SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Assigned at birth."

"Sex is a spectrum."

"Sex is a social construct."

"A woman is anyone who 'identifies' as one."

"Trans women are women."

And so on.  These are factually and linguistically incoherent claims, but anyone who disagrees with them at all is denounced as a "bigot."

I have long taken you seriously as a person.  I think you are quite smart and articulate and well-educated and well-informed on a variety of issues.  Taking you seriously is a rather easy thing to do.

The difficulty comes when you stray into areas in which, in my view, ideological capture has caused you to say things that just aren't so.  I'm not speaking of differences of opinion or taste or belief.  I am, instead, speaking of things that are empirically and obviously true, and which you nevertheless deny.

In any event, I do appreciate you sharing your perspective here.

I honestly don’t know what you think I’m saying that "are empirically and obviously true, and which [I] nevertheless deny.” I’m squarely on the side of empirical reality.

Let’s level set. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is a private, nonprofit, non-governmental scientific institution chartered by Congress to provide independent, objective advice to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. It is not an advocacy organization. Its consensus reports are prepared by expert committees and undergo independent peer review. Two years ago, they published a “consensus study report” that touches on some things we’ve been discussing. The Statement of Task of this report begins with:

"An ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will review the latest published research and medical guidelines addressing the current status of sex-specific medical diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for individuals who are transgender or who are undergoing gender affirming procedures. Based on the available evidence, the committee’s report will strive to:
1. Describe the current clinical conceptions of sex and gender accepted by the medical community, including:
a. How sex and gender are medically defined ..." 

 

They offer the following definitions:

Sex : The biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people. (Alternatively Biological sex)

Gender:    A multidimensional construct that links language with social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior that are supposedly associated with sex traits.    

Male:  A term identifying individuals who are typically capable of producing sperm for fertilizing ova. Males typically have XY chromosomes. Not everyone who is male has all the traits (e.g., chromosomes, hormone prevalence, external and internal anatomy) that are typically defined as male.    (Alternatively Male sex, Man, Boy)

Female:    A term identifying individuals who typically have ovaries and produce eggs. Females typically have XX chromosomes. Not everyone who is female has all the traits (e.g., chromosomes, hormone prevalence, external and internal anatomy) that are typically defined as female. (Alternatively Female sex, Woman, Girl)

Sex recorded at birth: The sex recorded on the original birth certificate (based on appearance of external genitals observed at birth by physical exam).    (Alternatively Sex assigned at birth, Sex designated at birth, Birth sex, Assigned female at birth, Assigned male at birth)

Sex of rearing: The sex assigned to a child at birth, most often based on the appearance of the child’s external genital anatomy. Traditionally, sex of rearing is assigned as “male” or “female,” although in some geographic regions, there is the option of “X.” Assigned sex of rearing becomes the sex recorded on birth certificates and medical records. When a child is born with atypical genitalia, there may be a delay in assigning sex of rearing until the child’s condition or diagnosis is better understood. Through a shared decision-making process between a multidisciplinary care team and the child’s parents/guardians/caregivers, the goal is to select a sex of rearing that has the greatest likelihood of matching gender identity in adulthood.(Alternatively Sex assignment at birth, Gender of rearing, Assigned sex of rearing, Assigned gender of rearing)

Gender marker:    Designation of “male” (M) “female” (F) or other (X) on a document, including on the original birth certificate. Depending on the document, this marker may represent an individual’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity and a designation of “X,” where present on records, may be defined in different ways.     (Alternatively Sex marker)

Gender identity:    Used by individuals to label themselves and their internal sense of themselves. One’s gender identity can be the same as or different from one’s sex recorded at birth.     (Alternatively Affirmed gender, Gender)

Gender expression:    One’s mannerisms and appearance—including through behavior, clothing, body characteristics, or voice—that are, in a given culture, associated with masculinity or femininity.    

Gender attribution:    The process through which others assign a gender to a person, with or without knowledge of that person’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity.

Do you take issue with these definitions, or do you think this ad hoc committee of the National Academy largely succeeded in conveying how these terms are medically defined?

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I honestly don’t know what you think I’m saying that "are empirically and obviously true, and which [I] nevertheless deny.” I’m squarely on the side of empirical reality.

Perhaps I have been mistaken.  I had understood that you subscribed to most or all of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology.  Here's the list I presented previously:

Quote

Here is a descriptive list of claims that function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary “trans” advocacy — especially the institutional/activist version that treats dissent as bigotry or “denial of existence.” Not every trans person holds all of them. The point is which ones are treated as non-negotiable in that framework.

Core identity claims

1. Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither.
2. Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes). “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan.
3. Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid.
4. Denial of the identity is a denial of the person. Disagreeing with the identity claim is framed as saying the person “doesn’t exist,” not as disputing a proposition.

Sex, biology, and language

5. Sex is a spectrum, a social construct, or at least not a strict binary relevant to policy. Chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are treated as crude, incomplete, or bigoted ways to classify people.
6. “Assigned sex at birth” is the preferred description of sex, implying a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category.
7. Preferred pronouns and names are morally mandatory. Using sex-based pronouns is “misgendering”; using a prior name is “deadnaming.” Both are treated as harms comparable to slurs.
8. There is no polite way to state the sex distinction. “Biological male/female,” “natal sex,” and similar terms are often classified as hate speech or dogwhistles.

Medical and youth claims

9. Gender dysphoria is validated by affirmation, not primarily explored as a possible misattribution of other distress. “Watchful waiting” or exploratory therapy is frequently labeled conversion therapy.
10. Medical transition (blockers, hormones, surgery) is healthcare, and withholding it is violence. Access is framed as lifesaving; gatekeeping is framed as cruelty.
11. Minors can have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition. Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry.
12. Desistance, detransition, and comorbidity (autism, trauma, same-sex attraction, social contagion) are minimized, treated as rare, or blamed on stigma rather than on the affirmation model.

Social and institutional claims

13. Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. Exclusion of males who identify as women is discrimination.
14. Any line among “trans women” is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is “transmedicalism” or “dividing the community.”
15. Lived experience outranks data when studies, crime patterns, or fairness in sport cut against the identity rule.
16. Questions are a form of harm. Asking for definitions (“what is a woman?”), evidence, or tradeoffs is treated as bad-faith or as endangering trans people.
17. Opposition is explained as animus. The admissible motives are hatred, disgust, or religion; safety, fairness, child protection, and definitional accuracy are discounted.

Political enforcement

18. Allies must affirm publicly. Neutrality (“I don’t care what adults do privately”) is often not enough; failure to repeat the slogans is coded as hostility.
19. Conflicts with women’s rights and gay rights are denied or inverted. Sex-based rights are reframed as bigotry; same-sex attraction is pressured toward “attraction to gender identity.”
20. The category must expand, not contract. Nonbinary, genderfluid, xenogender, and similar identities are folded into the same moral protection as transsexualism; limiting the category is betrayal.

My perception of you is that you have affirmed, or would affirm if asked, most or all of the foregoing claims.

For example, you have frequently characterized biological men as "women."  You have expressed shock that anyone might disagree with this claim, and that such disagreement is "bigotry."  In my view, the notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one is a per se departure from "empirical reality."

I think the same must be said for your rejection of the sexual binary.  It is a per se departure from "empirical reality."

And your perspective on "assigned at birth" (though your recent comments have clouded my understanding of your perspective on this one).

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let’s level set. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is a private, nonprofit, non-governmental scientific institution chartered by Congress to provide independent, objective advice to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine. It is not an advocacy organization. Its consensus reports are prepared by expert committees and undergo independent peer review. Two years ago, they published a “consensus study report” that touches on some things we’ve been discussing. The Statement of Task of this report begins with:

"An ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine will review the latest published research and medical guidelines addressing the current status of sex-specific medical diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment for individuals who are transgender or who are undergoing gender affirming procedures. Based on the available evidence, the committee’s report will strive to:
1. Describe the current clinical conceptions of sex and gender accepted by the medical community, including:
a. How sex and gender are medically defined ..." 

They offer the following definitions:

Sex : The biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people. (Alternatively Biological sex)

Gender:    A multidimensional construct that links language with social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior that are supposedly associated with sex traits.

I agree with both of these, except that I think "gender" has sometimes been popularly used as a coterminous synonym for "sex."  I think that should be addressed in the definition as a sort of caveat or clarification.

It seems like many "trans" advocates equivocate between "sex" and "gender," treating them as synonyms in some circumstances, and as differentiated from each other in others.

Are you on board with this definition of "gender?"  That it is a "construct" and not a synonym for "sex?"

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Male:  A term identifying individuals who are typically capable of producing sperm for fertilizing ova. Males typically have XY chromosomes. Not everyone who is male has all the traits (e.g., chromosomes, hormone prevalence, external and internal anatomy) that are typically defined as male.    (Alternatively Male sex, Man, Boy)

Female:    A term identifying individuals who typically have ovaries and produce eggs. Females typically have XX chromosomes. Not everyone who is female has all the traits (e.g., chromosomes, hormone prevalence, external and internal anatomy) that are typically defined as female. (Alternatively Female sex, Woman, Girl)

I agree with both of these.  Do you?

My sense is that much of "trans" advocacy is built on re-defining these terms and their synonyms ("male" and "man," "female" and "woman") to include something along the lines of "and also anyone who identifies as a woman."  At least two dictionaries, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster, have incorporated this re-definition into their entries.

Here, though, there is no "gender identity" component to "female" (as there is according to Merriam-Webster).  Do you endorse that omission? 

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sex recorded at birth: The sex recorded on the original birth certificate (based on appearance of external genitals observed at birth by physical exam).    (Alternatively Sex assigned at birth, Sex designated at birth, Birth sex, Assigned female at birth, Assigned male at birth)

I think this is much better than "assigned at birth," as those phrases have sometimes been used - deliberately, I think - to make biological sex seem like something that is arbitrarily chosen by the doctor, rather than observed.

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sex of rearing: The sex assigned to a child at birth, most often based on the appearance of the child’s external genital anatomy. Traditionally, sex of rearing is assigned as “male” or “female,” although in some geographic regions, there is the option of “X.” Assigned sex of rearing becomes the sex recorded on birth certificates and medical records. When a child is born with atypical genitalia, there may be a delay in assigning sex of rearing until the child’s condition or diagnosis is better understood. Through a shared decision-making process between a multidisciplinary care team and the child’s parents/guardians/caregivers, the goal is to select a sex of rearing that has the greatest likelihood of matching gender identity in adulthood.(Alternatively Sex assignment at birth, Gender of rearing, Assigned sex of rearing, Assigned gender of rearing)

The definition acknowledges, but neither ratifies nor rejects, "the option of 'X.'"

Generally, this sounds right.  Psychologist John Money famously recommended raising a biologically male infant named Bruce (or "David") Reimer as a girl after a botched circumcision destroyed his penis in 1965.  Johns Hopkins University. Money believed that gender identity was entirely learned and shaped by social conditioning rather than biology ("nurture over nature"). He advised the parents to surgically alter the child into a girl, rename "her" Brenda, and raise "her" without revealing "her" biological sex.

Though rare, some parents have elected to raise their son as a girl/daughter, or vice versa.

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Gender marker:    Designation of “male” (M) “female” (F) or other (X) on a document, including on the original birth certificate. Depending on the document, this marker may represent an individual’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity and a designation of “X,” where present on records, may be defined in different ways.     (Alternatively Sex marker)

"{T}his marker may represent an individual’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity and a designation of 'X.'"

No endorsement or rejection of using "M" or "F" or "X" as a designation of "gender identity" (and not sex).

I assume these folks are simply reporting how this term is being used, without commenting on its incoherence.

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Gender identity:    Used by individuals to label themselves and their internal sense of themselves. One’s gender identity can be the same as or different from one’s sex recorded at birth.     (Alternatively Affirmed gender, Gender)

Gender expression:    One’s mannerisms and appearance—including through behavior, clothing, body characteristics, or voice—that are, in a given culture, associated with masculinity or femininity.    

Gender attribution:    The process through which others assign a gender to a person, with or without knowledge of that person’s sex recorded at birth or gender identity.

These seem good.

11 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do you take issue with these definitions, or do you think this ad hoc committee of the National Academy largely succeeded in conveying how these terms are medically defined?

That link is Chapter 2 of the same 2024 SSA report, “Clinical Conceptions of Sex and Gender,” around the glossary table (pp. 43–45). It is a word list for disability files, not a proof that a man is a woman, or ratification of that concept by the committee.

“Not all components align” is the DSD / hormone-treatment hedge. It is true that a CAIS XY person or a post-surgical male will not show every typical male trait. It is not true that sex therefore becomes a menu. Misalignment of some traits is how you describe a disorder or a medical intervention. It is not how you get a third sex or a female male.

The committee operationalizes sex as “sex recorded at birth.” That is a paperwork term. It lets the rest of the chapter talk about identity without saying “male” or “female.” Once sex is a line on a form, “updating” the form looks like updating the fact. The fact is still the reproductive anatomy the form was trying to record.

If those definitions were along the lines of “trans women are women,” I think the table would define woman as anyone who identifies as one. It does not. It defines sex as reproductive biology and then, separately, an identity that can diverge from that biology. Divergence is only intelligible if the two things are not the same.

I think the committee's comment here is worthwhile:

Quote

The committee uses the term “variations in sex traits” (VSTs) for this report to describe individuals with variations in development of the reproductive system (sex determination and sex development). The term “differences of sex development” (DSD) is commonly used in medical records and in the medical literature. However, some patients and clinicians consider the term DSD to be inaccurate and distasteful. “Intersex” is another commonly used term, but some individuals take issue with the notion that their reproductive anatomy falls between the binary and question this terminology. “Variations in sex traits,” therefore, is intended to encompass all variations in reproductive tract development while being attentive to patient lived experience. However, the committee acknowledges that stakeholders have different and varied opinions on appropriate terminology and, like other terminology in this report, terminology is likely to evolve over time.

I take some small exception to the committee's definition of "Transgender and gender diverse" as being "Umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from what is typically associated with their sex recorded at birth."  I think the better definition would have been: "Umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from what is typically associated with their biological sex."

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I think what’s really happening is that since these edge cases were so extremely rare, most people lived their whole lives never having to confront the issue. Now there are a few social influencers trying to get famous by publishing outrageous content, and an entire industry engineered to feed addictive rage in their viewership. That is indisputably going on.

The outstanding question is whether the societal order is really breaking down. I’ve been asking for is some evidence that it is, and evidence that laws like that of Kansas will do more good than harm. It’s obvious to me that creating laws that REQUIRE “people who look like men” to use the women’s restroom undermines the very thing it is trying to prevent--uncomfortable confrontations in bathrooms with people who look like they don’t belong there.

Rather than being given statistics about the societal order breaking down or even personal anecdotes, I’m just repeatedly told "Lily Tino is a man going into DisneyWorld bathrooms” over and over again. 

I can understand how somebody might feel that the societal order is breaking down if they are obsessed with videos featuring Lily Tino, Lia Thomas, and drag queens. I never heard of Lily Tino until Smac brought it up here. The reason those videos are shocking is because they are outrageous outliers that are so far afield from what we all see in our normal lives. The shock value is evidence that the societal code is doing fine, not that we are doomed.

Maybe that is the biggest difference between Smac and me. Smac thinks the anecdotes of outrageous behavior he curates are impressive evidence. That is why he posts his lists over and over and over. In contrast, I’m a statistician and am not persuaded by anecdotes. Show me statistically significant evidence. Is there any? 

Or even give me some personal anecdotes. How often do you or the people around you bump into “people who look like men” in women restrooms?

I agree that it is indisputably going on but I also think it is happening on both sides.  It seemed to have started on the transgender side and now has kind of blown up.  One side will do something that triggers the other side and back and forth.  The Kansas law that you've been talking about is the just the most recent in the ping-pong situation.  Maybe some day we'll be able to get some middle ground, but right now, both sides really don't want to give up any ground.

I've never heard of Lily Tino either.  And I don't really follow the drag queens thing (I think it is overblown way too much).  But every now and then, a news article crosses my screen that discusses transgenderism (most recently because of the supreme court cases).  I like to dive deep into what is happening and will try to read a wide variety of things.  I do see that people are bothered by 'male looking people' in bathrooms and are bothered that they can't seem to do anything about it.  I don't think anyone has ever done statistics on it, which is sad.  But it is also probably going to be similar to women's assault statistics, where most things are just never reported.  I've been told that women are socialized to not create a scene so if someone invades their space, I would expect most to just get out and go on with their lives.  That makes it really hard to quantify it.  Should we take the few lawsuits that have occurred to mean that is the only times it happened?  Or to mean that there's a lot more going on and women are just being silent about it?

This societal change is only a little more than 10 years old.  I don't think you need to be obsessed with videos featuring those people to feel the order is breaking down.  I don't, yet I still feel like things are changing.  I can see it when just reading supreme court arguments.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

I agree that it is indisputably going on but I also think it is happening on both sides.  It seemed to have started on the transgender side and now has kind of blown up. 

I concur.  I was generally both unaware about and largely indifferent to trans folks until quite a few of them went out of their way to court publicity.

Dylan Mulvaney and his Female Minstrelsy and Sexist Caricature schtick has perhaps been the most visible.  But then came Lia Thomas.  And Lily Tino.  And then came the Drag Queen Story Hours.  And drag shows for children.  And then, I think the worst part: medical interventions on children.  Tavistock Clinic.  WPATH corruption.  HHS corruption.  Schools "transing" kids (sometimes without parental awareness or consent).  And on and on.

Some of this has come to light because people noticed, but I think the bulk of public attention has arisen because notoriety has been actively sought.

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

One side will do something that triggers the other side and back and forth.  The Kansas law that you've been talking about is the just the most recent in the ping-pong situation.  Maybe some day we'll be able to get some middle ground, but right now, both sides really don't want to give up any ground.

I'm not sure there's much middle ground to be had.  There are too many absolutist demands on the trans side.  Too many reflexive attacks on Chesterton's Fence.

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've never heard of Lily Tino either.  And I don't really follow the drag queens thing (I think it is overblown way too much). 

I think DQSH and drag shows for children are pretty bad.  As for "overblown," I dunno.  I think Andrew Sullivan nailed it last year:

Quote

"I didn’t and don’t believe that being a man or a woman has nothing to do with biology. My sexual orientation is based on a biological distinction between men and women: I’m attracted to the former and not to the latter. And now I was supposed to believe the difference didn’t exist?"

He called this development "madness," writing, "But abolishing the sex binary for the entire society? That’s a whole other thing entirely. And madness, I believe. What if I redefined what it is to be heterosexual and imposed it on straight people?"

"They demanded the entire society change in a fundamental way so that the sex binary no longer counted," he said, noting how dissent with this principle was "equated with bigotry."

The other major problem with this new version of the gay rights movement, he said, was the preoccupation with children’s sexual orientations.

Sullivan continued, "But this illiberalism made a fateful, strategic mistake. In the gay rights movement, there had always been an unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it. We knew very well that any overreach there could provoke the most ancient blood libel against us: that we groom and abuse kids… So what did the gender revolutionaries go and do? They focused almost entirely on children and minors."

He detailed how gender ideology proponents taught kids that "being a boy or a girl was something they could choose and change at will," allowed biological males to compete in female sports, and, in some places, allowed kids to socially transition at school "without their parents’ knowledge or permission."

"{A}n unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it."

Seems like we've needed to make it a spoken golden rule.

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

But every now and then, a news article crosses my screen that discusses transgenderism (most recently because of the supreme court cases).  I like to dive deep into what is happening and will try to read a wide variety of things.  I do see that people are bothered by 'male looking people' in bathrooms and are bothered that they can't seem to do anything about it.

I think many women and girls fell this way.

I also think there is a not-very-subtle pressure for women and girls to be silent, step aside, let men into women's spaces, and act as if the Emperor's New Clothes are beautiful.

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't think anyone has ever done statistics on it, which is sad.  But it is also probably going to be similar to women's assault statistics, where most things are just never reported. 

I too would like to see statistics done.  

23 minutes ago, webbles said:

I've been told that women are socialized to not create a scene so if someone invades their space, I would expect most to just get out and go on with their lives.  That makes it really hard to quantify it.  Should we take the few lawsuits that have occurred to mean that is the only times it happened?  Or to mean that there's a lot more going on and women are just being silent about it?

This societal change is only a little more than 10 years old.  I don't think you need to be obsessed with videos featuring those people to feel the order is breaking down.  I don't, yet I still feel like things are changing.  I can see it when just reading supreme court arguments.

The Skrmetti decision really does seem to take the wind out of Roger's "Hey, this trans thing is being blown up to be a lot more than it really is" sails.

Hugely controversial medical interventions on children are a very important topic, and not because Republicans think so.  Look at Europe's 180-turn on such treatments.  The Tavistok Clinic.  The Cass Report.  Republicans don't guide any of this.

Men in women's prisons has been a controversy for quite a while, both in the U.S. and the U.K. and elsewhere.

I think schools interfering with the rights of parents or deliberately withholding information on their child is a very consequential issue.

There are also less consequential, but still important and associated, topics, such as men in women's bathrooms, changing rooms and sports.

In the end, I think Sullivan was right.  The unspoken Golden Rule, to "leave kids out of it," has long been breached and disregarded.  It was the "let's put all sorts of emphasis on trans ideology and children" move (particularly the sexualized/grooming stuff and the questionable medical procedures) that I think has alienated many who otherwise would be more supportive of, or at least indifferent to, trans issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps I have been mistaken.  I had understood that you subscribed to most or all of the fundamental tenets of trans ideology.  Here's the list I presented previously:

My perception of you is that you have affirmed, or would affirm if asked, most or all of the foregoing claims.

Asking Grok to summarize “the fundamental tenets of trans ideology” is like asking Walter Martin to summarize the fundamental tenets of Mormonism. That comparison isn’t perfect, though, because I don’t think there even is a uniform list of trans ideological doctrines that you must subscribe to in order to be considered an ally.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

For example, you have frequently characterized biological men as "women." 

When I have used the word “woman” that way, I was using it as a gender category rather than as a synonym for adult human biological female. If somebody has a female gender identity and female gender expression, the polite thing to do is socially categorize them as a woman.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

In my view, the notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one is a per se departure from "empirical reality."

In my view, when you do this you are fervently refusing to understand their words, their conceptual framework, and the nuances of their point. “Gender identity” and “gender expression” are well-defined terms that represent real-world things, too. On my mission, on a few occasions people I was talking to were adamant that I wasn’t an “elder”. In their view, calling a 19-year old kid an “elder” was a radical “departure from empirical reality,” and they were willing to die on that hill.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the same must be said for your rejection of the sexual binary.  It is a per se departure from "empirical reality."

I disagree with you on this one. George Box said all models are wrong, but some are useful. The sexual binary is a model. In many contexts it is an extremely useful one, but when dealing with the biology of real-world people, it is less universally useful than many people imagine, and certainly isn’t the ultimate truth of what it means to be a human being. Empirical reality is that sex is "the biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people."

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And your perspective on "assigned at birth" (though your recent comments have clouded my understanding of your perspective on this one).

"Sex assigned at birth" means “sex recorded at birth.” It is in fact a term used by doctors in medical records when dealing with these issues, and was well-defined by the Academies. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree with both of these.  Do you?

I don’t think it is my job to gate-keep the definition of words and to agree or disagree with definitions. I generally use the definitions the Academy provided, and try to understand what people are trying to communicate with the words they use. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

My sense is that much of "trans" advocacy is built on re-defining these terms and their synonyms ("male" and "man," "female" and "woman") to include something along the lines of "and also anyone who identifies as a woman."  At least two dictionaries, Cambridge and Merriam-Webster, have incorporated this re-definition into their entries.

My sense is that much of trans advocacy is built less on redefining biological sex than on the idea that how we relate to other people matters. In ordinary social contexts, the polite and humane thing to do is generally to treat people in a way that aligns with their gender identity and presentation. That does not require pretending biological sex is unreal or different than what it really is. It means recognizing that social categories used in social situations don’t necessarily need to line up with the underlying biology you’d talk about with your doctor in medical situations.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here, though, there is no "gender identity" component to "female" (as there is according to Merriam-Webster).  Do you endorse that omission?

I'm not in a position to endorse anything on this. I’m a finance expert, not a doctor. I will note that the purpose of this glossary is to understand medical records, not describe the polite way to engage with others in all social interactions.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume these folks are simply reporting how this term is being used, without commenting on its incoherence.

Just because you think something is incoherent doesn't mean it really is. I’d give the benefit of the doubt to doctors and assume they speak coherently about medical and biological issues. If you think they are using the language incoherently, maybe you are the one with an ideology that is a little off.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

“Not all components align” is the DSD / hormone-treatment hedge. It is true that a CAIS XY person or a post-surgical male will not show every typical male trait. It is not true that sex therefore becomes a menu. Misalignment of some traits is how you describe a disorder or a medical intervention. It is not how you get a third sex or a female male.

“Not all components align” is biological reality when we’re talking about real-world human beings. When scientists say “sex is a spectrum,” they do not mean that male and female are meaningless categories. They mean that the biological traits associated with sex: chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genital anatomy, secondary sex characteristics, and gene expression, do not always line up perfectly and often vary continuously in degree. From this coherent, reality-based point of view, sex is bimodal rather than perfectly binary in every biological feature: most people cluster strongly around typical male or female patterns, while some fall between or outside those typical combinations. This can be an insightful way of understanding human biology. 

As a thought experiment, imagine in a few years Elder Uchtdorf as prophet. Imagine at the same time a faithful member of the Church who deeply, deeply, feels their spirit is a woman and that somehow, their body looks, biologically, like a male. This person isn’t an activist or public agitator. Just a committed Latter-day Saint who feels like a woman trapped in a males body. They finds themself talking to the first presidency about it, and after a blessing and a prayer they receive a revelation: this person’s spirit really is a female spirt.

In principle, this could happen, right? Mormons believe in spirits, and that spirits really do have genders. And they also believe genetic defects generally don’t reflect the essence of the body’s spirit. So what if the prophet had a revelation that a specific biological man had a female spirit? Would you object to this person claiming that on the inside, they really are a woman? Would you insist they be treated like a man, despite the prophet’s revelation that their spirit is female?

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Asking Grok to summarize “the fundamental tenets of trans ideology” is like asking Walter Martin to summarize the fundamental tenets of Mormonism. That comparison isn’t perfect, though, because I don’t think there even is a uniform list of trans ideological doctrines that you must subscribe to in order to be considered an ally.

Hi @smac97,

After I posted this, I realized it wouldn’t be clear what I was referring to, so I decided to flesh out my point. On a personal level, it irritates me that you went to a source with an obvious political bias on this topic (Grok), asked it to create a straw man version of “trans ideology”, and then use this to bait the people you are talking to and then criticizing them for not embracing the straw man.

For my part, I asked ChatGPT to critique what Grok said on this matter, and replace its straw man with a steel man. Here is what GPT says:

First, I would not call these the “fundamental tenets of trans ideology.” There is no catechism, governing body, or agreed philosophical system called trans ideology. More importantly, allyship is primarily a position about how transgender people should be treated, not a requirement that one accept a particular metaphysics of sex.

If I were trying to steelman the minimum position, I would reduce it to something like this:

A minimal trans-ally position

1. Transgender people are describing a real human experience. Some people experience a persistent gender identity that does not correspond to the sex category in which they were born and raised. One need not settle whether this identity is innate, developmental, neurological, psychological, social, or some combination in order to take their experience seriously.

2. Transgender people deserve the same dignity, liberty, and legal protection as everyone else. They should not be harassed, assaulted, fired, denied housing, or otherwise mistreated simply because they are transgender.

3. In ordinary social interactions, people should generally accommodate another person's gender identity. If someone lives and presents socially as a woman, there is usually no reason not to call her a woman, use the name she asks to be called, and use female pronouns. That is ordinary interpersonal courtesy. It does not require believing that chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, or biological history have somehow changed.

4. Sex and gender identity are distinguishable concepts. Biological sex is real. Gender identity and gender expression are also real phenomena. Which one matters depends upon what we are talking about. At a cocktail party, gender identity may be overwhelmingly relevant and chromosomes completely irrelevant. In some medical contexts, biological sex may be critically important.

5. Public-policy questions should be decided individually rather than by slogans. Bathrooms, competitive sports, prisons, shelters, medical records, identification documents, and treatment of minors do not necessarily present the same problem. Being a trans ally does not require believing that gender identity must prevail over sex in every conceivable context. It requires taking the interests of transgender people seriously along with whatever competing interests actually exist.

6. Medical questions are empirical questions. It is entirely consistent with trans allyship to ask about benefits, risks, diagnostic uncertainty, desistance, detransition, comorbidities, age, informed consent, and the quality of evidence supporting particular treatments. Compassion does not require knowing the answer before the research is done.

That strikes me as a defensible minimum. Someone could go substantially further—believing, for example, that self-identification should control virtually every legal sex classification—without that stronger proposition becoming a prerequisite for treating transgender people decently.

And this is where I think Grok's earlier answer went badly off the rails.

Its 20-item list isn't a steelman of trans allyship. It is a hostile reconstruction of the most maximalist things one can associate with trans activism, sprinkled with assertions about activist motives and behavior, and then presented as though those constitute the movement's “fundamental tenets.”

Look at what gets smuggled into the supposed creed. A trans ally allegedly must believe that sex is socially constructed; that chromosomes and reproductive anatomy are crude or bigoted classifications; that disagreement denies people's existence; that withholding medical treatment is “violence”; that lived experience outranks data; that asking questions is harmful; that opponents are motivated by animus; that conflicts with women's or gay rights must be denied; and even that xenogender identities must receive exactly the same conceptual treatment as classical transsexualism.

Those aren't minimum propositions necessary for trans allyship. Several aren't propositions about transgender identity at all. They are accusations about how certain activists allegedly argue.

That distinction matters.

For example, compare:

Steelman: “It is generally courteous to socially recognize a trans woman as a woman.”

with:

Strawman: “A person's subjective identity literally overrides biological sex, and anyone who disagrees is denying that person's existence.”

Those are not equivalent claims.

Or compare:

Steelman: “Sex-associated biological traits do not always align perfectly, and scientists can therefore meaningfully discuss variation in sex characteristics.”

with:

Strawman: “Sex is a social construct and chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are bigoted ways to classify people.”

Again, not remotely the same proposition.

And compare:

Steelman: “Gender-affirming medical treatment can benefit some patients and should be evaluated using the ordinary standards of evidence-based medicine.”

with:

Strawman: “Medical transition is lifesaving, withholding it is violence, and clinical caution is cruelty.”

A person can believe the first and emphatically reject the second.

This is why I think Grok deserved considerably more skepticism than it received here. The giveaway isn't merely that individual statements are debatable. It is the construction of the list itself. Nearly every disputed question is phrased in the version least charitable to the trans side. Moderate propositions are replaced with absolutist ones; empirical controversies become alleged articles of faith; and the worst rhetoric one can find among activists is treated as constitutive of the entire worldview.

If I asked an AI for “the fundamental tenets of conservative Christianity” and it returned twenty propositions about controlling women, suppressing gay people, rejecting science, imposing religion through government, and treating dissenters as sinners, nobody would mistake that for neutral analysis merely because examples could be found of Christians saying each of those things.

The same standard should apply here.

One can disagree profoundly with particular trans activists, reject self-ID as a universal legal rule, believe biological sex remains important, demand better evidence for pediatric medicine, and recognize genuine conflicts involving sports or privacy—and still hold the rather modest proposition at the center of trans allyship:

Transgender people are real people describing a real experience, and in both our personal interactions and our laws we should try to treat them with dignity, courtesy, and fairness while dealing honestly with biological reality and legitimate competing interests.

That is a considerably stronger steelman than Grok's partisan caricature—and, I think, a much more useful starting point for an actual discussion.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Asking Grok to summarize “the fundamental tenets of trans ideology” is like asking Walter Martin to summarize the fundamental tenets of Mormonism.

I felt the list was fairly accurate.  And most of the items on the list were readily available from "trans advocacy" groups.

From this post:

Quote

Here's an interesting thought experiment:

Would CB and SU be willing to have their proposal published, perhaps as a "Letter to the Editor" or other form, in a recognized "trans advocacy" organization media outlet, such as GLAAD, HRC or GLSEN?  

And would they be willing to publish this proposal under their IRL names? 

And would GLAAD and these other groups be willing to publish such a proposal?

Anyway, here are some quotes of advocacy groups referencing the above presuppositions:

Quote

1–2. Identity is real/authoritative; “trans women are women” is literal

Human Rights Campaign (official account):
“Let’s clarify this again for those who don’t get it — trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary people are non-binary.”

HRC president Alphonso David, Senate QFR:
“Transgender women are women and transgender men are men.”
“A woman is an adult who knows herself to be female.”

GLAAD open letter (Women’s History Month / TDOV):
“We acknowledge with clarity and strength that transgender women are women and that transgender girls are girls.”
The same letter treats opposing feminists as promoting “damaging and violent ideas about trans people.”

National Women’s Law Center testimony:
“this statement erases the fact that trans women and girls are women and girls.”
“With our full conviction, we at NWLC know unequivocally that trans women and girls, and intersex women and girls, ARE women and girls who deserve to participate fully in women’s sports.  ”

3. Self-ID / no medical requirement

GLAAD Transgender FAQ:
“But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and it’s important to know that being transgender is not dependent upon medical procedures.”
“Gender identity is a person’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or boy or girl.)”
“Always use the term used by the person.”

HRC definitions:
“One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither… One’s gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.”
Transition “might” be social only (name, pronouns, dress) or medical.

WPATH SOC8:
“this version of the SOC recognizes and validates various expressions of gender that may not necessitate psychological, hormonal, or surgical treatments.”
“access to transition-related health care should be based on… informed consent… not on what words TGD people… use to describe their identities.”

4. Denial of identity = denial of the person / violence

HRC reporting guide:
“Contrasting transgender people with ‘real’ or ‘biological’ men and women is a false comparison. Transgender people’s gender identities are real…”
Misgendering victims “disrespect[s] their identities, causing pain… and reinforcing the stigma at the center of anti-trans violence.”

GLAAD letter: opposition is “anti-transgender rhetoric,” “bigoted governmental policies,” and “assaults (legislative, physical, social, and verbal).”

Vox, summarizing the political fight in the terms advocates use: bathroom bans “reject[] the existence of trans people” and “advance[] a rejection of the idea that trans women are women.”

5–6. Sex as incomplete / “assigned at birth”

GLAAD:
“Transgender is a term used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.”

HRC FAQ:
“both the existence of intersex people and the ability to medically transition show that sex is also mutable and not defined by rigid categories.”

HRC David QFR: genitals “are not defining of maleness or femaleness”; HHS findings that male/female biological differences “matter” are “not true for all males or all females.”

Stonewall staff evidence (Kirrin Medcalf), as reported:
“Bodies are not inherently male or female. They are just their bodies.”
“Biological sex is made up of a multitude of characteristics that change over a person’s life-cycle.”

7. Pronouns/names mandatory; misgendering and deadnaming as harm

HRC:
“Transgender and non-binary people… should always be identified and referred to with their correct pronouns.”
“Misgendering… may lead them to feel distressed, unseen, or unwelcome.”
“be sure to always use them—and to correct others if they use the wrong pronoun.”
Neopronouns (“fae/faer,” “ey/em”) included.

HRC reporting guide: do not publish a prior name “without their explicit consent, which is sometimes called deadnaming.”

GLAAD ally tips:
“Don’t ask a transgender person what their ‘real name’ is.”
“If you happen to know the name someone was given at birth but no longer uses, don’t share it without the person’s explicit permission.”

The Trevor Project: using a young person’s pronouns is “a real life-saving difference” and “a public health issue.”

8. Sex-based language as illegitimate

HRC: contrasting trans people with “‘real’ or ‘biological’ men and women is a false comparison.”

GLAAD “hate and disinformation” guide treats “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” as an “intentionally misleading anti-trans trope” and groups “groomer,” bathroom-predator, and healthcare-as-experimental narratives as coordinated dehumanization.

Wikipedia’s own framing of “adult human female,” reflecting activist/academic usage: the phrase is “described by scholars as a dog whistle for transphobic beliefs.”

The orgs rarely say “hate speech” in a statute sense; they say false comparison, trope, stigma, violence, erasure. That is the enforcement mechanism.

9–10. Affirmation vs exploration; care is healthcare / withholding is violence

Stonewall:
“Conversion therapy is any intervention that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“Gender-affirming therapy and gender transition healthcare are not conversion therapy.”
Affirming therapy “starts from the premise that… the patient has autonomy to explore and know their own gender identity… and to request and seek treatment in line with their own stated needs.”

HRC on the 2025 HHS review:
“gender exploratory therapy” is “a focus-tested and innocuous-sounding name for the debunked, destructive, and dangerous practice of anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy.”
West Virginia bill: “restricting life-saving gender affirming care”; “these lawmakers are denying transgender and non-binary youth care that saves lives.”

HRC facts page: “healthcare for transgender and non-binary people, known as gender-affirming care, is best-practice, medically necessary health care.” “Why do some people say it’s life-saving?” — then cites Trevor Project / suicide-risk studies.

Human Rights Watch headline: “Trans Youth’s Access to Lifesaving Care Under Threat.”

WMA: condemns “conversion” or “reparative” procedures / SOGICE as having “no evidence-based background” and being “a serious threat to the health and human rights” of those subjected to them.

11. Minors can have a stable identity justifying social/medical transition

HRC: “Every credible medical organization… calls for age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary people.” Ban = “dangerous, discriminatory.”

WPATH SOC8: separate adolescent chapter; puberty suppression and hormones “when indicated”; no absolute age floors for surgery in the published version (maturity assessment instead); parental consent “recommended but may be dispensed with if assessed as harmful or not feasible.”

Stonewall after Cass (as reported): hormones and blockers should still be prescribed to children and young people in a “timely manner” if a practitioner supports it.

12. Desistance / detransition / contagion minimized or recoded as stigma

GLAAD: ROGD is an “intentionally misleading anti-trans trope used… to fearmonger.” “Transition-related health care for transgender people, including youth, is supported by every major U.S. medical association.”

HRC: exploratory approaches that might “change… gender identities” are conversion therapy; Kennedy/HHS review is “outright lies and misinformation.”

WPATH SOC8:WPATH SOC8 “acknowledges” social influence and the rise in natal-female adolescents but “stopp[ed] short of endorsing ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria.’”

You will not find these orgs leading with desistance rates, Cass-style evidence reviews, or social-contagion hypotheses as first-line explanations.

13. Spaces and sport follow identity

GLAAD restroom fact sheet: bills forcing “transgender men to use women’s bathrooms, and trans women to use the men’s room” rest on “intentional falsehoods”; trans people should use facilities “that align with who they are.” Cites ACLU: trans people must be able to “use facilities and participate in activities that match who they are.”

NWLC: excluding trans athletes “erases” that they are women and girls; Title IX requires full participation. Inclusive restrooms do not increase safety risk; exclusion endangers both trans and cis women.

GLSEN (via NCTE-style school advocacy): trans students “barred from sports teams that reflect their gender identity” and “forced to use facilities corresponding to their legal sex” as evidence of a hostile climate.

14. No internal line (social-only vs medical)

GLAAD: identity “is not dependent upon medical procedures.”

WPATH SOC8: validates identities that need no medical treatment; access should not depend on the words used.

HRC explicitly includes non-binary and neopronouns in the same pronoun/respect rules.

15–16. Lived experience / questions as harm

GLAAD media program: when media “talks about transgender issues – it is imperative that they get it right” (i.e., the org’s frame).

GLAAD disinformation guide: named research frames (ROGD, “experimental” care, “groomer”) are “false narratives… used to dehumanize trans people.”

HRC to Rowling: “Any questions…?” after restating the slogan.

The phrase “what is a woman?” is treated in adjacent commentary as a “rhetorical strategy in anti-trans discourse.”

17. Opposition as animus

GLAAD letter: dissenters are “self-identified feminists” promoting “damaging and violent ideas”; legislation is “bigoted.”

HRC: sports/care limits are “disinformation,” “extreme elements of their base,” “discriminatory.”

18. Public affirmation; neutrality is not enough

HRC ally FAQ: use the pronouns, “correct others,” learn “gender identity-inclusive language,” oppose “discriminatory bills.”

GLAAD allies page: listen, ask, apologize, never ask the “real name,” don’t share old photos.

19. Conflict with women’s/gay rights denied or inverted

GLAAD: “honoring the diversity of women’s experiences is a strength, not a detriment to the feminist cause”; equal access to “recreation and public accommodations.”

NWLC: exclusion of trans women from women’s sport is sex discrimination under Title IX, not a sex-based protection.

Stonewall conversion-therapy line treats gender identity and sexual orientation as the same kind of trait to be protected from “change.”

20. Category expands (nonbinary, etc.)

HRC slogan includes “non-binary people are non-binary.” Definitions: “a blend of both or neither”; neopronouns listed as valid.

GLAAD FAQ: identity “does not fit neatly into those two choices”; use whatever term the person uses, including non-binary.

WPATH SOC8 title and text: “Transgender and Gender Diverse People.”

These advocacy groups lay out the ideological presuppositions, and self-identified "allies" go around enforcing them by, inter alia, vilifying people who do not agree with those presuppositions (hasty and unsubstantiated leaps into "Bigot!" accusations are a good example of this).

That said, I am quite willing to listen to what you have to say.  Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are inaccurately characterized as such?

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

That comparison isn’t perfect, though, because I don’t think there even is a uniform list of trans ideological doctrines that you must subscribe to in order to be considered an ally.

I agree that there is not any particular "uniform list of trans ideological doctrines."  The movement is, after all, pretty amorphous.

That said, I think most or all of the items in the list I provided would be recognized by most people as widely accepted tenets/axioms amongst trans advocacy groups, trans persons, "allies," and so on.

But again, I am quite willing to listen to what you have to say.  Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are not widely accepted by these folks?

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

For example, you have frequently characterized biological men as "women." 

When I have used the word “woman” that way, I was using it as a gender category rather than as a synonym for adult human biological female.

You are redefining, in an manner, "woman" by including men within it.  Ideologically-driven, ad hoc redefinition of basic terms is, in my view, a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

In my view, the notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one is a per se departure from "empirical reality."

In my view, when you do this you are fervently refusing to understand their words, their conceptual framework, and the nuances of their point.

When I do this I am declining to acquiesce to the radical redefinition of "woman" to include men in its meaning.

If I fervently believe that I am the son of Elon Musk, I am factually incorrect about that.  I may try to twist and turn to redefine terms or otherwise present some sort of "conceptual framework" and "nuances" to justify my belief, but doing so is a departure form "empirical reality."  I am not the son of Elon Musk, and no amount of subjective feeling or equivocation or redefinition or nuance can change that.

Again, you have frequently characterized biological men as "women."  In my view, the notion that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one is a per se departure from "empirical reality," and no amount of subjective feeling or equivocation or redefinition or nuance, or accusations of "bigotry" can change that.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

“Gender identity” and “gender expression” are well-defined terms that represent real-world things, too.

Sure.  But to the extent they express the idea that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, such expressions are a departure from "empirical reality."

Uncle Teddy in Arsenic & Old Lace is a long-recognized character, but nobody expects the audience to think he actually is Teddy Roosevelt.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

On my mission, on a few occasions people I was talking to were adamant that I wasn’t an “elder”. In their view, calling a 19-year old kid an “elder” was a radical “departure from empirical reality,” and they were willing to die on that hill.

"Elder" has a variety of definitions, some pertaining to chronological age and others to ecclesiastical titles:

Quote

1. a person who is older or higher in rank than oneself.
2. an aged person.
3. an influential member of a tribe or community, often a chief or ruler; a superior.
4. a presbyter.
5. (in certain Protestant churches) a lay member who is a governing officer, often assisting the pastor in services.
6. Mormon Church. a member of the Melchizedek priesthood.

Thus, there is no radical, ad hoc redefinition here.  But there sure is one when you affirm that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one.  That claim is a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I think the same must be said for your rejection of the sexual binary.  It is a per se departure from "empirical reality."

I disagree with you on this one. George Box said all models are wrong, but some are useful. The sexual binary is a model. In many contexts it is an extremely useful one, but when dealing with the biology of real-world people, it is less universally useful than many people imagine, and certainly isn’t the ultimate truth of what it means to be a human being. Empirical reality is that sex is "the biological components, including anatomical and physiological traits, largely related to sexual reproduction. Not all components align for all people."

I take the Box point seriously, but I think it is being asked to do work it cannot do.

“All models are wrong, but some are useful” is a warning about statistical approximations of complex systems. It is not a license to treat every real classification as optional, which is what you appear to be attempting.

Sex is not a subjective, convenient story we tell about bodies. In anisogamous species, including humans, there are two gamete types: small (sperm) and large (ova). That is the empirical binary. Organisms are organized around one or the other pathway. “Not all components align for all people” is true of developmental variation, injury, and medical intervention. It does not create a third gamete, a third reproductive class, or a spectrum of sexes. It describes incomplete, atypical, or medically altered expression within the binary.

Your denial of the sexual binary, then, is ideological, not rational, and is therefore a per se departure from "empirical reality."

The National Academies language you quote works against you, as it still anchors sex in “biological components… largely related to sexual reproduction.” That is the binary. The hedge about alignment is a recognition of disorders of sex development and of trait mismatch, not a finding that sex is non-binary. A person with CAIS is not a third sex; they are an XY individual whose body cannot use androgens. The classification remains male in the reproductive sense even when the phenotype is atypical.

So when I say rejection of the sexual binary is a departure from "empirical reality," I mean this: the binary is not a rough average we can set aside when it is socially inconvenient or ideologically mandated. It is the reproductive architecture of the species. Models can be refined. They do not get to deny the existence of the two gamete classes that define the system.

If the claim is only that some traits vary and some people need careful clinical description, we agree. If the claim is that sex itself is therefore not binary, that is the step I cannot take. Usefulness and truth are not opposites here. The binary is both.

And because I think it is clear that we disagree, I find your denial/rejection of the sexual binary to be a per se departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

"Sex assigned at birth" means “sex recorded at birth.” It is in fact a term used by doctors in medical records when dealing with these issues, and was well-defined by the Academies. 

Right.  I acknowledge that.  I also note, however, that "assigned at birth" has sometimes been misappropriated by some ideologues to characterize biological sex as something chosen, not observed, and is therefore subjective and/or arbitrary. 

When these idealogues do this, they use “assigned at birth” to recast sex as a label someone applied, not a trait someone observed.

A midwife recording “male” or “female” is almost always naming the reproductive class already present. The "assigned at birth" is used to suggest that the midwife's act - an administrative/clerical annotation - is the origin of sex, such that a later "gender identity" incongruent with biological sex can be framed as the real fact and the natal record as merely a guess that can be corrected.

In other words the phrase The work the wording does: move sex from biology to paperwork, then treat disagreement with the new paperwork as denying the person rather than disputing a classification.

Such misappropriated usage is, in my view, a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I agree with both of these.  Do you?

I don’t think it is my job to gate-keep the definition of words and to agree or disagree with definitions.

But it is your job to endorse a position that necessarily involves a radical redefinition?  If so, you are being selective in what you will and will not do in terms of lexical usage.  That selectivity is arbitrary and ad hoc and borne of ideological obligation, and is a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

I generally use the definitions the Academy provided, and try to understand what people are trying to communicate with the words they use. 

You have affirmed, many many times, that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one.

You have repeatedly used and ratified a radical, ad hoc, ideologically-driven redefinition of "woman," which I think constitutes a departure of "empirical reality,."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

My sense is that much of trans advocacy is built less on redefining biological sex than on the idea that how we relate to other people matters.

I quite disagree.  I think redefinition and equivocation are two of the most potent and frequently-used tools in the "trans advocacy" toolbox.  

"Assigned at birth."

"Sex is a spectrum."

"Sex is a social construct."

"A woman is anyone who 'identifies' as one."

"Trans women are women."

And so on.  These are factually and linguistically incoherent claims, but anyone who disagrees with them at all is denounced as a "bigot."

AFAICS, you have endorsed these terms in ways that are necessarily redefinitional, ad hoc, ideological, equivocating, and obfuscatory, and I find such usage to be a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

In ordinary social contexts, the polite and humane thing to do is generally to treat people in a way that aligns with their gender identity and presentation.

And that sure is a strange phenomenon.

• Can "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, call himself a perpetual six-year-old girl? 
• Can a 5'9" white guy "identify" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman? 
• Can Eva Tiamat Medusa "identify" as a dragon? 
• Can Naia Ōkami "identify" as a wolf?  

The answer to all of these questions is "Subjectively and in their own worldview, yes; otherwise, no.  To suggest otherwise would be to depart from 'empirical reality.'"

Meanwhile, 

• Is Mr. Wolscht actually a perpetual six-year-old girl?  No.
• Is the 5'9" white guy who "identifies" as a six-foot-tall Chinese woman actually a six-foot-tall Chinese woman?  No.  
• Is Eva Tiamat Medusa actually a dragon?  No.
• Is Naia Okami actually a wolf?  No.

Does society in general go along with the incongruent-with-reality "identities" of these people?  No.

Nevertheless, there are substantial numbers of people in society who somehow manage to affirm and ratify that notion that although a person cannot become something they are not despite "identifying" as it (a dragon, a wolf, etc.), a man can "become" a sex he is not - a "woman" - by "identifying" as one.

I have yet to see a coherent explanation for why claims to an "identity" of a dragon or a wolf are not treated as congruent with reality, but claims by a man to an "identity" of a woman is treated as congruent with reality.

At this point, the standard rejoinders I see are "Gender/sex and species/age are different" (never explained, just asserted), or equivocation ("gender identity" is separate from "sex," while elsewhere conflating them (such that "woman" can refer to sex or "gender identity" or both)) or "Bigot!"

Wolscht and Medusa and Okami are all claiming "identities" which are incongruent with reality and biological fact.  You have repeatedly endorsed claims that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, which is also incongruent with reality and biological fact.  You attempt to overcome or mitigate that incongruency by resorting to ideological and ad hoc equivocatons and redefinitions.  I find that to be a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

That does not require pretending biological sex is unreal or different than what it really is.

I find the foregoing to be incompatible with your numerous ratifications elsewhere that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one.  I think that claim requires its adherents to treat biological sex as "unreal" and "different that what it really is" (that is, malleable, subjective, changeable, on a spectrum and not a binary, etc.).  I find that treatment to be unreasoned and factually inaccurate and arbitrary and ad hoc, and therefore a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

It means recognizing that social categories used in social situations don’t necessarily need to line up with the underlying biology you’d talk about with your doctor in medical situations.

Okay.

Uncle Teddy from Arsenic & Old Lace was not born to Martha Stewart Bulloch Theodore Roosevelt Sr. on October 27, 1858.  Uncle Teddy is not really Teddy Roosevelt, and nobody in society believes that he is.  Family members and others humor his delusion, but that's about it.

But somehow, some segments of our society have found it workable in their minds to go along with an incongruent-with-reality claim that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one.  No other "identity" claim (wolf, dragon, whatever) is treated as it is legitimate and real, but this "gender identity" thing is.  I find that notion to be incompatible with "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Here, though, there is no "gender identity" component to "female" (as there is according to Merriam-Webster).  Do you endorse that omission?

I'm not in a position to endorse anything on this. I’m a finance expert, not a doctor.

And Ketanji Brown-Jackson could not define "woman" because she's not a doctor either.

In truth, she dodged the question because she did not want to answer it.  Evasion and equivocation are, sadly, hallmarks of those who want to defend, or not run afoul of, trans ideology.

The ideas being presented here, such as there being a "gender identity" component to "female" (such that a male who "identifies" as a woman is female) is ideological and ad hoc and incompatible with "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I assume these folks are simply reporting how this term is being used, without commenting on its incoherence.

Just because you think something is incoherent doesn't mean it really is.

A dictionary definition which folds "male" into the definition of "female" is facially incoherent and a departure from "empirical reality."

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

“Not all components align” is biological reality when we’re talking about real-world human beings. 

I quite agree.  People with DSDs exist.

But we all know that all the talk about "trans" stuff is not about people with DSDs, but rather about people who are unequivocally male but "identify" as a woman, or vice versa.  

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

When scientists say “sex is a spectrum,” they do not mean that male and female are meaningless categories. They mean that the biological traits associated with sex: chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genital anatomy, secondary sex characteristics, and gene expression, do not always line up perfectly and often vary continuously in degree. From this coherent, reality-based point of view, sex is bimodal rather than perfectly binary in every biological feature: most people cluster strongly around typical male or female patterns, while some fall between or outside those typical combinations. This can be an insightful way of understanding human biology. 

I can accept most of the first half of this paragraph. Chromosomes, hormones, gonads, genitals, and secondary traits do not line up the same way in every body. Some of those traits vary in degree. A few people sit far from the typical male or female cluster. That is real, and it is why medicine needs more than a cartoon.

The mistake is treating that variation as if it were the definition of sex.

“Spectrum” and “bimodal” describe how traits are distributed. Sex names which reproductive class an organism is organized toward: small gametes (male) or large gametes (female). There is no third gamete and no sliding scale between sperm and ova. The two clusters exist because there are two developmental programs. Variation around the clusters does not turn the programs into a continuum or "spectrum" of sexes.

A tall woman is not “more male.” A man with low testosterone is not “partly female.” A person with a DSD is not a third sex; they have a developmental difference within one of the two pathways, or a mix of traits that still does not create a new reproductive class. “Not every feature is perfectly binary” is true. “Therefore sex is not binary” does not follow.

So I can use the trait language when we are talking about labs, anatomy, or medical care. I will not use it to retire male and female as the only two sexes. The insightful part is that bodies vary. The overreach and departure from "empirical reality" is concluding that the categories themselves are only a rough sketch. 

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

As a thought experiment, imagine in a few years Elder Uchtdorf as prophet. Imagine at the same time a faithful member of the Church who deeply, deeply, feels their spirit is a woman and that somehow, their body looks, biologically, like a male. This person isn’t an activist or public agitator. Just a committed Latter-day Saint who feels like a woman trapped in a males body. They finds themself talking to the first presidency about it, and after a blessing and a prayer they receive a revelation: this person’s spirit really is a female spirt.

Latter-day Saint beliefs are, in the main, not empirically testable.  

I am quite willing to believe in things that are real, part of "reality," but not empirically so.  I cannot prove that my wife loves me, but I believe that love to be as real as anything in my life can be.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

In principle, this could happen, right? Mormons believe in spirits, and that spirits really do have genders. And they also believe genetic defects generally don’t reflect the essence of the body’s spirit. So what if the prophet had a revelation that a specific biological man had a female spirit? Would you object to this person claiming that on the inside, they really are a woman? Would you insist they be treated like a man, despite the prophet’s revelation that their spirit is female?

I can take the thought experiment in good faith, though it takes some real work.  In the most de minimis sense, could the First Presidency receive a revelation that George Patton really had experienced 8 prior incarnations prior to his Patton one (e.g., a soldier with Alexander the Great, a soldier fighting Parthians for Rome, a viking, etc.)?  "In principle, this could happen, right?"  I suppose so, (AoF 1:9 - “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”), but I find it so implausible and farfetched that I have difficulty taking it seriously.  So it is with your theoretical.  Nevertheless, let's give it a go.

I do not doubt that a faithful member can suffer that distress, or that a prophet can receive revelation about a person’s soul (though frankly, I doubt there has ever been a situation remotely like the theoretical one you describe).  But I still think the hypothetical smuggles in a conclusion the Church has not taught.

The Family Proclamation says gender is an essential characteristic of premortal, mortal, and eternal identity. The Church has since said that in that sentence gender means biological sex at birth. Counseling materials add that our bodies are patterned after the likeness of our spirits. That is the opposite of “the spirit is one sex and the body is the other, and we just failed to notice.” Feelings of incongruence are acknowledged, but they are not treated as evidence that the spirit is female in a male body. The Church takes no official position on the cause of those feelings. It does take a position on what sex is for ordinances, classes, and covenants: the body.

So “in principle, a prophet could reveal a female spirit in a male body” is not a small step from present doctrine. It would be a new claim that spirit-sex and body-sex can come apart in an otherwise typical male. Genetic defects and DSDs are real. They are not the same thing as an intact male body plus an inner conviction. Treating every case of dysphoria as a “defective body hiding a female spirit” is the theory being tested, not a premise we already share.

Even if I grant the scene—Elder Uchtdorf, a blessing, a statement that this person’s spirit is female—I would still separate three questions:

1. Did God speak comfort to that person? I am not the judge of their prayer.
2. Is that person a woman in the sense the word has in biology, marriage, and the mortal church? No. The body is male. Priesthood, temple, bathrooms, sports, and “daughter of God” in the embodied sense follow the body. Current handbook practice already does.
3. How should I treat them? With the same duty I owe anyone in pain: kindness, no mockery, no demand that they perform a political script. Kindness is not the same as agreeing that they are a woman.

If a future prophet actually received and published such a revelation, members would have to weigh it the way we weigh any claimed addition to the order of the Church: with the First Presidency and Twelve, in harmony with what is already revealed, not as a private interview that rewrites the categories for everyone else. I would not pretend a press release from a message board is that process.

So my answer to your last two questions is: I would not deny their inner life or their standing before God. I would still say they are a man, and I would still insist that the sex-based parts of church and civic life follow the body. The hypothetical asks me to treat a revelation about a spirit as if it changed the sex of the body. That is the step I cannot take on the doctrine we actually have.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 17 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Hi @smac97,

After I posted this, I realized it wouldn’t be clear what I was referring to, so I decided to flesh out my point. On a personal level, it irritates me that you went to a source with an obvious political bias on this topic (Grok), asked it to create a straw man version of “trans ideology”, and then use this to bait the people you are talking to and then criticizing them for not embracing the straw man.

I have previously asked, and now ask again: 

I am quite willing to listen to what you have to say.  Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are inaccurately characterized as such?

Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are not widely accepted by these folks?

As for LLMs and political bias, seems like your preferred on - ChatGPT - has its own issues:

AI chatbots face major backlash over left-wing bias: ‘Can no longer be considered neutral and cannot be trusted’

In any event, I think all Grok did was compile most of tenets I would have (I have addressed many of this in threads on this board).

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

For my part, I asked ChatGPT to critique what Grok said on this matter, and replace its straw man with a steel man. Here is what GPT says:

First, I would not call these the “fundamental tenets of trans ideology.” There is no catechism, governing body, or agreed philosophical system called trans ideology. More importantly, allyship is primarily a position about how transgender people should be treated, not a requirement that one accept a particular metaphysics of sex.

Good luck departing from those tenets - and publicly saying so - while staying in the good graces of trans advocates, both the groups and the self-appointed online and social media guys.

That there is no governing body to definitively establish "tenets" of trans ideology is one thing; to say that no generally-accepted tenets exist at all is, I think, incorrect.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I were trying to steelman the minimum position, I would reduce it to something like this:

A minimal trans-ally position

1. Transgender people are describing a real human experience. Some people experience a persistent gender identity that does not correspond to the sex category in which they were born and raised. One need not settle whether this identity is innate, developmental, neurological, psychological, social, or some combination in order to take their experience seriously.

2. Transgender people deserve the same dignity, liberty, and legal protection as everyone else. They should not be harassed, assaulted, fired, denied housing, or otherwise mistreated simply because they are transgender.

3. In ordinary social interactions, people should generally accommodate another person's gender identity. If someone lives and presents socially as a woman, there is usually no reason not to call her a woman, use the name she asks to be called, and use female pronouns. That is ordinary interpersonal courtesy. It does not require believing that chromosomes, reproductive anatomy, or biological history have somehow changed.

4. Sex and gender identity are distinguishable concepts. Biological sex is real. Gender identity and gender expression are also real phenomena. Which one matters depends upon what we are talking about. At a cocktail party, gender identity may be overwhelmingly relevant and chromosomes completely irrelevant. In some medical contexts, biological sex may be critically important.

5. Public-policy questions should be decided individually rather than by slogans. Bathrooms, competitive sports, prisons, shelters, medical records, identification documents, and treatment of minors do not necessarily present the same problem. Being a trans ally does not require believing that gender identity must prevail over sex in every conceivable context. It requires taking the interests of transgender people seriously along with whatever competing interests actually exist.

6. Medical questions are empirical questions. It is entirely consistent with trans allyship to ask about benefits, risks, diagnostic uncertainty, desistance, detransition, comorbidities, age, informed consent, and the quality of evidence supporting particular treatments. Compassion does not require knowing the answer before the research is done.

That strikes me as a defensible minimum.

Okay.  Still hope to see you identify the "tenets" in my list which, in your view, are not fairly characterized and/or are not widely accepted by advocates of "trans" issues/ideology.

Your list overlaps with mine only at the edges. Most of it is a different position: liberal courtesy plus “don’t be cruel,” not the set of largely asserted and controverted axioms that I listed and which I see played out all the time (and I documented numerous examples of trans advocacy groups using them).

The overlap: Item 1 (the experience is real) and item 2 (ordinary civil protection) are compatible with almost any serious view, including mine.

Item 4 (sex and identity are distinguishable) rejects “identity is sex.”

Item 5 (policy case by case) rejects “identity wins in every space.”

Item 6 (medicine is empirical) is a rejection of my list’s “affirmation is non-negotiable / questions are harm” tenets.

So relative to my list of tenets, this "steelman" keeps the humanitarian floor and drops the metaphysical and institutional big ticket claims.

Again, I have documented numerous instances of trans advocacy organizations asserting and/or presupposing the tenets in my list.

As for reasonableness, 2, 4, 5, and 6 in your list are reasonable as a minimum if “ally” only means “don’t abuse people and don’t pretend biology vanished.”  Frankly, I don't think most folks in the "trans" community would accept this minimal commitment, particularly if coupled with a rejection of the tenets in my list.

Item 1 is reasonable if “take the experience seriously” means the distress and the self-report exist, not that the self-report is the last word on sex.  Again, good luck getting that milquetoast item endorsed by other "trans" allies and such.

Item 3 is the hinge. “Usually call her a woman” is courtesy. In practice that courtesy is how “trans women are women” gets treated as the default in every room until someone names a sexed rule. The item tries to wall that off (“does not require believing biology changed”). I think this works as etiquette, but it becomes your tenet #2 the moment "courtesy" is demanded in sports, prisons, medicine, or law.

1 can slide into your tenet #4 if “take it seriously” means “do not contradict the identity claim.” As written, it does not have to.

5 is the honest item—and the one activist frameworks usually will not accept. A person who means 5 is not an “ally” in the HRC/GLAAD sense. They are a liberal who will lose the room the first time they say “not in women’s sports” or "Hey, deep down we all know that 'trans women' are not really women" or "sex is a binary, and is not something that can be changed so that person in one category can 'transition' into the other" or "In the end, I think we need to put *some* parameters on what does and does not count as a 'trans woman.'"

In sum, your list is a steelman of a moderate position that I think comes nowhere near being acceptable by most "trans advocacy" organizations and self-appointed "allies."  It overlaps with my list of tenets a bit, but also contradicts quite a few.

I am quite willing to publicly say whether I think my list is a decent summary of fairly widespread tenets of trans advocacy.  I am curious if you will reject any of those tenets.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Someone could go substantially further—believing, for example, that self-identification should control virtually every legal sex classification—without that stronger proposition becoming a prerequisite for treating transgender people decently.

And this is where I think Grok's earlier answer went badly off the rails.

Its 20-item list isn't a steelman of trans allyship. It is a hostile reconstruction of the most maximalist things one can associate with trans activism, sprinkled with assertions about activist motives and behavior, and then presented as though those constitute the movement's “fundamental tenets.”

I don't think my list is "maximalist."  I think it reflects widely-held tenets, as evidenced by the post in which I documented examples of most of those tenets from "trans advocacy" sources.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Look at what gets smuggled into the supposed creed.

I never called or characterized the list as a "creed" (this, in your view, is ChatGPT exhibiting apolitical views)?

And what's with this "smuggling" stuff.  I posted the list for the world to see and invited feedback on it.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

A trans ally allegedly must believe that sex is socially constructed; that chromosomes and reproductive anatomy are crude or bigoted classifications; that disagreement denies people's existence; that withholding medical treatment is “violence”; that lived experience outranks data; that asking questions is harmful; that opponents are motivated by animus; that conflicts with women's or gay rights must be denied; and even that xenogender identities must receive exactly the same conceptual treatment as classical transsexualism.

Those aren't minimum propositions necessary for trans allyship.

I didn't say they were "minimum propositions," but rather that they are widely-held propositions, both by trans advocacy organizations and individual "allies."

I mean, good luck getting away with going to, say, a "Trans Pride" rally or some such and saying any of the following:

Re: Tenet 1 (Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither): 

• "I am a 'trans' ally.  However, I think we need to set aside the notion that a person's 'stated identity' is determinative of whether that person is a man or a woman or neither.  Biological sex determines that."

Re: Tenet 2 (Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes)).  “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan.

• “I am a 'trans' ally.  However, deep down we all know that 'trans women' are not really women, but are instead men who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and 'identify' as women.  "Trans women are women" only in an entirely figurative/suggestive sense, that's all."

Re: Tenet 3 (Self-identification is sufficient). No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid.

• "I am a 'trans' ally.  However, there must, in the end, be some sort of barebones criteria to qualify as 'a woman.'  Subjective identity is unworkable because it's untestable and unfalsifiable.  Those two former NBA players have effectively destroyed the idea that being a "trans woman" can be based solely by self-identification.'"

I  compliment @california boy and @SeekingUnderstanding for being willing to come to this board and present/endorse a "Steps A-C" proposal which differentiates "trans women" who meet specified criteria (such that they can use women's bathrooms) and those who do not (and so are to be excluded from women's bathrooms).  This is a really small venue though.  I would be more impressed and surprised if CB presented his proposal in writing and widely disseminated it.

See also public declarations denying that "sex is a 'spectrum' and a 'social construct.'"  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

This is why I think Grok deserved considerably more skepticism than it received here.

I'm okay with that.  I posted the list, and then documented numerous examples of these "tenets" being presented by trans advocacy groups.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The giveaway isn't merely that individual statements are debatable. It is the construction of the list itself. Nearly every disputed question is phrased in the version least charitable to the trans side. Moderate propositions are replaced with absolutist ones; empirical controversies become alleged articles of faith; and the worst rhetoric one can find among activists is treated as constitutive of the entire worldview.

Candidly, I think "moderate propositions" are there, but they are not nearly as widely-held and endorsed as the list I provided.  

In other words, the "absolutist" and other extreme tenets seem to be largely assumed and axiomatic in the trans community.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

One can disagree profoundly with particular trans activists, reject self-ID as a universal legal rule, believe biological sex remains important, demand better evidence for pediatric medicine, and recognize genuine conflicts involving sports or privacy—and still hold the rather modest proposition at the center of trans allyship:

Transgender people are real people describing a real experience, and in both our personal interactions and our laws we should try to treat them with dignity, courtesy, and fairness while dealing honestly with biological reality and legitimate competing interests.

That is a considerably stronger steelman than Grok's partisan caricature—and, I think, a much more useful starting point for an actual discussion.

Frankly, I am astonished.  By your metric I am a trans ally.

"Transgender people are real people describing a real experience,"

I affirm this, with some clarification (along the lines of "but that experience, however strongly felt, cannot override biological reality.  A man cannot 'become' a woman by 'identifying as one, nor can anyone migrate from one category in the sexual binary to the other").

"and in both our personal interactions and our laws we should try to treat them with dignity, courtesy, and fairness while dealing honestly with biological reality and legitimate competing interests."

I affirm this, with some clarification ("Such 'honest dealing' must include a kind, but still candid and direct, rejection of incongruent-with-reality notions such as 'Trans Women are Women' (they are not women, and acting or pretending to act as if they are is furtherance of falsehood and delusion), 'a "woman" is anyone who identifies as one' (this is a circular and nonsensical definition, as 'woman' means, and has always meant, 'adult human female,' which necessarily excludes men - including 'trans women' - from that definition"), '"sex" is a spectrum' or '"sex" is a social construct' ("sex" is a biological reality, not a subjective identity, not a spectrum, not a social construct)).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I felt the list was fairly accurate. 

Subjective

Edited 16 hours ago by Calm

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Elder" has a variety of definitions, some pertaining to chronological age and others to ecclesiastical titles:

Thus, there is no radical, ad hoc redefinition here.  But there sure is one when you affirm that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one.  That claim is a departure from "empirical reality."

Let me get this straight. When you say an 18-year-old kid is an “Elder,” it is my job as the listener to figure out which definition you are using and understand what you mean. But if somebody else says, “I am a woman because that is my gender identity,” that’s totally different: you have no corresponding responsibility to understand what they mean. Instead, you can impose your definition onto their words and then criticize them for the nonsense that results.

Do I have that right?

Because if you aren’t willing even to acknowledge a responsibility to understand another person's conceptual framework before criticizing what they are saying, I’m not sure there is much point in continuing the conversation.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have previously asked, and now ask again: 

I am quite willing to listen to what you have to say.  Which items in the list of "tenets" of trans ideology I previously provided do you feel are inaccurately characterized as such?

Of the 20 load-bearing principles you listed, the following are false:  1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20

The only ones that are basically true are 3 (your gender identity is valid on its own) and 7 (you should use people’s preferred pronouns).

My basis for this was comparing your hostile anti-trans propaganda list to the web page “Supporting Transgender People" on the transequality.org website. It is striking how what they are actually asking for is so different than what you claim they are asking for. I asked GPT to compare your list to what is on that website and it came up with this:

If we use Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE / transequality.org) as the benchmark, the redline is pretty dramatic. One caveat: A4TE itself says there is “no one way to be a ‘perfect’ ally”, so strictly speaking it does not present a doctrinal entrance exam. But its Supporting Transgender People page is explicitly a guide to allyship, so it gives us a reasonable test: does Grok’s proposition actually appear as something an ally is expected to believe or do?(Trans Equality)

Here is Grok’s list with everything unsupported by that standard struck out. I’ve left unstruck only the portions that substantially correspond to A4TE’s actual guidance.

---

Here is a descriptive list of claims that function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary “trans” advocacy — especially the institutional/activist version that treats dissent as bigotry or “denial of existence.” Not every trans person holds all of them. The point is which ones are treated as non-negotiable in that framework.

Core identity claims

1. Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither.

A4TE instead says: You do not have to understand someone’s identity to respect it. It does not require an ally to believe gender identity is innate or metaphysically authoritative. (Trans Equality)

2. Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes). “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan.

Nothing resembling this appears as a requirement for allyship.

3. Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid.

This one contains a genuine A4TE principle. A4TE explicitly says there is no single right way to be transgender and that a transgender person’s identity does not depend upon medical transition, legal changes, or changes in appearance. (Trans Equality)

4. Denial of the identity is a denial of the person. Disagreeing with the identity claim is framed as saying the person “doesn’t exist,” not as disputing a proposition.

Nothing resembling this is required.

Sex, biology, and language

5. Sex is a spectrum, a social construct, or at least not a strict binary relevant to policy. Chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are treated as crude, incomplete, or bigoted ways to classify people.

None of this appears in A4TE’s allyship requirements.

6. “Assigned sex at birth” is the preferred description of sex, implying a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category.

Not an allyship requirement.

7. Preferred pronouns and names are morally mandatory. Use the name, pronouns, and language a transgender person uses for themselves. Using sex-based pronouns is “misgendering”; using a prior name is “deadnaming.” Both are treated as harms comparable to slurs.

This is one of the clearest things that actually survives. A4TE tells allies to follow the person’s lead regarding language, ask politely about pronouns when necessary, and apologize and move on after mistakes. It does not say pronoun mistakes are equivalent to slurs. (Trans Equality)

8. There is no polite way to state the sex distinction. “Biological male/female,” “natal sex,” and similar terms are often classified as hate speech or dogwhistles.

Not there.

Medical and youth claims

9. Gender dysphoria is validated by affirmation, not primarily explored as a possible misattribution of other distress. “Watchful waiting” or exploratory therapy is frequently labeled conversion therapy.

Not part of this allyship standard.

10. Medical transition (blockers, hormones, surgery) is healthcare, and withholding it is violence. Access is framed as lifesaving; gatekeeping is framed as cruelty.

Not required. The page acknowledges that some transgender people medically transition and others do not; it does not require these medical propositions. (Trans Equality)

11. Minors can have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition. Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry.

Not there.

12. Desistance, detransition, and comorbidity (autism, trauma, same-sex attraction, social contagion) are minimized, treated as rare, or blamed on stigma rather than on the affirmation model.

Not there.

Social and institutional claims

13. Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. People should be allowed to use bathrooms and other gendered facilities consistent with their gender identity. Exclusion of males who identify as women is discrimination.

There is a substantive policy position here, but Grok enormously broadens it. A4TE explicitly advocates restroom access according to gender identity. Its ally page does not establish a universal principle that sports, prisons, shelters, and every other sex-separated institution must therefore operate according to the identical rule. (Trans Equality)

14. Any line among “trans women” is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is “transmedicalism” or “dividing the community.”

A4TE does say that medical transition is not a prerequisite for someone’s transgender identity. It does not say every distinction among transgender people is bigotry. (Trans Equality)

15. Lived experience outranks data when studies, crime patterns, or fairness in sport cut against the identity rule.

Nothing like this appears.

16. Questions are a form of harm. Asking for definitions (“what is a woman?”), evidence, or tradeoffs is treated as bad-faith or as endangering trans people.

In fact, A4TE explicitly distinguishes inappropriate intrusive questions from legitimate ones. Its advice is essentially to ask whether you actually need intimate information and whether you would consider the same question appropriate if directed at yourself. That is a rule of ordinary courtesy, not “questions are harmful.” (Trans Equality)

17. Opposition is explained as animus. The admissible motives are hatred, disgust, or religion; safety, fairness, child protection, and definitional accuracy are discounted.

Not there.

Political enforcement

18. Allies must affirm publicly. Neutrality (“I don’t care what adults do privately”) is often not enough; failure to repeat the slogans is coded as hostility.

A4TE does encourage allies to speak publicly in support of transgender people, challenge anti-trans remarks and jokes, support people experiencing discrimination, and learn about policies affecting transgender people. But it does not impose a requirement to repeat ideological slogans or characterize failure to do so as hostility. Indeed, when discussing political advocacy, it says to help change policies “if you’re comfortable with it.” (Trans Equality)

19. Conflicts with women’s rights and gay rights are denied or inverted. Sex-based rights are reframed as bigotry; same-sex attraction is pressured toward “attraction to gender identity.”

Nothing remotely like this appears as a condition of allyship.

20. The category must expand, not contract. Nonbinary, genderfluid, xenogender, and similar identities are folded into the same moral protection as transsexualism; limiting the category is betrayal.

A4TE recognizes diversity within the transgender community and directs readers to resources about nonbinary people. It does not articulate Grok’s supposed principle that the category “must expand,” mention xenogenders here, or call limiting the category “betrayal.” (Trans Equality)

---

After running Grok's twenty alleged “load-bearing principles” through an actual mainstream transgender advocacy organization's guide to how to be an ally, I think the result is revealing.

What survives is basically:

Respect transgender people's identities even if you don't fully understand them. Don't require medical transition or stereotypical appearance before recognizing someone as transgender. Use people's requested names, pronouns, and terminology. Respect their privacy. Oppose discrimination. Speak supportively when appropriate. Support gender-identity-based restroom access and some other inclusive policies.

A4TE also encourages allies to educate themselves, avoid invasive questions about surgery or genitalia, protect people's privacy about their transgender status, reconsider unnecessary gender fields on forms, and advocate nondiscrimination protections. (Trans Equality)

What emphatically doesn't survive is most of the supposedly “load-bearing ideology”: that sex is a social construct; reproductive biology is bigoted; identity literally is biological sex; disagreement denies somebody's existence; withholding transition is violence; questions are harmful; lived experience outranks data; opponents are motivated by animus; women's and gay rights must be subordinated; xenogender must be affirmed; and so forth.

That comparison makes the problem with Grok's original answer unusually clear. It did not identify the minimum principles of trans allyship and then describe them charitably. It assembled maximalist claims, hostile interpretations, disputed policy positions, and accusations about activist behavior, and labeled the resulting package the “load-bearing principles” of trans advocacy.

That is almost a textbook example of a strawman.

Edited 15 hours ago by Analytics

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let me get this straight. When you say an 18-year-old kid is an “Elder,” it is my job as the listener to figure out which definition you are using and understand what you mean.

I think most people already familiar with Christianity understand that "Elder" in a religious context is an ecclesiastical title, not one denoting age.  And since the incongruity of the title to the age of the young man bearing it is both immediate and obvious (and, for some, kind of humorous), there really isn't much by way of a "job" for you to "get straight," wherein you "figure out which definition" is in play.

Similarly, when I speak of my step-aunt, Sister Margaret (a Catholic nun), I think most people know that "Sister" is an ecclesiastical title, and not familial.  Nothing to "figure out," really.

Similarly, when I speak of "Father Mulcahy" on M*A*S*H, I think most people know that is an ecclesiastical title, and not familial.  Again, nothing to "figure out."

In contrast, "gender identity," "gender expression" and even "gender" by itself have become somewhat difficult and confusing terms, wherein they can genuinely mean different things to different people in different contexts, and in ways that are neither immediate nor apparent.

For example, "gender" is sometimes used as a coterminous synonym for "sex," and at other times, as something like "internal sense of themselves" (whatever that means).  And that "internal sense" can then be congruent with sex, incongruent, or "intersex" or "nonbinary" or "intergender" or any of the many dozens of potential meanings of "gender identity."  So there is where you might have a "job" to "figure out which definition" is being used.  And good luck with it.

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But if somebody else says, “I am a woman because that is my gender identity,” that’s totally different: you have no corresponding responsibility to understand what they mean.

Yes, I think that is totally different.

Again, "Elder" has a variety of meanings, some about age, some about status, some about ecclesiastical roles:

Quote

adjective

1. of greater age; older.

Antonyms:

younger

2. of higher rank; senior.

an elder officer.

3. of or relating to former times; earlier.

Much that was forbidden by elder custom is accepted today.

noun

1. a person who is older or higher in rank than oneself.
2. an aged person.
3. an influential member of a tribe or community, often a chief or ruler; a superior.
4. a presbyter.
5. (in certain Protestant churches) a lay member who is a governing officer, often assisting the pastor in services.
6. Mormon Church. a member of the Melchizedek priesthood.

noun

any tree or shrub belonging to the genus Sambucus, of the honeysuckle family, having pinnate leaves, clusters of white flowers, and red or black, berrylike fruit.

adjective

1. born earlier; senior Compare older

2. (in piquet and similar card games) denoting or relating to the nondealer (the elder hand ), who has certain advantages in the play

3. archaic

• prior in rank, position, or office
• of a previous time; former

noun

1. an older person; one's senior
2. anthropol a senior member of a tribe who has influence or authority
3. (in certain Protestant Churches) a lay office having teaching, pastoral, or administrative functions
4. another word for presbyter

noun

1. Also called: elderberry.  any of various caprifoliaceous shrubs or small trees of the genus Sambucus, having clusters of small white flowers and red, purple, or black berry-like fruits
2. any of various unrelated plants, such as box elder and marsh elder

So "Elder" can mean an older or higher-ranked person, or a senior member of a tribe, or a Protestant ecclesiastical title, or a Latter-day Saint ecclesiastical title, or a tree, or a shrub, or a berry.

When someone sees a 19-year old with a name tag reading "Elder Jones," even if they are not familiar with the Church, they can immediately exclude some of these meanings: 

Older or higher-ranked person?  Nope.

Senior member of tribe?  Nope.

Tree?  Nope.

Shrub?  Nope.

Berry?  Nope.

That leaves "Protestant ecclesiastical title" or "Latter-day Saint ecclesiastical title."

The Church's missionaries have been out there for a while, so it's getting harder and harder to suggest that people are not familiar with Latter-day Saint missionaries carrying an ecclesiastical title of "Elder."

In contrast, "Gender Identity" is entirely subjective, has many dozens of potential meanings, and those meanings are completely up to the individual.  So yes, I think people can readily be less at ease about what "gender identity" means as compared to missionary "Elders."

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Instead, you can impose your definition onto their words and then criticize them for the nonsense that results.

Well, no.  I don't "impose" any definition onto the word used as a title for male Latter-day Saint missionaries.  It's right there in the dictionary.  It's not "imposed."  The relevant and applicable definition (the ecclesiastical title: "Mormon Church. a member of the Melchizedek priesthood") is immediately understood, rather than "a person who is older or higher in rank" or a tree or a shrub or a berry.

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do I have that right?

I think you are feigning confusion.

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Because if you aren’t willing even to acknowledge a responsibility to understand another person's conceptual framework before criticizing what they are saying, I’m not sure there is much point in continuing the conversation.

I acknowledge the need to understand another person's conceptual framework.

Here is a list of definitions/meanings (Healthline.com, so likely not overtly politically partisan) for "Gender Identity and Expression":

From Healthline’s “68 Terms That Describe Gender Identity and Expression”:

68 Terms That Describe Gender Identity and Expression

And here we go:

1. AFAB — Assigned female at birth; label based on observed sex traits at birth.
2. Agender — Identifies as having no gender.
3. Aliagender — A stated gender outside existing male/female/nonbinary boxes.
4. AMAB — Assigned male at birth.
5. Androgyne — Identity or look mixing or neutralizing masculine and feminine.
6. Aporagender — A specific gender said to be neither man, woman, nor a blend of those.
7. Bigender — Two genders, at once or in turn.
8. Binarism — Treating gender as only two opposite classes.
9. Body dysphoria — Distress about sexed body traits.
10. Boi — Boyish presentation or identity; used in some LGBTQ communities of color.
11. Butch — Masculine presentation or identity, often in lesbian/queer use.
12. Cisgender — Identity matches sex recorded at birth.
13. Cishet — Cisgender and heterosexual.
14. Cisnormativity — Treating alignment of identity and birth sex as the default.
15. Cissexism — Bias against people who are not cisgender.
16. Demiboy — Partly identifies as a boy/man/masculine.
17. Demigender — Partial attachment to a gender (umbrella for demiboy/demigirl).
18. Demigirl — Partly identifies as a girl/woman/feminine.
19. Dyadic — Sex traits that fit typical male or female; not a gender identity.
20. Feminine-of-center — Identity leaning feminine, with or without “woman.”
21. Feminine-presenting — Appearance or manner read as feminine.
22. Femme — Feminine identity or expression.
23. Female-to-male (FTM) — Older term for some trans men / transmasculine people.
24. Gender apathetic — Indifferent to gender labels.
25. Gender binary — The two-class man/woman scheme.
26. Gender dysphoria — Distress from mismatch of identity and sex, or from how others treat the body.
27. Gender expansive — Umbrella for people who reject usual gender norms.
28. Gender expression — How gender is shown (clothes, manner, etc.).
29. Gender identity — Inner sense of being a man, woman, both, neither, etc.
30. Gender-neutral pronouns — Pronouns other than he/she (they, ze/hir, etc.).
31. Gender nonconforming — Expression that breaks stereotypes for one’s sex or perceived sex.
32. Gender normative — Traits that match social expectations.
33. Gender presentation — External display of gender.
34. Gender questioning — Exploring identity or expression.
35. Gender roles — Social scripts attached to men and women.
36. Gender variant — Identity or expression off the social norm.
37. Genderfluid — Identity that shifts over time or context.
38. Gender**** — Presentation meant to break gender rules.
39. Genderqueer — Not exclusively man or woman.
40. Gendervoid — Sense of gender as absent.
41. Graygender — Weak or ambivalent attachment to gender.
42. Intergender — Between or mixing man and woman.
43. Intersex — Sex-development variation; not a gender identity.
44. Masculine-of-center — Identity leaning masculine.
45. Masculine-presenting — Appearance read as masculine.
46. Maverique — A gender claimed as independent of man, woman, or neuter.
47. Misgender — Using sexed language that does not match the requested identity.
48. Male-to-female (MTF) — Older term for some trans women / transfeminine people.
49. Multi-gender — More than one gender identity.
50. Neutrois — Neutral or null gender (overlaps nonbinary/agender).
51. Nonbinary — Umbrella: not exclusively man or woman.
52. Novigender — A gender said to be inexpressible in existing words.
53. Omnigender — Many or all genders.
54. Pangender — All or many genders at once or over time.
55. Polygender — Multiple genders at once or over time.
56. Sex — Classification as male, female, or intersex by biological traits.
57. Sex assigned at birth — The birth record of sex; Healthline treats it as not determining gender.
58. Social dysphoria — Distress from how others perceive one’s gender or body.
59. Soft butch — Milder masculine/butch presentation.
60. Stone butch — Stronger butch presentation (term also has a specific sexual-history use).
61. Third gender — A class neither man nor woman; often tied to particular cultures.
62. Transfeminine — Feminine identity in someone whose birth sex was male.
63. Transgender / trans — Umbrella: identity differs from sex recorded at birth.
64. Transmasculine — Masculine identity in someone whose birth sex was female.
65. Transitioning — Social, legal, or medical steps to present as the identified sex.
66. Transsexual — Older/clinical term; often implies medical change.
67. Trigender — Three genders, at once or in turn.
68. Two-spirit — Some Native North American term for certain sex/gender-variant social roles; not a generic synonym for transgender.

As you can see, "gender identity" and "gender expression" can mean very different things to different people in different contexts and at different times.  It's rather difficult, then, for an individual to reflexively know "another person's conceptual framework" when the term being used is an amorphous neologism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of the 20 load-bearing principles you listed, the following are false:  1,2,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20

The only ones that are basically true are 3 (your gender identity is valid on its own) and 7 (you should use people’s preferred pronouns).

My basis for this was comparing your hostile anti-trans propaganda list to the web page “Supporting Transgender People" on the transequality.org website.

Huh.  Well, here again is my list of "tenets" which are substantiated, most fairly extensively, on various "trans advocacy" websites:

Quote

1–2. Identity is real/authoritative; “trans women are women” is literal

Human Rights Campaign (official account):
“Let’s clarify this again for those who don’t get it — trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary people are non-binary.”

HRC president Alphonso David, Senate QFR:
“Transgender women are women and transgender men are men.”
“A woman is an adult who knows herself to be female.”

GLAAD open letter (Women’s History Month / TDOV):
“We acknowledge with clarity and strength that transgender women are women and that transgender girls are girls.”
The same letter treats opposing feminists as promoting “damaging and violent ideas about trans people.”

National Women’s Law Center testimony:
“this statement erases the fact that trans women and girls are women and girls.”
“With our full conviction, we at NWLC know unequivocally that trans women and girls, and intersex women and girls, ARE women and girls who deserve to participate fully in women’s sports.  ”

3. Self-ID / no medical requirement

GLAAD Transgender FAQ:
“But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and it’s important to know that being transgender is not dependent upon medical procedures.”
“Gender identity is a person’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or boy or girl.)”
“Always use the term used by the person.”

HRC definitions:
“One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither… One’s gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.”
Transition “might” be social only (name, pronouns, dress) or medical.

WPATH SOC8:
“this version of the SOC recognizes and validates various expressions of gender that may not necessitate psychological, hormonal, or surgical treatments.”
“access to transition-related health care should be based on… informed consent… not on what words TGD people… use to describe their identities.”

4. Denial of identity = denial of the person / violence

HRC reporting guide:
“Contrasting transgender people with ‘real’ or ‘biological’ men and women is a false comparison. Transgender people’s gender identities are real…”
Misgendering victims “disrespect[s] their identities, causing pain… and reinforcing the stigma at the center of anti-trans violence.”

GLAAD letter: opposition is “anti-transgender rhetoric,” “bigoted governmental policies,” and “assaults (legislative, physical, social, and verbal).”

Vox, summarizing the political fight in the terms advocates use: bathroom bans “reject[] the existence of trans people” and “advance[] a rejection of the idea that trans women are women.”

5–6. Sex as incomplete / “assigned at birth”

GLAAD:
“Transgender is a term used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.”

HRC FAQ:
“both the existence of intersex people and the ability to medically transition show that sex is also mutable and not defined by rigid categories.”

HRC David QFR: genitals “are not defining of maleness or femaleness”; HHS findings that male/female biological differences “matter” are “not true for all males or all females.”

Stonewall staff evidence (Kirrin Medcalf), as reported:
“Bodies are not inherently male or female. They are just their bodies.”
“Biological sex is made up of a multitude of characteristics that change over a person’s life-cycle.”

7. Pronouns/names mandatory; misgendering and deadnaming as harm

HRC:
“Transgender and non-binary people… should always be identified and referred to with their correct pronouns.”
“Misgendering… may lead them to feel distressed, unseen, or unwelcome.”
“be sure to always use them—and to correct others if they use the wrong pronoun.”
Neopronouns (“fae/faer,” “ey/em”) included.

HRC reporting guide: do not publish a prior name “without their explicit consent, which is sometimes called deadnaming.”

GLAAD ally tips:
“Don’t ask a transgender person what their ‘real name’ is.”
“If you happen to know the name someone was given at birth but no longer uses, don’t share it without the person’s explicit permission.”

The Trevor Project: using a young person’s pronouns is “a real life-saving difference” and “a public health issue.”

8. Sex-based language as illegitimate

HRC: contrasting trans people with “‘real’ or ‘biological’ men and women is a false comparison.”

GLAAD “hate and disinformation” guide treats “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” as an “intentionally misleading anti-trans trope” and groups “groomer,” bathroom-predator, and healthcare-as-experimental narratives as coordinated dehumanization.

Wikipedia’s own framing of “adult human female,” reflecting activist/academic usage: the phrase is “described by scholars as a dog whistle for transphobic beliefs.”

The orgs rarely say “hate speech” in a statute sense; they say false comparison, trope, stigma, violence, erasure. That is the enforcement mechanism.

9–10. Affirmation vs exploration; care is healthcare / withholding is violence

Stonewall:
“Conversion therapy is any intervention that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“Gender-affirming therapy and gender transition healthcare are not conversion therapy.”
Affirming therapy “starts from the premise that… the patient has autonomy to explore and know their own gender identity… and to request and seek treatment in line with their own stated needs.”

HRC on the 2025 HHS review:
“gender exploratory therapy” is “a focus-tested and innocuous-sounding name for the debunked, destructive, and dangerous practice of anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy.”
West Virginia bill: “restricting life-saving gender affirming care”; “these lawmakers are denying transgender and non-binary youth care that saves lives.”

HRC facts page: “healthcare for transgender and non-binary people, known as gender-affirming care, is best-practice, medically necessary health care.” “Why do some people say it’s life-saving?” — then cites Trevor Project / suicide-risk studies.

Human Rights Watch headline: “Trans Youth’s Access to Lifesaving Care Under Threat.”

WMA: condemns “conversion” or “reparative” procedures / SOGICE as having “no evidence-based background” and being “a serious threat to the health and human rights” of those subjected to them.

11. Minors can have a stable identity justifying social/medical transition

HRC: “Every credible medical organization… calls for age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary people.” Ban = “dangerous, discriminatory.”

WPATH SOC8: separate adolescent chapter; puberty suppression and hormones “when indicated”; no absolute age floors for surgery in the published version (maturity assessment instead); parental consent “recommended but may be dispensed with if assessed as harmful or not feasible.”

Stonewall after Cass (as reported): hormones and blockers should still be prescribed to children and young people in a “timely manner” if a practitioner supports it.

12. Desistance / detransition / contagion minimized or recoded as stigma

GLAAD: ROGD is an “intentionally misleading anti-trans trope used… to fearmonger.” “Transition-related health care for transgender people, including youth, is supported by every major U.S. medical association.”

HRC: exploratory approaches that might “change… gender identities” are conversion therapy; Kennedy/HHS review is “outright lies and misinformation.”

WPATH SOC8:WPATH SOC8 “acknowledges” social influence and the rise in natal-female adolescents but “stopp[ed] short of endorsing ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria.’”

You will not find these orgs leading with desistance rates, Cass-style evidence reviews, or social-contagion hypotheses as first-line explanations.

13. Spaces and sport follow identity

GLAAD restroom fact sheet: bills forcing “transgender men to use women’s bathrooms, and trans women to use the men’s room” rest on “intentional falsehoods”; trans people should use facilities “that align with who they are.” Cites ACLU: trans people must be able to “use facilities and participate in activities that match who they are.”

NWLC: excluding trans athletes “erases” that they are women and girls; Title IX requires full participation. Inclusive restrooms do not increase safety risk; exclusion endangers both trans and cis women.

GLSEN (via NCTE-style school advocacy): trans students “barred from sports teams that reflect their gender identity” and “forced to use facilities corresponding to their legal sex” as evidence of a hostile climate.

14. No internal line (social-only vs medical)

GLAAD: identity “is not dependent upon medical procedures.”

WPATH SOC8: validates identities that need no medical treatment; access should not depend on the words used.

HRC explicitly includes non-binary and neopronouns in the same pronoun/respect rules.

15–16. Lived experience / questions as harm

GLAAD media program: when media “talks about transgender issues – it is imperative that they get it right” (i.e., the org’s frame).

GLAAD disinformation guide: named research frames (ROGD, “experimental” care, “groomer”) are “false narratives… used to dehumanize trans people.”

HRC to Rowling: “Any questions…?” after restating the slogan.

The phrase “what is a woman?” is treated in adjacent commentary as a “rhetorical strategy in anti-trans discourse.”

17. Opposition as animus

GLAAD letter: dissenters are “self-identified feminists” promoting “damaging and violent ideas”; legislation is “bigoted.”

HRC: sports/care limits are “disinformation,” “extreme elements of their base,” “discriminatory.”

18. Public affirmation; neutrality is not enough

HRC ally FAQ: use the pronouns, “correct others,” learn “gender identity-inclusive language,” oppose “discriminatory bills.”

GLAAD allies page: listen, ask, apologize, never ask the “real name,” don’t share old photos.

19. Conflict with women’s/gay rights denied or inverted

GLAAD: “honoring the diversity of women’s experiences is a strength, not a detriment to the feminist cause”; equal access to “recreation and public accommodations.”

NWLC: exclusion of trans women from women’s sport is sex discrimination under Title IX, not a sex-based protection.

Stonewall conversion-therapy line treats gender identity and sexual orientation as the same kind of trait to be protected from “change.”

20. Category expands (nonbinary, etc.)

HRC slogan includes “non-binary people are non-binary.” Definitions: “a blend of both or neither”; neopronouns listed as valid.

GLAAD FAQ: identity “does not fit neatly into those two choices”; use whatever term the person uses, including non-binary.

WPATH SOC8 title and text: “Transgender and Gender Diverse People.”

I submit that most or all of the "tenets" I listed are widely-shared and acknowledged by "trans" advocates.  You apparently disagree, calling almost all of them "hostile anti-trans propaganda."

I'm okay with having a difference of opinion here.

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It is striking how what they are actually asking for is so different than what you claim they are asking for. I asked GPT to compare your list to what is on that website and it came up with this:

If we use Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE / transequality.org) as the benchmark, the redline is pretty dramatic. One caveat: A4TE itself says there is “no one way to be a ‘perfect’ ally”, so strictly speaking it does not present a doctrinal entrance exam. But its Supporting Transgender People page is explicitly a guide to allyship, so it gives us a reasonable test: does Grok’s proposition actually appear as something an ally is expected to believe or do?(Trans Equality)

Here is Grok’s list with everything unsupported by that standard struck out. I’ve left unstruck only the portions that substantially correspond to A4TE’s actual guidance.

---

Here is a descriptive list of claims that function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary “trans” advocacy — especially the institutional/activist version that treats dissent as bigotry or “denial of existence.” Not every trans person holds all of them. The point is which ones are treated as non-negotiable in that framework.

Core identity claims

1. Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither.

A4TE instead says: You do not have to understand someone’s identity to respect it. It does not require an ally to believe gender identity is innate or metaphysically authoritative. (Trans Equality)

Huh.  Apart from the bolded part (which is a verbatim quote), your link does not seem to say what you say it says.  What part of it rebuts Tenet 1?

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

2. Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes). “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan.

Nothing resembling this appears as a requirement for allyship.

My list was "of claims that function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary 'trans' advocacy."

Not sure how you turned that into a list of "requirement{s} for allyship."

As for whether statements "resembling" Tenet 2 are out there, here's the Human Rights Campaign:

Quote

1. Trans women are women.

When we say women, that word always includes trans women. There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it. A woman’s gender identity is her innermost concept of being female. A trans woman’s gender identity doesn’t define or caveat her womanhood, it simply describes her journey to womanhood.

The "tenet" in my list: "Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes). 'Trans women are women' / 'trans men are men' is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan."

The HRC website: "When we say women, that word always includes trans women. There’s no ifs, ands or buts about it."

National Women's Law Center: Happy Pride. Don’t Be a TERF.

Quote

It Bears Repeating: Trans Women Are Women 

Like most extremist groups, TERFs do not share opinions with the majority of our country. Support for trans people and the fight for trans rights remains steadily on the rise—but that doesn’t make the TERF movement any less dangerous. The obsession with legislating, tracking, and surveilling trans bodies is the same playbook being used to ban abortion and strip away bodily autonomy for people with the capacity for pregnancy. The goal is always control. They can call it “radical feminism” or being “gender critical,” but it doesn’t change the truth. And if history has taught us anything, an attack on one of us is an attack on us all.  

"It bears repeating: Trans Women Are Women."

Are you sure this isn't a widely-held sentiment in the trans community?

Are you sure this isn't a fairly fundamental precept in terms of ideology and advocacy and agenda?

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

3. Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid.

This one contains a genuine A4TE principle. A4TE explicitly says there is no single right way to be transgender and that a transgender person’s identity does not depend upon medical transition, legal changes, or changes in appearance. (Trans Equality)

Huh.  So if it's not on the A4TE website, it's not a principle.  And yet, just a few hours ago you wrote:

Quote

First, I would not call these the “fundamental tenets of trans ideology.” There is no catechism, governing body, or agreed philosophical system called trans ideology. 

In your view, is A4TE the "governing body" that gets to determine what does and does not count to "function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary 'trans' advocacy?"

If yes, then you just undermined your own point in the space of a few hours.

If no, then whether or not  A4TE agrees with a tenet is not really relevant because, to quote a guy: "There is no catechism, governing body, or agreed philosophical system called trans ideology."

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

4. Denial of the identity is a denial of the person. Disagreeing with the identity claim is framed as saying the person “doesn’t exist,” not as disputing a proposition.

Nothing resembling this is required.

Sure seems like it.  I've seen numerous social media posts/videos where a "trans" person equates denial of their "gender identity" with claiming they don't "exist."

Perhaps one of the better known examples:

See also here:

Quote

During a Senate hearing on Tuesday about the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision to reverse Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that provided a constitutional right to abortion, Sen. Josh Hawley clashed with law professor Khiara Bridges over a series of questions about who can be pregnant.

Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, asked Bridges, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, why she used the phrase “people with a capacity for pregnancy” when she described the impacts of abortion restrictions and bans.

“You’ve referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy — would that be women?” Hawley asked.

Bridges responded that many cisgender women, who identify with their assigned sex at birth, have the capacity for pregnancy and that many do not.

“There are also trans men who are capable of pregnancy as well as nonbinary people who are capable of pregnancy,” she said, referring to people who identify as neither male nor female.

Hawley shot back, “So this isn’t really a women’s rights issue?”

“We can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups,” Bridges said. “Those things are not mutually exclusive.”

Hawley continued to press Bridges and asked her what the core of the right to abortion is about.

“So I want to recognize that your line of questioning is transphobic,” Bridges responded.

There it is.  Asking questions is "transphobic."

Quote

She continued, “And it opens up trans people to violence,” but then Hawley cut her off and the two began a tense exchange.

“I’m opening up people to violence by asking whether or not women are the folks who can have pregnancies?” he said.

Bridges responded with a statistic, noting that 1 in 5 transgender people have attempted suicide, and then Hawley interrupted her again: “Because of my line of questioning? So we can’t talk about it?”

Bridges continued, “Because denying that trans people exist and pretending not to know that they exist is dangerous.”

Hawley interrupted again: “I’m denying that trans people exist by asking you if you’re talking about women having pregnancies?”

As he asked his question, Bridges repeatedly asked him, “Are you?”

Bridges then asked Hawley if he believes men can get pregnant, and he said no. To which Bridges responded, “Then you’re denying that trans people exist. Thank you.”

“And that leads to violence?” Hawley responded. He then fired off a series of questions asking if this is how Bridges runs her classroom and if students are made to feel that they’re opening people up to violence.

Asking questions or expressing skepticism or disagreement = "denying that trans people exist and pretending not to know that they exist" and "you’re denying that trans people exist."

I think this tenet is rather well-attested.

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Sex, biology, and language

5. Sex is a spectrum, a social construct, or at least not a strict binary relevant to policy. Chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are treated as crude, incomplete, or bigoted ways to classify people.

None of this appears in A4TE’s allyship requirements.

According to you, "There is no catechism, governing body, or agreed philosophical system called trans ideology."  I agree  But that being the case, whether a tenet appears on A4TE’s allyship requirements doesn't really matter, does it?

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

6. “Assigned sex at birth” is the preferred description of sex, implying a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category.

Not an allyship requirement.

My list was "of claims that function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary 'trans' advocacy."

Not sure how you turned that into a list of "allyship requirements."

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

7. Preferred pronouns and names are morally mandatory. Use the name, pronouns, and language a transgender person uses for themselves. Using sex-based pronouns is “misgendering”; using a prior name is “deadnaming.” Both are treated as harms comparable to slurs.

This is one of the clearest things that actually survives. A4TE tells allies to follow the person’s lead regarding language, ask politely about pronouns when necessary, and apologize and move on after mistakes. It does not say pronoun mistakes are equivalent to slurs. (Trans Equality)

8. There is no polite way to state the sex distinction. “Biological male/female,” “natal sex,” and similar terms are often classified as hate speech or dogwhistles.

Not there.

According to you, "There is no catechism, governing body, or agreed philosophical system called trans ideology."  I agree  But that being the case, whether a tenet appears on A4TE’s allyship requirements doesn't really matter, does it?

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Medical and youth claims

9. Gender dysphoria is validated by affirmation, not primarily explored as a possible misattribution of other distress. “Watchful waiting” or exploratory therapy is frequently labeled conversion therapy.

Not part of this allyship standard.

My list was "of claims that function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary 'trans' advocacy."

Not sure how you turned that into a list of "allyship standard{s}."

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

10. Medical transition (blockers, hormones, surgery) is healthcare, and withholding it is violence. Access is framed as lifesaving; gatekeeping is framed as cruelty.

Not required. The page acknowledges that some transgender people medically transition and others do not; it does not require these medical propositions. (Trans Equality)

11. Minors can have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition. Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry.

Not there.

12. Desistance, detransition, and comorbidity (autism, trauma, same-sex attraction, social contagion) are minimized, treated as rare, or blamed on stigma rather than on the affirmation model.

Not there.

See above.  By your own reckoning, A4TE is not authoritative, so what its website says or doesn't say about "allyship requirements" is not really relevant to my list of "claims that function as load-bearing principles in much of contemporary 'trans' advocacy."

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Social and institutional claims

13. Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. People should be allowed to use bathrooms and other gendered facilities consistent with their gender identity. Exclusion of males who identify as women is discrimination.

There is a substantive policy position here, but Grok enormously broadens it. A4TE explicitly advocates restroom access according to gender identity. Its ally page does not establish a universal principle that sports, prisons, shelters, and every other sex-separated institution must therefore operate according to the identical rule. (Trans Equality)

14. Any line among “trans women” is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is “transmedicalism” or “dividing the community.”

A4TE does say that medical transition is not a prerequisite for someone’s transgender identity. It does not say every distinction among transgender people is bigotry. (Trans Equality)

15. Lived experience outranks data when studies, crime patterns, or fairness in sport cut against the identity rule.

Nothing like this appears.

16. Questions are a form of harm. Asking for definitions (“what is a woman?”), evidence, or tradeoffs is treated as bad-faith or as endangering trans people.

In fact, A4TE explicitly distinguishes inappropriate intrusive questions from legitimate ones. Its advice is essentially to ask whether you actually need intimate information and whether you would consider the same question appropriate if directed at yourself. That is a rule of ordinary courtesy, not “questions are harmful.” (Trans Equality)

17. Opposition is explained as animus. The admissible motives are hatred, disgust, or religion; safety, fairness, child protection, and definitional accuracy are discounted.

Not there.

Political enforcement

18. Allies must affirm publicly. Neutrality (“I don’t care what adults do privately”) is often not enough; failure to repeat the slogans is coded as hostility.

A4TE does encourage allies to speak publicly in support of transgender people, challenge anti-trans remarks and jokes, support people experiencing discrimination, and learn about policies affecting transgender people. But it does not impose a requirement to repeat ideological slogans or characterize failure to do so as hostility. Indeed, when discussing political advocacy, it says to help change policies “if you’re comfortable with it.” (Trans Equality)

19. Conflicts with women’s rights and gay rights are denied or inverted. Sex-based rights are reframed as bigotry; same-sex attraction is pressured toward “attraction to gender identity.”

Nothing remotely like this appears as a condition of allyship.

20. The category must expand, not contract. Nonbinary, genderfluid, xenogender, and similar identities are folded into the same moral protection as transsexualism; limiting the category is betrayal.

A4TE recognizes diversity within the transgender community and directs readers to resources about nonbinary people. It does not articulate Grok’s supposed principle that the category “must expand,” mention xenogenders here, or call limiting the category “betrayal.” (Trans Equality)

---

After running Grok's twenty alleged “load-bearing principles” through an actual mainstream transgender advocacy organization's guide to how to be an ally, I think the result is revealing.

I don't.  Particularly given that most of those "load-bearing principles" are quite well-attested to on other trans advocacy websites.  From a previous post:

Quote

1–2. Identity is real/authoritative; “trans women are women” is literal

Human Rights Campaign (official account):
“Let’s clarify this again for those who don’t get it — trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary people are non-binary.”

HRC president Alphonso David, Senate QFR:
“Transgender women are women and transgender men are men.”
“A woman is an adult who knows herself to be female.”

GLAAD open letter (Women’s History Month / TDOV):
“We acknowledge with clarity and strength that transgender women are women and that transgender girls are girls.”
The same letter treats opposing feminists as promoting “damaging and violent ideas about trans people.”

National Women’s Law Center testimony:
“this statement erases the fact that trans women and girls are women and girls.”
“With our full conviction, we at NWLC know unequivocally that trans women and girls, and intersex women and girls, ARE women and girls who deserve to participate fully in women’s sports.  ”

3. Self-ID / no medical requirement

GLAAD Transgender FAQ:
“But not all transgender people can or will take those steps, and it’s important to know that being transgender is not dependent upon medical procedures.”
“Gender identity is a person’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman (or boy or girl.)”
“Always use the term used by the person.”

HRC definitions:
“One’s innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither… One’s gender identity can be the same or different from their sex assigned at birth.”
Transition “might” be social only (name, pronouns, dress) or medical.

WPATH SOC8:
“this version of the SOC recognizes and validates various expressions of gender that may not necessitate psychological, hormonal, or surgical treatments.”
“access to transition-related health care should be based on… informed consent… not on what words TGD people… use to describe their identities.”

4. Denial of identity = denial of the person / violence

HRC reporting guide:
“Contrasting transgender people with ‘real’ or ‘biological’ men and women is a false comparison. Transgender people’s gender identities are real…”
Misgendering victims “disrespect[s] their identities, causing pain… and reinforcing the stigma at the center of anti-trans violence.”

GLAAD letter: opposition is “anti-transgender rhetoric,” “bigoted governmental policies,” and “assaults (legislative, physical, social, and verbal).”

Vox, summarizing the political fight in the terms advocates use: bathroom bans “reject[] the existence of trans people” and “advance[] a rejection of the idea that trans women are women.”

5–6. Sex as incomplete / “assigned at birth”

GLAAD:
“Transgender is a term used to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.”

HRC FAQ:
“both the existence of intersex people and the ability to medically transition show that sex is also mutable and not defined by rigid categories.”

HRC David QFR: genitals “are not defining of maleness or femaleness”; HHS findings that male/female biological differences “matter” are “not true for all males or all females.”

Stonewall staff evidence (Kirrin Medcalf), as reported:
“Bodies are not inherently male or female. They are just their bodies.”
“Biological sex is made up of a multitude of characteristics that change over a person’s life-cycle.”

7. Pronouns/names mandatory; misgendering and deadnaming as harm

HRC:
“Transgender and non-binary people… should always be identified and referred to with their correct pronouns.”
“Misgendering… may lead them to feel distressed, unseen, or unwelcome.”
“be sure to always use them—and to correct others if they use the wrong pronoun.”
Neopronouns (“fae/faer,” “ey/em”) included.

HRC reporting guide: do not publish a prior name “without their explicit consent, which is sometimes called deadnaming.”

GLAAD ally tips:
“Don’t ask a transgender person what their ‘real name’ is.”
“If you happen to know the name someone was given at birth but no longer uses, don’t share it without the person’s explicit permission.”

The Trevor Project: using a young person’s pronouns is “a real life-saving difference” and “a public health issue.”

8. Sex-based language as illegitimate

HRC: contrasting trans people with “‘real’ or ‘biological’ men and women is a false comparison.”

GLAAD “hate and disinformation” guide treats “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” as an “intentionally misleading anti-trans trope” and groups “groomer,” bathroom-predator, and healthcare-as-experimental narratives as coordinated dehumanization.

Wikipedia’s own framing of “adult human female,” reflecting activist/academic usage: the phrase is “described by scholars as a dog whistle for transphobic beliefs.”

The orgs rarely say “hate speech” in a statute sense; they say false comparison, trope, stigma, violence, erasure. That is the enforcement mechanism.

9–10. Affirmation vs exploration; care is healthcare / withholding is violence

Stonewall:
“Conversion therapy is any intervention that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“Gender-affirming therapy and gender transition healthcare are not conversion therapy.”
Affirming therapy “starts from the premise that… the patient has autonomy to explore and know their own gender identity… and to request and seek treatment in line with their own stated needs.”

HRC on the 2025 HHS review:
“gender exploratory therapy” is “a focus-tested and innocuous-sounding name for the debunked, destructive, and dangerous practice of anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy.”
West Virginia bill: “restricting life-saving gender affirming care”; “these lawmakers are denying transgender and non-binary youth care that saves lives.”

HRC facts page: “healthcare for transgender and non-binary people, known as gender-affirming care, is best-practice, medically necessary health care.” “Why do some people say it’s life-saving?” — then cites Trevor Project / suicide-risk studies.

Human Rights Watch headline: “Trans Youth’s Access to Lifesaving Care Under Threat.”

WMA: condemns “conversion” or “reparative” procedures / SOGICE as having “no evidence-based background” and being “a serious threat to the health and human rights” of those subjected to them.

11. Minors can have a stable identity justifying social/medical transition

HRC: “Every credible medical organization… calls for age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary people.” Ban = “dangerous, discriminatory.”

WPATH SOC8: separate adolescent chapter; puberty suppression and hormones “when indicated”; no absolute age floors for surgery in the published version (maturity assessment instead); parental consent “recommended but may be dispensed with if assessed as harmful or not feasible.”

Stonewall after Cass (as reported): hormones and blockers should still be prescribed to children and young people in a “timely manner” if a practitioner supports it.

12. Desistance / detransition / contagion minimized or recoded as stigma

GLAAD: ROGD is an “intentionally misleading anti-trans trope used… to fearmonger.” “Transition-related health care for transgender people, including youth, is supported by every major U.S. medical association.”

HRC: exploratory approaches that might “change… gender identities” are conversion therapy; Kennedy/HHS review is “outright lies and misinformation.”

WPATH SOC8:WPATH SOC8 “acknowledges” social influence and the rise in natal-female adolescents but “stopp[ed] short of endorsing ‘rapid-onset gender dysphoria.’”

You will not find these orgs leading with desistance rates, Cass-style evidence reviews, or social-contagion hypotheses as first-line explanations.

13. Spaces and sport follow identity

GLAAD restroom fact sheet: bills forcing “transgender men to use women’s bathrooms, and trans women to use the men’s room” rest on “intentional falsehoods”; trans people should use facilities “that align with who they are.” Cites ACLU: trans people must be able to “use facilities and participate in activities that match who they are.”

NWLC: excluding trans athletes “erases” that they are women and girls; Title IX requires full participation. Inclusive restrooms do not increase safety risk; exclusion endangers both trans and cis women.

GLSEN (via NCTE-style school advocacy): trans students “barred from sports teams that reflect their gender identity” and “forced to use facilities corresponding to their legal sex” as evidence of a hostile climate.

14. No internal line (social-only vs medical)

GLAAD: identity “is not dependent upon medical procedures.”

WPATH SOC8: validates identities that need no medical treatment; access should not depend on the words used.

HRC explicitly includes non-binary and neopronouns in the same pronoun/respect rules.

15–16. Lived experience / questions as harm

GLAAD media program: when media “talks about transgender issues – it is imperative that they get it right” (i.e., the org’s frame).

GLAAD disinformation guide: named research frames (ROGD, “experimental” care, “groomer”) are “false narratives… used to dehumanize trans people.”

HRC to Rowling: “Any questions…?” after restating the slogan.

The phrase “what is a woman?” is treated in adjacent commentary as a “rhetorical strategy in anti-trans discourse.”

17. Opposition as animus

GLAAD letter: dissenters are “self-identified feminists” promoting “damaging and violent ideas”; legislation is “bigoted.”

HRC: sports/care limits are “disinformation,” “extreme elements of their base,” “discriminatory.”

18. Public affirmation; neutrality is not enough

HRC ally FAQ: use the pronouns, “correct others,” learn “gender identity-inclusive language,” oppose “discriminatory bills.”

GLAAD allies page: listen, ask, apologize, never ask the “real name,” don’t share old photos.

19. Conflict with women’s/gay rights denied or inverted

GLAAD: “honoring the diversity of women’s experiences is a strength, not a detriment to the feminist cause”; equal access to “recreation and public accommodations.”

NWLC: exclusion of trans women from women’s sport is sex discrimination under Title IX, not a sex-based protection.

Stonewall conversion-therapy line treats gender identity and sexual orientation as the same kind of trait to be protected from “change.”

20. Category expands (nonbinary, etc.)

HRC slogan includes “non-binary people are non-binary.” Definitions: “a blend of both or neither”; neopronouns listed as valid.

GLAAD FAQ: identity “does not fit neatly into those two choices”; use whatever term the person uses, including non-binary.

WPATH SOC8 title and text: “Transgender and Gender Diverse People.”

HRC.  GLAAD.  WPATH.  GLSEN.  

These organizations sure seem to presuppose most or all of the tenets I included in my list.

WPATH is perhaps the most noteworthy, since it comes closes to being "authoritative" (it purports to set standards of medical care, was heavily involved in setting public health policy during the Biden Administration, etc.).

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What survives is basically:

Respect transgender people's identities even if you don't fully understand them. Don't require medical transition or stereotypical appearance before recognizing someone as transgender. Use people's requested names, pronouns, and terminology. Respect their privacy. Oppose discrimination. Speak supportively when appropriate. Support gender-identity-based restroom access and some other inclusive policies.

A4TE also encourages allies to educate themselves, avoid invasive questions about surgery or genitalia, protect people's privacy about their transgender status, reconsider unnecessary gender fields on forms, and advocate nondiscrimination protections. (Trans Equality)

What emphatically doesn't survive is most of the supposedly “load-bearing ideology”: that sex is a social construct; reproductive biology is bigoted; identity literally is biological sex; disagreement denies somebody's existence; withholding transition is violence; questions are harmful; lived experience outranks data; opponents are motivated by animus; women's and gay rights must be subordinated; xenogender must be affirmed; and so forth.

That comparison makes the problem with Grok's original answer unusually clear. It did not identify the minimum principles of trans allyship and then describe them charitably. It assembled maximalist claims, hostile interpretations, disputed policy positions, and accusations about activist behavior, and labeled the resulting package the “load-bearing principles” of trans advocacy.

That is almost a textbook example of a strawman.

I thought the list of tenets was relatively and mostly even-handed:

Quote

1. Gender identity is real, innate, and authoritative. A person’s stated identity is the primary fact about whether they are a man, woman, both, or neither.
2. Identity is sex (or replaces sex for social/legal purposes). “Trans women are women” / “trans men are men” is treated as a literal truth, not a courtesy or a political slogan.
3. Self-identification is sufficient. No medical diagnosis, surgery, hormones, or even consistent presentation is required for the identity to be valid.
4. Denial of the identity is a denial of the person. Disagreeing with the identity claim is framed as saying the person “doesn’t exist,” not as disputing a proposition.
5. Sex is a spectrum, a social construct, or at least not a strict binary relevant to policy. Chromosomes, gametes, and reproductive anatomy are treated as crude, incomplete, or bigoted ways to classify people.
6. “Assigned sex at birth” is the preferred description of sex, implying a bureaucratic label rather than an observed reproductive category.
7. Preferred pronouns and names are morally mandatory. Using sex-based pronouns is “misgendering”; using a prior name is “deadnaming.” Both are treated as harms comparable to slurs.
8. There is no polite way to state the sex distinction. “Biological male/female,” “natal sex,” and similar terms are often classified as hate speech or dogwhistles.
9. Gender dysphoria is validated by affirmation, not primarily explored as a possible misattribution of other distress. “Watchful waiting” or exploratory therapy is frequently labeled conversion therapy.
10. Medical transition (blockers, hormones, surgery) is healthcare, and withholding it is violence. Access is framed as lifesaving; gatekeeping is framed as cruelty.
11. Minors can have a stable, knowable transgender identity that justifies social and often medical transition. Parental or clinical caution is cast as abuse or bigotry.
12. Desistance, detransition, and comorbidity (autism, trauma, same-sex attraction, social contagion) are minimized, treated as rare, or blamed on stigma rather than on the affirmation model.
13. Single-sex spaces, sports, prisons, and shelters must follow identity, not sex. Exclusion of males who identify as women is discrimination.
14. Any line among “trans women” is itself bigotry. Distinguishing social-only from medically transitioned, or pre-op from post-op, is “transmedicalism” or “dividing the community.”
15. Lived experience outranks data when studies, crime patterns, or fairness in sport cut against the identity rule.
16. Questions are a form of harm. Asking for definitions (“what is a woman?”), evidence, or tradeoffs is treated as bad-faith or as endangering trans people.
17. Opposition is explained as animus. The admissible motives are hatred, disgust, or religion; safety, fairness, child protection, and definitional accuracy are discounted.
18. Allies must affirm publicly. Neutrality (“I don’t care what adults do privately”) is often not enough; failure to repeat the slogans is coded as hostility.
19. Conflicts with women’s rights and gay rights are denied or inverted. Sex-based rights are reframed as bigotry; same-sex attraction is pressured toward “attraction to gender identity.”
20. The category must expand, not contract. Nonbinary, genderfluid, xenogender, and similar identities are folded into the same moral protection as transsexualism; limiting the category is betrayal.

I guess reasonable minds can disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

I felt the list was fairly accurate. 

Subjective

It surely is.

I agree with Roger that there is not any particular "uniform list of trans ideological doctrines."  The movement is, after all, pretty amorphous.

That said, I think most or all of the items in the list I provided would be recognized by most people as widely accepted tenets/axioms amongst trans advocacy groups, trans persons, "allies," and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think most people already familiar with Christianity understand that "Elder" in a religious context is an ecclesiastical title, not one denoting age.  And since the incongruity of the title to the age of the young man bearing it is both immediate and obvious (and, for some, kind of humorous), there really isn't much by way of a "job" for you to "get straight," wherein you "figure out which definition" is in play....

Exactly!!!

The incongruity of an 18-year old kid from Utah being an old man or the leader of a tribe is incongruous with obvious reality, the completely normal thing to do is assume that isn’t what the speaker is trying to imply.

The same heuristics are in play with the words we are talking about here. For example:

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Assigned at birth."

"Sex is a spectrum."

"Sex is a social construct."

"A woman is anyone who 'identifies' as one."

"Trans women are women."

And so on.  These [seem to be] factually and linguistically incoherent claims....

...therefore the speaker is almost certainly using definitions of these words other than the ones that lead to the factually incoherent, incoherent, and incongruous conclusions I originally came to, so I have to figure out what the speaker meant.

Going through your examples:

“Assigned at birth” is a well-defined medical term and means exactly what the National Academy says it means. the “factually and linguistically incoherent” part is what you (uncharitably) assume other imply.

“Sex is a spectrum”. This is absolutely, positively, a coherent scientific view of sex. For example, Professor Augstin Fuentes of Princeton University wrote an article entitled Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary in Scientific American, or Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic that was originally published in Nature and republished in in Scientific American. 

Fuentes wrote: 

Quote

The bottom line is that while animal gametes can be described as binary (of two distinct kinds), the physiological systems, behaviors and individuals that produce them are not. This reality of sex biology is well summarized by a group of biologists who recently wrote: “Reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex.”

So if we are going to make a good-faith effort to understand what people are saying, if they say “sex is binary” they are probably referring to gametes. If they say “sex is a spectrum” they are probably talking about the “range of biological and behavioral patterns related to sex biology that overlap and diverge."

So while from a logical standpoint the statements “sex is binary” and “sex is a spectrum” contradict each other, this viewpoint is naive and scientifically illiterate. Both sentences are true because they use slightly different definitions of the word “sex.” If you insist on believing sex only refers to how organisms make gametes and that it cannot refer to the complexity inherent in sexual phenotypes, then you are being just as obstinate as the anti-Mormon who insists “elder” cannot refer to an 18-year old kid because referring to such a person as an “elder” is factually and linguistically incoherent. 

"Sex is a social construct.” I understand how this could sound nonsensical, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious, scientific, internally consist viewpoint. In a 2024 survey, 42% of biologists agree that yes, sex is socially constructed. What they mean by that isn’t that gonads aren’t real. Rather, they mean humans choose how to characterize and combine genomic, gonadal, hormonal, morphological, and other biological components when assigning sex categories. 

"A woman is anyone who 'identifies' as one.” A 2025 National Academies Consensus Study Report uses this definition:

"Women: The terms “female” and “woman” are used differently according to context and perspective, which may cause confusion. In this report, the definition of women goes beyond the sex and gender binary and includes all people who identify as a woman or girl, solely or in addition to other gender identities and regardless of biological sex traits. This inclusive definition recognizes individuals who have been or may be affected by a set of biological and/or social variables that influence women differently than men across the life course."

This isn’t a claim. It is a definition. Just because this definition contradicts another definition doesn't mean it is factually and linguistically incoherent, any more than the fact that 18 year-old elders not being old means that that definition is factually and linguistically incoherent. 

"Trans women are women.” Again, this is a definition, not a claim. This one is used repeatedly in mainstream science. For example, CDC Guidelines say, “transgender women are women who were assigned male sex at birth."

Note that according to the dictionary, definition 1 of woman is “an adult female person,” and that the first definition of “female” is “having or relating to a gender identity that corresponds to a complex, variable set of social and cultural roles, traits, and behaviors assigned to people of the sex that typically produces egg cells."

You seem to think that if somebody says “I am a woman because I identify as such” means that they are claiming that by identifying as a woman, the cells in their bodies magically transform into something else. That viewpoint is incoherent, and it isn’t what they are actually claiming.

Edited 11 hours ago by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Exactly!!!

The incongruity of an 18-year old kid from Utah being an old man or the leader of a tribe is incongruous with obvious reality,

But not incongruent with an ecclesiastical title.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

the completely normal thing to do is assume that isn’t what the speaker is trying to imply.

The same heuristics are in play with the words we are talking about here. For example:

...therefore the speaker is almost certainly using definitions of these words that don’t lead to the factually incoherent, incoherent, and incongruous conclusions I originally came to, so I have to figure out what the speaker meant.

“Assigned at birth” is a well-defined medical term and means exactly what the National Academy says it means. the “factually and linguistically incoherent” part is what you (uncharitably) assume other imply.

I'm afraid you are not going to persuade me that "assigned at birth" is not only misappropriated to equivocate and obfuscate, but also that this misappropriation happens quite a lot.  Clinicians may use it in the way you suggest, but everyday usage is frequently obfuscatory.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

“Sex is a spectrum”. This is absolutely, positively, a coherent scientific view of sex. For example, Professor Augstin Fuentes of Princeton University wrote an article entitled Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary in Scientific American, or Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic that was originally published in Nature and republished in in Scientific American. 

He wrote: 

So if we are going to make a good-faith effort to understand what people are saying, if they say “sex is binary” they are probably referring to gametes. If they say “sex is a spectrum” they are probably talking about the “range of biological and behavioral patterns related to sex biology that overlap and diverge.

So while from a logical standpoint the statements “sex is binary” and “sex is a spectrum” contradict each other, this viewpoint is naive and scientifically illiterate. Both sentences are true because they use slightly different definitions of the word “sex.” If you insist on believing sex only refers to how organisms make gametes and that it does not refer to the complexity inherent in sexual phenotypes, then you are being just as obstinate as the anti-Mormon who insists “elder” cannot refer to an 18-year old kid because referring to such a person as an “elder” is factually and linguistically incoherent. 

"Six is binary" and "sex is a spectrum" are logically incompatible with each other.  The verity of one negates the other.

People use “sex” in more than one way. Sometimes they mean which reproductive class (small gametes or large). Sometimes they mean the cluster of traits that usually go with that class—hormones, genitals, build, voice, behavior. Those are related facts. They are not the same fact. Saying both sentences can be true if you switch definitions mid-argument is not scientific sophistication. That is equivocation works.

The “elder” comparison actually cuts the other way. Latter-day Saints call an 18-year-old an elder as an office. Nobody then insists he is elderly, or that “old” is a spectrum that abolishes age. The title does not cancel the ordinary meaning. What I object to is the move that does cancel it: use “sex” as trait-cluster long enough to say “spectrum,” then take that as permission to deny that the person is male or female in the reproductive-class sense, or else or to treat that class as optional in sport, medicine, and law.

Fuentes himself has said gametes are binary. The rest of the argument is that bodies and behavior overlap, so “human beings are not two types.” Overlap of phenotypes is expected. It does not create a third gamete or a continuous series of sexes. Ainsworth’s Nature piece is mostly about DSDs: development can go off-script. Off-script is still scripted toward one of two sexes. Complexity of the pathway is not a spectrum of endpoints.

So I am not claiming “sex” can never be used loosely for sexed traits. I am claiming that when the dispute is “how many sexes are there?” or “does identity replace sex?,” the "load-bearing" meaning is the reproductive one. Calling that insistence “scientifically illiterate” only works if the trait-bundle definition has already been sworn in as the real one. That is the point at issue, not a referee’s ruling.

If someone says, “Male and female are the sexes; many traits vary around those two peaks,” we agree. If they say, “Because traits vary, sex is a spectrum, so the binary is naive,” they have changed the subject and then declared victory. I can be courteous about language, but I cannot pretend those two claims are the same sentence in two dialects.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

"Sex is a social construct.” I understand how this could sound nonsensical, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious, scientific, internally consist viewpoint. In a 2024 survey, 42% of biologists agree that yes, sex is socially constructed. What they mean by that isn’t that gonads aren’t real. Rather, they mean humans choose how to characterize and combine genomic, gonadal, hormonal, morphological, and other biological components when assigning sex categories. 

I can take the weak version of that sentence. Humans name things. We decide which traits to put on a birth record. Categories are tools. None of that means gonads are a committee vote.

The survey does not show that “sex is a social construct” is the scientific view of sex. It shows that in a 2024 poll of SICB instructors who answered a survey on sex-diverse, gender-inclusive teaching, 42% agreed with that wording—about 14% “absolutely,” 28% “somewhat.” The sample is small and self-selected. The authors themselves note that calling sex socially constructed “feels counter to the major definitions of sex that biologists are taught.” That is not a referendum of biology. It is a snapshot of one society’s classroom politics.

What they say they mean is also thinner than the slogan. “We choose how to combine genomic, gonadal, hormonal, and morphological facts when we assign categories” is a point about classification, not about whether males and females exist. Every science draws lines (species, planet, adult). The line does not invent the thing. Midwives recording “male” from external genitalia are almost always observing the reproductive class already there. Calling that “assignment” is the paperwork theory again.

The strong reading, the one that does work in these debates, is that because we draw the line, the line is optional, so identity can overwrite sex. That does not follow from “people use words.” It would follow only if there were no fact underneath the word. But there is a fact underneath the word: two gamete types, two typical developmental pathways. How we talk about edge cases does not unmake the two classes.

So: internally consistent as a claim about labels? Yes.

Coherent as a claim that sex is not a biological binary? No. The 42% figure is not a discovery that gonads are culture. It is evidence that a contested slogan has a constituency in one corner of academic biology. Constituency is not the same thing as the finding.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

"A woman is anyone who 'identifies' as one.” A 2025 National Academies Consensus Study Report says:

"Women: The terms “female” and “woman” are used differently according to context and perspective, which may cause confusion. In this report, the definition of women goes beyond the sex and gender binary and includes all people who identify as a woman or girl, solely or in addition to other gender identities and regardless of biological sex traits. This inclusive definition recognizes individuals who have been or may be affected by a set of biological and/or social variables that influence women differently than men across the life course."

This isn’t a claim. It is a definition. Just because this definition contradicts another definition doesn't mean it is factually and linguistically incoherent, any more than the fact that 18 year-old elders not being old means that that definition is factually and linguistically incoherent. 

We've previously had discussions about credentialism and scientism.

The Academy is not exactly covering itself in glory these days as pertaining to Third Rail topics, particularly those as viciously enforced as trans ideology (where else do people get to not only baselessly declare those with principles arguments to be "bigots" but do so in public, and have it be a nice big virtue signal?).

A committee can stipulate a definition for the pages of its report. That is not the same thing as discovering what a woman is.

The National Academies text you quote is explicit about what it is doing. It says the terms are used differently by context, that this “may cause confusion,” and that in that report “women” will include anyone who identifies as a woman or girl, “regardless of biological sex traits.” That is a scope rule for a women’s-health document, not a finding that identity is sex. The same glossary still defines female by genitalia, internal organs, or XX without SRY. They split the words because they know the identity definition and the sex definition are not the same thing.

Calling it “just a definition” does not make it immune to criticism. Definitions can be circular, empty, or unfit for the work they are asked to do. “A woman is anyone who identifies as one” is circular: it uses woman to explain woman. It cannot tell you who has a uterus, who should be in a female drug trial, or who is protected by a women’s-sports rule. An 18-year-old “elder” is an office. Nobody then uses that title to deny that “old” means aged. The identity definition is being used to replace the sexed meaning of woman in law and medicine, not to sit beside it as a church office sits beside ordinary English.

So I am not saying a report is linguistically illegal. I am saying this definition does not capture the class “adult human female,” and that publishing it in an academic consensus study does not make the substitution true. If the modest claim is “this committee chose inclusive wording for funding and outreach,” fine. But if the claim is “therefore a woman is anyone who says so,” that is still the tenet, and a glossary entry is not an argument for it.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

"Trans women are women.” Again, this is a definition, not a claim. This one is used repeatedly in mainstream science. For example, CDC Guidelines say, “transgender women are women who were assigned male sex at birth."

CDC Guidelines "say" this?  Now?  Are you sure about that?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Note that according to the dictionary, definition 1 of woman is “an adult female person,” and that the first definition of “female” is “having or relating to a gender identity that corresponds to a complex, variable set of social and cultural roles, traits, and behaviors assigned to people of the sex that typically produces egg cells."

You seem to think that if somebody says “I am a woman because I identify as such” means that they are claiming that by identifying as a woman, the cells in their bodies magically transform into something else. That viewpoint is incoherent, and it isn’t what they are actually claiming.

I do not think anyone claims the cells “magically transform.” That is your paraphrase of my objection, not my objection. The dispute is whether a male who identifies as a woman is a woman—that is, an adult female human—or whether “woman” has been retasked to mean “person with a female identity.” Those are different claims. Only one of them needs magic. The other needs a new dictionary.

“Trans women are women” is a ideological definition, not a neutral one that floats above argument. It is the conclusion. It asserts that the identity is membership in the class. Calling it “just a definition” is how you avoid defending that assertion.

The CDC sentence is the same move in public-health prose: “transgender women are women who were assigned male sex at birth.” In the next breath those guidelines note that most have not had genital surgery and may retain a functional penis, because anatomy still matters for disease. The agency is using "identity" language and sexed medicine in the same paragraph. That is not a demonstration that they are the same thing. It is a demonstration that the wording and the biology have come apart.

Dictionaries follow usage. When institutions repeat “trans women are women,” lexicographers add a sense. Merriam-Webster’s primary adjective for female is still “of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs.” A later sense about gender identity is an add-on, not the discovery that eggs were a social role all along. Updating a glossary does not rewrite gametes.

What people who say the slogan are claiming, when it is doing any work, is this: for bathrooms, sports, prisons, prizes, and the word “she,” treat this male as a woman. They do not need to claim a new karyotype. They need you to treat the identity as sufficient. That is exactly the load-bearing tenet. I can be polite about names. I cannot agree that courtesy has changed the sex, or that a CDC clause and a revised dictionary entry make “trans women are women” into something other than a contested (and radical) redefinition.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 11 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

This inclusive definition recognizes individuals who have been or may be affected by a set of biological and/or social variables that influence women differently than men across the life course

I think this is important to consider. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Six is binary" and "sex is a spectrum" are logically incompatible with each other.  The verity of one negates the other.

I asked AI “respond to this claim”:

Quote

The claim confuses different meanings of “binary” and “spectrum.” They aren’t logically incompatible.

 

If by sex is binary you mean that humans have two predominant reproductive sexes—male and female—that can be perfectly coherent with saying that sex-related biological traits occur along spectra.

 

For example, biological sex involves multiple traits: chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive anatomy, external genitalia, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics. Most people have traits that cluster in a typically male or typically female configuration, but those traits don’t all vary in a simple two-valued, mutually exclusive way. Intersex variations demonstrate that biological development doesn’t always produce every sex characteristic in the typical configuration.

 

So you can consistently say:

 

“Human reproductive sex is organized around two sexes, while the biological characteristics associated with sex can vary along continua and sometimes don’t align neatly into two categories.”

 

That’s not a logical contradiction.

 

There is also a more fundamental problem with the argument: a binary classification and a spectrum aren’t necessarily opposites. A spectrum can describe variation within or between categories. For instance, “adult and child” might be a categorical distinction for some purpose while age itself is obviously continuous. Likewise, “two sexes” can describe reproductive classification while characteristics such as hormone levels, genital development, or secondary sex traits show continuous variation.

 

The claim would only be logically incompatible if “sex is binary” were defined to mean every relevant biological sex characteristic has exactly two possible states with no intermediate, overlapping, or atypical configurations. That is a much stronger claim than simply saying humans have two reproductive sexes—and biology doesn’t support that stronger formulation.

“The key logical error in the original claim is treating “binary” and “spectrum” as if they must describe the same property at the same level of analysis. They don’t.”

Edited 9 hours ago by Calm