Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Oh, and @smartcooky ? Something else I just noticed, and was frankly stunned by:

The personality disorders were never clinically diagnosed, by anyone at anytime in the Iranian study. Sound unbelievable? Look at the methodology. They relied on the Millon test. That is a self administerd, self reporting true/false questionnaire. It's reliable as a start, but not for clinical diagnoses, for reasons that should be obvious.

Eta: and as support on my surprise at relying entirely on the Millon:

"Research indicates that the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-I) lacks diagnostic accuracy when compared to clinically generated DSM-III-R diagnoses. This shortcoming is most evident for the identification of psychotic disorders. The MCMI-II was designed to reflect more accurately the DSM-III-R diagnostic formulation, but its diagnostic efficacy has yet to be determined with clinical samples.

Diagnostic utility of the MCMI-I and MCMI-II with psychiatric outpatients - PubMed

Research indicates that the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-I) lacks diagnostic accuracy when compared to clinically generated DSM-III-R diagnoses. This shortcoming is most evident for the identification of psychotic disorders. The MCMI-II was designed to reflect more accurately the...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Very astute of you to detect the obvious sarcasm, yes.

Within its context, yes. But for posters to try to extrapolate inferences out of that context, not wise. See below.

The study size was 73 individuals. Starting right there, the very small sampling should have us reeling in too many conclusions regarding millions of western trans folk, which is the obvious intent. But it's fair to point out that sex changes are going to be a small group by nature, so:

The study was performed in Iran. You think, I suppose, that this population is globally representative? I think not, considering that Iranians have diagnosed personality disorders at rates estimated at three times the global average. And of those disorders, guess which is the most prevalent (as in most Islamic cutures)? That's right, narcissism.

Prevalence, sociodemographic correlates, and comorbidity of personality disorders in the general population of Iran - Current Psychology

Personality disorders (PDs) are severe mental issues, while the information in the common population is not comprehensively identified worldwide. We aimed to study the prevalence of personality disorders, their sociodemographic correlates, and their comorbidity with psychiatric disorders in the...

link.springer.com

You'll note that of the 84% reported to have comorbid personality disorders in the Iranian study, a whopping 57% indicated the highest reported disorder: yes, narcissism.

So we have a small study from a country with staggeringly high rates of narcissism and personality disorders, and they find that sex change recipients have... staggeringly high rates of narcissism and personality disorders, that our Brit, Yank, and Kiwi posters want to draw local inference from. This is comparing with a culture where homosexuality and blasphemy are capital crimes (although surprisingly tolerant of transgenders).

Apples and narcissistic murderous oranges FTW.

Eta: also, regarding the post I was responding to: the video author claims to have been in the study. I don't believe her, nor her random claim about autistic people believing they are transgender when they are not.

We could say it's more likely that she simply doesn't understand the words she is typing. Or we could go ahead and glean that she appears to not understand much and appears more than a bit stupid and bigoted, highly susceptable to confirmation bias, as virtually all of these random tweet authors cited seem to be.

Perhaps you should write to NIH and tell them all this. Be sure to let them know about your doctorate in medicine and degree in applied statistics.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps you should write to NIH and tell them all this. Be sure to let them know about your doctorate in medicine and degree in applied statistics.

? Why? There's no medical or statistical errors that I'm aware of, or even analysis required. NIH is presumably fully aware of the declared limitations of the study. The authors extrapolated no further conclusions beyond their 73 Iranians, from a decade ago. It seems to be mostly you and the tweeter that couldn't read them, spelled out in laypeople English.

Why did you invite me to read the Iranian version of what you implied was the NIH paper that i had already linked, anyway? Did it say something which contradicts anything I've said?

Eta: and why do you suppose that similar results have not been observed by western researchers in the last decade?

 

[Graham2001]

Another piece of corrosive commentary from the contrarian's at Spiked.

A new menace is stalking Britain: transphobic toddlers.

Yes, incredibly, according to the Telegraph, data from the Department for Education (DfE) show that a three- or four-year-old child has been suspended from an English state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’.

Further details on this specific case have not been provided. All we know right now is that the nursery-age child was suspended during the 2022-23 academic year, supposedly for either transphobia or homophobia. The DfE statistics also show that a total of 94 primary-school pupils were either suspended or permanently expelled from state schools in the same year for the same supposed offence. The toddler was among them, along with 13 other children between the ages of five and seven. The oldest that any of these 94 children could have possibly been was 11.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2025/03/31/is-your-toddler-transphobic/

 

[Emily's Cat]

My point is narrower than you are taking it. I was quite explicit about women facing social expectations and reprimand. But it doesn't take the specific linguistic form of "not a real woman". Your examples still fit that.

Absolutely, and I thought I made that explicit previously.

Fair. But similarly, I pretty much never hear anyone literally say the phrase "you're not a real man". Except maybe in bad films where it's some caricatured gold-digger female haranguing a male for failing to keep their emotions on permanent lock-down.

In the real world, it's more likely to take the form of males calling other males pussies, or nancies, or whiny little girls, or similar such challenges to their masculinity - it's pretty much the same phenomenon.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are you saying that transgender people have a genetic predisposition toward criminal activity?

Not quite.

I would, however, say that people with a psychological predisposition toward criminal activity - especially sexual offending - are more likely to identify as trans. Which is the cart and which the horse is up to you, I don't particularly care.

Cross dressing has been a known correlate with serial killers and serial rapists for a long time. It's not predictive, but it's a frequent indicator of likelihood to escalate. Similarly, sexual offenders are well known for finding and exploiting loopholes in safeguarding in order to access their targets.

 

[Thermal]

Fair. But similarly, I pretty much never hear anyone literally say the phrase "you're not a real man". Except maybe in bad films where it's some caricatured gold-digger female haranguing a male for failing to keep their emotions on permanent lock-down.

In the real world, it's more likely to take the form of males calling other males pussies, or nancies, or whiny little girls, or similar such challenges to their masculinity - it's pretty much the same phenomenon.

I have heard with middling frequency the positive version, more than the negative comparison. "It takes a real man", "you're more of a man than he is", etc.

But the point of all that wasn't if the negative use was applied to females; it was that the concept of men and women is solidly in the role and expression, not the physiology.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The. Entirety. Of. The. Scientific. Community. Has. Recognized. The . Distinction. For. Generations.

No. They. Haven't.

Seriously, Thermal - who told you this, and why did you believe them?

 

[Thermal]

No. They. Haven't.

Seriously, Thermal - who told you this, and why did you believe them?

Kinda have, dramatic periods ommited.

Eta: your edit question: the entirety of scientific subject matter in the English language has acknowledged the difference between sex and gender, considering it important to varying degrees, of course.

While discussing this on this and many other threads, definitions are presented by a myriad of scientific bodies. I have yet to see a single one that claims sex is literally synonymous with gender. If you know of one, I'm all ears, seriously. Otherwise we both know I can easily present definitions from medical texts, psychological ones, etc, but it's not your usual style to demand gratuitous busy work from other posters, as some of our lower watt bulbs demand.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have a few comments, in a not very organized approach.

I generally agree, but my argument was against a different, and more extreme position than yours.

The argument that sex and gender are the same is factually wrong. There is a shade of difference. To most of us, they are interchangable, because our sex and self ID line up neatly. For a very small segment of the population, they don't.

Nah. In almost every single actual common usage of the term, gender is understood to mean exactly the same thing as sex. There are some academics who draw a (semi) firm distinction (when it suits them). But this is jargon at play. This falls into the same category of people who want to argue that marxism is totally and completely different from communism because some college class that they tooks used them in different ways. To the entire rest of the 99.99999999999999% of people on the planet, they mean the same thing. Any technical differences in meaning are useless distinctions to make, especially when we're talking about policies.

It's also a wrong-headed way to think about it. I know it seems considerate and compassionate, I really do. But in effect, it's not at all reasonable or rational. Look - I self-id as a classical liberal. My view of myself doesn't seem to slow down several posters here one whit - they insist that I'm a far-right wingnut conservotard. Me telling them that I identify as a liberal is meaningless twaddle - they will perceive me however they perceive me, and my wishes have no impact on their perception. I can argue until the cows come home and it will make no difference to them at all - my perception of myself does not alter their perception of me.

I have a very close friend who has a strong mental image of themself as a redhead. They have a set of beliefs about what redheads are like, the kind of personalities that redheads have, how they're fiery and passionate and artistic. They have an entire narrative in their mind that represents "redheads" as some idealized collective. They dye their hair red, and they do their damnedest to convince other people that they're a natural redhead - which is fairly easy to do with dye. To them, they hair color is indivisible from the personality of "redhead".

The hair that comes out of their skull remains blonde. The rest of their self image, their identity, exists solely in their own head - and there's nothing that says they can't be a fiery, passionate, artistic blonde.

Many posters ITT want the majority rules to prevail, to the point of insulting and denying trans people to their faces, and they want public and legal support for doing so. That's a different position than you advocate, which I have no major issue with.

First off - nobody is "denying trans people exist". A whole lot of us, however, take the position that gender identity is at best a personality quirk, it's not indicative of anything real at all. A person whose legal name is Caitlyn Jenner most certainly exists - we can all observe that they exist, they make statements, they have opinions, and there are numerous corroborating reports of them having been personally observed as an actual human being. On the other hand... Caitlyn Jenner is not a female in any fashion whatsoever. Jenner's identity is something that exists solely inside their own brain. And not a single one of us has any obligation to acknowledge their identity - no more so than any of us has any obligation to bow before the person who's internal, subjective identity is that of Napoleon Bonaparte. And as a society, I don't think any of us should be expected to ignore the reality of our observations in order to make Jenner feel better about themself - no more so than any of us should be expected to agree that an anorexic is horribly fat because such agreement makes the anorexic feel better about themselves. Affirming a falsehood does not serve anyone well.

 

[angrysoba]

Perhaps you should write to NIH and tell them all this. Be sure to let them know about your doctorate in medicine and degree in applied statistics.

All kinds of nonsense gets housed on the NIH website. It’s extremely foolish to assume the study must be good just because it appears there.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then it becomes really easy: how you socially identify and present are the attributes that determine gender.

No. I reject this entirely.

The logical consequence of your premise is that I am a man, regardless of my own thoughts on the idea. The logical consequence of this is that young male children who are quiet and like to read and dislike climbing trees are girls. Young female children who like sports and playing cowboys and indians and building things are boys.

It means that whoever does the dishes is the woman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm reminded of the observation that a lot of women will claim that Lizzo looks beautiful, but if you tell one of them that they look like Lizzo, they will take offense. They know it's a fiction, but you cannot threaten the fiction.

It's the unspoken part that drives the difference.

Lizzo is beautiful for a fat female. Lizzo makes the absolute best of what they've got and pulls it off as well as can be expected.

Everyone with eyes can see that Lizzo is quite obese. That's perhaps the most immediately identifiable characteristic, it's what almost everyone will notice first - that's a big person, downright fluffy! And because that's the most immediately identifiable characteristic, everything else is secondary to it. So when you tell someone they look like Lizzo... they will 100% assume you mean that they're fat. You might still think they're beautiful for an obese person... but you definitely think they're fat.

 

[Thermal]

I have a few comments, in a not very organized approach.

Just quickly, because your posts deserve more thought but I'm trying to wrap.up and get off this stupid jobsite:

To the entire rest of the 99.99999999999999% of people on the planet, they mean the same thing.

Factually wrong, and you know it. Trans people themselves make up a half percent of the population, and they have a ton of allies and supporters in the rest of the community. I don't think you could put up a convincing argument that even half don't acknowledge that there is a distinction.

... Caitlyn Jenner is not a female in any fashion whatsoever.

Nor does Jenner or anyone else think so (a few extremists aside). Female =/= woman, at least not all of the time. Day to day, yes, sex and gender line right up. For half a percent, and their supporters, they don't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Since that is a stock picture from Getty Images, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're just making up bull ◊◊◊◊ about imaginary people.

Well... There is Alex Drummond.

This Trans Woman Kept Her Beard And Couldn't Be Happier

"I'm widening the bandwidth of how to be a woman." Alex Drummond talks to BuzzFeed News about why she kept her beard after transitioning – and how others react.

www.buzzfeed.com

 

[Thermal]

No. I reject this entirely.

The logical consequence of your premise is that I am a man, regardless of my own thoughts on the idea. The logical consequence of this is that young male children who are quiet and like to read and dislike climbing trees are girls. Young female children who like sports and playing cowboys and indians and building things are boys.

It means that whoever does the dishes is the woman.

No it doesn't. Why would it? Many women have, but it doesn't have universal acceptance. Not since the flipping 1950s.

Hackneyed stereotypes =/= gender roles.

 

[Thermal]

Well... There is Alex Drummond.

This Trans Woman Kept Her Beard And Couldn't Be Happier

"I'm widening the bandwidth of how to be a woman." Alex Drummond talks to BuzzFeed News about why she kept her beard after transitioning – and how others react.

www.buzzfeed.com

View attachment 59746

I'm not disputing that trans women who have beards exist. Of course they do. I simply disputed with that particular poster that what he was posting factually was in fact only in his imagination, which appears to be as full of male model pics as his computer is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's really happening, from my American boots on the ground perspective, is nothing but a lot of people tilting at windmills and warning us of dragons and monsters that... we don't see in real life. In real.life, we just go about our day. No drooling fake trans women skulking around locker rooms.

Except for Darren Merager and Colleen Francis and Lia Thomas, of course.

No trans women masturbating in public.

Except for a metric fuckton of self-posted porn, and the one at the rape shelter that posted video of themself whacking it in the restroom, and the one who posted selfies of themself going at it in the female changing room of the department store.

No pervs with wigs ready to pounce.

Well, except for the pervs with wigs who already pounced...

The places where this would be a threat are already neck deep in those kind of threats now, and have been for years, with no regard for the law.

The place where this *is* a threat are female-only spaces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why? It's a form of address, nothing more. Casheirs call my scruffy ass "sir", but I feel confident that they don't think I'm a British knight, a military officer, or even a dignified gentleman. It's just a form of address, nothing more. Nobody is going to call you a "tranny lover" or whatever you are afraid of because you can conduct yourself in public with normal decorum.

Okay, I hear what you're saying. I want to challenge this.

Let's say you go to a dinner party at your neighbor's house. They happen to be devout catholic, but still a pretty nice person. They've also invited their church's priest and one of the nuns.

The polite term of address for those two is "Father Roger O'Brien" and "Sister Agatha".

Do you think it is reasonable for your friend to require you to refer to the priest as "Father O'brien", or do you think it should be reasonable for you to refer to them as "Mr. O'Brien" or perhaps even "Roger"? Do you think you it reasonable that you be chastised and socially censured for saying "Hi Agatha, nice to meet you"?

Is there a reasonable point at which it's reasonable to NOT conform to someone else's beliefs?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Absolutely! You believe that being a self centered, judgemental douchebag is your God given Constitutional right.

On the other side of this...

California judge rules rapist must be addressed by preferred pronouns to ensure dignity​

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's literally no difference.

Try this: instead of thinking "she" is a word that refers exclusively to biological females (which seems to be at the root of your problems), think of "she" as meaning a pronoun which applies to people who feel like they are women. It really is that simple.

So what's the word we should use when we want to refer to exclusively biological females?

Fill in the blank quiz:

An adult female horse is called a _______________
An adult female fox is called a _______________
An adult female chicken is called a __________________
And adult female human is called a __________________