TERFs crash London Pride

[quadraginta]

That's why I came back with more and better evidence, too.

I saw more stuff making the same mistakes.

 

[Elagabalus]

...There's an unavoidable baked-in assumption there that all the older bulldykes are really just transmen in denial or something.

No, there really isn't.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I listened to a very small clip of what what clearly a much longer session, edited by a known anti-trans crusader organization.

Did you listen to what she said in context? I don't know about you, but I'm always suspicious of out-of-context quotes. And reading her actual writing online, her emphasis for pre-adolescents is social transitioning. Not medical. You've been here long enough to know that context is critical.

What next you will be saying Expelled No Intelligence Allowed is not a good scientific documentary despite all the great scientists in it.

 

[kellyb]

I saw more stuff making the same mistakes.

What mistake?

This is a bizarre and probably pointless line of inquiry, because I'm not opposed to the informed consent model. I think "gatekeeping" sounds like it was oppressive, grotesque BS.

But just telling people the risks and benefits, taking blood, self-ID, and that's it to get HRT is indeed now extremely common and a standard of care.

 

[kellyb]

No, there really isn't.

Then you tell me what this means:

FtM transgendered people [are] no longer being dismissed as "butch lesbians".

...in light of the "diagnostic substitution" with autism as an analogy?

 

[luchog]

Dismissed? That's how they see themselves. That's an important and meaningful part of their self-identity. And they are glad they came of age before SR meds and surgery were common. Unaltered sexual organs are important.

Okay, you're really going off the rails here.

I'm beginning to think that you're also approaching this as an anti-trans crusader as well, given those ridiculous comments. And certainly profoundly ignorant of the history of trangender oppression in this country and the world, and how transpeople have been consistently marginalized by LGB communities. There was and continues to be extreme pressure against transpeople, especially Female to Male, and a good deal of social stigma involved. The same sort of social stigma that causes lesbians and gays to undergo travesties like "conversion therapy" to be heterosexual, also pressures FtM identified people to identify as "butch" lesbians.

Some of it's almost definitely social contagion.

Sure, right, just like the "epidemic" of bisexuality back in the '90s, and the "epidemic" of homosexuality back in the '80s. Even if these anecdotes are true, which has not been demonstrated, there is nothing to indicate that they are anything but anomalies. As has been previously stated many times, that is why counseling exists, to enable people to understand what it is they're experiencing, and address it appropriately.

How else can you account for stuff like this?

Seriously? Let's see, it's a "pay to play" publication which emphasizes "openness" and "advocacy", and has some huge methodological flaws with sampling, data gathering, and evaluating, which of course you'd know having perused the study itself. That and the fact that it directly references 4thWaveNow and Transgender Trend, two notable anti-trans organizations who depend heavily on pseudo-science and junk science to support their crusade. Their sample size is tiny and mostly self-selected, the bulk of their data comes from parental surveys and other secondary sources, not from clinician interviews with the children, and it is anecdote-heavy. Really, the more I read it, the more flaws I find, and the worse it looks.

Oh FFS, reading about Lisa Littman and this particular study, it gets even worse. She recruited all of her survey respondents from 4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals, all anti-trans propaganda outlets. That goes far beyond selection bias and into deliberately manipulated statistics. Oh, and she's not a trained psychiatrist or psychologist, she's a GP specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, with research into detransitioning and "iatrogenic persistence of gender dysphoria".

That said, there is definitely some issues with how children's experiences are being addressed by both parents and clinicians; but that's a much larger issue that this study does little or nothing to address.

I can account for it as being, at best, a highly flawed preliminary study by an incompetent researcher in an area that needs a whole lot more good science done, and motivated at least in part by anti-trans ideology. However, all the signs point strongly to it being junk science created to support anti-trans crusading.

ETA: Here's a little info on the issue of "rapid onset gender dysphoria", it's origins, and the people involved in promulgating it.

Everything You Need to Know About Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria

Excerpt:

There is nothing inherently erroneous or illegitimate about a “rapid” onset of gender dysphoria — some trans people experience an epiphany during which all the clues and puzzle pieces suddenly come together, and they finally realize that they are transgender. (This is what happened to me when I was eleven, as I describe in Chapter 5 of Whipping Girl and Chapter 13 of Outspoken.) But the above passages — both of which describe parents experiencing “surprise” — illustrate that the word “rapid” in ROGD doesn’t necessarily refer to the speed of gender dysphoria onset, especially in the many cases where the child keeps their experiences to themselves for a time before sharing them with parents. Rather, what’s “rapid” about ROGD is parents’ sudden awareness and assessment of their child’s gender dysphoria (which, from the child’s standpoint, may be longstanding and thoughtfully considered).

As ROGD has garnered increasing mainstream attention, many adult trans folks have taken to sharing their “ROGD stories” on social media — for instance, pointing out how they came out as trans during adolescence, much to their parent’s surprise, and how their parents insisted that they weren’t “really trans” and/or attempted to suppress their gender explorations. In other words, this is not a new type of gender dysphoria, but rather a new name for a recurring parental dynamic.

But isn’t there a research study on ROGD?

To date, only one research study on ROGD has been published — it is authored by Lisa Littman and appeared in PLOS One a few days ago. There are numerous problems with this study, as Zinnia Jones and Brynn Tannehill detailed in their critiques of an earlier rendition of this same study back when it appeared as a non-peer-reviewed poster in the Journal of Adolescent Health. For starters, this was not a study of the children themselves, but rather their parents, who were instructed to fill out a “90-question survey . . . about their adolescent and young adult children.” What’s even more troubling is how this sample set of parents was selected: “Recruitment information with a link to the survey was placed on three websites where parents and professionals had been observed to describe rapid onset of gender dysphoria (4thwavenow, transgender trend, and youthtranscriticalprofessionals).”

In other words, this supposed study of ROGD is entirely based on the opinions of parents who frequent the very same three blogs that invented and vociferously promote the concept of ROGD. Frankly, this is the most blatant example of begging the question that I have ever seen in a research paper. The fact that Littman didn’t even bother to post a link to the survey on any of the many other online groups for parents of trans kids (i.e., ones that do not push an ROGD agenda, and who thus might have very different assessments of their adolescent trans children) strongly suggests that she purposefully structured her study to confirm the former parents’ assumptions, rather than objectively assess the state of their children.

All of this would explain why Littman published her article in PLOS One, rather than a more respectable journal. PLOS One’s publishing philosophy is quite different from other research journals in that, as an online open-access journal, they focus on quantity over quality. While they review the more technical aspects of each paper they publish (a fairly low bar to clear for an article analyzing an online survey), they are generally hands off with regards to “subjective concerns” — such as which experiments the authors choose to carry out, and their interpretation of the results. Another journal would likely press Littman to use a more representative sample, provide concrete evidence that ROGD is distinct from regular old gender dysphoria, and more thoroughly explore other possible explanations for the results, as any spurious or unreasonable claims made by Littman would reflect poorly on the journal itself. PLOS One, on the other hand, is not concerned with such matters, as they believe that the importance and relevance of an article should be determined by the scientific community post-publication (via debates and citations). Within scientific circles, researchers are well aware of this, and will take any claims made in a PLOS One article with a grain of salt, if not multiple grains (note: I have subsequently elaborated on this point here). Unfortunately, the lay public (not being aware of this) will likely take this study as “proof” that ROGD is a scientifically validated concept. Even though it isn’t.

 

[kellyb]

Okay, you're really going off the rails here.

I'm beginning to think that you're also approaching this as an anti-trans crusader as well,

My children's legal godmother is a transwoman. She's been one of my BFFs since I was 17 years old, and she transitioned just 4 years ago. I'm one of the founders of the largest local feminist group in my city/tri-state area, and I pressed the "trans-inclusiveness" point to the max. I do not even associate myself with people who are anti-trans. I think intersectional feminism must be trans-inclusive (and class inclusive, and inclusive of sex workers) to be feminism at all.

 

[kellyb]

Seriously? Let's see, it's a "pay to play" publication which emphasizes "openness" and "advocacy",

You're going to mock PLOS? The Public Library of Science?

You should just stop. I can't take you seriously at all if you're going to say stuff like this. You just out-did Rolfe posting the link to the quack association in the quack journal there. Rolfe had an excuse - she's Scottish, so of course she wouldn't know about the "American College of Pediatricians".

PLOS is up there with the BMJ and the NEJM in terms of "legitness".

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Dismissed? That's how they see themselves. That's an important and meaningful part of their self-identity. And they are glad they came of age before SR meds and surgery were common. Unaltered sexual organs are important

But that's because they ARE butch lesbians, and not transmen. They just can't imagine that others who were classified as butch lesbians actually feel they're men.

Nobody is trying to 'poach away' members of the butch lesbian subculture by turning them trans and forcing hormones on them.

 

[kellyb]

Oh FFS, reading about Lisa Littman and this particular study, it gets even worse. She recruited all of her survey respondents from 4thWaveNow, Transgender Trend, and Youth TransCritical Professionals, all anti-trans propaganda outlets.

Do you think the parents were lying? Unless they were flat-out lying, the science is solid. And that sort of recruitment is standard now when looking at subgroups.

Also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...s-experience-rapid-onset-transgender-identity

But Ray Blanchard, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto in Canada who worked for 15 years in a gender identity clinic that screened candidates for sex reassignment surgery, says the paper points to a clear phenomenon: a new subgroup of adolescents, mainly women, with gender dysphoria and no behavioral signs of such dysphoria during childhood.

“Many clinicians in North America and elsewhere have been seeing such patients,”

Followup studies are in the works:

She told ScienceInsider that in upcoming research she plans to recruit parent-teen pairs in cases where the teenager experienced ROGD that later resolved.

This is all just basic science.

 

[kellyb]

But that's because they ARE butch lesbians, and not transmen. They just can't imagine that others who were classified as butch lesbians actually feel they're men.

Nobody is trying to 'poach away' members of the butch lesbian subculture by turning them trans and forcing hormones on them.

I don't think there's a shady trans lobby conspiracy to poach away anyone, but our culture has re-aligned to make women seeking gender reassignment increase 4 thousand + fold.

I'm autistic and female, and I'd bet my house that if my brain was scanned, I'd have the male "patterns" as described here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12400808&postcount=1026

I'm a woman. A female woman. Even tho all my childhood friends were male and even tho my interests lean "male", I am SO GLAD I have 2 kids and my sex organs were never altered with a surgical knife or sterilizing medication.

 

[luchog]

You're going to mock PLOS? The Public Library of Science?

You should just stop. I can't take you seriously at all if you're going to say stuff like this. You just out-did Rolfe posting the link to the quack association in the quack journal there. Rolfe had an excuse - she's Scottish, so of course she wouldn't know about the "American College of Pediatricians".

PLOS is up there with the BMJ and the NEJM in terms of "legitness".

Well, no, it's not. It has no consistent refereeing and only filters submissions based on the most rudimentary of technical issues. It has the stated purpose of publishing whatever is sent to it that lacks obvious technical issue, for "community-based open peer review involving online annotation, discussion, and rating". PLOS One publishes a lot of highly questionable science, and is the go-to for biased researchers seeking to give themselves an air of legitimacy. But that's a very old debate that I'm sure you're more than familiar with, having done your homework, yes? Littman's study would certainly never have survived if it had been submitted to a more reputable journal, which it wasn't.

Do you think the parents were lying? Unless they were flat-out lying, the science is solid.

False Dichotomy and well-poisoning in a single line. Nice.

Does it perhaps occur that parents may simply be wrong and insufficiently observant? Or that parents that are part of anti-trans organizations might be filtering their observations through a particular agenda?

Why did Littman not contact any of the other "parents of transgender youth" organizations, and only stick with the ones who had a clearly expressed anti-trans agenda? That doesn't raise any red flags for you?

And that sort of recruitment is standard now when looking at subgroups.

Only in junk science. She did not recruit any of the parents of children who

And, since you seem to have flatly ignored the problem, neither she nor any clinical researchers talk to the children themselves. She relied entirely on second-hand anecdotal information from the parents. That is not good science by any standard but woos and crusaders.

Also:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...s-experience-rapid-onset-transgender-identity

Yes, let's look at your link:

Excerpts:

On Monday, PLOS ONE announced it is conducting a postpublication investigation of the study’s methodology and analysis. “This is not about suppressing academic freedom or scientific research. This is about the scientific content itself—whether there is anything that needs to be looked into or corrected,” PLOS ONE Editor-in-Chief Joerg Heber in San Francisco, California, told ScienceInsider in an interview yesterday.

So even a low-standards clearinghouse like PLOS is having qualms about the validity of the study they published (for pay). Guess they do have some standards after all.

Also on Monday, Brown officials removed the university’s press release highlighting the paper from its website. On Tuesday, Bess Marcus, dean of Brown’s School of Public Health, wrote in an open statement that the university acted “in light of questions raised about research design and data collection related to the study.”

And they're not the only one who see the flaws.

She added that people in the Brown community have raised concerns that the study’s conclusions “could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.”

You mean, do exactly what it was designed to do? Shocker.

Critics also assailed Littman for failing to recruit participants from other websites supportive of transgender youth and for failing to interview such youths themselves.

Let me repeat that yet again, "failing to interview such youths themselves". Not one child was interviewed for the study, violating the most basic premise of legitimate scientific research, pursuing primary sources and first-hand observation, and not relying on second-hand anecdotes and hearsay.

Followup studies are in the works:

This is all just basic science.

That's hilarious. She plans to study only subjects who confirm her assertions about ROGD, and not the wider body of transgender youth who she flatly ignored in her first study.

 

[luchog]

I don't think there's a shady trans lobby conspiracy to poach away anyone, but our culture has re-aligned to make women seeking gender reassignment increase 4 thousand + fold.

What do you mean by "our" culture? You clearly cannot be talking about American culture, given that transpeople are still being actively repressed throughout most of it, and still face huge hurdles being recognized as such, as evidenced by just about everything you and Rolfe have posted in this thread.

I'm a woman. A female woman. Even tho all my childhood friends were male and even tho my interests lean "male", I am SO GLAD I have 2 kids and my sex organs were never altered with a surgical knife or sterilizing medication.

Good for you. That does not invalidate the experience of transpeople, however much you clearly want it to with your emotionalist rhetoric.

 

[quadraginta]

What mistake?

This is a bizarre and probably pointless line of inquiry, because I'm not opposed to the informed consent model. I think "gatekeeping" sounds like it was oppressive, grotesque BS.

But just telling people the risks and benefits, taking blood, self-ID, and that's it to get HRT is indeed now extremely common and a standard of care.

There it is again.

If you think that is all there is to the concept of informed consent then you still don't understand it, in spite of all the efforts here to help you.

Your research reading doesn't seem to have helped much either. You appear inclined to pick the phrases you want and interpret them in a way which support the point you are trying to make.

Starting with a conclusion and then picking out the parts you think support it is not a good way to educate yourself. Or to defend your assertions.

 

[kellyb]

Does it perhaps occur that parents may simply be wrong and insufficiently observant?

How in god's name could a parent miss a 5 year old insisting that they were the other gender for years and years? Transgendered kids do exist. They are unmistakable. If you, like, me, do believe the parental reports of kids who turn 4, 5, or 6/7 and start saying and never stop saying they are the other gender, how can you disbelieve the ones who say their kid was gender typical and never expressed any gender ambiguity before age 14?

This is not a competition between the two groups. I have no hypothesis about which type is more prevalent. I think they both exist and are different.

 

[kellyb]

There it is again.

If you think that is all there is to the concept of informed consent then you still don't understand it, in spite of all the efforts here to help you.

It's (diagnosis and informed consent) something done in one, a single session, yes?

 

[luchog]

It's (diagnosis and informed consent) something done in one, a single session, yes?

Maybe you should talk to actual clinicians and find out, instead of just asserting it is without any supporting evidence, like woos do.

how can you disbelieve the ones who say their kid was gender typical and never expressed any gender ambiguity before age 14?

I don't. I am suspicious of the ones who say that and have a clear anti-trans agenda. You did actually go and research those organizations, yes? Since, you know, understanding the nature of a source is critical to understanding its context and validity.

More extensive criticism of Littman's "study" (make sure to read the citations linked in the article) for those who haven't already made up their minds.

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/rap...ic-debate-and-suppressing-speech-fd88a83bcd60

 

[kellyb]

What do you mean by "our" culture? You clearly cannot be talking about American culture, given that transpeople are still being actively repressed throughout most of it, .

Four thousand percent increase.
And you think bulldykes are "being dismissed" as mere lesbians if they're not self-ID-ing as transmen?

Your mentality IS the mainstream now.

 

[kellyb]

Maybe you should talk to actual clinicians and find out, instead of just asserting it is without any supporting evidence, like woos do.

It's one session. Patient report is as good as physician report for something like this.

Also.

You seem like you're experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance over this. I don't know why, because the informed consent model is probably better than gatekeeping.

 

[luchog]

Four thousand percent increase.

Unproven assertion.

And you think bulldykes are "being dismissed" as mere lesbians if they're not self-ID-ing as transmen?

Your mentality IS the mainstream now.

"Bulldykes"? Really? Well I guess that shows where your head is at. I don't think there is any point in even trying to have a reasonable, honest debate with you if that's how you're going to respond.