This is a really well-written article that is fair to both sides, and also thoughtful in proposing a third-way solution. For me personally, having experienced changes in my queer-ness following therapy for unrelated work stress, and having reviewed the history of the LGB part of the LGBT, I have serious reservations about the APA's position on the entire rainbow issue.
It seems as though it has been systematically corrupted over the last fifty years, to the point where cases like mine - the almost-total resolution of bisexuality/polyamory following talk therapy about unrelated issues - are considered "impossible" and to even try to replicate this on purpose is becoming outlawed. Of course the evangelicals whipping people into straightness are lunatics and need to be in jail, but that's a smokescreen.
Unfortunately, the conservatives are correct that this whole thing needs to be seriously re-examined and perhaps some rollbacks made, however they are, like you observed, grifting. If they were serious, they would know about this and have brought it up, but they haven't, so......
Interesting stuff. It's just a disappointing reality that science isn't remotely objective and research is very often guided by economic and ideological motivations. This is just a reality you have to account for when you read the literature. The only antidote to this is starting from the correct philosophical predisposition, one which actually prioritizes what is true over what we wish to be true. But nobody likes that approach lol
My wording is confusing here, my bad. As categories they aren't, but as terms of self-identification they do seem to be. Here's my thinking:
A: All trans people experience a gender identity at variance with their biological sex.
B: Non-binary people experience a gender identity at variance with their biological sex.
C: All non-binary people are trans.
In other words, all non-binary people must be trans, but not all trans people are non-binary. So there's no reason to use one term if one uses the other. I imagine the author does because they simply don't share the definitions I'm using.
This is a really well-written article that is fair to both sides, and also thoughtful in proposing a third-way solution. For me personally, having experienced changes in my queer-ness following therapy for unrelated work stress, and having reviewed the history of the LGB part of the LGBT, I have serious reservations about the APA's position on the entire rainbow issue.
It seems as though it has been systematically corrupted over the last fifty years, to the point where cases like mine - the almost-total resolution of bisexuality/polyamory following talk therapy about unrelated issues - are considered "impossible" and to even try to replicate this on purpose is becoming outlawed. Of course the evangelicals whipping people into straightness are lunatics and need to be in jail, but that's a smokescreen.
Unfortunately, the conservatives are correct that this whole thing needs to be seriously re-examined and perhaps some rollbacks made, however they are, like you observed, grifting. If they were serious, they would know about this and have brought it up, but they haven't, so......
I discuss it in this PDF, ninth chapter - https://zacharystrong.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/zs-integritypsych-illustrated-2022-12.pdf
Interesting stuff. It's just a disappointing reality that science isn't remotely objective and research is very often guided by economic and ideological motivations. This is just a reality you have to account for when you read the literature. The only antidote to this is starting from the correct philosophical predisposition, one which actually prioritizes what is true over what we wish to be true. But nobody likes that approach lol
But the vast majority of those who choose to undergo these treatments, including top and bottom surgeries, are satisfied with their decision.
I feel you make reference to the argument of “trans regret” that is better as a right-wing talking point than anything else.
Why would transgender and nonbinary be mutually exclusive?
My wording is confusing here, my bad. As categories they aren't, but as terms of self-identification they do seem to be. Here's my thinking:
A: All trans people experience a gender identity at variance with their biological sex.
B: Non-binary people experience a gender identity at variance with their biological sex.
C: All non-binary people are trans.
In other words, all non-binary people must be trans, but not all trans people are non-binary. So there's no reason to use one term if one uses the other. I imagine the author does because they simply don't share the definitions I'm using.