Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[downer]

You would have to be a sort of conspiracy theorist to think that all those professional associations were cabable of jumping on a bandwagon rather than assessing good evidence. You'd have to have a severe distrust in the idea of medical expertise as practiced in the USA.

Of course, quite a few academics take exactly that attitude towards modern medicine in the USA. Indeed, quite a few doctors also share scepticism towards their profession.

[ciao_yall]

You would have to be a sort of conspiracy theorist to think that all those professional associations were cabable of jumping on a bandwagon rather than assessing good evidence. You'd have to have a severe distrust in the idea of medical expertise as practiced in the USA.

Of course, quite a few academics take exactly that attitude towards modern medicine in the USA. Indeed, quite a few doctors also share scepticism towards their profession.

Well, it's one thing to trust other physicians to find the right level of what might be defined as "gender-affirming-care" for their own patients.

I doubt any of these organizations, contrary to the shrill shoutings of Faux News, agree that hormones and surgery are appropriate the first time a 6-year-old boy wants to try on Mommy's dresses.

[Diogenes]

You would have to be a sort of conspiracy theorist to think that all those professional associations were cabable of jumping on a bandwagon rather than assessing good evidence. You'd have to have a severe distrust in the idea of medical expertise as practiced in the USA.

Of course, quite a few academics take exactly that attitude towards modern medicine in the USA. Indeed, quite a few doctors also share scepticism towards their profession.

Well, it's one thing to trust other physicians to find the right level of what might be defined as "gender-affirming-care" for their own patients.

I doubt any of these organizations, contrary to the shrill shoutings of Faux News, agree that hormones and surgery are appropriate the first time a 6-year-old boy wants to try on Mommy's dresses.

Yep. "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" is straight up not a thing, even though Faux News harps on about it. One terrible paper used the term, and many have called for it's retraction due to overtly bad methods. When medical intervention occurs, it's after years of social transitioning and guidance with expert mental health workers.

[dismalist]

We are all presumably academics, right? So we should show deference to the experts in the fields of medicine and psychology on such a topic, right? If one is not an expert and only getting their info from popular media, that would be anti-intellectual, wouldn't we say?

Here's a non-exclusive list of major professional organizations that have made statements supporting gender affirming care for minors. If you are not an expert, it's time to sit down with your ignorant opinion about "groomers" and gender or whatever.


    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Academy of Dermatology
    American Academy of Family Physicians
    American Academy of Nursing
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Physician Assistants
    American College Health Association
    American College of Nurse-Midwives
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    American College of Physicians
    American Counseling Association
    American Heart Association
    American Medical Association
    American Medical Student Association
    American Nurses Association
    American Osteopathic Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Public Health Association
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons
    Endocrine Society
    Federation of Pediatric Organizations
    GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
    National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
    National Association of Social Workers
    National Commission on Correctional Health Care
    Pediatric Endocrine Society
    Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
    World Medical Association
    World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Interesting, that all these experts are promoting what's in their own narrow economic interest. Find new things to treat, get new customers, make more money! Incentives, man, incentives.

We shouldn't show deference to any expert group per se. Richard Feynman opined:

--Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

--Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

[jimbogumbo]

We are all presumably academics, right? So we should show deference to the experts in the fields of medicine and psychology on such a topic, right? If one is not an expert and only getting their info from popular media, that would be anti-intellectual, wouldn't we say?

Here's a non-exclusive list of major professional organizations that have made statements supporting gender affirming care for minors. If you are not an expert, it's time to sit down with your ignorant opinion about "groomers" and gender or whatever.


    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Academy of Dermatology
    American Academy of Family Physicians
    American Academy of Nursing
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Physician Assistants
    American College Health Association
    American College of Nurse-Midwives
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
    American College of Physicians
    American Counseling Association
    American Heart Association
    American Medical Association
    American Medical Student Association
    American Nurses Association
    American Osteopathic Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Public Health Association
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons
    Endocrine Society
    Federation of Pediatric Organizations
    GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBTQ Equality
    National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
    National Association of Social Workers
    National Commission on Correctional Health Care
    Pediatric Endocrine Society
    Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
    World Medical Association
    World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Interesting, that all these experts are promoting what's in their own narrow economic interest. Find new things to treat, get new customers, make more money! Incentives, man, incentives.

We shouldn't show deference to any expert group per se. Richard Feynman opined:

--Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

--Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Sorry dismalist, but I think your claim is horse crap. Tell me what on earth nurses/nurse practitioners, midwives, GPs, dermatologists(!!), cardiologists etc have to gain financially from this stance? You cannot possibly believe that the financial fate of hospitals and these practices is tied to the economic gains associated with this still really quite rare procedure.

[dismalist]

We are all presumably academics, right? So we should show deference to the experts in the fields of medicine and psychology on such a topic, right? If one is not an expert and only getting their info from popular media, that would be anti-intellectual, wouldn't we say?

...

Interesting, that all these experts are promoting what's in their own narrow economic interest. Find new things to treat, get new customers, make more money! Incentives, man, incentives.

We shouldn't show deference to any expert group per se. Richard Feynman opined:

--Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

--Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Sorry dismalist, but I think your claim is horse crap. Tell me what on earth nurses/nurse practitioners, midwives, GPs, dermatologists(!!), cardiologists etc have to gain financially from this stance? You cannot possibly believe that the financial fate of hospitals and these practices is tied to the economic gains associated with this still really quite rare procedure.

I have this Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

[downer]

Yeah. There are some gender clinics which may have a profit motive to promote their services and get customers, but the numbers are too small to make any real difference to the whole medical profession.

On the other hand, the number of youth who now identify as gender non-conforming are significant. Some estimates put it at 5% of young adults. But it isn't clear exactly what that means. Back in the 1970s lots of us were gender nonconforming.

[Wahoo Redux]

Interesting, that all these experts are promoting what's in their own narrow economic interest.

As is so often the case when these sorts of cliches are hurled at a professional class, you have made a claim----can you prove it?

Go on, prove with evidence that health care professionals are buying those beach houses off the genders of callow young innocents and gullible parents.

I double dog dare you.

And while you are at it, prove the same is true of climate scientists.

Then go "doubt" your oncologist, while you are at it.

[dismalist]

Oh, you naive soul. There's gold in them thar' hills!

I also sell used cars.

[onthefringe]

I'll let Wahoo explain that by what he calls "men-at-birth".

Sure.

At birth we are generally a single gender and will retain our chromosomes for the rest of our lives.

Argh. While I generally agree with Wahoo, this is one of my pet peeves.

Gender and sex are different things.

Sex can be defined on many levels:
Size and motility of gametes: female is large, nonmotile while male is small, motile
Nature of primary sexual characteristics: (for humans male is penis and testes and associated tubing, female is uterus, ovaries, associated tubing, and externally a clitoris and vulva)
Nature of secondary sexual characteristics acquired at puberty: (male includes deeper voice, wider shoulders, 'male' hair pattern; female includes breasts, wider hips, 'female' hair patterns)

In humans there is a strong, but not 100%, correlation between an XY karyotype and the things labeled male above and between an XX karyotype and the things labeled female above.

Intersex could be defined as any lack of clear, typical outcomes connecting karyotype, gametes, primary sex characteristics, and secondary sex characteristics. It includes things like people who have ambiguous genitalia and people who have apparently unabiguous external genitalia that aren't the ones expected for their karyotype.

Gender is a person's understanding of whether they are a man or a woman in the context of their society.

Gender is not a polite word for sex. Animals may or may not have genders, but it would be impossible for a person to tell what 'gender' a cat was.

Babies probably don't have genders either because they don't (yet) have the language or ability to understand whether they feel like boys/men or girls/women.

There's a strong, but not 100% correlation between specific karyotypes and sexual characteristics and specific gender identifications. Some aspects of gender identification are probably socially driven and others are probably biologically driven.

I think (but am not positive) that what Wahoo means by "men at birth" is what I would call "assigned male at birth" in the specific subset of cases where karyotype and external genitalia are those we consider male and where puberty would be expected to produce male secondary sexual characteristics.

[Wahoo Redux]

Oh, you naive soul. There's gold in them thar' hills!

I also sell used cars.

Yup, thought so.

[marshwiggle]

I'll let Wahoo explain that by what he calls "men-at-birth".

Sure.

At birth we are generally a single gender and will retain our chromosomes for the rest of our lives.

Argh. While I generally agree with Wahoo, this is one of my pet peeves.

Gender and sex are different things.

Sex can be defined on many levels:
Size and motility of gametes: female is large, nonmotile while male is small, motile
Nature of primary sexual characteristics: (for humans male is penis and testes and associated tubing, female is uterus, ovaries, associated tubing, and externally a clitoris and vulva)
Nature of secondary sexual characteristics acquired at puberty: (male includes deeper voice, wider shoulders, 'male' hair pattern; female includes breasts, wider hips, 'female' hair patterns)

In humans there is a strong, but not 100%, correlation between an XY karyotype and the things labeled male above and between an XX karyotype and the things labeled female above.

Intersex could be defined as any lack of clear, typical outcomes connecting karyotype, gametes, primary sex characteristics, and secondary sex characteristics. It includes things like people who have ambiguous genitalia and people who have apparently unabiguous external genitalia that aren't the ones expected for their karyotype.

Gender is a person's understanding of whether they are a man or a woman in the context of their society.

Gender is not a polite word for sex. Animals may or may not have genders, but it would be impossible for a person to tell what 'gender' a cat was.

Babies probably don't have genders either because they don't (yet) have the language or ability to understand whether they feel like boys/men or girls/women.

There's a strong, but not 100% correlation between specific karyotypes and sexual characteristics and specific gender identifications. Some aspects of gender identification are probably socially driven and others are probably biologically driven.

I think (but am not positive) that what Wahoo means by "men at birth" is what I would call "assigned male at birth" in the specific subset of cases where karyotype and external genitalia are those we consider male and where puberty would be expected to produce male secondary sexual characteristics.

Wahoo, do you want to change your previous statements?

If, in fact, "some aspects of gender identification are probably socially driven and others are probably biologically driven", why is making medical changes (to alter biology)considered the best solution rather than counselling (to alter psychology)? What evidence is there that "gender identity" is more inflexible than biology? Especially to the point where even suggesting counselling to make people comfortable with their biology is considered some form of abuse?


Many musicians are left-handed, even at the highest levels of professional performance. This includes people playing stringed instruments, where the two hands are doing very different things. No doubt over the centuries the style of playing the instrument developed in the way that was easiest for the majority of musicians who were right-handed. However, the top-notch left-handed musicians have obviously been able to adapt their brains so that they have not been limited in their performance.

The brain is amazingly malleable. Surgery and medication can't hold a candle to neural plasticity.

[onthefringe]

I'll let Wahoo explain that by what he calls "men-at-birth".

Sure.

At birth we are generally a single gender and will retain our chromosomes for the rest of our lives.

Argh. While I generally agree with Wahoo, this is one of my pet peeves.

Gender and sex are different things.

Sex can be defined on many levels:
Size and motility of gametes: female is large, nonmotile while male is small, motile
Nature of primary sexual characteristics: (for humans male is penis and testes and associated tubing, female is uterus, ovaries, associated tubing, and externally a clitoris and vulva)
Nature of secondary sexual characteristics acquired at puberty: (male includes deeper voice, wider shoulders, 'male' hair pattern; female includes breasts, wider hips, 'female' hair patterns)

In humans there is a strong, but not 100%, correlation between an XY karyotype and the things labeled male above and between an XX karyotype and the things labeled female above.

Intersex could be defined as any lack of clear, typical outcomes connecting karyotype, gametes, primary sex characteristics, and secondary sex characteristics. It includes things like people who have ambiguous genitalia and people who have apparently unabiguous external genitalia that aren't the ones expected for their karyotype.

Gender is a person's understanding of whether they are a man or a woman in the context of their society.

Gender is not a polite word for sex. Animals may or may not have genders, but it would be impossible for a person to tell what 'gender' a cat was.

Babies probably don't have genders either because they don't (yet) have the language or ability to understand whether they feel like boys/men or girls/women.

There's a strong, but not 100% correlation between specific karyotypes and sexual characteristics and specific gender identifications. Some aspects of gender identification are probably socially driven and others are probably biologically driven.

I think (but am not positive) that what Wahoo means by "men at birth" is what I would call "assigned male at birth" in the specific subset of cases where karyotype and external genitalia are those we consider male and where puberty would be expected to produce male secondary sexual characteristics.

Wahoo, do you want to change your previous statements?

If, in fact, "some aspects of gender identification are probably socially driven and others are probably biologically driven", why is making medical changes (to alter biology)considered the best solution rather than counselling (to alter psychology)? What evidence is there that "gender identity" is more inflexible than biology? Especially to the point where even suggesting counselling to make people comfortable with their biology is considered some form of abuse?


Many musicians are left-handed, even at the highest levels of professional performance. This includes people playing stringed instruments, where the two hands are doing very different things. No doubt over the centuries the style of playing the instrument developed in the way that was easiest for the majority of musicians who were right-handed. However, the top-notch left-handed musicians have obviously been able to adapt their brains so that they have not been limited in their performance.

The brain is amazingly malleable. Surgery and medication can't hold a candle to neural plasticity.

The fact that gender identity (probably) has some social influences does not make it amenable to changes via "counseling". There's in fact quite a lot of data suggesting that trying to change people's gender identification can be extremely harmful (read up on John Money if you want some horrifying stories supporting the idea that gender identity is not something that can be programmed by social input).

So the question becomes what signifier do you (and here I actually mean you, marshwiggle, not a vague societal "you") want to try to force people to match their gender to?

Consider a person assigned female at birth with typical female external genitalia. This person is raised as a girl, and identifies as a girl and goes through a typical-seeming female puberty, developing breasts and expanded hips. This person comes to medical attention due to lack of menstruation, and doctors discover a lack of a uterus and that the gonads are actually undescended testicles. The patient has an XY karyotype and high levels of circulating testosterone, but a mutation that makes their cells insensitive to testosterone.

So some aspects of biology say "male" and others say "female". But gender identification says "woman". To me it is a no brainer that this person is a woman and should be allowed to live and identify as one. To force this woman to live as a man because of her karyotype or gonadal structure would be insane and harmful.

The fact that many other cases are less clear cut does not alter the general principle. I believe that the least harmful thing in these cases is that if someone continues to identify as a specific gender, society should accept and support that gender identification.

[marshwiggle]

Wahoo, do you want to change your previous statements?

If, in fact, "some aspects of gender identification are probably socially driven and others are probably biologically driven", why is making medical changes (to alter biology)considered the best solution rather than counselling (to alter psychology)? What evidence is there that "gender identity" is more inflexible than biology? Especially to the point where even suggesting counselling to make people comfortable with their biology is considered some form of abuse?


Many musicians are left-handed, even at the highest levels of professional performance. This includes people playing stringed instruments, where the two hands are doing very different things. No doubt over the centuries the style of playing the instrument developed in the way that was easiest for the majority of musicians who were right-handed. However, the top-notch left-handed musicians have obviously been able to adapt their brains so that they have not been limited in their performance.

The brain is amazingly malleable. Surgery and medication can't hold a candle to neural plasticity.

The fact that gender identity (probably) has some social influences does not make it amenable to changes via "counseling". There's in fact quite a lot of data suggesting that trying to change people's gender identification can be extremely harmful (read up on John Money if you want some horrifying stories supporting the idea that gender identity is not something that can be programmed by social input).

Are you talking about David Reimer? That was exactly a case of trying to change someone's "gender identity" from their biological reality!

So the question becomes what signifier do you (and here I actually mean you, marshwiggle, not a vague societal "you") want to try to force people to match their gender to?

Consider a person assigned female at birth with typical female external genitalia. This person is raised as a girl, and identifies as a girl and goes through a typical-seeming female puberty, developing breasts and expanded hips. This person comes to medical attention due to lack of menstruation, and doctors discover a lack of a uterus and that the gonads are actually undescended testicles. The patient has an XY karyotype and high levels of circulating testosterone, but a mutation that makes their cells insensitive to testosterone.

So some aspects of biology say "male" and others say "female". But gender identification says "woman". To me it is a no brainer that this person is a woman and should be allowed to live and identify as one. To force this woman to live as a man because of her karyotype or gonadal structure would be insane and harmful.

The fact that many other cases are less clear cut does not alter the general principle. I believe that the least harmful thing in these cases is that if someone continues to identify as a specific gender, society should accept and support that gender identification.

Intersex people are, as I have said, a tiny fraction of the population. That is entirely different from the vast majority of trans people, whose biology is not remotely unusual.

[onthefringe]

Intersex people are, as I have said, a tiny fraction of the population. That is entirely different from the vast majority of trans people, whose biology is not remotely unusual.

So they are rare, so what? I still would love to hear your answer. Our responses to rare 'edge cases' frequently highlight our internal contradictions.

And you (and we) have essentially no idea if the majority of trans people have completely typical biology. Are you saying you only give people the grace of knowing their own gender if you personally understand the biological underpinnings of that gender identity?