Ben Shapiro and transgender mental illness

[Emower]

I dont listen to RadioWest very often, something about Doug Fabrizio's interviewing makes me lose interest faster than a Sacrament Meeting. But when there is something super interesting I will listen to it. He interviewed Ben Shapiro the other day and I gave it a listen. I recommend it. Fabrizio gets obviously flustered by Shapiro's unapologetic conservative stance on hot button issues. He kept trying to get Shapiro to see that what he says might be construed as offensive to some, and Shapiro was not having it.

Anyway, I found Shapiro's stance on transgenderism as being a mental illness interesting. And he did say that he was not referring to people whose transgenderism may be based in biology. He was referring to people with genetics, biology, and genetalia that clearly points to a specific gender.
The reason I find it interesting is because as I have changed my religious views and shed some of the Mormon shackles, I find that my political views have become more liberal as well. I think this is pretty common. I wonder why that is?
Anyway, some of what Shapiro says still actually resonates with me. Frankly that kind of bugs me. I view myself as much too liberal to agree with Shapiro on anything, yet here I was, agreeing with him. The fact that someone who is born with a male body, male genetics, and a supportive home may want to change their sex baffles me and strikes me as unhealthy and maybe it is all in their head (thus, mentally ill).

I came across this post on some internet board as I was searching for information on this. There are some scientific articles cited and instead of lifting them off the post you can read the discussion here:
https://www.metabunk.org/ben-shapiro-tr ... ase.t9089/

I thought this was interesting and educated me a little bit about how reality is often so much more complex than we realize. Shapiro claims that "thats not how biology works," but biology is so much more complicated than it looks as well. The interplay between biology, psychology, and the endocrine system is also more complicated than conservatives like to think. I think I can say that because I only recently changed my views.

[alas]

you bring up a couple of issues, one being why leaving Mormonism tends to make people more liberal in their political views, and the other about transgender as a mental illness.

So, first, the political thing. When psychologists study conservatives, they find a cluster of traits. They value loyalty, tradition, and purity. They tend to see the world as black and white. They seem to believe what authority tells them and this makes them more succeptable to being gullible to lies and believing conspiracy theories. Liberals on the other hand value those things but put more emphasis on fairness, equality than do conservatives. Liberals values are better balanced because they value all those things, while conservatives place much less value on fairness than say tradition.

Now, with those traits, who is going to be better at critical thinking? And does critical thinking tend to come before religious belief collapse or does belief collapse cause one to develope critical thinking skills.

Now think about what the church emphasizes. They tend not to care what you believe, as long as you toe the line=act loyal. They want unquestioning obedience. They are strong on tradition, especially with gender roles and sexuality.

So, when you bust out of the Mormon religion, I think it tends to do several things.
1. It obliterates the authority you have been trusting, thus smacking down your trust in authority.
2. It changes your social group, which exposes you to more liberals and people adopt the values of those in their social group.
3. It messes up your black and white world view.
4. It changes what you want to follow as tradition and what you are loyal to, thus snaking down those two values.
5 your view of purity needs to be rearranged, because "God" no longer dictates what is pure and what is not.

Poof, you just became a liberal.

As to the mental illness, that is a tough one, because it is going to depend on FINDING the cause or causes of a person being transgender. We suspect some causes as being the fetus being exposed to hormones before birth. Is THAT a mental illness? It is probably "all in their head" because their brain was influenced by those hormones. Another known cause is intersex people who were "assigned" a gender at birth and the doctors simply got it wrong when DNA was checked. That is not mental illness but the doctor screwing up. What about the androgen insensitive boy who looks exactly like a girl at birth but his chromosomes are XY, but his androgen is not doing anything or maybe not doing much and he has a female body but feels like a boy?

Basically the answer from a psychologist's point of view, is that it is not mental illness, not in the way that people mean when they call it gender disphoria and claim it is mental illness. The people claiming it is mental illness are trying to squish something they do not understand into a binary box so that they can tell themselves they understand it.

See, gender is not determined by genitals, but by your brain. Before that the brain is influenced by the chemicals floating around in the fetus's body, AND those it gets through the placenta from the mother. Or in the case of androgen insensitivity, the brain may or may not be influenced. So, is having a brain structure of the opposite sex a mental illness or a birth defect.

And if the brain structure does not agree with genitals, which is wrong? Is this a mental illness? We can't fix it if it was hard wired into the brain, so what s the best way to fix it? It is possible to change the body somewhat, but it is not possible to change the brain.

[Mad Jax]

I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are symptoms of a false thought continuum. I think they are fragile constructs which shatter when first principles are used to build more complex logical constructs. Neither of them fit within either classical philosophies such as stoicism or Aristotelian ethics or within modern philosophies such as empiricism or rationalism. I realize this has a lot to do with how these terms are defined and that it's hard to pin down a single definition because politics has muddied the terms, but I think it can be agreed that the current, modern terms - in all their permutations - have little to do with their classical definitions.

I know that single paragraph could use expansion, and I will be happy to discuss its incompleteness if there is interest, but I hope it is sufficient to explain my disagreement with the idea of liberals - at least as I understand its current political ideological definition (leftism influenced by, but not beholden to, Marxist thought) - as critical thinkers. And I give alas the benefit of the doubt, which I think is evident enough in her statements, that she is leaning more toward the concept of classic liberal thinking than with the current political definition of a liberal in the United States. It isn't really a contradiction of her statement but more meant to be contrary to ideas which could incorrectly rise from her assertions. Which I know isn't her intention and the members of this board appear far less prone to such fallacies, but I thought it should be said.

I personally find both liberalism and conservatism - as defined in modern US political terms - to be examples of extreme low effort thinking. That doesn't mean that specific positions within the so called "spectrum" can't be well reasoned and based in solid principles. Far from it. And I love discussing those differences because it's the only way to think about new ideas. That said, most of my political ideas haven't changed since leaving the church.

I hope nobody takes this as an attack on the use of "conservative" or "liberal" as convenient labels, by the way. I understand the words have their uses but I think the context is easily muddied.

[Mad Jax]

As to the mental illness, that is a tough one, because it is going to depend on FINDING the cause or causes of a person being transgender. We suspect some causes as being the fetus being exposed to hormones before birth. Is THAT a mental illness? It is probably "all in their head" because their brain was influenced by those hormones. Another known cause is intersex people who were "assigned" a gender at birth and the doctors simply got it wrong when DNA was checked. That is not mental illness but the doctor screwing up. What about the androgen insensitive boy who looks exactly like a girl at birth but his chromosomes are XY, but his androgen is not doing anything or maybe not doing much and he has a female body but feels like a boy?

Basically the answer from a psychologist's point of view, is that it is not mental illness, not in the way that people mean when they call it gender disphoria and claim it is mental illness. The people claiming it is mental illness are trying to squish something they do not understand into a binary box so that they can tell themselves they understand it.

See, gender is not determined by genitals, but by your brain. Before that the brain is influenced by the chemicals floating around in the fetus's body, AND those it gets through the placenta from the mother. Or in the case of androgen insensitivity, the brain may or may not be influenced. So, is having a brain structure of the opposite sex a mental illness or a birth defect.

And if the brain structure does not agree with genitals, which is wrong? Is this a mental illness? We can't fix it if it was hard wired into the brain, so what s the best way to fix it? It is possible to change the body somewhat, but it is not possible to change the brain.

I find all those things utterly fascinating and I could devote hours to watching documentaries on all of them. Biology has too much memorization for me though, and not enough math and calculation. There is some, of course (genetics being a good example) but the general idea remains true. My favorite part of my classes on human evolution was the discussion of the cell, but it was sadly a short portion of the material.

I think embryology can explain so much. Any analysis of gender dysphoria should begin there IMO. Gender non-conformity, in and of itself, is not considered an illness in the DSM V, as I understand it. It can be a symptom of a mental illness, however. It's not a simple "either/or" issue that many make it out to be. I think a lot of the misunderstanding comes from our country's poor administration of psychiatric health (overall) to its citizenry and that if that was improved we'd see a lot of this in a more educated light. But that's a pet issue of mine and I may not be totally unbiased.

[alas]

I think the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are symptoms of a false thought continuum. I think they are fragile constructs which shatter when first principles are used to build more complex logical constructs. Neither of them fit within either classical philosophies such as stoicism or Aristotelian ethics or within modern philosophies such as empiricism or rationalism. I realize this has a lot to do with how these terms are defined and that it's hard to pin down a single definition because politics has muddied the terms, but I think it can be agreed that the current, modern terms - in all their permutations - have little to do with their classical definitions.

I know that single paragraph could use expansion, and I will be happy to discuss its incompleteness if there is interest, but I hope it is sufficient to explain my disagreement with the idea of liberals - at least as I understand its current political ideological definition (leftism influenced by, but not beholden to, Marxist thought) - as critical thinkers. And I give alas the benefit of the doubt, which I think is evident enough in her statements, that she is leaning more toward the concept of classic liberal thinking than with the current political definition of a liberal in the United States. It isn't really a contradiction of her statement but more meant to be contrary to ideas which could incorrectly rise from her assertions. Which I know isn't her intention and the members of this board appear far less prone to such fallacies, but I thought it should be said.

I personally find both liberalism and conservatism - as defined in modern US political terms - to be examples of extreme low effort thinking. That doesn't mean that specific positions within the so called "spectrum" can't be well reasoned and based in solid principles. Far from it. And I love discussing those differences because it's the only way to think about new ideas. That said, most of my political ideas haven't changed since leaving the church.

I hope nobody takes this as an attack on the use of "conservative" or "liberal" as convenient labels, by the way. I understand the words have their uses but I think the context is easily muddied.

I have no idea how the people who designed the studies that those ideas (generalities) about "liberals" and "conservatives" came from, defined their terms, but I imagine to was roughly along the current political divide. And there is the prejudice that some of my above information was published in a "liberal" journal. But, then with some of what the current "conservative" congress is trying to do, I can hardly call them financially conservative. And then there are all the complications with financial conservative, but social liberal, which is quite common. People can be against any form of socialism, but all for such things as gay rights and abortion choice. And where do they fall on this scale that these researchers found of the difference n how much a person values fairness? But I totally agree that the terms are quite muddy.

[Give It Time]

Interesting as I find the idea of embryology in this, it's something I don't want religions to really learn. I can see them blaming homosexuality entirely on the mother and start policing diets, exercise, environment, thoughts, everything.

[Jeffret]

I believe my fundamental questions regarding transgender people are: Does it really matter? Is it really any of my business? What can I do to better support people as they are without first requiring them to adhere to my own biases?

I'm a pretty cisgender guy, though kind of gender non-conforming in some ways. I'm not much interested in watching sports. I take care of cars but I think they're just a mechanism to get from one place to another. I do housework. I participate in child-raising and schooling. The transgender situation, gender dysphoria, whatever it is, is just bewildering and incomprehensible to me. It's similar with sexual orientation. I'm about as straight as they come. I have a hard time seeing how women are interested in men, let alone other men. But, the same thing extends even further. There are women who are models, considered by lots of men to be the epitome of female beauty, who really don't interest me at all. And many, many other things in life that don't have to do with sex and reproduction. (Though sometimes I wonder, does everything have to do with sex and reproduction?)

Why should it be important to me that other's experiences and interests are different from mine? Why should I think that being me gives me a right to determine how other people live? Why should I think it is valuable to me to judge others for their differing choices? What makes me think I should have some say in someone else's medical diagnosis and treatment?

I really don't think it matters in any meaningful way to the vast majority of people whether being transgender is a mental illness. It could possibly matter somewhat to those who have this condition. Or to those who treat them. But transgender people, those who've studied them, and those who support and treat them pretty thoroughly say it isn't a mental illness, at least not in any fashion in which it is useful to describe it as such. (There are so many things we don't understand, especially when it comes to mind / brain stuff.) How would my insistence on calling it a mental illness help anything?

There are many, many transgender people who experience a vastly improved life when they switch to their correct gender. Not all of them, certainly, because of the vast diversity of human life, but many. As medical experts have asked many parents of trans kids, "Would you prefer to have a dead son or a live daughter?" (Or vice versa.) Because they've seen all too often the result of trying to force a trans person to be different than they are. These individuals, experts, professionals, parents, and lovers often find effective ways of helping and supporting trans people. They haven't found that calling it a mental illness is productive. And they haven't found that it manifests in ways that are consistent with other things they call and treat as mental illnesses.

There are many cases where an extremely young child demonstrates aspects of being transgender. With some, as soon as they start developing an awareness of self and others, particularly along gendered lines, they start demonstrating and expressing that they are different than how others perceive them. Parents have reported their "son" as young as 2 or 3 years old stating clearly, "I am a girl", and behaving totally in conformity with that statement. This is clearly something very fundamental, very foundational in the existence of many trans people.

Previously homosexuality was classified as a mental illness or disorder. Lots of different things were invented to treat or cure this "problem". In spite of a huge amounts of money and effort, there are pretty much no examples of someone being cured or changed. There is nothing about being gay or lesbian that prevents someone from a happy, connected life and a productive member of society. Gays do not necessarily suffer from being gay, therefore there is no mental illness, and they don't need to be cured. Being trans is pretty similar. Trans people may request some medical treatments to align aspects of their body with their fundamental core. There is little evidence that treating it as a mental illness changes anything. And a substantial amount that it does lots of harm. When allowed to live according to their core identity, they are able to live a happy, connected life as a productive member of society.

The better approach is to treat homophobia and transphobia as social illnesses. LGBT people aren't the problem. There is no evidence they can change. When they are accepted and allowed to live authentically there is little evidence they would benefit from changing. In contrast, there is a lot of evidence that society can change. Society has changed dramatically to be more accepting of gays. Not everyone, certainly, but huge swaths and percentages. Being anti-LGBT is far more of a choice than is being LGBT. Attacking and oppressing LGBT people is a social illness and there are cures.

[Jeffret]

It sounds like Shapiro is trying to make a distinction that simply isn't supported by what we know and what we don't know. He says he's talking about people where their body is one sex but they feel they are a different sex. There are so many attempts at unwarranted distinctions in this type of a statement.

As I've quoted a few times recently, From “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We?”, by Blackless, et al, in The American Journal of Human Biology.

“The belief that Homo sapiens is absolutely dimorphic with the respect to sex chromosome composition, gonadal structure, hormone levels, and the structure of the internal genital duct systems and external genitalia, derives from the platonic ideal that for each sex there is a single, universally correct developmental pathway and outcome. We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births. The frequency of individuals receiving “corrective” genital surgery, however, probably runs between 1 and 2 per 1,000 live births (0.1–0.2%).” Am. J. Hum. Biol. 12:151–166, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Shapiro is also laboring under the false pretense of another platonic duality, the idea that the physical body and the mind are separate entities. He claims he's willing to accept physical based variations but not mental ones. The reality is that these things are not really separable. We don't understand all of the ways in the which physical body interacts with our mental awareness and sense of self. Biology is not really separable into just the "physical" part. Unfortunately, because of the need for specialization of studies, it's often studied and taught that way, but that's an error.

Shapiro seems to say he'll accept the existence and validity of intersex people, but not those for whom Shapiro thinks it's all in the mind. But, intersex is not a thing. It's a broad collection of largely unrelated things. Pretty much the only common characteristic linking intersex people is that they don't readily fit into that platonic ideal for male and female. It's hard to tell what all that encompasses. There are probably people who don't consider themselves intersex, who easily pass as traditional for the sex, and yet who don't really meet that ideal. As we've learned more about genetics and the variety of human life, we've definitely identified some conditions that fit that model. It would be hubris to assume we've understood them all.

There is no clear dividing line between intersex and transgender. There is no straightforward way to say, "You're intersex so we'll accept you and allow you the desired medical treatment and treat you nicely, but you're transgender so we won't." Where would we draw the line and how would we ensure a correct determination? Further, perhaps what we now call transgender are merely other currently unknown aspects of intersex.

There's a much easier approach. Drop the insistence on the non-existent duality ideal. Accept people for who they are. Listen when they tell you who they are.

[Jeffret]

Shapiro insists on his unfettered right to his freedom of speech. Yet, he attempts to control what other people say and more importantly what other people do. It's a warped, biased approach. Some may even call it privileged.

As he isn't a transgender person, a medical professional or researcher dealing with trans people and issues, or personally connected with anyone who is, what is his intention in making such pronouncements? Should his pronouncements be given any consideration? Clearly he thinks they should. He has free speech rights to say so, according to the limits and complexities of free speech laws. He has a purpose in making his statements, beyond merely exercising free speech or being controversial.

Clearly, his intention is to influence how transgender people are treated. The only reason he's concerned with whether transgender is a mental illness is to control how people interact with and perceive trans people. If he can get everyone to agree with him that trans is a mental illness then he can insist they're flawed and must change. Those affected and involved have been quite clear that transgender is not a mental illness, yet Shapiro wants to control how people talk about it. He wants to insist they use his terminology. Why his concern over the terminology? It's because he control how trans people are treated in society. He wants them kicked out of bathrooms. He wants them minimized and ostracized. He would prefer for them to just go away, to cease to exist, so that he wouldn't have to deal with it any more.

[Jeffret]

The reason I find it interesting is because as I have changed my religious views and shed some of the Mormon shackles, I find that my political views have become more liberal as well. I think this is pretty common. I wonder why that is?
...
I thought this was interesting and educated me a little bit about how reality is often so much more complex than we realize. Shapiro claims that "thats not how biology works," but biology is so much more complicated than it looks as well. The interplay between biology, psychology, and the endocrine system is also more complicated than conservatives like to think. I think I can say that because I only recently changed my views.

I think I'm addressing that question indirectly, just as you came to the same conclusion. A lot of it has to do with reality not conforming to the expected or demanded rules that religion, tradition, and conservatism attempt to impose.

[LaMachina]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that religion is a mental illness. Shapiro should be careful in his glass house...he might break something.

[moksha]

The reason I find it interesting is because as I have changed my religious views and shed some of the Mormon shackles, I find that my political views have become more liberal as well. I think this is pretty common. I wonder why that is?

You have a wider field of vision when you remove any blinders covering your eyes. It would stand to reason that you would have a better understanding once your thought constraints are removed.

Ben Shapiro's conservatism is his schtick.

[Emower]

Basically the answer from a psychologist's point of view, is that it is not mental illness, not in the way that people mean when they call it gender disphoria and claim it is mental illness. The people claiming it is mental illness are trying to squish something they do not understand into a binary box so that they can tell themselves they understand it.

I think this describes Shapiro fairly well. His arguments make sense and are well articulated if you buy into his binary box.

See, gender is not determined by genitals, but by your brain. Before that the brain is influenced by the chemicals floating around in the fetus's body, AND those it gets through the placenta from the mother. Or in the case of androgen insensitivity, the brain may or may not be influenced. So, is having a brain structure of the opposite sex a mental illness or a birth defect.

And if the brain structure does not agree with genitals, which is wrong? Is this a mental illness? We can't fix it if it was hard wired into the brain, so what s the best way to fix it? It is possible to change the body somewhat, but it is not possible to change the brain.

I guess what I never thought about brain structure being connected to the body. It seems dumb of me now.

I know that single paragraph could use expansion, and I will be happy to discuss its incompleteness if there is interest.

I'm interested.

Interesting as I find the idea of embryology in this, it's something I don't want religions to really learn. I can see them blaming homosexuality entirely on the mother and start policing diets, exercise, environment, thoughts, everything.

Thats an interesting thought, and a frightening one as well. Although we are already down that road a little ways with several social issues.

Why should it be important to me that other's experiences and interests are different from mine? Why should I think that being me gives me a right to determine how other people live? Why should I think it is valuable to me to judge others for their differing choices? What makes me think I should have some say in someone else's medical diagnosis and treatment?

I think Shapiro and others react to what they view as someone else's view being impose on them. He and others seem to really resent having to refer to someone they think is a man as a woman. They think they are being required to do something that they disagree with. This is how it may be someones business. Not that I agree with it, but I can see how they may want to be involved in it.

There's a much easier approach. Drop the insistence on the non-existent duality ideal. Accept people for who they are. Listen when they tell you who they are.

Man, I agree. But how do we get around people who think that one person's rights infringe on someone else's rights? It is equally unrealistic to assume that a conservative should just get over them self and accept people when that accepting involves doing things they might object to? I agree that referring to Kaitlin Jenner as a woman shouldnt be that hard, but some people dont want to especially those who grew up with him being a man?

Shapiro insists on his unfettered right to his freedom of speech. Yet, he attempts to control what other people say and more importantly what other people do. It's a warped, biased approach. Some may even call it privileged.

I am going to disagree with this. I believe that in this podcast he made it clear that kaitlyn jenner could call himself a woman all he wanted, but that he objected to being required to do that himself by others. I believe this may be a product of all humans being reluctant to accept anybody who may be different.

I think a reasonable argument could be made that religion is a mental illness. Shapiro should be careful in his glass house...he might break something.

Good point!

[Jeffret]

I think Shapiro and others react to what they view as someone else's view being impose on them. He and others seem to really resent having to refer to someone they think is a man as a woman. They think they are being required to do something that they disagree with. This is how it may be someones business. Not that I agree with it, but I can see how they may want to be involved in it.

But, see he has his freedom of speech. He can refer to someone however he wants. This idea demonstrates that what he wants is the freedom to speak without consequences. One of those consequences is that others may disagree with him and criticize him for his speech. It's really not his business to determine how someone asks to be addressed and referred to. He can choose to be polite and considerate and abide by their wishes or rude and call them other things, but people may point out his rudeness and call him rude names.

How does it really become someone else's business how a trans person asks to be referred to? How does that infringe on anyone else's rights in any meaningful way?

(It doesn't. The only way it does is when that person thinks they have a right to control how others behave and how they believe. This is a supposed right that religious conservatives think they have but doesn't really exist.)

Man, I agree. But how do we get around people who think that one person's rights infringe on someone else's rights? It is equally unrealistic to assume that a conservative should just get over them self and accept people when that accepting involves doing things they might object to? I agree that referring to Kaitlin Jenner as a woman shouldnt be that hard, but some people dont want to especially those who grew up with him being a man?

The same way we deal with all oppression of minorities. We keep working at it. We demonstrate through action, word, and law that oppressed people have rights. In the case of LGBT people, they have to, as Harvey Milk insisted, come out of the closet so that others understand they are real people with valid rights. Gays really did over the last decade or so. Prop 8 was a huge factor in that. In the last few years, trans people have really started coming out of their closet. Some of them won significant political races this month.

Shapiro insists on his unfettered right to his freedom of speech. Yet, he attempts to control what other people say and more importantly what other people do. It's a warped, biased approach. Some may even call it privileged.

I am going to disagree with this. I believe that in this podcast he made it clear that kaitlyn jenner could call himself a woman all he wanted, but that he objected to being required to do that himself by others. I believe this may be a product of all humans being reluctant to accept anybody who may be different.

I recognize that's what he says, but I don't really buy it. He's in favor of laws preventing trans people from using the correct bathrooms. He applauded Trump rolling back requirements that schools treat trans kids decently and according to their wishes. It's disingenuous for him to say that his that his only objection is to the expectation as to how he refers to people.

[Emower]

But, see he has his freedom of speech. He can refer to someone however he wants. This idea demonstrates that what he wants is the freedom to speak without consequences. One of those consequences is that others may disagree with him and criticize him for his speech. It's really not his business to determine how someone asks to be addressed and referred to. He can choose to be polite and considerate and abide by their wishes or rude and call them other things, but people may point out his rudeness and call him rude names.

How does it really become someone else's business how a trans person asks to be referred to? How does that infringe on anyone else's rights in any meaningful way?

(It doesn't. The only way it does is when that person thinks they have a right to control how others behave and how they believe. This is a supposed right that religious conservatives think they have but doesn't really exist.)

I agree with that. But I suspect he would as well, and then he would pivot to others introducing legislation and forcing him to do things he doesnt like like baking cakes. I feel like it always seems to end up there, with something like the cake issue. I suppose it ends up being about the rule of law. If the majority is ok with passing a law barring discrimination, Christians should not get a pass on the law simply because they disagree with it. But the freedom of religion tradition of this country really muddies the issue.

I recognize that's what he says, but I don't really buy it. He's in favor of laws preventing trans people from using the correct bathrooms. He applauded Trump rolling back requirements that schools treat trans kids decently and according to their wishes. It's disingenuous for him to say that his that his only objection is to the expectation as to how he refers to people.

Talking to some acquaintances about this the other night. They, along with lots of others including Shapiro, invoke the slippery slope argument frequently when talking about these issues. There may be a need to label someone as mentally ill and prevent their desires if those desires will result in harm to others or themselves. For example, if we validate and accept and encourage transgender folks, what about someone who identifies as a different age? What if a 30 year old man identifies as a 13 year old girl and would like to be adopted by a family as live with their 13 year old girls? Assuming that family is willing, it doesnt seem right to me, but I dont see a super clear distinction between that and someone who appears male, but identifies as female?

I dont want to come across as combative or judgemental here, I just dont understand the situations very well.

[alas]

But, see he has his freedom of speech. He can refer to someone however he wants. This idea demonstrates that what he wants is the freedom to speak without consequences. One of those consequences is that others may disagree with him and criticize him for his speech. It's really not his business to determine how someone asks to be addressed and referred to. He can choose to be polite and considerate and abide by their wishes or rude and call them other things, but people may point out his rudeness and call him rude names.

How does it really become someone else's business how a trans person asks to be referred to? How does that infringe on anyone else's rights in any meaningful way?

(It doesn't. The only way it does is when that person thinks they have a right to control how others behave and how they believe. This is a supposed right that religious conservatives think they have but doesn't really exist.)

I agree with that. But I suspect he would as well, and then he would pivot to others introducing legislation and forcing him to do things he doesnt like like baking cakes. I feel like it always seems to end up there, with something like the cake issue. I suppose it ends up being about the rule of law. If the majority is ok with passing a law barring discrimination, Christians should not get a pass on the law simply because they disagree with it. But the freedom of religion tradition of this country really muddies the issue.

I recognize that's what he says, but I don't really buy it. He's in favor of laws preventing trans people from using the correct bathrooms. He applauded Trump rolling back requirements that schools treat trans kids decently and according to their wishes. It's disingenuous for him to say that his that his only objection is to the expectation as to how he refers to people.

Talking to some acquaintances about this the other night. They, along with lots of others including Shapiro, invoke the slippery slope argument frequently when talking about these issues. There may be a need to label someone as mentally ill and prevent their desires if those desires will result in harm to others or themselves. For example, if we validate and accept and encourage transgender folks, what about someone who identifies as a different age? What if a 30 year old man identifies as a 13 year old girl and would like to be adopted by a family as live with their 13 year old girls? Assuming that family is willing, it doesnt seem right to me, but I dont see a super clear distinction between that and someone who appears male, but identifies as female?

I dont want to come across as combative or judgemental here, I just dont understand the situations very well.

Scientifically, there is nothing that we know of that might cause a 40 year old to think they are only 13. Well, unless they have been brain natured and spent the last 30 years in a coma, then it is a matter of explaining reality to them and letting them adjust. So, if there is no scientific cause, then it is a delusion. See, with transgender, they really can have a brain structure that is more similar in shape to the opposite sex. This business of their brain being influenced by hormones that their body is not nfluence D by. There are scientific reasons for transgender folk.

But there is nothing behind believing you are a wildly different age, so that is a delusion, therefore mental illness.

It is the same kind of delusion as someone believing they are really Jesus Christ, or from Mars. There is nothing that can happen to their brain physically to cause them to believe they are from Mars. This comes under mental illness.

It also shows up as a difference n frequency. Say, how common it is for someone to sincerely believe they are the opposite gender compared to another specific belief, say being from Mars. Another difference is that given anti psychotic drugs, the guy who thinks he is from Mars comes out of his delusion, but the transgender person does not respond by "coming to their senses" as people who think it is mental illness would assume.

This is an area where the knowledge of average people has not caught up to what psychologists know. Actually, it has not caught up to what psychologists knew 40 years ago when they were writing the text books that I used getting my degree back in the dark ages. So, my information is probably way out of date.

[Emower]

Scientifically, there is nothing that we know of that might cause a 40 year old to think they are only 13. Well, unless they have been brain natured and spent the last 30 years in a coma, then it is a matter of explaining reality to them and letting them adjust. So, if there is no scientific cause, then it is a delusion. See, with transgender, they really can have a brain structure that is more similar in shape to the opposite sex. This business of their brain being influenced by hormones that their body is not nfluence D by. There are scientific reasons for transgender folk.

Thats definitely what I did not understand. And it changes the story a lot.

[Jeffret]

Talking to some acquaintances about this the other night. They, along with lots of others including Shapiro, invoke the slippery slope argument frequently when talking about these issues. There may be a need to label someone as mentally ill and prevent their desires if those desires will result in harm to others or themselves. For example, if we validate and accept and encourage transgender folks, what about someone who identifies as a different age? What if a 30 year old man identifies as a 13 year old girl and would like to be adopted by a family as live with their 13 year old girls? Assuming that family is willing, it doesnt seem right to me, but I dont see a super clear distinction between that and someone who appears male, but identifies as female?

Slippery slope is generally considered a fallacy and this demonstrates why pretty well. In some situations there is a pretty clear cause-and-effect or progression. In that case, it's not a fallacy. Otherwise, though, it's a pretty pointless approach. There are always things that might occur, but frequently no reason to think that they will. Or that they will occur in any meaningful numbers or sense.

During the efforts to legalize gay marriage, there were frequent claims that if we accepted gay marriage, we would have to also accept polygamy. This argument popped up pretty frequently here on NOM. I grew tired of pointing out how bogus that argument was. The mechanisms that argued for swift and easy acceptance of gay marriage did nothing to ease the passage or acceptance of polygamy. Now, 2 1/2 years after Obergefell there haven't been any increased efforts or court cases towards polygamy. Another similar argument made at that time was that if we allowed gay marriage, then gays would agitate immediately to require churches and pastors to perform their weddings. People alleged that lawsuits would immediately be filed against pastors that would require them perform marriages. Or in the more Mormon example, that gays would force the Church to allow them to be married in the temple. There has been absolutely no indication of any of this. I've heard of no lawsuit like this -- such a claim would have no basis.

As I recall it was Justice Scalia who explained that the court has to decide the case that is in front of it and not the cases that might be brought because of their decision. They need to make the right decision in the case at hand and not get distracted by slippery slope arguments. (Scalia wasn't always wrong.)

As alas explains, these slippery slope scenarios aren't even realistic. People are dreaming up things that don't occur or are otherwise handled as a justification for attacking solutions to real issues and situations.

In some of these slippery slope scenarios, there is a suddenness or a dramatic change. The 30 year old man suddenly decides he's a 13 year old girl. Or the person starts claiming they come from Mars. This suddenness is frequently nonexistent with trans people. Parents explain that their child adamantly insisted they are the other sex from the time they first started achieving self and other awareness. Some times it feels sudden to us, like when Caitlyn Jenner made her announcement, but generally when you learn the back story you find this has been a long time coming. Caitlyn didn't suddenly announce she was now a woman -- it was something that had long been there but was hidden from us.

[Jeffret]

They, along with lots of others including Shapiro, invoke the slippery slope argument frequently when talking about these issues. There may be a need to label someone as mentally ill and prevent their desires if those desires will result in harm to others or themselves.

This part right here is essential to their arguments, but pretty bogus. This idea, from Shapiro and others, annihilates Shapiro's claim that all he wants is to not be forced to refer to them by different terms. It reveals, as I said earlier, that he really wants to control how they are talked about and how they are treated. Otherwise, why is there any concern whatsoever in preventing their desires if those desires will result in harm to themselves or others? No, their goals extend beyond their rights into controlling how others talk and behave.

For the moment, let's accept their supposition that being transgender is a mental illness. If such were the case, then we should treat it as we do other mental illnesses. But, society does not decide the proper treatment for mental illness. We leave that as a matter for the patient and their medical professionals to determine the best course of action. We no longer lock people up simply for mental illness. They have to demonstrate an inability to function in society, a real possibility for imminent harm to themselves or others, or they have to commit themselves. There is no indication that being transgender implies any of these. Trans people can function quite well in society, if society will merely allow them to. If it were a mental illness, there is no reason that Shapiro, or anyone else, should have any say in the appropriate treatment. Even if it were a mental illness, how would we know that treating them the way they request isn't the best course? In a large number of cases, that seems to result in very positive outcomes with little to no downsides.

But, it isn't a mental illness. The best expert opinions we have indicate that being transgender does not match what we call and handle as mental illness. There are significant differences.

The next major problem faced by Shapiro's claim is that he, nor anyone else, ever identifies the harm that will occur to others or to themselves. They just insinuate that there must or might be some harm but they can never find any. This was the major failing of the anti-gay side in the marriage equality cases. They simply couldn't identify the harms. This was made totally clear in the Prop 8 case when Judge Walker asked the anti-gay attorney, "What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?” Cooper replied, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know ... I don’t know.” If the anti-gays could have come up with a single real harm, the outcome might have been quite different. The best that they've done is to invent fake harms, as we've seen referenced around these forums a bit lately.

There is never any explanation of the harm that transgender people cause. The recent charge made around here about genital mutilation is bogus. We allow all sorts of genital mutilation. Many of those same conservatives who might decry the idea are more likely to actually engage in it. The best evidence we have is that far more often the least harm occurs when allowing a trans person to be their correct sex. There is no indication that trans people cause any harm to others. The bathroom bills attempted in many areas are clearly an attempt to oppress trans people. The far greater danger comes from (mostly) conservative men.

This idea that trans people are inherently harmful is dangerous, unsubstantiated, and quite prejudicial.

[Mad Jax]

I know that single paragraph could use expansion, and I will be happy to discuss its incompleteness if there is interest.

I'm interested.

I'm looking forward to talking about it but I wonder where to begin. It will probably segue pretty far off the OT, but that's pretty par for the course here. Give me a starting point and I'll kick it into second gear.