Evidence-based discourse
@transgun and @lavendermenace666 I wanted to circle back to the role of evidence in discourse. I will do a separate post going through the some of the sources transgun linked to so you can see how I analyze them later, but for now I want to talk about sources and citations.
Radical feminism is an ideology with a job - to liberate women from patriarchal systems. It tackles systemic issues and points out dangers and problems. It often conflicts with genderism, which is an ideology that supports individual expression in gender identity. From a radical feminist pov, individualism is a flawed approach to a systemic problem, and gender identity can’t be separated from harmful social gender roles. I should point out that transgenderism in the medical sense is not quite the same thing as genderism the ideology, and those viewpoints also conflict with regularity.
Anyway, because of these different perspectives, we view the same information very differently. For example, as radfems we can make specific predictions about transition:
-that it can be used as a way to make gender non-conforming people conform to existing gender roles.
-that the medicalized process can be abused as a way to normalize and distract from women’s unease with our assigned and oppressive gender role. Medical transition will be inappropriately offered to gender non-conforming girls, same-sex attracted women with internalized shame, autistic women, self-harming and depressed women and in the end will offer no long-term solace for their discomfort, while also undermining the process of removing gender roles from society.
-that women who dis-identify from other women will be subject to sexism but will lack a support system or analysis to combat it’s effects.
-that women as a community will be weakened when some women dis-identify from it.
-that by using individual action as a response to social problems, the individual is exposed to risks and harms while society remains unchanged.
When lavendermenace and I read an article that shows ANY harm or risk to trans people, we view that as evidence that social pressure could be harming individuals. Transgun might read the same article and think ‘meh, I’ll take those odds.’
I read statistics saying 85% or more of the people at gender clinics resolve their dysphoria and are often gay or lesbian, and I’m concerned about transition being used as a form of conversion therapy, and note the lack of role models available at gender clinics to resolve sexuality issues. Transgun might read the same stat and identify more with the 15% who can’t wait to start transition.
Lavendermenace is very correct in making a blanket statement that physical transition involves serious or even fatal risks and the benefits are not well documented. Transgun, even in your rebuttal you don’t disagree with that statement, and say “the actual prevalence of completed suicide among “transgender” persons remains undocumented.” Different weight and emphasis on the same information.
See… on another note, I view the words ‘transgender’ in quotes too when I read these studies, because part of my blanket, ideological concern is ‘who is transgender?’. Older studies only include strictly defined old-school transsexuals. Newer studies are far more vague. Plus, there’s a growing number of genderists who identify as trans for ideological reasons and don’t even have dysphoria. Are they showing up at gender clinics? What’s the long-term outcome of that?
Radfems are concerned about medical transition being abused. Imagine a teenage girl who hates her breasts. Is she trans? Can she shows up at her doctor and says ‘can you remove these?’ What if it’s her parents showing up and saying ‘she’s really a boy. Remove her breasts’? How do we stop parents from abusing their gender non-conforming children? Is there any screening in place to ensure that this medical intervention doesn’t harm her? These are radfem concerns and I think they should be trans concerns too. Genderism doesn’t answer that question for anyone. It assumes that all your individual choices in gender expression are valid. Gender critical trans people can use radfem theory to identify these kinds of concerns.
What radfem theory can’t tell a dysphoric person is ‘will I be happier if I transition?’ Radical feminism isn’t the kind of analysis that can make your personal choices for you. It’s job is to offer a structural analysis and make policy/systemic recommendations to try to thwart/minimize/oppose patriarchy.
To try another political viewpoint, socialist analysis can identify problems with the increasing number of self-employed and contract employees:
-seasonal and structural unemployment costs, health insurance and training costs will be carried by the individual and not the industry
- workplace safety will often be unregulated and inadequate, resulting in more injuries
-the social costs of the human lifecycle from childhood through retirement are shifted away from industry’s direct costs and onto personal taxation.
What socialism cannot answer:
-should I start a small cleaning business this summer?
Picking and choosing sources based on whether they agree with what we want to hear isn’t helpful, because it limits our ability to understand what the other side is thinking. It also limits our understanding of the reality of the situation. I just want to point out, before going through some of transgun’s sources, that often the different readings come from ideological goals, not the actual information. Don’t be afraid to read and integrate, critique and analyze what is studied (and what’s ignored).
Thanks for reading.
Wow , that was well said.
Thanks.
