A single scientific paper based on an opinion survey drawn from an ideologically-skewed sample of parents, that was promptly retracted by its own institution and failed to be replicated by others,...
A single scientific paper based on an opinion survey drawn from an ideologically-skewed sample of parents, that was promptly retracted by its own institution and failed to be replicated by others, being used by online cranks to validate their conspiracy theories?
Sounds just like how the antivax movement got started.
I take issue with a few things in this article, but hopefully I don't get murked given the sensitive nature of the topic. One being the assertion that conservative interest groups that cite...
I take issue with a few things in this article, but hopefully I don't get murked given the sensitive nature of the topic.
One being the assertion that conservative interest groups that cite Littman's paper are inherently operating out of bad-faith or are doing anything essentially different from what any political group on either the left or right does with respect to scientific studies (i.e. curating relevant papers to support their arguments).
The second being the underlying assumption that anyone who disagrees with the paradigms that (gender is distinct from sex) and that (given that gender is distinct from sex, gender identity is not merely a choice but something that someone is born with) is a terrible person with little regard for science or the well-being and free choice of LGBT+ youth. It's worth noting that psychological frameworks are not proven, they are validated (i.e. shown to have clinical value).
The third isn't necessarily an issue, but something that I think that's worth commenting on. It's important to be generally cautious when it comes to invoking a hypothetical suicide to make a point. I don't think the author is in a position to comment on the severity of Jay's situation and it can be incredibly dangerous to expect the reader to carry the guilt of what might happen to him
I had a different read of the ending than you did, I think. I saw the author as passing along Jay’s own words regarding the severity of his situation, rather than making their own judgment. Also,...
Exemplary
I had a different read of the ending than you did, I think. I saw the author as passing along Jay’s own words regarding the severity of his situation, rather than making their own judgment.
Also, I too get frustrated about the overfitting of bad faith to conservatives on this topic. I think we have a lot of prominent conservative thought leaders who do act in bad faith to thank for that, as they set the tone and expectation for many.
I personally get frustrated because I’m someone who’s absolutely happy to talk about this topic and dive into it in non-judgmental ways with people who either don’t understand or disagree, but I’ve found that many of the people I talk with have often had their sentiment on the topic polluted by these bad faith actors. It makes it especially difficult because I’m not really keen on attempting kind, patient, and thoughtful discourse with someone who is primed to believe that my friends and I are “groomers”, for example.
I suspect you might be feeling something similar — a worry that you’re going to get lumped in with the worst examples of a group you might share some characteristics or beliefs with. It’s a crappy feeling.
If there’s anything you want to talk about or discuss but you’re worried about doing it in the open, feel free to drop me a PM. No pressure or anything — I just want you to have the opportunity to drop your guard if you’d like.
They are if they use this as an argument to restrict people's bodily autonomy. I agree here. Science has little to do with it, except in validating that particular interventions are safe and...
the underlying assumption that anyone who disagrees with the paradigms that (gender is distinct from sex) and that (given that gender is distinct from sex, gender identity is not merely a choice but something that someone is born with) is a terrible person
They are if they use this as an argument to restrict people's bodily autonomy.
with little regard for science
I agree here. Science has little to do with it, except in validating that particular interventions are safe and effective.
If you don't use the word "contagion" then there's nothing controversial about this idea. You can argue that the modern transgender identity is harmful or empowering, but I don't see how anyone...
If you don't use the word "contagion" then there's nothing controversial about this idea. You can argue that the modern transgender identity is harmful or empowering, but I don't see how anyone can assume that being trans is something you're born with, and I'm also not sure why being influenced by others to become trans is necessarily undermining what it is to be trans. I guess because it threatens to show transgender identity in a more frivolous light, more like a subculture, more like body modification, or plastic surgery. All of which are permitted in our culture, but they aren't taken seriously.
I remember I had a tumultuous queer childhood — one where I experimented with lots of, ahem, subcultures and sexual labels. I think anyone with a modicum of life experience recognizes that youths...
Exemplary
I remember I had a tumultuous queer childhood — one where I experimented with lots of, ahem, subcultures and sexual labels.
I think anyone with a modicum of life experience recognizes that youths undergo intense identity exploration and formation, and that a society's culture is a repertoire that provides tools to help youths coalesce fragments of their personalities, experiences, and feelings ("I feel...", "I've done...", "I want...") into a solid identity ("I am...").
Traditional societies had limited roles/identities along a few axes and provided culturally well-defined rites of passage that marked a young person's transition into a role/identity.
Contemporary urban multiracial society has nearly unlimited roles/identities along unlimited axes. And contemporary mass media discourse provides the vocabulary that youths use to grok their internal state. Conversely, a young person can't use vocabulary that doesn't exist to understand themselves as something that society isn't cognizant of.
I notice that discourse around transgenderism in/among youth has been muddied. Body-gender dysmorphia and seeing oneself in the wrong body are very real and one thing. But having personality traits traditionally associated with the opposite sex and from there concluding that one is the opposite sex, is, well, entirely something else. (And some would argue that the latter is gender essentialism.)
I suspect that Lisa Littman is witnessing the latter, where the teens are experiencing gender nonconformity but have been influenced by contemporary discourse and consequently have described that nonconformity as being trans.
I'm also not sure why being influenced by others to become trans is necessarily undermining what it is to be trans. I guess because it threatens to show transgender identity in a more frivolous light, more like a subculture, more like body modification, or plastic surgery. All of which are permitted in our culture, but they aren't taken seriously.
I think so. A parallel is how the perception of ADHD shifted from being a mental health disorder to a personality trait.
I had a former friend back in middle school who genuinely had ADHD, and it was... difficult being friends with him. He had the personality and demeanor of Looney Tunes' Taz (the Tasmanian Devil). He constantly bounced and ran around everywhere (he was very physical), talked a lot and randomly shouted or hollered, and often spontaneously and illogically dropped whatever he was doing to do something else. He struggled intensely with schoolwork, and eventually his parents transferred him to a special needs school.
Then I'd meet people would say they have ADHD and off their meds when really they were basically normal except maybe they checked their phone a little too often.
It definitely is for some people! I've heard lots of folks report that they've always felt gender dysphoria or gender euphoria, but only started calling themselves trans, of course, once they were...
I don't see how anyone can assume that being trans is something you're born with
It definitely is for some people! I've heard lots of folks report that they've always felt gender dysphoria or gender euphoria, but only started calling themselves trans, of course, once they were exposed to the concept. Is this perhaps what you're referring to?
Yeah, suggesting a person might have been born with a trait is fine, we're all born with traits. It's just something that is hard to know. And it seems like the legitimacy of being transgender (or...
Yeah, suggesting a person might have been born with a trait is fine, we're all born with traits. It's just something that is hard to know. And it seems like the legitimacy of being transgender (or gay) often hinges on the idea that you're born a certain way and you can't change it. So if you're not allowed to be who you really are, you might literally die, or be forced to live an abject miserable existence in the wrong body. I guess I want to also recognize that people can make choices to redefine who they are based on culture and society, where there's a risk of "social contagion" and bad ideas. That thought doesn't work for a lot of people politically, because no one is obligated to approve of the life you choose, or support your chosen identity.
edit: The argument for supporting and affirming transgender people is currently understood as a human rights issue, and not a question of liberty. I'm more interested in what that says about how we value liberty vs human rights than I am about the culture war surrounding trans people.
edit2: The human rights angle is a big deal when children are the ones transitioning gender. If it's about liberty and you refuse to let your kid take puberty blockers, then you're just being a (good or bad) parent. If it's a human rights issue, then it's child abuse and you should have your kids taken away.
This, for me, is a really important point. It's my personal opinion that puberty blockers and HRT should be available over the counter. It's very hard to hurt yourself with either - much harder...
it seems like the legitimacy of being transgender (or gay) often hinges on the idea that you're born a certain way and you can't change it. [...] The argument for supporting and affirming transgender people is currently understood as a human rights issue, and not a question of liberty.
This, for me, is a really important point. It's my personal opinion that puberty blockers and HRT should be available over the counter. It's very hard to hurt yourself with either - much harder than, say, Tylenol! - and the majority of the resulting changes aren't permanent until you take the medicine for quite a while.
It's a question of bodily autonomy and I think we as a society only restrict these drugs because, frankly, we view transitioning as the worst possible outcome for trans people. For many, it's actually viewed as worse than suicide.
The argument that's always brought up is "well, imagine taking these drugs and having life-altering, permanent changes to your body that you don't like!" but, of course, that's exactly what happens to every trans person who isn't able to access puberty blockers or HRT during their natal puberty. It happened to me, and it's absolutely unconscionable to force it on anyone.
I don't think it's any great mystery why transition is becoming more common, it's just down to it becoming easier and more accepted. The decline of gatekeeping is huge, in the US, adults wanting...
I don't think it's any great mystery why transition is becoming more common, it's just down to it becoming easier and more accepted. The decline of gatekeeping is huge, in the US, adults wanting hormones can get them pretty much no questions asked, usually covered by insurance but fairly cheap without. Aside from letting people transition on their own terms, it also allows non-heterosexual (or even just non-stereotypical, back in the day real life experience was absurd and sexist) trans people to transition, which used to be basically impossible and would probably double the trans population alone.
On top of that, there's greater social acceptance, legal recognition and protection, and just general visibility letting people know that changing genders is a possibility. It's not that more people are becoming trans, it's that more trans people are transitioning, that might otherwise have just stuck it out until they died, out of fear, ignorance, or denial of treatment.
I think it's safe to say that like everything else of course the environment and the social aspect play a role. The here problem is some people have overplayed this aspect widely as an explanation...
I think it's safe to say that like everything else of course the environment and the social aspect play a role. The here problem is some people have overplayed this aspect widely as an explanation or excuse to dismiss transgenderism likely because they're scared, confused or just looking for someone to "blame".
A single scientific paper based on an opinion survey drawn from an ideologically-skewed sample of parents, that was promptly retracted by its own institution and failed to be replicated by others, being used by online cranks to validate their conspiracy theories?
Sounds just like how the antivax movement got started.
I take issue with a few things in this article, but hopefully I don't get murked given the sensitive nature of the topic.
One being the assertion that conservative interest groups that cite Littman's paper are inherently operating out of bad-faith or are doing anything essentially different from what any political group on either the left or right does with respect to scientific studies (i.e. curating relevant papers to support their arguments).
The second being the underlying assumption that anyone who disagrees with the paradigms that (gender is distinct from sex) and that (given that gender is distinct from sex, gender identity is not merely a choice but something that someone is born with) is a terrible person with little regard for science or the well-being and free choice of LGBT+ youth. It's worth noting that psychological frameworks are not proven, they are validated (i.e. shown to have clinical value).
The third isn't necessarily an issue, but something that I think that's worth commenting on. It's important to be generally cautious when it comes to invoking a hypothetical suicide to make a point. I don't think the author is in a position to comment on the severity of Jay's situation and it can be incredibly dangerous to expect the reader to carry the guilt of what might happen to him
I had a different read of the ending than you did, I think. I saw the author as passing along Jay’s own words regarding the severity of his situation, rather than making their own judgment.
Also, I too get frustrated about the overfitting of bad faith to conservatives on this topic. I think we have a lot of prominent conservative thought leaders who do act in bad faith to thank for that, as they set the tone and expectation for many.
I personally get frustrated because I’m someone who’s absolutely happy to talk about this topic and dive into it in non-judgmental ways with people who either don’t understand or disagree, but I’ve found that many of the people I talk with have often had their sentiment on the topic polluted by these bad faith actors. It makes it especially difficult because I’m not really keen on attempting kind, patient, and thoughtful discourse with someone who is primed to believe that my friends and I are “groomers”, for example.
I suspect you might be feeling something similar — a worry that you’re going to get lumped in with the worst examples of a group you might share some characteristics or beliefs with. It’s a crappy feeling.
If there’s anything you want to talk about or discuss but you’re worried about doing it in the open, feel free to drop me a PM. No pressure or anything — I just want you to have the opportunity to drop your guard if you’d like.
They are if they use this as an argument to restrict people's bodily autonomy.
I agree here. Science has little to do with it, except in validating that particular interventions are safe and effective.
If you don't use the word "contagion" then there's nothing controversial about this idea. You can argue that the modern transgender identity is harmful or empowering, but I don't see how anyone can assume that being trans is something you're born with, and I'm also not sure why being influenced by others to become trans is necessarily undermining what it is to be trans. I guess because it threatens to show transgender identity in a more frivolous light, more like a subculture, more like body modification, or plastic surgery. All of which are permitted in our culture, but they aren't taken seriously.
I remember I had a tumultuous queer childhood — one where I experimented with lots of, ahem, subcultures and sexual labels.
I think anyone with a modicum of life experience recognizes that youths undergo intense identity exploration and formation, and that a society's culture is a repertoire that provides tools to help youths coalesce fragments of their personalities, experiences, and feelings ("I feel...", "I've done...", "I want...") into a solid identity ("I am...").
Traditional societies had limited roles/identities along a few axes and provided culturally well-defined rites of passage that marked a young person's transition into a role/identity.
Contemporary urban multiracial society has nearly unlimited roles/identities along unlimited axes. And contemporary mass media discourse provides the vocabulary that youths use to grok their internal state. Conversely, a young person can't use vocabulary that doesn't exist to understand themselves as something that society isn't cognizant of.
I notice that discourse around transgenderism in/among youth has been muddied. Body-gender dysmorphia and seeing oneself in the wrong body are very real and one thing. But having personality traits traditionally associated with the opposite sex and from there concluding that one is the opposite sex, is, well, entirely something else. (And some would argue that the latter is gender essentialism.)
I suspect that Lisa Littman is witnessing the latter, where the teens are experiencing gender nonconformity but have been influenced by contemporary discourse and consequently have described that nonconformity as being trans.
I think so. A parallel is how the perception of ADHD shifted from being a mental health disorder to a personality trait.
I had a former friend back in middle school who genuinely had ADHD, and it was... difficult being friends with him. He had the personality and demeanor of Looney Tunes' Taz (the Tasmanian Devil). He constantly bounced and ran around everywhere (he was very physical), talked a lot and randomly shouted or hollered, and often spontaneously and illogically dropped whatever he was doing to do something else. He struggled intensely with schoolwork, and eventually his parents transferred him to a special needs school.
Then I'd meet people would say they have ADHD and off their meds when really they were basically normal except maybe they checked their phone a little too often.
It definitely is for some people! I've heard lots of folks report that they've always felt gender dysphoria or gender euphoria, but only started calling themselves trans, of course, once they were exposed to the concept. Is this perhaps what you're referring to?
Yeah, suggesting a person might have been born with a trait is fine, we're all born with traits. It's just something that is hard to know. And it seems like the legitimacy of being transgender (or gay) often hinges on the idea that you're born a certain way and you can't change it. So if you're not allowed to be who you really are, you might literally die, or be forced to live an abject miserable existence in the wrong body. I guess I want to also recognize that people can make choices to redefine who they are based on culture and society, where there's a risk of "social contagion" and bad ideas. That thought doesn't work for a lot of people politically, because no one is obligated to approve of the life you choose, or support your chosen identity.
edit: The argument for supporting and affirming transgender people is currently understood as a human rights issue, and not a question of liberty. I'm more interested in what that says about how we value liberty vs human rights than I am about the culture war surrounding trans people.
edit2: The human rights angle is a big deal when children are the ones transitioning gender. If it's about liberty and you refuse to let your kid take puberty blockers, then you're just being a (good or bad) parent. If it's a human rights issue, then it's child abuse and you should have your kids taken away.
This, for me, is a really important point. It's my personal opinion that puberty blockers and HRT should be available over the counter. It's very hard to hurt yourself with either - much harder than, say, Tylenol! - and the majority of the resulting changes aren't permanent until you take the medicine for quite a while.
It's a question of bodily autonomy and I think we as a society only restrict these drugs because, frankly, we view transitioning as the worst possible outcome for trans people. For many, it's actually viewed as worse than suicide.
The argument that's always brought up is "well, imagine taking these drugs and having life-altering, permanent changes to your body that you don't like!" but, of course, that's exactly what happens to every trans person who isn't able to access puberty blockers or HRT during their natal puberty. It happened to me, and it's absolutely unconscionable to force it on anyone.
I don't think it's any great mystery why transition is becoming more common, it's just down to it becoming easier and more accepted. The decline of gatekeeping is huge, in the US, adults wanting hormones can get them pretty much no questions asked, usually covered by insurance but fairly cheap without. Aside from letting people transition on their own terms, it also allows non-heterosexual (or even just non-stereotypical, back in the day real life experience was absurd and sexist) trans people to transition, which used to be basically impossible and would probably double the trans population alone.
On top of that, there's greater social acceptance, legal recognition and protection, and just general visibility letting people know that changing genders is a possibility. It's not that more people are becoming trans, it's that more trans people are transitioning, that might otherwise have just stuck it out until they died, out of fear, ignorance, or denial of treatment.
Just like the social contagion of left-handedness lmao
I think it's safe to say that like everything else of course the environment and the social aspect play a role. The here problem is some people have overplayed this aspect widely as an explanation or excuse to dismiss transgenderism likely because they're scared, confused or just looking for someone to "blame".
Of course and I completely understand hence the quotation marks but validation would definitely be a better word here.
This is a fantastic article. I think I am going to save this so i can give it to the next idiot who wants to ruin the lives of trans kids.
An example of what this kind of thinking leads to. Content warning for child abuse. https://mobile.twitter.com/Esqueer_/status/1567499329149239296