Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

Ziggurat said:
Given what I've seen of the "relevant professional community", I don't think their endorsement is a useful benchmark.
Click to expand...
You are of course free to deny the science.

Eta: and that was 'communities', plural. Blanchard's posits are not accepted by any professional body anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Professor ◊◊◊◊ saw's beliefs are not tremendously interesting. The wider community has soundly criticized Blanchard's methodology and his insistence on including AGP as a disorder in the DSM were flatly denied because the community does not accept the posit.
Click to expand...
So you were lying when you first claimed that Blanchard, then Bailey had admitted there is no evidence for AGP.
 
Thermal said:
You are of course free to deny the science.

Eta: and that was 'communities', plural. Blanchard's posits are not accepted by any professional body anywhere.
Click to expand...
You do understand that consensus of professional bodies is not science unless the consensus is based on science, right? Truth is not a popularity contest. When professional bodies endorse or dismiss ideas for reasons other than the ideas being true or false, that is not science.
 
Elaedith said:
So you were lying when you first claimed that Blanchard, then Bailey had admitted there is no evidence for AGP.
Click to expand...
No, I shorthandanded to saying Blanchard, as he says the same thing. I conceded that the post quoted was actually Bailey as the lead author (I forget if Blanchard personally was co-authored).

What Bailey's personal feelings about how the evidence stands is irrelevant. The evidence is weak, flawed, and is not accepted by the relevant communities.
 
Elaedith said:
You do understand that consensus of professional bodies is not science unless the consensus is based on science, right? Truth is not a popularity contest. When professional bodies endorse or dismiss ideas for reasons other than the ideas being true or false, that is not science.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You have not shown that Blanchard's work is laughed at for any reason other than his weak methodology, which has been specifically criticized by his peers. Take your conspiracy theory to the appropriate forum.
 
Thermal said:
No, I shorthandanded to saying Blanchard, as he says the same thing. I conceded that the post quoted was actually Bailey as the lead author (I forget if Blanchard personally was co-authored).

What Bailey's personal feelings about how the evidence stands is irrelevant. The evidence is weak, flawed, and is not accepted by the relevant communities.
Click to expand...
No, neither of them claimed that there is no evidence. You cannot even remain consistent within a single post. You are claiming simultaneously that both of them said that there is not evidence, and that we can disregard their feelings that there is evidence. Within a single post. This is rivalling that time you claimed that you had read two sources, except for the first one and the second one.
 
Elaedith said:
No, neither of them claimed that there is no evidence. You cannot even remain consistent within a single post. You are claiming simultaneously that both of them said that there is not evidence, and that we can disregard their feelings that there is evidence. Within a single post. This is rivalling that time you claimed that you had read two sources, except for the first one and the second one.
Click to expand...
There is no accepted, peer reviewed evidence. What Blanchard and Bailey like to think about what they see is as irrelevant as a flat earther saying 'well it sure looks flat to me'.
 
Thermal said:
There is no accepted, peer reviewed evidence. What Blanchard and Bailey like to think about what they see is as irrelevant as a flat earther saying 'well it sure looks flat to me'.
Click to expand...
There are peer-reviewed papers supporting AGP. You lied about them admitting there is no evidence and claimed this was quoted in a paper you linked to, where they actually said the opposite. Both of them support the distinction between early-onset gender dysphoria and AGP in males, because this is consistent with the empirical evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever for the account being pushed by trans activists which contradicts all the known evidence.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Not my interest. Having trouble focusing today are we?
Click to expand...
You seem very interested in the authority of your "relevant professional communities", but apparently you haven't really thought much about what that authority actually constitutes.
 
Thermal said:
Do you understand what the words mean that followed the word 'accepted'?
Click to expand...
Oh, I know what "peer reviewed" means. But you didn't just say "peer reviewed". You said "accepted", and you even bolded the word. Are you saying that this was simply redundant with "peer reviewed"? That would be odd. Why would you even include the word if it added nothing? If you tell me that's what you meant, I will accept that, but as written, there was no reason for me to interpret it as being redundant. And if it's not redundant, then the other words in your sentence logically do NOT tell me what you meant by "accepted".
 
Ziggurat said:
You seem very interested in the authority of your "relevant professional communities", but apparently you haven't really thought much about what that authority actually constitutes.
Click to expand...
I have. I also respect the process of peer review. I also looked at the criticisms by Moseley and others, and I agree in the plain English. Blanchard used a weak methodology and poor controls, leading him to a conclusion that fed into his confirmation bias.

Unless something substantial is presented to sway that, I see no reason to accept the posit. Kind of like no one else does.
 
Thermal said:
I have. I also respect the process of peer review. I also looked at the criticisms by Moseley and others, and I agree in the plain English. Blanchard used a weak methodology and poor controls, leading him to a conclusion that fed into his confirmation bias.

Unless something substantial is presented to sway that, I see no reason to accept the posit. Kind of like no one else does.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean Moser. And you've presumably looked into all the peer-reviewed rebuttals of their criticisms as well, since you want to avoid confirmation bias. Let me guess.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't believe you.

I have participated in the process of peer review, from both sides. While it is a useful tool, it is not the guarantor you seem to think.
Click to expand...
That's great. I don't think it is a guarantor, nor did I say so. It is more robust than the feelings of the eugenics boys and their cheerleaders, though.

If you have something new to add, I'm sure we'd all be interested. If you just intend to Groundhog Day repeat that Blanchard's posit feeds well into your bias, let's say we've done that already.
 
Thermal said:
We did this at obnoxious length earlier. It is mentioned on two pages, as a specifier for a variety of transvestic disorder. That's not 'listing' anything. It is nothing more than a sexual arousal at the thought of one's self as a woman. It is not considered any kind of disorder, full stop.
Click to expand...
It's a specific expression of transvestic disorder, and transvestic disorder is a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ paraphilia in the DSM. It is absolutely a goddamned disorder!

Your argument here is like saying that osteosarcoma isn't a diagnosis because it's only mentioned under the heading of sarcoma, so it's not any kind of cancer, full stop. It's absurd and inane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom