the recommended treatment for gender dysphoria from numerous medical professional groups.

[Michael Ejercito]

health care that requires the cooperation of third parties?

[Josh R]

That's right. Decent people pitch in.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah. You know, like the way somebody has anorexia, every decent person pitches in by affirming that, yeah, they're really obese.

[Nige]

Brett, whenever you feel the urge to pitch in with people suffering some health care crisis, maybe don't.

[Lee Moore]

Josh R : I lean towards the benefits as the competition becomes less serious.

I certainly agree that as the competition becomes less serious, the spoiling of the fun for competitors who take it seriously, is reduced.

So if it is justified to depart from the biological line, the criterion is not lack of eliteness but lack of competition.

[Josh R]

I think elite competition weighs more towards excluding transgender females than non-elite competition because the former means more to the competitors. For example, consider a game of softball for girls only in gym class. It's competitive, but not that meaningful. I would think a transgender girl should participate.

[David Nieporent]

It's been a long time, but I don't recall sports in gym class segregated by sex in the first place, precisely because it's not meaningful. And moreover, since everyone participated — was required to participate — nobody was taking anyone's spot on a team or in a lineup.

[Joe_dallas]

gym classes are generally are segregated by sex by the th or 7th grade

[Krayt]

I’m a pretty decent-sized guy and *I* didn’t wanna play dodge ball with some of my huger fellow football linemen, to say nothing of the quarterbacks and pitchers who could whip the ball so fast it could do the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs.

[Joe_dallas]

In summary Dilen admits it’s a mental illness , not a biological illness

[Dilan Esper]

Dysphoria is in the DSM and qualifies for insurance coverage.

TBC being trans isn’t a mental condition. It’s an identity. But dysphoria is a mental condition (which is caused in the main by some unusual sexual orientations) and is the usual reason people transition.

[Dr. Ed 2]

ONLY because the DSM was changed to say that.

[Nige]

Well duh.

[Ben_]

"If your brain says you’re female and your body says you’re male…"

Then you should work to change your mind and let biological reality be your guide. Because the alternative is devastating.

[Lee Moore]

We’re talking about people whose sexual self-description and self-awareness is female.

I take you mean that there are people whose brain is telling them that they are female, when in fact they are not - ie that there is real neural activity supporting their notion that they are actually female, Thus, at least from the conscious point of view, they are not making things up.

I suspect though that rather few people consciously believe that they are female when they are not. They may have a strong mental feeling, but they have other, decisive, competing evidence, and I suspect that they are aware that their strong mental feeling is deceiving them. I do not exclude the possibility that for some the mental impression is strong enough, or their grip on reality weak enough, to create a delusion in which they actually believe, but in most cases, the evidence of the eyes is sufficient - they may wish that their feelings were reflected in reality, but most are aware that wishing - or even feeling - does not make it so.

We might say they are in a position analagous to those people who have had a limb amputated, and yet feel pain or itches in the amputated limb. Or rather there is real neural activity advising them of pain or itches in the limb, though in fact there is no limb to have pain or itches in, and the pain is generated solely in the brain. Such folk might well wish that they still had a limb to have a pain in, but even if their brain is generating false pain signals, they don't consciously disbelieve the evidence of their eyes.

In any event, whether those with "gender identities" which do not match their sex are actually deluded, or (IMHO more likely) not deluded but wishful that their "gender identity" spoke the truth, the thing to keep in mind is that their "gender identity" does not speak the truth. It's a false signal, like the pain in the non existent limb.

[Nige]

So what if *you* think of it as 'false?' It's real to the person experiencing it. Telling them it's 'false' does fuck-all to help them.

[Lee Moore]

So what if *you* think of it as ‘false?’

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make a difference how beautiful your guess is , it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.”

It’s real to the person experiencing it.

Possibly so. You missed the discussion of amputated limbs, I take it.

Telling them it’s ‘false’ does fuck-all to help them.

So Josh R keeps telling us. But we are discussing reality, not how to treat those with mental delusions.

I should say however that I am rather sceptical about current pyschological recommendations for the gender dysphoric, which seems to be roughly 180 degrees from the usual treatment of other folk suffering mismatches between their brains and reality. For other things, the standard treatment is to try to move the content of the brain towards reality.

In itty bitty steps to be sure. But towards not away from.

[Josh R]

You appear to know more than the consensus reached by the medical community in the policies of numerous professional organizations (e.g., the AMA).

[mulched]

... in the politics of numerous professional organizations.

[Lee Moore]

No, I claim no more than that the "experts" know less than they imagine.

Shrinks have accumulated a pretty poor record compared to sawbones types. Which is not to say they've not advanced at all over the past 100 years. Just very slowly compared to other branches of medicine.

[Josh R]

You must think their opinion is no better than anyone else's.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The majority of MDs do NOT belong to the AMA...

[Nige]

Why would all treatments for all conditions be the same? It's about what works, and for trans people, the treatment works.

[I Callahan]

The people who experience hallucinations from mental illness feel those are real as well. Do we entertain those people’s’ delusions as well? Do we tell them that yes, the monsters in the walls are real?

When does all of this lunacy stop?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Better -- anorexia. Do we confirm her view that she is fat or tell her she's starving herself to death?

[Nige]

It rather simply depends on what's harmful to the patient, as if you cared.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why are you using terms of sex and not terms of gender ("man", "woman")?

[y81]

Not to mention, those same people are very upset about artificial hormones in their beef--in their children, not so much.

[Nige]

I don't like eating beef treated with hormones, I also don't like eating people treated with hormones, funnily enough.

[Ben_]

Pretending things makes life harder.

There’s no obligation to make your life or your family’s lives or your neighbors' lives worse by going along with people who are destroying their lives by pretending.

The ones demanding you make your life, your family’s life, and your neighbors' lives worse aren’t your friends.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not a fan of superstition -- especially organized superstition, and the selfish snowflakes who demand special privilege based on old-timey superstition -- Ben?

[Michael Ejercito]

Superstition that a man can beome a woman simply by pretending to be one?

[Nige]

Superstition that people with a certain condition can have their lives improved with a certain course of treatment?

[Michael Ejercito]

Title IX clearly classifies on the basis of biological sex, not stereotypical behaviors expressed by individuals.

[Longtobefree]

Objection, your Honor! Irrelevant.
Reality is not the issue before this court, "the narrative" is.

[FivebySixThree]

The only time biological sex matters in females is if the subject is abortion otherwise they are not considered necessary in the eyes of the left.

that they would permit the wholesale destruction of women's sports is one thing but to add to the stress of growing up as a young biological female during middle and high schools is inexcusable.

[Archibald Tuttle]

Imagine Conan The Barbarian (Arnold Schwarzenegger) as the possible model of a "trans female." That makes it easier to understand the peril of regular females who would compete. That big a mismatch is almost certain to result in injuries to the most lightweight athletes.

I remember college Lacrosse, when Syracuse University put 350 pound William "Refrigerator" Perry (and other future NFL players) on their team to play against 130 pound opponents on our team. Bones were broken.

[Nige]

Yeah, imagine. That's why trans women, who have been competing in women's sports for decades, totally domainate all women's sport.

[Brett Bellmore]

"who have been competing in women’s sports for decades,"

You really do live in a fantasy world, don't you?

[Nige]

Yeah, it only became an issue in the last few years when the right decided they needed a vulnerable minority still trying to acheive social acceptance to be their new scapegoat.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This old school bigotry may be effective in whipping up a frenzy in the yahoo jurisdictions -- electing a governor in the Dakotas or a mayor in West Virginia or Mississippi -- but it is one of the most important reasons the Volokh Conspirators and their fans are not much more than cannon fodder in the American culture war.

Conservatives get to whine and whimper, mutter and sputter, rail and flail as much as they like while their stale, ugly, right-wing thinking still lives among us. They may even delay the pace of progress periodically, and get a chance to impose their bigotry on some vulnerable Americans. But the conservatives will lose, and they will comply, and if they are not careful they might incline the mainstream to become less magnanimous toward the culture war's losers.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Uhhhh ... it's the left who want boys in the girls locker room and bathrooms, and adult men to use the women's locker room, and male swimmers, golfers, and other piss-poor athletes to compete with women.

[Nige]

Trans women, you mean.

[Mr. Bumble]

Transvestites?

[Nige]

No. Keep up.

[I Callahan]

Men.

[Nige]

No. Pay attention.

[DRM]

Title IX’s statutory language clearly and explicitly prohibits denying students access to a program on the basis of sex. That absolutely prohibits all sex-segregated school sport teams, since each such team is a program to which access is denied to persons on the basis of sex.

Every regulation and court ruling allowing, much less requiring, the existence of women’s/girls’ sports teams at any school accepting federal funding is inherently illegitimate, substituting a completely different regime for the one expressly established by Congress by statute. Such teams can only be legalized by the repeal of Title IX.

[ReaderY]

There is an explicit exception for single-sex schools and sports teams. That exception, I think, controls here.

[Josh R]

And bathrooms too. Not all things which distinguish on the basis of sex discriminate on the basis of sex.

[DRM]

Not all things which distinguish on the basis of sex discriminate on the basis of sex.

Yes, they do. "Distinguish" was the definition of "discriminate" at the time of adoption of the statute's text. Pointing to, say, the current Merriam-Wokester definition of "discriminate" doesn't change what the word meant when the statute was enacted.

Bathrooms are not covered by Title IX because they are facilities, not a "program of activity".

[Josh R]

"Activity" in the statute refers to the activity receiving federal funding which covers facilities, including bathrooms, provided for by the activity.

[DRM]

No, there isn't any exception for sports teams.

Go read 20 U.S. Code § 1681 yourself.

There is an exception for single-sex schools, sure, and for schools as they transition from being single-sex. There's also an exception for religious organizations, one for institutions training for military service or the merchant marine, one for sororities and fraternities, one for voluntary youth service organizations ( the Young Men’s Christian Association, Young Women’s Christian Association, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, etc.), there's an exception for Boy or Girl Conferences (like the American Legion's Boy Nation), there's one for father-son and mother-daughter activities, and there's one for beauty pageants.

None of those are sports teams.

[Josh R]

The exception was codified in implementing regulatory language from the Department of Education. If you disagree, knock yourself by suing (you are going to lose).

[Michael P]

Does the Department of Education also define up to be down? Why are executive branch flunkies allowed to write things into laws that are contrary to what Congress wrote and the President signed?

[Josh R]

Are you, like DRM, arguing that sex-segregated sports violate Title IX?

[DRM]

Right, so, my argument, still entirely visible above, was explicitly that "Every regulation and court ruling [to the contrary] is inherently illegitimate, substituting a completely different regime for the one expressly established by Congress by statute."

Your response to that is that the executive branch regulations say something different and the courts will issue rulings supporting the executive.

To which all I can say is, yes, that's what makes the actions of the executive and the courts "illegitimate" rather than, say, "without practical effect".

[Mr. Bumble]

So, do men who claim they are women have to register with selective service?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Is anyone willing to identify the screen name Kitara Ravache uses at the Volokh Conspiracy?

[ReaderY]

I suspect that Title IX’s explicit exception for single-sex schools and sports teams makes this issue neither required nor prohibited by Title IX. It lies outside Title IX’s scope.

[DRM]

Cite the portion of the US Code where you find this exception for sports teams, because it is neither in the current 20 U.S. Code § 1681 nor in the original text of the statute.

[ReaderY]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/106.41

Yes, they’re implementing regulations, not statutory text. But would just mention that if the Supreme Court were to strike them down, the whole issue of how to classify trans people would dissappear. The question only exists if separate mens and womens teams are legal. Otherwise there’s nothing to classify.

The whole classification issue exists because separate mens and womens teams exist. Separate mens and womens teams exist because of an exemption from Title IX in the implementing regulations. And that exemption means Title IX, as implemented, doesn’t cover the issue of how to classify someone of ambiguous or disputed sex for purposes of sports teams.

[Brett Bellmore]

Very few people indeed are of ambiguous sex, and as for disputed sex, that's easily resolved with a genetic test.

[SRG]

FWIW as far as sports are concerned, where the sport is mental, e.g., chess, let people compete in their appropriate mental category. If the sport is physical, let them compete in their appropriate physical category except where pre-existing advantages are retained on transition. Or else, have a separate category.

As I've said before, in sport, there is no fair solution, but the least unfair is not to permit MtF to compete as girls or women when the physical advantages of being male persist.

[Lee Moore]

Which they do.

[SimonP]

Given that the author could not deign to avoid loaded, transphobic terminology in framing the issue, I’m not expecting this series of posts to be worth the time.

[David Nieporent]

What loaded, "transphobic" terminology?

[SimonP]

The language is "loaded" insofar as he takes for granted that Title IX, by addressing discrimination on the basis of "sex," is referring to the biological male/female distinction, and takes care throughout the excerpt to avoid referring to gender. One might charitably presume that he will, at some point, explain why this is the core distinction contemplated by Title IX (despite caselaw from the employment context cutting the other way). But otherwise it's clearly signaling the direction of his argument.

The language is "transphobic" insofar as the author insists on using the term "biologically male" to refer to transwomen, which is a typical way that transphobes discredit the very notion of trans identity. The point is to say that, no matter how they identify, there is something about transwomen that will never be truly "female" - without ever explaining why it's a person's genetic code or birth sex that matters.

I think there's a perfectly valid and challenging discussion to have about whether transwomen who are going through or have gone through male puberty ought to participate in sports leagues with women who have not, and how Title IX might approach either option. But to purport to start that discussion using terminology that intentionally begs the question and signals to trans-friendly readers an essential skepticism over trans identity is not auspicious.

[Josh R]

In the employment context, SCOTUS assumed that "sex" referred to "the biological male/female distinction."

I also wouldn't jump to the conclusion that "biological male" denies gender identity. It might just be a convenient way to refer to what you called "the biological male/female distinction."

[David Nieporent]

The language is “transphobic” insofar as the author insists on using the term “biologically male” to refer to transwomen, which is a typical way that transphobes discredit the very notion of trans identity. The point is to say that, no matter how they identify, there is something about transwomen that will never be truly “female” – without ever explaining why it’s a person’s genetic code or birth sex that matters.

But that's literally true. A genetic code is something about a trans woman that will never be female, no matter how they identify.

Moreover, I don't even know what language you would want him to use instead of "biologically male." "AMAB"? Because that's not question-begging "loaded language"?

I find the trans religion to be increasingly strange. First we were told that sex and gender are different things. But the current doctrine is that they're not really different things at all, that biology doesn't really mean anything; that gender is all that exists.

[Lee Moore]

without ever explaining why it’s a person’s genetic code or birth sex that matters.

1. Sex is a biological category, relating to reproduction in anisogamous species.
2. Sex is absolutely defined by gamete type. See 1 above.
3. Sex can be definitively identified by gonad type (since gonads are gamete factories and they are differentiated - to make one of the two gamete types.)
4. All other sexually differentiated features are derivative of the primary differentiation of the gonads. These may be very important in assisting the organism to reproduce (eg in animals that use penises, if a male lacks a penis it makes it very difficult to deliver sperm to the right spot.) But they are secondary.
5. Because evolution works pretty well, secondary sexually differentiated characteristics are almost always well aligned with the primary
6. But sometimes there's a developmental mistake and there is a slight misalignment. But developmental mistakes and misalignments in the secondaries do not have any effect whatever on your sex. That is solely a matter of gamete type.

The genetic code is - in some species - part of the sexual differentiation development process. It is a very good proxy for identifying sex, but it is not defining. Sex is about phenotype - which gamete type are you structured to make.

"Birth sex" is - in humans - just sex sex. You are the same sex throughout your life. Not so for clown fish.

Hope this helps.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Given that the author could not deign to avoid loaded, transphobic terminology in framing the issue"

Orwell would be proud.

That's why I intend to refer to them as "trannies" -- and use the word frequently.

[Michael P]

It is a pretty hilarious level of projection for the side that uses language like "transgender woman" and "sex assigned at birth" to accuse other people of using loaded language.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with that is that you're liable to confuse automotive enthusiasts.

[SimonP]

It may be hard for you mouth-breathers to imagine, but typically when you're trying to engage in a thoughtful debate over an issue with a group of people you think might not be inclined to agree with you, you try not to put them off by using language you ought to know is off-putting.

Like, if I wanted to convince you that some immigration policy is preferable, I might take care not to use the term "undocumented immigrant," and instead for the sake of argument use the term, "illegal alien." Because I understand that referring to people within the U.S. without formal authorization as "illegal aliens" gives some people a kind of sexual thrill they don't apparently get from "undocumented immigrant." It does not, ultimately, matter too much which term one uses.

We'll see what the author in question here actually does with his clumsy and off-putting terminology. But it's not Orwellian to detect meaning in his framing choices.

[Jmaie]

So, by your use of deliberately insulting verbiage, we can assume that you are not trying to engage in thoughtful debate?

[David Nieporent]

It may be hard for you mouth-breathers to imagine, but typically when you’re trying to engage in a thoughtful debate over an issue with a group of people you think might not be inclined to agree with you, you try not to put them off by using language you ought to know is off-putting.

And you think calling perfectly ordinary language like "biological male" "transphobic" isn't "off-putting"?

[Lee Moore]

In reality "biological male" is a linguistic accommodation by the "mouth-breathers" to the, er, "nose-breathers."

Man and male has always been a reference to sex. (Masculine is the word that has carried a somewhat genderish quality.) It is only very recently that the nose-breathers have insisted that you can be a man without the necessary biological features that mark you as such.

For clarity, therefore, when discussing these matters with the nose-breathers, kindly mouth-breathers append the preliminary adjective "biological" to man and male, when they wish to refer to the sex of the human, so that the nose-breathers will understand.

But this is now, apparently, an "insult."

[Josh R]

I prefer "biomarker male" because 1) being male could refer to gender identity and 2) there has to be a biological basis for gender identity.

[Lee Moore]

I do not prefer "biomarker male" because it is redolent of the "sex spectrum" meme, ie that there are lots of "markers" of sex, which can get all tangled up, so we can exist anywhere on a spectrum between male and female, so there's really no clear distinction between male and female. Which is incorrect.

I prefer "male" simpliciter, though if I'm forced to qualify it to distinguish it from male offered in a genderish sense, I will use "biological male."

The point, of course, is that while there are indeed all sorts of features or markers that are correlated with actual biological sex (evolution would be a pretty poor worker if it were otherwise) there's only one definitive marker - are you a spermy type, or an eggy type ?

Let's do football. There's a large number of "markers" of success. Running yards made, running yards conceded, passing yards made and conceded, pass completion percentage, interceptions made or conceded, goal kick success rate, touchdowns made and conceded, penalties conceded and so on. These are indeed "markers" ie indicators of success. If you do well on these measures, the odds are that you won the game. And if you do badly on these, the odds are you lost.

But there's only one actual marker that defines success - whether you scored more points than the other team. If you score more points than the other team, you win - even if you lose on ALL the other markers. That's because the other markers are only probabalistically linked to the actual success marker.

And thusly with biomarkers. You make sperm - you're a guy. You could have a vagina and boobs, look like Sophia Loren, be hot for guys, think you're a gal, sing soprano, have skin as soft as a baby's bottom - but if you make sperm, you're a biological male.

[Josh R]

Your argument is premised on the belief that is improper to use "male" to refer to gender identity. But, I don't accept that premise.

[Lee Moore]

Not at all. It's perfectly normal to refer to male physique, male voice, male interests and so on. These refer to things that are typical of males - ie spermy folk.

So "male gender identity" makes perfect sense - it means a gender identity that is typical of males - that is to say typical of spermy types.

If the male in male gender identity did not refer to spermy types there would be no reference point to affix the gender identity to.

If you are an eggy type with a male voice, that doesn't mean you are actually male, it means that you are female with a voice like a male - like a typical spermy type. Likewise if you are an eggy type with a male gender identity, it means you are a female with a gender identity like a male - a typical spermy type. It doesnt mean you are a male.

[Josh R]

“Male gender identity” means a person who identifies as male (which we have discussed in the past there is reference point: comfort/discomfort with one’s sexual physical and societal attributes).

Bottom line: your opinion is all based on gender identity, as I defined it, being phony. I think that is willful ignorance which ignores a large consensus of the medical community.

[Lee Moore]

“Male gender identity” means a person who identifies as male (which we have discussed in the past there is reference point: comfort/discomfort with one’s sexual physical and societal attributes).

We have indeed discussed it in the past, and at one point I thought you were within touching distance of offering something coherent and tangible regarding the reference point. But you walked it back. “Comfort / discomfort with one’s sexual physical and societal attributes” is impossibly vague. The simple test is whether you can offer a non circular, non self contradictory, non impossibly vague handwaving explanation of :

“A trans woman is a woman.”

I have never heard one, from you or from anyone else.

Bottom line: your opinion is all based on gender identity, as I defined it, being phony.

As mentioned above, your description is too vaguely expressed for me to form an opinion on. So I’ll offer two different descriptions :

1. male gender identity is a (real) mental feeling that one is biologically male (that is to say a spermy type)

2. male gender identity is a (real) mental feeling that one’s body is sexually “wrong”, that is to say the brain is convinced that even though the body plan seems to be female (biologically) there has been some sort of mistake and the body really ought to be male (biologically)

1 (when held by a biological woman) is obviously a delusion.

2. is a dysphoria based description – ie it can only apply to an actual woman. I suppose you could say that it could apply to a man with the substitution of “right” for “wrong” and adjusting the last bit accordingly. But as a “cis-man” I have never felt any such feeling. My brain tells me “it is what it is” – I look down and see male attributes. I don’t think “Yes ! That’s right !” I just think – it is what it is. Likewise if I look down and spot a mosquito bite on the ankle. It is what it is.

So 2 seems to me to be inherently dysphoria related. But I don’t think it’s in any way “phony”. I am quite prepared to believe that some females look at their body and think, quite genuinely, “That’s wrong !” I’m just saying that such a feeling, however deeply rooted, doesn’t make you a man, or male. Not even 1%.

Homosexuality is a reasonable comparison. Nobody seriously doubts that homosexual folk are quite genuinely sexually attracted to people of their own sex. It’s real. It’s not phony. It’s also true that male homosexuality is a “female sexual orientation” – ie it is a sexual orientation that is typical of females, and not typical of males.

But being a gay man does not make you a woman. Not even 1%. For sex is not a percent thing. Sex is a gamete thing, not a sexual orientation thing or a gender identity thing or a pitch of voice thing.

A gay guy is 100% a man, 100% male. He’s just a man who is sexually attracted to other men.

[Josh R]

We (mostly, see below *) agree on your definition #2. Where we disagree is your statement, “it can only apply to an actual woman.” You have begged the question that “woman” should refer to biomarker (see below) sex rather than gender identity. I am saying context ought to inform what “woman” refers to.

* The brain’s perception that your genitals are wrong must have a biological basis. Thus, I continue to dislike the term “biological female” (but accept it as a shorthand for biomarker female).

[Lee Moore]

Where we disagree is your statement, “it can only apply to an actual woman.” You have begged the question that “woman” should refer to biomarker (see below) sex rather than gender identity. I am saying context ought to inform what “woman” refers to.

I’m sorry but it looks like Lucy has swiped the football again.

1. My definition 2 is, as described, perfectly capable of being adapted so that it applies to persons of either sex. Ie a bio-woman can look at her body and think “That’s wrong ! I should be one of those” Those being the bio men on the TV show she’s watching. And a bio-man can look at his body and say “That’s right ! I am one of those.” Those being ditto. I merely doubt the existence of the “that’s right !” since I have no recollection of ever feeling “That’s right !” myself. But the point is not important to the definition, since even if cis men do not feel the feeling, the definition is still logically coherent.
2. But my definition 2, as adjusted above, is logically coherent because it has an external reference point – actual bio men. I do not require the concept of gender in my reference point for what it is that a bio-woman with male gender identity identifies with.
3. “You have begged the question that “woman” should refer to biomarker (see below) sex rather than gender identity” seems to me to be replacing my external reference point (bio men) with something else. And you seem to be saying that the something else should be genderish-men. Maybe I have misunderstood you.
4. But if you make the reference point genderish-men then the definition becomes circular - it defines gender in terms of itself - and so is meaningless.
5. She looks down at her body and says “That’s wrong ! I should be one of those !” but one of what ? If the “what” is a genderish concept of men eg {those humans who have a strong mental feeling that they are men} then what sort of body is she thinking she ought to have ? If it includes (a) the bodies of cis bio-men and trans men (aka trans bio-women) , but excludes (b) the bodies of trans bio-men (aka trans women) and cis bio-women. - this target class of bodies has no coherent physical model since it includes some bio-male bodies and some bio-female bodies, and excludes some bio-male bodies and some bio-female bodies.

In short, either you are being circular, or else you remain too vague for me to follow.

[Lee Moore]

The brain’s perception that your genitals are wrong must have a biological basis.

If this simply means that everything in your brain has a biological basis because your brain is a biological organ, then fine.

If you mean that the brain’s perception that your genitals are wrong must have a genetic basis, then I disagree. It might have a genetic basis, but it might instead derive from something else – eg something in the chemical soup in utero, or something in the experience of the early infant.

Assuming “gender identity” to be, by the time you’re 18 months old, say, fixed and immutable does not require any assumption that it has a genetic cause.

Generally speaking though, since sex differentiation in the body is strongly influenced by sex hormones, particularly testosterone, it’s a reasonable guess – but just a guess – that testosterone, or a shortage thereof, or uneven take up thereof, might have something to do with it, at some point in the development process.

[Josh R]

A (bio) woman has dysphoria over his (bio) female body. That’s a non-circular reference point that justifies also being classified as a (gender) man.

I agree we don’t know how much genes versus environment cause gender identity. But, “biological sex” strikes me as improperly concluding there is no genetic component to gender identity.

[Lee Moore]

Josh : A (bio) woman has dysphoria over his (bio) female body. That’s a non-circular reference point that justifies also being classified as a (gender) man.

That makes perfect sense. The external reference point is the (bio) female body.

But now I'm back to being confused about :

"You have begged the question that “woman” should refer to biomarker (see below) sex rather than gender identity."

We seem to have settled on the bio-body reference point, so what question am I begging ?

Are you just making a point about word usage, ie that the word "woman" ought to be used as a reference to both bio-women and, in context, to bio-men who have dysphoria over their bio-men bodies ?

eg in the statement :

"a trans woman is a woman" :

"trans woman" means a bio-man with a female gender identity (ie looks down, sees willy, "oh no, that shouldn't be there")

and, in context "woman" means a bio-man with a female gender identity (ie looks down, sees willy, "oh no, that shouldn't be there")

So the statement is offered simply as a tautology ?

[Lee Moore]

But, “biological sex” strikes me as improperly concluding there is no genetic component to gender identity.

We will have to agree to disagree on this point. To me "biological sex" is simply a classification of the organism by sex. Which classification is completely determined by gamete type.

It does not attempt to say anything about secondary sexually differentiated features, including gender identity, and certainly does not imply that these secondary features lack any genetic component. It simply says that these secondary features are irrelevant to the classification by sex. Even though, for obvious reasons, they are very highly correlated with the classification.

[Josh R]

Are you just making a point about word usage, ie that the word “woman” ought to be used as a reference to both bio-women and, in context, to bio-men who have dysphoria over their bio-men bodies ?

Bingo!

I did not say I agree with "a trans woman is (categorically) a woman." Context matters. Similarly, I don't agree with "a trans woman is (categorically) not a woman."

[Lee Moore]

Well that's good. We seem at last to be aligned on biology and logic, and at odds only regarding semantics. Which, of the three, is the least important.

[Nige]

'and use the word frequently.'

I'm so glad you've found a minority group you can disparage. It must have been rough for you when overt racism and anti-semitism became so socially unacceptable you couldn't indulge any more.

[David Nieporent]

That’s why I intend to refer to them as “trannies” — and use the word frequently.

No, that's because you're an asshole. Just because Simon is a confused zealot does not license you to be deliberately offensive.

(I mean, one doesn't need a license for that, obviously. But if one did, you'd be rewarded with a lifetime one.)

[Publius_2020]

Some strange passages in the underlying article.

[1] "The traditional rationale for sex-segregated sports teams is that females are not as skilled as males." Nope, that's not really the rationale; it's not about "skill" per se. The difference in basketball performance, for example, isn't about shooting percentage.

[2] "One theory is that past discrimination against women has limited their opportunities compared to men." Literally no one thinks that female sprinters fail to compete against men because of past discrimination; no one.

[3] "Another rationale some mention is that the choice of sports reflects sexist attitudes and/or are designed for men." Again, this is virtually unheard of. What "sports" would be different? Badminton? The very definition of sport is an athletic competition between individuals or groups of individuals.

[4] "Finally, it is argued that men have natural advantages that preclude women from competing successfully with them." Finally? Talk about burying the lede. But even here, we have to endure more deflection.

[5] "while men may perform better than woman on average, the variation within each sex is larger than the variation between males and females." This is just obfuscation through statistics. Neither the "average," nor the statistical variation across the group, are really relevant here, because competitive sports aren't about the average -- they're about the most capable performers. At every level of competition, the successful competitors are among the top few percent of the group. And the difference in performance between males and female in that select class is clear. Strong high school boys beat the women's world record in track. And that relative performance difference carries over to other sports.

I haven't studied the rest of the article, but when you engage in this kind of stilted presentation with respect to your foundation, it's not clear that your conclusions are going to be worthy of consideration.

[David Nieporent]

[2] “One theory is that past discrimination against women has limited their opportunities compared to men.” Literally no one thinks that female sprinters fail to compete against men because of past discrimination; no one.

Literally no one who knows anything about sports thinks that. You would be surprised at how many gender studies scholars do.

(There's at least one out there who thinks that sex segregation of sports is because men were embarrassed that women were beating them!)

[Lee Moore]

It is 538, so make allowances, but this is a fun story

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-a-sports-world-segregated-by-gender-figure-skating-has-often-blurred-those-lines/

[Lee Moore]

Er, people tend to get glasses because they understand that their eyesight is bad. In reality. The glasses are there to help them see better, despite their bad eyesight.

This involves a recognition of biological reailty, not a denial of it. Once recognised, the wonders of technology allow us to compensate to some extent.

Nobody responds to bad eyesight by insisting that their eyesight is actually perfect. Well, OK, sometimes people do do that when they don't want to wear glasses for reasons of vanity, but they don't actually believe they have perfect eyesight. They're just pretending because they'd rather bump into the occasional lamp post than look old or geeky.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Hair dye can be reversed by letting off the hair dye. Surgery and puberty blockers, not nearly so readily.

Glasses are not a change any more than clothes or smart phones or buying subway tickets. You are really grasping for nothing.

Nose jobs are purely cosmetic. I doubt very many parents would plump for a kid's nose job unless it was really distracting.

Next?

[Lee Moore]

Hence the itty bitty steps

[Ben_]

Eyeglasses? Why? Democrats could just demand everything be written in 10 foot high letters and scream and name-call anyone who ever wants to write anything smaller.

[Mr. Bumble]

Not responsive.
As long as we have a selective service registration requirement I would agree that both men and women should be required to register. However as it stands now, only 18 year old males are required to do so.
Failure to register is a felony and also precludes availability of certain benefits. See link:
https://www.sss.gov/register/benefits-and-penalties/
So what happen to a biological male who fails to register?

[ReaderY]

The Supreme Court upheld it decades ago. It’s a classic example of the difference between intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.

[Lee Moore]

What doctors actually do is attempt to identify the sex of the infant at birth. There's no "assigning" going on, it's identification. They may occasionally get it wrong, but that would be a faulty identification. Also there's no attempt to identify gender. The wee bairn is in no position to comment as to how it feels gender-wise.

Not very surprisingly, those dealing with non-human animals - whether vets involved in delivering calves, or naturalists looking at animals in the wild through binoculars, do the same thing. They "identify sex" - sometimes incorrectly - they do not "assign gender."

I accept that it would be possible to accuse me of pedantry for quibbling on this point, but it seems to me that if folk to have gone to so much trouble to invent such a factually challenged phrase for framing purposes, it's almost a duty to push back, in defense of reality.

[Lee Moore]

We are in full agreement on this point.

Or would be, if "correct" meant the same as "compensate" which it doesn't, quite.

In the current state of technology, you could say that glasses and contact lenses "compensate" while, perhaps laser eye surgery "corrects."

As to those with gender dysphora, current technology offers some partial "compensatory" treatments - ie if you are a guy who would prefer to be a gal, various hormones and perhaps some surgery might make you look a bit more like a gal.

As yet though, nothing "corrective" is on offer. And that seems to be a long way off. But technology moves at such a pace these days, who can say ?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"People get glasses because they don’t like biological reality and would like to correct it."

People get FGM for their children for the same reason.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Correction by physical tools, not by body surgery. Now if you want to discuss actual eye surgery, go ahead, but you'll have a hard time convincing anybody that eye surgery is more akin to genital mutilation surgery than an appendectomy or a broken arm.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The CDC says that it reduces the risk of STDs, including AIDS. Apparently germs can get under the foreskin and multiply, and if it is removed, they can't.

https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20141202/cdc-endorses-circumcision-for-health-reasons

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Explain why circumcision is ok."

To be clear, are you defending FGM?

[Dr. Ed 2]

There is a psych diagnosis, I forget the name, where someone wants a healthy limb (e.g. arm) surgically removed. The DSM still recognizes that doing so would be a bad thing -- at least this week....

[Dr. Ed 2]

Let's get real here -- the purpose of female genital mutilation is to make vaginal sex more painful (and hence unpleasant) than anal sex -- and thus prevent family embarrassment from unintended pregnancies.

[Michael Ejercito]

Back in the 1990's, it was so fucking obvious, even to the weird kids.

What changed?

[Joe_dallas]

The fallacy in your comment is the belief that transgender is a physical/biological issue

It’s a mental illness- period

[David Nieporent]

No, come on. Glasses are a correction of a malfunctioning body part, not an 'undesired' one. The genitals of a trans person are functioning properly.

[Lee Moore]

🙂 That is the third suggested meaning. The first two clearly imply either arbitrariness, or at least the exercise of a choice by the assigner.

Indeed even the chosen example for your third meaning has this quality :

"Each visitor to the site chooses an online alter ego, which is assigned a name. "

And here's their list of other examples :

Every available officer will be assigned to the investigation.
The textbooks were assigned by the course director.
Part of the group was assigned to clear land mines.
Each trainee is assigned a mentor who will help them learn more about the job.
We were assigned an interpreter for the duration of our stay.

All of these examples imply that the assigner is exercising discretion.

Assigning connotes an assigner with discretion to choose either arbitrarily or at least using his discretion. And that is precisely why the genderists have selected that frame. But when the doc tells you what sex your baby is, he or she is not exercising a choice. It's an effort at identifying what sex your child is from a perusal of the available evidence. This may be an exercise of medical expertise, but there's no exercise of medical discretion.

When you go to the doctor and he or she announces that you have herpes, the doc is not assigning you herpes, he or she is identifying the disease that you have acquired. Maybe the doc is wrong, but there's no exercise of discretion or choice about it. If your doc says he's "assigning" you herpes, you should leave immediately.

[Lee Moore]

I recall reading a most interesting (and lengthy) piece a few years ago comparing the progress made in physics, something else and psychology since 1900. I forget what the something else was - but it must have been something else in which something important happened in or around 1900, because the author was comparing progress since some seminal moment in or around 1900. Physics was Max Planck and his quanta, psyhology was Freud and his dreams, and the other was ..... something else.

Anyway it stuck in my mind as a pretty convining demolition of psychology as having got stuck in mumbo jumbo, hypotheses sans proper experiment and politics, while the other two used the scientific method. IIRC though he did think that after its long slumber psychology might have begun to wake up a bit by the 1980s. So by now maybe it's got as far as the 1940s.

[David Nieporent]

Are people that want to correct that “biological reality” doing something wrong or disordered?

If they were actually introducing a malfunction in doing so, then yes.

[I Callahan]

What other mental illnesses does society “accommodate”?

[I Callahan]

And because they’re argued now doesn’t mean the old ways are wrong and the new ones right. Change for the sake of change isn’t always a good thing.

[Lee Moore]

1. It is a disorder.

2. But if you don't see it as one, that's entirely your business. The fact that lots of people think it's a disorder, but you don't, doesn't give those others any right to insist that you be "treated" for it. And likewise you don't have any right to insist that other people change their opinion as to whether it's a disorder or not.

3. As I understand it though, in some jurisdictions it is now illegal for a doc to attempt to treat homosexuality, even if the patient agrees that it's a disorder.

4. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no idea whether homosexuality is a treatable disorder. The zeitgeist floats about a bit on that one.

[Lee Moore]

Aside from the fact that the CDC's record of omniscience is not entirely flawless, this strikes me as one of those things that deserves a bit of scepticism.

If there really was a net-net disadvantage in having an intact foreskin, you'd expect evolution to have hit on the idea a while back. Not definitely, just probably. Of course there might be a net health disadvantage to intact foreskins, but some overtrumping advantage elsewhere.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Lee, there is a net disadvantage to having an appendix -- it can kill and did in the days before surgery & antibiotics. It just didn't kill *enough* people to be genetically significant, particularly as half the time, the person would have already reproduced.

My guess is the same thing here -- to have an evolutionary change, you need mortality on the level of the plague.

My guess is that the foreskin served a purpose when we were running through the jungles naked -- but even primitive peoples soon learned the advantage of protecting that area with clothing.

[Lee Moore]

I’m not sure we can conclude that the appendix is a net disadvantage. We are hazy on the advantages, less hazy on the disadvantages. The jury is still out. Which is not to say that some organs or features may be vestigial and may take a while to wither away. It's just that we don't really know that appendices (or foreskins) fall into this category.

It just didn’t kill *enough* people to be genetically significant, particularly as half the time, the person would have already reproduced.

As you hint, survival is not the measure of significance visible to evolution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wasn't that back when SCOTUS also upheld sodomy statutes?

[Brett Bellmore]

Are we pretending that they're the same? As I understand it, FGM goes after the clitoris, which is structurally and anatomically related to the glans in the male. While circumcision removes the male foreskin, the closest analog to which in the female would be the clitoral hood.

Believe me, men would consider it a big freaking deal if circumcision went after the glans.

[Nige]

No, we're trying to pretend FMG and surgical transition are them same, which indicates a complete and entirely performative ignorance of both.

[Brett Bellmore]

Checking out the Wayback machine, it looks like they added that meaning just last year. Prior to that it was exclusively an act of discretion.

We've been seeing that a lot, recently, long established dictionary meanings being altered to conform to left wing talking points.

[Krayt]

"Homosexuality is a disorder!"

"So why do many with that opinion wish to put them in jail?"

[Lee Moore]

What makes it a disorder?

That it is an abnormal mental or physical condition which detracts from essential biological functioning. Essential biological functioning includes reproduction. Indeed reproduction takes the number one slot.

Animals require not just the right piping systems to breed successfully, they also require the right instincts - eg to seek out mates of the same species and of the opposite sex (if they belong to an anisogamous species.) If they belong to a species which provides any kind of childcare, then the necessary instincts include the instinct to care for their young.

Thus if your mental architecture encourages you to direct your mate seeking urges at hopeless targets - wrong species, wrong sex, wrong age, wrong season etc - that's a disorder (and a pretty serious one.)

Likewise if your mental architecture makes you too shy to meet people, or very afraid of sex, or of pregnancy, or makes you want to abandon your kids, you have a disorder.

However, we do observe what might be described as an indiscriminately directed sex drive in some animals - eg when a hot female frog is on the scene, lots of males may attempt to jump her, and it all finishes up in a mad scramble with a huge ball of writhing frogs, mostly male, all attempting to mate with each other. But that isn't a preference for male on male action - it's simply that in the attempt to mate with the female, you mate with anything that might be a female. That's just normal mating behavior in that kind of frog.

So being sexually attracted to anything that moves is not quite the same thing as homosexuality, though it may at times look like it.

Interestingly, the 1950s and before offer a nice analogy for today's Tinkerbell approach to gender dysphoria. Because homosexuality does not affect the physical ability to mate, if societal pressure forces homosexuals to live in opposite sex marriages, denying their true nature even to their spouses, society is actually treating the disorder. It's making it easier for homosexuals to reproduce 🙂

[Nige]

Anything that occurs naturally, including homosexuality, is natural. There is no ‘purpose’ behind naturally occuring phenomena. Reproduction is one drive among many, but is not universal, even among heterosexuals.

'Society is actually treating the disorder.'

That's not treating a disorder that's enforcing a social norm regardless of the harm to the individual and their spouse and children. There's no actual societal interest in inflicting those harms.

[Lee Moore]

Anything that occurs naturally, including homosexuality, is natural.

Sure. Congenital blindness is also natural, but a natural disability.

There is no ‘purpose’ behind naturally occuring phenomena.

A confusion of purpose and function. Evolution did not design your lungs with the purpose of enabling you to process oxygen, but that is their biological function.

Reproduction is one drive among many,

Not really. Again focusing on function we only have two drives – staying alive and reproducing. And the former is really a subset of the latter. An organism needs to stay alive long enough to reproduce, or else it’s the end of the line. But an organism that tries to stay alive a bit longer, instead of reproducing, is already at the end of the line.

but is not universal, even among heterosexuals

Sure. I mentioned some phobias etc that prevent people from pursuing reproductive opportunities and which have nothing to do with homosexuality. And even without phobias lots of people simply choose not to breed, because they think their career or their ballet or their free time is more important. More important to them, that is. But not to the impartial judge of natural selection. Not all organisms are biologically successful. And when we are talking about natural drives, it’s biology that rules.

‘Society is actually treating the disorder.’
That’s not treating a disorder that’s enforcing a social norm regardless of the harm to the individual and their spouse and children. There’s no actual societal interest in inflicting those harms.

You’re really not very good at jokes are you ?

But anyway. Homosexuality is a disorder from the perspective of biology whatever it might look like from the perspective of society. And from a biological point of view an organism that does not breed is a failure, whether the failure stems from a reluctance to engage in well directed mating behavior, or from being eaten by a bear while young.

[Joe_dallas]

agree with Lee moore comment - Though worth adding that the mentalhealth profession has a long history of faddish treatments and diagnosis which were considered the gold standard of their time, yet proven to be complete frauds -
mass child care sexual abuse rituals
Repressed memory syndrome
electric shock treatments
frontal lobotomies

[Nige]

If psychology is in some way letting trans people down, it's certainly not because of too much access to treatment or too much research into the best forms of treatment. If it turns out that there are better ways of treating trans people, it won't be based on the ideas of people who hate trans people.