Tag: Trans ideology

  • All in favor

    Oh yes, it’s all about the waves.

    https://twitter.com/jonronson/status/1236683155341553665

    Meaning, presumably, that “second wave” feminists (you know, the old stupid out of date washed up wrong boring ones) are all opposed to trans rights.

    But what “rights” are we talking about?

    It matters, because the gender critical feminists I know are not opposed to trans rights, meaning, the human rights that all people have. What we’re opposed to is the new version of “rights” that includes a mythical right to have one’s personal self-definitions, no matter how counter-factual, accepted and endorsed and “validated” by the rest of the world, with no exceptions and no limitations.

    But we don’t see that as being opposed to trans rights, because we don’t see that as a genuine right at all, but more like an abusers’ charter.

    But Ronson, embarrassingly, just tosses the undefined “trans rights” label out there and announces that we are not in favor of them. I would expect him to be able to think more carefully than that.

  • Rebranding and its discontents

    Rebranding: the conversation.

    But they weren’t excluding people. There’s no need to name every subset of women in order to avoid excluding some particular subset. It can be a good thing to underline that all subsets are welcome, especially subsets that really do face oppression and neglect. (Which implies that I don’t think women who identify as men really do face oppression and neglect. That’s fair. I think the whole idea of being trans is a pretty elite phenomenon, and I also think not being constantly “centered” by everyone else doesn’t qualify as oppression and neglect.) It can be a good thing, but underlining that all are welcome does not require erasing the set.

    Suppose you have a group that supports workers. You can underline that that means all workers, of all races, sexes, nationalities, immigration statuses, and so on – but what you don’t do is drop the word “workers.” You especially don’t do that to soothe the feelings of rich college kids who “identify as” workers.

  • We decided to take out the word “women”

    Oh has it indeed.

    https://twitter.com/WNTTgra/status/1214954318975164427

    What could be more “inclusive” than removing women from everything?

    From the (sorry) Daily Mail article:

    A gynaecological health charity has taken the step to remove ‘women’ from its brand name in a bid to be more inclusive of transgender men and non-binary people and  ‘create an awareness of barriers for others’.

    Because it’s women, you see. Women are not allowed to create awareness of barriers for women: that would be selfish and unwomanly, because women are required to put others first at all times.

    Cysters in Birmingham has chosen to ‘cultivate a community that is supportive’ by changing its registered name from ‘Cysters – Women’s Support and Awareness Group’ to ‘Cysters’. 

    Nice name; it sounds like an oozing infection.

    The non-profit organisation, which was created by its founder Neelam Heera in 2015 to help tackle issues around reproductive help, hopes the move will allow people with different gender identities feel more included.

    While women feel less included. Cool.

    Founder Neelam Heera explained that the charity aimed to strip away the barriers that trans and non-binary people were left facing when it came to being able to access support for chronic reproductive illnesses. 

    As opposed to the barriers women face.

    Heera performed the usual Twitter ritual, telling “transphobes” to shut up and take it.

    An anonymous non-binary person welcomed the change after struggling with a diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis since they were 23. 

    The 25-year-old said: ‘Ever since I got diagnosed with PCOS and Endo, I have searched for a space that is not branded with the colour pink, solely about fertility, and labelled both diseases as a ‘womans issue’.

    I hate the whole women=pink thing myself, but I also don’t recall seeing much of it in medical settings. Is it really so obtrusive that it necessitates restructuring everything to omit women?

    ‘Trans men and non-binary people already struggle in silence with so many issues, our reproductive health should not be another door shut to us.

    But the door isn’t shut. Not being mentioned by a chosen label is not the same thing as a closed door.

    ‘Cysters was the first place that I saw a post that used the words ‘anyone who gets a period’. It meant the world to me to have the same information presented in a more gender neutral way.

    ‘It was so welcoming, and I finally felt included in a conversation about my own health and my own pain, without feeling dysphoric, or like I was reading information for someone else.

    “Finally, some recognition for my precious narcissism.”

    However not everyone was supportive of the move and BBC journalist Cath Leng tweeted: ‘You’ve erased women here.’

    Women should do their own self-erasing, yeah?

  • Guest post: Read the methods first

    Originally a comment by Claire on Researchers found.

    I can’t access the paper because it’s behind a paywall and I’m not at work. The appendix has the methods and detailed description of how they collected the data and that’s all I really care about. I always read the methods first. If I think the methods are garbage then the paper is garbage and I can devote my valuable time to something else.

    PNAS is a good journal and I’m a little shocked that the paper was published. Statistically, this paper is flawed in many ways. Firstly, none of the methods adjusted for confounders. Confounders are elements that you have not accounted for in a study that may be coincidentally correlated with the trait of interest.

    Here, they report that an overwhelming majority of parents identified as “liberal”. This is a problem in a study like this. I’m sure you can all see it already, parental attitudes to the trans movement are highly correlated with their overall political stances. Conservative parents are much more likely to disapprove of any expression of difference in gender presentation and sexual orientation, even at a young age. So you have already introduced selection bias right from the beginning. It’s right there in the data, you can see it.

    Next confounder: locations of recruitment. This is a problem in all studies, including the sort of work I do. But I adjust for it! Cities are more liberal than rural areas as well as being more populous (easier to recruit in big cities vs small communities) and San Francisco is very different to Oklahoma City, politically speaking.

    There are others, but I think I’ve made my point.

    The methods themselves are terrible for these kinds of problems. Tests like t-tests, chi-sqs and even the more complex tests like ANOVA are not capable of adjusting for confounders (ANCOVA would work, but they didn’t use it).

    There are other problems with the statistics too; some of the tests are inappropriate because of the “small cell” problem, they can’t report odds ratios or betas because they didn’t do the right tests. But I don’t want to get into the weeds here.

    Finally, they don’t seem to have the faintest idea of how hypothesis testing works. They state their null hypothesis (H0) and their alternate hypothesis (HA) as two separate hypotheses (1a and 1b and so on). This indicates a lack of understanding of what they are doing. They list several hypothese in this paper (not counting the whole weird H0/HA presentation) and this hurts them.

    Statistical power is the probability you will correctly reject the null hypothesis, i.e. the alternate hypothesis really is true. But every time you add another test, you have to adjust for it, which reduces the power. Here they claim good power but do not present their power calculations.

    I’ve only outlined a few of the most pressing issues with it; there are more but I don’t want to bore you all. This is almost certainly a terrible paper, based on the methods description. I tried to be as open and unbiased as I could, reading it as if I were a reviewer of a paper in my own field. If I had reviewed this paper, I would have been very concerned about the standard of statistical expertise in this study and probably written to the editor to ask it be improved before I was even willing to do the review.

  • Behaviour like this is not acceptable

    The Telegraph has more on the “women=adult human females” crime wave in Oxford:

    Some of the stickers, which have been dotted around the city centre, state: “Woman: noun. Adult human female” and “Women don’t have penises”.

    Thames Valley Police has announced that those responsible could be charged with a public order offence and has appealed for witnesses.

    It said: “Officers are investigating a large number of offensive stickers that have been placed across Oxford city centre containing transphobic comments.”

    Who says they’re “transphobic”? How does Thames Valley Police know they’re “transphobic”? How can it be “transphobic” to state a humdrum fact or definition? Why does Thames Valley Police even call them “offensive”? What if women find it “offensive” to be forced by the police to pretend that men can be women?

    PC Rebecca Nightingale, the investigating officer, added: “Behaviour like this is not acceptable and we take incidents of this nature very seriously.”

    But it is “acceptable.” “Incidents” of what nature? Why do they take it “very seriously”?

    Do they really not have anything more pressing to take seriously? Do they really have time and resources to try to bully feminist women out of saying that men are not women? Does the entire state system of law enforcement really mean to make it illegal to tell the difference between women and men? REALLY?

    The Telegraph provides a mug shot:

    The stickers feature graphic images 

    Michael Biggs, Associate Professor in Sociology at the University of Oxford, suggested that the police had overreacted.

    “This is literally the Oxford English definition of what a woman is,” he said.

    “I can’t believe that needs any stance at all. To say that a dictionary definition is a terrible hate crime is extraordinary. The police is being incredibly irresponsible.”

    Or more like incredibly repressive and tyrannical. It really can’t be the business of the police to force us all to pretend that men can be women.

    Thames Valley Police did not reveal the content of the stickers when it issued a statement appealing for witnesses.

    It reportedly said that the content and appearance of the stickers was “not suitable for sharing.”

    Which is hilarious, in a way, as I mentioned the first time I fumed about this. “Report these stickers that we can’t tell you what are!”

    Latest figures suggest there were more than 1,000 violent and sexual offence crimes in Oxford in the 12 months to August, an increase of almost 20 per cent on the previous year.

    Other crimes including anti-social behaviour, theft and criminal damage had also risen.

    The maximum sentence for threatening behaviour, the most common public order offence, is six months plus a fine.

    Even if you think it’s mean and hateful to say that men are not women, and even if you think it’s all the more mean and hateful to put up stickers saying so, it still seems like an enormous leap to call it a crime that the police need to take Very Seriously.

  • More like an addiction than an orientation or identity

    Oof. An eye-opening thread that makes sense of a lot that seems baffling. Author is Lara Adams-Miller @LaraAdamsMille1.

    Something you should realize about autogynephiles: They can’t stop. AGP functions more like an addiction than an orientation or identity. “Letting out the woman within” is both a high and a release. Time passes, and, without a fresh fix, they become hostile & self-destructive.

    It seems like they’re putting it on a bit when they talk about how being denied their trans identity will “literally kill” them. It makes more sense, though, if you realize that they very well may believe that. If you’ve experienced addiction, you know that feeling.

    Oh. Jeez. I never thought of that. It would explain many things I keep wondering about, in fury and frustration.

    I haven’t experienced addiction myself but by god I have in people near me. I’ve experienced that difference, separation, frustration – why are you like this, why can’t you stop, why can’t you stop even though in other ways you’re so high quality.

    I think that trans people who aren’t AGP also experience it as an addiction in some ways. You’ll hear people talk a lot about “gender euphoria.” A euphoric experience is the cornerstone of addiction. Problematically, kids are told “gender euphoria” just means they’re truly trans.

    The power of addiction lies in dissociation. It’s not just about the direct pleasure offered by the behavior or substance. It’s about what you’re NOT feeling while you engage in that behavior or use that substance.

    Transgenderism is elaborate, intense dissociation.

    Understanding it as an addiction also gives insight into the escalating nature of the phenomenon. Men who crossdress start out doing it occasionally as a masturbatory exercise. Over time, the bliss wanes, and the AGP begins to chase the dragon.

    This is where they will begin wearing women’s items under male clothing, going out “dressed” in public, buying more and more clothing/prosthetics, involving their previously unaware gf/wife in their crossdressing, getting with mtf sex workers, and/or altering their bodies.

    One way gender ideology is broken is that it takes what should be a moment of clarity and turning point — an AGP realizing he isn’t in control of his compulsions — and reframes it as a healthy personal revelation: “I don’t have a problem. I’m actually a woman.”

    Interesting. The reframing is one of my major objections too, but it takes a slightly different form – the reframing of a personal fantasy/game of let’s pretend/idea about the self as a political issue, when personal fantasy ought to be the least political item you could come up with. It’s different but similar and probably related.

    There are extensive psychiatric comorbidities among this population because addictions, even non-substance-use ones, are regularly part of a mentally ill person’s coping strategies.

    A lot of trans people are dissociating from painful psychiatric symptoms.

    When you challenge a trans person’s identity – by, say, using the “wrong” pronoun – they experience intense discomfort. This may manifest as rage, anxiety/panic, or depression.

    You just gave a shot of Narcan to a person high on opioids. You interrupted their dissociation.

    This is why, for so many people, transgenderism never settles into a stable identity. “Gender is fluid” because a dissociation loses its power when it’s no longer new. So a trans woman may become non-binary. They may be a “lesbian,” then pansexual. The shifting is necessary.

    This population has a high incidence of substance use and dissociative hobbies, such as those which involve role-playing, video games, cosplaying. They engage in these compulsively and rely on them for support the same way they rely on “gender euphoria.”

    Ohhh. Again – I’ve wondered about that endlessly – the similarity to cosplay, and the weird childishness of all of it. Addiction and compulsion would explain a lot.

    Some trans people will do awful things if their “fix” is threatened. Most just become unhappy. This just depends on their personal boundaries and ethics. Being trans doesn’t make someone dangerous, but an already violent person will commit violence if their gender fix is blocked.

    Being trans may not make someone dangerous, but I do wonder if the violent rhetoric of so many “activists” can nudge people in that direction. I’m not confident that all those posters of axes and baseball bats are completely inert.

    Dissociation is the source of the “high” for the AGP. He’d achieve that perfect bliss in embodying any role that was deeply *not him.* This is why sexism is an absolute prerequisite for AGP. He sees women as another species, not just people who happen to be female.

    He would get no pleasure from dressing as women if he had substantial empathy for them. Crossdressing wouldn’t take him away from himself if he didn’t believe that women thought & felt completely different than men do. He must “other” women in order to reach that non-self place.

    Ohhh. Damn. That makes so much sense.

    The high is from being not-self, which equals, for them, being female – not a “trans woman,” not biologically male, not a “man who became a woman.” Accuracy = potency of euphoria. So each tiny language and situational cue is policed. Any reminder of reality can cause a collapse.

    To access that gender euphoria, everyone they interact with has to speak and behave as though they’re women. Otherwise, these men are stuck with crossdressing at home or in CD/kink groups. And that really limits how much they can up their dosage, and how often they can dose.

    Being misgendered once can ruin an entire evening, which AGPs will plan for weeks & spend hours grooming for. For this reason, even after they come out to their spouses, they’ll often wait a long time before CDing in front of her. They need to be sure she’ll stay in character.

    No sexual orientation is fragile in this way. Tell me that I’m straight, and I don’t suddenly feel less gay.

    Offensive speech doesn’t even work the way they say it does. What other group, even heavily marginalized, has such an intricate script that must be read by all?

    This is because we aren’t functioning as human beings living and letting live. We are animated props for the role-play scenario that lets these people access a specific mental state. We’re set pieces, and the whole world becomes their drug.

    And if you speak or act wrong (according to gender culture rules), you have now become the thing standing in between an addict and their fix.

    And THAT is what you must understand if you want to understand how dangerous gender-critical activism is, and why.

    A final note: The collective chasing of the dragon is the reason for the progressive erosion of women’s boundaries and rights. They can only feel *more* by eradicating any structural or behavioral elements that make them feel different than us.

    This means they’ll never stop. There’s nothing they’ll leave untouched, nothing that should apply to biological women but not them. It doesn’t have to make sense or satisfy any functional purpose.

    They will never NOT be chasing the dragon. The cup they hold out has no bottom.

    Everything won’t be enough, because this is addiction, and nothing characterizes addiction quite so distinctly as a persistent sense of scarcity.

    They will always feel dissatisfied, and that will always be women’s fault.

    People need to wake up to what this is, because, right now, there’s this idea that we just need to give trans people enough of the right things, and all will be well. But… is that what seems to be happening? Could you guess, if you tried, at what would make the AGPs satisfied?

    You cannot satisfy an addict. It’s not chemically possible. Trying to do so doesn’t help them and isn’t good for you.

    Right now the progressives are trying to appease the trans lobby.

    I read somewhere – “Appeasement” is feeding a crocodile in the hope that he’ll eat you last.

    So, there it is. Not cheerful-making, but clarifying.