Checked Alejandra Caraballo, she is apparently a civil rights attorney and pro-queer. What she says should indeed be correct.
Bailey also is associated with far-right idiots, so yeah. Littman also hasn't studied trans people before and based her study on anecdotal experience rather than actual in-depth research; and she didn't survey the actual trans people either about their experiences, and pathologised it.
Verdict, yeah spread the word among fellow queers to not partake in that study, and don't tell others who might be sympathetic to fascists.
Littman’s the one who went to a terf-parent forum, and polled the people there about whether or not they thought that their kids “becoming” trans was a sudden thing or not, right?
Because obviously rapid onset gender dysphoria makes more sense than people not sharing their experiences with their hateful parents.
Ironically I myself might fall under the group she allegedly thinks exists. But a critical part she (probably intentionally) misses, is that I didn't "turn" trans because of online communities. People don't "turn" trans, but explore their identities and figure it out, it's a long process. The community merely helped me in figuring out what all my things together were. And that's why the group she invented on the spot, doesn't exist.
Before exposure to more queer stuff, I already knew I didn't like having body hair, and long for having a womb, and so on... but I didn't have a "name" for those together. I only knew I felt meh in my body and didn't really feel 'at home'. When I finally started to figure it out, it gradually 'clicked' and helped me!
To take a parallel. Just because formal English doesn't distinguish "thou" and "you" anymore*, it doesn't mean that English speakers don't understand the concept of multiple people.
* Yeah, I know of 'ye, you lot, tha, yinz, (all) y'all', etc., shuttup shuttup ඞ. Bear with me for a second.
Or like how spoken Hungarian, Chinese, and Estonian do not distinguish gendered pronouns, instead having a neutral one. That doesn't mean those people don't know what a man, woman, or enby is.
And to hit the nail in the coffin even more. If a language like Russian distinguishes 'blue' and 'breen' (blue-green) as standalone colours in their own right, does that mean they can distinguish them and anglophones can't?
No. People are familiar with them. It's just that not all know the word for the concept. Knowing the concept-word helps in understanding, though, and so it's time for a nice xkcd(explanation included for the lazy).
I don't care if I've ranted too much, get a nice cookie here and enjoy. 🍪
It had some Kings, they'd just become feral ghouls. It was effectively one guy's Elvis fan club, so having any identifiable members decades later would be a surprise.
The fact that they are feral ghouls, and not keeping the peace in freeside is what I was referring to. I'm pissed that Todd Howard seems to be trying to negate every Fallout game that he didn't work on, ya know, the good ones.
The anti trans crowd aren't unequipped to describe what they are seeing. They aren't interested in the journey so they don't look at the map. They don't see the inner journey of doubt, realization, to empowering actualization.
To them a person just decides they are going to be someone new and it becomes taboo to ever reference the person they knew. They are uncurious about what happened to that person and don't know that what looks like a decision is a realization. No one walks them through the nightmare period of endless self doubt and denial. They have no clue about any part of the struggle.
The real heart break is that trans art is amazing at sharing the experience but the anti trans folks are uncurious and siloed in their media consumption so they don't explore anything they don't know.
I’m probably an egg (by which I mean I’m pretty sure I’m trans and would love to take a pill right now to make it so that I had always been a dude, but I don’t know that I’d take one that turned me into a man now, because I don’t know if it’s worth it to explain it to everyone. I also don’t think I’m actually experiencing dysphoria, just aware that I’m probably a man. I think that counts as an egg for some people, trans and closeted for others, and probably cis [lol] for transmedicalists).
If I ever do come out, it’s probably going to seem sudden as fuck to a bunch of people, because I’ve already thought about it for years, so I’ll have everything planned out as efficiently as possible and ready to go the second I decide to transition. I’ll come out to people after I’ve started hormones and right before it becomes noticeable, which I’ll time to coincide with a top surgery (my mother died young of breast cancer that was diagnosed when she was within a few years of my age, and I’m medically eligible for a full mastectomy). That might be wishful thinking, but at least from here, I think I can be patient about it.
The important indicator imo isn't dysphoria per se, but euphoria. If you for example were to feel fine either way but feel happier being a guy, then that's a good one.
The way I came out was basically figure out how certain I was of it, then tell to my most trusted people, then spread outward.
Edit: you also don't have the obligation to explain it to anyone. Just as nobody is owed to explain to others that they're cis, so too is nobody owed to explain their transhood. It does help to communicate, though, but think about it at your own pace.
Only you yourself can decide for yourself who you are. Experiment, try out, do what helps. Whatever you feel best, be that guy-, gal-, enbyhood or whatever else, it's all valid. Feel free to ask me anything!
Yeah it would have been easy for my parents to think it came on suddenly, hell I had a beard when I came out. I was also heavily involved in trans forums to the point my username was well known to the people there every day, I had been out to my friends for nearly a year, I'd known I wasn't cis for over two years, and I'd been struggling with dysphoria and the desire to be a girl/woman my entire life. It's just that I'd tried to go all in on masculinity in the hopes it would help and it didn't
Tangentially related, but I find it weird how in Chinese written pronouns include gender, but since they sound the same the information is lost in speech
That's actually a modern invention. Originally, 他 (they, sg.) was the only one used, but then someone added 她 for the literal sole purpose of translating western European works -- as in many of those languages there, it's all gendered.
Try to translate this for example:
"He wants a cookie, and she wants a mango."
If translated literally-ish, you'd write: 他有饼干和他有芒果, which yields "They want a cookie, and they want a mango". It's ambiguous.
So if one really wanted that, why (in my view) not do it as: "他有饼干和那女的有芒果"? That meaning, "They want a cookie, and that gal wants a mango." And then later when referring to only the gal in an unambiguous context, just use 他 anyways.
I feel like it'd be funnier if 男 ”man" was incorporated into the original pronoun, then you could have 也 with either 亻(that then yields 他), or with 男 (男也) or with 女 (她). And then you only use the male and female ones if you explicitly want to be so annoyingly gendery.
Then we can use the neutral pronoun for all purposes. Or, y'know, just use the neutral pronoun as originally done. Which still can be done, it's just dated.
Private US corp. Used by various gov'ts around the world, the US included. It's how gov'ts can both "not spy on their citizens" while end up having the ability to do so and use the info - by buying it from a private corpo.
Yeah, kinda. They pay taxes here I guess. Thing is, many morally dubious big tech companies have set up shop here (and also the local government annoyingly kinda sucks up to them), but there are more pressing things and Palantir in particular hasn't become a common topic of conversation here.
Palantir Technologies Inc. is an American publicly traded company that develops data integration and analytics platforms enabling government agencies, militaries, and corporations to combine and analyze data from multiple sources. Its flagship products—Gotham (for intelligence and defense) and Foundry (for commercial and civil use)—connect previously siloed databases to support intelligence operations, counterterrorism analysis, law enforcement, and enterprise analytics.
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
Incorrect. They are both unethical.
Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn't involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.
This wasn't a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That's not "controversial", that's outright unethical.
Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.
The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they're helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Even that's not true.
When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman's identity, when the woman is trans.
It's taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn't unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.
He never said it's true for all female trans people.
He said it's the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.
The only trans women who don't fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls "Homosexual transexuals". He can't even recognise their gender... And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren't straight should be able to transition, he doesn't think that they're women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.
Take a look at this, from his personal blog...
In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as "male" without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)
Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he's not. He's got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That's not good science...
I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does "ethical"
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That's the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don't seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that's not a fair study, it's only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That's what it says in the paper. It's on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers.
The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.
You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
See. That's the point. The way that the data is collected is part of the study.
We don't claim that any data collection method is the one true prefer way to collect. Instead we collect data from multiple sources.
Often times the sources are chosen for the availability.
For instance. Online surveys are much easier to send out than finding individuals in real life if the thing you are researching is stigmatized or there is no register of these people.
Survey polls have many validity concerns. These are well known in psych research. No one takes them at face value.
The limitations and possible influence of survey data is always discussed in the paper.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
I'm a cis woman and being a woman is very much a requirement for my sexual excitement.
Yeah a lot of people find stress to be a blocker for arousal. I imagine gender dysphoria very stressful. My first thought when reading that was how do they account for that?
autogynephilia is literally old debunked pseudoscience. some cis women get aroused from feeling sexy yet no one is questioning their gender based on that.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink.
I mean that's sexuality, isn't it? You don't control what your kinks are. But you phrase it like it isn't so?
That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Hmm... So? Is it different than thinking of being a women? What's the line differentiating them from other trans women?
I mean attraction has a strong link to sexuality but phrasing it as a just a kink seems dubious to make it seem like a mental health problem.
This argument is the one that pisses me off more than anything any adult does (and I’m around 50): I made these mistakes when I was young so I think we need to stop you from making the same mistakes. It’s so patronizing.
I often hear it from conservatives explaining why young people are voting the wrong way. I’ve heard it from the religious when explaining why young people will eventually come (back) to Christianity. I’ve heard it from anti-drug people for why marijuana should be illegal.
We certainly could use studies on this sort of thing, but this statement alone makes me suspicious of your personal views on the subject because people I’ve heard make this sort of statement are always coming from a biased position and they never realize it because it’s so foundational to their opinion on the topic.
What these people say? It's not science. It's bias, wearing a veneer of science, so that people who don't like the idea of trans kids existing can point at something other than their own internal discomfort.
Thank you for the resource. I'm unsure as to why my comment above was removed as I received no notification about it and nobody gave me an explanation. I'll start by saying that my field of research is quite different from social sciences and that I am absolutely not an expert regarding transgender people: I am not one and I only have few friends that are. I have not read the articles from the authors mentioned in this thread, I do not know whether their research is sound or not, @daannii above was saying their research is sound and I take it at face value; but the following stands even if that is not the case.
The review you linked does not appear to address these issues that are being discussed in here. They do find that gender transition tends to be positive and that in most cases people do not regret doing it.
Regrets following gender transition are extremely rare and have become even rarer as both surgical techniques and social support have improved. Pooling data from numerous studies demonstrates a regret rate ranging from .3 percent to 3.8 percent. Regrets are most likely to result from a lack of social support after transition or poor surgical outcomes using older techniques.
However this does not seem to address differences across demographics, such as could be transitioning when minor vs transitioning when adult. It would be interesting to know whether people who transition as child tend to have higher regret rates than adults.
We eliminated studies, for instance, that did not assess the outcomes of gender transition, that investigated minors instead of adults
In fact they specify in the methodology that they specifically did not address research involving minors and they excluded any paper that investigated minors.
Littmans research aims to discover which trans teens will continue being trans and which will flip back to their biological based gender.
This statement from above does make sense to me. I would not see one such research as damaging towards anyone. I don't see how that is bias. In the review you provided is stated that some people, a vast minority, do regret transitioning. I don't see how identifying those people before they do transition would be bad.
It’s not science. It’s bias, wearing a veneer of science
That could very much be, as I said I did not read the articles from the authors above. But the review you refer to does not disprove any of their findings.
Moreover it is an article that I would never myself reference. I am from a different field of study and probably we do systematic reviews in a different way, but if I was one of the peer reviews I'd be asking a major revision. This is not a scientific publication: it is not reviewed by anyone for what I can tell. They do at the very least show the methodology on how they selected the papers, which is nice, but they do not explain at all how they analyzed and reviewed the papers. This would at most classify as a review article and not a systematic review in any authoritative journal. They have no quantitative analysis of the papers, besides number of papers with negative results and only give some qualitative analysis of the aggregate results without justifying how they got to such conclusions. I'm not saying the results are incorrect or that their research is wrong, but there is also no way to verify it is, since they do not provide that fundamental information which would be required in any peer review process. It is nevertheless a good read as a piece of diffusion, to inform people who are not actively working in the field.
Here’s what the science actually says
Given that, this statement feels a bit out of place.
I am unsure on what was your point. It is very possible that the authors of this survey are not doing a good survey or that they are manipulating results, but then you should point that out rather than another (bad) piece of research which does not address the main point of the conversation.
Hormone therapy has long term consequences like permanent sterility.
I don't think a 15 year old can understand what that risk is. I think an 18 still has limited abilities but even at that age, they have much more capability to understand these risks.
We need better tools to help identify and support kids at these times.
They are children. They have limits in their understanding of the world and long term effects and consequences of actions.
Adults should be there to help them, children do need guidance.
If adults didn't decide things for kids, they would eat junk food for every meal, never bathe, play on their tablets 24/7 and any number of other bad behaviors.
I understand that doing research can take a long time and costs money but publishing findings that partially confirm a pre-existing stigma of a vulnerable group of people, witnessing bigots leverage said research to voice oppression against said group, and wanting to do it all again is definitely in the realm of being unethical.
The pursuit of nuanced truth is a luxury that is being warped and tarnished by psychotic bigotry. Performing research for the sake of truth that might get real people harmed or killed is by definition unethical.
It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn't support.
There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S.
Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity.
If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.
Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.
But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).
Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
Or maybe it's to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.
It's trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.
Social research is confusing to people who don't do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.
But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.
They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren't doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn't include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it's not valid.
It's basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.
The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.
Also, it's more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.
Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.
Basically it's that the general public doesn't understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.
It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.
That and companies don't want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it's because people don't understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.
Pharmacology is probably a bad example because of the amount of legal fighting done within the pharmaceutical industry to keep people using (sometimes addicted to) their product as long as possible and to downplay any side-effects. Of course limiting resources to anyone that could oppose their sales is going to be common. So I wouldn't say my point (which is that it is unethical to publish with no regard towards stochastic social harm on controversial topics) is the reason it's difficult to obtain research for that industry specifically but the nature of that industry itself to keep information proprietary.
Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.
Some argue that even the research that's not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.
That's how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.
It's not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.
You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don't actually produce or make anything.
I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.
So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ?
Basically you put two electrodes on someone's scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And in theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.
I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I'll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It's a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.
But.
People have read some studies on this. And think "I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head".
And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.
It's insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don't understand the research and are doing dangerous things.
There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.
It's things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.
At a minimum, someone with really bad judgement, who cares more about making headlines than doing high-quality research, and who shouldn't be trusted to treat the subjects of this study with respect.
Bailey was the Northwestern professor who had a live demo of a reciprocating sex toy, put on by a volunteer and her partner. It was optional to attend the demo, students were over 18 and allegedly informed on what they were going to see.
He's also been repeatedly called out for not properly informing participants in his studies. One accusation of sleeping with one of his research subjects. And toed the ethics line on writing evaluation letters for candidates of sex assignment surgery when he didn't hold a license.
Bailey was the Northwestern professor who had a live demo of a reciprocating sex toy, put on by a volunteer and her partner. It was optional to attend the demo, students were over 18 and allegedly informed on what they were going to see.
How is this a problem?
Do we live in a free society or not?
Can we raise the standard of criticism in a community dedicated to science to scientific integrity & facts rather than throwing mud?
These objections look like the latter & that wikipedia article isn't panning out your claims.
A transgender woman whom he described in the book filed a complaint with Northwestern University alleging that her many discussions with Bailey about his view of trans women and the book he was writing made her a non-consensual subject of IRB-regulated research by Bailey, and that during this time, she had consensual sex with him. Northwestern found no basis for the complaint.
Pretty frivolous, no, to claim a book qualifies as IRB-regulated research & to self-anoint oneself as subject of it?
Worse to present the accusation as credible by filtering out all the relevant information.
More omissions:
Alice Dreger, a bioethicist, published an account of the controversy in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. According to Dreger, the allegations of misconduct could accurately be described as "harassment", and an "anti-Bailey campaign". Dreger wrote that of the four women who complained to Northwestern, two acknowledged that they were aware they would be included in Bailey's book in their letter to the university. The other two were not described in the book. Dreger also reported that while there was no definitive evidence to refute the allegation of sexual misconduct, datestamps on e-mails between Bailey and his ex-wife indicated that he was at her home looking after their two children at the time the misconduct was said to have occurred.
Regarding case evaluation letters
however, the department did not pursue those allegations, as he did not accept remuneration for the services and therefore did not violate the law.
Ironically, those accusations seem to mirror what you're doing:
The book generated considerable controversy. A paper on the controversy was written by Alice Dreger, a bioethicist and historian, known for her support of intersex rights. Dreger included additional details in Galileo's Middle Finger, an analysis of modern clashes between scientists and activists whose beliefs are challenged by them. In her documented account of the Bailey case, she concluded that a small group of self-styled activists tried to bury a politically challenging scientific theory by attacking Bailey: "These critics, rather than restrict themselves to the argument over the ideas, had charged Bailey with a whole host of serious crimes," but that "what they claimed about Bailey simply wasn't true."
Misleading, antagonistic rhetoric of this sort is antithetical to the expectations of a community that purports to support science & is worthy of the strongest contempt.
Not linking to the article doesn't seem accidental.
By attempting to mislead us, you've also wasted our time.
You & your upvoters are an utter disappointment: we should expect a focus on science, not on throwing mud.
The first smell test for any survey is how would they possibly control for the non-response rate?
Putting out a billboard to ask something like "what's kind of makeup should a cracked egg try first" will get a bunch of recommendations and advertisment copy. But it wouldn't tell you much about how many males wearing makeup are trans, enby, drag, or just wearing a costume. And noting at all about how many trans girls even try makeup at all.
"Tell me your responses about how much HRT sucks" would, similarly, get you a dataset that's highly distorted.
Anyone else have any info on this? Was this a survey that already happened? That reddit user may have just been created for this survey a year ago and it's old news.
::: spoiler Post needs to link to source: by lacking accessibility, this image of text sustains a pattern of systemic discriminatory exclusion.
Images of text break much that text alternatives do not.
Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
usability
we can't quote the text without pointless bullshit like retyping it or OCR
Checked Alejandra Caraballo, she is apparently a civil rights attorney and pro-queer. What she says should indeed be correct.
Bailey also is associated with far-right idiots, so yeah. Littman also hasn't studied trans people before and based her study on anecdotal experience rather than actual in-depth research; and she didn't survey the actual trans people either about their experiences, and pathologised it.
Verdict, yeah spread the word among fellow queers to not partake in that study, and don't tell others who might be sympathetic to fascists.
Littman’s the one who went to a terf-parent forum, and polled the people there about whether or not they thought that their kids “becoming” trans was a sudden thing or not, right?
Because obviously rapid onset gender dysphoria makes more sense than people not sharing their experiences with their hateful parents.
Yep, that's correct.
Ironically I myself might fall under the group she allegedly thinks exists. But a critical part she (probably intentionally) misses, is that I didn't "turn" trans because of online communities. People don't "turn" trans, but explore their identities and figure it out, it's a long process. The community merely helped me in figuring out what all my things together were. And that's why the group she invented on the spot, doesn't exist.
Before exposure to more queer stuff, I already knew I didn't like having body hair, and long for having a womb, and so on... but I didn't have a "name" for those together. I only knew I felt meh in my body and didn't really feel 'at home'. When I finally started to figure it out, it gradually 'clicked' and helped me!
To take a parallel. Just because formal English doesn't distinguish "thou" and "you" anymore*, it doesn't mean that English speakers don't understand the concept of multiple people.
* Yeah, I know of 'ye, you lot, tha, yinz, (all) y'all', etc., shuttup shuttup ඞ. Bear with me for a second.
Or like how spoken Hungarian, Chinese, and Estonian do not distinguish gendered pronouns, instead having a neutral one. That doesn't mean those people don't know what a man, woman, or enby is.
And to hit the nail in the coffin even more. If a language like Russian distinguishes 'blue' and 'breen' (blue-green) as standalone colours in their own right, does that mean they can distinguish them and anglophones can't?
No. People are familiar with them. It's just that not all know the word for the concept. Knowing the concept-word helps in understanding, though, and so it's time for a nice xkcd (explanation included for the lazy).
I don't care if I've ranted too much, get a nice cookie here and enjoy. 🍪
guy who's really into greasing his hair and listening to elvis, discovers elvis impersonators and "suddenly" starts wanting to impersonate elvis.
we really have to put a stop to this rampant presleyism, it's harming our children
He ain't nothing but a hound dog!
Is what the Fallout TV show did to The Kings, Trans erasure?
Mild /s
It had some Kings, they'd just become feral ghouls. It was effectively one guy's Elvis fan club, so having any identifiable members decades later would be a surprise.
The fact that they are feral ghouls, and not keeping the peace in freeside is what I was referring to. I'm pissed that Todd Howard seems to be trying to negate every Fallout game that he didn't work on, ya know, the good ones.
The anti trans crowd aren't unequipped to describe what they are seeing. They aren't interested in the journey so they don't look at the map. They don't see the inner journey of doubt, realization, to empowering actualization.
To them a person just decides they are going to be someone new and it becomes taboo to ever reference the person they knew. They are uncurious about what happened to that person and don't know that what looks like a decision is a realization. No one walks them through the nightmare period of endless self doubt and denial. They have no clue about any part of the struggle.
The real heart break is that trans art is amazing at sharing the experience but the anti trans folks are uncurious and siloed in their media consumption so they don't explore anything they don't know.
I’m probably an egg (by which I mean I’m pretty sure I’m trans and would love to take a pill right now to make it so that I had always been a dude, but I don’t know that I’d take one that turned me into a man now, because I don’t know if it’s worth it to explain it to everyone. I also don’t think I’m actually experiencing dysphoria, just aware that I’m probably a man. I think that counts as an egg for some people, trans and closeted for others, and probably cis [lol] for transmedicalists).
If I ever do come out, it’s probably going to seem sudden as fuck to a bunch of people, because I’ve already thought about it for years, so I’ll have everything planned out as efficiently as possible and ready to go the second I decide to transition. I’ll come out to people after I’ve started hormones and right before it becomes noticeable, which I’ll time to coincide with a top surgery (my mother died young of breast cancer that was diagnosed when she was within a few years of my age, and I’m medically eligible for a full mastectomy). That might be wishful thinking, but at least from here, I think I can be patient about it.
The important indicator imo isn't dysphoria per se, but euphoria. If you for example were to feel fine either way but feel happier being a guy, then that's a good one.
The way I came out was basically figure out how certain I was of it, then tell to my most trusted people, then spread outward.
Edit: you also don't have the obligation to explain it to anyone. Just as nobody is owed to explain to others that they're cis, so too is nobody owed to explain their transhood. It does help to communicate, though, but think about it at your own pace.
Only you yourself can decide for yourself who you are. Experiment, try out, do what helps. Whatever you feel best, be that guy-, gal-, enbyhood or whatever else, it's all valid. Feel free to ask me anything!
Yeah it would have been easy for my parents to think it came on suddenly, hell I had a beard when I came out. I was also heavily involved in trans forums to the point my username was well known to the people there every day, I had been out to my friends for nearly a year, I'd known I wasn't cis for over two years, and I'd been struggling with dysphoria and the desire to be a girl/woman my entire life. It's just that I'd tried to go all in on masculinity in the hopes it would help and it didn't
Tangentially related, but I find it weird how in Chinese written pronouns include gender, but since they sound the same the information is lost in speech
That's actually a modern invention. Originally, 他 (they, sg.) was the only one used, but then someone added 她 for the literal sole purpose of translating western European works -- as in many of those languages there, it's all gendered.
Try to translate this for example:
"He wants a cookie, and she wants a mango."
If translated literally-ish, you'd write:
他有饼干和他有芒果, which yields "They want a cookie, and they want a mango". It's ambiguous.
So if one really wanted that, why (in my view) not do it as: "他有饼干和那女的有芒果"? That meaning, "They want a cookie, and that gal wants a mango." And then later when referring to only the gal in an unambiguous context, just use 他 anyways.
I feel like it'd be funnier if 男 ”man" was incorporated into the original pronoun, then you could have 也 with either 亻(that then yields 他), or with 男 (男也) or with 女 (她). And then you only use the male and female ones if you explicitly want to be so annoyingly gendery.
Then we can use the neutral pronoun for all purposes. Or, y'know, just use the neutral pronoun as originally done. Which still can be done, it's just dated.
Thanks for sharing, that was interesting to learn, also yeah they really missed a chance to make a separate 男也 character
Actually, now that I recall, there's actually one.
It's U+323BF, looks like which is similar to 馳. See here for more.
The lower one is also used online.
It doesn't render in the font I'm using, seems to be too far into extended unicode, but that's still cool, thanks
At this point any US org or system gathering information on non-cis people might be feeding into Palantir's systems for repression use.
Is Palantir a US government mass surveillance thing? If so, then congrats to whoever named the thing Palantir...
Private US corp. Used by various gov'ts around the world, the US included. It's how gov'ts can both "not spy on their citizens" while end up having the ability to do so and use the info - by buying it from a private corpo.
Not just US, most governments, even the Swedish police.
Oh wow, just found this really interesting article about the Swiss perspective on the thing. Oh how very Switzerland...
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/war-peace/why-palantir-is-becoming-a-risky-bet-for-switzerland/90666335
It's Peter Theil. Where have you been?
In Switzerland
You're still affected.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/war-peace/why-palantir-is-becoming-a-risky-bet-for-switzerland/90666335
Yeah, kinda. They pay taxes here I guess. Thing is, many morally dubious big tech companies have set up shop here (and also the local government annoyingly kinda sucks up to them), but there are more pressing things and Palantir in particular hasn't become a common topic of conversation here.
TIL the company is very aptly named:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palant%C3%ADr
Yup, they stole from Tolkien's works. Much like Morgoth, they have no creativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
Incorrect. They are both unethical.
Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn't involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.
This wasn't a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That's not "controversial", that's outright unethical.
Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.
The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they're helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.
Even that's not true.
When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman's identity, when the woman is trans.
It's taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn't unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.
He said it's the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.
The only trans women who don't fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls "Homosexual transexuals". He can't even recognise their gender... And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren't straight should be able to transition, he doesn't think that they're women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.
Take a look at this, from his personal blog...
In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as "male" without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)
Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he's not. He's got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That's not good science...
I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does "ethical"
Holy shit that's horrible. Fuck.
I really wish I knew if the study authors were religious.
I have no idea if this is sloppy science with benevolent intentions (everyone makes mistakes) or religious devotion masquerading as science.
I'm leaning to the latter, or generally being an arsebum. You don't invite Nazis at a rally.
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That's the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don't seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that's not a fair study, it's only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That's what it says in the paper. It's on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers. The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.
You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
Wouldn't it be more like if you were doing a study on Latino women and plastic surgery and you asked the women's parents?
Then the study was about their parents.
See. That's the point. The way that the data is collected is part of the study.
We don't claim that any data collection method is the one true prefer way to collect. Instead we collect data from multiple sources.
Often times the sources are chosen for the availability.
For instance. Online surveys are much easier to send out than finding individuals in real life if the thing you are researching is stigmatized or there is no register of these people.
Survey polls have many validity concerns. These are well known in psych research. No one takes them at face value.
The limitations and possible influence of survey data is always discussed in the paper.
Researchers do not ignore this fact.
I'm a cis woman and being a woman is very much a requirement for my sexual excitement.
Yeah a lot of people find stress to be a blocker for arousal. I imagine gender dysphoria very stressful. My first thought when reading that was how do they account for that?
autogynephilia is literally old debunked pseudoscience. some cis women get aroused from feeling sexy yet no one is questioning their gender based on that.
There is no "questioning" . The research is only intended to uncover mechanisms.
The research does not investigate the validity of being trans. None of their line of research does that.
If you see it that way, maybe actually read it instead of believing what other people say about it.
Can you explain more about this?
I mean that's sexuality, isn't it? You don't control what your kinks are. But you phrase it like it isn't so?
Hmm... So? Is it different than thinking of being a women? What's the line differentiating them from other trans women?
I mean attraction has a strong link to sexuality but phrasing it as a just a kink seems dubious to make it seem like a mental health problem.
I'm just trying to understand.
You shouldn't. The person your thanking is promoting bigoted Pseudoscience
This argument is the one that pisses me off more than anything any adult does (and I’m around 50): I made these mistakes when I was young so I think we need to stop you from making the same mistakes. It’s so patronizing.
I often hear it from conservatives explaining why young people are voting the wrong way. I’ve heard it from the religious when explaining why young people will eventually come (back) to Christianity. I’ve heard it from anti-drug people for why marijuana should be illegal.
We certainly could use studies on this sort of thing, but this statement alone makes me suspicious of your personal views on the subject because people I’ve heard make this sort of statement are always coming from a biased position and they never realize it because it’s so foundational to their opinion on the topic.
Here's what the science actually says https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
What these people say? It's not science. It's bias, wearing a veneer of science, so that people who don't like the idea of trans kids existing can point at something other than their own internal discomfort.
Thank you for the resource. I'm unsure as to why my comment above was removed as I received no notification about it and nobody gave me an explanation. I'll start by saying that my field of research is quite different from social sciences and that I am absolutely not an expert regarding transgender people: I am not one and I only have few friends that are. I have not read the articles from the authors mentioned in this thread, I do not know whether their research is sound or not, @daannii above was saying their research is sound and I take it at face value; but the following stands even if that is not the case.
The review you linked does not appear to address these issues that are being discussed in here. They do find that gender transition tends to be positive and that in most cases people do not regret doing it.
However this does not seem to address differences across demographics, such as could be transitioning when minor vs transitioning when adult. It would be interesting to know whether people who transition as child tend to have higher regret rates than adults.
In fact they specify in the methodology that they specifically did not address research involving minors and they excluded any paper that investigated minors.
This statement from above does make sense to me. I would not see one such research as damaging towards anyone. I don't see how that is bias. In the review you provided is stated that some people, a vast minority, do regret transitioning. I don't see how identifying those people before they do transition would be bad.
That could very much be, as I said I did not read the articles from the authors above. But the review you refer to does not disprove any of their findings. Moreover it is an article that I would never myself reference. I am from a different field of study and probably we do systematic reviews in a different way, but if I was one of the peer reviews I'd be asking a major revision. This is not a scientific publication: it is not reviewed by anyone for what I can tell. They do at the very least show the methodology on how they selected the papers, which is nice, but they do not explain at all how they analyzed and reviewed the papers. This would at most classify as a review article and not a systematic review in any authoritative journal. They have no quantitative analysis of the papers, besides number of papers with negative results and only give some qualitative analysis of the aggregate results without justifying how they got to such conclusions. I'm not saying the results are incorrect or that their research is wrong, but there is also no way to verify it is, since they do not provide that fundamental information which would be required in any peer review process. It is nevertheless a good read as a piece of diffusion, to inform people who are not actively working in the field.
Given that, this statement feels a bit out of place.
I am unsure on what was your point. It is very possible that the authors of this survey are not doing a good survey or that they are manipulating results, but then you should point that out rather than another (bad) piece of research which does not address the main point of the conversation.
Hormone therapy has long term consequences like permanent sterility.
I don't think a 15 year old can understand what that risk is. I think an 18 still has limited abilities but even at that age, they have much more capability to understand these risks.
We need better tools to help identify and support kids at these times.
They are children. They have limits in their understanding of the world and long term effects and consequences of actions.
Adults should be there to help them, children do need guidance.
If adults didn't decide things for kids, they would eat junk food for every meal, never bathe, play on their tablets 24/7 and any number of other bad behaviors.
"only" a kink is such a degenerate way of attacking something that is almost exclusively sexual to begin with.. don't care. Next
I understand that doing research can take a long time and costs money but publishing findings that partially confirm a pre-existing stigma of a vulnerable group of people, witnessing bigots leverage said research to voice oppression against said group, and wanting to do it all again is definitely in the realm of being unethical.
The pursuit of nuanced truth is a luxury that is being warped and tarnished by psychotic bigotry. Performing research for the sake of truth that might get real people harmed or killed is by definition unethical.
I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.
These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.
I think your first point contradicts your second.
I'm sure most people would consider it to be unethical if a study is published while knowing it is not truthful.
It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn't support.
There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S. Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity. If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.
Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.
But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).
Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
Or maybe it's to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.
It's trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.
Social research is confusing to people who don't do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.
But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.
They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren't doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn't include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it's not valid.
It's basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.
The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.
Also, it's more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.
Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.
Basically it's that the general public doesn't understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.
It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.
That and companies don't want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it's because people don't understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.
Pharmacology is probably a bad example because of the amount of legal fighting done within the pharmaceutical industry to keep people using (sometimes addicted to) their product as long as possible and to downplay any side-effects. Of course limiting resources to anyone that could oppose their sales is going to be common. So I wouldn't say my point (which is that it is unethical to publish with no regard towards stochastic social harm on controversial topics) is the reason it's difficult to obtain research for that industry specifically but the nature of that industry itself to keep information proprietary.
Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.
Some argue that even the research that's not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.
That's how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.
It's not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.
You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don't actually produce or make anything.
I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.
So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ? Basically you put two electrodes on someone's scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And in theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.
I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I'll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It's a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.
But. People have read some studies on this. And think "I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head".
And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.
It's insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don't understand the research and are doing dangerous things.
There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.
It's things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.
Eat shit, get your pseudo-scientific nonsense out of here
^ This comment? Yeah, sure.
At a minimum, someone with really bad judgement, who cares more about making headlines than doing high-quality research, and who shouldn't be trusted to treat the subjects of this study with respect.
Bailey was the Northwestern professor who had a live demo of a reciprocating sex toy, put on by a volunteer and her partner. It was optional to attend the demo, students were over 18 and allegedly informed on what they were going to see.
He's also been repeatedly called out for not properly informing participants in his studies. One accusation of sleeping with one of his research subjects. And toed the ethics line on writing evaluation letters for candidates of sex assignment surgery when he didn't hold a license.
His wikipedia article links to sources.
How is this a problem? Do we live in a free society or not?
Can we raise the standard of criticism in a community dedicated to science to scientific integrity & facts rather than throwing mud? These objections look like the latter & that wikipedia article isn't panning out your claims.
Pretty frivolous, no, to claim a book qualifies as IRB-regulated research & to self-anoint oneself as subject of it? Worse to present the accusation as credible by filtering out all the relevant information. More omissions:
Regarding case evaluation letters
Ironically, those accusations seem to mirror what you're doing:
Misleading, antagonistic rhetoric of this sort is antithetical to the expectations of a community that purports to support science & is worthy of the strongest contempt. Not linking to the article doesn't seem accidental. By attempting to mislead us, you've also wasted our time. You & your upvoters are an utter disappointment: we should expect a focus on science, not on throwing mud.
Conveniently ignoring when I gave my opinion. "Cancelling" is just free speech about white dudes. No need to white knight for him.
The first smell test for any survey is how would they possibly control for the non-response rate?
Putting out a billboard to ask something like "what's kind of makeup should a cracked egg try first" will get a bunch of recommendations and advertisment copy. But it wouldn't tell you much about how many males wearing makeup are trans, enby, drag, or just wearing a costume. And noting at all about how many trans girls even try makeup at all.
"Tell me your responses about how much HRT sucks" would, similarly, get you a dataset that's highly distorted.
There are no dates on this post or sources. I can't find that this survey exists. I confirmed Bailey is still a professor at Northwestern University.
https://psychology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/core/profiles/michael-bailey.html
The reddit profile for the user listed has nothing.
https://www.reddit.com/user/AYAGDOS/comments/
Anyone else have any info on this? Was this a survey that already happened? That reddit user may have just been created for this survey a year ago and it's old news.
because it's rage bait
::: spoiler Post needs to link to source: by lacking accessibility, this image of text sustains a pattern of systemic discriminatory exclusion. Images of text break much that text alternatives do not. Losses due to image of text lacking alternative such as link:
Contrary to age & humble appearance, text is an advanced technology that provides all these capabilities absent from images. :::
Yeah confirmed by the fact they call it “gender dysphoria” .
Wait, I read about dysphoria 10 times a day on the fedi, how is it a TERF dog whistle?