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.
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/