Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Elaedith]

You had it right the first time. It's a postulate, not a theory, lacking reliable data. This particular postulate was pulled out of their asses, and, as you say, they build their model off it. That makes it quite easy to dismiss wholesale, without even having to disagree. That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

As an aside, believing all transwomen who are into babes must mean they are AGP is just flat silly on its face.

You know absolutely nothing about the evidence behind this and have read no research on it. Your opinion has no value. But you are right that your claim of 1-3% prevalence can be dismissed has you provided no evidence. I notice you dodged responding to that.

In the article (really a letter to readers of a website advocating keeping trans kids "in the closet where they belong"), the authors repeatedly say there is no data, we don't know much about this, etc. As such, that's... you know... fine. Teach parents to psychobabble with their troubled kids. Good call.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. The letter is distinguishing different phenomena under the category of 'gender dysphoria'. Advice about children has nothing to do with the prevalence of autogynephiila in adults. And you apparently object to warning parents about the risk of social transition increasing the probability that their child will end up sterilized and medicated for life (something also mentioned in the UK Cass report).

And in case it's not obvious, no, I don't like these people and ascribe them little credibility. You know why, I'll bet. That's right, they hang around far-right groups, preaching black genetic inferiority, Jews subverting Euro-american culture, black and Latino intellectual inferiority, and that cat who advocates the "gay germ". You know what they say: if you sit at a table with four nazis, there are five nazis at the table. From our hate-group monitoring friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Northwestern University Psychology Professor J. Michael Bailey Looks into Queer Science

A group of scientists and journalists tries to turn back the clock on sex, gender and race using eugenics and controversial genetic theories.

www.splcenter.org

I'm sure I will be accused of the genetic or origin fallacy for bringing this up. I can even point to who will feel cut to the bone enough to defend these guys.

Right, the SPLC who designated the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a 'hate group' for producing actual medical evidence about medical treatments that was cited in legal cases. Why bother doing any research when you can just believe everything pronounced by your sacred institutions?

 

[Elaedith]

So I suspect that as more work is done on this it won't so much be the actual age of onset that's the distinguishing factor as the different behaviour. Open insistence on wearing sparkly little-girl princess dresses with no sense of shame, or covert dressing in older women's underwear, with a very pronounced sense of shame. (Although I couldn't discount the lying theory, obviously.) If this is true, what is it that drives that fetish behaviour (or pre-fetish) in such young boys?

The problem is, no work can easily be done on this as activists will attempt to destroy the lives and careers of anyone who conducts research that doesn't find the right thing, (and as we can see on this thread, many so-called 'skeptics' will believe everything they say without question and cheer them on). However, if there is a biological basis to this it would not be surprising that precursors would be present in children, as for sexual orientation.

 

[Rolfe]

If you consider trans-women to be women,...

That's the problem right there. They aren't women.

 

[Aber]

Being trans doesn't make a person a dangerous predator, but it will take time to change these perceptions.

But it doesn't change their sex, and the threat is based on sex, not gender.

 

[Aber]

Could you imagine a girls locker room at a high school where boys could self ID to jump in the showers?

You seem to imply that this is fanciful, but it seems to be reality in some places.

 

[Elaedith]

But it doesn't change their sex, and the threat is based on sex, not gender.

Yes, but we are supposed to believe that transwomen are different from other males because transwomen are women, and will therefore behave like women, not like men. If we challenge that by pointing out that transwomen have male patterns of behaviour including sexual offending, not female offending patterns, we will be challenged to produce evidence. When we produce evidence we will be called bigots for producing it.

 

[Thermal]

You know absolutely nothing about the evidence behind this and have read no research on it. Your opinion has no value. But you are right that your claim of 1-3% prevalence can be dismissed has you provided no evidence. I notice you dodged responding to that.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

I said right up front that I was unfamiliar with this and asked posters here about it. Their answers were so off the wall that I breezed over the available literature, and found that no one supports our esteemed fellow members views on AGP, save a handful of literal ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nazis using their "hunches" (the justification used in Rolfes letter) to saddle mild and benign AGP as a paraphila alongside necrophilia and bestiality . Imagine my surprise. So yeah, congrats on getting up to speed that I acknowledged upfront that I am not familiar with this, and was asking. What I was not asking for is a hard core bigoted interpretation that is not shared with the larger community.

Again you have no idea what you are talking about. The letter is distinguishing different phenomena under the category of 'gender dysphoria'. Advice about children has nothing to do with the prevalence of autogynephiila in adults. And you apparently object to warning parents about the risk of social transition increasing the probability that their child will end up sterilized and medicated for life (something also mentioned in the UK Cass report).

Right, the SPLC who designated the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine a 'hate group' for producing actual medical evidence about medical treatments that was cited in legal cases. Why bother doing any research when you can just believe everything pronounced by your sacred institutions

Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ christ, you are openly and unapologetically defending the literal nazis. Gotta sign off.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

 

[Matthew Best]

Jesus ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ christ, you are openly and unapologetically defending the literal nazis. Gotta sign off.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

You need to calm down.

 

[Thermal]

You need to calm down.

You need to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ read, and let what that poster said sink in.

 

[Elaedith]

You need to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ read, and let what that poster said sink in.

I said the SPLC designated the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine a hate group for producing evidence that contradicts an activist narrative and which is sometimes used to support cases gender activists disagree with. The reason SPLC does this is because of people like you who believe everything a prestigious institution like SPLC says without question, thus making the institution vulnerable to capture by special interest groups who want to exploit that prestige for their own agenda.

Are you claiming SEGM are 'literal Nazis'?

 

[Elaedith]

Are you slow? I said right up front that I was unfamiliar with this and asked posters here about it. Their answers were so off the wall that I breezed over the available literature, and found that no one supports our esteemed fellow members views on AGP, save a handful of literal ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nazis using their "hunches" (the justification used in Rolfes letter) to saddle mild and benign AGP as a paraphila alongside necrophilia and bestiality . Imagine my surprise. So yeah, congrats on getting up to speed that I acknowledged upfront that I am not familiar with this, and was asking. What I was not asking for is a hard core bigoted interpretation that is not shared with the larger community.

More dishonesty. You made a specific claim that most research shows the presence of AGP in MtF transexuals was 1-3%, but provided no evidence to support this. The link you provided was to a paper by Anne Lawrence (a transwoman and self-identified AGP) who supports Blanchard and Bailey and contradicts your claim. You still have provided no evidence to support your claim, and you know nothing about the evidence in this area (based on decades of research that started in the 1980s). Instead you are throwing around wild accusations and smears to deflect when challenged.

 

[Matthew Best]

You need to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ read, and let what that poster said sink in.

I did read, and what you said has sunk in. I repeat: you need to calm down. Throwing around Nazi accusations is making you look deranged.

 

[angrysoba]

I said the SPLC designated the Society for Evidence Based Gender Medicine a hate group for producing evidence that contradicts an activist narrative and which is sometimes used to support cases gender activists disagree with. The reason SPLC does this is because of people like you who believe everything a prestigious institution like SPLC says without question, thus making the institution vulnerable to capture by special interest groups who want to exploit that prestige for their own agenda.

Are you claiming SEGM are 'literal Nazis'?

Following the links it looks more like a reference to the Human Biodiversity Institute which Bailey and Blanchard appear to have been members of. Its founder seems to be Steven Sailer and it has other members into racial science like Charles Murray and Rushton, by the looks of things.

 

[Thermal]

I did read, and what you said has sunk in. I repeat: you need to calm down. Throwing around Nazi accusations is making you look deranged.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

The HBI group that these guys belong to literally includes one of the authors of The Bell Curve. This is not a subtle political leaning. They are quite literally a eugenics group, where Rolfes two authors contribute their thoughts about getting trans people out of the pool.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

 

[Elaedith]

Following the links it looks more like a reference to the Human Biodiversity Institute which Bailey and Blanchard appear to have been members of. Its founder seems to be Steven Sailer and it has other members into racial science like Charles Murray and Rushton, by the looks of things.

I've also seen lists that cite Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Dan Seligman and David Buss as members. None of that has anything to do with the validity of any theories about AGP or the fact that Thermal keeps making unsupported claims and linked to a hit piece that repeats activist lies about Bailey and contains zero evidence refuting any factual claims.

 

[Thermal]

Following the links it looks more like a reference to the Human Biodiversity Institute which Bailey and Blanchard appear to have been members of. Its founder seems to be Steven Sailer and it has other members into racial science like Charles Murray and Rushton, by the looks of things.

Reference? It's spelled out in big bold letters in the SPLC article I linked.

Yet Elaedith claims confusion. Was I talking about some other group? "Gee, I'm confused".

This is insulting and I'm not playing this game.

 

[Elaedith]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

The HBI group that these guys belong to literally includes one of the authors of The Bell Curve. This is not a subtle political leaning. They are quite literally a eugenics group, where Rolfes two authors contribute their thoughts about getting trans people out of the pool.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

More lies. Both Blanchard and Bailey support the right to medical transition. Neither has contributed 'thoughts about getting trans people out of the pool'. In fact, I believe Bailey has said that AGP should be regarded more as a sexual orientation and be destigmatized.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed breach of forum rules

 

[Ziggurat]

If you consider trans-women to be women, then you're not dismantling sex segregation by allowing them into women's spaces.

Transwomen are only women if your definition of woman isn't based on sex. But that's still dismantling sex segregation. So, fail.

 

[theprestige]

At this point we have two very dug-in groups that have both become more radical than they started with and an idea that compromise is capitulation.

I'd be happy to consider compromise. I came into this debate five-ish years ago looking for compromise. I'd still like to compromise. But other than maybe preferred pronouns, I don't see any likely basis for it.

For me, I have seen enough persuasive evidence that youth gender medicine is not evidence-based medicine. That’s thanks to the Cass Report.

I suppose I could compromise on medicine: Let people do real research without fear of being canceled, and then go where the science leads us. If it leads us back to youth gender medicine, I can accept that.

I also agree that sport should largely be sex-segregated although it is less important with some sports or certain levels of sports so a blanket ban by governments is wrong. These should be determined by the governing bodies of the sports in question.

Is the compromise here that governing bodies be allowed to make their own decisions? I can support that, as long as it's clear that governing bodies have the right to uphold sex segregation, including the legal protection to do so.

And I think this needs to be the case across all areas where sex is segregated.

And I think that in cases where the government itself is a governing body (public restrooms, for example), then the decision needs to be to uphold sex segregation in public policy.

Is there room for compromise there? I don't know. What I've described are my hard limits. Are they close enough to the other side for someone to meet me where I'm at?

I think some of the explanations for transgenderism such as trauma sound a bit wacky.

A lot of things sound a bit wacky when they're not being properly researched. I'm always happy to compromise on more scientific investigation into the causes and treatments for gender dysphoria and related conditions, on the same basis as before: Do real science without fear of cancelation, and then go where it leads us.

Especially when attached to a Freudian theory. I did recently hear an episode of Blocked and Reported where they were talking about a “trans youth” who was wearing a towel on his head to say it was long hair and Jesse Singal remarked that that was a “classic sign”. I was wondering what that means here, whether children actually do this as part of insisting they were the opposite sex.

Is cross-dressing an early indicator of possible gender dysphoria? Seems plausible. Maybe we need to do more research. Good research.

But I bet if it is, it's a lot like the DSM. People read a list of indicators for trained psychiatrists, and think that qualifies them to diagnose any mental disorder known to man. Sure, cross-dressing is probably an indicator of something, but that doesn't mean we should assume any kid we see in a long-haired wig is about to go full trans. Maybe it just means they'll be a turbo theater kid in high school.

 

[theprestige]

I don't remember proposing that. Maybe you extrapolated from something I said?

Here it is. You proposed this as an alternative standard Emily's Cat could consider.

What if they don't have a penis and testicles, full beard, and male physique?

I don't think I made much of an extrapolation. Even if you only proposed it for the sake of argument, propose it you did. If it's not a proposal you would support, then you and I are in agreement.

I believe the awkwardness of that is why trans-advocates prefer self-dentification. You object to self-identification, so what would you propose?

Sex segregation across the board, no exceptions, as a right with legal protections.

It seems like it is to me.

Only if you identify as the biological sex you are not. Which makes you delusional, and puts you in the same category as everyone else who is deluded about their identity or some other aspect of the reality they inhabit.

I see you ignored my very next paragraph, which brings up this exact point in the hopes that you would consider it and address it.