I'm not stating about issues of social justice activists. You can empirically find and detect these subjects. In the particular case I was talking about was the subject of economics and that subject is far from a social justice course for the most part ( you get some professors). the issue is that the quality of the outputs of these subjects is incredibly poor and the results of study too often correlate with the preconceived ideology of the people partaking in them. It means we are outputting research and graduates that is simply not up to scratch and this is detrimental to society. While the social justice issues fit into that I believe it is a wider issue that simply has been taken advantage of by poisonous ideologies such as Marxism rather than an issue of social justice. The lack of rigour leads to vulnerability to such issues as ideological perversion but that isn't the only problem. If you watched the feynman extract, it was on audio so I thought that would be better, it'd be clear I wasnt talking about social justice. as far as social justice ideology itself goes I measure it's prevalence by firstly enumerating the subjects, in the US more frequently and the UK also, such as sociology, identity group based studies, and to varyious other subjects with dubious output. The issue is that these subjects are outputting people in their hundreds of thousands in the angiosperm (seriously mobile auto correct I'm leaving that there because it is funny way to auto correct anglosphere) over the years. Secondly if you look to the success of such ideas that align with such ideology gaining traction in firstly the culture (you only need look at positive discrimination and the cult of diversity for this) and within government and large corporations. I've probably forgot to mention many other ways such things manifest, many of them trivial but ubiquitous and the issue with authoritarianism is that one of its worst aspects is the concern with the trivia of peoples behavior. Authoritarianism, especially Marxist authoritarianism, is such that the minutest infarction against the ideology cannot be tolerated when such people are in positions of power. Just as a further aside what is amazing is how closely Marxist regimes mimic theological regimes in this regard, in fact they are often worse. I would find it more worrying that on a day you visit that there is social,justice bs going on. The reality is that social justice warriors, as they are called, are just the activist arm of the ideologies. The real problem is with the output of the subjects themselves. When the 60s intellectuals educated the 60s activists those activists eventually stopped being activists they became lecturers and professionals in the institutions with power and they educated another generation and so on. What was effectively the long March through the institutions has been incredibly successful.
Gender and sexual orientation are tricky concepts. They are not as binary as people think, and not as closely related to each other as people think either. There are many different physical, neurological, psychological and sociocultural factors involved in gender and sexual identity, and they don't necessarily align neatly into a coherent whole. Of course each discipline tends to see it through its own specialist lens and oversimplify matters, which doesn't help.
The problem is with the IS/Ought question; that oftentimes goes so far as to deny biological, evolutionary psychological reality and environmental reality in order to fit what they believe ought to be. I'd also say that it is not through their specialist lens like the difference between proximate causality for issues and ultimate causality but there are fields outside stem that create their view through an ideological lens but give it a veneer of a specialist lens. Mental health treatment is tricky not to say the least and I think things are gotten wrong even in non politicised areas.
Why is someone else's view on their own gender even a concern for you? Like, who cares what these people say or do?
I guess that in the case mentioned the issue was whether the mother was imposing her view on what the child's gender was on the child (actually parents do that all the time; it is just that usually this view aligns with the child's physical gender and it is not considered an issue --even though occasionally, it is for the child. Like I said: tricky). My rule of thumb is that people are the gender they feel they are.
It's a societal concern when the treatment may be detrimental to those people. Moreover it is an issue when it come to such things as the whole pronoun debacle and the enforced acceptance of such a thing as reality along with various lobby efforts to codify in law the special treatment of such people. I have literally zero problem with tolerating it but tolerance is not the same as agreeing or accepting something. The problem comes when there is an ideological belief structure around it that finds any attempt for people to expect its grounding in reality as a form of pernicious bigotry. Moreover in the sense of treatment I don't want a society that indulges the delusions of people who are mentally ill by giving them irreversible and unsatisfactory treatments that don't actually succeed in lowering the comorbid mental health issues that occur around people with the issue. Moreover to that I once simply accepted transexuality and "gender fluid" and the treatments as something grounded in reality rather than a persons mental health issue but it wasn't through understanding of it but just that it was what it meant to be tolerant etc and that was the zeitgeist. The problem with this is that it is just going with the flow and that way lies terrible mistakes and don't forget horrible mistakes have occurred in the past such as lobotomies and even to this day improper overmedicating and lack of therapy for depression for two examples. First do no harm Most importantly however was the case I cited was of a child for christs sake and when organisations like social services start to do irreversible social harm in a child's early development by accepting the mothers pathological delusions never mind the trend towards blocking puberty in children and towards various other treatment in people not even considered fully responsible for their own actions then I say no, and I am not going to accept something as the case just because the current social order says it should be so. So no: This guy doesn't get it. It's a lot more complicated than that. My rule of thumb is not to treat everything a person says at face value. What about those people who consider themselves so gender neutral they want to become "nullo" and remove their external genitalia. So not man or woman, but that's body dysmorphia. Again if you accept someones view of reality based on simply their feelings then you are asking for a post truth society, it looks to me like acting upon an article of faith. All in all What I am saying is I am not convinced, the burden of proof for this phenomena is not on me. Previously I just took it as an article of faith and it would be much more convenient to me to have continued with that however I'd rather say honestly why I am not convinced
Perhaps read the post to which you are replying before opening the floodgates of verbiage. The case you cited was of somebody else sticking their beak into the child's gender, forcing them to be something they did not see themselves as nor want to be. Shadow, there, wrote, and I quote, 'why is someone else's view on their own gender even a concern for you?' Completely different thing, and indeed if people had listened to the child's own view on his gender then the whole thing would never have happened. Let's say I identify as a woman for the purposes of this thread. Now, please go ahead and explain to me why me - a person you have never met and probably never will meet - identifying as a gender which is not matched by what you'll find in my boxers is a problem for you. Show your working.
The thing is it doesn't impact society does it? Just the people themselves. We live in a society that indulges the delusions of the religious. Again it doesn't matter. It is when these people start affecting others that it becomes a societal problem. Quite frankly someone taking hormones and shoving a pair of fake boobs into themselves is not a societal problem. What is going to do them best in the long run, accommodating how they view themselves, or some sort of treatment to disrupt that innate view and make them believe they are a man? As Nexxo said, someone properly qualified could have recognised the problem with that child's situation. Do we blame Marxists or do we blame a system without the proper support mechanisms and people in place?
I am not saying that you identifying as a women is a problem. What I am saying is that I am not convinced that what you believe is the case, moreover I am not convinced that society should indulge such a thing if it is a delusion through various forms of treatment that are irreversible and don't improve outcome. The problem is when we accept this as reality that everyone else has to accept. I don't have a problem with such a thing like I don't have a problem with a local guy who literally identifies as a pirate (seriously). I already explained that tolerance is different from acceptance. More from this I have an issue with those issues I raised not this effective strawman that is being built against me. And the point of the original article was not just that the mother was forcing a gender on her child but that in the judgement it was found that the culture of social services was to take this largely rare phenomenon of transexuality on the face of the claim in a very pathological way. The point was is that such a situation that is part of an important institutions de facto policy is a result of narrow ideology rather than the application of good education and training based on fact. The problem is that it is a societal problem if you treat a disorder the wrong way simply because of socially constructionist ideology moreover it is not the case that treating these people actually helps with the problems they are dealing with. It's a social problem when the same rates of comorbid mental illness occur before and after. There is plenty of pathological self harm caused by fervent religiosity and that is something that we regard as treating in the best way possible and not in such a way that we'd indulge their delusions. We have a name for people wanting to chop bits off themselves in other regards, people who want to amputate parts of themselves, it's called body dysmorphic disorder. It's a denial of responsibility to aid people in their own self harm. More is the case that we tolerate religious delusions not that we indulge them ( or at least that we shouldn't). As I am trying to make clear anyone with a bit of critical reasoning for something that is so unbelievably uncommon as believing that your desired sex doesn't fit your real sex would have seen so. In this case it was a situation of the qualifications they were granted (nearly all social workers have HE qualifications at degree or equivalent level) qualified them to accept something on an article of faith. And the whole point of that link was to illustrate how poorly interrogated fields are leading to bad research, bad policy and poor professionals.
Replace 'woman' with 'gay' in this sentence. Read it back to yourself. EDIT: Ooh, figures! You say the treatments (like GRS/GCS) "don't improve outcome;" our survey says, EHH-UHH. Here's a great piece which delves into the research, showing surgical regret to be below four percent and access to GCS reducing suicide risk in trans people by a factor of three to six. I'd say those are some pretty big improvements, wouldn't you? DOUBLE EDIT: To put that less-than-four-percent regret figure into contrast, this study found 7.4 percent of men who had a vasectomy came to regret it. Society shouldn't accept vasectomies! Down with the snip!
It maybe the hardest of the social sciences but as the majority of social science is considered soft science isn't it a bit disingenuous to label all science as intellectual dishonest. A perfect example of why the social sciences are considered soft science, personally i consider the social sciences closer to philosophy than science but that's just my personal opinion and I'm not the one making the rules.
the same can be said in femextremist articles : http://www.factsoverfeelings.org/bl...veryday-feminism-post-and-heres-what-happened
Being gay is not the same thing as being a transsexual and near every gay person I know doesn't want to be included with this. The only people I see who do are "LGBT" activists and celebrities for the most part. Sexuality is who you do/don't f***. Sex is the biological gender of a human being. Entirely But while we are at it try replacing white man/male with Jew/jews and white privilege/patriarchy with the Jewish conspiracy in race baiting huff po/guardian articles and many of such articles read like mein kampf. At least that is a real comparison. Vasectomies are reversable to a decent degree, sex changes are not. The Chips are down and when your in that situation you better double down or jump off the table Oh I'm gonna sound like a dick here, I shouldn't and I'm at fault for this i should just be dispassionate, but what you posted was just too good to be true. (may contain typo mistakes don't have all day) Seriously huffington post, the breitbart of the left First paragraph what a doozy. People with no pshyc or med training are innept at commenting on why transexuality not the case but when you go into her (I know she used to be a he, but I'll say she as long as it's voluntary but never ze) bio: Got to say that is some f**king impressive CV before 2010 as in before becoming a proffessional activist (not the transition). But just one tiny issue: people without psych and med shouldn't have an opinion to the contrary to the proposition but someone without those qualifications can comment for the proposition. Well I never. Oooh specter, it must be a g...g..ghost. Then creating an of everyone against the proposition is akin to climate deniers and creationist which is basically a more sophisticated version of godwins law. Then trying to imply that everyone who is against the proposition is an anti gay bigot, nice Study Firstly all studies will say if other findings have been achieved in other research, it's also good arse covering. Secondly a study stating that it is not intended to arguing against transition is because research is supposed to a dispassionate look at the facts of what IS, NOT an argument for what ought to be. The fact that it states those things does not invalidate its findings which were: speaks for itself Except it is measuring pre and post treatment suicide, crime etc issues not reported dysphoria and QUALY. Except is looking between individuals before and after but at suicide etc not self reporting. Ofcourse people might report they feel better now they got what they asked for otherwise you'd be admitting in black and white that you have made a life altering mistake ^Dis : what outcomes? be more specific. Welp here's the link to the study: https://www.skane.se/Upload/Webbplatser/USIL/Dokument/Sjukhusbibliotek/Johansson, Annika.pdf 404 not found Since there is no study to back that evidence I can't comment on the rest of that para. bad referencing Better off how? Let's start with Murad et. al (2010), which is a meta analysis of other studies about using hormanal interventions with SRS: well this is a red flag: And this: Oh and it is probably better to have feminising/masc hormones after undergoing feminising/masc SRS. and again the lack of proper controls in the studies reviewed will cause issues here. People will likely have different outcomes between individual treatments such as hormone only, therapy, nothing etc. Adding one treatment that may be harmful in isolation i.e SRS or HT may improve or worsen issues in combination. The next study is about Quality of life of individuals with and without facial feminization surgery. Ainsworth and speigel (2011) In the very narrow field of FFS the study finds a self reported increase in in QUALY. Again this surgery is very expensive and a permanent change of course people will report higher in self reporting. it's be a catastrophic mutilation if you didn't like it and who wants to admit that? It's like asking men about their d**k size but after penoplasty. Better off how? Oh and nothing about "decreasing minority stress." The author just threw that in the article as her own hypothesis but implied it was attributed to the studies.Better off how?and neither study states that daily functioning in life is no different from the gen pop.dishonest Neither of the claims to lack of difference from the general population in post SRS and FFS are supported by the conclusion only that there is no difference between GRS, FFS or both. She basically spends the rest of this making excuses for why the study failed to come to any conclusive evidence. a few highlights Assumes it's ethical to do medical interventions not proven to improve outcomes. And there is no link to the study. The only study I can find by cecillia dhejne with full results is below. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/ Now on research gate1 there is a list of studies that cite such things as web based surveys for regret rates but again is self reporting and the problem is that every study into measurable effects not prone to human biases when being honest about themselves and their decisions such as actual suicides etc shows worsening or no difference from before. On number 3 this has come up sufficiently throughout. it relies entirely on self reporting after a serious life changing alteration. The reality is just to live day to day after doing such a thing to yourself and realising you had no benefit from it, that it did not solve your problems, would cause such insummountable pain to admit to yourself never mind write out. Of course people will over report satisfaction. On number 4 comparing well with gastric bypass requires the assumption that a largely invisible surgery not linked to ones personal identity is comparable in terms of data collection. Number 5 is just entirely an entirely normative argument. Conclusion The only studies that have their results published that were quoted find no difference or worse outcomes in all non self reported negative outcomes such as suicide, criminality, clinically diagnosed psychiatric problems etc. What is in wide contrast to those findings is the self reporting findings which find low regret rates, QUALY and reduced feelings off dysmorphia. The disparity in negative outcomes from sources that are none self reported with relatively positive outcomes from self reported surveys seem in contradiction. However given the propensity for people to lie, even heavily and especially to themselves should throw some serious doubt on the latter evidence in negating the former. With regards to the article and the publication. Firstly the publications Huff po is basically the breitbart of the left (I nearly wrote that the opposite way round, I'm so used to saying it to trumpers) and is horrendously unreliable in relation to reality much like its counter part on the right. Secondly the article makes her case look far more solid than it actually is from the studies cited throughout the article by contradicting what should be considered more reliable evidence of negative outcomes, that don't rely on people, with evidence that is self reported. Moreover all the claims to what is represented as possibly the former stronger type of evidence are all conveniently missing links, or full results or are claimed to exist buried in a website citing 70 or so studies. Moreover language was used in the article in such a way that claim that what is clearly the authors personal hypotheses, such as "transgender people suffer less minority stress," as somehow supported by the studies cited. EDIt [Oh I left out the citing of a study stating it is not arguing for or against transition treatments merely reporting the facts as some kind of contradiction to the conclusion of the study when in fact that is what studies are supposed to avoid doing first and foremost: Arguing for Ought from what IS.] The problem is that the author is an activist in relation to this issue and activists have a habit of finding evidence they like when countering another's. But over all the source you linked actually does no such thing as prove the proposition that sex confirming treatments resolve the negative mental issues of people with sexual dysmorphic issues.
If I gave the impression of labeling hard subjects such as STEM fields as riven with intellectually dishonest I don't mean to. What I mean is in the Social science side of things and I mean more often than not people are fooling themselves that what they are doing is as meritorious by objective standards as the sciences and many believe they are a lot closer than they actually are. In nearly all situations that is not an opinion but an objective reality. Also another issue comes into play here which is philosophy done right is supposed to expose one to many different but possibly valid points of view many of which are dangerous. Whereas in many social sciences the idea is to confirm ones own very dangerous beliefs and propagate them to the world not as the mere possibilities they are but as fact given by experts in a form of science.
That rather presumes that gender dysphoria is a delusion, which it cannot be as a delusion is a belief held in the face of proof to the contrary, and gender dysphoria concerns an intrapersonal experience which cannot be proved or disproved. People with gender dysphoria do not deny that their body has a certain gender; they just don't feel it matches the gender they feel they are. (As an aside, delusion is a poorly defined psychiatric concept for all sorts of reasons I won't go into now.) I am saying that it is not possible to meaningfully dispute a person's intrapersonal experience. If someone says that they feel a certain gender, how can you confidently say that they don't? We can't read minds; we can never really know for sure how someone feels (advances in fMRI notwithstanding). You can point at their body gender but that just proves their body's gender --and even then, not always reliably. Consider androgen insensitivity syndrome: XY chromosome set, but the body appears female (excepting a lack of womb and ovaries) and the person experiences themselves as female. There are also examples of hermaphrodites, with male and female genitalia and a genetic XX/XY mosaic to match. So how do we tell what gender that person actually is? By their body's sexual characteristics? By their chromosomes? By their brain anatomy? By their subjective experience of themselves? Where does gender happen? So it's not quite that simple. Who says that this is not a valid experience of gender? A problem is of course that they are trying to make sense of their experience within a cultural and language framework that is bi-gendered, and does not have a concept for what they experience, so it's going to seem strange and contrived from that perspective. The Indigenous Māhū of Hawaii however have a neutral gender, defined as an intermediate state between man and woman, so they'd have a cultural framework for their experience right there. You don't really love your wife. I'm sure that you feel you do, but it isn't true. Philosophy is the cornerstone of science for a reason. Consider again how we tell the difference between experience, 'reality' and 'truth'. Subjective experiences cannot be objectively proved. You can't prove your love. Yet I'm sure it is important to you. You can't prove your sexual orientation. Yet I'm sure you would not want one imposed upon you that doesn't fit with how you feel. You can't prove your gender (only that of your body and your chromosome set). Yet I'm sure you wouldn't accept anyone else telling you what gender you are. People, eh? A whole virtual reality inside their heads, as meaningful and real to them as the reality our senses tell us lies outside our head. But that external reality is experienced inside our heads, so how do we really know what is on the outside? If a tree falls in a forest, but there's no one there to hear it, did it really make a sound? Like I said, tricky. Again, how someone feels per definition cannot be a delusion. It is a subjective experience that cannot be proved or disproved. I won't go into wall-of-text about research on gender realignment now; I've just come back from a long day at work. But you (and the author you quote) make a huge bunch of assumptions that vastly oversimplify the gender reassignment experience: - Gender reassignment is not a perfect fix. It comes with complications and shortfalls that, if a patient is not properly prepared, may come as an anticlimactic disappointment. - Gender reassigned people may find that they are still not accepted in society as 'real' men or women; they may still feel discriminated against, treated as freaks and 'other' (and indeed they are). - Hence fragile patients who projected idealised fantasies on this surgery may react catastrophically. That does not mean however, that if they had not undergone this surgery, they would not have ended up in the same grave sooner or later. - A control group of non-gender dysphoric people is not a valid control group. The alternative to gender realignment surgery is not to be a 'normal' person instead. Normal people do not share the same history and experience of living with gender dysphoria and all that this entails. The alternative is to be a gender dysphoric person who did not have gender realignment surgery. - And such a control group cannot be gender dysphorics who declined surgery (if so, they are not really a control group). They cannot be gender dysphorics still waiting to go under the knife (and thus still holding hopes that were dashed in the others). The only proper control group would be gender dysphorics who were denied realignment surgery since that is the alternative to receiving it. And how did they react to that? Like I said, tricky. As an aside: Gastric bypass surgery is an apt comparison, as it is in fact hugely linked to body and personal identity and very visible --the point is to lose a lot of weight after all (Unfortunately the skin often doesn't shrink to suit). And it is also a surgery often given to psychologically fragile patients who, if not properly briefed and supported, can project all sorts of idealised fantasies on it to find that the reality is very different.
Because often times when it goes against their core identity (meaning: biological sex) it is not their own view but an imposition. These days they target children from an early age with these ideas thus shaping their minds into taking on an identity – that goes against their core identity – something that they would never otherwise have done had they been left alone. This is a problem. If you in your teenage years identify yourself as what ever and that goes against your core identity and you do so without having been assaulted and tampered with on such a psychological level as these children have than that's cool, nature has taken its course. What we see is ideology driven degeneracy where they use these very few people as pawns in what is basically a war on nature and society itself, they parade them like circus monkeys, they put them on TV, they give them awards, a man with bits and pieces removed and sewed back on becomes the "woman" of the year etc.
theshadow2001 was not commenting on the case of a mother imposing a gender on her child. But you are again making the mistake of regarding core identity as something that is an objective, static fact rather than an intrapersonal and changing experience. Thought experiment: - are you the same person you were when you were a five-year old boy? - if you suddenly found out that your parents weren't your parents (you were adopted, they never told you), would that change your experience of who you are? - Turns out your biological father was a serial killer. Your mother the heroin prostitute he raped. Does that affect your sense of identity? - if we transplanted your brain into, say, an Asian female body, would you still be a white Russian middle-aged man? Identity is complex, and constantly subject to change. I'm not even sure there is such a thing as 'core' identity.
The context of core identity was that of a biological construct , namely your sex. That is not an intrapersonal and changing experience. Your biological construct (male or female) will be married to your sexual identity (male or female) that is the normal state. However, sometimes there's a glitch in the system. But that's nature. Not an example of humans targeting children from an early age with the intent of shaping their minds into taking on a sexual identity – that goes against their core identity – which they would never otherwise have done had they been left alone, which was what I brought up in my previous post. One glitch is that men can be born with a female brain and a female can be born with a male brain. A software glitch if you will. It may be complex but not complex enough since someone apparently figured out that by targeting children early on in their development it was possible to shape their minds to have them go against what they inherently would go for, namely identify sexually with their biological sex had they been left alone. In this case we're not talking about nature but of foul play. Edit. I will be gone over the Christmas holiday and New Years with my family so I won't be able to post back for a while.
I would guess that's where the confusion comes from as someones core identity is not the same thing as their biological makeup.
