The conservative movement has built its case against gender-affirming care on the authority of anachronistic, faulty clinical research.
The conservative movement has built its case against gender-affirming care on the authority of anachronistic, faulty clinical research.
Saying that we need to look into the “biological root” of transgender identity is like saying "we need to look into the biological root of regressives.
The problem is that such statements are political because they pathologies something that is human diversity.
We should also say, and look at the evidence of other cultures who have had trans people. Like native Americans, who treated us with respect. in those societies there were lower suicide rates.
Even among children, when socially supported the suicide rate goes down with social support.
What you’re conflating is the suicide/depression associated with being treated differently to your identity.
Even if it were human diversity there would be a biological root to it. That’s different from a political view. Regressives aren’t born regressive, they become regressives through their particular life experiences. Just like progressives aren’t born progressives.
If the psychological effects of dysphoria were a simply a matter of acceptance then I posit that with acceptance the need to transition would dissipate entirely.
“regressives aren’t born regressive” how do you know? How would we test? How would we evaluate that?
You’ve basically decided, a priori that this is the case.
Just as you’ve decided a priori that being trans is a case of something wrong with people, that can and should be investigated with the view of eliminating it.
Im not sure why you wouldn’t see that as wrong.
I did not decide anything just because, I don’t know if you can see all my replies here but in all of them I have substantiated my claims with logical reasoning where scientific evidence is not available due to a distinct lack of research in that direction.
I also posted one study that suggests some basis to my argument https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030966/
I’m of saying there’s something to fix, but there’s something that can be treated. Are we fixing adhd people when we give them adderal or are we helping them live a better life? They can choose not to medicate, or to take different avenues of medication like sound therapy etc. Why is it outrageous to suggest that some transgender individuals might have a neurological issue that could be treated with either transition or whatever medical treatment that might come from such a line of inquiry?
“I have substantiated my claims with logical reasoning”
You have not. You also haven’t addressed my a priori claim for yourself. if you don’t do that, you have no business here or reading science without understanding what that means.
“I’m of saying there’s something to be fixed, but something that can be treated”
Fixed = treated. As in your example of ADHD.
Neurological issue means there’s something wrong. And it is pathologising, which is the way we talk about diseases.
Honestly, I think you know all of this and are here to sea lion.
No one is born with any ideology, because ideologies are passed on socially. I’m open to the idea that there might be a predisposition to accepting conservative or regressive policy based on some neurological factors, why not? I’ve seen some studies thrown around to suggest that. But to claim that anyone can be born with any ideology does not pass any common sense, logical or empirical test. If that were the case people would be unable to change their stances, but people change ideology many times in their lives. Sometimes subtly other times in big ways. Depending what life throws at them.
Happy? Does that make me qualified to discuss this in good faith with you?
But you know what yes, you are right in one thing I am saying that there’s something that maybe could be fixed. It’s up to the individual to accept the fix if one were to exist. I’m not suggesting that this is a settle thing, but rather something that we should look into. I could be completely wrong, but we don’t know that because no one will fund this line of inquiry.
And I do not necessarily think that it applies to all cases of gender dysphoria either. Some might have purely social causes, other might be caused by a mix of genetics and social (as the case with intersex persons).
My problem is that this is seen as some kind of heresy and the door is absolutely barred to even exploring the notion of a pathological cause to some cases of gender dysphoria. At a logical level I understand the defensiveness, but it’s just not intellectually honest.
No, as a matter of fact it’s not up to the individual. As children can’t consent to medical treatment. It’s up to the experts, generally to decide. Which they have. It’s also the reason why it’s not being researched. But you’d know that if you knew the research.
Since you don’t understand what a priori reasoning is you are extremely unqualified.
At least idiots like bailey have an education even if they are extremely wrong.
I know what a priori means and I think I sufficiently established that I in fact made my statement regarding regressives with a posteriori reasoning. But that’s neither here nor there, because all you are doing is deflecting and moving goalposts to discredit me.
Here’s the damning thing for you. First of all your arguments are empty appeals to authority, not once have you provided any proof that discredits the argument that there might be a neurological cause to some instances of transgender identity or that it is not a valid line of inquiry, while I have with links to a study that suggests there is validity to it and I could produce one or two more if you wanted them. You have not even directed me to a source that could prove me wrong, all you’ve said is “the experts decided this already and they are right for all of eternity and the matter will not be investigated any more” despite the fact that this line of inquiry has not been in fact seriously undertaken and therefore has not been proven or disproven. All because you’re afraid. It’s ridiculous and transparently dishonest to anyone and you know it but admitting it would mean breaking ranks with the movement because you are all terrified of what could happen if there indeed was a neurological difference in transgender individuals. Which is understandable but not rational, and in fact impedes the development and improvement of treatments.
There is no damning thing for me because you still haven’t addressed your a priori reasoning for why that would be wrong.
You say I’m afraid, which is hilarious. Of course there are brain differences. There are brain differences in everything. Like being left handed or having epilepsy, or men vs women.
What you haven’t addressed is why treating it like epilepsy is morally better than treating the cause like left handedness.
Especially when doing so would necessitate it being done many years prior to the person having any agency to make a choice on treatment.
Do me a favour and look up the stigma of being associated with left handedness over the centuries and how the attitude has changed. All because of a difference that should never have mattered because it was natural.
Now go back and read this conversation as though we were talking about men vs women.
(Oh and love the straw man argument, really it makes you look just great /s)
I wonder if anyone thought the same way about the Jews in the past? Or black people? Maybe I could look at history and figure that out?
Oh wait. (Hint: this is why the experts think what we’re doing is the morally best solution)
https://madrascourier.com/insight/how-colonialists-used-phrenology-a-pseudoscience-to-justify-racism-slavery/