[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not getting involved again in this thread of middle-aged white folks moaning about young people today with their hippity hop and girls in the boys toilets but if you are interested in an analysis of some of the myths and nonsense spouted by the usual suspects including the right's newest plaything Debra Soh then this was a very interesting listen. It's a two part podcast with Lindsey Osterman an actual academic in the field of psychology discussing/debunking Soh's book of crap.

Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference to the 'skeptics' here who have already made up their minds.

https://seriouspod.com/sio284-debunking-the-end-of-gender-part-1/

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm not very likely to listen to 90 minutes of someone debunking something that nobody has so far even mentioned.

 

[Elaedith]

I'm not very likely to listen to 90 minutes of someone debunking something that nobody has so far even mentioned.

Actually, I have mentioned Soh. She is not 'right wing', of course. There are some ideas in her book that contradict what are regarded as progressive ideas about gender (including that gender is a social construct - by which she means that there are some biologically-based behavioural differences between males and females on average as there are in other species).

She has an good insight into what is happening with political interference in science, as she decided to leave academia in order to be able to speak more freely about transitioning of children without having to wait to get academic tenure first (and because tenure doesn't protect anymore - she references what happened to Bailey in her book).

Dawkins recommended her book in a tweet.

As for the 'debunking' - I see mentioned Teen Vogue, ideological capture of Nature and ROGD is a myth because it goes against the narrative, and articles by Jack Turban (whose rubbish has been thoroughly debunked by experts such as Cantor and Zucker).

Basically, at this point you either belief that science and research should be subservient to a political agenda (that findings are wrong unless they serve pre-determined political goals and methods should be selected to serve these goals) or that there is an objective reality and one should use reason, logic and evidence to test ideas against it and show them to be right or wrong (a requirement of scientific scepticism). The former perspective is taking over so fast in academia that we are heading for what Cantor calls an intellectual Dark Age.

 

[Matthew Best]

Actually, I have mentioned Soh.

Apologies to both of you. I must have missed that. I just did a "search this thread" for "Soh" and the word is too short, so I searched for her full name and came up with just Archie's post.

 

[Elaedith]

Apologies to both of you. I must have missed that. I just did a "search this thread" for "Soh" and the word is too short, so I searched for her full name and came up with just Archie's post.

It was in a previous edition of this thread

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If LJ & ST have another move (perhaps one rooted in an argument from shared values) I'd be fascinated to see it.

I never claimed to be trying to convince anyone. I'm sure my abrasive approach to this matter is probably not the one that an advocate on the issue would use. Perhaps others would like to coddle moderate fence sitters into accepting that people unlike themselves should still be treated with dignity, but that does not interest me. Obviously, I lack the personal touch for such delicate work.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh, I see. You are abrasive because it promotes dignity.

 

[d4m10n]

Not that it will make the slightest bit of difference to the 'skeptics' here who have already made up their minds.

Did you read the book or just the debunking?

 

[Earthborn]

There's nothing difficult about gathering the required evidence that the selection method is effective, it simply takes a controlled study just like for any other medical intervention. Any reason there is such resistance to this most basic aspect of evidence-based medicine, ie controlled studies?

You want to do a medical study on children where one control group of children who have been deemed to likely benefit from a treatment, is denied treatment for several years? I like to see your proposal on how to get that through ethics commitees.

I hope you can see that it is rather difficult to keep the test subjects blind to who got the placebo puberty blockers.

 

[caveman1917]

People can have conditions where they can see an arm is there, but think that it shouldn't be (or that it doesn't belong to them). There is most likely a neurological explanation for this (it can occur with brain damage). It is still regarded as a delusion, but not associated with mental illness (often called a monothematic delusion).

There's a difference between "this arm shouldn't be there" (not a delusion) and "this arm does not belong to me" (delusion). A delusion requires a belief of fact which is observably false. In gender dysphoria terms, it's the difference between "this penis should not be there" (not a delusion) and "this is not my penis" (a delusion).

 

[caveman1917]

Even intersex people are either male or female. They aren't "neither", nor are they "in between" or a "third sex". All mammals are either male or female. They might be infertile male or female, but still only one of the two.

I disagree. You're conflating sex with sexual development pathway. There are two sexes because there are two gamete types, which means there are 4 possibilities for any given organism at any given time - male (producing small gametes), female (producing large gametes), both (producing both), or neither (producing neither). Two sexes entail a partition of the population into 4 groups. For mammals there are also two sexual development pathways, activated through SRY gene and androgens, and every mammal goes through exactly one of these. Two sexual development pathways entails a partition of the population into 2 groups.

 

[d4m10n]

You want to do a medical study on children where one control group of children who have been deemed to likely benefit from a treatment, is denied treatment for several years? I like to see your proposal on how to get that through ethics commitees.

Wouldn't be all that tricky for a retrospective cohort study.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Oh, I see. You are abrasive because it promotes dignity.

It's a skeptics forum, right. Aren't we supposed to speak plainly?

It's pretty clear to me that much of the "centrist" hand wringing about trans rights is motivated by deep animus towards trans people, or just personal disgust with the bodies of trans people.

 

[caveman1917]

Sherkeu posted some "transgender umbrella" things a couple of days ago that really makes this point pretty clearly. At least one of the "These are all transgender" images included "feminine males" and "masculine females" as being transgender. It's regressive as all get out.

Have you seen the statement by the latest ACLU cause célébré? It was a court appearance by a sexist & homophobic father who testified how he persistently tried forcing his (likely gay) son into "boyish" interests and failed, and then pushed the kid to transition to female instead because only females are allowed to have "girlish" interests. Homophobia and enforced gender conformity, not just for right-wing freaks anymore!

 

[caveman1917]

You want to do a medical study on children where one control group of children who have been deemed to likely benefit from a treatment, is denied treatment for several years? I like to see your proposal on how to get that through ethics commitees.

Yes, a controlled study means that, when a new "promising"[*] treatment for a medical problem is proposed, some of the people don't actually get the treatment - they are called the "control group" hence the name "controlled study." Are you against controlled studies in medicine in general, as your complaint works just as well for any controlled study on any proposed treatment for any medical problem?

* In quotes because, as the NICE reviews linked to upthread show, it's highly dubitable that this treatment is even effective to start with.

 

[caveman1917]

If LJ & ST have another move (perhaps one rooted in an argument from shared values) I'd be fascinated to see it.

They do keep hitting the 40-point jackpot of item 33 every single time, don't they...

 

[TurkeysGhost]

They do keep hitting the 40-point jackpot of item 33 every single time, don't they...

Kinda loses it's punch when fascism is ascendant and neo-nazis are regularly active players in society and politics.

 

[Earthborn]

Wouldn't be all that tricky for a retrospective cohort study.

It does get tricky if the existing retrospective cohort studies are dismissed, or even claimed to be evidence that the treatment alters the result in favour of the treatment.

 

[Belz...]

Well, some kinds of identity are all about how others identify you. You driver's license is an identity, but it's not how you see yourself. It's how the state sees you.

Hmmmm.... I don't know. Is identify and identification one and the same?

 

[caveman1917]

Kinda loses it's punch when fascism is ascendant and neo-nazis are regularly active players in society and politics.

No it doesn't. Of course, you've yet to show that any of the people here you're calling bigots are, indeed, fascists or neo-nazis. And even if they were, it wouldn't make it any less of a 40-point jackpot, Flat-Earth Antifa (Hitler - gasp! Hitler - says the Earth is round, therefor the Earth is flat) remains a fallacy.