Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[LondonJohn]

I have never heard anyone in the field of clinical psychology or psychiatry use the phrase 'validity of X identity' except in relation to gender identity by a few ideologically-motivated clinicians and doctors (the narcissistic 'celebrity' type who like to engage in self-promotion). It is totally meaningless.

You've never heard it used by anyone in the field..... except you have, but that doesn't count because it's by those you happen to disagree with LOL

 

[Elaedith]

Cool response. You know what psychiatry is, right?

And I've already pointed out that while psychiatrists continue to believe that a female identifying as the late movie star Greta Garbo is suffering from a psychiatric disorder, they now no longer believe that a female identifying as the gender "man" is suffering from a psychiatric disorder.

The necessary conclusion is that psychiatrists currently hold that 1) for a female, the holding of the identity "Greta Garbo" is invalid; and 2) for a female, the holding of the identity "man gender" is valid.

In the same way, psychiatrists would hold that a male identifying as a lover of the game chess is not suffering from a psychiatric disorder - and this would necessarily entail that for this male, their love of chess is a valid condition.


And as I also said, the alternative is to consider that most or all of the discipline of psychiatry is bogus pseudoscience. Do you consider most or all of psychiatry to be bogus psudoscience?

You are saying that all inner feelings and beliefs are 'valid conditions' if the person holding them is not suffering from a psychiatric disorder. The term is vacuous and completely useless for any medical, legal or political purpose.

 

[Paul2]

Because there are no axioms, and there are few-to-no observable elements of the condition itself - only the symptoms/effects of the condition. In a few centuries from now, it may well be possible for us to understand the human brain well enough to correlate physiology with psyche. But we can't do so today (at least, not with anywhere near sufficient granularity or clarity) for matters related to deep inner identity.

Why does the condition itself need to be observable in order to be empirical? Cosmologists know the Big Bang happened, but did not observe it. They observe correlates of it, like the cosmic microwave background radiation, and deduce what happened empirically from there.

 

[Vixen]

That's weird to me, since the plain language you cited seems to exclude anything that is "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available".

Do you happen to have a link to the court's reasoning for why opinions based on the present state of information available - as all good science-based beliefs should be - are excluded from that criteria and protected under the Equality Act?

The judgment is here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Forstater-JR-AG.pdf

I would suggest jumping to Paragraph 75 onwards.

The only reasoning I can gather that her views exclude anything that is "an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available" is because the government had begun consultation on proposed
amendments to the Gender Recognition Act, so they are likely assuming that the government is acting on proven science, when as we know with Liz Truss, Braverman and Badenough it is a straightforward political dogma, based on 'common sense' and the fact, 'I know what a woman is'.

 

[Paul2]

It almost seems like LJ understands full well that 1) the whole matter of transgender identity is (very obviously) one that is psychiatric rather than physiological at its source, and 2) the discipline of psychiatry - by necessity and by definition - does not and cannot be empirical or falsifiable in its approach.

Does the lack of empiricism and falsifiability, that you claim, apply to psychiatrists that support your side of the trans rights issue?

 

[Vixen]

I'm not asking about her belief. I'm asking about mine. Mine is based on the present state of information available to us about human biology. According to the plain language cited by Darat, my belief would not be protected under the Equality Act. If I go before a judge, am I supposed to pretend my belief is faith-based rather than science-based, in order to get a favorable judgement?

No, no. You just affirm, 'It is common sense, M'Lud'.

 

[theprestige]

Because there are no axioms, and there are few-to-no observable elements of the condition itself - only the symptoms/effects of the condition. In a few centuries from now, it may well be possible for us to understand the human brain well enough to correlate physiology with psyche. But we can't do so today (at least, not with anywhere near sufficient granularity or clarity) for matters related to deep inner identity.

Yes, there is increasing rigour, and there are also ever-improving ways of identifying certain aspects and grading their extent/severity. Plus psychiatry is easily the most fluid of the medical sciences - new research and new theories supplant old ones relatively frequently (viz the decline in Freudian analysis).

It's Just So Stories, all the way down. Transgenderism is a "valid lived identity"? A Just So Story! Actual dysphoria? A Just So Story!

This is the authority you're appealing to, LJ.

 

[Vixen]

I'm guessing you're not very familiar with the scientific discipline of psychiatry, in which your vaunted yardsticks of measurability and falsifiability are seldom valid (oooh see what I did there!). If you're talking about microbiology or particle physics, then your definition of scientific rigour is in the right ballpark. But (unless you want to write off the whole of psychiatry and psychology as bogus pseudoscience), those rules simply don't apply to studies of the human psyche.

Sociology as well. Perfectly respectable profession, as well as extremely useful in gauging human relationships, identity, class and gender.

 

[theprestige]

Sociology as well. Perfectly respectable profession, as well as extremely useful in gauging human relationships, identity, class and gender.

Good, then maybe you can cite for us some peer-reviewed papers in sociology, that prescribe transsexual accommodations for people self-ID'ing as transgender.

 

[Vixen]

I have never heard anyone in the field of clinical psychology or psychiatry use the phrase 'validity of X identity' except in relation to gender identity by a few ideologically-motivated clinicians and doctors (the narcissistic 'celebrity' type who like to engage in self-promotion). It is totally meaningless.

The area of clinical psychology and psychiatry is a specialised one. The vast majority of persons identifying as transgender will not fall into the remit of clinical psychology or psychiatry.

As for the DSM-V it changes constantly.

 

[Vixen]

Why does the condition itself need to be observable in order to be empirical? Cosmologists know the Big Bang happened, but did not observe it. They observe correlates of it, like the cosmic microwave background radiation, and deduce what happened empirically from there.

For psychology to be a science it has to follow the rules of empiricism. Results have to be observable, measurable, mathematically significant and replicable.

 

[Vixen]

Does the lack of empiricism and falsifiability, that you claim, apply to psychiatrists that support your side of the trans rights issue?

Psychiatry is a completely different field and revolves around medicine. Handing out prescriptions, basically. It is about making people better via chemical means. This is why to go into psychiatry, you generally need a medical degree first.

 

[Vixen]

Good, then maybe you can cite for us some peer-reviewed papers in sociology, that prescribe transsexual accommodations for people self-ID'ing as transgender.

Whoa! I have a whole pile of books waiting to be read so it might be quite some while before I get around to the sociology of transgender identity. Some while ago I did do Women's Studies which delved into post-colonial thought, feminism and gender studies. Whilst mostly revolving around literature and film, it was very revealing and mind broadening. If you enjoy lightweight literature I can recommend Angela Carter's 'The Bloody Chamber', a rewriting of fairy stories which subverts how we usually think of the sexes and relationships between the genders (and even animals, as 'other').

 

[Paul2]

For psychology to be a science it has to follow the rules of empiricism. Results have to be observable, measurable, mathematically significant and replicable.

They can't be, in psychology? It's impossible? BTW, LJ originally brought up psychiatry.

 

[Paul2]

Psychiatry is a completely different field and revolves around medicine. Handing out prescriptions, basically. It is about making people better via chemical means. This is why to go into psychiatry, you generally need a medical degree first.

LJ claimed psychiatry could never make a valid measurement, and was unfalsifiable. I'm merely responding to that.

 

[Elaedith]

Wait: DSM-V concludes that transgender identity is a psychiatric disorder? I must have missed that part......

The DSM-5 does not state that transgender identity is a psychiatric disorder, nor did the DSMIV, nor did the DSMIII-R. The requirement for gender dysphoria to be present as a condition of diagnosis for gender identity disorder was introduced to DSMIII-R way back in 1987.

Throughout these thread incarnations you have made a series of statements about the DSM that are demonstrably false. These include that the DSM-5 'declassified' gender dysphoria as a disorder (it is a disorder in DSM-5), that DSM-5 declassified transgender identity per se as a disorder (it was already not a disorder, see above), that legislation passed by governments is based on the 'new understanding' of transgender identity in the DSM-5 (although the diagnosis hardly changed at all, only the name), and even that reforms such as the GRA are based on this new understanding despite the fact that the Act was passed nearly 10 years before DSM-5 was published. You have repeated some of this nonsense multiple times despite it being corrected.

At one point you even implied that the reason sex reassignment surgery is allowed, whereas amputating a limb in somebody with BIID is not, is that transgender identity is recognised as 'valid' whereas BIID is not. This is despite the fact that you also imply it is only recognised as 'valid' since DSM-5, published in 2013, while sex reassignment surgery has been available for decades.

You have also persisted with 'appeals to authority' based on the DSM-5 while also implying that your understanding exceeds that of Dr. Zucker, the leader of the working group who revised and wrote the current chapter on gender dysphoria and the world's foremost authority on gender dysphoria. For example, Zucker has strongly criticised spurious parallels between the concepts of gender identity and sexual orientation, has opposed gender identity being included in conversion therapy bans for that reason, has stated that government policies on gender affirmation ignore relevant science and are driven by activism, and believes that the rise in adolescents identifying as transgender is likely due to social contagion, amongst other things. However, when experts disagree with you, the experts are apparently wrong.

(And how do you reconcile the fact that progressive governments all over the western world, acting predominantly on medical advice and wider consultations,

You have not produced a shred of evidence that governments are 'acting predominantly on medical advice' and copious evidence has been provided that they are not, which you have ignored. Therefore your assertions can be dismissed.

are giving transgender people substantial rights and protections in law?

Transgender people have already had 'substantial rights and protections in law' for some time. For example, the Gender Recognition Act' was passed in 2004 in order to allow people who had transitioned to marry a partner of the same birth sex, 10 years before same-sex marriage was legalised. Gender reassignment has also been a protected characteristic since the 2010 Equality Act and does not require any medical transition or gatekeeping.

What is being pushed by activists is not 'rights and protections' but an ideological position of sex denialism that seeks to replace sex with gender identity in law and policy.

Don't you think that if the medical community - at national and pan-national levels, were saying something like "actually, it's our view that people with transgender identity are suffering from a mental health disorder, and they need treatment rather than this degree of accommodation and rights-giving", the policies currently being enacted would be.... rather different?)

Straw-man, see above.

 

[Elaedith]

LJ claimed psychiatry could never make a valid measurement, and was unfalsifiable. I'm merely responding to that.

I was going to suggest that this might be why LJ repeatedly expresses faith in the 'consensus' of experts, despite the fact that policy statements such as the AAP statement on gender affirmation have been shown to be based on citations that are either irrelevant or blatantly contradict their conclusions. After all, if psychiatry can't be empirical or falsifiable, you may as not support your claims at all.

Then I remembered that the AAP isn't even a psychiatric organisation, it's pediatrics.

 

[d4m10n]

DSM-V concludes that transgender identity is a psychiatric disorder?

DSM-5 has precious little to say about identity when decoupled from clinically significant distress. Prove me wrong.

 

[Elaedith]

To interrupt the fascinating turn this thread has taken, I wanted to post a link to Dr Cantor's summary of the evidence related to childhood gender transition, presented as expert testimony in a recent Texas lawsuit. It is probably the most thorough recent overview I've seen and includes analysis of the quality of different sources of evidence, showing how the affirmation-only side cherry pick and rely on predominantly lower-quality studies and anecdotal clinical experience (the weakest form of evidence) to support their case.

I noticed that Cantor does seem to have slipped up a bit with respect to one study in this review of studies on medical transition.

'Tordoff, et al. (2022) reported on a sample of youth, ages 13–20 years, treated with either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. There were improvements in mental health functioning; however, 62.5% of the sample was again receiving mental health therapy'.

There is no reference list provided but I believe this must be the study referred to, which was mentioned previously in this thread:

Mental Health Outcomes in Transgender and Nonbinary Youths Receiving Gender-Affirming Care

Cantor has pointed out that this study can't separate out improvement due to medical intervention (puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones) from improvement due to psychotherapy, since both were delivered. This is a common problem with this type of study.

However, the more critical issue with this study is that the adolescents with gender dysphoria receiving medical intervention did not actually improve in mental health functioning from baseline. Instead, the researchers concluded that the medical intervention was effective because the group receiving it showed lower odds ratio of depression and suicidal thoughts than the comparison group. However, this was due to the comparison group apparently deteriorating in mental health over the course of the study, while the medical intervention group did not change.

What the researchers didn't point out was that most of the comparison group (not receiving medical intervention) stopped coming to the gender clinic and thus dropped out of the study. This left only a small number of participants with very severe mental health problems (probably the reason they were not prescribed blockers) by the end. After 12 months there were only 7 participants left in the comparison group being compared to 57 in the medical intervention group. This makes the comparison invalid.

I'm surprised Cantor didn't highlight this.

 

[d4m10n]

What the researchers didn't point out was that most of the comparison group (not receiving medical intervention) stopped coming to the gender clinic and thus dropped out of the study. This left only a small number of participants with very severe mental health problems (probably the reason they were not prescribed blockers) by the end. After 12 months there were only 7 participants left in the comparison group being compared to 57 in the medical intervention group.

If severe mental health problems is considered a good reason to deny blockers, that strikes me as a fairly significant confounding variable even when sample sizes are ample.