"Sex is not something that people can choose or change at will. In my mind, there’s a clear line between these two, sex and gender, and attempts to bend or blur the distinction are dangerous and irresponsible". What makes it dangerous and irresponsible? The only supporting examples you provide are pregnancy, where you caveat that it's a private matter and has barely any impact on others, and competing in sports, which you then admit "the jury’s still out on this one". So why is it so clearly dangerous and irresponsible in your view?
You could at least give a passing mention to the harms and restrictions of freedom that these groups are absolutely facing and will undoubtedly continue to face in ever greater amounts in the near future.
There is such a thing as empirical, scientific, factual reality. And then there's many layers of complex, fluid, socially constructed "reality" built on top of this factual reality. Biological sex is the former, and gender is the latter.
In general, I think it's critical that as a society we are able to differentiate between these two. And as a parent, I want my children to grow up understanding the difference -- that biological sex is a reality, and matters.
> Meanwhile, here is what I personally consider actually dangerous and irresponsible
To be clear, I don't support discriminatory anti-transgender laws (though I think allowing minors to transition is probably not okay, and I'm not sure if you'd put this in that category). And I'm willing to believe that they can do real harm. But, afaict, the research you showed demonstrated correlation, not causation. There are a LOT of possible confounding variables here! More research would be helpful.
> You could at least give a passing mention to the harms and restrictions of freedom that these groups are absolutely facing and will undoubtedly continue to face in ever greater amounts in the near future
Fair point. Will give this some more thought. Based on some cursory research, it looks like this includes things like trouble getting an ID that accurately reflects their gender, and access to facilities such as public restrooms. What else should I be aware of?
> there's many layers of complex, fluid, socially constructed "reality" built on top of this factual reality
This statement could apply to any sufficiently complicated topic. What is it about sex and gender specifically that makes differentiating so critical? You still haven't really elaborated.
> But, afaict, the research you showed demonstrated correlation, not causation.
The abstract specifically says "we estimated the causal impact of state-level anti-transgender laws".
But beyond that, there exists decades of research showing how gender-affirming care is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria, which is why every major medical association currently prescribes it. It should be ipso facto that restricting that care would lead to negative outcomes for people that rely on it. Anti-science right wing politicians ignore all that and are aggressively limiting trans people's rights anyway:
I would like to point out that your cursory research immediately revealed two issues that both have far more day to day impact on people than the two topics you chose to highlight.
Coincidentally I randomly came across this video this morning. It's a pretty random pairing (Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ben Shapiro) but I found it to be a good encapsulation of this issue. The whole video is worth a watch but particularly 7:40 on. https://youtu.be/w89etN8QqNQ?t=458&si=f6lsATQMzdJ3q2bP
>> there's many layers of complex, fluid, socially constructed "reality" built on top of this factual reality
> This statement could apply to any sufficiently complicated topic. What is it about sex and gender specifically that makes differentiating so critical? You still haven't really elaborated.
Agree that it could be applied to any sufficiently complicated topic, and no, I don't think there's anything special about this topic. I'd say precisely the same things of science in the context of a different topic.
>> But, afaict, the research you showed demonstrated correlation, not causation.
>The abstract specifically says "we estimated the causal impact of state-level anti-transgender laws".
Yes, fair point, I missed this.
> there exists decades of research showing how gender-affirming care is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria, which is why every major medical association currently prescribes it. It should be ipso facto that restricting that care would lead to negative outcomes for people that rely on it. Anti-science right wing politicians ignore all that and are aggressively limiting trans people's rights anyway
My instinctual feeling is that, while such treatment probably makes sense for most adults and should be available to adults, it probably does not make sense for children. The two studies you shared both focus on those aged 13-17 (one also covers 13-24). I think this needs a lot more research and a lot more public debate.
I want to say more but I feel out of my depth here. I promise to review the resources you shared and give it some more thought. Thanks for your comments and questions.
"Sex is not something that people can choose or change at will. In my mind, there’s a clear line between these two, sex and gender, and attempts to bend or blur the distinction are dangerous and irresponsible". What makes it dangerous and irresponsible? The only supporting examples you provide are pregnancy, where you caveat that it's a private matter and has barely any impact on others, and competing in sports, which you then admit "the jury’s still out on this one". So why is it so clearly dangerous and irresponsible in your view?
Meanwhile, here is what I personally consider actually dangerous and irresponsible: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01979-5
You could at least give a passing mention to the harms and restrictions of freedom that these groups are absolutely facing and will undoubtedly continue to face in ever greater amounts in the near future.
Thanks for reading and commenting!
> What makes it dangerous and irresponsible?
There is such a thing as empirical, scientific, factual reality. And then there's many layers of complex, fluid, socially constructed "reality" built on top of this factual reality. Biological sex is the former, and gender is the latter.
In general, I think it's critical that as a society we are able to differentiate between these two. And as a parent, I want my children to grow up understanding the difference -- that biological sex is a reality, and matters.
> Meanwhile, here is what I personally consider actually dangerous and irresponsible
To be clear, I don't support discriminatory anti-transgender laws (though I think allowing minors to transition is probably not okay, and I'm not sure if you'd put this in that category). And I'm willing to believe that they can do real harm. But, afaict, the research you showed demonstrated correlation, not causation. There are a LOT of possible confounding variables here! More research would be helpful.
> You could at least give a passing mention to the harms and restrictions of freedom that these groups are absolutely facing and will undoubtedly continue to face in ever greater amounts in the near future
Fair point. Will give this some more thought. Based on some cursory research, it looks like this includes things like trouble getting an ID that accurately reflects their gender, and access to facilities such as public restrooms. What else should I be aware of?
> there's many layers of complex, fluid, socially constructed "reality" built on top of this factual reality
This statement could apply to any sufficiently complicated topic. What is it about sex and gender specifically that makes differentiating so critical? You still haven't really elaborated.
> But, afaict, the research you showed demonstrated correlation, not causation.
The abstract specifically says "we estimated the causal impact of state-level anti-transgender laws".
But beyond that, there exists decades of research showing how gender-affirming care is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria, which is why every major medical association currently prescribes it. It should be ipso facto that restricting that care would lead to negative outcomes for people that rely on it. Anti-science right wing politicians ignore all that and are aggressively limiting trans people's rights anyway:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024-Anti-Trans-Legislation-Apr-2024.pdf
> What else should I be aware of?
I would like to point out that your cursory research immediately revealed two issues that both have far more day to day impact on people than the two topics you chose to highlight.
Coincidentally I randomly came across this video this morning. It's a pretty random pairing (Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ben Shapiro) but I found it to be a good encapsulation of this issue. The whole video is worth a watch but particularly 7:40 on. https://youtu.be/w89etN8QqNQ?t=458&si=f6lsATQMzdJ3q2bP
Lastly, if you want a more personal, human perspective on all this, I would recommend this article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/sep/24/donald-trump-presidency-republican-lawmakers-targeting-lgbtq-policies
>> there's many layers of complex, fluid, socially constructed "reality" built on top of this factual reality
> This statement could apply to any sufficiently complicated topic. What is it about sex and gender specifically that makes differentiating so critical? You still haven't really elaborated.
Agree that it could be applied to any sufficiently complicated topic, and no, I don't think there's anything special about this topic. I'd say precisely the same things of science in the context of a different topic.
>> But, afaict, the research you showed demonstrated correlation, not causation.
>The abstract specifically says "we estimated the causal impact of state-level anti-transgender laws".
Yes, fair point, I missed this.
> there exists decades of research showing how gender-affirming care is the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria, which is why every major medical association currently prescribes it. It should be ipso facto that restricting that care would lead to negative outcomes for people that rely on it. Anti-science right wing politicians ignore all that and are aggressively limiting trans people's rights anyway
My instinctual feeling is that, while such treatment probably makes sense for most adults and should be available to adults, it probably does not make sense for children. The two studies you shared both focus on those aged 13-17 (one also covers 13-24). I think this needs a lot more research and a lot more public debate.
I want to say more but I feel out of my depth here. I promise to review the resources you shared and give it some more thought. Thanks for your comments and questions.