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

[Belz...]

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.

Yesh we've been decrying the rise of post-fact thinking here. It's no surprise that it's infected the right and the left.

 

[Belz...]

I never claimed to be trying to convince anyone.

That seems like an odd stance. Why would someone participate in a discussion forum, especially one ostensibly dedicated to critical thinking and skeptical principles, if not to try to debate and perhaps convince others that their views are correct, or be convinced by others?

 

[d4m10n]

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).

How often does this happen?

ETA: Perhaps a 46,XX/46,XY^WP chimera could pull it off.

 

[Belz...]

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).

How is the former not a delusion? The penis IS there, and for good reason. It's the perception of oneself that doesn't fit reality. That's why dysphoria is a mental health issue. Of course that doesn't make it bad or shameful, so there's no reason to sugar-coat it.

 

[caveman1917]

How often does this happen?

In mammals? Never. It occurs in some other species though, some species even go back and forth throughout the organism's lifetime (called sequential hermaphrodites). The notion/definition of sex is valid throughout biology, the notion of sexual development pathway is specific to certain species.

 

[Belz...]

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

Which, again, has **** all to do with the topic.

 

[caveman1917]

How is the former not a delusion?

Because it is not a belief of fact which is observably false. "I'd prefer having a vagina rather than a penis" is no more a delusion than "I prefer having coffee rather than tea." Saying "this is coffee" when presented with tea is what would be a delusion.

 

[Elaedith]

How is the former not a delusion? The penis IS there, and for good reason. It's the perception of oneself that doesn't fit reality. That's why dysphoria is a mental health issue. Of course that doesn't make it bad or shameful, so there's no reason to sugar-coat it.

It depends on how you define a delusion. Some cognitive definitions include beliefs that are not objectively false, but are irrational and involve an excessive degree of preoccupation or fixation.

I think what I was trying to say is that there are different reasons one could recognise a part of the body is there but be convinced that it should not be. It could be excessive wishful thinking (not wanting it to be there as a secondary consequence of something else, such as wanting to be treated as the other sex), but it is also possible that there could be a more direct neurological factor involved that makes the body part seem to be 'wrong'.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Which, again, has **** all to do with the topic.

I didn't bring it up, take it up with caveman.

I have no real interest in discussing in detail which or to what extent individual posters are motivated by animus. Despite your incessant whining on the subject of being smeared a bigot, I don't really see this as an interesting or productive line of argument.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

To say that puberty blockers encourage patients to seek cross-sex hormones is to speak of two different treatments.

 

[Earthborn]

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?

I am highly in favour of controlled studies in medicine, but there are a few differences between your proposal and other controlled studies:
- Usually the test subjects are not children who cannot consent to be experimented upon.
- Usually what is being tested is whether the medicine works, not whether the medicine is the appropriate treatment for individual patients. We already know that puberty blockers work.
- Usually the test does not require years of denial of treatment.
- Usually the test does not involve purposefully and knowingly letting a condition get worse just to prove that the patient might learn to live with it.
- Usually the test isn't done just because some people think the treatment for the condition is the cause of the condition.

 

[Belz...]

Because it is not a belief of fact which is observably false. "I'd prefer having a vagina rather than a penis" is no more a delusion than "I prefer having coffee rather than tea." Saying "this is coffee" when presented with tea is what would be a delusion.

Ok I didn't interpret your sentence correctly, there.

 

[caveman1917]

- Usually the test subjects are not children who cannot consent to be experimented upon.

If they can consent to a treatment then they can consent to participate in a controlled study of said treatment. You can't really have it both ways here.

- Usually what is being tested is whether the medicine works, not whether the medicine is the appropriate treatment for individual patients. We already know that puberty blockers work.

Not quite. If people start prescribing chemotherapy for children with the flu, then it would require a controlled study showing that chemotherapy is an appropriate treatment for the flu in children. Just because you know that puberty blockers indeed block puberty does not mean it's the appropriate treatment nor that it doesn't have possible side effects - including reinforcing the very condition it is purported to treat.

- Usually the test does not require years of denial of treatment.

Controlled studies always, by their very design, include "denial of treatment" to the control group. This is an odd objection. Also it's not "denial of treatment" in general, it's denial of a very specific part of the treatment.

- Usually the test does not involve purposefully and knowingly letting a condition get worse just to prove that the patient might learn to live with it.

Except that it is unknown whether the condition would get worse unless puberty blockers are prescribed, that's the exact thing that such studies would test. If anything, by the NICE reviews posted earlier it appears that puberty blockers aren't even effective to start with, so claiming that not prescribing them "purposefully and knowingly" lets a condition get worse is fairly baseless.

- Usually the test isn't done just because some people think the treatment for the condition is the cause of the condition.

That falls under side effects of treatment, if one of the possible side effects of the treatment is reinforcing the condition (and there are reasons to think it does) then it would require a controlled study to test that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Of course, a big part of me thinks that uncertainty is part of the entire point to some ...

I have reached the same conclusion. Ambiguity of the language allows people to insult speakers no matter what they say, instead of actually having a dialog.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

From my own perspective, I'd add a third reason: for those who have never experienced transgender identity (which is, after all, the vast majority of people), a disappointingly-large proportion seem to find it either impossible or improbable to believe that a female could ever genuinely, validly identify as a man (or vice versa, or other variations).

The view for these sorts of people seems to be along the lines: "I was born a male, I am male, I am a man - I know and understand all these things, and all these things are obvious and interconnected truths". I think that the people who think along such lines therefore seem to believe "transgender identity" to be nothing more than either a) people who really really believe they're a gender other than the one corresponding to their birth-assigned sex" or b) people who really really want to be a gender other than the one corresponding to their birth-assigned sex".

We've seen exactly this come up within these threads. And it comes up frequently - whether overtly or covertly - in public discourse. People who accept that "transgender identity" is a thing, but who believe it to be either nothing more than a "would like to be" desire, or a delusion of some sort.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's another angle to this as well, and it's an angle which appears to be either overlooked or swept under the carpet by the sorts of people I was talking about in my previous post:

It's difficult to get a proper idea of the proportion of transgender people who've suffered gender dysphoria to some degree; but even if we go by the "official" stats, it still means that it's happened to a lot of transgender folk.

And I think perhaps that *certain* people ought perhaps to stop and think about that, and its ramifications & meaning, for a while.

After all, for many people who realise they're transgender, they put themselves through a struggle - sometimes a truly horrible struggle, and sometimes a struggle which ends in suicide - to try to come to terms with the fact that they identify as a gender which is a) different different from the gender which society would "expect" them to inhabit, and b) different from their own assumed gender presentation during their life up to that point.

For someone who's never gone through that process, I can't begin to imagine the levels of cognitive dissonance, fear, trepidation, anger, concern that one is losing one's own mind.... that might accompany a realisation of one's transgender identity. If nothing else, I think the very real presence of gender dysphoria, and its very real effect and outcomes, ought to give serious pause to anyone who doubts the validity of transgender identity.

But I dunno, perhaps I think (dream) too much......

 

[Earthborn]

If they can consent to a treatment then they can consent to participate in a controlled study of said treatment. You can't really have it both ways here.

Puberty blockers are prescribed when children cannot consent to irreversible changes to their body, and are considered likely to not want the irreversible changes puberty blockers prevent.

including reinforcing the very condition it is purported to treat.

You are going to have to show that this is even possible before you get to test it on children.

Controlled studies always, by their very design, include "denial of treatment" to the control group.

But rarely for literal years.

This is an odd objection. Also it's not "denial of treatment" in general, it's denial of a very specific part of the treatment.

It is also a specific part of the treatment that cannot be administered blindly, and the patient is going to feel betrayed when they inevitably realise they have been taking fake pills the whole time.

Except that it is unknown whether the condition would get worse unless puberty blockers are prescribed, that's the exact thing that such studies would test.

If a child has been feeling very uncomfortable with their sex characteristics for a long time, they are likely going to feel even more uncomfortable with them during puberty.

That falls under side effects of treatment, if one of the possible side effects of the treatment is reinforcing the condition (and there are reasons to think it does) then it would require a controlled study to test that.

Without such a controlled study, there are no reasons to think it does.

 

[Collin237]

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.

All the time I was on this thread you never mentioned "centrists". Now all of a sudden, once I, one of the few actual centrists here, take a break, you start hammering about how centrists are evil.

 

[Collin237]

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/

You seem to have gotten in on the act too. That podcast mentions claims from the book "The End of Gender" which are so obviously utterly false that it boggles the mind that anyone would actually take the time to put together a podcast to debunk them.

Of course, the point of the podcast is the discussion at the beginning, before they mention the book, where they flat-out accuse most liberals of being secret conservatives, and suggest rebranding themselves as conservatives so people will think conservatives are on the side of science.

ETA:

middle-aged white folks moaning about young people today with their hippity hop

Are you accusing us of being racists?

 

[d4m10n]

That podcast mentions claims from the book "The End of Gender" which are so obviously utterly false that it boggles the mind that anyone would actually take the time to put together a podcast to debunk them.

Such as?