TW-IP Scale
Science! Very sciencey science!
You just divide the Transgender Women’s Importance of Pronouns Scale by the Narcissism of Transgender Women’s Timewasting Scale and BOOM, there’s your total rock-solid non-falsifiable proof that Transgender Women’s Luxury Pronouns matter more than anything else in the entire universe. That’s SCIENCE.
Theology.
This is the equivalent of a treatise on the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
I wonder how they control for the Placebo Effect?
So the thing the surveys measure is how …affirmed? the trans women feel by the use of gendered pronouns, and from that they determine trans women are varying degrees of …affirmed by their use. And they find – with strong reliability – that trans women like having ‘their’ pronouns used.
Wow, case closed.
I’ve always thought that this figure would depend on the angels’ shoe size and footwear. Slippers vs. boots.
I’m going to take a leap here and suggest that lead author “Jae” may be have constructed a trans name to replace a deadname. This is stricly a hunch.
Is a “scale” more or less authoratative than a “chart?”* What about a “graph?” If someone’s going to be throwing these things around, I want to know the precise pecking order of bullshit, like figuring out which fake “Bible College” is the most prestigious when dealing with creationists. Not all fake “degrees” are created equal.
*Sometimes a “chart” is nothing but an “infographic” wearing a lab coat and using big words.
Now look here, they measured the importance of social gender affirmation. They measured it, I tell you. Using instruments. That’s science. So shut up shut up shut up.
Did the Templeton Foundation back this?
Hahaha, my former doctoral advisor would call papers like this “hairballs”. She had little tolerance for bullshit, a quality I also appreciate in you, Ophelia.
You mean my habit of bursting into flames of rage at pretentious bullshit? Why thank you.
TWIP? Really? They called it TWIP? Unironically? Among many definitions, it has a slang meaning of “annoying pest”.
Don’t know about whether the name Jae Sevelius is a replacement, but she is a they/them.
https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/profile/jae-m-sevelius-phd
I wonder if she discovered her “theyness” on her own, or whether this determination was facilitated with the assistance of someone else? How does she know she’s not a “she” or “he?” These might appear to be flippant questions, or intrusions into personal matters that are nbody’s business. But that is not the case. The ability to detect and catagorize gender identity is the very foundation of her professional position. If she can’t explain her own case, how can claim to make the exact same determinations for others?
What the hell is a “gender expansive individual?”
Given that she is treating “Women’s Mental Health,” does she acknowledge the conflicts between women’s rights and trans “rights,” and the needs of LGB individuals and their neccesary protection from the demands of the T and the Q? What is her stance on “transing the gay away,” as well as the inherent homophobia and misogyny of gender ideology and rhetoric? How does “they” reconcile these incomensurate conditions?
Do AGP males who get aroused at the thought of being women really share the same condition as traumatized, dysphoric, comorbid young women who desperately want to become men in order to escape the shitty gender role into which society is forcing them? How can they both be under the same “trans umbrella?”
I wonder if her “expertise” allows her to distinguish those people who would desist if they underwent “watchful waiting” (TRANSlation: “Conversion Therapy”). I would think and hope that the ability to do this would be extremly important, as one doesn’t want to expend limited, valuable resources and effort treating people in no need of any treatment at all. You want to be able to rule out the effects of social contagion too. If you’re cutting someone who doesn’t need surgery, that is bad medical practice. What are her techniques to remove those who don’t need gender affirming care from the medicalization stream?
In a related question, what is her take on detransitioners? Were they never trans to start with and mis-diagnosed, or did something change after the start of “gender affirming treatment?” If the determination of the appropriate and best course of action for a given patient is so dependent upon self-report of otherwise inaccessible internal states, what is the exact role of clinicians like Dr, Sevelius? What does she tell her patients about what is possible? Does she ever tell them, or even suggest, that they can do the impossible and change their sex? What happens and who is responsible when things go wrong? Does the signing of a consent form or waiver allow all those “care” givers to wash their hands of all blame? “It’s not our fault, you told us you felt like a man/woman!” What about detransitioners?
On the “gender expansive” side of the equation, can she tell trangender, from gender fluid, from nonbinary people? How does one do that? How can these varied (one might even say contradictory) states coexist within our one material reality? Can she tell us whether gender identity is fixed or not? Can she tell if it’s innate and present at birth, or acquired? It would seem that giving a clear answer to any of these yes/no, either/or questions would leave one of the trans/fluid/enby triad out in the cold. If all of these states can be accommodated within "gender theory" then there's some creative book-keeping being done.
Are there any markers of gender identity that don't boil down to simple attraction to or rejection of traditional, patriarchal, stereotyped sex-roles? If there are, what are they? I've never heard of any. Having such standards and markers would very useful. If there are any such indicators, then those clinicians responsible for treating patients who later detransition must be using them incorrectly or not at all. One would think that correcting this would be a priority amongst gender care specialists, similar in importance to solving the problem of tissue rejection in the field of organ transplants. The answer for the latter is careful screening to ensure tissue compatability between donor and recipient. In the case of "gender identity" the answer should also be careful screening.
The experiences of detransitioners should be guideposts towards finding the path of best practice, not ignored and hushed up as the talking points of bigoted, ideolical enemies. Ideally, aircraft manufacturers, and their regulatory agencies, use the information from flight data recorders to determine exactly why airplanes crash, making changes to design, construction, aircrew training, maintenance, and operation to make flying safer, and prevent the same problem from leading to loss of life more than once. Well, detransitioners are the crashed aircraft of "gender affirming care." Their experiences within the gender medicine industry should be read as carefully as black boxes. But detransitioners are also people who have been injured by the system, which in itself is bad enough. But once these erstwhile patients become an inconvenient embarassment to gender "medicine," they are shunned, cast aside and left to their own devices.
Sad news: the authors didn’t place first in the science fair. They lost out to the baking soda and vinegar volcano.
Hahahahahahahahahaha