“As the person goes through life, the person also has a gender identity—a deeply felt internal sense of being male or female.”
The word “sense” is going a lot of heavy lifting here. What does the word “sense” as used here mean?
Well “sense” in the English language had two definitions:
1. A faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus. Aka 5 senses of smell, sight, touch, sound and taste.
Obviously that definition can’t be the meaning here bc a person who is trans by definition rejects the information about their sex acquired through their five senses and believes the opposite despite what their five senses tell them.
2. A feeling that something is the case.
That’s the only other possible definition of the word “sense” that could apply in the judges definition of gender identity.
So to this judge, gender identity is the feeling that you are the sex you are OR the feeling that you are the opposite sex than you are.
So this judges definition of a trans person is a person who feels and thinks that they are the opposite sex, despite all evidence to the contrary. And people who aren’t trans are people who feel or think that they are the sex that they are.
And we all share a common experience of “gender identity” which is the feeling that we are or aren’t the sex we are.
Okaaaaaaaay.
It is instantly obvious to anyone who has struggled with mental illness or seen someone struggle with mental illness up close that this who issue is basically just our society being terrified and ignorant of mental illnesses.
The stigma towards mental illness is so extreme in our society that people will tie themselves in knots making up terms and identity labels and laws to avoid the fact the fact that trans people display a known and researched psychological “condition” or, less pathologizing, a known psychological phenomenon: delusion (or to use medicalizing terminology, a delusional disorder).
Delusion/delusional disorders are hard to treat bc the patient by nature of the disorder is suspicious and delusional. But they can be successfully treated with psychotherapy, CBT, and medication. The key is to NEVER affirm the person’s delusional beliefs but also to not try to rationally refute their delusion (both of which we do wrong with trans people aka people with gender identity disorders). Empathize with their feelings and pain but don’t affirm (which is trapping people deeper in their mental illness and is the opposite of compassionate- trying to do whatever makes a delusional person not mad at you is selfish and cowardly. Have the strength to not get sucked into a person’s delusions bc it helps no one).
“Evidence suggests that delusional disorder can be triggered by stress. Alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder might contribute to the condition. Hypersensitivity and ego defense mechanisms like reaction formation, projection and denial are some psychodynamic theories for the development of delusional disorder. Social isolation, envy, distrust, suspicion and low self-esteem are also some psychological factors that may lead to a person seeking an explanation for these feelings and, thus, forming a delusion as a solution.” The cross-sex identity is a delusion that serves as a coping mechanism for stress and this applies to homosexual early-onset gender dysphoric people, homosexual or heterosexual adolescent-onset gender dysphoric people, late-transitioning sexually disordered/sexually paraphilic people, psychotic people, “personality disordered” people with delusions of envy, grandeur, persecution, etc as coping mechanisms (which often includes sexually disordered people), and autistic or neurodiverse people coping with social and sensory stressors. All of these issues are an interconnecting web with one person often experiencing two or more of these issues.
Emily: "So to this judge, gender identity is the feeling that you are the sex you are OR the feeling that you are the opposite sex than you are."
Sloppy thinking -- at best, being charitable -- on the part of that judge. Although that is rather typical in any discussion of gender and gender identity since the terms are so poorly defined.
But I kind of think that you're maybe misreading him, and expect that what Hinkle means by "male" and "female" as gender identities is not at all what he means by them as sexes. Something which Merriam-Webster more or less endorses, even if with circular definitions; but see Matt Walsh's take on that as well:
Merriam-Webster: “female:
1 a: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs;
1 b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male”
Not a particular problem as many words have multiple, often contradictory definitions. The problem is in not being aware of that, of changing horses in midstream as in the logical fallacy of equivocation:
Wikipedia (sexist): "Since only man [human] is rational.
Largely why I -- and Scalia -- deprecate "male" and "female" as genders, arguing for "masculine" and "feminine", or for qualifying the words as in "female (sex)" and "female (gender)".
But Wikipedia also more or less clearly differentiates between "sex" and "gender identity":
Wikipedia: "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex or can differ from it. In most individuals, the various biological determinants of sex are congruent, and consistent with the individual's gender identity. Gender expression typically reflects a person's gender identity, but this is not always the case. While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity."
Bit of a dog's breakfast, but in the very terminology of "correlate with", they endorse the view that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Though one might be more like a basket of snakes:
Lisa, thank you, yet once again, for your clarity. I particularly appreciated this observation: “Part of the problem with handling gender medicine in the courts, instead of figuring out how to properly regulate it via medical organizations and government health agencies that care about patient health, is that we end up battling ideologies instead of science. One man and his acceptance of radical ideas matters more than a systematic evidence review.”
I look forward very much to your article on the issue of bans. I have a personal view, which probably most aligns with that of Leor Sapir, but I am not nearly as well informed as you are on what needs to be considered here.
In the last few days, I have made some inroads with additional friends on my D side of the aisle. What continues to be striking, though, even among those who are ordinarily skeptical of our profit driven Rube Goldberg health care “system,” is their willingness in this one instance to take it on trust that health care professionals know what they are doing and are basing it on sound science. I suspect the breathtaking ignorance and ideological illogic displayed by this judge will further exacerbate the problem.
It is hard to believe for many that....there is no "there" there, behind all these claims. The audacity of the lies (or the assumption that the science will vindicate them, perhaps) is breathtaking.
You make a REALLY good point here, which bears repeating often. I have had a couple more conversations with friends in recent days who have little to no information on the entire subject (and of course their news sources, eg NY Times and PBS) do nothing to enlighten them. In these cases, it is virtually impossible to get past their incredulity. It is one thing when the person or organization lying is known to be a liar, everyone I know gets that easily, but quite another when I am describing things that completely contradict what “trustworthy” organizations promote (ACLU, Planned Parenthood, all the medical associations and many medical journals). To get past that, I can only take the smallest of baby steps, use credible personal examples if available, then wait, wait, wait, until they are able to see where the truth actually lies. I hope for the day when this becomes such a full blown medical scandal it cannot be ignored, including by mainstream press. That cannot come soon enough!
The US could in principle restrict treatment to experimental studies, just like other countries....but let's look at what US studies have been done recently.
There's Olson et al., where they didn't bother to diagnose the young people in the study but just measured how long they stayed socially transitioned, there's Tordoff et al. (2022) where the majority of kids ended up medicalized but weren't seen to improve, and then there is Chen et al., 2023, which Singal discusses in detail, which had announced several outcome measures would be checked but which has only reported on 2 of the 8... (what happened to the other indicators they measured in the 2 years?) and two kids of the 315 committed suicide.
So yes, you could have US kids only being treated in studies, but the current studies are not protecting the young people right now (they or rather their parents are giving informed consent to clinicians who believe in the affirmative model and who at least write papers which are misleading and/or incorrect) and they are not being done well enough for anything to be learned. If an exception is made for studies, how do you make sure those in the studies are giving true *informed* consent (which rules out anyone listening to affirming clinicians as they are misinformed themselves). And how do you justify sterilizing young people to find out who might be helped or harmed by this? Minors?
The US has refused to look at facts, to do systematic reviews of the evidence, aside from Florida (and the Endocrine Society made recommendations which were stronger than the evidence seems to support, see the great article by Block in BMJ on this). So how do you keep every affirmative clinician from just saying they are doing a study and then business (and there's a lot!$$$$) as usual?
I don't have answers, would love to hear what you think. I don't think the answer is business as usual but I don't know how to deal with all the lies, bad faith and misinformation, I'm astounded they have gone on this long.
absolutely need to be exposed. But I worry that as long as the studies are so poorly done that anyone who "affirms" will just declare they are doing a study and then continue as usual....
It needs to be rebutted in the journals, not just by Jesse, on his blog. But indeed, the work was so badly written up that even a non-physician can see many fatal flaws and he did a fantastic job laying them out.
This judge is not only ideologically captured, but he is clearly out of touch with reality. "For less than 1%, the natal sex and gender identity are opposites." He doesn't seem aware of the huge increase in teenagers—mainly girls—deciding that they are trans and having their new identity automatically affirmed.
<<Others—naturally feminine males and masculine females—came to understand that they had internalized so much homophobia, they saw no room for themselves in their sex category. They couldn’t accept themselves as men and women, in part perhaps because others couldn’t, either.>>
There you have it, we can trans away the gay. It's unethical if not illegal "conversion therapy" to try to change the patient's same-sex attraction; but wait! We can carve up their bodies into a pitifully poor imitation of the other sex, and voilà! Same-sex attraction gone!
And we don't have the difficult job of teaching them they are fine, just the way God made them.
I want to report on a very interesting, and unexpectedly positive, conversation with a friend in California that I had today. She finally broke her silence over emails I had been sending to friends about my concerns, and providing information about, gender identity and its vast negative fall-out, including, notably, the travesty that is called “gender-affirming” care. Her email breaking her silence did not bode well:
“I don’t know what has sent you down this path on gender but, I can’t follow. The whole discussion about sex and gender is very complex. I know you don’t want anything bad to happen to anyone but in this society violence always arrives before reason. We have family and friends who are non-binary and trans. I’m working hard to understand and accept how they feel and how to support them. It is my responsibility to adapt. I look at our grandson who has friends who are gender flexible. It’s a different world for them, a more inclusive and probably more enlightened generation. They don’t care if someone is a they or them. Or whatever. Which is as it should be in my view. It took time for me to realize that I had to say something and not ignore my concerns.”
Bolstered by a phone conversation with Coastal Elite, I decided to go ahead and call her and try to talk it through. I was not at all sure this was wise, but I realized it would just fester if I didn’t just pick up the phone. So I did. I started by confirming that young people engaged in exploration of who they wanted to be, how they fit in, all of that, is what young people do, and that I certainly had no objection to that. Where I become concerned, I noted, is when adults, like teachers, weigh in to tell them who they might be, giving as an example my friend Coastal telling me about teachers saying to girls with short hair and jeans, do you think you might actually be a boy.
My friend had an immediate, visceral reaction that that was wrong. It transpired that she believed strongly that parents, not the state or any outside actors, should be in charge of raising their children. In other words, though she didn’t know anything about the larger issues, she was very much opposed to parental abolition. It turns out she had not observed this problem among any of her friend and family group, so wasn’t aware of the problem. I explained that it was my becoming aware of it and seeing the terrible pain it was causing that led to my sense of urgency and feeling I had to act in the only way I had, which was writing to, and where possible, speaking with friends.
This is all it took, as it turned out, to set us on track for a good, positive conversation, in which we had many, many more points of agreement than anything else.
We joked at the end about how e-mail is so horribly insufficient as a means of communication, but at the same time neither one of us like talking on the phone. We vowed, as we had several months ago, when we last picked up the phone, that we should really do it again.
A stunning twitter thread.......yes, I know what many think about its author, but work your way through it.
Starts like this:
"The largest “trans healthcare” providers in the U.S. are rubber-stamping letters approving gruesome, life-altering surgeries. It’s such a racket that my producer was approved for testicle removal in #22minutes. The tape is disturbing."
Let’s say for the sake of argument that we let the judge have the point that gender identity is real and everyone has one. Where is his evidence that a child’s gender identity is stable and can known by the child before a certain age? We see how the child on the cover of the famous National Geographic gender issue changed from having a gender identify of a girl at age nine to non-binary as a teenager. The Dutch are reporting changing gender identities among the first children (now young adults) from the Dutch studies that started the widespread use of puberty blockers. How old does a child need to be to “sense” their gender identity? What does “sending” even mean? Does blocking puberty affect a child’s ability to accurately “sense” any changes that may happen in the development of their gender identity? Just believing in a gender identity doesn’t give all the answers needed to make good decisions
<<Where is his evidence that a child’s gender identity is stable and can known by the child before a certain age?>> There is none, of course. In fact, there is, in principle, no such evidence even possible. It is purely an interior or spiritual perception entirely inaccessible to the exterior material world or other people. The ancient Gnostics would have loved it. Popper would be scandalized that anyone would take significant irreversible action based on an idea that could neither be confirmed nor falsified. Yet here we are, with prison officials confining convicted rapists in women's prisons based on nothing more than his own reports of the state of his mind.
As for stable, i guess the judge didn't ask what was stable about "gender fluid" or how anyone could tell whether there was a change in a "nonbinary" person's gender or in anyone's gender who claimed one of the dozens of tailor-made "genders", even one obviously invented for the occasion. Even more troubling is that the judge apparently wasn't at all sceptical about the recent epidemic of recent onset gender dysphoria (misleadingly called "rapid onset", or ROGD) among teenage girls who've previously reported no such feelings.
To be blunt, I have to suspect the lawyers defending the Florida law were not adequately informed or prepared to present the case for taking extreme caution in taking irreversible, life altering actions for children. I'm sure the activists bringing the case presented what would ordinarily be a very persuasive case based on the statements from the relevant professional societies, but the result here doesn't show the least awareness of the reasons to doubt their conclusions.
good. let the record show a federal judge appointed by clinton has swallowed multiple unevidenced and incorrect claims of gender activists. getting this all on record is a necessary step to unraveling this harmful fraud. this is an improvement from the past 20 years of gender activism occuring in secret where schools wont share their indoctrination materials even with a FOIA order.
The only good of all the extreme measure on the part of the progressive left is that they will eventually take it so far that they'll wake up the sleeping middle.
First, I want to offer apologies if anyone has responded to something I've written here and I haven't seen it. When threads get long, I am not able to get back to a specific comment.
I've decided to take a break from all this, as it's time for me to reflect a bit and recharge. That said, I want to leave you with this observation:
Perhaps the most frustrating thing I've encountered when reaching out to adult friends about the ten alarm fire we are in is that they think this is all about the personal journeys of young people, and nothing else. What I have come to, to get past that barrier, is immediately to point out that young people are doing what they are supposed to do, which is explore widely in an effort to figure out where they belong. They are not the problem: it is the adults who have completely abdicated their responsibility to be reliable guides. (Please know, I am not by any means including in this the parents here, who are trying so hard with everything against them.)
Our young people, as everyone here knows, are in deep, deep trouble, and leaving them to their own devices, particularly with all the bad actors out there (Rachel Levine, the list goes on) does them no favors. Too many adults have left the room, and they need to come back.
Susan: "When threads get long, I am not able to get back to a specific comment."
Substack kinda sucks in that department. I've complained several times about their deletion of the "Collapse" function -- to little avail so far, although I got a head honcho to consider it:
But, en passant, I often bookmark specific comments so I can more easily get back to a particular thread.
Susan: "... they think this is all about the personal journeys of young people, and nothing else."
Indeed. Sad that the lives of so many kids and parents are being destroyed by this dogma. But arguably more important is what it is doing to our social institutions which affect us all. You might have some interest in my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology", particularly in the brief discussion therein of Joanna Williams' essay on "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology":
I read part of the ruling and was stunned that it's written as if things like Tavistock, European questioning, Barnes's "Time to Think", various articles such as those of Reuters the Economist, even NYTimes...didn't exist.
Weirdly enough the parts of I've read reminded me of the way psychology/psychiatrists/DSM would write about homosexuality as an illness....it has that same credulity and lack of awareness.
The ruling makes clear a major problem with the Florida law - animus on the part of some of those behind it and (other than Dr. Levine) poor medical expertise supporting the state's position. The judge was clearly influenced by the belief that the Florida legislators were less motivated by science than by ideology, something that is much harder to say in the European countries where reform has come through the medical profession. Ultimately, I think reform in the US is more likely to come through a mix of impact litigation and longterm data, rather than bans. Although it is possible the current Supreme Court will reverse this (as it did Roe), Ultimately, I don't think submitting healthcare to shifting political winds is the best course. If the Florida law had been more moderate (leaving the research setting exemption initially included) and hadn't had the indicia of animus towards transgender people, the outcome may have been different.
I agree. Whatever the legal or policy strategy that answers Lisa's question: "Who wants to calm the fuck down so we can rationally figure out what to do?" seems to be the better path. But the immediate outcomes for vulnerable kids seem so poor, that I also have sympathy for the notion of bans as a "necessary evil".
My view is that no one has a gender. If folks want to think they do, be my guest, but it is a belief system not based on reality, should not be imposed on anyone else, and results in nothing but grievous harm when inscribed in law, policy, and medical practice. It is going to take continued hard pushing and speaking up on this for it to happen, but I think it is high time for the burden of proof to shift on this away from those of us who know what reality is to those who don’t. Ignorance, like that from this judge, is no excuse, and reprehensible.
..."should not be imposed on anyone else". I so agree! Recently attended a public library talk on "understanding gender". Oy. There were a number of well-meaning, compassionate Democrat grandmothers also in attendance, with the stated goal of "understanding" their grandchildren (I live in a very blue place, where the grandmas go to gender workshops). They were schooled in how to offer their names and preferred pronouns and why. "We've used they/them since the 1400s!" they were told by the facilitator. "Go home and practice this in the mirror! Three times a day!" These are our wise elders and this breaks my heart/infuriates me.
Susan: "My view is that no one has a gender. If folks want to think they do, be my guest, but it is a belief system not based on reality ..."
Really? You might note that Lisa -- Herself -- apparently does think people have genders, or at least did so some 3 years ago:
Lisa: "... spunky girls who act and dress boyishly, who don’t give a hoot about gender norms. .... were largely constrained by the gender roles of what was known as the 'cult of true womanhood,' .... What is gender-typical depends on race and class and geography, among other factors. .... The word tomboy is out of favor. Some people prefer gender nonconforming. ... [etc., etc.]"
Her primary thesis -- i.e., "tomboyism in America is firmly rooted in racism" -- is a bit of a stretch, but the idea of "gender" as sexual dimorphism in "act, dress, roles" -- personality in short -- has some merit and solid justification in brute fact and credible research. For example, you might take a close look at this 4th Wave Now essay:
4thWave: "This essay has been updated with a new graphical representation of sex-related differences in personality. ... In fact, due to the significant overlap of personality traits between males and females, the personality traits of some females will be more 'masculine' than those exhibited by some, or even most males, and vice versa."
IF one defines "gender" as masculine and feminine personalities and personality types -- as many people, including credible feminists, do -- and IF both the existence and the differences in those personalities and personality types are rooted in fact -- as that article clearly indicates is the case -- THEN it is simply untenable, if not rather "dogmatic", to insist that "gender is a belief system not based on reality".
In addition to which, if the concept of "gender" has some merit then it is not much of a stretch to go from it to "gender identity", even if a great many go off into the weeds with it.
Stanley: "Gender identity” is a bunch of postmodern, self-absorbed, navel gazing nonsense."
Your assertion is no more than a "bunch" of quite unscientific horse crap. Virtually identical to "4 legs good, 2 legs bad": a meaningless mantra, a threadbare strawman that you and too many "gender-critical ideologues" make a great show of thrashing.
No doubt whatsoever that a great deal of what comes under that heading is in fact incoherent twaddle -- outright "nonsense". But NOT ALL of it. You might try reading a couple of my recent comments here on the issue for details:
Stanley: "I agree that everyone has a unique personality. So what? The problem is that gender has become conflated with sex. "
So, you're missing my point, many of my points. Or refuse to consider them because of "prior commitments", unexamined assumptions, and articles of faith.
It's great that you at least recognize the fact that "everyone has a unique personality", and that some of our personality and psychological traits may be more typical of the other sex. But what you -- and Lisa and many of the "gender-critical ideologues" -- apparently refuse to consider is that many of the more rational proponents of the concept of gender take or DEFINE those personality differences to be synonymous with genders and gender identities.
You say po-ta-toe, they say po-tat-oe. Referring to the same things but you lot pigheadedly refuse to even consider the evidence to justify that equivalence. Bloody comedy of errors.
You're quite correct that "the problem is that gender has become conflated with sex". But a large part of the "reason" for that is too many -- mostly on the Right, among the religious, & by the scientifically illiterate -- insist that sex and gender are the same thing.
However, you're doing the same thing, contributing to the same problem by refusing to say exactly what you mean by "sex" and "gender". If you can't or won't say what they mean then that conflation is sort of the natural result.
There are clearly two sets of quite different properties or traits in play -- the psychological, and the biological; helps a great deal to give separate names to those different sets of traits. And DEFINING "gender" as personalities and personality types seems the best candidate on tap. And defining "sex" based on traits essential to reproduction is more or less standard in biology. A clear, fundamental, and essential dichotomy endorsed by many, including both the BMJ and the late Justice Scalia:
You may well be right that there's no such thing as a "gendered soul", but that's rather different from both "gender" and "gender identity", the last of which was the point of Hinkle's ruling and Lisa's post. "gendered soul" may well bear the same relation to "gender" as Deepak Chopra's "quantum healing" does to mainstream quantum physics. But trying to throw out the concept of gender because you think "gendered soul" is untenable seems little short of trying to do likewise to quantum physics.
"poor medical expertise supporting the state's position".
sorry. this couldnt be farther from the truth. gender activists have spent 20 years promoting completely false claims that arent supported by any evidence. the florida law is backed by a systematic medical review. similar reviews in UK and Euro nations also found this "care" doesnt help anything and causes severe harm. the US gov and gender activists have never done a systematic review to see if this "care" works. it doesnt. the salad bowl of bogus "studys" used by gender activists are nothing more than low quality info and meaningless online polls. its nothing more than an ad campaign pushed by big biz. UK medical group BMJ feb 2023 report "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising" explains how we got to a place where some people think gender "care" helps. its not based on evidence. its based on the opinions of drs getting rich from this fraud.
IMO, banning gender meds isnt the most importnant thing. whats more importnant is that people are warned of the public safety risk gender "care" poses, in a similar way as the public campaign warning of the risks of smoking
For clarity, I'm not saying there isn't good evidence in support of Florida's position, I'm saying it was not what was presented. Some of the doctors had never been involved in trans healthcare and were far outside their specialties, and had the appearance of ideological motivation.
yeah, i get it. maybe the State sensed how the judge would rule, so didnt want to bring its witnesses. ive been a dem my whole life. its not in gop intrest to settle this issue quickly. it would be better for gop if every democrat opponent of desantis went on the record in support of unpopular gender ideology first. thats the kind of thing that could sway votes toward the R side of that ballot with some well placed ads. but certainly courts challenges to gender "care" have been hindered by scarcity of witnesses that are a structural component of this "care". when one side claims kids are helped by, for example, becoming heroin addicts, then its only drs giving black tar and needles to little kids that are the "experts". perhaps higher courts are smart enough to see through the circular argument. the more judges rule in favor of gender affirming care, the more republicans win elections.
I was, BTW, interested in Lisa's point about AGP as a fetish, not a gender identity: "Others still are autogynephiles, who have an intense desire to have a “female” body or cross-dress; for some of them, transition works, too. But that doesn’t mean they have a “gender identity.” Rather, they have a sexual proclivity, or an orientation, that transcends traditional boundaries of gender: which some might call a fetish. Though “fetish” merely means an attraction to body parts or objects other than sexual organs (hence, “foot fetish), and does not mean “bad,” most people interpret a fetish as perverted. Thus, some autogynephiles prefer the nice, clean, truth-obscuring notion of gender identity."
This prompted me to look a little further, and I found this, at NIH. I thought the first sentence, particularly, was very useful: "Paraphilic disorders range from nearly normal behaviour to a behaviour which may be considered as destructive or menacing to the society at large. In accordance with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V, the terms Paraphilia and Paraphilic disorders, denote different interpretations. Multiple paraphilias connected to childhood either directly or indirectly has been documented in scientific literature. Paraphilic Infantilism, Diaperism and Pedophilia constitute major portion among them. Paraphilic infantilism denotes paraphilic desire of being a baby. Diaperism deals with fetishistic behaviour in relation to diapers and pedophilia stands for sexual attraction towards children." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29525580/#:~:text=Paraphilic%20Infantilism%2C%20Diaperism%20and%20Pedophilia%20constitute%20major%20portion%20among%20them,for%20sexual%20attraction%20towards%20children.
This highlights one of the additional things I object to so strongly about the current gender identity and related discourse: I have had to "learn" about a whole host of fetishes that are, indeed "destructive or menacing to society at large," in order to push back knowledgeably on those who persist in believing this is about giving little kids a scoop of Baskin Robbins.
When I had to dash out today into the orange, smoke-laden air, I was reminded quite visibly how so many people are wasting our time on pernicious nonsense, when we really, true do have better things we need to do. I will continue to speak up and try and get folks to see this, but I don't intend to ever forget or forgive those who forced this upon us.
i often find little bits of gender ideology riddled into Davis' writings. did she really write that transition "works". by what measure? theres no evidence it helps anything. yes agp is a sexual fetish and its a choice to display this fetish in public just as its a choice to ID as "trans". sure the $billion gender biz would like people to think that trans ID isnt a choice. but theres no evidence of that.
“As the person goes through life, the person also has a gender identity—a deeply felt internal sense of being male or female.”
The word “sense” is going a lot of heavy lifting here. What does the word “sense” as used here mean?
Well “sense” in the English language had two definitions:
1. A faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus. Aka 5 senses of smell, sight, touch, sound and taste.
Obviously that definition can’t be the meaning here bc a person who is trans by definition rejects the information about their sex acquired through their five senses and believes the opposite despite what their five senses tell them.
2. A feeling that something is the case.
That’s the only other possible definition of the word “sense” that could apply in the judges definition of gender identity.
So to this judge, gender identity is the feeling that you are the sex you are OR the feeling that you are the opposite sex than you are.
So this judges definition of a trans person is a person who feels and thinks that they are the opposite sex, despite all evidence to the contrary. And people who aren’t trans are people who feel or think that they are the sex that they are.
And we all share a common experience of “gender identity” which is the feeling that we are or aren’t the sex we are.
Okaaaaaaaay.
It is instantly obvious to anyone who has struggled with mental illness or seen someone struggle with mental illness up close that this who issue is basically just our society being terrified and ignorant of mental illnesses.
The stigma towards mental illness is so extreme in our society that people will tie themselves in knots making up terms and identity labels and laws to avoid the fact the fact that trans people display a known and researched psychological “condition” or, less pathologizing, a known psychological phenomenon: delusion (or to use medicalizing terminology, a delusional disorder).
Delusion/delusional disorders are hard to treat bc the patient by nature of the disorder is suspicious and delusional. But they can be successfully treated with psychotherapy, CBT, and medication. The key is to NEVER affirm the person’s delusional beliefs but also to not try to rationally refute their delusion (both of which we do wrong with trans people aka people with gender identity disorders). Empathize with their feelings and pain but don’t affirm (which is trapping people deeper in their mental illness and is the opposite of compassionate- trying to do whatever makes a delusional person not mad at you is selfish and cowardly. Have the strength to not get sucked into a person’s delusions bc it helps no one).
“Evidence suggests that delusional disorder can be triggered by stress. Alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder might contribute to the condition. Hypersensitivity and ego defense mechanisms like reaction formation, projection and denial are some psychodynamic theories for the development of delusional disorder. Social isolation, envy, distrust, suspicion and low self-esteem are also some psychological factors that may lead to a person seeking an explanation for these feelings and, thus, forming a delusion as a solution.” The cross-sex identity is a delusion that serves as a coping mechanism for stress and this applies to homosexual early-onset gender dysphoric people, homosexual or heterosexual adolescent-onset gender dysphoric people, late-transitioning sexually disordered/sexually paraphilic people, psychotic people, “personality disordered” people with delusions of envy, grandeur, persecution, etc as coping mechanisms (which often includes sexually disordered people), and autistic or neurodiverse people coping with social and sensory stressors. All of these issues are an interconnecting web with one person often experiencing two or more of these issues.
Emily: "So to this judge, gender identity is the feeling that you are the sex you are OR the feeling that you are the opposite sex than you are."
Sloppy thinking -- at best, being charitable -- on the part of that judge. Although that is rather typical in any discussion of gender and gender identity since the terms are so poorly defined.
But I kind of think that you're maybe misreading him, and expect that what Hinkle means by "male" and "female" as gender identities is not at all what he means by them as sexes. Something which Merriam-Webster more or less endorses, even if with circular definitions; but see Matt Walsh's take on that as well:
Merriam-Webster: “female:
1 a: of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs;
1 b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1549382790952656899
Not a particular problem as many words have multiple, often contradictory definitions. The problem is in not being aware of that, of changing horses in midstream as in the logical fallacy of equivocation:
Wikipedia (sexist): "Since only man [human] is rational.
And no woman is a man [male].
Therefore, no woman is rational."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
Largely why I -- and Scalia -- deprecate "male" and "female" as genders, arguing for "masculine" and "feminine", or for qualifying the words as in "female (sex)" and "female (gender)".
But Wikipedia also more or less clearly differentiates between "sex" and "gender identity":
Wikipedia: "Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender. Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex or can differ from it. In most individuals, the various biological determinants of sex are congruent, and consistent with the individual's gender identity. Gender expression typically reflects a person's gender identity, but this is not always the case. While a person may express behaviors, attitudes, and appearances consistent with a particular gender role, such expression may not necessarily reflect their gender identity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity
Bit of a dog's breakfast, but in the very terminology of "correlate with", they endorse the view that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish. Though one might be more like a basket of snakes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation
Emily: "“Evidence suggests that delusional disorder can be triggered by stress."
Source?
Lisa, thank you, yet once again, for your clarity. I particularly appreciated this observation: “Part of the problem with handling gender medicine in the courts, instead of figuring out how to properly regulate it via medical organizations and government health agencies that care about patient health, is that we end up battling ideologies instead of science. One man and his acceptance of radical ideas matters more than a systematic evidence review.”
I look forward very much to your article on the issue of bans. I have a personal view, which probably most aligns with that of Leor Sapir, but I am not nearly as well informed as you are on what needs to be considered here.
There is, BTW, for those who haven’t seen it, an excellent article in Forbes summarizing, among other things, the pulling back in Europe precisely because of the shoddy state of the science: https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/06/06/increasing-number-of-european-nations-adopt-a-more-cautious-approach-to-gender-affirming-care-among-minors/
In the last few days, I have made some inroads with additional friends on my D side of the aisle. What continues to be striking, though, even among those who are ordinarily skeptical of our profit driven Rube Goldberg health care “system,” is their willingness in this one instance to take it on trust that health care professionals know what they are doing and are basing it on sound science. I suspect the breathtaking ignorance and ideological illogic displayed by this judge will further exacerbate the problem.
It is hard to believe for many that....there is no "there" there, behind all these claims. The audacity of the lies (or the assumption that the science will vindicate them, perhaps) is breathtaking.
You make a REALLY good point here, which bears repeating often. I have had a couple more conversations with friends in recent days who have little to no information on the entire subject (and of course their news sources, eg NY Times and PBS) do nothing to enlighten them. In these cases, it is virtually impossible to get past their incredulity. It is one thing when the person or organization lying is known to be a liar, everyone I know gets that easily, but quite another when I am describing things that completely contradict what “trustworthy” organizations promote (ACLU, Planned Parenthood, all the medical associations and many medical journals). To get past that, I can only take the smallest of baby steps, use credible personal examples if available, then wait, wait, wait, until they are able to see where the truth actually lies. I hope for the day when this becomes such a full blown medical scandal it cannot be ignored, including by mainstream press. That cannot come soon enough!
The US could in principle restrict treatment to experimental studies, just like other countries....but let's look at what US studies have been done recently.
There's Olson et al., where they didn't bother to diagnose the young people in the study but just measured how long they stayed socially transitioned, there's Tordoff et al. (2022) where the majority of kids ended up medicalized but weren't seen to improve, and then there is Chen et al., 2023, which Singal discusses in detail, which had announced several outcome measures would be checked but which has only reported on 2 of the 8... (what happened to the other indicators they measured in the 2 years?) and two kids of the 315 committed suicide.
So yes, you could have US kids only being treated in studies, but the current studies are not protecting the young people right now (they or rather their parents are giving informed consent to clinicians who believe in the affirmative model and who at least write papers which are misleading and/or incorrect) and they are not being done well enough for anything to be learned. If an exception is made for studies, how do you make sure those in the studies are giving true *informed* consent (which rules out anyone listening to affirming clinicians as they are misinformed themselves). And how do you justify sterilizing young people to find out who might be helped or harmed by this? Minors?
The US has refused to look at facts, to do systematic reviews of the evidence, aside from Florida (and the Endocrine Society made recommendations which were stronger than the evidence seems to support, see the great article by Block in BMJ on this). So how do you keep every affirmative clinician from just saying they are doing a study and then business (and there's a lot!$$$$) as usual?
I don't have answers, would love to hear what you think. I don't think the answer is business as usual but I don't know how to deal with all the lies, bad faith and misinformation, I'm astounded they have gone on this long.
absolutely need to be exposed. But I worry that as long as the studies are so poorly done that anyone who "affirms" will just declare they are doing a study and then continue as usual....
It needs to be rebutted in the journals, not just by Jesse, on his blog. But indeed, the work was so badly written up that even a non-physician can see many fatal flaws and he did a fantastic job laying them out.
This judge is not only ideologically captured, but he is clearly out of touch with reality. "For less than 1%, the natal sex and gender identity are opposites." He doesn't seem aware of the huge increase in teenagers—mainly girls—deciding that they are trans and having their new identity automatically affirmed.
I gagged when I read,
<<Others—naturally feminine males and masculine females—came to understand that they had internalized so much homophobia, they saw no room for themselves in their sex category. They couldn’t accept themselves as men and women, in part perhaps because others couldn’t, either.>>
There you have it, we can trans away the gay. It's unethical if not illegal "conversion therapy" to try to change the patient's same-sex attraction; but wait! We can carve up their bodies into a pitifully poor imitation of the other sex, and voilà! Same-sex attraction gone!
And we don't have the difficult job of teaching them they are fine, just the way God made them.
I want to report on a very interesting, and unexpectedly positive, conversation with a friend in California that I had today. She finally broke her silence over emails I had been sending to friends about my concerns, and providing information about, gender identity and its vast negative fall-out, including, notably, the travesty that is called “gender-affirming” care. Her email breaking her silence did not bode well:
“I don’t know what has sent you down this path on gender but, I can’t follow. The whole discussion about sex and gender is very complex. I know you don’t want anything bad to happen to anyone but in this society violence always arrives before reason. We have family and friends who are non-binary and trans. I’m working hard to understand and accept how they feel and how to support them. It is my responsibility to adapt. I look at our grandson who has friends who are gender flexible. It’s a different world for them, a more inclusive and probably more enlightened generation. They don’t care if someone is a they or them. Or whatever. Which is as it should be in my view. It took time for me to realize that I had to say something and not ignore my concerns.”
Bolstered by a phone conversation with Coastal Elite, I decided to go ahead and call her and try to talk it through. I was not at all sure this was wise, but I realized it would just fester if I didn’t just pick up the phone. So I did. I started by confirming that young people engaged in exploration of who they wanted to be, how they fit in, all of that, is what young people do, and that I certainly had no objection to that. Where I become concerned, I noted, is when adults, like teachers, weigh in to tell them who they might be, giving as an example my friend Coastal telling me about teachers saying to girls with short hair and jeans, do you think you might actually be a boy.
My friend had an immediate, visceral reaction that that was wrong. It transpired that she believed strongly that parents, not the state or any outside actors, should be in charge of raising their children. In other words, though she didn’t know anything about the larger issues, she was very much opposed to parental abolition. It turns out she had not observed this problem among any of her friend and family group, so wasn’t aware of the problem. I explained that it was my becoming aware of it and seeing the terrible pain it was causing that led to my sense of urgency and feeling I had to act in the only way I had, which was writing to, and where possible, speaking with friends.
This is all it took, as it turned out, to set us on track for a good, positive conversation, in which we had many, many more points of agreement than anything else.
We joked at the end about how e-mail is so horribly insufficient as a means of communication, but at the same time neither one of us like talking on the phone. We vowed, as we had several months ago, when we last picked up the phone, that we should really do it again.
A stunning twitter thread.......yes, I know what many think about its author, but work your way through it.
Starts like this:
"The largest “trans healthcare” providers in the U.S. are rubber-stamping letters approving gruesome, life-altering surgeries. It’s such a racket that my producer was approved for testicle removal in #22minutes. The tape is disturbing."
https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1666496308150951954
Matt Walsh is an ally in this effort
Has anyone read this article by Gerald Posner in today's WSJournal?
https://twitter.com/geraldposner/status/1666542120532865026
Let’s say for the sake of argument that we let the judge have the point that gender identity is real and everyone has one. Where is his evidence that a child’s gender identity is stable and can known by the child before a certain age? We see how the child on the cover of the famous National Geographic gender issue changed from having a gender identify of a girl at age nine to non-binary as a teenager. The Dutch are reporting changing gender identities among the first children (now young adults) from the Dutch studies that started the widespread use of puberty blockers. How old does a child need to be to “sense” their gender identity? What does “sending” even mean? Does blocking puberty affect a child’s ability to accurately “sense” any changes that may happen in the development of their gender identity? Just believing in a gender identity doesn’t give all the answers needed to make good decisions
<<Where is his evidence that a child’s gender identity is stable and can known by the child before a certain age?>> There is none, of course. In fact, there is, in principle, no such evidence even possible. It is purely an interior or spiritual perception entirely inaccessible to the exterior material world or other people. The ancient Gnostics would have loved it. Popper would be scandalized that anyone would take significant irreversible action based on an idea that could neither be confirmed nor falsified. Yet here we are, with prison officials confining convicted rapists in women's prisons based on nothing more than his own reports of the state of his mind.
As for stable, i guess the judge didn't ask what was stable about "gender fluid" or how anyone could tell whether there was a change in a "nonbinary" person's gender or in anyone's gender who claimed one of the dozens of tailor-made "genders", even one obviously invented for the occasion. Even more troubling is that the judge apparently wasn't at all sceptical about the recent epidemic of recent onset gender dysphoria (misleadingly called "rapid onset", or ROGD) among teenage girls who've previously reported no such feelings.
To be blunt, I have to suspect the lawyers defending the Florida law were not adequately informed or prepared to present the case for taking extreme caution in taking irreversible, life altering actions for children. I'm sure the activists bringing the case presented what would ordinarily be a very persuasive case based on the statements from the relevant professional societies, but the result here doesn't show the least awareness of the reasons to doubt their conclusions.
Defeating an ideology in detail is a time-consuming, expensive, and arduous process.
good. let the record show a federal judge appointed by clinton has swallowed multiple unevidenced and incorrect claims of gender activists. getting this all on record is a necessary step to unraveling this harmful fraud. this is an improvement from the past 20 years of gender activism occuring in secret where schools wont share their indoctrination materials even with a FOIA order.
The only good of all the extreme measure on the part of the progressive left is that they will eventually take it so far that they'll wake up the sleeping middle.
First, I want to offer apologies if anyone has responded to something I've written here and I haven't seen it. When threads get long, I am not able to get back to a specific comment.
I've decided to take a break from all this, as it's time for me to reflect a bit and recharge. That said, I want to leave you with this observation:
Perhaps the most frustrating thing I've encountered when reaching out to adult friends about the ten alarm fire we are in is that they think this is all about the personal journeys of young people, and nothing else. What I have come to, to get past that barrier, is immediately to point out that young people are doing what they are supposed to do, which is explore widely in an effort to figure out where they belong. They are not the problem: it is the adults who have completely abdicated their responsibility to be reliable guides. (Please know, I am not by any means including in this the parents here, who are trying so hard with everything against them.)
Our young people, as everyone here knows, are in deep, deep trouble, and leaving them to their own devices, particularly with all the bad actors out there (Rachel Levine, the list goes on) does them no favors. Too many adults have left the room, and they need to come back.
Susan: "When threads get long, I am not able to get back to a specific comment."
Substack kinda sucks in that department. I've complained several times about their deletion of the "Collapse" function -- to little avail so far, although I got a head honcho to consider it:
https://helendale.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman/comment/16914213
But, en passant, I often bookmark specific comments so I can more easily get back to a particular thread.
Susan: "... they think this is all about the personal journeys of young people, and nothing else."
Indeed. Sad that the lives of so many kids and parents are being destroyed by this dogma. But arguably more important is what it is doing to our social institutions which affect us all. You might have some interest in my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology", particularly in the brief discussion therein of Joanna Williams' essay on "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/2454-A-The-Corrosive-Impact-of-TI-ppi-110-WEB.pdf
I read part of the ruling and was stunned that it's written as if things like Tavistock, European questioning, Barnes's "Time to Think", various articles such as those of Reuters the Economist, even NYTimes...didn't exist.
Weirdly enough the parts of I've read reminded me of the way psychology/psychiatrists/DSM would write about homosexuality as an illness....it has that same credulity and lack of awareness.
Thought I'd share this:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/florida-judge-blocks-trans-ban-5
As a side note, the sky here in New York City is now a livid orange. Sort of the way I am feeling about all of this gender crap today!
The ruling makes clear a major problem with the Florida law - animus on the part of some of those behind it and (other than Dr. Levine) poor medical expertise supporting the state's position. The judge was clearly influenced by the belief that the Florida legislators were less motivated by science than by ideology, something that is much harder to say in the European countries where reform has come through the medical profession. Ultimately, I think reform in the US is more likely to come through a mix of impact litigation and longterm data, rather than bans. Although it is possible the current Supreme Court will reverse this (as it did Roe), Ultimately, I don't think submitting healthcare to shifting political winds is the best course. If the Florida law had been more moderate (leaving the research setting exemption initially included) and hadn't had the indicia of animus towards transgender people, the outcome may have been different.
I agree. Whatever the legal or policy strategy that answers Lisa's question: "Who wants to calm the fuck down so we can rationally figure out what to do?" seems to be the better path. But the immediate outcomes for vulnerable kids seem so poor, that I also have sympathy for the notion of bans as a "necessary evil".
As for "gender ideology", I thought this video addressed it well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPVNxYkawao). I'm with Lisa, I don't think I have one either.
Finally, I recently heard Sasha Ayad call puberty blockers a "start button" rather than a "pause button", which I think expresses it well.
My view is that no one has a gender. If folks want to think they do, be my guest, but it is a belief system not based on reality, should not be imposed on anyone else, and results in nothing but grievous harm when inscribed in law, policy, and medical practice. It is going to take continued hard pushing and speaking up on this for it to happen, but I think it is high time for the burden of proof to shift on this away from those of us who know what reality is to those who don’t. Ignorance, like that from this judge, is no excuse, and reprehensible.
..."should not be imposed on anyone else". I so agree! Recently attended a public library talk on "understanding gender". Oy. There were a number of well-meaning, compassionate Democrat grandmothers also in attendance, with the stated goal of "understanding" their grandchildren (I live in a very blue place, where the grandmas go to gender workshops). They were schooled in how to offer their names and preferred pronouns and why. "We've used they/them since the 1400s!" they were told by the facilitator. "Go home and practice this in the mirror! Three times a day!" These are our wise elders and this breaks my heart/infuriates me.
Susan: "My view is that no one has a gender. If folks want to think they do, be my guest, but it is a belief system not based on reality ..."
Really? You might note that Lisa -- Herself -- apparently does think people have genders, or at least did so some 3 years ago:
Lisa: "... spunky girls who act and dress boyishly, who don’t give a hoot about gender norms. .... were largely constrained by the gender roles of what was known as the 'cult of true womanhood,' .... What is gender-typical depends on race and class and geography, among other factors. .... The word tomboy is out of favor. Some people prefer gender nonconforming. ... [etc., etc.]"
https://lithub.com/the-racist-history-of-celebrating-the-american-tomboy/
Her primary thesis -- i.e., "tomboyism in America is firmly rooted in racism" -- is a bit of a stretch, but the idea of "gender" as sexual dimorphism in "act, dress, roles" -- personality in short -- has some merit and solid justification in brute fact and credible research. For example, you might take a close look at this 4th Wave Now essay:
4thWave: "This essay has been updated with a new graphical representation of sex-related differences in personality. ... In fact, due to the significant overlap of personality traits between males and females, the personality traits of some females will be more 'masculine' than those exhibited by some, or even most males, and vice versa."
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
IF one defines "gender" as masculine and feminine personalities and personality types -- as many people, including credible feminists, do -- and IF both the existence and the differences in those personalities and personality types are rooted in fact -- as that article clearly indicates is the case -- THEN it is simply untenable, if not rather "dogmatic", to insist that "gender is a belief system not based on reality".
In addition to which, if the concept of "gender" has some merit then it is not much of a stretch to go from it to "gender identity", even if a great many go off into the weeds with it.
Stanley: "Gender identity” is a bunch of postmodern, self-absorbed, navel gazing nonsense."
Your assertion is no more than a "bunch" of quite unscientific horse crap. Virtually identical to "4 legs good, 2 legs bad": a meaningless mantra, a threadbare strawman that you and too many "gender-critical ideologues" make a great show of thrashing.
No doubt whatsoever that a great deal of what comes under that heading is in fact incoherent twaddle -- outright "nonsense". But NOT ALL of it. You might try reading a couple of my recent comments here on the issue for details:
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/florida/comment/17050351
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/florida/comment/17082212
Stanley: "I agree that everyone has a unique personality. So what? The problem is that gender has become conflated with sex. "
So, you're missing my point, many of my points. Or refuse to consider them because of "prior commitments", unexamined assumptions, and articles of faith.
It's great that you at least recognize the fact that "everyone has a unique personality", and that some of our personality and psychological traits may be more typical of the other sex. But what you -- and Lisa and many of the "gender-critical ideologues" -- apparently refuse to consider is that many of the more rational proponents of the concept of gender take or DEFINE those personality differences to be synonymous with genders and gender identities.
You say po-ta-toe, they say po-tat-oe. Referring to the same things but you lot pigheadedly refuse to even consider the evidence to justify that equivalence. Bloody comedy of errors.
You're quite correct that "the problem is that gender has become conflated with sex". But a large part of the "reason" for that is too many -- mostly on the Right, among the religious, & by the scientifically illiterate -- insist that sex and gender are the same thing.
However, you're doing the same thing, contributing to the same problem by refusing to say exactly what you mean by "sex" and "gender". If you can't or won't say what they mean then that conflation is sort of the natural result.
There are clearly two sets of quite different properties or traits in play -- the psychological, and the biological; helps a great deal to give separate names to those different sets of traits. And DEFINING "gender" as personalities and personality types seems the best candidate on tap. And defining "sex" based on traits essential to reproduction is more or less standard in biology. A clear, fundamental, and essential dichotomy endorsed by many, including both the BMJ and the late Justice Scalia:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
You may well be right that there's no such thing as a "gendered soul", but that's rather different from both "gender" and "gender identity", the last of which was the point of Hinkle's ruling and Lisa's post. "gendered soul" may well bear the same relation to "gender" as Deepak Chopra's "quantum healing" does to mainstream quantum physics. But trying to throw out the concept of gender because you think "gendered soul" is untenable seems little short of trying to do likewise to quantum physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_healing
"poor medical expertise supporting the state's position".
sorry. this couldnt be farther from the truth. gender activists have spent 20 years promoting completely false claims that arent supported by any evidence. the florida law is backed by a systematic medical review. similar reviews in UK and Euro nations also found this "care" doesnt help anything and causes severe harm. the US gov and gender activists have never done a systematic review to see if this "care" works. it doesnt. the salad bowl of bogus "studys" used by gender activists are nothing more than low quality info and meaningless online polls. its nothing more than an ad campaign pushed by big biz. UK medical group BMJ feb 2023 report "Gender dysphoria in young people is rising" explains how we got to a place where some people think gender "care" helps. its not based on evidence. its based on the opinions of drs getting rich from this fraud.
IMO, banning gender meds isnt the most importnant thing. whats more importnant is that people are warned of the public safety risk gender "care" poses, in a similar way as the public campaign warning of the risks of smoking
For clarity, I'm not saying there isn't good evidence in support of Florida's position, I'm saying it was not what was presented. Some of the doctors had never been involved in trans healthcare and were far outside their specialties, and had the appearance of ideological motivation.
yeah, i get it. maybe the State sensed how the judge would rule, so didnt want to bring its witnesses. ive been a dem my whole life. its not in gop intrest to settle this issue quickly. it would be better for gop if every democrat opponent of desantis went on the record in support of unpopular gender ideology first. thats the kind of thing that could sway votes toward the R side of that ballot with some well placed ads. but certainly courts challenges to gender "care" have been hindered by scarcity of witnesses that are a structural component of this "care". when one side claims kids are helped by, for example, becoming heroin addicts, then its only drs giving black tar and needles to little kids that are the "experts". perhaps higher courts are smart enough to see through the circular argument. the more judges rule in favor of gender affirming care, the more republicans win elections.
I was, BTW, interested in Lisa's point about AGP as a fetish, not a gender identity: "Others still are autogynephiles, who have an intense desire to have a “female” body or cross-dress; for some of them, transition works, too. But that doesn’t mean they have a “gender identity.” Rather, they have a sexual proclivity, or an orientation, that transcends traditional boundaries of gender: which some might call a fetish. Though “fetish” merely means an attraction to body parts or objects other than sexual organs (hence, “foot fetish), and does not mean “bad,” most people interpret a fetish as perverted. Thus, some autogynephiles prefer the nice, clean, truth-obscuring notion of gender identity."
This prompted me to look a little further, and I found this, at NIH. I thought the first sentence, particularly, was very useful: "Paraphilic disorders range from nearly normal behaviour to a behaviour which may be considered as destructive or menacing to the society at large. In accordance with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V, the terms Paraphilia and Paraphilic disorders, denote different interpretations. Multiple paraphilias connected to childhood either directly or indirectly has been documented in scientific literature. Paraphilic Infantilism, Diaperism and Pedophilia constitute major portion among them. Paraphilic infantilism denotes paraphilic desire of being a baby. Diaperism deals with fetishistic behaviour in relation to diapers and pedophilia stands for sexual attraction towards children." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29525580/#:~:text=Paraphilic%20Infantilism%2C%20Diaperism%20and%20Pedophilia%20constitute%20major%20portion%20among%20them,for%20sexual%20attraction%20towards%20children.
This highlights one of the additional things I object to so strongly about the current gender identity and related discourse: I have had to "learn" about a whole host of fetishes that are, indeed "destructive or menacing to society at large," in order to push back knowledgeably on those who persist in believing this is about giving little kids a scoop of Baskin Robbins.
When I had to dash out today into the orange, smoke-laden air, I was reminded quite visibly how so many people are wasting our time on pernicious nonsense, when we really, true do have better things we need to do. I will continue to speak up and try and get folks to see this, but I don't intend to ever forget or forgive those who forced this upon us.
i often find little bits of gender ideology riddled into Davis' writings. did she really write that transition "works". by what measure? theres no evidence it helps anything. yes agp is a sexual fetish and its a choice to display this fetish in public just as its a choice to ID as "trans". sure the $billion gender biz would like people to think that trans ID isnt a choice. but theres no evidence of that.