• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
In fairness, ST had the original source ready to hand, and still cited the journalism anyway. At this stage in the debate, I'm well past any desire to try to charitably rehabilitate trans-activist claims or sources.



And it doesn't surprise me that the underlying survey is problematic. It's a recurring phenomenon in woo claims: Citations that do not support, or even outright contradict, the woo claim they're supposed to support.
Click to expand...
Remind me again what rock hard evidence your positions on the matter are grounded on?
 
theprestige said:
Attempting to reverse the burden of proof is another common woo tactic.

But I am willing to consider the proposition that your claims lack a sound evidentiary basis, as your comparison suggests.
Click to expand...

Oh to be the untrammeled path that is your mind, free of all impression. I will aspire to be totally aloof of this issue as you are :rolleyes:
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Remind me again what rock hard evidence your positions on the matter are grounded on?
Click to expand...

An awful lot of these questions might be informed by scientific inquiry, but they can't be settled, because they aren't scientific questions. Science can tell us that Lia Thomas's spectacular swimming performance is a result of being male, but science can't answer the question of whether she ought to be allowed to swim in women's competitions. That question is about values, not science. We see that reflected in the different answers people give. People who care about sports almost always say she should be excluded. People who don't care about sports often say that she should be allowed.

Where things get problematic is when people reject scientific data that don't fit their ideology.
 
Meadmaker said:
but science can't answer the question of whether she ought to be allowed to swim in women's competitions. That question is about values, not science.
Click to expand...

One of my (implied) positions in this debate is that this particular question is in theory partly a question about science.

Medicine claims to be a scientific domain. Mental health claims to be a scientific domain. Obviously our value set will guide our choice of trade-offs. But if medicine were to make a convincing (i.e., scientific) argument that transwomen who are allowed to participate in women's sports have better mental health outcomes than those who don't, that would certainly influence my view of the value trade-offs when making policy.

The main issue here, as I see it, is that the trans-activists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want us to accept, a priori, that transsexuals need certain privileges and accommodations as a kind of treatment for what ails them. But they do not actually produce medical science arguing for these things as a prescription for that ailment.

There is some dancing that happens around the central questions. Obviously medical transition does get prescribed in some cases - cases where the patient actually goes to a doctor for diagnosis and treatment. But trans-activists want to extend the definition of "patient" to include anyone who self-IDs, and expand the definition of "treatment" to whatever anyone who self-IDs claims they're entitled to.
 
theprestige said:
One of my (implied) positions in this debate is that this particular question is in theory partly a question about science.

Medicine claims to be a scientific domain. Mental health claims to be a scientific domain. Obviously our value set will guide our choice of trade-offs. But if medicine were to make a convincing (i.e., scientific) argument that transwomen who are allowed to participate in women's sports have better mental health outcomes than those who don't, that would certainly influence my view of the value trade-offs when making policy.

The main issue here, as I see it, is that the trans-activists want to have their cake and eat it too. They want us to accept, a priori, that transsexuals need certain privileges and accommodations as a kind of treatment for what ails them. But they do not actually produce medical science arguing for these things as a prescription for that ailment.

There is some dancing that happens around the central questions. Obviously medical transition does get prescribed in some cases - cases where the patient actually goes to a doctor for diagnosis and treatment. But trans-activists want to extend the definition of "patient" to include anyone who self-IDs, and expand the definition of "treatment" to whatever anyone who self-IDs claims they're entitled to.
Click to expand...

Indeed, yes, on all counts.

Science can inform our decisions, because we can study the impacts of policies on various things, such as mental health of would-be athletic competitors. However, when there's a tradeoff involved, it can't dictate that there is one, right, answer to how those tradeoffs get resolved.

Similarly with modesty issues, what Qayak referred to as feelings. We know that some people will feel bad if we do one thing, and that another group will feel bad if we do the other thing. We can even measure how bad they feel, and study, scientifically, why they feel bad. Those measurements might influence our decision, but it can't say that, scientifically, we ought to make one or the other.

Meanwhile, you are also correct that people play fast and loose with science, including, but not limited to, in the ways you described above.
 
A letter to the editor of 'Science' on the importance of using the correct language:


Inclusive language around sex diversity has never been more important. In the 5 years since the National Institutes of Health’s notice that proposals address sex as a biological variable, the sociopolitical climate has become dangerously hostile to transgender and gender-diverse people. In the United States, a record number of anti-trans bills were proposed this year, and gender-affirming healthcare faces record wait times and unprecedented legal challenges in the United Kingdom. Science can seem far removed from the struggle for transgender equality, but scientific language directly affects trans-focused rhetoric and policy.
Click to expand...


Which concludes with this statement:


As scientists, we must push back against the misappropriation of biological terms by promoting precise language that focuses on the variables themselves (e.g., “menstruating people”) and acknowledging that people express these variables in ways that may not conform with a binary system of sex or gender. This both creates a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse scientists and reinforces that sex is a context-dependent summary of a multidimensional variable space.
Click to expand...


E.g. 'Females' get erased again.



https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn3759
 
Meadmaker said:
An awful lot of these questions might be informed by scientific inquiry, but they can't be settled, because they aren't scientific questions. Science can tell us that Lia Thomas's spectacular swimming performance is a result of being male, but science can't answer the question of whether she ought to be allowed to swim in women's competitions. That question is about values, not science. We see that reflected in the different answers people give. People who care about sports almost always say she should be excluded. People who don't care about sports often say that she should be allowed.

Where things get problematic is when people reject scientific data that don't fit their ideology.
Click to expand...

Apparently it's an open question whether the intense stigma that trans people face has anything to do with the high rates of mental illness. Dealing with tremendously high levels of good faith in here.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Cornell literature review seems pretty clear
Click to expand...
Have you looked at the methodology section of any of those studies?

I picked one of them out more-or-less at random, and wasn't particularly impressed.

This represents a narrative analysis of qualitative sections of a survey that utilised both open and closed questions.
Click to expand...

The study relied on respondents self-selecting and therefore will not necessarily be demographically representative of the trans population as a whole. Trans people form a hard to reach population, with many deciding to keep their trans identity or status extremely private. No official monitoring of gender identity currently exists and, as a result, there are no accurate estimates of the size and demographical breakdown of the UK trans population.
Click to expand...

At present, there is no definitive way of identifying the trans population in its entirety and therefore no identifiable population base from which to draw a representative sample.
Click to expand...

Where do you folks think a narrative analysis of qualitative sections of a web survey of a non-random sample belongs on the EBM pyramid?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The negative impact of trans discrimination is extremely well documented.
Click to expand...

SuburbanTurkey said:
Apparently it's an open question whether the intense stigma that trans people face has anything to do with the high rates of mental illness. Dealing with tremendously high levels of good faith in here.
Click to expand...

It took me a bit to figure out the various references, but here are your two statements.

Notice that they are different.

Do you want to talk about intense stigma, or do you want to talk about discrimination? They are two different things.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
It took me a bit to figure out the various references, but here are your two statements.

Notice that they are different.

Do you want to talk about intense stigma, or do you want to talk about discrimination? They are two different things.
Click to expand...

Are they different?

Generally speaking, anti-discrimination law places a duty on organizations to provide hostility free environments. Workplaces get sued all the time for allowing sexist or racist bullying or intimidation, for example.

A school that knew a student was facing intense bullying rooted in illegal discrimination and chose to do nothing about it would be ripe for a lawsuit. There are limits to what can be done, but the two issues are closely linked.

ETA: Hell, schools probably have a duty to take reasonable action to prevent bullying regardless of whether anti-trans discrimination is legal or not under a general duty of care.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
It's interesting how this:


Devolved into this:
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in going in a scholarly paper deep dive for posters I know are just going to hand wave it away. It's all out there for people who care to look, but I prefer to waste my time in more interesting ways.

Spending a lot of time to prove "discrimination is bad for mental health" is not a wild goose chase I choose to participate in. Interpret that however you like.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Are they different?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Discrimination is drawing a distinction. It is treating one group differently than another group. I advocate treating people with penises differently than people with vaginas. That is, by definition, discrimination. I advocate having athletic competitions that are only open to people with vaginas. That's discrimination. If people with vaginas do not want to be seen in their underwear by people with penises, but they are ok being seen by other people with vaginas, I advocate supporting their wishes. That is, by definition, discrimination.

That is not intense stigma.

Which one do you want to talk about? Or feel free to talk about both. Just don't conflate the two.
 
Meadmaker said:
Yes.

Discrimination is drawing a distinction. It is treating one group differently than another group. I advocate treating people with penises differently than people with vaginas. That is, by definition, discrimination. I advocate having athletic competitions that are only open to people with vaginas. That's discrimination. If people with vaginas do not want to be seen in their underwear by people with penises, but they are ok being seen by other people with vaginas, I advocate supporting their wishes. That is, by definition, discrimination.

That is not intense stigma.

Which one do you want to talk about? Or feel free to talk about both. Just don't conflate the two.
Click to expand...

Ok sure. Let's not pretend we don't live in a world where the two are closely interwoven. All the bathroom freakouts and trans boogiemen (like the Loudoun case) are obviously motivated by the assumption that trans people are inherently sex perverts and dangerous.

Anti-trans stigma is the driving force for huge portions of people calling for this discrimination.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Ok sure. Let's not pretend we don't live in a world where the two are closely interwoven. All the bathroom freakouts and trans boogiemen (like the Loudoun case) are obviously motivated by the assumption that trans people are inherently sex perverts and dangerous.

Anti-trans stigma is the driving force for huge portions of people calling for this discrimination.
Click to expand...

You are doing a fine job articulating the trans rights activists position. I just don't think you are correct.

I love the loaded language here. "Bathroom freakout". That is what you are calling the desire to avoid the male gaze when partially or fully disrobed. Is it motivated by the assumption that trans people are sex perverts and dangerous? No. I don't expect you to agree. It is, on the other hand, motivated by the assumption that males are dangerous, and that males changing what they are called, or changinge their underwear style, does not mitigate the danger.


This is all well travelled ground. I'll just note that this particular recent conversation has also included a discussion of science, of which you have provided none that is relevant.
 
Meadmaker said:
You are doing a fine job articulating the trans rights activists position. I just don't think you are correct.

I love the loaded language here. "Bathroom freakout". That is what you are calling the desire to avoid the male gaze when partially or fully disrobed. Is it motivated by the assumption that trans people are sex perverts and dangerous? No. I don't expect you to agree. It is, on the other hand, motivated by the assumption that males are dangerous, and that males changing what they are called, or changinge their underwear style, does not mitigate the danger.


This is all well travelled ground. I'll just note that this particular recent conversation has also included a discussion of science, of which you have provided none that is relevant.
Click to expand...

No, by "Bathroom Freakout", I mean the oft repeated, yet totally unsupported, allegation that these laws would unleash a torrent of sex crimes in these spaces.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
No, by "Bathroom Freakout", I mean the oft repeated, yet totally unsupported, allegation that these laws would unleash a torrent of sex crimes in these spaces.
Click to expand...
Ah. That bathroom freakout. I must admit, as I have done previously, that there is less of that than I thought there would be. However, you are totally misrepresenting the motivation. The assumption behind the belief that there would be an increase in sex crimes was based on the belief that cis males were sex perverts and dangerous.

This, too, is well worn ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom