Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Rolfe]

Now I feel like I wasted my time writing that last post.

No you didn't. You were the only one who actually presented the detail of the debunking, which needs doing repeatedly. I was about to nominate your post as a great example of genuine critical thinking.

 

[Meadmaker]

Now I feel like I wasted my time writing that last post.

Nah...

I read your.post. I didn't follow the link.

In terms of influence, a statement like you made is always more influential than a link.

Of course, you successfully informed a guy on the internet, so it still is possible you wasted your time, but at least it accomplished something.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah yes, the insane bizarro world conspiracy where oppressed minorities are actually wielding incredible influence.

The actual world where scientists look at the actual evidence in support of a popular, much-hyped theory and start to back-pedal rapidly as a result.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

This paper has been debunked. None of the citations support the claims made.

"Remarkably, not only did the AAP statement fail to include any of the actual outcomes literature on such cases, but it also misrepresented the contents of its citations, which repeatedly said the very opposite of what AAP attributed to them".

There was a time when I would have thought that 'sceptics' would be more interested in how this could happen (given it's exactly what sceptics are supposed to be about), than in deciding what position to support based on ideological correctness.

I'll have to give this a closer read when I have the time. Has the AAP had any response to this? The policy cited is still current as far as I can tell, so they clearly weren't convinced.

 

[Elaedith]

No you didn't. You were the only one who actually presented the detail of the debunking, which needs doing repeatedly. I was about to nominate your post as a great example of genuine critical thinking.

We probably should have a 'critical thinking' or 'fact checking' award for critically analyzing the contents of empirical papers, which would be more appropriate in some cases than a language award.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh yes. Also homophobia. There are plenty of cases where parents have confessed to relief that they can have a "normal" daughter rather than a gay son. And quite a lot of them seem to be the classic "right-wing Christian" demographic, funnily enough.

You can coach a young child to believe, and to want, some quite strange things. And a lot of these children seem coached. Mothers who want a "special" child now have a way of achieving that. Maybe even a prime-time TV show.

What an unpleasant - but telling - thing to say. No surprise though.

 

[Elaedith]

I'll have to give this a closer read when I have the time. Has the AAP had any response to this? The policy cited is still current as far as I can tell, so they clearly weren't convinced.

As far as I recall, the AAP responded with deafening silence. Their policy is not evidence-based in the first place, it is ideological, so I have no idea why you would think evidence would convince them.

 

[LondonJohn]

We probably should have a 'critical thinking' or 'fact checking' award for critically analyzing the contents of empirical papers, which would be more appropriate in some cases than a language award.

Yes. Then you can forward it to the group of the world's medical experts who've already decided that transgender identity is a valid condition and that gender dysmorphia is not a mental health aberration; and then to the dozens of the world's progressive governments who - after consultation with experts and careful consideration - also consider transgender identity to be valid.

I'm sure they'll be pleased to have the opportunity to get a "critical thinking" check from a bunch of nobodies on the interwebs.


(And, by the way, it's entirely feasible, rational and acceptable that some children - not all, but some - will have a clear understanding of their gender identity at least by around the time they reach puberty. Just as some children know with confidence that they are gay by that age. Many other gay people only come to a full realisation of their sexuality once they are into adulthood - some, deep into adulthood. Exactly the same happens with transgender identity as well.)

 

[LondonJohn]

As far as I recall, the AAP responded with deafening silence. Their policy is not evidence-based in the first place, it is ideological, so I have no idea why you would think evidence would convince them.

I guess the APA is also "ideological" rather than evidence-based too, huh? (In your opinion)

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. Then you can forward it to the group of the world's medical experts who've already decided that transgender identity is a valid condition and that gender dysmorphia is not a mental health aberration;

It's almost like you picked up the author's bad habits. That wasn't what the article was about, or why it was cited here. You've gone off on a completely different tangent. The article was cited in an attempt to demonstrate the benefits of pre-pubescent medical transition. Accepting transgender identity as valid and gender dysmorphia as not a mental health aberration says nothing at all about the benefits of pre-pubescent medical transition. And the debunking of the article that I did wasn't about what you discuss either, it was about the reversibility of puberty blockers when given to children up to the age of 16, a topic you have not even touched upon.

 

[Paul2]

This paper has been debunked. None of the citations support the claims made.

"Remarkably, not only did the AAP statement fail to include any of the actual outcomes literature on such cases, but it also misrepresented the contents of its citations, which repeatedly said the very opposite of what AAP attributed to them".

There was a time when I would have thought that 'sceptics' would be more interested in how this could happen (given it's exactly what sceptics are supposed to be about), than in deciding what position to support based on ideological correctness.

The other stunning quote I saw is this:

[C]onversion” or “reparative” treatment models are used to prevent children and adolescents from identifying as transgender or to dissuade them from exhibiting gender-diverse expressions....Reparative approaches have been proven to be not only unsuccessful[38] but also deleterious and are considered outside the mainstream of traditional medical practice.[29,39–42]

Footnote 38 refers to an article, "The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy." Then,

The article AAP cited to support their claim (reference number 38) is indeed a classic and well-known review, but it is a review of sexual orientation research only. Neither gender identity, nor even children, received a single mention in it.

Yikes! Would that survive any grad-school level critique? I hope not.

 

[Paul2]

I'll have to give this a closer read when I have the time. Has the AAP had any response to this? The policy cited is still current as far as I can tell, so they clearly weren't convinced.

That is an important next step. I await the answer to your question.

 

[Elaedith]

Yes. Then you can forward it to the group of the world's medical experts who've already decided that transgender identity is a valid condition and that gender dysmorphia is not a mental health aberration; and then to the dozens of the world's progressive governments who - after consultation with experts and careful consideration - also consider transgender identity to be valid.

Gender dysphoria is a mental health condition. 'Transgender identity' (without dysphoria) has never been considered a mental disorder, including prior to DSM5. I have no idea what 'gender dysmorphia' is. 'Valid condition' is meaningless gobbledegook. The idea that 'transgender identity' used to be considered a disorder, but then that changed with DSM-5 due to some amazing (but never specified) scientific advance, is a lie constructed by activists to draw false parallels with the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder. Repeating this lie, as you have persistently done even after it being corrected multiple times with evidence, is a sign that you do not care at all about the truth of your statements, so I have no idea why anybody should take your opinions seriously.

 

[theprestige]

The question was about "minors" which I interpret to mean under 18 year olds. What treatment they should get very much depends on their age.

I hope this is an honest misunderstanding. "Minors" was the wrong term for me to use in that context. I was referring to prepubescent children, which is where the discussion has been centered for the last page or so.

You've been actively participating in this discussion, so it shouldn't be a major impediment to you addressing the issues actually raised, about medically transitioning prepubescent children.

Telling us about your misunderstanding, without then going on to address the points now that your misunderstanding has been corrected, seems disingenuous.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yikes! Would that survive any grad-school level critique? I hope not.

Yeah, that's a pretty bad one. Authors don't expect most readers to actually read the references, but it's pretty brazen to not only lie about the contents but also expect that nobody will even look at the title.

Or maybe I have it backwards. Maybe the authors themselves didn't even read their references. That's... disturbingly plausible.

 

[theprestige]

Ah yes, the insane bizarro world conspiracy where oppressed minorities are actually wielding incredible influence.

You mean the insane bizarro world where vocal minorities in representative democracies can and do have significant influence on public policy?

The insane bizarro world where minority activism is widely respected an effective tool for social change?

That insane bizarro world, that is neither insane nor bizarro, and is the world we actually live in?

---

Or did you mean the insane bizarro world where the AAP is full of unscientific, dishonest crap that supports a minority agenda? Because that really is an insane bizarro world, but also sadly the world we live in.

 

[Elaedith]

Yeah, that's a pretty bad one. Authors don't expect most readers to actually read the references, but it's pretty brazen to not only lie about the contents but also expect that nobody will even look at the title.

Or maybe I have it backwards. Maybe the authors themselves didn't even read their references. That's... disturbingly plausible.

It's what happens when science is corrupted by ideology. Because the conclusion is framed as politically desirable (supporting an oppressed minority), and critics can be smeared as transphobes and have their careers and reputations threatened, you don't need evidence to support the conclusion. Just something that superficially looks like it might support the conclusion if you glance at it with your eyes half closed is enough. Nobody wants to look too closely and suffer the economic and social consequences.

 

[theprestige]

We probably should have a 'critical thinking' or 'fact checking' award for critically analyzing the contents of empirical papers, which would be more appropriate in some cases than a language award.

Especially since the language award is very often just a "this person said something I agree with" award, rather than an award for good use of language.

 

[Rolfe]

I did nominate it, but it was more because it was a good and neat piece of argument and debunking rather than for its deathless prose.

 

[Rolfe]

What an unpleasant - but telling - thing to say. No surprise though.

Here we go again. Argument by "I disapprove" and snide insinuation of the iniquity of the other party. Fact and evidence free. "No surprise though."