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’m not asking questions I’m making statements, very clear ones. And I reject the notion that anything is settled, if that were the case we should just stop all research about everything. What ridiculous anti scientific notion is that?Nothing is settled because science is ever evolving, especially so when social sciences are involved, because they are inherently inaccurate.
The available science at any moment is based on the lines of inquiry that are being investigated and very few people have investigated in the line I suggest because:
But for what it’s worth the scant research there is does suggests that there may be basis to my theory
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34030966/
Again why not follow the line of inquiry and if it isn’t it isn’t. Why the opposition to investigating anything at all?
This, this right here.
Immediately going absurdist maximalism about it, very “I’m just making statements” sort of statement.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do research, I’m saying that our research should be oriented towards improving the quality of life, not “figuring out why queer people are that way”.
The three questions I want answered are: what is to be done about the primary stressors that degrade trans people’s lives (I.E., transphobia), what causes hormone therapy to be such an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, and can we map the phase-space of endocrine system responses to better assist those (cis or trans) who have a need for hormone therapy?
Identifying something is the first step in exterminating it, lets’ maybe not go looking for the trans equivalent of the gay gene that conspiratorial conservatives still believe to be real and instead go looking for ways to help people not be assholes to us.
The opposition is because you’re treating us as a condition to be fixed instead of who we are. You’re essentially saying, or it at least is coming off as such, that “you’re wrong, I know who you are better than you. It doesn’t matter what historically has worked to make life better for you, and it doesn’t matter what your lived experience is, I know better than you. If we can just numb the part that makes you different, I won’t have to look at people like you anymore. Wouldn’t you rather my cure?”
Pretending like people are a condition to be fixed is why you get pushback. Some people are trans, and some experience gender dysphoria. Making dysphoria less painful in some hypothetical future sense doesn’t make us not who we are. Trans men are men. Trans women are women. Telling them they’re wrong because it makes you uncomfortable isn’t going to be popular with anyone who knows or supports any trans person.
Every single thing you said there is your twisted interpretation of what I have said because I’ve never said anything to such effect and in fact have at various times doubled down on the fact that I agree that the treatments w heave now are the best and therefore they should continue. But we should strive to know more and to find more, it’s what science does, it’s what humans do.
I’m opposed to the idea that we know all there is to know about it and that we should not inquire further because it makes you uncomfortable that we might discover that you simply have a brain thats wired differently. Do you think that will change a lot other than opening the door to other courses of treatment? I know why it would make you uncomfortable but frankly the sheer opposition to the simple notion of investigating it makes you look as completely disingenuous when you cite science to back up any of your claims. I already said before that the ideal scenario is that all options are presented to the person and they choose the one that’s best for them if such an alternative treatment were possible.
And you keep making baseless assumptions about me, putting words in my mouth and attacking me when I have not once personally attacked you. With that I have no need for further evidence that you in fact do not have proof to conclusively disprove what I’m suggesting, meanwhile I have provided proof that what I’m saying has some basis to it.
And frankly I want to get pushback when I make any claim, because I’m always open to changing my mind when provided with evidence. But all people have offered is mental gymnastics to avoid acknowledging that there might be an actual condition underlying. Like imagine if ADHD people made a fuss about people not researching the roots of what ails them? This is how his sounds to me.
Again if it were simple human variance, there would be a biological mechanism to accommodate for it and it would not cause severe psychological distress. Even with social acceptance transitioning is necessary in most cases, so there’s clearly something not right with how the brain and the body are wired. Someone else posted an article citing that humans sexuality can be a spectrum in the sense that some people who absolutely look like the phenotype representative of one of the sexes might still have genetic characteristics of the opposite sex, and I readily accept that as an almost obvious fact. But if that’s the case, why do some among us face some kind of distress for not exhibiting the characteristics of a particular sex while others have no obvious mental distress walking around having chromosomes that suggest dual sexuality? Why are there androgynous people that exhibit absolutely no disphoria?
Like I’ve read intersex people describe their gender dysphoria and to me it sounds different from the gender dysphoria suffered by non intersex transgender individuals . Because for the latter it’s more based on not being the gender they’ve been treated as or were assigned at birth while the former is about not identifying with the body they have. That to me suggests that there might be different roots of dysphoria and that one of them in particular might be neurological. But how do we prove or disprove something if we do not research it?
Buddy, I’m not attacking you. I’m explaining. That’s why you’re getting pushback. Take from that what you want, but that’s how you’re coming across in my view.