I hate feminazis

Post Reply New Topic

The person who posted those links in the other thread (link to the original comment containing the studies here) is more knowledgeable than I am on that particular subject and on the contents of the studies, so I will have to defer to her expertise in regards to the neurology of transgenderism.

The evidence suggests that some are made that way and that others are influenced by their environment. The difference is immaterial except to those with a pro- or anti-trans agenda. Until there's strong scientific consensus on the subject, you should try to ignore the propaganda.

Hypothetically, if it turns out that only a small percentage of transgender cases are the result of biological causes and the majority are psychological, your position is one which would do more harm than good. In the medical world, that same standard applies even if only a small percentage of cases are proven to be environmental.

Ok, what evidence is there that trans people are influenced by their environment and that it's a voluntary choice? A similar argument was made for homosexuality and this has been scientifically debunked. Transsexuals do not respond to psychiatric treatment nor psychotherapy which led to the speculation of brain differences. You challenge the scientific evidence because you oppose acceptance of transsexuals and believe they should be treated differently than the rest of us even in situations where their differences are irrelevant. Duly noted.

And your link to the peer-reviewed Definitive Causes of Homosexuality is where exactly? Either you're being very selective about where you source your information, or you're just as aware as I am that we're far from understanding the origin of homosexuality.



Even if it were universally true (which it isn't), it doesn't prove a universal biological cause.



I'm challenging unsupported statements made by you. My responses are entirely in line with science. One does not start with a hypothesis then set out to prove it.



Hardly. Your unsupported inference merely betrays your own bias. My belief is that there are a variety of biological and environmental causes of transgenderism. This has no bearing on my acceptance of transgender individuals. Unlike yourself, my only agenda is knowledge and understanding.

The behaviour you're exhibiting here is not dissimilar to the behaviour of those self-same "Feminazis" who inspired the OP. In future, when someone is skeptical of your position, I firmly suggest you refrain from insinuating that they are being intolerant or "unaccepting". You'll find that most reasonable people view such behaviour as de facto bigotry.

First of all, what you *believe* about the causes of transgenderism is totally immaterial. What matters is what is supported by scientific testing and empirical evidence. Can you show me some cases where transgendered people reverting successfully to being cis-gendered. You know about the case of David Reimer? Where a cis-gendered male was conditioned to be trans and it f****d him up so badly that he committed suicide. These kids of social experiments have been carried out on trans people trying to correct them and more than 1 instance has led to the same tragic result. You might say that's not enough to conclusively prove anything and it isn't, but it IS enough to make the case that attempts by outside parties to coercively alter someones gender identity have highly destructive emotional consequences and in the interest of protecting people, this must NOT be allowed to happen.





No, they are NOT. You're challenging statements based on nothing and accusing me of having bias. You fail to present any evidence that gender identity disorders are psychological. You made a claim that they can be non-biological but you my friend, have yet to give a citation that counter the claims I and others have made to which we provided peer reviewed scientific articles which you obviously didn't bother to read.

From the abstract of one of those articles: There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation..

Science is where you make observations, form a hypothesis, then set out to prove that hypothesis by testing it experimentally. If hypothesis makes predictions that contradict empirical data then you assume the null hypothesis.

This is what we call a bait-and-switch. Before I address the rest of your post, let me first deal with this debating faux pas.

The statement that you're referring to is in direct response to a claim you made regarding my position on transgenderism. You claimed knowledge of my position, I corrected you. Now you're pretending that I was either making a scientific claim, or making the statement in support of one. On the contrary, my belief is no more than an untested hypothesis, gleaned from personal experience and data consumption.

As for whether it's "immaterial". You've clearly taken a political position rather than a scientific one during the course of this discussion. As such, it's entirely relevant what I (and indeed any detractor) believes as your position requires that people agree with you.



You're moving the goalposts now. Your claim was that "Transsexuals do not respond to psychiatric treatment nor psychotherapy". A "reversion" or "cure" is a redundant concept at present, precisely because of our lack of understanding of the root causes of transgenderism. Psychiatric treatment of a poorly understood condition will always be something of a crapshoot, which is why the overwhelming majority of psych treatment of transgender individuals is supportive rather than curative.



Again, this is entirely reliant on how much our understanding of transgenderism improves. You're making an interesting emotional appeal, but continuing your bait-and-switch by moving the subject even further away from anything I've said.



I'm struggling to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but it's becoming increasingly difficult. I cannot possibly believe that you are not aware that transgenderism was universally considered to be a pyschiatric disorder until relatively recently. The reclassification of gender dysphoria on the DSM is based on a whole host of studies that are largely inconclusive and often contradictory. This is perfectly normal when tackling an area of scientific enquiry which is relatively unknown (e.g. the human brain). Gender dysphoria is diagnosed via discourse with the patient, not via tissue extraction. If you think it's impossible that some cases of transgenderism are the result of environment then you're likely guilty of cognitive bias.

For example:



From the same abstract: "However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality."

What we have here is a further hypothesis, not evidence. We also have what appears to be an example of focalism. N.B. one would not expect to find evidence of postnatal influences in a study that is not aimed at testing the hypothetical existence of such. Instead, what the study contains is a unspecified sample size of INAH3 volume data that is useful for demonstrating that at least some cases of gender dysphoria may be hormonal in origin.



Incorrect. The objective is to either disprove or fail to disprove your hypothesis. There is no such thing as scientific proof.

I'm interested in possible alterior motives that might underly the aggressive promotion of trans that's taking place in the west right now. For example, It's worth thinking about the position that someone is in when they are forced to rely on constant, expensive hormonal treatments for their entire lives. It makes them beholden to the quid pro quo demanded by their supplier. We might like to speculate as to why government, or pharmaceutical companies might like to have a lot of people in that position.

Then, there is the obvious malthusian utility of trans as a type of non procreative sexuality.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 04 Jan 2016, 2:09 am, edited 2 times in total.

Alright, here's the deal:

You asked for citations of peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the claim that transgenderism has a biological basis. You were presented with the evidence and you argue it's insufficient. I asked you repeatedly for evidence(such as studies using statistical methodology)and citations of cases where transgenderism has been determined to be psychological and now you're accusing me of moving goal posts, baiting and switching, and being biased. A pers

Now please clarify what you mean by environmental cause: Are you talking about social conditioning/suggestibility or chemical agents in the physical environment that affect the brain? I do not claim that it's impossible for gender dysphoria to have psychological causes, but I am ASKING you yet again to present me some citations that show evidence in favor of this claim and in particular, some valid data that shows why psychological explanations for transgenderism should not be ruled out.

Personally, I think it's political, since gay rights are so rapidly fading as a wedge issue and people needed some new form of cultural signaling. Considering the extremely small number of trans people out there (IIRC it's about 1 in 50,000), it certainly seems to be attracting a disproportionate amount of attention.

-- commercial and moral-corruption motives--
and as with all flag-wars, the goals are corrupted by the means and agent provocateurs

a simple and sensible example, instead of helping getting rid of gender roles and stereotypes, the trans-situation is reinforcing the gender-bias, by promoting medical adaptation to a problem of perception.

all around the world there's enormous amounts of funding in bio-technology, that's real and detrimental to other sciences,
and in the same time decent basic healthcare is zoned-out around the develloped world

but there's 50 years of effect-technology and the masses hunger for more

This isn't a negotiation. If it were, I'd insist on intellectual honesty from every participant in a PPR discussion as a mandatory requirement to retain continued posting rights in a thread. Rather, the deal is that you post your opinions and I respond in kind. If either of us happens to provide useful food for thought for the other party, that's a happy bonus.



Actually no, I asked for a citation linking to a new study with conclusive evidence that atypical neurobiology is the universal cause of transgenderism. I'm still waiting for it.



I was presented with a list of dated articles, most of which contain information I am already familiar with. I specifically asked if you were privy to a study I'd missed precisely because I am aware that no such data exists.



You have failed to provide a link to the requested citation. Now you're asking me for a study to specifically demonstrate that transgenderism is psychological, which is not my claim.



Any and all environmental causes. For example, there is evidence of the effects of pesticides on a variety of species of animals, whilst more recently there have been (yet more small sample) studies which demonstrate a possible link between exposure to phthalate esters and reduced masculine behaviour in boys.

Another study of note is Psychosexual Outcome of Gender-Dysphoric Children, the findings of which suggest that children with gender dysphoria are more likely to become adults without (rather than with) gender dysphoria.



Why are you repeatedly asking for a citation to support a claim I have not made? The current consensus is that a great deal of further research is required before we're even close to understanding the causes or influences that lead to gender dysphoria.



And the political influences are muddying the waters. There's far too much crosstalk. The sad reality is that understanding gender dysphoria is an incredibly low priority for the scientific community, so the majority of research tends to be done by those with a vested interest in a specific outcome (not unlike the search for a "gay gene" vs the search for a "sexuality gene"). Politicking is just one of many reasons that people like Ken Zucker are vilified for voicing an alternative perspective.

To me, it seems that the majority of discussion of this subject is undertaken by those whose primary motivation is political in nature rather than by those who have a legitimate desire to understand and provide support to people with gender dysphoria - though the same can be said about a multitude of conditions and disorders, including (obvious example) autism.



This too. One can only imagine how much progress in the field of bio-technology is directly attributable to data and funding obtained via the sale of hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria.

I do not doubt that environmental chemical agents may very well be responsible for gender dysphoria. There was a study(citation coming) recently about estrogen mimicking compounds and reduces masculinity in boys and men. But what does interest me is if there is an increasing incidence of gender identity disorders due to organic(read carbon based) pollutants in the environment and this may very well be the reason it is becoming a more contentious political issue. Wilburforce did try to argue that interesex individuals are more common than I think without presenting any evidence.


But the only political motive that I will admit is this: No one should have their gender identity assigned to them by outside parties and it must NEVER be imposed on them by coercion!

Another thing I want to say is that academic institutions should not allow unrestricted free speech in terms of public speakers on campus. Scientific symposiums do not allow proven crackpots and advocates of pseudoscience to speak at scientific symposiums because this lowers the standard of scientific proof and opens the door to BS artists. Democratizing knowledge is detrimental to academic rigor and objectivity. Reality is not a consensus, nor is it a democracy.

Rigor and scrutiny is science's democracy.

The word democracy don't just mean voting or a governmental system. Democracising education refers to access mostly. Democratic design refers to making it useful to to a broad range of people.

What you are saying is you should be able to teach opinion as truth, but that applies to everyone.

Actually nature doesn't really think 'this is female' /'this is male' there are male characteristics and female characteristics, genderless characteristics that can be part of a body. Yes we can have an overall physical gender, however sometimes there is not just one.

I don't really think it matters how people identify so long they don't harm anyone. What science should be is politicied. The question of what causes sexuality is politicised. The science says both nature and nurture, usually with a primary sexually. However becuase of political polarisation it has to to one or the other. The question of if it is a choice or not, is not a moral question.

In science you still have to be able to challenge ideas, this even includes established laws. It is rare thing where a scientific law is questioned effectively, but you should be able to attempt it.

Ah, the rise of equalitarianism. How noble, and how coincidental it comes at a time of increased intensity in the matter of civil rights and social criticism.

The Nazis believed in the inherent superiority of a given people, and the inherent inferiority of others. They sought the expansion of the presence/number of the superior, and the eradication of the inferior.

So, a feminazi would be someone - presumably female - who believed in the inherent superiority of women and the inherent inferiority of men, and sought the expansion of the presence/number of women and the eradication of men.

Met many of those, have you?

Although there are few admitted supremacists and segregationist, some who have use language indicative of it have been linked to popular moments.

The broadly based safe space concept is an example of segregation and censorship through the back door, even if they don't see it that way.

People in this movement have taken control of public spaces, threatened university journalists and denied first amendment rights and freedom of movement to some people who they take exception to.

The civil right movement fought hard to break out of oppressive social policy such as segregation. So it is ironic just this year some university ethic minority groups were fighting in favour of segregation through safe spaces. The whole concept of safe spaces was born out of feminist movements, along with trigger warnings both of which have limited clinical merit in the long term treatment of psychological/psychiatric disorders.

So in a way some of these feminist groups do have something in common with fascist movement like white separatist or Lious Farrakhan's separatist ideas.

In the 1980s a group of partially separatist direct action feminist group infuriated the Greater London Council in order to set social policy, and were quite successful at it. I have until now viewed this as just merely historical oddity.

it started largely as a response to sexual violence and sexaulisation of depictions of women, which is a legitimate enough cause, but evolved into something altogether different.

Former members spoken on commune life. They reported to having pressure then to assume a sexuality they didn't necessarily fit in bonding sessions and pressure was put on them to separate from their families. Even a former leader said she regrets the time away from her children, however insists is was necessary for the cause at the time.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 07 Jan 2016, 8:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Also the groups who are responsible for the concept of safe spaces and trigger warning have appropriated (to use a term they use) other civil right movement under the guise of unity of oppression, in order to bolster their ideas.

You could argue that this degrades the cause's independence outside of their interests, which make it hard to see the problems as independent of women issues or without that context being a defining factor. An example being using ethic minority women issues to bolster the idea of women oppression, which implies wrongly that being both a woman and a ethic minority produces a worse outcome, when figures can show that ethic minority men may have it even worse.

It is less that they don't care about ethic minority men, they do care, it is they they are so blinded by they cause they think that there is a simplistic way of adding up groups they view as discriminated against, which not how thing work in the real word.

The also see the oppressed and the oppressors ans mutually exclusive groups. They have decided who the privileged are. The fact that it includes lots of under educated poor people who are far from privileged, doesn't seem to phase them. The fact that they are white and male (their words), means they are part of the patriarchy, which a lazy catch all conspiracy in modern secular nations.

So you could say they are attempting to not just ride the wake of other moments, but active influence them, such influencing the need for safe spaces in ethic minority protest at universities.

A movement that is sadly forgetful of history. This is not what Nora Parks or Martin Luther King Jr. fought for these "safe spaces". They fought to be treated and seen as everyone else. They didn't want special treatment.