My position on this isn’t stable. I gave my eldest daughter my mothers name. She passed away when I was pregnant with her. We had a very special and close bond. Up until the last minute, my daughter understood and felt very honored to have her name. She has chosen the first letter of her name as her nickname. She uses they/them pronouns and that is something I just try and not use pronouns at all. However I use her full name and correct pronouns with everyone I speak to about her and try and use pet names when I speak to her. We argued about changing it in my contacts and I told her no, I couldn’t do it. I explained what it meant to me to see that name every day and how deep it was for me to do that and then left it at that. I’m sure she wasn’t happy but it ended the conversation and it’s never come up again. As far as controlling how someone speaks when you’re not around, it’s completely pathological. It would be as if I asked her if I were Christian to never take the lords name in vain not just in my presence but at all times. To never swear because it was against my beliefs and was extremely offensive to me and important to stay true to. I feel it’s extremely immature and narrow to ask someone to do this. To be able to let go of demanding that others capitulate to our demands requires maturity which takes time. I always remind her to ask any adult over 40 if they knew themselves at the age of 18 like really understood themselves now and the world. Ha! Most will say they hadn’t a clue. Humility is something we learn and grow into as we age.
"It would be as if I asked her if I were Christian to never take the lords name in vain not just in my presence but at all times. To never swear because it was against my beliefs and was extremely offensive to me and important to stay true to. I feel it’s extremely immature and narrow to ask someone to do this". I respectfully disagree : Especially if your daughter is a minor, it is well within your rights and responsibilities to teach her to behave according to your family values at all times. I am not Christian but I do believe that a Christian parent can set expectations about swearing or using the word "God" for their kids. I think the word "controlling" is a bit overused in the modern society. Teaching our kids our values is not controlling. (Now, of course you cannot expect other adults for whom you are not responsible to follow your beliefs and telling them what words to use or not to use is controlling and weird)
Excellent analogy with “taking the lord’s name in vain not just in my presence but at all times”! It’s a power play. I’ve often said that gender theory is essentially forcing everyone to believe in someone else’s “religion”. Usually that statement is met with blank stares and/or protestations that it’s simply about politeness (when it’s actually about who gets to define reality).
And it tears at my heart that the very real pain of the parents is so little acknowledged, while every emotion of the child defines the experience.
When my daughter was in the depths of her trans identification, I saw that she scratched out her name that I wrote on the calendar ("X at dentist" kind of note). It made my heart bleed, but I henceforth consciously stuck to the first initial (which was also the first initial of her chosen trans name) to try to show her that I cared about how she felt and tried to accommodate her to the extent that I was able to. At home we avoided gendered words but used sex-based pronouns and her given name, though we used "kid" and "child of mine" a lot. I know of families where the parents use the chosen name and pronouns, and families where the parents said a hard "no" to either name or pronouns, and it seems that some kind of a middle way is best - some attempt at a compromise to show that you really do care about their feelings, but also enables at least a toe hold on reality. It's so so hard...
By the way, I'm totally ordering the book! So so so happy that Sasha, Lisa, and Stella wrote it!
Disclaimer: I’m a parent, but both of my kids are under 10 and neither IDs as trans.
Baby names have been my hobby since I was ten. I did serious *work* on my kids’ names, researching the historical backgrounds (firsts and middles), popularity (didn’t want anything in the top 500), thinking about the syllables and how the name sounded out loud. I tried my kids’ names out in various sentences. “Court is now in session, the Honorable [Name] presiding.” “And the Oscar goes to…[Name].” “And here from Washington with reaction is Senator [Name] of [State].” My kids’ names are three-word poems that I published in legal records for the whole world to read.
If one of my kids wanted a name change, I’d be heartbroken. If one of my kids declared that the name I gave them was their “deadname,” I’d flip my shit. “I sat in the ER, pregnant and bleeding, praying to God that I wasn’t having a miscarriage and you were still alive.” (Both kids.) “The doctor had to cut my C-section incision wider so your head could come out and you wouldn’t suffocate.” (Oldest kid - breech baby.) “So don’t you DARE tell me that anything about you is ‘dead.’”
"My kids’ names are three-word poems that I published in legal records for the whole world to read." This is a beautiful sentence and a beautiful sentiment, that kind of breaks my heart. I found myself reciting my own kids' poems, one of which has been modified, by its owner, in the legal records. The excerpt Lisa has shared offers such great advice and is also very honest in sharing that the authors just don't know which way one strategy will play out in different families. The sample dialog is such a great starting point, and I hope it will be shared widely.
Re "The name a trans-identified person chooses often has a purpose—to signify that they are leaving behind their old self and embracing a new identity."
I've long wondered if American kids might benefit from more attention to life/age transitions through "rites of passage." I know it can sound silly, but I've even thought it might be useful to allow kids to choose a name for themselves as part of a ceremony/recognition of passage from childhood to young-adulthood (say, at 13 or so, a la Bar/Bat Mitzvah).
The name could be akin to a second middle name, or it could, if the child so chose, become their "use" name — a concept that some cultures have, or even a "secret" name (the writer Ursula K. Le Guin postulated something like this in her excellent Earthsea fantasy novels).
If all this sounds absurd to parents and adults, I can understand that. And yet, as a kid (I'm almost 62), I would have relished a ceremony recognizing my passage, and even more, the agency to choose a name for myself (whether it would be used day-to-day or not).
I know this isn't the solution to the trans mess we're in with kids. But I do think there is some wisdom in rites of passage, and especially here in the U.S., it seems to me that we've moved too far away from them (I'm speaking from a white perspective; obviously, as with a Quinceañera and Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, not all cultures have abandoned the idea).
Catholics get to choose a saint's name when they are confirmed (itself, a rite of passage) I did this this when I was in grade 5 but I understand it's done in grade 7 or 8 now.
there's something seductive about choosing a name for yourself; I often wonder if the name change fuels some of this trans mania
Again, in my conception, the name chosen by a kid could be given weight on a spectrum, depending on what the family is comfortable with. I mean, it's entirely possible that some exuberant (I was one!) kids would choose, I don't know, Gandalf, or Hermione, or whatever.
On the other hand, I actually don't mind the idea of giving kids some agency over such things. In cultures where this sort of thing occurs, it's also a moment of respect and recognition that the young person is moving into a time of more responsibility. That one's chosen name might have *power* — i.e. is seductive — could, I believe, be channeled in most cases to something positive.
And my vision is about much more than a name. A rite of passage is an opportunity to teach, and to honor both the kid and tradition, a potentially solemn and meaningful process in which the idea of growing *maturity* would be at center stage.
I was just about to write this. The Catholic Church has rites of passage throughout life. Pre Vatican II, we received the Sacrament of Confirmation at age 12, at which time we chose a saint name. It’s now 16, I believe, but the significance is unchanged. I still love my saint name. Rites of passage are simply wonderful.
I was thinking about something very like this--though without your excellent name for it. Way back when, my Mom decided that she would not have us baptized until we were six, at which time we could choose our own middle names. At the time, Evelyn Rudie was a big name for kids, as she played Eloise in a TV play. My best friend, whose Mom made delicious donuts, was named Jean. For a few weeks, at the dinner table, Dad would jokingly call me after all the choices I was considering: well, Susan Eloise Evelyn Jean Scheid, have you picked a middle name yet? Mom sat tight and was clearly relieved when I decided against Eloise and Evelyn and in favor of Jean. (As an adult, I was actually happier with her choice, which was Elizabeth, after a favorite aunt, and for a long time I went by both her choice and mine.)
I wish it were all as simple and playful for parents these days.
This is the first time I've heard about this and it sounds awesome. I think it helps kids understand why names are so valuable and helps them think a little deeper about who they want to be, especially if researching the meanings of names are encouraged. Healthy coming of age ceremonies are desperately needed in our modern society.
The idea that "coming out" as trans is the same as "coming out" as gay is a false equivilency. A child saying they are same sex attracted requires nothing of the listener, coming out as trans demands a sliding scale of adherence to rules dictated by the child. Perhaps that is the point.
The sliding scale of this acceptance takes place on multiple fronts, through use of words via pronouns and names, legally and medically. No guidance that I have read from schools identifies where on this sliding scale schools must reign in and refer to parents. The idea that they will be assisting with gender markers on passports and access to cross-sex hormones is certainly a possibility.
Initially of course they are love bombed by a community that seems keen to invite them in, but increasingly the demands put on others regarding pronouns, acceptance and myopic adherence to ever-shifting sands of rules mean that ordinary people no longer wish to talk with the child for fear of getting things wrong, thus further compounding the issue.
You may think I am being overdramatic, however in the school district I am in, I have been through the protocols and they go as far as altering names on school documentation, the local Child/Adolescent mental health group offers rides to their facility (presumably to avoid parental scrutiny) to issue binders and give legal advice on name changes.
Schools use the reason that they don't tell parents is because parents will not accept the child as trans in the same way they may not accept a child is gay. However again the situation is different, parents know that they best possible outcome for their child is radical acceptance of themselves as they are and see the road to surgeries and hormones as the worst possible outcome.
Re "... coming out as trans demands a sliding scale of adherence to rules dictated by the child. Perhaps that is the point."
It sure seems to be that way in some cases, at least. I mean, come on, a kid is already in an individuating process as he or she enters teenhood, during which many (not all!) kids will experience conflict with parents. How cool to have this magical tool handed to you, with which you can *demand* X, Y and Z of these supposedly terrible dictators in your life.
The fact that there are "trans activists," i.e. adults, cheering kids on and pushing their genuinely bizarre agenda ("You *must* speak as *I* wish you to speak, even if I'm not present ... Caitlyn Jenner not only *is* a woman, but *always has been* a woman..." etc. ... Sure, tell that to the guys Jenner defeated in the Olympic decathlon) is the most troubling thing of all, to me.
It’s a Catch-22, change your name to sound like the old one, and people think it’s cheesy, change your name to be nothing like the old one and you’ve “taken one of the most precious things” from parents, don’t change the name at all, and you’re Dylan Mulvaney.
People didn’t like that Dylan Mulvaney didn’t have a name change? Dylan was the name of Drew Barrymore’s character in “Charlie’s Angels,” so it feels unisex to me.
Reading the literature of cult "deprogramming" it was clear that forcible deconversion is both difficult and legally fraught. People are allowed to join cults. My suggested script would be like this:
"You are asking me to believe something I know isn't true. I believe that you believe it. I do not share your belief. If I don't believe it, I can't say it like it's true. I will do it if you insist but I will always be acting. Do you want me to be an actor for you all the time? Acting is exhausting. Just ask [their favorite actor]. You can wear any costume any time you want, dear. When you are tired out at the end of the day I know who you are."
FYI, I urge everyone to comment on the Citizen's Petition directed to the FDA (FDA-2023-P-3767, "Request the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to take urgent action concerning the off-label use of GnRH agonists, a class of drugs also known as Puberty Blockers in Children"). You can find the petition at this link: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2023-P-3767-0001
In commenting, the category to use from the drop down list is "Category: Drug Industry C0022." You can comment anonymously. As you'll see, the petition does an excellent job of laying out the relevant evidence and reasoning in support of its very reasonable recommendations for action.
Thanks to Lisa for posting this. The struggles parents face, with medicalization looming, are unconscionable, underscoring the need for all of us who are not facing this as parents or family members to fight for change on a societal level, in whatever ways we can, large or small. Key areas to focus on right now on that level seem to be continuing to get the word out in any way we can, getting gender identity ideology out of schools, and severely limiting, if not outright banning, medicalization of minors, but I would be interested in anyone’s thoughts here on what would be most helpful right now.
Thanks, Lisa - and thanks, Susan. For Californians, a new organization (working with Erin Friday, who Lisa has interviewed and who was recently on Benjamin Boyce to discuss further) is launching three ballot initiatives: https://protectkidsca.com/initiatives/ Maybe something to look into?
That is a great initiative. I am not in CA, but glad to be reminded to keep a lookout for anything like that to support in NY. You remind me, also, of another initiative, which Genspect explains here: https://twitter.com/genspect/status/1699150610061263284
It is “A Citizen Petition has been filed with the US_FDA regarding "Action Urgently Needed to Address Off-Label Use of Puberty Blockers in Children". Docket #: FDA-2023-P-376”
I Don't have any children. So, I have a unique viewpoint. Who is introducing this to children? Rather than teaching them their ABC"s they are allowing them to be indoctrinated by ideas that spring from Marxist ideology that infests our schools. A child going thru the grocery store will fill the cart with candy unless the parent keeps an eye on what they are doing. No difference here, teachers, friends, internet, social media all pushing a child to comply with this ideology. Parents should be the primary arbitrator in this issue. The parents need to have tools to speak with their child, professional help, child psychiatrist to eliminate other medical issues and a path to follow. This article is a good start at addressing your child's issues. I know I don't have to deal with a child demanding you do what they want, but you are the parent so get to it.
I am so eager to get my copy of this book and read the rest of this! They are out at the forefront of thinking of this and helping families navigate it.
Sasha and Stella are doing one of their workshops at the end of the month, in person, that's where the link in Lisa's introduction goes!
(And Lisa, I wish there were more hours in a day so that you would find time to write up all the things you have found, so we can read those as well. Ever grateful for all you've done and are doing!)
I'm afraid your comments seem to me not to respond to what I actually wrote, but to sidestep it and concentrate on making assertions instead about other matters. Some of them seem to me true but many oversimplified, made worse by pronouncing them as absolute truth in the name of "science". Invocations of science should be based on logic, i.e. should respond logically to the specific question at hand; not be invoked in an angry tone as if settling the question without ever facing it, or for whipping up anger about vaguely related things. These methods are not really appropriate for reasoned discussion, and it would hardly be appropriate to respond to the arguments made with such methods. Best wishes anyway.
Honestly, it tires me to need to respond to the people who are just the repeating this same false, and insulting polemic, making the same leaps in logic and fact that seem to come from a gay writer who pretends to speak for science and thinks all trans are really just delusional gays.
My interlocutor’s argument provides a case in point. It is simply untrue that cis people are cis because they "accept reality". They are cis because they feel inwardly something about what kind of sexual body would work with their spirit, and it conforms to their natal sexual biology. They feel that way probably because their brain structure and brain wiring hardwires them to feel that way. It's not a choice.
The same fact applies conversely to trans people. They are trans because they feel inwardly something about how their sexual body would have to be to work with their spirit, and it conflicts too greatly with their natal sexual biology. And it probably often has to do with brain structure, too.
That's not a choice. It's not called "rejecting reality", as in your language of making reckless insults. It's called facing reality. Facing a very unwelcome reality, and refusing to deny it.
Probably, as I said, in many cases this is because of brain structure and wiring. There is some evidence for this.
Logically, this brain structure divergence would make them a newly understood form of intersex. Newly discovered, because people had no chance to understand this until we got MRIs. All the discussions of intersex, gay, and trans proceeded for millenia in ignorance of this. The mistakes over those millennia deserve correcting, not repeating.
The gay polemics like in "Reality's Last Stand", which says this makes the trans actually deluded repressed gays, has it backwards. Probably there are both trans and gay people legitimately. But if it were to have to be all one to the exclusion of the other, then it would have to be said that it makes far more sense to consider someone a transwoman, for having a female-range brain inside an otherwise-male body, than to consider them "gay".
That's because "gay" is a category that does not explain anything, it just provides a name to classify the phenomenon; the word “gay” has nothing to do with making biological or causal sense of it. By contrast, transwoman, as a word to categorize a female brain and spirit inside an otherwise male body, does make biological and causal sense; it does explain the phenomenon.
Be careful, gay friends out there, what you argue for. You might not like what you get. It might come back to hit you instead of hitting your target.
There is nothing wrong or unhealthy about having a female brain. Nor about having a male body. Trans have a healthy brain and a healthy body.
If the two conflict, the problem is in the interface, not the brain or the body. But the problem in the interface can be fixed only by fixing the brain or body, as best one can. Fixing the body is something we can at least partly do, with reasonable rates of success. "Fixing" the brain has been a nightmare in most cases where it has been tried.
Which is not to say there are not plenty of people who are deluded about being trans, and would benefit from honest psychoanalysis. Don't try putting words in my mouth and pretending that's what I mean. It would be well if all trans people could get better, more honest therapy and psychoanalysis. Which means honest, real, hard, open-ended psychological analytic work, the kind that avoids both ideological affirmation and ideological denial. The ideological denial version is a secular equivalent of conversion therapy. It's painfully obvious that this kind of secularized conversion therapy is in fact what a lot of anti-trans writers are advocating, including some on this list, even though they get furious and say they're being demonized when anyone points it out.
Real therapy is hard. A lot harder than affirming therapy and denying therapy alike. Those don't require any real mental effort.
So, if it's logical to be trans when brain doesn't fit body, does that mean all gay people are really transwomen, trying presumably to suppress it out of their internalized transphobia? No, and don't try putting those words in my mouth either. I'm simply pointing out the fairly obvious fact that the reasoning of some gay polemicists, who say all transwomen are really gays hiding out from their internalized homophobia, is hopelessly wrong. And they would do well to realize that it would make at least somewhat less bad sense if they were to turn it around and say that they and other gays are actually transwomen hiding out as gays because of internalized transphobia. What I am in fact saying for myself is that (1) there are enough trans people and gay people around to make it highly probable that both exist equally for real, (2) a female-range brain inside an otherwise male body would probably be able to give rise to either a genuine gay or a genuine trans in different cases, and (3) if however the gay anti-trans writers were right that it has to be all the one or all the other, then more likely it would be all truly trans than all truly gay.
The plain fact is that there has been far more transphobia than homophobia around to internalize, so it is intrinsically more likely for there to be more trans people hiding out as gays than the other way around. This is for obvious reasons. People are far more scared of being trans than of being gay. Being trans has been far more disreputable socially, and probably still is today everywhere in the world except Iran. And it scares the heck out of anyone to think they're trans and might need to operate on their body to feel alright about it, knowing that it'll take a medical toll and will never in our lifetimes work anywhere near perfectly. Being gay is a lot less scary. That is why loads of trans people have reported having considered "just being gay" as a safe-haven compromise for themselves -- only in most cases to realize that it's untrue for them and leaves too many real problems hanging.
By the way, medicine will keep making progress on the operations with time, so they won't be so daunting in future generations. And some generations down the road, if the species doesn't destroy itself, even the gonads and gametes will be reversible, and bigonadal bodies may become a much less rare thing, maybe even a popular one. In that case, today's condition of having mostly binary sexual bodies will turn out to have been a transitional stage of evolution between asexual self-reproducing bodies and almost every imaginable form of future configuration of sexual and asexual body. We'll have to wait till then to find out how that will be dealt with by the "sex is a purely binary, immutable characteristic" polemicists.
It's of course inappropriate for a would-be civil discourse website, to hear trans people repeatedly insulted here as delusional, or as rejecting reality, by people who themselves are misunderstanding basic facts about the matter. In fact most trans people have been quite clearheaded and are facing up to the reality of a deep conflict between mind and body, one that some other people would prefer them to "desist" from facing.
You will be hard pressed to find actual trans people who are deluded about their natal biological reality, or think that feeling themselves as a woman in spirit makes them a woman biologically. That doesn't stop the polemicists from talking as if all trans people believe such things, the better to call them delusional.
You apparently have been misled by the polemic into repeating that intersex does not matter or disprove the contention that sexual biology is purely binary and immutable. Why? It's plainly illogical. My impression is that it would feel uncomfortable for the anti-trans polemicists to say, accurately, that sexual biology is mostly binary in this era but not entirely, and that this will probably change again. It wouldn't be useful as a slogan for insulting other people, or for calling other people idiots.
Please, could the anti-trans writers around here have the civility to make an effort to be actually civil, and avoid substituting insult for reason and fact? It would help to have thought through what they write about, instead of carelessly repeating the arguments of other people. But if they have to repeat others, then could they at least have the humility to realize they could easily be mistaken and misled, instead of insulting everyone who just maybe has thought more clearly about it than they have?
I joined this group because you claimed to be about seeing both sides and being fair about things. It hasn't proved true.
That's really sad.
The whole point for you and your writers seems to be singular: that there's only one side, but we have to be polite about it and make a show of being fairminded, so we can convince the child sooner or later that they're wrong and revert to identifying with their natal sex. And revert no matter what. No matter, specifically, what the cost of their suppressing their often authentic awareness of themselves as inwardly the opposite sex.
(I use the word 'sex' here so you can't obfuscate with discourses about the words sex and gender. That's as wrong coming from you as it is coming from the more irrational of the people who write in the name of transgenderism).
In all cases, as far as you're concerned, they're wrong and delusional; which means there aren't any real transgender people, only deluded cis people. You know it all for them, they don't know anything more or having anything real to add. It seems, though, that what you "know" is based on highly ideological writings that put on a veneer of scientific argumentation and pretend to be speaking for science.
Your only actual concern seems to be with the tactics for making it seem fair when parents try to put your view over. You are quite concerned to make it more likely for this view to get imposed effectively without seeming to be imposing anything explicitly; but of course it's being imposed subliminally when this is done, and children always get the subliminal instructions. And subliminal instructions are usually even more cruel than explicit ones; the child is caught either way it turns. Your "polite" dialogue with the child ia all about the parent saying to take time to come out of this delusion, or "desist" as it is put in other article; almost like a 'cease and desist' order. The cruel commands are still issued, but are now to be issued subliminally. Any child will "get" it about these commands and understand the instruction that sooner or later, they're going to have to self-suppress, and the sooner the do the easier it'll be on them.
It is not even an attempt at a reasonable compromise, such as 'take time to consider so you can decide with a fair chance of being right whichever way you go'. Only, 'take time so you can get out of the delusion'.
Your writers make this dogmatism and singleness of purpose absolutely clear in a number of places in this article. They even repeat it in the final sentence, in case anyone didn't get it.
It saddens me greatly to see this thinly disguised dogmatism here.
We greatly need a venue that sees the actual realities that do in fact exist on both sides and is able to communicate honestly between them. Trans people need it, their parents do, society does.
At this point, this isn't that venue.
Disappointed. That word doesn't begin to do justice to how disappointed I am. It's merely the best word.
Sex is a biological reality. It describes whether your body is designed to produce eggs (female) or sperm (male). "Authentic awareness of themselves as inwardly the opposite sex" is a psychological phenomenon that may feel very real, but does not change biological reality. The vanishingly small number of truly intersex people (probably on the order of 0.01% or less, depending on how it's defined) are not at issue, as transgenderism is entirely a matter of people who reject their biological sex, which is to say, reject reality. Compassion is needed, but that doesn't extend to allowing them to redefine reality, particularly for others.
When I grew up in the 60s and 70s, the progressive position on gender was "Free to be you and me." Gender-stereotyped roles were passé; everyone could take whatever role they wanted. It's astonishing to see transgenderism revert to medieval-level gender stereotyping (You like wearing pink and playing with dolls? You're really a girl!), with full-throated progressive approval, to the point of attempting to criminalize and steal the children of those who disagree.
Honestly, it tires me to need to respond to the people who are just the repeating this same false polemic, and the same baseless insults at that, making the same leaps in logic and fact that sound like they're coming from a well-known gay writer who pretends to speak for science and thinks all trans are really just delusional gays.
My interlocutor’s argument provides another depressing case in point. It is simply untrue that cis people are cis because they "accept reality". They are cis because they feel inwardly something about what kind of sexual body configuration would work with their spirit, and it conforms to their natal sexual biology. They feel that way probably because their brain structure and brain wiring hardwires them to feel that way. It's not a choice.
The same fact applies to trans people. They are trans because they feel inwardly something about how their body would have to be configured sexually in order to work with their spirit, and it conflicts too greatly with their natal sexual biology. And it probably often has to do with brain structure for them, too.
That's not a choice. The choice is only to face the fact or deny it.
Facing it is not called "rejecting reality", as you do in your language of making insults for things you might instead be accused of being in denial about yourself. It's called facing reality. Facing a very unwelcome reality in this case.
Probably, as science seems to indicate, in many cases of trans people this is because of brain structure and wiring. This would probably be epigenetially caused by hormone washes during puberty. There is some evidence for this.
Logically, this brain structure divergence would make a newly understood form of intersex, as well making for being trans. Newly discovered, because people had no chance to understand this until we got MRIs.
The gay anti-trans polemics, which say that this brain structure means that all transwomen are actually deluded repressed gays, because gays can similarly have female-range brains – they have it backwards. If – IF, as is NOT actually the case -- it were to have to be that they’re all one to the exclusion of the other, as some gay anti-trans writers say, then – THEN -- it would make far more sense to consider every such person a “transwoman”, for probably having a female-range brain inside an otherwise-male body, than to consider them all "gay".
That's because "gay" is a category that does not explain anything, it just provides an arbitrary name to classify the phenomenon. The word “gay” has nothing to do with making biological or causal sense of the phenomenon, or with having a female brain in a male body.
By contrast, the category “transwoman” does make biological and causal sense; it is a logical outcome for a female-range brain or “spirit” inside an otherwise male body. It does fit the probable causal explanation of the phenomenon; and the cause in turn confirms the naming of the phenomenon.
Be careful, gay friends out there, what you argue for. You might not like what you get. It might come back to bite you, instead of biting the target you’re trying to bite at.
There is nothing wrong or unhealthy about having a female brain. And nothing wrong about having a male body. Transwomen presumptively have a healthy brain and a healthy body.
When the two conflict, the problem is in the interface between brain and body. Lots of perfectly normal things in the world don’t interface well with other perfectly normal things. But the interface cannot itself be fixed; no one knows a thing that is the interface itself. The disconnect at the interface can be fixed only by fixing the brain or body, as best one can. Fixing the body is something we can at least partly do, with reasonable rates of success. "Fixing" the brain has been a nightmare in most cases where it has been tried. Fixing the social dysphoria in the brain can indeed be done by therapy, and by social acceptance, and this can make a huge difference for the person’s well-being. But not the internal dysphoria between brain and body, not when it is real, as it often is.
Yes, there are also some people whose dysphoria is a mental mistake, especially now that it has become more acceptable, even in some quarters fashionable. These people could benefit greatly from honest psychoanalysis, if it were available.
It is terrible that it is so hard to get honest therapy for trans people. One of the reasons I was interested in affirmation-critical sites like this one was that they advertised as being balanced and fairminded about these things; and honest fairmindedness might get us past our destructive culture wars. But alas, they haven’t lived up to this, at least not thus far. If anything, the opposite.
It would be a very good thing if all people who feel trans were able to get honest therapy and psychoanalysis. Honest therapy means hard, open-ended psychological work of discussion and analysis, the kind that avoids both ideological affirmation and ideological denial and actually tries to think about multiple possibilities.
I should like to find if there are people who genuinely mean that, don’t just say it but do the opposite.
The denial-of-trans or trans-as-delusional version of therapy is the opposite of this honest therapy, no matter how politely couched. It’s a simple inversion of “affirming therapy”, or of the worst versions of affirming therapy, not a rising above it. It is a secular equivalent of, sadly, conversion therapy.
It's painfully obvious that this kind of secularized conversion therapy is in fact what a lot of anti-trans writers are advocating, including some on this list. It is not changed by the fact that they get furious when anyone points it out, or that they say that they're being demonized and treated unfairly, and tell themselves that they are martyrs for unpopular truths.
Real therapy is hard. A lot harder than either affirming therapy or denying therapy. Those two don't require any mental effort.
It's of course inappropriate for a would-be civil discourse website, to hear trans people repeatedly insulted here as delusional, or as rejecting reality, by people who themselves are misunderstanding basic facts about the matter. In fact most trans people have been quite clearheaded and are facing up to the reality of a deep conflict between mind and body, one that some other people would prefer them to "desist" from facing.
You will be hard pressed to find actual trans people who are deluded about their natal biological reality, or think that feeling themselves as a woman in spirit makes them a woman biologically. That doesn't stop the polemicists from talking as if all trans people believe such things, the better to call them delusional.
You apparently have been misled by the polemic into repeating that intersex does not matter or disprove the contention that sexual biology is purely binary and immutable. Why? It's plainly illogical. My impression is that it would feel uncomfortable for the anti-trans polemicists to say, accurately, that sexual biology is mostly binary in this era but not entirely, and that this will probably change again. It wouldn't be useful as a slogan for insulting other people, or for calling other people idiots.
Please, could the anti-trans writers around here have the civility to make an effort to be actually civil, and avoid substituting insult for reason and fact? It would help to have thought through what they write about, instead of carelessly repeating the arguments of other people. But if they have to repeat others, then could they at least have the humility to realize they could easily be mistaken and misled, instead of insulting everyone who just maybe has thought more clearly about it than they have?
My goodness. There's no way I could respond to all of that even if I wanted to. But let's try to refocus on the essential point: Sex is biological. This is a fundamental concept of both science and ordinary life. It applies not just to humans, but to all sexually reproducing animals--and plants, for that matter. There is no living species on planet Earth that has more than two sexes, and intersex is a disorder of sexual development, not a different sex. Biological sex is strongly correlated with a wide range of both physical and psychological characteristics, but there are varying amounts of overlap between the sexes on these characteristics. However, a man with certain psychological traits more commonly associated with females does not thereby become a woman (or vice versa), or merit participating in women's sports, living in a women's shelter, or being assigned to a women's prison if convicted of a crime.
I deny the right of transgenders to redefine sex. I deny their right to demand that I parrot their quasi-religious belief that their subjective claim of gender overrides the objective reality of sex, and that sex-based distinctions in language and personal interaction must be subordinated to their wishes. If I sound uncivil, I'm sorry about that, but civility does not require simply giving in to people who deny the truth.
The problem is particularly severe with children. To think that a teen (or younger) understands and can meaningfully consent to the long-term implications of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and breast/genital surgery flies in the face of everything we know about child development. This isn't the first time "believe the children" has been repeated as a mantra with disastrous results; a couple of decades ago, it was the basis for outrageous claims of Satanic child sexual abuse which sent totally innocent people to jail for years. Now, "believe the children" results in the amputation of healthy body parts, destruction of family relationships (California is setting itself up to steal children away from "non-affirming" parents), and lifetime medical care for children who we as a society recognize are not mature enough to drive. And we don't actually know that it reduces risks of suicide and depression; some studies indicate that suicide actually goes up after trans-oriented surgery (perhaps as people realize that changing their appearance doesn't actually deal with the underlying problems).
If adults want to live as transgenders, they can act as they want; that's part of the freedom we allow everyone in this country. But that doesn't include giving them the right to demand I refer to them according to their self-perceived gender rather than their sex, nor to claim opposite-sex status where that impinges on the rights of those who are truly of that sex, who need sex distinctions recognized for safety, fairness, health, and privacy reasons.
I often see comments from parents that social-transitioning doesn't work worded as "We know that social transitions don't work, because they lead to medicalization." Translation: "It didn't turn out the way we wanted, so it didn't work."
Rather like my parents letting me go to music camps, so I could get it out of my system and go on with engineering. That didn't work out either.
The way I would address with my kids and grandkids: I assume this is a discussion with a young person who has gone through puberty and is in middle or high school. A person who is not in middle school would never lead with the opening in your hypothetical.
Young person: Mum, I’ve been thinking long and hard about this and I’ve decided I need to change my name and pronouns. This means everything to me. It’s hard to explain because you’re not non-binary, but when someone calls me by my dead name it hurts me very deeply. I just can’t handle it anymore.
Parent: Well that's interesting. What name would you like to be called?
Young person: Trans Name, pronoun.
Parent: That's a cool name. How did you decide on that?
Young person: I have been talking with my friends about gender and where I am. I had gotten it from "some celebrity". My friends think its cool.
Parent: What do you need me to do to help you?
Young person: I need you to go into the school and explain to the staff that they can’t dead-name me anymore.
Parent: I can do that. Before I do, I'm concerned about how this might not turn out well for you. Have you thought about how you might be harassed at school for changing your name and pronoun?
What bathrooms would you want to use at school? You may not be able to compete in your sport any more either.
Young person: {I can't hypothesize what they would say next, but that is the point.}
The parents goal is not to "slow things down". I have never heard of that before. The parents goal is to help the young person really understand the impact both short term and long term on decision their making.
If the parents goal is to make the young person align with the parents morals, that will fail in exactly the way you end your hypothetical.
There is a reason young people are adopting their parents moral positions. Its the same reason the parents didn't adopt their parents morality 100%.
My kids are now 32, 34 and 36. I have two daughters, a son(a same-sex attracted son adopted when he was 24 because his parents were Evangelicals who want to force him to be str8 - seriously he was 24 and they still thought they could dictate his life). My daughters learned Christianity in an Evangelical Church I and my wife attended. We left the church because the pastor and elders were not able to rationally answers any questions had.
I have two grandkids. We have a very health family relationship including with my x-wife. We talk about sex and trans issues all the time. We talk about politics. My son vote for Trump the first time. My youngest daughter and her husband support Trump. Her son goes to Catholic school My oldest daughter and her husband support Biden. We still remain a functional family.
But adolescents are developmentally incapable of fully understanding the short-term and long-term consequences of the serious decisions they make. This is why minors are not legally allowed to make the same decisions as adults.
Voting for Trump may have some very minor consequences (one vote contributes to the outcome of an election, but not very much), but it doesn't come close to the consequences of deciding to take testosterone and get a double mastectomy. Are those the right decisions for some? Maybe. Are teenagers developmentally able to make those decisions? Do they truly know themselves? Do they have a solid idea of who they'll be in 20 years? I think we all know the answer, honestly.
Medicalizing a gender identity is far from the only irreversible (and perhaps right for some, not right for others) decision a teenager who is not yet considered an adult can make. Others may include (depending on the jurisdiction/country) joining the army or marrying. In these cases too, many parents would understandably call for a slow down. These decisions can be made later. Now is too early.
Parents can try to help a child get a bird's eye view of the consequences of an action, but ultimately, children need time to mature. That is a journey of experience and nothing can substitute for it.
Seriously???? I’m so tired of the adolescents are developmental incapable-more common stated as their brains don’t mature until 25.
Once a child goes through puberty, they have FULL mental capabilities. They do think differently. Why? Because they don’t have life experience yet and the brains region that process impulses decisions is less risk averse. That concept makes total evolutionary sense. As a person ages, they become more risk averse.
Your statement is scientifically wrong. Why is it so common? Because “adults” use it to justify controlling young people. So easy to see. Why are most governments dominated by geriatrics.
My scenario focuses on helping the young person really understand “the risks”. That’s what they need people with more experience-ie parents-to do!
They don’t need parents to make decisions for them or “slow things down”. Parents like you need to educate yourself on hope an adolescents brain is really working.
My position on this isn’t stable. I gave my eldest daughter my mothers name. She passed away when I was pregnant with her. We had a very special and close bond. Up until the last minute, my daughter understood and felt very honored to have her name. She has chosen the first letter of her name as her nickname. She uses they/them pronouns and that is something I just try and not use pronouns at all. However I use her full name and correct pronouns with everyone I speak to about her and try and use pet names when I speak to her. We argued about changing it in my contacts and I told her no, I couldn’t do it. I explained what it meant to me to see that name every day and how deep it was for me to do that and then left it at that. I’m sure she wasn’t happy but it ended the conversation and it’s never come up again. As far as controlling how someone speaks when you’re not around, it’s completely pathological. It would be as if I asked her if I were Christian to never take the lords name in vain not just in my presence but at all times. To never swear because it was against my beliefs and was extremely offensive to me and important to stay true to. I feel it’s extremely immature and narrow to ask someone to do this. To be able to let go of demanding that others capitulate to our demands requires maturity which takes time. I always remind her to ask any adult over 40 if they knew themselves at the age of 18 like really understood themselves now and the world. Ha! Most will say they hadn’t a clue. Humility is something we learn and grow into as we age.
"It would be as if I asked her if I were Christian to never take the lords name in vain not just in my presence but at all times. To never swear because it was against my beliefs and was extremely offensive to me and important to stay true to. I feel it’s extremely immature and narrow to ask someone to do this". I respectfully disagree : Especially if your daughter is a minor, it is well within your rights and responsibilities to teach her to behave according to your family values at all times. I am not Christian but I do believe that a Christian parent can set expectations about swearing or using the word "God" for their kids. I think the word "controlling" is a bit overused in the modern society. Teaching our kids our values is not controlling. (Now, of course you cannot expect other adults for whom you are not responsible to follow your beliefs and telling them what words to use or not to use is controlling and weird)
Thanks for replying. I do agree if she were a minor of course I could teach her as I see fit as a parent. She’s not a minor though.
Excellent analogy with “taking the lord’s name in vain not just in my presence but at all times”! It’s a power play. I’ve often said that gender theory is essentially forcing everyone to believe in someone else’s “religion”. Usually that statement is met with blank stares and/or protestations that it’s simply about politeness (when it’s actually about who gets to define reality).
And it tears at my heart that the very real pain of the parents is so little acknowledged, while every emotion of the child defines the experience.
When my daughter was in the depths of her trans identification, I saw that she scratched out her name that I wrote on the calendar ("X at dentist" kind of note). It made my heart bleed, but I henceforth consciously stuck to the first initial (which was also the first initial of her chosen trans name) to try to show her that I cared about how she felt and tried to accommodate her to the extent that I was able to. At home we avoided gendered words but used sex-based pronouns and her given name, though we used "kid" and "child of mine" a lot. I know of families where the parents use the chosen name and pronouns, and families where the parents said a hard "no" to either name or pronouns, and it seems that some kind of a middle way is best - some attempt at a compromise to show that you really do care about their feelings, but also enables at least a toe hold on reality. It's so so hard...
By the way, I'm totally ordering the book! So so so happy that Sasha, Lisa, and Stella wrote it!
Disclaimer: I’m a parent, but both of my kids are under 10 and neither IDs as trans.
Baby names have been my hobby since I was ten. I did serious *work* on my kids’ names, researching the historical backgrounds (firsts and middles), popularity (didn’t want anything in the top 500), thinking about the syllables and how the name sounded out loud. I tried my kids’ names out in various sentences. “Court is now in session, the Honorable [Name] presiding.” “And the Oscar goes to…[Name].” “And here from Washington with reaction is Senator [Name] of [State].” My kids’ names are three-word poems that I published in legal records for the whole world to read.
If one of my kids wanted a name change, I’d be heartbroken. If one of my kids declared that the name I gave them was their “deadname,” I’d flip my shit. “I sat in the ER, pregnant and bleeding, praying to God that I wasn’t having a miscarriage and you were still alive.” (Both kids.) “The doctor had to cut my C-section incision wider so your head could come out and you wouldn’t suffocate.” (Oldest kid - breech baby.) “So don’t you DARE tell me that anything about you is ‘dead.’”
Edit: typo
"My kids’ names are three-word poems that I published in legal records for the whole world to read." This is a beautiful sentence and a beautiful sentiment, that kind of breaks my heart. I found myself reciting my own kids' poems, one of which has been modified, by its owner, in the legal records. The excerpt Lisa has shared offers such great advice and is also very honest in sharing that the authors just don't know which way one strategy will play out in different families. The sample dialog is such a great starting point, and I hope it will be shared widely.
Re "The name a trans-identified person chooses often has a purpose—to signify that they are leaving behind their old self and embracing a new identity."
I've long wondered if American kids might benefit from more attention to life/age transitions through "rites of passage." I know it can sound silly, but I've even thought it might be useful to allow kids to choose a name for themselves as part of a ceremony/recognition of passage from childhood to young-adulthood (say, at 13 or so, a la Bar/Bat Mitzvah).
The name could be akin to a second middle name, or it could, if the child so chose, become their "use" name — a concept that some cultures have, or even a "secret" name (the writer Ursula K. Le Guin postulated something like this in her excellent Earthsea fantasy novels).
If all this sounds absurd to parents and adults, I can understand that. And yet, as a kid (I'm almost 62), I would have relished a ceremony recognizing my passage, and even more, the agency to choose a name for myself (whether it would be used day-to-day or not).
I know this isn't the solution to the trans mess we're in with kids. But I do think there is some wisdom in rites of passage, and especially here in the U.S., it seems to me that we've moved too far away from them (I'm speaking from a white perspective; obviously, as with a Quinceañera and Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, not all cultures have abandoned the idea).
Catholics get to choose a saint's name when they are confirmed (itself, a rite of passage) I did this this when I was in grade 5 but I understand it's done in grade 7 or 8 now.
there's something seductive about choosing a name for yourself; I often wonder if the name change fuels some of this trans mania
Again, in my conception, the name chosen by a kid could be given weight on a spectrum, depending on what the family is comfortable with. I mean, it's entirely possible that some exuberant (I was one!) kids would choose, I don't know, Gandalf, or Hermione, or whatever.
On the other hand, I actually don't mind the idea of giving kids some agency over such things. In cultures where this sort of thing occurs, it's also a moment of respect and recognition that the young person is moving into a time of more responsibility. That one's chosen name might have *power* — i.e. is seductive — could, I believe, be channeled in most cases to something positive.
And my vision is about much more than a name. A rite of passage is an opportunity to teach, and to honor both the kid and tradition, a potentially solemn and meaningful process in which the idea of growing *maturity* would be at center stage.
I was just about to write this. The Catholic Church has rites of passage throughout life. Pre Vatican II, we received the Sacrament of Confirmation at age 12, at which time we chose a saint name. It’s now 16, I believe, but the significance is unchanged. I still love my saint name. Rites of passage are simply wonderful.
I was thinking about something very like this--though without your excellent name for it. Way back when, my Mom decided that she would not have us baptized until we were six, at which time we could choose our own middle names. At the time, Evelyn Rudie was a big name for kids, as she played Eloise in a TV play. My best friend, whose Mom made delicious donuts, was named Jean. For a few weeks, at the dinner table, Dad would jokingly call me after all the choices I was considering: well, Susan Eloise Evelyn Jean Scheid, have you picked a middle name yet? Mom sat tight and was clearly relieved when I decided against Eloise and Evelyn and in favor of Jean. (As an adult, I was actually happier with her choice, which was Elizabeth, after a favorite aunt, and for a long time I went by both her choice and mine.)
I wish it were all as simple and playful for parents these days.
This is the first time I've heard about this and it sounds awesome. I think it helps kids understand why names are so valuable and helps them think a little deeper about who they want to be, especially if researching the meanings of names are encouraged. Healthy coming of age ceremonies are desperately needed in our modern society.
Doesn't sound silly at all. Sounds like a lovely idea!
The idea that "coming out" as trans is the same as "coming out" as gay is a false equivilency. A child saying they are same sex attracted requires nothing of the listener, coming out as trans demands a sliding scale of adherence to rules dictated by the child. Perhaps that is the point.
The sliding scale of this acceptance takes place on multiple fronts, through use of words via pronouns and names, legally and medically. No guidance that I have read from schools identifies where on this sliding scale schools must reign in and refer to parents. The idea that they will be assisting with gender markers on passports and access to cross-sex hormones is certainly a possibility.
Initially of course they are love bombed by a community that seems keen to invite them in, but increasingly the demands put on others regarding pronouns, acceptance and myopic adherence to ever-shifting sands of rules mean that ordinary people no longer wish to talk with the child for fear of getting things wrong, thus further compounding the issue.
You may think I am being overdramatic, however in the school district I am in, I have been through the protocols and they go as far as altering names on school documentation, the local Child/Adolescent mental health group offers rides to their facility (presumably to avoid parental scrutiny) to issue binders and give legal advice on name changes.
Schools use the reason that they don't tell parents is because parents will not accept the child as trans in the same way they may not accept a child is gay. However again the situation is different, parents know that they best possible outcome for their child is radical acceptance of themselves as they are and see the road to surgeries and hormones as the worst possible outcome.
Re "... coming out as trans demands a sliding scale of adherence to rules dictated by the child. Perhaps that is the point."
It sure seems to be that way in some cases, at least. I mean, come on, a kid is already in an individuating process as he or she enters teenhood, during which many (not all!) kids will experience conflict with parents. How cool to have this magical tool handed to you, with which you can *demand* X, Y and Z of these supposedly terrible dictators in your life.
The fact that there are "trans activists," i.e. adults, cheering kids on and pushing their genuinely bizarre agenda ("You *must* speak as *I* wish you to speak, even if I'm not present ... Caitlyn Jenner not only *is* a woman, but *always has been* a woman..." etc. ... Sure, tell that to the guys Jenner defeated in the Olympic decathlon) is the most troubling thing of all, to me.
Also, tell that to the six children that Jenner helped produce by twice impregnating each of his three wives.
It’s a Catch-22, change your name to sound like the old one, and people think it’s cheesy, change your name to be nothing like the old one and you’ve “taken one of the most precious things” from parents, don’t change the name at all, and you’re Dylan Mulvaney.
People didn’t like that Dylan Mulvaney didn’t have a name change? Dylan was the name of Drew Barrymore’s character in “Charlie’s Angels,” so it feels unisex to me.
Honestly, no idea, just seems like whatever Dylan does there’s a million people criticizing, so I can easily imagine someone having a problem with it.
Reading the literature of cult "deprogramming" it was clear that forcible deconversion is both difficult and legally fraught. People are allowed to join cults. My suggested script would be like this:
"You are asking me to believe something I know isn't true. I believe that you believe it. I do not share your belief. If I don't believe it, I can't say it like it's true. I will do it if you insist but I will always be acting. Do you want me to be an actor for you all the time? Acting is exhausting. Just ask [their favorite actor]. You can wear any costume any time you want, dear. When you are tired out at the end of the day I know who you are."
FYI, I urge everyone to comment on the Citizen's Petition directed to the FDA (FDA-2023-P-3767, "Request the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to take urgent action concerning the off-label use of GnRH agonists, a class of drugs also known as Puberty Blockers in Children"). You can find the petition at this link: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2023-P-3767-0001
In commenting, the category to use from the drop down list is "Category: Drug Industry C0022." You can comment anonymously. As you'll see, the petition does an excellent job of laying out the relevant evidence and reasoning in support of its very reasonable recommendations for action.
Thanks to Lisa for posting this. The struggles parents face, with medicalization looming, are unconscionable, underscoring the need for all of us who are not facing this as parents or family members to fight for change on a societal level, in whatever ways we can, large or small. Key areas to focus on right now on that level seem to be continuing to get the word out in any way we can, getting gender identity ideology out of schools, and severely limiting, if not outright banning, medicalization of minors, but I would be interested in anyone’s thoughts here on what would be most helpful right now.
Thanks, Lisa - and thanks, Susan. For Californians, a new organization (working with Erin Friday, who Lisa has interviewed and who was recently on Benjamin Boyce to discuss further) is launching three ballot initiatives: https://protectkidsca.com/initiatives/ Maybe something to look into?
That is a great initiative. I am not in CA, but glad to be reminded to keep a lookout for anything like that to support in NY. You remind me, also, of another initiative, which Genspect explains here: https://twitter.com/genspect/status/1699150610061263284
It is “A Citizen Petition has been filed with the US_FDA regarding "Action Urgently Needed to Address Off-Label Use of Puberty Blockers in Children". Docket #: FDA-2023-P-376”
I Don't have any children. So, I have a unique viewpoint. Who is introducing this to children? Rather than teaching them their ABC"s they are allowing them to be indoctrinated by ideas that spring from Marxist ideology that infests our schools. A child going thru the grocery store will fill the cart with candy unless the parent keeps an eye on what they are doing. No difference here, teachers, friends, internet, social media all pushing a child to comply with this ideology. Parents should be the primary arbitrator in this issue. The parents need to have tools to speak with their child, professional help, child psychiatrist to eliminate other medical issues and a path to follow. This article is a good start at addressing your child's issues. I know I don't have to deal with a child demanding you do what they want, but you are the parent so get to it.
I am so eager to get my copy of this book and read the rest of this! They are out at the forefront of thinking of this and helping families navigate it.
Sasha and Stella are doing one of their workshops at the end of the month, in person, that's where the link in Lisa's introduction goes!
(And Lisa, I wish there were more hours in a day so that you would find time to write up all the things you have found, so we can read those as well. Ever grateful for all you've done and are doing!)
I'm afraid your comments seem to me not to respond to what I actually wrote, but to sidestep it and concentrate on making assertions instead about other matters. Some of them seem to me true but many oversimplified, made worse by pronouncing them as absolute truth in the name of "science". Invocations of science should be based on logic, i.e. should respond logically to the specific question at hand; not be invoked in an angry tone as if settling the question without ever facing it, or for whipping up anger about vaguely related things. These methods are not really appropriate for reasoned discussion, and it would hardly be appropriate to respond to the arguments made with such methods. Best wishes anyway.
Honestly, it tires me to need to respond to the people who are just the repeating this same false, and insulting polemic, making the same leaps in logic and fact that seem to come from a gay writer who pretends to speak for science and thinks all trans are really just delusional gays.
My interlocutor’s argument provides a case in point. It is simply untrue that cis people are cis because they "accept reality". They are cis because they feel inwardly something about what kind of sexual body would work with their spirit, and it conforms to their natal sexual biology. They feel that way probably because their brain structure and brain wiring hardwires them to feel that way. It's not a choice.
The same fact applies conversely to trans people. They are trans because they feel inwardly something about how their sexual body would have to be to work with their spirit, and it conflicts too greatly with their natal sexual biology. And it probably often has to do with brain structure, too.
That's not a choice. It's not called "rejecting reality", as in your language of making reckless insults. It's called facing reality. Facing a very unwelcome reality, and refusing to deny it.
Probably, as I said, in many cases this is because of brain structure and wiring. There is some evidence for this.
Logically, this brain structure divergence would make them a newly understood form of intersex. Newly discovered, because people had no chance to understand this until we got MRIs. All the discussions of intersex, gay, and trans proceeded for millenia in ignorance of this. The mistakes over those millennia deserve correcting, not repeating.
The gay polemics like in "Reality's Last Stand", which says this makes the trans actually deluded repressed gays, has it backwards. Probably there are both trans and gay people legitimately. But if it were to have to be all one to the exclusion of the other, then it would have to be said that it makes far more sense to consider someone a transwoman, for having a female-range brain inside an otherwise-male body, than to consider them "gay".
That's because "gay" is a category that does not explain anything, it just provides a name to classify the phenomenon; the word “gay” has nothing to do with making biological or causal sense of it. By contrast, transwoman, as a word to categorize a female brain and spirit inside an otherwise male body, does make biological and causal sense; it does explain the phenomenon.
Be careful, gay friends out there, what you argue for. You might not like what you get. It might come back to hit you instead of hitting your target.
There is nothing wrong or unhealthy about having a female brain. Nor about having a male body. Trans have a healthy brain and a healthy body.
If the two conflict, the problem is in the interface, not the brain or the body. But the problem in the interface can be fixed only by fixing the brain or body, as best one can. Fixing the body is something we can at least partly do, with reasonable rates of success. "Fixing" the brain has been a nightmare in most cases where it has been tried.
Which is not to say there are not plenty of people who are deluded about being trans, and would benefit from honest psychoanalysis. Don't try putting words in my mouth and pretending that's what I mean. It would be well if all trans people could get better, more honest therapy and psychoanalysis. Which means honest, real, hard, open-ended psychological analytic work, the kind that avoids both ideological affirmation and ideological denial. The ideological denial version is a secular equivalent of conversion therapy. It's painfully obvious that this kind of secularized conversion therapy is in fact what a lot of anti-trans writers are advocating, including some on this list, even though they get furious and say they're being demonized when anyone points it out.
Real therapy is hard. A lot harder than affirming therapy and denying therapy alike. Those don't require any real mental effort.
So, if it's logical to be trans when brain doesn't fit body, does that mean all gay people are really transwomen, trying presumably to suppress it out of their internalized transphobia? No, and don't try putting those words in my mouth either. I'm simply pointing out the fairly obvious fact that the reasoning of some gay polemicists, who say all transwomen are really gays hiding out from their internalized homophobia, is hopelessly wrong. And they would do well to realize that it would make at least somewhat less bad sense if they were to turn it around and say that they and other gays are actually transwomen hiding out as gays because of internalized transphobia. What I am in fact saying for myself is that (1) there are enough trans people and gay people around to make it highly probable that both exist equally for real, (2) a female-range brain inside an otherwise male body would probably be able to give rise to either a genuine gay or a genuine trans in different cases, and (3) if however the gay anti-trans writers were right that it has to be all the one or all the other, then more likely it would be all truly trans than all truly gay.
The plain fact is that there has been far more transphobia than homophobia around to internalize, so it is intrinsically more likely for there to be more trans people hiding out as gays than the other way around. This is for obvious reasons. People are far more scared of being trans than of being gay. Being trans has been far more disreputable socially, and probably still is today everywhere in the world except Iran. And it scares the heck out of anyone to think they're trans and might need to operate on their body to feel alright about it, knowing that it'll take a medical toll and will never in our lifetimes work anywhere near perfectly. Being gay is a lot less scary. That is why loads of trans people have reported having considered "just being gay" as a safe-haven compromise for themselves -- only in most cases to realize that it's untrue for them and leaves too many real problems hanging.
By the way, medicine will keep making progress on the operations with time, so they won't be so daunting in future generations. And some generations down the road, if the species doesn't destroy itself, even the gonads and gametes will be reversible, and bigonadal bodies may become a much less rare thing, maybe even a popular one. In that case, today's condition of having mostly binary sexual bodies will turn out to have been a transitional stage of evolution between asexual self-reproducing bodies and almost every imaginable form of future configuration of sexual and asexual body. We'll have to wait till then to find out how that will be dealt with by the "sex is a purely binary, immutable characteristic" polemicists.
It's of course inappropriate for a would-be civil discourse website, to hear trans people repeatedly insulted here as delusional, or as rejecting reality, by people who themselves are misunderstanding basic facts about the matter. In fact most trans people have been quite clearheaded and are facing up to the reality of a deep conflict between mind and body, one that some other people would prefer them to "desist" from facing.
You will be hard pressed to find actual trans people who are deluded about their natal biological reality, or think that feeling themselves as a woman in spirit makes them a woman biologically. That doesn't stop the polemicists from talking as if all trans people believe such things, the better to call them delusional.
You apparently have been misled by the polemic into repeating that intersex does not matter or disprove the contention that sexual biology is purely binary and immutable. Why? It's plainly illogical. My impression is that it would feel uncomfortable for the anti-trans polemicists to say, accurately, that sexual biology is mostly binary in this era but not entirely, and that this will probably change again. It wouldn't be useful as a slogan for insulting other people, or for calling other people idiots.
Please, could the anti-trans writers around here have the civility to make an effort to be actually civil, and avoid substituting insult for reason and fact? It would help to have thought through what they write about, instead of carelessly repeating the arguments of other people. But if they have to repeat others, then could they at least have the humility to realize they could easily be mistaken and misled, instead of insulting everyone who just maybe has thought more clearly about it than they have?
I joined this group because you claimed to be about seeing both sides and being fair about things. It hasn't proved true.
That's really sad.
The whole point for you and your writers seems to be singular: that there's only one side, but we have to be polite about it and make a show of being fairminded, so we can convince the child sooner or later that they're wrong and revert to identifying with their natal sex. And revert no matter what. No matter, specifically, what the cost of their suppressing their often authentic awareness of themselves as inwardly the opposite sex.
(I use the word 'sex' here so you can't obfuscate with discourses about the words sex and gender. That's as wrong coming from you as it is coming from the more irrational of the people who write in the name of transgenderism).
In all cases, as far as you're concerned, they're wrong and delusional; which means there aren't any real transgender people, only deluded cis people. You know it all for them, they don't know anything more or having anything real to add. It seems, though, that what you "know" is based on highly ideological writings that put on a veneer of scientific argumentation and pretend to be speaking for science.
Your only actual concern seems to be with the tactics for making it seem fair when parents try to put your view over. You are quite concerned to make it more likely for this view to get imposed effectively without seeming to be imposing anything explicitly; but of course it's being imposed subliminally when this is done, and children always get the subliminal instructions. And subliminal instructions are usually even more cruel than explicit ones; the child is caught either way it turns. Your "polite" dialogue with the child ia all about the parent saying to take time to come out of this delusion, or "desist" as it is put in other article; almost like a 'cease and desist' order. The cruel commands are still issued, but are now to be issued subliminally. Any child will "get" it about these commands and understand the instruction that sooner or later, they're going to have to self-suppress, and the sooner the do the easier it'll be on them.
It is not even an attempt at a reasonable compromise, such as 'take time to consider so you can decide with a fair chance of being right whichever way you go'. Only, 'take time so you can get out of the delusion'.
Your writers make this dogmatism and singleness of purpose absolutely clear in a number of places in this article. They even repeat it in the final sentence, in case anyone didn't get it.
It saddens me greatly to see this thinly disguised dogmatism here.
We greatly need a venue that sees the actual realities that do in fact exist on both sides and is able to communicate honestly between them. Trans people need it, their parents do, society does.
At this point, this isn't that venue.
Disappointed. That word doesn't begin to do justice to how disappointed I am. It's merely the best word.
Sex is a biological reality. It describes whether your body is designed to produce eggs (female) or sperm (male). "Authentic awareness of themselves as inwardly the opposite sex" is a psychological phenomenon that may feel very real, but does not change biological reality. The vanishingly small number of truly intersex people (probably on the order of 0.01% or less, depending on how it's defined) are not at issue, as transgenderism is entirely a matter of people who reject their biological sex, which is to say, reject reality. Compassion is needed, but that doesn't extend to allowing them to redefine reality, particularly for others.
When I grew up in the 60s and 70s, the progressive position on gender was "Free to be you and me." Gender-stereotyped roles were passé; everyone could take whatever role they wanted. It's astonishing to see transgenderism revert to medieval-level gender stereotyping (You like wearing pink and playing with dolls? You're really a girl!), with full-throated progressive approval, to the point of attempting to criminalize and steal the children of those who disagree.
Honestly, it tires me to need to respond to the people who are just the repeating this same false polemic, and the same baseless insults at that, making the same leaps in logic and fact that sound like they're coming from a well-known gay writer who pretends to speak for science and thinks all trans are really just delusional gays.
My interlocutor’s argument provides another depressing case in point. It is simply untrue that cis people are cis because they "accept reality". They are cis because they feel inwardly something about what kind of sexual body configuration would work with their spirit, and it conforms to their natal sexual biology. They feel that way probably because their brain structure and brain wiring hardwires them to feel that way. It's not a choice.
The same fact applies to trans people. They are trans because they feel inwardly something about how their body would have to be configured sexually in order to work with their spirit, and it conflicts too greatly with their natal sexual biology. And it probably often has to do with brain structure for them, too.
That's not a choice. The choice is only to face the fact or deny it.
Facing it is not called "rejecting reality", as you do in your language of making insults for things you might instead be accused of being in denial about yourself. It's called facing reality. Facing a very unwelcome reality in this case.
Probably, as science seems to indicate, in many cases of trans people this is because of brain structure and wiring. This would probably be epigenetially caused by hormone washes during puberty. There is some evidence for this.
Logically, this brain structure divergence would make a newly understood form of intersex, as well making for being trans. Newly discovered, because people had no chance to understand this until we got MRIs.
The gay anti-trans polemics, which say that this brain structure means that all transwomen are actually deluded repressed gays, because gays can similarly have female-range brains – they have it backwards. If – IF, as is NOT actually the case -- it were to have to be that they’re all one to the exclusion of the other, as some gay anti-trans writers say, then – THEN -- it would make far more sense to consider every such person a “transwoman”, for probably having a female-range brain inside an otherwise-male body, than to consider them all "gay".
That's because "gay" is a category that does not explain anything, it just provides an arbitrary name to classify the phenomenon. The word “gay” has nothing to do with making biological or causal sense of the phenomenon, or with having a female brain in a male body.
By contrast, the category “transwoman” does make biological and causal sense; it is a logical outcome for a female-range brain or “spirit” inside an otherwise male body. It does fit the probable causal explanation of the phenomenon; and the cause in turn confirms the naming of the phenomenon.
Be careful, gay friends out there, what you argue for. You might not like what you get. It might come back to bite you, instead of biting the target you’re trying to bite at.
There is nothing wrong or unhealthy about having a female brain. And nothing wrong about having a male body. Transwomen presumptively have a healthy brain and a healthy body.
When the two conflict, the problem is in the interface between brain and body. Lots of perfectly normal things in the world don’t interface well with other perfectly normal things. But the interface cannot itself be fixed; no one knows a thing that is the interface itself. The disconnect at the interface can be fixed only by fixing the brain or body, as best one can. Fixing the body is something we can at least partly do, with reasonable rates of success. "Fixing" the brain has been a nightmare in most cases where it has been tried. Fixing the social dysphoria in the brain can indeed be done by therapy, and by social acceptance, and this can make a huge difference for the person’s well-being. But not the internal dysphoria between brain and body, not when it is real, as it often is.
Yes, there are also some people whose dysphoria is a mental mistake, especially now that it has become more acceptable, even in some quarters fashionable. These people could benefit greatly from honest psychoanalysis, if it were available.
It is terrible that it is so hard to get honest therapy for trans people. One of the reasons I was interested in affirmation-critical sites like this one was that they advertised as being balanced and fairminded about these things; and honest fairmindedness might get us past our destructive culture wars. But alas, they haven’t lived up to this, at least not thus far. If anything, the opposite.
It would be a very good thing if all people who feel trans were able to get honest therapy and psychoanalysis. Honest therapy means hard, open-ended psychological work of discussion and analysis, the kind that avoids both ideological affirmation and ideological denial and actually tries to think about multiple possibilities.
I should like to find if there are people who genuinely mean that, don’t just say it but do the opposite.
The denial-of-trans or trans-as-delusional version of therapy is the opposite of this honest therapy, no matter how politely couched. It’s a simple inversion of “affirming therapy”, or of the worst versions of affirming therapy, not a rising above it. It is a secular equivalent of, sadly, conversion therapy.
It's painfully obvious that this kind of secularized conversion therapy is in fact what a lot of anti-trans writers are advocating, including some on this list. It is not changed by the fact that they get furious when anyone points it out, or that they say that they're being demonized and treated unfairly, and tell themselves that they are martyrs for unpopular truths.
Real therapy is hard. A lot harder than either affirming therapy or denying therapy. Those two don't require any mental effort.
It's of course inappropriate for a would-be civil discourse website, to hear trans people repeatedly insulted here as delusional, or as rejecting reality, by people who themselves are misunderstanding basic facts about the matter. In fact most trans people have been quite clearheaded and are facing up to the reality of a deep conflict between mind and body, one that some other people would prefer them to "desist" from facing.
You will be hard pressed to find actual trans people who are deluded about their natal biological reality, or think that feeling themselves as a woman in spirit makes them a woman biologically. That doesn't stop the polemicists from talking as if all trans people believe such things, the better to call them delusional.
You apparently have been misled by the polemic into repeating that intersex does not matter or disprove the contention that sexual biology is purely binary and immutable. Why? It's plainly illogical. My impression is that it would feel uncomfortable for the anti-trans polemicists to say, accurately, that sexual biology is mostly binary in this era but not entirely, and that this will probably change again. It wouldn't be useful as a slogan for insulting other people, or for calling other people idiots.
Please, could the anti-trans writers around here have the civility to make an effort to be actually civil, and avoid substituting insult for reason and fact? It would help to have thought through what they write about, instead of carelessly repeating the arguments of other people. But if they have to repeat others, then could they at least have the humility to realize they could easily be mistaken and misled, instead of insulting everyone who just maybe has thought more clearly about it than they have?
My goodness. There's no way I could respond to all of that even if I wanted to. But let's try to refocus on the essential point: Sex is biological. This is a fundamental concept of both science and ordinary life. It applies not just to humans, but to all sexually reproducing animals--and plants, for that matter. There is no living species on planet Earth that has more than two sexes, and intersex is a disorder of sexual development, not a different sex. Biological sex is strongly correlated with a wide range of both physical and psychological characteristics, but there are varying amounts of overlap between the sexes on these characteristics. However, a man with certain psychological traits more commonly associated with females does not thereby become a woman (or vice versa), or merit participating in women's sports, living in a women's shelter, or being assigned to a women's prison if convicted of a crime.
I deny the right of transgenders to redefine sex. I deny their right to demand that I parrot their quasi-religious belief that their subjective claim of gender overrides the objective reality of sex, and that sex-based distinctions in language and personal interaction must be subordinated to their wishes. If I sound uncivil, I'm sorry about that, but civility does not require simply giving in to people who deny the truth.
The problem is particularly severe with children. To think that a teen (or younger) understands and can meaningfully consent to the long-term implications of puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and breast/genital surgery flies in the face of everything we know about child development. This isn't the first time "believe the children" has been repeated as a mantra with disastrous results; a couple of decades ago, it was the basis for outrageous claims of Satanic child sexual abuse which sent totally innocent people to jail for years. Now, "believe the children" results in the amputation of healthy body parts, destruction of family relationships (California is setting itself up to steal children away from "non-affirming" parents), and lifetime medical care for children who we as a society recognize are not mature enough to drive. And we don't actually know that it reduces risks of suicide and depression; some studies indicate that suicide actually goes up after trans-oriented surgery (perhaps as people realize that changing their appearance doesn't actually deal with the underlying problems).
If adults want to live as transgenders, they can act as they want; that's part of the freedom we allow everyone in this country. But that doesn't include giving them the right to demand I refer to them according to their self-perceived gender rather than their sex, nor to claim opposite-sex status where that impinges on the rights of those who are truly of that sex, who need sex distinctions recognized for safety, fairness, health, and privacy reasons.
I often see comments from parents that social-transitioning doesn't work worded as "We know that social transitions don't work, because they lead to medicalization." Translation: "It didn't turn out the way we wanted, so it didn't work."
Rather like my parents letting me go to music camps, so I could get it out of my system and go on with engineering. That didn't work out either.
The way I would address with my kids and grandkids: I assume this is a discussion with a young person who has gone through puberty and is in middle or high school. A person who is not in middle school would never lead with the opening in your hypothetical.
Young person: Mum, I’ve been thinking long and hard about this and I’ve decided I need to change my name and pronouns. This means everything to me. It’s hard to explain because you’re not non-binary, but when someone calls me by my dead name it hurts me very deeply. I just can’t handle it anymore.
Parent: Well that's interesting. What name would you like to be called?
Young person: Trans Name, pronoun.
Parent: That's a cool name. How did you decide on that?
Young person: I have been talking with my friends about gender and where I am. I had gotten it from "some celebrity". My friends think its cool.
Parent: What do you need me to do to help you?
Young person: I need you to go into the school and explain to the staff that they can’t dead-name me anymore.
Parent: I can do that. Before I do, I'm concerned about how this might not turn out well for you. Have you thought about how you might be harassed at school for changing your name and pronoun?
What bathrooms would you want to use at school? You may not be able to compete in your sport any more either.
Young person: {I can't hypothesize what they would say next, but that is the point.}
The parents goal is not to "slow things down". I have never heard of that before. The parents goal is to help the young person really understand the impact both short term and long term on decision their making.
If the parents goal is to make the young person align with the parents morals, that will fail in exactly the way you end your hypothetical.
There is a reason young people are adopting their parents moral positions. Its the same reason the parents didn't adopt their parents morality 100%.
My kids are now 32, 34 and 36. I have two daughters, a son(a same-sex attracted son adopted when he was 24 because his parents were Evangelicals who want to force him to be str8 - seriously he was 24 and they still thought they could dictate his life). My daughters learned Christianity in an Evangelical Church I and my wife attended. We left the church because the pastor and elders were not able to rationally answers any questions had.
I have two grandkids. We have a very health family relationship including with my x-wife. We talk about sex and trans issues all the time. We talk about politics. My son vote for Trump the first time. My youngest daughter and her husband support Trump. Her son goes to Catholic school My oldest daughter and her husband support Biden. We still remain a functional family.
But adolescents are developmentally incapable of fully understanding the short-term and long-term consequences of the serious decisions they make. This is why minors are not legally allowed to make the same decisions as adults.
Voting for Trump may have some very minor consequences (one vote contributes to the outcome of an election, but not very much), but it doesn't come close to the consequences of deciding to take testosterone and get a double mastectomy. Are those the right decisions for some? Maybe. Are teenagers developmentally able to make those decisions? Do they truly know themselves? Do they have a solid idea of who they'll be in 20 years? I think we all know the answer, honestly.
Medicalizing a gender identity is far from the only irreversible (and perhaps right for some, not right for others) decision a teenager who is not yet considered an adult can make. Others may include (depending on the jurisdiction/country) joining the army or marrying. In these cases too, many parents would understandably call for a slow down. These decisions can be made later. Now is too early.
Parents can try to help a child get a bird's eye view of the consequences of an action, but ultimately, children need time to mature. That is a journey of experience and nothing can substitute for it.
Seriously???? I’m so tired of the adolescents are developmental incapable-more common stated as their brains don’t mature until 25.
Once a child goes through puberty, they have FULL mental capabilities. They do think differently. Why? Because they don’t have life experience yet and the brains region that process impulses decisions is less risk averse. That concept makes total evolutionary sense. As a person ages, they become more risk averse.
Your statement is scientifically wrong. Why is it so common? Because “adults” use it to justify controlling young people. So easy to see. Why are most governments dominated by geriatrics.
My scenario focuses on helping the young person really understand “the risks”. That’s what they need people with more experience-ie parents-to do!
They don’t need parents to make decisions for them or “slow things down”. Parents like you need to educate yourself on hope an adolescents brain is really working.