This is the second podcast of yours I’ve listened to on trans issues. They’re both excellent. I’m gonna subscribe, and hope to hear more in the future. My thanks to Jeff Maurer for recommending your podcast on trans Sports.
You do need to make one important change, however. When a conversation gets as contentious as this one, you should give each guest a time limit, say two minutes, and require no one to interrupt during that two minutes. Give yourself two minutes also, so you can guide things. Also encourage each guest to take notes while the other guest is speaking, so their response can really accurately interact with the previous guest.
Teed, thank you for listening and discussing. We really like this suggestion! Definitely will consider moving forward. And please keep in touch, especially if there's a topic you think we should dive into.
Thank you to our listeners and commenters for the dialogue. We hope to keep discussing this topic moving forward. And if you haven't, check out Kinnon Mackinnon's recent post: https://substack.com/home/post/p-161457143
I just realised after years following all this guff that "gender-affirming", like almost every other term in the lexicon, is upside-down. "You're male" is gender affirming in this instance. Saying it is also meant as care, though it's taken as abuse. If someone had taken that care over the years, these two might have led more satisfying lives (along with thousands of others). Instead, their fantasies were indulged, and now two blokes in womanface are arguing over who's the most wrong.
Men became eunuchs in ancient civilizations (Rome, Greece, Israel, China, Byzantine Empire) in order to hold high positions in government and/or out of religious devotion. They were not "transgender."
Alex, thank you for hosting the conversation and keeping guests from walking out.
It was also great that you were familiar with so much of the literature. I was surprised by how questionable was Dr. Bowers' opinion of Cass report and of the Free Press.
John should talk to someone who accurately states that “trans” does not exist and that he should have been given treatment to accept his sex rather than get incessant plastic surgery to try to be something he is not, whether or not it makes him happy.
The cost to society is too great and women’s reality and lives are more important than him and his mental problems.
The answer to everything must be no. Nothing else will work.
Your position is harsh enough to make me wince, but I can't argue with the essence of it. What I struggle with is a basic belief in the right of informed *adults* to body modification, and once that's admitted it's difficult to know where to draw the line.
Your 'no' seems to indicate a legal position, and the "cost to society" and "women's reality" appear to support that, but I'd be interested to know how you see the details: should there be a law against men impersonating women? What about women impersonating men? What level of impersonation would be illegal (or have I got it all wrong)?
Anyway, things having got to the place they have, it is imperitive that the biological facts of the binary, immutable sexes are impressed on psychologists and all related medical personnel.
I imagine that DIY trans procedures may be a consequence of banning provision. There were always men, in particular, willing to castrate themselves, and now there are many more true believers ready to mutilate themselves for the cause. So I think we ought to consider sensitive ways to help the world row back from this insanity. There is a good chance "trans" will become passé on its own, like every fad does, and there's also a good chance that those who already have a victim mentality are emboldened and entrenched by repression.
I've heard many responses like this before, sometimes from people who claim to be "libertarian" and care about "bodily autonomy."
There is no right to use the medical industry to do whatever you want to yourself. If I walked into a doctor's office and demanded a lobotomy (which were performed by the thousands for several years) I would get told no. If I demanded 500 OxyContin pills under the guise of "bodily autonomy" I would get told no. If a 70-pound anorexic demanded Adderrall from a doctor to lose more weight she would get told no. Schizophrenics get told no when they demand that everyone "affirm" their delusions.
Adults do not have the right to do whatever they want to themselves using the medical industry as a proxy. It does not exist, and everybody understands that especially within the context of mental illness and delusion. A man cannot "feel like" he's a woman, and most of this is just autogynephilia.
Plenty of delusional people threaten to hurt themselves or actually do. Apotemnophiliacs have used dry ice to freeze their legs, requiring doctors to remove it when doctors refused to remove healthy legs before. Does that mean doctors should remove healthy legs now? That is banned. This needs to be managed by mental health treatment, not affirmation or giving in because they make threats.
What do you mean by "impersonating"? Do you mean just clothing? Women wear pants. Men can wear skirts, though they look dumb. Nobody cares about that. That isn't what "trans" is. Males literally change their birth certificates/passports/drivers license, file lawsuits, end up in women's prisons and sports, and use women's bathrooms. They're not "impersonating." They're forcing a lie with the backing of the state and medical industry. It cannot continue.
When a man gets the stupid idea in his head that he's actually a woman, every authority needs to tell him no otherwise the chaos we see is inexorable. He should be treated by medical authorities to avoid this. We don't make donuts illegal, but we don't teach doctors to tell the morbidly obese that they can and should eat whatever they want. It's a health and public policy issue.
The only reason "trans" has reached the level it has is because of money and media power, from the Pritzkers, Rothblatt, Benioff, Stryker, Gill, Jacobs, etc. I've written several articles about this. The lawsuits are already starting. Once this becomes a money-loser rather than a money-maker, it will end just like opioids and lobotomies. You won't see it in every TV show, movie, Netflix/Hulu series, college department, novel, etc.
Until then, I won't go along with even one iota of it. That's the only logical response.
Kat, I'm almost entirely in agreement with you on the medical affirmation of gender delusions. I say "almost" only because I am not 100% sure that medical intervention should ALWAYS be withheld, but this is because I'm not an expert in medicine or medical ethics, and there might be some rare instances that warrant medical intervention.
My head also went to the ethical question of the rights of adults to modify their bodies, not the right to demand medics alter their bodies. That is a different matter. If someone denied every body-modification right, they would be against adults getting tattoos or piercings, which I'll assume you're not.
But this raises the kinds of issues I perhaps poorly indicated earlier. We license tattooists as private businesses to perform those services. We allow private clinics to provide other body modification services, not publicly funded, for cosmetic reasons. So this raises questions about what kinds of alterations should be allowed.
It is not always easy to distinguish between cosmetic and medical reasons for requesting or delivering surgery, and it is quite conceivable to me that someone might describe their body modification as cosmetic when their goal is impersonation of the opposite sex, or the eradication of their secondary sexual characteristics (whether from the delusion that they're "trans" or any other reason). Of course, I generally agree with your position, and of course it is up to courts and politicians to figure out the tricky grey areas between "yes you can wear a dress" and "you can no longer do transgender surgeries". (Edited that last bit.)
To answer your question about the tattoos--those adults are seeking an achievable goal. They can successfully get a tattoo. A male who wants to be a female is seeking an unachievable goal, even if he passes as female, because no one can change sex and almost none pass. The damage done to society to allow this is too great, so the answer can only be NO, to everyone.
No adult is doing this to himself. This is a medical and government policy. Nobody can give himself estrogen or testicle surgery or change his own birth certificate. That's what you have to understand. This happens in society, not privately.
Are there rare instances when an apotemnophiliac should have a healthy leg removed? Are there rare instances when a 70-pound anorexic should be given liposuction or Adderrall to lose more weight? Are there rare instances when an opioid addict should be given as many OxyContins as requested? Are there rare instances when a manic-depressive should be given a lobotomy with an ice pick?
By what test would you determine these "rare instances" of when a man should be given hormones, surgeries, name changes, passport changes, drivers license changes, birth certificate changes, the right to request all of it?
This is the "true trans" test. How do you know which ones are REALLY delusional and should be allowed to live a lie? How many per year and on what criteria?
Explain.
Read this--I've explained my reasoning already, in a full post.
Kat, I'm surprised how antagonistic you sound to someone who says they almost entirely agree with you! You seem to be responding to me almost as though I'm a trans activist. I couldn't even be described as "on the fence". I've said many times that "trans" isn't real or doesn't exist, and I almost always put "trans" in quotes to remind everyone of that.
I thought I had made it fairly clear that your first comment that I responded to was powerful but very persuasive, and I began to approach it for myself, try it on for size, from my less absolutist position. In general, I absolutely agree that those seeking "transition" or "gender affirmation" should, if necessary, be directed to mental health services that affirm their gender (which is their sex), although how they do that is a whole other subject. It's one I might have a little insight into, as I'm an ex-counsellor, but most people will recognise that care and encouragement are needed to help someone heal from mental illness of any kind. If we approach this with the attitude of "the answer to everything must be no," we will both harm clients who are already in trouble, and damage the goal we seek to acheive.
"No adult is doing this to himself. This is a medical and government policy. Nobody can give himself estrogen or testicle surgery or change his own birth certificate. That's what you have to understand. This happens in society, not privately."
Nonsense. Rates of genital self-mutilation, including castration, aren't well known, but we know that there are groups that discuss and idealize it (such as the Eunuch Archives). Cross-sex hormones are apparently widely available if you know where to look. Certainly no-one can change their birth certificate themselves legally.
Are you pro-choice on abortion? Imagine arguing, "no woman aborts on her own; this happens in society, not privately." I think I know what you're getting at, but since you've pegged me all wrong as some kind of TRA, you're shouting past me. I discussed this very concern earlier, that a harsh crack-down on "trans" rights risks pushing those deluded (indoctrinated, suffering) people further into cult panic, and the equivalent of back-street abortions will no doubt be popping up all over the place.
"Are there rare instances when an apotemnophiliac should have a healthy leg removed? Are there rare instances when a 70-pound anorexic should be given liposuction or Adderrall to lose more weight? Are there rare instances when an opioid addict should be given as many OxyContins as requested? Are there rare instances when a manic-depressive should be given a lobotomy with an ice pick?"
On the first, as I already said, I do not know. I am not qualified to assess that. However, I can think, so here goes. Imagine such a person had suffered with their mental illness for a long time, had round after round of therapy, and nothing changed. Imagine that their desperation to have their leg surgically removed caused them such emotional disturbance that they regularly banged their head against walls until they bled and were concussed. Imagine if they cut themselves, had violent emotional outbursts, or any other condition you associate with someone in dreadful mental pain. Are there no limits to your "no!"? If the person had insisted that the offending leg's removal would bring them relief, and several psychological assessments considered that a likely reality (since we certainly would not want to amputate the leg and then find they were still mad), still you'd refuse. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying you claim better medical knowledge than I dare to. The rest of your examples seem more of a stupid rant than actual challenges, so I'll not bother trying to analyse them, except to say that it might just possibly be ethical to administer a large dose of opioids to someone who has been addicted to opioids, in special circumstances. But I'm guessing you'd say no to all assisted suicide too.
'By what test would you determine these "rare instances" of when a man should be given hormones, surgeries, name changes, passport changes, drivers license changes, birth certificate changes, the right to request all of it?'
It's easy to answer a question with a negative if you lump everything in together. Subtlety of thought, by which we reach mature reasons, requires discriminating between things.
'This is the "true trans" test. How do you know which ones are REALLY delusional and should be allowed to live a lie? How many per year and on what criteria?'
There is no "true trans" test, because nobody is "trans." You have entirely missed most, maybe all, of my points.
Thanks for the link. I followed it to another of your posts in which you say there's no such thing as gender dysphoria, but I didn't pay to find out why you say that. Even if there isn't, there is gender identity disorder; surely you'd admit that? But I think you're wrong. People, especially pre-pubescents, can suffer terrible dysphoria (fear, depression, panic) concerning their sex, or "gender". It's a lot to write out like that to describe this phenomenon, so "gender dysphoria" seems to me a helpful shorthand.
This is the second podcast of yours I’ve listened to on trans issues. They’re both excellent. I’m gonna subscribe, and hope to hear more in the future. My thanks to Jeff Maurer for recommending your podcast on trans Sports.
You do need to make one important change, however. When a conversation gets as contentious as this one, you should give each guest a time limit, say two minutes, and require no one to interrupt during that two minutes. Give yourself two minutes also, so you can guide things. Also encourage each guest to take notes while the other guest is speaking, so their response can really accurately interact with the previous guest.
Teed, thank you for listening and discussing. We really like this suggestion! Definitely will consider moving forward. And please keep in touch, especially if there's a topic you think we should dive into.
Thank you to our listeners and commenters for the dialogue. We hope to keep discussing this topic moving forward. And if you haven't, check out Kinnon Mackinnon's recent post: https://substack.com/home/post/p-161457143
I just realised after years following all this guff that "gender-affirming", like almost every other term in the lexicon, is upside-down. "You're male" is gender affirming in this instance. Saying it is also meant as care, though it's taken as abuse. If someone had taken that care over the years, these two might have led more satisfying lives (along with thousands of others). Instead, their fantasies were indulged, and now two blokes in womanface are arguing over who's the most wrong.
WPATH is neither scientifically or medically valid.
Men became eunuchs in ancient civilizations (Rome, Greece, Israel, China, Byzantine Empire) in order to hold high positions in government and/or out of religious devotion. They were not "transgender."
Brianna Wu came out as trans less than a year ago and has contributed little to the discourse. Buck Angel vs. Marci Bowers is what we needed to see.
I can't listen to Bowers' arrogant, masculine, wrong-headed interrupting anymore. Sorry, turning this off halfway.
Alex, thank you for hosting the conversation and keeping guests from walking out.
It was also great that you were familiar with so much of the literature. I was surprised by how questionable was Dr. Bowers' opinion of Cass report and of the Free Press.
John should talk to someone who accurately states that “trans” does not exist and that he should have been given treatment to accept his sex rather than get incessant plastic surgery to try to be something he is not, whether or not it makes him happy.
The cost to society is too great and women’s reality and lives are more important than him and his mental problems.
The answer to everything must be no. Nothing else will work.
Your position is harsh enough to make me wince, but I can't argue with the essence of it. What I struggle with is a basic belief in the right of informed *adults* to body modification, and once that's admitted it's difficult to know where to draw the line.
Your 'no' seems to indicate a legal position, and the "cost to society" and "women's reality" appear to support that, but I'd be interested to know how you see the details: should there be a law against men impersonating women? What about women impersonating men? What level of impersonation would be illegal (or have I got it all wrong)?
Anyway, things having got to the place they have, it is imperitive that the biological facts of the binary, immutable sexes are impressed on psychologists and all related medical personnel.
I imagine that DIY trans procedures may be a consequence of banning provision. There were always men, in particular, willing to castrate themselves, and now there are many more true believers ready to mutilate themselves for the cause. So I think we ought to consider sensitive ways to help the world row back from this insanity. There is a good chance "trans" will become passé on its own, like every fad does, and there's also a good chance that those who already have a victim mentality are emboldened and entrenched by repression.
I've heard many responses like this before, sometimes from people who claim to be "libertarian" and care about "bodily autonomy."
There is no right to use the medical industry to do whatever you want to yourself. If I walked into a doctor's office and demanded a lobotomy (which were performed by the thousands for several years) I would get told no. If I demanded 500 OxyContin pills under the guise of "bodily autonomy" I would get told no. If a 70-pound anorexic demanded Adderrall from a doctor to lose more weight she would get told no. Schizophrenics get told no when they demand that everyone "affirm" their delusions.
Adults do not have the right to do whatever they want to themselves using the medical industry as a proxy. It does not exist, and everybody understands that especially within the context of mental illness and delusion. A man cannot "feel like" he's a woman, and most of this is just autogynephilia.
Plenty of delusional people threaten to hurt themselves or actually do. Apotemnophiliacs have used dry ice to freeze their legs, requiring doctors to remove it when doctors refused to remove healthy legs before. Does that mean doctors should remove healthy legs now? That is banned. This needs to be managed by mental health treatment, not affirmation or giving in because they make threats.
What do you mean by "impersonating"? Do you mean just clothing? Women wear pants. Men can wear skirts, though they look dumb. Nobody cares about that. That isn't what "trans" is. Males literally change their birth certificates/passports/drivers license, file lawsuits, end up in women's prisons and sports, and use women's bathrooms. They're not "impersonating." They're forcing a lie with the backing of the state and medical industry. It cannot continue.
When a man gets the stupid idea in his head that he's actually a woman, every authority needs to tell him no otherwise the chaos we see is inexorable. He should be treated by medical authorities to avoid this. We don't make donuts illegal, but we don't teach doctors to tell the morbidly obese that they can and should eat whatever they want. It's a health and public policy issue.
The only reason "trans" has reached the level it has is because of money and media power, from the Pritzkers, Rothblatt, Benioff, Stryker, Gill, Jacobs, etc. I've written several articles about this. The lawsuits are already starting. Once this becomes a money-loser rather than a money-maker, it will end just like opioids and lobotomies. You won't see it in every TV show, movie, Netflix/Hulu series, college department, novel, etc.
Until then, I won't go along with even one iota of it. That's the only logical response.
Thank you for articulating everything so well.
I hope more people see that "adults can do whatever they want!" isn't going to work here.
Kat, I'm almost entirely in agreement with you on the medical affirmation of gender delusions. I say "almost" only because I am not 100% sure that medical intervention should ALWAYS be withheld, but this is because I'm not an expert in medicine or medical ethics, and there might be some rare instances that warrant medical intervention.
My head also went to the ethical question of the rights of adults to modify their bodies, not the right to demand medics alter their bodies. That is a different matter. If someone denied every body-modification right, they would be against adults getting tattoos or piercings, which I'll assume you're not.
But this raises the kinds of issues I perhaps poorly indicated earlier. We license tattooists as private businesses to perform those services. We allow private clinics to provide other body modification services, not publicly funded, for cosmetic reasons. So this raises questions about what kinds of alterations should be allowed.
It is not always easy to distinguish between cosmetic and medical reasons for requesting or delivering surgery, and it is quite conceivable to me that someone might describe their body modification as cosmetic when their goal is impersonation of the opposite sex, or the eradication of their secondary sexual characteristics (whether from the delusion that they're "trans" or any other reason). Of course, I generally agree with your position, and of course it is up to courts and politicians to figure out the tricky grey areas between "yes you can wear a dress" and "you can no longer do transgender surgeries". (Edited that last bit.)
To answer your question about the tattoos--those adults are seeking an achievable goal. They can successfully get a tattoo. A male who wants to be a female is seeking an unachievable goal, even if he passes as female, because no one can change sex and almost none pass. The damage done to society to allow this is too great, so the answer can only be NO, to everyone.
No adult is doing this to himself. This is a medical and government policy. Nobody can give himself estrogen or testicle surgery or change his own birth certificate. That's what you have to understand. This happens in society, not privately.
Are there rare instances when an apotemnophiliac should have a healthy leg removed? Are there rare instances when a 70-pound anorexic should be given liposuction or Adderrall to lose more weight? Are there rare instances when an opioid addict should be given as many OxyContins as requested? Are there rare instances when a manic-depressive should be given a lobotomy with an ice pick?
By what test would you determine these "rare instances" of when a man should be given hormones, surgeries, name changes, passport changes, drivers license changes, birth certificate changes, the right to request all of it?
This is the "true trans" test. How do you know which ones are REALLY delusional and should be allowed to live a lie? How many per year and on what criteria?
Explain.
Read this--I've explained my reasoning already, in a full post.
https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/but-but-butadults-can-do-whatever
Kat, I'm surprised how antagonistic you sound to someone who says they almost entirely agree with you! You seem to be responding to me almost as though I'm a trans activist. I couldn't even be described as "on the fence". I've said many times that "trans" isn't real or doesn't exist, and I almost always put "trans" in quotes to remind everyone of that.
I thought I had made it fairly clear that your first comment that I responded to was powerful but very persuasive, and I began to approach it for myself, try it on for size, from my less absolutist position. In general, I absolutely agree that those seeking "transition" or "gender affirmation" should, if necessary, be directed to mental health services that affirm their gender (which is their sex), although how they do that is a whole other subject. It's one I might have a little insight into, as I'm an ex-counsellor, but most people will recognise that care and encouragement are needed to help someone heal from mental illness of any kind. If we approach this with the attitude of "the answer to everything must be no," we will both harm clients who are already in trouble, and damage the goal we seek to acheive.
"No adult is doing this to himself. This is a medical and government policy. Nobody can give himself estrogen or testicle surgery or change his own birth certificate. That's what you have to understand. This happens in society, not privately."
Nonsense. Rates of genital self-mutilation, including castration, aren't well known, but we know that there are groups that discuss and idealize it (such as the Eunuch Archives). Cross-sex hormones are apparently widely available if you know where to look. Certainly no-one can change their birth certificate themselves legally.
Are you pro-choice on abortion? Imagine arguing, "no woman aborts on her own; this happens in society, not privately." I think I know what you're getting at, but since you've pegged me all wrong as some kind of TRA, you're shouting past me. I discussed this very concern earlier, that a harsh crack-down on "trans" rights risks pushing those deluded (indoctrinated, suffering) people further into cult panic, and the equivalent of back-street abortions will no doubt be popping up all over the place.
"Are there rare instances when an apotemnophiliac should have a healthy leg removed? Are there rare instances when a 70-pound anorexic should be given liposuction or Adderrall to lose more weight? Are there rare instances when an opioid addict should be given as many OxyContins as requested? Are there rare instances when a manic-depressive should be given a lobotomy with an ice pick?"
On the first, as I already said, I do not know. I am not qualified to assess that. However, I can think, so here goes. Imagine such a person had suffered with their mental illness for a long time, had round after round of therapy, and nothing changed. Imagine that their desperation to have their leg surgically removed caused them such emotional disturbance that they regularly banged their head against walls until they bled and were concussed. Imagine if they cut themselves, had violent emotional outbursts, or any other condition you associate with someone in dreadful mental pain. Are there no limits to your "no!"? If the person had insisted that the offending leg's removal would bring them relief, and several psychological assessments considered that a likely reality (since we certainly would not want to amputate the leg and then find they were still mad), still you'd refuse. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm saying you claim better medical knowledge than I dare to. The rest of your examples seem more of a stupid rant than actual challenges, so I'll not bother trying to analyse them, except to say that it might just possibly be ethical to administer a large dose of opioids to someone who has been addicted to opioids, in special circumstances. But I'm guessing you'd say no to all assisted suicide too.
'By what test would you determine these "rare instances" of when a man should be given hormones, surgeries, name changes, passport changes, drivers license changes, birth certificate changes, the right to request all of it?'
It's easy to answer a question with a negative if you lump everything in together. Subtlety of thought, by which we reach mature reasons, requires discriminating between things.
'This is the "true trans" test. How do you know which ones are REALLY delusional and should be allowed to live a lie? How many per year and on what criteria?'
There is no "true trans" test, because nobody is "trans." You have entirely missed most, maybe all, of my points.
Thanks for the link. I followed it to another of your posts in which you say there's no such thing as gender dysphoria, but I didn't pay to find out why you say that. Even if there isn't, there is gender identity disorder; surely you'd admit that? But I think you're wrong. People, especially pre-pubescents, can suffer terrible dysphoria (fear, depression, panic) concerning their sex, or "gender". It's a lot to write out like that to describe this phenomenon, so "gender dysphoria" seems to me a helpful shorthand.