Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
Every American medical association disagrees with you, last I checked.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware that every medical association has weighed in on the issue. Nor am I aware that medical associations poll all their members before coming to a position. So I'm skeptical that the "consensus" really is a consensus.
d4m10n said:
You can disagree with the expert consensus
Click to expand...
Leaving aside whether or not it's actually a consensus, any sensible analysis of the issue will show that one SHOULD disagree with these "experts". That's why multiple European countries which did exactly that came to the same conclusion. We did into the American Pediatric Association's position paper on the topic earlier in this thread, and it was built on a tissue of bad data, misrepresentation, and lies.
 
Rolfe said:
I realise that anybody can type anything on the internet, but we're hearing quite a few of these stories now, and if true (I think they are), it's devastating.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1894120846412976425
Click to expand...
If true, then nothing other than a total digrace. You can be certain that TRAs and their supporters among ideologically captured vermin in the medical profession, will never, ever acklnowledge the damage done to this person. They will never own their responsibility for the victims of their quackery.
 
Last edited:
Ron Obvious said:
Yeah, me too. The way some snowflakes on this very board refer to this particular forum too, well, I sometimes quote Ripley: "Have IQ's dropped sharply since I've been away?"
Click to expand...
This thread is the negative space of all the forum members who are still processing the cognitive dissonance of realizing they are on the wrong side of science and reason.
 
I don´t know if it´s been posted yet, but this is worth a listen too:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1812456729063367114

Halen Joyce explaining why there´s such a strong refusal to backtrack from the transing debacle. "These people are going to be like the Japanese soldiers in the Pacific, they have to fight forever because they have done the worst thing you could do to your own kid, which is to harm their children irrevocably..."

Explains a lot of the madness and pushback.
 
Last edited:
Explains Jolyon Maugham. Explains David Tennant. On the other side of that you have Elon Musk whose son transitioned later in life and Musk is gender-critical and believes he's lost his son. No winners there.

I read something the other day (didn't bookmark it), a trans-identifying man who appeared to have had the full works and was enthusing about how great it was and how he regretted nothing and it was the best thing he'd ever done. You see these, and sometimes women too, and I always wonder, are they really happy about this, having had very problematic surgery that often goes wrong and being a medical patient for life? Because there is such a thing as denial. Psychological inability to admit that something you pushed for really hard wasn't such a good idea after all.
 
Rolfe said:
Explains Jolyon Maugham. Explains David Tennant. On the other side of that you have Elon Musk whose son transitioned later in life and Musk is gender-critical and believes he's lost his son. No winners there.

I read something the other day (didn't bookmark it), a trans-identifying man who appeared to have had the full works and was enthusing about how great it was and how he regretted nothing and it was the best thing he'd ever done. You see these, and sometimes women too, and I always wonder, are they really happy about this, having had very problematic surgery that often goes wrong and being a medical patient for life? Because there is such a thing as denial. Psychological inability to admit that something you pushed for really hard wasn't such a good idea after all.
Click to expand...
No doubt there are people who regret transgender surgery.

Then again, if you were to say to someone “don’t you regret that? I mean, really? Are you sure you don’t? You know you might be in denial.” You could see how that might be distressing even if they do not regret it. And that’s not only for transgender stuff. That’s probably something that could go across the board.

Anyway, while Helen Joyce might be right that the transgender activists are like the Japanese soldiers who don’t realize the war is over. But then again, what do the victors do when the war is over? Do they still keep fighting anyway?
 
Ron Obvious said:
Yeah, me too. The way some snowflakes on this very board refer to this particular forum too, well, I sometimes quote Ripley: "Have IQ's dropped sharply since I've been away?"
Click to expand...
The DEI thread is trending in that direction as well.
 
angrysoba said:
No doubt there are people who regret transgender surgery.

Then again, if you were to say to someone “don’t you regret that? I mean, really? Are you sure you don’t? You know you might be in denial.” You could see how that might be distressing even if they do not regret it. And that’s not only for transgender stuff. That’s probably something that could go across the board.

Anyway, while Helen Joyce might be right that the transgender activists are like the Japanese soldiers who don’t realize the war is over. But then again, what do the victors do when the war is over? Do they still keep fighting anyway?
Click to expand...

Who was even suggesting going to a transgender person and saying “don’t you regret that? I mean, really? Are you sure you don’t? You know you might be in denial.”? I mean, where did you even get that idea from?

It is difficult, I think, to interpret surveys asking people who have had genital surgery whether they regret it or are happy with it, and to interpret these outpourings of "I am so happy I had this surgery" you see on the internet, because in any aspect of life there's a human tendency not to want to admit to regretting something they were once very insistent that they wanted. I've seen accounts where people detail horrendous complications and multiple revision surgeries and long stays in hospital and non-healing wounds and then say they're still happy they had this done, and I think, really?
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not aware that every medical association has weighed in on the issue.
Click to expand...
Consider the ones that did weigh in. Seeing any pattern?
Ziggurat said:
Leaving aside whether or not it's actually a consensus, any sensible analysis of the issue will show that one SHOULD disagree with these "experts".
Click to expand...
Disagreement implies there are actually two sides having a debate.

What @smartcooky is trying to do is pretend there isn't a live debate to be had here, and that's only true in this thread because the pro-TRA side has self-selected themselves out of the discussion. That self-selection is a social phenomenon, not a rational process, and it happens on reddit all the time in the opposite direction. Those posters also say there's no debate to be had, but they, too, are living in an illusory bubble of false consensus.
 
d4m10n said:
Every American medical association disagrees with you, last I checked.

You can disagree with the expert consensus, but you cannot reasonably pretend they do not exist.
Click to expand...
As we know, the systematic evidence review conducted by the University of York for the Cass review found that the 'expert consensus' is largely artificial, not resulting from independent evaluations reaching the same conclusion, but from all organisations drawing on poor quality and non-evidenced based recommendations from the same sources and cross-referencing each other.

"Two international guidelines (World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Endocrine Society) formed the basis for most other guidance, influencing their development and recommendations."

"These two guidelines are themselves linked through cosponsorship and like other guidelines lack a robust and transparent approach to their development. Although it is not uncommon to adopt an expert consensus-based approach when evidence is limited, it is less common for guideline developers to draw so heavily on other guidelines.11 This relationship may explain why there has until recently been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice for which evidence remains lacking.54"

So while we can acknowledge that many US organisations make claims of consensus, there is not an evidenced-based consensus.
 
d4m10n said:
Consider the ones that did weigh in. Seeing any pattern?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am: special interest capture, and and a whole lot of people keeping quite because they don't want to be cancelled.

I've also seen the pattern of what happens when governments do systematic reviews of the evidence, and find that it's severely lacking, to be charitable.
d4m10n said:
Disagreement implies there are actually two sides having a debate.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to argue about how many sides there are, that's rather pointless. What matters is which side has the evidence and the valid arguments. The evidence in favor of medical transition for minors just isn't there. The arguments aren't there. But a whole lot of lies about the evidence are there.
d4m10n said:
What @smartcooky is trying to do is pretend there isn't a live debate to be had here
Click to expand...
Whether or not there is a debate to be had, we aren't having it. YOU aren't having it. You appealed to a supposed consensus of "experts" (which doesn't really exist) in an effort to shortcut the debate. What has happened in this thread is that we've already looked at the arguments for medical transition in kids, found that the cited evidence was garbage piled on lies, and then nothing else substantive has been put forward in favor of medical transition for kids. We're done with the debate until some new argument is presented. Do you want us to just pretend we didn't already go through all that? For what?
d4m10n said:
, and that's only true in this thread because the pro-TRA side has self-selected themselves out of the discussion.
Click to expand...
That's only part of it. The other part is that they ran out of arguments when their appeals to authority failed and their claims of evidence crumbled upon examination. If you think that's not a big part of why they left the thread and won't come back, you're kidding yourself.
d4m10n said:
That self-selection is a social phenomenon, not a rational process, and it happens on reddit all the time in the opposite direction. Those posters also say there's no debate to be had, but they, too, are living in an illusory bubble of false consensus.
Click to expand...
There's more than a touch of irony in your simultaneous appeals to "false consensus" and your claims about all the experts being in favor of medical transition for minors. Because a false consensus is exactly what you were appealing to.
 
Abooga said:
Halen Joyce explaining why there´s such a strong refusal to backtrack from the transing debacle. "These people are going to be like the Japanese soldiers in the Pacific, they have to fight forever because they have done the worst thing you could do to your own kid, which is to harm their children irrevocably..."

Explains a lot of the madness and pushback.
Click to expand...
I remember reading about the investigation into Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and the discovery that a significant portion of it was attributable to infants sleeping on their stomachs. And they had made the discovery by doing extensive interviews on a large sample of SIDS cases. It must have been heartbreaking for parents in the study to realize that they could have done something to prevent their child's death, but they mostly seemed grateful that at least some benefit could come from their tragedy in terms of avoiding that in the future.

But these parents aren't in the same boat. Not only have they made horrible mistakes that hurt their child, they still have to face that child. There's no denying death, but you can deny that a transition was harmful. Both the child and the parent can deny that indefinitely. And because the child cannot experience what they would have experienced absent transition, nobody can directly compare their individual outcome to its alternative, so nobody can conclusively prove the individual harm. The incentive to not admit an error must be overwhelming. I can't even imagine how heart wrenching it must be.

But it's still not an excuse to do that to other children.
 
Elaedith said:
As we know, the systematic evidence review conducted by the University of York for the Cass review found that the 'expert consensus' is largely artificial, not resulting from independent evaluations reaching the same conclusion, but from all organisations drawing on poor quality and non-evidenced based recommendations from the same sources and cross-referencing each other.

"Two international guidelines (World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Endocrine Society) formed the basis for most other guidance, influencing their development and recommendations."

"These two guidelines are themselves linked through cosponsorship and like other guidelines lack a robust and transparent approach to their development. Although it is not uncommon to adopt an expert consensus-based approach when evidence is limited, it is less common for guideline developers to draw so heavily on other guidelines.11 This relationship may explain why there has until recently been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice for which evidence remains lacking.54"

So while we can acknowledge that many US organisations make claims of consensus, there is not an evidenced-based consensus.
Click to expand...
Indeed! When multiple organizations are all deriving their "consensus" from the same flawed studies and evidence, we can dismiss their consensus as flawed as well. The Cass review pretty much spiked that consensus anyway.
 
Last edited:
The Zizians get a Vox "explainer":

The post-rationalist murder spree’s so-called “cult” leader has finally been arrested. What?​

Click to expand...
Yeah it's not a transgender cult, it's a post-rationalist cult. In fact, you have to read to end of the sixth paragraph to find the first mention of gender fluidity:

Ziz LaSota joined the rationalist community through its lodestar online forum LessWrong in 2012, when she was in her early 20s. She attended at least one workshop hosted by the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR), a rationalist offshoot that some have accused of being cult-like itself, and which in 2014 faced backlash as part of unproven, anonymous child sex-trafficking allegations against its parent group, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). In 2016, Ziz moved to the Bay Area from Alaska and gathered a small community to live on boats in the San Francisco Bay to avoid paying rent. The boats were short-lived; the community — most of whom were vegan and
trans like Ziz — and what grew out of it, persists in some form to this day.
Click to expand...
And that is literally all that the trans issue is mentioned except towards the end when Vox sniffs a bit at the Daily Mail calling it a trans murder cult. Hell, maybe it's a vegan murder cult.
 
d4m10n said:
If a policy paper purports to classify everyone for purposes of federal policy (e.g. Title IX) then it needs to account for edge cases.
Click to expand...
Disagree.

We have legal definitions of murder, manslaughter, and self-defense. None of them are 100% perfectly exactly right all the time, and disputes on whether a particular interaction constitutes self-defense or manslaughter or murder come up pretty regularly. When that happens, the edge cases are dealt with in context.

Sex has massively less wiggle room than the definition of manslaughter does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom